[Ethos_]

We also need to make the maths believable.

Absolutely Colin...................I suspect the only help I can provide for timey is assistance in understanding and navigating through the math with her. This is the very reason I have asked for us to progress at a pace which will allow her to understand the math. Without the ability to grasp what the math is telling us, I think timey will fail to understand the complexity of the difficult task which stands before us. As you have noted, the math must also be believable and that believability is only achieved through the experience offered us by experiment and the confirmation we achieve when repeatability of those experiments are recorded.

[timey (OP)]

One of the consequences of having nothing going on in my life is that I have very little resources resulting in no internet connection of my own, therefore I will have to wait until later to read the interim posts, but I wrote this this morning so I'll post it and catch up with the replies later:

*

If I could throw myself back in time I would tell Planck that he could iron out the additions of energy causing frequency change into a linear progression by shortening the length of a second as frequency increases, and I have no doubt that he would shake my hand in sheer delight and thank me.  Einstein had introduced the notion of different rates of time applied to physics and this idea is just an extension/symmetry of that notion 

Under the remit of this system Planck's h constant becomes a function of time dilation, where it is changes in energy level that are causing changes in the rate of time.   It takes h value of joules to initiate a change in the rate of time, and the change in the rate of time can be observed by the change in frequency.

Applying this remit to the structure of conventional physics maths only requires a shift in interpretaion.

Looking at this photon counting equation Qp = h⋅c / λ.

h is now indicative of the amount of energy that causes the length of a second to change.  Within the mathematical structure of h the value of a joule is being held relative to the static length second, and c is a set distance being held relative to the static length of second...
h multiplied by c is taking the amount of energy it takes to cause the length of a second to change and multiplying that by a speed that takes 1 static length second to cover a set distance.
We could simply say that the result of h*c is equal to 299 792 458m/second that is longer or shorter than the static length second, but by what value is the second longer or shorter?
Now we look to the mathematical structure of  λ.  As frequency changes the length of a wavelength changes.  Increases in frequency cause shorter wavelengths, and decreases in frequency cause longer wavelengths.  If it takes h value of joules to initiate a change in the rate of time, and the change in the rate of time can be observed by the change in frequency, then  λ is incorporating the frequency change within its mathematical structure, where frequency is held relative to the length of a standard second.   λ = h/p and p=h*vbar and vbar=va where v is wave number or frequency and a is indicative of change.
 
So - h*c is a multiplication of 2 values being held relative to the length of a static length second, but the value of the result can be thought to have incorporated a change in the rate of time via the use of h.   The the resulting value divided by  λ is a division of a value that incorporates a change in the rate of time by a value that incorporates a change in the rate of time.
Therefore there 'is' a reference to the change in the rate of time on both sides of the equation Qp = h⋅c / λ. (and the equation E=hf)

This has been a description that involves the rate of time for the free electrons of the emitting source black body increasing with increased energy to emit higher frequency photons, and also a description of light propagation in space where the energy of the already emitted light is changed by it's position in the gravity potential, where it looks very much to me as though quantum photon is unified with gravity via a physical cause for the wave function...in the face of adding a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon where the rate of time is decreased in the higher gravity potential for anything or anywhere where m=0.
But this remit can extend to matter waves that are subject to changes in energy. i.e: the rate of time for the free electrons and also bound electrons...where the possibility arises to bastardize the equation Qp = h⋅c / λ for electrons, by exchanging c for v (I think, scratches head) where v is the frequency, (need help with that one)...
And if one considers that potential energy is a property of mass that can be added to or subtracted from mass due to the mass's position in the gravity field this further unifies quantum with gravity where we observe that a clocks frequency is increased in the higher gravity potential and hold that any physical process where m doesn't =0, i.e. matter waves, are all proportionally increased in frequency in the higher gravity potential which is supported by the commonly held notion that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock.

I can now describe how this remit can give physical cause and effect mechanics to the accelerative/decelerative force of gravity, and how this remit can give cause and effect mechanics to the attractive/directional force of gravity.

[timey (OP)]

Back online now...and have read the replies of which I shall address some of the content below, but first...

