# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?  (Read 4868 times)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« on: 20/06/2016 01:06:39 »
(MODERATOR NOTE: this thread was created out posts from http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67283.0)

That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.

What is proven is that:
A measuring system, (ie: atomic clock), will run faster in a higher gravity potential relative to a measuring system at a lower gravity potential.
An observer and all of his belongings with the elevated clock will experience an increase in the timing of their own systems, (in keeping with the measuring system in elevation), relative to the timing their systems experience in the lower gravity potential. (equivalence principle)
That a measuring system (and the observer with all his belongings) that is in motion relative to another measuring system, will experience a slower rate of time than the measuring system that is not in relative motion.

These are proven phenomenon.

Despite the mathematical fit of Einstein's predictions of General Relativity and time dilation, time slowing or stopping for a black hole, or for light, is just a supposition.

It's important to understand where the 'actual' knowledge ends in physics and the hypothesis begins.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2016 20:28:53 by chris »

#### IAMREALITY

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 275
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #1 on: 20/06/2016 01:18:32 »
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.

What is proven is that:
A measuring system, (ie: atomic clock), will run faster in a higher gravity potential relative to a measuring system at a lower gravity potential.
An observer and all of his belongings with the elevated clock will experience an increase in the timing of their own systems, (in keeping with the measuring system in elevation), relative to the timing their systems experience in the lower gravity potential. (equivalence principle)
That a measuring system (and the observer with all his belongings) that is in motion relative to another measuring system, will experience a slower rate of time than the measuring system that is not in relative motion.

These are proven phenomenon.

Despite the mathematical fit of Einstein's predictions of General Relativity and time dilation, time slowing or stopping for a black hole, or for light, is just a supposition.

It's important to understand where the 'actual' knowledge ends in physics and the hypothesis begins.
I'd say general relativity has more than stood the test of time enough to be accepted as valid, and for all intents and purposes all the knowledge we have states that the curvature of spacetime around a black hole will indeed slow time.  This is accepted science, not just some wacky prediction. It was a perfectly valid answer given to the poster. Please don't try and make it as if it holds no water and is just like a "ehhh, some say this, some say that, no one really knows," as if all is equal. Relativity and the curvature of spacetime are accepted by any physicist worth their salt. So why water down the issue as if it isn't? Again, my reply to the poster stands, and hopefully he'll be able to come to the right conclusion.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2016 01:25:22 by IAMREALITY »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #2 on: 20/06/2016 02:11:29 »
IAMREALITY - please, do you have to take it so personally?

With regards to what mainstream physicists are currently saying about General Relativity, please refer to Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy', for one example.

I'm sure the op understands that GR is our best working hypothesis of the cosmos...

But again, I re-iterate that it is important that there is a distinction made between proven reality and hypothesis.  I stand most firmly by my post and am of the opinion that you should not in any shape or form take it personally that I state where phenomenon are proven and where they are not...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #3 on: 20/06/2016 22:47:20 »
Quote from: timey
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.

Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.

The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.

What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field.  And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!

The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.

Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with.  It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field.  ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.

This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space.  If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact.  So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.

It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.

Edit:  In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2016 22:53:06 by timey »

#### IAMREALITY

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 275
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #4 on: 20/06/2016 22:59:47 »
Quote from: timey
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.

Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.

The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.

What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field.  And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!

The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.

Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with.  It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field.  ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.

This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space.  If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact.  So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.

It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.

Edit:  In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.

Ok, I can't lie... I am VERY much looking forward to PmbPhy's reply to this lol.  I know he's gonna do a heck of a lot better job skewering it than I would've been able to at my best!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #5 on: 20/06/2016 23:03:41 »
Bring it on... (she growled)

Prove that an atomic clock is not just measuring what time dilation does for it's own self...

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #6 on: 20/06/2016 23:54:15 »

The following users thanked this post: kasparovitch

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #7 on: 21/06/2016 00:03:38 »
I'm sorry Colin.  There 'is' no New Theory here...  Just General Relativity concerning what is proven and what is not...  If we can't talk about what is proven and what is not concerning General Relativity, this then renders the physics board as a farce and General Relativity as a 'religion'.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #8 on: 21/06/2016 00:25:19 »
I'm sorry Colin.  There 'is' no New Theory here...
No need to apologise.

Just saying that we don't want posts wandering off into new theories. We've had a lot of problems with certain individuals and are firming up the rules.

