Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: timey on 04/03/2017 05:49:06

What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?
Do they have different values?

What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?
Do they have different values?
gravitational potential is gravitational potential energy per unit of mass. If the gravitational potential energy is measured in kgm^2/s^2 then the gravitational potential is m^2/s^2 . Thus if you have two masses in the same position in a gravity field and one is twice the mass of the other, they both have the same gravitational potential, but one would have twice the gravitational potential energy.

This is exactly why dimensional analysis is so important.

What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?
Do they have different values?
gravitational potential is gravitational potential energy per unit of mass. If the gravitational potential energy is measured in kgm^2/s^2 then the gravitational potential is m^2/s^2 . Thus if you have two masses in the same position in a gravity field and one is twice the mass of the other, they both have the same gravitational potential, but one would have twice the gravitational potential energy.
So Janus  In the case of light falling towards body M, we can understand that as the photons are the equal of each other at each coordinate within the gravity potential well, and all travelling at the same speed, ie: c, that all photons are affected equally.
And that when m's of differing mass value are free falling towards M, the gravity potential, and resulting gravity potential energy decrease for m in free fall is going to be differing for m's of differing values of mass.
The kinetic energy values will also be differing for differing values of m in free fall.
Yet despite the momentum (?) differences between differing mass values in free fall, all values of m accelerate at the same rate in the decreasing gravity potential of the gfield.
I know you cannot explain why this happens because it is not currently known why all values of m accelerate at the same rate in free fall...
But... the mass or relativistic mass value for m and light, respectively, are used in calculation to describe momentum, or p in the maths.
What exactly is the physical description of momentum?

So Janus  In the case of light falling towards body M, we can understand that as the photons are the equal of each other at each coordinate within the gravity potential well, and all travelling at the same speed, ie: c, that all photons are affected equally.
This is probably nitpicking, but isn’t it usual to consider light as waves, when travelling, and as photons only when observed?
Does that make any difference to your animadversions?

You make a good point Bill that is indeed highly relevant to the ultimate direction of my thinking, but at present this is me picking through the mathematics and understanding the physical nature of what those maths are describing.
At the moment I am lacking a physical description for the use of p in the maths. Clearly there are several means of deriving p mathematically involving:
p = hv(bar)
where vbar is:
v/a
and h is Planck's h constant
Or
p = mv
Both descriptions seem to point to p being an accelerative derivation (or should I say deduction)...
I'm interested in what Janus can tell me about what a description of momentum, or p in the maths, actually physically consists of...
...but am also now mildly interested in what an animadversion is. I've not come across that before (quick google) ... Ah, criticism!
No Bill, you have me all wrong! I am a curious mind, is all that is going on here. It is only people who interpret my questions as being nonunderstandings of the subject matter, rather than an intrinsic interest in matters that cannot be explained by the current remit, who do rather seem to feel that I am being unwarrantedly critical. It is not a criticism to systematically dissemble a system into cause and effect. As far as I'm concerned it is indeed a complement to the system...
For instance Rubik cubes are well boring!

For a simple harmonic oscillator such as a pendulum you have a force constant k.
k = 4pi^{2}mT^{2} where m is the mass and T the time period of the oscillations. Since k is constant then mass and T must not vary in a way that changes the value of k.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator)

Then F = ma = kx

Escape velocity is given by
Δv = sqrt(2GM/Δr)
then potential is
ΔU =GM/Δr

I am looking for a description (in words, not maths) of what is physically occurring when p is applied in the maths.
For instance, acceleration being denoted as a is applied in maths, this is a description of the physical action of a speed becoming faster to cover more distance in less time.
What is the physical description of momentum?

This is as basic as it can get.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa/kinetic_energy/momentumrev1.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa/kinetic_energy/momentumrev1.shtml)

Oh for goodness sake Jeff  grow up!
Momentum is being calculated in the way I mentioned many posts ago.
What is the physical action of the use of p in the maths?
Clearly there is a force that is causing momentum and the use of momentum, ie: p, is describing this force mathematically...
But what is that force of momentum please?
Can you give me a physical description?

Perhaps I can assist?
So Janus  In the case of light falling towards body M, we can understand that as the photons are the equal of each other at each coordinate within the gravity potential well, and all travelling at the same speed, ie: c, that all photons are affected equally.
All photons are affected equally, but rather counterintuitively, the descending photon slows down. In similar vein, the ascending photon speeds up. Check out this PhysicsFAQ article by relativists Don Koks: Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html) The answer is no. See this:
So consider the question: "Can we say that light confined to the vicinity of the ceiling of this room is travelling faster than light confined to the vicinity of the floor?". For simplicity, let's take Earth as not rotating, because that complicates the question! The answer is then that (1) an observer stationed on the ceiling measures the light on the ceiling to be travelling with speed c, (2) an observer stationed on the floor measures the light on the floor to be travelling at c, but (3) within the bounds of how well the speed can be defined (discussed below, in the General Relativity section), a "global" observer can say that ceiling light does travel faster than floor light.
And that when m's of differing mass value are free falling towards M, the gravity potential, and resulting gravity potential energy decrease for m in free fall is going to be differing for m's of differing values of mass.
The gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Having a mass of a different size is only like having a different number of unit masses.
I know you cannot explain why this happens because it is not currently known why all values of m accelerate at the same rate in free fall.
I didn't think there was any mystery to that.
But... the mass or relativistic mass value for m and light, respectively, are used in calculation to describe momentum, or p in the maths.
Relativistic mass is a measure of energy.
What exactly is the physical description of momentum?
A timebased measure of resistance to changeinmotion. Kinetic energy is a distancebased measure. Think of a cannonball in space moving at 1000m/s. When you apply a constant braking force you bring the cannonball to a halt in x metres, which is your kinetic energy measure, and y seconds, which is your momentum measure. Divide by c which is distance over time to go from one to the other. People tend to say a cannonball has kinetic energy and momentum, but you can't remove one without the other. Because they're two aspects of the same thing, called energymomentum.

Oh for goodness sake Jeff  grow up!
Momentum is being calculated in the way I mentioned many posts ago.
What is the physical action of the use of p in the maths?
Clearly there is a force that is causing momentum and the use of momentum, ie: p, is describing this force mathematically...
But what is that force of momentum please?
Can you give me a physical description?
I was trying to help. Seeing as you wanted a description in words I gave you that. Read what John posted. That should do. I'm done.

John if you don't even know the difference between velocity, acceleration and force I would give up now.
Before I forget. When you are applying your constant braking which direction is the acceleration vector pointing? Now that is a simple one. If you can't answer that then you should give up now.

Oh for goodness sake Jeff  grow up!
Momentum is being calculated in the way I mentioned many posts ago.
What is the physical action of the use of p in the maths?
Clearly there is a force that is causing momentum and the use of momentum, ie: p, is describing this force mathematically...
But what is that force of momentum please?
Can you give me a physical description?
Just one last point before I go. If you have constant momentum there is no force. It follows Newton's laws.

Oh for goodness sake Jeff  grow up!
Momentum is being calculated in the way I mentioned many posts ago.
What is the physical action of the use of p in the maths?
Clearly there is a force that is causing momentum and the use of momentum, ie: p, is describing this force mathematically...
But what is that force of momentum please?
Can you give me a physical description?
Just one last point before I go. If you have constant momentum there is no force. It follows Newton's laws.
Correct, that is exactly what I deduce.
But I'd still like a full description in words of the physical action being described when using p in the maths and do hope that Janus will give answer.

Thank you John. Btw, I am aware that if one uses duration of a GR time dilated second to calculate the speed of light via, then it could be said that light slows down closer to mass, as a time variant, not a speed variant.
This is of course interesting to me, but despite your description of momentum, I am no closer to an explanation of 'why' p is being used in the maths.
I don't see the requirement in repeating that which I have already said, and I too have read the Einstein papers.
I want a description of the physical cause for momentum being used as a means of manipulating the maths.
a = acceleration, which can be physically described as being caused by a speed that is getting faster and resulting in a distance covered in less time
v = a speed being caused by a force, and resulting in distance being covered in a specific time
p = momentum being caused by ? and resulting in ?
My interest is born of the Planck Einstein relation that also relates to DeBroglie, and I want to understand what p is physically describing within the manipulation of those maths.
My question arising from Janus's answer is very specific, and having had the title question answered by Janus, the question I am asking now is specifically as I state and it is that and nothing else that I require an answer to, at this time.

The value of v is not being caused by a force since it is not an acceleration.

God help you if you ever try to tackle Maxwell's equations.

Is there something wrong with asking a question Jeff?
... I really don't see why you have to respond in the fashion that you do. It's not all that pleasant to have a person sneering at one's every move, and I dare say it's not the most pleasant of reads for anyone reading either.
Any speed on earth has an energy driving it, both accelerated speed and constant speed. Otherwise that speed would decelerate and come to rest with respect to the Earth. Road traction, air resistance, blah, blah.
In the vacuum a speed will remain uniform unless acted upon by an external force....
... and v can actually be thought of as having been caused by a force, and resulting in a speed that covers a distance in a specific amount of time.
So  considering that a speed in a vacuum will remain uniform unless acted upon by an external force, when calculating using p in the maths, is this describing the external force?
Where my physical description would be that of momentum being caused by a force and resulting in an acceleration?

...but am also now mildly interested in what an animadversion is. I've not come across that before (quick google) ... Ah, criticism!
If that is the modern definition, I'm behind the times, but I was using it in the original sense as "thoughts".

Thank you John. Btw, I am aware that if one uses duration of a GR time dilated second to calculate the speed of light via, then it could be said that light slows down closer to mass, as a time variant, not a speed variant.
Einstein talked about the speed varying, as did Irwin Shapiro:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/IlSrh.jpg)
This is of course interesting to me, but despite your description of momentum, I am no closer to an explanation of 'why' p is being used in the maths.
I read somewhere that it's p for petere, which is the latin for impetus.
...my question arising from Janus's answer is very specific, and having had the title question answered by Janus, the question I am asking now is specifically as I state and it is that and nothing else that I require an answer to, at this time.
I had hoped I'd answered your question, in that momentum is a timebased measure of resistance to changeinmotion.

So no answer on the simple question of vector direction? If you can't answer that John how on earth are you able to answer questions reliably? You will simply be misleading people.

Jeff  as far as I am concerned, John is being conversational. I don't come to this site to be informed of anything, I come here
a) In the hope of meeting a mathematician who is open to calculating 'my' model...
And:
b) In the event that a) has proved far more difficult than I'd imagined, to simply get a grip on how other people think and interpret Relativity.
The fact that Relativity is even open to interpretation being proof of the fact that Relativity is not a complete theory. A fact backed up by the opinion of just about every professional theoretical physicist who's works I've read.
John  Thanks for the input. With regards to the last paragraph of your post  this only works if there is a spatial dilation of curvature. This spatial dilation being a point of contention in my model.
Bill  Hey no problem :) ... In any case I did not think you were being bitchy, as you never have been in the past. And it would appear to be a normality amongst some that the consensus is that I am being critical, so even if you had thought that, in your case I would forgive you of it anyway...

Momentum is nothing more or less than the product of mass times velocity.
Since mass is a scalar and velocity is a vector, momentum is a vector.
The importance of momentum is that it is conserved.

So if the momentum of a body is conserved then this means there is no external force acting upon it.
So  no matter if p is derived by:
p = mv
or
p= h*vbar
where h is Planck's h constant and:
vbar = v/a
or
p = hbar*k
where hbar is:
hbar = h/2pi
and k is angular velocity...
What is the physical action being described when we see p in the maths such as:
Wavelength = h/p
...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?

There John, vectors. See the significance of the question that you couldn't answer.

Momentum is nothing more or less than the product of mass times velocity.
Since mass is a scalar and velocity is a vector, momentum is a vector.
The importance of momentum is that it is conserved.
So if the momentum of a body is conserved then this means there is no external force acting upon it.
So  no matter if p is derived by:
p = mv
or
p= h*vbar
where h is Planck's h constant and:
vbar = v/a
or
p = hbar*k
where hbar is:
hbar = h/2pi
and k is angular velocity...
What is the physical action being described when we see p in the maths such as:
Wavelength = h/p
...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?
Alan... ?
P.S. Jeff  it may also be of significance to mention that v is indicative of a speed as per a directional speed that can be described as angular velocity, and when v is describing a vector, technically this should be signified by v with an arrow drawn over the top.

I am so glad you clarified that. I will have to remember to put arrows over my vectors.

And there I was thinking your retort would involve a lecture on pseudo vectors...
In any case I'm quite sure that I haven't clarified anything 'you' hadn't know already. I was just mentioning it in relation to your post to John, and letting you know that 'I' (just of late) realise this, although sometimes you mathematicians are prone to shorthand and it can be misleading.
Still no closer to getting an answer on a cause and effect description of the use of p in the maths though...
Alan has said it is important to remember that momentum is conserved, which means that there is no external force acting upon it.
Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?
Basic physics defines this phenomenon as the tendency for a mass, once set in motion to continue in motion until acted upon by a resisting agent. Where no resisting agent is applied, the mass will continue at it's initial velocity indefinitely. This is why we define momentum as "conserved".

...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?
The action of a force being applied to a mass will give that mass momentum, so the initial force applied transfers some of it's energy to said mass resulting in a velocity for said mass.
In the emptiness of space, where no resistance is applied to a given mass velocity, no additional energy is required to keep said mass in motion. Understanding that even in what we term "empty space", an occasional atom of Hydrogen will retard said motion even if only in the slightest.
As alan has explained, momentum is mass times velocity and that momentum is conserved.

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?
That's a very odd question. Momentum isn't an effect, so it doesn't have a cause, any more than velocity, spin, (1,2,3), or "one mile north" is an effect  they are vectors. Nor does momentum have a "resulting action". It is the product of mass and velocity and is therefore a property  indeed the property  of a moving body. As Newton pointed out, the effect of a force is to change momentum, F = dp/dt, so you might say that the cause of momentum is the integral of force over time, but that's a bit abstract in the absence of a source of force  it's more of a definition than a causal relationship.

Timey, Alan's answer IS the correct answer.

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?
That's a very odd question. Momentum isn't an effect, so it doesn't have a cause, any more than velocity, spin, (1,2,3), or "one mile north" is an effect  they are vectors. Nor does momentum have a "resulting action". It is the product of mass and velocity and is therefore a property  indeed the property  of a moving body. As Newton pointed out, the effect of a force is to change momentum, F = dp/dt, so you might say that the cause of momentum is the integral of force over time, but that's a bit abstract in the absence of a source of force  it's more of a definition than a causal relationship.
Thanks Alan for the answer, I'm teaching myself maths at mo. The question might not have seemed so odd in the context that I first posed it to you, many, many posts ago now.
I'm interested in the Planck Einstein relation and the DeBroglie connection.
Where:
E = hv
p = h*vbar
vbar = v/a
and:
Wavelength = h/p
Property in physics:
"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system. The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its transformations or evolutions between its momentary states."
Integral:
a function of which a given function is the derivative, i.e. which yields that function when differentiated, and which may express the area under the curve of a graph of the function."
Momentum:
Alan's Abstract  An integral of force over time.
Ditching Planck's h constant for time being, in the case of free fall:
p = mv
So if you have 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball, then despite the fact that v at each moment in time is equal for both cannonballs in free fall, p will be vastly differing...
So this basically means that it will take a greater force to stop the 100kg cannon ball than it will to stop the 10kg cannonball.
Or  that if the cannonballs were to each free fall onto a trampoline, that the 100kg cannonball would bounce higher than the 10kg cannonball.
F = m*a
So  acceleration is also equal for both cannonballs in free fall, but because m value is differing for each cannonball, F will also be differing for each cannonball.
But  increasing force tends to increase acceleration, while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration.
This suggests that the gravitational body M exerts more force on the 100kg cannonball than the 10kg cannonball, but because the 100kg cannonball is heavier it's acceleration to force ratio is lesser.
And  that the gravitational body M exerts less force on the 10kg cannonball, but because the 10kg cannonball is lighter it's acceleration to force ratio is greater.
And we end up with
F/m = a
for both cannonballs, this resulting in an equal value of acceleration for both. ie: free fall.
Therefore a means of describing a causal force for an accelerating velocity, and therefore an escalating momentum, is to state mass as becoming greater as it falls.
This means of a description being the reason for relativistic mass, (and/or the mass energy equivalence?)
+ velocity = + kinetic energy = + mass = + velocity
(remembering that potential energy doesn't affect relativistic mass)
However we also see that
+ mass =  acceleration
Where
F/m = a
and therefore this regulates velocity and serves to ensure the universal speed limit of the speed of light.
(For everything apart from the fabric of space)
a = change in velocity/time
and
p = mv
where value of p escalates as value of a escalates.
Therefore can it not be said that the cause of p is a?
And that the cause of a is F?
Resulting in +m (or m concerning escape velocity) being the cause of F?

