[timey (OP)]

Colin - I was being droll when I said you worked it out.

You will get along a lot better with my posts if you start from the position of realising that you and I already have a common understanding.  It's called current physics!

Can we also arrive at a common understanding Colin that incorporates you taking on board that I UNDERSTAND the current physics remit, that you take on board that a NEW model is NOT going to BE current physics, and understand therefore that some of what I attempt to describe will NOT resemble current physics.

Yes clearly in 'reality' the car is travelling in 1.1 or 1.2 'standard' (experimenters) seconds. 
But the point of the thought experiment is to treat the extended times between start and stop light on the dashboard of the cars in lane 2 and lane 3 as if the time IN the lane is 10% or 20% slower and look at how this addition might alter the mechanics...

OK?

[timey (OP)]

A reasonable conclusion. For any observer in a finite gravitational potential, the maximum gravitational blueshift will be from where g = 0, i.e. "deep space", but there's no limit on velocity redshift.

Alan - Again, I understand the logic of how the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences that occur for the time dilated clock to the remit of how light travels.

And yes, it is logical that a 'velocity' redshift will not be limited in the same way as a 'velocity' blueshift...
But while the maximum blueshift will (under current physics remit) be from where g=0, where exactly 'can' g=0 when a) the gravity field reduces by inverse square law, and b) the universe is (as per my model) slowly contracting?
The answer is "From nowhere.  A light source requires mass."

This model views the situation as being 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' red shifts and 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' blue shifts.
In my model light is not given relativistic mass and is not subject to gravity potential and GR time dilation.  Lights wavelength is stretched in the slower time caused by the weaker gravity field of open space surrounding M, that reduces by inverse square law in relation to gravitational value of M...
A representation of this concept and how a wavelength can be stretched under the remit of a slower rate of time is defined in part 1 of the thought experiment.

[Colin2B]

Can we also arrive at a common understanding Colin that incorporates you taking on board that I UNDERSTAND the current physics remit,

If you can take on board that from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it.

...... that you take on board that a NEW model is NOT going to BE current physics, and understand therefore that some of what I attempt to describe will NOT resemble current physics.

Yes, I understand that and would like to help you describe your model. However, how much should it not resemble current physics. For example:

Yes clearly in 'reality' the car is travelling in 1.1 or 1.2 'standard' (experimenters) seconds. 
But the point of the thought experiment is to treat the extended times between start and stop light on the dashboard of the cars in lane 2 and lane 3 as if the time IN the lane is 10% or 20% slower and look at how this addition might alter the mechanics...

In that case if "The experimenters did not tell Janet and John that the time period between start and stop light on dashboard was extended for lane 2, ... All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second." then J&J cannot conclude any of the 3 options you mention, they have to calculate that they travelled further because there was more time. This is due to current physics speed = distance/time and they were not given any information that time had changed, only the experimenters know that. The result is the mechanics, that J&J can work out what has happened rather than be fooled.
If you want to consider the mechanics if time in the lane is slower or faster then you need to make that assumption and work from there.

But while the maximum blueshift will (under current physics remit) be from where g=0, where exactly 'can' g=0 when a) the gravity field reduces by inverse square law, and b) the universe is (as per my model) slowly contracting?
The answer is "From nowhere.  A light source requires mass."

This is why I say "from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it."   The light source does not require mass, it only requires a difference in GP and at an infinite distance from any mass space time will be flat and g=0. It doesn't matter whether the universe is contracting or expanding.

In my model light is not given relativistic mass and is not subject to gravity potential and GR time dilation.  Lights wavelength is stretched in the slower time caused by the weaker gravity field of open space surrounding M, that reduces by inverse square law in relation to gravitational value of M...

Can you explain this apparent contradiction? This is important to our being able to understand your idea.

A representation of this concept and how a wavelength can be stretched under the remit of a slower rate of time is defined in part 1 of the thought experiment.

