[timey]

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".

Alan - thing is that one can hardly consider the situation as meaningless when one notes that under the remit of GR, light is calculated as having relativistic mass...

If light has mass then, as per equivalence principle, its frequency should increase in the higher gravity potential, as everything else with mass's frequency does.

Yes - of course the received signal is higher in frequency.  Its been blue shifted.  However the mass of the signal emitter 'has' also been shifted to a higher frequency due to its elevation in the higher gravity potential.   A higher frequency means a higher energy, and if the emitter has a higher energy it must emit at a higher frequency.

We can see this as proven by experiment:

An Fe57 source on ground emits photon.  A mossbauer receiver on ground receives photon.
An Fe57 source on ground emits photon.  A mossbauer receiver in elevation cannot receive photon.  The energy of the photon is not of correct level.
But if you place the Fe57 source at the same elevation as the mossbauer receiver, the mossbauer receiver receives photon.

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.  The photons then further increase in energy when blue shifted towards earth.

So long as we are clear on all of this, we can progress to discussing these accepted and mainstream physics in the context of a new theory - this being the proposed inverted time dilation and the  consequence of its addition being a cyclic universe.

[alancalverd]

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.

Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.

When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.

Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

[timey]

Presumably both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation, and therefore the photons emitted at elevation 'are', by the remit of quantum, of higher energy.

Garbage. Nothing to do with hyperfine anythings. Nor the mass of anything, let alone its weight. Hence independent of gravitation.

When you invent "presumably"s you run the risk of appearing arrogant, and arrogance often signals ignorance. A toxic combination for your own thoughts, and it lowers you in my estimation to the level of the unemployables who form government inspectorates, for whom Kruger-Dunning is an entry qualification.

Just stick to the experimental facts, and keep them simple. Whatever the source, the received signal is frequency-shifted in the same direction (and indeed by the same fraction) by a given gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?

I wasn't inventing a presumably Alan, I was being polite in that you might take opportunity to add something that is actually  correct to the discussion.

I did run through exactly why it is that experiment shows why what I'm saying is correct.

If you are saying that what I'm saying is incorrect, then state what is incorrect in relation to experimental evidence.  Do not tell me to stick to facts without saying exactly and precisely where I have deviated from them, and may I suggest that doing so 'before' adding insults is the norm in good manners.

[alancalverd]

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?

Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.

both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,

none of this is true.

[timey]

So you say that quantum has nothing to do with the energy transition of an Fe57 source emitting a photon, or a mossbauer receiver receiving one... Really?

Had I meant that, I would have said it. I am a scientist, not a politician or an idiot.

both the Fe57 source and the mossbauer receiver are displaying spin - spin hyperfine energy transitions... and the above shows that these transitions are gravitationally shifted to higher energy levels and higher frequencies in elevation,

none of this is true.

Using words like garbage and nonsense is hardly scientific, and responding with "this isn't true" is not in the interests of a discussion.

I could quote some of the physics gaffs you have made in this thread but that would be bitchy.  Why would anyone want to be bitchy?

When I sent you my diagram November last year, you told me that you were a bit rusty on GR.  This being the most refreshingly honest response I've ever had from a physicist, setting you in a class of your own in my opinion.  But to say so, this was of no surprise to me as I had made a full study of your posts that spelt out the same story.

The more apt response for a physicist to make would be:

On the basis, Vikki, that I think you are equating spin-spin hyperfine energy transitions to quantum process, although the PR used this quantum process to measure gravitational shift, physics is no closer to linking quantum with gravity.

Then you might say:

So - what you got in mind?

[alancalverd]

Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*. 

So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?

[timey]

Spin-spin interactions are indeed quantum processes, but not connected with the ejection of a "mossbauer" nuclear photon following the electron capture process of Co58 -> Fe57*. 

So, starting from known facts, and only known facts, what have you got in mind?

I cannot claim to be knowledgeable enough in the area of particle physics in relation quantum process to conduct a truly in-depth technological conversation... The only part of the quantum process that I'm looking at is the energy levels required for transitions to occur, and how a photon must be of the correct energy for the mossbauer to receive it.

For me to tell you what I've got in mind, I need for you to confirm that you have understood that:
Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

...and that when we view light that is arriving from somewhere, we only see it at the energy level that it is when it arrives, not at the energy level that it was emitted at.

The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.

Looking at the cesium atomic clock and how the frequency of its energy transitions increase in the weaker gravity field, as a quantum process.  A higher frequency means a higher energy level.  Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...

Taking this logic back to the mossbauer we 'could' now view the mossbauer as having increased energy at elevation.  And when considering that if we move the Fe57 source to the same elevation as we previously moved the mossbauer to, the mossbauer will receive the photon the Fe57 source emits at this elevation because the photon it emits is of the correct energy level - and so... we 'could' view the Fe57 source as having increased in energy.  As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.

If you follow the logic so far, I'll continue.  If you don't, then please say exactly where you have the problem.

[alancalverd]

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.

Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.

The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.

That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.

Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...

Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.

As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.

You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean,  as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics. 

[timey]

Blue shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field
Red shifted light is always of lesser energy in the weaker gravity field.

These statements are garbled. What we observe is that photons arriving from a higher gravitational potential appear blue shifted, and those arriving from a lower gravitaitonal potential appear red shifted, compared with those generated by the same mechanism at the point of observation.

Not a good idea to confuse "energy levels" with "energy". Different words mean different things in physics.

