[David Cooper (OP)]

I'm a newbie here and don't have any credentials to speak of...

Don't let that put you off getting involved - it's the strength of ideas that counts, so if you think you have some that relate to this in important ways, you're welcome to comment here.

I can already see some problems with my "explanation" of forces when looking at length contraction (as it pushes all that stored potential energy into a smaller space), so I'm thinking about that at the moment. Another important thing to be aware of though is that I've "explained" forces partly by transferring them somewhere else. With surface tension, the fabric or surface is tensioned by pulling forces, so if we have equivalent pulling forces in the space fabric, those remain unexplained, although at least we have a simplification in that both pulling and pushing forces can be accounted with just a pulling (or just a pushing) force working behind the scenes.

[jeffreyH]

Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?

In the course of moving the object down from the top shelf to the bottom shelf, you've removed the same amount of potential energy from it as you added to it when moving it from the bottom shelf to the top shelf. The energy that you're losing while holding the object against the force of gravity is not coming out of that store, as we can see by comparing you holding the object out at arm's length and getting tired as you use lots of energy to hold it up while a robot could hold it up in the same way but lock its arm so that it can keep the object there without using up any energy.

If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

[guest39538]

Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?

In the course of moving the object down from the top shelf to the bottom shelf, you've removed the same amount of potential energy from it as you added to it when moving it from the bottom shelf to the top shelf. The energy that you're losing while holding the object against the force of gravity is not coming out of that store, as we can see by comparing you holding the object out at arm's length and getting tired as you use lots of energy to hold it up while a robot could hold it up in the same way but lock its arm so that it can keep the object there without using up any energy.

If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

Jeffrey, you expend energy whilst holding the object not transfer it .

[David Cooper (OP)]

If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

The robot with locked arm is able to hold the object without constantly putting energy in, so you need to think about why you need to expend energy when the robot finds it unnecessary to do so. (The Box has called this one right!) It's an interesting question though as to why we have to burn energy to hold things up. If we don't hold it at arm's length it isn't so hard - if you balance it on your head it is little trouble to hold it high up. It appears to have something to do with crushable things using energy to avoid being crushed. Once crushed, the forces balance without energy being expended. That would be the basis of an interesting discussion that should maybe have its own thread.

[David Cooper (OP)]

Sometimes a force carrier would need to add energy to the object (e.g. a falling object) while at other times it would have to remove energy from it (a ball being thrown upwards). It simply doesn't make sense, unlike my new way of looking at things where the shift between adding energy and removing energy makes full sense.

I didn't think that bit through fully, but I switched off my computer before I realised. It would be fine if the Earth was stationary, but if the Earth's moving and aligned a particular way, an object accelerating downwards may need to have energy removed from it rather than added because it's really being decelerated. This is resolved though when we think of the system being a bit more cyclic - the falling object is being decelerated in this special case (even though it looks as if it's accelerating) so it must be pushing energy into the space fabric, and that energy is being transmitted through to the fabric where the Earth is, with energy being released there as kinetic energy instead. The pattern of stress/distortion is jointly shaped by the Earth and the object, and energy can flow through it to the easiest point of release. The closer the object is to the Earth, the easier that transmission becomes.

[guest39538]

If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

The robot with locked arm is able to hold the object without constantly putting energy in, so you need to think about why you need to expend energy when the robot finds it unnecessary to do so. (The Box has called this one right!) It's an interesting question though as to why we have to burn energy to hold things up. If we don't hold it at arm's length it isn't so hard - if you balance it on your head it is little trouble to hold it high up. It appears to have something to do with crushable things using energy to avoid being crushed. Once crushed, the forces balance without energy being expended. That would be the basis of an interesting discussion that should maybe have its own thread.

The robot also expends the energy it needs to run the robot. 

[David Cooper (OP)]

The robot also expends the energy it needs to run the robot.

The robot can lock its arm and switch itself off, leaving the object held up for as long as you like without any power being used at all.

[guest39538]

The robot also expends the energy it needs to run the robot.