If we can agree a sensible view of the experiment, because under current experiment it isn't stretched.

Despite what you think, I do want to help work out the implications of you theory, however, it has to be based on realistic maths or people will dismiss it at first glance.

[alancalverd]

Alan - Again, I understand the logic of how the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences that occur for the time dilated clock to the remit of how light travels.

No you don't. Photon mass is irrelevant to blueshift. It, and clock shift, are dependent on gravitational potential difference, not gravitational force.

[timey (OP)]

Can we also arrive at a common understanding Colin that incorporates you taking on board that I UNDERSTAND the current physics remit,

If you can take on board that from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it.

...... that you take on board that a NEW model is NOT going to BE current physics, and understand therefore that some of what I attempt to describe will NOT resemble current physics.

Yes, I understand that and would like to help you describe your model. However, how much should it not resemble current physics. For example:

Yes clearly in 'reality' the car is travelling in 1.1 or 1.2 'standard' (experimenters) seconds. 
But the point of the thought experiment is to treat the extended times between start and stop light on the dashboard of the cars in lane 2 and lane 3 as if the time IN the lane is 10% or 20% slower and look at how this addition might alter the mechanics...

In that case if "The experimenters did not tell Janet and John that the time period between start and stop light on dashboard was extended for lane 2, ... All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second." then J&J cannot conclude any of the 3 options you mention, they have to calculate that they travelled further because there was more time. This is due to current physics speed = distance/time and they were not given any information that time had changed, only the experimenters know that. The result is the mechanics, that J&J can work out what has happened rather than be fooled.
If you want to consider the mechanics if time in the lane is slower or faster then you need to make that assumption and work from there.

But while the maximum blueshift will (under current physics remit) be from where g=0, where exactly 'can' g=0 when a) the gravity field reduces by inverse square law, and b) the universe is (as per my model) slowly contracting?
The answer is "From nowhere.  A light source requires mass."

This is why I say "from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it."   The light source does not require mass, it only requires a difference in GP and at an infinite distance from any mass space time will be flat and g=0. It doesn't matter whether the universe is contracting or expanding.

In my model light is not given relativistic mass and is not subject to gravity potential and GR time dilation.  Lights wavelength is stretched in the slower time caused by the weaker gravity field of open space surrounding M, that reduces by inverse square law in relation to gravitational value of M...

Can you explain this apparent contradiction? This is important to our being able to understand your idea.

A representation of this concept and how a wavelength can be stretched under the remit of a slower rate of time is defined in part 1 of the thought experiment.

If we can agree a sensible view of the experiment, because under current experiment it isn't stretched.

Despite what you think, I do want to help work out the implications of you theory, however, it has to be based on realistic maths or people will dismiss it at first glance.

From my perspective it seems that you misinterpret the changes that I make to current physics as being misunderstandings of current physics.

*

Try applying the speed = distance/time to the LIGO results under the premise of part 1 of the thought experiment, and then remember that a greater gravity field is 'supposed' to slow time down.

*

Nowhere have I read of a model where a light source does not have mass.  Light does not generate from a vacuum where g=0.

*

GR gravitational time dilation is an m in relation to M phenomenon in my model that is experienced by m.
An additional contra directional gravitational time dilation is attributed to the gravity field in relation to M of the open space surrounding M that decreases with distance from M via the inverse square law.
Mass of m near M will personally experience GR gravitational time dilation, but will be moving through contra directional gravitational time dilation
Open space and light will only experience the contra directional gravitational time dilation.
Both gravitational time dilations will converge where open space meets mass.

*

Are the LIGO interpretations insensible?
Are the Michelson Morley interpretations insensible?
Are the changes in lights wavelength insensible?

...and thanks!  Appreciated!

[timey (OP)]

Alan - Again, I understand the logic of how the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences that occur for the time dilated clock to the remit of how light travels.