Therefore a means of describing a causal force for an accelerating velocity, and therefore an escalating momentum, is to state mass as becoming greater as it falls.
This means of a description being the reason for relativistic mass, (and/or the mass energy equivalence?)
+ velocity = + kinetic energy = + mass = + velocity
I applaud your determination to learn maths and would like to encourage you to persevere, so I will reply to your question.
You were doing well up to the above quote, and the question you ask is worth investigating. You have the tools to do so at your fingertips, so you can calculate the acceleration due to g and compare it with the effect that increasing mass, due to velocity, would have. See whether the 2 match.

Thanks Colin! Your applause it appreciated.
In the case of light  relativistic mass 'is' what regulates the speed of light in the face of the accelerative force, is it not?
Where F/rest mass = nearly 0 acceleration and the speed of light is then fully maintained in the face of the slowing of time at decreasing h from M?
The slowing of time at decreasing h from M cancelling out the increase in velocity caused by the nearly 0 accelerative force?
Please understand Colin that I am working solely from the operating system of an iphone4s without a Internet connection, where I am hotspotting a connection from another person's phone that, often as not, I must stand outside in the freezing cold in order to connect to...
I am not making any numerical calculations atall, but am simply juggling proportions in my head...
So in light of these circumstances, if you do see a mistake, could you please tell me this mistake rather than direct me to a numerical calculation?

p = mv
So if you have 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball, then despite the fact that v at each moment in time is equal for both cannonballs in free fall, p will be vastly differing...
So this basically means that it will take a greater force to stop the 100kg cannon ball than it will to stop the 10kg cannonball.
yesOr  that if the cannonballs were to each free fall onto a trampoline, that the 100kg cannonball would bounce higher than the 10kg cannonball.
no
F = m*a
So  acceleration is also equal for both cannonballs in free fall, but because m value is differing for each cannonball, F will also be differing for each cannonball.
But  increasing force tends to increase acceleration, while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration.
This suggests that the gravitational body M exerts more force on the 100kg cannonball than the 10kg cannonball, but because the 100kg cannonball is heavier it's acceleration to force ratio is lesser.
And  that the gravitational body M exerts less force on the 10kg cannonball, but because the 10kg cannonball is lighter it's acceleration to force ratio is greater.
And we end up with
F/m = a
for both cannonballs, this resulting in an equal value of acceleration for both. ie: free fall.
Therefore a means of describing a causal force for an accelerating velocity, and therefore an escalating momentum, is to state mass as becoming greater as it falls.
provided that you have a means of adding mass to a falling body. Or even a rising one. The acceleration of a body whose mass is changing is the basis of rocket science.
This means of a description being the reason for relativistic mass, (and/or the mass energy equivalence?)
+ velocity = + kinetic energy = + mass = + velocity
(remembering that potential energy doesn't affect relativistic mass)
However we also see that
+ mass =  acceleration
Where
F/m = a
and therefore this regulates velocity and serves to ensure the universal speed limit of the speed of light.
(For everything apart from the fabric of space)
no. The speed of light is determined by Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation.
a = change in velocity/time
and
p = mv
where value of p escalates as value of a escalates.
Therefore can it not be said that the cause of p is a?
And that the cause of a is F?
Resulting in +m (or m concerning escape velocity) being the cause of F?
No. You could in principle accelerate a fixed mass to escape speed with a suitable gun, as described quite accurately by Jules Verne, and the basis of the HARP project and the Iraqui Supergun.

The Maxwell equations are not describing light in the gfield.
The HARP looked a bit complicated on investigation, might go back there at some later point, but shoot a ray of light away from M, it keeps on going, surely?
Rocket science involves mass decreases as rocket transforms onboard fuel to energy = acceleration running at a fuel to energy conversion loss, complicating matters somewhat in the gravity well gfield.
Yes  the answer 'is' no... a 100kg cannonball in free fall bouncing off a trampoline will bounce upwards to the same distance as the 10kg cannonball will, for the same reason that each accelerate at same rate in free fall.
I have observed that an adult person makes more of a dent in a trampoline than a child.
The 100kg cannonball will make a bigger dent in the trampoline than the 10kg cannonball. This must be momentum related, i.e: it takes more force to change the direction of the 100kg cannon ball than it does to change the direction of the 10kg cannonball, or is this kinetic energy related?
A 100kg cannonball will make a bigger impact on the ground from free fall than the 10kg cannonball will?
If we leave both cannonballs to bounce on their respective trampolines, we will observe that there is a conversion to energy loss with each touchdown on the trampoline, and the cannonballs will come to rest on the trampoline...
Could you please give me some insight as to this conversion to energy loss Alan?
Clearly some energy value will be lost to air drag, but not all of the loss, right?
...And  will the two differing masses of the cannonball, if dropped at the same moment in time, come to rest at the same moment in time?

The HARP looked a bit complicated on investigation, might go back there at some later point, but shoot a ray of light away from M, it keeps on going, surely?
Apparently. But you will observe a red shift if you are at a higher gravitational potential than the source. And if M is so large that the escape speed exceeds c, the red shift will be infinite and no electromagnetic energy will escape.
Note that v_{esc} = sqrt(2GM/R), i.e. is independent of the mass of the escaping entity, therefore applies equally to photons of no mass.
Re: cannonballs on trampolines
Some energy is lost to air movement, more to heat in the springs of the trampoline. A perfect reflector in vacuo will return both cannonballs to their starting height. But if all the energy is lost in a single impact, both must come to rest at the same time.
Galileo presented a very simple argument. Take a big stone and a little stone. Suppose the little stone falls slower than the big one. Tie them together. Does the little one slow the big one, or does the big one speed up the little one? Since you can't have it both ways, they must fall at the same rate. Galileo was forced to recant for stating the obvious in the face of Papal authority.

Yes I have read that Galileo was given a right hard time for being of progressive mind. Poor dude!
Anyways's, just to double check  you say that with a perfect reflector in a vacuum gfield caused by M, there would be no energy loss...and the cannonball's would bounce back to original height?

In addition to post above...
Note that vesc = sqrt(2GM/R), i.e. is independent of the mass of the escaping entity, therefore applies equally to photons of no mass.
This equation has been a part of my thought path last few posts here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0
...and if you are saying that it is only air resistance and the trampoline's springs energy absorption that causes a cannonball 'not' to continue bouncing forever...?

Yes. Not just air resistance, but energy loss as sound waves too. And some heat dissipated in the cannonball itself.
Alas, sordid reality rarely approximates to pure physics, which is why engineers exist.

So  without these energy robbers then both cannonball would bounce on their trampolines to same height indefinitely, and therefore the 'suck' of gravity itself cannot be considered as an energy robber.
A light ray pointed away from M will carry on going indefinitely, unless M is so great that escape velocity exceeds the speed of light...
... m in relation to M will fall back towards M unless it can achieve the associated escape velocity for that value M...
This being the same value of escape velocity for all values of m.
So  when velocity of m is not escape velocity  at a height from M, a height that will be dependent on the magnitude of the velocity of m, any value of m will encounter a moment of inertia where velocity = 0.
If p = mv, and v = 0, then does p = m?

So  when velocity of m is not escape velocity  at a height from M, a height that will be dependent on the magnitude of the velocity of m, any value of m will encounter a moment of inertia where velocity = 0.
"moment of inertia" means something quite different! But there will be a point where v=0 so p = 0
If p = mv, and v = 0, then does p = m?
NO!!!! bank balance = hours x salary. If salary = 0 it doesn't mean that balance = hours....we'd all be zillionaires! Anyway p is a vector and m is a scalar, so you can't have p = m under any circumstances.

So  if not moment of inertia, then what is the moment called when m not travelling at v(escape) stops going upwards when v=0?
After looking at simple pendulum maths last night, I've been dreaming about the idea of torque around the pivot to the scenario, with the pivot being M. ;)
So in light of your post, I daresay the 'whatever it is called' cannot be mathematically described by Inertia = m*d^2? Which is what had somehow scrambled together in my head by the time I woke up.
Does v reduce by the inverse square law with distance from m, I guess is what I'm interested in...
...and a quick Google shows me that Jeff asked this question here at Naked Scientist's in 2013...
So based on what I just read there, a velocity does not reduce by the inverse square law to distance because of time contraction and spatial dilation, but if these are both accounted for, by what proportion to a straight upward distance (from Earth) does a velocity reduce by?
Is it 9.807m/s^2?
And where the distance is spatially and temporally extended, by what proportion is it extended by?
Is it 1.5?
i.e: In that escape velocity from radius is 1.5 times orbit velocity at that radius...or have I got that wrong?
And surely if the distance is spatially and temporally extended on the outbound, it will be the exact equivalent on the inbound?
...Hence my thought path of inbound=+9.807m/s^2, and outbound=9.807m/s^2.
*
Please excuse me, but the notion of bank balance is entirely alien to me these days, but having now investigated the concept of scaler versus vector, it occurs perhaps lack of momentum might well have been that my p=problem, in that it's hard to get going when stuff holds you back.
I did suspect that where v=0 that p=0, but have been a little confused by you're saying that p is not caused by a, and now see clearly that p cannot be caused by m either if p=0 when v=0.
I know that you have told me that p is not really caused by anything, but if a property requires a force to cancel it out, or change its direction?
So perhaps I can look upon the scenario as v causing p and a causing v?
Although I get the concept of your abstract that p is an integer of force over time, I'm just trying to understand the mathematical 'structure' here in order to understand the action of p when Planck's h constant is in play in the maths.
P.S. I read a link provided by Bored Chemist a while back about a Terry Pratchet character's notion that the use of exclamation marks is inverse to the sanity of the person using them. More explanation marks, less sanity.
It's been of some psychological interest to me that I've noticed myself using less of them since reading that, (chuckle), despite knowing full well it's a joke.

In addition to post above:
So G is the gravitational constant, and 9.807m/s^2 is the 'acceleration' of g at sea level earth (an approximation).
And at distance of 2 radii from centre Earth g will be 2.45m/s^2...
...Where in both cases the measurement is being held relative to the SI unit of the standard second.
Is this saying that a 'constant' velocity will travel 9.807m/s^2 or thereabouts near earth, and then having achieved a distance, at 'constant' velocity, of 2 radii from centre of earth, the 'constant' velocity will be travelling 2.45m/s^2?
i.e: That it takes a longer amount of time for that 'constant' velocity to cover a meter at that radius from Earth?

In addition to last 2 posts:
Ok  back to the trampolines...
Surely the 100kg cannonball will be being robbed of more energy every touch down than the 10kg ball.
Even if we made the lighter cannonball the same size in spatial proportions as the 100kg cannonball to equalise air drag, the 10kg cannonball will still be making less of a dent in the trampoline's fabric than the 100kg cannonball, where consequently there will be less energy lost to the springs, and to the sound waves resulted from impact.
When a 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball are dropped into free fall onto their trampolines at exactly the same moment in time, the 100kg cannonball should come to rest sooner than the 10kg cannonball...
Shouldn't it?
Would the 100kg cannonball come to rest sooner than the 10kg cannonball?
If so  what is the proportionality that describes the difference of energy loss over time difference?
And if the cannonball's do actually come to rest at same time  then why?

So  if not moment of inertia, then what is the moment called when m not travelling at v(escape) stops going upwards when v=0?
maximum altitude
Does v reduce by the inverse square law with distance from m, I guess is what I'm interested in...
...and a quick Google shows me that Jeff asked this question here at Naked Scientist's in 2013...
So based on what I just read there, a velocity does not reduce by the inverse square law to distance because of time contraction and spatial dilation, but if these are both accounted for, by what proportion to a straight upward distance (from Earth) does a velocity reduce by?
Is it 9.807m/s^2?
for a projectile, v^{2} = u^{2 }+ 2as in the school textbooks. It's a bit more complicated going upwards because acceleration a (i.e. g) is a function of altitude s. If you are interested in escape speed, it's sqrt (2GM/R) where R is the distance from the centre of the earth.
And where the distance is spatially and temporally extended, by what proportion is it extended by?
Is it 1.5?
i.e: In that escape velocity from radius is 1.5 times orbit velocity at that radius...or have I got that wrong?
And surely if the distance is spatially and temporally extended on the outbound, it will be the exact equivalent on the inbound?
...Hence my thought path of inbound=+9.807m/s^2, and outbound=9.807m/s^2.
You can ignore relativistic effects for escape for all known planets
I know that you have told me that p is not really caused by anything, but if a property requires a force to cancel it out, or change its direction?
So perhaps I can look upon the scenario as v causing p and a causing v?
Although I get the concept of your abstract that p is an integer
integral, not integer of force over time, I'm just trying to understand the mathematical 'structure' here in order to understand the action of p when Planck's h constant is in play in the maths.
dpdx=h/2pi. That's all there is to it.

Is this saying that a 'constant' velocity will travel 9.807m/s^2 or thereabouts near earth, and then having achieved a distance, at 'constant' velocity, of 2 radii from centre of earth, the 'constant' velocity will be travelling 2.45m/s^2?
m/s^{2} is an acceleration, not a velocity.

In addition to last 2 posts:
Ok  back to the trampolines...
Surely the 100kg cannonball will be being robbed of more energy every touch down than the 10kg ball.
Obviously. but it started with more.

GO Timey!

So  if not moment of inertia, then what is the moment called when m not travelling at v(escape) stops going upwards when v=0?
maximum altitude
Does v reduce by the inverse square law with distance from m, I guess is what I'm interested in...
...and a quick Google shows me that Jeff asked this question here at Naked Scientist's in 2013...
So based on what I just read there, a velocity does not reduce by the inverse square law to distance because of time contraction and spatial dilation, but if these are both accounted for, by what proportion to a straight upward distance (from Earth) does a velocity reduce by?
Is it 9.807m/s^2?
for a projectile, v^{2} = u^{2 }+ 2as in the school textbooks. It's a bit more complicated going upwards because acceleration a (i.e. g) is a function of altitude s. If you are interested in escape speed, it's sqrt (2GM/R) where R is the distance from the centre of the earth.
And where the distance is spatially and temporally extended, by what proportion is it extended by?
Is it 1.5?
i.e: In that escape velocity from radius is 1.5 times orbit velocity at that radius...or have I got that wrong?
And surely if the distance is spatially and temporally extended on the outbound, it will be the exact equivalent on the inbound?
...Hence my thought path of inbound=+9.807m/s^2, and outbound=9.807m/s^2.
You can ignore relativistic effects for escape for all known planets
I know that you have told me that p is not really caused by anything, but if a property requires a force to cancel it out, or change its direction?
So perhaps I can look upon the scenario as v causing p and a causing v?
Although I get the concept of your abstract that p is an integer
integral, not integer of force over time, I'm just trying to understand the mathematical 'structure' here in order to understand the action of p when Planck's h constant is in play in the maths.
dpdx=h/2pi. That's all there is to it.
Maximum altitude. Ok thanks!
*
I'll have to look into u and s to get a pictorial understanding of what those maths terms mean. Visualising the physical actions of the maths being the only way that I can understand them...
Yes  That equation forms part of the parabolic trajectory considerations last few posts of "My model of a cyclic universe continued again" thread.
*
Not where light is concerned.
*
Sorry  preemptive text error
*
h being Plancks h constant*2 pi is h bar, where p = hbar*k, and k is angular velocity.
So d being distance, but x?
distance*p*distance*x= h/2pi
Back to my You Tube 'visual' tutorials for me me thinks!

Is this saying that a 'constant' velocity will travel 9.807m/s^2 or thereabouts near earth, and then having achieved a distance, at 'constant' velocity, of 2 radii from centre of earth, the 'constant' velocity will be travelling 2.45m/s^2?
m/s^{2} is an acceleration, not a velocity.
I meant that 'something' travelling at a constant velocity in the gfield, such as light perhaps...

GO Timey!
Awww Jeff, stop please, I'm in danger of becoming emotional. ;)

In addition to last 2 posts:
Ok  back to the trampolines...
Surely the 100kg cannonball will be being robbed of more energy every touch down than the 10kg ball.
Obviously. but it started with more.
Hmmm... Clearly we are not referring to losing any rest mass energy. The balls are travelling at same speed, so no additional kinetic energy there, but 100kg cannonball has more momentum.
Are you referring to more kinetic energy associated with greater momentum?
Or are we talking potential energy?

Sorry about the dpdx confusion, but we stll don't have Greek characters available so I couldn't do a proper "delta". dpdx is Heisenberg's indeterminacy product.
Cannonballs falling onto trampolines has nothing to do with rest mass energy. We are talking simple classical mechanics where mgh = mv^{2}/2 ; potential energy being converted into kinetic energy as a body falls. If you converted the rest mass energy of a 10 kg cannonball into kinetic energy you would vaporise the trampoline and most of the planet.
The amount of matter converted to energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 700 milligrams

Which is why I said
Clearly we are not referring to losing any rest mass energy.
So the 100 kg cannonball has more m for the calculation than the 10kg cannonball, and has more potential energy to be converted into kinetic energy.
Converting potential energy into kinetic energy is caused by the acceleration 9.807m/s^2 (or whatever the acceleration is at greater height from M), and this conversion hasn't got anything to do with momentum?
But... p being useful in the maths as an integral that is a calculation of slices of the value m*v (or slices of the differing means of defining p) at any moment in time as coordinates change?
So  do the cannonballs come to rest at the same time?

