0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The PE is in the g-field, formed by unknown processes, which surrounds the dominant mass M. The g-field is always ON.

Gravity waves just like anything else don't convey information about what's inside a blackhole. If they do then GR is wrong.

QuoteBut the forces must be transferred through the material of the box from top to bottom and bottom to top to affect the whole thing and they surely must in the course of that transfer be amplified or reduced as they are passed down or up, leading to an equalisation for both directions and no acceleration of the box.You're differentiating stuff from stuff.

But the forces must be transferred through the material of the box from top to bottom and bottom to top to affect the whole thing and they surely must in the course of that transfer be amplified or reduced as they are passed down or up, leading to an equalisation for both directions and no acceleration of the box.

Again classically when waves are moving and there is a region where the propagation speed is slower those waves will curve towards the region. Lookup Snell's Law and Huygens Principle. The wave number will also increase and of course the velocity of the waves will decrease. The difference with gravity is that the waves are the force carriers AND all particles. The waves also carry momentum p = h k and energy E = h f. This means a non speed of light particle in a gravity well standing still relative to some observer at infinity gets hit harder by photons heading downward than photons heading upward. This causes an acceleration feeling that stops when the particle equalizes the shift (free falls). Just a TINY shift in the forces causes a fairly large acceleration for... everything.

In fact I showed in my thread how length contraction arises simply by shifting a wave structure by v in the classical (and quantum relativistic) wave equations.

Quote from: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 20:19:46You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards...Your missing the point. There is no electron motion to create light in the first place.

You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards...

If the movement is via muscular energy, you burn calories and your body warms up and experiences fatigue. If via a machine, energy is still needed.

Quote from: phyti on 07/06/2017 17:35:28The PE is in the g-field, formed by unknown processes, which surrounds the dominant mass M. The g-field is always ON.In the gravitational center of a planet (where you are weightless) is the g-field still on?

Yes, but it's value is zero,since (ideally) one hemisphere cancels the opposite hemisphere

Quote from: phyti on 08/06/2017 17:08:13Yes, but it's value is zero,since (ideally) one hemisphere cancels the opposite hemisphereThat is one way of looking at it. But that way suggests that the center is also attracted to the surface. This is not the case even though removing mass from one side does change the center of gravity. PE is just that and the energy level is reduced the greatest in the center. Mass being attracted to the most dilated energy position in space.If you believe energy resides in mass why is the space dilated to make light travel further in clocks as mass increases its density. Energy is of space not mass if you want to follow the logic of mass and light being confounded in every frame.

Remove the mass and remove the field, so they must be connected.lookup 'shell theory', gravity rule outside mass is not the same as inside the mass

In a BH there is no motion due to mass being so compact. No electron movement. And it has the strongest gravitational field in the universe. No time energy only kinetic energy.

Indeed, but what about when there is no movement and all you want to do is hold the object still? If you put it on a table, it just sits there without the table burning energy continually to hold it up, so there's something very different going on with muscles that forces them to work hard all the time, and yet they too can hold objects up without doing any work if you just place an object directly on a piece of muscle (meat) on the floor. It must be because they're highly non-rigid and need to work hard to avoid being lengthened by the force the object is applying to them. They function something like electromagnets, so it must take a continual amount of input energy to maintain sufficient force to balance the force from the object.

How do you have KE with no motion

I don't know if anyone has a viable proposed account of what happens in black holes. I wonder if any information about how things behave inside them is coming from the gravitational wave data.

What I'm trying to say is that the light which hits the bottom of the box is transferring energy which must act on the whole box and not just on the base, and the same applies to light hitting the top - in propagating that energy through the whole box it looks to me as if it should equal out. The bottom of the box feels the light punch harder because its functionality is running slow, but it transfers a lot of that energy on up to the rest of the box where the functionality of the material there is not running so slow and will not feel it as such a strong downward force. Likewise, the top of the box feels a soft punch from the light because its functionality is running faster, but it transfers a lot of that energy on down to the rest of the box where the functionality of the material is running slower such that it will feel it as a stronger upward force. The net result of this should be no movement.

I'm still finding it hard to see how there would be such an effect unless you're using photons generated by something other than the object that's being acted upon by them. Is there any role for a difference in the speed of light downwards versus upwards?

