[Colin2B]

I gave indication that it was irrelevant posts ago when I stated the computer in another room entirely, at an unspecified, and possibly different height.

OK that's good, but at least from the description I gave of the computer comparator process you can see that the measurement does not take place using a counter in the reference frame of the clock. Can we agree that?

The information of the square wave will not be changed by its transit to the computer via the cable.

Light emitted by the elevated clock, ***as seen from*** the lower clock, cannot be viewed by the lower frame ***until it gets there***, and ***will be changed*** in frequency during its transit from the upper frame to the lower frame.

Do you understand the difference?

Not really, we need to be clearer on what you are asking/stating. So let's try and clarify some points.
If we pass light down a fibre, the fibre (in the context of relativity) does not change the frequency of that light as I stated before.
We agree that light enters the fibre at one GP (upper frame) and exits at a different GP (lower frame), so because the passage of time is different for each of these GPs then we will measure a difference in frequency e.g. At the computer or lower clock, whichever we choose. Agreed?
However, as the light passes down the fibre it passes through intermediate GPs so if we tap the fibre at any point we would be able to measure an intermediate frequency. So the frequency of the light progressively changes as it passes through the cable.
This is exactly the same as if you shone light from the top of the tower in Pound Rebka.

So, in the light 😊 of the above, can you rephrase your question.

PS square wave was used as an example of how clock signals are processed. We can just refer to light, signal or ticks, whichever you prefer.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - you have just said that the height, location, gravity potential, etc, of the computer is irrelevant.

So why do you think that the signal from the clock being sent to the computer is changed by its transit through the fibre optic cable?

[Colin2B]

Colin - you have just said that the height, location, gravity potential, etc, of the computer is irrelevant.

So why do you think that the signal from the clock being sent to the computer is changed by its transit through the fibre optic cable?

Did you read my posts #58 and 60? Or did you not understand them?

As I have said before it is not the transit through the cable that changes the clock ticks but that the difference in GP, hence time zone/frame, between the input frame and the output frame that changes the measurement.
Why do you think it can't change?


Also, if you do happen to read #58 you will see that I make it clear that the clock over the fibre is measured at each end according to its local time zone/frame and that these measurements differ.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - I have read and understood your posts, thanks.

a) You are telling me that the location and elevation of the computer are irrelevant...
...and...
b) You are telling me that the difference in gravity potential between the clock and the computer is relevant.

This is contradictory information - so which one is it please?

[Colin2B]

Colin - I have read and understood your posts, thanks.

Your next question indicates quite clearly that you did not understand.

a) You are telling me that the location and elevation of the computer are irrelevant...
...and...
b) You are telling me that the difference in gravity potential between the clock and the computer is relevant.

This is contradictory information - so which one is it please?

It is not contradictory, it is not either or, both are true - if by relevant you mean there is a difference in frequency measured at clock and computer, but notice how it cancels out.

If you do not understand my explanation try rereading Alan's explanation, which is another you might not have understood first time round:

Obviously the only way you will know if there is a difference is if you compare one with another. It doesn't matter where or how you do the comparison because A - B = (A+X) - (B+X) regardless of the value of X. In the special case of X = 0 we are obviously observing  one clock from the reference frame of the other, but even if the observer was doing aerobatics on Alpha Centauri, and A and B were in Boulder, Co., he would still see the same difference between A and B.

If you are still confused about the fibre imagine a long tube, silvered on the inside running from top of P-R tower to bottom. Light shon down that tube will be blue shifted, an optical fibre is little more than a silvered tube.

[timey (OP)]

OK, well since your understanding is so much greater than mine:

Where in the NIST data did they say they were measuring the reference frame of the computer?

If the experimenters were not measuring the reference frame of the computer, then why is the gravity potential difference between the clock and the computer relevant?

Also...

How does a cesium fountain send its photons down a fibre optic cable?
 ...as a cesium fountain is unlikely to be sending its photons along a cable, exactly which light from the clock is being sent along the cable?

And if it is not photons being sent along the cable, what exactly is the signal that is being sent?

(I noticed that Evan posted somewhere about there being an inherent time delay for information being transited by cable.  Are you sure that you are not mixing up the inherent time delays associated with the slowing of transiting information via cable, with the time dilation/difference in gravity potential considerations that the computer is comparing of 2 clocks placed elsewhere in designated reference frames, Colin?)

