0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?

So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.

You now have the floor.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 07/08/2016 10:52:01You now have the floor. OKFirst you say you have calculated my model. That I should trust you, that you are a professional. I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about! I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ...

Quote from: timey on 07/08/2016 12:40:25Quote from: jeffreyH on 07/08/2016 10:52:01You now have the floor. OKFirst you say you have calculated my model. That I should trust you, that you are a professional. I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about! I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ...Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.

Quote from: timey on 05/08/2016 18:50:04What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted. Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself. There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Ethos - I understand that you have shown interest in this theory,

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.

So now, here is my next question:If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

Quote from: alancalverd on 07/08/2016 19:04:28Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.Ok. Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct. But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength. Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...K, well... Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates. The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates. Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable. As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships. This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality. However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)

Quote from: timey on 07/08/2016 17:05:59 So now, here is my next question:If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent? Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals. An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy. If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct. For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/08/2016 11:52:34Quote from: timey on 07/08/2016 17:05:59 So now, here is my next question:If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent? Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals. An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy. If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct. For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction. A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout. But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process. The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.This will give an observation of redshifts.And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength. This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.

Quote from: timey on 08/08/2016 12:52:44Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/08/2016 11:52:34Quote from: timey on 07/08/2016 17:05:59 So now, here is my next question:If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent? Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals. An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy. If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct. For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction. A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout. But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process. The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.This will give an observation of redshifts.And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength. This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason. Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted. I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field. For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.

So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.

There is no mass involved in any of the processes mentioned, except the CO2 laser.

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).

To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.

The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon. The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave. Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.

Quote from: timey on 11/08/2016 13:24:47But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?). yes it does QuoteTo cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism. No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a two-stage gamma emission with no mass change. QuoteThe cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon. The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave. Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass. The resonance is a spin-spin interaction whose energy is not mass-dependentBut the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency? The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can yours do better?

I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.

But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.

QuoteI am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency. which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.gluons are not gravitonsQuoteBut to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g. Hmm. The frequency shift equation is fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)} where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies. No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

What on earth is mass size? M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.

Potential energy is mgh.I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since E = hf.

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations. Quote...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?Neither. The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

Quote from: alancalverd on 13/08/2016 09:48:16Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations. Quote...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location? Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?Neither. The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the observed frequency of a photon or a clock. Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.

But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship

You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy."What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.QuoteBut... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.

Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference QuoteScientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevationsAn atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations. Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?

So just to be absolutely clear you are saying that as gravitational potential increases time slows down. So that's why my GPS never gets me to the right place! And why all satellite phones run slow mo.

Quote from: jerrygg38 on 13/08/2016 12:24:59Quote from: alancalverd on 13/08/2016 09:48:16Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations. Quote... Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower. Jerry - I think you need to read this:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster. Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons. These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?

Quote from: alancalverd on 13/08/2016 09:48:16Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations. Quote... Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower. Jerry - I think you need to read this:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations. Quote... Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.

...

Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster. Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons. These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?

Quote from: jerrygg38 on 15/08/2016 11:21:27 Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster. Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons. These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.Good on ya!

Quote from: timey on 15/08/2016 11:41:00Quote from: jerrygg38 on 15/08/2016 11:21:27 Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster. Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons. These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.Good on ya!If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 15/08/2016 14:09:53Quote from: timey on 15/08/2016 11:41:00Quote from: jerrygg38 on 15/08/2016 11:21:27 Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster. Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons. These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.Good on ya!If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!I am making an alteration to current theory...Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself. ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.Can 'you' grasp that?

Quote from: timey on 15/08/2016 14:39:25Quote from: jeffreyH on 15/08/2016 14:09:53Quote from: timey on 15/08/2016 11:41:00Quote from: jerrygg38 on 15/08/2016 11:21:27 Thanks for the info. I read it and copied it to my computer. It is easy to understand the slowing of the clock with motion. Now the data specifies that the higher up we go, the faster the clock. I always need a picture in my mind to understand things. So the higher up we go, the less gravitational pressure on the clock and it will run faster. Then the other problem is that it appears that the lower down we are and the higher the gravitational field, the gravitational pressure will produce higher energy photons. These would be opposite effects. slower clock and higher energy photons. What do you think?Aha, Jerry... Yes, yes, yesy!!!You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.Good on ya!If you carry an object in your hand to the top of a tower and let it go gravity will accelerate it toward the ground. This increases the kinetic energy of the object via the acceleration. A photon heading from space toward the ground cannot be accelerated since that would increase its speed above c. That is prohibited. So the only way a photon can gain kinetic energy is via a blue shift in its wavelength. Why is this so difficult to grasp?Actually it's really easy to grasp, and was indeed grasped by myself yonks ago!I am making an alteration to current theory...Light blue shifting towards a gravity field cannot exceed the speed of light, we observe that its wavelength contracts...I am simply altering the concept and saying: forget about relativistic mass concept, and that it is the time periods that the light is travelling through that are contracting, not the wavelength itself. ie: 299 792 458 metres per ***variable seconds***.Can 'you' grasp that?Therefore you are accelerating the photon but YOU don't grasp THAT!