[timey]

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.

A mathematician and an engineer are subjects of a psychology experiment; first they are separately shown into a room where there is an empty bucket, a trashcan, and a faucet. The trashcan is on fire. Each of them first fills the bucket with water from the faucet, then dumps it on the trashcan and extinguishes the flames. Then the engineer is shown to another room, where there is again a faucet, a trashcan on fire, and a bucket, but this time the bucket is already filled with water; the engineer takes the bucket, empties it on the trashcan and puts out the fire. The mathematician, when introduced to the exact same situation, takes the bucket, and empties it on the floor, and then says "which reduces this to a previously solved problem."

*

mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h.  (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)

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

Quote:
" In classical mechanics, the gravitational potential at a location is equal to the work (energy transferred) per unit mass that would be done by the force of gravity if an object were moved from its location in space to a fixed reference location. ***It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.***  The reference location, where the potential is zero, is by convention infinitely far away from any mass, resulting in a negative potential at any finite distance."
Unquote:
(I added the stars ***)

So a positive calculation is describing a negative potential.

My theory of this proposed additional inverted gravitational time dilation states that g, g being 9.807m|s^2, (for Earth), is 'mostly' due to the weak force of gravitational attraction being accelerated near bodies of mass by the contracting of the time period of unit's of time in the increasing strength of gravity field...

...and looks to the weak force of gravitational attraction itself being of a far lesser value, where this link in relation to the *** mass analogous to charge *** is interesting, in that this link is describing the magnetic moment of an electron.

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

The Lorentz transformations describe length contraction, and in their inverse form they describe time dilation.

Can I ask please if the time dilation the Lorentz transformations describe is gravitational, or motion related?

[Ethos_]

Can I ask please if the time dilation the Lorentz transformations describe is gravitational, or motion related?

According to Wikipedia: "The term "Lorentz Transformations" only refers to the transformations between inertial frames usually in the context of SR."

[alancalverd]

mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h.  (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)

Not sure what you mean by a positive calculation, but g(h) = g(0) (R/(R+h))^2 where R is the radius of the earth. So substituting R = 6,371,000 and h = 25 we get g(h)/g(0) = 0.999992 for a 25 meter height increase, 1 part in 10^6 difference. Compare this with the measured Pound-Rebka frequency shift of 2.5 x 10^-15 and I think you will see that there is a bit more to it than merely variaton of g with h.

[timey]

mgh as a linear equation is calculating the gravity field as a positive calculation, but the gravity field is reducing by the inverse square law at h.  (As an integral we would see the Riemann geometry that forms part of GR.)

Not sure what you mean by a positive calculation, but g(h) = g(0) (R/(R+h))^2 where R is the radius of the earth. So substituting R = 6,371,000 and h = 25 we get g(h)/g(0) = 0.999992 for a 25 meter height increase, 1 part in 10^6 difference. Compare this with the measured Pound-Rebka frequency shift of 2.5 x 10^-15 and I think you will see that there is a bit more to it than merely variaton of g with h.

Generally, all the most useful physics books I've read provide explanation of maths in word format as a given... I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...

However... (If calculating g as 9.807m|s^2,)... g*h 'adds' only positive value, when the gravity field is reducing, which should result in a partial subtraction of a negative value.

This equation 'could perhaps' work with the idea of inverted time dilation because as the gravity field reduces, the time period of a unit of time is gravitationally dilated. (lengthened).  Therefore the negative value of g at h becomes the positive value  (ie: g*h), and by subjecting the acceleration of g to the speed distance time formula, (on basis that speed of gravity is equal to speed of light), a time value can be extracted and added to the value of a standard time unit... We can now see that time periods are extended as gravity field is reduced, and that the difference between the linear and the integral calculations 'are' inverted time dilation related, and another gravitational constant is responsible for an attractive force, while accelerations of gravity are time related.

m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.

Now both calculations can be said to describe that an increase in energy will cause an increase in frequency.  An increase in strength of gravity field will cause an increase in frequency for massless particles due to the increased energy of the gravity field, and an increase in gravity potential energy will cause an increase in frequency for anything with mass raised into the weaker gravity field.

