# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?  (Read 2563 times)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« on: 14/05/2016 22:53:03 »
Ok... I'm attempting here to juggle some established physics maths into a different format in order to express my idea of the existence of an additional inverted time dilation.  Inverted Time Theory (ITT).  The consequences of which result in a closed system, non expanding cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.

Please note that I am making significant adjustments to the 'physics norm' here.  My idea does away with energy mass equivalence.  Mass remains set at rest mass and does not change with the addition or subtraction of energy... e=mc2 is energy inherent to mass, gravity potential is the energy of the gravitational force exerted by bodies of mass upon each other at distance,(f=ma) and the non zero energy of the vacuum is described as having energy that is proportional to the 'frequency' of gravity, and is inversely proportional to the energy inherent in mass.  ITT employs a different means of calculating the factor of kinetic energy, and includes an addition to the equivalence principal stating that as well as the speed of light being constant, the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time.

So...

In the first equation we see E=mc2 = KE+m0c2.
This is saying that to establish E, kinetic energy must be added to the equation: 'rest mass' times speed of light squared.

The equation is then presented in another form...
So, for a particle of zero rest mass: p=E/c, and p is traditionally calculated via mv=p, which for light is mc=p.  To calculate p for light we are saying that for light to have energy, it must have relativistic mass equal to e=mc2.

ITT states that particles of zero mass, such as the photon, are subject to the non zero energy of their location.  That this non zero energy affects the gravitational shift, which in itself is inherent with an inverted time dilation.
To explain what is meant by inverted time dilation we must look at gravitational time dilation and the caesium atom.

The caesium atomic clock keeps a standard second of time at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.   If you elevate the clock into a weaker gravitational field, the frequency of the clock increases and the length of a standard second decreases causing time to run faster.  Therefore the caesium atom gains energy proportionally to its increase in frequency within the scenario of a decreasing gravitational gradient, and it loses energy proportionally to its decrease in frequency within the scenario of an increasing gravitational gradient.
This is known as gravitational time dilation.  On the basis of this phenomenon of gravitational time dilation, it is thought that a gravitational field (body of mass) slows time, and that time will run faster in a weaker gravitation field. (space)

ITT states that this concept is wrong. A body of mass at distance from another body of mass will be experiencing an increase in energy due to:

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, and we are not measuring what time is doing for the location of gravitational gradient that the caesium atom is elevated at.  ITT states that it is the frequency of massless light matching the frequency of the gravitational field that is indicative of what time is doing for the location of a gravitational gradient.

The caesium atom does however provide us with a standard second when operating at frequency  9,192,631,770 Hz.  (Because this frequency is subject to change within a subtle gravitational gradient of less than a meter, one assumes that a standard second must also come equipped with a standard elevation in relation to sea level. (?).)  The standard second is used to measure all time related considerations and all inverted time dilation considerations need to be related back to the caesium atom at frequency 9,192,631,770 Hz.

Going back to the De Broglie hypothesis:

So...for the photon:

We can see that Planck's constant h=6.62606957×10^−34 joules*seconds, has been employed to calculate energy:

E=hv=hc/lambda

Lambda was what Einstein retracted from relativity, and frequency-wavelength, ie: redshift, is what Hubble stated as proof of expansion of the universe and became the basis of the Big Bang theory.  These days lambda is associated with the cosmological constant and equations concerning frequency are denoted with the letter f.  I shall use f.

E=hv=hc/f ...so... p=hc/cf=h/f ... and... f=h/p being the De Broglie wavelength.

Frequency is a time integral.  The time measurement is a constant of 1 standard second, and 1 standard second is equal to 299 793 458 meters as per the constancy of the speed of light.
So...on the basis that vt=d, or d/t=v, or d/v=t, we can divide 299 792 458 meters (d) by frequency (f standing in for v, as in frequency being the velocity of time) which on the basis that frequency is a time integral holding both a standard second and the distance of 299 792 458 meters constant in relation to the constant speed of light, can be denoted as d/fc=t~ whereby t~ dependant on frequency, may be a longer or shorter second than our standard second.

ITT states that because light has no mass it will not be subject to the force energy of gravitational attraction and will only be affected by gravity via the non zero energy and frequency of the gravitational field itself, which ITT states as inverted time dilation.

I repeat, it is via the non zero energy and frequency (proven via Pound Rebka) of the gravitational gradient itself that is the cause of inverted time dilation...  Gravitational field energy denotes the gravitational shift in the energy of light, and it is the subsequent change in the frequency of the light that denotes the change in the length of a second, with any contraction or expansion of lights wave'length' being time related rather than distance related.

