[timey]

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.

I understand that as per GR there is a mathematical proportionality between the red shift blue shift phenomenon and the gravitational time shift of a clock.  Otherwise GR would not be mathematically viable.

However, as to the directional frequency changes observed of the red shift, blue shift phenomenon in relation to what happens for a clock,  the changes are occurring in the opposing directions in the gravity field.

I have said that: light = lower frequency as seen from a lower gravity potential.

I can't for the life of me see why you state this as incorrect...  Light in a weaker gravitational field will 'always' have a lower frequency than light in a stronger gravity field.

Take the PR for an example:
The PR is emitting light of the same energy and frequency from both top of tower and bottom of tower scenario's.
The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower.  Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.
The photon emitted at bottom of tower redshifts towards top of tower.  Its frequency is decreased as it travels towards top of tower.

There is a mathematical proportionality between the magnitude of shift that the photon experiences whether red shifted or blue shifted.  One is the opposite of the other. (?)

Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential.  (I can add) - relative to the frequency that same light would have if it were to travel further into the lower gravity potential. (for greater clarity)

A clocks frequency is always higher as seen from the lower gravity potential.  (I'll add) - in the case of both clocks being stationary relative to each other. (for greater clarity)

[alancalverd]

The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower.  Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.......

..........Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential. 

Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.

[timey]

The photon emitted at top of tower blues shifts towards bottom of tower.  Its frequency is increased as it travels towards bottom of tower.......

..........Therefore I am certain that I am 100% correct when I state that light will always have a lower frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential. 

Come on, lass, these statements are exactly contradictory! The first one is correct.

Alan - I despair of you, really.

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency.  When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.

Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

[alancalverd]

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency.  When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.

Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?

[timey]

As light travels towards a gravitational field, (earth), it increases in frequency.  When the light reaches earth its frequency is higher than it was before it got there.

Lights frequency as seen from the lower gravity potential is always lower than it will be than when that same light reaches the lower gravity potential.

How can you see it if it hasn't arrived?

You point has logic, but only from the philosophical point of view.

And... a tree falling unobserved in a forest still falls.

A photon arriving at 1 metre elevation from a gravity field has a lower frequency than it did when it was emitted at ground level. (red shift)

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)

Why is it of consequence that we view a photon emitted at 1 metre as being 1 frequency, if we know that it will be a higher frequency when it reaches the ground?  Surely we are able to run sequential events forward, or indeed backward in time and then say that light of both red shifted and blue shifted variety always has a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
(ie: light is always seen from the lower gravity potential to have a lower frequency than it would have when travelling further into the lower gravity potential.)

[alancalverd]

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)

and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.

Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.

[timey]

A photon arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at 1 metre.
(blue shift)

and a GPS clock signal arriving at ground level has a higher frequency than it did when emitted at orbital height.

Same phenomenon, same equation, no anomaly.

So - by the very logic you have just described - how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?

Or does the clock in space actually run at a faster rate? 

[alancalverd]

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.

Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. 

These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.

Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?

No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.   

[Ethos_]

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

I realize that I haven't contributed to this thread much in the past but I've been watching the development of it from it's inception. Allow me to say just a couple things and then I will butt out.

1. Alan has defined the crux of this argument in my opinion.

The facts are that in my frame of reference, the second passes at a predictable rate and no matter what frame one finds themselves in, their seconds also pass at a predictable and consistent rate. Forget how someone from another frame, whether in a different gravitational environment or in a different state of acceleration might view the passage of time in ours. Their personal experience is also a predictable and consistent second and is measured the same as anyone within a different frame. The only variations in the perceived passage of time occur when viewing another frame from the standpoint of your own.

If there were another variable involved, as timey suggests, it would be reasonable to assume that it should be detectable within someone's personal frame of reference and because none has been observed, we can assume that this variable doesn't therefore exist.

We establish the second by using the speed of light in a vacuum and the permittivity of free space. And the character of free space determines the speed of light which is everywhere the same when measured in a true vacuum. So I fail to understand how a reckoning for a variable second is possible when every local frame observes the speed of light to be exactly the same. The only variation we observe occurs when viewing frames other than our own. And to add another variable to the equation would certainly show up somewhere sometime. And because we can accurately predict those differences between ours and the others, it would suggest no additional variable is at work or necessary.

So forgive me for disagreeing timey, while your idea is provocative, I'm afraid it is without merit.

I will butt out for now but I will continue to follow this thread..........Hopefully, we shall all learn something worthwhile as it develops.
 

 

[timey]

how can it be said that time runs at a faster rate in space, and a slower rate closer to a body of mass?

Everything depends on where you measure it, relative to where it originated.

Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.

Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground. 

These are undeniable observations. Since neither depends on the mass of the source, we must conclude that gravitation is warping spacetime.

Are you saying it is because the frequency of the signal that is transporting the time reading of the clock in space to earth increases as it moves into the stronger gravity field, that we observe the time of the clock to be faster relative to a clock on the ground?

No, though it is true that the carrier signal also undergoes blue shift. If you set the space clock to emit a pulse - say a single photon - every second, the pulses will arrive at slightly less than 1 second intervals as measured by my clock. This is what is observed.

You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

I agree, but continue the scenario:
...and these higher energy photons gain even higher energy as they shift towards the bottom of tower ...
...and a clocks frequency (energy is proportional to frequency) will be observed as decreased if placed at bottom of tower relative to clocks frequency at top of tower.

[alancalverd]

Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. 

If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.

Please note and understand every word.

[timey]

Exactly. Blue shift depends on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the observer. 

If you move the source closer to the detector, the blue shift is less.

Please note and understand every word.

Yes - and if you move the source to ground level there will be no blue shift at all.

I'll try again.

