0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

As I have already stated. I haven't misunderstood. Your own words refute your position.

The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.

Hubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements.

Quote from: timey on 16/08/2016 00:50:14The observation is apparent within the remit of the concepts...Lights wavelength contracts when travelling into a gravity field, ie: in the stronger gravity field.A clocks hypothetical wavelength dilates for clocks placed closer to the gravity field. ie: in the stronger gravity field.Wrong, wrong, wrong, as it has been from the start.Photons emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear blue-shifted when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness the Pound-Rebka experiment.Clocks at a higher gravitational potential appear to run fast when observed from a lower gravitational potential. Witness GPS clocks.If you can't accept these common observations, there's no point discussing the hypothesis that explains them. QuoteHubble has used the means of a standard candle to standardise wavelength for these velocity measurements. The astronomical standard candle is a presumed standard of luminosity, not wavelength.

You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.

Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.

Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 02:32:04Blue shifted light is ***increasing in the frequency*** of its energy transitions as it travels from top of tower to bottom of tower.The clocks placed at metre intervals from top of tower to bottom of tower are seen to be ***decreasing in the frequency*** of their energy transitions from top of tower to bottom of tower.Replace "clocks" with "mossbauer sources" and ask "seen to be" by whom? You may just see the linguistic fallacy (and observational untruth) in your argument.

Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?

Who "you"? I'm not confused or attempting to confuse anyone else. Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer.QuoteAre you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light? It is so.

Quote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease...

Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/08/2016 13:19:40You said "Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field." The gravitational field extends to infinity so objects are never travelling towards it. They are always inside an undetermined number of gravitational fields. In order to explain to you your errors I would have to spend time correcting your misuse of language. I have better things to do with my time.Actually I have been using slightly wonky terminology on purpose, because when I use the correct terminology I cannot seem to break through the pre-conditioned GR mentality of the reader.

Yes a gravity field will extend to a lesser gravity field, and to a greater gravity field. What of it?Light's wavelength gets shorter in the greater gravity field. 'contracting'...Light's wavelength gets longer in the lesser gravity field. 'dilating'... What's the problem?As to you wasting your time, that would depend on what you are trying to accomplish... It would seem to me that you are grasping for justification as to your own prejudice against the notion of someone from my lacking in formal education having the temerity to challenge the status quo, rather than actually trying to understand the idea that I'm proposing.

QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?

Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?

Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 20:42:46Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/08/2016 22:00:44Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 20:42:46Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?Ah, kinetic energy!0.5mv^2...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency....so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.

Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 22:29:25Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/08/2016 22:00:44Quote from: timey on 17/08/2016 20:42:46Quote from: alancalverd on 17/08/2016 17:43:55QuoteQuote: "Any oscillator at a higher gravitational potential than the observer appears to be running faster that it would at the same GP as the observer." Unquote:...apart from light. Take your mossbauer source at ground level and point the 'emitted' photon outbound into the higher gravity potential and it's frequency will decrease....... as observed by an observer at the higher potential. Exactly the same phenomenon, whether it is a clock or a radionuclide. Not "apart from light", but "exactly as with light".You have read the evidence. Indeed you have led me to it. Why not accept it?I do accept it. I'm completely pointing it out to you, and I have led you to it for a purpose.Yes the frequency of the photon emitted at ground level will be lower as seen from the position it has arrived at in the higher gravity potential. The light can only be seen by an observer at that position when it arrives there...same as blue shifted light.So Alan - can we now be in agreement that an emitted photons frequency will decrease when travelling into the higher gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the lower gravity potential......and in the opposing direction will increase in frequency travelling into the lower gravity potential relative to the frequency it had in the higher gravity potential......and that an atomic clock, (and anything of mass), will be increased in energy, and therefore frequency of its energy transitions in the higher gravity potential, relative to a clock placed in the lower gravity potential......and that in the opposing direction a clocks frequency will decrease in the lower gravity potential relative to a clock placed in the higher gravity potential...And - that these frequency changes observed of light, and observed of the clock, are occurring in opposing directions in the gravity field?That is like comparing apples with orangutans. Does the rate of a clock have kinetic energy?Ah, kinetic energy!0.5mv^2...and light has no mass. But even if you give it mass, if you then take the concept of using the addition of kinetic energy to calculate frequency for light and apply it to mass, a clock that is stationary with respect to an observer is observed at a certsin frequency of energy transitions. Zoom the clock off at speed in a uniform gravity field, (uniform for simplicity), and adding kinetic energy will increase the clocks frequency.A clock placed in motion relative to another stationary clock is observed to have a decreased frequency relative to the stationary clock, not an increased frequency....so calculating added kinetic energy for explanation of observations of light doesn't work when applied to mass.For a start the photon can't have rest mass. You also certainly need to study the use of language as applicable to physics. That about sums it up.