[timey (OP)]

As I understand it, the Doppler shift measurement is a plus for a redshift and a minus for a blueshift.  A plus will constitute a reduced frequency and a minus will constitute an increased frequency.

A frequency is ascertained via a time integral, ie: waves per 'second'.  The time integral used is the 'standard second' that also contains within its structure, the constants of the speed of light, and the distance of 299 792 458 meters.

By dividing the constants of the mathematical structure of the means of ascertaining frequency as though it were the time, distance, velocity formula, using the constant of 299 792 458 meters as d, the speed of light c standing in for t, and the measure of the frequency, (being the only variable), instead of v:

d/fc=t~ whereby t~ will be a longer second than our standard second.

And: Edit: because a standard second is a measurement of the frequency of cycles of a caesium atom when placed at ground level in earth's gravitational field, a gravitational field of greater strength than earth's gravitational field at ground level would have to be calculated as:

df/c=~t (?, or something like that anyway) whereby ~t is a shorter second...

However, for a correct interpretation of this 'inverted time dilation' length of second, the energy changes within the gravitational gradient need to be given frequencies associated with the energy of the field itself, and it is the frequency of the gravitational field that would constitute f in the maths I've illustrated, as light of 'any' frequency will gravitationally shift in a gravitational gradient and thus cannot be used.

Now Alan, I may have fluffed the maths here, but if you could tuck your 'physicist' character back in your top pocket and get into 'theoretical physicist' mode, perhaps you can appreciate what I'm attempting here - and even help?

[alancalverd]

As I understand it, the Doppler shift measurement is a plus for a redshift and a minus for a blueshift.  A plus will constitute a reduced frequency and a minus will constitute an increased frequency.

A frequency is ascertained via a time integral,I have explained previously that this is not true ie: waves per 'second'.  The time integral used is the 'standard second' that also contains within its structure, the constants of the speed of light,no it doesn't and the distance of 299 792 458 meters.not true either

Not relevant to the PR experiment. Gravitational frequency shift is measured as the amount of Doppler shift you need to apply in  order to compensate for it. Neither the emitter nor the detector cares or knows about the standard second, the speed of light, or anything else, except whether the mossbauer photon is emitted and absorbed.  If the emitter is above the detector, they have to be moving towards each other for absorption, and if the emitter is below the detector, they have to move apart. No numbers are required to demonstrate G shift, just "up" and "down".

By dividing the constants of the mathematical structure of the means of ascertaining frequency as though it were the time, distance, velocity formula, using the constant of 299 792 458 meters as d, the speed of light c standing in for t, and the measure of the frequency, (being the only variable), instead of v:

d/fc=t~ whereby t~ will be a longer second than our standard second.

a moment's dimensional analysis will show you that this is nonsense.

The standard second is the elapsed time of 9,192,631,770 cycles of the electromagnetic radiation associated with the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium. It is a fundamental unit, i.e. not dependent on any other measurement or assumption about the speed of light, the length of a meter, or anything else. In order to measure any time, all you need to do, in principle, is to count the cycles of your cesium source and divide by 9,192,631,770. If you want to measure the frequency of something else, you count the number of cycles it makes during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium radiation. Not theoretical physics, but a neat bit of practical electronics.   

Now here's the fun bit. If we put a cesium clock in orbit, and count the number of cycles it transmits in one second, we find it is running faster than one on the ground. That is gravitational blue shift. But as far as the astronaut is concerned, his clock is running perfectly and yours is running slow - gravitational red shift. How does he know his clock is OK? Because everything else on his spaceship is keeping perfect time too. More to the point, he could claim that as his clock runs at the same speed as all  other clocks in a gravity-free area, i.e. practically the entire universe, his is right and yours is wrong, and clocks just misbehave in the vicinity of large masses. Indeed if your "ground" clock was on Mars, it would run faster, and on Jupiter, slower, but always slower than the gravity-free clock. . But as the clock is blissflly unaware of its surroundings, we must conclude that time runs slower in a gravitational field.

[timey (OP)]

Thank you Alan.  If you think for one minute that the 30 or so theoretical physics books that I have read over the last 8 years haven't covered all of that then you haven't read many theoretical physics books.