I suspect one of the first things PmbPhy will say will be along the lines of physics is not about proving things. But I won't preempt his words

Kasparovitch's request is a reasonable one, this thread is drifting.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #9 on: 21/06/2016 00:29:28 »
I'm sorry Colin.  There 'is' no New Theory here...  Just General Relativity concerning what is proven and what is not...  If we can't talk about what is proven and what is not concerning General Relativity, this then renders the physics board as a farce and General Relativity as a 'religion'.

PREVIOUS POST OF MINE:

I'm afraid this topic is not about the epistemology of any theory.

I ask a concrete question which assumes the theories concerned are hypothetically correct.

If you think they aren't or that they need fine tuning, I think you should discuss it in a topic about that subject, or create it.

Assuming a theory is hypothetically correct for the sake of discussion is neither farce nor religion, I think.

Once again, if you have something to add to the theory itself, or subtract from it, do it elsewhere in the forum.

You have already been told by an extremely concrete relativist (Pete), who does actually know his onions, that your question has no meaning in physics.

I would say that assessment is subject to being proven for the reasons I am postulating.  The reasons are not New Theory, they are consequence of valid experimentation of what is proven and what is not.

But have it your own way.  Discuss your concrete question all you like.

Colin, I'd like to hear what Pete has to say in reply to my post...  If you would, could you please split the thread?

#### hamdani yusuf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 173
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #10 on: 21/06/2016 02:24:00 »
The higher the gravity, the faster the speed, the slower time advances. That's why the observer in normal gravity at rest can age thousands of years in what would be minutes for the person standing at the event horizon of a black hole.  Time goes slower for them relative to the observer at rest at normal gravity.  In the time it took thousands of years to go by, only minutes or hours or days went by for that at the black hole.  Time was slower for them.
Imagine a satellite orbiting a black hole near event horizon. To get stable orbital trajectory, it has to move at nearly the light speed.
But it will make it experience micro gravity, considering what happens to people in ISS.
The question is, what cause time dilation of a clock inside the satellite, is it the gravity field, the movement speed, or both? (or none?)
What if the satellite is not moving relative to the black hole nor an external observer, by canceling force of gravity using some kind of propeller?

I'm not sure if I'm fully grasping the question correctly, but I would think that any factor contributing to the energy/momentum of the system in question would be responsible for its relative time dilation (if I'm saying that all correctly).
What I mean is, according to GR, a free fall body in a gravity field feels the same as floating in space with no gravity. And a satellite orbiting a black hole is equal to free fall body, hence should feel no effect from gravity.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #11 on: 21/06/2016 07:14:48 »
Quote from: timey
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3913
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #12 on: 21/06/2016 08:45:05 »
Extensive tests of the validity of general relativity have been carried out and are ongoing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

So it is not simply a case that everyone just hasn't noticed a glaring error in the theory by all sitting on their hands for decades.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #13 on: 21/06/2016 08:46:07 »
Quote from: timey
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.

MOD NOTE:
Note, Timey has suggested an alternative explanation to the experimental results which is discussed (extensively) here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66751.0
and here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66831.0

Anyone wishing to discuss these alternatives is welcome to join these discussions.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #14 on: 21/06/2016 11:47:08 »

That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.

I think the word you should be using is objective and not conjecture. Conjecture is what we do all the ''time'' on here.

#### puppypower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 554
• Thanked: 43 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #15 on: 21/06/2016 13:14:44 »
GR only impacts the wavelength and frequency of photons, but not the speed of light. The speed of light is the same in all references. How is that possible?  How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?

The easiest explanation is the speed of light is the ground state of the universe; zero point. All inertial references will define potential relative to this ground state.

As an analogy, sea level is the ground state for all the water on the surface and atmosphere of the earth. Differences in elevation, from clouds, to mountains, to streams to lakes, to rivers, will create different potentials with sea level; same water but with differences in potential.  However, sea level does not change and is the same for all these references. Sea level is the place where the water becomes zero potential; rest.

To make matter and anti-matter, in the lab, we need to begin with very energetic photons. You can't make matter and anti-matter from single photons of visible light or radio waves, because the potential of the energy is too low to define sub-particles. The matter phases exist at the top of the potential curve, not at the bottom.

