[timey]

Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?

On the basis that I have had to remind you twice already why you started this thread, and that the majority of the posts on this thread are discussing my model, considering your moderator status and responsibilities, in that the change in topic is confusing, I think you should split the thread and describe your model as a separate venture.

As a separate venture, and on the basis that your model is now split to a separate thread, how does your model describe the mechanics of the big bang?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.

[timey]

So as well as hijacking the thread you now feel entitled to claim it as your own. I was actually joking when I said I had forgotten the reason for the thread. It was a subtle critique on your redirection of the threads initial purpose to your own ends. You are actually famous. There have been 10000+ views of this thread. So for you, like Smolin, mission accomplished. Maybe that is why you are eager to claim the thread. Well have it with my blessing. I am nothing if not generous.

So...you're not going to split your description of your model to another thread and answer questions on how your model describes the mechanics of the big bang?

Btw, most of the threads I post on get a lot of views in case you haven't already noticed.  I'm not sure it actually means that much though, apart from benefitting the forum that is.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You now have the floor.

[timey]

You now have the floor.

First you say you have calculated my model.  That I should trust you, that you are a professional.  I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...

Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about!  I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You now have the floor.

OK

First you say you have calculated my model.  That I should trust you, that you are a professional.  I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...

Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about!  I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ...

Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.

[timey]

You now have the floor.

OK

First you say you have calculated my model.  That I should trust you, that you are a professional.  I point out to you that you might be on the wrong track with a calculation of time reversal, but acquiesce that perhaps you may have some other approach that I'm missing the details of and invite you to elaborate upon, at which point you then say that you are calculating your own model, a model that you now no longer wish to discuss...

Leaving me wondering wtf all that was about!  I think I'll just chalk it up to Saturday night syndrome and leave it at that aye ...

Aye aye cap'n. Over and out.

And... I think, from the state of play so far, we can both be in agreement that you have not calculated my model as proven to be mathematically unviable.

[timey]

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.

Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.

There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results.  But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

Ethos - I understand that you have shown interest in this theory, and for that I than you, but when you ask me, wouldn't a contracting universe mean that light would be blue shifting, and then say you have calculated my model as unviable, I know for a fact from the question you pose that you haven't grasped the dimension of the proposed addition of this inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to gravity and observation.

I don't hold this against you in any way.  The concept is hard to grasp in the face of currently held physics.  However, I can assure you that as a geometrical concept, the maths 'should' be proportional to GR maths, without requiring the additions of dark matter and dark energy, as a means of dimensionally balancing the maths, because this is what the added dimension of the proposed inverted time dilation 'should' do.

[alancalverd]

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.

[Ethos_]

Ethos - I understand that you have shown interest in this theory,

In all fairness to Jeff, who BTW, is the originator of this thread, I think it would be admirable for you to start a new thread and allow this thread to focus upon the originators theme. It's very easy to start new threads here and it might settle a few disputes in the process.

I appreciate your acknowledgement regarding my interest in this subject timey but Jeff has a  perfect right to ask everyone involved in this thread to stay on topic and if I may say so, the course this thread has taken has wandered significantly.

I'm sure you'll acquire as much or more interest in your ideas if you choose to start a new thread. Title it what ever you like timey but make sure the title reflects the theme of your ideas about inverted time dilation.

Good luck with your thought experiment.......................Ethos

[timey]

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.

Ok.  Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.

There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct.  But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength.  Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.

Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...

K, well...  Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates.  The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates.  Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.

There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable.  As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships.   This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.

Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.

Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.

(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality.  However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)

[jerrygg38]

 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

[jerrygg38]

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.

Ok.  Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.

There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct.  But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength.  Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.

Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...

K, well...  Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates.  The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates.  Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.

There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable.  As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships.   This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.

Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.

Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.

(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality.  However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)

  As I look at these words, they appear correct in that a time clock within a high density gravitational field and a low density gravitational field are different. thus a time clock varies depending upon the gravitational field. However Einstien's equations show time, mass, and length variations with gravity and velocity.
  If you look at the universe from only time, you are only looking at a partial view. So the universe you see is a different universe. It is a universe where time is the independent variable and everything else depends upon it. thus you can rewrite Einstein's equations from this perspective.
  The problem is that Einstein's equations are a best fit approximation to reality. they are not absolute reality but a root mean square approximation.
   We like to believe that we can write simple equations to define the universe but that is not possible and all we can do is write best fit type equations.

