[Mike Gale]

I still don't understand why you think a black hole might be white, but if that was indeed the case then a gravitational lens would be convex rather than concave and we would see a starkly different picture in the Eddington and Hubble (telescope) images. How do you account for that?

[timey (OP)]

Nope - not a white hole.  The black hole remains a black hole.

Reversing the concept of time running faster in 'open space' than it does for bodies of mass, does not reverse the parameters for the black hole itself.  All it does is give 'physical cause' for the observed acceleration of gravity caused by the mass of the black hole.

Yes - this does mean that a black hole is full of energy, but it remains black because light cannot shine there.

What I am suggesting is that a black hole is inherent with the same properties as are attributed to the 'current physics' Big Bang, pre inflation.  That all matter in the black hole is so compressed, and hot, that the conditions there are a plasma, are opaque, and that light cannot 'shine'.

This is relevant to my model, in that my model's contraction will eventually result in all matter being contained in a singular black hole, that without any gravitational counterpart to cause a stabilisation, it will explode all of its content via its super luminal jets, and spew particles across space to create a sea, that is formed of these particles, which then start forming into clumps during this next cycle of a period of slow contraction.

I am suggesting that the black holes observed today are miniature representations of the Big Bang phenomenon, that will not explode and empty 'all' of their content, as in the Big Bang 'proper', but are partially displaying the super luminal jets of a 'proper' Big Bang when consuming big masses.  Only partially, because these black holes still have gravitational counterparts in the universe holding them stable, and when consuming a big mass, such as a star, they become partially unstable, causing them to partially spew particles via super luminal jets due to being rendered partially unstable by the sudden change in gravitational field as the star is consumed.

The event horizon of a black hole is simply the point at which the plasma begins and light can no longer shine...

I don't really understand why you would think that the gravitational lensing would be resulting as convex instead of concave.
At present it is the gravitational attraction/acceleration of the mass the light is bending around that causes the phenomenon.  All I've done is give the accelerative force a physical cause...  Why would it change the observation?

[Mike Gale]

You're missing my point. The black hole is white if time speeds up on approach. What goes on inside is irrelevant.
The difference between a concave lens and a convex lens is that one concentrates light rays onto a focal point and the other diverges them away from a focal point. If a black hole was equivalent to a convex lens, objects in the background would appear to be farther away from the gravitating mass rather than closer to it. That would be contrary to Eddington's observations and images from the Hubble telescope.

[timey (OP)]

No - the black hole would only be a white hole if you reversed its time under current physics remit, where space is 'spatially' variable.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/what-white-hole/

It's unclear to me quite what is meant by 'a time reversal of a black hole'. Do they mean gravitational variable time, or are they talking about reversing sequential time?

In either case, this is not what I am suggesting at-all.  I'm suggesting that these 'spatially' variable spaces in space are 'temporally' variable instead.

With Eddington, and gravitational lensing, what we are observing is light being bent towards the gravitational mass as it passes this mass on its way to us.

Light travels in straight lines, not curves, unless it is curved due to space being curved by the gravitation of a mass.  When the light source is behind the in-between mass in relation to the observation point, then the halo of light is basically just a 'kink' in the straight line that light is taking.  Looking at a kink in a straight line of light who's trajectory is head on to observation, will result in a band of light, or a halo, as the gravitation of the mass pulls the light inwards.

Stating that the gravitational force pulling that light inwards is 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' related does not change the observation.

[timey (OP)]

Good grief - it's like the Marie Celeste on this site at mo...

Anyway - if someone were here, then they might ask me:

"If black holes are so plasma hot that conditions are opaque and light can't shine, then how come we don't observe the relevant heat signature?"

[Mike Gale]

That guy on IFL is talking through his hat. GR does not predict white holes. It just doesn't disprove them. They are certainly not the time reversal of black holes. That's the problem with Internet articles like that. No peer review. I expect he'll get a dressing down from his editor if anyone of influence gets wind of his ramblings.
A white hole is simply repulsive gravity. It pushes instead of pulling. Although it is the basis for Big Bang theory, it is entirely speculative. There is circumstantial evidence of the Big Bang, but I would place both theories in that category. They're akin to the celestial teapot because you can't prove that they don't exist.

