[alancalverd]

The crystal oscillates at different frequencies depending upon the gravitational field.

Fortunately, this is not true. But I no longer care.

[timey]

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.

Well Alan - I suppose I shall console myself in being happy that you do at least recognise that I have arrived at the point where quantum and gravity do not unify!

Gravity is linear and quantum is not.  Its the reason they cannot be unified.

But my theory of inverted time is based on the phenomenon of time being energy related.

Gravity sucks because the inverted time dilation phenomenon, that I am proposing is inherent to 'space' in relation to mass, (on a cosmic, macroscopic, and microscopic level), gets increased in its rate with the increasing energy of an increasing gravity field.

And quantum can be linearised because as with the acceleration of gravity being measured in metres per standard second, Planks h constant is a joules per standard second measurement.  (Joules per standard second, being the constant, applied over longer or shorter length second)

The frequency shift of light is the common ground between these 2 phenomenon.

Under the circumstance of quantum remaining so far, and after all this time, unreconciled with gravity, I hardly think it a waste of time to consider an alternative to the current physics if the idea is logically sound, even if the idea turns out under inspection to be mathematically unviable.

My idea is logically sound, and 'is' mathematically proportional to GR as far as I can see.

It surprises me Alan that you are not more pleased to be engaged in an intellectual challenge as such.  Calculating an idea that has never been thought of before has got to be more interesting than the same old run of mill all the time, surely?

[alancalverd]

Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.

Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.

The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.

[timey]

Always delighted to join in an intellectual pursuit of something worthwhile, but not if it starts from several obviously incorrect premises.

Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source.

The fact that gravitation does not appear to be mediated by a quantised carrier is interesting, but has nothing to do with units of measurement. What is more interesting is the unipolar nature of gravitation, and the experimental determination of the speed of gravity.

You said:
'Red/blue shift is a continuum phenomenon. It has nothing in common with quantum mechanics. Nor the mass of the source."
Unquote:

These phenomenon exist in our 1 universe and cannot logically be isolated from each other.  The energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon and the mossbauer receiving a photon are quantum process.  The vertical experiment (PR) is inclusive of red shift, blue shift phenomenon, and the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.

I am only setting out on incorrect premise if you state the premise being replaced as absolute.  No physicist anywhere should state GR as the absolute theory.  It clearly isn't!  However any theory that supersedes GR does need to be mathematically proportional to GR or it will not be viable.  To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.

So far I cannot seem to persuade you to consider that I am proposing that it is GR gravitational time dilation that is the time phenomenon measuring the length of a standard second - as we humans have defined the measurement of such via the rotations our planet in relation to the sun - in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.

...And that it is light that will display behaviour during the 'passage' of time, due to the inverted time dilation phenomenon if viewed without relativistic mass.

Note - the 'passage' of time is sequential events of past, present, future, and the phenomenon of time is gravitational time dilation of both types, (and motion related time dilation).
All sequential events occur 'in' inverted time.

 To understand this, it is required that you recognise that mass will experience time in relation to the main body of mass (earth), and that mass in elevation to mass, its energy and frequency increases.  This being GR gravitational time dilation.

And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.  You don't need to bring relativity into it, just 2 graphs.  One showing the decreased energy changes of blue shifted, or red shifted light in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth, and the other showing the increase in energy experienced by the cesium atomic clock in the gravity field of 'space' receding away from earth.

The increase in energy and frequency for light increases the closer it gets to the body of mass.
The increase in energy and frequency for anything with rest mass increases the further away it is placed from the body of mass.

I think I am correct in stating these 2 phenomenon as proven by experiment, although I appreciate that nobody has been viewing the results in the way that I am proposing.

Yes the speed of gravitational acceleration is well documented, and is a measurement recorded via a GR time dilated clock in free fall
as per metres per standard second.  The clock is not travelling at relativistic speeds, so motion related time dilation is not relevant, and the changes it experiences due to the slowing of its time as it moves into the lower gravity potential, within the remit of the experiment, are negligible.  The clock has measured metres per standard second.

To calculate inverted time dilation... via the speed, distance, time formula, turn the acceleration of gravity, this being a speed, into a time value, (time value (a)), and add, (or subtract if calculating a value of g that is above 9.807m|s2), this value of time to, (or from), the length of a standard second. (as per maths earlier this thread)

Turn the extra or lesser length of wavelength of gravitationally  shifted light into a time value (time value (b)), by dividing the extra or lesser length by speed of light.

