[timey (OP)]

Jim is wrong on that point.
Polar time at sea level is the same as equatorial time at sea level. It's a case of two wrongs making a right.

Yes that is what Jim said, and what I wrote.

You cannot say this...

(The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration.

...and then say this:

SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass.

...because you have contradicted yourself.
The centripetal acceleration  (SR) at the equator exactly cancels out the change in gravity (GR) at the equator *for an observer* at the equator because *the observer* at sea level at the equator is moving in space faster than *the observer* at sea level at a polar location is.  This is 'how' the change in gravity (GR) is cancelled by the centripetal acceleration (SR).

I have *highlighted* the term *the observer* above for a reason:

With regards to point #2, mass has nothing to do with it. It's all about ground speed (i.e. SR) and altitude (i.e. GR.)

Without mass being involved, what exactly are we stating as having a ground speed (SR) and altitude (GR)?
It would be impossible to measure either SR or GR effects without a mass being involved.

Therefore:
Suggesting that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that these SR and GR time dilation effects that are affecting mass are not related to the sequential events of the local...
Because, as you have said:

If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.

Where the elapsed time between sunrise and sunset (on any particular day) is an invariant amount of time, but the busybodies have experienced that invariant amount of time (associated with that calendar day) differently to each other.

The point being that despite the busybodies experience of their own time, the *actual amount* of time that has passed from sunrise to sunset (that day) remains the same.
This is illustrated in post 488 by asking the mobile phone app to display both the Relativity app time as to the phones location and speed, and the synchronised time that all mobile phones in UK display as a norm.

To give an idea of direction, I am discussing these matters with a view to examining what the rate of time is doing where m=0, such as the spaces in the universe where mass is absent.

[jeffreyH]

I am proposing a 4th time dilation that completely cancels the 3rd time dilation via vacuum energy. I can't decide yet whether it is Dyson, Hoover or Henry.

[timey (OP)]

Please see your linear space vector thread whereas I am pleased to be adding to your understanding of conventional physics.

No need for an apology!

[jeffreyH]

I agree. You don't need to apologise. I forgive you.

[timey (OP)]

... I've now changed my mind Jeff and will be expecting an apology from you...

And for anyone else reading, please know that I always start out from the viewpoint that the other person has a better understanding of conventional physics than I do - and it is surprising to me how very rarely this is actually the case...

[jeffreyH]

Was it Dyson, Hoover or Henry that gave me away?

[jeffreyH]

That is Freeman Dyson, William G Hoover and Joseph Henry. You can google any one of them and learn a bit of science history.

[timey (OP)]

No - it is your lack of understanding of conventional physics that gives you away.
I suggest that you actually learn about a subject before embarrassing yourself by posing as an authority.

[jeffreyH]

I am definitely not an authority and have an awful lot to learn yet. I have gotten through 26 mathematics and physics books. On a variety of different subjects. I will very likely double the number eventually. I don't profess to have a theory of anything.

[timey (OP)]

But you do profess to know that GR and SR time dilations are one and the same thing...

Which book did you learn that from please?

[Ethos_]

I think we would all be better served if each and everyone of us would leave our egos at the front door.................Just sayin

[timey (OP)]

Ethos - In my case this is a matter of honour not ego...
I do not have a problem if someone ridicules my posts on the basis of an informed position, but Jeff is basing his response on incorrect information that he has posted in response to my posts on his 'is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields' thread.
I never have a problem admitting my weak spots or mistakes, but I do have a problem with a person posing as an authority and ridiculing me based on an understanding of conventional physics that is incorrect.

[Ethos_]

Ethos - In my case this is a matter of honour not ego...
I do not have a problem if someone ridicules my posts on the basis of an informed position, but Jeff is basing his response on incorrect information that he has posted in response to my posts on his 'is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields' thread.
I never have a problem admitting my weak spots or mistakes, but I do have a problem with a person posing as an authority and ridiculing me based on an understanding of conventional physics that is incorrect.

My friend, I wasn't singling out anyone in particular.

I've been following all your threads Timey and consider you to be very knowledgeable even though you sometimes stray. But of course, we all do some of that from time to time. So please don't consider this an attack Timey, I wish to only encourage you.

I don't offer my views that often but I do like considering new thoughts our members at various times offer. And I do think you may be on to something but providing empirical evidence is going to be very difficult. You see, the problem with defining shorter or longer seconds hinges upon what you call the "standard second" and establishing this standard requires a universal point of reference. And sadly, no such universal point of reference is attainable according to current understanding.

