[timey]

If you are trying to dimensionally analyse my proposal, I must have missed your explanation of why it is dimensionally incorrect.

I'm afraid your analogies of apples and oranges, and putting the words of alcoholic water, and non alcoholic whisky in my mouth (for what reason?) have completely passed me by...

The acceleration of gravity is a dimension.  A mathematical process via the time distance speed formula in relation to the constancy of the speed of light is employed.  The result is a dimension of this proposed inverted time dilation.

The mathematical process to arrive at this dimension of inverted time dilation is not a dimension.  I am not suggesting that the time distance speed formula in relation to the constant speed of light is a dimension, anymore than using square root 1 as a mathematical process suggests that square root 1 is a dimension.

[timey]

OK - to be hopefully be more 'usual' in the mathematical process employed:

1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters

1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds.

Add meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity to 299 792 458 meters.
Divide by speed of light.
Subtract 3.3 nano seconds from result.

Is the problematic term gone?

[alancalverd]

The acceleration of gravity is a dimension. 

No it isn't. It is a number with two dimensions, L²T^-2.

[Ethos_]

Quote from Wiki:

"Checking equations that involve dimensions."

"The factor-label method can also be used on any mathematical equation to check whether or not the dimensional units on the left hand side of the equation are the same as the dimensional units on the right hand side of the equation. Having the same units on both sides of an equation does not guarantee that the equation is correct."


Following are my personal comments:

Having different units on both sides guarantees that the equation is in error.
As a general rule, seeking a balanced equation should result in a ratio on one side of the equation equal to the other side. This results in a ratio equal to a ratio relationship. Not one meter, kilo, or second but the number (1).

If this is not sufficient an explanation, please look up Dimensional analysis at Wiki.
You may also want to look up the term: Dimensionless numbers.

[alancalverd]

1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters

No, it is a meaningless jumble of dimensions L²T^-1

The rest is unworthy poppycock. I can't describe it as numerology because you haven't referred to the Great Pyramid or Fibonacci, but I'm sure you will, eventually.

Please ensure brain is in motion before engaging typing finger.

[timey]

On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.  It's that I've 'never' done any at-all, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education - you are being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying), especially in relation to the fact that it is because I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP!  If I knew them I wouldn't need any.

It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualification-less person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!

Dimensional analysis of above calculation:

L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c (edit: minus 3.3ish nano seconds)

Am I on the right track?

L1=T1
L2=T2

[Ethos_]

On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.  It's that I've 'never' done any at-all, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education - not only are you being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying) especially in relation to the fact that it is because of I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP!  If I knew them I wouldn't need any.

It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualification-less person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!

Dimensional analysis of above calculation:

L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c

Am I on the right track?

L1 = T1
L2=T2

Alan is only trying to show you where your math is wrong Timey. If you are weak in math, it might be advisable for you quit using it to describe your hypothesis. If you continue to use math that turns out to be in error, please don't be upset when it's pointed out to you. You've asked for help and help is what alan and many others are attempting to give you.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

L is length in units of metres. T is time in units of seconds. M is mass in units of kilograms. Speed is therefore in units of L/T or metres per second. If we were to multiply a speed by time we would then have (L*T)/T. If we have the same unit in the numerator as in the denominator they cancel. So the 2 Ts cancel and we are left with a length. So if we have 2 metres per second and multiply by 2 seconds we end up with a length of 4 metres. Sit down with a cuppa and read this through a few times.

[timey]

Well - yes Jeff.  I've read the dimensional analysis link that Alan provided last summer.

But how do you apply it to this proposed inverted time?  It presents problems when dealing with a T that is variable in relation to M and L.  I didn't need a cup of tea, nor even more than 30 seconds pass to work this out.

I have given L in meters (in height)
I have given M in terms of g
I have given T in terms of inverted time dilation in fractions of a standard second (for M of, or less than g of earth)

As far as the 'principle' of dimensional analysis goes, in that L1 is equal to T1 under any circumstance of M, (albeit inclusive of the given limitation beyond which an altered calculation is required) the equation or mathematical process has proportional dimensions.

[alancalverd]

On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.

There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.

[timey]

There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.

Alan - when have I said that anyone here doesn't understand anything?

I have read books by physicists who say that GR and quantum do not fit together.  That the quest of physics is to unify the theories.  I have studied the situation for 8 years and come up with an idea that if mathematically viable would do the job.
Just because I am unable to actually facilitate the maths and am asking for help, does not mean I am unintelligent.  It is a sign of intelligence to know where ones own limits lie.
I have been studying how maths are put together, but am not going to go on to get work as a physicist or a mathematician, therefore it's not a case of helping me cheat my 'pilots license' as I am not studying for the sake of qualifications.
My idea either holds merit or it doesn't, end of my physics story.

Your stating that maths that I come up with, in the absence of any proper mathematician stepping in and following description in words, are complete poppycock, doesn't lend itself to being explanatory and educational...

I'm not quite sure what it lends itself to - public ridicule for forum ratings perhaps?

What I was expecting was: 'Ah ok - well not that I agree with your theory in the slightest, but I can see what you are trying to do and this is where you are going wrong.  Try doing it this way, see?  ... And what was it you were saying about matching the extra fraction of second to the extra length in wavelength when light changes frequency in redshift?"

Who was it who said that it is the mark of an educated man to be able to intellectually partake in ideas that he does not agree with?