No you don't. Photon mass is irrelevant to blueshift. It, and clock shift, are dependent on gravitational potential difference, not gravitational force.

Excuse me Alan.  Did I mention gravitational force?

Is it untrue that blue shifted light is thought to have a greater kinetic energy and therefore a greater relativistic mass?

[jeffreyH]

Timey in deep space the acceleration due to gravity is likely to be measured in attometres per year or some other such ludicrous units. This is very much indistinguishable from not moving at all over everyday timescales. So can you understand Alan's point?

[timey (OP)]

In that Alan has inferred that I don't understand the logic because the effects are due to gravity potential difference (which is what I said) not gravitational force (which I did not mention at-all) ...and then made no point wot-so-ever to distinguish why what I've said is incorrect in relation to his comment, which mentions nothing about the role that relativistic mass does have in the calculation of light, I can emphatically inform you that no I do not understand his point, because other than telling me that I don't understand something that I didn't actually say, he hasn't  made one.

You now bring to the table another unmentioned (in the context of Alan's reply) factor, this being deep space...
Are you talking about the deep space in my model of a slowly contracting since end of inflation period universe, or are you talking about the deep space in the current model expanding universe?

[Colin2B]

From my perspective it seems that you misinterpret the changes that I make to current physics as being misunderstandings of current physics.

Then we need to be clearer when we are talking about your amended physics and when you are asking a question of clarification regarding current physics.

Nowhere have I read of a model where a light source does not have mass.  Light does not generate from a vacuum where g=0.

But in your theory light is stretched in areas of reduced gravity, hence on passing through an area of 0g it would thereafter experience it's maximum possible shift, yes? It would be interesting to speculate whether such areas would exist in your model.

GR gravitational time dilation is an m in relation to M phenomenon in my model that is experienced by m.

In current physics both m and M experience a gravitational effect. Clearly this is an important difference in your theory, can you expand on this so we can understand it?

Open space and light will only experience the contra directional gravitational time dilation.

Can you expand on why this is so?

Are the LIGO interpretations insensible?
Are the Michelson Morley interpretations insensible?
Are the changes in lights wavelength insensible?

No, but your thought experiment is not understandable. J&J count the number of marks in lane 1 and see 10s elapsed, they then count the marks in lane 2 and see 11s have elapsed. You have given them no information which allows them to concluded that the length of 1m has changed.

Is it untrue that blue shifted light is thought to have a greater kinetic energy and therefore a greater relativistic mass?

This is true, but in current physics it is a consequence of the travel through the GP difference that causes this, just as a weight falling from height loses PE and gains KE.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - agreed.  I shall employ that approach.

*
Yes - that is correct.  Light is stretched in areas of reduced gravity and contracted in areas of concentrated gravity in my model.  The only places that will have 0 gravity in my contracting universe are the edges of the universe where there is no more mass.
Yes time will be going extremely slowly in the voids between galaxies in my model and will stop altogether in a 0 gravity field.

*

As I said the GR gravitational time dilation for m near M, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation for the gravity field associated with M in the open space surrounding M will converge in value where space meets mass.

*

Because both open space and light are massless.  (relativistic mass is unnecessary in my model)

*

All that Janet and John have been told (in part 1 of the thought experiment is that the car makes 10 metres per second and travels at a constant speed throughout...
What difference is there here to the Michelson Morley experiment other than the fact I am portraying the scenario in terms of expansion of distance rather than contraction of length?

*

Yes - this is the logic that I tried to tell Alan that I understand!

[alancalverd]

Gravitational potential V is a property of a point in space V = -GM/r where M is the mass of the attractor - no mention of the mass of a photon or any other attracted particle.

Gravitational blueshift dE/E = gh/c^2 if h is small - again no mention of photon mass.

If you introduce the mass of the attracted particle you will be talking about gravitational force. 

It is important to really, really understand these things, not just to say that you do when you apparently don't. 

