0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.

You say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)

Returning to the clock scenario, we can see that, (dependant upon its location in a gravity field and the observer's), a stationary clock will, with an observed decrease in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a slower rate. And with an observed increase in a clock's frequency, and therefore it's energy, run at a faster rate.With relativistic mass technically being the sum total of energies, if we add motion to the previously stationary atomic clock, the KE must be 'added' and the frequency and energy of the clock must increase, (to be in keeping with how you are saying that KE increases energy and frequency for light)...and if the clocks energy and frequency increase,

it will be running at a faster rate, and this is NOT what is observed of a clock in motion relative to a stationary clock!!!

So there is something a bit wrong with the logic of procedure, far as I've been able to make out...

Quote from: timey on Today at 18:45:23Ah, but there is another difference you have not mentioned, and it is the only difference that I am concerned with here...The clock's energy and frequency 'decrease' in the stronger gravity field.The photon's energy and frequency 'increase' in the stronger gravity field.You say that the closer to the earth the clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy.So by definition you are saying that a decrease in the energy and frequency of the clock is a decrease in the rate of time.Don't put words into my mouth. T said that the clock rate as perceived by an observer at a lower gravitational potential is higher than that of his local clock. Blue shift.

You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

QuoteYou say that the KE of the light is the reason that the blue-shifting light is increasing in energy... (So gravity potential isn't affecting the photon's relativistic mass?)Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the frequency of a photon as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential than the source, is increased compared with a photon generated by the same process locally. Blueshift

typical stellar photon started its journey a very long way away. As it approaches Earth, it is losing gravitational potential and thus gaining kinetic energy which appears to the earth observer as a blue shift.

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:Quote from: alancalverd on 31/05/2016 18:00:53You gave a clock, say at lunar orbit altitude and it ticks at the gravitational potential of that orbit, so we observe it to run fast according to the gravitational shift of that potential. Then you move the clock to, say, a geostationary orbit so it now appears to tick at a slightly slower rate because its gravitational potential is lower than for a lunar orbit.

Yes you did say that the closer to the earth a clock is, the less gravity potential is added for a decrease in energy...here:

You cannot have 1 rule for mass and another rule for light,

Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether: "The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[7]

The resulting logic therefore indicating that an increase in a gravitational field increases the rate of time, which can then be viewed as the rate of time causing an acceleration of gravity,

Well - it would seem to me that the gravitational shift equation, in order to be in keeping with quantum, needs to have some kind of representation of Planck's constant h.