The robot can lock its arm and switch itself off, leaving the object held up for as long as you like without any power being used at all.

Indeed if you switch off the power to the robot the robot will not use any of the national grid or battery life. However the robot will still lose and gain energy by rate of entropy change the same as the suspended object will gain or lose energy by rate of entropy change.  However there is still no kE.  kE is added force by the means of acceleration and speed which in turn releases the pE the object already has, E=mc².  (take note E=mc² is not as powerful as E=mc³).

pE= E/S*v²  or ma^2

[dutch]

When you lift an object, you are causing the fabric of space to accommodate it differently, and that involves putting energy into that fabric. This is like with bubbles in washing-up water which can accelerate towards each other as the surface tension rearranges the shape of the surface in order to minimise the amount of energy stored in it - that stored energy is turned into kinetic energy in the same way, and then it becomes heat. Once we understand where the potential energy is stored, it's all becomes obvious - all we have is a stressed fabric trying to get to a lower energy state.

I think this is answered partially by the Equivalence Principle. Accelerating in deep space at 1g is equivalent to standing on the surface of Earth.

I showed the following is true before:

t'/t = f'/f = (1 - v/c)/γ      where γ = √(1 - (v/c)²)

The above is the Relativistic Doppler Shift. Now

t' =  (t - t v/c)/γ     Now synchronize clocks/rulers with light. For light c t = x or t = x/c. This is an arbitrary synchronization convention Einstein used in his theories (you can definitely use it)

t' =  (t - x v/c²)/γ  =  Lorentz Time Transform

Why is this important? And why does it pertain to your post?

Because shifts in frequency correspond to shifts in energy. Light redshifts going out of a gravity well. Literally time runs faster for objects further out of a gravity well meaning frequency is higher. Using the equation E = h f straight out of Quantum Mechanics an increase in frequency IS an increase in energy.

Think of a photon box. This box is a bunch of photons with mirrors on all sides. If time slows down on one side of the box or equivalently the frequency lowers then the energy of the photons hitting that side of the box will be LOWER. If the photons leaving the mirror further in the gravity well are red shifted heading up to the top mirror they will hit it with lower energy. If the photons heading down from the top mirror are blue shifted they will hit the bottom mirror with HIGHER energy.

The photon box would be in equilibrium in open space. However, in a gravity well the difference causes the box to accelerate downwards. This is definitely the "cause" of gravity. We know for certain light blue shifts going into a gravity well and red shifts heading out. Particles and atoms are "excitations" of fields or wavelike entities and the frequency change that affects photons works the same on ALL particles. 

To keep the photon box in balance or really to keep any particle or collection of particles in balance they must accelerate to balance the gravitational shift. When they accelerate they produce a Doppler Shift that exactly cancels the gravitational shift.

Particles are actually storing the energy when they are further out of a gravity field because their time is running faster.

This isn't the whole story however. Wavenumber (1/wavelength) also gets altered when entering a gravity field.

x'/x = k'/k = (1 - v/c)/γ      where γ = √(1 - (v/c)²)

Wavenumber also lowers (c = f/k) meaning that "space" (or at least particles) must contract when entering the gravity field. The Doppler Shift again fixes this but here "re-stretches" the particles when they're free falling.

p = h k  where p is momentum. The momentum of the photons is affected the same as the energy. E/p = c. Because light is our best ruler (we define the meter using it) screwing with wavenumber screws with space or what I personally believe the particles existing in said space.

In QM the solutions (stable eigenstates) are generally  ψ = Φ * e^(-i f/(2π) t) = Φ *( cos(f/(2π) t) + i sin(f/(2π) t) )

Don't worry about the Φ that depends on the situation and doesn't affect the energy.

The above is just waves (sines and cosines) with frequency f. Energy seems to be stored as an oscillation which fits well with the wave nature of all particles. No one knows what's "oscillating." Some people think it's just a feature of our models, some think something like a super fluid is oscillating, and some think it's a "fifth" dimension etc.

