0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Excuse my lacking in knowledge of elementary mathematics.
The clock in the greater gravity field will have more potential energy than the clock in the lesser gravity field.Agreed?
Potential energy is measured with reference to some point. In the case of gravitational potential energy it is relative to the point on the earth's surface a distance h immediately below the starting point. Now you have postulated two starting points a, b with different local values gb<gbbecause there is a lump of something dense at b.Now move your test mass from b to a. There being an attractor at b, you have to do some work to move it away, so the potential energy at a must be greater than at b.
Conventional physics states that potential energy is not the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions observed of the clock...
The radar beam between source Earth and target Venus will travel a curve of time that gets slower as it leaves the Earth and faster as it reaches Venus, but because the parameters are the exact opposite of the curve of time that gets faster as it leaves Earth and slower as it reaches Venus, what we are looking at is the same arc of curve, but for differing reasons.
So your radar beam does not behave the same as everyone else's? How does it know it's yours? Even if the starting and finishing points were the same, the curves would be of different shape.
"Conventional" physics states that time runs slower at a lower gravitational potential, because that is what we observe. It doesn't matter how you obtain that lower potential, whether by moving closer to the attractor or increasing its mass, g = GM/r^2 is the defining parameter. What's the problem?
all clocks behave the same whether they involve the potential energy of electrons (and I can't think of a clock that does) or the escapement wheel of a wristwatch. Except of course for pendulum clocks which depend on the local value of g.
And whilst I'm on my high horse
Actually the fact is that clocks that are basing their time measurement on the frequency of electron transitions are observed not to behave the same in differing gravity potentials...
We ignorant earthlings use electromagnetic radiation for RAdio Detection And Ranging, in the naive belief that its propagation speed in vacuo is constant.
If a straight line trajectory from (a) to (b) takes 2 minutes to travel at a constant speed as measured by the lab clock.
Anyway, if it wasn't, it is clear that the radius of the path of any projectile passing an attractor, increases with the speed of the projectile, which is why bullets travel further than cricket balls.
So if your supposed radar beam speeded up as it left earth for venus, it would describe a quite different banana path from one that slowed down.
A reference would be most helpful.
But the frequency of photons is also observed to increase with gravitational potential, by exactly the same amount, even though m = 0.
So it's nothing to do with the mass of the clock or any part thereof.
The nice thing about GR is that is is based on one assumption only - the constancy of c - and predicts the observed blue shift and gravitational lensing to an exceptional degree of accuracy.
So why invoke any other mechanism?
A photon emitted at h sea level will be measured at 1 metre elevation as having decreased in frequency.A photon emitted at 1 metre h from sea level will be measured at sea level as having increased in frequency.A clock (of any type sensitive enough to measure) placed at sea level will be observed from 1 metre h from sea level to have a lower frequency.A clock (of any type sensitive enough to measure) placed at 1 metre h from sea level will be observed from sea level to have a higher frequency.It would seem to me that there is a marked difference in how the frequency of light increases in the gravity potential...This difference being that a clock has a higher frequency in the higher gravity potential, and that light emitted in the lower potential will have a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
You say A>B in both cases,
so the mechanism must be different because the result is the same.
Although your analogy with the photon that gets a higher frequency at a lower level, works with my hypothesis except, I get a higher wavelength, but also a higher frequency