Light takes form in many different frequencies and associated wavelengths all of which will be affected by these changes of non zero energy within the gravitational gradient.

ITT is suggesting a direct relationship between energy and the phenomenon of time itself!

If the phenomenon of time is energy related and more energy denotes a faster rate of time, then an electrons frequency and subsequent wavelength can be calculated at the quantum level with the electrons exact position and momentum simultaneously.  Perturbation (this itself being a time integral) will not be necessary.

Now the factor of kinetic energy must be addressed.

ITT suggests that there are 4 types of energy that need to be considered.
1: inherent energy within mass
2: non zero energy of the gravitational field
3: the energy of the force of gravitational attraction between bodies of mass
4: kinetic energy due to motion
(In lights case only no2: the non zero energy of the gravitational field will apply)

This constitutes a matrix of 4 energy considerations that operate on a sliding scale of proportionality to other factors.  1, 2 and 3 are positive and must be added together and 4, kinetic energy is negative and must then be subtracted for a slowing of time due to motion.

This matrix may be used in conjunction with the space time matrix whereby there are 3 positives of space and one negative of time.  The resulting calculation of the energy matrix based on the co-ordinates of the 3 dimensions of space of the space time matrix, becomes the corresponding time aspect of the space time matrix for those co-ordinates.

Finally, the constancy of the speed of light in relation to the local rate of time:

We can cause man made light to shift frequency in a non changing gravitational field by adding or subtracting energy via temperature or charge. The rate of time is constant in the non changing gravitational field, but we still observe that the frequency wavelength relationship holds so how can a longer or shorter wave'length' be inverted time dilation related?
I counter this argument by asking how a photon can travel up and down wavelengths of differing frequencies and still get from a to b, this being a distance of 299 792 458 meters, in 1 second?
You may point out to me the 'boat analogy' whereby the photon is a boat and its wavelength the boats 'wake', to which I would reply that for there to be any change in the wake of a boat, a change in the boats speed must occur!

In any case, ITT states that light must travel at the speed of light, 299 792 458 meters per second, and that the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of a second of time, and consequently the rate of the photons time will slow for a photon that is moving in line motion, (ie: Michelson Morley experiment).  And the rate of the photons time will speed up for a photon of low energy, and low frequency, in order that it travel at the speed of light in relation to the local rate of second. (Please remember that we 'play' with light in ways that would not necessarily be naturally occurring)

The speed of light is a constant.  ITT states distances and lengths are also constant, but the rate of time is highly variable.
It is variable between the scale of all masses, their energies and the non zero energies of the gravitational field, and runs at a faster rate where there is more energy, and at a slower rate where there is less.

The consequences of this concept result in a closed system, non expanding, cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
This concept relies solely upon the Standard Model and requires no unobserved entities in order to explain its mechanics.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #1 on: 15/05/2016 01:28:34 »
I was just beginning to wonder where you were, and here you are!

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,

If this were the case, then the measured time dilatation would not depend on the position of the observer.

Quote
E=hv=hc/f
Wrong. Confusion probably caused by the similarity of Roman v (vee), often used to denote velocity,  and Greek ν (nu) used by Planck and others to denote frequency. E = hν = hf = hc/λ where the lower case lambda signifies wavelength and has nothing to do with uppercase Λ, the cosmological constant.

Quote
Frequency is a time integral.
No. Frequency is the number of occurrences of an event per unit time. In the limit it is the time differential of a phenomenon.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #2 on: 15/05/2016 01:35:17 »
We 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?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #3 on: 15/05/2016 03:07:55 »
I was just beginning to wonder where you were, and here you are!

:)... Back in Birmingham again.

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,

If this were the case, then the measured time dilatation would not depend on the position of the observer.[/quote]

The measure of time dilation does not rely on the position of the observer.  (See NIST 2010 ground level atomic clock tests of gravitational tie dilation)  It is true that the position of an observer within a gravitational field will affect the rate of the observers own time in relation to time dilation elsewhere in the gravitational field, but to measure any  differences in gravitational time dilation one simply relates the differences back to the standard second, which is measured via the caesium atom at frequency  9,192,631,770 Hz.

Quote
E=hv=hc/f
Wrong. Confusion probably caused by the similarity of Roman v (vee), often used to denote velocity,  and Greek ν (nu) used by Planck and others to denote frequency. E = hν = hf = hc/λ where the lower case lambda signifies wavelength and has nothing to do with uppercase Λ, the cosmological constant.[/quote]

That wasn't my confusion but you have cleared up that which was.  Thanks, I'll be back tomorrow to clean up those maths I copied from the link, even though it doesn't affect the maths I didn't copy from the link.