Please don't consider this an attack my friend, I'm not here to exercise my ego. But there are a few problems you'll need to overcome if your theory is ever to succeed.

Again, I commend you on your logic and suspect you might be right. But to prove your case, you'll need to establish what you call the "universal common now", and I doubt that this is possible. And, you will also need to establish a "universal frame of reference" and that is also going to fail as well.

Do you have a thought on an experiment we could pursue that might navigate around these impediments and effectively come at your theory from a different angle?

[alancalverd]

The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.

Then if we take a single spectral line, we'd expect it to shift according to the temperature of the emitter. It doesn't. Lines appear and disappear according to whether the temperature is high enough to bring bound electrons into particular energy states, but the inter-state energy, and hence the frequency of the photon emitted or absorbed by that state change, is not temperature-dependent. Therefore time is not temperature-dependent. http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm has good diagrams.

[alancalverd]

Was it Dyson, Hoover or Henry that gave me away?

I'm sure there is a "sucker" joke lurking in the cybersphere.

[timey (OP)]

Ethos

If one considers that GR and SR time dilations are only affecting mass and do not affect the open space around the mass, and then considers that the acceleration of gravity in the g-field surrounding M is due to a 3rd time dilation that is contra directional to GR time dilation in the g-field, then not only can one calibrate a clock to run as per standard second anywhere on Earth at sea level, as long as one remembers the centripetal speed of that longitude from which to calculate SR, one has a standard second to measure further GR and SR effects from, one will also find one has an absolute frame that is determined by the gravity field of M, or more realistically from the multiple gravity fields of M's, from which to do so.

[timey (OP)]

The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.

Then if we take a single spectral line, we'd expect it to shift according to the temperature of the emitter. It doesn't. Lines appear and disappear according to whether the temperature is high enough to bring bound electrons into particular energy states, but the inter-state energy, and hence the frequency of the photon emitted or absorbed by that state change, is not temperature-dependent. Therefore time is not temperature-dependent. http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm has good diagrams.

You are correct Alan, time is not temperature dependent...
But temperature is energy dependant, electron transitions are energy dependent, and if one applies temperature to the blackbody, when it gets hot it emits photons.

[timey (OP)]

In addition to post above:

The photons that the blackbody emits as it gets hotter are of higher frequency, and a higher frequency of photon is associated with a higher energy level and also a higher frequency of electron transitions.

Where else do we observe a higher frequency of electron transitions?
Oh yes, that's right, an atomic clock is observed to have a higher frequency of electron transitions in the higher gravity potential, when observed from a lower potential.
We say 'when observed from a lower potential' because if one observes the clock in the higher gravity potential when one is with the clock, it will be the lower potential clock that appears to be running slow.
This being in keeping with GR prediction that clock's will run at progressively faster rates in the progressively higher potentials.

But what is causing the higher frequency of electron transitions for the atomic clock in the higher potential?
A higher frequency of electron transitions requires additional energy.  But that's Ok because at the higher gravity potential pe=mgh, where pe/m=an equal energy addition for any value mass, and therefore all mass will be affected equally at each potential.

Now going back to measuring the clocks in differing potentials:
The higher potential clock appears to run fast from the lower potential, and the lower potential clock appears to run slow from the higher potential.  Clearly if one is measuring the frequency of electron transitions via variable time then one gets differing results dependant on the clock one decides to measure with.
Bingo!
Take that notion back to the blackbody, (and stars of differing temperatures), and where we observe the results of higher frequency electron transitions (emitted photons), we apply the remit of measuring via variable time, where just like observed with the atomic clock, we say that an increase in the frequency of electron transitions is indicative of a faster rate of time, and then we go back to the ultraviolet catastrophe and apply the +energy equals shorter seconds to the energy increases applied to the blackbody.

To explain further:
When Planck increased the energy input to the blackbody that increased the temperature, he measured these increases as a per second measurement.
Planck used an invariant second...
By measuring these energy increases via a second that is getting shorter in keeping with the electron transition frequency increases, the quantum nature of the energy increase relationship to frequency output will be negated.

[Colin2B]

To follow up what Ethos is saying and offered in the same spirit and hope of bringing a common understanding:

But you do profess to know that GR and SR time dilations are one and the same thing...

Jeff didn't actually say that, what he did say was:

The time dilation of SR is a special case of the time dilation of GR hence why it I called special relativity. It simply omits the gravitational field and uses flat spacetime exclusively. This is contained within the framework of general relativity. They are only distinguished to show differences caused by the presence or absence of a gravitational field. To make them distinct entities is an artificial device.

