An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 24819 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #550 on: 15/08/2016 18:17:04 »
Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #551 on: 15/08/2016 19:28:05 »
Au contraire. I understand exactly the nature of your misconception.

In that you still seem to view my idea as a misconception,  I seriously doubt that you have understood it.  You have also professed several times previously to understanding the idea, whereas it has turned out that you clearly have not.

If you are using GR as a bible then any concept that is not GR is misconceived.

...and in order to state my idea as a misconception, rather than as an alternative idea, you really would need to produce some mathematics that prove it unviable, which you haven't.

You are therefore out of line to describe my alternate idea as a misconception.  Whether you have understood it or not, you may indeed state yourself as being uninterested by the alternate idea quite legitimately, but this would be contradictory to the actions of you're posting...

So basically Jeff - I conclude that without justifying your claim that the alternate idea is misconceived, you are indeed being out of line.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #552 on: 15/08/2016 22:55:47 »
  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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #553 on: 16/08/2016 00:50:14 »
  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.
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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #554 on: 16/08/2016 08:44:06 »
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.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #555 on: 16/08/2016 12:40:03 »
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.

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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #556 on: 16/08/2016 12:56:21 »
E
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.

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.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #557 on: 16/08/2016 13:32:52 »
E
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.

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.

That is a totally pointless post that only gives indication of your own pomposity and nothing else.

In that you are a moderator on
this site, I insist that you now explain yourself... (you wouldn't see Evan making a post like that!)
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #558 on: 16/08/2016 18:16:10 »
The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #559 on: 16/08/2016 18:51:11 »
The explanation is that your hypothesis runs counter to both theory and observation. Which you yourself have just made clear.

Clearly you have completely misunderstood what I'm saying then, as per usual.

Unless you tell me why you think my idea runs counter to both current theory and observation, as would be polite, I will not be able to correct you in where it is that you have misunderstood...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #560 on: 16/08/2016 22:08:05 »
As I have already stated. I haven't misunderstood. Your own words refute your position.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #561 on: 16/08/2016 23:40:04 »
As I have already stated. I haven't misunderstood. Your own words refute your position.

None of the words I have said have refuted my idea, therefore you must have misunderstood the implications of what I have said.

You have clearly and very drastically misunderstood the mechanics of this ides before.  It is highly logical that you have done so again.

What's the problem in having a grown up conversation where you just state what is on your mind, instead of all this enigmatic crap?

If you think its making you seem clever, think again.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #562 on: 17/08/2016 00:21:07 »

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.

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. 

Quote
Hubble 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.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2016 00:30:12 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #563 on: 17/08/2016 02:32:04 »

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.

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. 

Quote
Hubble 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.

Yes, that is pretty much what I said.

Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field.  Given that we could reflect the light in the opposite direction without losing energy - turn that light arriving, at its blue shifted frequency, at ground level, around and point it out of the gravity field, its wavelength will dilate exactly oppositely to how it contracted inbound, red shift being the opposite of blue shift.

If you stand at top of tower and light is traveling inbound towards earth from a position higher than you, and past you, it will be blue shifting towards you, past your position and will be further blue shifted away from your position at top of tower to bottom of tower.  The difference in gravity potential between higher than top of tower, top of tower, and bottom of tower is distinguished by a change in frequency in the light.  As the light gets closer to the ground its frequency increases.

Yes, I concur that the frequency that is observed is due to the difference in gravity potential.  If the top of tower records the frequency of the light as it passes, and bottom of tower records the frequency when the light arrives at bottom of tower, the top of tower frequency will be lesser than the bottom of tower frequency.

*

A clocks frequency of energy transitions at the top of the tower will be greater than the frequency of an identical clocks energy transitions at bottom of tower.  If we place clocks at metre intervals from top of the tower to bottom of tower and connect these clocks to a computer screen read out, we will see that each clock is running at a lesser frequency of energy transitions than the clock above.

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.

