[timey]

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

You have said this before and I couldn't understand it then either.  The only thing I can think of as to why you say this, is because the process in which frequency becomes relevant is involving light, and light has no mass.

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).  To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.  Both the external mechanism applying the energy, and the internal process involving component particles of the Fe57 have mass.

The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon.  The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave.  Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.

[alancalverd]

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).

yes it does 

To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.

No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a two-stage gamma emission with no mass change.

The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon.  The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave.  Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.

The resonance is a spin-spin interaction whose energy is not mass-dependent

But the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency?  The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can  yours do better?

[timey]

But... An Fe57 doesn't just spontaneously emit a gamma ray. (does it?).

yes it does 

To cause an Fe57 to emit a gamma ray, the Fe57 is subject to an increase of energy applied by an external mechanism.

No. It is naturally radioactive. The "mossbauer" decay process is a two-stage gamma emission with no mass change.

The cesium atomic clock also does not spontaneously emit a photon.  The energy kick in this case is being provided by microwave.  Both the producing factor of a microwave and the internal process involving component particles of the cesium atom have mass.

The resonance is a spin-spin interaction whose energy is not mass-dependent

But the point is, if clocks with different masses or none at all are raised to a new gravitational potential, what does your proposed mechanism do to the observed frequency?  The standard GR equation, whcih does not involve the mass of the clock, gives the correct answer. Can  yours do better?

OK - to clear up any possible confusion;  I'm thinking that perhaps you are looking at the process of a proposed increase in energy, and working from the basis that an increase in energy will increase mass size
I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.

The process of the Fe57 'naturally decaying' (thanks for correction) a gamma ray, can include a recoil that reduces the energy of the gamma ray, or it can be processed through some lattice thingy and the emitted gamma ray then does not reduce in energy as much, its energy remains within the border of the line width and can therefore be received by the receiving atom.  At every point, apart from the period of time that the gamma ray is emitted for, there is the mass of the emitting process and receiving process within the structure of the atom, and the lattice thingy (which I'm sure you can tell I'm not that knowledgeable about ...), to be considered.

But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.
The model is proposing that there is a force of gravitational attraction that compels mass to be attracted to mass, (the gluon's responsibility perhaps, although particle physics is really not my strong point), but that all 'accelerations' of gravity are inverted time dilation related.
(ie: as mass moves closer together, the gravitational field increases in energy and the resulting proposed inverted time dilation is contracting in time periods. Take a smaller piece of mass from the bigger, and create distance in relation to the bigger mass, its energy 'can' be said to be increasing as a result of the gravitational force of the bigger mass exerted upon it, and time periods are increasing for that mass)

All GR equations, (that remain necessary that is), should work for my model because what I am proposing is directly proportional - but the attraction of gravity, and the acceleration of gravity should, as per my model, be calculated as separate phenomenon instead of lumped togetheof

The only reason why calculating observation by these means would (if viable) be better, is because the consequences lead to the mechanism of the cyclic universe that I have described.

[alancalverd]

I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.

which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons

But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.

Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

III

I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.

which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons

But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.

Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

This can be reduced to fr/fe = sqrt{R/(R+h)} showing that radial distance and not mass is the determining factor. Thus a distance across the potential. Just my two penneth.

[timey]

I am not working on the basis that an increase in potential energy will increase mass size, only that it will increase frequency.

which is exactly what GR predicts, and we find in practice.

The "lattice thingy" is all about momentum. This doesn't change with gravitational potential.

gluons are not gravitons

But to answer your question, the standard GR equation for GR time dilation already takes into account the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in that it is using g.

Hmm. The frequency shift equation is

fr/fe = sqrt{(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)}

where fr and fe are the received and emitted frequencies.  No mention of g or the mass of the source that I can see.

OK - leaving the gluon's, magnetic moments of electrons and all particle physics and lattice thingy aside for time being - I think you are being a little unfair in your assessment of the frequency shift equations in relation to what I am saying... I can clearly see use of G, and M.

G being the gravitational constant will not be descriptive of a clear separation between gravitational attraction, and the acceleration of gravity either.

