0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

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?

QuoteSo 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?No. All we can see is that the frequency of a clock, photon, or anything else, appears higher when observed from a lower gravitational potential. All we know is that the same relativistic equation predicts both. Therefore the minimum assumption is that the same mechanism determines all observations. If you want to postulate that different mechanisms underlie the frequency shift for different sources, you will be left with the remarkable conclusion that an infinite number of independent equations, describing the different effects of a nonexistent* gravitational field on every cyclic event in the universe, all produce the same result. The probablity of this being true is very close to zero. *remember that the field in deep space is zero. Most of the discussion so far, and indeed most of the experimental results, deal with an observer in the rather rare phenomenon of a planetary gravitational field.

Where light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes.

A clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame.

Who said the clock's frequency changes? All we know is that it appears to vary depending on the position of the observer in the gravitational field, same as the apparent frequency of the photon. The only "absolute" is the hypothetical clock in deep space where the gravitational potential is zero. We can them make observations from the surface of different planets with different local potentials, and see the effect. But the clock frequency can't have changed because we haven't moved it. QuoteWhere light is concerned we can only observe the light when it has reached our eyes. True. And how do we observe the clock? QuoteA clocks change in frequency is observed in the 'other' reference frame. What other? I'm standing at the bottom of the Harvard tower, looking at a mossbauer source and a cesium clock at the top of the tower. In both cases I'm measuring the time beween the peaks of an electrical field, either that of a single photon or the microwave standard. Both appear blue shifted, by the same fraction.

NIST say that they have OBSERVED change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.

QuoteNIST say that they have OBSERVED change in frequency in clocks between gravity potentials of 1 metre elevation. They state the effect as a real and physical effect.It is, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have OBSERVED it.The observed frequency shift of all sources is dependent on the gravitational potential difference between source and observer. We all know that. Why do you keep repeating it and then asserting that it doesn't happen the same way for all sources?

The apparent difference in potential between any two distinct points is entirely dependent upon the position of the observer. So that one observer at your feet will record different results to another at your head. Do you understand the definition of observer?

The known fact is that the frequency of a received signal or an observed clock (i.e. a received signal from a clock, however it is received) depends on the gravitational potential difference between the source and the observer. The frequency shift is independent of the type of source, and is accurately predicted by the gravitational red shift equation which is the same for all sources.Any suggestion that this is due to wholly different mechanisms that remarkably produce the same result, is pure speculation unsupported by evidence and frankly very improbable.For the sake of timey's sanity, let's look at the "two clocks and a computer" scenario. The computer has to be somewhere, so let's put it on the ground. Now it receives signals from a clock on the moon and one on the ground, and to nobody's surprise the one on the moon is going faster. Now move the computer upstairs. The higher clock is still going faster because whilst we have reduced the potential difference to the moon, we have increased the potential difference to the ground. As we haven't moved either of the clocks, we conclude that they are both ticking at their standard rate but the observed rate depends on the position of the observer. Just to prove the point, put a third clock in the computer. Then amazingly it shows that any clock at a higher altitude is running faster, and any clock at a lower altitude is running slower than the reference clock in the computer, and the sum of the differences is constant. At least that's what NIST found, and who am I to disbelieve them? Now for the crunch. Use a Mossbauer detector. The source at higher altitude is blue shifted with respect to the detector, and the source at lower altitude is red shifted. And the sum of the differences is constant. At least that's what Pound & Rebka found, and who am I to disbelieve them?

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.

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

I'm proposing that .... things of mass are subject to additional gravity potential energy, where light minus the relativistic mass notion doesn't,

To calculate the proposal, there needs to be a separation of the value associated with gravitational acceleration, from the value that is gravitational attraction.

So the light that we see blue shifted at bottom of tower matches the frequency of the clock seen at top of tower?

QuoteI'm proposing that .... things of mass are subject to additional gravity potential energy, where light minus the relativistic mass notion doesn't, In other words, scraping away the unscientific bullshit, different mechanisms for different sources: adding an improbable, undefined and unsubstantiated complication for no reason. QuoteTo calculate the proposal, there needs to be a separation of the value associated with gravitational acceleration, from the value that is gravitational attraction. And there you have put your finger on Professor Higgs' sensitive area*. Everyone knows that inertial mass always equals gravitational mass, but nobody knows why. QuoteSo the light that we see blue shifted at bottom of tower matches the frequency of the clock seen at top of tower? The fractional frequency shift f(observed)/f(emitted) is in all cases given by the same equation, which I can't be arsed to copy out again. * I was going to call it a G spot, but it might be a g spot.

No one knows why inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass, inverted time dilation would give physical cause.

QuoteNo one knows why inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass, inverted time dilation would give physical cause. Then please explain what you mean by it. What is inverted?

You are proposing multiple time dimensions. Your momentum equations are going to be interesting. I can't wait to see how you cope with that.

adding kinetic energy to the energy of mass will increase the frequency of a clock for a faster rate of time, not slower

Quote from: jeffreyH on 18/08/2016 19:04:59You are proposing multiple time dimensions. Your momentum equations are going to be interesting. I can't wait to see how you cope with that.No just 3 dimensions of time, echoing the fact of 3 geometrical dimensions of space and creating symmetry.The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation insures that light does not exceed the speed of light.The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation in relation to SR motion related time dilation insures that mass can never exceed the speed of light.GR gravitation time dilation in relation to inverted gravitational time dilation (which I'm saying is already incorporated in the calculation of GR gravitational time dilation via use of g, or G) in relation to SR motion related time dilation will provide the 'proper time' for an observers observation of his clock.But yes - kinetic energy will be rendered as a negative factor under these circumstances. Light will not be subject to it under the 'no relativistic mass' notion, but adding kinetic energy to the energy of mass will increase the frequency of a clock for a faster rate of time, not slower. Therefore a calculation that subtracts, or proportionally subtracts KE is required.How to calculate that?Yup - as I keep on saying, that's why I'm here on the forum, asking for the input of a qualified and confidant mathematician!