You said:
"Your clock is in space, mine is on the ground, so according to my clock, yours is running faster.
Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

...and those higher energy photons gain energy as they travel to bottom of tower.

I have two Fe57 sources at top of tower.  Leaving one at top of tower with my assistant, I bring the other down to the bottom of tower and you and I observe that the Fe57 source that we are observing is emitting photons of a lower energy and frequency than the Fe57 source at top of tower.  We are also recording the time of both locations with cesium atomic clocks.  I also have two atomic clocks.

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.
The photon has increased in energy and frequency between top of tower and bottom of tower.
The Fe57 source that I moved from top of tower to bottom of tower has decreased in energy and frequency and now emits photons of a lower energy than it did at top of tower.
The atomic clocks at top of tower had an increased frequency relative to your clock at bottom of tower.  You observed that my clocks were running faster than yours.  I observed your clock was running slower than mine.
I also brought one of my clocks with me down to bottom of tower, and my assistant observes that both clocks at bottom of tower are running at a slower rate relative to the top of tower clock.
The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.
The Fe57 photon emissions occur at a lower frequency and energy at bottom of tower than they do at top of tower.
Photons emitted by a Fe57 source at top of tower 'increase' in energy and frequency as they travel from top of tower to bottom of tower.

The changes in energy and frequency for a photon occur in the opposing direction in a gravity field than occurs for a Fe57, or a cesium atom.

[alancalverd]

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.

No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.

As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!

[timey]

The Fe57 source has emitted a higher energy photon at top of tower than it would at bottom of tower.

No. The photon emission process and energy is exactly the same. The perceived blue shift is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

The cesium atoms energy transitions are lower in frequency and energy at the bottom of the tower than they are at the top of the tower.

No. The hyperfine transition process is exactly the same . The change in perceived clock rate is due to the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer.   

Both the photon blue shift and the perceived clock rate anomaly are, as you say, in the same direction. The received photon is at a higher frequency than one generated locally, and the recevied clock rate is at a higher frequency than one generated locally.

As you keep quoting the same experimental results, why do you keep insisting that they are different? Goebbels was not a physicist!

You said:

Quote:
"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so according to my mossbauer receiver on the ground, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."
Unquote:

If the Fe57 source was not experiencing a higher energy itself at top of tower, it could not produce a higher energy photon.

Yes that photon is perceived at top of tower from bottom of tower to have an increased frequency and energy.  When that photon arrives at bottom of tower it has an even greater frequency and energy.

But if you take the Fe57 source that emitted that photon down to the bottom of tower, it produces photons of lesser energy and frequency, and therefore has to have less energy and frequency itself at the bottom of the tower.

The photons have increased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.

The Fe57 source has decreased in energy and frequency from top of tower position to bottom of tower position.

[alancalverd]

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Every word matters!

If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.

Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.

[timey]

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Every word matters!

If my receiver was at the top of the tower, it wouldn't see a blue shift. The emitted energy is exactly the same everywhere - because there's no reason for it to change. The received energy depends on the gravitational potential difference between emitter and receiver.

Whjat is the difference between a coconut on the ground (harmless) and one falling from a tree (lethal)? Kinetic energy due to the change in gravitational potential.

Yes - of course.

Place the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 source in a uniform gravity field at bottom of tower.  (horizontal experiment) The receiver receives the emitted photon.

Place the Fe57 source at top of tower, (vertical experiment), the mossbauer receiver cannot receive the photon.
The energy of the photon is too great.

Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.

Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.

The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.

The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.

[alancalverd]

As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.

[timey]

As you insist on making everything more complicated that it needs to be, have it your own way, and don't blame me if the world doesn't make sense.

Actually Alan - my model is simplicity itself in comparison to GR.

What I'm explaining is not difficult.  I understand that it is unfamiliar to you, but what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...

An energy transition must be of the correct value for a photon to be received.

(edit: ...and my model makes a lot more sense than GR because it gives cause for Big Bang, inflation period, Big crunch and describes a cyclic universe without any unobserved additions.  GR cannot do this.  GR can only partially explain our universe and relies heavily on unobserved additions to make the maths work.)

[alancalverd]

what I am saying has to be true because of quantum physics...

I think you will find that quantum physics actually derives from the fact that what you are saying is not true. But life is too short to go through all this again.

[jerrygg38]

"Your photon source is at the top of a tower, so ACCORDING TO MY MOSSBAUER RECEIVER ON THE GROUND, it is emitting photons with a higher energy than an Fe57 source on the ground."

Place the mossbauer receiver at top of tower with the Fe57 source in the uniform gravity field, (horizontal experiment), the mossbauer receiver receives the photon.
The energy of the mausbuar receiver has to have also increased at the top of tower position.

Both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver have increased in energy and frequency at top of tower relative to being placed at bottom of tower.

The photon emitted at top of tower has increased in energy and frequency at bottom of tower relative to when it was emitted at top of tower.

The difference between a photon, and a mossbauer receiver and Fe57 source, is that both the mossbauer receiver and the Fe57 sour e have rest mass and the photon doesn't.

The discussion of relative position is always a struggle to grasp. The transmitter is composed of physical things such as crystals. The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.  If you put it in water, as the pressure increases the crystal will oscillate slower. The transmitter higher up from the bottom of the water will have a higher frequency. thus for the transmitter in the tower it will have a higher frequency due to a lower gravitational pressure. It is also moving faster as the Earth orbits as compared to the ground. This will tend to slow the clock.
   So we get a faster speed due to less gravitational pressure and a slower speed due to the faster motion of the clock. You guys agree that measurements have shown the net result is the tower clock is faster with a higher energy level. You can attribute this to variations in space and time or just simple variations in the gravitational field.