Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2016 16:29:37

Starting from the relationship and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as
Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as
The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.

When considering how massless particle like the photon relate can be shown by the following relationships.
Where setting mass equal to zero gives the desired result as expected. This indicates a very different relationship between the photon and time dilation.

Your equation implies that the energy of a photon is always zero, which is obviously not the case.
Your confusion arises from assuming that momentum is uniquely asssociated with mass. Einstein's analysis of radiation pressure shows that it isn't. The fundamental relationship is p = E/v by definition for all particles at all speeds. Now a photon clearly has energy and speed, so can exert a force since F = dp/dt by definition, so an absorbed or reflected photon can transfer momentum to the absorber or reflector.

for photons p = E/c = h/λ

Your equation implies that the energy of a photon is always zero, which is obviously not the case.
Your confusion arises from assuming that momentum is uniquely asssociated with mass. Einstein's analysis of radiation pressure shows that it isn't. The fundamental relationship is p = E/v by definition for all particles at all speeds. Now a photon clearly has energy and speed, so can exert a force since F = dp/dt by definition, so an absorbed or reflected photon can transfer momentum to the absorber or reflector.
There is no confusion since I already know about the above. That was not the point of this thread. I haven't finished yet.

OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .
If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

What this is meant to demonstrate is that for massless particles the Planck constant has to be included in equations. There is no way round it. For massive particles this is not the case.

Starting from the relationship and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as
Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as
The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.
I wish you would write an index to your maths so people understand your representation, what is h etc?
Anyway I have some clue of what you are trying to express, I express
E=c delta F?
C = speed of light, rho (p) = momentum, lambda = wavelength, nu (v) = frequency of wave in hertz and h = Planck's constant.

OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .
If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.
Energy = momentum c = planck constant c divided by length = planck constant divided by ?
What is the last symbol and is that what you said?
Yes that is what I wrote. The last symbol is t for time. The Planck constant is in units of joule second so to get energy in joules you have to divide by a time factor. You should read up on dimensional analysis. It is very interesting and can clear up a lot of confusion.

Ok Thebox think about this. There has to be a link between the acquisition of mass and time dilation. Question, does interaction with the Higgs field have a direct relationship to relativistic time dilation? Answer that one and stay fashionable.

acquisition
Sorry Jeff I am reading your post ambiguously, can you please rephrase and also use a better word than acquisition?
''There has to be a link between the acquisition of mass and time dilation. ''
What is acquiring mass? I don't understand your sentence sorry it seems incomplete.

Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.

Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.
Please explain to me
what you think ''mass' is Jeffrey? Mass=kg=G=N, mass and Newton's ''are'' the same thing....

Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.
Please explain to me
what you think ''mass' is Jeffrey? Mass=kg=G=N, mass and Newton's ''are'' the same thing....
This may remove your confusion.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weightmass.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weightmass.html)
The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.
The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.
Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?
added Mass is relative to the inertia reference frame.

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.
The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.
Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?
You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.
The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.
Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?
You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.
No Jeff. the strong nuclear force remains constant and the sum of all ''charges'', a single particle has no mass,
mass=snf+q =g
You may think I am deluded Jeff, but I am certain that ''you'' have it so wrong.
Let me try to explain, please try to have an open mind and hear me out. Imagine a single particle ''floating'' around in a vast space where there was no other gravitational influence on the particle, the particle on a set of scales would ''weight'' relatively 0. There is no force being applied on the particle and the particle is not attracting anything. Ok let us say I live on a planet that had twice the gravity of the Earth, let us say this single particle on your scales ''weighs'' 1oz.
What would it ''weigh'' on my scales?
Please answer you will see later on the relativeness of this.

Up
The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.
The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.
Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has. If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg. Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?
You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.
No Jeff. the strong nuclear force remains constant and the sum of all ''charges'', a single particle has no mass,
mass=snf+q =g
You may think I am deluded Jeff, but I am certain that ''you'' have it so wrong.
Let me try to explain, please try to have an open mind and hear me out. Imagine a single particle ''floating'' around in a vast space where there was no other gravitational influence on the particle, the particle on a set of scales would ''weight'' relatively 0. There is no force being applied on the particle and the particle is not attracting anything. Ok let us say I live on a planet that had twice the gravity of the Earth, let us say this single particle on your scales ''weighs'' 1oz.
What would it ''weigh'' on my scales?
Please answer you will see later on the relativeness of this.
Firstly I would not pass any judgement on your state of mind because that wouldn't be a nice thing to do. You have never been insulting or abusive which is a nice change.
To answer your question the object would weigh twice as much.

Jeff, I've been interested to see where you are going with this...
OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .
If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.
A particle with mass's energy and frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field.
A massless photon's energy and frequency decreases in a decreasing gravitational field.
Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.
When considering how massless particle like the photon relate can be shown by the following relationships.
Where setting mass equal to zero gives the desired result as expected. This indicates a very different relationship between the photon and time dilation.
Apart from the fact that the direction of change in frequency and energy for a photon within a gravitational gradient is contrary the direction of change in frequency and energy within a gravitational gradient for a particle with mass:
Changes in the gravitational field have a far 'lesser' effect of change upon a particle with mass's energy and frequency, than they do upon a photons energy and frequency.
This presents a further illogicality. Surely a particle with mass would be more greatly affected by changes in the gravitational field, not less?

To answer your question the object would weigh twice as much.
Yes indeed, relative to you on Earth the ''mass'' of your measured particle is 1oz relative to the gravitational influence of the Earth, relative to me on my planet, the particle has 2oz of ''mass''.
The problem is Jeff science should not be measuring ''mass'' in kg which is equal to Newton's, ''mass'' should be a measurement of ''charge'' and ''likes''.
In comparison to what science does, I could say the volume and density of an object is equal to it's ''mass'', this also would be explaining a different thing than protons, neutrons, etc, and the internal ''force'' .
I have noticed this in science Jeff, several things mean the same thing but are explained differently when they mean the same thing.
Another example is force normal, inertia, kE and so on, science does this a lot. The inertia of an object is it's ''mass'' and so on, science has made ''mountains'' out of ''mole hills'' and continues to do it, although the ''box'' contains lots of different words that science say means different things, the words in the box are mostly the same ''colour''.
I understand the same as you that ''mass'' is Protons etc, But I will never understand in a million years why science persists in measuring ''mass'' in Kg which is a metric ''weight'' equal to Newton's rather than mass= the summation of all energies within.

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies. As we apply forces to speed things up it becomes harder as relativistic mass increases. For gravity this seems not to be an issue. Density as well as mass MUST have an effect on gravity's ability to accelerate objects otherwise there can be no boson for the gravitational field. You need to think about that one very carefully to understand.

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.
So  presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles?
...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...
I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:
http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/notpixx/photoelectric.pdf

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.
So  presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles?
...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...
I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:
http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/notpixx/photoelectric.pdf
Thanks for the pdf. I skimmed through it but didn't take much in. I can't answer your questions above as I do not have the knowledge to do so. I was reading up on particle physics a while back but stopped just before being admitted to hospital. I haven't done much reading since. I have variable days at the moment.

I have read the pdf. It reiterates what was originally done to find Planck's constant I believe. The linear plot is the most fascinating element. Once you can determine that direct a relationship you know you are on to something.

Jeff  I remember you saying that you'd been in hospital last year. A problem with breathing if I recall correctly. Sorry to hear that you are not fully recovered.
Your welcome for the PDF. Planck derived his constant via the black body experiment which used thermal equilibrium and the resulting light emissions. These MIT undergraduates are testing the constant via the photoelectric effect.
Although the error bar was not within acceptable scientific range, I thought you might find the potential linearity aspect interesting. What I found interesting was the fact that they showed that the cut off point was correlating with the energy associated with frequency, and not kinetic energy.
The question I asked concerning accelerating a caesium atomic clock to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, and if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom, which of course would be incorrect, because this would register an increase in the rate of time and not the decrease in rate of time observed of an accelerated clock:
I'm almost 100% certain (subject to being wrong ;) ) that there isn't 'anyone' who can answer this question Jeff, but I hereby challenge 'all' the experts and moderators on this forum to try!

Also Jeff  I know you said you are not reading much at mo, and this one is a bit of a longer read at a grand total of 38 pages, but if you get a chance it's a good read up till the last few pages.
http://em01.powweb.com/sciencetoday/planckunits/planck_unit.pdf
The long and short of this one is that there are 2 derivable values for square root. Most of the Planck values are derived using one means, but a couple are using the alternate means.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the legitimacy of this claim of there being 2 means of deriving a value from square root, so if this does take your interest and you have an opinion, I'd be grateful to know it...

It didn't make much sense. I could understand if it was talking about positive and negative results from a square root. I would ignore it if I were you.

I think he is talking about the square root of the speed of light, and that if you move the decimal point to portray the speed of light in kilometres, instead of metres, a different value emerges via square root when calculating meters than with kilometres, despite the fact that the actual distance is the same. (I haven't checked to see if this is true, but I doubt someone would write 38 pages based on this sole premiss if the premiss for the calculation was not correct.)
He goes on to show that Planck's charge constant has been calculated using the position of the decimal point of the speed of light contrary to the position the decimal point has been used to calculate the majority of the other related constants.
If you go to page 9 you will see a table of what the Planck constants values are when worked out by the means of both positions of the decimal point.
This table may well be quite interesting when related back to the data the MIT undergraduates were recording in the link I previously posted...

A particle with mass's energy and frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field.
A massless photon's energy and frequency decreases in a decreasing gravitational field.
I think what you mean by the second statement is that the frequency of a photon originating in a stronger gravitational field and seen by an observer in a weaker gravitational field is lower than that of a photon emitted by the same process in the lower field.
But the first statement baffles me. The kinetic energy of any massive particle increases as it enters a stronger gravitational field (stuff accelerates at g as it falls, and g is bigger as you get closer to the earth ) therefore it must decrease as it leaves the stronger field (what goes up generally stops and then comes down). It's the essential difference between a projectile and a rocket. Now if you want to associate a deBroglie wavelength with kinetic energy, it must behave in exactly the same way as a photon wavelength.

The question I asked concerning accelerating a caesium atomic clock to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, and if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom, which of course would be incorrect, because this would register an increase in the rate of time and not the decrease in rate of time observed of an accelerated clock:
If the source and observer are in the same uniform gravitational field, the only effect will be due to their relative motion
From Wikipedia (or any textbook) When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation.
which is what we observe with flying clocks and clocks in a low earth orbit.
if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom
That's a big "if" and has no foundation. Once the clock is moving at a constant speed, it has no idea that it is moving except in relation to another clock, so there's no reason why its atoms should behave any differently from when it was "stationary".
And I'm afraid the "Planck unit" paper has all the hallmarks of a crank. The discovery that
√100 ≠ 10√10 should not surprise anyone over the age of 12.
It would be really bitchy and nitpicky for me to point out the glaring omissions from the MIT students' paper, so I'll leave that to others. Suffice it to say that when I was teaching this experiment to undergraduates 50 years ago, they would not have been let off without a stern warning!

A caesium atomic clocks frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field relative to a clock at ground level. No kinetic energy involved when the 2 clocks are held stationary relative to each other. ie: 1 meter apart in elevation for instance.
(See NIST 2010 ground level relativity tests)
Any particle with mass held 1 meter higher in elevation from another identical particle will therefore have a higher frequency than the lower particle...no?
A photon's frequency decreases travelling into a decreasing gravitational field. It is doing so whether anyone observes it or not.
The only difference between the 2 scenarios apart from the photon having no mass is the fact of its velocity, (whereas I have held the particles with mass, discussed previously, stationary relative to each other and the gravitational field.).
You are giving the photon relativistic mass via kinetic energy to calculate g and stating the rate of time as being slowed by the relativistic speed and mass.
But these concepts don't tally up logistically when you take your caesium atomic clock, and accelerating it to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, ask yourself will the clocks frequency increase as its energy increases? Because this would of course register an increase in the clocks rate of time which cannot be correct, because an accelerated clock's rate of time is observed to slow...
Alan, in reply to your second post, whenever I have made any reference to a change in the rate of time, please know that this is relative to a stationary caesium atomic clock at ground level registering the frequency associated with the 'standard second'.
With regards to the rest of your post, be bitchy if that's what you enjoy. I had indeed thought that this was not the alancalverd way, (sad sigh), but go ahead, 'tis a free country...

Quote
if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom
That's a big "if" and has no foundation. Once the clock is moving at a constant speed, it has no idea that it is moving except in relation to another clock, so there's no reason why its atoms should behave any differently from when it was "stationary".
Huh? ...If a ceasium atomic clock registers a faster or slower rate of time, then it's energy and frequency are changing...
The point being Alan, that accelerating the caesium atomic clock to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field will add relativistic mass via kinetic energy, which will increase the particles energy e=mc2, and its frequency will increase, and that atomic clock will register an increase in its rate of time relative to an identical stationary clock registering a standard second, which is not what is observed. An accelerated caesium atomic clock's rate of time will decrease relative to a stationary clock, and this very much involves the accelerated clocks frequency, and therefore it's energy decreasing, relative to the stationary clock.
Turn this concept vertically into a decreasing gravitation field whereby the caesium atomic clocks energy and frequency already increases in the decreasing gravitational field, and the kinetic energy and therefore the additional relativistic mass is still adding energy via e=mc2. The faster it travels the more energy it has, it's frequency and therefore the rate of time the clock is registering will get even faster, not slower. (I'm pretty sure my logic is sound)
Special relativity states a slowing of time at speed relative to the stationary, and this is observed, but the logic of relativistic mass falls apart when looking at how the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock is energy dependent.
And... why would a gravitational field affect a photon given relativistic mass in a contrary direction to how it affects any other particle?

Huh? ...If a ceasium atomic clock registers a faster or slower rate of time, then it's energy and frequency are changing...
No it won't "register" a different time. As far as the observer next to the clock is concerned, it is working perfectly. Gravitational shift and motion shift are only apparent to an observer in a different gravitational potential or moving with respect to the clock.
And... why would a gravitational field affect a photon given relativistic mass in a contrary direction to how it affects any other particle?
It doesn't, as I explained earlier. The kinetic energy of a particle increases as it accelerates towards a massive body (everyday gravitation), and the frequency of a photon increases as it travels towards a massive body (blue shift). According to Einstein, they are the same phenomenon. But what did he know, eh?
The only difference between the 2 scenarios apart from the photon having no mass is the fact of its velocity
That, in the words of the prophet, is one hell of a difference. See above.
A caesium atomic clocks frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field relative to a clock at ground level. No kinetic energy involved when the 2 clocks are held stationary relative to each other. ie: 1 meter apart in elevation for instance.
You have spotted the difference between gravitational shift and relative velocity shift. No dispute there.
Any particle with mass held 1 meter higher in elevation from another identical particle will therefore have a higher frequency than the lower particle...no?
What do you mean by the frequency of a particle?

The De Broglie hypothesis gives all particles a wavelength, frequency and energy.
You say a particle's kinetic energy increases as it falls to earth: looking at a caesium atom, if it is falling towards earth and its kinetic energy increases, it's mass increases with the additional energy via e=mc2 and its frequency will 'increase' as a result. An increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atom 'is' an 'increase' in the rate of time.
There is nothing written above that is not true to accepted physics.
Yet the observed behaviour of a caesium atomic clock is that it will run at a slower rate relative to a standard second when accelerated, and will run at a slower rate relative the rate it runs at in the weaker gravitational field when exposed to an increase in gravitational field. (NIST 2010 ground level, non accelerated, relativity tests)
Therefore, all particles with mass's wavelength, according to NIST tests in relation to the De Broglie hypothesis, will increase, ie: lengthen, as their energy, and therefore their frequency reduces in an increasing gravitational field.
Lights wavelength decreases in an increasing gravitational field.
I don't think I can be any clearer, and repose my question: Why is the photon's direction of change in wavelength the opposite to a particle with mass's direction of change in wavelength when exposed to changes in the gravitational field?

You say a particle's kinetic energy increases as it falls to earth: looking at a caesium atom, if it is falling towards earth and its kinetic energy increases, it's mass increases with the additional energy via e=mc2 and its frequency will 'increase' as a result. An increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atom 'is' an 'increase' in the rate of time.
The misunderstanding is in the mechanism of the cesium clock. It has noting to do with the mass of the atom, only the energy difference in the hyperfine ground states of its electron cloud. This is unaffected by gravitation or movement.

But a caesium atomic clock's frequency of cycles does change with changes in a gravitational field, and it does change when subject to motion relative to a stationary clock. This caesium atomic clock's transitions from ground state and back is the method by which we record time and each change in the rate of time comes complete with a specific frequency in hertz. If the frequency of those cycles increases, the rate of time is faster, and if the frequency of those cycles decreases, the rate of time is slower.
For the frequency of cycles: ie waves per second, to increase  there must be an increase in energy.
An increase in energy, according to GR and e=mc2, includes an increase in mass...

No it doesn't! From the point if view of an observer in the same field, the clock is working perfectly because the energy levels of the cesium ground state haven't changed. They are only dependent on the charge and mass of the electrons and protons, not on the ambient gravitational field. But the observer at a different gravitational potential sees the clock as running faster or slower because the field alters the curvature of spacetime.
Time is independent of how you measure it, but very dependent on where you measure it.

Well Alan  the reason the observer of the clock doesn't see any change in the atoms of the clock, when in in motion with the clock, or when in the same gravitational potential as the clock, is because the atoms that make up the physique of the observer are also affected as the clock is by the motion, or gravitational potential. This is why astronauts who have been exposed to a faster rate of motion and a different gravity potential are reported to have aged more slowly.
http://www.techinsider.io/doastronautsageslowerthanpeopleonearth20158

A good article, including
That's because of timedilation effects. First, time appears to move slower near massive objects because the object's gravitational force bends spacetime....
....nothing about the atoms of the clock. Which is why the time dilation effect is exactly the same for all massless photons as it is for electron transitions in an atom, and for all clocks (including rubidium, which preceded cesium). Gravity affects time. And remember that the frequency of a cesium clock has nothing to do with the mass of, or gravitational pull on, its atoms. It's an entirely quantummechanical function of the electron orbitals. If the actual frequency was affected by gravity, the perceived frequency would presumably depend on the chemical makeup of the observer, but it doesn't.

Time is a measure of the rate of change of a system. Systems within distinct frames of reference may exhibit different rates of change when observations are made from a frame that is separated from the combined system. So that the remote observer records the rate of change of two atomic clocks as being different. You would never experience this within a frame local to a particular clock. This is the point which often confuses. All lab frames must appear 'normal'.

Time is a measure of the rate of change of a system.
Abstract time is a measure of the rate of change of a system, do not mistake abstract for ''timeless'' time of space.

A good article, including
That's because of timedilation effects. First, time appears to move slower near massive objects because the object's gravitational force bends spacetime....
....nothing about the atoms of the clock. Which is why the time dilation effect is exactly the same for all massless photons as it is for electron transitions in an atom, and for all clocks (including rubidium, which preceded cesium). Gravity affects time. And remember that the frequency of a cesium clock has nothing to do with the mass of, or gravitational pull on, its atoms. It's an entirely quantummechanical function of the electron orbitals. If the actual frequency was affected by gravity, the perceived frequency would presumably depend on the chemical makeup of the observer, but it doesn't.
Because space time bends space is the typical layman oriented fob off use of terminology employed by physicists who think the proper explanation is beyond the understanding of their listener.
So you are saying that the mechanism atoms of the clock are not affected by gravity, that the electron clouds are not affected by gravity, and the only thing that is affecting these mechanism of the atomic clock are the factor of what time is doing in the location of the clock?
Yet it is proved that changes in the gravitational field cause the frequency and wavelength of all particles to shift due to a change in their energy. The fact of all particles having frequency and wavelength is the premiss of the De Broglie hypothesis and forms the basis of quantum mechanics. (quantum mechanics hasn't as yet been linked to gravity).
The gravitational field shift's the 'energy' of the particle with mass, and the frequency of wavelength per standard second, in the same fashion that it shifts the energy of photon's, and their frequency. (albeit photon's are affected in a contrary direction)
Then, according to GR, e=mc2 will cause a change in mass...
 but you are correct in that the chemical make up of the observer will have no bearing on their perception of a time registered on a clock using the frequency of caesium atoms to measure time, in much the same way that a tall person will not perceive a meter to be any longer or shorter than a smaller person will. A measure of time is a measurement, and the measure of all time considerations in physics are set by the length of a standard second. How the atoms of an observer's own physical make up interact with the mechanism atoms of the clock would not be perceivable to the observer in the slightest. There is a case for the atoms of the observer affecting the mechanism atoms of the clock though, but this effect would not be of the type to initiate the correct shift in their energy transitions from ground state and back cycles. That would require a 'specific' shift of exactly the correct and matching frequency, such as a gravitational shift, or a velocity related shift. And yes, as far as the atom is concerned it will be transiting from its ground state and back again no matter where in a gravitational field you place it, and no matter what speed you subject it to... but relative to the clock registering a standard second at earth's ground level, and at the velocity of earth's transit through space, any change in reference frame is a change in that reference frames clocks ground state energy and frequency  as far as we are concerned on earth and by our earth standard measurements.

This caesium atomic clock's transitions from ground state and back is the method by which we record time and each change in the rate of time comes complete with a specific frequency in hertz.
There is no change in the rate of time, the change is the measured change of frequency, nothing to do with the ''rate'' of time.
If the frequency of those cycles increases, the rate of time is faster, and if the frequency of those cycles decreases, the rate of time is slower.
No, the rate of cycles is slower that is that, the ''rate'' of time is not slower or faster, the rate of the Caesium atom is nothing to do with time.

Quote wiki:
""Caesium clocks are the most accurate commercially produced time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in SI (the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[2] ""
And here is a description of the mechanics:
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/nistatomicclock/
The caesium atom resonates at the natural frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. Presumably when gravitational time dilation is discussed and the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom increases for a faster rate of time, the natural frequency of the atom being 9,192,631,770 Hz increases?
If this natural frequency of the caesium atom decreases for a faster rate of time in a weaker gravitational field, then I do apologise Alan for completely wasting your time.
If this natural frequency of the caesium atom increases for a faster rate of time in a weaker gravitational field, then again I ask you, why does the caesium atoms frequency and energy increase for a shorter wavelength in a weaker gravitational field, when a photon's frequency and energy decreases for a longer wavelength in a weaker gravitational field?

So you are saying that the mechanism atoms of the clock are not affected by gravity, that the electron clouds are not affected by gravity, and the only thing that is affecting these mechanism of the atomic clock are the factor of what time is doing in the location of the clock?
Yes, to the extent that the hyperfine ground state energy difference is not dependent on the local gravitational field.
Good reference! Note that
Cesium atoms in fountain clocks actually experience time differently at the top of the 3foot chamber than at the bottom.
No suggestion that the atom undergoes any change, but that time is indeed warped by gravity.
If this natural frequency of the caesium atom increases for a faster rate of time in a weaker gravitational field, then again I ask you, why does the caesium atoms frequency and energy increase for a shorter wavelength in a decreasing gravitational field, when a photon's frequency and energy decreases for a longer wavelength in a weaker gravitational field?
Once again, it doesn't. A clock  any clock  in a weaker gravitational field will appear to run faster than one in a stronger field. The red/blue shift is exactly the same for a photon, because they are all subject to the same physics. If you start with an incorrect premise, you can end up in all sorts of trouble. As my old navigation instructor said "always start from where you are, then you won't get lost before you take off."

I am starting from the premiss that NIST conducted ground level atomic clock testing of gravitational time dilation. The clocks didn't just 'appear' be running at different rates of time. I don't know why you keep referring to the phenomenon as though it were an illusion based on observer dependency. The experiment stated that an atomic clock at 1 meter elevation registered an increase in frequency of cycles and the clocks rate of time was running faster relative to the identical clock placed 1 meter below it at ground level. Both clocks could be observed simultaneously by 1 individual.
When they describe an increase in the frequency of cycles for a faster rate of time, are they describing an increase in the frequency that the caesium atom resonates with naturally at ground level or not?
That's a good place to start from...

How's about you chiralSPO? Or evan.au? Would you be willing to engage in a direct question?
Does the natural resonating frequency of a caesium atom at ground level, this being 9,192,631,770 Hz, increase when the atomic clock is elevated in a weaker gravitational field, or does it decrease?

How's about you chiralSPO? Or evan.au? Would you be willing to engage in a direct question?
Does the natural resonating frequency of a caesium atom at ground level, this being 9,192,631,770 Hz, increase when the atomic clock is elevated in a weaker gravitational field, or does it decrease?
What are you measurements with respect to? The ground level frame or the frame of the caesium atom.

The 2010 NIST ground level relativity tests placed 2 identical caesium atomic clocks 1 meter apart in elevation. The clock at ground level is described as recording the duration of a standard second via the caesium atoms naturally resonating frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
The clock at 1 meter elevation is described as increasing in its frequency of cycles and running at a faster rate of time relative to the clock at ground level.
So in answer to your question Jeff, I'm looking at the different measurement of frequency for both these clocks caesium atoms reference frames.
Due to the doubt Alan has seeded in my mind regarding the question about a particle with mass's frequency increasing or decreasing in a weaker gravitational field, relative to ground level, I am trying to confirm if this description of an increase in the caesium atoms frequency of cycles means that the frequency of the caesium atoms has increased at elevation in the weaker gravitational field.
If the frequency of the caesium atom increases in the weaker gravitational field  and I'm pretty sure if it does then it must be due the addition of potential energy  then the caesium atomic clock is registering a faster rate of time when in a higher energy state, which does not correspond to current physics, extra energy being equivalent to extra mass and therefore synonymous with a slowing of the rate of time. And... also casts aspersions on the concept of a clock experiencing velocity, relative to the stationary clock, requiring a further addition of kinetic energy for a slowing of time. This being because an addition of energy will increase the frequency of the caesium atoms and the clock will register an increase in the rate of time, relative to the stationary clock, which again does not correspond with current physics.
If the naturally resonating frequency of the caesium atom remains unchanged by, or decreases in the weaker gravitational field, and the description given of an increase in the frequency of cycles for the atomic clocks increase in rate of time is not related to the caesium atoms frequency as per the De Broglie hypothesis whereby wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, I owe Alan an apology for wasting his time, you too probably, and I shall in future only ever deem to discuss the weather and horses. ;)

The 2010 NIST ground level relativity tests placed 2 identical caesium atomic clocks 1 meter apart in elevation. The clock at ground level is described as recording the duration of a standard second via the caesium atoms naturally resonating frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
The clock at 1 meter elevation is described as increasing in its frequency of cycles and running at a faster rate of time relative to the clock at ground level.
Quite hilarious, I am truly beginning to think that the entire world is ''thick''. For one last time and ''the love of God'', THE CAESIUM ATOM IS NOT IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO TIME AND HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH TIME,
When the frequency rate of the Caesium is slower or faster that is that , you can't say the Caesium runs at a faster rate of time or slower rate of time, you people are all ''mad''.

I don't know why you keep referring to the phenomenon as though it were an illusion based on observer dependency.
I don't. It isn't an illusion.
We are talking about relativity here. What you see depends on your speed or gravitational potential relative to what you are looking at. There are no absolutes.
A clock cannot "register" a different time from what it is generating, by definition, but another clock can see the difference between them.

Granted Alan... But when NIST place 2 atomic clocks 1 meter apart in elevation  given that the NIST clock operative is likely more than 3 feet tall, both clocks are indeed in the same reference frame as the observer, and are observed by that observer to be running at different rates.
So  I fail to see the relevance of bringing up the relativity aspect when discussing the mechanics of the clock, and questioning if the naturally resonating frequency of the caesium atoms, (being 9,192,631,770 Hz), of the ground level clock, increases or decreases for the clock held at 1 meter elevation relative to the clock on the ground...

The observer, in effect, writes down the numbers appearing on the clock faces (it's actually simpler than that  you measure the phase difference accumulated over millions of cycles, between the two signals, and you find it varies in such a way that the higher clock is clearly running faster*).
We define time (and therefore frequency) as what comes out of a standard clock. Relativity says that what comes out of a standard clock will be blueshifted with respect to another if it is at a greater altitude. And it is.
Nothing to do with the mechanics of the clock, which in this case is gravityinvariant. How do we know? Because (a) if you turn the clock upside down, you get the same answer (b) the calculated relativistic Gblueshift is exactly what is measured and (c) you get the same answer (though with less precision) with rubidium clocks and hydrogen masers, which have very different mechanisms.
both clocks are indeed in the same reference frame as the observer
They are not moving with respect to each other, but the upper clock is at a higher gravitational potential  that's what we mean by "altitude". General relativity is the business of equating a gravitational field to a moving frame of reference.
*It doesn't matter where you measure the phase difference. If you subtract the lower signal from the received upper signal, you can see that the upper clock is running faster. If you do it the other way around, you can see that the lower clock is running slower.

Understood!
But you see how the clock at ground level is calibrated at the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz, because that is the natural resonating frequency of the caesium atom, what I am asking is:
Do the caesium atoms of the clock elevated 1 meter in elevation relative to the clock on the ground still resonate at 9,192,631,770 Hz, or does this frequency change?
And if the frequency does change from 9,192,631,770 Hz for the elevated clock, does it increase, or decrease?

The scale by which a unique frame of reference can be defined has a limit at the Planck scale. So two clocks at a separation of 1 metre elevation must be considered to be in unique and different frames of reference, since the gravitational gradient varies between the two. Simply because two objects are in the same room does not necessarily mean the frames of reference they occupy are identical.

Ok, yes the clocks are in different frames of reference, but only 1 meter apart.
My question:
The calibrated frequency of the caesium atoms of the mechanism of the atomic clock on the ground, this being 9,192,631,770 Hz... Do the caesium atoms of the clock elevated at 1 meter operate at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz, or does the elevated position of the clock at 1 meter change this operating frequency?
If the elevated position of the clock does cause this frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz to change, ie: gravitationally shift, is the frequency an increased frequency, or a decreased frequency in relation to 9,192,631,770 Hz?

What answer are you expecting?

The NIST site states that the frequency of cycles increases for the elevated clock...
Unless there is some other meaning to the phrase of terminology? Not impossible, hence the question...

To be absolutely pedantic, the cesium clock isn't calibrated. It is the universal standard against which all other timepieces are calibrated, so it defines the second, because all cesium clocks operate at the same frequency, everywhere.
Frequency is the number of cycles per unit time. In a lower gravitational field* time speeds up. So if the frequency of the space clock is constant, the number of space clock cycles seen by an observer on the earth in one earth clock second is larger.
Now 3 ft is, in human terms, a significant change in gravitational potential. If you drop a brick on your foot, it really hurts. But in cosmic terms it's a very small change, so you need two very precise clocks to measure it by time dilation. That said, it's fundamental to the means by which we measure GPS altitude, so if your clock is really good, you can land a plane by it.
*and here's a source of confusion  if the gravitational field is divergent, as with the earth's field, a higher altitude > lower field strength = higher gravitational potential. But don't worry about it, it's just a sign convention.

When the clock is set up and placed in situ, the microwave beam that the ball of cooled caesium atoms is tossed up through 'must' be calibrated, ie: tweaked. They know that they have tweaked the microwave beam to the correct frequency that the caesium atom naturally resonates at  this being the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz  when the caesium atoms tossed up in the chamber through this microwave beam emit light.
The NIST site states that the clock in the weaker gravity field has an increased frequency of cycles and runs at a faster rate.

"Faster" compared with what? (Hint  the one on the ground!) And I don't think NIST uses the term "frequency of cycles", just "frequency".
A caesium standard or caesium atomic clock is a primary frequency standard in which electronic transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium133 atoms are used to control the output frequency. The first caesium clock was built by Louis Essen in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK.[1]
The cesium atom determines the frequency of the microwave source.
By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
The difference betwen definition and calibration is significant to professional nitpickers like standards physicists.

Be that as it may Alan, the only part of the process that I am concerned with is the frequency of the elevated clock being greater than the clock that is on the on the ground in the stronger gravitational field.
Remember that the caesium atom has been chosen because it's natural resonating frequency is equal to a second as defined by the movements of the earth around the sun, not because it is the definition of the phenomenon of time itself. It is only a measurement.
The frequency of the caesium atom increases in the weaker gravitational field due to the addition of gravity potential?

Remember that the caesium atom has been chosen because it's natural resonating frequency is equal to a second as defined by the movements of the earth around the sun,
Only if you believe that 9,192,631,770 = 1, and I think you may be alone in that belief.
Those who know a bit more would say that cesium is chosen because 9 GHz microwaves are easy to generate and manipulate, and the cesium ground state hyperfine transition is very stable and easy to identify within the cesium absorption spectrum. The magic number was chosen as the best estimate of the length of an astronomical ephemeris second in terms of the frequency of a cesium clock, and from that moment on, the clock defined the second and all astronomical measurements became secondary measures.
Not a good idea to talk about the "frequency of the cesium atom" lest deBroglie fans think you mean the deBroglie frequency of the atom, which depends on its kinetic energy. The hyperfine splitting energy doesn't.
As the energy (and hence frequency: E=hf) of the cesium clock transition is fixed, the phenomenon of one clock running fast or slow compared with another is due to the relativistic gravitational and/or motion dilation of time between observers.

I very rarely believe anything these days. Belief is illogical. I have read that a caesium atoms transitions at the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz defines the length of 1 standard second, and have yet found no evidence to suggest anything otherwise.
If the frequency of the atoms of the elevated clock is greater than the frequency of the atoms of the clock at ground level, then the E=hf transitions of the caesium atom are not fixed. E will increase or decrease as frequency increases or decreases.
In the NIST ground level relativity tests both clocks are held stationary with regards to each other, so kinetic energy cannot be responsible for the difference in frequency between the clocks... and logically speaking if the clock at 1 meter elevation were to zoom off horizontally at speed  adding the subsequent kinetic energy would further increase the frequency and the atomic clock would register a further increase in time, and not the decrease in rate of time as is observed.
The De Broglie hypothesis holds that a particles energy is proportional to frequency, and momentum is calculated via velocity and mass. The fact that lights mass is calculated via kinetic energy is confusing, but as far as I am aware, a particles frequency is mass related, and it is a particles mass that is velocity related.

then the E=hf transitions of the caesium atom are not fixed. E will increase or decrease as frequency increases or decreases.
That's the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics + relativity. QM sensibly says E is fixed because the atom has no idea where it is, and the electrostatic forces inside an atom are much larger than any possible perturbation. Relativity says time is compressed or expanded by gravitation. Common sense says the observer next to the clock doesn't see any change, because he has no other reference. Calculation says an observer at a different gravitational potential will see a difference between the clocks. Experiment says that is exactly what happens.
In the NIST ground level relativity tests both clocks are held stationary with regards to each other, so kinetic energy cannot be responsible for the difference in frequency between the clocks... and logically speaking if the clock at 1 meter elevation were to zoom off horizontally at speed  adding the subsequent kinetic energy would further increase the frequency and the atomic clock would register a further increase in time, and not the decrease in rate of time as is observed.
"Ground level" is not "1 meter above ground". Even a cheap GPS like the £200 gadget in my tatty old Cessna can tell the difference, thanks to gravitational time dilation. Relative velocity time dilation is not the same phenomenon as gravitational dilation, as you know (we've discussed this before). Other experiments have shown (indeed you have quoted them) that relative motion slows time, exactly as predicted.
It's interesting to calculate both effects for an orbiting astronaut (low earth orbit, speed dominates, received frequency decreases) and a GPS satellite (high orbit, gravitational shift dominates, frequency increases). There will be some orbital distance at which the effects cancel and a "space clock" keeps time with a "ground clock"  just like your favorite PoundRebka experiment!
[The De Broglie hypothesis holds that a particles energy is proportional to frequency, and momentum is calculated via velocity and mass. The fact that lights mass is calculated via kinetic energy is confusing, but as far as I am aware, a particles frequency is mass related, and it is a particles mass that is velocity related.
Not quite true, but wholly irrelevant. Maybe next time! But you will confuse yourself less by sticking to the usual terminology: the frequency of a cesium clock (9 gigahertz microwaves, lower than optical) is not the deBroglie frequency of a cesium atom (way up with cosmic gamma radiation)

The difference between quantum and relativity, and the fact they cannot be reconciled with each other is exactly the region I'm interested in...
Nope ground level is not 1 meter above ground!!! NIST used 2 clocks, one on the ground (sea level presumably) and one at 1 meter elevation... If the clock elevated at 1 meter zoomed off horizontally at speed was the consideration... (I could have zoomed the ground level clock off at speed, but it wouldn't have made for such a good working visualisation due to drag factor. ;)...)
Yes, I am aware that my description of frequency being mass related and mass being velocity related is "not quite true"... this being because e=mc2...
Edit: The lower microwave region kicks the energy and therefore the frequency of the caesium atom up an energy level. (Quantum). At elevation the frequency of the atom increases (gravity potential, Relativity). The energy level of the atom increases the frequency and the wavelength gets shorter (De Broglie hypothesis)
I can see the possibility that an increase in frequency can be associated with an increase in the rate of time (caesium atom behaviour at increased frequency in a weaker gravitational field) and that a lower frequency such as experienced by light in a weaker gravitational field can be indicative of a decrease in the rate of time.
Ditch the notion of energy mass equivalence... and under this remit calculation of wavelength is time related and quantum can then be calculated as to a particles position and momentum simultaneously and without recourse to probability...

Difficut to know where to begin to lead you out of this snowdrift of pseudoscience, so let's ignore the stuff about cesium atoms (why not? you have ignored what I told you!) and start with
Ditch the notion of energy mass equivalence... and under this remit calculation of wavelength is time related and quantum can then be calculated as to a particles position and momentum simultaneously and without recourse to probability...
You will know from your wide and deep reading on the subject, or even Wikipedia, that massenergy equivalence does not enter into derivation of, or the equation for, gravitational redshift, nor relative velocity shift. Nor does probablity or quantum mechanics. Relativistic shifts and time dilation are purely classical, continuum, deterministic phenomena.
Keep it simple. In general, truth is found through simplicity.

I'm not ignoring what you have told me... What I am doing is employing a technique that solicitors use when cross examining witnesses. I read a book on it. One leads the discussion to the area one wishes to illuminate. I forget what the technique is called, I'm out at mo, but will look at the book when I get back later and tell you.
I have read extensively on all of the things that you have 'told me'. I might not know how to manipulate mathematics but I do have a good understanding of current physics and therefore please understand that when I make deviations from current physics I do so purposefully.
You seem to be unconcerned that physics is divided into 2 working hypothesis that cannot be reconciled with each other. I observe a universe that is working as a whole. The reason I observe this is because the universe does work as a whole, therefore there must be a 'bridge' between quantum and the observed effects of gravitational shift and energy change that are currently Relativity. It is the goal of theoretical physicists worldwide to reconcile these theories with each other, and it is widely accepted among these physicists that in order to do so, alternatives must be considered.
Perhaps you are confusing the consideration of alternatives to be a 'snowdrift of pseudoscience'? Or perhaps there is no confusion and you could then rename your board of New Theories as such, instead of 'New Theories'?
Keep it simple: In a universe where we know that gravity has an effect on particles, and quantum is the world of particles, why is it that these equations you mention do not relate to each other?
Going back to the caesium atom, it's energy level and frequency increase in the weaker gravitational field. Are you measuring what the rate of time is for that location of weaker gravity field, or are you merely measuring what the rate of time is for the caesium atom via the gravitational shift of an increase in energy, and therefore an increase in frequency, it has suffered in the weaker gravitational field?

