0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

An education in physics is an absolute prerequisite. Including the required mathematics. Smolin could have said the next Nobel prize in physics will go to a goose. That doesn't mean it will happen. It may however make him a few extra quid on his book sales from the curious minded.

Quote from: timey on 08/07/2016 05:52:49A 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. You really need to sort this out in your head. An observer stationed at the clock or travelling with the photon sees no change.The frequency of a clock is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact. The frequency of a photon is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact. Same phenomenon, same explanation. Please don't waste your life trying to model or explain something that manifestly doesn't happen. Enjoy the sunshine!

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.

If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field. Fact?

If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field. Fact?

lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing wordsQuote from: timey on 08/07/2016 17:52:22If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field. Fact? As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.Quote If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field. Fact? As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.Same phenomenon, same result. Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source. Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate? And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root" - just press the √ key!

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity

... Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.

In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.

In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.

Quote from: timey on 09/07/2016 08:30:09Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity You can't. No observer = no observation. Quote... Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field. shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.QuoteIn a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field. This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same asQuoteIn a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field. as seen by an observer in the stronger field.Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocksweak field strong field report(above ground) (ground level)photon source ----------------> observer blue shift compared with ground level detector clock -------------------> observer faster compared with ground level clockNo difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation

It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.

My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.

Quote from: timey on 09/07/2016 10:21:48When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevationfaster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons. QuoteIt is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such. I think most of us have believed this since about 1920. QuoteMy theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon. So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence?

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,

Quote from: timey on 09/07/2016 11:34:49No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field, NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME, as all your references have stated.Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential. If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest. Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocksweak field strong field observation(above ground) (ground level)photon source ----------------> observer blue shift compared with ground level detector clock -------------------> observer faster compared with ground level clockNo difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 10:55:29One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

Quote from: timey on 09/07/2016 12:11:31Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation! Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!

Quote from: timey on 09/07/2016 12:11:31Quote from: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 10:55:29One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.This is in direct contradiction to observation. A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.

Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

Quote from: timey on 09/07/2016 21:29:10 Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks. There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.

Note:light = lower frequency .......... as seen from lower gravity potentialNote:Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)Spot the difference?

Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field. The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.

QuoteNote:light = lower frequency .......... as seen from lower gravity potentialNote:Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)Spot the difference?Here's the diference: the first statement is untrue. As you stated, correctly at the outset:QuoteBlue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field. The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass....so if you are standing on the surface of the earth (i.e. "as seen from lower gravity potential") you see the blue shift of a photon originating at the top of the tower. And the clock at the top of the tower appears to be faster - for the same reason.Always happy to consider a new idea, but not if it is derived from an obvious untruth.

The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower. Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.................Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.

Quote from: timey on 10/07/2016 11:37:18The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower. Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.................Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential. Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency. When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

Quote from: timey on 10/07/2016 13:34:57As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency. When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.(blue shift)

Quote from: timey on 10/07/2016 17:25:32A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.(blue shift)and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?

Quotehow can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Quotehow can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated. Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster. Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.QuoteAre you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground? No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.

Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less. Please note and understand every word.

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.

The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

Quote from: timey on 11/07/2016 23:52:41The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer. Quote The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer. Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally. As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Quote"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."Every word matters!If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver. Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.

As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.

what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...

Quote from: alancalverd on 12/07/2016 10:06:16Quote"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.The discussion of relative position is always a struggle to grasp. The transmitter is composed of physical things such as crystals. The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field. If you put it in water, as the pressure increases the crystal will oscillate slower. The transmitter higher up from the bottom of the water will have a higher frequency. thus for the transmitter in the tower it will have a higher frequency due to a lower gravitational pressure. It is also moving faster as the Earth orbits as compared to the ground. This will tend to slow the clock. So we get a faster speed due to less gravitational pressure and a slower speed due to the faster motion of the clock. You guys agree that measurements have shown the net result is the tower clock is faster with a higher energy level. You can attribute this to variations in space and time or just simple variations in the gravitational field.

Quote"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.

The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.

Quotewhat I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.

Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.

To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.

the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.

in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.

And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.

decreased energy changes of blue shifted

Quote To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it. It certainly helps.Quotethe shift of frequency in light is a quantum process. it is not.Quotein that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by. It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.QuoteAnd that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field. Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.Quotedecreased energy changes of blue shifted oxymoronMost of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time. I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.

There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.

If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.