0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Quote from: timey on 09/06/2016 00:32:03 Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.But the primary evidence for an expanding universe is the Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies, not a gravitational shift. A significant grav red shift would imply that there is more stuff outside the universe than inside it, which contradicts the definition of "universe"!QuoteSo... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent... Yes, it is a real effect. A clock in a higher gravitational potential will run faster. It isn't "observer dependent" (all observers at the same gravitational potential will see the same thing) but you have to ask "faster than what?" and at that point you have introduced a hypothetical observer - i.e. the other clock. Not "experienced by" but "emitted by". And the observer knows nothing about the energy of the primary transition, only the frequency he sees.

Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.

So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...

Relativity is working on the basis of the universe expanding outwards.

[All one needs to do to measure it, is to state the caesium second as a standard and the speed of light, and the measure of a meter, as constants. .

Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...

If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable. By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity. (g)

Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.

Quote from: timey on 09/06/2016 16:03:17Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding... No. E = mc^2 every day in my work, whether the universe is expanding, contracting, or going down the celestial toilet. When I use a linear accelerator, the relativistic corrections for electron mass are very helpful, and I'd be completely lost if the gravitational potential correction wasn't applied to my GPS system. None of this has anything to do with the approach or retreat of distant galaxies. QuoteIf you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable. By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity. (g) Still not sure what "the rate of time" means, but it is certainly true that red shift is linear with g. QuoteThen you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location. No. There is no such experience. All you can say is that the other guy's clock is running faster or slower. Since there are obvious potential wells all over the place - i.e. wherever there is an object with nonzero mass - we define a hypothetical zero in "deep space", infinitely far from any object, where the frequency of a clock, as observed from anywhere else, would be maximal.

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

Now focus my attention!

Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.T≡Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1 - v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 1-1/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out. This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 16/06/2016 20:11:36Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.T≡Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1 - v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 1-1/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out. This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.Ok - bloody brilliant Jeff, thanks...I've moved your comment to this New Theories thread in order that I may comment more freely...A few observations, please correct me if I'm wrong:On the basis that gamma has no given physical causality in relativity, but that the mathematical process of gamma is a proportionally correct and working hypothesis, there is the opportunity to 'change' the given explanation of the physicality of relativistic mass as long as the mathematical proportionality of the given alternate physical process remains consistent.

I can see that a calculation that divides will have some proportionality to an identical calculation that multiplies.

I can see that v^2/c^2 will have some proportionality to v/cIn the Doppler shift/redshift equation we can see that v=gh/c , where h is height. And that 1 and square root of 1 are applied in relation to v/c.Am I correct in saying that vc=f? f being frequency.

Now I am going to suggest an alternative: that relativistic mass is redundant and that energy is time related. The more energy a system, or field has, the faster its rate of time.

(Note: we are going to be ignoring KE for the moment.)Looking at gh/c=v:If we take g, which is an 'acceleration', per meter, per second (standard), and we subject the value of g to the speed, distance, time formula to transpose the 'acceleration' per standard second into a time aspect, ie: 9.807 meters per second squared.

I'm not sure 'how' to do this... The per second 'squared' is throwing me...but if g (as per earth's g) is accelerating by 9.807 meters every second, (or indeed decelerating by 9.806 meters per second in the opposing direction) and a second is defined by the distance of 299 792 458 meters as per speed of light... then it should be possible to simply subtract (or add) the gh=v velocity to the the speed of light and then divide by the speed of light to define a longer or shorter second relative to a standard second.

This would negate the necessity for relativistic mass, as the speed of light may remain constant, whereby it is the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that is the variable, and 'I think' this notion remains within the proportionality of the original mathematical process, but gives us a physical causality for observation.(Note: light being massless is not gravitationally affected by potential energy, or KE, only the 'time' acceleration/deceleration of g. KE for mass would be subtracted for a slowing of time)The benefits of this notion lead to the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe.

In that case all you are doing is replaceing gamma by an equivalent which gives the same result as gamma. This has to equal gamma so you achieve nothing.

However, the consequence of this notion of inverted time dilation is that the rate of time runs faster for the black hole and stops at the end of the inverse square law at 0.

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