In a universe where we know that gravity has an effect on particles, and quantum is the world of particles, why is it that these equations you mention do not relate to each other?
The only equations I have mentioned, of gravitational and velocity shift, are very closely related to each other. Neither has any implied or observed quantum implications as they are both continuum phenomena. Hence no need for a bridge of any sort.
"Quantum is the world of particles" is journalism or philosophy, not physics.
There is a legitimate question as to why gravitation is not quantised, and the answer is that we don't know, or the quanta are very small, but the question is irrelevant to the present discussion.
Going back to the caesium atom, it's energy level and frequency increase in the weaker gravitational field.
beware of snow. The potential energy of an atom increases as it moves up the gravitational well. The deBroglie frequency of an atom depends on its momentum, which can be any value you like, or zero if it isn't moving. Neither has anything to do with the clock frequency, which is a function of the electronic structure of the atom, not its environment or relative speed. That's why we use cesium clocks, hydrogen spectra, mossbauer photons and the like, to investigate relativistic frequency shifts.

All particles are in motion! When a particle is described as having a rest mass, all this means is that the particle is at rest relative to the earth's motion. ie: it is moving with the earth.
You say that the De Broglie frequency* of an atom is dependent on momentum. Momentum is calculated via mass and velocity. Frequency is calculated via energy... and e=mc2.
Are you saying that there is a distinction between how the energies that supposedly contribute to the mass of a particle, or atom, interact with gravity?
You are saying that the clock frequency is a function of the electrons making up the structure of the atom. Breaking the atom down to its particle structure, the electron has energy, frequency, wavelength...and mass.
Why is the 'we don't know' aspect of physics irrelevant to a discussion that attempts to offer an answer to unknowns, or at least gives a 'reason for cause' for observables that may then be discussed?
If a photon gravitationally shifts in energy, any particle is gravitationally shifting in energy!
*(What is the difference between a De Broglie frequency of an atom, and the frequency of light? And if a De Broglie frequency differs from another type of frequency, what is this other type of frequency?)

All particles are in motion! When a particle is described as having a rest mass, all this means is that the particle is at rest relative to the earth's motion. ie: it is moving with the earth.
Alas, this planet is of no cosmic significance. Pmb prefers the term "proper mass", but I think the term "invariant mass" is more descriptive. It's the bit that doesn't depend on speed.
You say that the De Broglie frequency* of an atom is dependent on momentum. Momentum is calculated via mass and velocity. Frequency is calculated via energy... and e=mc2.{/quote]. As you wish. But if you put in the numbers, you will see that the deBroglie frequency of Cs133 is several orders of magnitude higher than the hyperfine transition frequency that drives the clocks.
Are you saying that there is a distinction between how the energies that supposedly contribute to the mass of a particle, or atom, interact with gravity?
no
[quoote]You are saying that the clock frequency is a function of the electrons making up the structure of the atom. Breaking the atom down to its particle structure, the electron has energy, frequency, wavelength...and mass.
Yep. And it's only the quantised energy that matters here.
Why is the 'we don't know' aspect of physics irrelevant to a discussion that attempts to offer an answer to unknowns, or at least gives a 'reason for cause' for observables that may then be discussed?
because in this instance, the cause is known.
If a photon gravitationally shifts in energy, any particle is gravitationally shifting in energy!
True, but irrelevant.
*(What is the difference between a De Broglie frequency of an atom, and the frequency of light? And if a De Broglie frequency differs from another type of frequency, what is this other type of frequency?)
I'll leave you to calculate or look up the numbers. Hint: the answer is "enormous"!

Why is the fact of an electron gravitationally shifting irrelevant, if the electron's quantised energy transition is shifting the frequency of the clock in the weaker gravitational field?
I did not mean the 'value' of the supposed difference between a DeBroglie frequency of a particle with mass and the frequency of light, just the fact that lights frequency reduces in a weaker gravitational field and a particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field.
You also implied that a De Broglie frequency differs from frequency of another kind. I wanted to know what this other frequency related to, if it is not associated with the energy of the particle, as the De Broglie frequency is...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure)

So instead of saying that it is the caesium atom's energy, or the electron's energy that has been gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency, it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency?

No. As far as the observer in the weaker field is concerned. there has been no change in anything.
just the fact that lights frequency reduces in a weaker gravitational field and a particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field.
If you keep repeating this you may convince yourself, but nobody else. One more time: the frequency of electromagnetic radiation as seen by an observer in a weaker gravitational field is lower than that seen by an observer at the source.
While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.
Now what do you mean by the frequency of a particle?

Yes it is well documented that observers in differing reference frames will observe their clock to be the correct time. This is the premiss of the equivalence principle, whereby any reference frame is the equivalent to any other reference frame, and it is the 'other' reference frame that will appear to the observer to be running slow or fast.
But... can we please leave the observer out of the picture and consider all 'appearances' of other reference frames as being a) occurring as an observer independent phenomenon, and b) as being relative to the standard second?
The De Broglie hypothesis states wavelengths for particles with mass. A wavelength comes inherent with a frequency, and this frequency is energy related. More energy = higher frequency = shorter wavelength.
Whether anybody observes it or not, lights frequency decreases in a weaker gravitational field. Whether anyone observes it or not, a particle with mass's frequency increases in a weaker gravitational field... I can say this once, or a thousand times, and it will still be an observed fact of physics...
Quote
While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.
Interesting turn of phrase that... (chuckle)

Perhaps, when you say "a particle with mass's frequency" you mean "deBroglie frequency". In that case (and it would be so much easier if you used the same words as everyone else) your conundrum is easily explained.
deBroglie frequency f= E/h. As a particle falls from a high gravitational potential, its kinetic energy increases so f increases. I think the confusion arises from the fact that a high gravitational potential means a low gravitational field.
You can't leave the observer out of relativistic matters, by definition: "relative" means that there must be two reference points. The power of relativity is in the realisation that in the absence of a universal reference frame there must be reciprocity between observers, but a convergent gravitational field provides an asymmetric reference.
As far as the standard second is concerned, the hyperfine transition that defines it is the energy difference between the spin + and spin  states of the outer electron in the Cs133 atom with reference to the nuclear spin. The difference is independent of gravitational field because "+" and "" are only defined with respect to the nuclear spin, which is randomly oriented in a gas. Therefore the frequency is fixed for a stationary local observer but may appear different to an observer who is moving (Doppler shift) or at a different gravitational potential (gravitational red shift). We can set the D shift to zero by not moving. Now we observe an asymmetric G shift but we know that the originating phenomenon is unaffected by gravitation, so we say that time is compressed by gravitation.

Ok  the difference between a De Broglie frequency and other frequency is??? The ground state of an atom has an energy, and this energy is mass associated e=mc2. Momentum is calculated mv=p. So the De Broglie momentum symbol p already contains the ground state frequency of the atom within its value. Planck's constant h/p=wavelength, and then frequency can be established because frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength. The fact of the additional KE increasing the mass of the atom is a bit of a complication to these simple calculations...(adding gravity potential energy will also increase mass, but I will ignore this 'tiny' effect for the moment)
So  the NIST ground level relativity tests placed a clock on the ground, and a clock at 1 meter elevation. The clocks are in different reference frames, but the observer is in 1 reference frame containing both of the clocks and is observing both clocks. There is no KE involved as the reference frames of the clocks are stationary relative to each other and the observer.
Let's take this a stage further and place a clock at each meter of elevation for a distance of 22 meters (I'd say 22.5 meters as in Pound Rebka but I'm not liking the visual of a half clock, (chuckle)...)
Each clock's rate of time is linked to a computer read out that the observer on the ground is observing on a split screen. Each clock is in a different reference frame, but the observation of these different reference frames is remaining within 1 reference frame, this being that of the observer on the ground.
Each clock will consider that it is in its ground state transition energy and frequency, but the observer on the ground will observe that all of the clocks are registering a different frequency. At each meter of elevation, a clock has an increased frequency than the clock below it. In this situation it must be the added energy of gravity potential that has increased the frequency of the atom.
Now let's say that we repeat this exact scenario 'somehow', and measure the frequency of atoms that have more or less ground state energy at ground level, and then measure them at elevations of a meter apart... Adding gravity potential will increase the energy, and therefore the frequency of those atoms ground state at elevation in the same way that the caesium atom's frequency is increased at elevation. But this increase in frequency that atoms of different ground state energies from a caesium atom will experience is proportional to their rest mass, and not proportional to the increase in frequency that the caesium atom increases by at the same elevation.
Therefore the possibility that the caesium atomic clock is only measuring an increase in the rate of time for its own self is a valid and logical train of thought, and investigation.
If the rate of time for a caesium atom increases with additional energy, and we can say that all atoms rates of time increase with additional energy, then the concept of a gravity well slowing the rate of time is illogical.
Looking at how light of 'any' frequency decreases in the weaker gravitational field, and by ignoring KE, one can then go on to consider that the photon has 0 energy ground state, and that the energy that the light has has been given to it by the energy of the interaction that caused it to be emitted. This energy then becomes gravitationally shifted as light moves through a gravitational gradient, but take note  light's energy is shifted in the opposite direction within a gravitational gradient than an atom's is.
Logically speaking, and in keeping with the logic of current time dilation considerations, there exists the possibility that there is an inverted time dilation phenomenon that has been overlooked.
Returning to the question of KE, if KE is added a frequency must increase and this is not in keeping with the behaviour exhibited by the caesium atom clock when it experiences a increase in its rate of time due to an energy increase, and observation of a caesium atomic clock's rate of time when in motion is that it's frequency is reduced relative to the stationary clock.
Logically speaking there may be another way to add up the energies that account for frequency. Obviously we have e=mc2 + gravity potential. If we add KE the rate of time increases, if we subtract it, hmmm, well I'm no mathematician, but KE amounts to quite a lot of energy... Can we consider that the gravitational field itself has a non zero energy that must be added (looking at light) and that we can then subtract KE from the sum total of e=mc2 + gravity potential + non zero energy of gfield, for a slowing of time? Whereby light having no mass has no KE... It's energy is shifted by the gravity field and it's subsequent wavelength is time related. Take the energy and frequency of a light wave at ground level, earth...run that light wave through a gravitational gradient, and remembering that the caesium atom frequency at ground level is the definition of the second that frequency is measured by, any difference in frequency observed of a different reference frame, can indicate a change in that reference frames rate of time.
This system places the rate of time running faster for gravity wells and slower out in space, which is reflected in the reduction of the frequency of light in space, and the increase in frequency of the caesium atom, or any other atom at elevation, with the addition of gravity potential as we observe...
Ultimately suggesting that the phenomenon of time itself is energy related, and leading me back to Jeff's equation:
OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .
If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

[>:(] Don't blame me.

Of course not Jeff, I am completely to blame for my own ideas, it is your equation, as I stated in my first post here, that has interested me...
...and it is your equation that is to blame for my participation in your thread with my alternative take on observation in relation to the relationship you potentially outline between Planck's h constant and hertz.

So here are the numbers. deBroglie frequency f = γmc^{2}/h.
If the atom isn't moving, γ=1
For cesium133 we have m ≈ 133 x 1.7 x 10^{27 }kg (I've rounded up the mass of a proton to account for the neutrons and electrons)
c^{2} = 9 x 10^{16}m^{2}/s^{2}
h = 6.6 x 10^{34} m^{2}kg/s
so f = 3.08 x 10^{25} Hz
which is a lot more than the 9 GHz of our atomic clock.
Timey, it's time, I think, to review your concept of "ground state frequency".

Whereby light having no mass has no KE.
au contraire, ma brave, it has nothing else.

Well, I have indeed been having a good look at ground state...and also the link Jeff posted a few posts back was interesting...
Which led me to my post saying that it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency.
This would require, instead of lumping all the particle constituents of the caesium atom into 1, that you break them down into their individual mass's. However, as per the equivalence principle, whatever proportionality that these particle constituents of the caesium atom have in relation to each other will be the equivalent in any reference frame.
Therefore, is it the electrons that have the hyperfine energy transition value of 9GHz (at ground level, earth) when in a relationship with the other particle constituents that add up to the mass of a caesium atom?
And the difference in these frequencies observed of clocks in the elevated reference frames would be due to an increase in energy of the electrons with respect to the hyperfine structure of the caesium atom, and the gravitational shift of all of the atom's particles proportionally within the structure.
Edit: And in reply to your second post:
Only if mass and energy are equivalent and interchangeable as in current physics... and I was really quite clear that I was making a deviation from current physics and proposing an alternative means of viewing observation... But to be pernickety, light is emitted with an energy, and different frequencies of light can be emitted under different energy related circumstances. Do you then add the KE?

The photon only has kinetic energy. Since it has zero rest mass.

But the phenomenon of light comes in a spectra of different energies, frequencies and wavelengths, and all of this spectrum of light travel at c...
How does the photon end up with different energies if its only energy is KE?

How do people end up with different amounts of money if they're all paid in sterling?
The energy of an electromagnetic wave is E = hf where f is its frequency.
Which led me to my post saying that it would be more terminologically correct to say that the energy of the hyperfine structure transition of the caesium atoms has gravitationally shifted in the weaker gravitational field for an increase in frequency.
except that it wouldn't. The transition energy is invariant however you measure it, provided that you are at the same gravitational potential. If you aren't, you observe a gravitational frequency shift. Keep it simple  that's how we do astrochemistry!

I wonder what it is that is 'energy' related about frequency, that a rise or fall of frequency would cause light to have more or less energy?
Yes  we are on the same wavelength here! So our observer observing the reference frames of 22 clocks, placed at elevations from ground level, 1 meter in difference over 22 meters, will observe that all of the clocks are running at different frequencies relative to each other. The frequency of each clock will have increased relative to the clock below it.
No kinetic energy involved here, just gravitational shifts to higher energy and frequency that any particle of mass will be subject to if placed in a weaker gravitational field. Edit: relative to a greater gravitational field.
Light travelling into a weaker gravitational field reduces in frequency...

I wonder what it is that is 'energy' related about frequency, that a rise or fall of frequency would cause light to have more or less energy?
E = hf defines h. That's all there is to it. Planck, black bodies, etc.
Yes  we are on the same wavelength here! So our observer observing the reference frames of 22 clocks, placed at elevations from ground level, 1 meter in difference over 22 meters, will observe that all of the clocks are running at different frequencies relative to each other. The frequency of each clock will have increased relative to the clock below it.
No kinetic energy involved here, just gravitational shifts to higher energy and frequency that any particle of mass will be subject to if placed in a weaker gravitational field. Edit: relative to a greater gravitational field.
Just cut out the newage crap, and you have the answer!
Light travelling into a weaker gravitational field reduces in frequency...
Yep, that's gravitational redshift, but an ugly statement. Better to say "the observer in a lower gravitational field (higher gravitational potential) sees the photon redshifted compared with one generated by the same process in his local field."
Imagine you are standing at the top of the tower. You see that the clock at the bottom, in the stronger gravitational field, is running slower than yours.
Imagine you are at the top of the tower, trying to find the mossbauer photon from the source at the bottom, in the stronger grav field. You note that it is redshifted compared with one generated at your level, so you drive your detector forward to Doppler shift it back to the critical frequency.
Same phenomenon, same result. And you knew it all the way along!

h is a constant Alan. How can f define h, when h is defined via e, and f is defined via e, and then e is defined via e=hf? This is a circular route... h has been defined via thermal equilibrium and the emissions of electromagnetic radiation (black body radiation), and Planck noticing that there were bandwidths of increase in thermal energy that caused no change to the frequency of light, and that it took quantised leaps of an increase in energy to cause the frequency of light to change.
Therefore h defines f. Planck's h was thermal energy related. Using e=hf to calculate a gravitational shift in light, what is causing the e of this h?
Yes, gravitational redshift, blueshift of light...got it. Simple. Particles with mass gravitationally shift in the 'opposite' direction in the gravitational gradient, 'this' being my point!

h is a constant Alan. How can f define h, when h is defined via e, and f is defined via e, and then e is defined via e=hf? This is a circular route...
The classroom experiment http://www.scienceinschool.org/2014/issue28/planck measures the energy required to produce a photon of a given frequency. E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h. Planck noticing that there were bandwidths of increase in thermal energy that caused no change to the frequency of light, and that it took quantised leaps of an increase in energy to cause the frequency of light to change.
drivel
Using e=hf to calculate a gravitational shift in light, what is causing the e of this h?
In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other wellknown astronomical measurement is the spinflip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line")
Yes, gravitational redshift, blueshift of light...got it. Simple. Particles with mass gravitationally shift in the 'opposite' direction in the gravitational gradient, 'this' being my point!
Free particles gain kinetic energy as they accelerate towards a mass (everyday gravitation!). Photons gain kinetic energy (blueshift) as they travel towards a mass. What on earth are you talking about?

I'm quite simply talking about the fact that particles with mass, in their various atomic structures gravitationally shift if held in static elevation from mass in a weaker gravitational field! As with NIST's atomic clocks. Mass is involved but note  no damn velocity is involved. Light's frequency gravitationally shifts in a gravitational field. No mass involved, just velocity.
A particle with mass, it's frequency increases in a weaker gravity field.
Light's frequency reduces in the weaker gravity field.
Can we get past this simple fact of physics Alan and move on to looking at this particular phenomenon in context?
In the mean time, I asked you: what the cause of h was when calculating gravitational shift...
You said:
""In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other wellknown astronomical measurement is the spinflip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line") ""
You are describing effect, not cause.
E and f are experimental variables measured independently, and their ratio turns out to be a constant known as h.
Which is just what I drivelling well said! h is a measurement of joules per second. Any less joules than h, the frequency per second of the wavelength won't change.
Edit: ...and, in the case of the black body experiment, the energy used to define h was thermal energy. What energy is the cause of h in a gravitational shift?

Ok  admittedly, I missed out the part about Planck working with molecules and thermal energy with relation to h and it being Einstein who related the concept to the photon, but I'm only writing posts, not a book, and you have a degree Alan, and don't need a history lesson...
Noone knows the cause of the energy shift that occurs in a gravitational shift. Only the effect of the shift and the proportionality of the energy required to cause a shift are known. Furthermore noone knows what the deal is with particle wave duality either.
Frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength and:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Quote:
"as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential)."
Unquote:
I repeat, "as frequency is the inverse of time"... ie: frequency reduces, rate of time increases...
In the case of the caesium atoms increase in frequency of its hyperfine transition in the area of lower gravitational field, (ie: a higher gravitational potential) we are seeing an increase in frequency increase the rate of time.
This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.

In the mean time, I asked you: what the cause of h was when calculating gravitational shift...
Apologies, m'lud, but counsel was leading the witness. h does not appear in the equation for G shift, as she well knows.
You said:
""In the case of the classic mossbauer photon, it's the quantum transition from a metastable state of the Fe57 nucleus to the ground state. The other wellknown astronomical measurement is the spinflip of the hydrogen electron in its ground state, emitting a 1420.405751786 MHz photon (the "21 cm line") ""
You are describing effect, not cause.
You really need to distinguish between cause (stuff happening inside an atom or nucleus) and effect (electromagnetic radiation). It's kinda fundamental to life, and h is what connects them.
This difference is what I'm trying to talk to you about.
You would do better to think about it.
The frequency of a clock or a photon does not change from the point of view of an observer standing next to it. Now stand on the surface of the earth. A photon coming from a weaker field towards the earth is seen as blueshifted, a clock at altitude is seen as running faster. Same phenomenon, same result.
Or send the signals from earth into space. Both are redshifted as seen by an astronaut.
You keep quoting sources that say the same thing, yet you insist they are different. If you continue badgering this witness, I shall seek the protection of the Court.

Lol! Very good Alan...
The book I read was called 'The Devil's Advocate' and the technique is called advocacy... Needless to say, I've still got a lot to learn (chuckle)...
Can I please bring your attention to the focus of just 2 points here.
The photon observed coming towards Earth from a weaker field, when seen as blue shifted will be further blue shifted as it gets closer. The blue shifted lights frequency 'increases' as the rate of time becomes slower.
The clock's observed from Earth that are placed at stages of elevation getting closer to earth from a weaker gravitational field are all observed as running at increasingly slower rates of time the closer to earth they are placed. The clock's frequency 'reduces' as it's rate of time becomes slower.
It is the fact of lights frequency 'increasing' in the slower rates of time, and the clock's frequency 'decreasing' in the slower rates of time that I am trying to bring your attention to...
Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?

I could be wrong here, but I think the hang up is really semantic.
The frequency of light is determined at its source. What is being observed isn't the light's frequency "changing", it's that the frequency is observed to be faster than what it truly is simply because the observer is experiencing time dilation. That is to say, the light isn't becoming a higher frequency, you're just seeing it from a slower reference point so it appears faster. It might be wise to refer to the light's frequency and apparent frequency as two separate things. If light is unaffected by gravitational time dilation, then the shift in apparent frequency is due to a dopplerlike effect; although instead of being caused by physical movement it's caused by the change in time between the observer and the point of emission. As for the clock, it's simply experiencing the same type of time dilation any other physical object would.
If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.

If the light's frequency were to speed up, and the observer were experiencing time dilation, it seems like the effect would be exaggerated.
Even if you say that the observation of differing rates of time, from differing rates of time are time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate, this would still not explain the anomaly.
The clock's (and any atomic structure of mass's) frequency, and therefore energy, 'decreases' when placed in the stronger gravity field.
Lights frequency, and therefore energy, 'increases' in the stronger gravity field.

The book I read was called 'The Devil's Advocate' and the technique is called advocacy... Needless to say, I've still got a lot to learn (chuckle)...
Advocacy is about winning an argument. Physics is about finding out what happens in the universe. Aristotelians thought physics could proceed by disputation, but they were wrong every time. So nowadays we start with maximal observations and minimal assumptions, and we get stuff like flight, nuclear power, interesting astronomy, radar speed guns, and GPS.
Why does lights frequency increase in the slower rate of time, when the clock's frequency reduces in the slower rate of time?
I repeat, for the last time ever, that the frequency seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is always higher than that seen by an observer at the source. Which is, in simpler and more exact language, just what you summarised in your "2 points".
Don't confuse yourself with "slower rates of time" and other nonscientific language of your own invention. Stick to what is observed and what is calculated, and if the observation matches the calculation (which it does) then it's a good idea to assume that both are correct.
The photon observed coming towards Earth from a weaker field, when seen as blue shifted will be further blue shifted as it gets closer. The blue shifted lights frequency 'increases' as the rate of time becomes slower.
The clock's observed from Earth that are placed at stages of elevation getting closer to earth from a weaker gravitational field are all observed as running at increasingly slower rates of time the closer to earth they are placed. The clock's frequency 'reduces' as it's rate of time becomes slower.
As before, if you cut out the new age bullshit, it all makes sense. Just remember that a stationary clock at any altitude will appear to run faster than a clock on the surface of a planet.

In my experience all knowledge and techniques can transpose to all fields. The book I read places the art of advocacy as a means of persuading discussion into the area of interest in such a way that if there is a point to be illuminated, or an argument to be won, that the direction of the discourse will illuminate the fact...
Advocacy is about winning an argument. Physics is about finding out what happens in the universe. Aristotelians thought physics could proceed by disputation, but they were wrong every time. So nowadays we start with maximal observations and minimal assumptions, and we get stuff like flight, nuclear power, interesting astronomy, radar speed guns, and GPS.
...and a bunch of 'theoretical physicists' scratching there heads going, hey, how come we can do all this and we still know next to nothing about how it all fits together and works as a universe.
Yes the calculations that include relativistic mass do work, and most things add up as they are, except when they don't. This is how things always are until someone says, hey look at this...!
Yes, you agree with my 2 points, but simply miss the fact that I am pointing out to you with my New Age crapola... This being that the direction of the change in energy and frequency, (ie: increase or decrease in frequency) for a photon in a gravitational gradient is the opposite than it is for an atomic structure.
If we can't get past this, by you saying:
(And there is no reason why you should not say this Alan, because it is true)
"Yes indeed, Miss Vikki Ramsay, aka timey, I can see that blue shifting light has a frequency increases in a stronger gravitational field, and yes, atomic structures of mass, their frequency decreases in a stronger gravitational field, (ie:the atomic clock at one meter elevation relative to the clock on the ground) ...and what is the point you wish to make if it?"
...then the discussion is not progressive, and what is the fun, and where is the purpose in that, do tell?

The light is dawning, and I think I see your problem.
Your typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.
You have a clock, say, at a lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.
Here's the difference: you have moved the source! If you reduce the height of the photon source in the PR experiment, you measure a smaller blue shift (remember there is no blue shift when the beam is horizontal). Same phenomenon, same result.
You have confused yourself with a neat debating trick! You might confuse a jury, but not me.
Fiat lux.

Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...
The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.
The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.
You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blueshifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)
Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate. And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.
With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase, it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!
So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...
Fiat lux.
. Didn't know they made them...poky little car at best...

Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...
The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.
The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.
You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift.
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blueshifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)
Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the frequency of a photon as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential than the source, is increased compared with a photon generated by the same process locally. Blue shift.
Same phenomenon, same effect.
Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate. And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.
With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase,
Please yourself, but don't kid yourself that you are talking physics, or quoting anything I have said.
it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!
Even that old fool Einstein recognised the difference between gravitational shift and velocity shift.
So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...
Only with your persistent attempts to obfuscate the issue by adding meaningless words to a perfectly simple statement of observed fact.
M'lud, if counsel for whatever it is she represents were to stick to the facts and not add random words to the blindingly obvious, I submit that we might make some progress towards whatever it is that she is trying to prove. Or, if she is simply wasting the court's time in the hope of inflating her fees, perhaps you might incline to dismiss the case and award punitive damages.

Quote from: timey on Today at 18:45:23
Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...
The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.
The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.
You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.
So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.
Don't put words into my mouth. T said that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift.
Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:
You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.
But you have also described the situation as: "that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift."
Both are correct and are describing the exact same thing!
Quote
You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blueshifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)
Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the frequency of a photon as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential than the source, is increased compared with a photon generated by the same process locally. Blueshift
Again, I'm not putting words in your mouth, you did say that KE increases the energy of light as it moves towards earth, here:
typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.
Again, you are just saying the exact same thing with both descriptions.
...and then you are accusing me of obfuscating the issue, while missing the fact of what I am saying, which is that the energy increases that an atomic clock experiences in motion (in a uniform gravity field) will not add up to a slowing of its time relative to when it was stationary. An increase in energy will increase the frequency of the clock for an increase in the rate of time, therefore something is wrong with the logic.
You cannot have 1 rule for mass and another rule for light, not when mass and energy are equivalent, and not without a reason for cause... (The 'reason for cause' obviously being my interest.)

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:
You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.
Quite clearly, I didn't. Don't put words into my mouth. Ever.
Conversation ends.

ISBN 1439167346, 9781439167342

Lunar orbit distance: 384,400 km
Geostationary orbit distance: 35,786 km
Gravity potential does tail off in deep space, but otherwise it does increase with distance from Earth, so unless I have very much misunderstood you, not impossible, you were saying that the clock on the geocentric orbit runs slower and this would be because the gravity potential was lower at this orbit.
The clock has less added gravity potential energy, relative to the lunar clock, it runs at a lower frequency for a slower rate of time. Text book stuff as far as I'm aware.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you think my crime is... I have not put words in your mouth. (if I was going to do so, believe me, I'd put better ones... please lighten up a bit).
Hopefully a recess till the 'morrow might clarify the matter, the truth always upholds in the end and misunderstandings are inevitable...or alternatively we may perhaps hold each other forever in contempt...

Falsely ascribing utter bollocks to an innocent party is as offensive as forging a signature.
Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:
I have highlighted one example of a meaningless jumble of words I did not use.
You cannot have 1 rule for mass and another rule for light,
Which is why we don't, however many times you claim otherwise.
I really can't waste any more of my life on this crap.

Oh for goodness sake, grow up! You are acting like a little child.
No you did not say those exact words! Very sorry, please excuse me. The meaning is clearly the same! The clock at a higher elevation experiences more gravity potential than a clock at lower elevation, therefore a lesser gravity potential is added to the lower clock, for a slower rate of time.
Anyone would think by your tone and flavour of objection that I was questioning logic that is attributed to you... I am not. I am questioning logic that has already been questioned by the very creators of that logic, and by many respected physicists world wide.
This does not mean that my alternate logic is correct. But if you fancy a progressive chat about some actual 'alternate' physics some time, let me know, aye! (please now imagine my eyebrows wiggling up and down!)

Oh very well then.
Exact words are important. To a journalist, priest, politician, philosopher, or the scum at the EU who treat their constituents as morons, "power", "energy", "work", "strength" and "momentum" are interchangeable. To a physicist, they are not. If I wrote X, I didn't mean Y.
And so far you have not shown evidence of any logical inconsistency, other than in your own repeated misinterpretations of several entirely selfconsistent phenomena.

Ok, then. I shall adhere to wording my posts more carefully, that it does not appear as if I am 'twisting' anything you have said to my purpose, and I shall also be holding you rigidly to the same regime!
So far I have not been able to show you anything atall, because I do not seem able to bring your attention to focus...
Technically, relativistic mass is the sum of all energies: True or false?

Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:
"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass  belonging to the magnitude of a 4vector  to a very different concept, the time component of a 4vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[7]
but if you insist on using it there are umpteen definitions, the simplest of which, m_{r} = E/c^{2} clearly does not  indeed obviously cannot  have the dimensions of energy. So: false.
Now focus my attention!

Ok  yes, agreed! There are many interpretations whereas the premiss of GR is altered, and similarly with Newtonian mechanics, such as with MOND.
What I would like to do is look at the summing up of energies in relation to mass, frequency, and time dilation, and investigate the logic in relation to the increase and decrease of the frequency of light, and the increase and decrease in frequency of atomic structures, with respect to their location in a gravity field and their relative motion, or lack of it.
You up for it?

I see no point.
The frequency of electromagnetic radiation is entirely explained by the nature of its source.
The "frequency of atomic structures" by which I hope you mean the deBroglie frequency of a massive particle, is fully determined by the deBroglie equations and, at least for those particles, atoms and molecules for which it has been studied experimentally, seems an adequate model for predicting their "wavelike" properties.
AFAIK conventional relativistic mechanics gives us accurate predictions of the effects of gravitation and relative motion.
If there is a problem I haven't noticed, I'm happy to consider it. The only phenomenon for which we don't seem to have a decent mechanism is why and how gravity sucks, and right now I have no idea to contribute.

Well  as I am proposing that an increase in energy, and therefore frequency, increases the rate of time... A fact (Edit: Not a fact, I'll rephrase that as 'a phenomenon') that does 'seem' to be reflected in the behaviour of the caesium atomic clock, the related concept that an observer in the clocks reference frame is also experiencing a physical time difference in keeping with the clock, the behaviour of light, and some of the related maths...
The resulting logic therefore indicating that an increase in a gravitational field increases the rate of time, which can then be viewed as the rate of time causing an acceleration of gravity, and then this would be 'why' gravity sucks...
But if you see no point...? So be it...

So what changes the energy of what, such that clocks run faster in a weaker field? If the result is indistinguishable from the conventional prediction of gravitational time dilation, what have you achieved? If not, why does the conventional prediction give the correct answer?
The resulting logic therefore indicating that an increase in a gravitational field increases the rate of time, which can then be viewed as the rate of time causing an acceleration of gravity,
A causes B causes A causes B..... I think not, unless we live in a permanently shrinking universe in which G is not constant.

Well  it would seem to me that the gravitational shift equation, in order to be in keeping with quantum, needs to have some kind of representation of Planck's constant h.
Mass causes gravity, gravity causes time, time causes acceleration. G can be constant while the rate of time is not.
If frequency can be related to energy via h, all that is needed, is for the changes in the strength of gravity field to be attributed energy, and energy changes related to h, and this energy can then be attributed to the velocity related aspect of the gravitational Doppler shift in light.
Then the De Broglie wave'length' is not distance related, but time related, as are Lorentz contraction/expansions.
This then goes on to describe a non expanding, but instead slowly contracting since initial inflation, cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.

Just a footnote:
When considering that an atomic structure (such as the caesium atom of the atomic clock) must be cooled in order for there to be no thermal energy shift in its frequency, logically, we can now consider  a) the possibility that the phenomenon of time itself may be considered as energy related, and b) the fact of 'emitted' light not being affected by thermal energy rendering light as the best candidate for study...
Relating this back to redshift, Hubble's law, and a time related De Broglie wave'length', Hubble's standard candle is the obvious choice of light for an investigative calculating of such.

Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

Well  it would seem to me that the gravitational shift equation, in order to be in keeping with quantum, needs to have some kind of representation of Planck's constant h.
Gravitational shift, Doppler shift, time dilatation, relativistic mass, etc., are continuum phenomena, not quantised.
You may remember from our earlier correspondence that redshift over a short distance (the PR experiment) is given by f = f_{0}(1+ gd/c^{2}) where g is the acceleration due to gravity, d is the distance travelled and c turns up as usual. No quantised energies or forbidden states, just an absolutely smooth change in frequency with height. If and when we discover a graviton, it will be possible to describe the mechanism of gravitation with quantum mechanics, but there is no requirement for discontinuties in the redshift of a free photon, any more than in the energy of a free electron.

Well to say so Alan, if energy decreases or increases are stretched or compacted into longer or shorter seconds relative to a standard second, then there exists the possibility that quantum is not quantised...
Edit: This being because when Planck measured the energy in relation to frequency changes, he measured them as joules per standard second, and it is worth noting that frequency is waves per standard second.

All the quantum phenomena I use at work are quantised. The alternative model is too horrible to contemplate. You will be asking for the second to be different for each orbital of a single mercury atom, and to change not only with gravtation but also with chemical bonding of protons.....
The attraction of ordinary everyday quantum mechanics is that it works for ordinary everyday medical physics, nuclear power, and timekeeping, among other things. The attraction of ordinary everyday continuum relativity is that it works for ordinary everyday medical physics, nuclear power, and timekeeping, among other things. The apparent lack of a graviton just adds to the fun of experimental physics, and for as long as governments are prepared to fund the search for it, they won't be wasting your money on pointless wars, destroying the North Sea, or regulating the curvature of bananas.

Well  Alan, the funny thing is is that what you are describing is exactly the attitude physicists 'seem' to take concerning the differences between Newtonian and Relativity. Newtonian works just fine for most applications. Relativity works where Newtonian doesn't.
If, and that is a big IF, there comes to pass that there is an element of physics so far undiscovered that gives a more complete understanding of the universe and describes a relationship between quantum and gravity, therefore linking both of physic's best working hypothesis this would not 'change' anything about the observed 'workings' of either theory, just like relativity didn't detract from any of the 'working' observations of Newtonian.
Calculating particle mass in relation to longer or shorter seconds for a continuum in quantum may well be a more complicated method than the already established method of probability. (although I fail to see that this method of probability calculation would be 'less' complicated)... In which case, I daresay that in everyday use that physicists in the workplace would carry on in their work as usual in much the same way they did with Newtonian versus Relativity.
Relativity, however, opened the door to technology that couldn't be realised under the remit of Newtonian. Quantum opened the door to technology that couldn't be realised under the remit of Relativity. Therefore any understanding of the universe that supersedes these theories is likely to open the door to more 'new' technology.
If seconds do get longer out in space, I can see the possibility of being able to 'very simply, and 'relatively cheaply', travel across space a lot, lot faster than we are currently able. Space is an abundant resource of mining opportunity, if we could get there and 'it' back cost effectively. The prospect of a more quickly and cheaply travelled space would open space up for extensive exploration, and knowing us humans, exploitation, which may distract us from all this pointless warring each other here on earth, in our bids to be 'first' in the 'space race'...
In this day and age a 'space race', as I have described, might well have the same effect on our planet that the 'silk road' did for the peoples of our history books, where peoples of all creed and religion were tolerant of each other in the face of market commerce, and as a result of such tolerance and trade  the advancement of knowledge, science, and technology blossomed.
In any case Alan, I suppose that my more immediate concern is:
Do you recognise the possibility of the logic I propose?
(Edit: As well as the space travel aspects, I also see the possibility that a better understanding of frequency in relation to mass may have beneficial medical applications relating to treatment that would be directly applicable in particular to your line of work Alan, and may also be usefully in the capacity of receiving signal frequencies from a 'type' of illness as a means for more precise diagnosis.)

Just to point out in passing that there is no "versus". Relativistic mechanics works at all speeds and gravitational fields, but for anything less than about 0.1c or 50 km above the earth, newtonian mechanics is an adequate approximation. Likewise we recognise that if your quantum mechanical calculations don't look like continuum mechanics for a whole bucketful of photons, electrons or whatever, you may have made a mistake.
Calculating particle mass in relation to longer or shorter seconds for a continuum in quantum may well be a more complicated method than the already established method of probability.
You have the advantage of me here. How do you use probability to calculate particle mass? And what is a continuum in quantum (apart from a pretentious title for a work of art, perhaps)?
If seconds do get longer out in space,
No "if" about it. We have the data on time dilation, and, boringly, it's exactly as Einstein predicted.
where peoples of all creed and religion were tolerant of each other in the face of market commerce, and as a result of such tolerance and trade  the advancement of knowledge, science, and technology blossomed.
Until people abandon religion, there is no hope for humanity. Trade good, logical, caring and sharing. Religion bad, illogical, promotes loathing and justifies egregious behaviour.
Do you recognise the possibility of the logic I propose?
I haven't seen it yet. I am still groping through the murk of pseudoscience and numerology to get a peek at whatever it is you think is happening in the real world.

