0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.

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, yes!!!You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.Good on ya!

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: 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, yes!!!You have now arrived at 'the' observation that I've been attempting to illuminate.Good on ya!The only problem being that nobody has ever observed it.

You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 16/08/2016 08:44:06You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.

...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities. Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

EQuote from: timey on 16/08/2016 12:40:03Quote from: jeffreyH on 16/08/2016 08:44:06You can have a situation where a photon with a long wavelength is moving into a lower gravitational potential and a short wavelength photon is moving into a higher gravitational potential. We can find two points in the potential where each wavelength will have the value that the other started with. This shows just how silly your hypothesis is. Wavelength is simply a function of position and potential. The photons wavelength can start with just about any value at any magnitude of the potential. We can have a gamma ray and a radio wave generated at exactly the same position in the potential.And why do you say that this shows how silly my idea is?Light waves can be emitted at a spectrum of energies and associated frequencies, but these energies and frequencies can only be shifted in energy and frequency in the gravity potential by degrees, and these degrees of shifting energy and frequency occur in a ladder format, where E=fh.To be clear, I am not suggesting that the energy and frequency of a light waves wavelength is indicative of the value of the proposed inverted time dilation...I am suggesting that it is the degrees of change that are indicative of this value.So then we agree that it is only the gravitational potential gradient that matters. Which obeys postulates of the general theory of relativity. You have discredited your own hypothesis. Although you will likely fail entirely to understand how.Quote...and, please be aware that your observation and complaint of silliness also applies in practice to Hubble's red shift velocities. Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.

As I have already stated. I haven't misunderstood. Your own words refute your position.

The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.

Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

Quote from: timey on 16/08/2016 00:50:14The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.Wrong, wrong, wrong, as it has been from the start.Photons emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear blue-shifted when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness the Pound-Rebka experiment.Clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear to run fast when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness GPS clocks.If you can't accept these common observations, there's no point discussing the hypothesis that explains them. QuoteHubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements. The astronomical standard candle is a presumed standard of luminosity, not wavelength.

You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.

Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.

Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 02:32:04Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.

Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?

Who "you"? I'm not confused or attempting to confuse anyone else. Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer.QuoteAre you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light? It is so.

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...

Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/08/2016 13:19:40You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.Actually I have been using slightly wonky terminology on purpose, because when I use the correct terminology I cannot seem to break through the pre-conditioned GR mentality of the reader.

Yes a gravity field will extend to a lesser gravity field, and to a greater gravity field. What of it?Light's wavelength gets shorter in the greater gravity field. 'contracting'...Light's wavelength gets longer in the lesser gravity field. 'dilating'... What's the problem?As to you wasting your time, that would depend on what you are trying to accomplish... It would seem to me that you are grasping for justification as to your own prejudice against the notion of someone from my lacking in formal education having the temerity to challenge the status quo, rather than actually trying to understand the idea that I'm proposing.

QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?

Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?

Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 20:42:46Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/08/2016 22:00:44Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 20:42:46Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?Ah, kinetic energy!0.5mv^2...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency....so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.

Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 22:29:25Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/08/2016 22:00:44Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 20:42:46Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?Ah, kinetic energy!0.5mv^2...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency....so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.For a start the photon can't have rest mass. You also certainly need to study the use of language as applicable to physics. That about sums it up.

So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?

QuoteSo Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?No. All we can see is that the frequency of a clock, photon, or anything else, appears higher when observed from a lower gravitational potential. All we know is that the same relativistic equation predicts both. Therefore the minimum assumption is that the same mechanism determines all observations. If you want to postulate that different mechanisms underlie the frequency shift for different sources, you will be left with the remarkable conclusion that an infinite number of independent equations, describing the different effects of a nonexistent* gravitational field on every cyclic event in the universe, all produce the same result. The probablity of this being true is very close to zero. *remember that the field in deep space is zero. Most of the discussion so far, and indeed most of the experimental results, deal with an observer in the rather rare phenomenon of a planetary gravitational field.

Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.

A clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame.

Who said the clock's frequency changes? All we know is that it appears to vary depending on the position of the observer in the gravitational field, same as the apparent frequency of the photon. The only "absolute" is the hypothetical clock in deep space where the gravitational potential is zero. We can them make observations from the surface of different planets with different local potentials, and see the effect. But the clock frequency can't have changed because we haven't moved it. QuoteWhere light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes. True. And how do we observe the clock? QuoteA clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame. What other? I'm standing at the bottom of the Harvard tower, looking at a mossbauer source and a cesium clock at the top of the tower. In both cases I'm measuring the time beween the peaks of an electrical field, either that of a single photon or the microwave standard. Both appear blue shifted, by the same fraction.