The relevant time values of (a) 'should' match the gravitationally shifted time values of (b).

[alancalverd]

To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.

  It certainly helps.

the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.

it is not.

in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.

It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.

And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.

Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.

decreased energy changes of blue shifted

oxymoron

Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.

I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.

[timey]

To deem something as unworthy one first has to understand it.

  It certainly helps.

the shift of frequency in light is a quantum process.

it is not.

in that the frequency of a cesium atom's frequency of energy transition at ground level, earth, exactly matches 1 full rotation of the planet divided into the units of the second that we measure the 'passage' of time by.

It doesn't. Never a good idea to base physics on an untruth.

And that emitted lights frequency is always reduced in elevation from earth, no matter its direction of travel into or away from a gravity field.

Insofar as this sentence means anything, it is untrue.

decreased energy changes of blue shifted

oxymoron

Most of the rest is beneath contempt. Merely arranging scientific terms into a sentenmce does not constitute science, logic, or even a fun way to spend time.

I suggest you start with experimental facts and work from there.

If you draw a graph of blue shifted light blue shifted towards earth, and then you look back at the path it has taken, the frequency the light was at each position of increased elevation from earth will be lesser.  Both red shifted and blue shifted light are lesser  in frequency in the weaker gravity field.

There are 86400 standard seconds in a full rotation of our planet and the cesium atomic clock is the most precise measurement of a standard second to date.  What's the problem?

Wavelength and energy changes involved in the frequency changes for light are related to Planck's h constant.

Exactly what is beneath contempt please?

A model of a cyclic universe that has been slowly contracting from initial point of inflation is, of course, going to have 'different' physics.  As long as these alterations are proportional to that which they replace, the model should be viable.

I don't see where your problem is and you are not being particularly specific.

[alancalverd]

There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.

In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.

[timey]

There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts. You clearly have a glittering career ahead of you in the Health and Safety Executive, Care Quality Commission, or European Union, but not physics. I give up.

In case anyone else is reading this, h is just a number: it doesn't magically confer quantum properties on a continuum.

If I asked you about dark energy, you would say, yes Vikki.  Dark energy exists because something has to be pushing the universe apart at the accelerating speed.  If I asked what dark energy is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...
 
If I asked you about dark matter, you would say yes Vikki, dark matter has to exist to account for all the gravity it would require to stop galaxies from flying apart.  If I asked where all this dark matter is, you would have to tell me that you haven't got a clue...

If I asked you about the Big Bang, you would tell me that the Big Bang occurred and that all of our universe originated from a point.  If I asked how that happened, you would have to say that you haven't got a clue.

If I asked you about the Inflation Period, you would tell me that just after the Big Bang everything became exponentially expanded before the expansion rate slowed, only to start speeding up again as per discovery of accelerated expansion.  If I asked you what caused inflation to happen, you would have to say that you don't have a clue.

These would be legitimate current physics conversations that presumably you would be quite content to discuss with me.

Yet - if I suggest that I want to attribute the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light - that is currently attributed to the 'speed' that a light source is accelerating away from us at - to a proposed phenomenon of inverted time dilation.
(challenging Hubble's law, and the concept of universal expansion, negating the necessity for dark energy and leading to a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle, and inflation period, fully accounted for by the black hole phenomenon).

...Or suggest that the acceleration of gravity can be attributed to this proposed inverted time dilation.
(giving the 'suck' of gravity a cause that negates the need for dark matter)

...Or that because for light E=hf, or E=hc|wavelength, suggest that changes in the wave'length' might be inverted time dilation related.
(giving cause for the curvature, or the stretching of space fabric into longer distances, because it is time (length of second) in 'space' that is being stretched, not the geometrical distance, and it is the changes in the length of a second in the gravity field that causes the curvature)

...Or suggest that calculating inclusive of inverted time dilation could make a continuum of quantum.
(already being calculated via perturbation theory which is a time related method)

...you are considering that 'my' notions are beneath contempt?

You said:
Quote:
" There is no cure for wilful ignorance and arrogant disregard of facts."
Unquote:

I really couldn't agree more.

(P.S.  I do not see any cause for the hostile undertones Alan.  What I'm suggesting is logically sound)

[alancalverd]

If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.

