[alancalverd]

You seem to have lost the plot entirely, or to be speaking an alien language. Let's give it a rest.

[guest4091]

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.

The electric field strength increases for fast electrons as they contract, and is detectable.
check this link..
https://conf-slac.stanford.edu/sssepb-2013
select this:
Lecture 1. Lecturer Zhirong Huang

[timey (OP)]

That is good news indeed Alan.  I'm happy to have your agreement to call it a day, because by all logical deduction one might expect that in considering a 'New Theory' that one may encounter concepts that are alien for the reason that one hasn't heard these concepts before.
And to say so I'm not all that keen on being told that I seem to have lost the plot, especially by someone who's idea of 'mathematical help' incorporates introducing the arches of a bridge and the teeth of a comb into a conversation about juggling the maths of the Planck Einstein relation.  It leaves one with the feeling that one isn't really being taken seriously which would be detrimental to my notions of friendship and it pleases me that such detriment has now been averted.  I look forward to speaking with you elsewhere on subjects that do not incorporate introducing ideas that are foreign to the current status quo.

*

For anyone else who is actually interested in a potential means to unify the point particle model with the wave function model for a compatibility between quantum and GR...

E=hf, where E is the energy of the particle, h is Planck's h constant, this being a set number of joules per second, and frequency is the number of wave cycles that occur per second, where the distance between these wave cycles is known as wavelength.  The remit of the equation E=hf denotes that when f changes, E will change.

I am now going to show how this equation can be juggled so that the resulting value of E remains the same but Planck's h constant is rendered variable and can be described as a continuum of linear progression.  To put this proposed interpretation into the context of my model I will hold the measurements of E relative to the gravitational redshift equation and light travelling from our position of gravity potential away from Earth...
It is of little consequence to this description which frequency of light we start out with.  What is of consequence is that we have measured the frequency and therefore the distance of a wavelength by the remit of the clock that is in the gravity potential that the light source emitter is in, and for the purpose of this description we will say that these initial measurements of the frequency of the light when being emitted in our position of gravity potential have been held relative to the cesium standard. (this is just a convenience, we could hold frequency relative to any length of second and the differences in frequency due to gravitational shift would remain proportional)

In that the initial measurement is holding frequency relative to the cesium standard, and Planck's h constant is holding joules per second relative to the cesium standard, we can start out with the equation E=hf, but where the gravitational redshift equation is describing the reduction of the lights frequency in the higher potentials we will be holding frequency relative to seconds that are becoming longer than the cesium standard.
This being a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that my model has added which applies only where m=0, and is added on the basis that we are not going to be using the concept of relativistic mass at-all in my model, or the concept of SR motion related time dilation and SR length contraction/space dilation to describe the propagation of light in space...
In order to know by how much a 3rd aspect time dilation second has become longer than the cesium standard all we have to do is hold the number of wave cycles as constant by extending the number of micro seconds of the standard second so that the number of wave cycles completed within the extended second of each elevation remains the same at each elevation.

The equation E=hf is now holding frequency as constant.  But this does not mean that we are considering E to be constant.  What we are looking for is that the energy decreases of the redshifted light remain inversely proportional to the increases in wavelength and that our values remain within the remit of conventional and observed physics.
Clearly we can accomplish this within the equation E=hf where f is now being held constant by making h the variable...

This remit results in a continuum of seconds becoming linearly longer, a continuum of E becoming linearly lesser, and a continuum of the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases.
And the implications of this result are that wavelength has become constant as a distance, where it takes a longer amount of time for the red shifted wave cycles to travel this constant distance as E is reduced by gravitational shifts...
This does not have any impact on the structure of the conventional use of h in physics.  One may calculate in conventional manner using Planck's h constant, but in the understanding that in doing so one is juggling a function of time dilation...
The impact that this remit does have on the structure of the mathematics is that one will not need to use probability to calculate beyond the Uncertainty Principle.  This method of interpretation means that one can determine position and velocity simultaneously...
(I would care to discuss how an equation like this Qp = h⋅c / λ  can be altered for a description of a particle of mass, where under the remit of my proposal, dividing by the Debroglie wavelength of a particle is in as much as dividing by the rate of time of the particle, which should give position... in relation to how an decrease/increase in the energy/frequency of that particle will increase/decrease the particles wavelength)

Given that someone has understood what I have said above, it would then be possible for me to move on and explain how the equation pe=mgh is significant, and differing where m=0 and where m doesn't =0, in order to further describe why a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon 'may' be possible...
And in that a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon 'may' be possible, describe the 'necessary by default of the proposed addition' alteration to the interpretation of why the rate of time is predicted, and observed to be increased (i.e. shorter length of seconds) compared to the clock in the lower potential, for the clock and all m with that clock in the higher gravity potential.