[timey (OP)]

Alan - I am aware that neither mass, nor relativistic mass are mentioned in the gravitational shift equations or gravity potential equations.  You have consistently told me this for well over a year now.  I heard it the first time.

Is it untrue that blue shifted light is thought to have a greater kinetic energy and therefore a greater relativistic mass?

This is true, but in current physics it is a consequence of the travel through the GP difference that causes this, just as a weight falling from height loses PE and gains KE.

Before I dare step out of the realm of current physics in this particular area, could you please now put relativistic mass for light into context based on Colin's comment above?

[Colin2B]

The only places that will have 0 gravity in my contracting universe are the edges of the universe where there is no more mass.
Yes time will be going extremely slowly in the voids between galaxies in my model and will stop altogether in a 0 gravity field.

So, in the centre of the earth or between masses where gravity cancels out, light will stop?

Because both open space and light are massless. 

What effect does it have on open space?
So in your theory how does M affect light?

All that Janet and John have been told (in part 1 of the thought experiment is that the car makes 10 metres per second and travels at a constant speed throughout...

Well, that's not what you said:

All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second.   

From this they can work out that the car traveled for a greater time. Even if they were only told it traveled at a constant speed they could work out that it traveled for longer based on the marks made.
To suggest they assume the length has increased is unreasonable.
You won't get a mathematician to take up your theory based on this thought experiment, it does your theory a disservice.

Yes - this is the logic that I tried to tell Alan that I understand!

It didn't look that way. You said “... the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences....”
You imply relativistic mass is part of the equation, which it is not.

Alan …..... could you please now put relativistic mass for light into context based on Colin's comment above?

I don't see that he needs to. You can calculate KE and relativistic mass at the blue shifted location but, as I said, they are effects not causative.

[alancalverd]

E = mc^2, so relativistic mass is E/c^2. This has nothing to do with "rest mass" or "proper mass" which is the attractive gravitational mass, and is zero for a photon which does not exist at rest.

[timey (OP)]

The only places that will have 0 gravity in my contracting universe are the edges of the universe where there is no more mass.
Yes time will be going extremely slowly in the voids between galaxies in my model and will stop altogether in a 0 gravity field.

So, in the centre of the earth or between masses where gravity cancels out, light will stop?

Because both open space and light are massless. 

What effect does it have on open space?
So in your theory how does M affect light?

All that Janet and John have been told (in part 1 of the thought experiment is that the car makes 10 metres per second and travels at a constant speed throughout...

Well, that's not what you said:

All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second.   

From this they can work out that the car traveled for a greater time. Even if they were only told it traveled at a constant speed they could work out that it traveled for longer based on the marks made.
To suggest they assume the length has increased is unreasonable.
You won't get a mathematician to take up your theory based on this thought experiment, it does your theory a disservice.

Yes - this is the logic that I tried to tell Alan that I understand!

It didn't look that way. You said “... the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences....”
You imply relativistic mass is part of the equation, which it is not.

Alan …..... could you please now put relativistic mass for light into context based on Colin's comment above?

I don't see that he needs to. You can calculate KE and relativistic mass at the blue shifted location but, as I said, they are effects not causative.

I have given indication of the answer to this question earlier this thread.  I will repeat myself, but feel we have a few matters to clear up first.

*

Again - I have given indication of the answer to this question earlier this thread, but will repeat myself after we clear up the next comments.

*

Yes it is what I said.  If I did not say it directly in the first instance, I certainly did imply it, and solidified the fact of it in 3 separate posts since.

*

Just as the experimenters in LIGO could conclude that the gravity wave has increased the rate of time for the duration of the wave and that the tubes did not contract...
Just as the Michelson Morley experiment could have concluded that light in line to motion will experience a proportional slowing of its rate of time, and that the arm of the experiment does not contract.
Just as one may consider that a length of wave is time related and that a wavelength only appears longer or shorter in distance because of the time it took to travel.