The gravity field will shift energy for all mass sizes proportionally, but it will shift energy in the gravitational field equally for massless entities, and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant (energy associated), via wavelength.

Then...because my theory states the phenomenon of time itself as energy related - Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement, the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon.  Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.

These being an entirely mathematically proportional, (I think), alternative means of considering the same observations.

In the PR, the man made Doppler shift was matched by 'something' in the gravity field...

[alancalverd]

I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...

For some reason the forum software doesn't allow subscripts at the moment. g(h) is the alternative shorthand for "the value of g at height h" compared with g(0) which pretty obviously means "the value of g at ground level"

m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.

a moment's reflection on the dimensions of mgh will show that it doesn't calculate mass, but potential energy.

and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant

except that they are not. Again, dimensional analysis will show that the ratio of frequencies is dimensionless whereas h has dimensions ML^2/T 

Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement,  the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon.  Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.

except that h is joule.seconds, not joules per second squared.

[timey]

I'm not sure why your h is in brackets, so on, but I think I get overall jist...

For some reason the forum software doesn't allow subscripts at the moment. g(h) is the alternative shorthand for "the value of g at height h" compared with g(0) which pretty obviously means "the value of g at ground level"

m*g*h then calculates mass at h inclusive of inverted time dilation, and the additional potential energy due to the mass of the object will increase the frequency of the object or process of the object being measured.

a moment's reflection on the dimensions of mgh will show that it doesn't calculate mass, but potential energy.

and we observe that frequency changes are related to Planck's h constant

except that they are not. Again, dimensional analysis will show that the ratio of frequencies is dimensionless whereas h has dimensions ML^2/T 

Planck's h constant, being a per 'standard' second squared measurement,  the measured phenomenon itself is subject to an increase in energy, causing an increase in time for that phenomenon.  Increases of joules per second squared, can then be transposed to being a linear consideration and quantum is not quantised.

except that h is joule.seconds, not joules per second squared.

Yes - as I said, I got the jist.
*
Yes - I know.  Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass.  Why would you think that I think otherwise?
*
Wavelength = h|p
Frequency = E|h
Where h is Planck's h constant.
*
Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.

[alancalverd]

*
Yes - I know.  Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass.  Why would you think that I think otherwise?

because you said so!
*

Wavelength = h|p
Frequency = E|h
Where h is Planck's h constant.

and frequency divided by frequency is dimensionless
*

Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.

Fred Hoyle made such a statement once, but went down in history for saying it.

[timey]

*
Yes - I know.  Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass.  Why would you think that I think otherwise?

because you said so!
*

Wavelength = h|p
Frequency = E|h
Where h is Planck's h constant.

and frequency divided by frequency is dimensionless
*

Sorry, my mistake... The per and squared factor is not important to the overall concept, in fact its a good deal less complicated. Joules 'times' a standard second then.

Fred Hoyle made such a statement once, but went down in history for saying it.

How can m*g*h calculate mass?  You must think me a total idiot if you think I thought that.  I certainly didn't say that by any stretch of the imagination... I said that for mass m*g*h. (ie: potential energy for mass)
*
Where does frequency divided by frequency come in?  I didn't introduce that notion!
*
What Fred Hoyle said?  ...is wholly irrelevant to the concept being proposed here.

Sorry, but I really cannot understand the purpose of this post... (scratches head)

[Ethos_]

Where does frequency divided by frequency come in?  I didn't introduce that notion!
*

Dimensionless numbers are very important in the mathematical construction of physical realities and when one understands their importance, they are on track to seeing the importance of Dimensional Analysis. Consider the fine structure constant "a" as one example.

[timey]

Where does frequency divided by frequency come in?  I didn't introduce that notion!
*

Dimensionless numbers are very important in the mathematical construction of physical realities and when one understands their importance, they are on track to seeing the importance of Dimensional Analysis. Consider the fine structure constant "a" as one example.

Yes - I was entirely aware that in mentioning the gravitational coupling constant that this constant comprises of a dimensionless number, and that a dimensionless number has no dimensions to be analysed, and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...
(do I really have to fully describe every obvious factor in order that a reader understand that I understand the obvious?)

...the fact of point being the *** It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge *** ...quoted from the gravity potential link - in relation to the magnetic moment of an electron.