[Ethos_]

E=hf, where E is the energy of the particle, h is Planck's h constant, this being a set number of joules per second, and frequency is the number of wave cycles that occur per second, where the distance between these wave cycles is known as wavelength.  The remit of the equation E=hf denotes that when f changes, E will change.

My friend, I'm not sure you understand dimensional analysis. Let's examine your simple equation: E=hf

In SI units E is measured in Joules: kg* m^2* sec^-2
In SI units h is expressed as kg * m^2 * sec^-1
and f is expressed in sec^-1

(kg * m^2 * sec^-2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (sec^-1)

Defining this equation dimensionally correct demands that all values; kg, m, and sec, remain consistent on both sides of the equation. Allowing seconds to become shorter or longer depending upon which side of the equation they reside destroys the dimensional equivalence and undermines the accuracy of the formula.

The value of seconds must remain the same on both sides of the equation if you are to use this formula to validate your theory.

[timey (OP)]

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough...but in holding the gravitational shifted frequency constant by adding the necessary microseconds to the length of a second to ensure that the same number of wave cycles complete in the longer seconds of each elevation, the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases is then due to being held relative to the longer second 'because' f is being held constant.
Therefore I think that hf can be of dimensional accuracy under the remit I propose, and this can be determined by the fact that completing the equation holding either h or f constant will result in the same value of E.

[Ethos_]

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough...but in holding the gravitational shifted frequency constant by adding the necessary microseconds to the length of a second to ensure that the same number of wave cycles complete in the longer seconds of each elevation, the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases is then due to being held relative to the longer second 'because' f is being held constant.
Therefore I think that hf can be of dimensional accuracy under the remit I propose, and this can be determined by the fact that completing the equation holding either h or f constant will result in the same value of E.

Timey,.....you can't change the value of time on one side of the equation and leave the other values for time as they were. If a kg is more or less than a kg, it's not a kg. The same goes for length and time, the equation will not be dimensionally balanced if you only change the value of time on one side.

If we rewrite the formula: (kg * m^2 *sec ^--2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (.90 sec^-1) we have invalidated it because the value of time on one side must equal the value of time on the other.

If you are to provide evidence for your theory, you'll need to offer another equation in support of it because (E=hf) will not meet the test.

[timey (OP)]

Firstly Ethos I wish to thank you because this is exactly the type of discussion that I wish to be engaged in, where I will be learning more about the construct of mathematics no matter if my hypothesis proves to be viable or not.

Timey,.....you can't change the value of time on one side of the equation and leave the other values for time as they were.

This is the exact reasoning that leads me to the notion of juggling the maths in the first place, where I am exploring the notion that the equation under the conventional interpretation actually does lead to a dimensional imbalance that results in the Uncertainty Principle, and that this imbalance "may' be due to holding h and E relative to the same length of second where the physical action of changes in frequency is being caused by rates of time that are not equal to the length of second that h and E are being held relative to.

The same goes for length and time, the equation will not be dimensionally balanced if you only change the value of time on one side.

Length is entirely dependent on the rate of time a constant speed is held relative to.  This can be evidenced by the fact of 'spatial' changes in wave length when wave cycles are held relative to a static length of second.  By holding frequency constant as a result of changing the length of a second, the 'spatial' wavelength remains a constant distance that wave cycles travelling at constant speed take a longer/shorter amount of time to complete, where the possibility then arises for a consideration that the 'spatial' changes that result from holding wave cycles relative to a static length of second are a function of time

If we rewrite the formula: (kg * m^2 *sec ^--2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (.90 sec^-1) we have invalidated it because the value of time on one side must equal the value of time on the other.

Why must joules remain (kg*mass^2*sec^2)?  If the time is different on one side then it can be matched on the the other side can't it?