[yor_on]

Heh, you don't need to be a 'rocket scientist' to ponder that question, do you?
It works for me and it works for you

And you're perfectly correct in defining 'time' as not being 'time dilated' locally, aka using your wrist watch.

[yor_on]

why that is, is also the reason why we are able to define 'c', and 'constants'.
Without that assumption, physics will have a really hard 'time' defining itself

Prove it wrong

[alancalverd]

OK, well since your understanding is so much greater than mine:

Where in the NIST data did they say they were measuring the reference frame of the computer?

Nowhere.The statement is meanigless.

If the experimenters were not measuring the reference frame of the computer, then why is the gravity potential difference between the clock and the computer relevant?

It isn't.

How does a cesium fountain send its photons down a fibre optic cable?
 ...as a cesium fountain is unlikely to be sending its photons along a cable, exactly which light from the clock is being sent along the cable?

Same way as everyone else uses fiber optics. Clock pulses operate a LED at the transmitter end, stimulating a photodiode at the receiver. 

(I noticed that Evan posted somewhere about there being an inherent time delay for information being transited by cable.  Are you sure that you are not mixing up the inherent time delays associated with the slowing of transiting information via cable, with the time dilation/difference in gravity potential considerations that the computer is comparing of 2 clocks placed elsewhere in designated reference frames, Colin?)

The delay is irrelevant. They aren't measuring Zulu time, just comparing the tick rates from two clocks.

[Colin2B]

OK, well since your understanding is so much greater than mine

No, that's not it at all. We are just trying to help you understand what is happening. Come on, this is not above your pay grade, you are smart enough to work this through but it does need a degree of concentration and that appears to be lacking recently. I know times are stressful, but we post stuff and it's as if it hasn't registered, almost as if you haven't bothered to think about it. We will understand if you need time out to sort stuff. OK?

Where in the NIST data did they say they were measuring the reference frame of the computer?

If the experimenters were not measuring the reference frame of the computer, then why is the gravity potential difference between the clock and the computer relevant?

They weren't measuring the reference frame of the computer and the gravity potential difference between clock and computer is not relevant.
As I said before, some thing don't need mentioning because they would confuse folks who don't know and those who do know would consider it teaching egg sucking. This is particularly true of the use of the computer and its reference frame as it cancels out so is not used in any calculations so would not be mentioned.
The GP between computer and clock is not relevant to the final result, but you had an issue with what was being measured from where (in particular whether measurements were being made within the clock frame), and whether the fibre influenced the result, so I included a detailed examination of what can actually happen in a comparator/computer, just for clarification. You could just as easily have relied on Alan's post to explain in maths.

How does a cesium fountain send its photons down a fibre optic cable?

What Cesium fountain???

This is a typical example of what I was talking about. A number of posts from us that appear not to have registered:

They used ion-trap clocks containing aluminum/aluminium ions.

By the way, timey, if NIST found a deviation from the predictions of general relativity with their new, super-accurate clocks, you can be sure they would have made a lot more noise about it (after a lot of checking - you would be brave to bet against Einstein!).

my bold

These aluminum ion clocks were the most accurate that had been built up to that date. It was not possible to measure the rate of one clock (eg with a cesium fountain atomic clock), and measure the rate of the second clock, then compare the rates.

... a cesium fountain clock is just not accurate enough to measure the rate of an aluminum ion clock.
 
So what they did was to compare the frequency of light emitted by one ion with the frequency of light emitted by the other ion.

This is what is needed to confirm gravitational time dilation - a comparison of the rate of two clocks at different heights, which they achieved via the optical fiber.

If you read the article you will see at the bottom of the 2nd page it says "The two Al+ optical clocks were located in separate laboratories and were compared by transmitting the stable clock signal through a 75-m length of phase-stabilized optical fiber."
Comparison is all that is required.

Note: the article here is the Science article you say you read in 2010.

Whilst the cesium clock is the world legal standard, it isn't the most sensitive device for measuring small changes in spacetime: the aluminum ion clock runs at a much higher (optical rather than microwave) frequency so you get more cycles to compare in a given time, and it's more robust than a mossbauer rig. 