What you're not understanding is EVERYTHING is wavelike including the mirrors and when observed locally EVERYTHING has a propagation speed of c. Forget the entire light box (which you're seeing as a rigid object for some reason) and think of a single particle. Time is running slower on the bottom than the top. OK? Say the difference is 50%. This means time is 50% slower and the particle's frequency is oscillating 50% less on one side than the other. E = h f so if one side of the particle has energy lowered to half then like an airplane's wing the lower side of the particle will be lower "pressure." All processes will slow by 50% moving downwards doubling wavenumber. If the frequency drops by half and the wavenumber doubles this means the speed of light is 1/4 as viewed from infinity (but c viewed locally because objects are half as wide and frequency is half so light speed appears normal). A lowered speed of a wave in a medium ALWAYS curves the wave towards that medium classically.

Leonard Susskind explains this in his series on blackholes).

What I don't agree with is what happens from the perspective of the free falling observer. I think the Doppler Shift of the free falling observer does cancel the gravitational red/blue shift for the observer. However, the viewpoint for most physicists is that the time goes back to a normal rate (like you can tell what a normal rate is in your own frame).

You can't in principle measure the one-way speed of light. Why does there need to be a difference between the speed of light downwards and upwards?

So there's no evidence even from gravitational waves of two singularities moving towards each other and merging into a single singularity, but only evidence of black holes moving together and their event horizons merging. That means they still no evidence for the existence of anything close to being a singularity.

That's more convincing explanation - I can imagine that if a particle is really a wave of some kind that might lead to it moving continually within a zone of space, any horizontal oscillation of it (horizontal over a massive object like a planet) will turn into a curve which takes the particle lower and adds downward speed to it which it further builds on such that it accelerates.

I can't see a similar effect being possible for for any vertical oscillation of the particle, but I imagine that it will be oscillating in all directions and that most of those will involve curved paths which drag it down.

Their clocks would stop completely if they reached the event horizon and no further ticks would be possible for them - the black hole will evaporate away as Hawking radiation in a cold, dark universe before another tick could occur for them and they would effectively evaporate away too as Hawking radiation before any further tick could happen.

It's the idea of singularities or near-singularities and the near-certainty with which physicists appear to pin on them which has always led me to think the speed of light must be faster downwards than up - if the speed is actually the same up and down, then there's nothing remotely like a singularity in any black hole.

Is your position on all this stuff part of a named camp with lots of people saying the same things as you or is it unique to you? You appear to be closer to the mark than anyone else I've ever encountered and I want to make sure I can continue to read up on this.

Yes, exactly. Using Gauss' law mass uniformly spread inside the blackhole, existing in a singularity in the center, spread over the surface, or otherwise symmetrically placed would produce the exact same gravitational field. This is why the metric for a blackhole is used to model the Earth and Sun (except here r >> rs). Furthermore, according to General Relativity NO information leaves the event horizon including gravitational waves. Even the angular momentum of a blackhole manifests as frame dragging occurring outside the event horizon. From an outside observer's perspective using GR nothing crosses the event horizon and no structure exists to the outside observer. Why even discuss the inside? According to any physics we can do (if our theories are correct) the inside does not exist.

Think about this: take f'/f = t'/t , kx'/kx = x'/x, ky'ky = y'/y , kz'/kz = z'/z and input into GR and you get the same exact math as GR. For example replacing x for kx does nothing to how the math works (but then GR's equations make no sense inside the event horizon). Light is our ruler so a shift in kx corresponds to a shift in measured distance and a shift in f corresponds to a shift in time. I don't see gravity "curving space-time" but rather gravity distorting waves. The waves are distorted such that the fine structure constant remains... constant. This is required for the laws of physics to remain the same (locally) in all reference frames and this guides how GR forms it's solutions. I'm not sure what you mean by the horizontal and vertical.If light is viewed as a constant locally then why can't we call "curvature of space-time" the "curvature" of wavenumber and frequency spectra? The principles would be the same. Noting c is a constant when measured by our rulers and clocks then stating space and time curves leads to the inescapable conclusion that wavenumber and frequency spectra must appear to curve (leading to an apparent change in c non-locally). Does the curvature of spacetime cause the apparent curvature of these wave properties or does the curvature of the wave properties cause the apparent curvature of spacetime? I think our current theory GR gets the cause and effect backwards.