Edit:  Hubble calculated velocities that light sources are receding away from us at via Doppler shifts associated with the magnitude of red shifts in relation to standard candle distance measurements.  Stephan's quintet is a major problem for Hubble's law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

The luminosity is supposed to be proportional to distance and recessional velocity, but as telescopes have afforded us to observe galaxies that are that much further away, the luminosities of these further observations don't tally with the distances.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #564 on: 17/08/2016 13:19:40 »
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.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #565 on: 17/08/2016 14:14:59 »
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.
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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #566 on: 17/08/2016 14:21:42 »
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.

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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #567 on: 17/08/2016 14:32:13 »
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.

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.

So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #568 on: 17/08/2016 16:35:02 »
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.

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.

OK, the mossbauer source at the top of tower is increased in energy, (potential energy), relative to the mossbauer source at bottom of tower.  Each mossbauer source at every metre location from top of tower to bottom of tower will have a decreased energy (potential energy) relative to the mossbauer source above it.

A mossbauer source that has a higher energy will emit a higher energy photon. (as is the case with the cesium atom clock...I realise you have a problem with this notion, but bear with me) That higher energy emitted photon will be increased, (blue shifted), in energy from its emitting mossbauer sources position of elevation to bottom of tower, and the observation from bottom of tower will be of this light having arrived in our eye, having been blue shifted as to the gravity field 'strength' of 'our' observing reference frame. 
We do not observe the light at the frequency it 'was' in the 'other' reference frame, only as it 'is now' in our own reference frame.

So what calculation is describing which observation?
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #569 on: 17/08/2016 16:40:30 »
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.


Quote
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?
It is so.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2016 17:09:43 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #570 on: 17/08/2016 17:15:49 »
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.


Quote
Are 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 not sure where the confused is coming into it where you are concerned.  It would seem that is Jeff's department.

Yes  - agreed!
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...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #571 on: 17/08/2016 17:32:34 »
My apologies Alan. I replied to the wrong post.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #572 on: 17/08/2016 17:43:55 »
Quote
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...
.... 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?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #573 on: 17/08/2016 18:08:05 »
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.
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.

So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

Quote
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.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #574 on: 17/08/2016 20:42:46 »
Quote
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...
.... 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?
« Last Edit: 17/08/2016 20:48:13 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #575 on: 17/08/2016 22:00:44 »
Quote
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...
.... 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?

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #576 on: 17/08/2016 22:11:17 »
Let's consider a uniform gravitational field with a photon moving perpendicular to the direction of the field. What happens to the wavelength if the potential is constant along the path of the photon? Will the potential always be constant? Will the gravitational field deviate the photon away from a straight line path?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #577 on: 17/08/2016 22:29:25 »
Quote
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...
.... 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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #578 on: 17/08/2016 22:40:36 »
Quote
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...
.... 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.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #579 on: 17/08/2016 22:50:16 »
Quote
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...
.... 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.

When I say light has no mass, I mean no rest mass.  When I say giving light mass. I mean calculating relativistic mass for light via kinetic energy.

Perhaps if you were not so convinced that you are conversing with an imbecile, the obvious would be obvious to you.  Obviously the obvious is obvious in the context.

Now grow up!!!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #580 on: 17/08/2016 23:05:34 »
Quote
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?

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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #581 on: 17/08/2016 23:35:49 »
Quote
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?

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.

You make a point in the calculation of frequency via gravity potential for mass, but again bear with me.  It all ties together when we get there, I promise... (as a concept that is, can't promise it's mathematically viable, but I think it has a good probability of being so, hence the song and dance).

Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.  Therefore our observation of the light is occurring due to the difference of 'our' gravity potential in relation to the light source emitters gravity potential, and proportional to the difference in gravity potential between both positions.

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

Can we agree on this?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #582 on: 17/08/2016 23:52:41 »
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. 

Quote
Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.
True. And how do we observe the clock?

Quote
A 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #583 on: 18/08/2016 00:32:01 »
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. 

Quote
Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.
True. And how do we observe the clock?

Quote
A 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.

NASA is studying the aging process of observers in relation to their time dilated clocks in space.  As far as I am aware they are considering this to be a real and physical effect.

