[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.

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.

You are speculating when you talk about what goes on inside a black hole because the SC metric is silent in that domain. It predicts nonsense, as you pointed out when you said relativity doesn't work in that domain. Images are not bent "completely" around a black hole. The light ray that goes directly towards the centre is not diverted at all for example. It simply stalls at the horizon at the end of time. Otherwise you are correct. Conventional wisdom says time slows down on approach and that is indeed consistent with observation. Timey contends that the reverse may be true and she is vehemently unconvinced that that is contrary to observation. I thought my analogy to a conventional lens might clear things up, but I probably just confused things even more because a gravitational lens does not focus light like a regular lens does. In deference to Einstein's adage that failure to explain physical concepts like this in everyday language demonstrates a lack of understanding, the onus is on us (the physicists) to convince Timey that she's wrong. To that end, I still think the root of the problem is a lack of understanding about optics, not GR. The question is, what would the background image look like if time speeds up on approach?

[timey (OP)]

Of course a gravitational lens does not work like a magnifying glass lens, as the big mass is not a concave piece of glass!

However, there is a reason why it is called a lens, in that gravitational lensing does bend light via refraction, that otherwise would not arrive in ones eye, so that it does arrive in ones eye.

Now listen up!

****I am quite 'clear' that conventional physics states that a black hole is running on slow or stopped time.****

This model that I am putting forward, is an experimental model that is looking at the remit of time running slower in open space than it does for mass.
This being on the basis that GR gravitational time dilation is observed as time running faster at h from M, and that a clock in space cannot measure what time is doing in open space, because once you put a clock
In open space to measure time in open space, the space with the clock in it is no longer open.

Therefore open space cannot be measured by a clock.

I am neither right nor wrong in experimenting with the notion of time running slower for open space than it does for mass.  What I am is ***experimental***
May I make a reminder that this is the board for "New Theories".  There is no need to convince me that I am wrong.  I am fully aware that my ideas are NOT current physics.

Now that we have cleared this up, please let us get back to that which we were talking about...

By stating time as running slower for open space than it does for mass, it will be observed that seconds get shorter and shorter the closer to mass one gets, and this will cause an acceleration.
Therefore - my model attributes this notion to the 'observed' acceleration of gravitational attraction.

As current physics attributes gravitational lensing as light being pulled inwards towards a mass by gravity, stating that time is running faster for mass than it does in open space will NOT change the observation of gravitational lensing.

However one makes description of the physical cause for the observation of the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, it will not change the observation of the effect of gravitational acceleration.

Therefore there is a physical possibility that time running slower in space and faster for mass could exist.

If it does, then this concept leads us to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything that unites gravity with the standard model for a continuum in quantum.
Which is why I am looking for a competent mathematician to calculate this experimental model - ok?

[Mike Gale]

Hmmm. I think you made my point, Riddle me this then. What happens to that on-axis light ray in your model? It certainly doesn't stall at the horizon. It would impact the black hole at an astronomical speed.

[timey (OP)]

No it won't.  This being because both GR and SR time dilations must also be brought to bear.

And my model is inclusive of a 3 way time matrix annexed to the space time matrix which I have explained in the thread "My model of a cyclic universe continued'.


Edit:  An analogy of this time matrix using some simplified analogous mathematics can be found on that thread in post 33, and 34

[Mike Gale]

Okay, I was ignoring spatial dilation because I understood that (or rather the lack of that) to be part of your model. If you take that into account, the light ray would impact the black hole at light speed in a finite amount of time.

[timey (OP)]

Nope - there is no 'spatial' dilation in my model, only 'temporal'.

See edit above, and post 33 and 34 of my model of a cyclic universe continued.

[Mike Gale]

That's my point. Without spatial dilation, the light ray exceeds light speed.

[timey (OP)]

Not if the speed of light is travelling at 299 792 458 meters per second of that reference frame.

The equivalence principle is upheld.

[Mike Gale]

Speed is distance over time. If one varies and the other does not then speed must change.

[timey (OP)]

If you travel one metre at a constant speed that is held relative to a longer or shorter 'variable' second.  Then the distance remains the same, and it just takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to travel that metre.

[Mike Gale]

Exactly. The light ray therefore impacts the black hole at light speed in a finite amount of time. There's nothing to stop it from penetrating the horizon and it exceeds light speed on the other side. In the other direction, it stalls at a certain distance from the horizon. That makes absolutely no sense because time does not stall in free space.

[timey (OP)]

That's correct.  Now you can measure inside the black holes reference frame where the speed of light 'would be' 299 792 458 metres per second of BH reference frame, which would be dependent on BH mass size, and time in open space will only stall at 0 gravity

[Mike Gale]

BTW, the mathematical formulation you seek is:
ds^2 = A*(cdt)^2 - dr^2 - r^2*d(angle)^2
where A is positive and a function of r.
I might add that there is no way to reconcile this equality with SR or GR.

[timey (OP)]

Hey thanks!  Although it will take me quite some hours to crawl at my mathematical pace to understand that.

Also with regards to last post of mine:
I say 'would be', because actually light will not be able to shine in a black hole of this description.  It will be plasma super hot, opaque, and light cannot shine.

[timey (OP)]

BTW, the mathematical formulation you seek is:
ds^2 = A*(cdt)^2 - dr^2 - r^2*d(angle)^2
where A is positive and a function of r.
I might add that there is no way to reconcile this equality with SR or GR.

Yes there is, (or there should be) because both are super imposed into the CDG time dilation for 'mass only'!

Edit: minus the SR spatial considerations, which are then re-interpreted and shuffled over to describe why we don't register massive heat signature for BH's.