...and, GR states that time will slow for a bigger mass size.  More energy resulting in a greater mass will result in a slower rate of time, yet we also know that an increase in energy increases frequency.  But.. as per the cesium atomic clock, an increase in frequency increases the rate of time.

We can see that if mass sizes increase with the addition of gravity potential energy, a perfectly linear equation for mass where m*g is constant, and h is the only variable, becomes, what was the word you used before?, anyway, it becomes non linear.  Of course perhaps it is the mass increases|decreases offset by the gravity field decreases|increases that are the reason that these maths work.  I do however recall Pete saying that gravity potential energy does not increase relativistic mass, so if that is indeed correct, then it would seem that things with mass are being calculated differently to light.

In any case, in that mass size is increasing in the higher gravity potential, here we can see that GR is already making a natural separation of gravitational phenomenon.  Simply ditch the mass increase, and re-attribute the notion of that dimension increasing in that manner, and under those circumstances, as the rste of time increasing for the mass, instead of the mass size increasing.  (I think you will find this can give alternate explanation of same observations of acceleration of gravity-particle physics)

So the mass size remains the same, m*g, where g is an energy decrease in the gravity field that decreases the energy of the mass, and is also giving an opposing increase in gravity potential energy that mass experiences at that location increasing energy, and therefore frequency at elevation when multipied by h... Any nonlinearity left over by this alteration could possibly be attributed to the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation.
(remembering that we haven't yet touched on SR effects)

Now that this has attributed the increase in time as being 'for' the mass, and not 'for' the location, we can explore the notion of an inverted gravitational time dilation that is dilating in the reducing energy of a reducing gravity field... and look to the observation of massless light.

[alancalverd]

What on earth is mass size?

M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0. 

[timey]

What on earth is mass size?

M is the mass of the large attractor (the earth). m does not feature in the equation, which applies to all sources regardless of their mass (as long as it does not significantly distort the gravitational field of M) and thus includes sources where m = 0.

Yes there is use of G and M in the frequency shift equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding energy change of a frequency shift is calculated?

Yes there is use of g and m in the gravity potential equation...
Can you tell me how the corresponding frequency shift of the gravity potential energy changes are calculated?

[alancalverd]

Potential energy is mgh.

I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since  E = hf.

[timey]

Potential energy is mgh.

I stated the gravitational blue shift equation earlier as the frequency ratio. Obviously the energy ratio is the same since  E = hf.

Is that E=hf, where h is Planck's h constant?

...and m*g*h, for gravity potential energy, where h is height?

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

[alancalverd]

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock. 

[jerrygg38]

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

   Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
 
   

[timey]

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

   Just to clarify your last words. For a clock above the Earth spinning around with velocity V, the clock will slower relative to the Earth. As the clock moves faster it will slow even more. If put a clock on a tower atop a high mountain, is it correct that the clock will move slower than a clock at the base of the mountain. If we build a tower atop the mountain is it correct that the higher up the clock moves, the clock will move even slower.
 
 

Jerry - I think you need to read this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

[alancalverd]

Clocks at higher gravitational potential run faster. Clocks moving with respect to the observer run slower. The problem with GPS satellite clocks is that they are doing both, significantly. The gravitational correction for an aeroplane is, I think, a lot less than the relative velocity correction.

[timey]

Alas, I can't do italics on this site any longer, so things get confused by the two different conventional uses of h, but yes, one is height above the surface of a large planet, and one is Planck's constant - as is obvious from dimensional analysis of the equations.   

...and are you saying that the addition of gravity potential energy for mass is resulting in an energy that corresponds with the frequency of mass at that location?  Or is it corresponding with the frequency of light at that location?

Neither.  The deBroglie frequency is an unobservable mathematical construct that approximates to quantum behavior. Variation in gravitational potential will vary both the potential energy of a massive object relative to the observer, and the  observed frequency of a photon or a clock.

OK - Alan... I am looking at the fact that a person ages faster at elevation in keeping with their clock. (see NIST link in post above)

Under the remit of the equivalence principle, what physically happens to the clock must physically happen to the person.  We observe that the clock has an increase in frequency of its energy transitions.  An increase in frequency must be accompanied by an increase in energy.

