[timey (OP)]

Colin - it really is not part of the remit of the thought experiment that J&J should not be able to work out that the time period they are travelling in has been extended.
It is I who have chosen to make J&J view this effect as a length dilation...
(although J&J would have a hard time differentiating between whether or not the time period had been a percentage that is longer or shorter because if J&J think in terms of the rate of time having increased for the car, rather than having decreased for the lane***both will produce the same result!***)

In choosing to make J&J view this effect as a length dilation, I am merely following suit from the LIGO, Michelson Morley, and light wave considerations, because in all 3 instances here the view is that length contraction or dilation is taking place.

The point of part 1 of the experiment was to 'encourage' the reader to think in terms of the time period being extended, rather than the distance being stretched... and given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success!  You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.

Please now do as I suggest and apply this 'time period' thinking to:

LIGO,  (the gravity wave causes an increase in time, the path of the light is changed)
Michelson Morley (the inline to motion light experiencing a slowing of its own time, the path of the light is changed.
Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)

If you have done as I suggest you are now thinking under the remit of my model, whereas under the remit of current physics it is thought:

LIGO - that the gravity wave causes a slower time period that does not match up to the degree of diffraction observed, and the other portion of the diffraction of the light is attributed to the tubes contracting.
Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.
Light waves - that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.

We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment if you are at-all unclear, or if you are all good and understand these changes I have made from current model, and that these changes are the remit of my model, we can move on.

[Colin2B]

.. given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success!  You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.

Not so, this has always been part of my thinking because the 2 are inseparable. If you look at my simplified examples in the other threads you will see this.
There is little point looking at just one or the other, but what is important is to identify points of simultaneity.

I'm not going to comment on LIGO because there is more going on there than the simplified press releases.

'time period' thinking:
Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)

These words are similar to ones I would use to describe current theory except I would use the words  “the measured change in length being caused by the difference between the 'rate of time' of the locations of the emitting source and detector.”

under the remit of current physics:
Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.

Also a change of time, both effects have been observed. As I said you can't separate them.

Light waves - under the remit of current physics:
that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.

Don't understand this reference. The only way a wavelength can change is if there is a change in the  distance between wave peaks.

We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment ...

I really don't think it is going to do any good, you and I are clearly not viewing this in the same way.
I would prefer to set up a description, as I did earlier, of how time and distance actually change together.
Best you carry on and maybe your ideas will become clearer.

[alancalverd]

Since energy is the source of gravity

 

Now that's news to me. Can you elaborate or provide a reference?

[timey (OP)]

.. given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success!  You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.

Not so, this has always been part of my thinking because the 2 are inseparable. If you look at my simplified examples in the other threads you will see this.
There is little point looking at just one or the other, but what is important is to identify points of simultaneity.

I'm not going to comment on LIGO because there is more going on there than the simplified press releases.

'time period' thinking:
Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)

These words are similar to ones I would use to describe current theory except I would use the words  “the measured change in length being caused by the difference between the 'rate of time' of the locations of the emitting source and detector.”

under the remit of current physics:
Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.

Also a change of time, both effects have been observed. As I said you can't separate them.

Light waves - under the remit of current physics:
that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.

Don't understand this reference. The only way a wavelength can change is if there is a change in the  distance between wave peaks.

We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment ...

I really don't think it is going to do any good, you and I are clearly not viewing this in the same way.
I would prefer to set up a description, as I did earlier, of how time and distance actually change together.
Best you carry on and maybe your ideas will become clearer.

Look Colin.  How many times do I have to say:

"I am adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe."

So - very first step:
Do you understand the implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe?  ie: can you visualise what the results of adding this phenomenon will be?

[timey (OP)]

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.

Unless the g of M causes a contra directional time dilation that causes light to be stretched or contracted over variable rates of time in the open space surrounding M - and it is the energy of the light being stretched or compacted, over or into the variable times of the reference frames of differing gravity potential surrounding M that changes the frequency.

Gravity is causing time dilation
Time dilation is causing frequency change.

There is no gravity without mass, and mass comes inherent with energy, so I agree that there is a direct correlation between gravity and energy. 

Alan - that's no doubt why the link I posted earlier this thread is titled "why Maxwell could not describe gravity"...and goes on to quote the very interesting quote from Maxwell that suggested a contra directional stress to account for the force of gravity, although he could not imagine what might cause such a stress" that I quoted earlier this thread.   My model is giving cause with this contra directional time dilation.
Interesting that you say Newton predicts a cyclic universe.  Can you expand on that?
And... I am trumping nothing as fact!  I am describing my model of a cyclic universe that may or may not have merit.

[jeffreyH]

Since energy is the source of gravity

 

Now that's news to me. Can you elaborate or provide a reference?

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold

But then it is stretching things a bit.

[Colin2B]

Look Colin.  How many times do I have to say:

"I am adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe."

Just once, heard you the first time.

Do you understand the implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe?  ie: can you visualise what the results of adding this phenomenon will be?

Yup, but none of that changes the comments I made.

[timey (OP)]

The implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation (as I have also mentioned before), result in distance and length being constant in the face of this variable time - so your comments on how you want me to describe distance and length contraction/dilation as inseparable from time contraction/dilation are somewhat contradictory to my analysis.

Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related.  It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.

[Colin2B]

...your comments on how you want me to describe distance and length contraction/dilation as inseparable from time contraction/dilation .....

I'm not saying I want you to do that, just commenting on your comparison between your theory and current.