[Mike Gale]

As for light traveling in straight lines, that's a bit of a misnomer. A light ray is an abstraction of a light wave. It describes the path of constant phase. It's tempting to think of a photon as a particle that travels through space, but that's not quite right. It is the QM wave function that travels through space. The particle doesn't actually exist until it is detected. In the context of GR, you will be better served to think of light as an extended wave or a whole bunch of particles surfing on a wave.
Feynman's book QED is an approachable account of this concept. The proof of the pudding is that, although the majority of photons obey the laws of optics, the range of reflection angles that are actually observed cannot be explained in terms of surface defects or imperfect collimation.

[timey (OP)]

Well thanks for clearing that up!
And yes - there is a lot of miss-information on the net, which is why I rather read books by respected and qualified physicists.
In any case white holes have bog all to do with my model, nor repulsive gravity.

Btw, I am still reading your thread, however not being mathematically proficient, any input from me would be entirely redundant, but I'm still reading and waiting to hear what any person who is mathematically proficient says... given that anyone logs in!   It's dead as a door nail round here at the mo.  I've never seen it so quiet!

I'm pretty well read on quantum as well, although to say so my understanding of in depth particle physics is lacking.  My model does apply itself in that region where the added contra directional gravitational time dilation applied to quantum results in a continuum that unites the standard model with gravity...
But there's little point in talking about this until the cosmological aspects are understood.

Wave, photon, or both, the trajectory of light does follow the curvature of space though doesn't it?

[timey (OP)]

Just saw your edit

QED - I've read it

[Mike Gale]

Yes. Light rays follow geodesics.

[timey (OP)]

So an observation of a 'head on' (for want of better terminology) trajectory of light that has a 'kink' in it caused by curvature of space surrounding a mass located between light source and observation point will result in a band, or halo of light?

[Mike Gale]

Kink is not the right word. Space bends, but it doesn't fold. And there is no halo effect. Light rays do not disperse as they travel through curvy space. If I am sufficiently far removed to perceive the curvature of space in your neighbourhood, we will simply disagree about the location of the emitter when a light ray strikes your eye. You will use the angle of incidence to project the light ray backwards in a straight line. I can see that your perception is in error, but if we both walk towards where we think the emitter is located, we will end up at the same place.
That's not to say that gravitational lensing is innocuous. It creates some fantastic optical illusions. The image of space beyond the black hole is distorted and objects can appear to be duplicated on either side. Viascience gives some excellent examples of this.

[timey (OP)]

Ok, kink is not the correct word.

To explain:

Without the mass in-between, what we are observing is the portion of the stars 360 degree in all directions light shine that arrives at our location, which is just a tiny, minuscule portion of this stars light.

To create something to visualise, I now draw a straight line from us to the star. (I appreciate this is a vast over simplification, of course there are other geodesic considerations going on, but to simplify).
Now we will circle this initial line with 9 more lines between us and the star.
Looking 'head on' at these lines arriving at us, we can now think of our end of these lines being points, where we cannot see the lines themselves, only the ends of the lines.

Now looking at the light source as being behind the mass that is in-between, with the mass covering the middle point, and our surrounding 9 points being visible.

These points, when represented as lines will be bent towards this mass.
Now time dilation comes into play.  Calculate this time dilation as slower time or faster time for same observation.

As slower time near mass:
The light is slowing near the mass, with faster light arriving more quickly than light is leaving, therefore as the light is bent towards the mass by the unknown processes of gravitational force, there is also more of it there as it is arriving faster than it leaves.  The light will also blueshift near the mass and have more energy.
Represented as a line, the line is bent inwards towards the mass and carries on out of the gravitational field of the mass towards us.
As a point, the point will become stretched a little.  Lots and lots of points being bent inwards will create a band of light, or halo.