I get your point about versus... I used the word as a shortcut which fuzzed the actual meaning...so consider my post rephrased in the words you have used.
I wasn't suggesting that one use probability to calculate particle mass... I am suggesting that if longer and shorter seconds are associated with particle mass energy, or the relationship that particles mass energy have with each other within atomic structures, the use of probability to calculate quantum is 'already' calculating this relationship, and being as this 'proposed' relationship is 'the' unknown function, this unknown function constitutes the reason for the necessity of calculating via probability in the first place... As probability calculation is perturbation theory, which is a 'time' related function, this is not as improbable as you may imagine...
Agreed wholeheartedly on the religion aspect, but it ain't ever going to happen. As resources become more limited due to the 'greed' of the elite, and the probability of over population, logically the religious fervour is only apt to escalate.
I'm sorry you haven't seen that it appears directly from observation and experiment that an energy increase increases the rate of time. I have tried from all angles now to explain to you why the observation of the behaviour of the atomic clock, the related concept that an observer with the clock will experience physical time dilation effects in keeping with the clock, (equivalence principle), suggesting that all atomic structures individual rates of time will escalate proportionally as to their elevated location in a gravity field, as with the actual particle constituents of the atomic structures themselves that will escalate in energy proportionally as to their relationship within the atom as the energy of the atom is increases, and that light also increases in energy, but, unlike atoms, does so in the increased gravity field, where the gravity potential is lower
That there is something funky going on about the logic when one looks at adding KE, because more energy will increase the frequency, and an increase in frequency for the atomic clock constitutes an increase in its rate of time. This being contrary to the observed behaviour of an atomic clock in motion relative to the stationary clock. A clock in motion, it's frequency will decrease for a slower rate of time, rendering the logic of mass (or is that relativistic mass?) being the sum total of all energies as suspect.
A clock in a higher gravity potential is increased in energy relative to a clock at a lower gravity potential...
Light in a higher gravity potential has less energy than light in a lower gravity potential... So... being as this 'is' our 'observed reality', what I am talking about here is not numerology, nor pseudoscience.

I can't even remember why I started the thread.

rate of time
this is an awkward phrase, since "rate" means "number of occurences per unit time" so the rate of time, if it has any meaning, is always 1, by definition.
What we know is that a stationary clock at a higher gravitational potential runs faster than one at a lower potential, so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency. Same phenomenon, same effect. Nothing funky or illogical.

I can't even remember why I started the thread.
But it's certainly been an interesting one!

I can't even remember why I started the thread.
You were calculating a potential relationship between 1 hertz wave and Planck's h constant.

rate of time
this is an awkward phrase, since "rate" means "number of occurences per unit time" so the rate of time, if it has any meaning, is always 1, by definition.
What we know is that a stationary clock at a higher gravitational potential runs faster than one at a lower potential, so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency. Same phenomenon, same effect. Nothing funky or illogical.
Rate: frequency is the amount of waves per standard second. A standard second is 1. Any increase in a 'rate' of a standard second would have to be say 1.1 standard seconds, or more realistically, 1. whole bunch zero's 1
A decrease would be 0.9999999999 so on of a standard second.
You said:
"" so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency""
The light can't travel any faster, so it's KE remains constant... Gravity potential is higher at elevation. By this logic the lights energy and frequency should be reducing as it moves closer to earth, which would indeed be in keeping with what happens for an atomic clock and the atomic structures of the observer in the reference frame if that clock... BUT this is NOT what light does! It's energy is observed to increase in the lower gravity potential!

With spacetime length contracts and time dilates. For the photon this makes no sense. Unless we consider contraction of the wavelength and hence an increase in frequency to be the equivalent effects for the photon.

he light can't travel any faster, so it's KE remains constant.
wrong.
It's energy is observed to increase in the lower gravity potential!
because as it moves toweards the lower gravity potential, its kinetic energy is increased. When massive objects fall, they get faster. They lose potential energy and gain kinetic eneergy. A photon loses potential energy falling through a gravitational potential gradient so it must gain kinetic energy (energy is conserved  remember?) but as it can't go any faster, its frequency increases. E = hf, as you keep telling me. How many times do you have to state the obvious before it becomes obvious to you?
The stationary clock doesn't have any kinetic energy. So we see its frequency shift compared with a local clock, according to the potential energy difference between source and observer.
A standard second is 1.
No, a second is the elapsed time of 9 billion and a few cycles of a cesium clock. It is the same everywhere, but appears to take longer if the clock is in a gravitational potential well compared with the observer.

I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?
If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...
Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second.

I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?
not if m_{0} = 0, obviously: E = hf, and it's all kinetic.
If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...
KE of what? theclock. Ok, so the notional deBroglie frequency of the clock's mass increases, but that isn't what we observe. And no, it isn't observed to experience anything  there is no difference between uniform motion and rest (Newton!) but an observer with a relative speed to the clock will observe its SR time dilation. Nothing to do with kinetic energy.
Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second.
There is no other second. It is defined universally. It just happens that the second on a high or moving clock looks shorter or longer to an observer on the ground. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth: it just happens to be where most of the observers are, for the time being. The orbiting astronaut sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (SR is reciprocal) and the GPS satellite also sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (the gravitational field is not symmetrical).

OK so what about a theoretical wave? If we specify a range where zero energy is simply a flat line and infinite energy is a vertical line. Since the wave would have to oscillate infinitely fast. We then have two absolute values, one at either end of the scale. Remember that this is all hypothetical and is not meant to represent real phenomena.
Now we could introduce other variables into this model that can in some way modify the way the wave behaves.

Before I forget. The area under the curve at the extremes is either zero or infinity. While we can move a known distance away from zero this is not the case with infinity.

I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?
not if m_{0} = 0, obviously: E = hf, and it's all kinetic.
If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...
KE of what? theclock. Ok, so the notional deBroglie frequency of the clock's mass increases, but that isn't what we observe. And no, it isn't observed to experience anything  there is no difference between uniform motion and rest (Newton!) but an observer with a relative speed to the clock will observe its SR time dilation. Nothing to do with kinetic energy.
Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second.
There is no other second. It is defined universally. It just happens that the second on a high or moving clock looks shorter or longer to an observer on the ground. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth: it just happens to be where most of the observers are, for the time being. The orbiting astronaut sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (SR is reciprocal) and the GPS satellite also sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (the gravitational field is not symmetrical).
Well  If the clock only 'looks' as if it is running slower or faster, and it only 'looks' like it is getting slower or faster to an observer of the clock who is in a different reference frame, then do the astronauts that are reputed to have aged slower when they come back from a reference frame where us observers observe the clock to run slower, only seem to us to have aged slower? And the astronauts who observed us with our clock running faster than theirs, it only appears to them that us observers have aged faster?
When the astronauts comes back to earth, has anybody 'actually' aged any faster or slower?
It is reported that this is a 'real' effect! If it is a 'real' effect, then a second as defined by caesium standard does 'really' get longer or shorter via time dilation/contraction and it is not just an 'appearance'...
Ok  if gravity potential does not affect the relativistic mass of the photon then the only means that kinetic energy can be calculated to increase for an 'incoming' photon, is if KE is calculated accumulatively. We are saying that light has no mass but because it is moving at c we can attribute it KE, which we can then state as relativistic mass, and then because we have added mass, this then accumulates more KE? I don't get it!
And if KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE, I don't get why a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock does not have an increase KE relative to the stationary clock and I don't get this notion why the clock does not experience its own time dilation when astronauts who are with the clock in motion are reputed to 'actually' experience time dilation effects...

Now we could introduce other variables into this model that can in some way modify the way the wave behaves.
You have my attention...

Timey. Once you understand the simpler aspects of relativity mathematically all the confusion disappears.

Ok  if gravity potential does not affect the relativistic mass of the photon then the only means that kinetic energy can be calculated to increase for an 'incoming' photon, is if KE is calculated accumulatively. We are saying that light has no mass but because it is moving at c we can attribute it KE, which we can then state as relativistic mass, and then because we have added mass, this then accumulates more KE? I don't get it!
Why make it complicated? A photon can transfer momentum to another body, so it has momentum and energy, but no rest (or "proper") mass. What's the problem?
And if KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE, I don't get why a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock does not have an increase KE relative to the stationary clock and I don't get this notion why the clock does not experience its own time dilation when astronauts who are with the clock in motion are reputed to 'actually' experience time dilation effects...
Nobody and nothing "experiences" time dilatation, because all steady motion is relative. The frequency of a standard clock has nothing to do with its kinetic energy relative to another body, because it has no way of knowing it is in motion. But the frequency as seen from another body depends on their relative speed.

We could put in place a rule that states that the wave can never be at either absolute value. We then have to define two limits. A lower and an upper limit.

Timey. Once you understand the simpler aspects of relativity mathematically all the confusion disappears.
Wonderful news Jeff...
I and a whole world full of physicists stand with bated breath to await your mathematical rendition of a relativity that does not conclude in any confusing infinities. Because I've yet to hear that such a rendition of relativity exists, and in any case, relativity does not give a full explanation of our universe, both of which constitute the very reasons why it's premiss is being called to question by qualified and respected physicists. (You make it sound as though I am suffering 'confusion' because I question relativity's premiss, and it's not just me you know...)

What's the problem?
The problem being Alan, and this is straight from 'the physicist's' mouth:
Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...

Your favourite Leonard Susskind made the remark that light with a wavelength longer than the diameter of a black hole would bounce off and not be trapped. Now I have no idea of the validity of this statement but it did get me thinking.
Going back to the 1 hertz wave. 1 second is to 1 Planck time as 1 light second is to 1 Planck length. However if we reduce our wave to match we have an insanely high frequency. Since the Planck mass has a Scharzschild radius of two Planck lengths then the wavelength has to be 4 Planck lengths or less to be consumed. So that whatever our lower limit for wavelength turns out to be will set a lower limit on stable black holes. For if a black hole cannot trap light then is it really a black hole?

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...
You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.

Your favourite Leonard Susskind made the remark that light with a wavelength longer than the diameter of a black hole would bounce off and not be trapped. Now I have no idea of the validity of this statement but it did get me thinking.
Going back to the 1 hertz wave. 1 second is to 1 Planck time as 1 light second is to 1 Planck length. However if we reduce our wave to match we have an insanely high frequency. Since the Planck mass has a Scharzschild radius of two Planck lengths then the wavelength has to be 4 Planck lengths or less to be consumed. So that whatever our lower limit for wavelength turns out to be will set a lower limit on stable black holes. For if a black hole cannot trap light then is it really a black hole?
Well Jeff  my notion would say that the light having been emitted at a particular energy and wavelength, that any gravitational change in that lights wave'length' is not distance related, but 'time' related.
But  I am not incapable of engaging in other people's alternatives... What would a black hole then be? And... When you run the implications of your notion into the future, or back to the past. What kind of universe does this describe?

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...
You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.
Thank you Alan. In return I can tell you that you that you are also attractive...although I don't see the merit of the analogy...
A theory of the workings of the universe that does not fully describe the universe is incomplete, and possibly faulty...
So... Many physicists are considering that relativity might be wrong.
Am I wrong about this Alan?

Except that experimental and observational verifications of the postulates of relativity just keep on accumulating. That must be so annoying to its detractors.

I wouldn't care to comment on how anybody else feels, but it's not annoying to me as I can see how to fix it... My notion incorporates everything that works in GR and simply gives alternate mechanics for observation.
You didn't uptake my offer to engage in your notion I see...

It is a speculation and doesn't go anywhere. I simply took what Susskind said to its logical conclusion. The only thing I have introduced is the idea of limits on the range of an electromagnetic wave's length. The idea of a lower limit for the mass of a black hole greater than the Planck mass is all my own idea. As for implications, I have not thought about it.

This is the thing with speculations, they must conclude themselves meaningfully in implications that relate back to the observed mechanics of the universe relevantly.
I feel that I manage to adhere to this structure of logical progression within the premiss of my theory, and to say so it really is a bit saddening to me that noone seems to recognise the fact.

This web page just about sums up my viewpoint. Read in particular the part about primordial black holes. Note that this refers to observational data, the analysis of which produced the indicated conclusions.This is where folks like us are at a disadvantage. Not enough funds to develop or deploy measuring devices of the type required.
https://medium.com/startswithabang/thesmallestblackholeintheuniversee75c4b56e538 (https://medium.com/startswithabang/thesmallestblackholeintheuniversee75c4b56e538)

Ant this is why I like Siegel.
http://www.chronline.com/toledoastrophysicistpublishesbookexploringtheuniverse/article_a48d0e1a090011e6837a3f1bf186bd1e.html (http://www.chronline.com/toledoastrophysicistpublishesbookexploringtheuniverse/article_a48d0e1a090011e6837a3f1bf186bd1e.html)

This web page just about sums up my viewpoint. Read in particular the part about primordial black holes. Note that this refers to observational data, the analysis of which produced the indicated conclusions.This is where folks like us are at a disadvantage. Not enough funds to develop or deploy measuring devices of the type required.
https://medium.com/startswithabang/thesmallestblackholeintheuniversee75c4b56e538 (https://medium.com/startswithabang/thesmallestblackholeintheuniversee75c4b56e538)
I've read all this before. It leaves open ended questions that my logic answers.
On the premiss that a clock runs faster in the higher gravity potential, (which it does), this 'can' lead to the line of logic that... A black holes clock will run at a ridiculously faster rate than a clock on earth will, because a black holes gravity potential is that much greater.
Simply state the observation of differing rates of time as time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate of time. This then explains why the observation of a black holes temperature decreases with an increase in mass, (inversely proportional) and the mass of the black hole is now as hot as 'usual' physic's would expect of that mass being compressed to that extent. Very hot indeed, Big Bang plasma hot where light cannot shine. The conservation of energy law is upheld. All we can observe are thermal readings.
This explains why a smaller black hole is hotter than a bigger black hole and negates an upper mass limit on black holes.
The implications of time running faster in a greater gravity field result in time running slower out in space, leading me to looking at the observation, (in that we 'can' look at light as having 'no' mass), of light's wavelength being inversely proportional to frequency and the changes in wavelength due to gravitational shift then being due to a longer duration of time, and the length of the wavelength remains constant.
This then challenges Hubble's law, the measure of distance, and the premiss of an expanding universe... If the universe isn't expanding is 'has' to be contracting and it must be doing so relatively slowly. This leading to the notion of a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon.
In my model virtual particles that form during scattering, (when black holes eject particles via their accretion disks), due to the vastly slower rate of time in open space these virtual particles have 'the time' in which to become real particles. The second law is upheld in that the universe is constantly increasing in size.
Take this notion of virtual particles in a slower rate of time and relate it to the uncertainty principle, and perturbation theory is unnecessary because the uncertainty of what position something is occupying when travelling at a certain velocity will be solved by calculating this 'distance' 'velocity' 'time' relationship when applying the 'appropriate' rate of time to the equation.
This is a basic synopsis of my take on an alternative... and so perhaps you can see why I found your potential 1 hertz wave relationship interesting?
Edit: I'll read the other one...

On the premiss that a clock runs faster in the higher gravity potential, (which it does), this 'can' lead to the line of logic that... A black holes clock will run at a ridiculously faster rate than a clock on earth will, because a black holes gravity potential is that much greater.
No. The gravity potential of a black hole is very low, not very high! Remember the term "potential well"  the very opposite to far space!

There are always unknowns in physics. Nothing special there. What makes your time dilate in intergalactic voids? There has to be a cause. The function would start at a dense mass and have a positive gradient but at some unspecified point the gradient is zero and then becomes negative. Minima and maxima can indicate a connection to symmetries and conservation laws. So you have my attention...

A theory of the workings of the universe that does not fully describe the universe is incomplete, and possibly faulty...
Incomplete is not necessarily wrong.
Very few caterpillars ever get to be butterflies, and they tend to hide when they pupate, so an incomplete observation could fully and correctly describe the behavior of both without finding the connection. Gravity poses interesting problems as we don't have a quantum model for unipolar action at a distance.

On the premiss that a clock runs faster in the higher gravity potential, (which it does), this 'can' lead to the line of logic that... A black holes clock will run at a ridiculously faster rate than a clock on earth will, because a black holes gravity potential is that much greater.
No. The gravity potential of a black hole is very low, not very high! Remember the term "potential well"  the very opposite to far space!
I understand Alan that what you say is the current theory... and reiterate that I am making an alteration to GR in this proposition...
In defence of my proposition... If you think of a clock running faster in elevation to earth at a certain distance, and then (hypothetically) transpose this scenario to the black hole, it becomes a logical conclusion that the gravity potential that the clock experiences at elevation to the black hole is greater than the gravity potential that the clock elevated from the earth is. Thus suggesting that the possibility that a black holes rate of time time 'can' be greater than that of the rate of time on earth...

There are always unknowns in physics. Nothing special there. What makes your time dilate in intergalactic voids? There has to be a cause. The function would start at a dense mass and have a positive gradient but at some unspecified point the gradient is zero and then becomes negative. Minima and maxima can indicate a connection to symmetries and conservation laws. So you have my attention...
This logic requires you to view the phenomenon of time as energy related. (I can say a lot more on this but don't wish to cloud the issue).
It also requires you to look at light as having no mass.
The function of change in frequency for light is the gravitational shift for light, whereby the velocity related aspect of Doppler shift for light 'can' be transposed into time, instead of distance.
Because light travels through space emitted at a whole spectrum of different frequencies that suffer Doppler shift, calculating the inverted time dilation exactly via light would not give us the exact measure, but as Hubble's candle is used for redshift...?
If the hypothetical graviton exists, then it can be attributed energy and frequency that would suffer changes according to its distance from mass.
The frequency in relation to a time related wave'length' would be inverted time dilation.
The reason anything possessing mass increasing in time at elevation being due to adding gravity potential.

There are always unknowns in physics. Nothing special there. What makes your time dilate in intergalactic voids? There has to be a cause. The function would start at a dense mass and have a positive gradient but at some unspecified point the gradient is zero and then becomes negative. Minima and maxima can indicate a connection to symmetries and conservation laws. So you have my attention...
This logic requires you to view the phenomenon of time as energy related. (I can say a lot more on this but don't wish to cloud the issue).
I am unsure of what 'time as energy related' means.
It also requires you to look at light as having no mass.
Well it doesn't have rest mass.
The function of change in frequency for light is the gravitational shift for light, whereby the velocity related aspect of Doppler shift for light 'can' be transposed into time, instead of distance.
Because light travels through space emitted at a whole spectrum of different frequencies that suffer Doppler shift, calculating the inverted time dilation exactly via light would not give us the exact measure, but as Hubble's candle is used for redshift...?
If the hypothetical graviton exists, then it can be attributed energy and frequency that would suffer changes according to its distance from mass.
The frequency in relation to a time related wave'length' would be inverted time dilation.
The reason anything possessing mass increasing in time at elevation being due to adding gravity potential.
The rest is difficult to interpret.

What makes your time dilate in intergalactic voids? There has to be a cause.
Trying desperately to keep it simple  in answer to your question:
It is the gravitational shift itself that is the function that is inverted time dilation, and it is the changes in energy in the gravity field causing the change in the dilation/contraction of inverted time. The rate of this inverted time is linear to the gravitational gradient.
Light, when looked at as having no mass, is then not affected by gravitation, and gravity potential energy is not applicable. Lights wavelength decreases as it moves towards earth, indicative of travelling through reference frames that are linearly increased in the rate of their local time.
A clock (which has mass) elevated above Earth is located in the weaker gravity field and 'is' affected by gravity potential. Therefore gravity potential energy must be added and this 'increases' the frequency and rate of time of the clock (not the location of elevation it is elevated at), and that of the atomic structures of the physical make up of an observer and his belongings in the reference frame with the clock. If we place clocks at further elevated positions in the higher gravity potential, but weaker gravity field, more gravity potential energy is added and the frequency further increases.
(This logic requires another method of dealing with KE for a velocity related dilation of time and a reduced energy and frequency. But...this only applies to structures of mass)
When considering that an atom (such as the caesium atom of the atomic clock) must be cooled to negate any thermal shift in its frequency, and that Planck's h constant has a direct relationship with thermal shifts in energy and an indirect relationship with gravitational shifts in frequency, then the possibility exists, (remembering that physic's does not have a comprehensive theory of time), that the phenomenon of time is related to energy. A 'byproduct' of energy if you like... placing the concept of time as a mechanical phenomenon that has cause as part of the universe, and is calculable via the energy of a system.
Planck's h constant then becomes indicative of an energy time relationship...
What you say here is really relevant...
Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

Light, when looked at as having no mass, is then not affected by gravitation, and gravity potential energy is not applicable.
But light does have mass via its momentum. What it doesn't have is rest mass, aka proper mass. Since light has momentum and anything that has momentum has, by definition, relativistic mass. It's the relativistic mass that makes it respond to gravity. This is all explained by Feynman in his "Lectures."

Happy to pass the baton, Pete, but beware  this is a muddy marathon, not a sprint on a marked track!

Light, when looked at as having no mass, is then not affected by gravitation, and gravity potential energy is not applicable.
But light does have mass via its momentum. What it doesn't have is rest mass, aka proper mass. Since light has momentum and anything that has momentum has, by definition, relativistic mass. It's the relativistic mass that makes it respond to gravity. This is all explained by Feynman in his "Lectures."
Pete  quite clearly this would of course be the case IF I was talking about the theory of relativity. But I am not, I am talking about my inverted time theory, whereby the logic of this theory results in the mechanics of a cyclic universe that describes an alternative Big Bang, inflation period, and method of contraction as a fully working system.
As inverted time theory fully describes the mechanics of the universe without relying on any unobserved phenomenon atall, this physic's 'theory of everything' is indeed entirely unique.
P.S. I do like Feynman and his lectures, that dude is a pleasure to watch. Great sense of humour and incredibly impressive intellectual acrobatics... I might have to watch again in fact... thanks for reminding me!

Happy to pass the baton, Pete, but beware  this is a muddy marathon, not a sprint on a marked track!
Don't pass on the baton Alan, I stocked up... we can all have one each...
So... with regards to this:
In defence of my proposition... If you think of a clock running faster in elevation to earth at a certain distance, and then (hypothetically) transpose this scenario to the black hole, it becomes a logical conclusion that the gravity potential that the clock experiences at elevation to the black hole is greater than the gravity potential that the clock elevated from the earth is experiencing. Thus suggesting that the possibility exists that a black holes rate of time 'can' be greater than that of the rate of time on earth...
The logic holds true, doesn't it?

The clock rate difference between any two points in the universe depends on the gravitational potential difference between those points. The gravitational potential at the centre of a black hole is a long way below any point in its vicinity, so clocks run slower in and around black holes than they do elsewhere.

Yes, that is 'relativity' correct...
But... is relativity saying that the gravity potential at the centre of a black hole is lesser than that of the gravity potential at the centre of earth?
The gravity potential at the centre of the earth and at the centre of a black hole should both be equal and set at 0, shouldn't they? It is only the mass between the object affected and the centre of the sphere that exerts force...
Therefore, logically speaking, the gravity potential escalating from the centre of a black hole from 0 is going to be greater than the gravity potential escalating from the centre of the earth from 0.
... As we can see from observation of our earth clock's rate of time being escalated in the higher gravity potential at elevation, we can now relate this back to the black holes greater escalation of gravity potential and see that the black holes clock is running at an escalated rate in accordance with that greater gravity potential... and that logically, the black holes clock must indeed be running at a faster rate than the clock on earth...

The gravity potential at the centre of the earth and at the centre of a black hole should both be equal and set at 0, shouldn't they? It is only the mass between the object affected and the centre of the sphere that exerts force...
No. It's more logical to set the gravitational potential of "distant space" at zero, so that the potential V at distance x from a point mass M is increasingly negative. V_{x}= GM/x
In the case of a small black hole, the central density is so large that the GP tends towards ∞ as you approach it. Inside a uniform sphere, however, there is no net gravitational force, so what goes on in the centre of a large black hole is anyone's guess.
But the important thing about gravitational blue shift and time dilatation is that they don't depend on the mass of the clock or light source, only the local gravitational field.

Well Alan  again you are 'relativity' correct... However, the logic involved in setting zero at some unknown point in distant space is only found in remaining within the remit of the theory, and nowhere else...
And... isn't this exactly the point that introduces infinities to the mathematics?
Because if you introduce an infinity as a 'working' component of a calculation, then further down the road as you progress the results of this calculation as a component for other related calculations, it should be of no surprise whatsoever that some of these 'other' calculations will result in infinities.
And isn't it the fact of relativity resulting in infinities that renders the theory, despite its successes, unable to fully describe the universe that we observe?
But the important thing about gravitational blue shift and time dilatation is that they don't depend on the mass of the clock or light source, only the local gravitational field.
My logic of inverted time dilation begs to differ. In the case of mass, all mass is subject to gravity potential, and all atoms that are elevated experience an increase in their frequency, and rate of time, via the gravitational shift. (equivalence principle). And all spectra of emitted light will experience frequency shift in the gravitational field, and this phenomenon of the shift of frequency in light has got nothing to do with the circumstance of the lights source...

And... isn't this exactly the point that introduces infinities to the mathematics?
We know that V = GM/x by experiment. So how can you approach a point where V = 0, and what happens to V when x → 0? Don't be scared of infinities  they are very useful if handled with care.
And isn't it the fact of relativity resulting in infinities that renders the theory, despite its successes, unable to fully describe the universe that we observe?
no. The answer is in the question. Quantum mechanics describes what the local observer sees  crudely, "what happens". Relativity describes what the distant observer sees  "what appears to happen, due to the distortions introduced by speed and gravitation in a universe with a speed limit".
In the case of mass, all mass is subject to gravity potential,
but there is no m in the definition of potential, which is why photons are subject to blue shift. and all atoms that are elevated experience an increase in their frequency,
I've warned you before about "experience". The clock has no idea of its gravitational potential and all clocks tell their local observers the same thing.
And all spectra of emitted light will experience frequency shift in the gravitational field, and this phenomenon of the shift of frequency in light has got nothing to do with the circumstance of the lights source...
The perceived frequency of a clock or a photon depends only on the gravitational potential difference and relative speed between the source and the observer. That has everything to do with the circumstance of the source.

Alan, again, just a gentle reminder that when making deviations from 'relativity' I do so purposefully, and you are giving the impression of stating 'relativity' as being the 'absolute' theory in response to my questioning of it...
I'm sorry, but those maths are not obvious to me. I don't understand where in space you are saying that zero gravity potential exists, and therefore cannot 'get with' the concept and merit of this 'far away' clock.
To try another way to explain...
You said:
""But the important thing about gravitational blue shift and time dilatation is that they don't depend on the mass of the clock or the source just the gravitational field""
Ok  concentrating on the mass of the clock and time dilation. It is my understanding, (subject to being wrong, in which case I apologise in advance), that you are saying that the mass of the working mechanism of the clock, (this being the caesium atom), has no bearing on the time dilation effects the clock experiences due to the gravity field. You are saying:""The click has no idea of its gravitational potential and all clocks tell their local observers the same thing.""
I am saying that the caesium atom has mass and therefore it 'knows' nothing atall, and 'is' simply affected by the gravitational field and its own mass in relation to gravity potential. (...and also that it's frequency will be affected negatively by velocity related KE)
I am suggesting that in accordance with the equivalence principle, when the caesium atoms frequency increases placed at elevation to earth, that all atoms will experience increase in their frequency at elevation to earth. And if you take the view that an increase in frequency increases the rate of time for the atomic clock, the increase in frequency that all other types of atomic structures experience at elevation can be viewed as their rate of time increasing. But...when you measure these increase in frequencies for these 'other' atoms, they will be increasing in frequency in direct proportion to their own mass and the gravity potential of their location, and 'not' directly proportionally to the increase in frequency that the caesium atom experiences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift
Quote:
"At the bottom of a gravity well, all matter waves have higher frequencies than control matter waves outside the gravity well. When such a blueshifted matter wave climbs out of the gravity well, its frequency decreases to a "normal" level, so that comparing its frequency with the frequency of a control matter wave will not show any reddening."
In direct opposition to the quote above: A caesium atom (and presumably all of it's particle constituents) frequency appears to increase in a higher gravity potential. An observer and his belongings with the clock will experience the same time dilation effects that the clock experiences. Therefore it is logical that the atomic structures (and all of their particle constituents) of the observer and his belongings frequency is also increased via the higher gravity potential, this being 'why' they actually 'do' experience time differences in keeping with the caesium atom mechanism of the clock.
If, as the wiki page suggests, a matter waves frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential, how can the frequency of the ground state transition of the caesium atom be observed to increase in the higher gravity potential?

The frequency of a cesium clock has nothing to do with "matter waves", as we explained several pages ago.

Yes it is true that this was explained several pages ago, whereby the change in the frequency of the clock is not attributed to the matter wave of the atom itself, but is related to the electron cloud that is inherent to the structure of the caesium atom. (again...I apologise if I have misrepresented here)
I suggested that the change in the frequency of the caesium atoms electrons is a change in the matter wave of the electrons... And that the frequency of these electrons that are in a relationship with the other particle constituents that are the structure of the caesium atom, is directly proportional to the matter wave frequency of the other particle constituents. And that this relationship of frequency within the atom is 'energy' related. Or more precisely, potential energy related.
I saw an interesting picture on the forum last week concerning the spectrum bandwidth differences between molecular and atomic. Lightarrow had said the atomic bandwidth had more and Humandi Yusof posted that it was the other way round. I'll try and find the pic and repost it here...
Meantime... we observe, of an atomic clock, a change in frequency in a higher gravity potential. Just to double check, are you in agreement that the electrons of the electron cloud of the atom suffer a change in frequency? Or is the terminology of a change in frequency with regards to the atomic clock referring to a change in frequency that is not energy and therefore not wavelength associated?

Meantime... we observe, of an atomic clock, a change in frequency in a higher gravity potential. Just to double check, are you in agreement that the electrons of the electron cloud of the atom suffer a change in frequency?
No. It is nothing to do with matter waves of any sort. As explained previously, the frequency of an atomic clock is fixed by the energy difference between parallel and antiparallel spin vectors of the outermost electron and the nucleus.

...and according to 'theory of relativity' the energy difference between parallel and antiparallel spin vectors of the outermost electron and the nucleus do not experience a (observed from a higher or lower gravity potential) shift in energy and therefore frequency in the gravitational field?
The NIST ground level clock experiments state that the clock elevated 1 meter above sea level has a higher frequency than the clock placed at sea level.
Surely this description of a change in frequency is related to the energy difference between the electrons and the nucleus?

No. It is a consequence of the distortion of spacetime by a gravitational field.
The energy gap E is fixed by the spinspin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.
The frequency of the emitted photon is determined by the relationship f_{e}= E/h.
The frequency shift between source and receiver is given by the relativistic gravitational shift equation
f_{r}= f_{e}√{(12GM/(R+h)c^{2})/(1  2GM/Rc^{2})}
which you already knew.

Yes  and I am suggesting that the cause for this distortion of space time is time dilation related, and that the phenomenon of time is energy related. If there is more energy then time will run faster. And that if you view space time from the basis of this remit, you end up with a fully described working system that answers previously unanswered considerations, and results in a cyclic universe.
But you knew this already, didn't you?
If I could manipulate those maths in that way Alan, I would be seeking evaluation via the peerreview system of archival research journals for my 'already' calculated and properly presented theory, and I wouldn't be here on this internet forum saying:
"Hey, if you consider this proposed additional phenomenon of an inverted time dilation, which requires that you view observed phenomenon from an alternate perspective, and you turn the velocity of the Doppler shift of light into a time aspect, via the distance, speed, time, formula, the universe would then not be expanding, and we can consider this alternative model of a cyclic universe. Can anyone help me with the math...?"
The energy gap E is fixed by the spinspin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.
How do you know this? And what if it were not?

If there is more energy then time will run faster.
I have no idea what this means, but perhaps you can explain with a thought experiment and its predicted result?
The energy gap E is fixed by the spinspin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.
How do you know this? And what if it were not?
because the atom is too stupid to know where it is in relation to an observer. And all the experiments we do, seem to confirm the relativistic model whenever we do know the relative positions of the atom and the observer in a gravitational field. If it were not so, we'd get a different answer.

Well since 2GM/c^{2} equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,
f_{r}= f_{e}√{(1r_{s}/(R+h))/(1  r_{s}/R)}
Note to be valid R > r_{s}.

If there is more energy then time will run faster.
I have no idea what this means, but perhaps you can explain with a thought experiment and its predicted result?
The energy gap E is fixed by the spinspin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.
How do you know this? And what if it were not?
because the atom is too stupid to know where it is in relation to an observer. And all the experiments we do, seem to confirm the relativistic model whenever we do know the relative positions of the atom and the observer in a gravitational field. If it were not so, we'd get a different answer.
(Given that you can accept that the atomic clock has an increased frequency at an elevated position, relative to a clock below it, and that this frequency had a related energy and wavelength)...
An atom, and all its constituent particles, when observed in a higher gravity potential have a higher frequency, and energy is proportional to frequency. Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency. Simply take the 'frequency' of the wave as being indicative of the rate of time, the wavelength remains constant, and when the energy and therefore frequency change, via gravitational shift or thermal energy, it is the duration of time it takes to complete a wave that is taking a longer or shorter time... which, if you didn't know that it was taking a longer or shorter amount of time to complete a wave, you would then believe, in the face of a velocity being constant, (as is the case with light) that a wavelength is longer or shorter in distance. Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.
I think it is the observer who is too stupid to realise that it matters not whether he observes the phenomenon. The gravity field will shift energy if he is watching or not, and the observer is just a tad confused because he does not realise that the equivalence principle means that if he is with the clock, he will experience what the clock experiences, and if he is not with the clock, but in a lower or higher gravity potential relative to the clock, that it is only then, when he is being affected by a reference frame of differing gravity potential to the other clock, that he will observe the other clock to be different to the clock in his reference frame.
The NIST ground level relativity tests place 2 clocks in 2 separate reference frames, both of which were in the 1 reference frame of the observer. A singular observer observed 2 clocks simultaneously operating at differing frequencies in reference frames of differing gravity potentials, constituting 1 meter difference in height.
So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...
Ok  well, if you are calculating a phenomenon positively, (and inappropriately) when it should be calculated negatively, (KE)... and then calculating a phenomenon negatively (and inappropriately) when it should be calculated positively (time dilation)... The maths 'will' work up to a point, but you won't have a clue about how it all fits together as a whole, or how the maths relate to the unanswered questions about our universe. Which just about sums relativity and quantum up, far as I can see...

Well since 2GM/c^{2} equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,
f_{r}= f_{e}√{(1r_{s}/(R+h))/(1  r_{s}/R)}
Note to be valid R > r_{s}.
Could you please give a run through in word format what you are doing here with these maths, and the relevance of it Jeff, I hate to be excluded.

Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.
But the primary evidence for an expanding universe is the Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies, not a gravitational shift. A significant grav red shift would imply that there is more stuff outside the universe than inside it, which contradicts the definition of "universe"!
So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...
Yes, it is a real effect. A clock in a higher gravitational potential will run faster. It isn't "observer dependent" (all observers at the same gravitational potential will see the same thing) but you have to ask "faster than what?" and at that point you have introduced a hypothetical observer  i.e. the other clock. Not "experienced by" but "emitted by". And the observer knows nothing about the energy of the primary transition, only the frequency he sees.

Well since 2GM/c^{2} equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,
f_{r}= f_{e}√{(1r_{s}/(R+h))/(1  r_{s}/R)}
Note to be valid R > r_{s}.
Since R is the radius of a large solid body (e.g. the earth), you have calculated the frequency shift of a photon approaching a body whose event horizon is inside it. Not sure what this represents, experimentally. In the case of a classic black hole, obviously the EH is outside the core, but if we put r_{s} = R we have a critical black hole where the received frequency = 0 for all incoming photons.
I'll leave you to ponder on the implications!

Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.
But the primary evidence for an expanding universe is the Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies, not a gravitational shift. A significant grav red shift would imply that there is more stuff outside the universe than inside it, which contradicts the definition of "universe"!
So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...
Yes, it is a real effect. A clock in a higher gravitational potential will run faster. It isn't "observer dependent" (all observers at the same gravitational potential will see the same thing) but you have to ask "faster than what?" and at that point you have introduced a hypothetical observer  i.e. the other clock. Not "experienced by" but "emitted by". And the observer knows nothing about the energy of the primary transition, only the frequency he sees.
As far as I am aware, the universe is evenly distributed with mass...
The implications of relativity state that 'all' that is evenly distributed was once in a tightly compacted point and exploded outwards. Then there was this period, whereby all the exploded matter was inflated, (there are big question marks here), and the outward trend of the mass continues as matter flies further and further apart, at an accelerated rate.
My inverted time theory tells a completely different story of a cyclic universe. Yes, all the matter of the universe is compacted (end of last cycle) to a point, but the point is a black hole. This singular black hole, having no equivalent gravitational force acting upon it, ejects 'all' the matter of the universe via its accretion disks in particle form until it is empty and extinct.
All that is left is a uniform sea of particles, that is uniform in gravity and time. Everywhere within this sea of particles that is swirling from the force of the ejection, particles pull together into atoms, atoms clump into molecules, etc. This is happening simultaneously everywhere, and the uniformity of the sea of particles starts to break down as distances of empty space are formed by particles vacating their former position. Everything is forming into little points of greater gravity and faster rate of time, and the distances of open space are forming into lengths of lesser gravity and slower rates of time.
There has been no outward expansion since the initial point of the black hole ejecting the sea of particles via its accretion disks. Clearly all gravitational strength and acceleration is forming via the clumping together of the particles, and the resulting opening up of space, and we can see that ***despite the fact that gravity only tails off via the inverse square law, and this tends towards infinity*** the trend will be that the 'open space' contours of the outer dimensions of the universe will be very slowly contracting. Where the gravity field becomes weaker and weaker, the rate of time becomes slower and slower. This is like the badlands of the universe. You could just keep going into slower and even slower time. This denotes the 'edge' of the universe. Somewhere, at some infinite point time will stop altogether and if there is no time for anything to happen in, then existence 'isn't'...
As matter clumps to the degree that all there is is black holes that eventually merge together until there is only 1, clearly the contours of the 'edge' of the universe will have become further contracted.
So...Alan, there is no need in my model for anything outside of the universe to create a Doppler shift in light. The lights wave'length simply remains constant in measure of distance, but takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to complete a wave.
If you were unaware that the time aspect was variable, you would come to the conclusion that the wavelength itself was longer or shorter.
Relativity is working on the basis of the universe expanding outwards.
Inverted time theory is working on the basis that the universe has been very slowly contracting from initial inflation period.
It's a very 'simple' concept! All one needs to do to measure it, is to state the caesium second as a standard and the speed of light, and the measure of a meter, as constants. Then measure the observed differences in relation to the standard second. This should provide an absolute reference frame, and if one can 'know' the gravitational field, all coordinate considerations of time and velocity should follow, from black holes right down the scale to quantum.

Relativity is working on the basis of the universe expanding outwards.
Not true.
[All one needs to do to measure it, is to state the caesium second as a standard and the speed of light, and the measure of a meter, as constants. .
If you accept that the speed of light is constant, Doppler redshift is an entirely classical and nonrelativistic phenomenon.

Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...
If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable. By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity. (g)
Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.

Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...
No. E = mc^2 every day in my work, whether the universe is expanding, contracting, or going down the celestial toilet. When I use a linear accelerator, the relativistic corrections for electron mass are very helpful, and I'd be completely lost if the gravitational potential correction wasn't applied to my GPS system. None of this has anything to do with the approach or retreat of distant galaxies.
If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable. By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity. (g)
Still not sure what "the rate of time" means, but it is certainly true that red shift is linear with g.
Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.
No. There is no such experience. All you can say is that the other guy's clock is running faster or slower. Since there are obvious potential wells all over the place  i.e. wherever there is an object with nonzero mass  we define a hypothetical zero in "deep space", infinitely far from any object, where the frequency of a clock, as observed from anywhere else, would be maximal.

Before developing new theories it is best to have an understanding of the established ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius)

Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...
No. E = mc^2 every day in my work, whether the universe is expanding, contracting, or going down the celestial toilet. When I use a linear accelerator, the relativistic corrections for electron mass are very helpful, and I'd be completely lost if the gravitational potential correction wasn't applied to my GPS system. None of this has anything to do with the approach or retreat of distant galaxies.
If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable. By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity. (g)
Still not sure what "the rate of time" means, but it is certainly true that red shift is linear with g.
Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.
No. There is no such experience. All you can say is that the other guy's clock is running faster or slower. Since there are obvious potential wells all over the place  i.e. wherever there is an object with nonzero mass  we define a hypothetical zero in "deep space", infinitely far from any object, where the frequency of a clock, as observed from anywhere else, would be maximal.
As all your work doesn't involve calculating time for open space, and all I am adding is calculation for open space, whereby all relativistic calculations for mass and time dilation ***still apply*** (albeit some of the calculations may be approached alternatively for the same results, but furthered understanding)
Alan  I thought we covered that 'the rate of time' is the duration of a second. If the rate of time is faster then the length of a second is shorter. If the rate of time is slower, the length of a second is longer. (much like if the frequency of a light wave is higher, the wave'length' is shorter, and if the frequency of a light wave is lower, the wave'length' is longer)
If there is no such experience, then again, I put it to you: How come astronauts are supposed to age differently in space?
If you create a hypothetical 0 in deep space, you cannot have an absolute reference frame.
What is the problem in stating these gravitational effects as verbatim and occurring as a phenomenon of mapped out coordinate locations?

Before developing new theories it is best to have an understanding of the established ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius)
Yes Jeff  I am aware of the implications of the Shwartzchild radius and have read extensively on the subject...
As I said before, my model states the observations of differing rates of time from differing rates of time as time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate.
As I said before, this concept explained why bigger black holes appear cooler than smaller black holes.
As I said before, this means that black holes are hot, plasma hot and it's not that light cannot 'escape', it's that plasma is opaque and light cannot shine.
Simply transpose the acceleration of g, (acceleration, per meter, per second (standard) into a time aspect, instead of a distance. The geometry of space remains flat and it is the linear changes in the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that are the cause of curvature.
I have given this a lot of thought Jeff, about 8 years worth now... It's a very logical proposition and the benefits in the interests of fully describing the mechanics of a cyclic universe, and a theory of everything, and this more importantly without relying on any unobserved phenomenon, which I do believe, renders my theory as entirely unique! if you lot don't find that compelling, even just as an exercise in alternate thought process, I don't know what's the matter with you... (chuckle) ...we could always hash over the same old what? Twin paradox perhaps? I'm sure that we'll all be intellectually stimulated by that one  again!

Now focus my attention!
Did I?

Alan, you are MIA I notice... I hope all is well and it's nothing more serious than the European Cup!
I am prepared for your retort to include the phrase "I've been washing my hair"... (chuckle)

Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.
T≡
Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1  v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 11/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out.
This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.
Ok  bloody brilliant Jeff, thanks...
I've moved your comment to this New Theories thread in order that I may comment more freely...
A few observations, please correct me if I'm wrong:
On the basis that gamma has no given physical causality in relativity, but that the mathematical process of gamma is a proportionally correct and working hypothesis, there is the opportunity to 'change' the given explanation of the physicality of relativistic mass as long as the mathematical proportionality of the given alternate physical process remains consistent.
I can see that a calculation that divides will have some proportionality to an identical calculation that multiplies.
I can see that v^2/c^2 will have some proportionality to v/c
In the Doppler shift/redshift equation we can see that v=gh/c , where h is height. And that 1 and square root of 1 are applied in relation to v/c.
Am I correct in saying that vc=f? f being frequency.
Now I am going to suggest an alternative: that relativistic mass is redundant and that energy is time related. The more energy a system, or field has, the faster its rate of time.
(Note: we are going to be ignoring KE for the moment.)
Looking at gh/c=v:
If we take g, which is an 'acceleration', per meter, per second (standard), and we subject the value of g to the speed, distance, time formula to transpose the 'acceleration' per standard second into a time aspect, ie: 9.807 meters per second squared.
I'm not sure 'how' to do this... The per second 'squared' is throwing me...but if g (as per earth's g) is accelerating by 9.807 meters every second, (or indeed decelerating by 9.807 meters per second in the opposing direction) and a second is defined by the distance of 299 792 458 meters as per speed of light... then it should be possible to simply subtract (or add) the gh/c=v velocity to the speed of light and then divide by the speed of light to define a longer or shorter second relative to a standard second.
This would negate the necessity for relativistic mass, as the speed of light may remain constant, whereby it is the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that is the variable, and 'I think' this notion remains within the proportionality of the original mathematical process, but gives us a physical causality for observation.
(Note: light being massless is not gravitationally affected by potential energy, or KE, only the 'time' acceleration/deceleration of g. KE for mass would be subtracted for a slowing of time)
The benefits of this notion lead to the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe.

I will reply later.

Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.
T≡
Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1  v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 11/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out.
This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.
Ok  bloody brilliant Jeff, thanks...
I've moved your comment to this New Theories thread in order that I may comment more freely...
A few observations, please correct me if I'm wrong:
On the basis that gamma has no given physical causality in relativity, but that the mathematical process of gamma is a proportionally correct and working hypothesis, there is the opportunity to 'change' the given explanation of the physicality of relativistic mass as long as the mathematical proportionality of the given alternate physical process remains consistent.
In that case all you are doing is replaceing gamma by an equivalent which gives the same result as gamma. This has to equal gamma so you achieve nothing.
I can see that a calculation that divides will have some proportionality to an identical calculation that multiplies.
Any mathematical operation has an inverse operation (a reciprocal) which undoes the operation. So that if you multiply 4 by 1/2 you get 2. The reciprocal of 1/2 is 2 so this multiplied by the previous result of 2 gives us back the original number 4.
I can see that v^2/c^2 will have some proportionality to v/c
In the Doppler shift/redshift equation we can see that v=gh/c , where h is height. And that 1 and square root of 1 are applied in relation to v/c.
Am I correct in saying that vc=f? f being frequency.
I would have to refer back to where Alan wrote the equation so let's discuss this later but you will have to remind me of this.
Now I am going to suggest an alternative: that relativistic mass is redundant and that energy is time related. The more energy a system, or field has, the faster its rate of time.
That is a very interesting point and one that should be your main focus. However I would remove time altogether. That way you can have what is known as a configuration space. That is for another time though.
(Note: we are going to be ignoring KE for the moment.)
Looking at gh/c=v:
If we take g, which is an 'acceleration', per meter, per second (standard), and we subject the value of g to the speed, distance, time formula to transpose the 'acceleration' per standard second into a time aspect, ie: 9.807 meters per second squared.
I don't really understand your meaning here but let me think about it and I may have questions.
I'm not sure 'how' to do this... The per second 'squared' is throwing me...but if g (as per earth's g) is accelerating by 9.807 meters every second, (or indeed decelerating by 9.806 meters per second in the opposing direction) and a second is defined by the distance of 299 792 458 meters as per speed of light... then it should be possible to simply subtract (or add) the gh=v velocity to the the speed of light and then divide by the speed of light to define a longer or shorter second relative to a standard second.
You need to walk before you can run. I will read this through again later and get back to you on it.
This would negate the necessity for relativistic mass, as the speed of light may remain constant, whereby it is the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that is the variable, and 'I think' this notion remains within the proportionality of the original mathematical process, but gives us a physical causality for observation.
(Note: light being massless is not gravitationally affected by potential energy, or KE, only the 'time' acceleration/deceleration of g. KE for mass would be subtracted for a slowing of time)
The benefits of this notion lead to the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe.

My latex adventures may go very wrong here but I will attempt to post the equation I will discuss.
If it works this should be the escape velocity equation.
Woo Hoo! I can now resize equations so that you don't need a microscope to read them.

For your standard time you need a scale with limits at the extremes. Time is said to stop at the event horizon of a black hole so this is the lower limit. The force of gravity being inverse square in nature is zero at infinity so that time will be changing at its fastest there. So the upper limit occurs at infinity. However the rate of passage of time is an increasing function whereas the force of gravitation is decreasing along the same scale. Therefore we need a function that can map to the time scale and decrease in proportion to the decrease in the force of gravity. Hence the escape velocity equation. Since Ve is the speed of light at the event horizon and zero at infinity. Also with velocity time is implicit to its derivation.

Ok Jeff  I am following what you are saying, however it doesn't relate to the notion I'm putting forward, not that I'll let this put me off reading what you say though...
However, the consequence of this notion of inverted time dilation is that the rate of time runs faster for the black hole and stops at the end of the inverse square law at 0.
That the reason we think otherwise is because anything of mass in an elevation to bigger mass (higher gravity potential) will be subject to the 'additional energy' of gravity potential... and physics is mistakenly attributing a measurement of what happens for mass regarding time dilation to 'open space'... whereas light, being massless, is not affected by gravity potential and is only subject to the inverted time dilation. Hence lights wavelength decreasing as it gets closer to a body of mass, whereas atoms/mass's wavelengths 'decrease' when placed 'further away' from the body of mass. The addition of gravity potential energy increases the rate of time for the elevated mass.
Therefore light has ***no escape velocity*** and is only subject to the acceleration/deceleration of g, ...and I'm suggesting that the acceleration/deceleration of g 'is' inverted time dilation, rendering the geometry of space flat, with the time aspect of space time being inverted time dilation ***causing curvature***.
Holding mass and the speed of light as a constants, this notion also holds both distance and lengths as constant. The 'variable' is inverted time dilation.
Edit: Our measurement of time based on the rotation of the planet 'for our convenience' is not a description of the phenomenon of time itself.
This notion gives a full description of the phenomenon of time, (that is inclusive of general relativity time dilation), giving time causality and a physical process within the mechanics of the universe.

In that case all you are doing is replaceing gamma by an equivalent which gives the same result as gamma. This has to equal gamma so you achieve nothing.
Really  because if you replace the concept of gamma, which has no given physical causality, with a fully described physical process that is proportional mathematically, and this physical process answers unanswered conundrums in physics such as bigger black holes appearing cooler than smaller black holes, plus much, much more, one would have achieved rather a lot, I would have thought...

However, the consequence of this notion of inverted time dilation is that the rate of time runs faster for the black hole and stops at the end of the inverse square law at 0.
It follows from what you wrote that time will pass at an infinite rate at the event horizon of a black hole. I can't see how this can possibly fit with observation.

No  it would be a faster rate of time that is finite... An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine. A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.
What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?

No  it would be a faster rate of time that is finite... An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine. A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.
What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?
Why do you believe that it is temperature that prevents photons from escaping a black hole? That is incorrect.

No  it would be a faster rate of time that is finite... An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine. A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.
What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?
Why do you believe that it is temperature that prevents photons from escaping a black hole? That is incorrect.
Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque. Light cannot shine through opaque.
(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)

Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque. Light cannot shine through opaque.
(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)
If you have a supermassive black hole then the g force at the event horizon would hardly be noticeable. So that the forces required to destroy particle cohesion would be absent. Escape velocity equalling the speed of light is the cause of photon confinement.

Only if you attribute photons with mass. Photon's don't have mass unless you apply the gamma.
Replacing the gamma with inverted time dilation, escape velocity doesn't apply for photon's, and the sheer compression and resulting temperature of a black hole is causing atoms to be stripped to a particle plasma.
As I am attributing the black hole phenomenon as the causation of the Big Bang, that a black hole would display conditions attributed to the Big Bang is fitting.
Black holes violently eject jets of particles via their accretion disks.
Please remember what in physics is proven, and what is not, before you start denoting 'anything' as incorrect... What you are stating as 'correct' is unproven.
Why would g force be hardly noticeable at the event horizon of a black hole? The mass of a black hole is greater than earth, so the g force of a black hole will also be greater... unless you stretch the 'distance' staying that a black hole warps the geometry of space, which is what relativity states. Inverted time theory states the geometry as flat and the curvature as caused by the linear changes in the rate of time (inverted time dilation) within the changes in the gravitational gradient.
As anything moves towards a black hole, it will cover the measure of a meter in a quicker time. Relativity states that it is the meter that will stretch.
Honestly Jeff, if it wasn't for the fact that these concepts that I am putting forward all fit together like a jig saw puzzle and portray (albeit awaiting mathematical confirmation) the mechanics of a fully described system of a cyclic universe, a notion backed up by the Higgs being 125GeV, instead of 140 for the Multiverse, or 115 for Supersymmetry, I really wouldn't be bothering with it...

Gamma is NOT applied to photons since they have no rest mass to apply it to. Escape velocity does apply to photons though. The g force is calculated via mass and the square of radial distance from the source. The g force decreases as the mass and event horizon radius increase. The mathematics have been shown to agree with observation so I can't see how you can refute them. The GPS system wouldn't work anymore if time dilation were inverted.

Oh for goodness sake, what part of me saying that inverted time dilation is 'additional' to GR time dilation did you not understand?
I'm saying that both exist and that GR is calculating what time is doing for mass in elevation to mass. Inverted time dilation is calculating what time is doing for open space in relation to mass.
If the gamma is what calculates relativistic mass, then I'm sorry, but photon's are only able to be gravitationally attracted on account of relativistic mass, so I don't understand your saying that gamma is not applied to photon's.
If photon's do not have relativistic mass then escape velocity cannot apply in the context that you are stating.

Light has a constant velocity, hence v^2/c^2 has the ratio of the changing velocity of the source mass against the constsnt velocity oif light. If gamma were to be applicable to photons then this would become c^2/c^2 which equals 1. This is then a constant and so no change happens. Which is why gamma does not apply to photons.

So if the gamma doesn't apply to light then what is the procedure for calculating relativistic mass for light? And why is the procedure of calculation different for light?
In any case this is purely academic because what I'm suggesting negates the necessity for relativistic mass altogether for both mass and light, offering a physical process of inverted time dilation as causality, while remaining within the mathematical proportionality of the original working hypothesis.
ie: the notion I'm suggest does the same job as relativistic mass, but unlike in the case of relativity's relativistic mass, inverted time dilation also gives causality for the physical process...
So... Light being massless is not gravitationally affected but must travel through reference frames that, due to the gradient of the gravitational field, experience rates of time inherent with longer (or shorter) seconds than the standard second that we measure time with on earth...

Since mc^2=hv where v is frequency and energy is E=mc^2 then the relativistic mass of the photon is hv/c^2. This will increase or decrease with a change in the frequency v. This is affected by a gravitational field as the photon passes through it. Therefore the gravitational field affects the relativistic mass of the photon. Gamma appears nowhere in the calculation.

As Pete has stated that gravity potential is not used to calculate relativistic mass, it must be KE that is calculating relativistic mass for light.
KE=0.5mv^2. ... Light does not have rest mass to calculate this equation, and Pete stated that this equation 0.5mv^2 is not used for relativistic speeds, at which point he brought up the gamma, and hey presto... We've come full circle...
It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v where h is height and v is the velocity of the Doppler shift and vc=f where f is frequency, and then examine this equation you have posted hv/c^2, where you have used v for frequency... (edit: and h is Planck's constant)
I'm saying that the velocity of gh/c (edit: where h is height) is a time aspect. That the vc=f is akin to saying that v is a speed, c is a distance, and f is the time, or timing, whereas a wave'length' is inversely proportional to f in keeping with the gravitational field, the length of the wave remains constant and it is a longer or shorter second of the gravitational field that causes the wave to 'appear' to be longer or shorter in length.
It is an incredibly simple concept!
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

Well  I'm not computer literate enough to copy and paste the maths from the link, but here is the link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment
Clearly I'm not a mathematician and my given manipulation of these maths may be at fault, but I think my intended direction of calculation is clear.
I have noticed that there are quite a few proficient mathematicians posting here. Can't someone help out?

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)
but you need to read the next sentence
In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.
PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".
When the voting block becomes moron dominant, we can expect a moronic future.............................Pessimism grows with each passing moment.

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)
but you need to read the next sentence
In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.
PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".
... no longer hold true for using that notation for the calculation. Presumably where h = R there is still an acceleration of gravity that is then calculated via the notation of R rather than h? (where h is height).
P.S. Norway? Fish? Bang goes my visualisation of a hammock and girls in hoola skirts...(chuckle). I daresay the flavour of your thoughts on the morons will not fail to amuse either way... Welcome back. I missed you!

The full equation holds for all values of R and h.
Blondes on skis are very acceptable, and a reindeer skin by a blazing fire in a Saami tent is much more sociable than a hammock. As for the aphrodisiac qualities of dried cod, snow and midnight sun....

Thank goodness for that. I don't think my model would be viable if the acceleration of gravity ran out where h = R...
So given that we now have either the notation of h, or R, to calculate in relation to g, (ie: gh/c=v) ... and vc=f... can we turn the v of the calculation into a time aspect by considering the equation to be equivalent to the speed, distance, time formula, where v can be speed, c can be distance, and f is time, or timing, and the wave'length', being inversely proportional to f, can be viewed as a longer or shorter second (relative to the standard second)?
Granted, hammocks are by design awkward and the reindeer skin by the fire in a Sammi tent, (presumably something along the lines of a yurt), sounds divine. But dried cod, snow and midnight sun? Hmmm, the mind boggles! I imagine some Nordic equivalent of the Karma Sutra exists as a means of instruction?

An interesting angle is that using a coordinate acceleration viewed from infinity we can show a mass for the photon as m(rel) = ha/c^2. Since we also have hv/c^2 with v for frequency then a change in coordinate acceleration equates with a change in frequency. We are now dealing with acceleration terms for both gravitation and the photon. So at infinity we can establish some sort of unification mechanism.

Disregard the last post. The mathematics are incorrect.

It should have been ha/c^2 = h/lambda so that it is wavelength and not frequency that relates to coordinate acceleration. Sorry for the confusion.

Well  I can see where you are coming from, but just as a point of exercise try leaving the photon and the mass out of the equation, and let the equation be a calculation of the gravitational field 'only'.
If you need a focus of visualisation, imagine you are making a calculation of the De Broglie wave'length' for a 'massless graviton', where the v of gh/c=v is a time aspect that can be calculated as vc=f, and 'length' of time, (ie: length of second relative to the standard second), is inversely proportional to f. Edit: maybe this can be calculated as c(distance)/v(speed) = wave'length'(length of second)
Edit: I think I'm representing the maths correctly, but if I am missing out the ^2 with regards to c in those equations, please someone tell me.

How am I supposed to know how to describe a graviton mathematically. Do you just want me to pop the equation out of a hat? Viola I am David Blaine.

I just told you.
gh/c=v
vc=f
(It may be that I'm wrong in that these equations are usually c^2 in which case use c^2)
Then calculate wavelength as inversely proportional to f.
I am equating the proportions of the equation to being a time aspect by employing the speed distance time formula.
c(distance) divided by v(speed) = length of second.(wave'length')
(albeit this may be too simplistic?)
You don't need to attribute the results to a graviton and a gravitons experience of time and time dilation, just the inverse square law nature of the gravitational field and open space.

You are assuming that graviton energy has a relation to the Planck constant h. That is a mistake. Evan said something interesting about neutrinos in another thread. They interact weakly because the target they need to hit is a fraction of the size of a nucleon. This is via the weak nuclear force. We cannot say that gravitation is not similarly connected to the strong nuclear force. So the weakness of the force of gravity may be due to the wavelength being much longer than that of the photon. Not because the energy of the graviton relates to h. The energy may well be greater than we think but just like neutrinos the interactions may be fewer.

I do believe that the equations I gave you represent a new concept of an inverted time dilation.
If energy is stretched over slower time relative to a standard second, there will be fewer occurrences 'when' measuring via the standard second. And the opposite if energy is compacted into faster seconds relative to a standard second. It applies to all per second mathematics...
...And as Planck's h constant falls into the per second catagory?
Edit: it occurs that I should state terms: gh/c=v where h is height. Where h = R, use R.

I understand the terms but that is not the issue. Let's take a scalar value represented by sigma so that sigma*h will scale the action if necessary. Of course sigma could be 1. So sigma*h*a/c^2 can be stated as the equation you require using your requirements. This assumes that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light. It also assumes a coordinate speed for gravity that is equivalent to that of light. This may or may not be the case. For your theory it helps if they differ.

Yes  the theory requires that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.
Now where the coordinate speed of gravity and the coordinate speed of light are concerned, the energy of the gravity field clearly diminishes with distance via the inverse square law.
...and yeah, to say so it gets confusing with light because light of all frequency is gravitationally shifted. (Hubble used a standard candle)
The energy (force?) of a gravitational field diminishes by the inverse square law, but the acceleration of a gravity field is dependant on mass, therefore for differing masses the coordinate speed of gravity, or acceleration of gravity would differ. The length of any frequency of lights wavelength simply takes a longer or shorter amount of time to cover the same distance when moving away from, or into, a gravitational field, hence the longer or shorter wave'lengths', and it is the changes in the energy of the gravitational gradient causing the 'appearance' of shift in any frequency of light, and the 'appearance' of a change in the length of wavelength. Frequency being the timing structure of the gravitational field, not the timing structure of the photon. (ie: Doppler redshift velocities are time not distance related, and Hubble's law is challenged)

vc=f
A moment's reflection on the dimensional analysis of this statement will show you that it is nonsense.

Aha  (chuckle)  and so we can see exactly why I am requiring help with the maths.
Come on Alan, my maths may not be correct, but my intended direction of calculation is surely obvious. I'm trying to calculate the acceleration of gravity as an 'inverted time dilation' time aspect. Or  the velocity of Doppler redshift as an 'inverted time dilation' time aspect.

As I see it, from my untrained perspective:
The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.
The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.
This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.
If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.
If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?
By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.
Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light. Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it. The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.
Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.
No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.
If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric.
According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk.

As I see it, from my untrained perspective:
The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.
The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.
This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.
If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.
If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?
By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.
Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light. Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it. The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.
Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.
Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...
Calculating for a greater gravity field than earth (ie: a greater acceleration than 9.807 m/s²) would require maths that resulted in a meter be less than 1... In which case you subtract 9.807 meters squared from the higher acceleration of gravity, and minus the result from 299 792 458 meters, and then divide the result by 299 792 458 meters for a 0 point something of a meter.
Then divide the 0 point something of a meter by speed of light. Take result and minus 3.335+ millionth of second for a negative result. This is by how much a second is shorter in a greater gravity field to Earth.
Of course anything with mass will be GR time dilation affected in a mass in relation to mass relationship.

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.
No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.
If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric.
According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk.
I see square root 1 used in many of the related calculations...
Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?
In any case all that comment results in is that it takes 3.335+ millionth (?) of a second for the speed of light to cover 1 meter, which is correct. (Given that millionth is correct)
And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)
Have you anything to say about any other part of the post?

Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.

Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...
No. It is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. Anywhere and everywhere.

Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.
The best advise anyone has given in this thread to date!!

I agree with Alan, Jeff, and Ethos about dimensional analysis, it really helps with thinking and analysis. Just to get you started:
Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?
It depends what units you are working in. It can be dimensionless or it can use the units you are working with eg for 1meter the units would be √m usually written m^{½}.
And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)
No, that 1 thing is not a meter. By dividing meters by meters you create a dimensionless ratio or scaling factor (remember Jeff talking about sigma in a different context?). This ratio can be applied to quantities that are not in meters.
It's important to get these basics in place otherwise you will either lose credibility and people will miss the point you are making, or you will mislead yourself into the wrong conclusions.

I used to teach dimensional analysis to Arts undergraduates who had never taken a public examination in any science. After about 2 hours' instruction, I set them an "A" level (university entrance) physics paper. They all achieved a pass grade  enough to start an apprenticeship  just by carefully analysing the questions. And this was in the 1960s when A levels were difficult and apprenticeships were worth having!

Excuse me  but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters. The answer is 1 meter.
Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.
It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.
The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.
All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect. This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,
Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.
If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?
Surely this would be of more intellectual interest than the constant reminding me that my idea is not dimensionally 'usual' to your pre conditioned pallets?

For as long as you divide apples by oranges to get chickens, nobody will take you seriously.
We know the speed of light, whether expressed in meters per second or millifurlongs per microfortnight, and the only preconception that underpins relativity is that c is constant. So far, it has worked very well.

...and exactly what part of the fact that I am also holding the speed of light constant have you not understood?
What I am proposing would not be a possibility if the speed of light was not held constant.

Excuse me  but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters. The answer is 1 meter.
No. 299...meters divided by 299...meters is 1, not 1 meter.
Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.
about 3.3 nanoseconds
It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.
so now you are adding meters per second^{2} to meters. If carpet is £10 per square meter, please add ninepence and tell us what the answer means.
The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.
Obviously, (nought point something)/c
All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect. This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,
uite [possibly, but you won't demonstrate anything by muddled dimensionality.
Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.
what new dimensions will you be using, pray? I would recommend that you sort out the ordinary ones first, then flip into inverted ("k") space once you have achieved dimensional balance. kspace mathematics is quite simple and selfconsistent but it won't tolerate dimensional imbalance!
If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?
Many have tried, but you keep ignoring us.

If you are trying to dimensionally analyse my proposal, I must have missed your explanation of why it is dimensionally incorrect.
I'm afraid your analogies of apples and oranges, and putting the words of alcoholic water, and non alcoholic whisky in my mouth (for what reason?) have completely passed me by...
The acceleration of gravity is a dimension. A mathematical process via the time distance speed formula in relation to the constancy of the speed of light is employed. The result is a dimension of this proposed inverted time dilation.
The mathematical process to arrive at this dimension of inverted time dilation is not a dimension. I am not suggesting that the time distance speed formula in relation to the constant speed of light is a dimension, anymore than using square root 1 as a mathematical process suggests that square root 1 is a dimension.

OK  to be hopefully be more 'usual' in the mathematical process employed:
1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters
1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds.
Add meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity to 299 792 458 meters.
Divide by speed of light.
Subtract 3.3 nano seconds from result.
Is the problematic term gone?

The acceleration of gravity is a dimension.
No it isn't. It is a number with two dimensions, L^{2}T^{2}.

Quote from Wiki:
"Checking equations that involve dimensions."
"The factorlabel method can also be used on any mathematical equation to check whether or not the dimensional units on the left hand side of the equation are the same as the dimensional units on the right hand side of the equation. Having the same units on both sides of an equation does not guarantee that the equation is correct."
Following are my personal comments:
Having different units on both sides guarantees that the equation is in error.
As a general rule, seeking a balanced equation should result in a ratio on one side of the equation equal to the other side. This results in a ratio equal to a ratio relationship. Not one meter, kilo, or second but the number (1).
If this is not sufficient an explanation, please look up Dimensional analysis at Wiki.
You may also want to look up the term: Dimensionless numbers.

1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters
No, it is a meaningless jumble of dimensions L^{2}T^{1}
The rest is unworthy poppycock. I can't describe it as numerology because you haven't referred to the Great Pyramid or Fibonacci, but I'm sure you will, eventually.
Please ensure brain is in motion before engaging typing finger.

On the basis Alan that  I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths. It's that I've 'never' done any atall, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education  you are being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying), especially in relation to the fact that it is because I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP! If I knew them I wouldn't need any.
It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualificationless person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!
Dimensional analysis of above calculation:
L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c (edit: minus 3.3ish nano seconds)
Am I on the right track?
L1=T1
L2=T2

On the basis Alan that  I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths. It's that I've 'never' done any atall, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education  not only are you being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying) especially in relation to the fact that it is because of I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP! If I knew them I wouldn't need any.
It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualificationless person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!
Dimensional analysis of above calculation:
L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c
Am I on the right track?
L1 = T1
L2=T2
Alan is only trying to show you where your math is wrong Timey. If you are weak in math, it might be advisable for you quit using it to describe your hypothesis. If you continue to use math that turns out to be in error, please don't be upset when it's pointed out to you. You've asked for help and help is what alan and many others are attempting to give you.

L is length in units of metres. T is time in units of seconds. M is mass in units of kilograms. Speed is therefore in units of L/T or metres per second. If we were to multiply a speed by time we would then have (L*T)/T. If we have the same unit in the numerator as in the denominator they cancel. So the 2 Ts cancel and we are left with a length. So if we have 2 metres per second and multiply by 2 seconds we end up with a length of 4 metres. Sit down with a cuppa and read this through a few times.

Well  yes Jeff. I've read the dimensional analysis link that Alan provided last summer.
But how do you apply it to this proposed inverted time? It presents problems when dealing with a T that is variable in relation to M and L. I didn't need a cup of tea, nor even more than 30 seconds pass to work this out.
I have given L in meters (in height)
I have given M in terms of g
I have given T in terms of inverted time dilation in fractions of a standard second (for M of, or less than g of earth)
As far as the 'principle' of dimensional analysis goes, in that L1 is equal to T1 under any circumstance of M, (albeit inclusive of the given limitation beyond which an altered calculation is required) the equation or mathematical process has proportional dimensions.

On the basis Alan that  I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.
There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.

There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.
Alan  when have I said that anyone here doesn't understand anything?
I have read books by physicists who say that GR and quantum do not fit together. That the quest of physics is to unify the theories. I have studied the situation for 8 years and come up with an idea that if mathematically viable would do the job.
Just because I am unable to actually facilitate the maths and am asking for help, does not mean I am unintelligent. It is a sign of intelligence to know where ones own limits lie.
I have been studying how maths are put together, but am not going to go on to get work as a physicist or a mathematician, therefore it's not a case of helping me cheat my 'pilots license' as I am not studying for the sake of qualifications.
My idea either holds merit or it doesn't, end of my physics story.
Your stating that maths that I come up with, in the absence of any proper mathematician stepping in and following description in words, are complete poppycock, doesn't lend itself to being explanatory and educational...
I'm not quite sure what it lends itself to  public ridicule for forum ratings perhaps?
What I was expecting was: 'Ah ok  well not that I agree with your theory in the slightest, but I can see what you are trying to do and this is where you are going wrong. Try doing it this way, see? ... And what was it you were saying about matching the extra fraction of second to the extra length in wavelength when light changes frequency in redshift?"
Who was it who said that it is the mark of an educated man to be able to intellectually partake in ideas that he does not agree with?

Nothing to do with maths, but a lot to do with physics.
Physics: apple falls downwards
Mathematics:v = u + at; a = GM/r^{2} if m<<M
same thing, expressed as a generalisation.
If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.
The basis of dimensions is that mass, length and time are like apples, chickens and toilet rolls: if you put 1 apple, 2 chickens and 3 toilet rolls in your basket, you must find 1 apple, 2 chickens and 3 toilet rolls on your checkout bill  you can't substitute wholly independent variables for one another.
And it's nothing to do with qualifications, just common courtesy. There's no point in shouting in English if you want to order a meal in China, but a quiet word in Chnese will open all sorts of doors. So please, respect the most basic language of physics: dimensions are not interchangeable.

Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by rereading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.

Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by rereading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.
Jeff  thanks for your post. Please know that it is not my intention to cause offence to anyone. I think the problem lies in the fact that when someone such as Alan says that I must first learn the physics before attempting the maths, I am confused as to which physics he means...
This being because I have read 3 books dedicated to the physics of special and general relativity, Einstein's own papers, and at least 8 of the other physics books I've read have adequately covered general relativity, including 'The trouble with physics' which concentrated on where everything in physics 'doesn't' fit together.
Noone here within the remit if forum posts is going to explain these physics to me better than they have been explained already. There are people here, including you, who have helped me greatly in understanding the maths of these current theories, and Alan is top of the list among them.
So, considering what I have said, it becomes rather frustrating when someone is saying that I have to understand that general relativity bends space time, and that distances are not as the fly crows but follow a curvature of bent fabric of space, in order for me to attempt mathematics that hold distance as the crow flies, and attributes this bend in the fabric of space, this extra distance of curvature, 'to' this proposed inverted time dilation.
Alan, 'I think' is saying that I can't interchange dimensions in the maths. My model is interchanging the dimensions of distance due to curvature, to inverted time dilation.
It is also interchanging the concept of an accelerating expansion with a much slower but accelerating contraction.
The maths of the theory are naturally going to reflect this...
Not being trained in maths does not negate me from having a potentially relevant idea, and where people have instructed me in maths, I have had my listening ears on, clearly...as before starting posting here last year, I'd never done any.

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.
In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.
In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?
Both. It is not an either or choice.

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.
In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?
Both. It is not an either or choice.
(Lol!... I checked the forum yesterday evening and due to the miniature screen of my phone, mistakenly thought that it was Alan who had answered the question, as it was Alan who it was directed towards. I composed this reply last night, and realised my mistake when I came back to forum to post it...
But as Alan hasn't responded to the question, perhaps the reply I composed last night stands anyway, so I have split it into 2...)
Jeff  In the fact that noone ever stops learning about anything, you are right on both counts.
Alan  Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.
Therefore I feel that we have come to a bit of an impasse Alan. I do not think I need to repeat myself in that I have the utmost respect for you...but oops it would seem I have done so anyway. ;). I don't always agree with your views, but you definitely have my full admiration for wit and panache!
All the very best to you...

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.
So  presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles?
...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...
I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:
http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/notpixx/photoelectric.pdf
no. The energy of the hyperfine ground state transition is not dependent on the mass of the cesium atom, as I explained about a month ago.

Ok, and again I realise this may be where I am going wrong  but if the energy of the hyperfine ground state transition is not dependent on the mass of the cesium atom  then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?
Edit: yes I realise that relativistic mass does not enter the gravitational shift equations, but if you are calculating h in relation to the equation, then energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,

.......energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,
The exact translation is numerically equal, in other words related mathematicaly by a formula. That doesn't make them the same thing, although some pseudoscientists would like you to think they are.
Electricity can be converted to heat and vice versa, that does not make them the same thing. They are related by a formula.

Well yes Colin. Thanks! This being my point in saying that there exists the possibility that an alternative formula, given that it remains proportional, can explain (edit: sorry not explain  'describe') the same observation for an alternative reason.

then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?
I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?

.....Can anyone explain, please?
No it puzzled me as well, which is why I answered what I could, but that's been misinterpreted.

Alan  Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.
No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.

then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?
I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?
Sorry Alan  I fail to explain myself properly.
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c5
We see in the link above that hc/pc=wavelength.
Then it is explained that this is particularly appropriate for comparison with the photon where pc=E.
p is (edit: usually) calculated as mv=p, ...so the wavelength of light is calculated via a mass related aspect that presumably from the description is attributed to KE and 'therefore relativistic mass?' ...as the photon has no rest mass.
http://www.csun.edu/~jte35633/worksheets/Chemistry/52PlancksEq.pdf
Here we can see that E=hv where v is frequency. We can see that frequency in relation to energy is causing changes in wavelength.
So wavelength is calculated from an energy,mass aspect, and energy is calculated from an energy constant. The photon has no mass.
Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?

http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/blahol.html
Here we can see that it is explained, as per general relativity, that it is gravity that causes light not to escape from a black hole. That light is being shifted due to gravity potential*. This can only be due to relativistic mass.
(*although I fail to see the logic of a redshift to zero via gravity potential, as we already know that light blue shifts towards the greater gravity field)

Alan  Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.
No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.
Well this is where I part company with your reasoning. Which physics do I need to sort out?
It is quite clear to me that Einstein was completely on the right track. He got to the point where, in trying to maintain a static universe, he added (before retracting it) a cosmological constant* when the logic clearly pointed to a contracting universe. Regrettably he was unduly influenced by Hubble. Had he had the benefit of all of our modern day tech, and the information that the consequence of Hubble's redshift law now means the universe is accelerating in its expansion rather than decelerating, I think he would have returned to the drawing board in alarm and looked further into his musings on Newton's interpretation of open space being almost 'ether' like in nature. (ie: that open space is comprised of something)
(*not forgetting that the magnitude of the current calculation of the cosmological constant in relation to the standard model is reported to be the worst prediction ever in physics)
In adding inverted time dilation to GR, all I have done to change Einstein's relativity is:
State that the curved geometry of space (that light follows) is inverted time related, not bent fabric of space. (this renders relativistic mass as unnecessary).
Add to the equivalence principle that light travelling at the constant speed of light cannot exceed or deceed the rate of local time. ie: that light travels at 299 792 458 meters per second in all reference frames. (ie: if you point a light vector into inline motion, that the lights rate of time slows down.)
State that all distance and lengths, in contradiction to the Lorentz transformations, both inverse and non inverse form, are constant as a result of this addition to the equivalence principle, including lights wave'length'.
And that the observation of time dilated/contracted sequential events in 'other' reference frames, 'from' the observation reference frame, are time frame dependant and proportional to the difference in rate of time.
Those are the physics...
The cyclic universe I have described is a physical consequence of these additions. (edit: the reverse is of course also true)
Because the additions are proportional to the rest of GR, despite the fact that they change some of the concepts that are a consequence of GR, or a consequence of GR in relation to Hubble's law, so radically  they change them in a directly opposite and opposing fashion. So most of the current maths for GR will be valid. All that needs happen with the maths is that some of the terms need to be interchanged to reflect the opposite and opposing changes, and the consequence will negate the necessity for the complex geometry calculations regarding curvature. These representations of curvature will naturally emerge as a result of inverted time.
(I have also given suggested experiment and prediction. Offered alternate explanation for gravity lensing, star displacement, perihelion of Mercury, etc. And to say so, the mathematical consequences for quantum of measuring beyond the uncertainty principle, are exciting)

Study inertia.

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?
What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"?
If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime.

Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.

As energy is input into an inertial system to increase its momentum some may add to internal energies and thus be unavailable as kinetic energy for forward motion.

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?
What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"?
If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime.
Yes  the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes  the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)
If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?
Yes  clever Einstein deduced that it must be space time warping. However, the curve of a graph of GR gravitational time dilation does NOT describe the curve of space that light follows, hence the complex geometry equations and a combination of SR, Lorentz transformations and a concept of 'fabric of space' that rendered distances as variable and stretching as the universe expands at speeds faster than the speed of light.
What I have done is attribute the warping of space time to inverted time dilation, and all distance remains constant at 299 792 458 meters per second, but it is the second that is being stretched as it gravitationally shifts.
The curve of a graph of inverted time dilation will exactly describe the curve of space that light follows...
As I said, it is my belief (edit: sorry not belief, 'opinion') that Einstein was most regrettably influenced by Hubble's redshift observations... ...And Hubble's redshift law is the singular reason for the premiss of an expanding universe and the current Big Bang notions.

The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.

