0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My theory of an additional inverted time dilation is based on the concept that when we measure time via the caesium atom in a gravitational gradient, that we are only measuring what time is doing for the caesium atom,
E=hv=hc/f
Frequency is a time integral.
We can cause man made light to shift frequency in a non changing gravitational field by adding or subtracting energy via temperature or charge.
I was just beginning to wonder where you were, and here you are!
Quote from: timey on 14/05/2016 22:53:03We can cause man made light to shift frequency in a non changing gravitational field by adding or subtracting energy via temperature or charge. Have I missed something here? You can't add temperature or charge to a photon, surely?
Clearly the black body experiment adds temperature and produces photons of varying energy, frequency and wavelength.Switch on a torch with enough battery 'charge' and the tungsten filament or LED glows when electricity flows through it, thus producing visible light.
redshifted light is not indicative of light sources expanding away from us in the way currently thought.
But what makes the time dilate? All we know about distant galaxies is that they are distant. We infer that they are moving away from us because their spectra are Doppler redshifted. If you want to say that the redshift is actually due to a gravitaional effect, you need to postulate an external source of gravitation, or state that all distant galaxies are very dense (just possible) and their density increases with distance (most improbable).
Over time the central black holes of distant galaxies will consume some of the total mass of the galaxy over time. Since looking out to these galaxies means looking back in time then it is entirely possible that galaxy density does indeed increase with distance. Since as we view objects farther away less time has passed since the big bang.
Too many pseudoscientific words in a meaningless jumble! Have another go, perhaps before the pubs open.
GR states that... ""The gravitational gradient alters the frequency of the travelling photon - as you well know."" ... because it has a relativistic mass associated with its energy that is affected by gravity potential,ie: the strength of the gravitational field of its location. no, it's because a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerating frame of referenceInverted time theory does not attribute light with having mass, only energy.good, because that is true""Alters the frequency of" does not mean "has a frequency".""A gravitational field has energy. Simply view the energy of gravity as the non zero energy of space. Where there is more gravity there is more energy. Energy is inherent with a frequency.nonsense. do your dimensinal analysis and you'll see why.""And don't bother with the phrase "static distance of gradient". The PR experiment measured gravitational shift by comparing it with a Doppler shift.""And it was proved that there is the motion of a Doppler shift within the gravitational shift over a static distance.A meaningless jumble of words. PR proved that you can measure G shift with D shift.""That's all. If you keep it simple, you won't confuse yourself with unnecessary jargon.""I'm not being confused by any jargon. I read respected physics books by respected physics authors, and I read articles and wiki links. Then I simply repeat what I've read. Obviously not. Please show me where you read "there is the motion of a Doppler shift within the gravitational shift over a static distance", for instance. That's all!Maths on the other hand do confuse me, and again and again, I stress that help with maths is my reason for being here. Stated in my first post ever, and many times since.This is a forum board of New Theories, and ITT is a new theory. It stands to reason that any new idea is going to be taking a novel approach or novel view on aspects of accepted physics.Agreed, but it helps if you dopn't misquote the old physics, or reinvent it.Unlike any other New Theory on this board Alan, this one does not seek to introduce or incorporate any unobserved inclusions to accepted physics, as indeed accepted physics does itself. ITT only seeks to view any actual observed accepted physics from a slightly different perspective.You have said ""The PR experiment measured gravitational shift by comparing it with a Doppler shift.""The experiment shows us what is causing the motion of a Doppler shift in the test signal. What is causing the motion of a Doppler shift in the gravitational shift measured? Doppler shift is not gravitational shift. Please mind your language!