NIST say that they have OBSERVED change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.

QuoteNIST say that they have OBSERVED change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.It is, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have OBSERVED it.The observed frequency shift of all sources is dependent on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. We all know that. Why do you keep repeating it and then asserting that it doesn't happen the same way for all sources?

The apparent difference in potential between any two distinct points is entirely dependent upon the position of the observer. So that one observer at your feet will record different results to another at your head. Do you understand the definition of observer?

The known fact is that the frequency of a received signal or an observed clock (i.e. a received signal from a clock, however it is received) depends on the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer. The frequency shift is independent of the type of source, and is accurately predicted by the gravitational red shift equation which is the same for all sources.Any suggestion that this is due to wholly different mechanisms that remarkably produce the same result, is pure speculation unsupported by evidence and frankly very improbable.For the sake of timey's sanity, let's look at the "two clocks and a computer" scenario. The computer has to be somewhere, so let's put it on the ground. Now it receives signals from a clock on the moon and one on the ground, and to nobody's surprise the one on the moon is going faster. Now move the computer upstairs. The higher clock is still going faster because whilst we have reduced the potential difference to the moon, we have increased the potential difference to the ground. As we haven't moved either of the clocks, we conclude that they are both ticking at their standard rate but the observed rate depends on the position of the observer. Just to prove the point, put a third clock in the computer. Then amazingly it shows that any clock at a higher altitude is running faster, and any clock at a lower altitude is running slower than the reference clock in the computer, and the sum of the differences is constant. At least that's what NIST found, and who am I to disbelieve them? Now for the crunch. Use a Mossbauer detector. The source at higher altitude is blue shifted with respect to the detector, and the source at lower altitude is red shifted. And the sum of the differences is constant. At least that's what Pound & Rebka found, and who am I to disbelieve them?

QuoteAre you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light? It is so.

I'm proposing that .... things of mass are subject to additional gravity potential energy, where light minus the relativistic mass notion doesn't,

To calculate the proposal, there needs to be a separation of the value associated with gravitational acceleration, from the value that is gravitational attraction.

So the light that we see blue shifted at bottom of tower matches the frequency of the clock seen at top of tower?

QuoteI'm proposing that .... things of mass are subject to additional gravity potential energy, where light minus the relativistic mass notion doesn't, In other words, scraping away the unscientific bullshit, different mechanisms for different sources: adding an improbable, undefined and unsubstantiated complication for no reason. QuoteTo calculate the proposal, there needs to be a separation of the value associated with gravitational acceleration, from the value that is gravitational attraction. And there you have put your finger on Professor Higgs' sensitive area*. Everyone knows that inertial mass always equals gravitational mass, but nobody knows why. QuoteSo the light that we see blue shifted at bottom of tower matches the frequency of the clock seen at top of tower? The fractional frequency shift f(observed)/f(emitted) is in all cases given by the same equation, which I can't be arsed to copy out again. * I was going to call it a G spot, but it might be a g spot.

No one knows why inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass, inverted time dilation would give physical cause.

QuoteNo one knows why inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass, inverted time dilation would give physical cause. Then please explain what you mean by it. What is inverted?

You are proposing multiple time dimensions. Your momentum equations are going to be interesting. I can't wait to see how you cope with that.

adding kinetic energy to the energy of mass will increase the frequency of a clock for a faster rate of time, not slower

Quote from: jeffreyH on 18/08/2016 19:04:59You are proposing multiple time dimensions. Your momentum equations are going to be interesting. I can't wait to see how you cope with that.No just 3 dimensions of time, echoing the fact of 3 geometrical dimensions of space and creating symmetry.The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation insures that light does not exceed the speed of light.The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to SR motion related time dilation insures that mass can never exceed the speed of light.GR gravitation time dilation in relation to inverted gravitational time dilation (which I'm saying is already incorporated in the calculation of GR gravitational time dilation via use of g, or G) in relation to SR motion related time dilation will provide the 'proper time' for an observers observation of his clock.But yes - kinetic energy will be rendered as a negative factor under these circumstances. Light will not be subject to it under the 'no relativistic mass' notion, but adding kinetic energy to the energy of mass will increase the frequency of a clock for a faster rate of time, not slower. Therefore a calculation that subtracts, or proportionally subtracts KE is required.How to calculate that?Yup - as I keep on saying, that's why I'm here on the forum, asking for the input of a qualified and confidant mathematician!