1. No. p = mv at every instant. But if m and v are variable, then their instantaneous values are the integrals of mass change and acceleration up to that instant.
2. Probably not. The cannonballs will only come to rest if the trampolines are not perfect reflectors. If we don't know the nonlinearities of real trampolines we can't predict which will come to rest first. It's unlikely to the point of practically impossible that any two trampolines will behave identically under very different loads.
Since kinetic energy is mv^{2}/2 and momentum is mv they are obviously related but ke is a scalar and p is a vector, so although you can derive ke from p if you know m, you can't derive the p vector direction from ke unless you happen to know the direction of travel as well. You can always tell a mathematician by the way he ends every sentence with x1 (note the bold type) when giving directions to a stranger.

I would have thought the direction would be obvious in the gfield due to accelerative and decelerative aspects.
Cannonball falling down towards trampoline: a is increasing, v is increasing, p is increasing, kinetic energy is increasing, potential energy is decreasing.
Cannonball bounces off trampoline upwards at v: a is decreasing, v is decreasing, p is decreasing, kinetic energy is decreasing, potential energy is increasing.
Add kinetic energy to upward bound cannonball converted into the form of acceleration: a increases, v increases, p increases...
Potential energy is also increasing with increasing h from M, so does the added kinetic energy, (minus energy conversion losses to acceleration), have to ,is it match(?), or outweigh(?) potential energy in order that a, v and p do not arrive at 0?
...And, If the trampolines were (impossibly) identical: then because the fact of the potential energy gained at height by the both the cannonballs will be equally proportional for the differing mass value of both cannonballs to the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy then converted into 'bounce' energy for both mass values, changing the direction of both cannonballs from downwards to upwards, the 100kg cannonball will come to rest on it's trampoline at the same moment in time as the 10kg cannonball  (of equal spatial dimensions to 100kg cannonball, to equalise air drag)  will come to rest on it's trampoline, if both cannonballs had been dropped into free fall onto their trampolines at the same moment in time.
So  Here can we observe that energy for m at h from M is not observer dependent? It cannot be observer dependent because it has observed physical consequences.
Therefore the observed frequency of a caesium atomic clock's caesium atoms at h from m, or in relative motion, will have a frequency associated energy, and neither this energy, nor the observed frequency, can be considered to be observer dependent.

So  Here can we observe that energy for m at h from M is not observer dependent? It cannot be observer dependent because it has observed physical consequences.
Therefore the observed frequency of a caesium atomic clock's caesium atoms at h from m, or in relative motion, will have a frequency associated energy, and neither this energy, nor the observed frequency, can be considered to be observer dependent.
Poppycock, as you well know.
Potential energy = mgh. h measured from where? If you drop your cannonball from 100 ft, it will be passing an observer at 50 ft rather more slowly than it hits the ground at 0 ft. Kinetic energy = mv^{2}/2. So the kinetic energy seen by an observer depends on the altitude of the observer relative to the starting point of the canonball. Which is exactly what PoundRebka and countless others have discovered.

0h  so now you admit that the observer at 50 feet will actually observe the ball to be travelling more slowly at 50 feet, a fact that will also be noticed by the observer on the ground, as acceleration is noticeable, but you refuse to agree that the caesium atomic clock's energy at h from m is causing the higher frequency that is observed by the observer on the ground?
If the cannonball has more potential energy at h from M, then so will the caesium atom.
The Pound Rebka uses a photon, a photon cannot be observed until it reaches an observer.
Fortunately this is not the case with falling cannonballs, falling coconuts, or caesium atomic clock's held at rest to the gfield at a higher gravity potential.

0h  so now you admit that the observer at 50 feet will actually observe the ball to be travelling more slowly at 50 feet, a fact that will also be noticed by the observer on the ground, as acceleration is noticeable, but you refuse to agree that the caesium atomic clock's energy at h from m is causing the higher frequency that is observed by the observer on the ground?
If the cannonball has more potential energy at h from M, then so will the caesium atom.
.
It's exactly the same phenomenon, with the same result. Potential energy becomes kinetic energy. In the case of a mesoscopic object, it goes faster as it falls down a potential well. In the case of a photon, its frequency increases. The difference is that an observer on the ground has no way of knowing anything about the photon until it arrives, but so what? What's your problem?

The caesium atomic clock at h from M, held at rest with respect to the gfield, isn't experiencing a conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.
Yes  the frequency of the photon increases as it falls into a gravity well, but the frequency of the caesium atomic clock is observed of a higher frequency if you place it at h to M in the gravity well, and is of lower frequencies at lower h's from M.
One cannot observe what the frequency of an emitted photon is at h from M unless one is at h from M with the photon being emitted. But one can know what the frequency of the caesium atomic clock is at h from M, because the clock is recording that frequency 'at' h from M.
(Where that frequency recorded at h from M is 'then held relative' to the frequency of a clock at ground level, this being 9,192,631,770Htz)
The point isn't that one cannot know anything about a photon until it arrives. The point is that one can know something about the clock held at rest with respect to the gfield at h from M.
But... and this is my problem Alan  physics will tell me that I can observe the caesium atomic clock on the ground at a frequency of 9,192,631,770Htz, and that when placing the atomic clock at rest with respect to the gravity field at 1 metre h from M, will then observe the clock to have a higher frequency.
But if I place myself at 1 metre h from M with the clock, that I will then observe the clock as having the frequency of 9,192,631,770Htz, and therefore that this change in frequency that I observed of the clock when I was 1 metre below is observer dependent.
If I were to observe a photon being emitted 1 metre below me, I would observe this photon as having been redshifted from its emitted frequency, suggesting that if I placed myself with the emitter that is 1 metre below, I would observe the emitted photon as being of a higher frequency than I did when I was placed 1 metre above the photon emitter.
If I were to observe a photon being emitted 1 metre above me, I would observe this photon as having been blue shifted from its emitted frequency, suggesting that if I placed myself with the emitter 1 metre above me, that I would observe the emitted photon to be of a lower frequency than I did when I was placed 1 metre below the photon emitter.
But according to physics, no matter what potential, or what relative motion the atomic clock is experiencing  when I am with this clock it will always register as having the frequency of 9,192,631,770Htz.
And physics will tell me thus that the observed frequency of the clock when I am not with it is observer dependent.
This structure is not compatible to the notion that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock...
If the frequency is always 9,192,631,770Htz  no matter what potential, or what relative motion  then a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock will age no faster, or no slower than anyone in any other potential, or relative motion...
Unless of course one considers that the persons atoms are affected as the clock is, and that all atoms are changed in frequency at differing potentials (as per light in the gravity potential but contra directionally with respect to the gravity potential). And also that all atoms will be changed in frequency in relative motion.
In which case when measuring the frequency of 'my' clock as per the time registered on 'my' clock, I will always observe 'my' clock to have a frequency of 9,192,631,770Htz no matter the gravity potential I am located in, or the relative motion that I am moving at.
However  this would mean that the frequency of the clock 'is' observer dependent from the viewpoint of an observer 'with' the clock, and that the observer at a differing potential, or in relative motion to the observation, i.e: 'not' with the clock, is not observing an observer dependent phenomenon, but is observing an 'actual phenomenon' that 'does' occur for the observed clock which 'is' indeed of a different frequency in the differing gravity potential, or in relative motion to the observer.
If light 'is' of a differing frequency in the differing gravity potential, then physics cannot state that the atom's frequency will be of the same frequency in the differing gravity potential, and that any change to this frequency as observed by the observer in a differing gravity potential to the clock are only observer dependent.
But physics can state that light is of a different frequencies in the gravity potential, and that we can only see light when it arrives at our location.
And physics *'could'* state that an observation of an atomic clock in one's own location will always be observed to be 9,192,631,770Htz when measured via the time the clock is running at in one's own location.
...And the problem would thus
be solved.

The caesium atomic clock at h from M, held at rest with respect to the gfield, isn't experiencing a conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.
But the falling photon is. That's all there is to it. No problem.

...and why is that related to the clock held at rest with respect to the gfield at h from M?

The elevated clock runs faster as seen from the ground. The photon emitted from an elevated source has a higher frequency as seen from the ground. Same phenomenon, same effect. No problem, no conundrum, just general relativity at work.

If you are at a lower elevation you would calculate that individual photons are emitted at a faster rate at a higher elevation. This is just the effect of the differing rates of time at different gravitational potentials. It is the consequence of time dilation.
Near the event horizon of a black hole the rate of emission is so low that it may be indistinguishable from no emissions at all.

You and Jeff both are quoting relativity without thinking about how you are calculating it, and are relying on time being faster at h from M to back up your conclusion.
...And your answers do not describe a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock that is in relative motion atall, not physically or logically, and do not give physical description of why a body ages faster in the higher gravity potential.
A photon is converting potential energy into kinetic energy and its frequency increases...
The clock is being held at rest with respect to the gfield at h from M.
It has gained potential energy  as described of the cannonballs on the trampoline  but it has not converted this potential energy into kinetic energy.
If the cannonballs on the trampolines are converting potential energy into kinetic energy, firstly:
You have told me that potential energy is added or subtracted negatively, and kinetic energy is added or subtracted positively, so how can energy be converted into + energy as you have said here:
quote Alan:
It's exactly the same phenomenon, with the same result. Potential energy becomes kinetic energy. In the case of a mesoscopic object, it goes faster as it falls down a potential well. In the case of a photon, its frequency increases.
Edit: ...and where you say that the mesoscopic object is falling faster, while in reply to my saying that the 100kg cannonball is robbed of more of its energy at touch down on the trampoline than the 10kg cannonball you say this:
Obviously, but it started out with more
By rights what you suggest would ensure that the 100kg cannonball accelerates faster in free fall than the 10kg cannonball, and we know it doesn't...
The only means of describing the 2 differing mass value cannonballs bouncing to the same height when dropped from free fall onto their trampolines is to state that the 100kg cannonball has picked up more potential energy at h from M than the 10kg cannonball, to then convert into more kinetic energy than the 10kg ball will. Hence the 100kg cannonball making a deeper dent in the trampoline when it bounces.
Apart from the fact of converting a negative aspect directly into a positive aspect, where mathematically speaking to arrive at a figure that isn't 0, potential energy must be being converted into a greater number/or value of kinetic energy units per potential energy units...
...secondly:
If the clock only has more energy on an observer dependent basis, then how come we can observe the physical consequences of the 2 cannonball converting potential energy into kinetic energy so that both the 10kg cannonball and the 100kg cannonball bounce off the trampolines to the same height?
If potential energy at h from M is only observer dependent, there would be no physical consequences such as observed of the differing values of cannonball mass's bouncing to the same height.
Furthermore, if light's frequency at h from M can be calculated, rather than observed, then why are you ignoring the calculation that states that the clock will be observed to have a higher potential energy at h from M?
If the clock has not converted that potential energy into kinetic energy, which it cannot because it is at rest with respect to the gfield, it will still have that potential energy at h from M...

I haven't calculated anything regarding time and frequency, just observed it  or, to be strictly true, quoted other people's reliable observations.
If your calculation doesn't match the observation, it's wrong. This is science, not economics.
By rights what you suggest would ensure that the 100kg cannonball accelerates faster in free fall than the 10kg cannonball, and we know it doesn't..
nonsense. There are no "rights", only the universal law of gravitation and Newton's laws, which are mathematical summaries of the observation that all bodies accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field. Since potential energy = mgh, the object with more m will have more pe. And since ke = mv^{2}/2, the object with more m will have more ke. But as ke gained = pe lost, v will be the same at any point for any object dropped from the same height because m appears on both sides of the equation. And thus it is.
The interesting question is why?
As for elevated clocks, an observer next to the clock will see that it is keeping perfect time regardless of its gravitational potential. The problem lies with the clock at a lower gp, which appears to be running slower.

Why do you say that a clock having a differing time is a problem!
GR clearly marks out that time runs at differing rates at differing gravity potentials, SR uses motion related time dilation in its maths, and the equivalence principle is quite clear that an observer with the clock will observe its frequency to be 9,192,631,770Htz, i.e ticking normally.
I certainly don't have a problem with a clock running fast or slow. What I am looking at is 'why'.
I have not made any calculation. I don't need to.
Clearly the clock held at rest with respect to the gfield at h from M will have more gravity potential energy than another clock held at rest wth respect to the gfield at a lesser h from M will have...
Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.
All I am saying Alan is that if one considers that when one is in a higher gravity potential with the clock held at rest with respect to the gfield at h from M, that all mass has more gravity potential energy at that h from M compared to mass located at a lower gravity potential, and therefore a higher frequency, and that if one measures the frequency of the elevated clock via the tick rate of the elevated clock, rather than the tick rate of the clock on the ground, then the elevated clock will have a frequency of 9,192,631,770Htz instead of the slightly higher frequency observed of the elevated clock from the ground, where the ground clock is now observed from the higher gravity potential as ticking slower.
But the clock on the ground measured via the tick rate of the clock on the ground will also have a frequency of 9,192,631,770Htz.
Therefore the tick rates of a clock observed of another gravity potential are really ticking faster or slower, and the frequency and the energy observations of the clock in the differing gravity potential to one's own location are not observer dependent, but are really occurring.
Then it is the observation of one's own clock that is observer dependent, because when measuring one's own clock, one is doing so by the tick rate of the clock one is with, and the mass of one's body also has the potential energy of the potential one is located in and will age in keeping with their time dilated clock, thus giving 'physical cause' for aging in keeping with a time dilated clock.
Then we can go on to look at SR motion related time dilation as being kinetic energy related.

Too much faith. What do you mean by "really" ticking faster or slower?
The essence of science is absolute honesty and humility. There are no special places in the universe. All you can say is "From where I'm standing, the other clock appears to be running slow", and the other guy says "and yours appears to be running fast". If we know the clocks are identical, we can deduce that they are at different gravitational potentials.
Why is it a problem? Because if you don't know the magnitude of the offset, your satnav won't work and you will misidentify the spectrum of a distant star. Fortunately we can calculate GR and SR corrections for nearby phenomena, and we can recognise spectral patterns from which we can deduce the mass or speed of distant objects.
Not a good idea to try to deduce time dilation from kinetic energy because ke is specific to each object (being a function of m) whereas time dilation is the same for all objects at a given speed or potential, so why mess about multiplying by m and then dividing by it?

I mean that the clocks are really ticking at different rates in differing gravity potentials, and that clocks are really ticking at different rates in relative motion.
There is no special place in the universe, but there are differing places in the universe.
And having deduced that your clock and my clock are identical, and that we both see each other's clock as ticking at a different rate to our own, we can with all honesty and humility ask why, and then try and figure it out.
No  what we have is a system of two sets of mathematics, namely GR and SR, which are the best we can do so far to attach physical meaning to cosmological observation.
Free fall and escape velocity is also the same for all m at any given potential...
Acceleration is calculated as per F=ma, and speed is a byproduct of acceleration.
The cannonballs bouncing on their trampolines are reliant on an m calculation, but result via proportionality to a physically equal result.
Why would time dilation be any different?
If the 100kg cannonball dropped into free fall has more potential energy to start with than the 10kg cannonball, then all that is occurring is a proportional conversion of gravity potential energy into kinetic energy per mass unit. The cannonballs accelerate in free fall at the same rate, and they bounce off trampoline to same height.
The same can be said of adding a nongravity related accelerative force to m.
F=ma where in racing terms if an engine has a certain Force, then reducing m will increase a, and adding m will reduce a...
Add m without reducing a and F increases. Reduce a without reducing m and F decreases.
It's a proportional relationship reliant on an m calculation, but F in relation to m and the resulting a are equal per unit of mass.
Again  why would a time dilation calculation reliant on F in relation to m and a be any different?

We know why. It's all in GR and SR. They are based only on the observation that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Maxwell explains why this is so.
We don't "deduce" that our clocks are identical: we do experiments with identical clocks and find that the predictions of GR and SR are correct.
Dunno what you mean by "physical meaning". We make observations, we interpret them, we make explanatory and predictive hypotheses, we test them with more observations. There is no "meaning", just nature doing its thing.

No  its not all in GR and SR. Relativity does not describe all the observations of the universe. And in addition to not describing all the observations of the universe, in describing the observations it can describe by the mathematical means it employs, not only do these mathematical means not give any physical cause and effect for gravitational acceleration or time dilation, relativity is also reliant on dark energy and dark matter otherwise it is not a valid theory.
Again I repeat  Maxwell describes why the speed of light is the speed of light, but Maxwell could not unite his mathematics with gravity.
Yes  GR and SR predictions have been experimentally verified, but the physical cause for these predictions is still lacking.
Meaning  sorry wrong word... Relativity 'interprets' observation, and on the basis that one remain within the bounds of experimentally validated interpretation, one may make alternative interpretations for 'further' description, and this does not negate the possibility of reinterpretation of observation concerning the deductions made on the basis of experimentally unverified interpretations, nor attributing physical cause where non has so far been attributed.
It's called progressive thinking, and that's just a human mind doing its thing.