[Ethos_]

 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.

I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

[timey]

 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.

I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

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

Quote:
" The dimensionless constants that arise in the results obtained, such as the C in the Poiseuille's Law problem and the {\displaystyle \kappa }in the spring problems discussed above come from a more detailed analysis of the underlying physics, and often arises from integrating some differential equation. ***Dimensional analysis itself has little to say about these constants, *** but it is useful to know that they very often have a magnitude of order unity. This observation can allow one to sometimes make "back of the envelope" calculations about the phenomenon of interest, and therefore be able to more efficiently design experiments to measure it, or to judge whether it is important, etc."

Quote:
" Paradoxically, dimensional analysis can be a useful tool even if all the parameters in the underlying theory are dimensionless, e.g., lattice models such as the Ising model can be used to study phase transitions and critical phenomena. Such models can be formulated in a purely dimensionless way. As we approach the critical point closer and closer, the distance over which the variables in the lattice model are correlated (the so-called correlation length, {\displaystyle \xi } ) becomes larger and larger. Now, the correlation length is the relevant length scale related to critical phenomena, so one can, e.g., surmise on "dimensional grounds" that the non-analytical part of the free energy per lattice site should be {\displaystyle \sim 1/\xi ^{d}} where {\displaystyle d}is the dimension of the lattice.

It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., M. J. Duff,[19][20] that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of modern physics, there was no way to relate mass, length, and time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c,ħ, and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."
Unquote:

Now that we both know that I have read the wiki link, perhaps we can move on?

You tell me about the importance of dimensional analysis, very patiently perhaps, but get annoyed when I point out that there is failure to use it to disprove what I'm proposing... And simply stating that my introducing an additional dimension of inverted time dilation is nonsensical doesn't employ the scientific method, nor address the analysis required to investigate the redistributed balance between the existing dimensions with the proposed addition...
Not insulted, just frustrated!

[alancalverd]

The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.

[timey]

The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.

Yes Alan - I am aware that any addition to, or augmentation of GR that my model proposes will have to be proportional mathematically to, or with, existing dimensions or the model will not be mathematically viable.  I'm proposing that my model is mathatically proprtoonal to GR as a concept.

I am not saying "because I said so"... I'm saying "because alternative means of viewing observation exists"...

Fact remains that I am a self professed non-mathematician, who is posting on this forum because she knows that in light of her lacking of formal background in mathematics she doesn't have a hope in hell of calculating an entire model describing a cyclic universe, and that it would be stupid of her, or anyone else for that matter, to think she could.  Evan posted last year that even Einstein needed help to mathematically describe his concepts.

Fact remains that I am not asking for help in learning mathematics.  I am looking for some one to listen to my description of this model in words, understand it, and then calculate the model.

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!

There is absolutely no reason why a competent mathematician cannot transpose a concept explained to him, or her, in words, and then calculate it.

Non mathematicians can actually be intelligent, and are more than capable of understanding, and even producing complex ideas.

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article/69251/6-famous-scientists-and-inventors-who-struggled-math
 
Michael Faraday:
" Like most impoverished boys, he’d received little formal education. Hence, Faraday’s math skills left a lot to be desired. In 1846, he boldly proposed that visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. But because he couldn’t back up the idea with mathematics, his colleagues ignored it. Enter James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). Believing the older scientist’s hypothesis, this Scottish physicist & mathematician used ingenious equations to finally prove Faraday right eighteen years later."

Thomas Edison:
" “I can always hire a mathematician,” Edison once remarked, “[but] they can’t hire me.” Like all successful entrepreneurs, he was keenly aware of his strengths and weaknesses. As a boy, Edison trudged through Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica(“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”). In his own words, the book left him with nothing but “a distaste for mathematics from which I never recovered.”
Unquote:

I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.

[timey]

No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.

Right I see - straight back to it being an inadequacy on my part, or on the part of the authors who wrote the books I've read.  It couldn't be because actually no one is listening, now could it?

What part of - "the length of a wavelength is not distant related, but is inverted time dilation related and can be calculated with the speed distance time formula, where c is speed, wavelength is distance, and a time value can be extracted, that challenges Hubble's concept of an expanding universe, rendering GR, minus the cosmological constant, correct in describing a contracting universe" - do you not understand, or find to be contrary to physics terms, or logical reason?

