[GoC]

The 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?

[David Cooper (OP)]

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

So these signals of black holes merging don't tell us anything about how the singularities (or near-singularities) meet up? Does all the spiralling stop before they're inside each other's event horizon or does it continue to generate gravitational waves after that point? I thought this might give us some indication of what's happening on the inside.

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.

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.

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'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? Next to the event horizon of a black hole, the speed of light upwards is very low but may still be high in a downwards direction, so I assume there's a gradual transition to that starting with a tiny difference a very long way out in 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.

I will attempt to understand that thread properly at some point, but it will take time (my mind is loaded up with other complex work at the moment and I can't afford to get too deep into anything else).

[David Cooper (OP)]

You 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.

Just outside of the event horizon there is, though it would come out as a very weak radio wave rather than light.

[David Cooper (OP)]

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.

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.

[GoC]

There is no motion without time. There is no time without fundamental energy.

[phyti]

The 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.

[GoC]

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

That 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.

[phyti]

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

That 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.

[GoC]

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

Yes a field arises when mass occupies space but the field creation is the affect on space already existing as energy c. Energy c dilates to accommodate and cause electron motion. Electron motion does not create a field from its own existence. What moves the electron?

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. Above c attraction all mass close enough is being absorbed.

[phyti]

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.

How do you have KE with no motion

[phyti]

David Cooper #44;

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.

The structures depend on their molecular bonds to support the load. The skeleton is the supporting framework, with a low load bearing rating. The muscles are not rigid, but can be activated to boost the rigidity of the body to support a greater load. Power assisted functions are commonly used where manual efforts aren’t sufficient.

[GoC]

How do you have KE with no motion

Everything in the universe is moving. A BH is not moving inside itself though. KE is probably the wrong term but no term exists to separate energy from mass. BH's are the ultimate entropy of mass. Gravity is a monopole while BH's are the ultimate monopole. We define energy as work being done but a new definition is needed in physics to describe fundamental energy that move the electrons and photons. The current belief is the photons are not obstructed so they are constant. Except that they slow down then speed back up going through mass such as air then space. To say light does not slow down in air then speeds back up in space sacrifices truth for the standard model none are willing to challenge because it is a futile effort. Could you convince the pope there is no God?

Photons are a wave on and of energy particles propagating at c which is maintained in space. Energy is dilated in mass and the photon wave has to go further through space while curving a path to follow gravity dilation. Light is not attracted by gravity. Light seeks a path curved around mass following the mass (planets) dilation curve. Mass seeks a lower potential energy state. Light waves seek a higher potential energy state. Light created in a lower potential energy closer to the center of a planet is more red shifted because of dilation of energy particles. Mass dilates energy by conservation of energy to expand the particle distance of energy (which is dilation of course).

Energy is a conveyer belt of sorts for electrons encapsulating the electron and path. Particles of spin energy orientate complimentary paths for positrons and negatrons. Positrons are only in the protons and neutrons as complimentary paths never to cross in the two configurations (proton and neutron). All quarks are made up of positrons and negatrons. A negatron moves out of the proton to c of space and dilation decreases away from the proton curving the electron path back to the proton itself. This is the basis of gravity, mass attracted to more dilated space mechanically. The path of the electron would appear as rotation around a string. In 3d space there is no strings only points closer together.

If you believe there is only mass of the size we can detect you are limiting your ability to imagine possibilities for explaining actions without a understanding of cause.

I may be correct or incorrect but I always want to follow relativity. While you cannot measure energy c directly we can measure it by distance with itself for an approximation of a light second within your frame.

[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.

According to General Relativity NO information including gravity waves escapes the event horizon.

The radius of two merging blackholes of mass M is 2rs where rs is the event horizon of a single mass M blackhole. The volume we don't know anything about goes up by a factor of 8 when the two blackholes merge. Watch this video below (under number 4):

What you will notice in the video is the event horizon drastically grows when the BHs merge and even start doing so before the blackholes are 2rs away from each other.

A larger problem is that time dilates significantly close to the blackhole. Regardless of how you think this occurs the light escaping is severely redshifted and the wavelength will get severely stretched out. Notice how calm the gravity waves are around the event horizon in the videos in the link below? Gravity waves that we've detected on Earth have wavelengths of hundreds or thousands of kilometers. How much detail we can see depends on wavelength so we're severely limited with what we can see. We know we detected gravity waves, we know the waves move at c, and we know the approximate size of the blackholes that collided. We can't know what happens at the horizon or below and we're even limited close to the horizon because of time dilation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/gravitational-waves-black-holes/528807/

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.

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. Again the only difference between gravity and a classical "medium" is that the slow down reflects in a change in wavelength AND frequency instead of just wavelength (the change in both as required by GR is ALWAYS such that c is measured to be the same locally; Leonard Susskind explains this in his series on blackholes).