[timey]

 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...

And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.

My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction.  A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout.  But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...

Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process.  The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.

And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength.  This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.

[jerrygg38]

 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...

And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.

My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction.  A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout.  But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...

Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process.  The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.

And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength.  This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.

  Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted.
  I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field.
  For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.

[timey]

 So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

   Although my theory "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" is aligned to an expanding universe and dark energy which are dot-waves, there are always alternate possibilities which fit in with the basic fundamentals.
   An expanding universe would have a loss of photonic energy over time. It could also be argued that the universe itself has a fixed outer radius and is not expanding but the mass/energy is turning into dark energy.
   If the universe was contracting, the photonic energy would be increasing and we would see a blue shift in the light. So if you have an Einsteinian type model that shows blue light, that would be correct.
  For my own theory there would be nothing to see the blue photons as the physical world started at big bang and is completely erased at full expansion or for a non-expanding universe completely erased at the end of the cycle.

Firstly, to clear up confusion, you have mistakenly quoted me as asking a question that Ethos was responsible for posting whereas the question was being asked of me...

And - again there is a failure to understand the nature of a slowly contracting universe.

My models contraction of the universe has been facilitated by a sea of individual particles being pulled together by gravitational attraction.  A universe comprised only of a sea of particles will have a more or less uniform gravity field throughout.  But as these particles draw together into mass structures, the gravity field is becoming less uniform, with points of greater gravity, and spaces of lesser gravity...

Although this type of contraction of the universe is a very slow process, it is by nature an accelerating process.  The spaces of lesser gravity will be becoming spaces of even lesser gravity at an accelerated rate.
This will give an observation of redshifts.

And a blue shift will be indicative of an open space of gravity field between us and another body of mass increasing in strength.  This will mean that a body of mass and ourselves are moving closer to each other, as current physics understanding of a blue shift suggests, but not for the same physical reason.

  Ok I understand what you are saying. In some respects we could look at the universe as a general gas law problem.The expanding universe cools and reaches a maximum and then shrinks toward a pinpoint. With this analogy an expanding universe would be red shifted and a contracting universe would be blue shifted.
  I like you explanation of a homogeneous gravitational field that changes into a concentrated field and a lesser field.
  For myself it appears to me that gravity is positive between masses for an expanding universe and gravity is negative between masses for a contracting universe. thus a contracting universe destroys all structures and produces uniformity. Thus the period of blue shifting is a destructive period. then we return to the red shift universe.

Erm, nope!

Jerry it becomes really hard to upkeep the content of a discussion when a reader does not keep up with the content.

I can appreciate that these may be your ideas of a contracting universe, but I am describing a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon, and the additional dimension of inverted gravitational time dilation challenges Hubble's law by simply attributing the Doppler shift velocities associated with redshifts and blue shifts to this proposed inverted time dilation.  Red shifted light travelling through slower time, not extra distance and therefore not being indicative of any expansion at all.  And therefore, under this remit, a universal contraction would not be indicated by a blue shift.

Sorry...

[timey]

Assuming that we want to talk about timey's thingy, can we please begin with a definition of inverted time? There seems to be some confusion between negative time and reciprocal time, to say nothing of inverse time dilation.

Ok.  Well when physics talks about GR gravitational time dilation, it is referring not 'to' the passing of time, but to 'how' time is passing.

There is the relativity factor between gravity potentials to be considered, in that any observer of his own clock will observe his own clock as being correct.  But as an observer also ages in keeping with his clock, despite the fact that we will only notice the effect of GR gravitational time dilation occurrung in a reference frame when measured from a reference frame of differing gravity potential, we can make the assumption that reference frames of differing gravity potential do experience an actual difference in how time is passing, and that GR gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

Introducing the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation:
To make a description of this proposed inverted time dilation, look to the wavelength of blue shifted light contracting as it travels into a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is contracting proportionally to the wavelength.  Or, in the opposing direction, look to the wavelength of red shifted light dilating as it travels out of a gravity field, and imagine that the time period of a second is dilating proportionally to the wavelength.