You are both 'correct'. SR is a subset (special case) of GR - which can be used to calculate both dilations as one. However, to aid teaching we (artificially?) separate them and usually find it easier to treat them as separate calculations.

[timey (OP)]

Well Colin, of course it is clearly set out in physics that SR is used to describe motion in 'flat' space, but it is also clear that SR is also used to calculate time dilation for orbitals, or centripetal rotations, or relativity apps, that quite clearly also include a GR altitude related time dilation where the SR effects cancel out some, or all of the GR altitude time dilation effects, resulting in a clock that runs slower than a 'ground clock'... however please correct me if I am wrong, but...

The birds eye overview of the physics situation is that there are a multitude of differing means to accurately calculate a multitude of differing circumstances, but there isn't a means by which one method of calculation can describe all circumstance.

For instance:
SR is used in particle physics, but the standard model cannot be united with gravity..
The GR field equations can describe a gravitational field, but cannot describe multiple fields, therefore has trouble describing galaxies.
The GR field equations break down to infinities in a black hole.
Etc...

So to examine SR:

In the Special Theory of Relativity, published in his so-called “miraculous year” of 1905, Einstein had the audacity to turn the question around and ask: what must happen to our common notions of space and time so that when the distance light travels in a given time is measured, the answer is always 300,000 km/s? For example, if a spaceship fires a laser beam at a piece of space debris flying towards it at half the speed of light, the laser beam still travels at exactly the speed of light, not at one-and-a-half times the speed of light. He began to realize that either the measurement of the distance must be smaller than expected, or the time taken must be greater than expected, or both.

In a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity tells us that a moving object measures shorter in its direction of motion as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it disappears. It also tells us that moving clocks run more slowly as their velocity increases until, at the speed of light, they stop running altogether. In fact, it also tells us (as we will see in subsequent sections) that the mass of a moving object measures more as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it becomes infinite.

Thus, one person’s interval of space is not the same as another person’s, and time runs at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds.

So - what I am doing is having the audacity to turn the calculations of the observations around and describe these observations under a remit that 'should' be able to describe all circumstance by means of the same method of calculation.

By remit of logic it is my thoughts that a remix is justified because GR holds that the rate of time, i.e. the length of the period of a second, is dependent upon one's coordinate, but SR holds the speed of light relative to a 'specific' period of time...  This is a contradiction, therefore logically speaking there will be an alternative method.

This method of calculation that I am suggesting will still be Einstein's equation of GR (describing a contracting universe), and be inclusive of the Lorentz transformation calculation, but I am attributing physical cause and effect mechanics for all phenomenon (inclusive of Big Bang and Inflation) during my remix of where and why these equations are relevant.

The first step is to attribute the phenomenon of the acceleration of gravity a physical cause.  A test particle m of any value is observed to accelerate >>>M, and decelerate <<<M.  By stating that there is a time dilation phenomenon where m=0, i.e: the g-field surrounding M, that is inherent with longer seconds as the g-field gets weaker with distance from M, what I have done is partially transferred some of the SR remit to the g-field itself, and this now becomes a means of describing space curvature.  The dimensions of space as per a Newtonian geometry are, at each coordinate, dilated or contracted by time, where the metres of distance traveled remain constant (no distance curvature), and it takes a longer or shorter amount of time to travel a metre.

Under this remit we have not involved any factor of m when describing the motion of m in relation to M, and this constitutes a means of a description of free fall.

It does not however constitute a description of directional force in the g-field, and for this we must now look to the electron transitions of m in the gravity potential, and the electron transitions in relation to energy increases such as the blackbody.

Within a Newtonian geometry of space that curves motions via an acceleration deceleration of the rate of time, we now have a compatibility with the remit of electrodynamics, and the conversation above concerning the ultraviolet catastrophe and re-calculating the energy increases via variable seconds that are getting shorter in keeping with electron transition frequency increases should unite the point particle model with the wave function model.

This then gives us another means of an alternative interpretation of Hubble's red shift velocities, and it becomes possible to consider the contracting model, and we can now go back to the GR observed time dilation phenomenon and add this in again for m in relation to M due to potential energy, and to the SR observed time dilation and add this in for m in relative motion to M, also due to potential energy, where these 2 time dilations and the 3rd time dilation of the g-field can be used in matrix maths annexed to the 3 dimensions of coordinate space to result in the 'proper time' of a four dimensional spacetime matrix.

I can explain the physical mechanics of how this calculation should be articulated, but have no idea how to go about describing such in mathematical format.

And it is the translating of these physical mechanics into mathematical format that I am here at this forum seeking help with.