Reading through what I wrote in my last post, I feel that I have been a bit fuzzy in my description concerning this bit:

: timey
Under the remit of this system Planck's h constant becomes a function of time dilation, where it is changes in energy level that are causing changes in the rate of time.   It takes h value of joules to initiate a change in the rate of time, and the change in the rate of time can be observed by the change in frequency.

"It takes h value of joules to initiate a change in the rate of time" being the fuzzy bit.

To be more clear - it takes h value of joules times the frequency that is indicating a change in the rate of time to know the value of the Energy that is changing the rate of time.

I think this is what Timey is trying to do - if seconds pass at, say, twice the rate relative to our gravitational potential i.e. each is = half of our seconds, then the calculation becomes 20J (10/0.5), but, to use wavelength as the modifying factor.

First thing here Colin is that I am worried that you are basing this analysis on the fact that clocks run faster at a higher gravity potential, which does remain as a fact within my hypothesis, therefore your analysis does have a bearing on the energy, frequency, and wavelength of any m at a gravity potential that causes m to increase in frequency by twice the rate compared to the reference frame of the 'static length' second, this being our own frame of reference, which we could state as being sea level Earth because according to GR and SR considerations all clocks run at the same rate at the sea level of every longitude.

But here, at present we are talking about light travelling through changes in the gravitational field (energy), where the gravitational field reduces in strength (energy) as distance is increased from M.  I am suggesting that these changes in energy are causing the rate of time in space itself to be decreased, i.e: longer seconds, as field strength (energy) is reducing with distance from M.
Light, because it is m=0 will not increase in the potential energy that I am suggesting is the cause of the increase in frequency for a clock, where mgh is just gh for light.
Light red shifting away from sea level Earth will reduce in energy as the field strength (energy) reduces with distance from M because it is taking longer and longer amounts of time to complete a wave cycle as frequency is reduced.

Therefore the equation Qp=h⋅c / λ is multiplying a time dilation function h that has its basis in a static length second measurement, by a speed held relative to a static length second, and dividing by a time dilation function that has it's basis in a static length second measurement.

Far as I can tell this system, in both the scenario of point particles where m doesn't =0, and the scenario of point particle photons where m=0, has given the wave function a physical cause where a division by wavelength will identify position, and also unify quantum with gravity.

I suspect the only help I can provide for timey is assistance in understanding and navigating through the math with her.

That is the best that I could hope for and I very much appreciate your input.

[Colin2B]

To be more clear - it takes h value of joules times the frequency that is indicating a change in the rate of time to know the value of the Energy that is changing the rate of time.
"...............
First thing here Colin is that I am worried that you are basing this analysis on the fact that clocks run faster at a higher gravity potential,

No need to worry, it was addressing what you have expressed above, but it works whether clocks run faster or slower at any potential, or a position in space that has a time dilation relative to another position. So it should work for your various scenarios. The simplest way is to express the time dilation as a ratio against the std second then you use that ratio to work out f. For E=hf you are on safe ground as this is what current physics says.

[Ethos_]

That is the best that I could hope for and I very much appreciate your input.

Regarding the formula associated with photon energy:

Qp = hc/wavelength
Please excuse my notation, I don't have latex.
Let's use the figure (w) to represent wavelength.

Qp=hc/w

Photon energy = Planck's constant times the speed of light divided by selected wavelength.

Joules = h * c * w^-1
           = (J*s) * c * w^-1
           = (kg * m^2 /sec) * (m/sec) / (m)
           = (kg * m^2/sec^2)

For a VHF wavelength of 1 meter, just to simplify, we plug in the following values:

Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 1

Photon energy of one photon at 1 meter wave length ........... (1.9864 E^-25) Joules

BTW, the (E^-25) is a simpler way of notation representing: (times 10 raised to the -25)

[Ethos_]

Timey..........I have a thought associated with Lorentz contractions which may be of some relevance  when applied to your theory. I seem to remember you making questioning comments regarding the  accuracy of length contract at some time in the past, not sure if I'm remembering correctly about that however. At any rate, get back with me and detail what your stance is on the subject because our posture on the correctness of Lorentz contractions is vital in determining the viability of your theory. 