This was a great contribution that you made earlier this thread:

Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

Consider the time period of a standard second becoming dilated in the weaker gravity field.  Not for objects with mass 'in' the gravity field, but for locations in the gravity field itself).  Anything free falling through a gravity field would be experiencing acceleration due to time periods (inverted time dilation), contracting near mass.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.

[timey]

That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.

'That' can be used to describe anything that gets longer (or shorter) as it travels along, and can be used to describe my proposed concept of inverted time dilation.

What do I mean when I say the length of a wavelength is time related?  Looking at an 'already emitted' light wave, it has a wavelength.  This wave'length' is a distance. When this wavelength travels through a gravity field it is either contracted (blue shifted), or dilated (red shifted).   The wavelength becomes shorter, or longer in its length.

I'm suggesting that the wavelength of already emitted light does not change in actual length, in the gravity field.  I'm suggesting that it is the time period of a second that is contracting, or dilating as a result of the gravity field as per this proposed inverted time dilation - and that blue shifted and red shifted light waves are simply taking a shorter or longer amount of time to travel the same distance.  (ie: the same distance being the length the lights wavelength was when emitted.)

If you are going to class anything that you won't find in a physics text book as being a muddying of the waters Jeff, what point is there in having a 'New Theory' forum?

[timey]

 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.

I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it.  You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:

In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...

The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

My model describes a cyclic universe, but this cyclic universe does not resemble any previous cyclic model... While the model describes a big bang, inflation period, and big crunch, these phenomenon of my model also bear no resemblance to any previous model.

This is how my model differs:

The big bang is currently described as everything originating from a point...
My model describes the big bang as having originated from a black hole containing all the matter of the last universe.  Because there is no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this black hole, it empties itself to its own extinction.

The inflation period is currently described as a period of accelerated inflation, distributing matter uniformly in an outward trajectory, before decelerating... (and then accelerating again as per dark energy)
My model describes the inflation period as particles being ejected via the superluminal jets of the 'big bang' black hole containing all the matter of the last universe.

The big crunch is currently described as a deceleration of the outward trajectory, resulting in gravitational forces drawing everything back together at accelerated speed.
My model describes the big crunch as being an incredibly slow process that begins just after the superluminal jets of the 'big bang' black hole eject matter in particle form, creating a more or less uniform sea of particles.  As these particles draw together, open distances of space start to form as a result of particles vacating their former solo positions by clumping together...

GR predicts a mess of black holes in the universes distant future...  Current theory, in relation to the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than decelerating as the logic had previously held, has this mess of black holes disappearing into the far distance on outward trajectories resulting in a concept known as the big freeze...
My model results in a mess of black holes, by as a result if the spacial dimensions of the universe slowly contracting, this mess of black holes, that are our universes distant future, are formed by all the matter of the universe, drawn together into a galaxy of black holes that merge into each other, until there is only a singular black hole with everything in it.  With no equivalent gravitational for e acting upon it, it empties itself to extinction, leaving a sea of particles.

And... Just quickly - if you can imagine that time in the sea of particles is more or less uniform, as you would imagine gravity to be, where particles clump, time is contracted, and the open space created by particles clumping, time is dilated.
And... as per GR gravitational time dilation, a mass that is gravitationally affected by another mass will experience a contracted rate of time that dilates as the mass gets closer to the other mass.  It just so happens that anything we use that resonates at a frequency that is reminiscent of the time period of what we call a standard second, will shift in energy and frequency equally in the gravity field.  But other particles, process, etc, will occur at differing frequencies from each other in a reference frame, and all will shift proportionally in the gravity field giving physical process for the concept of an observer aging in keeping with his clock.

This is but a brief outline of a huge concept, the further details of which all fit together as a jigsaw puzzle to describe this cyclic model that 'should' be mathematically proportional to GR, and therefore viable.  Furthermore, unlike GR, (or any other), this model does not require any unobserved entities to describe the mechanics.

[alancalverd]

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean - as I am sure you do - and has a "square root" button opn a calculator - as I am pretty sure you have.

The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.

What unobserved entities are required by GR?