(I'm not understanding the change in the equation you have made.  First you have said (kg * m^2 *sec ^--2), but you are saying that this is equal to (kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (.90 sec^-1).  can you explain to me what the difference is between * ^--2, and, sec^2 is?  My understanding is that *sec^2 is per second squared.  And can you explain to me what this sec^-1 means?)

Where light is concerned it does not have any rest mass, so kg*mass^2 is then purely related to E.  Conventional physics calculates a relativistic mass for light that clearly will be reducing as E is reduced.  The means of calculating the changes in E as changes in relativistic mass involve, for the red shifted light, a conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy where potential energy does not contribute to relativistic mass value. (could well be that my understanding here needs to be expanded)

Clearly if my hypothesis is going to be viable then there will be a means of making a mass energy equivalence calculation that is inclusive of a variable length second, although I'm not clear on how to work the premise of (kg*mass^2*sec^2) backwards from E, so perhaps you might help me out in understanding the construct...

If the E of a red shifted frequency must be accompanied by a (kg*mass^2*sec^2) equation, where the higher altitude is the cause of the gravitational red shifted light, does the *sec^2 part of the equation use the conventional physics 'shorter' length of second associated with the higher altitude?

[Ethos_]

Firstly Ethos I wish to thank you because this is exactly the type of discussion that I wish to be engaged in, where I will be learning more about the construct of mathematics no matter if my hypothesis proves to be viable or not.

I will be honored to help you timey, but I request one consideration of you to begin. I'm old and at present, very sick. Allow this discussion to proceed slowly because I'm not sure how much energy I'll be able to invest. If you would prefer, we could do this via private message or we can continue here in this thread, I'll leave it up to you.

[Ethos_]

Let's start with some basics:

The formula: E=hf is a simple proportion and represents the relationship that Energy has to Planck's constant and frequency. While it is true that factors can be juggled, the individual factors; (mass, length, and time) must retain their individual integrity. Thus, all masses are calculated in kg, all lengths are calculated in meters, and all seconds are calculated in what our frame has measured as the second. The equation: (kg * m^2 * sec^-2) represents Energy of one Joule.

BTW, ........your question about (^-2) ..............allow me to elaborate.

(kg * m^2 * sec^-2) is the same as: [kg * m^2 / (sec^2)] ............it's just easier to write using ^-2.

When you see (sec^-2) it's simply means that the former figures are divided by (sec^2).

The equation: E=hf can also be written as: E=(h/sec) because frequency is (1/sec).

[timey (OP)]

Ok, thanks for the description...

Obviously I am understanding that E=hf is a simple proportion and represents the relationship that Energy has to Planck's constant and frequency, and am taking the situation a stage further by suggesting that frequency has relationship with time.
I also understand that the individual factors; (mass, length, and time) must retain their individual integrity, but note that all 3 are subject to variability under the remit of relativity...

In making the addition of a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that applies where m=0, (i.e. open space and light propagating through open space), where relativity is already stating that time can be dilated/contracted by position in the gravity potential, (aspect 1(GR)), and that time can be dilated/contracted by relative motion to the gravitational field, (aspect 2(SR)), I am attempting to extend the remit of relativity in order to unify the wave function with the point particle model.

And - as  you have said, "it is true that factors can be juggled".

Thus, all masses are calculated in kg, all lengths are calculated in meters, and all seconds are calculated in what our frame has measured as the second.

Which does not reflect the fact that the rate of time is not the same in all frames of reference.  Conventional physics uses SR Lorentz transformations to calculate differences in rates of time and length.  GR uses equations related gravitational shift to calculate differences in the rate of time, and relativity uses the concept of relativistic mass to calculate changes in mass in order to upkeep the bookkeeping required to maintain the universal speed limit of c, the speed of light.

All of these equations are holding E, f, h, and c relative to a static length of second, as measured in our frame of reference, therefore conventional physics is already juggling different rates of time, interpretations of length, and values of masses, and these differences are appearing on both sides of an equation.

I don't see any reason not to juggle h and f under a differing remit, (and indeed will go on to explain further how the value of a linear progression of a continuum of joules can be obtained via the data of the ultra violet catastrophe).  The only criteria is that the end result remains the value of observation and experimental evidence while providing a deeper description of cause and effect.

The equation: E=hf can also be written as: E=(h/sec) because frequency is (1/sec).

