[alancalverd]

Again, postulating the unobservable and confusing source and observer position. The whole point of the experiment and all the arguments that derive from it is that the apparent frequency of any source depends on the relative gravitational potential of the source and observer, and the behavior is exactly the same whether you are looking at the energy of a photon or the rate of reproduction of rabbits. Once you understand that, there is no anomaly.   

Explaining how it happens is indeed a whole 'nother thing - indeed a Noether thing - but it's a lot easier to explain one actual phenomenon than two imaginary ones!

[timey (OP)]

When moving along the gravitational field, PE varies but KE gets back to zero when stopping at the height you want to do the measurement. That could mean something, but my opinion is PE is not intrinsic of the clock, that is why it is called potential, the clock doesn't  have it yet.

Ok look Nilak - for the purpose of illustration let's look at a damn that is producing electricity.

A body of water is held at a higher gravity potential and within that water held at the higher potential there is the potential to produce x amount of electricity by converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

Energy is always conserved, so where in this scenario does the potential energy reside?

[timey (OP)]

Anyone could, but no physicist would. We are far too pedantic and bound to the truth.

There is a graph on the gravitational shifted light wiki link that shows that light gravitationally shifts in the gravity field.

The rate of time for a BH is thought to run slower than on Earth because it is a bigger mass and although an observer at the BH would not consider his clock to be running slow, he will AGE slower than a person on Earth.

Physicists describing near Earth time dilations concerning depth to centre of Earth and radial centripetal motion differences of longitude use a mathematical system to determine that a clock runs faster at a higher gravity potential radius, but also runs slower due to centripetal motion at that radius, and that in the case of the extra depth due to equatorial bulge, 1 cancels the other so that clocks run at the same rates at sea level of any longitude, despite the extra 23 or so kilometres depth at equator.

The same mathematical system can be drawn as a graph, where the line of curve from sea level for the GR altitude effects will resemble the graph on this link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential

The mathematical system is itself representive of a graph...

You might get someone to state that

"When observed from  a given point, electromagnetic waves and time pulses emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear to have a higher frequency than those generated by the same process  locally. When observed from the same gravitational potential as the source, there is no difference, regardless of the mechanism of the source or the reference, or the gravitational potential at that point.

Isn't this because one is then measuring the scenario as per the clock in that potential rather than at the rate of time of some other potential?
What you are saying suggests that the clock viewed to be ticking at a differing rate from another potential is just a mirage.
If there is no 'actual' difference in the clock's rate of time then a person with a clock that 'appears' to be time dilated from another potential will age at the same rate as a person anywhere else, thus rendering the famous Twin Paradox as a load of old baloney.

Therefore time is affected by gravitational potential.

Sorry, but I thought you just said that the time 'in' a gravity potential runs the same at each potential...
If the time is running at the same rate at each potential then surely under this remit it is not 'the time' that is affected by the potential, it is 'the observation' of time that is affected...

You cannot say that time is occurring at the same rate in each gravity potential and then say that a person ages in keeping with their time dilated clock.  That is a contradiction.

A mathematical model based on this hypothesis has predicted every experimental result to date."

And on the basis that this mathematical model is only describing the observation of what is occurring, but fails to describe 'why' it is occurring, this leaves a little room for 'interpretation' of observation so long as the 'interpretation' does not deviate from the values of the mathematical model.

Anything less would have omitted important and relevant facts and conditions.

The mathematical model fails to describe what the physical mechanisms for the observations are...
This being a fact that is widely written upon by physicists in the books that I have been studying.

If we could just accept that these physical processes of altitude related time dilation and motion related time dilation are occurring whether they are being observed by anyone or not, then a graph will show that clocks held at rest with respect to the gravity field will increase in frequency at elevation, and that the increased frequency of the clock will be counterbalanced by a decrease in frequency caused by centripetal motion of radius of longitude, or orbital velocity motion.
At a certain radius from Earth the orbital velocity cancels out the altitude dilation and the clock on the craft orbiting at that radius of altitude, at that orbital velocity will be running at the same rate as the clock on Earth.

This mathematical system is a graph that shows that the frequency of a clock will increase in the higher potential.

The gravitational shift wiki link shows a graph where the frequency of light, be the light red shifting away from M, or blue shifting towards M, always has a lower frequency in the higher potential.