All I care about and comment on within the Pound Rebka is the plus and minus values of the Doppler shift in relation to the static distance and the 'causation' of a gravitational shift of energy in particles of zero rest mass.

Yes, you 'could' say that the caesium atom blue shifts when moving into a weaker gravitational field, and that every particle with mass will do so.

A photon does the opposite, it red-shifts into a weaker gravitational field.

I am looking at the possibility that because the photon has no mass that this reduction in frequency in a weaker gravitational field can be indicative of an additional phenomenon of an inverted time dilation, whereby the extra length in wavelength of shifted light is 'inverted time dilation' related, ie: it takes the light a longer 'time' to cover same distance, and the extra length of wavelength is then not an extra length in actual distance.

The standard second is what we use to measure everything in physics.  It is used to measure the speed of light, therefore the structure of any mathematics that measures anything in relation to a standard second, (edit: ie: per second), is, by default, also holding the speed of light and the distance of 299 792 458 meters constant, and if the initial equation is gravity or light related, (as both travel at speed of light) this sub-structure can be manipulated mathematically in relation to the result of the initial equation, surely?

[alancalverd]

Yes, you 'could' say that the caesium atom blue shifts when moving into a weaker gravitational field, and that every particle with mass will do so.

but I didn't, because it isn't true and is wholly irrelevant. The cesium atom doesn't move.

A photon does the opposite, it red-shifts into a weaker gravitational field.

And there's the source of your confusion.

Time slows down in a stronger gravitational field. Therefore a photon travelling towards a stronger field will appear to the observer to be blue-shifted, and a photon travelling towards a weaker field will appear to an observer in the weaker field to be red-shfted. 

The standard second is what we use to measure everything in physics.  It is used to measure the speed of light

both irrelvant and untrue! Back to Wikipedia:

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its precise value is 299792458 metres per second (approximately 3.00×108 m/s), since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.

If you think for one minute that the 30 or so theoretical physics books that I have read over the last 8 years haven't covered all of that then you haven't read many theoretical physics books.

But why haven't you learned the most basic aspects of relativity from them? 

I am looking at the possibility that because the photon has no mass that this reduction in frequency in a weaker gravitational field can be indicative of an additional phenomenon of an inverted time dilation, whereby the extra length in wavelength of shifted light is 'inverted time dilation' related, ie: it takes the light a longer 'time' to cover same distance, and the extra length of wavelength is then not an extra length in actual distance.

Why invoke an additional phenomenon, which you have not defined and has no experimental or theoretical basis, to explain something that is  adequately explained without it? Occam would have a fit!

[timey (OP)]

Yes, you 'could' say that the caesium atom blue shifts when moving into a weaker gravitational field, and that every particle with mass will do so.

but I didn't, because it isn't true and is wholly irrelevant. The cesium atom doesn't move.

We have moved a caesium atom into a decreasing gravitational field, and it's frequency increases.  No of course it's not a blueshift, but in that the frequency increases, blue shifted light also increases in frequency, but under the 'almost' opposite circumstances.

A photon does the opposite, it red-shifts into a weaker gravitational field.

And there's the source of your confusion.[/qoute]

I have no confusion.

Time slows down in a stronger gravitational field. Therefore a photon travelling towards a stronger field will appear to the observer to be blue-shifted, and a photon travelling towards a weaker field will appear to an observer in the weaker field to be red-shfted.

Why is your light clock's frequency's direction of increase and decrease in a gravitational field the opposite of your caesium clocks direction of frequency when exposed to changes in the gravitational field?

The standard second is what we use to measure everything in physics.  It is used to measure the speed of light

both irrelvant and untrue! Back to Wikipedia:

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its precise value is 299792458 metres per second (approximately 3.00×108 m/s), since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.

What can I say?  I repeat, anything that measures per second, holds a second constant.  I can see the possibility of using other constants related to a second, ie: the speed of light, and via the speed of light, 299 792 458 meters of distance, as a substructure in relation to frequency, joules, ev, when calculating gravity and light.  I'm sorry you can't see it.

If you think for one minute that the 30 or so theoretical physics books that I have read over the last 8 years haven't covered all of that then you haven't read many theoretical physics books.

But why haven't you learned the most basic aspects of relativity from them?

But I have, the fact is I'm proposing something different.

