0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

An additional Axiom: "The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"

It is a simple fact that whatever you see today is the result of what happened yesterday or 13 billion years ago, depending on where you look. As you can see from my analysis in #1064, it doesn't matter what happened between the source and the detector: gravitational red shift depends only on the relative gravitational potentials at the time and place of the source and detector.Energy is conserved. A photon starts its life with kinetic energy hf and an arbitrary potential energy dependent on the mass of its source. As it travels it may gain or lose potential energy by passing near other masses, but each such gain or loss is reflected by a change in f as seen by an observer at that point in space and is recovered as the photon leaves that point. Imagine a frictionless ball rolling along a bumpy surface: it loses kinetic energy as it climbs a bump, and gains k.e. on the way down. Its final kinetic energy depends only on the initial k.e. and the height difference between start and finish. The velocity of a photon is constant but its k.e. is its frequency.

Quote from: alancalverd on 13/03/2018 01:06:43It is a simple fact that whatever you see today is the result of what happened yesterday or 13 billion years ago, depending on where you look. As you can see from my analysis in #1064, it doesn't matter what happened between the source and the detector: gravitational red shift depends only on the relative gravitational potentials at the time and place of the source and detector.Energy is conserved. A photon starts its life with kinetic energy hf and an arbitrary potential energy dependent on the mass of its source. As it travels it may gain or lose potential energy by passing near other masses, but each such gain or loss is reflected by a change in f as seen by an observer at that point in space and is recovered as the photon leaves that point. Imagine a frictionless ball rolling along a bumpy surface: it loses kinetic energy as it climbs a bump, and gains k.e. on the way down. Its final kinetic energy depends only on the initial k.e. and the height difference between start and finish. The velocity of a photon is constant but its k.e. is its frequency. I gave up but can't leave this post unremarked. Alan has said here all that needs to be said.

Quote from: timey on 26/03/2018 19:40:45An additional Axiom: "The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"Speed being length divided by time, this defines the "rate of time" as being measured in meters per second, and clearly being a knowable quantity.What is the local rate of time at some known place on earth? It must be measurable or calculable at, say, Teddington or Paris.

speed being length divided by time, this defines the "rate of time" as being measured in meters per second, and clearly being a knowable quantity.

OK, so I guess the idea of re-describing the precise magnitude of the Shapiro effect via the remit of my theory as a mathematical venture is a non-starter.For the record, all that is required is an inversing of the curvature of the geometry.

As I understand it, the Shapiro delay is the difference between the theoretical straight-line propagation of a signal and its actual geodesic path in the presence of an intervening gravitational field. If you invert the geodesic curvature, the "lensing" effect is inverted from "convex" to "concave" and the signal will not be received at all.Apropos the calculation of redshift, the "clock rate" or "kinetic energy" calculations give identical results because they are alternative ways of describing the same thing. The good news is that the result is supported by experimental data.

wiki: "The time delay effect was first observed in 1964, by Irwin Shapiro. Shapiro proposed an observational test of his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury and measure the round-trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 microseconds"

As I understand it, the Shapiro delay is the difference between the theoretical straight-line propagation of a signal and its actual geodesic path in the presence of an intervening gravitational field.

wiki"In a nearly static gravitational field of moderate strength (say, of stars and planets, but not one of a black hole or close binary system of neutron stars) the effect may be considered as a special case of gravitational time dilation. The measured elapsed time of a light signal in a gravitational field is longer than it would be without the field, and for moderate-strength nearly static fields the difference is directly proportional to the classical gravitational potential, precisely as given by standard gravitational time dilation formulas."

wiki"Shapiro's original formulation was derived from the Schwarzschild solution and included terms to the first order in solar mass (M) for a proposed Earth-based radar pulse bouncing off an inner planet and returning passing close to the Sun:"

wiki:"The right-hand side of this equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray; the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"

wiki: "the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"

wiki:"which is the extra distance the light has to travel"

Apropos the calculation of redshift, the "clock rate" or "kinetic energy" calculations give identical results because they are alternative ways of describing the same thing.

This re-enforcing question 1, being the question of whether this calculation of a variable speed for the light is being calculated from the initial conditions of a flat spacetime between Earth and Venus?

Quote wiki:"The right-hand side of this equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray; the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"So firstly, here it is stating that "the right hand side of the equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray", where presumably this variable speed is being caused by the influence of the intermediary mass (the closer sun). This re-enforcing question 1, being the question of whether this calculation of a variable speed for the light is being calculated from the initial conditions of a flat spacetime between Earth and Venus?

And secondly it is stating:Quote wiki: "the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"Question 2:Does this mean that it is only the time variants being calculated here, with the 'geodesic curvature' (that is observed via lensing in other experiments) being negligable?"

Elsewhere you say “Instead of describing the geometry as spatial hills and troughs that objects fall into and climb out of”. Current theory does not describe the geometry as spatial hills and troughs, they are time-dilation hills and troughs the same as you are proposing.

@timey said, Whether or not the theory has any merit or not is another matter, but if my memory serves me well, you said you were starting to understand my theory. What happened?You stopped listening and started to talk nonsense.

Yes - except that GR is (in effect) pasting 'physically', what is in effect longer metres, onto space where there are shorter length seconds in the higher potential, via the geometry of the GR curvature. (light, at light speed per Earth second, travels further than a metre per Earth second in the higher potential)

Checking against SR, if we use SR to measure the light's round trip between Earth and Venus, we are using flat spacetime and length contractions.

GR is saying that seconds are getting shorter in space, and distances are longer via curvature.

Best to say, seconds are getting shorter and distances are longer via curvature. It is the same effect, curvature causes both.