So, I have to ask whether there is any point us posting the fact that these are Al optical clocks if you are going to persistently ignore what we say and insist that they are Cesium microwave clocks.
You don't want to believe anything we say so why should we bother?
What frustrates me is that although I don't agree with all your ideas I feel that any nuggets you have are getting lost. Judging by the emails I have had it is clear that the topics you have posted in this section have not enhanced your credibility nor the credibility of your ideas. And that is sad.

(I noticed that Evan posted somewhere about there being an inherent time delay for information being transited by cable.  Are you sure that you are not mixing up the inherent time delays associated with the slowing of transiting information via cable, with the time dilation/difference in gravity potential considerations that the computer is comparing of 2 clocks placed elsewhere in designated reference frames, Colin?)

Time delays are inherent in everything to do with transmission, but do not contribute to red/blue shifts. Think about the discussions with the Box regarding the 8min delay on light from the Sun, redshift is a separate phenomenon.

We are willing to help you tune and clean up your ideas, but it can't be one sided, and you certainly can't build any theory on false premises.

[timey (OP)]

OK, well since your understanding is so much greater than mine:

Where in the NIST data did they say they were measuring the reference frame of the computer?

Nowhere.The statement is meanigless.

If the experimenters were not measuring the reference frame of the computer, then why is the gravity potential difference between the clock and the computer relevant?

It isn't.

How does a cesium fountain send its photons down a fibre optic cable?
 ...as a cesium fountain is unlikely to be sending its photons along a cable, exactly which light from the clock is being sent along the cable?

Same way as everyone else uses fiber optics. Clock pulses operate a LED at the transmitter end, stimulating a photodiode at the receiver. 

(I noticed that Evan posted somewhere about there being an inherent time delay for information being transited by cable.  Are you sure that you are not mixing up the inherent time delays associated with the slowing of transiting information via cable, with the time dilation/difference in gravity potential considerations that the computer is comparing of 2 clocks placed elsewhere in designated reference frames, Colin?)

The delay is irrelevant. They aren't measuring Zulu time, just comparing the tick rates from two clocks.

Alan - thankyou!

...but for all those people sending Colin emails, can we please just clarify:

The tick rate of the clock being measured is generated in the reference frame of the clock by the clock.
This rate of tick is then sent to the computer as an exact replication of the rate of tick that the clock is generating in its reference frame...?

If we can all agree that this is the case, then we can go on to look at how an observation of light generated in another reference frame of differing potential from the observation frame, 'will' be changed by it's transit to the frame it is being observed from...

...Light can only be observed when it reaches the observers frame!

[alancalverd]

Keep it simple. Clock A ticks. Clock B ticks. We measure the difference f(A) - f(B) in received tick rate.

We know the clocks are effectively identical because f(A) = f(B) when they are at the same gravitational potential.

If we raise A or lower B, we find f(A) > f(B), exactly as predicted by GR.

If we accelerate A so it is moving at a constant speed relative to B, we find f(A) < f(B), exactly as predicted by SR.

So in answer to

Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?

is "yes".

But you knew that already, because that's what the NIST paper said.

What a waste of life!

[timey (OP)]

But does Relativity predict that the FE57 of the Mossbauer effect will be emitting a higher frequency photon at the top of tower relative to the FE57 at the bottom of the tower will?

...and are the equations of this experiment taking this factor into consideration?

If the answer to these 2 questions is 'yes' Alan, then yup, you are right.  Waste of life!

But the answer to both of these questions is actually 'no', isn't it?

[jeffreyH]

But does Relativity predict that the FE57 of the Mossbauer effect will be emitting a higher frequency photon at the top of tower relative to the FE57 at the bottom of the tower will?

What is you reference point? Where are you taking these measurements? If you can't answer this then you are using fantasy physics.

...and are the equations of this experiment taking this factor into consideration?

If the answer to these 2 questions is 'yes' Alan, then yup, you are right.  Waste of life!

But the answer to both of these questions is actually 'no', isn't it?

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  Have you replicated the experiment and analysed the data?

[timey (OP)]

Is there something wrong with your brains?

...A clock is blue shifted in elevation relative to the lower clock...
...Light emitted by an atom at elevation is observed as blue shifted in the lower frame relative to the elevated frame...
The difference in the mechanics of these phenomenon is staring you all straight in the face.  I don't know what's with you all.  Are you blind?