In the sea level analogy, as water gains potential from sea level; evaporates and gains elevation into the atmosphere, it will eventually  condense into liquid and solid; rain and hail. Now it will lower potential and will return back to C-level, which is the same place at all times in its journey back.

How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?

Relative to question at hand, about photon time on its journey from the sun to earth; Since sea level does not change, there is no motion or change of state in terms of this perpetual ground state. Therefore, time does not apply, per se. It only applies if you use inertial as relative reference; wavelength/frequency changes, that assumes matter is the ground state. This will create problems with your universal energy balance and flow of potential that may not allow one to explain why the speed of light is the same in all inertial references.

How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #16 on: 21/06/2016 13:22:36 »
GR only impacts the wavelength and frequency of photons, but not the speed of light. The speed of light is the same in all references. How is that possible?  How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?

Hi Puppy, to understand ''things'' you have to know what the question and answer means.   The perception of what Einstein said, that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, only relates to a measurement in a vacuum.   Mediums have an affect on the speed of light,  so if your inertial reference frame was always filled with a dense atmosphere, you would indeed measure a slower speed in your inertial frame.

So the answer is, it is the same speed in a vacuum measured in any inertial reference frames.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #17 on: 21/06/2016 14:29:22 »
MOD NOTE:
Note, Timey has suggested an alternative explanation to the experimental results which is discussed (extensively) here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66751.0
and here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66831.0

Anyone wishing to discuss these alternatives is welcome to join these discussions.

Firstly - Thank you Colin.  It was my intention to remain within the remit of current physics and the physics board, and only discuss GR in relation to what is proven and what is not via experiment.
However, it is probably just as well to put my 'angle' ;) into context with the inclusion of the other 2 New Theories threads where I've been discussing my 'new notion'.
So thanks for taking the time to post these other links as well...
Above and beyond mate!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #18 on: 21/06/2016 14:41:00 »

How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?

Via the Lorentz transformations, that stretches or contracts 'distance', I do believe...(?)

P.S.  I'm really liking your sea level analogy!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #19 on: 21/06/2016 15:08:33 »
Quote from: timey
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.

Ok look, this is the post in question.

Quote from: timey
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.

Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.

The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.

What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field.  And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!

The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.

Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with.  It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field.  ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.

This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space.  If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact.  So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.

It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.

Edit:  In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.

When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.

It has not!  All it proved was that when the correct velocity of Doppler shift was applied to the test signal, this 'correct velocity' was matched by 'something' in the gravitational field that cancelled the gravitational energy shift and allowed the photon to be absorbed by the receiver.

And... if you start thinking in scientific terms, rather than in terms of making observation fit to theory, it is clear that the NIST gravitational time dilation tests via atomic clocks have not 'actually' unequivocally proven that time runs faster out in space either.  Especially when considering that for an observer with the elevated clock, the timing of all the atoms that make up his physique are ageing in keeping with the clock, suggesting that they too, in line with the caesium atom, are experiencing an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.

None of what I have said above is 'New Theory'...  All I have done is observe 'fact' provided by valid experimentation.

Now the fact of the observer with the elevated clock's atoms electron energy transitions being in keeping with the clock, and in proportion to the clock as they were at ground level, under the remit of the equivalence principle, suggests that GR gravitational time dilation may be only measuring what gravitational time dilation is doing for mass in relation to mass, and that what gravitational time dilation is doing for the gravitational field of 'space' in relation to mass may be different.

That is 'New Theory'...
« Last Edit: 21/06/2016 15:12:18 by timey »

#### IAMREALITY

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 275
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #20 on: 21/06/2016 16:33:55 »
Quote from: timey
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.

Ok look, this is the post in question.

Quote from: timey
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.

Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.

The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.

What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field.  And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!

The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.

Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with.  It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field.  ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.

This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space.  If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact.  So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.

It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.

Edit:  In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.

When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.

It has not!  All it proved was that when the correct velocity of Doppler shift was applied to the test signal, this 'correct velocity' was matched by 'something' in the gravitational field that cancelled the gravitational energy shift and allowed the photon to be absorbed by the receiver.

And... if you start thinking in scientific terms, rather than in terms of making observation fit to theory, it is clear that the NIST gravitational time dilation tests via atomic clocks have not 'actually' unequivocally proven that time runs faster out in space either.  Especially when considering that for an observer with the elevated clock, the timing of all the atoms that make up his physique are ageing in keeping with the clock, suggesting that they too, in line with the caesium atom, are experiencing an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.

