0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.

You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)

Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate. And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase,

it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!

So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...

Quote from: timey on Today at 18:45:23Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.Don't put words into my mouth. T said that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift.

You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

QuoteYou say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the frequency of a photon as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential than the source, is increased compared with a photon generated by the same process locally. Blueshift

typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:Quote from: alancalverd on 31/05/2016 18:00:53You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:

You cannot have 1 rule for mass and another rule for light,

Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether: "The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[7]

The resulting logic therefore indicating that an increase in a gravitational field increases the rate of time, which can then be viewed as the rate of time causing an acceleration of gravity,

Well - it would seem to me that the gravitational shift equation, in order to be in keeping with quantum, needs to have some kind of representation of Planck's constant h.

Calculating particle mass in relation to longer or shorter seconds for a continuum in quantum may well be a more complicated method than the already established method of probability.

If seconds do get longer out in space,

where peoples of all creed and religion were tolerant of each other in the face of market commerce, and as a result of such tolerance and trade - the advancement of knowledge, science, and technology blossomed.

Do you recognise the possibility of the logic I propose?

rate of time

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

Quote from: timey on 03/06/2016 20:05:11 rate of timethis is an awkward phrase, since "rate" means "number of occurences per unit time" so the rate of time, if it has any meaning, is always 1, by definition. What we know is that a stationary clock at a higher gravitational potential runs faster than one at a lower potential, so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency. Same phenomenon, same effect. Nothing funky or illogical.

he light can't travel any faster, so it's KE remains constant.

It's energy is observed to increase in the lower gravity potential!

A standard second is 1.

I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?

If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...

Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second.

Quote from: timey on 03/06/2016 23:28:12I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential? And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...? not if m_{0} = 0, obviously: E = hf, and it's all kinetic.QuoteIf we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock... KE of what? theclock. Ok, so the notional deBroglie frequency of the clock's mass increases, but that isn't what we observe. And no, it isn't observed to experience anything - there is no difference between uniform motion and rest (Newton!) but an observer with a relative speed to the clock will observe its SR time dilation. Nothing to do with kinetic energy. QuoteEdit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second. I understand what defines a standard second. There is no other second. It is defined universally. It just happens that the second on a high or moving clock looks shorter or longer to an observer on the ground. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth: it just happens to be where most of the observers are, for the time being. The orbiting astronaut sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (SR is reciprocal) and the GPS satellite also sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (the gravitational field is not symmetrical).

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

Ok - if gravity potential does not affect the relativistic mass of the photon then the only means that kinetic energy can be calculated to increase for an 'incoming' photon, is if KE is calculated accumulatively. We are saying that light has no mass but because it is moving at c we can attribute it KE, which we can then state as relativistic mass, and then because we have added mass, this then accumulates more KE? I don't get it!

And if KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE, I don't get why a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock does not have an increase KE relative to the stationary clock and I don't get this notion why the clock does not experience its own time dilation when astronauts who are with the clock in motion are reputed to 'actually' experience time dilation effects...

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

What's the problem?

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...

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

Quote from: timey on 04/06/2016 14:25:06Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.