[GoC]

David

   Here you need to think relativity of c. Energy is the fabric. Call it anything you like but it is perpetual motion energy. Propagation of the wave form of a photon proves this to be the case. You need to stop thinking of mass as the energy source and stick with the energy source as space. You say it but you haven't recognized the consequences yet. Space energy moves the electrons. Conservation of energy becomes less of an issue because the transfer is always to mass or back to space as radiation. Dropping a sack on the floor is atoms causing friction with energy exchange of mass to space causing friction with the atoms and the path energy creates for moving the electrons. Think of it like the electric company delivering a voltage. A voltage will only allow a motor to run at a certain speed. Moving through space reduces the voltage but the amps are distributed between the electron cycle considered at rest and motion through space. Energy is constant at rest and cycles the fastest. Motion through space energy is divided between forward motion and cyclic motion as a constant. Less energy for reaction with velocity. Energy spins to fast for direct detection. Movement of the electrons and movement period is proof of c from space.

The particles spinning as energy move further apart in the presence of mass. The more mass the further the spinning particles. This is potential energy in Mass. Mass is attracted to more dilated energy of space allowing less friction with energy itself (gravity). Gravity follows potential energy decrease. Density of space energy decreases by expansion. At the attraction of the speed of light from a sun dilates energy to the point atoms cannot remain apart. All the atoms of that sun reside next to each other rather than remain separate. A black hole.

Magnetism is the alignment of electrons spinning in the same direction. Rotation of energy spins through the magnet. Mirror image of spin is opposite direction of spins and spinning repulsion occurs. The same direction tries to maintain contact like a screw.

Energy is of Space!!!! Not mass.

[David Cooper (OP)]

Think of a photon box. This box is a bunch of photons with mirrors on all sides. If time slows down on one side of the box or equivalently the frequency lowers then the energy of the photons hitting that side of the box will be LOWER. If the photons leaving the mirror further in the gravity well are red shifted heading up to the top mirror they will hit it with lower energy. If the photons heading down from the top mirror are blue shifted they will hit the bottom mirror with HIGHER energy.

Hi Dutch,

I've heard a description along those lines before, but I failed to consider all the implications, perhaps because there's a key part of it that doesn't add up. If the photon speeds up as it climbs out of the energy well, that extra speed energy should exactly balance out the loss in energy from the reduction in frequency, leading to the photons hitting the top and bottom of the box with exactly the same energy. Perhaps I'm missing something?

However, you've certainly shown me that the potential energy can be stored much more simply than I'd imagined - when you lift an object, it's functionality speeds up (and has to speed up) and you have to put the extra energy into it to enable that faster functioning. That's something I'd completely missed before.

[GoC]

Light does not have momentum. It neither slows down nor speeds up. That violates relativity's postulate. Potential energy is just that. Tick rate and energy potential slows to the center of mass. Energy is dilated so energy particles are further apart. Light produced in lower energy potential has a longer frequency due to particles being further apart in the position of space more dilated. That approach is indistinguishable with momentum and does not violate relativity postulates. Light does not change frequency once produced.

[David Cooper (OP)]

Light does not have momentum. It neither slows down nor speeds up. That violates relativity's postulate.

It can slow down, and it stops if it's at the event horizon of a black hole while "moving" outwards.

Light does not change frequency once produced.

That's the key to this - the light isn't red-shifted or blue-shifted on the way out of or into a gravity well, but is merely perceived as being shifted by something that measures its frequency at different heights. That means that the photons are hitting the top and bottom of the box with the same energy and it's merely being perceived as being higher or lower in energy. However, the top and bottom of the box are connected such that hitting the bottom from above is effectively hitting the top from above as well, just as hitting the top from below is effectively hitting the bottom from below as well, meaning that there is an equal push in both directions (up and down) - forces between the atoms of the box spread the energy throughout the box and it will be perceived differently by different parts of it depending on their altitude, but everything evens out and leaves no excess in push downwards.