[timey (OP)]

but it works whether clocks run faster or slower at any potential, or a position in space that has a time dilation relative to another position. So it should work for your various scenarios. The simplest way is to express the time dilation as a ratio against the std second then you use that ratio to work out f. For E=hf you are on safe ground as this is what current physics says.

Thanks Colin!
The difference between conventional physics and my train of thought being the addition of a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that states that red shifted light in the gravitational field of space will be travelling at the speed of light 'moving through' rates of time that are decreasing in rate, i.e. longer seconds, as the gravitational field strength (energy) is reduced by distance from M.  And that the equation Qp=h⋅c / λ is locating the gravitationally shifted photon via dividing by the rate of time that is occurring at that gravity potential. i.e: this has given the wave function of the photon a physical cause.

Now we can take that system to the gravitationally shifted clock in the higher potential where that clock (according to the maths, or an observer in the lower potential) will be shifted to a higher frequency, as opposed to light in the higher potential where that gravitationally red shifted light (according to the maths, or an observer in the higher potential) will be shifted to a lower frequency...
Ignoring all of the particles that are comprising the physical structure of the clock (where my hypothesis is that all matter waves will be proportionally decreased in length in the higher potential) and just concentrating on the frequency of the electron transitions of the cesium atom (this being the definition of the tick rate of the clock), my hypothesis is stating the increased frequency of the electron transitions is being caused by additional energy and that this energy is being added to the clock due to its position in the gravity potential...

So the question are:
Can an mgh calculation for the electron account for the increase in frequency of electron transitions?
(The only reason in conventional physics not to state the potential energy as residing in the mass itself, that I can determine, (if anyone can add another?) is due to the fact that in order to change the value of relativistic mass a conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy is necessary where potential energy does not contribute to relativistic mass value.  If potential energy where considered to reside in the mass, the relativistic mass equation wouldn't change the value of relativistic mass.)
Relativistic mass is not necessary in my model, but we can get to that bit later.

Can we, on the basis of my hypothesis, construct an equation for the 'quantum' electron such as this : Qe=h⋅f / λ?  (Where the division by the wave length is dividing by the rate of the time dilation factor.)

Photon energy of one photon at 1 meter wave length ........... (1.9864 E^-25) Joules

So in this case Ethos, according to my hypothesis, we will say that this is the energy of the photon when it was emitted, and that the energy of the emitting source was such that it would emit a photon of that energy.  The photon red shifts away from Earth and is reduced in frequency by the gravitational field, where the extra length of wave length will be indicative of the red shifted light having taken a longer amount of time to complete a wave cycle.  To understand by how much the rate of time has decreased at each elevation, i.e: longer seconds, take the extra bit of length of the wavelength, as compared to 1 meter, and divide that by c the speed of light to obtain a measure of time that can be added to the length of a std second to determine by how much longer than a std second a second is at that elevation.

I am in admiration (or perhaps it's jealousy) of your capacity for the juggling of numbers.  Adding numbers to the proportions confuses me.  How I think about proportions is a matter of shapes and moving lines doing slippy slidey stuff, where I complete all my considerations inside my head.

Ethos - just saw your latest post.  Yes, my hypothesis does not use the Lorentz Transformations to describe light moving across space.  When I get to the stage where we are discussing the above in terms of acceleration/deceleration of gravity it will become clear why, but to say so the values of the Lorentz transformations will be needed to cross reference the alternative, and the remit of the Lorentz Transformation will be used in my model to describe the perception of time and space for m moving across space, but in a slightly altered format.   

[Ethos_]

I am in admiration (or perhaps it's jealousy) of your capacity for the juggling of numbers.  Adding numbers to the proportions confuses me.  How I think about proportions is a matter of shapes and moving lines doing slippy slidey stuff, where I complete all my considerations inside my head.

No need to be jealous timey, I judge your intellect to be very high indeed. And also no need to admire my juggling ability, math like many things takes practice and I just like the exercise.

Ethos - just saw your latest post.  Yes, my hypothesis does not use the Lorentz Transformations to describe light moving across space.  When I get to the stage where we are discussing the above in terms of acceleration/deceleration of gravity it will become clear why, but to say so the values of the Lorentz transformations will be needed to cross reference the alternative, and the remit of the Lorentz Transformation will be used in my model to describe the perception of time and space for m moving across space, but in a slightly altered format.   

