[timey]

An education in physics is an absolute prerequisite. Including the required mathematics. Smolin could have said the next Nobel prize in physics will go to a goose. That doesn't mean it will happen. It may however make him a few extra quid on his book sales from the curious minded.

A prerequisite for what Jeff?

Are you saying that until I go to university and get a degree in physics and advanced mathematics that I cannot have a physics idea that leads to a cyclic universe?

If so then you are wrong....

The proof is in the fact that I already had the idea!

You know Jeff - can I ask you something? (other than for help with maths that you don't provide)

When the workings of the physical world are explained to you in words, or mathematics, can you make a moving visual picture of these mechanics and continue this picture over a period of time into the future or back into the past in your mind?

Because I can.  And I am also capable of changing the rules of the physics and visualising the physical geometrical results of these rule changes, and I'm starting to think that this is something that neither you or Alan are capable of.

I was 'taken' out of school at age 11 much to the disgust of my small Scottish town teachers, who'd had me pegged, even at that young age, as scholarship material.  I am completely untested and untried, so logically there is no reason what-so-ever that I should not be capable of inspired thought.  If I had continued my 'formal' education, I may well have gained possession of qualifications that might of far outclassed both yours and Alan's qualifications...  Who knows aye?

In the mean time I have clearly stated 'where' it is that I need help.

Is there actually any chance of getting the help I require here at this forum?  Or am I wasting my time?

[timey]

A clock's atomic electron cloud energy transition is subject to gravity potential.  It's frequency is 'increased' when placed 'in the weaker' gravity field.  Light has a reduced frequency 'in the weaker' gravity field, no matter if it is redshifted away from a body of mass or blue-shifted towards a body of mass.

 You really need to sort this out in your head.

An observer stationed at the clock or travelling with the photon sees no change.

The frequency of a clock is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.

The frequency of a photon is increased as seen by an observer at a lower gravitational potential. Fact.

Same phenomenon, same explanation.

Please don't waste your life trying to model or explain something that manifestly doesn't happen. Enjoy the sunshine!

Yes Alan - I thought that I had made it quite clear in my previous posts that I am in full understanding of the equivalence principle!

If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

Stating that an idea is manifestly non-existent is not the scientific method.

An idea can be conceived, mathematically proved to be not viable, or viable.  If viable mathematically, it then needs to be proven experimentally for it to be manifestly existent.

To state my idea as manifestly non-existent one would have to prove that it is so by mathematically calculating it to be non-viable...

[alancalverd]

lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing words

If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.

If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.

Same phenomenon, same result. 

Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.

Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source.

Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate?

And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root" - just press the √ key!

[timey]

lLet's cut out the extraneous and confusing words

If you look at a diagram depiction of light redshifted away from earth, and a diagram of light blue shifted towards earth, the light will always have a lower frequency in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

As seen by an observer in the weaker field, yes.

If you look at a diagram depiction of the difference in time between clocks in the gravitational field, the clocks frequency of electron cloud energy transition will always be greater in the weaker gravity field.  Fact?

As seen by an observer in the stronger field, yes.

Same phenomenon, same result. 

Source (ANY source) in weaker field than the observer, observer sees a blue shift/higher frequency than his local source.

Source (ANY source) in stronger field than the observer, observer sees a red shift/lower frequency than his local source.

Whether the source is a clock, a Mossbauer photon, or the rate of reproduction of rabbits, since the experimental results are absolutely consistent with each other and with conventional GR theory, what are you trying to demonstrate?

And since the red shift equations are solvable on a pocket calculator, what mathematical problem do you have? You don't even need to understand the meaning of "square root" - just press the √ key!

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity...  Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.

In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.

In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the possibility exists that the clock is not measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing in the elevated location of the weaker gravity field it is placed in, but is measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location in the gravity field.  This notion is supported by the remit of the equivalence principle.  A person ages in keeping with the clock at their location.  Therefore all the atoms that make up the person are similarly affected, as the atom of the clock is, in the usual proportion to, and in keeping with the clock, by changes in the gravity field.

