When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.

In the first place it's correct to say that physics is not about proving things. The reason is because it's not possible to say that a law of physics has been proven to be correct. However that in no way means that a law of physics can't be proven to be wrong. And when I said that your statement was the furthest thing from the truth I was saying that it's wrong and that is a perfectly fine statement that can be made in physics.

Suggestion: I recommend that you try to make the distinction between ways of using common phrases in English to express oneself and the use of terms to make a scientific point. I simply didn't think it was necessary to have to phrase it otherwise so that readers didn't assume I was speaking of scientific truths, of which there aren't any. I simply don't wish to triple the time I spend posting so as to make sure that people don't get confused on such points. I always talk to my physics colleagues using phrases like that and so do they. Especially since in this particular case it's actually a real "truth" as in a fact. By that I mean that you misused the phrase *purely conjecture*. That *is* a false statement because there's nothing conjectural about that prediction. As I explained before, the term "conjecture" is define to mean "opinion" and the slowing of time near a black hole cannot be referred to as an opinion. Mere opinion is distinctly different from a theoretical prediction.

timey - When you started posting here and making all sorts of assertions and posting your theories it's assumed that you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Comments and mistakes like these demonstrate otherwise. Please understand that *I'm most certainly not* trying insult you or put you down or anything negative at all. What I'm trying very hard to do is to bring you up to speed with how physics and any other science as a matter of fact, works. To understand physics it is absolutely necessary to understand the philosophy of physics. I'm not being arrogant by any means. This is from having over 30 years experience as a physicist.

I recommend reading the following to get you started: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf

As far as the rest of your argument goes, I'm not interested in discussing it any further. I said what I had to say and I see no reason to add more. What I said is correct and I stand by it. I used to get into long protracted discussions with people when they either couldn't understand the physics or found it difficult to admit they made a mistake. In this case it appears that you have a poor grasp of the philosophy of physics as well as how it pertains to the subject matter. You show no desire for asking for help so there's no point in me saying anything else. I will say this - Your problem might be in not understanding that when you measure a clock slowing down it means exactly this, nothing more and nothing less, than its time itself which is slowing down.

However, if you're able to find a textbook on general relativity that agrees with you I'll be more than happy to read that part which pertains to this subject.

Again, please understand that I don't mean to be offensive or to insult you. I'm strictly going by what you've written ever since you've arrived here and started posting.

I've read the pages provided in your link and am in complete agreement with your outlook on the philosophy of physics! I've read this point of view from many prominent physicists...

However, I find it most confusing indeed that it would seem your attitude in posting on the forum does not correspond with the views that are portrayed in the link, and I am going to show you not only where this is occurring but also why this is confusing in particular with regards to your attitude regarding my posts.

I will acquiesce that perhaps I need to (or at least could) make an adjustment to my use of terminology, so instead of saying that time running slow for a black hole is a 'conjecture', I rephrase this statement to:

"Time running slow for a black hole is a mathematical consequence of the theory of general relativity."

Ok - so, in line with the terminology provided in your link, when introducing a new notion into physics that fits observation and becomes experimentally proven, either abstractly via mathematics, or physically via experiment, we see a pattern of the superseded theory, or theories, becoming the 'covering theory' for the superseding theory. Whereas the superseding theory becomes the more general theory. Clearly any theory that supersedes general relativity and quantum is going to have to include both of the premiss for these theories as cover theories to the more general theory of the superseding theory... and that the superseding theory must contain a new idea that can precipitate itself as a more general theory of both quantum and relativity, both mathematically and in prediction of experiment.

You also say that the consequence of this philosophy is that there will be nothing actually 'wrong' with the covering theory. I would agree that this is the norm, but that in very special and rare cases, if the premiss of the covering theory is wrong in the exact opposite and opposing way to the superseding theory, that a covering theory can be rendered wrong by a superseding theory. The geocentric model being superseded by the heliocentric model being a classic example.

Now that we are clear on the rules, I'd like to examine your links views on experiment:

Taking into consideration your dialogue on pages 1, 2, and top of page 3, ending in the words:

"Nevertheless, it should be realised that from the logical point of view the final product is an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system."