Thanks for the "timely" reply "timey", just a little tug at humor no less, because I'll need to rest some before I can return. I really do not wish to discuss my health but I find it necessary to let you know why I may be absent for I wish not to appear in avoidance of your company. I'll return when I've regained some strength.

Hang in there my friend.....................................................

[jeffreyH]

U

That is the best that I could hope for and I very much appreciate your input.

Regarding the formula associated with photon energy:

Qp = hc/wavelength
Please excuse my notation, I don't have latex.
Let's use the figure (w) to represent wavelength.

Qp=hc/w

Photon energy = Planck's constant times the speed of light divided by selected wavelength.

Joules = h * c * w^-1
           = (J*s) * c * w^-1
           = (kg * m^2 /sec) * (m/sec) / (m)
           = (kg * m^2/sec^2)

For a VHF wavelength of 1 meter, just to simplify, we plug in the following values:

Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 1

Photon energy of one photon at 1 meter wave length ........... (1.9864 E^-25) Joules

BTW, the (E^-25) is a simpler way of notation representing: (times 10 raised to the -25)

For a 1 hertz frequency we have Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 2.9979E^8 so that the energy is simply 6.626 E^-34 joules which is a value equivalent to h but with different units. This is a wavelength of 1 light second. This is important for your proposition.
   

[jeffreyH]

This is a very good page to use when playing around with the numbers.
https://rechneronline.de/spectrum/

[Ethos_]

This is a very good page to use when playing around with the numbers.
https://rechneronline.de/spectrum/

Thanks Jeff, very good link. And you're correct, I failed to divide again by c where wavelength is (v/f). I do these calculations without the benefit of a program and often make mistakes, especially when done in haste. This link you provided should illuminate or at least reduce those mistakes so thanks again.

It would appear that I need more practice...............................

[timey (OP)]

For a 1 hertz frequency we have Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 2.9979E^8 so that the energy is simply 6.626 E^-34 joules which is a value equivalent to h but with different units. This is a wavelength of 1 light second. This is important for your proposition.

And this wavelength would be a distance of 299 792 458 metres?
If we started light out being emitted at a visible light frequency, and calculated it as gravitationally red shifted via the gravitational shift equation, what strength would the gravity field be when the light reached a wavelength of 1 light second?

I'll return when I've regained some strength.

Hope to see you back soon.  In the meantime I'll re-post the current questions in hand, maybe Colin or Jeff might be able to answer, but otherwise I'll await you feeling better...

*

The difference between conventional physics and my train of thought being the addition of a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that states that red shifted light in the gravitational field of space will be travelling at the speed of light 'moving through' rates of time that are decreasing in rate, i.e. longer seconds, as the gravitational field strength (energy) is reduced by distance from M.
 And that the equation Qp=h⋅c / λ is locating the gravitationally shifted photon via dividing by the rate of time that is occurring for space itself at that gravity potential. i.e: this has given the wave function of the photon a physical cause.

Now we can take that system of interpretation to the gravitationally shifted clock in the higher potential where that clock (according to the maths, or an observer in the lower potential) will be shifted to a higher frequency, as opposed to light in the higher potential where that gravitationally red shifted light (according to the maths, or an observer in the higher potential) will be shifted to a lower frequency...
Ignoring all of the particles that are comprising the physical structure of the clock (where my hypothesis is that all matter waves will be proportionally decreased in length in the higher potential) and just concentrating on the frequency of the electron transitions of the cesium atom (this being the definition of the tick rate of the clock), my hypothesis is stating the increased frequency of the electron transitions is being caused by additional energy and that this energy is being added to the clock due to its position in the gravity potential...

So the questions are:
Can an mgh calculation for the electron account for the increase in frequency of electron transitions?

(The only reason in conventional physics not to state the potential energy as residing in the mass itself, that I can determine, (if anyone can add another?) is due to the fact that in order to change the value of relativistic mass a conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy is necessary where potential energy does not contribute to relativistic mass value.  If potential energy where considered to reside in the mass, the relativistic mass equation wouldn't change the value of relativistic mass.  Relativistic mass is not necessary in my model, but we can get to that bit later.)