There is 'nothing' in these last 2 paragraphs above that contravenes the conventional view of physics or the mathematical system that describes it...
...and I would really care to start discussing the fact that the frequency of light is gravitationally shifted in the higher potential to a lower frequency in 'unconventional terms' that will describe the acceleration of gravity via a system of cause and effect mechanics that gives the acceleration/deceleration of gravity a physical cause.

Is that too much to ask?

[timey (OP)]

Going back to my suggested 'actual' experiment of placing 2 identical clock's on the surface of the Earth at different locations of the same height of gravity potential, and at the same longitude in order to equalise GR altitude and SR centripetal motion effects, but at locations of significantly differing geological density, where the value of m and h are the same, but the value of g is differing - to define via experiment which clock runs faster...

Please see below a 'thought' experiment that results in equalised parameters.  This thought experiment can be calculated via the existing mathematical system but concludes in asking where it is that the factor for the clock on the bigger mass running at a slower rate compared to the clock on the smaller mass resides...

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70240.msg512969#msg512969

[nilak]

When moving along the gravitational field, PE varies but KE gets back to zero when stopping at the height you want to do the measurement. That could mean something, but my opinion is PE is not intrinsic of the clock, that is why it is called potential, the clock doesn't  have it yet.

Ok look Nilak - for the purpose of illustration let's look at a damn that is producing electricity.

A body of water is held at a higher gravity potential and within that water held at the higher potential there is the potential to produce x amount of electricity by converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

Energy is always conserved, so where in this scenario does the potential energy reside?

If it is potential, the energy doesn't reside within the object but it is somewhere else, like in the gravitational field.
The redshift/blueshift of signals already results in time dilation. If you say the clocks change their frequency, as their potential energy changes, then it would mean the redshift / blueshift of light and signals doesn't happen. That is because, if both phenomena happened then the effect would be doubled than what we see.
If you think your principle is correct then you could try to suggest more experiment that could confirm it.

[timey (OP)]

If it is potential, the energy doesn't reside within the body but it is somewhere else, like in the gravitational field.

If the energy is in the gravitational field then the difference between the equation mgh where m equals zero and where m doesn't equal 0 is significant.

If the dam were not full of water there would be no potential energy to convert.

The redshift/blueshift of signals already results in time dilation. If you say the clocks change their frequency, as their potential energy changes, then it would mean the redshift / blueshift of light and signals doesn't happen.

The clock is placed at elevation so it does have a differing potential energy to the clock below it regardless.  Whether this is what is causing the increased frequency of electron transitions or not is the point of my suggested experiment.

Light is redshifted or blue shifted in the gravity field 'after' it has been emitted not 'before'...
But there is an argument for the frequency emitting source of the clock's frequency of electron transitions emitting higher frequency photons in the higher gravity potential...
Measured in the higher gravity potential by the remit of the rate of time of the clock in the higher gravity potential any photons emitted by the emitting source in the higher gravity potential would be measured as having an identical frequency to the frequency of photons emitted by the emitting source in the lower potential when the frequency is measured by the rate of time in the lower potential.

"Measuring by the remit of the rate of time of the clock in the potential one is measuring" being the defining factor.

I already suggested an 'actual experiment' to prove or disprove my theory, and it's a very simple and relatively inexpensive experiment.

[nilak]

I may be wrong but what I understand is the clock run as if they were at the same frequency (if space and time were absolute), only the signal frequency gets altered, but that in relativity means the clocks actually run at different rates.

[timey (OP)]

Nilak - I haven't got time to teach you about how clocks work.  Just read all the wiki links and read some books on the subject.  That's what I did.

What I will do is leave you with this bit of advice concerning frequency.

The frequencies of differing emitting sources, or the frequencies of differing matter waves are all held relative to the length of second as per the caesium standard.
All of these frequency rates of these differing emitting sources or differing matter waves, as measured in the same gravity potential are quite differing from each other, from very few wave cycles per second to a very high number of wave cycles per second.

If we were to observe a caesium atomic clock at elevation from the lower potential where the observed increase in the higher clocks frequency of electron transitions as compared to the clock in the lower potential, is determined as a shorter length second - and then we were to measure the frequency of all emitting sources and matter waves in the lower potential from the lower potential held relative to this shorter second - then that which we are measuring 'in' the lower potential 'from' the lower potential will have a decreased frequency as compared to measuring the same phenomenon via the standard second.
All we have done is decide to measure that which is in the lower potential by the remit of the shorter second observed of the higher potential.

Also don't forget that wavelength is always inversely proportional to both frequency and energy, but frequency and energy are always proportional to each other...

