[timey]

Well yes Colin.  Thanks!  This being my point in saying that there exists the possibility that an alternative formula, given that it remains proportional, can explain (edit: sorry not explain - 'describe')  the same observation for an alternative reason.

[alancalverd]

then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?

[Colin2B]

.....Can anyone explain, please?

No it puzzled me as well, which is why I answered what I could, but that's been misinterpreted.

[alancalverd]

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.

No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.

[timey]

then why do we see that the energy transitions of frequency and wavelength in light 'are' dependent on the relativistic mass of the photon?

I regret that, having no more than a PhD and 50 years' professional experience in photon physics, I have no idea what this means. But it's never too late to learn. Can anyone explain, please?

Sorry Alan - I fail to explain myself properly.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c5

We see in the link above that hc/pc=wavelength.

Then it is explained that this is particularly appropriate for comparison with the photon where pc=E.

p is (edit: usually) calculated as mv=p, ...so the wavelength of light is calculated via a mass related aspect that presumably from the description is attributed to KE and 'therefore relativistic mass?' ...as the photon has no rest mass.

http://www.csun.edu/~jte35633/worksheets/Chemistry/5-2PlancksEq.pdf

Here we can see that E=hv where v is frequency.  We can see that frequency in relation to energy is causing changes in wavelength.

So wavelength is calculated from an energy,mass aspect, and energy is calculated from an energy constant.  The photon has no mass.

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?

[timey]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/blahol.html

Here we can see that it is explained, as per general relativity, that it is gravity that causes light not to escape from a black hole.  That light is being shifted due to gravity potential*.  This can only be due to relativistic mass.
(*although I fail to see the logic of a redshift to zero via gravity potential, as we already know that light blue shifts towards the greater gravity field)

[timey]

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.

No mathematical skills are required beyond the functions on your calculator (the square root is handy but a guess is often adequate to prove the point). And you don't even need those until you have sorted out the physics.

Well this is where I part company with your reasoning.  Which physics do I need to sort out?

It is quite clear to me that Einstein was completely on the right track.  He got to the point where, in trying to maintain a static universe, he added (before retracting it) a cosmological constant* when the logic clearly pointed to a contracting universe.  Regrettably he was unduly influenced by Hubble.  Had he had the benefit of all of our modern day tech, and the information that the consequence of Hubble's redshift law now means the universe is accelerating in its expansion rather than de-celerating, I think he would have returned to the drawing board in alarm and looked further into his musings on Newton's interpretation of open space being almost 'ether' like in nature. (ie: that open space is comprised of something)
(*not forgetting that the magnitude of the current calculation of the cosmological constant in relation to the standard model is reported to be the worst prediction ever in physics)

In adding inverted time dilation to GR, all I have done to change Einstein's relativity is:
State that the curved geometry of space (that light follows) is inverted time related, not bent fabric of space.  (this renders relativistic mass as un-necessary).
Add to the equivalence principle that light travelling at the constant speed of light cannot exceed or de-ceed the rate of local time. ie: that light travels at 299 792 458 meters per second in all reference frames.  (ie: if you point a light vector into inline motion, that the lights rate of time slows down.)
State that all distance and lengths, in contradiction to the Lorentz transformations, both inverse and non inverse form, are constant as a result of this addition to the equivalence principle, including lights wave'length'.
And that the observation of time dilated/contracted sequential events in 'other' reference frames, 'from' the observation reference frame, are time frame dependant and proportional to the difference in rate of time.

Those are the physics...

The cyclic universe I have described is a physical consequence of these additions. (edit: the reverse is of course also true)

Because the additions are proportional to the rest of GR, despite the fact that they change some of the concepts that are a consequence of GR, or a consequence of GR in relation to Hubble's law, so radically - they change them in a directly opposite and opposing fashion.  So most of the current maths for GR will be valid.  All that needs happen with the maths is that some of the terms need to be interchanged to reflect the opposite and opposing changes, and the consequence will negate the necessity for the complex geometry calculations regarding curvature.  These representations of curvature will naturally emerge as a result of inverted time.