I am looking at the possibility that because the photon has no mass that this reduction in frequency in a weaker gravitational field can be indicative of an additional phenomenon of an inverted time dilation, whereby the extra length in wavelength of shifted light is 'inverted time dilation' related, ie: it takes the light a longer 'time' to cover same distance, and the extra length of wavelength is then not an extra length in actual distance.

Why invoke an additional phenomenon, which you have not defined and has no experimental or theoretical basis, to explain something that is  adequately explained without it? Occam would have a fit!
[/quote]

What is adequately explained?

I am merely touching upon an aspect of the Pound Rebka to illuminate the possibility of an inverted time dilation that would mean that redshift is not indicative of expansion of this universe, to result in a theory of everything via a cyclic universe.

[jeffreyH]

If the universe isn't expanding then the only feasible explanation would be that the force of gravity is diminishing over time. But that defeats the object since less gravity could not stop expansion from accelerating. This is the trap you have fallen into by trying to rewrite established theory.

[timey (OP)]

You are looking at gravity from the point of view of 'everything' expanding outwards from a point.

I am looking at gravity from the point of view that everything is 'slowly' pulling together from a uniform 'sea' of particles, until all that is left is black holes that eventually merge into each other until there is only one left with everything of the universe in it.

This singular black hole, with no equivalent gravitational force acting upon it, ejects the matter of the entire universe (Big Bang) via its accretion disks (inflation period) until it's extinction, leaving a uniform sea of particles that start clumping together.  Distances of space between clumps of mass are created by particles vacating their former positions as mass is pulled together, but the actual spatial dimensions of the universe itself are slowly contracting as mass further clumps.

Viewing the mechanics of the universe under this alternative remit, the alternative perspective should indeed make a significant difference to your outlook on how mass, gravity, and time dilation may interact?

[jeffreyH]

If you read up on what Beckenstein, Hawking and Susskind are saying then there is an upper limit on the amount of entropy in any region of spacetime. Since there is more spacetime in an expanding universe then entropy may be increasing, static or decreasing depending upon the rate of acceleration of the expansion. Also don't forget the important point that acceleration can be positive, zero or negative.

[timey (OP)]

I'm pretty certain that you are referring to the mass temperature conundrum concerning black holes: ie: contrary to usual physics the black holes temperature decreases inversely proportional to an increase in mass.  And the upper mass limit of a black hole being connected to Hawking's radiation and the jetting from accretion disks.  The concept of an upper mass limit for a black hole also finds its argument in that the temperature will drop too low, and that time runs slow for a black hole.  In fact within the GR equations for the space time of a black hole the time aspect of the space time matrix must be swapped with a space aspect to make the maths work.

My theory of inverted time means that the rate of time runs really fast for a black hole.  That the temperature of a black hole is in fact proportional to an increase in mass, but our observation of a black holes rate of time is time frame dependant and proportional to the rate of time we are viewing the black hole from.
Therefore the arguments for an upper  mass limit for black holes is negated.

Sure, black holes will jet and radiate particles, new stars will form from clouds of particles strew across space by black holes, but eventually the balance will tip, the black holes will become dominant, and a new cycle of the universe will be precipitated.

Entropy always increases in my model because when black holes 'scatter' particles into the vastly slower time in space, 'virtual particles' have 'the time' to become real particles and the 'size' of the universe increases.  The conservation of energy law is also upheld by these concepts.

[timey (OP)]

The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.  -- A. Einstein

[alancalverd]

I am looking at gravity from the point of view that everything is 'slowly' pulling together from a uniform 'sea' of particles, until all that is left is black holes that eventually merge into each other until there is only one left with everything of the universe in it.

This singular black hole, with no equivalent gravitational force acting upon it, ejects the matter of the entire universe (Big Bang) via its accretion disks (inflation period) until it's extinction, leaving a uniform sea of particles that start clumping together.  Distances of space between clumps of mass are created by particles vacating their former positions as mass is pulled together, but the actual spatial dimensions of the universe itself are slowly contracting as mass further clumps.

Almost entirely sensible, and much as proposed by Hawking in "blackholes and baby universes" and discussed back in the 1960s between myself and Ed Kibblewhite - and he's still looking for evidence. But I don't think it requires any variation in our understanding of red shift. 