And...
Can we, on the basis of my hypothesis, construct an equation for the 'quantum' electron such as this : Qe=h⋅f / λ?  (Where the division by the wave length is dividing by the rate of the time dilation factor to determine position.)

[Colin2B]

There are a number of separate questions in the above post and it might be best to look at them separately. Some related topics have been discussed by Ethos, Jeff & myself and I'll pm Ethos to help him put something together. 

Some second thoughts. It might be worth starting with some common understanding and terminology e.g.  somewhere you use the term "gravitational field strength (energy)", the field strength is not energy.
It is also worth getting a common understanding of how current physics uses standard seconds.  These are not commonly used because of the inconvenience of trying to keep everything synchronised, it is far easier to carry a frequency/clock standard which you know will give the same result at any elevation.
If Ethos starts from there you can build up without getting confused by trying to deal with multiple issue at once.

[timey (OP)]

The points you raise Colin are pertinent to the premise of my hypothesis, mist significantly where I have put energy in brackets next to gravitational field strength, I'll get to that, but first let's discuss the standard second.

A few posts ago I said that it doesn't matter what length of second one starts out with.  What is important is that it is a static length second that is being used as a basis for the structure of the mathematics, where h, f, c and wavelength are being held relative to a static length second.  We could use any length of second as a static length to comprise the structure of these mathematics, so long as we use the same static length for each component the proportions of the maths will remain equivalent, but conventional physics 'is' using the static length of a standard second as it's basis for the mathematical structure of h, f, c and wavelength, so it is logical to follow suit, where, because a clock will run at the same rate at the sea level of all longitudes of Earth, we can state sea level Earth as being the reference frame of the standard second, and also recognise that there will be some other places in the universe where the combination of GR position in the gravity potential, and SR motion relative to the  gravity field will result in a second that can be the same length as a standard second. i.e: there is an orbital speed at an altitude from Earth that will result in a second that is the same length as a standard second.

The fact that I have written gravitational field strength (energy) is related to my first question:
" Can an mgh calculation for the electron account for the increase in frequency of electron transitions?"

GR is a theory of gravity.  But while GR can tell you with almost perfect precision what gravity is doing, it doesn't tell you 'how' it is doing it.  My hypothesis aims to extend the premise of GR to include a description of 'how' gravity works...

My first question is followed by a consideration of the remit of potential energy regarding relativistic mass.  It asks if there is any other reason apart from the premise of relativistic mass not to consider potential energy as residing within the mass.
The logic of this question is based on the fact that kinetic energy and potential energy are not conserved individually, it is the sum total of both that is conserved.  If conventional physics considered potential energy as residing within the mass, then the sum total of the conversion from kinetic energy to potential energy, or visa versus, would mean that the value of relativistic mass would remain unchanging and this would break the premise of the conventional theory.
Therefore conventional physics has, despite the conservation of energy law stating that it is the sum total of potential and kinetic energy that must be conserved, has chosen to state potential energy as an energy that cannot be placed as residing anywhere.

My hypothesis results in there being no requirement for relativistic mass.  This is related to:
a) the fact that my model does not use SR to describe light travelling in space
and:
b) the fact that the alteration my model makes to the use of SR to describe m's experience of traveling through time and space in relation to my models description of how light travels through time and space ensures that anything of mass (rest mass in conventional physics) can never travel at the speed of light.

So going back to my first question:
" Can an mgh calculation for the electron account for the increase in frequency of electron transitions?"

I am now considering that potential energy resides, or perhaps more accurately is active within the mass.
Let's briefly consider that there is a difference between the 'locked in' energy of rest mass e=mc^2, and the sum total of kinetic and potential energy.  We can expand on this consideration later...
...Where plus potential energy is causing activities within mass to become more active, (more frequent/increased rate)...

...And minus potential energy is causing activities within mass to become less active, (less frequent/decreased rate)...

I am suggesting that the gravitational field itself has potential energy, where the mgh equation is just gh.  Or more precisely gr=GM/r^2.
Where at each elevation the energy is decreased.  If a graviton were to exist, it's activities would become less active, less frequent/decreased rate where a gravitons energy, frequency and wavelength would resemble the gravitational red shift equation.