(I have also given suggested experiment and prediction.  Offered alternate explanation for gravity lensing, star displacement, perihelion of Mercury, etc.  And to say so, the mathematical consequences for quantum of measuring beyond the uncertainty principle, are exciting)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Study inertia.

[alancalverd]

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?

What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"?

If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime. 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

As energy is input into an inertial system to increase its momentum some may add to internal energies and thus be unavailable as kinetic energy for forward motion.

[timey]

Therefore... if the energy transitions of the caesium atom are not mass related, why is it that the energy transitions of light are?

What on earth are the "energy transitions of light"?

If you mean red/blue shift, please say so. The relationship between transmitted and received frequency is entirely governed by the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. Since the same gravitational shift applies to both clock rates and emitted photon frequencies, it clearly has nothing to do with the inertial mass of a photon. Hence the clever Mr Einstein deduced that it is due to gravitational warping of spacetime.

Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)

If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?

Yes - clever Einstein deduced that it must be space time warping.  However, the curve of a graph of GR gravitational time dilation does NOT describe the curve of space that light follows, hence the complex geometry equations and a combination of SR, Lorentz transformations and a concept of 'fabric of space' that rendered distances as variable and stretching as the universe expands at speeds faster than the speed of light.

What I have done is attribute the warping of space time to inverted time dilation, and all distance remains constant at 299 792 458 meters per second, but it is the second that is being stretched as it gravitationally shifts.

The curve of a graph of inverted time dilation will exactly describe the curve of space that light follows...

As I said, it is my belief (edit: sorry not belief, 'opinion') that Einstein was most regrettably influenced by Hubble's redshift observations... ...And Hubble's redshift law is the singular reason for the premiss of an expanding universe and the current Big Bang notions.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.

[timey]

The people most likely to truly understand time dilation are the engineers at the LHC and other accelerators. Since the particle velocities far exceed the escape velocity of the solar system the effects of gravitation are different to the norm. This is more like special relativity territory. Exactly as you find in intergalactic voids. They are the perfect ones to ask.

If the physicists at LHC truly understood gravity and time dilation they would not be confused as to the slight time differences recorded between the heavy and light mass neutrino.

Study inertia.

Study inertia:

All objects in free free in a gravitational field accelerate at the same rate despite the difference in their mass.  Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.

Let I be an inertial mass at rest which can be considered invariant. Then I *v is a non relativistic inertial momentum. Its equivalent kinetic energy is then 1/2*I*v^2. If W is then the wavelength of the mass we can divide this into the kinetic energy to get an internal force associated with each cycle or oscillation.

I see where you are going with this but I prefer:

Wavelength divided by frequency equals speed of light.

The extra length in gravitationally redshifted wavelength divided by the extra speed of the gravitationally shifted frequency equals inverted time dilation.

(edit: sorry, actually I didn't complete properly.  It would be:
Extra length in wavelength divided by extra speed in frequency equals speed of light.
Extra length in wavelength divided by speed of light equals inverted time dilation)

[alancalverd]

Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)

PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished.

If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?

Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!

Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.

That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface. 

[timey]

Yes - the energy transitions of the caesium atomic clock are gravitationally shifted (not due to mass of the caesium atom you say)
Yes - the redshift/blue shift energy transitions of light are gravitationally shifted (due to gravitational potential you say)

PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity (mine disappeared years ago) don't add random words like "energy transitions" when talking to scientists. You could end up believing that there is some meaning in what you say. Gravitational redshift is due to a diffrence in gravitational potential between source and detector. That's it. Finished.

If light is shifted due to gravity potential, (mass related), then how can it be said that the caesium atom is not shifted due to gravity potential which 'would' be mass related?

Related to the mass of what? Not the photon or the clock atom, but the distribution of lumps of other matter between source and observer. Just look at the bloody equation! And it's gravity potential difference,please. Don't subtract important words either!

Simply attribute the acceleration to a shortening in the length of a second (inverted time dilation) due to the gravitational field.

That won't give you an acceleration vector, nor do the numbers stack up aganst the measured acceleration of particles near the earth's surface.

Alan, please excuse my terminology.  I've never claimed to be a scientist, so terminology mistakes on my part are inevitable.