[timey (OP)]

With regards to the redshift:

Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.

All I am requiring you to consider with inverted time dilation is that as lights wavelength gets longer or shorter respectively in a decreasing or increasing gravitational field, a second gets proportionally longer or shorter relative to a standard second, in 'almost' the same way that when a caesium atoms frequency increases or decreases respectively in a decreasing or increasing gravitational field, a second gets shorter or longer.

If light is travelling at the speed of light but is travelling through slower rates of time, ie: longer seconds relative to the 'standard' second, the distance it 'actually' travelled will be shorter than when calculated via the speed of light as per meters per 'standard' second...

In reverse one can view light experiencing blueshift due to the acceleration of gravity in an increasing gravitational field as being due to the rate of this inverted time dilation increasing.

This concept means that the idea of redshifted light being source velocity related is merely shifted to the perspective of this extra velocity being related to the light travelling through slower rates of time.  Distances between masses then are not as great as we think and consequently the mass size of distant light sources are then greater than we think.  The fact that we see light sources further red shifting is then due to a weakening of the gravitational field between source and observation, which may well be the distance between the 2 points expanding as clumps of mass transit their gravitational trajectories, but could also be just simply due to mass further clumping.  In either case the velocity of this expansion between distances under the remit of Inverted Time Theory is likely to be entirely minimal and therefore does not reflect Hubble's conjecture of an expanding universe and the subsequent current Big Bang theory, but is more reflective of Einstein's General Relativity, minus his cosmological constant lambda and untainted by Hubble's influence.  The De Broglie hypothesis of wavelength proportionality to energy and frequency then being viewed as time related not distance related.

This gives us the model of a slowly contracting universe that will, as GR predicts, result in a mess of black holes.  It's just that they will all be slowly pulling together, and not far flung apart as is currently thought.

[timey (OP)]

...also

Hawking's book 'Black Holes and Baby Universes' proposes the idea that black holes may be nodes from which other universes grow.

This notion is not comparable to my model of a cyclic universe.

The black holes of my model of the universe are energy filled, Big Bang plasma hot, and currently in our epoch are microscopic representations of the monster black holes that will form in the future and merge into a singular black hole to end this cycle of the universe and begin the next.

There is no other universes in my model.  Other universes are also unlikely outside of my model, though not completely out of the question, but IF there were other universes, they definitely would not be connected to this one in any shape or form at-all.

My model does not include any unobserved entities to explain its mechanics and can be tested via the extremely simple and cheap experiment that I have previously outlined.

[timey (OP)]

Hubble's Law:

Hubble noticed that there was a proportionality between the magnitude of a redshift and the distance of source.  The further away the light source, the greater the Doppler shift of the light.

By turning the velocity of the magnitude of this Doppler shift of light into distance, the conclusion was that the further away a light source is, the faster it is travelling away from us.

I am proposing that if you go one stage further and having already translated the velocity of this Doppler shift into a distance, then simply translate the distance calculated into a time: d/v=t.

Then turn that time calculation back into a distance using the speed of light ct=d.

This distance is by how much the light source is closer than we think.

Then transform that distance calculation back into a time: dc=t

That amount of time is the calculation of by how much the rate of time has slowed in the gravity field of space that exists between light source and observation, relative to a standard second, and using Hubble's standard candle as a standard reference for light.

This is an entirely logical proposition, that not only solves many outstanding physics conundrums, but also results in a closed system, slowly contracting, cyclic universe, that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.

[timey (OP)]

I was just beginning to wonder where you were, and here you are!

Yup, here I am...

So - Alan, since we have established that I'm not referring to black holes having nodes and growing other universes, and now that I've reduced the (attempted) maths of my concept of inverted time dilation to altering Hubble's law via the distance, speed, time formula... Can you now understand why I am approaching the phenomenon of redshifted light from a different perspective?  And can the maths work?

[timey (OP)]

And here we can see that I am not the only mind in the world considering that the universe is not expanding:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Quote:
""Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.""

Unquote:

[guest39538]

And here we can see that I am not the only mind in the world considering that the universe is not expanding:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Quote:
""Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.""

Unquote:

They do not actually observe/see a redshift of anything, their computers and readouts tell them there is a redshift, quite hilarious how ''they'' keep making things up. My question is who are ''they''.