The Fe57 source on the ground emits a photon of a certain energy.  In the horizontal experiment the mossbauer is of the correct energy to receive this photon.
Place the mossbauer in elevation and the photon the Fe57 emits cannot be received by the mossbauer.  The photons energy has been gravitationally shifted...
Clearly if this was all there was to the story then quantum and gravity would have been unified yonks ago.

That is what we observe, though quaintly expressed, and as you say, that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with any relationship between quantum mechanics and gravitation. See next paragaph.

Therefore it 'could' be viewed that as clocks are placed at intervals of increasing elevation, the energy levels of each clocks energy transitions are increased...

Indeed it could, but even if it were more correctly expressed, it wouldn't be true, because the spin/spin interaction is not gravity-dependent, any more than the timebase of a wristwatch or the energy of a mossbauer photon.

As per the equivalence principle, and the concept that observers with a clock age in keeping with the clock, we 'could' say that all configurations of mass in elevation increase in energy proportional relative to same mass configurations in a lower gravity potential.

You could indeed say that, though a scientist probably wouldn't. You could neatly express what I think you mean,  as "potential energy = mgh", just like in the textbooks of classical physics. But that doesn't explain why the clock with more potential energy appears to run faster, nor does it have anything to do with quantum mechanics.

OK - to clear up any terminology problems, when I refer to energy, frequency and wavelength, I am referring to lights energy, frequency and wavelength, and I am also referring to the energy, frequency and wavelength of De Broglie matter wave.

Garbled or not, red shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field, and blue shifted light is of lesser frequency when it is in the weaker gravity field.
If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?

All mass is gravitationally affected by the proximity of other mass, including the interactions of particles within atoms. The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.

Just saw the editted additions.  Yes - calculating gravity potential for the clock would increase frequency with the added energy... Calculating light without the additional gravity potential (ie: no relativistic mass) would leave lights observed behaviour open to the introduction of my idea of this proposed inverted time dilation of the open space gravity field.

[alancalverd]

If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?

Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.

The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.

Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.

[hamdani yusuf]

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?

I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

[timey]

If I say that light when travelling through changes in a gravity field always has a lesser frequency in the weaker gravity field - may I then have your agreement?

Why misuse a perfectly good language to confuse yourself? The frequency of any received signal depends on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. That is the observed fact.

The spin-spin interactions within the cesium atom are increased in frequency in the weaker gravity field.   This has been proven by NIST atomic clock experiments. An increase in frequency is inclusive of an increase in energy.

Wrong. The frequency of any clock appears higher when the observer is at a lower gravitaional potential. Don't attempt to intepret or embellish the facts: this is physics, not politics.

Alan - the frequency of a third clock that is higher in elevation than the first clock we put in elevation, will see that the clock below it is running slower than itself.  But it will also see that the clock on the ground is running slower than the clock in the middle.

Therefore a clock always has a higher frequency when it is in the higher gravity potential.

[timey]

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?

I think you are confusing between "gravitational potential" and "gravitational field strength".
Higher gravitational potential doesn't necessarily means higher gravitational field strength.
A building's floor has lower gravitational potential than its roof, but generally it has higher gravitational strength (unless it is significantly below average level of earth surface).

Hi Hamdani - thanks for joining the discussion.  I've been following your posts and welcome your commentary.

However, to say so, I am not confused about gravity potential.  I understand that the higher gravity potential is in the weaker gravity field.

To give you background, I have a theory of time that attributes the phenomenon of time to being a byproduct of energy.
In brief: More energy = faster rate of time, and frequency 'is' timing.  The consequences of the addition of an inverted time dilation for open space result in a cyclic universe. (If you are further interested I can send you a more in depth synopsis via private message)

Alan has said (I think) that gravity potential energy can be calculated via mgh.  If the mass was on the ground that would just be mg.  I'm suggesting that  light without the relativistic mass concept can be calculated as gh, and that the acceleration of g 'is' the inverted time dilation that I am proposing should be added to GR.  (Holding speed of gravity as constant and equal to speed of light - via speed, distance, time formula, transpose acceleration into time value... I attempted maths at this earlier this thread, and can repost if you are interested.)

This concept, and this being just one of many relevant consequences, gives the acceleration of gravity a cause.

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.

Planck's h constant being the linking factor between changes in lights energy with regards to frequency and wavelength, and being the significant phenomenon of quantum.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

[timey]

More kinetic energy = increased time dilation.

A clock increases in frequency in elevation, relative to clock below.
A clock decreases in frequency in motion, relative to a stationary clock.

Put a stationary clock into motion in a uniform gravity field - adding kinetic energy will increase the frequency of the clock, not decrease it.

[alancalverd]

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.

You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it.  It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.

[timey]

When I can manage to bring anyone's attention to the fact that light, as it travels through space, is always of a lesser frequency when in the weaker gravity field.  And that anything with rest mass is always of a higher frequency in the weaker gravity field, I can move on to putting this theory into context with regards to shifts in frequency that are temperature related.

You will have to wait a long time because it isn't true. The frequency of every source is higher when viewed from a lower gravitational potential than the source. You know that and everyone else knows that, and you have quoted classic experiments that showed it.  It's nothing to do with the mass of the source.

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

Remember that for an observer to observe light, the light has to have entered the eye, or reached the detector.

Therefore the observation of blue shifted light is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

[alancalverd]

..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,

[timey]

..and the observed frequency of the clock signal is the frequency it has shifted to when it has arrived in the observers gravity potential.

It's easy when you stick to a consistent nomenclature,

No Alan - that is not true.

NIST atomic clock experiments can observe 2 clocks 1 metre apart in elevation running at different rates with 1 observer.

[alancalverd]

And the higher one runs faster, no? The observer has to be somewhere!