[alancalverd]

Nothing to do with maths, but a lot to do with physics.

Physics: apple falls downwards

Mathematics:v = u + at; a = GM/r² if m<<M

same thing, expressed as a generalisation.

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

The basis of dimensions is that mass, length and time are like apples, chickens and toilet rolls: if you put 1 apple, 2 chickens and 3 toilet rolls in your basket, you must find 1 apple, 2 chickens and 3 toilet rolls on your checkout bill - you can't substitute wholly independent variables for one another. 

And it's nothing to do with qualifications, just common courtesy. There's no point in shouting in English if you want to order a meal in China, but a quiet word in Chnese will open all sorts of doors. So please, respect the most basic language of physics: dimensions are not interchangeable.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by re-reading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.

[timey]

Every time someone tries to actually help you you brush them off and tell them that they don't understand what you are saying. That is because what you are saying isn't expressed in clear terms. When you have been shown how to better express your ideas you ignore that too. Do you think it is satisying to people trying to help to not only have it thrown back in their face but then to be accused of some type of public ridicule to boost their forum reputation. How long do you think they would remain members of this forum if that was what they were doing? I studied mathematics properly 26 years ago. So when I decided to get into it again a few years back I started by buying an algebra book. I read it through and attempted the problems. Until I had finished that I was not confident in my ability to proceed with restarting my interest in physics. When I first studied mathematics I got distinctions. It didn't matter a jot because I had forgotten most of it in the intervening years. I had to jog my memory by re-reading all the subjects again. Members of the forum will correct me when I am wrong. I won't argue with them. I will go back and check what I have done or read up on the subject I have misconceived. I am afraid their is no shortcut. No matter how many books you read that are non technical in nature. Geometry is a good place to start but it is only a starting point. Do you understand polar and spherical coordinates for instance. If not then your geometry is lacking. There is an awful lot to learn and it is not possible to take it all in. Most of all put your listening ears on.

Jeff - thanks for your post.  Please know that it is not my intention to cause offence to anyone.  I think the problem lies in the fact that when someone such as Alan says that I must first learn the physics before attempting the maths, I am confused as to which physics he means...

This being because I have read 3 books dedicated to the physics of special and general relativity, Einstein's own papers, and at least 8 of the other physics books I've read have adequately covered general relativity, including 'The trouble with physics' which concentrated on where everything in physics 'doesn't' fit together.

No-one here within the remit if forum posts is going to explain these physics to me better than they have been explained already.  There are people here, including you, who have helped me greatly in understanding the maths of these current theories, and Alan is top of the list among them.

So, considering what I have said, it becomes rather frustrating when someone is saying that I have to understand that general relativity bends space time, and that distances are not as the fly crows but follow a curvature of bent fabric of space, in order for me to attempt mathematics that hold distance as the crow flies, and attributes this bend in the fabric of space, this extra distance of curvature, 'to' this proposed inverted time dilation.

Alan, 'I think' is saying that I can't interchange dimensions in the maths.  My model is interchanging the dimensions of distance due to curvature, to inverted time dilation.
It is also interchanging the concept of an accelerating expansion with a much slower but accelerating contraction.

The maths of the theory are naturally going to reflect this...

Not being trained in maths does not negate me from having a potentially relevant idea, and where people have instructed me in maths, I have had my listening ears on, clearly...as before starting posting here last year, I'd never done any.

[timey]

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

Both. It is not an either or choice.

[timey]

If you don't understand dimensions, you won't understand where your physics is wrong, or when it makes sense. Get the physics right and the maths will follow.

In light of what I have said to Jeff above, with all due respect, which physics do I have to get right, current or my proposed alternative?

Both. It is not an either or choice.

(Lol!... I checked the forum yesterday evening and due to the miniature screen of my phone, mistakenly thought that it was Alan who had answered the question, as it was Alan who it was directed towards.  I composed this reply last night, and realised my mistake when I came back to forum to post it...
But as Alan hasn't responded to the question, perhaps the reply I composed last night stands anyway, so I have split it into 2...)

Jeff - In the fact that no-one ever stops learning about anything, you are right on both counts.

Alan - Although you have previously told me that a cyclic universe is interesting to you, you are requiring that I prove the possibility to you mathematically for your interest to be retained, whereas I am requiring that someone recognise the possibility and apply their skills in maths to the purpose of proving, or disproving the possibility.

Therefore I feel that we have come to a bit of an impasse Alan.  I do not think I need to repeat myself in that I have the utmost respect for you...but oops it would seem I have done so anyway. .  I don't always agree with your views, but you definitely have my full admiration for wit and panache!

All the very best to you...

[alancalverd]

Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.

So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles? 

...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...

I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf

no. The energy of the hyperfine ground state transition is not dependent on the mass of the cesium atom, as I explained about a month ago.

[timey]

Ok, and again I realise this may be where I am going wrong - but if the energy of the hyperfine ground state transition is not dependent on the mass of the cesium atom - then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

Edit:  yes I realise that relativistic mass does not enter the gravitational shift equations, but if you are calculating h in relation to the equation, then energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,

[Colin2B]

.......energy and mass are held as the same thing in relativity,

The exact translation is numerically equal, in other words related mathematicaly by a formula. That doesn't make them the same thing, although some pseudoscientists would like you to think they are.
Electricity can be converted to heat and vice versa, that does not make them the same thing. They are related by a formula.