0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Having been analysing the situation, my analysis further compounded through having discussed these matters here at this site for last 2 years, my diagnosis is that there seems to be some confusion surrounding the interpretation of the equivalence principle.
So you keep saying, but what experimental test has been conducted in the intervening fields for you to state this as factual physics, Alan?
Interestingly, you can find plenty of maps of the gravitational geoid, which show that your proposed experiment (or at least its inverse) of clocks at the same gravitational potential and different radii from the centre of the earth is being conducted continuously by the GPS.
But it will be conducted when NIST achieve their plans on getting their lab sensitive clocks portable.It was actually around two years ago that NIST were saying that their portable clocks would be ready in 2 years.
I’m thinking places where light is passing through varying g field.
Quote from: alancalverd on 06/03/2018 19:31:08Very simply, you have to explain why the observed red shift of distant objects is greater than that of nearby objects of similar mass. As I have explained since #966, you can't blame anything (or even a vast expanse of nothing) between the source and the observer. Your model has to consider only the gravitational red shift of the source and its motion relative to the observer.In my model that has been slowly contracting from an almost uniform sea of particles and energy:Light emitted from a distant galaxy (already clumped) 10 billion years ago, will travel through voids that are weakening in gravity as matter further clumps (over 10 billion years) 'while' the light is travelling, and this will cause a gravitational redshift to the travelling light.The further away the source, the greater amount of time the light has been in a weakening field, the greater the redshift.That is pretty simple I think...I started talking figures of magnitude in post 1002 if you would care to read it...
Very simply, you have to explain why the observed red shift of distant objects is greater than that of nearby objects of similar mass. As I have explained since #966, you can't blame anything (or even a vast expanse of nothing) between the source and the observer. Your model has to consider only the gravitational red shift of the source and its motion relative to the observer.
Like the space between the moon and earth? Very well characterised, significant and highly predictable variation in gravitational field,
On the one hand what I observe is that there is a school of thought that states that a caesium atomic clock placed at a higher gravity potential only 'appears' to have a higher frequency from the perspective of the lower gravity potential...And that if one places oneself at the higher gravity potential with the clock, then the frequency of the clock will be the same as it was in the lower gravity potential, and that it will now 'appear' to you that the lower gravity potential clock has a lower frequency.
Quote from: timey on 09/03/2018 12:04:31But it will be conducted when NIST achieve their plans on getting their lab sensitive clocks portable.It was actually around two years ago that NIST were saying that their portable clocks would be ready in 2 years.They are testing them at the site in Boulder. Various locations around the site are being accurately surveyed for height and gravimeters are being used to measure g and GP at that point. Haven’t heard any anomoly reports yet.Have you thought of any other tests? I’m thinking places where light is passing through varying g field. How about heavy binary systems, there must be some where field is large and varies quickly.
It is not entirely clear to me if the +gravity of a wave would shift a clock, but the minus gravity of just a few inches of difference in height from a gravitational mass does shift a clock. So if the +gravity of the incoming wave was of the same magnitude difference as the -gravity at few inches elevation, then a clock at a gravitational wave site would be shifted.Similarly - the GPS system, in that it keeps a record of all previous data, was utilised to search for dark matter.It didn't find any, however the computer that analysed the data was no doubt programmed to search for points in history where the clocks recorded slower time.Again, it may be unlikely that the GPS system would be sensitive enough to detect shifts due to gravitational waves
Cesium clocks can measure a tick rate down to about 2*10^-9 seconds
A gravity wave is an acceleration in tick rate shifting through the continuum. Therefore clocks do exhibit an increase in tick rate while the gravity wave passed through.
Do you mind me asking you who you are and what your status is, if any, as to physics education?
Sorry if I shouldn't have interjected.
Edit: btw, conventional relativity states that +gravity, ie: gravity wave passing, will equal slower time.
I am, at this stage, writing up a paper on my model to submit to arXiv scientific journal,
I do not.
I had not heard that they are testing portable clocks yet. Can you direct me to a link for that?
The gp aspect of general relativity is proven already by NIST' clocks.With regards to the g aspect, although there may be slight g anomalies at the Boulder site, it would be quite hard to tell an anomaly from an error margin when the clocks are being measured for g differences on the same site. Not impossible though.
It is not entirely clear to me if the +gravity of a wave would shift a clock, but the minus gravity of just a few inches of difference in height from a gravitational mass does shift a clock. So if the +gravity of the incoming wave was of the same magnitude difference as the -gravity at few inches elevation, then a clock at a gravitational wave site would be shifted.