[alancalverd]

So you are now suggesting that time is temperature-dependent?

I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.

Dimensions?

[timey]

So you are now suggesting that time is temperature-dependent?

I think that I previously suggested that ground level potential energy for any mass would be mg.

Dimensions?

I am suggesting that time is energy related.
Temperature is energy related.

There is an association between temperature and time in that:
We observe decomposition occurring faster at greater temperatures.
We observe that plant matter grows faster in warmer climes.
We observe that matter can be frozen to prolong its life.
We observe the concept of cryogenics.
Etc.

Shifts in frequency are observed in adding temperature.  Shifts in frequency are observed in the gravitational field.

*

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.

[alancalverd]

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.

[timey]

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.

Let me rephrase:

The dimensions are m and g and h.

It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is.  It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance.

 Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.

[timey]

Then there is no point in continuing the discusson.

Let me rephrase:

The dimensions are m and g and h.

It really doesn't matter what m is unless you are going to actually make a calculation of a process, in which case this would require figuring out what the relevant m of that process is.  It is that the proportionality of any and all m at h upholds the equivalence principle that is of relevance.

 Unless you are referring to any other dimensions, in which case I don't know what you mean.

(edit: Or is it because you think that I mean that the energy of the gravity field is thermal?  ...in which case, no of course not, I'm suggesting that the time phenomenon shifts of frequency observed in the gravity field are energy related.)

[alancalverd]

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.

Then there is no point whatever in continuing the discussion. I might as well be writing in Martian heiroglyphics.

[timey]

I don't know what you mean by dimensions, sorry.

Then there is no point whatever in continuing the discussion. I might as well be writing in Martian heiroglyphics.

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.

You cannot just say "dimensions" with a question mark and expect someone who has already given the dimensions of m and g and h to understand what you mean.

Furthermore, I have come to this site as a declared non mathematician asking for help with the maths, so if there is something that I'm missing about dimensions, then it would be polite of you to give an explanation of which dimensions you refer to and in what context.

[Ethos_]

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.

Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.

[timey]

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.

Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.

For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!

Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation.  h being the height of elevation.

The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.

I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis!  Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics - and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.

Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.

For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!

Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation.  h being the height of elevation.

The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.

I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis!  Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics - and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...

Wrong! The h is required to produce an energy equation. This is why dimensional analysis cannot be ignored. Mg is kg m s^-2. Not correct.

[timey]

You have previously described dimensions as apples and oranges and pears Alan.

Alan is making the case for Dimensional balance timey. It would be good for you to investigate "Dimensional Analysis" at Wikipedia. His point is; You can't multiply, or divide apples by oranges. All equations must be dimensionally balanced.

For goodness sake Ethos...mgh is a known calculation!

Without h, mg can describe gravity potential for individual masses at ground level and the further multiplying by h adds gravity potential energy for those masses at elevation.  h being the height of elevation.

The dimensions of this suggestion are exactly proportional to the equivalence principle, in that all relationships that exist retain their existing proportionality between each other at elevation.

I'm very sorry that I cannot express this in terms of dimensional analysis!  Perhaps this is a job for someone who is adept at mathematics - and fact is, talking to someone who is adept at mathematics is indeed the very reason for my posting on this forum...

Wrong! The h is required to produce an energy equation. This is why dimensional analysis cannot be ignored. Mg is kg m s^-2. Not correct.

Mass on the ground can be considered either as a part of the greater mass of earth, or as individual masses that are subject to the gravity of the greater mass.

Sure - use mgh, where h is ground level.  Problem solved.  Any further elevation is just adding value to h and therefore adds energy as to height. Equivalence principle is upheld.

...and - dimensional analysis of the gravity potential equation already exists.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Valid values for h fall within a set range. The gravitational field needs to be able to be considered uniform within this defined range. It would be meaningless to measure from the surface of the earth with a value for h in the hundreds of thousands of metres range. Since the value for g varies significantly over such a distance. Your value for energy would be in significant error. This is not a trivial point. All things are relative.

[timey]

Valid values for h fall within a set range. The gravitational field needs to be able to be considered uniform within this defined range. It would be meaningless to measure from the surface of the earth with a value for h in the hundreds of thousands of metres range. Since the value for g varies significantly over such a distance. Your value for energy would be in significant error. This is not a trivial point. All things are relative.

In the instance of measuring the change in gravity potential energy between the potential energy at h=ground and h=17inches, the equation does just fine.
Where h=radius then I understand that a different equation can be used...

...and when one states mgh, I assumed that this included the factor of g being at h.  Doesn't it?

Mass size of different process can vary, but if g and h are constant for all mass size per reference frame, then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.

The fact that the equivalence principle can be derived in this way is what is relevant here.

[alancalverd]

then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.

So there is no change in the emitted energy of the mossbauer photon or the frequency of an atomic clock. Face it, if the quantised energy levels of an atom were to change with gravitational potential, space would be occupied by plasma, not atoms and molecules, but it ain't. 

[timey]

then the equivalence principle is upheld as all energy, relationships between particles, atoms, molecules, etc remain proportional to each other.

So there is no change in the emitted energy of the mossbauer photon or the frequency of an atomic clock. Face it, if the quantised energy levels of an atom were to change with gravitational potential, space would be occupied by plasma, not atoms and molecules, but it ain't.

Yes there is a change in emitted energy and frequency, but all masses of any size are experiencing the same shift.

*

As I understand it g diminishes with increased h, and both gravity potential and gravitational time dilation tail off in deep space.
No danger of excessive energy levels in space under those circumstance.

[alancalverd]

There is no mass involved in the Fe57 transition. Nor are the masses of the electrons and nuclei relevant to the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

Gravitational potential increases as you move away from the source of gravitation. V(x) = -GM/x by definition. So it is zero in deep space and tends to minus infinity as you approach a massive body.

[timey]

There is no mass involved in the Fe57 transition. Nor are the masses of the electrons and nuclei relevant to the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

Gravitational potential increases as you move away from the source of gravitation. V(x) = -GM/x by definition. So it is zero in deep space and tends to minus infinity as you approach a massive body.

I 'was' creating a really long and convoluted post, (chuckle), but it occurs that I should just ask this:

http://physics.info/standard/

If the masses of all the particles were individually calculated as mgh, where the potential energy is additional to the energy of the mass, would the same proportionality of energy differences between the masses be retained at any given h?

Or will the calculation escalate the energy of larger masses disproportionally to the energy increase the calculation gives to smaller masses?

[alancalverd]

The potential energy of any particle of mass m at height h in a uniform gravitational field is mgh.

[timey]

The potential energy of any particle of mass m at height h in a uniform gravitational field is mgh.

Oh, OK... I had assumed h being  height is variable, and indicated a change in gravity field...?

[alancalverd]

If you want to include variations in g with h, by all means, but it turns a simple linear equation into an integral and doesn't shed any light on the subject at all. The variation over 100 feet or even 1000 feet from the earth's surface is not worth worrying about.