I'm not sure that it can actually.  If h, being a constant, is divided by 1 second that is a constant, then E will always remain the same value.  It is the changes in frequency that are causing the value of E to differ.

I will be honored to help you timey, but I request one consideration of you to begin. I'm old and at present, very sick.  Allow this discussion to proceed slowly because I'm not sure how much energy I'll be able to invest. If you would prefer, we could do this via private message or we can continue here in this thread, I'll leave it up to you.

I am grateful that you will help me, and I am very sorry to hear that you are not very well.  Hope you get better soon.  I will leave it up to you whether or not you want to make your contributions privately or on the thread.  A lot of people view the thread.  It is my hope that some of the things I say may ring bells with thought processes that others are investigating, so I will carry on on the thread either way.

[Ethos_]

I'm not sure that it can actually.  If h, being a constant, is divided by 1 second that is a constant, then E will always remain the same value.  It is the changes in frequency that are causing the value of E to differ.

Allow me to explain:

Where the Joule  = (kg * m^2 / sec^2)
and h = (kg * m^2/ sec)
if we multiply (kg * m^2/sec)
by f = (1/sec)
(kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (sec^-1)
we arrive at (kg * m^2 * sec^-2) which equals 1 Joule

I am grateful that you will help me, and I am very sorry to hear that you are not very well.  Hope you get better soon. 

Actually timey, my health is not expected to improve but I appreciate the well wishes anyway.

[jeffreyH]

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.

The electric field strength increases for fast electrons as they contract, and is detectable.
check this link..
https://conf-slac.stanford.edu/sssepb-2013
select this:
Lecture 1. Lecturer Zhirong Huang

That link doesn't work.

[Ethos_]

And - as  you have said, "it is true that factors can be juggled".

And BTW, the only juggling I was referring to was as following examples:

E=hf
E/h=f
E/f=h
E/hf=1

[timey (OP)]

Actually timey, my health is not expected to improve but I appreciate the well wishes anyway.

In that case the fact that you are willing to spend some of your time engaged here with me has that much more significance to me... and I can promise you, on the basis that you are not going to get cross with me because I will examine everything you say to me upside down, inside out, and back to front, this being the way I approach all knowledge, and attempt to juggle mattters to the tune of my hypothesis as I do so, that I will employ due logical thought process at every juncture and try my level best to be entertaining, if only as an example of an interested mind.

Where the Joule  = (kg * m^2 / sec^2)

Ok here you are saying that kilogram, multiplied by mass squared, divided by second squared, equals Joule

Am I to take it that because kilogram is a measure of weight and is multiplied by a value of mass in the equation, that kilogram must be a measure of g?

[Ethos_]

Ok here you are saying that kilogram, multiplied by mass squared, divided by second squared, equals Joule

Am I to take it that because kilogram is a measure of weight and is multiplied by a value of mass in the equation, that kilogram must be a measure of g?

That assumption would be incorrect timey. The kilogram is a measure of mass and is not to be confused with a measure of weight. The notation k refers to (kilo), a thousand, and the g in this case to grams and is not referring to gravity.

The notation: (kg * m^2 * sec^-2) is the formula for the Joule. The kg in this refers to a kilogram and the m^2 denotes meters squared. And remember what I said about sec^-2. This could also be correctly written as: (Kilograms times meters squared divided by seconds squared.)

Frankly, I'm astonished that you appear to be confused by these facts. Please don't take offensive to that remark, no insult was intended.

[timey (OP)]

Not at-all Ethos.  However, I am not confused by these facts, I just quite simply don't know these facts.  Where it says "self educated since age of 11" beside my forum name, this actually means that I have had no schooling at-all since age 11.  My maths education stopped short at long division.  Although I have been reading about physics for getting on for 10 years now, without having a basis in algebra at-all, the maths of these books have passed me by in favor of the written explanations.
When I came up with my hypothesis it was my understanding that I could just give someone an explanation in words of what the theory incorporates and it would be no problem for that person to calculate from my description in words.  I personally still think this would be possible, but recognize after 2 years of trying that it's improbable.  Not because my model is incalculable but because people who are interested in exploring the boundaries of physics are busy with their own interpretations, and people who aren't exploring the boundaries of their own interpretations aren't interested in pushing the boundaries of physics.
When I started posting 2 years ago I was a busy person with a lot going on in my life and didn't have time to venture into learning maths.  Now I am not a busy person, I don't have anything going on in my life nor the desire to even leave the house, but I do have a lot of time to venture into learning the maths, and I am trying to learn because nobody else is going to calculate my ideas.
Don't get me wrong, the many written descriptions of physics I have read have given me a good education into what proportions the maths are describing, it just the symbolism such as m for mass or m for a meter, that I need to become familiar with, where the more basic the equation the less I've had explained due to the advanced level of the books I've been reading assuming that the reader has had at least a high school education in maths... ya dig?