[timey (OP)]

Well Colin - in that I am describing a thought experiment that is asking you to try and think about things differently to current physics, I think it pertinent that if you wish to understand what it is that I am describing, you 'temporarily' let go of how you currently think about physics while you consider the changes.

I don't understand what your problem is with the structure of part 1 of the thought experiment.  I am not making a comparison here between current theory and my model.  I am simply describing how holding the duration of 1 length of second constant to measure a different length of second will result in a different distance being travelled...can you please explain why this poses a problem to you?

[alancalverd]

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold

But then it is stretching things a bit.

More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.

[timey (OP)]

No - but you could say that mass causes gravity, gravity causes time dilation (contra directional), time dilation (contra directional) causes attraction, and attraction causes energy.

(Btw, an absolute 0 gravity field doesn't exist 'inside' my model of a contracting universe... and...are you not interested in commenting on the Maxwell quote mentioning a contra directional stress that he cannot hither (or some other oldy world speak) imagine a physical cause for... Alan???)

[jeffreyH]

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold

But then it is stretching things a bit.

More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.

So how much mass would an object exhibit at absolute zero? Would the gravitational potential still be the same at its surface for instance?

[alancalverd]

I recommend the reference you quoted. But to save you the effort of actually reading it, the additional relativistic mass at any achieveable temperature is buggerall compared with the mass of an object at absolute zero. There is no evidence for stuff floating away as it cools, so I think we can safely assume that F = GMm/r^2 at any temperature, where m = m(0) + Tdm/dT is just a teeensy weensy bit variable.

[nilak]

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold

But then it is stretching things a bit.

More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.

At absolute zero, how do you know there is no energy left in the container. At low temperatures there is no heat transfer but it doesn't mean there is no energy left. How about the nucleus bond ?
 Can you separate  mass from energy ? I think not.
To make absolute zero you need to remove everything from the container.
Gravity must be a field just like other fields that propagate at constant speed and, because the propagation follows the same rules. It creates the illusion of gravitational force between objects. It only has different orientation. If it was a property of spacetime it would've need an additional condition for speed limit. The spacetime must be in a such a way, a free falling object goes asymptotically to c. That is a new condition.

[alancalverd]

Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related.  It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.

But since c = fL and c is constant, if you change f you will change L by the exact reciprocal.

[timey (OP)]

Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related.  It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.

But since c = fL and c is constant, if you change f you will change L by the exact reciprocal.

Yup - and then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second and state c = 299 792 458 metres per variable second, then L will remain constant.
The speed of light in the reference frame where L/f = variable second remains constant... and the speed of light will remain constant in any, and every reference frame universally under this remit.

[Colin2B]

I am simply describing how holding the duration of 1 length of second constant to measure a different length of second will result in a different distance being travelled...can you please explain why this poses a problem to you?

If that is what you were doing, then no problem. The problem is with the description of what you are doing and the conclusions reached.

For example:

then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second

This is not a variable second, but it is one reason why your theory won't be taken seriously.

It may be the problem lies in your description of the experiment, so to check that there is no misunderstanding:

In all lanes the car runs at 10m/s. It makes a mark every metre. There is start/stop light controlled by you.
In Lane 1 you use a stopwatch and stop the car after 10s.
In Lane 2 you use a stopwatch and stop the car after 11s

J&J have a tape measure and can compare lanes 1 and 2 to see length of metre is same.

OK so far?

In your description of the experiment you say "we extend the length of a second by 10% via the timing between the green start light and red stoplight, and ask Janet and John to drive for 100 metres up lane 2 of the track.".
How do they drive 100m up the lane? Logic would say by driving alongside Lane 1 until they come to the 100th mark. But you control how far they have gone, so they have to rely on other information - 110 marks 1m apart = 110 metres, and at 10m/s they will travel for 11s. So there should be no confusion on their part.
However, let's say that they believe you that they have really driven 100m then clearly their ruler must be wrong. But 100m and 110 marks, so each mark is now contracted (not expanded) to 0.909m.

You now cause even more confusion by saying "Clearly if the car was reset to make marks at 10 per elongated second, there would only be 100 marks, and the spaces between each marker would measure 1 metre".
Well, 10 per elongated second would mean 10 marks every 1.1s, and at a speed of 10m/s the marks would be 1.1m apart.

So I hope you can see why I have problems with your experiment, it has nothing to do with thinking in variable seconds or inverted time zones, not about thinking outside current physics, but everything to do with calculation.

When you started this thread I had hoped you would genuinely follow up on the consequences of considering variable second, but this is not it.

[alancalverd]

Yup - and then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second and state c = 299 792 458 metres per variable second, then L will remain constant.

Let me be really, really boring for a moment and introduce dimensional analysis.

Wavelength L divided by frequency f has dimensions of length x time, not time, and therefre cannot be any sort of second, let alone a variable second.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - if the car makes 100 marks in lane 1, then in lane 2 if we do not reset the second that the car makes marks at, then the car will make 110 marks with the extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2.  If we reset the second that the car in lane 2 makes marks at to 1.1 seconds, relative to to lane 1, as per the 10% extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2 - then the car will make 100 marks and the distance between the marks will be 1 metre.
The distance the car travels in lane 2 will then be the same as it was in lane 1, because the car is travelling at constant speed per elongated second.

In lane 1 the frequency per second is 10 metres per second.
In lane 2 the frequency per second is 9 metres per lane 1 second, or it can be 10 metres per lane 2 second.

I apologise if my thought experiment is not up to scratch, but the logic is sound!

Alan - As above...  Perhaps my maths were not concise in describing the above, but using 1 dimension of time in order to calculated another dimension of time does not seem out of the realms of possibility in my mind.