Quote
Frequency is a time integral.
No. Frequency is the number of occurrences of an event per unit time. In the limit it is the time differential of a phenomenon.
[/quote]

Because frequency is the number of occurrences per unit of time, this being a standard second, frequency is a time integral in that the maths used to calculate frequency are inherent with the constant of 1 standard second, which incidentally in turn gives us a constant distance of 299 792 458 meters as per the constant speed of light.

Yes, I am saying that frequency is the time differential (hope I've got terminology correct) of a standard second.  We use the frequency of a caesium atom operating at  9,192,631,770 Hz to measure a standard second, and the frequency of a caesium atom increases with elevation into a weaker gravitational field due to an increase in energy due to the force of gravitational attraction.  Light has no mass, does not experience any force of gravitational attraction and is indicative via its reduction in energy and frequency of the possibility of an inverted gravitational time dilation.

Of course light comes in the form of many energies and frequencies, however, I believe that Hubble used cepheid variables as his standard candle.

We 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?

Tut, tut Alan!  Lateral thinking?  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.
Presumably if you wish to produce light of a lower energy and frequency you simply provide the suitable light conductor with a lesser charge of electricity (?).  The difference between non ionising radiation and gamma rays or X-rays?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #4 on: 15/05/2016 12:04:09 »
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.

But once the photons are emitted, temperature and charge have no effect on them.

More importantly, the frequency of a cesium clock is determined by the electric potential gradient in the cesium atom, or more precisely, the quantised difference in energy levels between the two hyperfine ground states of the atom's electrons. The frequency of a mossbauer photon is determined by the decay of a nucleon. The gravitational field at the surface of a nucleus is calculable in principle and is orders of magnitude greater than that at the surface of the earth, whereas at the mean electron radius, the earth's field dominates. But the mossbauer photon energy is exactly as predicted by E = mc^2, so you need to explain how the extra-atomic potential gradient affects both nuclear and electronic transitions equally.

The conventional argument is that the emitted photons in both cases undergo frequency shift in a gravitational gradient, and the calculation gives us a very exact answer in both cases.

You want to argue that the initiating phenomenon produces a photon whose energy depends on the gravitational time compression at the point of generation. If your calculation gives the same answer, you need to show why it is not just a tautologous rearrangement of the standard equation, and why it applies to all photons regardless of source. If it doesn't give the same answer, it's wrong!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #5 on: 15/05/2016 15:00:20 »
""But once the photons are emitted, temperature and charge have no effect on them.""

Clearly!  Where have I said otherwise?

""More importantly, the frequency of a cesium clock is determined by the electric potential gradient in the cesium atom, or more precisely, the quantised difference in energy levels between the two hyperfine ground states of the atom's electrons. The frequency of a mossbauer photon is determined by the decay of a nucleon. The gravitational field at the surface of a nucleus is calculable in principle and is orders of magnitude greater than that at the surface of the earth, whereas at the mean electron radius, the earth's field dominates. But the mossbauer photon energy is exactly as predicted by E = mc^2, so you need to explain how the extra-atomic potential gradient affects both nuclear and electronic transitions equally.""

I am simply stating that within the e=mc2 equation, when adding energy to mass, that the mass increase that is inherent to the equation itself in the scenario of adding energy, is indeed an increase in the rate of time, not an increase in the particles mass.  Both scenarios are equal to each other in that an increase in the rate of time for a particle can be viewed as an increase in gravitational attraction.

""You want to argue that the initiating phenomenon produces a photon whose energy depends on the gravitational time compression at the point of generation.""

Nope, not really.  I am arguing that photons that have already been produced at energies relevant to their source are energy shifted across the vacuum of space due to the gravitational energy of their location, and that the gravitational energy's corresponding frequency is an inverted time dilation phenomenon.  Thus the change in the wavelength of any frequency of light as it moves through a gravitational gradient is time related, not distance related and redshifted light is not indicative of light sources expanding away from us  in the way currently thought.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #6 on: 15/05/2016 23:16:07 »
redshifted light is not indicative of light sources expanding away from us  in the way currently thought.
But the P-R experiment showed that it is, by matching Doppler redshift to a gravitational shift. If you want to explain the redshift of distant galaxies as being due to a gravitational contraction of time, you have to postulate that there is more mass just outside the universe than just inside it, which seems to me like a selfcontradiction.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #7 on: 15/05/2016 23:31:29 »
I'm sorry Alan, but you misunderstand (my fault no doubt).  I am saying that redshift of distant galaxies is due to a dilation of time, not a contraction of time.  That the extra length in wavelength is due to a longer second.

In my model there is no outside of the universe.