I don't think there is any embarrassment in not knowing something, and the transition from not knowing to knowing is merely an instant in time and not something to be made a big deal out of.

So we are talking about a weight of energy, multiplied by a meter squared, divided by a second squared = joule
And Planck's h constant is a 'set' weight of energy, multiplied by a meter squared, divided by a second squared, and constitutes a constant number of joules.
E=hf is describing the proportions of the relationship between changes of frequency in relation to Planck's h constant and results in knowing the E of the light or the mass one is calculating.

It would of course be possible to make all of these considerations using a longer or shorter second, and although this is what I wish to explore, my hypothesis should be able to use a division or multiplication of some of the conventional maths by wavelength to introduce the time dilation factor in much the same way as the photon counting equation divides by wavelength where: Qp=h⋅c / λ. 

[Ethos_]

E=hf is describing the proportions of the relationship between changes of frequency in relation to Planck's h constant and results in knowing the E of the light or the mass one is calculating.

When calculating photon energy, (E=hf) is used because the photon has zero proper mass and using E=mc^2 is not applicable in that case. Knowing that the value of h is: 6.626 *10^-34 (J*s) and supposing that we have a frequency of 10 Hz we can multiply 6.626 *10^-34 by 10 resulting in 6.626 *10^-33 joules for the energy of a photon at 10 Hz frequency.

Remembering that f =(1/sec) and h=(kg *m^2/sec) our calculation becomes (10/sec) * (kg * m^2/sec) = 10(kg * m^2/sec^2) or 6.626 *10^-33Joules.

[Colin2B]

Remembering that f =(1/sec) and h=(kg *m^2/sec) our calculation becomes (10/sec) * (kg * m^2/sec) = 10(kg * m^2/sec^2) or 10 Joules.

I think this is what Timey is trying to do - if seconds pass at, say, twice the rate relative to our gravitational potential i.e. each is = half of our seconds, then the calculation becomes 20J (10/0.5), but, to use wavelength as the modifying factor.

[Ethos_]

Remembering that f =(1/sec) and h=(kg *m^2/sec) our calculation becomes (10/sec) * (kg * m^2/sec) = 10(kg * m^2/sec^2) or 10 Joules.

I think this is what Timey is trying to do - if seconds pass at, say, twice the rate relative to our gravitational potential i.e. each is = half of our seconds, then the calculation becomes 20J (10/0.5), but, to use wavelength as the modifying factor.

Sorry for the typo, instead of the final answer being 10 Joules, my answer should have read 6.626 *10^-33 joules which I have corrected in my last post.

And yes, I think you're right about her thought on the matter. But when we construct the math to calculate these equations, we must remember that the rules of math are subject to our personal frame of reference. And for any observer, their frame will obtain accurate calculations using what they view as their familiar second, not shortened or lengthened by any measure. I'm not sure how one could mathematically overcome this and provide her with the mathematical evidence she desires.

[Colin2B]

when we construct the math to calculate these equations, we must remember that the rules of math are subject to our personal frame of reference.

We also need to make the maths believable. As you know, you can use maths to create any scenario, but like writing a program the systems analysis part is key or gigo.
Simple eg a car can be described in maths as travelling at 30mph with a particular rpm and wheel size. If in the maths we double the wheel circumference the car will travel at 60mph, but it isn't believable unless there is a clear mechanism for the wheel size to change.
Before you can do the maths there has to be a clear system analysis of the mechanisms linked to observations and that, in my perception, is what Alan has been trying to do. Although I accept that Timey has a different perception and would consider the analysis as complete. Their positions appear to be irreconcilable.
Anyway, 'nuff said, I'll keep out and wish you both luck.