*

We observe light when it reaches our eye.  A clocks frequency of energy exchanges does not travel and meet our eye.  It is the light that is illuminating the clock that meets our eye, and what this light illuminates is that the clock 1 metre above is running a read out that is showing that the clock above is running fractionally faster.  You will observe that the elevated clock is running faster than the clock below, no matter if you are above both the clocks, below both the clocks, or with either of the clocks.  The clocks are quite simply running at different rates.

The same cannot be said of the observation of light.  The observation of light is dependant on the gravity potential of the observer.  The observation of the clock is dependant on the gravity potential of the reference frame of the observed clock.

*

If you are measuring the observed time periods of oscillations of a blue shifted light wave via a standard second, in considering the proposed proposal that more energy means a faster rate of time, the fact that a blue shift exactly matches the fraction of a microwave shift is really bloody interesting in relation to what I'm saying about Planck's h constant.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #584 on: 18/08/2016 08:53:22 »
Quote
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.

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?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #585 on: 18/08/2016 11:56:39 »
Quote
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.

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?

Why where you asking in post 582:
"Who said the clocks frequency changes?"
...when in post 584, after I've told in post 583 that it is NIST who have said so and they state it a real and physical effect, you say:
" It is, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have OBSERVED it."

*

I am discussing the phenomenon of red shifted light in relation to clocks in elevation because 'emitted' lights frequency decreases travelling through the same coordinate position of gravity potential in the gravity field that a clocks frequency is observed to increase at, and this ***fact of current and established physics*** is paramount to the interests of my continued explanation of the proposed inverted time dilation of my cyclic model of the universe.

I too would very much care to move on from this currently stagnated situation of the conversation so:

Please Alan -

Emitted light red shifted from bottom of tower to top of tower will physically possess a decreased frequency as seen at top of tower relative to the frequency it had at bottom of tower.  True or false?

A clock placed at top of tower is observed to physically possess an increased frequency relative to a clock placed at bottom of tower.  True or false?

If you have answered both these question as true, then you will have agreed, as I have been asking you to for some considerable time now, that lights frequency decreases in the weaker gravity field, while a clocks frequency increases in the weaker gravity field.

Then we can move on to discussing the phenomenon in context.  Starting with the observation that reading another reference frame of differing gravity potentials clock is an observation that is made of another reference frame, and that any observation of light travelling from a reference frame of differing gravity potential is an observation of ones own reference frame, because you cannot observe light until it reaches your eye.

It is my intention to completely pick apart observation and current theory to their component mechanisms.  So perhaps you can appreciate that simply covering the observations under a statement saying:
"The observed frequency shift of all sources is dependent on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer."
...doesn't really get into the kind of detail that I'm intending.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #586 on: 18/08/2016 12:52:02 »
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?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #587 on: 18/08/2016 13:23:52 »
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?
Do you understand that computers can be linked to observation mechanisms rigged at each point in the gravity potential to observe observations and that all these observations are then observed on a screen by the observer?

I concur that changes in frequency of light are dependant on the position of the observer, or observing mechanism in the gravity potential, but observations of clocks in differing gravity potentials are not dependant on the position of the observer.  A clock running slow on the ground will run the same rate of slow, no matter what gravity potential you observe it from.  The only situation that a clock on the ground would apear to run faster is if you compare it to a clock observed in a lesser gravity potential than ground level.  But the clock on the ground would not have changed from its rate or frequency.  It would be because the clock is in the lower gravity potential than the ground level clock that this lower gravity potential clock will be running slower by comparison.
« Last Edit: 18/08/2016 13:40:33 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #588 on: 18/08/2016 13:45:52 »
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?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #589 on: 18/08/2016 13:59:24 »
One point that Alan made should be repeated and understood. That is "the sum of the differences is constant". You have symmetries in nature. You should read up on Emmy Noether.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #590 on: 18/08/2016 14:39:11 »
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?
I am not disputing the 'correctness in relation to observation of the current shift equations.  Nor am I proposing that the shift mechanism is different for light in relation to mass. (as current theory would seem to suggest in the calculation of relativistic mass)

Quite the contrary.  I am proposing that both light and mass are being subjected to an inverted time dilation in open space that is currently being calculated under the remit of g or G as an acceleration of gravity, but because I'm proposing that the phenomenon of how the rate of time runs faster or slower is energy related, that things of mass are subject to additional gravity potential energy, where light minus the relativistic mass notion doesn't,  and that mass will experience an increase in frequency due to gravity potential energy that will increase the frequency of its energy transitions, where light is just subject to the energy of the strength of the gravity field, and this energy of the gravity field is causing the proposed inverted time dilation.