[GoC]

It can slow down, and it stops if it's at the event horizon of a black hole while "moving" outwards.

You cannot create light within a BH and all light bends around a BH. Light is not attracted to or by gravity. Light bends around the dilation caused by gravity. A BH has the greatest dilation of energy since there is no energy within a BH. Its completely kinetic with no energy available to run a clock.

[David Cooper (OP)]

It can slow down, and it stops if it's at the event horizon of a black hole while "moving" outwards.

You cannot create light within a BH and all light bends around a BH. Light is not attracted to or by gravity. Light bends around the dilation caused by gravity. A BH has the greatest dilation of energy since there is no energy within a BH. Its completely kinetic with no energy available to run a clock.

You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards. That light would be very slow at moving upwards, but it would move straight upwards and not go round and round the black hole instead, although any error in the direction it's pointing could lead to it going round the black hole instead, but any part of the light that is aimed absolutely straight up should go straight upwards (at a crawl).

[dutch]

Light does not have momentum. It neither slows down nor speeds up. That violates relativity's postulate. Potential energy is just that. Tick rate and energy potential slows to the center of mass. Energy is dilated so energy particles are further apart. Light produced in lower energy potential has a longer frequency due to particles being further apart in the position of space more dilated. That approach is indistinguishable with momentum and does not violate relativity postulates. Light does not change frequency once produced.

Light does have momentum p = h k   This formula appears in Relativity, Classical Quantum Mechanics, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Field Theory unaltered. When light hits an object it imparts momentum h k.

The equations below are straight out of a University text book by James B. Hartle on General Relativity unaltered (except replacing ω for f) for a stationary observer (an observer feeling acceleration and holding a position) at height r and rs is the event horizon radius:

c'(r)/c =  (1 - rs/r)

t'(r)/t =  √(1 - rs/r)    and    f'(r)/f = √(1 - rs/r)

k'(r)/k = 1 / √(1 - rs/r)   

f'(r) k'(r) = c'(r)

Light certainly does change speed over distances when under the feeling of acceleration either hovering in a gravity well or accelerating with something like a rocket. This does not violate Local Lorentz Covariance and this is why the word LOCAL has to be included in the law. Many don't understand this.

Something hovering close to the event horizon (maintaining station) is NOT stretched out but rather pancaked (contracted) because of the immense acceleration to stay still. Two lasers one on the top of the tower and one on the surface of the Earth are also not "stretched out" and the tower is actually under a large amount of compression to keep it's constant distance. Wavenumber spectrum actually shifts upward (what I call a ruler) when hovering at height r outside of a blackhole. This means you can fit say 1.5 meters in a spot someone far from the blackhole would call 1 meter. (I wrote this down backwards in my last comment).

The Schwarzchild Coordinates:

ds² = -(1 - rs/r) dt² + 1 / (1 - rs/r) dr²  + dΩ²

Relativity derives   t'(r)/t = √(1 - rs/r)  just like it derives  r'(r)/r = 1/√(1 - rs/r)
 
Now classically when waves enter a region where the propagation speed of the medium is less the wavenumber ALSO increases. Waves also curve towards the zone with a slower propagation speed. This is because the fast moving waves get into a "traffic" jam as they enter a region where the waves are moving slower. Think of going 80 MPH towards cars moving slower in front... this would close distance very quickly. This is exactly like General Relativity (at least outside of the event horizon; no one know what happens inside and suggesting we have any accurate model is probably wrong). If we use light as our meter stick (and we do) then when more cycles fit within one meter we count more meters. x'/x = k'/k just like t'/t = f'/f (when shifting the whole spectrum). This complies with 1 / (1 - rs/r) as this value is greater than 1 when r is greater than rs.  This is why a gravity well is modeled as an upside down funnel (ignoring the frequency shift). If we shot a light at a gravity well and looked at it top down the wave crests would be CLOSER together (remember time dilation is an effect not seen locally). However, observers are counting meters by using the fundamental forces. In fact ALL particles are wavelike structures (with the same underlying propagation speed) and they all undergo the same transformation. From the outside observer's perspective the waves would cram onto the event horizon (makes you wonder if the inside solution for a black hole in GR is just completely wrong). This plastering of particles onto the event horizon is where the "Holographic Principle" comes from. Some physicists think that if stuff can plaster onto an event horizon from one view but pass through it form another according to GR then the 3D universe may also be plastered onto a 2D surface.