My model doesn't need a graviton.  It just states that potential energy has a relationship with time and that at each elevation it is time that is less active, less frequent constituting a slower rate of time.

This premise accounts for gravitational acceleration and deceleration of m 'through' m=0 open space gravitational field, and also accounts for the gravitational directional attraction of m in the higher gravity potential via increased frequency/rate of 'magnetic moments'.  We can expand on that later.

I'm very glad Colin that you picked up on my addition of energy in brackets:
"Gravitational field strength (energy)"
... and hope that I have been clear in the description of my reasoning for the addition...

[Colin2B]

Just some questions to help Ethos

conventional physics 'is' using the static length of a standard second as it's basis for the mathematical structure of h, f, c and wavelength, so it is logical to follow suit, where, because a clock will run at the same rate at the sea level of all longitudes of Earth, we can state sea level Earth as being the reference frame of the standard second,

Conventional physics is using local, ie variable seconds - if I understand how you are using standard seconds.
It is usual to state the geoid as the reference for standard seconds as this represents the contour of equi-gravitational potential - the gravitational potential of average sea level, although it does not track sea level over land.


If we take standard seconds at the geoid then if, say, at a certain altitude time is passing at say +10% as measured from the geoid then 1.1 standard seconds would pass for every standard second which passes at the geoid. In other words the clock at altitude is ticking faster. Obviously the observer at altitude measures using local seconds. Is that how you are using the term standard seconds.


Added: when you say "Can an mgh calculation for the electron account for the increase in frequency of electron transitions?" by "[/size]increase in frequency of electron transitions" do you mean the frequency at which electron transitions occur, or the frequency (light colour) of the photons produced by the electron transitions?[/color]

[timey (OP)]

:timey
conventional physics 'is' using the static length of a standard second as it's basis for the mathematical structure of h, f, c and wavelength, so it is logical to follow suit

I am saying that conventional physics is using the standard second as the static length second that is the basis for the structure of maths that are inclusive of frequency, the speed of light, Pancks h constant, and the measure of energy that comprises a joule. (and that's not all).  E=fh has it's basis in the standard second.

We don't make a measurement of c using a local second*, (unless we are considering the standard second to be local, which we can, and can most conveniently do this by stating the standard second as the reference frame of sea level Earth due to all clocks running at the same rate at sea level).
If one tries to use a speed of light that is held relative to the local rate of time of a clock that is not ticking at the rate of a standard second, i.e GR in SR, then one runs into problems with distance/length contraction.  (Mike Gale explored this scenario on his thread relativistic correction to the SC).

I'm not fussed though, we can just refer to the second that is the static length second that comprises the structure of the maths as a static length second if you prefer...

*Perhaps you may further solidify my understanding though... The observer observes his time dilated clock to be ticking normally.  Does the observer measure the speed of light via his time dilated clock?

Added: I mean the frequency that electron transitions occur, but does the frequency that electron transitions occur at have a bearing on the frequency of the photon emissions?  I seem to remember you commenting in another thread...

[timey (OP)]

In addition to my post above:

The factors involving the maths of pe=mgh and g(r)=GMearth/r^2 that I need to understand are:

Is r the distance from the center of Earth unless specified otherwise?
Is the (r) and r in g(r)=GM/r^2 saying the same thing?

What I'm trying to establish is the difference, if any, between an equation that is describing the value of g for various radius from sea level to center of earth, and an equation that is describing the value of g for various radius from sea level direction away from Earth...
The reason being that it would seem to me that if we added a significant amount of mass evenly distributed to Earth, this would increase the value of r from center of Earth to sea level*, that a clock at elevation from sea level would be subject to a gravity potential where g has increased in field strength, and this will cause the equations that predict how much faster that clock will tick at an elevation from sea level to predict that the clock in elevation to the bigger mass will run faster than the clock in elevation to the smaller mass due to an increased value of M and r in the g(r)=GMearth/r^2 equation.
Because the clock is ticking faster at the same elevation from the bigger M than the clock at the same elevation from the smaller M is, if we put both clocks on the ground of each mass, the maths will tell you that the clock on the bigger mass is ticking faster than the clock on the smaller mass is, which is contrary to the conventional physics notion of time running slower for the bigger mass.
(I'm quite sure that my logic is not flawed here, and would appreciate comment)