The hypothetical De Broglie matter wave for all mass will be escalating in frequency with the additional gravity potential energy at elevation, and all matter wave frequencies will escalate, and atoms of higher energy will do whatever process they are doing internally at a higher energy and frequency. (ie: quicker)

Now we can no longer state that it is the time dilation of the location of the gravity field that is changing the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.  Clearly it is the change in potential energy that is causing a change in frequency, and it is causing all particles of mass within atomic structures to increase, or decrease, in energy proportionally to their relationships with each other in any reference frame of gravity potential.

A physical cause has now been given for an observer physically aging in keeping with his clock.  The remit of the equivalence principle has been upheld...

But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship - and the open space gravity field can now be observed with respect to the inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to observation of light... minus the relativistic mass notion - and take a closer look at Planck's h constant.

(P.S. Yes, since the site got bug I seem to have lost the ability to quick reply, or select quote, hence my copious and unnecessary quoting of late)

[alancalverd]

You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.

"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.

But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship

No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).

What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.

[timey]

You correctly use the term "hypothetical" deBroglie frequency. It has no bearing on any observed energy.

"What happens to the clock" is "nothing at all". Imagine you are sitting looking at a clock on planet Earth, whilst two of your colleagues are based on the Moon and on Jupiter. M will see your clock running slower than his, and J will see it running faster, but obviously nothing has happened to your clock. The difference is in the relative gravitational potential of the observer and source, not the structure of the clocks.

But... GR time dilation has now been derived as an m near M relationship

No, m does not appear in the equation, provided m<<M (i.e. your clock is not so massive as to produce a significant local gravitational potential well).

What on earth do you mean by " a closer look at h"? It's an experimental number, simply defined and easily measured by sixth-formers all over the world - and quite possibly on Planet 5 of Alpha Centauri.

Alan - you are describing how current physics regards the situation, and this does not explain physical differences in the observers aging process, as described by link.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

I am describing an alternate means of mathematically deriving the same observations.  The reason for doing so, because it leads to my model of a cyclic universe that I am requiring the input of a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate...
...and yes, it is understood that these effects are due to the difference in gravity potential.  My model is making a more detailed physical description of this.

With regards to Planck's h constant:
As I keep on saying, repetitively, my model states the phenomenon of time as energy related.  Planck's h constant is a joules times standard second measurement, and in adding energy, time for the phenomenon being measured will be contracting.  If you measure joules times the relevantly contracted second, the results will be linear.

And...the De Broglie matter wave is used to calculate quantum via perturbation theory - which is a time based function.

[alancalverd]

Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference   

Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.

The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.

Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

[timey]

Observers age at the rate of local time. To quote from the first sentence of your reference   

Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations

An atom or a DNA molecule has no idea of its gravitational potential since the quantity is only defined with respect to an external reference, so your atomic clock and your body clock stay in synchrony with each other but not with clocks and bodies in deep space or on another planet. The experimental problem is that the biological effect is too small (in comparison with random errrors) to be measured at any point in the solar system.

The article is interesting only in that it shows how "conventional" relativity correctly predicts all the experimental results.

Matters might become clearer if we start with your definition of time. For the rest of us, it is "the dimension that separates sequential events", or as Einstein put it, "time is what prevents everything from happening at once".

My model also describes time as the passing of sequential events, but it describes frequency as being the timing of these events, and energy as being the cause of frequency. (no need for an atom to 'know' anything.  The energy it gains or loses is a physical result of both its location and momentum)

My model is viewing time as being caused by the physical mechanics of the universe, rather than the universe passing through a phenomenon of time that is unconnected to, and outside of itself...

My model views the observations of time dilation and contraction - as observed in the other reference frame of gravity potential, or relative motion, or both - as a real and tangible phenomenon...
My model states that the observer, (as NIST, NASA, and other official government links suggest, for whatever that may be worth), 'will' physically age in keeping with his clock.

Is that start enough?

[alancalverd]

Apart from a bizarre and unrealistic view of how atomic clocks work, this seems to be entirely consistent with everyone else's observations.

Now the rest of us describe gravitational frequency shift and relative motion shift as "time dilation" phenomena, and mysteriously we get the right answer by solving conventional relativistic equations for them.

So the question is what do you mean by inverse time dilation?