The Michelson-Morley interometer taught me one thing: we measure distance with light and counting fringes is the best way to measure distance. Particles also measure distance with the fundamental forces. We don't have anything else we can use to fix our references to.

General Relativity is quite different than a classical medium because time slows down. Classically entering a medium does not change the frequency of the wave. A classical "medium" may slow some photons within a range of frequencies but many may not be affected much. Further than this it slows some frequencies more than others and doesn't do anything to force carriers and particles that do not interact with the charge structure of the medium.  However, what happens when you drop the frequency of the fundamental forces (shift the entire spectrum)? Well a lower frequency means that the wave crests of the fundamental forces propagate slower. Basically, t'/t = f'/f. So what happens if things are contracted by 50% (two meter long sticks fit in a space someone at infinity would consider 1 meter) AND frequency is lowered by 50%? Well to keep the speed of light seemingly the same locally it has to move at 25% of what it does at infinity. To someone locally the light would appear to move 300,000 meters in one unit of time. The person at infinity calls the 300,000 of their meters 150,000 meters and also says the one unit of their time is actually 2.

They see c = k f (very locally in practice nowhere near 300,000 meters because they are under heavy acceleration and light is curving towards the gravity well)  and the person at infinity sees c = k f in their frame but the person at infinity views their frame with c'(r).

Some interesting thoughts. When an object moves at velocity v it has c'/c = √(1-(v/c)²), the length contracts by c'/c (wavenumber goes up more cycles per meter), and time runs slower by c'/c (frequency goes down). The Big Bang says the universe "expanded." However, what if all bound objects are ever so slowly (at least now) contracting while time is slowing down. Instead of the early observable universe being the size of a pin why can't particles be the size of the observable universe with time running faster? How would we know the difference? These all preserve c and they all work similarly. I think the Big Bang being some huge shock to the entire universe that's been slowing for billions of years seems just as reasonable as space forming out of noting (I thought this up and researched it and in fact scientists have thought about this but couldn't differentiate it from the Big Bang and space expansion). We take the observer's view as golden and space and time change around them. However, we are made out of wavelike structures that should themselves warp so what if we've got it backwards? .

I don't see gravity as stretching spacetime. I see it as symmetrically shifting the fundamental forces and we just happen to use these forces to define length and time. We have nothing else to use. Now someone else may call a curved line straight but I do not.

  I've heard a description along those lines before, but I failed to consider all the implications, perhaps because there's a key part of it that doesn't add up. If the photon speeds up as it climbs out of the energy well, that extra speed energy should exactly balance out the loss in energy from the reduction in frequency, leading to the photons hitting the top and bottom of the box with exactly the same energy. Perhaps I'm missing something?

However, you've certainly shown me that the potential energy can be stored much more simply than I'd imagined - when you lift an object, it's functionality speeds up (and has to speed up) and you have to put the extra energy into it to enable that faster functioning. That's something I'd completely missed before.

The photon does speed up as it climbs out of the gravity well. However, the photons are a wave and they do not add wave crests as they rise (conservation of information). The wave crests spread out (like cars leaving a traffic jam on a highway) as they rise meaning they hit the upper mirror with lower momentum AND lower frequency ( p = h k and E = h f). The waves slow down as they drop into the gravity well so they bunch up. Now you'd think this slow down would hit the bottom mirror with less force but time and all the particles down there are also running slower. The crests of the photons bunch up as they drop into the gravity well. The bottom mirror receives more force and the top mirror less force. This unbalance requires an acceleration to counteract the red and blue shift. When the acceleration is equalized the particle acts like it's in an inertial state just like it would be in deep space. 