*As a side issue - mass is not evenly distributed from center of Earth to sea level.  The distance from center of Earth to sea level is greater at the equator than it is at the poles by a distance of 13.2 or so miles.  But clocks will run at the same rate at the sea level of all longitudes due to the SR motion related 'dilation' of time caused by the greater radius's increased centripetal motion cancelling out the increase in GR altitude related 'contraction' of time caused by the greater radius's increased altitude...
To further understand the relationship between GR and SR time dilation's, if we left the mass value of Earth as it is, but ironed out the equatorial bulge so that there is an equal distance from sea level to center of Earth at each longitude, we would find that there will still be differences between the centripetal speeds at sea level of each longitude.  Because r from centre of Earth is now equal for all longitudes and centripetal speed is differing for each longitude, clocks at sea level will run faster at the poles and tick at slower rates as one progresses towards the equator.
Add the equatorial bulge back in and the clocks at sea level of all longitudes will run at same rate again...

:wiki
The fact that the Earth's gravitational field slightly deviates from being spherically symmetrical also affects the orbits of satellites through secular orbital precessions.[2][3][4] They depend on the orientation of the Earth's symmetry axis in the inertial space, and, in the general case, affect all the Keplerian orbital elements with the exception of the semimajor axis. If the reference z axis of the coordinate system adopted is aligned along the Earth's symmaetry axis, then only the longitude of the ascending node Ω, the argument of pericenter ω and the mean anomaly M undergo secular precessions.[5]
Such perturbations, which were earlier used to map the Earth's gravitational field from space,[6] may play a relevant disturbing role when satellites are used to make tests of general relativity[7] because the much smaller relativistic effects are qualitatively indistinguisgable from the oblateness-driven disturbances.

By superimposing the consideration of the equatorial bulge over the consideration without the equatorial bulge, there will be a relationship between the changes in distance of radius, and the changes in centripetal speed, in relation to the changes in time dilation, where one could cross reference the differing values and then ask oneself, as a starting point, where the concept of SR length contraction applies when GR and SR time dilation's are used in combination.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70251.msg513077#msg513077

(again... comment would be appreciated)

[Colin2B]

We don't make a measurement of c using a local second*, (unless we are considering the standard second to be local, which we can, and can most conveniently do this by stating the standard second as the reference frame of sea level Earth due to all clocks running at the same rate at sea level).
If one tries to use a speed of light that is held relative to the local rate of time of a clock that is not ticking at the rate of a standard second, i.e GR in SR, then one runs into problems with distance/length contraction.  (Mike Gale explored this scenario on his thread relativistic correction to the SC).

Ok, now we know how you are using term standard second. We were misinterpreting because we thought you had originally used it to describe the time used in the app you mentioned. If you are using it to mean that measured by a caesium clock at sea level (although I would use the geoid) then you don't need to use the qualifier 'standard' as this is generally assumed in physics, defined by SI, and measured by any local observer. Best to reserve a qualifier for dilated time, if needed.

We also explored this problem of using altitude adjusted seconds - what I thought at the time you meant by standard seconds - way back. As we pointed out it not only causes problems with length measurements, but changes the calculation of energy which is also frame dependent.

*Perhaps you may further solidify my understanding though... The observer observes his time dilated clock to be ticking normally.  Does the observer measure the speed of light via his time dilated clock?

This is what I would have referred to as local seconds, if you had used standard (altitude adjusted) seconds at altitude.
As we have agreed elsewhere (way back) the local observer sees exactly the same (local) seconds as an observer at any other GP and, in the close vicinity, uses those seconds to measure speed. It is only the remote observer who sees the seconds as dilated and makes different calculations of frequency, speed, distance, energy etc.

As an aside, you may remember in the NIST thread I mentioned that that 2010 experiment was a test of concept for further work which would resolve one of your experimental proofs. Mentioning the geoid reminded me. NIST are progressing that work by measuring the geoid at their Boulder site, so you might see the tests done soon - next few yrs.

Added: I mean the frequency that electron transitions occur, but does the frequency that electron transitions occur at have a bearing on the frequency of the photon emissions?  I seem to remember you commenting in another thread...