[timey]

If you repeatedly tell me that gravitation has a different effect on photons from clocks, in spite of the experimental evidence; or introduce pseudoscientific drivel like "the velocity of Doppler shift of gravitationally shifted  light" then I really can't help you, because I only understand physics. However sound your logic, if it is based on untruth and mystic concepts, it won't lead you anywhere useful.

In that there is a Doppler shift associated with gravitationally shifted light, it would be reasonable to assume I am referring to it.  I might say that your reference to pseudo science, untruths and mysticism is drivel, but Jeff did mention about civility.  In all fairness I might point out that his comment also applies to yourself despite your moderator status.

No - I am not saying that light and a clock are differently affected by gravity.  I am saying that without the relativistic mass concept, light can be viewed as being unaffected by gravity potential energy.

A clock has a higher frequency when placed in the weaker gravity field.

Light that has already been emitted of both red shifted and blue shifted variety has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.  I understand this is where you have the problem, so...

Light source is at 1 metre.  Point light source at ground, the light when it reaches ground is of higher frequency.
Light source is on ground.  Point light source away from earth, the light when it reaches 1 metre elevation is of lower frequency.

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground.  I'm not disputing this fact.  I'm merely pointing out that when that already emitted higher frequency photon reaches the ground it will be of an even higher frequency.

Therefore emitted light is always of a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field.

Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?

[alancalverd]

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground.  I'm not disputing this fact.

You should, because it isn't true.

Consider the P-R experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.

Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?

It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.

[timey]

Perhaps your confusion arises in that the light source emitter emits a photon of a higher frequency at 1 metre elevation than it does on the ground.  I'm not disputing this fact.

You should, because it isn't true.

Consider the P-R experiment. Put the source at the top of the tower, and fix 22 receptors at 1 m intervals up the tower. They will measure 22 different values of blue shift. Is the source emitting 22 different frequencies? I think not, because it doesn't "know" where the detectors are. The logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer.

Can we recognise and move past this fact of 'accepted' physics now please?

It's important to accept the facts, whatever you think of the explanation.

If you place clocks in elevation at metre intervals for 22 metres, each clock as you go upwards will have a higher frequency than the clock below.

The mechanism of the cesium atomic clock is such, that if the microwave part of the mechanism is too finely attuned, the cesium atom experiences shift before it has completed its cycle of movement within the remit of the clocks own internal height of 3 feet.  In other words they are capable of recording shift in frequency of the cesium atoms energy transition between elevations of a lesser distance than the physical dimensions of the clock itself allow for.

The clocks working mechanism is entirely comprised of light related phenomenon.  The frequency of the microwave beam has to be of the exact correct energy for the cesium atom to emit a photon...

Yes by all means, if you attribute light with mass then you may say that...
quote: "the logical explanation is that the difference between emitted and observed frequency depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer." unqoute...
...but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

Or alternatively, just as an exercise in intellectual dexterity, why not consider already emitted light as having no mass, and that this already emitted light is only subject to the acceleration or deceleration of this proposed inverted time dilation of the gravitational field?  (ie: mass value has no bearing in inertia)

[alancalverd]

If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh? 

.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.

I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.

[timey]

If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds. Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction. But who cares about physics, eh? 

.but then please explain to me why anything with rest mass in elevation to earth experiences an increase in frequency, (ie: equivalence principle), when 'already emitted light' is always of lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field?

if this sentence means anything, it is experimentally untrue.

I see little point in your continually repeating obvious nonsense, or my responding to it.

I'm not sure where to start with your post.  The logic is clearly absurd.

Quote:
" If you have one clock in orbit (or indeed on the ground) and a dozen receivers at different heights, they all see the clock as running at different speeds."
Unquote:

Are you saying a receiver or an observer?  Place observers at different heights that are stationary in relation to a clock on the ground, they will all agree that the clock on the ground is running at the same rate.  If each observer compares the rate of the clock on the ground with their own clock, they will all say the clock on the ground's rate of time is running slower.  If they all check their clock against every other clock, they will soon sort out that each clock is running faster than the clock below it.

If you are talking about a receiver, as in mossbauer receiver, then each receiver placed at a different elevation is gravitationally shifted.  None of the receivers will receive the photon emitted by the Fe57 source on the ground.  Only when a Doppler shift is added to the light source emitter, will the mossbauer receiver receive the photon.  I daresay there would be differences in the magnitude of Doppler shift added to the Fe57 source on the ground in order for the emitted photon to be received by the mossbauer receivers placed at different elevations.