I discussed a lot of Relativity in my thread "Different View of Relativity." I did a thorough proof of how length contraction naturally arises when all particles are treated as waves (best done in the third post I did in that thread).

[David Cooper (OP)]

(makes you wonder if the inside solution for a black hole in GR is just completely wrong)

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.

The bottom mirror receives more force and the top mirror less force. This unbalance requires an acceleration to counteract the red and blue shift.

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.

I discussed a lot of Relativity in my thread "Different View of Relativity." I did a thorough proof of how length contraction naturally arises when all particles are treated as waves (best done in the third post I did in that thread).

I'm following it with great interest (or attempting to) - you clearly have a lot to offer in the way of knowledge and understanding and are a very welcome addition to the forum.

[dutch]

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.

Well many scientists think they do all the way down to a very close distance to the singularity. However, many other scientists admit they don't know. Inside of a blackhole is outside of science if GR is correct because we can't observe in there. No observation, no science. The physics community overwhelmingly agrees they don't have a full solution that makes sense yet. Many scientists and pop culture often raises some of the far out predictions of GR to fact when they're far from it. Questioning General Relativity is often seen as heresy which I find counter to the principles of science. Gravity is modeled as the curvature of spacetime that does not mean this model is fundamentally right just that it seems to work well because the model matches many experiments. Newtonian Gravity still works well but it's ideas aren't fundamentally right.

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

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.

You're differentiating stuff from stuff. The laser is just an example and gravity works on everything exactly the same as shown in many experiments. The "photon box" is much closer to reality than many people think and many scientists use it to explain what's happening. Particles according to Quantum Field Theory are wavelike.

If you take a single sine wave with wavenumber k it will be   y = sin(k x). k will define the cycles per unit distance. If you add two waves like this with slightly different wave numbers they will go through a complete cycle in a greater distance than either k1 or k2 alone. What happens if you add an infinite number of waves with slightly different k (and amplitudes)? You get what's called a wave packet. The repeating nature of the wave disappears because the repeat is out at infinity. The wave destructively interferes almost everywhere. Particles are best represented in our theories by wavepackets just like these (but you have to add in the finite speed of light). Now packets like these can be created in experiments and even with classical wave experiments. They can be made to move at many different velocities.

There is significant evidence to suggest ALL particles are excitations of fields. For example according to quantum field theory the electron is an excitation of the electron field. The photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field etc. ALL of these fields have a fundamental propagation speed, the speed of light. There is NO exception. Now excitations can move slower than light but only if those excitations are interacting with another field such as the Higgs Field. Similar to how photons slow down when they go through a charge structure they interact with, some particles like electrons and quarks get some initial mass (a rest velocity) by interacting with another field. Particles like quarks can then get further mass by interacting with the gluon field.

All particles seem to be waves with the same underlying propagation speed. It's NOT just the photons that shift in a gravity field but rather ALL particles. The stuff in between is doing the same thing as the photons. Again

x'/x = k'/k    and  t'/t = f'/f    This is easy to prove in Special Relativity and in GR

Shift the propagation speed of everything and you symmetrically shift everything. The interesting part about this is a symmetrical shift is unnoticeable locally by any observer. The very tick of clocks is all governed by the propagation of change via particles and the very size of these particles is also governed by this propagation. It's VERY hard for me to think of a way to change the speed of light locally unless one changes the strength of the fundamental forces relative to one another. However, one can always choose to view their reference frame from the eyes of some other frame.
 
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.

I think one of the best ways to look at Relativity and a gravity well is to map out the "field" similar to how one uses iron filaments to show the magnetic field. The thing you use to map out a gravity field is wave crests of any single frequency of a light wave. I don't think gravity is the "warping of spacetime" because I think waves are much more likely to shift and warp than space. 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. Many medium naturally develop Relativistic symmetry when the wave emitters/receivers shift similar to the waves (an exact shift would exactly match Special Relativity but alas a perfect medium where fundamentally all of what makes the emitters/receivers shifts the same as the waves doesn't exist unless perhaps the universe is one).