The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.
If the physicists at LHC truly understood gravity and time dilation they would not be confused as to the slight time differences recorded between the heavy and light mass neutrino.
Study inertia.
Study inertia:
All objects in free free in a gravitational field accelerate at the same rate despite the difference in their mass. Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.
Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.
I see where you are going with this but I prefer:
Wavelength divided by frequency equals speed of light.
The extra length in gravitationally redshifted wavelength divided by the extra speed of the gravitationally shifted frequency equals inverted time dilation.
(edit: sorry, actually I didn't complete properly. It would be:
Extra length in wavelength divided by extra speed in frequency equals speed of light.
Extra length in wavelength divided by speed of light equals inverted time dilation)

Yes  the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes  the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)
PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished.
If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?
Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!
Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.
That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface.

Yes  the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes  the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)
PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished.
If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?
Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!
Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.
That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface.
Alan, please excuse my terminology. I've never claimed to be a scientist, so terminology mistakes on my part are inevitable.
My comments on gravity potential are based on info such as on this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential
...and:
Quote: "The gravitational potential (V) is the gravitational potential energy (U) per unit mass: U=mv, where m is the mass of the object.
Also  Just as a side issue, I found this comment within the link interesting...
Quote:
"It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge"
Yes I take on board your observation, but I am not expecting a particle of mass to be able to record inverted time dilation as it accelerates into a gravity field. It will be affected by GR time dilation and the fraction of a second difference would be imperceivable. Any clock measuring acceleration of gravity will be measuring meters per second squared via the standard second.
The only place I am expecting to actually observe inverted time dilation (edit: Apart from via my suggested experiment, the special case of Lorentz contraction at LIGO, and the time difference observations at LHC), is in the extra length of wavelength in gravitationally shifted light, on the basis that light is massless, and without the relativistic mass concept, will be ***only*** be affected by inverted time dilation.

Alan, please excuse my terminology.
There's the problem. If you want to talk about science, you must use everyone else's terminology, not your own.
"The gravitational potential (V) is the gravitational potential energy (U) per unit mass: U=mv, where m is the mass of the object.
So is there a gravitational potential in the absence of a test mass? A moment's dimensional analysis will show you the answer is yes. V = U/m by definition. What are the dimensions of energy (surely you know by now!)? Now divide energy by mass and what have you got? So V has no mass component.
"It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge"
Bollocks. Once again you have ruined a meaningful (though unhelpful) sentence by introducing a word of your own. Welcome to the world of physics: please respect our language and customs, and don't misquote the natives.

Yes  that is definitely my experience to say so, but doesn't negate me from 'trying' to explain.
My point is that light, as per general relativity 'is' affected by gravity potential, and that the mass of the caesium atom (and the masses of its particle constituents) 'must' also be affected by gravity potential.
I quoted directly from the link provided. Read it! Granted Wiki can be a tad less than respectable at times, but there is NO word of my own in there wotsoever...
Let's keep it civil. jeffreyH

Wikipedia:
It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.
Timey: It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge
Spot the difference.
the mass of the caesium atom (and the masses of its particle constituents) 'must' also be affected by gravity potential.
Mass is invariant if the object is not moving. And it is irrelevant to the frequency of a cesium clock.

If you had asked me last night specifically why I had said 'electric charge potential' instead of just 'electric potential', I would have checked and told you sorry, and that that was merely a typo, not a purposeful addition to the sentence. It surprises me that this possibility was not your 'first' point of call for a logical explanation of the anomaly...
Yes the mass of the caesium atom is invariant if not moving. Yes the photon, as per relativity, has mass because it is moving.
My point being that the invariant mass of the nonmoving atom and the relativistic mass of the photon are both affected by the gravity potential of their location.
The caesium atom is affected by a higher gravity potential increasing its energy, and therefore the frequency of all of its particle constituents for an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.
Light is affected by the higher gravity potential decreasing its energy and therefore it's frequency. This does not gel with the De Broglie wavelength concepts.
Why is the relativistic mass of light affected by gravity potential energy differently to the invariant mass of the atom and all its particle constituents?
You will 'probably' tell me again that the clock is only appearing to run faster because it is being observed from a lower gravity potential. That if we observed the clock from a higher gravity potential relative to the clock it would appear to run slower... and this answer is correct as per relativity, and as per my notion, but does not explore the situation further.
Exploring the situation further is what I am doing. NIST proved that 2 clocks can be observed at different gravity potentials running at different rates, due to the difference in the gravity field gradient, by 1 observer simultaneously. So now we can say that the clocks are not just appearing to run at different rates when observed from the other reference frame, but that clocks 'do' actually run at different rates due to their location of gravity potential.
If this is the defined case for our observation of clock behaviour in the gravity potential, then it must also be the case for our observation of the behaviour of light in the gravity potential.
So how can a location of increased gravity potential cause lights energy to decrease, when the same location of an increase in gravity potential causes the frequency of the energy transitions of the caesium atoms electron cloud to increase?

The caesium atom is affected by a higher gravity potential increasing its energy, and therefore the frequency of all of its particle constituents for an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.
Light is affected by the higher gravity potential decreasing its energy and therefore it's frequency. This does not gel with the De Broglie wavelength concepts.
(a) nothing to do with deBroglie and (b) untrue, as shown by the PoundRebka experiment. The frequency shift of a photon emerging from a higher to a lower gravitational potential is ihe same sign (positive) as the frequency shift of a clock located at a higher gravitational potential than the observer. We've been through this several times before.
due to the difference in the gravity field gradient
and once more, you have added a word and turned an observation into complete nonsense!

Thank you for your nit picking. Really appreciated! Please consider the offending word removed and the 'lie' gone. I'll banish the word gradient from my phone's word dictionary immediately now I realise it is putting my integrity and honour at stake. (edit: I see you have edited the word lie to being nonsense, which is better)
a) Could you please explain why an atom and its electron cloud that changes in energy and frequency has nothing to with the De Broglie, given that particle energy and frequency does affect wavelength?
b) I'm unclear as to what you are saying here. You say that blueshift from the higher gravity potential to the lower has a positive frequency increase, and that the atomic clock in the higher gravity potential, as opposed to the lower, has a positive frequency increase. But the physical direction of these increases in frequency in the gravity potential experienced by the photon in relation to what happens for the clock are the opposite to each other!

Clock at altitude runs faster as seen from the ground.
Mossbauer photon emitted from the top of the PR tower has a higher frequency as measured from the ground.
No anomaly. Just keep to the facts and keep it simple.

Sorry, but I had been under the impression that light has a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field no matter redshifted or blue shifted...
If it is indeed the changes in the gravitational field that is shifting the light, then this does, I believe, actually 'have' to be the case...

Light travelling from a weaker gravitational field (i.e. the top of the tower) towards the observer in a stronger field (the bottom of the tower) is observed to be blue shifted.
Remember that gravitational potential decreases as you descend, and the gravitational field strength increases as you approach the earth. Higher potential => lower field. I think this was the source of much of your confusion, but it has been pointed out several times.
a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field no matter redshifted or blue shifted...
AAAGGGHHH! red shift = lower frequency. Blue shift = higher frequency. That's why they are called red and blue! Scientific words have meaning. Different words have different meanings. Respect the language  it's very important.

For goodness sake, I am most certainly NOT confused!
Last attempt:
Clock is on ground  it has a frequency. (electron cloud energy transition)
Light is travelling away from Earth from ground  it has a frequency.
Clock is raised to 1 meter away from Earth  it's frequency changes from what it was at ground level. This change is an 'increase' in frequency.
The light when at position 1 meter away from Earth  it's frequency has changed from what it was at ground level. This change is a 'decrease' in frequency.
The light is decreasing in frequency in the opposite direction in a gravity field to how mass decreases in frequency in the gravity field. Mass increases in frequency in the higher gravity potential. Light decreases in frequency in the higher gravity potential.
I just do not get what about this you are not comprehending?
What I want to look at is why the 'invariant mass' of the clocks mechanism atom (and its particle constituents) are affected differently than the 'relativistic mass' of light by 'gravity potential energy'...

Clock is on ground  it has a frequency. (electron cloud energy transition)
Light is travelling away from Earth from ground  it has a frequency.
Clock is raised to 1 meter away from Earth  it's frequency changes from what it was at ground level. This change is an 'increase' in frequency.
as seen by an observer on the ground (GPS clocks)
The light when at position 1 meter away from Earth  it's frequency has changed from what it was at ground level. This change is a 'decrease' in frequency.
as seen by an observer above the ground (PR experiment)
I just do not get what about this you are not comprehending?
The facts being identical, what is there to comprehend?
What I want to look at is why the 'invariant mass' of the clocks mechanism atom (and its particle constituents) are affected differently than the 'relativistic mass' of light by 'gravity potential energy'...
They aren't. See above.
Suppose we have a clock at altitude, and it emits a Mossbauer photon every second (as measured by that clock). What do we see from the ground? The clock is running faster than our reference (the photons arrive at intervals of less than 1 second) and each photon has a higher frequency than our Mossbauer detector can absorb. Same cause, same effect => same phenomenon, so it's nothing to do with the mass of the clock.

This is all a question of energy. If an object with rest mass fall from a position of higher gravity potential to one of lower gravity potential it gains kinetic energy via acceleration. The photon cannot accelerate (in vacuum) so its change in kinetic energy is via an increase in the energy given by the increase in frequency. Where is the problem? Alan will correct anything I have wrong here.

Alan  as the points of difference in elevation for both light and the clock are measured at ground level in relation to 1 meter in my given example  1 observer is observing both clocks simultaneously, and both positions of measurement for the light. There are NO above and below considerations as you suggest. A third clock can be added at 2 meters elevation, and even if the observer is a dwarf, given that he has a step ladder, he will observe that the middle clock is lower in frequency than the higher clock, but that it is higher in frequency than the clock on the ground. (edit: and that the light travelling away from Earth has a lower frequency than it did on the ground at 1 meter elevation, and an even lower frequency than elevation 1 meter when at position of 2 meter elevation, this being the opposite direction of change in frequency in the gravitational field to the experience of the clock). What you are saying regarding the observer status is rendered meaningless. It's been proven by experiment that these are NOT observer dependent phenomenon, but happen regardless of an observer... The reason why an observer 'with' a clock thinks that 'his' clock is correct and every other reference frames rate of time is incorrect, is because his atoms are being similarly gravitationally affected in their usual proportion to, and in keeping with, the clock's atomic mechanism...
Jeff  the problem is:
If you drop the caesium atomic clock from a height above Earth, it will also have kinetic energy, which if we add to the clock, will increase its frequency (electron cloud energy transition) as it drops  ***but a clock placed in a lower gravity potential relative to a higher gravity potential will have a decreased frequency for a slower rate of time***
Accelerate the clock in a uniform gravitational field  an increase in kinetic energy will also occur, which if we add to the clock will increase its frequency (electron cloud energy transition) for a faster rate of time  ***but a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock is observed by experiment to run at a slower rate relative to the stationary clock, not a faster rate.***
Using kinetic energy as book keeping for light doesn't work when applying the process to mass, it would seem!
In any case this is my last post...
(which is, Alan, the closest you will ever see me come to numerology (chuckle))...
Here I offer an alternative means of retaining the constancy of the speed of light in a gravity field, whilst also holding the concept of 'open space distance' as constant...
This alternative model transposes the phenomenon of the 'acceleration of gravity' into a phenomenon of 'inverted time dilation':
(as an additional phenomenon to GR time dilation, 'not' instead of GR time dilation)
1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds.
Add meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity to 299 792 458 meters.
Divide by speed of light.
Subtract 3.3ish nano seconds from result.
Dimensional analysis of above calculation:
L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c minus 3.3ish nano seconds for the extra length of time of a 'longer' second relative to a standard second.
(When M is greater than 9.807m/s2, an altered calculation is required: L+M minus 9.807m/s2, divided by c, minus 3.3ish nano seconds, for a negative result and the lesser length of time for a 'shorter' second relative to standard second)
L and T, or L1 and T1 etc, will always be equal in proportion to each other no matter the circumstances of M.
(I realise that I should (under the remit of dimensional analysis) also be able to give M a numerical, but it's beyond me.)
Matching these extra or lesser nano seconds to the extra or lesser length in wavelength of light undergoing frequency change in the gravitational field via a division of the extra or lesser length of wavelength by the speed of light  would, of course, be peachy!
""Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything!!!"
Bye everyone, all the best to you all! If anyone wishes to contact me, I'm on private message...
P.S. Oh, and I almost forgot... congratulations Jeff on becoming a moderator. You must be pleased as punch. Not so wasted in application now, aye ;). Good for you!

I realise that I have not completed properly, (nor even managed to describe correctly, she admits) in the above maths, so I've had to come back and correct...
On the basis of these axioms that both the speed of light and the speed of gravity are constant and equal to each other, and that open space distances are held constant with the addition of this proposed variable 'inverted time dilation', this being described below as relative to the measurement of a standard second... additional to GR time dilation, not instead of.
(Please note that the standard second is measured via GR time dilation being viewed as a mass in relation to mass phenomenon. The proposed inverted time dilation being described below is a mass in relation to open space phenomenon)
299 792 458 meters divided by speed of light = 1 second
1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds
L = 1 meter in elevation from mass
Divide meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity by speed of light = time it takes for speed of light to cover the distance. (9.807m/s^2 for earth: 9.807m/c=fraction of nano second).
Then: because speed of light divided by 1 second = 299 792 458 meters... and I am looking for a nano seconds per meter value for the time it takes for speed of light to cover m/s^2 of acceleration of gravity for 1 second:
9.807 meters/3.3ish nano seconds = c
9.807 meters/c= fraction of a nano second.
c•fraction of a nano second = fraction of a meter = M
M (based on conversion of Newtons/kg to m/s^2 and above calculations) is equal to said fraction of a meter.
(edit: please note that an altered calculation is required for M greater than 9.807m/s^2, this being due to 'how' we measure the standard second)
T is equal to M/c = fraction of nano second
L1+M1T1 = standard second
L2+M2T2= standard second
...and 'if' I am correct in my calculations, based on given axioms, then it should be that:
M1xT1=L1
L1/M1=T1
L1/T1=M1
(If not then I need a bit of help)
Admittedly it looks strange to be using M as a substitute for speed in the speed distance time formula, but due to the given axioms and M being calculated via acceleration of gravity, the proportions should hold true.
This is just a generalisation. T will be lesser at 0.1 meters than it is at 0.99 meters. h/g being a more precise method I suspect and calculable down to Planck units. ie: 1 Planck length divided by 1 Planck time = c ...
(This being my next project I guess, based on what I've already done being correct??? (When I say correct I mean correctly describing the idea that I have set out to describe))
Matching these extra fractions of a meter of M to the extra length in wavelength of light red shifting away from Earth would, of course, be peachy.
Any help with 'the maths to describe the proposed idea' would also be peachy!

M L and T are like apples, chickens and gravestones. You can't add, subtract, multiply or divide them by each other. They are orthogonal and conserved.
now speed = distance/time so [speed] = L/T = LT^{1} where [....] denotes "dimensions of..."
and acceleration = speed /time so [acceleration] = LT^{2}
force = mass x acceleration, hence [force] = ML/T^{2}
energy = force x distance so [energy] = ML^{2}T^{2}
Einstein's conjecture E = mc^{2}. First question  is this dimensionally correct? well, c is a speed, so [c] = LT^{1}, hence [mc^{2}] = ML^{2}T^{2} which is indeed the dimensions of energy. Therefore the conjecture makes physical sense and is worth investigating experimentally to see if there are any dimensionless constants involved (could it be that E = 0.739mc^{2}, perhaps?) and it turns out that the constant is 1, as we hoped.

Ok, perhaps the question I should be asking Alan is:
How, via dimensional analysis, do I transpose the acceleration of gravity m/s^2 into the proposed variable inverted time dilation that I'm proposing is the cause of the acceleration?
Where the T I'm looking for is variable in relation to both L and M, I'm finding this is presenting problems... Hence the unconventional terms for L, M, and T.

Just read any basic book on general relativity. Einstein explained what actually happens. Nobody can produce a mechanism for what you repeatedly state as fact, because it doesn't happen.

No it doesn't happen in general relativity or any book on physics that I've ever read or am currently likely to read. Why? Because what I am proposing is a totally new concept that I have thought up completely on my own, based on Lee Smolin's 'the trouble with physics' description of where everything in physics does not fit together, and his conclusion that the problem lies in our interpretation of the phenomenon of time.
This notion of an inverted time dilation challenges Hubble's law and the notion of an expanding universe. It does not actually challenge any of Einstein's ideas of general relativity, only some of the consequences of the related mathematics by introducing an additional concept that actually gives cause, where none has been previously been given, and does same job.
Einstien and Hubble were prepared to challenge their own ideas. Why do you have such a problem with it Alan? This is the New Theories board, and what authority do you have to state GR as being the absolute theory?
Einstein explained what GR does, but GR does not explain our universe. It is the general consensus amongst physicists, as I have read, that a further explanation is required in order to do so.
This is me Alan, and I'm having a go at it... Is that alright? Fact is if what I'm suggesting is mathematically viable it describes the universe far more concisely than GR does.
So... given that I'm requiring mathematics that describe the acceleration of gravity as inverted time dilation, how do I employ dimensional analysis when the T I'm describing is variable in relation to both L and M?

Simply messing with time dilation won't give you an acceleration. If time is distorted by a gravitational field (and we know it is  we can measure it) then the effect will be the same at a given point for all small objects. But we observe a difference between an apple fixed to a tree (it doesn't move) and one in free fall (it accelerates). So you need to invoke length (to describe movement) and mass (because by observation, gravitational mass is exactly equal to inertial mass).
I haven't stated that GR is the absolute theory of anything. It just happens to describe and predict the phenomena of time dilation, red shift, gravitational lensing and nuclear energy rather well.

If we take a freeze frame of a path between the earth and the sun we can mark out positions along that path to produce what is called a configuration space. Each point can be labeled as an event in some field. If we then start running forward in time each point will evolve according to its position within the gravitational field. How will they evolve? It is only by thinking this problem through that things will become clear. Smolin spent years at a university. He is entitled to speculate.

If we take a freeze frame of a path between the earth and the sun we can mark out positions along that path to produce what is called a configuration space. Each point can be labeled as an event in some field. If we then start running forward in time each point will evolve according to its position within the gravitational field. How will they evolve? It is only by thinking this problem through that things will become clear. Smolin spent years at a university. He is entitled to speculate.
Jeff  you are viewing the phenomenon of time in the 'passage of time' format. When I am talking about inverted time dilation, this is a phenomenon that states locations in space as running at different rates of time in the present moment.
These locations of gravity field inherent with rates of time that are running faster or slower than neighbouring reference frames of weaker or stronger gravity fields, when travelling through them over a period of time presents an entirely different story, with some potentially interesting mathematical and therefore possibly physical consequences, if we could just get past stage 1 of experimentally transposing the acceleration of gravity into inverted time dilation.
Lee Smolin is indeed entitled to speculate... Interestingly, one of the things he has speculated, and If I'm remembering correctly, it was Roger Penrose whom he mentioned as a cospeculator in this case, is that it will be someone from outside of physics with an unusual background who will precipitate the next big break through in physics!
A university education does not afford one the ability to think, and the lack of one does not afford someone the inability to think...
Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly stupid!

Simply messing with time dilation won't give you an acceleration. If time is distorted by a gravitational field (and we know it is  we can measure it) then the effect will be the same at a given point for all small objects. But we observe a difference between an apple fixed to a tree (it doesn't move) and one in free fall (it accelerates). So you need to invoke length (to describe movement) and mass (because by observation, gravitational mass is exactly equal to inertial mass).
I haven't stated that GR is the absolute theory of anything. It just happens to describe and predict the phenomena of time dilation, red shift, gravitational lensing and nuclear energy rather well.
Alan, you quite simply do not seem to be able to grasp that the additional time dilation that I am proposing cannot be measured by a clock because a clock (and its atomic electron cloud energy transition mechanism ) has mass that is subject to GR time dilation via gravity potential. Light, if viewed without the concept of relativistic mass, is not affected by gravity potential.
A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential. It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field. Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blueshifted towards a body of mass.
Keep the speed of light constant and the wavelength of light as constant as it shifts, and attribute the acceleration of gravity to the proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field. The extra or lesser length of a wavelength due to the frequency being gravitationally shifted can be divided by the speed of light to obtain a value of time. The extra or lesser length in wavelength being inverted time dilation related. In a gravity field lesser than that at ground level, Earth, the extra distance of wavelength divided by speed of light = fraction of nano second, is added to the nanoseconds of a standard second as a measurement of a longer second due to the location in the gravity field. In a gravity field greater than Earth the lesser lengths of wavelength due to the frequency shift divided by speed of light = fraction of a nanosecond are deducted from the nanoseconds of a standard second for a measurement of shorter second due to the location in the gravity field.
Now you have a cause for the acceleration of gravity. The mathematical consequences of this causation are a non expanding, closed system, cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle via the black hole phenomenon. And in doing so, does this without requiring any additional phenomenon, (other than the proposed inverted time dilation which I'm saying we are already observing) that we have not already observed, which actually renders this physics theory as entirely unique. All other theories require additional phenomenon that we do not observe.
Alan, again please take on board the fact that I have not just popped this idea off the top of my head. I've put over 8 years of thought and research into the subject matter and how my notion fits to observation. My idea is simply an augmentation to GR.
Time and time again it would seem to me that although you have a degree in physics, and please, I am really not faulting you on your understanding of physics in the slightest, but you do seem actually unable to experimentally engage in the concept of an alternative means to the same observations.
This is in fact completely illogical. If you have an interest in a cyclic universe, surely you must realise that this would involve the universe contracting at some point, by some means, yet you are unwilling to explore an avenue that would logically describe such?
Sorry, but this is indeed incomprehensible to me... especially as your attitude to other subjects does not display such dogma...

An education in physics is an absolute prerequisite. Including the required mathematics. Smolin could have said the next Nobel prize in physics will go to a goose. That doesn't mean it will happen. It may however make him a few extra quid on his book sales from the curious minded.

A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential. It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field. Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blueshifted towards a body of mass.
You really need to sort this out in your head.
An observer stationed at the clock or travelling with the photon sees no change.
The frequency of a clock is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.
The frequency of a photon is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.
Same phenomenon, same explanation.
Please don't waste your life trying to model or explain something that manifestly doesn't happen. Enjoy the sunshine!

An education in physics is an absolute prerequisite. Including the required mathematics. Smolin could have said the next Nobel prize in physics will go to a goose. That doesn't mean it will happen. It may however make him a few extra quid on his book sales from the curious minded.
A prerequisite for what Jeff?
Are you saying that until I go to university and get a degree in physics and advanced mathematics that I cannot have a physics idea that leads to a cyclic universe?
If so then you are wrong....
The proof is in the fact that I already had the idea!
You know Jeff  can I ask you something? (other than for help with maths that you don't provide)
When the workings of the physical world are explained to you in words, or mathematics, can you make a moving visual picture of these mechanics and continue this picture over a period of time into the future or back into the past in your mind?
Because I can. And I am also capable of changing the rules of the physics and visualising the physical geometrical results of these rule changes, and I'm starting to think that this is something that neither you or Alan are capable of.
I was 'taken' out of school at age 11 much to the disgust of my small Scottish town teachers, who'd had me pegged, even at that young age, as scholarship material. I am completely untested and untried, so logically there is no reason whatsoever that I should not be capable of inspired thought. If I had continued my 'formal' education, I may well have gained possession of qualifications that might of far outclassed both yours and Alan's qualifications... Who knows aye?
In the mean time I have clearly stated 'where' it is that I need help.
Is there actually any chance of getting the help I require here at this forum? Or am I wasting my time?

A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential. It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field. Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blueshifted towards a body of mass.
You really need to sort this out in your head.
An observer stationed at the clock or travelling with the photon sees no change.
The frequency of a clock is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.
The frequency of a photon is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.
Same phenomenon, same explanation.
Please don't waste your life trying to model or explain something that manifestly doesn't happen. Enjoy the sunshine!
Yes Alan  I thought that I had made it quite clear in my previous posts that I am in full understanding of the equivalence principle!
If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field. Fact?
If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field. Fact?
Stating that an idea is manifestly nonexistent is not the scientific method.
An idea can be conceived, mathematically proved to be not viable, or viable. If viable mathematically, it then needs to be proven experimentally for it to be manifestly existent.
To state my idea as manifestly nonexistent one would have to prove that it is so by mathematically calculating it to be nonviable...

lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing words
If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field. Fact?
As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.
If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field. Fact?
As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.
Same phenomenon, same result.
Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.
Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source.
Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate?
And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root"  just press the √ key!

lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing words
If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field. Fact?
As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.
If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field. Fact?
As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.
Same phenomenon, same result.
Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.
Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source.
Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate?
And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root"  just press the √ key!
Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity... Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.
In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.
In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that the possibility exists that the clock is not measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing in the elevated location of the weaker gravity field it is placed in, but is measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location in the gravity field. This notion is supported by the remit of the equivalence principle. A person ages in keeping with the clock at their location. Therefore all the atoms that make up the person are similarly affected, as the atom of the clock is, in the usual proportion to, and in keeping with the clock, by changes in the gravity field.
Now look at light as being unaffected by gravity potential, ie: no relativistic mass. As it's frequency is gravitationally shifted by the gravity field, wave'length' is seen to be inversely proportional to frequency. Consider that the length of wavelength remains constant, and that it is this proposed inverted time dilation that causes the extra length in wavelength. Divide the extra or lesser length of wavelength that occurs due to the shifted frequency of light in a gravity field by the speed of light and you have a time value.
The lights frequency at ground level Earth being equal to 299 792 458 meters per 'standard second'. The lights decreased frequency at 1 meter elevation from Earth then being the extra length of wavelength divided by the speed of light = fraction of nano second. Add that fraction of a nano second to the nano seconds of a standard second for a longer length of second.
This 'being' an observation of the proposed inverted time dilation... Inverted time dilation being a time phenomenon of mass in relation to open space. Light, having no mass is not subject to gravity potential and therefore not subject to GR gravitational time dilation. (GR gravitational time dilation being a mass in relation to mass time phenomenon).
This alternate means of retaining the speed of light in the gravity field is (I believe) mathematically proportional to both current theory and observation and gives causation for the acceleration of gravity.
You may not have a problem with maths. I find them difficult, but only because I am not familiar with the rules. I have made attempt to portray the maths. I appreciate that my method is unconventional (of course it's going to be, I've only been taught maths up to primary school level and the extent of long division, and have never previously had any use for the subject. Algebra, what alien language is that?) ...but the given equation does (I believe) describe what I've set out to describe.
Now I say believe because the reality is that I, by myself, cannot confirm if I've managed to be mathematically precise or not. Therefore I require someone who 'is' familiar with mathematics to complete and confirm. This being my reason for posting on this forum asking for help.
(If these maths are viable then it would be worthwhile to move on to stage 2 of the calculations for the proposed cyclic universe, this being a reassessment of Hubble's law and the Lorentz transformations.)
It is actually a sign of intelligence to understand where ones own self is lacking.

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity
You can't. No observer = no observation. ... Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.
shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.
In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.
This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same as
In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.
as seen by an observer in the stronger field.
Here's what we see in the PoundRebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks
weak field strong field observation
(above ground) (ground level)
photon source > observer blue shift compared with ground level detector
clock > observer faster compared with ground level clock
No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity
You can't. No observer = no observation. ... Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.
shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.
In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.
This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same as
In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.
as seen by an observer in the stronger field.
Here's what we see in the PoundRebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks
weak field strong field report
(above ground) (ground level)
photon source > observer blue shift compared with ground level detector
clock > observer faster compared with ground level clock
No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.
K, I too understand how relativity is explaining the situation.
This is an alternative to relativity that leads to the mechanics of a cyclic universe. It's a different model Alan. Based on GR, and mathematically proportional to GR, but not the same as GR.
The NIST observer observed 2 clocks running at different rates simultaneously. 1 on the ground and 1 elevated at 1 meter. If he had added a 3rd clock at 2 meters elevation, conceivably he could have observed 3 clocks running at different rates simultaneously. Gravitational shift of both the clock and of light are NOT observer dependent... When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation he did so without the benefit of observation, just logic and proportional mathematics.
It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.
GR does not give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, or the future of the universe. The theory collapses at the event horizon of a black hole, and relies on dark matter and dark energy to make the maths work.
My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.

When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation
faster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.
But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons.
It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.
I think most of us have believed this since about 1920.
My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.
So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence?

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation
faster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.
But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons.
It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.
I think most of us have believed this since about 1920.
My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.
So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence?
Faster or slower relative to a clock in a weaker or greater gravity field.
No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field, and that light viewed as having no mass means that the possibility exists to exempt light from being subject to gravity potential.
If we have viewed gravitational shift as being a direct result of changes in the gravitational field since 1920, then all phenomenon of frequency changes can be considered not just as an 'appearance' from above or below, but as verbatim. The fact that an observer considers his clock to be correct is clearly set out in the equivalence principle where all reference frames are equal in proportion to each other.
I have explained the mechanics of this proposed inverted time dilation and how it leads to a cyclic universe in many of my previous posts, but in short as to what applies in this threads context:
The premiss for this theory is based solely on the concept that a clock mechanism that has been chosen because it can operate at a frequency that keeps time perfectly as to the requirements of how we measure it, (ie: as per the rotations of our planet in relation to the sun), when placed at an elevated position in a gravity field is not measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing at the elevated location, but is measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location. This notion is supported by the remit of the equivalence principle and the fact that an observer with a clock ages in keeping with the clocks rate of time.
My theory states that the phenomenon of time is doing something different at the location of elevation, and that this phenomenon can be observed in the extra or lesser wave'length' of gravitationally shifted light, if viewing light without the concept of relativistic mass, and that this inverted time dilation is indeed the causation of the acceleration of gravity. Meters per 'standard' second squared, being meters per 'variable' second squared. This gives causation for all bodies of differing mass in free fall experiencing inertia and the fact of gravitational 'attraction' being a weak force.
In a simple sentence:
"The acceleration of gravity 'is' inverted time dilation, and this highly variable inverted time dilation causes 'stuff' to accelerate or decelerate in a gravity field."

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,
NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME, as all your references have stated.
Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential.
If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest.
Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,
NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME, as all your references have stated.
Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential.
If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest.
Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.
A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.
Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.
???
I'm not confused!

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.
Ok  but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.
This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.
Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.
NO They are both increased, as everyone knows and observes.
Here's what we see in the PoundRebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks
weak field strong field observation
(above ground) (ground level)
photon source > observer blue shift compared with ground level detector
clock > observer faster compared with ground level clock
No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.
Ok  but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.
This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.
The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.

Ok  but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.
This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.
Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation!
Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!

Ok  but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.
This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.
Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation!
Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!
Gosh Alan  please allow me to rephrase:
'In direct contradiction with experimental evidence.'
Not confused about clocks in relative motion...
My model makes an addition to the equivalence principle. Yes  relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.
Ok  but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.
This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.
The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.
Jeff  I am in full understanding of what GR time dilation does in a gravitational field. I have spent over 8 years pondering!
I am not disputing that clocks are subject to GR gravitational time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation, exactly as calculated as per GR, is part of the physics of my model of a cyclic universe.
It is light that I'm saying is subject to inverted time dilation and that lights reduction in frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential, or increase in frequency ss seen from the higher gravity. potential is inverted time dilation related.
This on the basis that light having no mass is not subject to the additional energy of gravity potential, and is only subject to this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field, and a reduction in frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.
GR gravitational time dilation being on the basis that mass is subject to gravity potential, and the addition of gravity potential energy causes an increase in the clocks frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.
Frequency 'being' the ticking of the phenomenon of time, for both the proposed inverted time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation, and also the phenomenon of the motion related slowing of a clock relative to a stationary clock. (Subtract the KE for a reduction in frequency)

Yes  relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?
...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks.
There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.

Yes  relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?
...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks.
There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.
Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field. The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
Red shifted light is light travelling away from a gravity field. The frequency of the light decreases the further away it gets from the body of mass.
Overlay these phenomenon against each other in a gravity field, at each point of coordinate in the gravity field, light of either type of shift 'should' have the same frequency at the same coordinate. (Relativity stretches space. Inverted time dilation stretches time.)
The frequency of light is always lesser in the higher gravity potential no matter where the observer observes from, or which way the light is shifting.
A clock mapped to a gravity field shows that a clock runs at a faster rate as seen from the lower gravity potential. Someone in the higher gravity potential would see this clock in the middle as running slower, but given that all 3 clocks were stationary relative to each other, the observer with the clock above, and the observer with the clock below, 'should' be able to agree in their observation of the middle clocks time.
The frequency of a clock is always higher in the higher gravity potential.
Note:
light = lower frequency in a higher gravity potential (as seen from lower gravity potential)
Note:
Clock = higher frequency in a higher gravity potential (as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?
I am insisting nothing!
Well nothing other than you, (or anyone else reading), consider the idea that I'm proposing and help me ascertain if the notion is mathematically proportional to GR and therefore viable, or (more likely) not.

Note:
light = lower frequency .......... as seen from lower gravity potential
Note:
Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?
Here's the diference: the first statement is untrue. As you stated, correctly at the outset:
Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field. The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
...so if you are standing on the surface of the earth (i.e. "as seen from lower gravity potential") you see the blue shift of a photon originating at the top of the tower. And the clock at the top of the tower appears to be faster  for the same reason.
Always happy to consider a new idea, but not if it is derived from an obvious untruth.

Note:
light = lower frequency .......... as seen from lower gravity potential
Note:
Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?
Here's the diference: the first statement is untrue. As you stated, correctly at the outset:
Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field. The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
...so if you are standing on the surface of the earth (i.e. "as seen from lower gravity potential") you see the blue shift of a photon originating at the top of the tower. And the clock at the top of the tower appears to be faster  for the same reason.
Always happy to consider a new idea, but not if it is derived from an obvious untruth.
I understand that as per GR there is a mathematical proportionality between the red shift blue shift phenomenon and the gravitational time shift of a clock. Otherwise GR would not be mathematically viable.
However, as to the directional frequency changes observed of the red shift, blue shift phenomenon in relation to what happens for a clock, the changes are occurring in the opposing directions in the gravity field.
I have said that: light = lower frequency as seen from a lower gravity potential.
I can't for the life of me see why you state this as incorrect... Light in a weaker gravitational field will 'always' have a lower frequency than light in a stronger gravity field.
Take the PR for an example:
The PR is emitting light of the same energy and frequency from both top of tower and bottom of tower scenario's.
The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower. Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.
The photon emitted at bottom of tower redshifts towards top of tower. Its frequency is decreased as it travels towards top of tower.
There is a mathematical proportionality between the magnitude of shift that the photon experiences whether red shifted or blue shifted. One is the opposite of the other. (?)
Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential. (I can add)  relative to the frequency that same light would have if it were to travel further into the lower gravity potential. (for greater clarity)
A clocks frequency is always higher as seen from the lower gravity potential. (I'll add)  in the case of both clocks being stationary relative to each other. (for greater clarity)

The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower. Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.......
..........Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.
Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.

The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower. Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.......
..........Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.
Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.
Alan  I despair of you, really.
As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency. When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.
Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency. When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.
Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.
How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency. When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.
Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.
How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?
You point has logic, but only from the philosophical point of view.
And... a tree falling unobserved in a forest still falls.
A photon arriving at 1 metre elevation from a gravity field has a lower frequency than it did when it was emitted at ground level. (red shift)
A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)
Why is it of consequence that we view a photon emitted at 1 metre as being 1 frequency, if we know that it will be a higher frequency when it reaches the ground? Surely we are able to run sequential events forward, or indeed backward in time and then say that light of both red shifted and blue shifted variety always has a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
(ie: light is always seen from the lower gravity potential to have a lower frequency than it would have when travelling further into the lower gravity potential.)

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)
and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.
Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)
and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.
Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.
So  by the very logic you have just described  how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
Or does the clock in space actually run at a faster rate?

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?
Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.
Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground.
These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse  say a single photon  every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?
Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.
I realize that I haven't contributed to this thread much in the past but I've been watching the development of it from it's inception. Allow me to say just a couple things and then I will butt out.
1. Alan has defined the crux of this argument in my opinion.
The facts are that in my frame of reference, the second passes at a predictable rate and no matter what frame one finds themselves in, their seconds also pass at a predictable and consistent rate. Forget how someone from another frame, whether in a different gravitational environment or in a different state of acceleration might view the passage of time in ours. Their personal experience is also a predictable and consistent second and is measured the same as anyone within a different frame. The only variations in the perceived passage of time occur when viewing another frame from the standpoint of your own.
If there were another variable involved, as timey suggests, it would be reasonable to assume that it should be detectable within someone's personal frame of reference and because none has been observed, we can assume that this variable doesn't therefore exist.
We establish the second by using the speed of light in a vacuum and the permittivity of free space. And the character of free space determines the speed of light which is everywhere the same when measured in a true vacuum. So I fail to understand how a reckoning for a variable second is possible when every local frame observes the speed of light to be exactly the same. The only variation we observe occurs when viewing frames other than our own. And to add another variable to the equation would certainly show up somewhere sometime. And because we can accurately predict those differences between ours and the others, it would suggest no additional variable is at work or necessary.
So forgive me for disagreeing timey, while your idea is provocative, I'm afraid it is without merit.
I will butt out for now but I will continue to follow this thread..........Hopefully, we shall all learn something worthwhile as it develops.

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?
Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.
Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground.
These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.
Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?
No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse  say a single photon  every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.
You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:
I agree, but continue the scenario:
...and these higher energy photons gain even higher energy as they shift towards the bottom of tower ...
...and a clocks frequency (energy is proportional to frequency) will be observed as decreased if placed at bottom of tower relative to clocks frequency at top of tower.

Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer.
If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.
Please note and understand every word.

Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer.
If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.
Please note and understand every word.
Yes  and if you move the source to ground level there will be no blue shift at all.
I'll try again.
You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:
...and those higher energy photons gain energy as they travel to bottom of tower.
I have two Fe57 sources at top of tower. Leaving one at top of tower with my assistant, I bring the other down to the bottom of tower and you and I observe that the Fe57 source that we are observing is emitting photons of a lower energy and frequency than the Fe57 source at top of tower. We are also recording the time of both locations with cesium atomic clocks. I also have two atomic clocks.
The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.
The photon has increased in energy and frequency between top of tower and bottom of tower.
The Fe57 source that I moved from top of tower to bottom of tower has decreased in energy and frequency and now emits photons of a lower energy than it did at top of tower.
The atomic clocks at top of tower had an increased frequency relative to your clock at bottom of tower. You observed that my clocks were running faster than yours. I observed your clock was running slower than mine.
I also brought one of my clocks with me down to bottom of tower, and my assistant observes that both clocks at bottom of tower are running at a slower rate relative to the top of tower clock.
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.
The Fe57 photon emissions occur at a lower frequency and energy at bottom of tower than they do at top of tower.
Photons emitted by a Fe57 source at top of tower 'increase' in energy and frequency as they travel from top of tower to bottom of tower.
The changes in energy and frequency for a photon occur in the opposing direction in a gravity field than occurs for a Fe57, or a cesium atom.