Good luck with your explorations.

[timey (OP)]

Is this too much to ask?

Well it would seem that it is too much to ask, however this flies in the face of logic considering that each and every physics book that I read describes the incompatibility of quantum physics and general relativity, and most of the physics books I read describe the search for a unifying theory.

Here you have someone, this being me, who is stating that by making a few adjustments in how one interprets observation and experimentally verified observation, that the maths that describe general relativity can describe quantum as a continuum unifying the two theories while negating the necessity for the need for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, or any multiple world scenario.

Yet finding a person who is willing to make calculation of the alternative interpretation of observation seems to be an impossible mission.

Can anyone provide me with a plausible explanation for this paradox?

[alancalverd]

Oh dear, here comes that boring old pedant again. Red shift is not measured with respect to a cesium clock, but the angle of diffraction of visible photons or the beat of the hydrogen 21 cm line mixed with one generated locally, or a dozen other things including the speed of the moving mossbauer receptor in the Pound-Rebka experiment, all of which predated the cesium clock. It just happens that atomic clocks are handy for precise measurements in near space.

However you measure time, it is the same for all systems at a given gravitational potential, but observably differs between points at different potentials.

Interpreting observation is indeed what it's all about, but you haven't produced an observation that suggests anything like inverted time dilatation.

[jeffreyH]

If you travel one metre at a constant speed that is held relative to a longer or shorter 'variable' second.  Then the distance remains the same, and it just takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to travel that metre.

That is a very pertinent point expressed with clarity. No one has as yet detected length contraction. If you maintained that clarity you would make much better progress.

[Colin2B]

If you travel one metre at a constant speed that is held relative to a longer or shorter 'variable' second.  Then the distance remains the same, and it just takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to travel that metre.

That is a very pertinent point expressed with clarity. No one has as yet detected length contraction. If you maintained that clarity you would make much better progress.

I thought length contraction had been observed with gold ions, I'll try to find a ref.
Timey's point is a valid one. Most people assume length contraction and time dilation are separate phenomena but they are really the same. As soon as you start travelling you measure the distance to your objective as shorter, but the reason is that the clocks in the 'rest frame' are no longer synchronised for you. Also an observer in the rest frame sees clocks at each end of your ship as unsynchonised, hence measures it as contracted in length. Our measurement of time and distance are inter-related. See also Schwarzschild.
PS I forgot to add that this is why GR treats spacetime as one item via the spacetime interval.

[jeffreyH]

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.

[Colin2B]

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.

You have to remember that all subatomic interactions are indirectly observed, but the contraction is necessary to explain some of the interactions:

https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/physics.asp

I think there might be a wiki ref to it, but I can't find it. If you search on RHIC you should find more material.

[timey (OP)]

However you measure time, it is the same for all systems at a given gravitational potential, but observably differs between points at different potentials.

Interpreting observation is indeed what it's all about, but you haven't produced an observation that suggests anything like inverted time dilatation.

That is because you, within your state of pedant, are refusing to accept the fact that where m=0 there can be no observer.

Therefore any observation of a 3rd aspect of time dilation where m=0 occurring contra directionally to GR altitude time dilation will only be observed indirectly.

I am suggesting that an indirect observation of this potential 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon can be observed in the acceleration and deceleration of motion observed in the g-field and also within the frequency changes that occur for light in the g-field.

[alancalverd]

We observe electromagnetic radiation, for which m = 0.

[jeffreyH]

@Colin2B I'll let you know what I find. Should be interesting.

[timey (OP)]

We observe electromagnetic radiation, for which m = 0.

Yes we do!

And electromagnetic radiation reduces in frequency when gravitationally shifting 'away' from M.

[alancalverd]

Or, as a physicist would say, when observed from a higher gravitational potential than the source. Just like a clock. 

[timey (OP)]

What relevance does this have to the proposed theory?

There is a system of mathematics called GR that states that a clock will tick faster at each elevation from M.
There is a system of mathematics called SR that states that at the orbital speed of each elevation this increase in the rate of time will be reduced.

There is also a system of mathematics within GR that describes how light shifts in the gravity field.  The light will always have a lower frequency in the higher potential no matter which direction it is travelling.

Therefore it really doesn't matter about what an observer observes from where-ever.
The proposed theory does not suggest that anyone will observe anything differently to conventional physics.
The proposed theory is concerning the acceleration deceleration of gravity.  We know that it occurs whether there is anyone observing or not.