As with F=ma, the speeddistancetime formula is also a proportional relationship...
Where:
If one holds the period of time traveled in as constant and increases speed, distance travelled is greater.
If one holds distance travelled as constant and increases speed, the period of time travelling in is lesser.
So here we see that:
When rendering speed as a variable, one is holding time periods (length of second) and distance lengths (value of a metre) as being constant
But to say...
If one renders distance length (value of metre) as a variable, that one can hold time periods (length of seconds) and speed both as constants.
...this is not physically possible.
Therefore we say that:
If one renders distance lengths (value of metre) and time periods (length of seconds) as variable, one may hold speed as a constant. (SR)
But it 'is' physically possible to say:
If one holds time periods (length of seconds) as variable, one can hold distance lengths (value of metre) and speed both as constant.
And then by applying this last remit to observation to attribute possible cause and effect becomes very interesting Alan. Very interesting indeed!

If you say so.

Been saying so here for about for 2 years now Alan.
Surprises me that you haven't noticed...

So when a physicist observes that my clock is running slower than his clock, and I observe that his clock is running faster than mine, and he tells me that we can deduce that we are in differing gravity potentials  does this mean that we are experiencing differing amounts of gravity potential energy?

What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?
Do they have different values?
See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential

So when a physicist observes that my clock is running slower than his clock, and I observe that his clock is running faster than mine, and he tells me that we can deduce that we are in differing gravity potentials  does this mean that we are experiencing differing amounts of gravity potential energy?
You don't experience potential energy.

What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?
Do they have different values?
See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential)
Thank you for going to the trouble of googling wiki for me Pete.
I have indeed posted that very link here at this site a dozen times or more in last two years.
Where:
It is analogous to electric potential with mass playing the role of charge
...is interesting to me.
I have read literally dozens of physics books, and have no trouble accessing Wiki myself.
The reason the title is posted as a question is because the site demands it. Otherwise it would be posted as
'Hey, guys and girls... Let's talk about gravity potential energy and explore the time dilation phenomenon in the gravity potential'

So when a physicist observes that my clock is running slower than his clock, and I observe that his clock is running faster than mine, and he tells me that we can deduce that we are in differing gravity potentials  does this mean that we are experiencing differing amounts of gravity potential energy?
You don't experience potential energy.
To quote your own words, the 100kg cannonball started out with more potential energy in the higher gravity potential than the 10kg cannonball.
So let's say that you and I are of the same weight. If you are in the higher gravity potential, and I am in the lower gravity potential, you will have more potential energy than I will have.
And what makes you so sure that potential energy is not experienced?
If a body can have more or less of this energy, and this energy is what gets converted into kinetic energy, then why would a body not experience it?
It seems pretty clear to me, as shown by the cannonballs on the trampolines, that gravity potential energy has physical consequences in that differing mass value cannonballs bounce to same height.
Or are you telling me that potential energy is just a mathematical convenience that bears no physical reality and is just used as a means to describe observation mathematically?

You can experience pleasure, nausea or acceleration. You can have arms, legs or potential energy. Difference between the ongoing action of an external force and an extant static property.
This is really fundamental to the development of Newtonian and relativistic mechanics.

And...if one is aging in keeping with their clock, it could be said that one is experiencing time in the same way the clock is.
You could of course just say that time runs faster where the clock is and be done with it, apart from the observer dependant issue which fudges things up a tad, or you could look for a physical reason why time is running faster for both the clock and the person, and indeed consider a physical cause for the phenomenon of time itself... If one wanted to, which I do.

In addition to post above:
In the meantime, a person's body at an h from M and the clock he has with him will both have a value of potential energy.
If we drop them both from that height onto their separate trampolines, both will land on trampoline, and bounce to same height at same time.
The person will have a greater m, greater p, and greater potential energy throughout than the clock will, but a remains the same for both.
If time dilation at h from M where to be caused by potential energy, then value of m would not affect the rate of this time dilation, just as m value does not affect a in free fall, therefore a rate of time caused by gravity potential energy could be thought to be affected by m in the same way as m affects a.
(It occurs that someone might want to move this thread to New Theories as I am straying from currently held notions now)

And...if one is aging in keeping with their clock, it could be said that one is experiencing time in the same way the clock is.
obviously. Just like two people watching the same film from adjacent seats.
You could of course just say that time runs faster where the clock is and be done with it, apart from the observer dependant issue which fudges things up a tad, or you could look for a physical reason why time is running faster for both the clock and the person, and indeed consider a physical cause for the phenomenon of time itself... If one wanted to, which I do.
Nothing "observer dependent" but everything "observer position dependent" No fudge  the prediction, based only on Maxwell and other observations, is precisely reflected in the measurement .
The physical reason is because gravity warps spacetime, as shown by increasingly subtle experiments.

If time dilation at h from M where to be caused by potential energy, then value of m would not affect the rate of this time dilation,
Nonsense. pe = mgh. It's linearly dependent on m.
a rate of time caused by gravity potential energy could be thought to be affected by m in the same way as m affects a.
It doesn't, as Galileo pointed out.

In addition to post above:
In the meantime, a person's body at an h from M and the clock he has with him will both have a value of potential energy.
If we drop them both from that height onto their separate trampolines, both will land on trampoline, and bounce to same height at same time.
The person will have a greater m, greater p, and greater potential energy throughout than the clock will, but a remains the same for both.
If time dilation at h from M where to be caused by potential energy, then value of m would not affect the rate of this time dilation, just as m value does not affect a in free fall, therefore a rate of time caused by gravity potential energy could be thought to be affected by m in the same way as m affects a.
(It occurs that someone might want to move this thread to New Theories as I am straying from currently held notions now)
For a simple harmonic oscillator a force constant can be defined for any invariant quantity of mass. This breaks down for the gravitational field.

And...if one is aging in keeping with their clock, it could be said that one is experiencing time in the same way the clock is.
obviously. Just like two people watching the same film from adjacent seats.
Ah yes Alan  exactly! Let's take that analogy further...but first to say so, You state that a body will 'experience' acceleration. ...And differing rates of time can be considered accelerations or decelerations of the rate of time.
My point being that a body experiencing gravity potential energy related time dilation in the gfield would be akin to a body experiencing acceleration in the gfield, where all m experiences acceleration equally, and therefore all m would also experience an equal rate of time in the gravity potential.
Nonsense. pe = mgh. It's linearly dependent on m.
...And F=ma where m at h experiences the same acceleration, and potential energy is converted into kinetic energy that will bounce differing value of m off a trampoline to same height.
If more potential energy does not cause differing values of m to accelerate at differing rates in the gfield, then why would potential energy cause time dilation to be affected at differing rates for differing values of m in the gfield?
But back to your analogy:
When sitting next to each other the 2 observers are watching a film that is 1 hour long held relative to the rate of time where they are sitting. We move 1 observer to a higher gravity potential and he observes from the remit of his clock at that higher potential, that 1 hour goes by slower for the clock and the observer on the ground, than it does for himself.
Ok. Let's say he had a super duper pair of binoculars, because at that h from M where he would physically notice any difference in the clock on the grounds time, he would indeed be a very long distance away, and would need super duper binoculars in order to watch the movie...
This being an impossible scenario, let's just make life easy for ourselves and reduce our distance, but increase the time shift.
We could indeed regard ourselves as being in a time shift as severe as the black hole scenario minus the extended distance remit, where space dimensions are considered flat and constant, and time shift is severe between these flat coordinates at h from event horizon.
At an h from event horizon using flat coordinates with gravitational shift, our observer is watching the hour long movie playing on the screen at a lower h from event horizon, where he observes that the clock in that lower potential is running slower than his clock by the value of half an hour. For every second that passes for him, only 30 of his seconds are passing for the clock below where the movie is playing...
What will the observer in the higher potential observe of the movie?
Will the observer observe just the first half of the movie?
Will the observer observe the whole of the movie as if it were being played in fast forward?
Or will the observer observe that he observes the entire movie in real time motion, but that every other frame of the movie is missing?

You don't experience gravitational time dilatation. Your clock is always correct. You can however observe it.
The movie that takes an hour to run on earth will take a few nanoseconds longer when viewed from the moon, or the blnk of an eye when seen from a nearlyblack hole..

Well that is not what the NIST report said, nor the news articles which stated that time really does go faster at altitude, and that if you live at top of a tower block, over a period of some 80 or so years, one would have experience a few nanosecond faster time and have aged that much faster than his mate on ground floor.
This is also synonymous to concepts held by NASA, where the astronaut experiences via SR time dilation a slowing of their time which is said to cause them to age slower.
You yourself have pointed out in the past that at a certain radius from Earth, that travelling at the velocity required to maintain that orbit, the SR time dilation cancels out the GR time dilation and the clock at that radius traveling at that speed will be ticking equally to a clock on the ground.
So how do you reconcile these concepts with your statement below:
You don't experience gravitational time dilatation. Your clock is always correct. You can however observe it.
...unless by ditching this idea of time being 'correct' anywhere, and then considering that the person in a differing gravity potential with their clock is measuring the universe as per held relative to the rate of time their own clock appears to be ticking at, which really is ticking at a differing rate to one's own.
*
And if the time shift of the observer in a higher potential was exactly 1 half of the observed rate of time where the movie was playing, what would the movie look like then?

I'm being very pedantic, but for a very good reason. You don't experience time, you observe the clock. And your clock always tells the correct time. It just happens that time is different at different altitudes, except that in deep space where there is no gravitational field, time is the same everywhere.

Well to be pedantic:
I don't want to be drawn into a philosophical discussion regarding time, but purely as a physics aspect time and action are related.
So if time is not experienced in relation to an action (of the clock ticking for instance), then in the impossible scenario of two very different times where the observer is watching a movie being played from a place where he observes that the clock where the movie is being played is only ticking 30 seconds for every minute that passes on his clock, what action of the movie will he see?
If action does not experience the time of the clock, then the observer watching the movie playing, where he also observes the clock with the movie as running slower than his own, would notice no difference in the movie and the movie would be 1 hour long for all who watched it, no matter what time anyone's clock is running at.
If we are going to state the observation of the action of the movie as differing when observed from a differing rate of time, then all action must be affected by a differing rate of time.*
Which would very much suggest that we do experience time, describes a person ageing with their clock, and also why it is a person with a clock see's their clock as being the 'correct' time.
*Hence my former questions concerning what an observer who's clock is running at a rate of 1 minute to where the clock where the movie is playing's 30 seconds as seen by the observer, will observe of the 1 hour long movie...

T h e m o v i e w i l l s e e m t o b e r u n n i n g v e r y s l o w l y a n d t h e c o l o r s w i l l b e r e d s h i f t e d . I t w i l l t a k e 2 "s p a c e h o u r s" t o f i n i s h.
It will of course look entirely normal to the guy sitting in the cinema because all his clocks, including the molecules in his eyes and ears are at the same gravitational potential.
This is exactly what PoundRebka and GPS satellites have found.

Ah  Good!
Ok  So recognising that when we say that the movie is 1 hour long we are using the guy sitting in the cinema's clock to measure the length of the movie, and also recognising the fact that the movie was produced/filmed in a location where a clock will agree that the movie is 1 hour long...
When we say that the movie would take 2 space hours 'to reach(?)', or is that for the observer in the higher potential 'to view(?), we must recognise that we are also making this assessment based on the timing of the clock in the cinema.
Now we are going to examine:
a) how far away the observer is from the cinema.
And:
b) what watching a 1 hour movie spread out over 2 hours is going to look like.
So for the sake of my not having to get a calculator out  for the purpose of this thought experiment we will state the speed of light as being 60 metres per hour as measured by the cinema's clock.
The observer now in the higher potential had left the cinema at 30 metres per hour, as measured by the cinema's clock, and travelled for 2 hours as observed by the guy in the cinema.
As far as the guy in the cinema is concerned the observer dude above is 60 metres away and it should take light from the movie screen 1 hour to arrive at observer dude's elevated position.
However, the observer dude above has reported that the guy in the cinema's clock is only ticking 30 seconds for every minute that passes on the clock he took with him, and cinema guy can observe that for every 30 seconds that passes by on his clock, observer dude's clock is ticking 60 seconds, therefore cinema guy works out that it will take the light from the cinema 2 hours to reach observer dude...
But this cannot be so because the speed of light is constant, and if the light were to travel 60 metres it would only take 1 hour to do so. In order to travel for 2 hours at a constant speed of 60 metres per hour, the distance will be 120 metres.
It is not possible to travel a reduced distance while keeping the speed constant so according to SR we can assume that there is a spatial dilation and that the fabric of space is curved between the observer in the higher potential and the cinema. Anything travelling from cinema to the observer above will have to travel this curve, inclusive of the observer himself's journey to that location.
However it would be equally as possible to say under these circumstances, that both the observer and the light have had to travel through a temporally dilated space, rather than a spatially dilated space.
By remit of the cinema's clock the observer dude's journey took 2 hours at 30 metres per hour and observer dude is now at a location 60 metres in distance above the cinema...
But by the cinema guy's observation of observer dude's clock the journey took observer dude 3 hours. This being because according to cinema guy, observer dude's clock has been steadily running faster for every metre he has travelled.
According to the guy in the cinema, by the remit of observer dude's clock, the guy in the cinema will think the observer dude has travelled a greater distance than 60 metres, this being 90 metres.
So given that the cinema guy has already worked out that the light from the movie screen takes 2 hours to reach observer dude, and light travels 120 metres in 2 hours, he then notes that though observer dude's clock will appear to himself (cinama guy) from the potential of the cinema to be running fast at that higher gravity potential, that observer dude's clock happens to appear to cinama guy as running slow when travelling at that half light speed velocity, and cinema guy might put these extra metres down to a spatial dilation of space, or attribute his own perception of observer dude's time as having been slowed due to his velocity as a factor, or a combination of both...
Or cinema guy could consider that observer dude had been moving through open space where time is running slower...
If time were running slower in the space observer dude was moving through as an exact negative to observer dude's onboard clock's increased time as observed by cinema guy, then observer dude would travel exactly 60 metres.
If the light from the movie screen then takes 2 hours as held relative to cinema guy's clock to reach observer dude's location at 60 metres above the cinema, the light will have been travelling through temporally dilated space where at each open space coordinate of the 60 metres distance time is running slower, but at each coordinate the speed of light still travels 60 metres per hour held relative to the negative length of second of that coordinate.
An observer at that coordinate would then also observe the speed of light to be travelling at 60 metres per hour by the remit of his clock's increased tick rate at that coordinate...
I realise that this is extremely hard to visualise so I will explain:
If we take the speed of 60 metres per hour held relative to a second that is 50% shorter, then the distance travelled is halved.
If we take the speed of 60 metres per hour held relative to a second that is 50% longer, then the distance is doubled.
And this all looks pretty confusing until you remember that the speed travelled at is being held relative to a second as observed of the cinema's clock and the percentages of +50% and 50% are also being held relative to a second as observed of the cinema's clock...
A speed of light as measured by the cinema clock that takes 50% longer time to travel a metre, and a speed of light as measured by the cinema clock that takes a 50% quicker time to travel a metre both result in the same distance travelled.
(This is an alternative remit to the spatial dilation of SR, but hasn't yet added the velocity related time dilation of SR to the picture)
b) watching a 1 hour movie spread out over 2 hours, or as from the higher potential, a 1 hour movie crammed into half an hour.
Remembering that it is 2 of cinema guy's hours that we are holding this measurement relative to, and that by the remit of observer dude's clock the 1 hour movie as observer dude observes of cinema guy's clock, is over in half an hour by the remit of his own clock, we then run into simultaneity problems.
What does observer dude observe of the light arriving from the movie screen where the movie is playing in the cinema below?
Well firstly you say that the light will be redshifted having taken 2 hours of cinema guy's hours to arrive at observer dude's location, but observer dude will only be able to view 1 of his hours worth of the light arriving at his location, which is equal to half an hour of cinema guy's time.
So in order to retain simultaneity can we say that the observer dude will only observe every other frame of the movie playing below?
And observer dude can, by understanding that his observation is time frame dependent, calculate via probability what the action is between the frames that he cannot view?
(This remit actually uses the SR length contraction/time dilation maths to say that an observation is proportional to the difference in rate of time between observer and observed as an 'observational time frame dependency' concept, rather than as an extension of spatial distance concept)

Ok  So recognising that when we say that the movie is 1 hour long we are using the guy sitting in the cinema's clock to measure the length of the movie,
yes and also recognising the fact that the movie was produced/filmed in a location where a clock will agree that the movie is 1 hour long...
no. Have you never seen timelapse or high speed films? It can take years or milliseconds to make a 1 hour film!
When we say that the movie would take 2 space hours 'to reach(?)',
if the observer is 2 lighthours away  around Jupiter at a guess or is that for the observer in the higher potential 'to view(?),
yes we must recognise that we are also making this assessment based on the timing of the clock in the cinema.
no, 2 space hours is 2 hours measured on the space clock. It was 1 hour on the cinema clock.This is a simple gravitational redshift problem. Well, not so simple because to get a 50% redshift you'd need the cinema to be on a neutron star or hurtling away at a sizeable fraction of c.