Instead of the wavenumber going up by a factor of 4 and the frequency staying the same the wavenumber goes up by a factor of 2 and the frequency drops in half. This classically was viewed as impossible. Say cars evenly spaced at a mile go down the road at 100 MPH if the speed of the cars drops to 25 MPH when they cross a barrier you'd think the cars would space at 1/4 of a mile after the barrier. However, for light changing the value of c locally would change the fine structure constant, it would change the strengths of the forces relative to each other, and it would change physics as we know it. ALL Relativity requires is that frequency and wavenumber change such that c locally remains the same. Because we measure distance with wavenumber and time with frequency shifting the wavenumber and frequency corresponds to a shift in distance and time. Again k'/k = x'/x  and  f'/f = t'/t. We measure distance with light so changing wavenumber of light "curves" space and we measure time with oscillations so changing frequency of the fundamental forces changes "flow" through time.

Instead of the cars dropping to 1/4 of a mile separation they only drop to a half mile separation. This preserves c and the relative strengths of the fundamental forces. This automatically means frequency drops by 50% and f/k = .5/2 = 1/4. This doesn't require time as a fourth dimension or a true curvature of "spacetime" but rather requires nature to have a mechanism that keeps the strengths of the fundamental forces exactly the same locally. I want to figure out this mechanism. General Relativity does not give a mechanism but rather uses the equivalence principle to describe gravity.

What happens as something approaches the event horizon is that time slows down and wavenumber increases. At the event horizon wavenumber goes to infinity and time stops from the outside observer's perspective. This is exactly what Leonard Susskind says in the video below. He discusses it at about minute 10 of the video.

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). I think the time goes down to the lowered gravitationally dilated rate that locally exists. This means an in-falling observer runs slower through time and stops on the horizon. They don't know their time slows to a stop so they think they're accelerating and moving at an ever faster rate. I think blackholes are a highly compacted form of matter where time is running at the slowest rate possible and particles are crammed in to maximum density allowed for that amount of mass. I think the math we have for inside the horizon (or exactly on the horizon) is wrong. 

What do I think is the cause of gravity? Well classically light slows down in water because of the huge number of interactions with the charge structure of the medium. In a similar way particles (matter energy) may interact when their extended wavepackets start overlapping causing a slow down in c (observed from a distance) and thus shifting both frequency and wavenumber.
 

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?

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? Again if the speed of light is 1/4 at r and this 1/4 is reflected in a 50% drop in frequency and a doubling in wavenumber the math works out perfectly (and matches GR from the outside perspective). One can certainly view gravity as space falling inwards towards the gravity well at an increasing rate. This is written into Einstein's Theory with the Equivalence Principle (gravitational acceleration appears the same as acceleration in open space). However, I don't see space in falling (or light speed increasing inward and decreasing outward) as correct. The exact center of a gravity well (say the center of the Earth) still experiences time dilation but it does not experience acceleration when viewed from the observer at infinity.

Again Relativity assumes the observer is unchanged and instead space and time change. The unchanged observer simply moves to a new time and space coordinate. I find it far more likely wavenumber and frequency changes for wavelike entities than space and time curves. The only problem is that I don't know how you'd prove a difference between the two unless one wants to take a one-way trip into a blackhole... and even more importantly they have one available. I don't think singularities exist. I think our math is showing blackholes do have a size AKA the radius of the event horizon.

[David Cooper (OP)]

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.

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.

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.

Leonard Susskind explains this in his series on blackholes).

My machine freezes repeatedly these days (I've cleared everything I can off the hard drive, but it must be filled up with updates or damaged sectors) and I have to keep rebooting, so I've only managed to watch a small chunk of that so far, but it appears to be telling me what I've recently begun to suspect - that there is no singularity and not even anything remotely like one. All the material that falls into a black hole stops right next to the event horizon and goes no further (unless the black hole grows bigger). If the speed of light downwards was higher than the speed upwards, which I had assumed they'd proved, then everything would have to carry on to the centre, but if the speed of light's the same in both directions at the event horizon, it's not possible for anything to get inside the black hole (unless the thing grows out past it, and even that might be impossible).

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).

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.

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?

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.

[dutch]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't like named camps. However, I've been looking into blackholes for more than 15 years and I'm no layperson. Many of the ideas in my explanation come from different physicists and some go all the way back to Lorentz. However, I don't know of anyone who pushes this wave interpretation of GR as much as I do.
 

[GoC]

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.