According to Quantum Field Theory "particles" are field excitations (waves). It's impossible by any method I've ever seen in Quantum Mechanics to explain particles without a wave nature. Wave particle duality is kind of a misnomer. 95% of what particles do can be fully explained as wave entities. The 5% is important and makes quantum mechanics hard to understand and a little bizarre. With interpretations like MWI or Bohmian Mechanics (or similar ideas) this last 5% may be explainable. However, "wave collapse" and the Plank Constant h doesn't change how the particles transform... as waves. Other particle like properties can be explained with the wavepacket concept

Yes, this is definitely a possibility and to me makes the most sense. Perhaps the matter exists on the event horizon or it's distributed in the lowest state throughout the black hole. GR predicts that c goes to negative infinity from the outside observer's perspective at the singularity. Perhaps nature lower bounds this at 0 or very close to 0. What Einstein did makes sense as we have no experiments to input a lower bound into the math. Nearly all physicists agree something breaks but I think it's closer to the horizon than the singularity.

Well there could still be a thing like a singularity if c goes to negative infinity (where at any single point c is the same up, down (not left and right) but it is still decreasing towards negative infinity at the singularity from the outside observer's perspective; it changes slowly over a distance so up is c + dc and down is c - dc but it's not for example 0 upwards at the event horizon and 2c downwards). I'm not sure how people will say over and over that c is constant both directions when discussing Special Relativity when no experiment measures the one-way speed of light independent of two spatially separated clocks. We simply can't measure the one-way speed. These same people then go on to explain GR by stating c is larger downward into the black hole than it is outward (the event horizon traps light on the surface up but sucks it down in the other direction). Again... the one-way speed of light cannot be measured. The equivalence principle works equally well here. To measure it you're again relying on two spatially separated clocks. Two spatially separated clocks running at different rates is indistinguishable from acceleration. We can't tell if the clocks are in different environments and thus running at different rates or... the speed of light is truly anisotropic. This is why physicists have very weird things happening on the EH such as matter falling in but also plastering onto the event horizon (and entangling). This is a central reason they thought up the holographic principle. I personally think changing to a different velocity is anisotropic but gravity is isotropic (gravity can be a mixture of both if the gravity well is changing velocities). I find that nature tends to use all options available to her.

By the way we can measure the one way speed of light on the Earth using atomic clocks and relativity.

I don't understand the other stuff you said.

I've been thinking about the functionality of matter slowing as it descends into a gravity well, and the business of how the kinetic energy which it appears to acquire in falling downwards is equal to the amount of energy lost by its functionality slowing. But what happens to that energy when it gets deep enough for the functionality to slow towards a halt while its progress towards the event horizon of a black hole also slows to a crawl? I wonder if it starts to manifest itself more and more as some equivalent of relativistic mass.

