0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.

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

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

Quote from: alancalverd on 26/06/2016 12:22:45If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

Quote from: timey on 26/06/2016 14:30:49Quote from: alancalverd on 26/06/2016 12:22:45If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?Both. It is not an either or choice.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/05/2016 11:02:11Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies. So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles? ...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.

.......energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,

then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

.....Can anyone explain, please?

Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.

Quote from: timey on 27/06/2016 13:53:25 then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?

Quote from: timey on 27/06/2016 12:57:17Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?

Quote from: timey on 27/06/2016 23:46:07Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"? If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime.

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

Study inertia.

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

Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)

If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?

Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.

Quote from: timey on 28/06/2016 11:31:27Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say) PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished. QuoteIf light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related? Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!Quote Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field. That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface.

Alan, please excuse my terminology.

"The gravitational potential (V) is the gravitational potential energy (U) per unit mass: U=mv, where m is the mass of the object.

"It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge"

It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.

It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge

the mass of the caesium atom (and the masses of its particle constituents) 'must' also be affected by gravity potential.

The caesium atom is affected by a higher gravity potential increasing its energy, and therefore the frequency of all of its particle constituents for an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.Light is affected by the higher gravity potential decreasing its energy and therefore it's frequency. This does not gel with the De Broglie wavelength concepts.

due to the difference in the gravity field gradient

a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field no matter redshifted or blue shifted...

Clock is on ground - it has a frequency. (electron cloud energy transition)Light is travelling away from Earth from ground - it has a frequency.Clock is raised to 1 meter away from Earth - it's frequency changes from what it was at ground level. This change is an 'increase' in frequency.

The light when at position 1 meter away from Earth - it's frequency has changed from what it was at ground level. This change is a 'decrease' in frequency.

I just do not get what about this you are not comprehending?

What I want to look at is why the 'invariant mass' of the clocks mechanism atom (and its particle constituents) are affected differently than the 'relativistic mass' of light by 'gravity potential energy'...

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

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

A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential. It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field. Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blue-shifted towards a body of mass.