First we have to understand what causes gravity. Only then will we have a clue to BH's. If you follow relative size for  BH we go from a marble to a football field in normal relativity, normal mass. A BH is a football field full of marbles. Relativity has no relationship to a BH other than how it affects space. We need to separate space from mass as the conductor of and creator of energy c. If we consider energy c is of space and not of mass your waves become c through space as a representation of mass rather than normal mass itself. Bata radiation, alpha radiation just a wave form of propagation wave of space energy c. This dual system could explain relativity and quantum mechanics very well. I can create a grid pattern of space particles (dark mass) with spin orientation (dark energy c) that would create relativity observations. No information leaves the BH because they are mass suckers. They will not evaporate because energy exists only outside of a BH. Light would not be sucked inward because light is a wave on energy c. There is no energy c inside of a BH. Dilation does not increase to the center of a BH as it does in normal mass. It is a single gravity particle like an electron in normal space. Mass exists inside of a BH as an electron in a fractal universe.

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.

You are exactly correct but the curve is a two dimension explanation of a three dimensional dilation from the center of mass. A gradient energy dilation of energy particles c spin moving electrons. It is the movement of the electrons that dilate space energy c increasing its dilation down a gravity well. Mass is attracted to the most dilated position of energy. Mass creates its own attraction through dilated zero point energy (spin). Dilated space also dilates mass in GR to measure the longer distance for light with a longer measuring stick. Reactions in all frames are relative to that frames dilation of measurement sticks. Reactions are relative to time measurement and time measurement is relative to dilation.

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

Macro mass particles and micro mass energy c waves are separate. A wave packet of propagated energy c solves the particle wave duality.  We can transfer energy as a particle when we have a wave of particles and be a wave that is not virtual. A real physical item for the energy transfer. An actual cause of relativity rather than a postulate.

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.

It exists at a zero state of energy c throughout the BH. Light bends completely around the BH because there is no energy c for a wave to ride. Energy is pushed out of existence within a BH causing extreme dilation where normal mass is attracted to locally.

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.

Velocity of light does not change but the energy c density does. Light has to go further in more dilated space. The electron jumps further causing a red shift measurement in a lesser dilated position. If you take a detector from one dilated position to another it would automatically change calibration to the new dilated position by changing cell size to the new dilated position. Our perception never changes but our reaction rate  and relative size does.

By the way we can measure the one way speed of light on the Earth using atomic clocks and relativity. Clocks on the Earth measure the same tick rate at sea level. North to south directions measure distance only without rotation interference. From the North or south axis we can synchronize all clocks with just knowing the distance. And we can measure the distance with an atomic clock.

[dutch]

First we have to understand what causes gravity.

Mass/energy and how it moves causes gravity. What I think you're trying to say is how does mass/energy do it?

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

To measure the one-way speed of light you must use 2 or more clocks that are spatially separated. You must know when the light beam is at point A and you must know when the light beam is at point B. Einstein, Lorentz, and others exhaustively showed that fast clock transport (synchronizing with light) and slow clock transport are identical.

You cannot measure the one-way speed of light because it depends on the synchronization of the two different clocks. I can be in a reference frame moving 99% the speed of light relative to some other frame and I could say all light is moving c relative to me in all directions (we're in flat spacetime in this example). I could look at the other frame and light would be going 1.99c in one direction and .01c in the other relative to that frame. From my perspective this is justified and follows relativity. However, the other frame sees the speed of light as 1c in both directions... because they synchronized their clocks to their reference frame. The combination of time dilation, contraction, and most importantly the clocks being out of sync accounts for the fact that I can see the light moving at 1.99c and .01c relative to them but they see it as 1c in both directions. They chose a certain synchronization for their clocks.

Why is the following true?  "showed that fast clock transport (synchronizing with light) and slow clock transport are identical"

Einstein and others proved it by using the Lorentz Transformation (backed by experiment). However, I think matter follows the same transformation as light for a deeper reason. All particles seem to be made out of similar stuff (massive or massless). The Lorentz Transform and the Relativistic Doppler Shift Equation can derive each other directly (I showed how the LT and the Relativistic DS are the same in another thread). Matter and massless particles are both excitations of fields (waves and this is how they're described in QFT) just that matter particles occur when the excitation of one field interacts with another field (like the Higgs Field). The complex interaction slows down the group velocity of the particle-wave giving it a rest frame (speed less than c), a rest mass, and an internal time (proper time). However, the underlying nature of all particles is still to move at the speed of light. All fields still propagate change at c and all transform via the LT but some just get "stuck in the mud" via interacting with other fields.

A classical example of this (but less pure and fundamental) occurs when light propagates through a medium like water. The photon moves less than the maximum speed c because of the numerous interactions with the charge structure of the medium. The photon gets an effective rest mass and has the ability to change internally (a proper time). However, the fundamental nature of the photon still moves at c.

I don't understand the other stuff you said.

[David Cooper (OP)]

I don't understand the other stuff you said.

You're not alone in that.

Hi dutch,

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.

[dutch]

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.

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

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.

Well that is interesting but also a lot to digest. I assume k is the Bondi factor.