[GoC]

You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards. That light would be very slow at moving upwards, but it would move straight upwards and not go round and round the black hole instead, although any error in the direction it's pointing could lead to it going round the black hole instead, but any part of the light that is aimed absolutely straight up should go straight upwards (at a crawl).

Your missing the point. There is no electron motion to create light in the first place. In a BH all mass is next to each other with no space or so little as to be no energy movement at all. At the speed of light attraction energy cannot keep atoms apart. They combine to a super element (electron in a fractal universe?). The gravity mass remains but relativity no longer can be applied within the BH. No time energy available for light production. Any normal mass close enough would be absorbed and become part of the BH.

QuoteI 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.Well many scientists think they do all the way down to a very close distance to the singularity. However, many other scientists admit they don't know. Inside of a blackhole is outside of science if GR is correct because we can't observe in there. No observation, no science. The physics community overwhelmingly agrees they don't have a full solution that makes sense yet. Many scientists and pop culture often raises some of the far out predictions of GR to fact when they're far from it. Questioning General Relativity is often seen as heresy which I find counter to the principles of science. Gravity is modeled as the curvature of spacetime that does not mean this model is fundamentally right just that it seems to work well because the model matches many experiments. Newtonian Gravity still works well but it's ideas aren't fundamentally right.Gravity waves just like anything else don't convey information about what's inside a blackhole. If they do then GR is wrong.

GR is wrong for BH's yes. What do we know about BH's? We can reasonably assume the mass of a BH remains because of the gravitational affect. We can assume BH's have a minimum size due to the amount of mass needed to create one. We do not know the maximum size they can become.

Si fi has embellished some thinking as to time and travel issues which are extremely unlikely to a realest like myself.

That's the key to this - the light isn't red-shifted or blue-shifted on the way out of or into a gravity well, but is merely perceived as being shifted by something that measures its frequency at different heights. That means that the photons are hitting the top and bottom of the box with the same energy and it's merely being perceived as being higher or lower in energy.

The light once created remains at the same frequency and yes it is measured as red or blue shifted by position. This does not mean there is momentum in light. Relativity suggests light to be constant speed no matter what the wavelength. There is dilation down a gravity well. That means the spacetime (whatever you consider it to be) is expanding to the center of mass. Light created closer to the center of mass has more dilation. More dilation increases the electron jump distance relative to c. It is not momentum!!!! According to relativity of course since light is constant by postulate.
In dilated space mass probably dilates also considering the electron travels further. So the cell measuring the wavelength of light has expanded to auto correct the measured wavelength for the new frame of dilation. You create light more red shifted going down dilated space measured as time. Your measurements are dictated by your frame.

[guest4091]

David Cooper #24

The robot with locked arm is able to hold the object without constantly putting energy in, so you need to think about why you need to expend energy when the robot finds it unnecessary to do so. (The Box has called this one right!) It's an interesting question though as to why we have to burn energy to hold things up. If we don't hold it at arm's length it isn't so hard - if you balance it on your head it is little trouble to hold it high up.

The PE is in the g-field, formed by unknown processes, which surrounds the dominant mass M. The g-field is always ON. When moving a mass m from a low support to a higher support, energy is expended to overcome the acceleration g, for the time taken for the move. The mass of m has not changed. Once at rest on any support, m is still accelerated at g, and heat is transferred to the support . That's why m has weight where ever it rests! 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.
A simple demonstration of gravity always ON.
A fish scale is a pan hanging from a spring connected to a hook, with an attached  scale. Placing a fish in the pan stretches the spring which displaces the pointer on the scale, indicating weight. Even though the fish is not moving, the spring remains stretched. The stressed spring results from the g-field.
A support built from earth elements relies on molecular forces to withstand stress from loads resulting from weight. If the weight exceeds the structural limits, the support fails!