Now your first thought will be to say that how can there be an inverted gravitational time dilation when we already know that time runs faster in the weaker gravity field via tried and tested GR gravitational time dilation...

K, well...  Because an observer of a clock will age in keeping with his clock in any gravity potential, whatever physically causes the clock to tick at differing rates is also causing the aging process of the observer to 'tick' at these differing rates.  The obvious explanation is that this is because time is running at differing rates.  Experiments show that a clock will tick faster in the higher gravity potential, and so physics is calculated on the basis that time is running faster out in space.

There exists a less obvious route to explain the observation though:
The equivalence principle can be derived via the gravity potential equation, in that m*g is remaining the same and h is the variable.  As h increases all mass will increase in potential energy proportionally to their usual relationships.   This gives the aging process of the observer of his clock a physical causality.

Now we are saying that GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass relationship, and that the open space of a gravity field, ie: the location of gravity potential that mass may be located in, is subject to the proposed inverted time dilation.

Ditch the notion of relativistic mass, and the observation of lights blue shift and red shift in a gravity field can be directly related to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.

This notion has now by default switched the concept of time running faster out in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, completely changed the outlook on the Lorentz transformations and their use in the GR field equations, and challenges Hubble's law and the concept of an expanding universe.

(edit: The model states time as being energy related and gives the phenomenon of time itself causality.  However the addition of the proposed inverted time dilation redefines the concept of an acceleration of gravity, changing the dimensional balance of existing equations considerably)

So...  If anyone is indeed keeping up with content:

In deriving the equivalence principle via the gravity potential equation, (redefining acceleration of gravity aside for time being), as well as switching the concept of time running faster in space to time running faster for bodies of mass, we also observe another switching of concepts, in that the equivalence principle, in stating that all reference frames are equal to each other, usually derives this statement by stating that there is no physical change between reference frames of differing gravity potential - and that it is due to the difference in the rate of time of the location that we will see a difference in that locations 'timing'.  This being observed by experiment in the increased frequency of energy transitions of the cesium atomic clock in the higher gravity potential.

My model is stating that mass in locations of gravity potential will physically change.  That the energy, and therefore frequency of mass, (and physical process of mass relationships), will increase in the higher gravity potential, and because m*g is always the same and only h is variable, all will remain proportional in any reference frame of gravity potential.
But...  My model then takes the concept of nothing physically changing for mass in the differing gravity potentials and applies it to the observation, (under the remit of the proposed inverted time dilation), of light.
Red shifted light's energy is being stretched over dilated time.  Frequency is denoting how much energy is a 'observed' to be occurring over the time period of a standard second, (ie: less energy because time is running slower than a standard second), and the actual observation of light becoming redder becomes a matter of the (inverted gravitational time dilation) time difference between reference frames of differing gravity potential being time frame dependent...

(edit: Actually, to correct myself - observational time frame dependency is more related to luminosity observations than light becoming redder, which is more related to energy being stretched over longer time periods)

My model stating the observation of differing rates of time as being time frame dependant, and proportional to the difference in rate of time...

If this can be understood, we can now take this concept to the regions of the black hole phenomenon, and the uncertainty principle.

[alancalverd]

So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.

[timey]

So I have three atomic clocks, using different transitions of different atoms, say cesium, rubidium and aluminum, and a carbon dioxide laser. And let's have a Fe57 atom for good measure. All produce different frequencies. I raise them from the surface of the earth to a height h. Describe the frequency shift of each.

The proportionality of how these atoms process differ from each other in frequency in a reference frame of one gravity potential will be retained in all reference frames of any gravity potential.  By calculating the mass of the process being measured (this being only a fractional part of the mass of the atom), times g, (albeit acceleration of g must be redefined with addition of the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation), m*g remains constant at any h.  So then multiplying by the variable h is adding potential energy and increasing frequency as h increases - and the remit of the equivalence principle has been maintained.

[alancalverd]

There is no mass involved in any of the processes mentioned, except the CO2 laser.