Coming to a cinema no longer near you.

But the movie is playing at a rate of frames that render its length as 1 hour long. Unless you take the movie to the higher potential and play it there, where it will also be 1 hour long.
*
The speed of light as per the thought experiment is 60 metres per hour.
*
The space clock's time is going twice as fast as the cinema time. 1 hour of the cinema clock's time will be half an hour space clock time as measured by the space clock, not 2 hours.
But 1 hour of the space clock's time will be 2 hours cinema time as measured by the cinema clock.

Actually you have made me doubt myself a bit there.
If the space clock views 30 seconds of cinema time go by for every minute that goes by on his clock, then the movie would take 2 hours to watch.
If the cinema clock views 1 minute of the space clock time go by for every 30 seconds that goes by on the cinema clock, then the movie when playing in the higher gravity potential would take half hour for cinama guy to watch.
Getting my b and d's the wrong way round again (chuckle)
Either way round, the observation of what one will see of the other is what is being discussed with respect to a proportional observation.
If the space clock watches a movie that is being played frame by frame at the cinema below where 2 of his space hours are required for the movie to complete, then because the light from the movie screen is being generated at a rate of time twice as long as his own, will he observe that there are gaps between each frame?
If the cinema guy watched the movie being played at the space clock's location, would the cinama guy observe every other frame to be missing?

If the space clock watches a movie that is being played frame by frame at the cinema below where 2 of his space hours are required for the movie to complete, then because the light from the movie screen is being generated at a rate of time twice as long as his own, will he observe that there are gaps between each frame?
If the cinema guy watched the movie being played at the space clock's location, would the cinama guy observe every other frame to be missing?
There is no reason why there should be gaps or frames missing. Depending on which way round the playing/viewing is taking place  and yes it's easy to get mixed up  then one will see the film in slow motion the other as speeded up. Of course you will likely have some optical effect e.g. Blurring if the viewing were too fast, or the ability to see individual frames if seen too slow.

The astronaut will see the movie playing at 12.5 frames per space second instead of 25 or whatever the current movie rate is (I'm pretty sure that all major cinemas now use digital 100 fps).

Ok  forget the movie, just get cinema guy to walk up and down in front of the floodlit screen at 10 repetitions per minute.
Will the observer guy with the space clock observe the walking action smoothly, or will the action appear as if there are gaps between each movement.
Get the guy with the space clock to walk up and down in front of his floodlit movie screen at 10 repetitions per minute, will cinema guy observe that action is missing?
Try increasing the time shift so that we are looking at a greater difference in rate of time. Let's say the ratios are 9 seconds to 1, and that the cinema guy is viewing only 1 out of every 10 seconds of observer dude with the space clock's time...
And that observer dude is only viewing 1 of every 10 seconds of cinema guy's time...
What will each observe of the other walking up and down in front of their floodlit movie screen at 10 repetitions a minute?

Continuous, no gaps. Either 10s compressed into 1 or 1 expanded to 10, whatever the ratios are.
Remember time is continuous, not limited to specific blocks, if we have 10s we can subdivide it into ms, ps etc.

If the space clock watches a movie that is being played frame by frame at the cinema below where 2 of his space hours are required for the movie to complete, then because the light from the movie screen is being generated at a rate of time twice as long as his own, will he observe that there are gaps between each frame?
If the cinema guy watched the movie being played at the space clock's location, would the cinama guy observe every other frame to be missing?
There is no reason why there should be gaps or frames missing. Depending on which way round the playing/viewing is taking place  and yes it's easy to get mixed up  then one will see the film in slow motion the other as speeded up. Of course you will likely have some optical effect e.g. Blurring if the viewing were too fast, or the ability to see individual frames if seen too slow.
Missed this post at first.
Yes Colin, and to clarify this away from pixel size or high def, slow motion production, or other movie tech, I now have the person with each clock walking up and down in front of the floodlit movie screens at 10 repetitions a minute. I've upped the difference in rate of time so that each observes of the other 1 second out of 10. What do the observations look like now?
The dude with the space clock will observe bigger gaps between each movement the cinema guy makes, and the cinema guy will observe more action missing from the motion of the dude with the space clock.
Here, despite the difference in rates of time, we are managing to maintain the concept of a common 'now' or 'present' for both rates of time.
In reply to your recent post, yes of course, and I'm only using bigger chunks to illustrate. But it is possible to state a percentage of the time passing elsewhere as being proportionally unobservable from a differing rate of time.

Momentum is nothing more or less than the product of mass times velocity.
That's overly simplistic. Light has momentum, but it has no mass. Einstein's definition is E^{2}=m^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}. This reduces to p=mv if v<<c and m>0 and E=mc^{2}+mv^{2}/2.

But it is possible to state a percentage of the time passing elsewhere as being proportionally unobservable from a differing rate of time.
Sorry, I'm not really understanding 'proportionally unobservable'. What makes it unobservable?
The way I look at it is that time 'records' in infinite detail in one location  like the high speed camera  and then plays back in slow motion in the other. But it is a perfect camera so no frame rate, etc. Not the best analogy, but perhaps you see how I'm thinking.
Can you explain why you see (or rather don't see) missing information.

Ok  I will give several analogies, but again this thread might want to get moved to New Theories. I am straying from the beaten track here somewhat...
Stain glass:
Light is filtered through a stain glass and what we see is the light missing information.
If we view time as being a filter, then that filter value is established by the difference in rate of time between observer and observation, and the information received by observer of the observation is filtered to that value. The information received is proportional to the time difference.
Black hole:
Time is extreme in and near a black hole.
(My model holds a different view that time runs faster near mass in space, but that m in relation to the M of black hole will experience their time as running slower as m's proximity to black hole increases, but either my view or current view renders the black holes time as extreme.)
Because the time difference between observer and observed is so extreme we don't view hardly anything atall.
Add mass to a black hole and the temperature of the black hole reduces inversely proportional to added mass. The time difference has been made more extreme by adding mass, and the observer observes proportionally less of the black holes heat activity.
But this involves great distances which throw observation into the realm of the information having taken a period of time to arrive at one's position of observation.
I am trying to give indication of differing rates of time having a commonly experienced 'now' or 'present'.
This is important because otherwise differing parts of the universe will be ahead, or behind each other in sequential time and each will be experiencing a different notion of what the present moment is.
My idea is that time can run faster or slower for any phenomenon due to the energy level it has, but that all rates of time occur simultaneously to each other where it then becomes a matter of a proportional viewing of one rate of time of another.
Light emissions:
Add temperature energy to the black body and the black body will start emitting photons. The more temperature that is added, the higher the frequency of the photons.
My model states time as being energy related. Adding energy to the molecules of the black body causes the time to speed up for the m molecules/atoms of the black body and photons are subsequently emitted with shorter wave lengths. The wave lengths are directly time related as to the rate of time the emitting body is is oscillating at, and the frequency of the light changes as the proportion of time difference between observer and observed becomes first less acute as visible light frequencies are achieved, and then more acute as light frequencies escalate into the ultraviolet region.
Calculate these emitted frequencies as per the time increases of the emitting body, caused by adding energy to the emitting body, and Planck's h constant is related to these time changes, where quantum then becomes a continuum.
This concept also describes why hot water freezes faster than cold water, and why wavelength=h/p.
When reading my many physics books, when physicists talk about what quantum would look like on a macro scale, they describe ice cubes being inside one's glass in one instant of time, and then outside of the glass in the next instant, with no information being available about the transition.
Or of being able to view a person who was on the other side of a wall appear on this side of the wall with no information being available about the transition.
Or that it can be know that a person can be walking at a certain speed in a direction, but wether they are on this side of the wall or the other remains a mystery.
Quantum then relies on perturbation to predict the transitional information. ... And perturbation is a time based method...
Add 'a' time based method before the fact and both position and velocity will be calculable simultaneously.

If we view time as being a filter,
we don't, because it isn't.
Add temperature energy to the black body and the black body will start emitting photons. The more temperature that is added, the higher the frequency of the photons.
The higher the maximum frequency. The spectrum remains a continuum to zero energy.
This concept also describes why hot water freezes faster than cold water,
And we all thought it was to do with the anomalous convection of water below 4 degC. After all, that's what makes the planet habitable, so it's very important!and why wavelength=h/p.[
because it's the definintion of h
When reading my many physics books, when physicists talk about what quantum would look like on a macro scale, they describe ice cubes being inside one's glass in one instant of time, and then outside of the glass in the next instant, with no information being available about the transition.
Or of being able to view a person who was on the other side of a wall appear on this side of the wall with no information being available about the transition.
Or that it can be know that a person can be walking at a certain speed in a direction, but wether they are on this side of the wall or the other remains a mystery.
Quantum then relies on perturbation to predict the transitional information. ... And perturbation is a time based method...
Add 'a' time based method before the fact and both position and velocity will be calculable simultaneously.
In the words of Eddington, "the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast....if he fell through the floor and appeared unscathed in the basement, he would not be surprised but intrigued at having witnessed a very rare phenomenon."

Physics does not have a comprehensive theory on time other than the fact that it is a measurement of action in sequence.
You, as a physicist have received no education about what allows the universe to result in a phenomenon that affords sequenced action within that universe, this lacking in your education being because this information is not known.
So when you say "we don't, it isn't,"
...where you say "it isn't", you are talking out of your *rse.
Physics knows that water is anomalous, but doesn't fully understand why.
Physics knows Planck h constant is experimentally verified, but doesn't know why.
It's a violation of my common sense that a physicist would so willingly state observation as being outside of the bounds of human understanding...
Smacks of a copout to me, in much the same way as saying 'that's just relativity' is a copout!
You know when you said you had conversations with your friend Kibblewhite all those years ago...
Did you meet every alternative perspective or suggestion that he put forward by saying 'we don't, it isn't'?
I daresay that a conversation as such would be pretty short lived. For instance:
Kibblewhite:
'Hey Alan  if we considered that mass fell into a black hole, then a black hole could be giving birth to another universe on the other side of the event horizon'
Alan:
'We don't, it isn't'
Kibblewhite;
'Suit yourself then Alan, how's the radiology going?'
...or is it just me?

Time is what separates sequential events. It isn't a filter, because it doesn't absorb, reject, deflect , remove or suppress anything.
You need a chemist to explain why water is anomalous. It's all to do with the hydrogen bond, which is all to do with quantum mechanics, and is therefore beyond my limited comprehension, apparently. Which is odd, because I've taught it to others, who seemed to understand.
Still, if you don't want help, go ahead and drown. It's a free country.

Ok  I will give several analogies, but again this thread might want to get moved to New Theories. I am straying from the beaten track here somewhat...
Ok, if you want to discuss how your theory explains time dilation, then happy to move as in your suggestion.

quote Alan:
Time is what separates sequential events.
Yes time is what separates sequential events...
But when you have 1 rate of sequential time separating events in one location viewing another rate of sequential time separating events in another location, events that are separated in a slower rate of time might not all be visible to a person viewing from a faster rate of time that is separating events at a faster rate.
A proportion of the slower times events will be unobservable to the observer who's events are separated at a faster rate, and the same will be true of the faster time being observed by the observer in the slower time, where events are being separated more slowly.
Otherwise, if you have a time that is running much faster in one location than another, past, present, and future become unaligned between locations.
The interpretation that I propose is a proportional observation of events, proportional to the difference in rate of time at observed and observer locations. This results in a universally common 'now' throughout, and past present and future throughout the universe do not become unaligned.
(I used the word filter in an analogy as an analogous description, not a technical terminology)
I don't think I'm drowning Alan, just floating around experimentally in the water rather than being stuck in the mud, and you have helped me tremendously as you well know, but you are also, in my view, notably resistant to discussion at times, k?
I have never questioned your understanding of quantum or physics in general, you have a degree for goodness sake!
But you cannot teach me about things that physics does not know about because you also don't know about them. There are a lot of unknowns Alan, and I'm trying to figure stuff out about stuff that physics doesn't know  whereas if you were not so notably resistant at times and over various points, you would indeed be an excellent conversationalist as proven as fact in the times when you have not been notably resistant...

Ok  I will give several analogies, but again this thread might want to get moved to New Theories. I am straying from the beaten track here somewhat...
Stain glass:
Light is filtered through a stain glass and what we see is the light missing information.
If we view time as being a filter, then that filter value is established by the difference in rate of time between observer and observation, and the information received by observer of the observation is filtered to that value. The information received is proportional to the time difference.
So are you saying that in your theory the viewer sees sequences that run at normal speed, but the total time chopped and some part are lost so that total length eg of a film is shortened to that we would expect it to be in the dilated 'frame'. Which is basically lost information.

That is a way of putting it, but the information isn't lost it just appears quantised. (where Planck's h constant then becomes relevant)
By taking into account the difference in time between observed and observer, one can calculate the information one isn't observing.

Otherwise, if you have a time that is running much faster in one location than another, past, present, and future become unaligned between locations.
Independent events in different locations are not "aligned". What we see here is what happened there some time ago. By the time we see a supernova, or even a firework, the event is over. And if "there" is at a lower gravity potential, the time between observed events is longer than it would have been if the events had occurred here. So what?
As far as blueshift is concerned, it is clear that if we are standing on a neutron star, events over "there" appear to be happening much more rapidly than they do "here", but as the maximum gravitational potential is zero and the minimum is finite, we still see them in the original sequence.

Clearly  of course events take time to arrive at observation point for an observation of these events, and the events one observes are events that occurred in the past. Events that are occurring at that location presently would take billions of years (by remit of our clock) to arrive at our location.
That's high school physics.
There is no guarantee that the observation one makes of these past events is not proportional to differences in rates of time, and there is no guarantee that red shift velocities are giving the correct extension of distance over time either. That's all interpretation of observation, not fact.
It is the time dilation factor and curved space of relativity that give rise to the possibility of wormholes and stretching things a bit more, even time travel Alan.
This is directly due to the notion that different rates of time will ensure that past, present, and futures of locations running at differing rates of time will not be aligned with each other.
"So what?"
Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.

Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.
Only to a philosopher. The rest of us are quite used to hearing about things after they have happened.

I am looking at the cause of action in relation to timing, and that when measuring an event occurring at a differing rate of time via one's own timing, that what one measures will be proportional.
You seem to be talking about viewing events via information that has travelled from a long distance away, whereas the observation is of events that occurred a long time ago.
I thought we covered the fact that I'm not talking about events after the fact, just what observation will be viewed.
And it's clear from my posts that I am also equating this proportional observation concept to physical occurrences happening in the present, at immediate location. So information delay is minimal.
The concept of a universally common 'now' versus pasts, presents, and futures being unaligned, with portions of the universe being ahead, and others lagging behind is a physics concept and consideration that I have read about in physics books.

timey
You want the red pill answers in a blue pill world. The mathematicians are in charge of the blue pill world while the engineers are in the red pill world. Blue pill physics allow answers not possible in the red pill world. The blue pill world relates everything to the electron motion (relativity). The red pill world shows why the electron has motion (QM). The blue pill mathematicians control both.
We need to reverse engineer relativity by QM. That takes an engineering mind to do this. Unfortunately the mathematicians removed the tools for this by the authority of their conclusions based on the MMX. There is one grid matrix the MMX did not prove out of existence.

Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.
This is where I must break my silence about your "standard second" view of reality. There is no such reality where one could define a "universally common now", it simply does not exist.
I have kept my silence regarding your theory Timey out of respect for what I view as your sincere and dedicated efforts. But standing your ground on what you term; "the standard second" will doom your efforts at ever constructing an accurate and acceptable theory of reality.
Sorry my friend, but if your theory is to succeed, you will need to provide evidence for this "standard second" you keep invoking. And frankly, I see no means by which that can ever be achieved.

It is not I who invokes a standard second Ethos, it is physics that has done that.
My observation is that any measurement of anywhere where time is running at a faster or slower rate is held relative to the standard second.
Physics states that if one observes a clock located at a gravity potential from a differing gravity potential, that one will observe a differing rate of frequency than the frequency of a ground state caesium atom, (where the frequency of a ground state caesium atom defines the SI measurement of a standard second)...
... and that if one changes location to place oneself with the clock observed in the differing potential that one has previously observed from the other gravity potential as differing from the frequency of a ground state caesium atom, that one will find when in the same gravity potential with that clock, that it's frequency is the ground state of the caesium atom, this 'being' the definition of a standard second.
So what exactly are you implying when you say you see no means of providing evidence for a standard second?

This is the change that my model makes to the equivalence principle Ethos...
Where the equivalence principle is currently rendering the rate of a second as observed of the other gravity potential as being observer dependent, my model is stating that the observation of the frequency of one's own clock is observer dependent, because one is measuring the frequency of one's own clock held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock...
And the rate of a clock in any other gravity potential is then being held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock.
It's a very subtle difference but the resulting consequences of making this change are immense.

So what exactly are you implying when you say you see no means of providing evidence for a standard second?
It's quite simple Timey, there exists no "universally common now". Without that bases, no "standard second" can be established. Each and every individual frame will have it's on definition for what constitutes their measured second, therefore, no standard or universal second exists.