So with regards to the logic and mathematical mechanics of GR gravitational time dilation in relation to time running slower for a black hole:

The frequency of the energy transitions of the caesium atom increases in the higher gravity potential. For the frequency of the energy transitions to be higher, a higher energy level is required, and provided us mathematically by the addition of gravity potential energy. (this is logical)

For an observer with the elevated clock, his time also increases. For this to be a physical process for the observer, all of the atoms that are his physical make up will also require that a higher energy level is occurring in keeping with the clock. The atoms that make up the observer will not operate at the same energy level as the clocks caesium atom mechanism, or each other, (as the human form is made of different types of atoms), and via the equivalence principle we can see that the proportionality in energy level of these atoms of the observer in relation to the caesium atom, and each other, will remain constant in proportion to each other with addition or subtraction of gravity potential energy due to location in the gravitational field. (this is logical)

Now we have arrived at the point where the logic starts coming askew. The amount of gravity potential energy an object has is dependant on

it's mass and its height above the greater body of mass. We already know what time does in Earth's gravitational field. If we move Earth to the region of a greater gravity field than Earth's, such as a black hole, the energy level of Earth will increase and the frequency that the caesium atoms energy transitions operate at on Earth at ground level will also increase. Based directly on experiment and observation of the caesium atoms behaviour of an increase in energy causing an increase in frequency of electron energy transition and therefore the rate of time of the clock increasing, now we should look at the energy of the black hole. Well quite clearly e=mc^2, where e is rest energy and we can say m is the mass of the black hole. The black hole should have more energy than the Earth, therefore the gravity potential energy at elevation from a black hole should be even higher.

And hey... don't we ***already*** have a little problem with black holes concerning the conservation of energy law, and the second law of thermodynamics?

So we can see that despite the mathematical fit of general relativity to working experiment, that the requirements necessary to state that "we can be reasonably certain" are not met, in that we have not arrived at an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system that agrees with laws and experiment that we know from observation to hold true.

Ok, a while back I was posting about the Pound Rebka and you said this:

Actually I can't be bothered to trek back and properly quote you, but you said that you didn't know why in the Pound Rebka they had to add a time variance to the test signal. That you were not an experimentalist expert but you knew someone or dome people that are and you would ask them. A week or so later you posted back, saying that you were sorry, but you just didn't know.

Presumably you asked your friends about the question.

If there is no tangible answer to the question, then of course you can attribute the velocity of the Doppler shift matched by 'something' in the gravitation gradient as being the equivalent to the velocity of the Doppler shifts of redshift being the speed a light source is expanding away from us at, as per Hubble's law. But again we can see that when we examine the consequences of everything expanding away being everything originating from a point, we run into trouble explaining where it all came from.

(to be fair, my model, despite the creation moment being placed in the region of microscopic making it entirely more feasible, still has a huge problem with the mechanics of the initial creation process.)

Therefore again, as we have no proofs of expansion, only observations that mathematically fit theory, and we have problems describing the mechanics of the Big Bang and creation of energy and mass, it would seem to me that Hubble's 'law' is a bit of an overstatement. All we can legitimately state is that "on the basis of" a mathematical fit to theory and observation, IF redshift means that light sources are expanding away from us, then we live in an expanding universe. This being because the requirements necessary to state "we can be reasonably certain" have again not been met by an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system.

I believe that I have remained within the remit of discussing relativity in context without straying into the realms of "New Theory".

Now please, don't get me wrong Pete. I am in full admiration of General Relativity, it's a brilliant piece of work, but I'm not going to let this admiration stop me from red flagging illogicalities concerning GR on the physics board, or putting forward my alternative on the "New Theories" board, along with my request for assistance.

You are correct that I don't really require any advise with the intention of changing my mind about the illogicalities that GR presents. These ilogicalities have been my main point of study for many years now. What I am requesting is mathematical assistance with my alternate model.

I don't suppose your going to help me with the maths, aye...

?