I don't see that I am doing my theory any disservice at-all here Colin!
Are you completely sure that you are not doing disservice to current theory with your analysis though?

*

I am discussing matters on the basis that both Alan and yourself are in understanding that there is a correlation between the gravity potential differences and the addition of relativistic mass in relation to blue shift, and red shift in light.  The equations for each are different but there is direct correlation...  Which makes what I've said factually correct as a synopsis, and I'm certainly not planning on writing a book every time I wish to speak about current physics, ok?

*

No there is no further need for Alan to put relativistic mass into context because he has already done so here:

Ignore sound - wholly different stuff, and its speed is not constant.

And Doppler is not the same thing as gravitational redshift.

The wavelength of light is given by L = hc/e where h is a constant, c is the speed of light (also a constant) and e  is the kinetic energy of a photon.

In moving from a low to a high gravitational potential the photon loses kinetic energy as it gains potential energy, so e decreases and L increases.

People are often confused by gravitational potential, which is zero in "deep space" and negative close to a massive object (an "attractor"). V = -GM/r where G is a constant, M is the mass of the attractor, and r the distance from the attractor.

Now consider Doppler shift. If I send out a light pulse every second, you will receive a pulse every second if I'm not moving. If I move away from you, and the speed of light is constant, the pulses will arrive at slightly longer intervals because each pulse has further to travel. So the perceived frequency of a receding source is lower, and of an approaching source is higher, than the frequency received when it is stationary.

Wavelength L = c/frequency, so L increases for a receding source and vice versa. 

The Pound-Rebka experiment was a neat proof of all this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

So here...
Quote:
"The wavelength of light is given by L = hc/e where h is a constant, c is the speed of light (also a constant) and e  is the kinetic energy of a photon.

In moving from a low to a high gravitational potential the photon loses kinetic energy as it gains potential energy, so e decreases and L increases."
Unquote:

...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...
Ask yourself, what is the cause of potential energy?

[alancalverd]

A new term has been promulgated in Physics World this week: "trumpoid". It is a statement that has absolutely no basis in fact, but supports the speaker's argument by casting aspersions on the integrity of others. The test of a trumpoid is that, when challenged, the source says "I didn't mean that" or "so what if it isn't true?"

At no point did I mention the relativistic mass of a photon, because it is wholly irrelevant to the mechanism and quantity of redshift.

The value of relativistic mass is an effect, not a cause, of redshift.

[timey (OP)]

But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass, and relativistic mass is clearly not wholly irrelevant to the current physics logic of how light moves across space, which is what I said I understood, and you said I didn't.

At no juncture have I said that relativistic mass causes redshift.  I said that I understood the current physics logic of how light travels across space.

The relevant point is that gravity potential and relativistic mass have a direct correlation.

So what exactly are you saying?  That I do understand, or that I don't?  Because I'm not sure quite where you are coming from with this Trumpoid business, but I do recognise the word obtuse, and you are currently fitting this description...
You cannot seriously think that a cyclic universe can be described solely via the gravitational shift equation, nor legitimately purport the impression that current physics describes the logic of how light travels through space solely via the gravitational shift equation...

[alancalverd]

Trumpoid:

...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...

But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,

Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does.

If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.

[jeffreyH]

Trumpoid:

...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...

But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,

Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does.

If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.

Since energy is the source of gravity and it is thought that light may have a gravitational field we can substitute -GE/c^2r. However this still has nothing to do with the frequency shift of light.

[Colin2B]

Are you completely sure that you are not doing disservice to current theory with your analysis though?

Completly sure.
If you care to explain why that would be I am willing to consider it.

If you look at a valid thought experiment you will see that it is understandable and reflects what is happening eg the gravity/acceleration equivalence.

It may be that you can explain your experimaent in a way that does make it valid, but at the moment J&J can easily work out what is really happening. Perhaps there is additional explanation in your mind that isn't coming across.