QuoteI've been thinking about the functionality of matter slowing as it descends into a gravity well, and the business of how the kinetic energy which it appears to acquire in falling downwards is equal to the amount of energy lost by its functionality slowing. But what happens to that energy when it gets deep enough for the functionality to slow towards a halt while its progress towards the event horizon of a black hole also slows to a crawl? I wonder if it starts to manifest itself more and more as some equivalent of relativistic mass.Well looking at gravity exclusively with time dilation only works with weak gravity fields. It also definitely holds true for an observer falling into the gravity well that doesn't notice their time slowing down (one doesn't notice this effect on themselves). It correctly predicts acceleration towards an area where time dilation is more extreme. However, the full treatment must include the Lorentz Contraction effect. Matter and energy gets compacted according to the outside observer as it approaches the event horizon. Time slowing down doesn't cause the matter to disappear.Also time may dilate slowing some interactions but some other interaction is drastically increasing. Gravity is most likely an effect where the wavepackets of particles overlap and start to interact (some physicists have thought the effect could be due to entanglement of particles and "spacetime" in one way or another is emergent). This interaction has one direct effect. It slows down the clocks including the proper time of particles. Light falling into this area of time dilation will naturally contract as it enters the field (similar to light entering a medium). Matter particles will also contract just like the light. We measure distance with light so space seems to warp. The matter and energy doesn't disappear as the inertia of the blackhole increases. The gravitational field is also increasing in size as matter falls towards the blackhole. The particles may be ticking their clocks slower but they're "entangling" much more (whatever you want to call it; actual quantum entanglement may play a role) .I look at photons going into a medium for some inspiration as the medium slows down the photons due to the large number of interactions with the charge structure of the medium. The photons also compress together but classical medium don't slow down time.I could easily see gravity working by matter/energy interacting slowing down time and (as a result) contracting objects. The speed of light would be maintained as c locally in all directions to preserve the ratio of the strength of the fundamental forces. To have the speed of light as something other then c (as locally measured) is really demanding that somehow the fundamental forces don't maintain their strength ratio. Which force and which field excitation wouldn't transform like the other forces / excitations? If everything follows the same transformation then c must locally remain the same.Frame dragging would also be predicted. If I orbit around the equator counter to the Earth's rotation I fly over more ground per second than if I fly with the Earth's rotation. If time dilation increases by interacting with more particles then going against the rotation would increase time dilation and going with rotation would lessen it. If extreme enough one might be forced to rotate with a body (or lose the fight with gravity) and hence we have a frame dragging effect.So to recap:1) Matter/energy interacting with matter/energy leads to time dilation (the more there is and the closer together the greater the effect). How the matter/energy is moving affects this interaction.2) Time dilation leads to an acceleration effect towards the massive body (as explained with the red and blue shift in previous comments).3) Entering an ever increasing area of time dilation naturally leads to length contraction (as explained before and can be explained similar to light entering a medium like water; metamaterials can simulate this effect by continuously changing the refractive index; this also leads to a curving effect). Conservation of wavetrain/information also demands this effect. Gravity is of course different because of its effect on time/frequency.4) Preserving the strength of the fundamental forces relative to one another forces the preservation of c locally. Wavenumber in x, y, and z will stretch/contract as time dilates such that c remains the same locally in all directions. This would look like space "warping."5) The Plank length is derived from the strengths of the fundamental forces. The Plank length would transform just like everything else. The Plank length like the speed of light is a locally measured value.6) Mass wouldn't disappear entering into a gravity well even if approaching an event horizon. Sure, time is dilated but the matter is also compressed and the inertia and gravitational field of the mass is very much present.7) Gravity may dilate time (shift frequency lower) and thus increase/decrease wave number in x, y, and z to maintain a constant c locally. However, I don't think this fundamentally changes the background of the universe whatsoever. An entire blackhole gravity well Lorentz Transforms relative to a far off observer just like a small spaceship would (actual acceleration [changing speed] still causes some ripples AKA gravitational waves just like acceleration causes EM waves but Lorentz Translation, constant speed, does not). I never invoked a change in any kind of background at all to explain gravity. I have gravity as an effect of matter/energy interacting with matter/energy. You could say the total speed of light is c everywhere (in an absolute sense). The gravitational interaction of matter saps some of this speed (ability to interact) just like moving at high-speed through space slows down one's progress through time. This changes the speed of light viewed non-locally (it's speed through space). Gravity isn't a "change in a 3D background medium" and it can't be (Relativity wouldn't make any sense). However, gravity caused by excitations (particles) interacting with other excitations within a medium (fields) slowing time isn't limited to the same rule. You can't have frame dragging effects / time dilation and describe gravity with a classical medium. However, gravity warping space and time has always bothered me. I find it much more likely waves are affecting other waves altering their structure (kx, ky, kz, and f shift).Why keep a LET like viewpoint? Because it makes too much sense and fits together too well (as shown in my other post with all the math). Gravity as a change in an aether doesn't fit and doesn't work. However, gravity caused by interaction between mass/energy (as described above) riding on a preferred frame that Lorentz Transforms could work. Similar to how the tick of time slows as one approaches the speed of light the matter/matter interaction saps some of the fundamental propagation speed. Does this make sense? Everything is fundamentally moving at c (so it can Lorentz Transform). However, linear motion saps some of this speed (slowing time). Likewise, the tendency "to get stuck in the mud" interacting with a plethora of nearby particles also saps some of this speed (slowing time). Everything in a blackhole must have a total speed of c because the entire blackhole (center of mass) can move at a maximum speed of c relative to a far off observer. It must Lorentz Transform in the same way as a whole as a small spaceship. I'm not really sure what happens at event horizons but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they don't really exist. Perhaps gravity wells "bottom out" with a time dilation extremely close to zero (blackholes effectively exist). We may learn more about the area around an event horizon with more study of grav waves. However, it won't be easy because of time dilation.Again Einstein isn't wrong even if my ideas here are right as his theory matches experiments thus far done. You can change out x for kx, y for ky, z for kz, and t for f and think of GR in terms of waves as I do (although I go a little further than this). Invoking the equivalence principle and the speed of light being measured as c locally would tell you how these must shift (and would match GR if accounting for the flow of mass/energy). Nearly all physicists think GR needs modification somewhere between the event horizon and singularity but we don't have any experiments to decide where this modification is. This modification could lead to a slightly different description of gravity and I think GR is wrong closer to the horizon.This is my best attempt to explain how gravity works.