No, there is no relationship.
"frequency that electron transitions occur" affects the number of photons emitted/s which affects intensity.
"frequency of the photon emitted" defines the colour/wavelength of the photon.
E=mgh for an electron would tell you how much KE it could acquire if it fell through h, placing an atom at a greater h doesn't cause the number or rate of electron transitions to increase - we don't observe an increase in intensity.

I don't know how far Ethos wants to take this, but the clarification will help, thanks.

[timey (OP)]

As we have agreed elsewhere (way back) the local observer sees exactly the same (local) seconds as an observer at any other GP and, in the close vicinity, uses those seconds to measure speed. It is only the remote observer who sees the seconds as dilated and makes different calculations of frequency, speed, distance, energy etc.

Yes, I remember, but also re-call that we came to a Mexican stand off scenario over the fact of a person aging in keeping with their clock.

Yes it is only the remote observer who sees the seconds as dilated and makes different calculations of frequency, speed, distance, energy etc.  The local observer sees exactly the same (local) seconds as an observer at any other GP and, in the close vicinity, uses those seconds to measure speed...
But what does this mean?  What exactly are we saying here?
Are we saying that seconds are the same length everywhere and they just look different from the remote observers point of reference?
...In which case a person with a clock that is observed remotely as being time dilated would age no differently to anyone at any other GP.
Or are we saying that seconds are of differing length at differing GP's but appear to be the same length as everywhere else from the local point of reference?
...In which case a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock, and their clock appears to be ticking normally because all physical process is increased, or decreased proportionally with the increased, or decreased tick rate process of the clock.

Clearly one cannot state that a second is the same length in any GP and also state that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock.
How one answers this contradiction has a direct bearing on what you say here:

E=mgh for an electron would tell you how much KE it could acquire if it fell through h, placing an atom at a greater h doesn't cause the number or rate of electron transitions to increase - we don't observe an increase in intensity.

Where are we when we don't observe an increase in intensity?  Are we in the local frame, or the remote frame?

placing an atom at a greater h doesn't cause the number or rate of electron transitions to increase

An atomic clock is observed from the remote frame of the lower potential to have an increased frequency of electron transitions.  So you are saying that the number or rate of electron transitions is not increased...
Am I completely misunderstanding the premise of frequency here?  Frequency is the number of wave cycles, and the number of wave cycles is the rate of wave cycles occurring per static length second, where you have said this:

"frequency that electron transitions occur" affects the number of photons emitted/s which affects intensity.

Leading back to my question:
"Where are we when we don't observe an increase in intensity?  Are we in the local frame, or the remote frame?"

The same applies to the observation of the frequency of a photon.  Remembering that we can only view a photon in the remote frame, when it arrives "in' the remote frame and that the photon will have been gravitationally shifted by the change in GP.

"frequency of the photon emitted" defines the colour/wavelength of the photon.

What defines the frequency of the photon?
The frequency of electron transitions has a relationship with a 'ground state'.  A ground state has a relationship with Energy levels, therefore the frequency of electron transitions has a relationship with energy.  The energy to increase electron transitions must 'come' from somewhere...
Now we are back to the beginning of the post where it becomes important to decide whether we are stating that a second is the same length in any GP, or if we are stating that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock.

I am taking the view that a person ages in keeping with their time dilated clock and therefore the seconds in each GP are of differing length, and the energy levels causing electron transitions to have differing frequencies are differing due to being subject to an increase/decrease in gravity potential energy...
It is a contradiction to the conservation of energy law to state:

E=mgh for an electron would tell you how much KE it could acquire if it fell through h

...And then say that potential energy has no effect on the activities of the electron, when it is the sum total of potential energy and kinetic energy that must be conserved.

As mentioned a few posts ago - the only reason (that I can define, if anyone can add another) within conventional physics to not state potential energy as active within mass is due to the remit of only using the value of kinetic energy to calculate relativistic mass value.  (comment would be appreciated)

[guest4091]

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

The electric field strength increases for fast electrons as they contract, and is detectable.
check this link..
https://conf-slac.stanford.edu/sssepb-2013/lectures
select this:
Lecture 1. Lecturer Zhirong Huang

That link doesn't work.

sorry, link is corrected now