Now look at light as being unaffected by gravity potential, ie: no relativistic mass.  As it's frequency is gravitationally shifted by the gravity field, wave'length' is seen to be inversely proportional to frequency.  Consider that the length of wavelength remains constant, and that it is this proposed inverted time dilation that causes the extra length in wavelength.  Divide the extra or lesser length of wavelength that occurs due to the shifted frequency of light in a gravity field by the speed of light and you have a time value.

The lights frequency at ground level Earth being equal to 299 792 458 meters per 'standard second'.  The lights decreased frequency at 1 meter elevation from Earth then being the extra length of wavelength divided by the speed of light = fraction of nano second.  Add that fraction of a nano second to the nano seconds of a standard second for a longer length of second.

This 'being' an observation of the proposed inverted time dilation...  Inverted time dilation being a time phenomenon of mass in relation to open space.  Light, having no mass is not subject to gravity potential and therefore not subject to GR gravitational time dilation. (GR gravitational time dilation being a mass in relation to mass time phenomenon). 

This alternate means of retaining the speed of light in the gravity field is (I believe) mathematically proportional to both current theory and observation and gives causation for the acceleration of gravity.

You may not have a problem with maths.  I find them difficult, but only because I am not familiar with the rules.  I have made attempt to portray  the maths.  I appreciate that my method is unconventional (of course it's going to be, I've only been taught maths up to primary school level and the extent of long division, and have never previously had any use for the subject.  Algebra, what alien language is that?) ...but the given equation does (I believe) describe what I've set out to describe.

Now I say believe because the reality is that I, by myself, cannot confirm if I've managed to be mathematically precise or not.  Therefore I require someone who 'is' familiar with mathematics to complete and confirm.  This being my reason for posting on this forum asking for help.
 (If these maths are viable then it would be worthwhile to move on to stage 2 of the calculations for the proposed cyclic universe, this being a reassessment of Hubble's law and the Lorentz transformations.)

It is actually a sign of intelligence to understand where ones own self is lacking. 

[alancalverd]

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity

You can't. No observer = no observation.

...  Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.

shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.

In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.

This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same as

In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.

as seen by an observer in the stronger field.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks


weak field                                    strong field           observation
(above ground)                             (ground level)

photon source   ---------------->   observer              blue shift compared with ground level detector   

clock           ------------------->   observer              faster compared with ground level clock


No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

[timey]

Now take the observer out of the picture Alan for even greater simplicity

You can't. No observer = no observation.

...  Both the light and the clock remain gravitationally shifted by the gravity field.

shifted relative to what? As soon as you introduce a comparative, you are implying an observer. Indeed two observers. The answer is in the question: relativity.

In a gravity field light has a lower frequency in the weaker field.

This statement is meaningless, but if you add an observer in the weaker field, you will also see that it is exactly the same as

In a gravity field, a clock has a higher frequency in the weaker field.

as seen by an observer in the stronger field.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks


weak field                                    strong field           report
(above ground)                             (ground level)

photon source   ---------------->   observer              blue shift compared with ground level detector   

clock           ------------------->   observer              faster compared with ground level clock


No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

K, I too understand how relativity is explaining the situation.

This is an alternative to relativity that leads to the mechanics of a cyclic universe.  It's a different model Alan.  Based on GR, and mathematically proportional to GR, but not the same as GR.

The NIST observer observed 2 clocks running at different rates simultaneously.  1 on the ground and 1 elevated at 1 meter.  If he had added a 3rd clock at 2 meters elevation, conceivably he could have observed 3 clocks running at different rates simultaneously.  Gravitational shift of both the clock and of light are NOT observer dependent...  When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation he did so without the benefit of observation, just logic and proportional mathematics.

It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.

GR does not give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, or the future of the universe.  The theory collapses at the event horizon of a black hole, and relies on dark matter and dark energy to make the maths work.

My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.

[alancalverd]

When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation

faster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.

But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons.

It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.

I think most of us have believed this since about 1920.

My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.

So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence? 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

[timey]

When Einstein predicted that clocks would run faster at elevation

faster than what? The use of a comparative adjective always implies an observer.