The Pound Rebka proved that a static gradient of gravitational shift has a frequency that can be matched by a man made Doppler shift created in the test signal.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #8 on: 16/05/2016 18:42:36 »
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).

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #9 on: 16/05/2016 21:19:53 »
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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #10 on: 16/05/2016 21:47:46 »
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).

I am saying that it is the gravitational shift of gravity itself that dilates inverted time dilation into a decreasing gravitational gradient, or contracts inverted time dilation into an increasing gravitational gradient.

Light, at the speed of light takes a specific amount of time to cover a distance, and if you didn't know that the rate of time becomes progressively slower in a weaker gravity field, you would calculate the distance the light has travelled as being longer.

If distances are shorter than we think, then the magnitude of the luminosity of a light source recalculated at a closer distance would indeed constitute a larger star.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #11 on: 16/05/2016 22:50:10 »
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.

I can appreciate where you are coming from...
However, in my model the inflation period results in a sea of particles that start clumping together, and distances between clumps or bodies of mass are formed by particles vacating their former position because they are clumping together.  After the initial inflation period, due to this clumping of mass, the actual spatial dimensions of the universe start very slowly reducing.  Black holes start forming as critical mass is achieved.  Eventually, after a scenario synonymous to a predator prey waveform, black holes become dominant until all the mass of the universe is contained in a galaxy of black holes.  These will merge until there is only one singular black hole, which without any equivalent gravitational force acting upon it, empties itself via its accretion disks until it own extinction, leaving a sea of particles.
This being the mechanics of Inverted Time Theory's closed system cyclic universe.
Having said this, your comment holds just as true, if not truer, in my model as it does in the Big Bang model, only that distances are not as far apart, so it would be of a significantly lesser effect.
Edit: Correction, (silly me...) ...even though the distance is shorter the effect would be 'the same' because it takes light exactly the same amount of time per 'standard' second to cover the shorter distance within the slower rates of time!
« Last Edit: 17/05/2016 00:27:46 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #12 on: 17/05/2016 19:35:33 »
So...

On the basis that the LIGO gravity wave has a frequency, presumably we can ascertain a frequency for any gradient of gravitational field.

On the basis that the gravity wave, and any changes within the gravity of a gravitational field travel at the speed of light, can these maths work to ascertain the longer or shorter second of my proposed inverted time dilation?

Frequency is, or has, a time integral.  This time integral being a constant of 1 standard second, and 1 standard second is equal to 299 793 458 meters as per the constancy of the speed of light.
So...on the basis that vt=d, or d/t=v, or d/v=t, we can divide 299 792 458 meters (d) by frequency (f standing in for v, as in frequency being the velocity of time. (Edit: or perhaps that should be the momentum of time)) which on the basis that frequency is, or has, a time integral holding both a standard second and the distance of 299 792 458 meters constant in relation to the constant speed of light, can be denoted as d/fc=t~ whereby t~ will be a longer second than our standard second.

When dealing with a gravitational field of a higher frequency than earth's gravitational field, which is what is used in relation to our measurement of a standard second, then: df/c=~t (?, or something like that anyway) whereby ~t is a shorter second...

Can it work?
« Last Edit: 17/05/2016 22:17:08 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #13 on: 17/05/2016 22:32:01 »
Too many pseudoscientific words in a meaningless jumble! Have another go, perhaps before the pubs open.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #14 on: 17/05/2016 22:46:04 »
Too many pseudoscientific words in a meaningless jumble! Have another go, perhaps before the pubs open.

Oh dear me Alan, you seem to have suffered a rather detrimental character shift.  Personally, I very rarely visit pubs, only twice in the last 2 years.

A gravitational field has a frequency.  This frequency increases or decreases with changes in the gravitational field.

Can the frequency of gravity be used as I have used it in the 'very simple' maths that I have illustrated to describe a longer or shorter second relative to a standard second or not?

Don't be a dolt Alan.  It's unbecoming!

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #15 on: 18/05/2016 12:17:02 »
No, a gravitational field does not have a frequency unless it is a repetitively time-varying gravitational field. You can generate such a field by, say, a pair of masses rotating about their center of gravity: the external field willl oscillate in the plane of rotation, but this has no connection with the mechanism of red shift, which occurs in a static field.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #16 on: 18/05/2016 13:46:06 »
And yet the Pound Rebka proved that the frequency of a man made Doppler shift can be matched within a static distance of gradient of a gravitational field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

"if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting Doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can now absorb the photon. The "right" relative speed of the atoms is therefore a measure of the gravitational shift.""

