0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What is relevant at this point in the discussion is a pendulum having a shorter swing at elevation. Yes - you are correct, this is a far greater effect than GR time dilation... but this is not the point. A pendulum is, and always has been, associated with time keeping. A shorter swing means faster time. I believe that this alone is the premiss for believing that clocks tick faster in elevation.
Edit: reading through this thread, am I right in thinking you are proposing that the effect of gravity on time is the opposite of what current GR says, or have I misread
I do realise though that it is a bit of a paradigm leap for the mind that is trained in relativity, to take on board that GR time dilation is perhaps just a "mass near mass phenomenon", (Not sure what you mean by that) that black holes are full of energy, where time runs extremely fast, (That should say slow) while the slowing of time that a traveller experiences in space is because time runs slow in space.(Proven fact time runs faster in free space.) I do not understand where you have a problem with observation fitting the theory, probably because you didn't say.
Ok, time has been shown to run fast in space. How has time been shown to run fast in space? By a clock. Does the clock have mass and associated mass? Yes it does. So... time has NOT been shown to run fast in space! Time has been shown to run fast for a clock and its associated mass in space. What rate time is running at in that space when the clock and its associated mass is not there, has not been proven at-all.Therefore, this theory examines the possibility that GR time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon, and that the rate of time runs slow in space. Light has no mass. It's frequency reduces by means of gravitational redshift. Rendering relativistic mass as redundant, this theory states the frequency of light as being indicative of the rate of time, and the increase in the wavelength as being time related not distance related.
Jeff - I feel really stupid! Like I should know how that relates to what I'm saying...but I don't. Would you please put it into context for me?
In non-relativistic newtonian terms the average velocity traveled in distance d is given by:.Instantaneous velocity at distance d is then:Then the instantaneous kinetic energy isuSince the field extends to infinity then this function is continuous to infinity. Thus the gradient of time dilation must be continuous to infinity and will not reverse since the gravitational field is non-vanishing.
Clocks are mass.
But Space Flow - I have indeed shown a means for equating what time is doing in space. It's light. Relativistic mass rendered redundant means that light is picking up its energy purely from its surroundings. Energy denotes frequency, and frequency denotes wavelength.Furthermore, I am saying that the Lorentz transformations are faulty. Don't use them. I've given a means to finding the constants of square root 2 and 0.41 within the Lorentz transformations to 'prove' or 'disprove' my theory, because the equation that I am suggesting as an alternative should exactly match the result of the Lorentz transformations, but from a different mathematical route, and for different reason.The alternate - d/square root 2, subtract result from d = 0.41 of d. This 0.41 of d is time related, not distance related. It takes the constant speed of light, this distance turned back into time (our rate of time) longer to travel d/square root 2 = revised distance.You say that blaming observations on the materials used to measure them isn't physics. I am stating time as energy related. In an energy related equation, M + m is a consequence. Also m has potential energy considerations. The clock and its associated mass have more associated energy than the space it occupies does when it's not there. Light, in that relativistic mass is stated redundant, has no potential energy considerations. Therefore, in that light is 'just' picking up gravitational field energy in space, light 'is' our clock in space!Yes, of course I'm trying to say that it is only time and not space that is variable, how else can one achieve an 'absolute reference' frame from which everything else can be equated?
Quote from: timey on 13/02/2016 00:18:33 Clocks are mass. And there's the root of a misunderstanding. GR predicts time dilation independent of the mass or density of any device you use to measure it, and the frequency of an atomic clock is not determined by the mass, density or weight of any component. AFAIK the various clocks used by, for instance, ground stations, GPS satellites, aircraft and spacecraft, all have different masses and are surrounded by carriers of different masses, yet they all do the same thing. When we have an entirely theoretical prediction confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy by several independent practical experiments, we tend to accept the primary hypothesis.
However, if light gravitationally shifts when exposed to changes in a gravitational field, then the light in that experiment is 'shifted', end of story, and they will be recording a shift in time. No doubt about it! ...
A caesium atom has mass.