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.
No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.
No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.
Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.
As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.
No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.
No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.
Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.
As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!
You said:
Quote:
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:
If the Fe57 source was not experiencing a higher energy itself at top of tower, it could not produce a higher energy photon.
Yes that photon is perceived at top of tower from bottom of tower to have an increased frequency and energy. When that photon arrives at bottom of tower it has an even greater frequency and energy.
But if you take the Fe57 source that emitted that photon down to the bottom of tower, it produces photons of lesser energy and frequency, and therefore has to have less energy and frequency itself at the bottom of the tower.
The photons have increased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.
The Fe57 source has decreased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Every word matters!
If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere  because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.
Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Every word matters!
If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere  because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.
Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.
Yes  of course.
Place the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 source in a uniform gravity field at bottom of tower. (horizontal experiment) The receiver receives the emitted photon.
Place the Fe57 source at top of tower, (vertical experiment), the mossbauer receiver cannot receive the photon.
The energy of the photon is too great.
Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.
Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.
The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.
The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.

As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.

As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.
Actually Alan  my model is simplicity itself in comparison to GR.
What I'm explaining is not difficult. I understand that it is unfamiliar to you, but what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
An energy transition must be of the correct value for a photon to be received.
(edit: ...and my model makes a lot more sense than GR because it gives cause for Big Bang, inflation period, Big crunch and describes a cyclic universe without any unobserved additions. GR cannot do this. GR can only partially explain our universe and relies heavily on unobserved additions to make the maths work.)

what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.
Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.
The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.
The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.
The discussion of relative position is always a struggle to grasp. The transmitter is composed of physical things such as crystals. The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field. If you put it in water, as the pressure increases the crystal will oscillate slower. The transmitter higher up from the bottom of the water will have a higher frequency. thus for the transmitter in the tower it will have a higher frequency due to a lower gravitational pressure. It is also moving faster as the Earth orbits as compared to the ground. This will tend to slow the clock.
So we get a faster speed due to less gravitational pressure and a slower speed due to the faster motion of the clock. You guys agree that measurements have shown the net result is the tower clock is faster with a higher energy level. You can attribute this to variations in space and time or just simple variations in the gravitational field.

The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.
Fortunately, this is not true. But I no longer care.

what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...
I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.
Well Alan  I suppose I shall console myself in being happy that you do at least recognise that I have arrived at the point where quantum and gravity do not unify!
Gravity is linear and quantum is not. Its the reason they cannot be unified.
But my theory of inverted time is based on the phenomenon of time being energy related.
Gravity sucks because the inverted time dilation phenomenon, that I am proposing is inherent to 'space' in relation to mass, (on a cosmic, macroscopic, and microscopic level), gets increased in its rate with the increasing energy of an increasing gravity field.
And quantum can be linearised because as with the acceleration of gravity being measured in metres per standard second, Planks h constant is a joules per standard second measurement. (Joules per standard second, being the constant, applied over longer or shorter length second)
The frequency shift of light is the common ground between these 2 phenomenon.
Under the circumstance of quantum remaining so far, and after all this time, unreconciled with gravity, I hardly think it a waste of time to consider an alternative to the current physics if the idea is logically sound, even if the idea turns out under inspection to be mathematically unviable.
My idea is logically sound, and 'is' mathematically proportional to GR as far as I can see.
It surprises me Alan that you are not more pleased to be engaged in an intellectual challenge as such. Calculating an idea that has never been thought of before has got to be more interesting than the same old run of mill all the time, surely?

Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.
Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.
The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.

Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.
Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.
The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.
You said:
'Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source."
Unquote:
These phenomenon exist in our 1 universe and cannot logically be isolated from each other. The energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon and the mossbauer receiving a photon are quantum process. The vertical experiment (PR) is inclusive of red shift, blue shift phenomenon, and the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
I am only setting out on incorrect premise if you state the premise being replaced as absolute. No physicist anywhere should state GR as the absolute theory. It clearly isn't! However any theory that supersedes GR does need to be mathematically proportional to GR or it will not be viable. To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
So far I cannot seem to persuade you to consider that I am proposing that it is GR gravitational time dilation that is the time phenomenon measuring the length of a standard second  as we humans have defined the measurement of such via the rotations our planet in relation to the sun  in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
...And that it is light that will display behaviour during the 'passage' of time, due to the inverted time dilation phenomenon if viewed without relativistic mass.
Note  the 'passage' of time is sequential events of past, present, future, and the phenomenon of time is gravitational time dilation of both types, (and motion related time dilation).
All sequential events occur 'in' inverted time.
To understand this, it is required that you recognise that mass will experience time in relation to the main body of mass (earth), and that mass in elevation to mass, its energy and frequency increases. This being GR gravitational time dilation.
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field. You don't need to bring relativity into it, just 2 graphs. One showing the decreased energy changes of blue shifted, or red shifted light in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth, and the other showing the increase in energy experienced by the cesium atomic clock in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth.
The increase in energy and frequency for light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
The increase in energy and frequency for anything with rest mass increases the further away it is placed from the body of mass.
I think I am correct in stating these 2 phenomenon as proven by experiment, although I appreciate that nobody has been viewing the results in the way that I am proposing.
Yes the speed of gravitational acceleration is well documented, and is a measurement recorded via a GR time dilated clock in free fall
as per metres per standard second. The clock is not travelling at relativistic speeds, so motion related time dilation is not relevant, and the changes it experiences due to the slowing of its time as it moves into the lower gravity potential, within the remit of the experiment, are negligible. The clock has measured metres per standard second.
To calculate inverted time dilation... via the speed, distance, time formula, turn the acceleration of gravity, this being a speed, into a time value, (time value (a)), and add, (or subtract if calculating a value of g that is above 9.807ms2), this value of time to, (or from), the length of a standard second. (as per maths earlier this thread)
Turn the extra or lesser length of wavelength of gravitationally shifted light into a time value (time value (b)), by dividing the extra or lesser length by speed of light.
The relevant time values of (a) 'should' match the gravitationally shifted time values of (b).

To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
It certainly helps.
the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
it is not.
in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.
Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.
decreased energy changes of blue shifted
oxymoron
Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.
I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.

To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.
It certainly helps.
the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.
it is not.
in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.
It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.
And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.
Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.
decreased energy changes of blue shifted
oxymoron
Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.
I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.
If you draw a graph of blue shifted light blue shifted towards earth, and then you look back at the path it has taken, the frequency the light was at each position of increased elevation from earth will be lesser. Both red shifted and blue shifted light are lesser in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
There are 86400 standard seconds in a full rotation of our planet and the cesium atomic clock is the most precise measurement of a standard second to date. What's the problem?
Wavelength and energy changes involved in the frequency changes for light are related to Planck's h constant.
Exactly what is beneath contempt please?
A model of a cyclic universe that has been slowly contracting from initial point of inflation is, of course, going to have 'different' physics. As long as these alterations are proportional to that which they replace, the model should be viable.
I don't see where your problem is and you are not being particularly specific.

There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.
In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.

There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.
In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.
If I asked you about dark energy, you would say, yes Vikki. Dark energy exists because something has to be pushing the universe apart at the accelerating speed. If I asked what dark energy is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...
If I asked you about dark matter, you would say yes Vikki, dark matter has to exist to account for all the gravity it would require to stop galaxies from flying apart. If I asked where all this dark matter is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...
If I asked you about the Big Bang, you would tell me that the Big Bang occurred and that all of our universe originated from a point. If I asked how that happened, you would have to say that you haven't got a clue.
If I asked you about the Inflation Period, you would tell me that just after the Big Bang everything became exponentially expanded before the expansion rate slowed, only to start speeding up again as per discovery of accelerated expansion. If I asked you what caused inflation to happen, you would have to say that you don't have a clue.
These would be legitimate current physics conversations that presumably you would be quite content to discuss with me.
Yet  if I suggest that I want to attribute the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted light  that is currently attributed to the 'speed' that a light source is accelerating away from us at  to a proposed phenomenon of inverted time dilation.
(challenging Hubble's law, and the concept of universal expansion, negating the necessity for dark energy and leading to a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle, and inflation period, fully accounted for by the black hole phenomenon).
...Or suggest that the acceleration of gravity can be attributed to this proposed inverted time dilation.
(giving the 'suck' of gravity a cause that negates the need for dark matter)
...Or that because for light E=hf, or E=hcwavelength, suggest that changes in the wave'length' might be inverted time dilation related.
(giving cause for the curvature, or the stretching of space fabric into longer distances, because it is time (length of second) in 'space' that is being stretched, not the geometrical distance, and it is the changes in the length of a second in the gravity field that causes the curvature)
...Or suggest that calculating inclusive of inverted time dilation could make a continuum of quantum.
(already being calculated via perturbation theory which is a time related method)
...you are considering that 'my' notions are beneath contempt?
You said:
Quote:
" There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts."
Unquote:
I really couldn't agree more.
(P.S. I do not see any cause for the hostile undertones Alan. What I'm suggesting is logically sound)

If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.

If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.
In that there is a Doppler shift associated with gravitationally shifted light, it would be reasonable to assume I am referring to it. I might say that your reference to pseudo science, untruths and mysticism is drivel, but Jeff did mention about civility. In all fairness I might point out that his comment also applies to yourself despite your moderator status.
No  I am not saying that light and a clock are differently affected by gravity. I am saying that without the relativistic mass concept, light can be viewed as being unaffected by gravity potential energy.
A clock has a higher frequency when placed in the weaker gravity field.
Light that has already been emitted of both red shifted and blue shifted variety has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field. I understand this is where you have the problem, so...
Light source is at 1 metre. Point light source at ground, the light when it reaches ground is of higher frequency.
Light source is on ground. Point light source away from earth, the light when it reaches 1 metre elevation is of lower frequency.
Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground. I'm not disputing this fact. I'm merely pointing out that when that already emitted higher frequency photon reaches the ground it will be of an even higher frequency.
Therefore emitted light is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground. I'm not disputing this fact.
You should, because it isn't true.
Consider the PR experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground. I'm not disputing this fact.
You should, because it isn't true.
Consider the PR experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.
Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?
It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.
If you place clocks in elevation at metre intervals for 22 metres, each clock as you go upwards will have a higher frequency than the clock below.
The mechanism of the cesium atomic clock is such, that if the microwave part of the mechanism is too finely attuned, the cesium atom experiences shift before it has completed its cycle of movement within the remit of the clocks own internal height of 3 feet. In other words they are capable of recording shift in frequency of the cesium atoms energy transition between elevations of a lesser distance than the physical dimensions of the clock itself allow for.
The clocks working mechanism is entirely comprised of light related phenomenon. The frequency of the microwave beam has to be of the exact correct energy for the cesium atom to emit a photon...
Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
Or alternatively, just as an exercise in intellectual dexterity, why not consider already emitted light as having no mass, and that this already emitted light is only subject to the acceleration or deceleration of this proposed inverted time dilation of the gravitational field? (ie: mass value has no bearing in inertia)

If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spinspin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh?
.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.
I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.

If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spinspin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh?
.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.
I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.
I'm not sure where to start with your post. The logic is clearly absurd.
Quote:
" If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds."
Unquote:
Are you saying a receiver or an observer? Place observers at different heights that are stationary in relation to a clock on the ground, they will all agree that the clock on the ground is running at the same rate. If each observer compares the rate of the clock on the ground with their own clock, they will all say the clock on the ground's rate of time is running slower. If they all check their clock against every other clock, they will soon sort out that each clock is running faster than the clock below it.
If you are talking about a receiver, as in mossbauer receiver, then each receiver placed at a different elevation is gravitationally shifted. None of the receivers will receive the photon emitted by the Fe57 source on the ground. Only when a Doppler shift is added to the light source emitter, will the mossbauer receiver receive the photon. I daresay there would be differences in the magnitude of Doppler shift added to the Fe57 source on the ground in order for the emitted photon to be received by the mossbauer receivers placed at different elevations.
Quote:
Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?
Unquote:
This is incomprehensible as per accepted physics and to say so, thoroughly disappointing. The clock on the ground doesn't run at different rates. The Fe57 source on the ground doesn't emit photons of different energies.
Quote:
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spinspin interaction.
Unquote:
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is gravitationally shifted! The transition is increased in frequency when subject to a higher gravity potential energy. Therefore it is affected by gravitation. So...I am completely lost by your reasoning there.
Spin spin interaction? Yes indeed  quantum gravity being the goal.
The sentence you complain of means something because the energy of a cesium atom and an Fe57 are increased in the higher gravity potential and the equivalence principle states that all reference frames are equal to each other. Therefore all atoms will experience an increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.
But already emitted light does not. It always has a decreased energy in the higher gravity potential, relative to the energy it had (red shift) or is going to have (blue shift) as it travels through changes in the gravity field.
Quote:
"But who cares about physics, eh?"
Unquote:
Enough to do my research 'before' opening my mouth!
There is indeed little point in your responding if you can't even manage to comprehend these simple and accepted facts of "mainstream" physics that are "proven" by experiment. It would seem you are under the impression that clocks running at faster or slower rates, and the observations of gravitationally shifted light are but an appearance and not actual physical phenomenon.
NIST have proven that clocks do run at a faster rate in the higher gravity potential.
As per the equivalence principle an observer with the clock will age in keeping with the clock.
...and the red shift and blue shift of already emitted light in the gravity field are documented as redshifts decreasing in frequency traveling into the higher gravity potential, and blue shifts increasing in frequency traveling into the lower gravity potential.
'This' post has NOT deviated from currently held accepted mainstream physics.
Honestly Alan, either explain to me specifically exactly where and why 'this' post 'has' deviated from accepted mainstream physics and experimental evidence, or post me an apology because you are wrong. I'm all out of patience with the non specific nature of your complaints and you are seriously losing my respect!

Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.

Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.
I have not ever proposed that the mechanism of a frequency emitting source that is held static in a uniform gravitational field will be responsible for frequency changes that its signal experiences in the non uniform gravity field.
All emitted signals are gravitationally shifted by a non uniform gravity field.
The signal, as it moves into the higher gravity potential reduces in frequency and this reduced frequency is what the elevated receiver sees.
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency. (as with NIST clocks, as per the equivalence principle). This higher frequency signal, emitted by the gravitationally shifted signal emitter, is further shifted as it moves into the lower gravity potential, and the placed receivers all see respectively higher frequencies as elevation position is decreased.
I am pointing out that:
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."
You are telling me that this is nonsense...

Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.
Yes  it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.
Yes  it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...
Over use of ellipses makes ...

I am pointing out that:
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."
You are telling me that this is nonsense...
More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you.
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.
The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spinspin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsionspring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperaturesensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauertype gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".

I am pointing out that:
"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."
You are telling me that this is nonsense...
More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you.
But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.
No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.
The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spinspin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsionspring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperaturesensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauertype gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".
Alan  thing is that one can hardly consider the situation as meaningless when one notes that under the remit of GR, light is calculated as having relativistic mass...
If light has mass then, as per equivalence principle, its frequency should increase in the higher gravity potential, as everything else with mass's frequency does.
Yes  of course the received signal is higher in frequency. Its been blue shifted. However the mass of the signal emitter 'has' also been shifted to a higher frequency due to its elevation in the higher gravity potential. A higher frequency means a higher energy, and if the emitter has a higher energy it must emit at a higher frequency.
We can see this as proven by experiment:
An Fe57 source on ground emits photon. A mossbauer receiver on ground receives photon.
An Fe57 source on ground emits photon. A mossbauer receiver in elevation cannot receive photon. The energy of the photon is not of correct level.
But if you place the Fe57 source at the same elevation as the mossbauer receiver, the mossbauer receiver receives photon.
Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin  spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy. The photons then further increase in energy when blue shifted towards earth.
So long as we are clear on all of this, we can progress to discussing these accepted and mainstream physics in the context of a new theory  this being the proposed inverted time dilation and the consequence of its addition being a cyclic universe.

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin  spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.
When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom KrugerDunning is an entry qualification.
Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequencyshifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin  spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.
Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.
When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom KrugerDunning is an entry qualification.
Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequencyshifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.
So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
I wasn't inventing a presumably Alan, I was being polite in that you might take opportunity to add something that is actually correct to the discussion.
I did run through exactly why it is that experiment shows why what I'm saying is correct.
If you are saying that what I'm saying is incorrect, then state what is incorrect in relation to experimental evidence. Do not tell me to stick to facts without saying exactly and precisely where I have deviated from them, and may I suggest that doing so 'before' adding insults is the norm in good manners.

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin  spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
none of this is true.

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?
Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.
both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin  spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,
none of this is true.
Using words like garbage and nonsense is hardly scientific, and responding with "this isn't true" is not in the interests of a discussion.
I could quote some of the physics gaffs you have made in this thread but that would be bitchy. Why would anyone want to be bitchy?
When I sent you my diagram November last year, you told me that you were a bit rusty on GR. This being the most refreshingly honest response I've ever had from a physicist, setting you in a class of your own in my opinion. But to say so, this was of no surprise to me as I had made a full study of your posts that spelt out the same story.
The more apt response for a physicist to make would be:
On the basis, Vikki, that I think you are equating spinspin hyperfine energy transitions to quantum process, although the PR used this quantum process to measure gravitational shift, physics is no closer to linking quantum with gravity.
Then you might say:
So  what you got in mind?

Spinspin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 > Fe57*.
So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?

Spinspin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 > Fe57*.
So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?
I cannot claim to be knowledgeable enough in the area of particle physics in relation quantum process to conduct a truly indepth technological conversation... The only part of the quantum process that I'm looking at is the energy levels required for transitions to occur, and how a photon must be of the correct energy for the mossbauer to receive it.
For me to tell you what I've got in mind, I need for you to confirm that you have understood that:
Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.
...and that when we view light that is arriving from somewhere, we only see it at the energy level that it is when it arrives, not at the energy level that it was emitted at.
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy. In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer. The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
Looking at the cesium atomic clock and how the frequency of its energy transitions increase in the weaker gravity field, as a quantum process. A higher frequency means a higher energy level. Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Taking this logic back to the mossbauer we 'could' now view the mossbauer as having increased energy at elevation. And when considering that if we move the Fe57 source to the same elevation as we previously moved the mossbauer to, the mossbauer will receive the photon the Fe57 source emits at this elevation because the photon it emits is of the correct energy level  and so... we 'could' view the Fe57 source as having increased in energy. As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
If you follow the logic so far, I'll continue. If you don't, then please say exactly where you have the problem.

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.
These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.
Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy. In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer. The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravitydependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean, as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.
These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.
Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.
The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy. In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer. The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.
That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.
Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...
Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravitydependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.
As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.
You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean, as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.
OK  to clear up any terminology problems, when I refer to energy, frequency and wavelength, I am referring to lights energy, frequency and wavelength, and I am also referring to the energy, frequency and wavelength of De Broglie matter wave.
Garbled or not, red shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field, and blue shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field.
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field  may I then have your agreement?
All mass is gravitationally affected by the proximity of other mass, including the interactions of particles within atoms. The spinspin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field. This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Just saw the editted additions. Yes  calculating gravity potential for the clock would increase frequency with the added energy... Calculating light without the additional gravity potential (ie: no relativistic mass) would leave lights observed behaviour open to the introduction of my idea of this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field.

If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field  may I then have your agreement?
Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.
The spinspin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field. This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field  may I then have your agreement?
Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.
The spinspin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field. This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.
Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.
Alan  the frequency of a third clock that is higher in elevation than the first clock we put in elevation, will see that the clock below it is running slower than itself. But it will also see that the clock on the ground is running slower than the clock in the middle.
Therefore a clock always has a higher frequency when it is in the higher gravity potential.

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?
I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).
Hi Hamdani  thanks for joining the discussion. I've been following your posts and welcome your commentary.
However, to say so, I am not confused about gravity potential. I understand that the higher gravity potential is in the weaker gravity field.
To give you background, I have a theory of time that attributes the phenomenon of time to being a byproduct of energy.
In brief: More energy = faster rate of time, and frequency 'is' timing. The consequences of the addition of an inverted time dilation for open space result in a cyclic universe. (If you are further interested I can send you a more in depth synopsis via private message)
Alan has said (I think) that gravity potential energy can be calculated via mgh. If the mass was on the ground that would just be mg. I'm suggesting that light without the relativistic mass concept can be calculated as gh, and that the acceleration of g 'is' the inverted time dilation that I am proposing should be added to GR. (Holding speed of gravity as constant and equal to speed of light  via speed, distance, time formula, transpose acceleration into time value... I attempted maths at this earlier this thread, and can repost if you are interested.)
This concept, and this being just one of many relevant consequences, gives the acceleration of gravity a cause.
When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field. And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.
Planck's h constant being the linking factor between changes in lights energy with regards to frequency and wavelength, and being the significant phenomenon of quantum.

More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.
A clock increases in frequency in elevation, relative to clock below.
A clock decreases in frequency in motion, relative to a stationary clock.
Put a stationary clock into motion in a uniform gravity field  adding kinetic energy will increase the frequency of the clock, not decrease it.

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field. And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.
You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it. It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field. And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.
You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it. It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift
Remember that for an observer to observe light, the light has to have entered the eye, or reached the detector.
Therefore the observation of blue shifted light is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.
It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,

..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.
It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,
No Alan  that is not true.
NIST atomic clock experiments can observe 2 clocks 1 metre apart in elevation running at different rates with 1 observer.

And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!

And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!
Yes the higher one runs faster and the observer is observing both the higher frequency clock and the lower frequency clock at same time.
The point being that there is no dependence on where the observer himself is viewing the clocks from. He can bend down and look at the lower clock, and see from that position that the higher clock is running faster than the lower, and he can stand up and see that the higher clock is still running faster than the lower clock. Place a third clock at 2 metres elevation and he will see that the 2 metre clock has a higher frequency than the 1 metre clock, and the 1 metre clock has a higher frequency than the clock on the ground, and that this will be the case no matter which elevation he places his eyes at.
Place detectors at ground, and 1 and 2 and metre elevations. Blue shifted light will be lower in frequency at 2 metres than it will be at 1 metre, and lower in frequency at 1 metre than it will be at ground detector.

No. He looks down and sees that the lower clock appears to be running slower than his, and looks up to see the higher clock apparently running faster than his. If he was below the lower clock, both would appear to be running faster.
Here's an old story that explains a lot. A politician, a statistician and a physicist were travelling through Peru in a train. They saw two cows in a field, one black, one white. The politician said "the overwhelming majority of Peruvian cows are black". The statistician said "on a possibly nonrepresentative sample of two frrom an unknown population, my best estimate is that half the cows in Peru are black". The physicist said "At 1800GMT on 23 June 2014 I saw two bovine quadrupeds in a field in Peru. At least one side of one of them was black."
Stick to physics and you won't go far wrong!

No. He looks down and sees that the lower clock appears to be running slower than his, and looks up to see the higher clock apparently running faster than his. If he was below the lower clock, both would appear to be running faster.
Here's an old story that explains a lot. A politician, a statistician and a physicist were travelling through Peru in a train. They saw two cows in a field, one black, one white. The politician said "the overwhelming majority of Peruvian cows are black". The statistician said "on a possibly nonrepresentative sample of two frrom an unknown population, my best estimate is that half the cows in Peru are black". The physicist said "At 1800GMT on 23 June 2014 I saw two bovine quadrupeds in a field in Peru. At least one side of one of them was black."
Stick to physics and you won't go far wrong!
Alan  I just said exactly what you said. Only difference is that you are saying that the clock only appears to be running slower if viewed from above, and only appears to be running faster if viewed from below.
NIST proved that clocks actually do run faster in the higher gravity potential. Its not an appearance, its a physical fact.

Faster than what?
As far as an observer next to the clock is concerned, it is running at exactly the same speed, wherever it happens to be in the universe, because whatever he is using to measure it, is also at the same gravitational potential.
The surface of the earth is not a special point in the universe. Indeed, identical "surface" primary standard clocks at NIST Boulder (altitude 1655m) and NPL Teddington (altitude 3m) run at different rates as seen by each other. Which one is correct? The answer is, of course, "both", because they both use the same fundamental property that is unaffected by any extermal influence. And the same is true of the clock on a space probe, whether in a zero gravity field or approaching Jupiter or a black hole. The explanation is that time is warped by a gravitational field, and calculations based on known gravitational fields fortunately yield correct clock variation factors, so GR is at least selfconsistent, explanatory and predictive, even if it doesn't explain everything.

Faster than what?
As far as an observer next to the clock is concerned, it is running at exactly the same speed, wherever it happens to be in the universe, because whatever he is using to measure it, is also at the same gravitational potential.
The surface of the earth is not a special point in the universe. Indeed, identical "surface" primary standard clocks at NIST Boulder (altitude 1655m) and NPL Teddington (altitude 3m) run at different rates as seen by each other. Which one is correct? The answer is, of course, "both", because they both use the same fundamental property that is unaffected by any extermal influence. And the same is true of the clock on a space probe, whether in a zero gravity field or approaching Jupiter or a black hole. The explanation is that time is warped by a gravitational field, and calculations based on known gravitational fields fortunately yield correct clock variation factors, so GR is at least selfconsistent, explanatory and predictive, even if it doesn't explain everything.
I'm not concerned with what clock is correct. They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.
The explanation that GR gives in that time is warped by the gravitational field holds just as true in my model. And anywhere that GR uses the symbol g, as in acceleration of gravity, is already calculating inverted time dilation without realising it.

They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
No suggestion of where in the universe, because it is exactly the same everywhere. The underlying principle of relativity is that physics doesn't change, because there are no special places in the universe, but our perception at point A of what is happening at point B depends on the relative speed and gravitational potential of A and B.

They all are as far as I'm concerned, but we measure physics via the standard second and any variations can be held relative to a standard second.
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
No suggestion of where in the universe, because it is exactly the same everywhere. The underlying principle of relativity is that physics doesn't change, because there are no special places in the universe, but our perception at point A of what is happening at point B depends on the relative speed and gravitational potential of A and B.
NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.
You are describing the equivalence principle, but when you consider that an observer with the elevated clock ages in keeping with the clock, this suggests that the difference in time is real. All atoms in the clocks reference frame will experience an increase in frequency proportionally with the clock.

NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.
That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.
Note the Scientific American headline
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second
i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.

NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.
That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.
Note the Scientific American headline
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second
i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
Good. Maybe we might be getting somewhere.
Placing clocks in elevation every metre and using the clock on the ground as a standard, we can then say by how much faster each clock is running faster than the clock on the ground.
You say the clock does not physically change, but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
You are saying this is because time is running faster at that elevated location. Time runs faster there because the gravity field shifts in time.
I am suggesting that it is the atom that is shifted by the gravity field, and that its frequency increases because of the addition of gravity potential energy at elevation. All atoms will be shifted in frequency and energy in elevation proportionally, and the equivalence principle is upheld.
Now it is possible to view the gravity field itself (open space) as being subject to inverted time dilation, where time runs slower in the weaker gravity field.
Looking at the red shift blue shift phenomenon, light when travelling through space, is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field. Light viewed without relativistic mass is not subject to gravity potential energy.

but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
note the word OBSERVED, and it is only as observed FROM BELOW. You cannot measure any change in frequency of you are at the same level as the clock, because the clock has not changed. If it had, you would get different results with different clocks or different mossbauer photons, but you don't. The fractional frequency shift is exactly the same for all sources, regardless of mechanism, so it's nothing to do with the source. So all the stuff about the atom's frequency changing is nonsense.

NIST proved that the cycles of radiation are increased in frequency when placed in the higher gravity potential.
That is impossible, thanks to the equivalence principle. You can only measure the frequency of a clock with another clock. What they measured was the increase in frequency of the elevated clock as seen from the lower clock. Or the decerease in frequency of the lower clock as seen from the upper one.
Note the Scientific American headline
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second
i.e. it isn't the clock that changes, but time.
Good. Maybe we might be getting somewhere.
Watford?
Placing clocks in elevation every metre and using the clock on the ground as a standard, we can then say by how much faster each clock is running faster than the clock on the ground.
Not from the perspective of each clocks local frame. If you moved to each clock in turn the laws of physics would be the same and the clock would appear to run normally.
You say the clock does not physically change, but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
You are saying this is because time is running faster at that elevated location. Time runs faster there because the gravity field shifts in time.
Time only apparently runs differently when viewed from a frame in a differing gravitational potential. Remove gravity and the effect should disappear. Even in remote outer space voids.
I am suggesting that it is the atom that is shifted by the gravity field, and that its frequency increases because of the addition of gravity potential energy at elevation. All atoms will be shifted in frequency and energy in elevation proportionally, and the equivalence principle is upheld.
You only observe the effects of gravitation upon time and distance nonlocally.
Now it is possible to view the gravity field itself (open space) as being subject to inverted time dilation, where time runs slower in the weaker gravity field.
Looking at the red shift blue shift phenomenon, light when travelling through space, is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field. Light viewed without relativistic mass is not subject to gravity potential energy.
I totally disagree with the last paragraph.

but it is observed that the frequency of its cycles is increased.
note the word OBSERVED, and it is only as observed FROM BELOW. You cannot measure any change in frequency of you are at the same level as the clock, because the clock has not changed. If it had, you would get different results with different clocks or different mossbauer photons, but you don't. The fractional frequency shift is exactly the same for all sources, regardless of mechanism, so it's nothing to do with the source. So all the stuff about the atom's frequency changing is nonsense.
Yes  that is exactly synonymous with what I said. An observers atoms are in keeping with the clock, and the observer with the clock will observe no difference in his clocks time. Only clocks in 'other' reference frames will appear different.
Physics has no theory of time. All that is understood is that sequential events happen in it, and that motion and gravity have an affect on the rate it happens at.
All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.
For an increase in frequency to occur, there must be an increase in energy. These occurrences are physical process. They cannot occur by magic! There has to be causality...

All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.
No they don't, because that would be wrong. Here, for example , is a standard (Ohio State University) text on GPS time correction
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will SEEM to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites APPEAR to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.
My capitals. Note the nonmagic words of physics. There is no suggestion that anything has happened to the clocks, because nothing can happen to them. If it did, the effect would be different for different clocks, but it is exactly the same for all mechanisms (apart from pendulums, obviously) .

All of the wiki, text books, clock data, etc, all state that the cesium atom's cycles increase in frequency in the higher gravity potential.
No they don't, because that would be wrong. Here, for example , is a standard (Ohio State University) text on GPS time correction
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will SEEM to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites APPEAR to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.
My capitals. Note the nonmagic words of physics. There is no suggestion that anything has happened to the clocks, because nothing can happen to them. If it did, the effect would be different for different clocks, but it is exactly the same for all mechanisms (apart from pendulums, obviously) .
Look Alan  NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
It is not a case of the higher clock seeing the the lower clock as running slower than itself, or the lower clock seeing the higher clock as running faster than itself. As I've said before, the clocks are in their own reference frames, but even if the observer is a dwarf, he is in a reference frame that includes himself and both of the clocks. All that is happening is that he is 'comparing' the frequency of the clocks cesium atoms cycles of radiation. ie: the elevated clock running faster and having a higher frequency of cycles of radiation, than the lower clock is not just an appearance from the reference frame of the lower clock. The elevated clock really is experiencing an increase in the frequency of its cesium atoms cycles of radiation. And therefore we know that we can compare the frequencies of clocks at higher elevations with the frequency of a clock on the ground, or at any other location in the gravity field. (I understand that there are maths in existence that calculate these increases in the frequency of cycles of radiation of a cesium atomic clock placed at increased elevations)
Logically speaking, we are now 'forced' to view the frequency changes in the clock as actual physical changes, and that this physical property of an increase in frequency requires causality. An increase in frequency physically requires an increase in energy...
The equivalence principle requires that a physical process that occurs for an atom, and therefore for the internal processes of a cesium atom, occurs for all atoms. As the energy increase is equal for all atoms, the status quo of proportionality that exists between different atoms and their internal processes at ground level are fully maintained at 1 metre elevation...
The equivalence principle is upheld.
In looking for the energy that increases the frequency of any atoms frequency of cycles, if we say that gravity potential energy can be calculated as mgh, the mass on the ground can be calculated as mg. Different atoms will have different masses but g and h for all atoms as per reference frame are constant. Therefore the proportionality that exists within an atoms internal structure, and the proportionality between the atoms themselves are maintained, the equivalence principle is upheld, and a physical causality is given for the physical process of an observer aging in keeping with the clock.
(I suspect that it is specifically the internal structure concerning the electron cloud of the cesium atom and other atoms that would be subject to this calculation for the proportionality of frequency of radiation or any decaying type activity between atoms of differing masses. As said before, I'm not much up on particle physics but do know that neither the standard model nor quantum has been linked to gravity as of yet)

Look Alan  NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
I googled up and found this article
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminumatomicclock_092310.cfm
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow.
I'm curious about the first experiment, whether the higher clock really runs faster due to smaller gravitational force, or it was actually due to higher gravitational potential. To resolve this, they can repeat this experiment underground.
If the difference is really due to gravitational force, then the result of the underground experiment should be flipped (higher clock would run slower than lower clock due to bigger gravitational force).
If the result still the same, then the difference would be caused by gravitational potential.

For two distinct points in space that are not at the same gravitational potential time will advance at different rates. This also occurs for frames of reference moving at distinct velocities. This indicates some connection between gravitational potential and a change velocity. Maybe via gravitational waves. Since the gravitational field extends to infinity this is an undisturbed continuum with no evidence of inversions.

Look Alan  NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
I googled up and found this article
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminumatomicclock_092310.cfm
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow.
I'm curious about the first experiment, whether the higher clock really runs faster due to smaller gravitational force, or it was actually due to higher gravitational potential. To resolve this, they can repeat this experiment underground.
If the difference is really due to gravitational force, then the result of the underground experiment should be flipped (higher clock would run slower than lower clock due to bigger gravitational force).
If the result still the same, then the difference would be caused by gravitational potential.
I can appreciate your logic  but have found when talking to people online that there is some debate about what is going on with the gravity field and gravity potential beneath the surface of the earth.
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.
If I am correct in my theory the clock in the denser location will run faster.

Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
And where was the observer? He can't have been at both elevations simultaneously!
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.
You won't have much luck if you rely on geology, but you could do a much more sensitive experiment, much more easily, by surrounding a cesium clock with lead bricks and seeing if it speeds up or slows down when compared with another one.
If it's symmetrically surrounded, then the should be no change. If you put a load of bricks on one side only, you will have decreased the local gravitational potential so it should slow down compared with the reference clock.
Talk to NPL Time Standards Division. They have accessible clocks and can reference them to the NIST transmissions. There are plenty of lead bricks on the NPL campus. It would make a fascinating TV clip  much more audienceaccessible than a mossbauer test. In fact it's a pretty slick means of measuring G!

Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
And where was the observer? He can't have been at both elevations simultaneously!
The experiment I have devised to test my theory suggests holding 2 atomic clocks (edit: on ground) at the exact same elevation from sea level (accounting for and avoiding equatorial bulge factor) so that the clocks are experiencing equal gravity potential, but placed in locations of know significant difference of geological density.
You won't have much luck if you rely on geology, but you could do a much more sensitive experiment, much more easily, by surrounding a cesium clock with lead bricks and seeing if it speeds up or slows down when compared with another one.
If it's symmetrically surrounded, then the should be no change. If you put a load of bricks on one side only, you will have decreased the local gravitational potential so it should slow down compared with the reference clock.
Talk to NPL Time Standards Division. They have accessible clocks and can reference them to the NIST transmissions. There are plenty of lead bricks on the NPL campus. It would make a fascinating TV clip  much more audienceaccessible than a mossbauer test. In fact it's a pretty slick means of measuring G!
Don't be silly Alan  the clocks are 1 metre apart. The observer is at both elevations.
I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406newmapearthgravitygeoidgoceesanasascience/
Gravity mapping of earth shows that there are 'significant' gravitational field differences due to major geological density variations that 'could' be utilised to the experiment if elevations of the exact same height above sea level could be found.

Look Alan  NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
Where was the observer? How did he measure the two frequencies?
[Hint (a) at some gravitational potential with reference to the clocks; (b) with a clock]
The observer is at both elevations.
This beats Normanton Laertes II (winner of the Royal Highland Show 2016) for obvious bollocks and pedigree bullshit.
I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.
Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Henry Cavendish measured G this way in 1797, with no electronics at all. Your job is ever easier! All you need to do is synchronise the NIST and NPL clocks, and wait. Since they are about 1600m apart in altitude, you will find the NIST signal runs ahead of the NPL signal, and after a day or two you will find it has slipped by a few nanoseconds. Now resynchronise and bring up your lead blocks. How long does it take to slip the same amount? Now do the same experiment with a rubidium clock, or an Essen ring clock (I think there is one in the NPL museum). If you get the same answer, it is obviously nothing to do with the hyperfine spinspin splitting of the cesium spectrum.

Look Alan  NIST conducted tests on clocks that were 1metre apart in elevation. Both clocks can be observed simultaneously...
Where was the observer? How did he measure the two frequencies?
[Hint (a) at some gravitational potential with reference to the clocks; (b) with a clock]
The observer is at both elevations.
This beats Normanton Laertes II (winner of the Royal Highland Show 2016) for obvious bollocks and pedigree bullshit.
I like your slick gravity measurement idea, but wonder if we possess electronics that could measure the ever so slight frequency change such a small amount of gravitational change provided by just bricks alone would effect on the cesium atoms energy transitions.
Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. Henry Cavendish measured G this way in 1797, with no electronics at all. Your job is ever easier! All you need to do is synchronise the NIST and NPL clocks, and wait. Since they are about 1600m apart in altitude, you will find the NIST signal runs ahead of the NPL signal, and after a day or two you will find it has slipped by a few nanoseconds. Now resynchronise and bring up your lead blocks. How long does it take to slip the same amount? Now do the same experiment with a rubidium clock, or an Essen ring clock (I think there is one in the NPL museum). If you get the same answer, it is obviously nothing to do with the hyperfine spinspin splitting of the cesium spectrum.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/24/relativitywithahumantouch
Read the link. The experiment was conducted with elevations that are given in inches.
How can the observer not be at both elevations? An observer takes up more physical space than the clock.
The only reason that it would be relevant that an observer can only observe the difference in another clock from the reference frame of their own clock, would be if the effect was not real.
It is real, Einstein predicted it as a real effect and NIST proved it at ground level to precise precision as a real and tangible effect that will affect the age of an observer with the clock.
Hence the national headlines:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteinstheoryisprovedanditisbadnewsifyouownapenthouse2088195.html
Edit: quote:
"Now resynchronise and bring up your lead blocks. How long does it take to slip the same amount? Now do the same experiment with a rubidium clock, or an Essen ring clock (I think there is one in the NPL museum). If you get the same answer, it is obviously nothing to do with the hyperfine spinspin splitting of the cesium spectrum."
unquote:
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.