To calculate the proposal, there needs to be a separation of the value associated with gravitational acceleration, from the value that is gravitational attraction.  This concept alters the dimensional balance of current maths interpretation of gravity.

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

So the light that we see blue shifted at bottom of tower matches the frequency of the clock seen at top of tower?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #591 on: 18/08/2016 16:15:26 »
Quote
I'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.

Quote
To 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.

Quote
So 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.
« Last Edit: 18/08/2016 16:19:57 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #592 on: 18/08/2016 16:42:37 »
Quote
I'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.

Quote
To 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.

Quote
So 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.

Erm, that would actually be scrapping the ever so complicated relativistic mass notion, all of the complex geometry related GR field equations, and the Lorentz transformations in favour of calculating the acceleration of gravity as inverted time dilation  related, and finding a lesser constant for gravitational attraction, quite possibly the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant

(chuckle) in that the terminology remains in context, perhaps there is another dimension involved in a g or G spot...

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

...the end game being the description of the cyclic model I'm proposing of course.  This being the underlying reason for the discussion.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #593 on: 18/08/2016 16:48:56 »
Quote
No 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?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #594 on: 18/08/2016 17:24:27 »
Quote
No 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?
No existing dimension is inverted.

The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation is an additional dimension of time for the open space gravity field that runs counter directional to GR gravitational time dilation in the gravitational field...

GR gravitational time dilation being a phenomenon which my model states (contrary to current physics, which states this phenomenon of time dilation as being the rate of time of the location in space) as calculating what time is doing for mass in the gravitational potential due to mass being subject to an addition of gravitational potential energy...

...because my model states that 'how' the rate of the phenomenon of time runs is energy related.

My model gives the phenomenon of time 3 dimensions and states that it is the 3 dimensions of time that are warped, 2 by gravity and 1 by motion , and not the 3 dimensions of geometrical space being warped by gravity and motion.  The 3 dimensions of geometrical space are stated as un-warped and distances and lengths as constant.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #595 on: 18/08/2016 19:04:59 »
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.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #596 on: 18/08/2016 20:01:15 »
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.

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!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #597 on: 18/08/2016 23:51:15 »
Quote
adding kinetic energy to the energy of mass will increase the frequency of a clock for a faster rate of time, not slower
Fascinating, but there's no kinetic energy involved in the "clock at altitude" phenomenon. All the clocks are stationary. Calculation of kinetic energy is a doddle, and in this case it is zero.

In fact it's worse than that. If you do add kinetic energy to a clock, it slows down (Haefele-Keating, special relativity experiment).

I really don't know why I'm wasting my life here, but it's remarkably addictive!
« Last Edit: 18/08/2016 23:53:48 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #598 on: 19/08/2016 00:21:20 »
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.

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!

So then we have G(x1, x2, x3, t1, t2, t3). So how do we proceed?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1360
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #599 on: 19/08/2016 01:14:14 »
Alan - I cant seem to reply quoting your last post, its saying I've used a blacklisted word when I havent...not sure if this will post either.  I can only get to quick reply function via recent posts board.

Anyway its just as well I'm laughing so hard from reading your gold bar post, or this one might well make me cry.

I've had to tell Jeff off lately as well for negating the obvious.

Clearly the quoted text is not stated as connected to a clock that is not in motion relative to the observer...

You are cross wiring my description of a time matrix that would augment the spacetime matrix, with the concept of a clock in elevation that is stationary with respect to the observer.

But while we are on the subject perhaps you can clarify for me how motion and kinetic energy are related mathematically?

And in reply to your edit - yes, I covered the fact of SR slowing clocks down in post 577 and in post 596, where I make comment as to the remit of my model suggesting that kinetic energy would have to be subtracted either entirely or proportionally.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...