Every time you use the value of c in the maths, you are directly referring to a measurement of the standard second. The speed of light is held relative to a standard second.
When SR is used in the maths, all percentages and lengths are relating back to a standard second via the speed of light.
As for a universally common 'now', if one considers that observation of differing rates of time is proportional to the difference in rate of time, then a universally common 'now' can physically be achieved, and what we would observe of a differing rate of time would appear quantised (viewing faster time), or inversely quantised (viewing slower time).
Edit: Oh bugs, my b's and d's are giving me trouble again... The slower time viewed from the faster time would have action missing, and the faster time viewed from the slower time would have gaps between action.

This is the change that my model makes to the equivalence principle Ethos...
Where the equivalence principle is currently rendering the rate of a second as observed of the other gravity potential as being observer dependent, my model is stating that the observation of the frequency of one's own clock is observer dependent, because one is measuring the frequency of one's own clock held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock...
And the rate of a clock in any other gravity potential is then being held relative to the tick rate of one's own clock.
It's a very subtle difference but the resulting consequences of making this change are immense.
Can you explain why you think current physics is saying something different to the quote in red?
And briefly, what are the immense changes?

Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.
My model states that the frequency is differing in each gravity potential, but that the caesium atom will be measured as the ground state in each and every gravity potential when measured via the tick rate of the clock in that gravity potential.
The immense changes are a continuum in quantum via the introduction of time dilations factors, and the standard model consequently being united with gravity.

The standard second is the time elapsed during
9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In 1997 CIPM added that the periods would be defined for a caesium atom at rest, and approaching the theoretical temperature of absolute zero (0 K), and in 1999, it included corrections from ambient radiation. Absolute zero implies no movement, and therefore zero external radiation effects (i.e., zero local electric and magnetic fields).
everywhere and always (at least until we redefine it).

...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?

The standard second is the time elapsed during 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In 1997 CIPM added that the periods would be defined for a caesium atom at rest, and approaching the theoretical temperature of absolute zero (0 K), and in 1999, it included corrections from ambient radiation. Absolute zero implies no movement, and therefore zero external radiation effects (i.e., zero local electric and magnetic fields).
everywhere and always (at least until we redefine it).
Yes, when locally defined but not applicable by those who propose associating it with a "universal common now". The notion of a "universal common now" has little, or nothing at all, to do with how we define the standard second.

timey is correct but saying it in an unfamiliar way with a different definition of standard time. She is using the energy form of time. She is just saying the distance traveled for the electron to cycle time of the electron in every inertial frame gives the same standard reaction time as any other inertial frame. The definition of time can be confusing.
There is a universal present in the universe. All of the universe is in the present. The rate of timing is your ratio of available c to c being used by mass as a combination of SR and GR.
There is no standard cycle timing for an electron. There is a standard cycle time to distance measured in every inertial frame. That is the measured speed of light in a vacuum.
There is no standard measurement, only relative measurements
The measured reaction rate in every inertial frame is the same or standard if you like but only as standard as the measured speed of light in a vacuum.
There is more energy in a higher position of a gravity well and your measuring stick becomes shorter. The cycle distance of the electron becomes shorter.

The "standard second" could be the second with a linear and rotational velocity at 0 ?

Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.
I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location'. Can't say if there is an absolute frequency for each GP because we can't measure it. I can't see how my view differs from what you are saying:
but that the caesium atom will be measured as the ground state in each and every gravity potential when measured via the tick rate of the clock in that gravity potential.
Which is why I asked what the difference is with the section in red.
The immense changes are a continuum in quantum via the introduction of time dilations factors, and the standard model consequently being united with gravity.
I really don't see it as any change at all.
...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?
Yes, when measured using the local time at the observer's location. But change the observer's location and the measured frequency changes.
As Alan says the standard second is a definition. In reality it doesn't matter what time you use. If you design a frequency meter to measure a frequency source then, no matter what clock rate you use in the meter, if you move both source and meter to a different GP the meter will read the same frequency. This is just the physics of the source, meter, and time dilation working together. This is why current physics always refers to a measurement/observer.
As I say, I really don't see a real difference in what you are saying and certainly not one which would result in immense changes. However, you aren't going to change your view, and it isn't significant enough to me, so we will have to agree to differ and leave it at that.
Look forward to seeing the results/proof however.

The difference is that now when I say to you NIST measured that a clock's frequency really is different at 1 metre elevation than at ground level, you will not tell me that it isn't...
The difference is that now when I say to you that NIST measured that a clock's frequency in relative motion really is different to the stationary clock, you will not tell me that it isn't...
Previously you have told me that the frequency observed of both the elevated clock, and the clock in motion are only occurring as an observer dependent phenomenon, where both of the clock's are only 'appearing' to tick at differing rates.

The difference is that now when I say to you NIST measured that a clock's frequency really is different at 1 metre elevation than at ground level, you will not tell me that it isn't...
Colin2B understands relativity and should agree with that statement. This is observed with atomic clocks.
The difference is that now when I say to you that NIST measured that a clock's frequency in relative motion really is different to the stationary clock, you will not tell me that it isn't...
Although there are no stationary clocks the NIST measured frequency between different speeds is different.
Previously you have told me that the frequency observed of both the elevated clock, and the clock in motion are only occurring as an observer dependent phenomenon, where both of the clock's are only 'appearing' to tick at differing rates.
I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68961.msg502838#msg502838
...and other posts within this thread.

So Colin  Can we please now agree that the clock's frequency, or any body of m's frequency is 'actually' shifted 'at' elevation or 'in' relative motion, rather than this being an 'observation' that is shifted 'from' that elevation, or 'from' that relative motion, and that the observation of the clock ticking normally for the observer who is 'at' elevation, or 'in' relative motion is due to the observer 'at' elevation, or 'in' relative motion measuring their clock's frequency via the tick rate of their own 'elevated', or 'in relative motion' clock, as opposed to the case of measuring the 'elevated' clock, or clock 'in relative motion's' frequency via the tick rate of the ground clock, or the stationary clock???
Because if so, then we do indeed have a means of measuring frequency changes in the gravity potential...

Colin  In addition to my posts above:
First you say:
But the clock IS blue shifted 'at' elevation... (this has been the whole point of the thread)
Not from our point of view. We were trying to convince you that it isn't blue shifted 'at elevation'.
And then you say:
Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the same frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.
I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location'. Can't say if there is an absolute frequency for each GP because we can't measure it. I can't see how my view differs from what you are saying:
...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?
Yes, when measured using the local time at the observer's location. But change the observer's location and the measured frequency changes.
As I say, I really don't see a real difference in what you are saying and certainly not one which would result in immense changes. However, you aren't going to change your view, and it isn't significant enough to me, so we will have to agree to differ and leave it at that.
Look forward to seeing the results/proof however.
If you were trying to convince me that the clock is not of higher frequency 'at elevation', then how can you say:
"I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location"
... ?
This implies that there 'are' frequency changes 'at' elevation, and that if one measures the frequency via the rate of time 'at' that elevation, one arrives at the frequency of ground state atom, therefore a clock 'does' have a higher frequency 'at elevation'!
I would have thought it significant to you that your understanding appears to be somewhat contradictory...and perhaps more significant that this contradictory understanding may not be yours alone.

I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?
Yes GoC, wording has to be accurate as you say. Given the context of the link provided the wording requires (and deserves) a fuller answer than a simple misleading yes no. Don't have time at the moment, but if have in next couple of days I will write out so we can see where there is common ground and why we try to use very specific wording.

Colin  In addition to my posts above:
First you say:
But the clock IS blue shifted 'at' elevation... (this has been the whole point of the thread)
Not from our point of view. We were trying to convince you that it isn't blue shifted 'at elevation'.
And then you say:
Because the equivalence principle states that the caesium atom ground state 'is' the same frequency in each and every gravity potential, and my model states that it's not.
I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location'. Can't say if there is an absolute frequency for each GP because we can't measure it. I can't see how my view differs from what you are saying:
...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?
Yes, when measured using the local time at the observer's location. But change the observer's location and the measured frequency changes.
As I say, I really don't see a real difference in what you are saying and certainly not one which would result in immense changes. However, you aren't going to change your view, and it isn't significant enough to me, so we will have to agree to differ and leave it at that.
Look forward to seeing the results/proof however.
If you were trying to convince me that the clock is not of higher frequency 'at elevation', then how can you say:
"I would say that 'the caesium atom ground state is measured to be the same frequency in each and every gravity potential when measured by an observer at the same location"
... ?
This implies that there 'are' frequency changes 'at' elevation, and that if one measures the frequency via the rate of time 'at' that elevation, one arrives at the frequency of ground state atom, therefore a clock 'does' have a higher frequency 'at elevation'!
I would have thought it significant to you that your understanding appears to be somewhat contradictory...and perhaps more significant that this contradictory understanding may not be yours alone.
Although both of you think your positions are contradictory they are not. Its all in the wording. Colin2B uses the word measured to be the same and that follows relativity and his model. You are using the Gods eye definition of frequency change with elevation following your model of relativity. You are both correct. Colin2B cannot say frequency change because that would be a claim of a matrix (Aether type) which main stream follows the MMX as proof there is no matrix in space. Something curves (dilates) so your position appears valid. The frequency seems to follow dilation rather than variable speed of light for GR. Atomic clocks can measure a change in tick rate as small as one foot. The wording is important when following main stream. All frames measure the same frequency but are not the same frequency. From main stream point of view they are correct as far as they are willing to go.

I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?
Yes GoC, wording has to be accurate as you say. Given the context of the link provided the wording requires (and deserves) a fuller answer than a simple misleading yes no. Don't have time at the moment, but if have in next couple of days I will write out so we can see where there is common ground and why we try to use very specific wording.
Colin  In the NIST thread of last year that I posted a link to in a post above and copied and pasted that comment from you saying that you and everyone else were trying to convince me that a clock does not have a higher frequency 'at elevation'  you and others posting on that thread ridiculed me for saying that a clock's frequency 'is' higher 'at' elevation.
You all told me that the observation was shifted 'from' that elevation and that when in that coordinate with that clock the clock would be ticking normally.
There is an immense difference in stating that an observation is shifted 'from' another coordinate, and stating that the observation is shifted when you go 'to' that coordinate and measure the observation with the local time of that coordinate.
The first states that the frequency change doesn't really occur it only looks like it's occurring when observed from another coordinate in the gravity potential.
The second states that the frequency change does really occur, and that when measuring that frequency with the local time 'at' that coordinate, that the frequency will be ground state.
Measuring an observed invariant frequency via variable timings will result in differing frequencies.
Measuring the changing frequency in differing gravity potentials via invariant time will result in differing frequencies.
Measuring the observed changed frequency via the observed changed tick rate will result in an invariant frequency, this being ground state for the caesium atom.
If we have cleared up this long standing misunderstanding of an observation of a clock being shifted 'from' another coordinate, then I'd like to talk about the fact that light in the gravity potential is shifting frequency in the opposing direction to a clock...
A clock shifts to a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Light shifts to a higher frequency in the stronger gravity field.

I do not think he meant that. Wording has to be accurate for the correct meaning. Can you find where that statement was made?
Yes GoC, wording has to be accurate as you say. Given the context of the link provided the wording requires (and deserves) a fuller answer than a simple misleading yes no. Don't have time at the moment, but if have in next couple of days I will write out so we can see where there is common ground and why we try to use very specific wording.
Colin  In the NIST thread of last year that I posted a link to in a post above and copied and pasted that comment from you saying that you and everyone else were trying to convince me that a clock does not have a higher frequency 'at elevation'  you and others posting on that thread ridiculed me for saying that a clock's frequency 'is' higher 'at' elevation.
You all told me that the observation was shifted 'from' that elevation and that when in that coordinate with that clock the clock would be ticking normally.
There is an immense difference in stating that an observation is shifted 'from' another coordinate, and stating that the observation is shifted when you go 'to' that coordinate and measure the observation with the local time of that coordinate.
The first states that the frequency change doesn't really occur it only looks like it's occurring when observed from another coordinate in the gravity potential.
The second states that the frequency change does really occur, and that when measuring that frequency with the local time 'at' that coordinate, that the frequency will be ground state.
Measuring an observed invariant frequency via variable timings will result in differing frequencies.
Measuring the changing frequency in differing gravity potentials via invariant time will result in differing frequencies.
Measuring the observed changed frequency via the observed changed tick rate will result in an invariant frequency, this being ground state for the caesium atom.
If we have cleared up this long standing misunderstanding of an observation of a clock being shifted 'from' another coordinate, then I'd like to talk about the fact that light in the gravity potential is shifting frequency in the opposing direction to a clock...
A clock shifts to a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Light shifts to a higher frequency in the stronger gravity field.
This is the part where main stream will not venture. To say light has momentum down a gravity well is wrong by Relativity. SOL being constant. Light created in a higher energy state remains the same wavelength as it travels down a gravity well and will appear blue shifted by the lower energy state's detector. The measurements change while the physics relationship of energy to timing remain the same in every frame. So when you move a wavelength detector from one position to another down a gravity well the detector changes calibration to the new energy state of measurement (more dilated energy state with a longer measuring stick).
This is why frequency is measured to be the same in every frame. Main stream will not allow any change to the accepted no matrix position. You are arguing for a matrix by your position.
Either you believe light has momentum to be blue shifted down a gravity well as main stream suggests (violating Relativity) or you believe something in space is being curved (dilated) as a physical existence for a photon.
Calling a photon virtual does not excuse it from being physical. If it is physically coming from the electron than it violates relativity. The only choice is energy and mass are two separate fractal masses of density. Energy is the matrix of space or relativity is incorrect. Main stream will not go that step. It would invalidate the BB.
Your position also suggests light changes wavelengths. When you discuss frequency of a clock you are comparing tick rates between frames in SR and dilation gradient in GR for equivalency. The dilation of space energy increases down a gravity well. This means PE decreases because energy is less dense per volume of space (expanded). This increases the electron travel distance in space reducing the tick frequency. The tick rate follows the dilation of energy reducing the PE to the center of mass.
timey you are correct it would have a major impact on physics with a paradigm shift in their model. Their math is correct for observations. It would just be their subjective interpretations that need tweaking. No expansion or contraction of the universe and no BB would be the two losers. GR red shift with SR Universe rotation from galaxies adding red shift.
Once a photon is created it does not change wavelength. The shift is due to the energy level of the position of the detector.

Timey, it is entirely possible that there was a misunderstanding and we were all talking at cross purposes. As GOC says, wording is important, but also, context is important. Before I spend time describing where we agree and disagree let's look at context and wording to see if there really is an issue.
In the context of the NIST thread, it was our understanding that you thought there was an anomaly in the NIST results compared to the Pound Rebka results which you summed up as:
NIST = upper frame blue shifted
Pound Rebka = lower frame blue shifted.
Your 2 statements do not specify the locations from which the measurements were taken however, we were quite clear that there was no conflict between NIST and Pound Rebka and that both results were predicted by GR.
In terms of blue shift, it is expected in GR and Alan confirmed it e.g.:
You are almost absolutely correct. To be pedantic, the photon is blue shifted "from", not "at" the top of the tower.
but note the pedantic importance of the relative position of the measurement.
It was also in this same context that my comments were made e.g.:
(It may be that Relativity didn't predict that atoms are blue shifted in elevation, but it is most certainly not nonsense that they are because it is proven by the NIST experiment... And if a cesium atom is blue shifted at elevation, a gamma ray source will be as well.)
NIST did not prove this. The Al ion was not blue shifted in its frame at elevation.
Note I specify frame at elevation, in other words when measured at its elevation.
Note for GoC Al refers to the new (as of 2010) optical 'clocks' which were used in this experiment, smaller and much more accurate than the caesium std. They were not actual clocks/frequency counters but only frequency sources. Evan & I posted details in the thread if you are interested.
So let's have a look at the areas from your recent post where there could be misunderstanding,
You all told me that the observation was shifted 'from' that elevation and that when in that coordinate with that clock the clock would be ticking normally.
As explained in that thread the elevated clock frequency was measured as a difference relative to the fixed clock at the lower level. It was not measured in the local time frame at the elevation. This is all explained in the NIST article which was posted in the thread. I don't see any point in going over it again.
There is an immense difference in stating that an observation is shifted 'from' another coordinate, and stating that the observation is shifted when you go 'to' that coordinate and measure the observation with the local time of that coordinate.
That is true. If you do go to that coordinate and measure in local time you will not get a frequency shift  that's why NIST measured frequency at elevation relative to the time at the lower location.
The first states that the frequency change doesn't really occur it only looks like it's occurring when observed from another coordinate in the gravity potential.
Not sure I would agree. The frequency shift is real it's just that what value you measure varies according to where you measure from. If I am in a plane at 500mph and chasing another doing 600, I would say relative speed 100. But someone chasing at 400 would say relative 200. Both measurements are real.
The second states that the frequency change does really occur, and that when measuring that frequency with the local time 'at' that coordinate, that the frequency will be ground state.
i know what you mean, but that's why relativity refers to proper measurements and coordinate measurements  proper frequency is measured locally.
Just a point of clarity, ground state refers to the electron transitions in the atom, which determine the frequency it emits. This does not change when an atom is moved to a higher GP, or when observed from a different elevation, the electron transition do not move to higher energy levels causing higher frequency photons. This is why current physics views the frequency of the atom as constant at all elevations. If it did change you would see a different spectrum of lines at elevation.
If we have cleared up this long standing misunderstanding of an observation of a clock being shifted 'from' another coordinate,
If we truly have and you are ok that NIST and Pound Rebka are consistent with current physics.
If you disagree, then we have to agree to disagree because this has been done to death in the other thread.
then I'd like to talk about the fact that light in the gravity potential is shifting frequency in the opposing direction to a clock...
A clock shifts to a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Light shifts to a higher frequency in the stronger gravity field.
Don't see any point in discussing the obvious. Clocks tick faster at elevation (time runs faster) compared to lower, as a consequence of this the measurements of light frequencies vary depending on where they originate from and are measured from.
All my comments are made re current physics and I appreciate that you might have a different view from current physics, and that's ok in this section.