[Mike Gale]

Right you are. I stand corrected. That formula is in fact the one I'm advocating on my "New Theories" thread (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0). The difference between your model and mine is whether A increases or decreases on approach.
The reason why people balk at this idea is that it seems to neglect spatial dilation. However, that is only true for a suspended reference frame (i.e. one that is not in free fall.) It is perfectly consistent with SR if A=1 in free space and it is identical to the SC metric in the free fall case if A is the SC scaling factor. Any other case requires additional energy, which is not available in the metric.
Having said that, I can't imagine any argument that would justify A being proportional to r. The only way A can increase on approach is if gravity is repulsive, as in a white hole. That would mean A=(1+rs/r) rather than A=(1-rs/r). I think your model involves something like A=(1+r/rs) and that blows up in free space (where rs=0.)

[timey (OP)]

One of the reasons why I think that you will be able to calculate my model Mike, is because of your variable speeds of light.
It's a not such a big leap in thinking to get from what you are doing, to what I am trying to do.

The only way A can increase on approach is if gravity is repulsive, as in a white hole.

You are missing the fact that in my model, A 'is' gravity, for the greater part that is.  My model splits G or g into an attraction that will have a very much reduced value, and the rest is the CDG time dilation related 'acceleration' that accelerates the attraction.

We don't need to add this CDG time dilation 'as well' as gravity, as per how current remit calculates gravity.
GR can then be added for m in relation to M, and SR for relative motion sits on top of this, with the CDG time dilation being what defines the speed of light of the reference frame m is moving through, and SR time dilation is affected because the percentage of the speed of light that the speed that m is travelling at becomes variable.

Have a read of the last four posts on 'my model of a cyclic universe continued again'.  You will see more what I am thinking then...

[Mike Gale]

Variable light speed was not my idea. Einstein wrote about it at length (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22). It just never caught on as a useful way of thinking about GR. Not that it's invalid, he just didn't find it helpful when explaining GR to non-believers. I expect it was hard enough to convince them that the speed of light is invariant in an SR context and chose to let that sleeping dog lie.
It's not really fair to say that the SC scaling factor is gravity, although it certainly involves the concept. Gravity is a force whereas the scaling factor represents energy. (A force is the rate of change of energy.) The scaling factor is in fact an expression of conservation of energy for the free fall case. GR theorists cringe at that definition. They contend that it is something completely different and any resemblance to classical concepts like conservation of energy is purely coincidental. I contend that they are confused because they have forgotten to account for SR effects when formulating the metric. But I digress.
Splitting gravity into two parts is a new one on me. Can you give me the executive overview or do I have to tackle four more discussion threads?

[Spring Theory]

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

[timey (OP)]

Variable light speed was not my idea. Einstein wrote about it at length (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22). It just never caught on as a useful way of thinking about GR. Not that it's invalid, he just didn't find it helpful when explaining GR to non-believers. I expect it was hard enough to convince them that the speed of light is invariant in an SR context and chose to let that sleeping dog lie.
It's not really fair to say that the SC scaling factor is gravity, although it certainly involves the concept. Gravity is a force whereas the scaling factor represents energy. (A force is the rate of change of energy.) The scaling factor is in fact an expression of conservation of energy for the free fall case. GR theorists cringe at that definition. They contend that it is something completely different and any resemblance to classical concepts like conservation of energy is purely coincidental. I contend that they are confused because they have forgotten to account for SR effects when formulating the metric. But I digress.
Splitting gravity into two parts is a new one on me. Can you give me the executive overview or do I have to tackle four more discussion threads?

Of course I know what Einstein said.  I've read those papers.  What I meant was that it is because you can recognise Einstein's reference, and with respect that in your own interpretation of what you are doing that you appear to be open to alternative, (alternative that makes sense to me under current physics remits btw), that it will be easier for you to make the mental leap to understand and calculate these differences that I add...
And to say so it's really quite heartening to have a conversation that is progressive.

At present in physics we have this force called gravity.  We know everything about it mathematically down to the very last minute detail, apart from 'why' it does what it does...
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that gravity accelerates objects towards the greater mass.
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that m, no matter its value, will free fall to towards M at the same rate.

Also - I think it worth mentioning that physics does not have a fully coherent theory of time.  This is well documented in all of the books I've read.

Ok look - Just for the time being banish all thought's of GR time dilation and SR time dilation from your mind completely, and just think of what I'm saying in terms of attributing a physical cause for the fact that objects are accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m no matter its value, free falls at the same rate towards M.

Now place into this picture - of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m, no matter it's value, free falls towards M at the same rate - a time dilation that is inherent to the g-field surrounding M, where the seconds get progressively longer at h from M...

... Thinking upon this you will find that a physical mechanism as such would account for both the observation of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and the observation that m, no matter it's value, will free fall towards M at the same rate...

And after scratching your head, and rubbing your chin while you hmmm and ahh for a while, you would realise that this is 'well cool' because this means that all the maths for this concept already exist!

But then there are a few hurdles, such as that GR time dilation states clocks as ticking faster at h from M...
But...  It occurs to one, or perhaps it was dawns upon, that it is quite possible for both to be happening simultaneously, because in relation to what is occurring on M, each will be the opposite of each other equally, and just because m's time is as such doesn't negate m from being accelerated towards the greater mass.
SR time dilation* can then be added to the picture to move GR time dilated m through this time dilated related g-field.

* Not length contraction.

The remit of quite how this could work is laid out (only a few paragraphs) in posts 33 and 34 of this thread:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0

Unfortunately there is no 'find post' function on this site, so if you want me to copy and paste those posts to this thread I will, but if you read the last 4 most recent posts, if you have already understood what I have said above, then these last 4 posts should suffice.