How can the observer not be at both elevations?
For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.
If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference.
Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.
How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravitydependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different.
I commend http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/relati/gratim.html to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source.
Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?

How can the observer not be at both elevations?
For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.
If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference.
Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.
How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravitydependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different.
I commend http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/relati/gratim.html to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source.
Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?
An atomic clock is around 3 foot tall. An atomic clock jacked up 17 inches is 3 foot 17 inches tall. An observer is likely to be more than 3ft17" tall. Observers feet are on ground. Observers head is likely above 3ft17" elevation. Clocks both have displays. The displays of the clocks show that time runs faster for the elevated clock than it does for the lower clock and will do so no matter if observer lies on ground, sits up, or stands.
What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant? All I'm looking for is an axiom, if that is the correct terminology, that simply states that a clocks frequency is always higher when the clock is in the higher gravity potential.
If the clocks frequency is a real effect, then the axiom holds true.
You asked how can it:
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.
Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...
...the equivalence principle is upheld, and a physical causality is given for the physical process of an observer with the clock aging in keeping with the clock.
Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.
I've seen a wonderful scaled representation of the geocentric model. Mars going round in little circles, the lot! Its amazing when we consider that the geocentric model was a perfectly viable mathematical model before proven to be misconceived.

So snakes must be the youngest things on the surface of the earth. Birds are on a bit of a loser. Lives just flying by. Whoops pun alert. Dinosaurs must have been really messed up. Young feet aging head.

I admire the patience and perspicacity of your observer...
....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart
....staring at the displays.
What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant?
It is called "relativity" and is quite important in physics.
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.
Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...
none of which has anything to do with the electronnucleus spinspin interaction, nor the expulsion of a photon from an excited nucleus.
Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.
Both gravitation and quantum mechanics are human attempts to explain and predict what happens in the universe. I really don't think nature is waiting for us to invent a link: how ever did the Big Bang happen before Fred Hoyle found a name for it? If there was any connection between gravitation and spinspin interactions, we would find a gravitational asymmetry in the bandwidth of the radiation. We don't.

I admire the patience and perspicacity of your observer... ....the effects are minuscule: It would take the elevated clock hundreds of millions of years to log one more second than its counterpart
....staring at the displays.
What is your fixation with what appears to be what from where? Why is this relevant?
It is called "relativity" and is quite important in physics.
It can because whatever atom, or atom's constituent particle interaction one is measuring, we can say that on the ground gravity potential energy=mg, and that mgh is adding h, h being height, as a constant for all atoms across the board at that elevation.
Therefore in that both g and h are constant for both functions of the equation for any mass size, all relationships between particle constituents within atoms, and atoms within molecules, etc, remain proportional to each other at any elevation...
none of which has anything to do with the electronnucleus spinspin interaction, nor the expulsion of a photon from an excited nucleus.
Please note that the only reason that gravity has nothing to do with the hyperfine energy transition of anything at all, is because gravity has not yet been linked to quantum.
Both gravitation and quantum mechanics are human attempts to explain and predict what happens in the universe. I really don't think nature is waiting for us to invent a link: how ever did the Big Bang happen before Fred Hoyle found a name for it? If there was any connection between gravitation and spinspin interactions, we would find a gravitational asymmetry in the bandwidth of the radiation. We don't.
Actually Alan, in depth reading of the links I've posted tells me the effects can be seen after 10 days. But yes  your point is noted. The clocks are linked up to a computer that is probably nowhere near the clocks. More clocks at greater elevations can be linked to the computer and the computer will record that each clock placed higher in elevation will be of greater frequency in the higher gravity potential.
There is nothing that is non relativity about this... so again I ask what's your problem?
If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.
I'm not 'inventing' a link.
Quote:
"Nature hides her secrets"
Albert Einstein

"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. •Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.
•Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
•When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness,but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais"
The bold text is mine.

"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. •Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.
•Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
•When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness,but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais"
The bold text is mine.
No  not by ruse.
It is only an overly inflated opinion of ones own understanding that will blindside one to that which is obvious.
(my own words)
Quote:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
Albert Einstein

Make sure you know the difference between a parachute and a rucksack (my own words).

Make sure you know the difference between a parachute and a rucksack (my own words).
If you do not wish to participate in discussing an alternative idea that is proportional to GR, there is little point in responding Jeff...
Insulting someone for having an idea is a puerile response, and is degrading to your own demeanour.
Either make meaningful and relevant response to the idea, or make no response at all.
I am sick to the back bloody teeth of being told I'm not qualified to have this idea. Being told that I do not understand GR when I've made a full study if it. And being held up for ridicule as though it is a personal insult to physics that I challenge the premises of the cause for observation and have consequently come up with a model of a cyclic universe.
I ***always without fail*** question my own understanding before pentertaining the idea that someone else's understanding is at fault.
I am not asking anyone here to embrace my idea, all I'm asking is that someone help me calculate it to see if its mathematically viable. (you might well describe this as checking a parachute to see if its a rucksack)
What reason for the hostility?
What reason for the puerile and irrelevant responses?
And are you really qualified to make the distinction between an idea that has merit, and an idea that does not, without any mathematically proving or disproving of the idea's viability?
No GR does not describe the physics in way I'm suggesting it be augmented. In my suggesting GR be augmented, one would have to be an idiot if one were expecting the GR description of physics to remain unaltered.
The fact that my alterations should, as far as I can see, remain mathematically proportional to GR and therefore 'perhaps' relevant (note the word perhaps) being my only reason for desiring and actually having the cheek to ask for help to calculate it.
Who are you Jeff, who was telling lightarrow on this forum only last year that you were starting to get a grip on aspects of physics you were studying at that time, conjugates and complex numbers and reading about the double slit experiment, to question my understanding of current physics in the way that you constantly do.
I really do not appreciate anyone talking to me like I'm an idiot... Please desist from doing so again!

If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.
Only if the gravitational field is quantised, and there is no evidence of this to date.
Anyway let's do some calculations. The mass of a Fe57 atom is about 57 x 1.7 x 10^27 kg : about 10^25 kg.
Raise the atom through 27 m. The additional potential energy is mgh = 9.81 x 27 x 10^25 = 2.6 x 10^22 J = 1.6 x 10^5 eV.
The actual energy shift in the PoundRebka experiment was 3.5 x 10^11 eV, a factor of 500,000 too small.
Given the very rough figures I have used, a factor of 1.5 would make me suspect I'd bodged the arithmetic, but a factor of 500,000 suggests there is something wrong with your physics.
You might like to do the calculation for the NIST clock experiment.

If there is an increase in 'energy' (or decrease) this is a quantum process.
Only if the gravitational field is quantised, and there is no evidence of this to date.
Anyway let's do some calculations. The mass of a Fe57 atom is about 57 x 1.7 x 10^27 kg : about 10^25 kg.
Raise the atom through 27 m. The additional potential energy is mgh = 9.81 x 27 x 10^25 = 2.6 x 10^22 J = 1.6 x 10^5 eV.
The actual energy shift in the PoundRebka experiment was 3.5 x 10^11 eV, a factor of 500,000 too small.
Given the very rough figures I have used, a factor of 1.5 would make me suspect I'd bodged the arithmetic, but a factor of 500,000 suggests there is something wrong with your physics.
You might like to do the calculation for the NIST clock experiment.
Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!
My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant, although it is likely that your calculations of the atom itself are relevant as a preliminary.

Alan has tried to point out where you are incorrect and so have I. You either ignore it or reject it out of hand. Do you remember who started this thread? It has wandered so far from the original intent I have just given up trying to remember the point I was actually making. If you can't accept positive criticism what is left?

Alan has tried to point out where you are incorrect and so have I. You either ignore it or reject it out of hand. Do you remember who started this thread? It has wandered so far from the original intent I have just given up trying to remember the point I was actually making. If you can't accept positive criticism what is left?
It really does not require a great talent for lateral thinking to realise that pointing something out to be incorrect requires that the premises you are referring to as correct, is correct.
In that I am suggesting an augmentation to GR, one cannot state that it is incorrect because it is not GR.
Furthermore, in suggesting an augmentation to GR, I'm not suggesting that my alternative is correct, only that it is an interesting idea that leads to a cyclic universe without adding any unobserved entities to make the mechanics work, (as every other theory does), and therefore is worthy of consideration.
P.S. I already reminded you once why you started this thread. You were looking for a 1 hertz frequency in relation to energy, hence my interest.

My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant,
I refer the honorable lady to the remarks I made earlier concerning bollocks and bullshit. You really should enter some of these posts at an agricultural show.

My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
As per the cesium atom, it is the mass of the Fe57 atoms internal electrons energy transitions increase in frequency and 'energy' at elevation that would be relevant,
I refer the honorable lady to the remarks I made earlier concerning bollocks and bullshit. You really should enter some of these posts at an agricultural show.
So  you quote me out if context with regards to quantum not bwing quantised, and you do not tell me if the calculation for the electron cloud works out and now resort to insults rather than explanations or questions. Really Alan?
Why did you think that the atoms whole mass would need calculating to obtain a gravity potential energy increase that would be in the region required to increase the observed increase of the frequency of its energy transition at elevation?
It is the electron cloud's energy transition that is responsible for the emission of a photon, and the atoms internal structure has a gravitational system of its own going on between its particle constituents...
Increase the gravity potential energy of the atom and the energy of each particle it contains will be increased proportionally.
Can I please ask you Alan to cease with the insults. I'm finding it "incredibly" upsetting and there is no call for it.

There is no electron involved in the Fe57 gamma emission (the word "gamma" is the giveaway). The fact that it occurs always and only at a single energy means that it is a quantum effect.
You can calculate the interparticle gravitation if you like but that has no bearing on the external grav field and is unaffected by it.
You can calculate the gravitational potential energy of a single nucleon if you like, but it's just 1/57 of the number I gave previously  still a factor of 100,000 too big.
And let's put your quote back into context
Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!
My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
....sorry, but it still stinks!

There is no electron involved in the Fe57 gamma emission (the word "gamma" is the giveaway). The fact that it occurs always and only at a single energy means that it is a quantum effect.
You can calculate the interparticle gravitation if you like but that has no bearing on the external grav field and is unaffected by it.
You can calculate the gravitational potential energy of a single nucleon if you like, but it's just 1/57 of the number I gave previously  still a factor of 100,000 too big.
And let's put your quote back into context
Firstly, thank you very much for engaging!
My model is suggestive that quantum is not quantised.
....sorry, but it still stinks!
Yes  you are correct concerning the process of the Fe57...
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html
...however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.
*
Quantum may not be quantised:
My theory connects the phenomenon of time to energy. If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster. If you are adding energy to anything and timing the results via a standard second, this isn't taking into account the increase in time that is occurring for the phenomenon being measured and bandwidths will emerge.

.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.
I await your calculation with bated breath. It's dead easy as I showed above, just add mgh to the groundlevel energy to get the new photon energy. We know g and h, but what value are you going to use for m? And what value of m will you use for the cesium, rubidium and aluminum clocks? You can't just work backwards to get an arbitrary value: you have to explain the physics first.
If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.
Or, to put it more scientifically, conventional GR gravitational time dilation applies, and clocks run faster when seen from a lower gravitational potential. No argument there, but equally, no progress towards integration of relativity and quantum mechanics.

.however, the process of the Fe57 would be capable of occurring at higher and lower energies if the entire process is shifted in energy proportionally.
I await your calculation with bated breath. It's dead easy as I showed above, just add mgh to the groundlevel energy to get the new photon energy. We know g and h, but what value are you going to use for m? And what value of m will you use for the cesium, rubidium and aluminum clocks? You can't just work backwards to get an arbitrary value: you have to explain the physics first.
If there is more energy then the rate of time runs faster.
Or, to put it more scientifically, conventional GR gravitational time dilation applies, and clocks run faster when seen from a lower gravitational potential. No argument there, but equally, no progress towards integration of relativity and quantum mechanics.
I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.
And that it is the added value of h, (ie: mgh), that would increase the potential energy at elevation.
And that because g and h are constant for any mass at h's reference frame, that all will be equal in proportionality as it was on ground.
The physics are a rendition of the equivalence principle.
*
Planck's h constant is a joules per standard second squared measurement.
Planck added energy to black body.
If the rate of time increases for black body when energy is added, then joules per second squared is then a measure of by how much time has increased in rate per standard second.
Subtract the time values per standard seconds squared that the standard second has increased by per standard second squared from the time value of per standard seconds squared, and quantum is then a continuum.

So you are now suggesting that time is temperaturedependent?
I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.
Dimensions?

So you are now suggesting that time is temperaturedependent?
I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.
Dimensions?
I am suggesting that time is energy related.
Temperature is energy related.
There is an association between temperature and time in that:
We observe decomposition occurring faster at greater temperatures.
We observe that plant matter grows faster in warmer climes.
We observe that matter can be frozen to prolong its life.
We observe the concept of cryogenics.
Etc.
Shifts in frequency are observed in adding temperature. Shifts in frequency are observed in the gravitational field.
*
I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.
Let me rephrase:
The dimensions are m and g and h.
It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is. It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance.
Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.
Let me rephrase:
The dimensions are m and g and h.
It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is. It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance.
Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.
(edit: Or is it because you think that I mean that the energy of the gravity field is thermal? ...in which case, no of course not, I'm suggesting that the time phenomenon shifts of frequency observed in the gravity field are energy related.)

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.
Then there is no point whatever in continuing the discussion. I might as well be writing in Martian heiroglyphics.

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.
Then there is no point whatever in continuing the discussion. I might as well be writing in Martian heiroglyphics.
You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.
You cannot just say "dimensions" with a question mark and expect someone who has already given the dimensions of m and g and h to understand what you mean.
Furthermore, I have come to this site as a declared non mathematician asking for help with the maths, so if there is something that I'm missing about dimensions, then it would be polite of you to give an explanation of which dimensions you refer to and in what context.

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.
Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.
Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.
For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!
Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation. h being the height of elevation.
The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.
I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis! Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics  and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.
Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.
For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!
Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation. h being the height of elevation.
The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.
I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis! Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics  and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...
Wrong! The h is required to produce an energy equation. This is why dimensional analysis cannot be ignored. Mg is kg m s^2. Not correct.

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.
Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.
For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!
Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation. h being the height of elevation.
The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.
I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis! Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics  and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...
Wrong! The h is required to produce an energy equation. This is why dimensional analysis cannot be ignored. Mg is kg m s^2. Not correct.
Mass on the ground can be considered either as a part of the greater mass of earth, or as individual masses that are subject to the gravity of the greater mass.
Sure  use mgh, where h is ground level. Problem solved. Any further elevation is just adding value to h and therefore adds energy as to height. Equivalence principle is upheld.
...and  dimensional analysis of the gravity potential equation already exists.

Valid values for h fall within a set range. The gravitational field needs to be able to be considered uniform within this defined range. It would be meaningless to measure from the surface of the earth with a value for h in the hundreds of thousands of metres range. Since the value for g varies significantly over such a distance. Your value for energy would be in significant error. This is not a trivial point. All things are relative.

Valid values for h fall within a set range. The gravitational field needs to be able to be considered uniform within this defined range. It would be meaningless to measure from the surface of the earth with a value for h in the hundreds of thousands of metres range. Since the value for g varies significantly over such a distance. Your value for energy would be in significant error. This is not a trivial point. All things are relative.
In the instance of measuring the change in gravity potential energy between the potential energy at h=ground and h=17inches, the equation does just fine.
Where h=radius then I understand that a different equation can be used...
...and when one states mgh, I assumed that this included the factor of g being at h. Doesn't it?
Mass size of different process can vary, but if g and h are constant for all mass size per reference frame, then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.
The fact that the equivalence principle can be derived in this way is what is relevant here.

then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.
So there is no change in the emitted energy of the mossbauer photon or the frequency of an atomic clock. Face it, if the quantised energy levels of an atom were to change with gravitational potential, space would be occupied by plasma, not atoms and molecules, but it ain't.

then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.
So there is no change in the emitted energy of the mossbauer photon or the frequency of an atomic clock. Face it, if the quantised energy levels of an atom were to change with gravitational potential, space would be occupied by plasma, not atoms and molecules, but it ain't.
Yes there is a change in emitted energy and frequency, but all masses of any size are experiencing the same shift.
*
As I understand it g diminishes with increased h, and both gravity potential and gravitational time dilation tail off in deep space.
No danger of excessive energy levels in space under those circumstance.

There is no mass involved in the Fe57 transition. Nor are the masses of the electrons and nuclei relevant to the Cs133 hyperfine transition.
Gravitational potential increases as you move away from the source of gravitation. V(x) = GM/x by definition. So it is zero in deep space and tends to minus infinity as you approach a massive body.

There is no mass involved in the Fe57 transition. Nor are the masses of the electrons and nuclei relevant to the Cs133 hyperfine transition.
Gravitational potential increases as you move away from the source of gravitation. V(x) = GM/x by definition. So it is zero in deep space and tends to minus infinity as you approach a massive body.
I 'was' creating a really long and convoluted post, (chuckle), but it occurs that I should just ask this:
http://physics.info/standard/
If the masses of all the particles were individually calculated as mgh, where the potential energy is additional to the energy of the mass, would the same proportionality of energy differences between the masses be retained at any given h?
Or will the calculation escalate the energy of larger masses disproportionally to the energy increase the calculation gives to smaller masses?

The potential energy of any particle of mass m at height h in a uniform gravitational field is mgh.

The potential energy of any particle of mass m at height h in a uniform gravitational field is mgh.
Oh, OK... I had assumed h being height is variable, and indicated a change in gravity field...?

If you want to include variations in g with h, by all means, but it turns a simple linear equation into an integral and doesn't shed any light on the subject at all. The variation over 100 feet or even 1000 feet from the earth's surface is not worth worrying about.

If you want to include variations in g with h, by all means, but it turns a simple linear equation into an integral and doesn't shed any light on the subject at all. The variation over 100 feet or even 1000 feet from the earth's surface is not worth worrying about.
A mathematician and an engineer are subjects of a psychology experiment; first they are separately shown into a room where there is an empty bucket, a trashcan, and a faucet. The trashcan is on fire. Each of them first fills the bucket with water from the faucet, then dumps it on the trashcan and extinguishes the flames. Then the engineer is shown to another room, where there is again a faucet, a trashcan on fire, and a bucket, but this time the bucket is already filled with water; the engineer takes the bucket, empties it on the trashcan and puts out the fire. The mathematician, when introduced to the exact same situation, takes the bucket, and empties it on the floor, and then says "which reduces this to a previously solved problem."
*
mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h. (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential
Quote:
" In classical mechanics, the gravitational potential at a location is equal to the work (energy transferred) per unit mass that would be done by the force of gravity if an object were moved from its location in space to a fixed reference location. ***It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.*** The reference location, where the potential is zero, is by convention infinitely far away from any mass, resulting in a negative potential at any finite distance."
Unquote:
(I added the stars ***)
So a positive calculation is describing a negative potential.
My theory of this proposed additional inverted gravitational time dilation states that g, g being 9.807ms^2, (for Earth), is 'mostly' due to the weak force of gravitational attraction being accelerated near bodies of mass by the contracting of the time period of unit's of time in the increasing strength of gravity field...
...and looks to the weak force of gravitational attraction itself being of a far lesser value, where this link in relation to the *** mass analogous to charge *** is interesting, in that this link is describing the magnetic moment of an electron.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant
The Lorentz transformations describe length contraction, and in their inverse form they describe time dilation.
Can I ask please if the time dilation the Lorentz transformations describe is gravitational, or motion related?

Can I ask please if the time dilation the Lorentz transformations describe is gravitational, or motion related?
According to Wikipedia: "The term "Lorentz Transformations" only refers to the transformations between inertial frames usually in the context of SR."

mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h. (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)
Not sure what you mean by a positive calculation, but g(h) = g(0) (R/(R+h))^2 where R is the radius of the earth. So substituting R = 6,371,000 and h = 25 we get g(h)/g(0) = 0.999992 for a 25 meter height increase, 1 part in 10^6 difference. Compare this with the measured PoundRebka frequency shift of 2.5 x 10^15 and I think you will see that there is a bit more to it than merely variaton of g with h.

mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h. (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)
Not sure what you mean by a positive calculation, but g(h) = g(0) (R/(R+h))^2 where R is the radius of the earth. So substituting R = 6,371,000 and h = 25 we get g(h)/g(0) = 0.999992 for a 25 meter height increase, 1 part in 10^6 difference. Compare this with the measured PoundRebka frequency shift of 2.5 x 10^15 and I think you will see that there is a bit more to it than merely variaton of g with h.
Generally, all the most useful physics books I've read provide explanation of maths in word format as a given... I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...
However... (If calculating g as 9.807ms^2,)... g*h 'adds' only positive value, when the gravity field is reducing, which should result in a partial subtraction of a negative value.
This equation 'could perhaps' work with the idea of inverted time dilation because as the gravity field reduces, the time period of a unit of time is gravitationally dilated. (lengthened). Therefore the negative value of g at h becomes the positive value (ie: g*h), and by subjecting the acceleration of g to the speed distance time formula, (on basis that speed of gravity is equal to speed of light), a time value can be extracted and added to the value of a standard time unit... We can now see that time periods are extended as gravity field is reduced, and that the difference between the linear and the integral calculations 'are' inverted time dilation related, and another gravitational constant is responsible for an attractive force, while accelerations of gravity are time related.
m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.
Now both calculations can be said to describe that an increase in energy will cause an increase in frequency. An increase in strength of gravity field will cause an increase in frequency for massless particles due to the increased energy of the gravity field, and an increase in gravity potential energy will cause an increase in frequency for anything with mass raised into the weaker gravity field.
The gravity field will shift energy for all mass sizes proportionally, but it will shift energy in the gravitational field equally for massless entities, and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant (energy associated), via wavelength.
Then...because my theory states the phenomenon of time itself as energy related  Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement, the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon. Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.
These being an entirely mathematically proportional, (I think), alternative means of considering the same observations.
In the PR, the man made Doppler shift was matched by 'something' in the gravity field...

I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...
For some reason the forum software doesn't allow subscripts at the moment. g(h) is the alternative shorthand for "the value of g at height h" compared with g(0) which pretty obviously means "the value of g at ground level"
m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.
a moment's reflection on the dimensions of mgh will show that it doesn't calculate mass, but potential energy.
and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant
except that they are not. Again, dimensional analysis will show that the ratio of frequencies is dimensionless whereas h has dimensions ML^2/T
Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement, the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon. Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.
except that h is joule.seconds, not joules per second squared.

I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...
For some reason the forum software doesn't allow subscripts at the moment. g(h) is the alternative shorthand for "the value of g at height h" compared with g(0) which pretty obviously means "the value of g at ground level"
m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.
a moment's reflection on the dimensions of mgh will show that it doesn't calculate mass, but potential energy.
and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant
except that they are not. Again, dimensional analysis will show that the ratio of frequencies is dimensionless whereas h has dimensions ML^2/T
Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement, the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon. Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.
except that h is joule.seconds, not joules per second squared.
Yes  as I said, I got the jist.
*
Yes  I know. Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass. Why would you think that I think otherwise?
*
Wavelength = hp
Frequency = Eh
Where h is Planck's h constant.
*
Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.

*
Yes  I know. Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass. Why would you think that I think otherwise?
because you said so!
*
Wavelength = hp
Frequency = Eh
Where h is Planck's h constant.
and frequency divided by frequency is dimensionless
*
Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.
Fred Hoyle made such a statement once, but went down in history for saying it.

*
Yes  I know. Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass. Why would you think that I think otherwise?
because you said so!
*
Wavelength = hp
Frequency = Eh
Where h is Planck's h constant.
and frequency divided by frequency is dimensionless
*
Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.
Fred Hoyle made such a statement once, but went down in history for saying it.
How can m*g*h calculate mass? You must think me a total idiot if you think I thought that. I certainly didn't say that by any stretch of the imagination... I said that for mass m*g*h. (ie: potential energy for mass)
*
Where does frequency divided by frequency come in? I didn't introduce that notion!
*
What Fred Hoyle said? ...is wholly irrelevant to the concept being proposed here.
Sorry, but I really cannot understand the purpose of this post... (scratches head)

Where does frequency divided by frequency come in? I didn't introduce that notion!
*
Dimensionless numbers are very important in the mathematical construction of physical realities and when one understands their importance, they are on track to seeing the importance of Dimensional Analysis. Consider the fine structure constant "a" as one example.

Where does frequency divided by frequency come in? I didn't introduce that notion!
*
Dimensionless numbers are very important in the mathematical construction of physical realities and when one understands their importance, they are on track to seeing the importance of Dimensional Analysis. Consider the fine structure constant "a" as one example.
Yes  I was entirely aware that in mentioning the gravitational coupling constant that this constant comprises of a dimensionless number, and that a dimensionless number has no dimensions to be analysed, and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...
(do I really have to fully describe every obvious factor in order that a reader understand that I understand the obvious?)
...the fact of point being the *** It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge *** ...quoted from the gravity potential link  in relation to the magnetic moment of an electron.

and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...
Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.
I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...
Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.
I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
Quote:
" The dimensionless constants that arise in the results obtained, such as the C in the Poiseuille's Law problem and the {\displaystyle \kappa }￼in the spring problems discussed above come from a more detailed analysis of the underlying physics, and often arises from integrating some differential equation. ***Dimensional analysis itself has little to say about these constants, *** but it is useful to know that they very often have a magnitude of order unity. This observation can allow one to sometimes make "back of the envelope" calculations about the phenomenon of interest, and therefore be able to more efficiently design experiments to measure it, or to judge whether it is important, etc."
Quote:
" Paradoxically, dimensional analysis can be a useful tool even if all the parameters in the underlying theory are dimensionless, e.g., lattice models such as the Ising model can be used to study phase transitions and critical phenomena. Such models can be formulated in a purely dimensionless way. As we approach the critical point closer and closer, the distance over which the variables in the lattice model are correlated (the socalled correlation length, {\displaystyle \xi }￼ ) becomes larger and larger. Now, the correlation length is the relevant length scale related to critical phenomena, so one can, e.g., surmise on "dimensional grounds" that the nonanalytical part of the free energy per lattice site should be {\displaystyle \sim 1/\xi ^{d}}￼ where {\displaystyle d}￼is the dimension of the lattice.
It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., M. J. Duff,[19][20] that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of modern physics, there was no way to relate mass, length, and time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c,ħ, and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."
Unquote:
Now that we both know that I have read the wiki link, perhaps we can move on?
You tell me about the importance of dimensional analysis, very patiently perhaps, but get annoyed when I point out that there is failure to use it to disprove what I'm proposing... And simply stating that my introducing an additional dimension of inverted time dilation is nonsensical doesn't employ the scientific method, nor address the analysis required to investigate the redistributed balance between the existing dimensions with the proposed addition...
Not insulted, just frustrated!

The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.

The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.
Yes Alan  I am aware that any addition to, or augmentation of GR that my model proposes will have to be proportional mathematically to, or with, existing dimensions or the model will not be mathematically viable. I'm proposing that my model is mathatically proprtoonal to GR as a concept.
I am not saying "because I said so"... I'm saying "because alternative means of viewing observation exists"...
Fact remains that I am a self professed nonmathematician, who is posting on this forum because she knows that in light of her lacking of formal background in mathematics she doesn't have a hope in hell of calculating an entire model describing a cyclic universe, and that it would be stupid of her, or anyone else for that matter, to think she could. Evan posted last year that even Einstein needed help to mathematically describe his concepts.
Fact remains that I am not asking for help in learning mathematics. I am looking for some one to listen to my description of this model in words, understand it, and then calculate the model.
Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!
There is absolutely no reason why a competent mathematician cannot transpose a concept explained to him, or her, in words, and then calculate it.
Non mathematicians can actually be intelligent, and are more than capable of understanding, and even producing complex ideas.
http://m.mentalfloss.com/article/69251/6famousscientistsandinventorswhostruggledmath
Michael Faraday:
" Like most impoverished boys, he’d received little formal education. Hence, Faraday’s math skills left a lot to be desired. In 1846, he boldly proposed that visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. But because he couldn’t back up the idea with mathematics, his colleagues ignored it. Enter James Clerk Maxwell (18311879). Believing the older scientist’s hypothesis, this Scottish physicist & mathematician used ingenious equations to finally prove Faraday right eighteen years later."
Thomas Edison:
" “I can always hire a mathematician,” Edison once remarked, “[but] they can’t hire me.” Like all successful entrepreneurs, he was keenly aware of his strengths and weaknesses. As a boy, Edison trudged through Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica(“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”). In his own words, the book left him with nothing but “a distaste for mathematics from which I never recovered.”
Unquote:
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.

No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.
Right I see  straight back to it being an inadequacy on my part, or on the part of the authors who wrote the books I've read. It couldn't be because actually no one is listening, now could it?
What part of  "the length of a wavelength is not distant related, but is inverted time dilation related and can be calculated with the speed distance time formula, where c is speed, wavelength is distance, and a time value can be extracted, that challenges Hubble's concept of an expanding universe, rendering GR, minus the cosmological constant, correct in describing a contracting universe"  do you not understand, or find to be contrary to physics terms, or logical reason?
This was a great contribution that you made earlier this thread:
Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.
Consider the time period of a standard second becoming dilated in the weaker gravity field. Not for objects with mass 'in' the gravity field, but for locations in the gravity field itself). Anything free falling through a gravity field would be experiencing acceleration due to time periods (inverted time dilation), contracting near mass.

That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.

That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.
'That' can be used to describe anything that gets longer (or shorter) as it travels along, and can be used to describe my proposed concept of inverted time dilation.
What do I mean when I say the length of a wavelength is time related? Looking at an 'already emitted' light wave, it has a wavelength. This wave'length' is a distance. When this wavelength travels through a gravity field it is either contracted (blue shifted), or dilated (red shifted). The wavelength becomes shorter, or longer in its length.
I'm suggesting that the wavelength of already emitted light does not change in actual length, in the gravity field. I'm suggesting that it is the time period of a second that is contracting, or dilating as a result of the gravity field as per this proposed inverted time dilation  and that blue shifted and red shifted light waves are simply taking a shorter or longer amount of time to travel the same distance. (ie: the same distance being the length the lights wavelength was when emitted.)
If you are going to class anything that you won't find in a physics text book as being a muddying of the waters Jeff, what point is there in having a 'New Theory' forum?

and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...
Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.
I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.
Ethos  I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it. You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:
In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...
The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.
My model describes a cyclic universe, but this cyclic universe does not resemble any previous cyclic model... While the model describes a big bang, inflation period, and big crunch, these phenomenon of my model also bear no resemblance to any previous model.
This is how my model differs:
The big bang is currently described as everything originating from a point...
My model describes the big bang as having originated from a black hole containing all the matter of the last universe. Because there is no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this black hole, it empties itself to its own extinction.
The inflation period is currently described as a period of accelerated inflation, distributing matter uniformly in an outward trajectory, before decelerating... (and then accelerating again as per dark energy)
My model describes the inflation period as particles being ejected via the superluminal jets of the 'big bang' black hole containing all the matter of the last universe.
The big crunch is currently described as a deceleration of the outward trajectory, resulting in gravitational forces drawing everything back together at accelerated speed.
My model describes the big crunch as being an incredibly slow process that begins just after the superluminal jets of the 'big bang' black hole eject matter in particle form, creating a more or less uniform sea of particles. As these particles draw together, open distances of space start to form as a result of particles vacating their former solo positions by clumping together...
GR predicts a mess of black holes in the universes distant future... Current theory, in relation to the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than decelerating as the logic had previously held, has this mess of black holes disappearing into the far distance on outward trajectories resulting in a concept known as the big freeze...
My model results in a mess of black holes, by as a result if the spacial dimensions of the universe slowly contracting, this mess of black holes, that are our universes distant future, are formed by all the matter of the universe, drawn together into a galaxy of black holes that merge into each other, until there is only a singular black hole with everything in it. With no equivalent gravitational for e acting upon it, it empties itself to extinction, leaving a sea of particles.
And... Just quickly  if you can imagine that time in the sea of particles is more or less uniform, as you would imagine gravity to be, where particles clump, time is contracted, and the open space created by particles clumping, time is dilated.
And... as per GR gravitational time dilation, a mass that is gravitationally affected by another mass will experience a contracted rate of time that dilates as the mass gets closer to the other mass. It just so happens that anything we use that resonates at a frequency that is reminiscent of the time period of what we call a standard second, will shift in energy and frequency equally in the gravity field. But other particles, process, etc, will occur at differing frequencies from each other in a reference frame, and all will shift proportionally in the gravity field giving physical process for the concept of an observer aging in keeping with his clock.
This is but a brief outline of a huge concept, the further details of which all fit together as a jigsaw puzzle to describe this cyclic model that 'should' be mathematically proportional to GR, and therefore viable. Furthermore, unlike GR, (or any other), this model does not require any unobserved entities to describe the mechanics.

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.
As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean  as I am sure you do  and has a "square root" button opn a calculator  as I am pretty sure you have.
The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.
What unobserved entities are required by GR?

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.
As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean  as I am sure you do  and has a "square root" button opn a calculator  as I am pretty sure you have.
The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.
What unobserved entities are required by GR?
I happen to think that driving a horse and carriage on a busy road is a piece of piss, but if I handed you the reins, saying its just a matter of a few commands, come by, come away, steady, and woah  and left you to it, I daresay you would feel that you were somewhat inadequately prepared for the task at hand. You would understand the manoeuvres required to negotiate the traffic, and also understand the nature of the commands, but you would be lacking in the finesse of when and how to use commands to best effect. Only practising under less demanding circumstances will afford you the ability to drive a horse and carriage on a busy road.
I don't have the time, facility, or the desire to practice mathematical manoeuvres under less busy circumstances than my model. Therefore I am requiring that someone who is actually a mathematician calculate my model.
GR is not a mathematically viable theory without dark matter and dark energy. GR is dimensionally unbalanced without these unobserved additions.

Ethos  I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it. You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:
In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...
The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.
I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position.
Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents.
Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.

I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".
The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.
*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.

Ethos  I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it. You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:
In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...
The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.
I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position.
Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents.
Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.
What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.
When Einstein came up with GR, he included a cosmological constant to stop his preconceived idea of a static universe from collapsing under the force of gravity. He then retracted the constant as his biggest blunder. Hubble had calculated velocities for the magnitudes of Doppler shift effect for the red shift observations, and these velocities were attributed to the rate that a light source is accelerating away from us at...
The notion of the big bang and an expanding universe was extrapolated.
But...this does not 'have' to be the explanation of the phenomenon of red shift and the associated velocities of the associated Doppler shift effect. I am certainly not the only person questioning the premise of the expanding universe concept.
http://www.scinews.com/astronomy/scienceuniversenotexpanding01940.html
Taking the velocities and distances associated with light sources expanding away from us, and subjecting these to the speed, distance, time, formula, time values can be attributed to redshift velocities. We can then say that this is by how much time is running slower in space than it does here on earth, and when we recalculate the distance the light source is situated away from us, the distance will be shorter and the light source, although its trajectory may well still be moving away from our position due to its gravitational relationships of centrifugal forces within its galaxy and the trajectory of the galaxy in relation to that galaxies neighbours in space, the light source is now not expanding away from us at those ridiculous speeds.
This is mathematically proportional to GR because the slower time of space transposed into standard seconds means that it takes the same amount of time as we measure it, for light to travel this shorter distance.

I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".
The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.
*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.
I've studied theoretical physics for over 8 years.
I've been working directly with horses for 18 years, however, it is my experience that I never stop learning about horses, and despite the fact that you have not been studying horse related matters for 8 years, I certainly would not discount the possibility that you may make observation that I might learn from, nor would I ridicule you for trying, or think it unacceptable you presenting your observations in terminology that is not usual to the subject.
I am indeed learning more about maths everyday, but I am intelligent enough to know that this is not going to be sufficient. I need the input of a qualified and confident mathematician. And this need 'is' my sole reason for posting on this forum.

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.
Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.
Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.
There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

Light moving away from the source of a gravitational field loses kinetic energy. This energy could then be said to have been transferred to the gravitational field where its force carriers are blue shifted as a consequence. This would in fact produce exactly the phenomena of tired light over the distances involved.

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.
Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.
Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.
There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
I've read about tired light theory, including description of why Lee Smolin discounted the notion, and I personally dismissed it out of hand for reasons I can't be bothered to remember. It is a fact that red shifted light has a reduced frequency, and tgerefore reduced energy, but we must always remember that when we see this red shifted light, it has been blue shifted in our increased gravity field before it reaches our eyes in our reference frame on earth.
If red shift did not describe an expansion, then blue shift, being red shift in reverse, would not describe contraction.
When I say a contracting universe, the contraction is facilitated by mass being drawn into clumps...
Red shift would be indicative of an ever decreasing strength of gravity field between far flung masses, but this being due to the general trend of mass itself becoming more tightly compacted together with the passing of time, and not due to a light source hurtling away from us at speeds that are faster than the speed of light.
The velocities associated with redshifts transposed into time values and viewed as slower time in space that light must travel through, is a much more subtle means to the same observation.

Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.

Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.
Have you actually read the book?

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution)
That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

If you map the potential differences around two dense objects in orbit around each other you will actually be able to plot the propagation of gravitational waves as a time evolving system. When you have finished your calculation there is now data with which to compare it. If they match you are likely to be going in the right direction. This is why physics without mathematics is not viable.

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution)
That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.
Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.
Thank you...
So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution)
That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.
Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.
Thank you...
So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?
I'm not likely to read it. I do know it has upset a lot of string theorists. So mission accomplished for Lee Smolin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics)

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?
If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.
I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.
If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea. It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.
If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution. Why would they contest mine?

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?
If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.
I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.
If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea. It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.
If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution. Why would they contest mine?
Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?
If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.
I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.
If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea. It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.
If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution. Why would they contest mine?
Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.
Rubbish!!!
No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...

Let me see. How many mathermaticians are famous. Partially famous in the UK Johnny Ball and Carole Vordeman spring to mind. Internationally you might add Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. So mathematics is not much of a spectator sport. Normally you won't see mathematicians pushing themselves into the limelight. If you ask someone in Britain who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1966 they might look at you strangely. Ask them who scored the winning goal in the final of the world cup of the same year and you would get a much more enthusiastic response. So good luck in your search for that fame hungry calculator.

Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search)
If we follow the definition then an inverse of time dilation has to involve an inverse of gamma which you yourself said was not what you meant. If that is the case then demonstrate the method you see that will produce the required effect without an inverse gamma function. The onus is not on us to prove you correct but on you to demonstrate that you are right.

Rubbish!!!
No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...
No one here timey? I have made every effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. And yet, you make the statement that; "No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it."
All my calculations have produced nothing in support of your theory, nevertheless, I have made an honest effort to understand your ideas and have even written you personal messages in an effort to encourage this thought experiment.
Turn me over,......................I'm done!