None of what I have said above is 'New Theory'...  All I have done is observe 'fact' provided by valid experimentation.

Now the fact of the observer with the elevated clock's atoms electron energy transitions being in keeping with the clock, and in proportion to the clock as they were at ground level, under the remit of the equivalence principle, suggests that GR gravitational time dilation may be only measuring what gravitational time dilation is doing for mass in relation to mass, and that what gravitational time dilation is doing for the gravitational field of 'space' in relation to mass may be different.

That is 'New Theory'...

'Proven' can be such a technicality sometimes...  But the important part to consider is the confidence that something is in fact correct.  Just because a threshold of 'proven' hasn't been met doesn't then make the contrary opinion have a 50% confidence level and the thing attempted to be proven having a 50% confidence level.  In many of the new theory type of cases I see discussed here, it's probably like a 99.99999% confidence level for the accepted and .00001% confidence for the contrary.  I think it's clear then why the majority of the best and brightest side with the accepted.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #21 on: 21/06/2016 16:54:39 »
'Proven' can be such a technicality sometimes...  But the important part to consider is the confidence that something is in fact correct.  Just because a threshold of 'proven' hasn't been met doesn't then make the contrary opinion have a 50% confidence level and the thing attempted to be proven having a 50% confidence level.  In many of the new theory type of cases I see discussed here, it's probably like a 99.99999% confidence level for the accepted and .00001% confidence for the contrary.  I think it's clear then why the majority of the best and brightest side with the accepted.

Well dear oh me - your comment actually works as an analogy with respect to the definition of 'truth' as a social phenomenon...lol!   A fact of life that I personally find truly upsetting.  (Do the brightest and the best really side with the accepted, or is it the sheep?)

But in the world of science, for something to be considered as truth it must be already proven beyond doubt.  If it is not a truth, it's a theory and theories should not be extrapolated as absolutes!

#### IAMREALITY

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 275
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #22 on: 21/06/2016 17:36:08 »
'Proven' can be such a technicality sometimes...  But the important part to consider is the confidence that something is in fact correct.  Just because a threshold of 'proven' hasn't been met doesn't then make the contrary opinion have a 50% confidence level and the thing attempted to be proven having a 50% confidence level.  In many of the new theory type of cases I see discussed here, it's probably like a 99.99999% confidence level for the accepted and .00001% confidence for the contrary.  I think it's clear then why the majority of the best and brightest side with the accepted.

(Do the brightest and the best really side with the accepted, or is it the sheep?)

No, rest assured, it's the best and brightest...

Quote
But in the world of science, for something to be considered as truth it must be already proven beyond doubt.  If it is not a truth, it's a theory and theories should not be extrapolated as absolutes!

Just because something isn't absolute doesn't make it risky to speak about in a way that regards it with a similar respect.  Like I said, if something has a confidence of 99.99999%, there is very good reason to give it such respect, to regard it with such respect, to initiate discussion with that respect as the basis.

A statement of "if it's not truth, it's theory!" in the way you imply it, makes it seem as if as soon as it becomes theory it gets cast in some 50/50 bucket, where its respect drops significantly to one of "ehhh, we simply don't know.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't".  But that's not reality at all.  All theories are not equal in credibility, not by a long shot.  And in this case, if we're talking about GR, it gets cast in the bucket of "it's not technically an absolute, but we're 99.999999% sure of it".  And I'm content with siding with something like that.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1295
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #23 on: 21/06/2016 17:51:50 »
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"...  to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.

Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html

I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...

Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted.  If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.

#### IAMREALITY

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 275
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #24 on: 21/06/2016 18:33:25 »
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"...  to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.

Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html

I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...

Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted.  If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.

Are you equating yourself with Einstein?  Really?

Einstein was an exceptional mind, exceptional thinker, and if anyone had what it took intellectually to recognize the .0001% or less position as the one worth taking it was him.  And that was also a long time ago, when so much less was known, and there was such a greater probability that what was theorized at the time was wrong.  They did not have the sort of advanced tests we have today.  So trying to use that to bolster your argument isn't really credible.

And for every one of your best and brightest I could link to 1000.

Furthermore, that documentary was widely regarded as a bunch of bunk, by those who know better, wasn't it?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #24 on: 21/06/2016 18:33:25 »