Quote:
Is it really? How does it know what speed to run at if it doesn't know where the receivers are?
Unquote:

This is incomprehensible as per accepted physics and to say so, thoroughly disappointing.  The clock on the ground doesn't run at different rates.  The Fe57 source on the ground doesn't emit photons of different energies.

Quote:
The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is unaffected by gravitation: it's a spin-spin interaction.
Unquote:

The hyperfine transition of the cesium atom is gravitationally shifted! The transition is increased in frequency when subject to a higher gravity potential energy.  Therefore it is affected by gravitation.  So...I am completely lost by your reasoning there.
Spin spin interaction?  Yes indeed - quantum gravity being the goal.

The sentence you complain of means something because the energy of a cesium atom and an Fe57 are increased in the higher gravity potential and the equivalence principle states that all reference frames are equal to each other.  Therefore all atoms will experience an increase in energy in the higher gravity potential.
But already emitted light does not.  It always has a decreased energy in the higher gravity potential, relative to the energy it had (red shift) or is going to have (blue shift) as it travels through changes in the gravity field.

Quote:
"But who cares about physics, eh?"
Unquote:

Enough to do my research 'before' opening my mouth!

There is indeed little point in your responding if you can't even manage to comprehend these simple and accepted facts of "mainstream" physics that are "proven" by experiment.  It would seem you are under the impression that clocks running at faster or slower rates, and the observations of gravitationally shifted light are but an appearance and not actual physical phenomenon.

NIST have proven that clocks do run at a faster rate in the higher gravity potential.

As per the equivalence principle an observer with the clock will age in keeping with the clock.

...and the red shift and blue shift of already emitted light in the gravity field are documented as redshifts decreasing in frequency traveling into the higher gravity potential, and blue shifts increasing in frequency traveling into the lower gravity potential.

'This' post has NOT deviated from currently held accepted mainstream physics.

Honestly Alan, either explain to me specifically exactly where and why 'this' post 'has' deviated from accepted mainstream physics and experimental evidence, or post me an apology because you are wrong.  I'm all out of patience with the non specific nature of your complaints and you are seriously losing my respect!

[alancalverd]

Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

[timey]

Forget clocks, forget mossbauer photons. Simply imagine one source which emits a signal with a constant frequency. Now place receivers at various gravitational potentials with respect to the source. They all receive signals of different frequencies. So the frequency shift is nothing to do with the mechanism of the source.

I have not ever proposed that the mechanism of a frequency emitting source that is held static in a uniform gravitational field will be responsible for frequency changes that its signal experiences in the non uniform gravity field.

All emitted signals are gravitationally shifted by a non uniform gravity field.

The signal, as it moves into the higher gravity potential  reduces in frequency and this reduced frequency is what the elevated receiver sees.

But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.  (as with NIST clocks, as per the equivalence principle).  This higher frequency signal, emitted by the gravitationally shifted signal emitter, is further shifted as it moves into the lower gravity potential, and the placed receivers all see respectively higher frequencies as elevation position is decreased.

I am pointing out that:

"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

[timey]

Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Yes - it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Also say you had a source at elevation and a detector that was moving from the ground towards the source. If the detector stopped at set intervals and measured the frequency it would be found to be converging with the source frequency. It isn't the source frequency changing.

Yes - it is interesting that the frequency would be found to be converging with the source frequency...

Over use of ellipses makes ...

[alancalverd]

I am pointing out that:

"Emitted signal is always lower in frequency in the weaker gravity field.
Anything with rest mass is always higher in frequency in the weaker gravity field."

You are telling me that this is nonsense...

More "meaningless" than "nonsense", I'll grant you. 

But if you put the signal emitter into elevation and the receivers in the lower gravity potential, the signal emitter is gravitationally shifted to a higher frequency.

No, the received signal is at a higher frequency.

The sign of a spin vector is arbitrary and unrelated to gravitation. The great thing about cesium clocks is that they rely only on the constancy of spin-spin interaction energy. Whilst a pendulum clock would misbehave at altitude (indeed they do) a mechanical wristwatch, or any clock with a torsion-spring or vibrating timebase, is independent of gravitation: its time constant depends only on the elastic and inertial properties of the oscillator. Unfortunately these mechanical devices are too temperature-sensitive to demonstrate the point here in practice, but you can take heart from the fact that rubidium clocks and several mossbauer-type gamma rays all behave in exactly the same way as the cesium clock or an "ideal wristwatch".