Just a point of clarity, ground state refers to the electron transitions in the atom, which determine the frequency it emits. This does not change when an atom is moved to a higher GP, or when observed from a different elevation, the electron transition do not move to higher energy levels causing higher frequency photons. This is why current physics views the frequency of the atom as constant at all elevations. If it did change you would see a different spectrum of lines at elevation.
Colin2B
This is a subjective opinion about seeing different spectrum of lines at elevation proving the electron transition do not move to higher energy levels causing higher frequencies. Timey is correct to follow frequency with tick rate. And the ground state transition could be different at different elevations. If they were the same transitions at different elevations that would destroy equivalence between GR and SR.
Follow my reasoning. Dilation is real and as real as tick rate change of clocks. It is the change in the ground state transition at different levels that change the clocks tick rate. Dilation (gamma term) expands the transition in space but the mass also expands when the electron transition increases lower in a gravity well. All detectors are equally expanded to automatically correct for the new dimensions in the gravity well. The detectors remain calibrated to each and every frame. If this were not true the speed of light would not be measured to be the same in every frame or elevation. The electron and the photon both travel through expanded space as confounded in every frame. Energy expands so the electron travels further and the photon travels further. Mechanical and light clocks tick at the same rate in every frame. Your measuring stick increases. Physics is the same in every frame.
How could that happen if the electron transition did not change from frame to frame. Relativity would not work.
You are confusing measured length with a fixed length. Nothing is fixed!!!! Not even the measuring devices.

Quote Colin:
All my comments are made re current physics and I appreciate that you might have a different view from current physics, and that's ok in this section.
In answer to your post above GoC's:
No  I do not have a different view from current physics, what I have done is form an alternative view, (lacking the actual maths), of time versus distance within current physics that gives a different and interesting picture that I am trying to describe here because I think it can be mathematically calculated to interesting results.
I do not disagree with the Pound Rebka results, but can see an alternative explanation within same results.
The reason for the discussion of the NIST thread in the first place was born in that I had been trying to discuss my observation that light is shifted to a higher frequency as it gets closer to M, and the atoms frequency is shifted to higher frequency when placed further away from M.
But the pertinent part here is that you say the atom is shifted in frequency, and that the nucleus isn't.
My model examines the possibility that the nucleus is also shifted, that the nucleus does have a higher energy, and that the emitted photon is of higher frequency than it would be if emitted at the lower potential.
The photon viewed 'from' the lower potential 'at' the lower potential, because light can only be viewed when it arrives, will be an observation that the photon has been shifted from the higher potential.
But by how much has it been shifted by the change in gravity potential, and how did it shift?
... Clearly the maths in service are describing the situation adequately, but on the basis that there are still unknowns, is there room for manoeuvre?
If whatever rate the nucleus is doing it's thing at is affected as are the transitions between the electron states at higher gravity potential, then all actions will be increased in rate.
So as an experimental train of thought one could examine the possibility that the rate that photons are emitted at affect the frequency and energy of the photon, but that the relationship is proportional. i.e. that the rate of time increases between the electron transitions are not linear to the energy and frequency increases of the emitted photon.... (not sure if I'm using the maths terms correctly here)
... and that the light is emitted at a higher frequency in the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency that it is emitted at in the lower potential, and is shifted to a higher frequency again by the change in gravity potential when it arrives at the observer in the lower gravity potential...
...And it makes both of these shifts because a) it was emitted by an emitter with higher energy (quicker time) at the higher gravity potential, and b) as a photon it was shifted by the higher energy (quicker time) gfield at lower gravity potential.
The quicker time closer to M being the 3rd time dilation of my model that gives cause to the acceleration of gravity.
It all gets pretty complex then when applying this remit to the Mossbauer receiver, where the temporal rendition of space dilation renders SR as part of the remix, and applied to the frequencies applied to the emitter, and so on. But I'll stop there on that one.
So really Colin  my model is just a remix of current model maths and a change in interpretation of observation, where I am not disagreeing with current theory, but am instead saying that if you consider this, and look at that like so, that all the same maths will be valid, but for differing reasons that describe the same observations.
So on the basis of an explorative venture.
Question:
What do the electron transitions of an atom have to do with the emission of a photon?
Are electron transitions related to quantum energy levels?
https://brilliant.org/wiki/energylevelandtransitionofelectrons/
...and if the frequency of the atom's electron transitions is greater at higher gravity potential, then the quantum energy level will be higher, so it would be impossible for it to emit anything other than a higher energy photon, perhaps?
This is the thought process that when applied as +energy = time contraction (shorter seconds) to the blackbody atom's light emissions can result in a continuum in quantum.
This giving Planck's h constant a whole new meaning and function within the maths.

[/size]This is a subjective opinion about seeing different spectrum of lines at elevation proving the electron transition do not move to higher energy levels causing higher frequencies.
What I was specifically talking about was the ground state vs electrons moving to higher energy levels in the atom. What do the electron transitions of an atom have to do with the emission of a photon?
They are the 'cause' of the emissionAre electron transitions related to quantum energy levels?
Yes. The transitions are the 'moves' between energy levels. The ground state is the lowest level and results in the lowest energy photons. If the electron transitions take place from higher energy levels the photons have higher energy. Note this is a quick and dirty explanation.If the transitions were being made from higher energy levels in an elevated atom that ought to be noticed by an observer at that elevation.However, one thing I didn't mention last night (long post, very late) is that if you decide in your theory to assume that the energy levels of the ground state are 'lifted' then you could consider that the ground state is emitting higher energy photons.

If the clock is held against gravity then does it radiate simply due to being in a non inertial frame? Not the same as energy transitions but can it be detected? Or is it in a frequency too low to be detected?

Could one component of the CMBR be due to all the mass in the universe that is being held against gravity by electromagnetic and other forces?

...and is it not true that if one observes a caesium atom placed at an elevated position from oneself that it is observed to be of a higher frequency?
Yes, assuming you are talking about the master frequency of a cesium clock. Or indeed any clock that doesn't use a pendulum. The fact is well established.

A clock shifts to a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field.
when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the clockLight shifts to a higher frequency in the stronger gravity field.
when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the source.
If you stick to the observed facts and standard terminology, you won't confuse yourself.

In answer to your post before last:
The reason I asked was because the clock when measured via the rate of time it is ticking at results in atoms ground state frequency, but this suggests that the ground state frequency of the atom is greater in the higher gravity potential.
In reply to post above:
...And when there is no observer to observe the light, does the light shift frequency in the changing gravity potential, or not?
Does light shift in the gravitational field?
Because if it does, then can we 'please' talk about how light is of a lower frequency in the weaker gfield?

A clock shifts to a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field.
when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the clockLight shifts to a higher frequency in the stronger gravity field.
when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the source.
If you stick to the observed facts and standard terminology, you won't confuse yourself.
You know  I am actually a little offended by your post Alan.
I am not confusing myself or anyone else.
It's high school physics that light on the outbound shifts frequency in the higher gravity potential.
It's high school physics that one can only view light when it reaches one's eye...
Therefore an observation of the red shifted light would occur only for an observer in the higher gravity potential.
So what?
Quite clearly the light on an outbound trajectory will still shift frequency in the higher gravity potential wether it is observed or not, therefore why are you stating me as confused please?
Light, on the inbound, or the outbound, is of a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
If you put an observer in the higher and the lower gravity potential, and ask them to take turns pointing a light source at each other, they will confirm this fact to be the case...
What's the problem?

The problem is that your two statements appeared to be mutually contradictory because they were imprecise.

Ok  so to be precise:
Light on the inbound and on the outbound will have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field, or higher gravity potential, whichever you prefer.
The clock will have a higher frequency when observed in the weaker gravity field, or higher gravity potential, whichever you prefer, when observed 'from' the lower gravity potential.
When placing oneself in the higher gravity potential, one is measuring the frequency of the clock held relative to the tick rate of the clock at that gravity potential, and the frequency of the clock is ground state. But if one observes the clock in the lower gravity potential, and in observing that the lower gravity potential clock is running slower than the clock one is with at elevation, one then uses the rate of time of the lower clock to measure the frequency of the elevated clock, the frequency of the elevated clock will again be higher than ground state, as observed when one was with the lower gravity potential clock.
Which means that a clock's frequency is always increased in the weaker gravity field, or the higher gravity potential...
And that lights frequency is always decreased in the weaker gravity field, or higher gravity potential.

Best advice, from Physics 101, is to stick to the observed facts and express them clearly, precisely and unambiguously, using a common vocabulary. (That's why I hate priests, politicians and philosophers, and don't have much time for economists either.)
"Inbound" and "outbound" are meaningless without reference points. To and from where? Where observed?
Don't confuse field strength, which is the differential of potential, with potential.
Don't misappropriate "ground state".
Whatever the source, its frequency appears to be higher when observed from a lower gravity potential, as predicted and observed. That's all there is.

Inbound and outbound is clearly towards or away from M.
What else would it be?
How else could I say it?
...light>>M, light<<M?
If one knows the value of M there is no need for an observer. The maths are there to understand what light and the clock are doing in the space surrounding M.
I haven't been directly discussing field strength in relation to gravity potential, yet, but if you look at the wiki link for gravity potential there is a diagram that shows quite clearly that the higher potential is in the weaker field.
Go to the moon where the value of M is lesser, the gravity potential at h from M(moon) will also be higher in the weaker gravity field of the moon.
Why am I misappropriating 'ground state'?
If one measures the frequency of the caesium atom at any gravity potential using the tick rate of a clock at that gravity potential, then the frequency of the atom is always 9,192,631,770Hz, and that 'is' ground state.
Observed and predicted  and yes, that is all there is  because no physical cause/s are given for the mechanics of the phenomenon...

Timey,
You were not being precise in your wording leading to ambiguity. A trained physicist uses well defined wording in order to remove the ambiguity.
Ok  so to be precise:
Light on the inbound and on the outbound will have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field, or higher gravity potential, whichever you prefer.
Where was the light created? In a higher or lower PE? It will have the same frequency on the return destination.
The clock will have a higher frequency when observed in the weaker gravity field, or higher gravity potential, whichever you prefer, when observed 'from' the lower gravity potential.
You can only use measured to be.
When placing oneself in the higher gravity potential, one is measuring the frequency of the clock held relative to the tick rate of the clock at that gravity potential, and the frequency of the clock is ground state.
In that position.
But if one observes the clock in the lower gravity potential, and in observing that the lower gravity potential clock is running slower than the clock one is with at elevation, one then uses the rate of time of the lower clock to measure the frequency of the elevated clock, the frequency of the elevated clock will again be higher than ground state, as observed when one was with the lower gravity potential clock.
There is no standard of time and there is no standard ground state to measure against. All observations are relative. Physics is the same in every frame because every measurement has the same ratio of relativity. There is no rest frame.
Which means that a clock's frequency is always increased in the weaker gravity field, or the higher gravity potential...
And that lights frequency is always decreased in the weaker gravity field, or higher gravity potential.
Frequency is decreased is ambiguous as to what decreased is being referred. Light is energy and speed. The photon is measured to be blue shifted down a gravity well.
The real question is whether the PE changes measurements or momentum of light causes the measurement. To strictly follow the relativity postulates it would be the PE as being dilated rather than light changing speed. There is observation for dilation in GR. The position of the sun is behind the horizon but we still observe the sun as not having set by observation. This proves the observed position is not the actual position in space. It is also accurate for SR observations where we never have a perpendicular view.

If one measures the frequency of the caesium atom at any gravity potential using the tick rate of a clock at that gravity potential, then the frequency of the atom is always 9,192,631,770Hz, and that 'is' ground state.
No. It isn't the "frequency of the atom". There are umpteen frequencies associated with an atom. It's the frequency of the photon that is associated with the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of the electrons in the cesium atom.
Apropos fields, imagine a small source subject to two gravitational field vectors at right angles, say midway between Earth and Mars and offset from the line joining them. The blue shift we observe depends only on which planet we are standing on, not the net field vector at the source. That is to say that it depends on gravitational potential difference, not field.
This is the sort of pedantry that get Galileo into trouble, and without which we would still be stuck in the dark ages of superstition.
"The observer" is a convenient fiction who turns up all over physics, but without that irritating little man on Google Earth, we wouldn't know which way we are looking, and therefore would have no idea what we are looking at.

There is no standard of time and there is no standard ground state to measure against. All observations are relative. Physics is the same in every frame because every measurement has the same ratio of relativity. There is no rest frame.
I completely agree with you GoC, and the study of Relativity concerns the measure of (t,l, and m) of one frame "Relative"to another frame and is not meant to be relative to any proposed "universal common now". No such "universal common now" or universal present can be used as a standard. The expression "universal common now" is IMHO, virtually meaningless to the Physicist.

If one measures the frequency of the caesium atom at any gravity potential using the tick rate of a clock at that gravity potential, then the frequency of the atom is always 9,192,631,770Hz, and that 'is' ground state.
No. It isn't the "frequency of the atom". There are umpteen frequencies associated with an atom. It's the frequency of the photon that is associated with the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of the electrons in the cesium atom.
Apropos fields, imagine a small source subject to two gravitational field vectors at right angles, say midway between Earth and Mars and offset from the line joining them. The blue shift we observe depends only on which planet we are standing on, not the net field vector at the source. That is to say that it depends on gravitational potential difference, not field.
This is the sort of pedantry that get Galileo into trouble, and without which we would still be stuck in the dark ages of superstition.
"The observer" is a convenient fiction who turns up all over physics, but without that irritating little man on Google Earth, we wouldn't know which way we are looking, and therefore would have no idea what we are looking at.
When I say the frequency of the atom, this is because I have already given a description in previous posts on this thread concerning electron transitions, quantum energy levels, the resulting photon energy/frequency, and indication that this discussion is concerning the use of the caesium atom as a time keeping measurement.
I really don't want to have to write a book giving terms and conditions for the content of each and every individual post I make.
Honestly, people can't be bothered to read and respond if the post is too long, but then complain as to shorthand when the posts are kept short. Where is the middle ground aye?
I have made it quite clear that the frequency that I am referring to is 9,192,631,770Hz.
This is the ground state frequency of a caesium atom.
In any case, the bit that I am trying to talk about is:
That if one observes the frequency to be higher than 9,192,631,770Hz, 'from' the lower gravity potential, and then measures this higher frequency held relative to the tick rate at the higher potential, then the frequency is 9,192,631,770Hz.
So  does this mean that the ground state frequency of the caesium atom really is higher in the higher gravity potential?
Because it looks to me as if the caesium atom's electron transitions will increase in frequency at each higher potential, and that what someone observes is dependent on what rate of time they use to measure the observation with...

So  does this mean that the ground state frequency of the caesium atom really is higher in the higher gravity potential?
If you mean higher PE position yes
Because it looks to me as if the caesium atom's electron transitions will increase in frequency at each higher potential, and that what someone observes is dependent on what rate of time they use to measure the observation with...
Yes, A clock measures the available potential energy remaining of total energy c. This is a density measurement of energy in GR and the extra travel distance in SR. The highest density is in space the furthest away from mass. Potential tick rate would be the fastest. But you cannot even use that as a standard second.

[/size]This is a subjective opinion about seeing different spectrum of lines at elevation proving the electron transition do not move to higher energy levels causing higher frequencies.
What I was specifically talking about was the ground state vs electrons moving to higher energy levels in the atom. What do the electron transitions of an atom have to do with the emission of a photon?
They are the 'cause' of the emissionAre electron transitions related to quantum energy levels?
Yes. The transitions are the 'moves' between energy levels. The ground state is the lowest level and results in the lowest energy photons. If the electron transitions take place from higher energy levels the photons have higher energy. Note this is a quick and dirty explanation.If the transitions were being made from higher energy levels in an elevated atom that ought to be noticed by an observer at that elevation.However, one thing I didn't mention last night (long post, very late) is that if you decide in your theory to assume that the energy levels of the ground state are 'lifted' then you could consider that the ground state is emitting higher energy photons.
... and that is pretty much what I'm saying, except that I would describe the situation as being that ground states at differing gravity potentials are of differing energies due to potential energy.
Now it's just a case of following cause and effect...
Move caesium atom to higher gravity potential, the increase in potential energy increases the quantum energy level of the atom, this increases the electron transitions, the atom then emits higher energy, higher frequency photons.
If we were to view these photons emitted in the higher gravity potential from the lower gravity potential, we would only be able to view the photons 'at' the lower potential, where the photons will have been shifted to a higher energy, higher frequency.
This leading to the mathematical question/s that I am currently asking of Mike on the 'is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle' thread.

