[jeffreyH (OP)]

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

[timey]

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

None of the words I have said have refuted my idea, therefore you must have misunderstood the implications of what I have said.

You have clearly and very drastically misunderstood the mechanics of this ides before.  It is highly logical that you have done so again.

What's the problem in having a grown up conversation where you just state what is on your mind, instead of all this enigmatic crap?

If you think its making you seem clever, think again.

[alancalverd]

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.

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. 

Hubble 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.

[timey]

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.

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. 

Hubble 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.

Yes, that is pretty much what I said.

Lights wavelength is observed to contract when it travels towards a gravity field.  Given that we could reflect the light in the opposite direction without losing energy - turn that light arriving, at its blue shifted frequency, at ground level, around and point it out of the gravity field, its wavelength will dilate exactly oppositely to how it contracted inbound, red shift being the opposite of blue shift.

If you stand at top of tower and light is traveling inbound towards earth from a position higher than you, and past you, it will be blue shifting towards you, past your position and will be further blue shifted away from your position at top of tower to bottom of tower.  The difference in gravity potential between higher than top of tower, top of tower, and bottom of tower is distinguished by a change in frequency in the light.  As the light gets closer to the ground its frequency increases.

Yes, I concur that the frequency that is observed is due to the difference in gravity potential.  If the top of tower records the frequency of the light as it passes, and bottom of tower records the frequency when the light arrives at bottom of tower, the top of tower frequency will be lesser than the bottom of tower frequency.

*

A clocks frequency of energy transitions at the top of the tower will be greater than the frequency of an identical clocks energy transitions at bottom of tower.  If we place clocks at metre intervals from top of the tower to bottom of tower and connect these clocks to a computer screen read out, we will see that each clock is running at a lesser frequency of energy transitions than the clock above.

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.

Edit:  Hubble calculated velocities that light sources are receding away from us at via Doppler shifts associated with the magnitude of red shifts in relation to standard candle distance measurements.  Stephan's quintet is a major problem for Hubble's law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

The luminosity is supposed to be proportional to distance and recessional velocity, but as telescopes have afforded us to observe galaxies that are that much further away, the luminosities of these further observations don't tally with the distances.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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.

[timey]

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

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.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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.

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.

So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

[timey]

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.

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.

OK, the mossbauer source at the top of tower is increased in energy, (potential energy), relative to the mossbauer source at bottom of tower.  Each mossbauer source at every metre location from top of tower to bottom of tower will have a decreased energy (potential energy) relative to the mossbauer source above it.

A mossbauer source that has a higher energy will emit a higher energy photon. (as is the case with the cesium atom clock...I realise you have a problem with this notion, but bear with me) That higher energy emitted photon will be increased, (blue shifted), in energy from its emitting mossbauer sources position of elevation to bottom of tower, and the observation from bottom of tower will be of this light having arrived in our eye, having been blue shifted as to the gravity field 'strength' of 'our' observing reference frame. 
We do not observe the light at the frequency it 'was' in the 'other' reference frame, only as it 'is now' in our own reference frame.

So what calculation is describing which observation?
Are you saying that the calculation for the frequency shift of a clock is matching the frequency shift of blue shifted light?

[alancalverd]

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.

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

It is so.

[timey]

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.

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

It is so.

I'm not sure where the confused is coming into it where you are concerned.  It would seem that is Jeff's department.

Yes  - agreed!
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...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

My apologies Alan. I replied to the wrong post.

[alancalverd]

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...

.... 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?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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.

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.

So you are confusing the issue on purpose.

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.

[timey]

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...

.... 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?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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...

.... 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?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Let's consider a uniform gravitational field with a photon moving perpendicular to the direction of the field. What happens to the wavelength if the potential is constant along the path of the photon? Will the potential always be constant? Will the gravitational field deviate the photon away from a straight line path?

[timey]

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...

.... 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.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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...

.... 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.

[timey]

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...

.... 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.

When I say light has no mass, I mean no rest mass.  When I say giving light mass. I mean calculating relativistic mass for light via kinetic energy.

Perhaps if you were not so convinced that you are conversing with an imbecile, the obvious would be obvious to you.  Obviously the obvious is obvious in the context.

Now grow up!!!