As faster time:
The light is speeding up as it approaches the mass and is bent inwards by the process of time getting faster near mass, but slows down when it has passed, creating a build up of the faster moving light that is now slowing when leaving the gravitational field.  The light is blue shifted and has more energy.
Represented as a line, again the light is bent inwards and then carries on towards us.
As a point, again the point will become stretched a little.  Lots and lots of points being bent inwards will create a band of light, or halo.

In both instances, what is occurring is that when the light is bent inwards towards the mass in-between, light that would otherwise be passing by our own location on other trajectories, unseen by us, is directed towards us by this bending inwards, resulting in us seeing more of the light.

I'll have a watch of that Viascience to see what he is saying, but to say so, if the time dilation surrounding the in-between mass is of faster time, rather than slower, I can easily visualise why duplicate images would be apparent behind a black hole...

[Mike Gale]

Maybe I misunderstood your concept of a halo. An extended bright object directly behind a black hold does indeed appear as a halo around the black hole. It's called an Einstein ring. An off-axis object appears as an arc, which may be duplicated on the opposite side. This can be interpreted in terms of time dilation, but you can't have it both ways. Light rays are bent towards the black hole if time slows down towards the centre, in which case the background image is stretched outwards. They are deflected away from the black hold if time speeds up towards the centre, in which case the background image is squashed inwards.

[timey (OP)]

I'm sorry, but as far as I have read, the reason why light is pulled inwards towards a gravitational mass is due to gravity.
The bigger the mass, the greater the bend.

...and this bend will be inwards towards the mass.

By stating gravity as being for the greater part due to 'contra directional gravitational time dilation', all I'm doing is giving a physical cause for the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration.

[timey (OP)]

P.S.  By stating time as running faster closer to mass than it does for open space, this will not cause light to bend outwards.  I just can't see how you are arriving at this conclusion...

[GoC]

Maybe I misunderstood your concept of a halo. An extended bright object directly behind a black hold does indeed appear as a halo around the black hole. It's called an Einstein ring. An off-axis object appears as an arc, which may be duplicated on the opposite side. This can be interpreted in terms of time dilation, but you can't have it both ways. Light rays are bent towards the black hole if time slows down towards the centre, in which case the background image is stretched outwards. They are deflected away from the black hold if time speeds up towards the centre, in which case the background image is squashed inwards.

Light bends away from a BH. There is no energy in a BH from the surface to the center. There is no gravitational dilation within a BH. There is no motion in a BH. Relativity does not work within a BH. Time measurements are severely slowed near a BH as dilation is at its greatest. Light can not reach a BH because light is energy while a BH retains no time energy. It just becomes a mass sucker with no internal motion. Images bend completely around a BH causing the Einstein ring which is the threshold between the BH and fundamental energy.

[timey (OP)]

GoC - That is blatantly wrong!  Black holes are gravitational masses.  Please stop talking shite on my threads!

When astronomers refer to lensing, they are talking about an effect called gravitational lensing. Normal lenses such as the ones in a magnifying glass or a pair of spectacles work by bending light rays that pass through them in a process known as refraction, in order to focus the light somewhere (such as in your eye).

Light will not be focused towards one's eye if it is being bent outwards, end of story.

All the info you need is on the net. What's the matter with you?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

[GoC]

GoC - That is blatantly wrong!  Black holes are gravitational masses.  Please stop talking shite on my threads


Light will not be focused towards one's eye if it is being bent outwards, end of story.

The sun sets behind the horizon And we still view the sun above the horizon. Light is bent towards your position of view in this case. I am just correcting you to follow observations in reality. Please look it up for yourself. Einstein proved light is bent around massive objects in space to view the same star in two different apparent positions in space. There is enough wrong with the internet not to add more.

[timey (OP)]

And... all of your post above is due to light being bent 'inwards' 'towards' the gravitational mass.

Light bends away from a BH.

No it doesn't!

A black hole that is gravitationally lensing a light source located at a distance directly behind, will be bending the light inwards to create the effect of an Einstein ring, as is quite clearly remarked upon in the link I provided.

Are you telling me Wikapedia is miss-informed?