I have made it quite clear that the frequency that I am referring to is 9,192,631,770Hz.
This is the ground state frequency of a caesium atom.
Life is too short to bother with people who redefine or misuse common vocabulary. I won't repeat the definition of a second, because everyone knows it.
In any case, the bit that I am trying to talk about is:
That if one observes the frequency to be higher than 9,192,631,770Hz, 'from' the lower gravity potential, and then measures this higher frequency held relative to the tick rate at the higher potential, then the frequency is 9,192,631,770Hz.
Confused and selfreferential, but the truth hidden behind your statement is that there is no gravitational shift between clocks at the same gravitational potential. This is obvious.
Because it looks to me as if the caesium atom's electron transitions will increase in frequency at each higher potential, and that what someone observes is dependent on what rate of time they use to measure the observation with...
Everything you observe depends on your gravitational potential difference relative to the source of your observation.

Sorry, but I said that the caesium atom at a higher gravity potential is observed 'from' the lower potential to have a higher frequency than the caesium atom at the lower potential does. When one measures the frequency of the atom 'in' the higher gravity potential via the rate of time 'in' the higher potential, the frequency is then the same as the frequency of the ceasium atom that is in the lower gravity potential, this being ground state  so quite how you have come by your reply about the clock's being in the same gravity potential is beyond me.
Everything you observe depends on your gravitational potential difference relative to the source of your observation.
Clearly! This being my point of interest... So why is this the case? What is causing this?

I'll ignore another misuse of "ground state".
Once again you have stated, in a roundabout way, that the observed frequency of a clock depends on the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer. No big deal: it is predicted by GR and observed at all levels from laboratories to galaxies.
The cause is the gravitational contraction of time. I'm sure it is all set out, in far more detail and with far greater precision than I can offer, in one of your many physics textbooks. Simply put, however, we can see that a photon moving towards a lower gravitational potential will be gaining energy, but since its speed is constrained to be constant, this can only manifest as an increase in frequency. Now have a clock at altitude firing a pulse of photons every second (how else could you observe it?) If the frequency of individual photons increases as they approach the observer, so must the rate of arrival of the pulses. So the clock appears to be running faster than an identical clock at the lower potential.

Yes that's right Alan  I have learned about relativity in the many physics books I've read, so why do you keep on stating the obvious?
The caesium atomic clock is observed to be of a higher frequency, (this being the frequency of the atom's electron transitions), in the higher gravity potential 'from' the lower gravity potential, where 'in' the lower gravity potential the atom is ground state 9,192,631,770Hz. (stating obvious)...
What I am trying to discuss here Alan is wether or not the caesium atomic clock really does have a higher frequency 'in' the higher gravity potential, or wether:
the clock appears to be running faster than an identical clock at the lower potential.
Note that you use the word 'appears'...
So does the clock actually tick faster at elevation, or does it only appear to tick faster?

Yes another misuse of "ground state". Please don't embarrass yourself this way.
Obviously the clock always ticks at the same rate because (a) it is the same clock (b) it has no knowledge of its gravitational potential and (c) whilst it would appear faster to an observer at a lower potential, it would appear slower to an observer at a higher potential: it obviously can't be both faster and slower, so it must be invariant and appear different according to the potential difference between source and observer.
Relativity. The name says it all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_standard
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.
Sorry to embarrass myself as such... I have clearly strayed a million miles from the beaten path there, haven't I Alan?
*
If the clock does not really tick faster in the higher gravity potential, or slower in relative motion, then how can a person age in keeping with their time dilated clock?
If a clock does not tick faster at elevation, how can it be said that at a certain radius from Earth the SR time dilation, due to the required orbital speed for that radius, cancels out the effects of GR time dilation at that h from M?

The fact that all nonpendulum clocks, including biological processes, keep in step with everything else on the spaceship, suggests that what they are measuring, not the means of measurement, depends on where they are.

If you are saying that clock's tick at the same rate in every gravity potential, then when stating that all non pendulum clock's, including biological processes keep in step with the spaceship, what exactly are you saying?
Surely there is no necessity to raise the subject of anything keeping in step with the spaceship if the rate of a clock stays the same everywhere?
...and, why would 'what one was measuring' have a bearing on how a biological system aged?

You raised the subject!
Time is what separates sequential events. If time is compressed or expanded, sequential events occur closer or further apart. Clock ticks and biological processes are sequential events.
There is obviously a practical problem in measuring biological processes with useful accuracy, but we know that the predictions of GR work for all the other clocks that have been tested.

I raised the subject because you cannot say this:
Obviously the clock always ticks at the same rate because (a) it is the same clock (b) it has no knowledge of its gravitational potential and (c) whilst it would appear faster to an observer at a lower potential, it would appear slower to an observer at a higher potential: it obviously can't be both faster and slower, so it must be invariant and appear different according to the potential difference between source and observer.
...and then say this...
Time is what separates sequential events. If time is compressed or expanded, sequential events occur closer or further apart. Clock ticks and biological processes are sequential events.
...without contradicting yourself!

Take an elastic band and make 10 marks on it, 1 cm apart. Now stretch the band. There are still 10 marks between your fingers.
If two biological events are separated by 10 clock ticks on earth, they will be separated by 10 clock ticks at any other gravitational potential, as measured by the local clock. But an observer on earth might count 9 or 11 ticks of his own clock between observations of the events.
No contradiction, as long as you accept that time can be dilated or compressed by gravitational potential. If the observation were due to a gravitational effect on the clock rather than time, we would expect to see different results for different types of clock, but we don't.

Take an elastic band and make 10 marks on it, 1 cm apart. Now stretch the band. There are still 10 marks between your fingers.
Yes and when you stretch the band you are stretching the electron cycle distance to change the size of the measuring stick. The extra distance for the measuring stick applies to the tick rate of the mechanical clock. The stretched band measuring stick also measures a different distance for a mile. The physics ratio remains the same in every frame. So there is no difference in reaction ratios of different frames. This also causes the speed of light to be the same in every frame. The detector cell expands down a gravity well to measure light created higher PE to appear blue shifted. It does not change frequency down the gravity well. It's not gravity potential but rather dilation of PE. The equivalence is dilation in GR for the measuring stick relative to c. The extra distance light travels as an angle different from perpendicular in SR relative to c.
If two biological events are separated by 10 clock ticks on earth, they will be separated by 10 clock ticks at any other gravitational potential, as measured by the local clock. But an observer on earth might count 9 or 11 ticks of his own clock between observations of the events.
Yes
No contradiction, as long as you accept that time can be dilated or compressed by gravitational potential. If the observation were due to a gravitational effect on the clock rather than time, we would expect to see different results for different types of clock, but we don't.
The gravitational affect is equivalent to acceleration in SR. We can show by deceleration that gravity is not the key to tick rate. You create gravity with deceleration and increase your tick rate. This proves it is an energy change in density. Your electron clock and photon clock are confounded in every frame. The PE affects the distance light travels and the distance the electron travels in every frame. You do not get different results from different clocks. They both change tick rates by the same amount in every frame. The radii in GR dilation equals the vector speed of light in SR as the hypotenuse of the two legs for equivalence. Both clocks (mechanical and light) are acted on by energy c. What moves the electron? What moves the photon?

Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations.
Now if I accelerate the device along the length of the arms of the fork, they will stretch, so the clock will run slower. But if I accelerate it perpendicular to the length of the arms, they will get thicker, but the anisotropy of the crystal structure will give me a different change in timekeeping.
You can also consider a circular escapement mechanism: accelerated along a radius it will become elliptical and its moment of inertia will increase; accelerated along the axis, it remains circular, so its timing will be different. But GR and experiment tells me that all clocks behave the same at a given gravitational potential so it must be time, not the means by which we measure it, that is warped by gravity,

Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations.
Now if I accelerate the device along the length of the arms of the fork, they will stretch, so the clock will run slower. But if I accelerate it perpendicular to the length of the arms, they will get thicker, but the anisotropy of the crystal structure will give me a different change in timekeeping.
You can also consider a circular escapement mechanism: accelerated along a radius it will become elliptical and its moment of inertia will increase; accelerated along the axis, it remains circular, so its timing will be different. But GR and experiment tells me that all clocks behave the same at a given gravitational potential so it must be time, not the means by which we measure it, that is warped by gravity,
Yes of course many issues affect mass like heat and lack of heat. The model used for if not correct will give a wrong understanding. What model of electron cycle are you using? You say vibration I say flow based on the dilation of space as the PE and a clock measures the PE by position. All clocks will measure the same PE by position. Gravity is the same as acceleration in SR where the center of gravity is the inertial position in mass for equivalence.
You say warped I say dilated like a gradient onion ring where the dilation in the center of mass is greatest.
but the anisotropy of the crystal structure will give me a different change in timekeeping.
Of course same as the blue shift created in SR with light created forward of the direction of travel and red shifted in the opposite direction of travel. When you mix SR and GR you will find two different affects for the equivalent results. Relativity is amazing!!
I use a different model for the electron as flow with a specific path. We are bound to bump heads. My design causes relativity.

There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spinspin interactions between electrons and nuclei.

There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spinspin interactions between electrons and nuclei.
And yet you do not understand the absorption process. Your model determines your understanding. What causes your vibration?
My understanding is the electron spins as a rotation out of the nucleus of the atom and the mirror image as it returns to the nucleus for one cycle. The dilation of space energy c determines the length of the cycle for creating and absorbing the photon wave. The length of the cycle determines the tick rate of the clock (measured by micro wave absorption).
The proton consists of positron and negatron electrons in a complimentary spin rotation that dilates the energy from the first atom. As the free electron travels out with c rotation momentum the dilation becomes contracted further away from the proton and the electron turns back to the proton to kick out the next cycle of an electron.
The electron distance traveled creates the size of the measuring stick in each dilation. And the distance is measured with each frames measuring stick to measure the same speed of light in every frame while changing the distance measured. c energy being of space and not mass. c creating the motion of electrons and photons at c.
My model is A description of A cause for relativity not necessarily the cause for relativity. What causes your vibrations?
Surely you must imagine something causing the vibrations as I imagine electron perpetual flow. A subjective model creates subjective limitations. Where does your motion come from in your model?

Take an elastic band and make 10 marks on it, 1 cm apart. Now stretch the band. There are still 10 marks between your fingers.
If two biological events are separated by 10 clock ticks on earth, they will be separated by 10 clock ticks at any other gravitational potential, as measured by the local clock. But an observer on earth might count 9 or 11 ticks of his own clock between observations of the events.
No contradiction, as long as you accept that time can be dilated or compressed by gravitational potential. If the observation were due to a gravitational effect on the clock rather than time, we would expect to see different results for different types of clock, but we don't.
If a clock only 'appears' to tick faster or slower and all clock's tick at the same rate, because 'how can a clock tick both faster and slower', as you said, and as I quoted you, then the concept of sequential time being stretched or compressed is null and void.
It is only by stating that the clock's are 'actually' ticking faster or slower, whereby the observation of the clock above running faster is measured as being faster because the lower clock is running slower and that slower time is what the observer with the lower clock is using to measure the higher clock. And if one goes higher still, that when measuring the middle clock, one is measuring both the middle clock, and the lower clock by the faster rate of time of the higher still clock, where the higher still clock will observe that the middle clock is running slower, and the lower clock is running slower still, because the higher clock is measuring both of these lower clock's by the rate of the higher still clock's time.
Then we are looking at the dilation and contraction of time dilation and your elastic analogy has physical meaning.
To state the clock's as only 'appearing' to run at differing rates one implies that all clock's run at same rate, in which case your elastic analogy has no physical meaning.
My model views the situation as being that the clock's 'actually' run at differing rates in the gravity potential and seeks to attach the potential energy increases at elevation to the increase in frequency between electron transitions.
This would require a pe=mgh calculation where value of pe/m insures a 'blanket addition' of pe for any value m at any h from M. (It is appreciated that to describe the time dilation due to additional pe at each h from M would require further calculation)
In this manner all electron transitions of any atom should remain in proportion to each other as to energy increases at each h from M, and therefore different clocks types will all give the same result.
Taking this alternative view of electron transitions being excited by increase in energy back to the blackbody, Planck measured his increase in energy as joules per second, where the second is an invariant. If one calculates the increase in energy held relative to the increase in frequency, as if an increase in frequency shortened the length of a second, then the quantum nature is negated.
Then by applying the remit of +energy=shorter seconds to the energy, or strength of a gfield, where the acceleration of gravity is due to time dilation, this competes the picture for the cyclic model that I propose.
...And before you say to me why bother, relativity explains thing perfectly well, agreed, however physicists write books and programs are broadcast, especially since the discovery that expansion appears to be accelerating, that perhaps a new approach is needed to get a deeper understanding.
For better or worse, here is an alternative.

What causes a tick rate of a clock?

There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spinspin interactions between electrons and nuclei.
And yet you do not understand the absorption process. Your model determines your understanding. What causes your vibration?
I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.
Models are generally useless and often dangerously misleading. You have to describe what actually happens.

Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations.
Vibration is a motion its just not clear what is causing motion.
I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.
Rotation and spin is definitely possible and the cause of vibration. A spin and rotation is what I believe to be the motion of the electron moving forward.
Your understanding is only limited by your model.

There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spinspin interactions between electrons and nuclei.
And yet you do not understand the absorption process. Your model determines your understanding. What causes your vibration?
I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.
Models are generally useless and often dangerously misleading. You have to describe what actually happens.
Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations.
Vibration is a motion its just not clear what is causing motion.
I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.
Rotation and spin is definitely possible and the cause of vibration. A spin and rotation is what I believe to be the motion of the electron moving forward.
Your understanding is only limited by your model.
I have moved your conversation that doesn't pertain to my model to GoC's thread here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69882.msg510389#msg510389
...where you may discuss GoC's model without clogging up my thread.

This is what is being discussed on this thread...
Take an elastic band and make 10 marks on it, 1 cm apart. Now stretch the band. There are still 10 marks between your fingers.
If two biological events are separated by 10 clock ticks on earth, they will be separated by 10 clock ticks at any other gravitational potential, as measured by the local clock. But an observer on earth might count 9 or 11 ticks of his own clock between observations of the events.
No contradiction, as long as you accept that time can be dilated or compressed by gravitational potential. If the observation were due to a gravitational effect on the clock rather than time, we would expect to see different results for different types of clock, but we don't.
If a clock only 'appears' to tick faster or slower and all clock's tick at the same rate, because 'how can a clock tick both faster and slower', as you said, and as I quoted you, then the concept of sequential time being stretched or compressed is null and void.
It is only by stating that the clock's are 'actually' ticking faster or slower, whereby the observation of the clock above running faster is measured as being faster because the lower clock is running slower and that slower time is what the observer with the lower clock is using to measure the higher clock. And if one goes higher still, that when measuring the middle clock, one is measuring both the middle clock, and the lower clock by the faster rate of time of the higher still clock, where the higher still clock will observe that the middle clock is running slower, and the lower clock is running slower still, because the higher clock is measuring both of these lower clock's by the rate of the higher still clock's time.
Then we are looking at the dilation and contraction of time dilation and your elastic analogy has physical meaning.
To state the clock's as only 'appearing' to run at differing rates one implies that all clock's run at same rate, in which case your elastic analogy has no physical meaning.
My model views the situation as being that the clock's 'actually' run at differing rates in the gravity potential and seeks to attach the potential energy increases at elevation to the increase in frequency between electron transitions.
This would require a pe=mgh calculation where value of pe/m insures a 'blanket addition' of pe for any value m at any h from M. (It is appreciated that to describe the time dilation due to additional pe at each h from M would require further calculation)
In this manner all electron transitions of any atom should remain in proportion to each other as to energy increases at each h from M, and therefore different clocks types will all give the same result.
Taking this alternative view of electron transitions being excited by increase in energy back to the blackbody, Planck measured his increase in energy as joules per second, where the second is an invariant. If one calculates the increase in energy held relative to the increase in frequency, as if an increase in frequency shortened the length of a second, then the quantum nature is negated.
Then by applying the remit of +energy=shorter seconds to the energy, or strength of a gfield, where the acceleration of gravity is due to time dilation, this competes the picture for the cyclic model that I propose.
...And before you say to me why bother, relativity explains thing perfectly well, agreed, however physicists write books and programs are broadcast, especially since the discovery that expansion appears to be accelerating, that perhaps a new approach is needed to get a deeper understanding.
For better or worse, here is an alternative.