But I'm pleased to see that you seem to be accepting that there is no phenomenological difference between clocks and photons.

It is indeed entirely possible to state that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the clock, and that the phenomenon of frequency shift for the light are occurring as a direct result of the changes in the gravitational field, and are calculable as such.

I think most of us have believed this since about 1920.

My theory of inverted time, and the resulting consequence being a cyclic universe, does give a full explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation period, Big Crunch, black holes, and does so without introducing any unobserved phenomenon.

So please let us have the theory in simple words. Never mind the maths or even physics. GR says "clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear (to an observer on the ground) to run faster than those on the ground, so gravity alters time". Can you put your theory into a similar sentence?

Faster or slower relative to a clock in a weaker or greater gravity field.

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field, and that light viewed as having no mass means that the possibility exists to exempt light from being subject to gravity potential.

If we have viewed gravitational shift as being a direct result of changes in the gravitational field since 1920, then all phenomenon of frequency changes can be considered not just as an 'appearance' from above or below, but as verbatim.  The fact that an observer considers his clock to be correct is clearly set out in the equivalence principle where all reference frames are equal in proportion to each other.

I have explained the mechanics of this proposed inverted time dilation and how it leads to a cyclic universe in many of my previous posts, but in short as to what applies in this threads context:

The premiss for this theory is based solely on the concept that a clock mechanism that has been chosen because it can operate at a frequency that keeps time perfectly as to the requirements of how we measure it, (ie: as per the rotations of our planet in relation to the sun), when placed at an elevated position in a gravity field is not measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing at the elevated location, but is measuring what the phenomenon of time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location.  This notion is supported by the remit of the equivalence principle and the fact that an observer with a clock ages in keeping with the clocks rate of time.

My theory states that the phenomenon of time is doing something different at the location of elevation, and that this phenomenon can be observed in the extra or lesser wave'length' of gravitationally shifted light, if viewing light without the concept of relativistic mass, and that this inverted time dilation is indeed the causation of the acceleration of gravity.  Meters per 'standard' second squared, being meters per 'variable' second squared.  This gives causation for all bodies of differing mass in free fall experiencing inertia and the fact of gravitational 'attraction' being a weak force.

In a simple sentence:

"The acceleration of gravity 'is' inverted time dilation, and this highly variable inverted time dilation causes 'stuff' to accelerate or decelerate in a gravity field."

[alancalverd]

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,

NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME,  as all your references have stated.

Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential.

If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical  untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest.

Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.

[timey]

No there is no difference between the gravitational shift of the clock and the gravitational shift of light other than the observed changes in frequency occurring in opposing directions within the gravity field,

NO NO NO NO for the umpteenth time! The changes are EXACTLY THE SAME,  as all your references have stated.

Whatever the source, its frequency appears to increase when observed from a lower gravitational potential.

If you start with an incorrect premise, you will end up in all sorts of trouble. Repeating an obvious and illogical  untruth is politics or religion, not physics, and I woldn't want to accuse you of being a politican or a priest.

Your confusion may arise from the fact that stronger local field = lower potential, but I explained that several months ago and it is in all your beloved textbooks.

A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.

Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.



I'm not confused!

[timey]

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

[alancalverd]

A clocks frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***increased***.

Lights frequency as seen from the 'lower' gravity potential is ***decreased***.

NO  They are both increased, as everyone knows and observes.

Here's what we see in the Pound-Rebka experiment and GPS satellite clocks


weak field                                    strong field           observation
(above ground)                             (ground level)

photon source   ---------------->   observer              blue shift compared with ground level detector   

clock           ------------------->   observer              faster compared with ground level clock


No difference. Same equations apply, and give the same answer. Therefore same phenomenon, hence not associated with the mass of the clock or the quantum phenomena that generate the photon or the clock pulse.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.

[alancalverd]

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation!

Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!

[timey]

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

Not sure how you can state "This is in direct contradiction to observation." when you are describing an observation!

Do not confuse relative velocity shift with relative gravitational potential shift. Everyone else knows the difference betwen stationary, moving and accelerating, and the meaning of gravitational field gradient. And the moving clock does not "experience" anything because the observer is moving with it. It's all about "relativity"!