My comments on gravity potential are based on info such as on this link:

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

...and:
Quote: "The gravitational potential (V) is the gravitational potential energy (U) per unit mass: U=mv, where m is the mass of the object.

Also - Just as a side issue, I found this comment within the link interesting...
Quote:
"It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge"

Yes I take on board your observation, but I am not expecting a particle of mass to be able to record inverted time dilation as it accelerates into a gravity field.  It will be affected by GR time dilation and the fraction of a second difference would be imperceivable.  Any clock measuring acceleration of gravity will be measuring meters per second squared via the standard second.

The only place I am expecting to actually observe inverted time dilation (edit: Apart from via my suggested experiment, the special case of Lorentz contraction at LIGO, and the time difference observations at LHC), is in the extra length of wavelength in gravitationally shifted light, on the basis that light is massless, and without the relativistic mass concept, will be ***only*** be affected by inverted time dilation.

[alancalverd]

Alan, please excuse my terminology.

There's the problem. If you want to talk about science, you must use everyone else's terminology, not your own.

"The gravitational potential (V) is the gravitational potential energy (U) per unit mass: U=mv, where m is the mass of the object.

So is there a gravitational potential in the absence of a test mass? A moment's dimensional analysis will show you the answer is yes. V = U/m by definition. What are the dimensions of energy (surely you know by now!)? Now divide energy by mass and what have you got? So V has no mass component. 

"It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge"

Bollocks. Once again you have ruined a meaningful (though unhelpful) sentence by introducing a word of your own. Welcome to the world of physics: please respect our language and customs, and don't misquote the natives.

[timey]

Yes - that is definitely my experience to say so, but doesn't negate me from 'trying' to explain.

My point is that light, as per general relativity 'is' affected by gravity potential, and that the mass of the caesium atom (and the masses of its particle constituents) 'must' also be affected by gravity potential.

I quoted directly from the link provided.  Read it!  Granted Wiki can be a tad less than respectable at times, but there is NO word of my own in there wot-so-ever...

Let's keep it civil. jeffreyH

[alancalverd]

 Wikipedia:

It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.

Timey:

It is analogous to the electric charge potential with mass playing the role of charge

Spot the difference.

the mass of the caesium atom (and the masses of its particle constituents) 'must' also be affected by gravity potential.

Mass is invariant if the object is not moving. And it is irrelevant to the frequency of a cesium clock.

[timey]

If you had asked me last night specifically why I had said 'electric charge potential' instead of just 'electric potential', I would have checked and told you sorry, and that that was merely a typo, not a purposeful addition to the sentence.  It surprises me that this possibility was not your 'first' point of call for a logical explanation of the anomaly...

Yes the mass of the caesium atom is invariant if not moving.  Yes the photon, as per relativity, has mass because it is moving.
My point being that the invariant mass of the non-moving atom and the relativistic mass of the photon are both affected by the gravity potential of their location.

The caesium atom is affected by a higher gravity potential increasing its energy, and therefore the frequency of all of its particle constituents for an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.
Light is affected by the higher gravity potential decreasing its energy and therefore it's frequency.  This does not gel with the De Broglie wavelength concepts.

Why is the relativistic mass of light affected by gravity potential energy differently to the invariant mass of the atom and all its particle constituents?

You will 'probably' tell me again that the clock is only appearing to run faster because it is being observed from a lower gravity potential.  That if we observed the clock from a higher gravity potential relative to the clock it would appear to run slower... and this answer is correct as per relativity, and as per my notion, but does not explore the situation further.

Exploring the situation further is what I am doing.  NIST proved that 2 clocks can be observed at different gravity potentials running at different rates, due to the difference in the gravity field gradient, by 1 observer simultaneously.  So now we can say that the clocks are not just appearing to run at different rates when observed from the other reference frame, but that clocks 'do' actually run at different rates due to their location of gravity potential.

If this is the defined case for our observation of clock behaviour in the gravity potential, then it must also be the case for our observation of the behaviour of light in the gravity potential.

So how can a location of increased gravity potential cause lights energy to decrease, when the same location of an increase in gravity potential causes the frequency of the energy transitions of the caesium atoms electron cloud to increase?