Anyway, if there is anyone out there who cann see this difference:

The clock in elevation is emitting a higher frequency light relative to the lower frame.  The difference in frequency between the lower clock and the elevated clock matches the blue shift equation with the higher frequency being observed of the elevated clock.

Does the emitting atom of the Pound Rebka also emit higher frequency gamma rays at top of tower relative to the gamma rays this atom will emit at bottom of tower?

[Ethos_]

Is there something wrong with your brains?

Comments like this border on the insulting timey, and for the most part, the entries posted by the membership involved in this thread have been accommodating. If you wish to continue with these condescending remarks, you can expect only grief and little help from those you so readily disparage. We recognize your frustration, needless to say, you should also recognize ours!

[alancalverd]

But does Relativity predict that the FE57 of the Mossbauer effect will be emitting a higher frequency photon at the top of tower relative to the FE57 at the bottom of the tower will?

...and are the equations of this experiment taking this factor into consideration?

Relativity predicts that the photon received at the lower gravitational potential will have a higher energy than one emitted by the same process at the lower potential. And thus it was, is, and probably ever shall be, world without end, for ever and ever, amen.

The gravitational blueshift equation is, boringly, exactly the same for all phenomena, and appears to give the correct answer every damn time.

[timey (OP)]

Poster:
"I've got a new cyclic model of the universe, can someone help me with the maths?'

Physicist:
"Would you like some help understanding relativity?

*

Ethos -

I am not asking questions because I do not know the answers to them.
I do not need to have the difference between a cesium atomic clock and an ion trap clock explained, nor the fact that the ion trap quantum clock must be run in tandem with the more reliable cesium atomic clock, as I explained many posts ago.
I do not need the fact of the potential of the computers reference frame being irrelevant explained to me.
Nor do I need to be told that if one tapped into the fibre optic cable, that there would be different stages of gravity potential in the cable...  (That would be true of a vertically aligned cable, but the fact would have no bearing on a tick rate being transmitted through the cable. If it did then the reference frame of the computer would be highly relevant)
People accuse me of not reading their posts...  It would seem to me that they have not read mine.

Yes - the NIST results are relativity results...
...The upper clock is blue shifted.
Yes - the Pound Rebka results are Relativity results...
...The gamma ray arriving from the upper frame is blue shifted when it arrives in the lower frame.
NIST = upper frame blue shifted
Pound Rebka = lower frame blue shifted.

I don't whine when the people here insult me, which they do, either directly in words or by patronisation...
Instead of your whining here like this - not even in defence of yourself, but on other peoples behalf - why don't you just answer the question:

Do the Pound Rebka maths take into account that the emitting source will be blue shifted at top of tower relative to the same emitting source, (or more pertinently, we can describe this as the receiver) at bottom of tower, or not?

[nilak]

Timey,
If two persons have contradictory opinions about something, one of them will think like the other need to study some more to understant the phenomenon. Obviously, the other will think the same way. It is like in the twins paradox. At the end of the journey the aging is revealed. If we extend this, it doesn't matter how many people are on each side, eventually they could all agree about one side or another.

...
The blue/red shift is a property of a boson  and they travel straight at constant speed.
The clocks that measure time are made of atoms . It doesn't matter the path they describe but they are more complex. The process within them are not confined on a single axis, plus they can have different velocities bellow c.
This means that cloks tick rates do not follow the same rules as light.


You are judging them the same way.

If the clock postulate holds, tick rates will only varry because of tangential velocities difference.

Clocks rates  can be sent as pulses. If the comparator is midway between the clocks, what happens to the distance between two pulses as they travel downwards ? What do you think ?

[timey (OP)]

But does Relativity predict that the FE57 of the Mossbauer effect will be emitting a higher frequency photon at the top of tower relative to the FE57 at the bottom of the tower will?

...and are the equations of this experiment taking this factor into consideration?

Relativity predicts that the photon received at the lower gravitational potential will have a higher energy than one emitted by the same process at the lower potential. And thus it was, is, and probably ever shall be, world without end, for ever and ever, amen.

The gravitational blueshift equation is, boringly, exactly the same for all phenomena, and appears to give the correct answer every damn time.

Do the Pound Rebka maths take into account that the emitting source will be blue shifted at top of tower relative to same emitting source, (which can be more pertinently described as the receiver), at bottom of tower, or not?