0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

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

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.)

Quote from: timey on 02/08/2016 13:59:12mgh 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Quote from: timey on 02/08/2016 21:10:47 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"Quote 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. Quote 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 Quote 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 - I know. Clearly it is potential energy that is being calculated, not mass. Why would you think that I think otherwise?

Wavelength = h|pFrequency = E|hWhere 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.

Quote from: timey on 03/08/2016 00:42:35*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!*QuoteWavelength = h|pFrequency = E|hWhere h is Planck's h constant. and frequency divided by frequency is dimensionless*QuoteSorry, 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.

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

Quote from: timey on 03/08/2016 14:25:46Where 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.

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

Quote from: timey on 03/08/2016 16:44:00 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.