Let me see. How many mathermaticians are famous. Partially famous in the UK Johnny Ball and Carole Vordeman spring to mind. Internationally you might add Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. So mathematics is not much of a spectator sport. Normally you won't see mathematicians pushing themselves into the limelight. If you ask someone in Britain who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1966 they might look at you strangely. Ask them who scored the winning goal in the final of the world cup of the same year and you would get a much more enthusiastic response. So good luck in your search for that fame hungry calculator.
Says the man who passes comment on a book he hasn't read!

Rubbish!!!
No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...
No one here timey? I have made every effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. And yet, you make the statement that; "No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it."
All my calculations have produced nothing in support of your theory, nevertheless, I have made an honest effort to understand your ideas and have even written you personal messages in an effort to encourage this thought experiment.
Turn me over,......................I'm done!
I'm sorry Ethos but you have not posted any of your workings, nor pm'd me any workings.
Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...
What can I say?

Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search)
If we follow the definition then an inverse of time dilation has to involve an inverse of gamma which you yourself said was not what you meant. If that is the case then demonstrate the method you see that will produce the required effect without an inverse gamma function. The onus is not on us to prove you correct but on you to demonstrate that you are right.
I am quite simply posting on this forum in order to meet a mathematician who will listen, understand what I'm saying and calculate the model.
Period!

I listened. I understood what you were saying. It didn't work.

Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.

Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...
Please don't pretend that what you wrote is what I think. It's a quick way to lose a friend and really piss off a potential collaborator.

Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?

[quote authorb=timey link=topic=66831.msg494909#msg494909 date=1470498521]
Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...
Please don't pretend that what you wrote is what I think. It's a quick way to lose a friend and really piss off a potential collaborator.
[/quote]Alan, you said earlier this thread that I had said that m*g*h is for calculating mass. I do nor know what you think unless you tell me.
It is not my intention to insult anyone, I just do not have the time for idol banter. I've told you my situation, I'm literally existing in the dark ages here, no mod cons, often going hungry and on the verge of having to give up everything I've worked for. I'm not having a good time, OK. No enjoying the sunshine, as you have suggested, for me under these circumstances...

Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?
The point is, no you wouldn't understand. Someone could tell you anything with a very plausible sounding explanation. That is a major drawback of your approach. The function above should be more correctly stated as G = F(X_{1}(q), X_{2}(dq/dt), X_{3}(t)). We have parameters of position, velocity and inverted time. In that order from left to right. We can feed in a time reversed sequence describing an object with negative acceleration moving away from a large mass. We can then compare this with the object actually launched with the same initial velocity as a projective. This way we can check to see if the system is actually time reversible.

Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?
The point is, no you wouldn't understand. Someone could tell you anything with a very plausible sounding explanation. That is a major drawback of your approach. The function above should be more correctly stated as G = F(X_{1}(q), X_{2}(dq/dt), X_{3}(t)). We have parameters of position, velocity and inverted time. In that order from left to right. We can feed in a time reversed sequence describing an object with negative acceleration moving away from a large mass. We can then compare this with the object actually launched with the same initial velocity as a projective. This way we can check to see if the system is actually time reversible.
If you are calculating a reversal of the process you describe, ie: any type of reversal of time, then this has as much bearing on what I have been describing as your notion of calculating my model by reversing the gamma. ie: none wotsoever.

How do you know this has no bearing? Can you see where I am going with it? If so then be my guest. Tell me where I am heading.

Ok. So do you want to state publicly that you have no interest now or in the future in the model I am intending to propose.

How do you know this has no bearing? Can you see where I am going with it? If so then be my guest. Tell me where I am heading.
Look Jeff  the only reason I'm calling it inverted gravitational time dilation is because it does the opposite, or almost the opposite, to GR gravitational time dilation in the gravity field.
There is no reversal of any existing dimension. However there are many ways to skin a cat, I'll admit, and escape velocity does have a part to play in the concept, because an outward trajectory would be moving through slower time, but a trajectory moving towards mass would experience the opposite, so free fall and inertia would constitute the reversal of escape velocity.
Your right, I have no idea what you are driving towards with your description of a time sequence being time reversed, but if you care to tell me, I'm all ears.
P.S. I don't know what the heck you mean by your subsequent post, but when I said on the verve of having to give up, I was referring to my business, my horses and my other financial plans, due to having been treated very badly by people of social responsibility and position who really should have behaved better. Not giving up on my 8 years development of my idea. OK.

So hedging your bets then. That is likely a wise move. Since you can't be exactly sure what my model entails.

So hedging your bets then. That is likely a wise move. Since you can't be exactly sure what my model entails.
I'm not into this school yard crapola. Its trite!
Any one is always welcome to come up with their own model. When they explain their model in words, which all serious physicists do, I'll always give it a fair read.

Ok. My model is called "Inversion of the gravitational gradient in interstellar space".

Ok. My model is called "Inversion of the gravitational gradient in interstellar space".
Can I speak to a grown up now please

Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?

Of course the increasing energy of the gravitational field with radial distance from the centre of a galaxy implies an increase in orbital velocity with increasing radial distance.

Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?
On the basis that I have had to remind you twice already why you started this thread, and that the majority of the posts on this thread are discussing my model, considering your moderator status and responsibilities, in that the change in topic is confusing, I think you should split the thread and describe your model as a separate venture.
As a separate venture, and on the basis that your model is now split to a separate thread, how does your model describe the mechanics of the big bang?

So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.

So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.
So...you're not going to split your description of your model to another thread and answer questions on how your model describes the mechanics of the big bang?
Btw, most of the threads I post on get a lot of views in case you haven't already noticed. I'm not sure it actually means that much though, apart from benefitting the forum that is.

You now have the floor.

You now have the floor.
First you say you have calculated my model. That I should trust you, that you are a professional. I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...
Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about! I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ;) ...

You now have the floor.
OK
First you say you have calculated my model. That I should trust you, that you are a professional. I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...
Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about! I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ;) ...
Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.

You now have the floor.
OK
First you say you have calculated my model. That I should trust you, that you are a professional. I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...
Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about! I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ;) ...
Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.
And... I think, from the state of play so far, we can both be in agreement that you have not calculated my model as proven to be mathematically unviable.

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.
Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.
Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.
There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
Ethos  I understand that you have shown interest in this theory, and for that I than you, but when you ask me, wouldn't a contracting universe mean that light would be blue shifting, and then say you have calculated my model as unviable, I know for a fact from the question you pose that you haven't grasped the dimension of the proposed addition of this inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to gravity and observation.
I don't hold this against you in any way. The concept is hard to grasp in the face of currently held physics. However, I can assure you that as a geometrical concept, the maths 'should' be proportional to GR maths, without requiring the additions of dark matter and dark energy, as a means of dimensionally balancing the maths, because this is what the added dimension of the proposed inverted time dilation 'should' do.

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.

Ethos  I understand that you have shown interest in this theory,
In all fairness to Jeff, who BTW, is the originator of this thread, I think it would be admirable for you to start a new thread and allow this thread to focus upon the originators theme. It's very easy to start new threads here and it might settle a few disputes in the process.
I appreciate your acknowledgement regarding my interest in this subject timey but Jeff has a perfect right to ask everyone involved in this thread to stay on topic and if I may say so, the course this thread has taken has wandered significantly.
I'm sure you'll acquire as much or more interest in your ideas if you choose to start a new thread. Title it what ever you like timey but make sure the title reflects the theme of your ideas about inverted time dilation.
Good luck with your thought experiment.......................Ethos

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
Ok. Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.
There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct. But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.
Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength. Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.
Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...
K, well... Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates. The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates. Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.
There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable. As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships. This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.
Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.
Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.
(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality. However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)

So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
Although my theory "Gravity and the Dotwave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dotwaves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a nonexpanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
Ok. Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.
There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct. But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.
Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength. Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.
Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...
K, well... Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates. The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates. Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.
There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable. As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships. This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.
Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.
Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.
(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality. However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)
As I look at these words, they appear correct in that a time clock within a high density gravitational field and a low density gravitational field are different. thus a time clock varies depending upon the gravitational field. However Einstien's equations show time, mass, and length variations with gravity and velocity.
If you look at the universe from only time, you are only looking at a partial view. So the universe you see is a different universe. It is a universe where time is the independent variable and everything else depends upon it. thus you can rewrite Einstein's equations from this perspective.
The problem is that Einstein's equations are a best fit approximation to reality. they are not absolute reality but a root mean square approximation.
We like to believe that we can write simple equations to define the universe but that is not possible and all we can do is write best fit type equations.

So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
Although my theory "Gravity and the Dotwave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dotwaves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a nonexpanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.
Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...
And  again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.
My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction. A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout. But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...
Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process. The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.
And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength. This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.

So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
Although my theory "Gravity and the Dotwave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dotwaves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a nonexpanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.
Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...
And  again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.
My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction. A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout. But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...
Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process. The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.
And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength. This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.
Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted.
I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field.
For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.

So now, here is my next question:
If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
Although my theory "Gravity and the Dotwave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dotwaves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a nonexpanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.
Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...
And  again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.
My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction. A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout. But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...
Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process. The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.
And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength. This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.
Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted.
I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field.
For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.
Erm, nope!
Jerry it becomes really hard to upkeep the content of a discussion when a reader does not keep up with the content.
I can appreciate that these may be your ideas of a contracting universe, but I am describing a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon, and the additional dimension of inverted gravitational time dilation challenges Hubble's law by simply attributing the Doppler shift velocities associated with redshifts and blue shifts to this proposed inverted time dilation. Red shifted light travelling through slower time, not extra distance and therefore not being indicative of any expansion at all. And therefore, under this remit, a universal contraction would not be indicated by a blue shift.
Sorry...

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.
Ok. Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.
There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct. But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.
Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength. Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.
Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...
K, well... Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates. The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates. Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.
There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable. As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships. This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.
Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.
Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.
(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality. However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)
So... If anyone is indeed keeping up with content:
In deriving the equivalence principle via the gravity potential equation, (redefining acceleration of gravity aside for time being), as well as switching the concept of time running faster in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, we also observe another switching of concepts, in that the equivalence principle, in stating that all reference frames are equal to each other, usually derives this statement by stating that there is no physical change between reference frames of differing gravity potential  and that it is due to the difference in the rate of time of the location that we will see a difference in that locations 'timing'. This being observed by experiment in the increased frequency of energy transitions of the cesium atomic clock in the higher gravity potential.
My model is stating that mass in locations of gravity potential will physically change. That the energy, and therefore frequency of mass, (and physical process of mass relationships), will increase in the higher gravity potential, and because m*g is always the same and only h is variable, all will remain proportional in any reference frame of gravity potential.
But... My model then takes the concept of nothing physically changing for mass in the differing gravity potentials and applies it to the observation, (under the remit of the proposed inverted time dilation), of light.
Red shifted light's energy is being stretched over dilated time. Frequency is denoting how much energy is a 'observed' to be occurring over the time period of a standard second, (ie: less energy because time is running slower than a standard second), and the actual observation of light becoming redder becomes a matter of the (inverted gravitational time dilation) time difference between reference frames of differing gravity potential being time frame dependent...
(edit: Actually, to correct myself  observational time frame dependency is more related to luminosity observations than light becoming redder, which is more related to energy being stretched over longer time periods)
My model stating the observation of differing rates of time as being time frame dependant, and proportional to the difference in rate of time...
If this can be understood, we can now take this concept to the regions of the black hole phenomenon, and the uncertainty principle.

So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.

So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.
The proportionality of how these atoms process differ from each other in frequency in a reference frame of one gravity potential will be retained in all reference frames of any gravity potential. By calculating the mass of the process being measured (this being only a fractional part of the mass of the atom), times g, (albeit acceleration of g must be redefined with addition of the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation), m*g remains constant at any h. So then multiplying by the variable h is adding potential energy and increasing frequency as h increases  and the remit of the equivalence principle has been maintained.

There is no mass involved in any of the processes mentioned, except the CO2 laser.

There is no mass involved in any of the processes mentioned, except the CO2 laser.
You have said this before and I couldn't understand it then either. The only thing I can think of as to why you say this, is because the process in which frequency becomes relevant is involving light, and light has no mass.
But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?). To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism. Both the external mechanism applying the energy, and the internal process involving component particles of the Fe57 have mass.
The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon. The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave. Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).
yes it does To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.
No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a twostage gamma emission with no mass change.
The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon. The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave. Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.
The resonance is a spinspin interaction whose energy is not massdependent
But the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency? The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can yours do better?

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).
yes it does To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.
No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a twostage gamma emission with no mass change.
The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon. The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave. Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.
The resonance is a spinspin interaction whose energy is not massdependent
But the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency? The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can yours do better?
OK  to clear up any possible confusion; I'm thinking that perhaps you are looking at the process of a proposed increase in energy, and working from the basis that an increase in energy will increase mass size
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
The process of the Fe57 'naturally decaying' (thanks for correction) a gamma ray, can include a recoil that reduces the energy of the gamma ray, or it can be processed through some lattice thingy and the emitted gamma ray then does not reduce in energy as much, its energy remains within the border of the line width and can therefore be received by the receiving atom. At every point, apart from the period of time that the gamma ray is emitted for, there is the mass of the emitting process and receiving process within the structure of the atom, and the lattice thingy (which I'm sure you can tell I'm not that knowledgeable about ;)...), to be considered.
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
The model is proposing that there is a force of gravitational attraction that compels mass to be attracted to mass, (the gluon's responsibility perhaps, although particle physics is really not my strong point), but that all 'accelerations' of gravity are inverted time dilation related.
(ie: as mass moves closer together, the gravitational field increases in energy and the resulting proposed inverted time dilation is contracting in time periods. Take a smaller piece of mass from the bigger, and create distance in relation to the bigger mass, its energy 'can' be said to be increasing as a result of the gravitational force of the bigger mass exerted upon it, and time periods are increasing for that mass)
All GR equations, (that remain necessary that is), should work for my model because what I am proposing is directly proportional  but the attraction of gravity, and the acceleration of gravity should, as per my model, be calculated as separate phenomenon instead of lumped togetheof
The only reason why calculating observation by these means would (if viable) be better, is because the consequences lead to the mechanism of the cyclic universe that I have described.

I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.
The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.
gluons are not gravitons
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is
fr/fe = sqrt{(12GM/(R+h)c^2)/(12GM/Rc^2)}
where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies. No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

III
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.
The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.
gluons are not gravitons
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is
fr/fe = sqrt{(12GM/(R+h)c^2)/(12GM/Rc^2)}
where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies. No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.
This can be reduced to fr/fe = sqrt{R/(R+h)} showing that radial distance and not mass is the determining factor. Thus a distance across the potential. Just my two penneth.

I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.
which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.
The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.
gluons are not gravitons
But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
Hmm. The frequency shift equation is
fr/fe = sqrt{(12GM/(R+h)c^2)/(12GM/Rc^2)}
where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies. No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.
OK  leaving the gluon's, magnetic moments of electrons and all particle physics and lattice thingy aside for time being  I think you are being a little unfair in your assessment of the frequency shift equations in relation to what I am saying... I can clearly see use of G, and M.
G being the gravitational constant will not be descriptive of a clear separation between gravitational attraction, and the acceleration of gravity either.
...and, GR states that time will slow for a bigger mass size. More energy resulting in a greater mass will result in a slower rate of time, yet we also know that an increase in energy increases frequency. But.. as per the cesium atomic clock, an increase in frequency increases the rate of time.
We can see that if mass sizes increase with the addition of gravity potential energy, a perfectly linear equation for mass where m*g is constant, and h is the only variable, becomes, what was the word you used before?, anyway, it becomes non linear. Of course perhaps it is the mass increasesdecreases offset by the gravity field decreasesincreases that are the reason that these maths work. I do however recall Pete saying that gravity potential energy does not increase relativistic mass, so if that is indeed correct, then it would seem that things with mass are being calculated differently to light.
In any case, in that mass size is increasing in the higher gravity potential, here we can see that GR is already making a natural separation of gravitational phenomenon. Simply ditch the mass increase, and reattribute the notion of that dimension increasing in that manner, and under those circumstances, as the rste of time increasing for the mass, instead of the mass size increasing. (I think you will find this can give alternate explanation of same observations of acceleration of gravityparticle physics)
So the mass size remains the same, m*g, where g is an energy decrease in the gravity field that decreases the energy of the mass, and is also giving an opposing increase in gravity potential energy that mass experiences at that location increasing energy, and therefore frequency at elevation when multipied by h... Any nonlinearity left over by this alteration could possibly be attributed to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
(remembering that we haven't yet touched on SR effects)
Now that this has attributed the increase in time as being 'for' the mass, and not 'for' the location, we can explore the notion of an inverted gravitational time dilation that is dilating in the reducing energy of a reducing gravity field... and look to the observation of massless light.

What on earth is mass size?
M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.

What on earth is mass size?
M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.
Yes there is use of G and M in the frequency shift equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding energy change of a frequency shift is calculated?
Yes there is use of g and m in the gravity potential equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding frequency shift of the gravity potential energy changes are calculated?

Potential energy is mgh.
I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since E = hf.

Potential energy is mgh.
I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since E = hf.
Is that E=hf, where h is Planck's h constant?
...and m*g*h, for gravity potential energy, where h is height?
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant  as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?
Neither. The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant  as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?
Neither. The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant  as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?
Neither. The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
Jerry  I think you need to read this:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminumatomicclock_092310.cfm

Clocks at higher gravitational potential run faster. Clocks moving with respect to the observer run slower. The problem with GPS satellite clocks is that they are doing both, significantly. The gravitational correction for an aeroplane is, I think, a lot less than the relative velocity correction.

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant  as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.
...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?
Neither. The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the observed frequency of a photon or a clock.
OK  Alan... I am looking at the fact that a person ages faster at elevation in keeping with their clock. (see NIST link in post above)
Under the remit of the equivalence principle, what physically happens to the clock must physically happen to the person. We observe that the clock has an increase in frequency of its energy transitions. An increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy.
The hypothetical De Broglie matter wave for all mass will be escalating in frequency with the additional gravity potential energy at elevation, and all matter wave frequencies will escalate, and atoms of higher energy will do whatever process they are doing internally at a higher energy and frequency. (ie: quicker)
Now we can no longer state that it is the time dilation of the location of the gravity field that is changing the frequency of the clocks energy transitions. Clearly it is the change in potential energy that is causing a change in frequency, and it is causing all particles of mass within atomic structures to increase, or decrease, in energy proportionally to their relationships with each other in any reference frame of gravity potential.
A physical cause has now been given for an observer physically aging in keeping with his clock. The remit of the equivalence principle has been upheld...
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship  and the open space gravity field can now be observed with respect to the inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to observation of light... minus the relativistic mass notion  and take a closer look at Planck's h constant.
(P.S. Yes, since the site got bug I seem to have lost the ability to quick reply, or select quote, hence my copious and unnecessary quoting of late)

You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.
"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship
No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).
What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixthformers all over the world  and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.

You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.
"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.
But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship
No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).
What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixthformers all over the world  and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.
Alan  you are describing how current physics regards the situation, and this does not explain physical differences in the observers aging process, as described by link.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminumatomicclock_092310.cfm
I am describing an alternate means of mathematically deriving the same observations. The reason for doing so, because it leads to my model of a cyclic universe that I am requiring the input of a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate...
...and yes, it is understood that these effects are due to the difference in gravity potential. My model is making a more detailed physical description of this.
With regards to Planck's h constant:
As I keep on saying, repetitively, my model states the phenomenon of time as energy related. Planck's h constant is a joules times standard second measurement, and in adding energy, time for the phenomenon being measured will be contracting. If you measure joules times the relevantly contracted second, the results will be linear.
And...the De Broglie matter wave is used to calculate quantum via perturbation theory  which is a time based function.

Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations
An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.
The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.
Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations
An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.
The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.
Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".
My model also describes time as the passing of sequential events, but it describes frequency as being the timing of these events, and energy as being the cause of frequency. (no need for an atom to 'know' anything. The energy it gains or loses is a physical result of both its location and momentum)
My model is viewing time as being caused by the physical mechanics of the universe, rather than the universe passing through a phenomenon of time that is unconnected to, and outside of itself...
My model views the observations of time dilation and contraction  as observed in the other reference frame of gravity potential, or relative motion, or both  as a real and tangible phenomenon...
My model states that the observer, (as NIST, NASA, and other official government links suggest, for whatever that may be worth), 'will' physically age in keeping with his clock.
Is that start enough?

Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.
Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.
So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?

Just to add to Alan's post. To have an inverse of something you first have to have that something. The inverse will undo the effect of that something. So in the case of time dilation the inverse gets us back to Galilean/Newtonian relativity. It may have been better called antitime dilation. Just my two penneth.

Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.
Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.
So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?
My model has derived GR time dilation as being an m near M relationship, where we are measuring the standard second, (a measurement of a time period long since defined by our ancestors, whose era came well before the discovery of the atom), via means of the frequency of energy transitions, and these energy transitions are shifted in the gravitational field. (or by thermal energy changes btw).
My model states that all atoms and their particle constituents will increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.
The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation is an M in relation to open space relationship (cosmological), and also an m in relation to open space relationship. (microscopic).
The model attributes the gravity field as having energy. The energy of the gravity field gets lesser with distance from M, and the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation of the gravity field itself will be observed as the time period of a standard second, (as measured via GR time dilation, this being our measurement of the phenomenon of time), dilating, ie: time running slower, in the weaker gravity field.
Because light, (emitted light) has no mass, and without mass (relativistic mass) therefore will not be subject to additional gravity potential energy, my model looks to the observation of lights frequency reducing in the weaker gravity field and attributes this observation to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space gravity field.
Light is travelling at light speed, 299 ,792 458 metres per second, but the second is variable and gets longer as the gravity field gets weaker.
Jeff  I have called it inverted gravitational time dilation because it does the opposite to GR gravitational time dilation.
I have always stated clearly that the proposed inverted time dilation is an additional dimension, not the inverse of an existing dimension...
Having said that, where relativistic mass, or additional energy being calculated into mass is concerned, the proportions of how these additions work in the current maths will be replaced by the concept and maths of the proposed addition of this inverted gravitational time dilation, and the concept of an acceleration of gravity will of course be dimensionally altered.
Both of which combined, negate the need for dark matter and dark energy to dimensionally balance the books on these altered maths.

So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.

So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.
Are you having a bit of a problem reading Jeff?
No, my model states that GR gravitational time dilation is as is. Your GPS is safe.
It proposes an additional inverted time dilation for the ***open space*** gravity field. Your clock will be subject to GR time dilation as it is comprised of mass.
Use of g or G is already calculating inverted time dilation as an acceleration of gravity.
It is the observation of what light is doing in the gravity field that is indicative of the presence of the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant  as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.
...
Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
Jerry  I think you need to read this:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminumatomicclock_092310.cfm
Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yes!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!
If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!
If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!
I am making an alteration to current theory...
Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself. ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.
Can 'you' grasp that?

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!
If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!
I am making an alteration to current theory...
Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself. ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.
Can 'you' grasp that?
Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!
If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!
I am making an alteration to current theory...
Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...
I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself. ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.
Can 'you' grasp that?
Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!
Yes  the inverted time dilation accelerates the light, but the light is still travelling the same amount of metres per second as per the reference frame it is travelling through, so as per the equivalence principle, all is equal in every reference frame.
I have just interchanged the changes in the distance of the wavelength into a time values of variable seconds instead of variable lengths.
But you haven't grasped that, have you?

Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.

Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.
In that you still seem to view my idea as a misconception, I seriously doubt that you have understood it. You have also professed several times previously to understanding the idea, whereas it has turned out that you clearly have not.
If you are using GR as a bible then any concept that is not GR is misconceived.
...and in order to state my idea as a misconception, rather than as an alternative idea, you really would need to produce some mathematics that prove it unviable, which you haven't.
You are therefore out of line to describe my alternate idea as a misconception. Whether you have understood it or not, you may indeed state yourself as being uninterested by the alternate idea quite legitimately, but this would be contradictory to the actions of you're posting...
So basically Jeff  I conclude that without justifying your claim that the alternate idea is misconceived, you are indeed being out of line.

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yes!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!
The only problem being that nobody has ever observed it.

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster.
Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons.
These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?
Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yes!!!
You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.
Good on ya!
The only problem being that nobody has ever observed it.
The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...
Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.
A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.

You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.

You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.
And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?
Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...
I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.
...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities. Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

E
You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.
And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?
Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...
I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.
So then we agree that it is only the gravitational potential gradient that matters. Which obeys postulates of the general theory of relativity. You have discredited your own hypothesis. Although you will likely fail entirely to understand how.
...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities. Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

EYou can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.
And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?
Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...
I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.
So then we agree that it is only the gravitational potential gradient that matters. Which obeys postulates of the general theory of relativity. You have discredited your own hypothesis. Although you will likely fail entirely to understand how.
...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities. Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.
That is a totally pointless post that only gives indication of your own pomposity and nothing else.
In that you are a moderator on
this site, I insist that you now explain yourself... (you wouldn't see Evan making a post like that!)

The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.

The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.
Clearly you have completely misunderstood what I'm saying then, as per usual.
Unless you tell me why you think my idea runs counter to both current theory and observation, as would be polite, I will not be able to correct you in where it is that you have misunderstood...

As I have already stated. I haven't misunderstood. Your own words refute your position.

As I have already stated. I haven't misunderstood. Your own words refute your position.
None of the words I have said have refuted my idea, therefore you must have misunderstood the implications of what I have said.
You have clearly and very drastically misunderstood the mechanics of this ides before. It is highly logical that you have done so again.
What's the problem in having a grown up conversation where you just state what is on your mind, instead of all this enigmatic crap?
If you think its making you seem clever, think again.

The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...
Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.
A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, as it has been from the start.
Photons emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear blueshifted when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness the PoundRebka experiment.
Clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear to run fast when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness GPS clocks.
If you can't accept these common observations, there's no point discussing the hypothesis that explains them.
Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.
The astronomical standard candle is a presumed standard of luminosity, not wavelength.

The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...
Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.
A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, as it has been from the start.
Photons emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear blueshifted when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness the PoundRebka experiment.
Clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear to run fast when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness GPS clocks.
If you can't accept these common observations, there's no point discussing the hypothesis that explains them.
Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.
The astronomical standard candle is a presumed standard of luminosity, not wavelength.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said.
Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field. Given that we could reflect the light in the opposite direction without losing energy  turn that light arriving, at its blue shifted frequency, at ground level, around and point it out of the gravity field, its wavelength will dilate exactly oppositely to how it contracted inbound, red shift being the opposite of blue shift.
If you stand at top of tower and light is traveling inbound towards earth from a position higher than you, and past you, it will be blue shifting towards you, past your position and will be further blue shifted away from your position at top of tower to bottom of tower. The difference in gravity potential between higher than top of tower, top of tower, and bottom of tower is distinguished by a change in frequency in the light. As the light gets closer to the ground its frequency increases.
Yes, I concur that the frequency that is observed is due to the difference in gravity potential. If the top of tower records the frequency of the light as it passes, and bottom of tower records the frequency when the light arrives at bottom of tower, the top of tower frequency will be lesser than the bottom of tower frequency.
*
A clocks frequency of energy transitions at the top of the tower will be greater than the frequency of an identical clocks energy transitions at bottom of tower. If we place clocks at metre intervals from top of the tower to bottom of tower and connect these clocks to a computer screen read out, we will see that each clock is running at a lesser frequency of energy transitions than the clock above.
Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.
The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.
Edit: Hubble calculated velocities that light sources are receding away from us at via Doppler shifts associated with the magnitude of red shifts in relation to standard candle distance measurements. Stephan's quintet is a major problem for Hubble's law.
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html
The luminosity is supposed to be proportional to distance and recessional velocity, but as telescopes have afforded us to observe galaxies that are that much further away, the luminosities of these further observations don't tally with the distances.
http://www.scinews.com/astronomy/scienceuniversenotexpanding01940.html

You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.

You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.
Actually I have been using slightly wonky terminology on purpose, because when I use the correct terminology I cannot seem to break through the preconditioned GR mentality of the reader.
Yes a gravity field will extend to a lesser gravity field, and to a greater gravity field. What of it?
Light's wavelength gets shorter in the greater gravity field. 'contracting'...
Light's wavelength gets longer in the lesser gravity field. 'dilating'... What's the problem?
As to you wasting your time, that would depend on what you are trying to accomplish... It would seem to me that you are grasping for justification as to your own prejudice against the notion of someone from my lacking in formal education having the temerity to challenge the status quo, rather than actually trying to understand the idea that I'm proposing.

Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.
The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.
Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.

Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.
The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.
Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.
So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.
The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.
Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.
OK, the mossbauer source at the top of tower is increased in energy, (potential energy), relative to the mossbauer source at bottom of tower. Each mossbauer source at every metre location from top of tower to bottom of tower will have a decreased energy (potential energy) relative to the mossbauer source above it.
A mossbauer source that has a higher energy will emit a higher energy photon. (as is the case with the cesium atom clock...I realise you have a problem with this notion, but bear with me) That higher energy emitted photon will be increased, (blue shifted), in energy from its emitting mossbauer sources position of elevation to bottom of tower, and the observation from bottom of tower will be of this light having arrived in our eye, having been blue shifted as to the gravity field 'strength' of 'our' observing reference frame.
We do not observe the light at the frequency it 'was' in the 'other' reference frame, only as it 'is now' in our own reference frame.
So what calculation is describing which observation?
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?

Who "you"?
I'm not confused or attempting to confuse anyone else. Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer.
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?
It is so.

Who "you"?
I'm not confused or attempting to confuse anyone else. Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer.
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?
It is so.
I'm not sure where the confused is coming into it where you are concerned. It would seem that is Jeff's department.
Yes  agreed!
Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...

My apologies Alan. I replied to the wrong post.

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".
You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?

You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.
Actually I have been using slightly wonky terminology on purpose, because when I use the correct terminology I cannot seem to break through the preconditioned GR mentality of the reader.
So you are confusing the issue on purpose.
Yes a gravity field will extend to a lesser gravity field, and to a greater gravity field. What of it?
Light's wavelength gets shorter in the greater gravity field. 'contracting'...
Light's wavelength gets longer in the lesser gravity field. 'dilating'... What's the problem?
As to you wasting your time, that would depend on what you are trying to accomplish... It would seem to me that you are grasping for justification as to your own prejudice against the notion of someone from my lacking in formal education having the temerity to challenge the status quo, rather than actually trying to understand the idea that I'm proposing.

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".
You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?
I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.
Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.
So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".
You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?
I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.
Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.
So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?

Let's consider a uniform gravitational field with a photon moving perpendicular to the direction of the field. What happens to the wavelength if the potential is constant along the path of the photon? Will the potential always be constant? Will the gravitational field deviate the photon away from a straight line path?

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".
You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?
I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.
Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.
So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?
Ah, kinetic energy!
0.5mv^2
...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.
A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency.
...so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".
You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?
I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.
Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.
So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?
Ah, kinetic energy!
0.5mv^2
...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.
A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency.
...so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.
For a start the photon can't have rest mass. You also certainly need to study the use of language as applicable to physics. That about sums it up.

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:
...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...
.... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".
You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?
I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.
Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.
So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?
Ah, kinetic energy!
0.5mv^2
...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.
A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency.
...so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.
For a start the photon can't have rest mass. You also certainly need to study the use of language as applicable to physics. That about sums it up.
When I say light has no mass, I mean no rest mass. When I say giving light mass. I mean calculating relativistic mass for light via kinetic energy.
Perhaps if you were not so convinced that you are conversing with an imbecile, the obvious would be obvious to you. Obviously the obvious is obvious in the context.
Now grow up!!!

So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
No. All we can see is that the frequency of a clock, photon, or anything else, appears higher when observed from a lower gravitational potential. All we know is that the same relativistic equation predicts both. Therefore the minimum assumption is that the same mechanism determines all observations.
If you want to postulate that different mechanisms underlie the frequency shift for different sources, you will be left with the remarkable conclusion that an infinite number of independent equations, describing the different effects of a nonexistent* gravitational field on every cyclic event in the universe, all produce the same result. The probablity of this being true is very close to zero.
*remember that the field in deep space is zero. Most of the discussion so far, and indeed most of the experimental results, deal with an observer in the rather rare phenomenon of a planetary gravitational field.

So Alan  can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential...
...and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential...
...and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential...
...and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...
And  that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?
No. All we can see is that the frequency of a clock, photon, or anything else, appears higher when observed from a lower gravitational potential. All we know is that the same relativistic equation predicts both. Therefore the minimum assumption is that the same mechanism determines all observations.
If you want to postulate that different mechanisms underlie the frequency shift for different sources, you will be left with the remarkable conclusion that an infinite number of independent equations, describing the different effects of a nonexistent* gravitational field on every cyclic event in the universe, all produce the same result. The probablity of this being true is very close to zero.
*remember that the field in deep space is zero. Most of the discussion so far, and indeed most of the experimental results, deal with an observer in the rather rare phenomenon of a planetary gravitational field.
You make a point in the calculation of frequency via gravity potential for mass, but again bear with me. It all ties together when we get there, I promise... (as a concept that is, can't promise it's mathematically viable, but I think it has a good probability of being so, hence the song and dance).
Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes. Therefore our observation of the light is occurring due to the difference of 'our' gravity potential in relation to the light source emitters gravity potential, and proportional to the difference in gravity potential between both positions.
A clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame.
Can we agree on this?

Who said the clock's frequency changes? All we know is that it appears to vary depending on the position of the observer in the gravitational field, same as the apparent frequency of the photon. The only "absolute" is the hypothetical clock in deep space where the gravitational potential is zero. We can them make observations from the surface of different planets with different local potentials, and see the effect. But the clock frequency can't have changed because we haven't moved it.
Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.
True. And how do we observe the clock?
A clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame.
What other? I'm standing at the bottom of the Harvard tower, looking at a mossbauer source and a cesium clock at the top of the tower. In both cases I'm measuring the time beween the peaks of an electrical field, either that of a single photon or the microwave standard. Both appear blue shifted, by the same fraction.

Who said the clock's frequency changes? All we know is that it appears to vary depending on the position of the observer in the gravitational field, same as the apparent frequency of the photon. The only "absolute" is the hypothetical clock in deep space where the gravitational potential is zero. We can them make observations from the surface of different planets with different local potentials, and see the effect. But the clock frequency can't have changed because we haven't moved it.
Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.
True. And how do we observe the clock?
A clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame.
What other? I'm standing at the bottom of the Harvard tower, looking at a mossbauer source and a cesium clock at the top of the tower. In both cases I'm measuring the time beween the peaks of an electrical field, either that of a single photon or the microwave standard. Both appear blue shifted, by the same fraction.
NIST say that they have observed change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.
NASA is studying the aging process of observers in relation to their time dilated clocks in space. As far as I am aware they are considering this to be a real and physical effect.
*
We observe light when it reaches our eye. A clocks frequency of energy exchanges does not travel and meet our eye. It is the light that is illuminating the clock that meets our eye, and what this light illuminates is that the clock 1 metre above is running a read out that is showing that the clock above is running fractionally faster. You will observe that the elevated clock is running faster than the clock below, no matter if you are above both the clocks, below both the clocks, or with either of the clocks. The clocks are quite simply running at different rates.
The same cannot be said of the observation of light. The observation of light is dependant on the gravity potential of the observer. The observation of the clock is dependant on the gravity potential of the reference frame of the observed clock.
*
If you are measuring the observed time periods of oscillations of a blue shifted light wave via a standard second, in considering the proposed proposal that more energy means a faster rate of time, the fact that a blue shift exactly matches the fraction of a microwave shift is really bloody interesting in relation to what I'm saying about Planck's h constant.

NIST say that they have OBSERVED change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.
It is, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have OBSERVED it.
The observed frequency shift of all sources is dependent on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. We all know that. Why do you keep repeating it and then asserting that it doesn't happen the same way for all sources?

NIST say that they have OBSERVED change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.
It is, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have OBSERVED it.
The observed frequency shift of all sources is dependent on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. We all know that. Why do you keep repeating it and then asserting that it doesn't happen the same way for all sources?
Why where you asking in post 582:
"Who said the clocks frequency changes?"
...when in post 584, after I've told in post 583 that it is NIST who have said so and they state it a real and physical effect, you say:
" It is, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have OBSERVED it."
*
I am discussing the phenomenon of red shifted light in relation to clocks in elevation because 'emitted' lights frequency decreases travelling through the same coordinate position of gravity potential in the gravity field that a clocks frequency is observed to increase at, and this ***fact of current and established physics*** is paramount to the interests of my continued explanation of the proposed inverted time dilation of my cyclic model of the universe.
I too would very much care to move on from this currently stagnated situation of the conversation so:
Please Alan 
Emitted light red shifted from bottom of tower to top of tower will physically possess a decreased frequency as seen at top of tower relative to the frequency it had at bottom of tower. True or false?
A clock placed at top of tower is observed to physically possess an increased frequency relative to a clock placed at bottom of tower. True or false?
If you have answered both these question as true, then you will have agreed, as I have been asking you to for some considerable time now, that lights frequency decreases in the weaker gravity field, while a clocks frequency increases in the weaker gravity field.
Then we can move on to discussing the phenomenon in context. Starting with the observation that reading another reference frame of differing gravity potentials clock is an observation that is made of another reference frame, and that any observation of light travelling from a reference frame of differing gravity potential is an observation of ones own reference frame, because you cannot observe light until it reaches your eye.
It is my intention to completely pick apart observation and current theory to their component mechanisms. So perhaps you can appreciate that simply covering the observations under a statement saying:
"The observed frequency shift of all sources is dependent on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer."
...doesn't really get into the kind of detail that I'm intending.

The apparent difference in potential between any two distinct points is entirely dependent upon the position of the observer. So that one observer at your feet will record different results to another at your head. Do you understand the definition of observer?

The apparent difference in potential between any two distinct points is entirely dependent upon the position of the observer. So that one observer at your feet will record different results to another at your head. Do you understand the definition of observer?
Do you understand that computers can be linked to observation mechanisms rigged at each point in the gravity potential to observe observations and that all these observations are then observed on a screen by the observer?
I concur that changes in frequency of light are dependant on the position of the observer, or observing mechanism in the gravity potential, but observations of clocks in differing gravity potentials are not dependant on the position of the observer. A clock running slow on the ground will run the same rate of slow, no matter what gravity potential you observe it from. The only situation that a clock on the ground would apear to run faster is if you compare it to a clock observed in a lesser gravity potential than ground level. But the clock on the ground would not have changed from its rate or frequency. It would be because the clock is in the lower gravity potential than the ground level clock that this lower gravity potential clock will be running slower by comparison.

The known fact is that the frequency of a received signal or an observed clock (i.e. a received signal from a clock, however it is received) depends on the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer. The frequency shift is independent of the type of