So..  A static gradient of the gravitational shift itself has a 'speed' or a 'frequency'.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #17 on: 18/05/2016 17:03:44 »
Rubbish. The gravitational gradient alters the frequency of the travelling photon - as you well know.

"Alters the frequency of" does not mean "has a frequency". Some people wear earrings, presumably to alter the length of their ear lobes. Earrings have weight, not length.

And don't bother with the phrase "static distance of gradient". The PR experiment measured gravitational shift by comparing it with a Doppler shift. That's all. If you keep it simple, you won't confuse yourself with unnecessary jargon.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #18 on: 18/05/2016 18:38:19 »
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.

Inverted time theory does not attribute light with having mass, only energy.

""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.

""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.

""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.  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.

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?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #19 on: 18/05/2016 19:01:16 »
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 reference

Inverted 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!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #20 on: 18/05/2016 19:26:20 »
""no, it's because a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerating frame of reference""

Yes, precisely... and an accelerating frame of reference (GR), and a gravitational field increasing the rate of time (ITT), can be viewed as being equivalent.  (the benefits of doing so result in a cyclic universe)

Alan, I really do not understand why you find it so difficult to grasp this simple concept:
If you are using a Doppler shift to measure a phenomenon, then the phenomenon you are measuring will be inherent with the properties of the measuring unit.
How can the gravitational shift match, ie: 'harmonise with' the created Doppler shift if it were otherwise?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #21 on: 18/05/2016 21:48:46 »
""no, it's because a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerating frame of reference""

Yes, precisely... and an accelerating frame of reference (GR), and a gravitational field increasing the rate of time (ITT), can be viewed as being equivalent.  (the benefits of doing so result in a cyclic universe)

Alan, I really do not understand why you find it so difficult to grasp this simple concept:
If you are using a Doppler shift to measure a phenomenon, then the phenomenon you are measuring will be inherent with the properties of the measuring unit.
How can the gravitational shift match, ie: 'harmonise with' the created Doppler shift if it were otherwise?

Because they are both changes in photon frequency. "will be inherent with the properties of the measuring unit." is meaningless.

« Last Edit: 18/05/2016 21:58:14 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #22 on: 18/05/2016 22:42:01 »
The man made Doppler shift in the Pound Rebka was 'not' a change in photon frequency at-all, Alan.  They created the man made Doppler shift of the emitted gamma ray in relation to the receiving atom, to cancel out the gravitational shift of the gamma ray in order that it be in the correct energy state to be absorbed by the receiving atom, as is the case in the equivalent horizontal experiment conducted without the additional man made Doppler shift.

So - What was it that the man made Doppler shift cancelled out?

The man made Doppler shift cancelled out the G shift, and the G shift that it cancelled out is gravity related, not photon related.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4504
• Thanked: 138 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #23 on: 19/05/2016 00:27:15 »
The man made Doppler shift in the Pound Rebka was 'not' a change in photon frequency at-all, Alan.  They created the man made Doppler shift of the emitted gamma ray in relation to the receiving atom, to cancel out the gravitational shift of the gamma ray
What is Doppler shift? What is gravitational shift? A change in the frequency of a (gamma) photon! What do we observe in cosmology? G and D shifts of photon frequencies. That is why they are called red and blue shifts!

You can call it a change in photon energy if you like, but remember that you stated that E = hf = hc/λ, so a change in energy is a change in frequency, since h is a constant.

Thanks to the equivalence principle, it doesn't matter whether you move the source or the receiver in the PR experiment, as long as you move it at the velocity v at which D shift = G shift. In the horizontal experiment δg = 0 so v = 0.
« Last Edit: 19/05/2016 00:33:18 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1118
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #24 on: 19/05/2016 01:05:02 »
The Doppler shift in the Pound Rebka is the man made speaker vibration of the emitted light source in relation to the motion of the receiving atom.

The gravitational shift is the change in the gravitational field gradient.

The Pound Rebka proved that the gravitational shift of the gravitational field has a frequency that can be harmonised with, and be cancelled out by a man made Doppler shift, (which was not a change in the frequency of a photon), created by speaker vibration and the motion of the receiving atom.

Why would someone call a change in the gravitational gradient, ie: gravitational shift, a change in photon energy?  The gravitational shift causes a change in photon energy, and in the case of any other particle with mass's energy, the gravitational shift causes a contrary (but not directly opposite) change in energy than it does with the photon, but you cannot describe these energy changes in the photon or any other particle as the gravitational shift itself.  The gravitational shift is the changes in the gravitational field, surely?

Edit: ...and in reply to your edit: where does this v exist in the gravitational field within a static distance?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #24 on: 19/05/2016 01:05:02 »