Gosh Alan - please allow me to rephrase:

'In direct contradiction with experimental evidence.'

Not confused about clocks in relative motion...

My model makes an addition to the equivalence principle.  Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

[timey]

One point about energy. If we are elevated in a gravitational field we see redshift of light. This is a reduction of kinetic energy. If we see projectile launched and allowed to travel upwards unaided we see it gradually slow to a stop before falling back down. This too is a reduction in kinetic energy.

Ok - but if you put a previously stationary clock on that rocket and add the resulting kinetic energy to the clock, the clock will have a higher frequency than it would at same position of elevation if it were held stationary there.

This is in direct contradiction to observation.  A clock in motion relative to a stationary clock will experience a reduced frequency and a slowing of its time.

The object is a projectile allowed to travel without an external input of force. It is not a rocket. The only consideration necessary is the count of the clock when compared to the count of another clock at a different position in the gravitational well. The clocks at exactly the same potential will have the same count. Starting from this premise you then need to appreciate what happens at higher and lower potential when viewed from this clocks position. What is the difference in the 'tick rate' of other clocks. Forget considerations of frequency while podering this.

Jeff - I am in full understanding of what GR time dilation does in a gravitational field.  I have spent over 8 years pondering!

I am not disputing that clocks are subject to GR gravitational time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation, exactly as calculated as per GR, is part of the physics of my model of a cyclic universe.

It is light that I'm saying is subject to inverted time dilation and that lights reduction in frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential, or increase in frequency ss seen from the higher gravity. potential is inverted time dilation related.

This on the basis that light having no mass is not subject to the additional energy of gravity potential, and is only subject to this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field, and a reduction in frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.

GR gravitational time dilation being on the basis that mass is subject to gravity potential, and the addition of gravity potential energy causes an increase in  the clocks frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.

Frequency 'being' the ticking of the phenomenon of time, for both the proposed inverted time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation, and also the phenomenon of the motion related slowing of a clock relative to a stationary clock. (Subtract the KE for a reduction in frequency)

[alancalverd]

  Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks.

There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.   

[timey]

  Yes - relativity... my model is based on it, your point being?

...that you keep inisisting that gravitational blue shift works in different senses for photons and clocks.

There is little point in trying to construct a physical model for something that is not true.   

Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field.  The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
Red shifted light is light travelling away from a gravity field.  The frequency of the light decreases the further away it gets from the body of mass.

Overlay these phenomenon against each other in a gravity field, at each point of coordinate in the gravity field, light of either type of shift 'should' have the same frequency at the same coordinate. (Relativity stretches space.  Inverted time dilation stretches time.)

The frequency of light is always lesser in the higher gravity potential no matter where the observer observes from, or which way the light is shifting.

A clock mapped to a gravity field shows that a clock runs at a faster rate as seen from the lower gravity potential.  Someone in the higher gravity potential would see this clock in the middle as running slower, but given that all 3 clocks were stationary relative to each other, the observer with the clock above, and the observer with the clock below, 'should' be able to agree in their observation of the middle clocks time.

The frequency of a clock is always higher in the higher gravity potential.

Note:
light = lower frequency in a higher gravity potential (as seen from lower gravity potential)
Note:
Clock = higher frequency in a higher gravity potential (as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?

I am insisting nothing!

Well nothing other than you, (or anyone else reading), consider the idea that I'm proposing and help me ascertain if the notion is mathematically proportional to GR and therefore viable, or (more likely) not.

[alancalverd]

Note:
light = lower frequency ..........  as seen from lower gravity potential
Note:
Clock = higher frequency.............as seen from the lower gravity potential)
Spot the difference?

Here's the diference: the first statement is untrue. As you stated, correctly at the outset:

Blue shifted light is light travelling towards a gravity field.  The frequency of the light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.

...so if you are standing on the surface of the earth (i.e. "as seen from lower gravity potential")  you see the blue shift of a photon originating at the top of the tower. And the clock at the top of the tower appears to be faster - for the same reason.


Always happy to consider a new idea, but not if it is derived from an obvious untruth.