[GoC]

Timey I know you are not going to respond to me but your distances and values are incorrect. The atmosphere is only about 300 miles and 2 radii from the Earths surface is 16,000 miles out in space where you would be weightless and not necessarily attracted to the Earth at all depending on your position with the Earth. Your mass would be to relatively small for the dilation to be affected by the Earth and its vector speed away.

Now lets take half the distance to the center of the Earth. The attraction is about 2.45 m/s^2 until you reach the center where everything on earth is attracted to your position. Gravity like many physical issues is the inverse square of the distance. So like twice the diameter four times the amount. Sight would be twice the distance gives one quarter the viewable size of the object. Distance is not linear.

[Mike Gale]

The initial velocity is a red herring. It can be set to zero without loss of generality. You need to understand that before we can make any progress. Are we agreed that the traveller has no rocket engine?

[timey (OP)]

But this is where direction considerations come into play Mike...
If we set an outbound velocity at 0 the craft won't be going anywhere.

On the other hand, when dropping a craft from a 0 velocity we see the acceleration increases that velocity from 0.
I suppose that we could possibly set velocity at 0 for outbound, and then calculate the acceleration needed to move outwards as a negative velocity.
In any case - is the outbound rate of necessary acceleration, calculated in the negative if you like, the equal of free fall acceleration, being the question?

It should be for the reason that 2 cannonballs of differing mass values (in vacuum) bounce off perfect reflector to the same height they were dropped from.

It is appreciated that current physics has an explanation for this phenomenon, but it should also be appreciated that current physics does not describe 'why' this phenomenon does what it does.

I am looking at this acceleration and deceleration phenomenon as being caused by a 3rd time dilation factor in the g-field.
Which then begs the question of the necessity for a directional force, which I am looking at being due to an electromagnetic phenomenon.

[Mike Gale]

It's true that acceleration vectors are additive. If your rocket accelerates upwards at 'a', the net acceleration will be 'a' minus 'g'. It will hover if a=g, fall if a<g and climb if a>g, but 'a' increases over time because the rocket must lose mass in order to generate thrust. There's no easy way to compute GR dilation for an arbitrary value of 'a', let alone one that varies over time. It gets even more complicated if you equip the rocket with an automatic thrust controller to maintain constant velocity or constant acceleration. In any of these cases, the best you can hope for is a numerical approximation. Note that the planetary crust accelerates the bystander upwards at 'g' so there's no point putting the traveller into that reference frame.

[timey (OP)]

So in my model's scenario where this acceleration/deceleration is caused solely by the 3rd time dilation of the g-field caused by M, now what I am looking for is a minute fractional directional force that increases linearly with the higher gravity potential energy, which is why I look to the magnetic moment of the atom, or rather the rate they occur at, the electron transitions in relation to the quantum energy level and the analogy of gravity potential to the electric field where mass is analogous to charge.

Btw, not that it's immediately important, but adding thrust to rocket can be analogous to carrying potential energy onboard that is converted at 20% or so conversion to energy loss to kinetic energy.  As potential energy is converted mass value decreases and less onboard energy is required to achieve same kinetic energy.

In reply to edit:  I don't think it matters about an observer, we have the info we need in the value of M.

[Mike Gale]

I'm ignoring your references to magnetic moments, electron state transitions, QM and electric fields as per my last comment on that subject. (i.e. They have nothing to do with GR.)

I assume a "minute fractional force" refers to an infinitesimally small change, in which case you are invoking calculus. That's really just a change in scale. It doesn't change the scenario or make the math any easier.

As for the thrust controller, it is not hard to design an algorithm that will result in approximately constant velocity or approximately constant acceleration. The problem is, the proliferation of variables precludes an exact solution in GR and obfuscates the dilation result.

Regarding the observers, they are nothing more than ideal (i.e. infallible) clocks in space. For our purposes, they are massless and non-sentient.

[timey (OP)]

Well the whole point Mike is that GR only has nothing to do with magnetic moments, and quantum energy levels because the standard model is not united with gravity...
Gravity is a continuum, and quantum is not.  The idea that I propose is designed to unite the two.  Therefore I am looking at electron transitions in the gravity potential.  Electron transitions are directly related to quantum energy levels.  Give a physical cause  (time dilation), to the rate of the transitions, where the physical cause for the time dilation is potential energy related, and energy is the cause of your time dilation.  This negates the quantised nature and quantum is a continuum united with gravity...

[Mike Gale]

QM has nothing to say about the duration of state transitions. They are presumed to occur instantaneously or retroactively (depending on who you ask.) Furthermore, you have not proposed a model to relate gravity to QM or EM phenomena. If your theory relies on an unspecified relationship like that, it is completely useless.

[timey (OP)]

I don't think it is.

Considering the blackbody:
If one takes the frequency of the emitted light to be time related - then rather than measure the energy increase via an invariant time, one measures the increase in energy as per the rate of time synonymous to that increased frequency of light, I am quite sure that the quantised nature of the data can be rendered a continuum.

[Mike Gale]

I think you're talking about the ultraviolet catastrophe, which implies quantization of space and/or time, but you have not related that concept to gravity. A theory based on an unspecified hypothesis is an unspecified theory.

[timey (OP)]

Well because Planck's h constant relates to the shift in frequency of light, and light shifts in the g-field, there is an 'energy' relationship going on there with the g-field energy.
And because a clock's electron transitions shift in frequency in the gravity potential there is a potential 'energy' relationship there... (excuse the pun)
Where +energy=shorter seconds in my model.

[alancalverd]

Well because Planck's h constant relates to the shift in frequency of light, .

Except it doesn't. The fractional change in wavelength is

L /L₀= 1-GM/rc²

Any mention of h cancels out, nothing on the right-hand side is quantised, and the effect is continuous. If you wish you can substitute f₀/f or E₀/E for L/L₀ but the h's still cancel.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - but:

Wavelength = h/p

.... and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore, it's 3rd time dilation related, as per my model that is...
(*in the scenario of the constant gravity potential where +energy to emitting source=higher frequency of emitted light, the frequency of the emitted light is GR time dilation related, and the length of wave is related to the 'rate' at which the photon is emitted from the emitting source)

[GoC]

Well because Planck's h constant relates to the shift in frequency of light, .

Except it doesn't. The fractional change in wavelength is

L /L₀= 1-GM/rc²

Any mention of h cancels out, nothing on the right-hand side is quantised, and the effect is continuous. If you wish you can substitute f₀/f or E₀/E for L/L₀ but the h's still cancel.

Yes according to the standard model. Is it possible the physics community is wording their responses with half truths to maintain their model? Although your h cancels out of your equation r is variable * c in different frames while your equation does not address the gamma term between frames in relativity mathematics. Timey is addressing this fact while denying  its cause. Physics relativity is the same in every frame but not between frames.

Planck's length is directly dependent on Planck's time and visa versa. c is plank's time but r is relativity's distance. r can change while c remains the same. This would create photon's of different lengths in different gravity potentials. And create different tick rates.

[alancalverd]

and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore,

Your obsession with h is worrying. p doesn't change "in relation to h". p changes because the photon's kinetic energy changes as it travels through a gravitational field gradient. The value of h is irrelevant to the fractional change in p, E, L or f, which are all related through c and  given by the same equation (or its inverse, obviously).     

[alancalverd]

Yes according to the standard model. Is it possible the physics community is wording their responses with half truths to maintain their model? Although your h cancels out of your equation r is variable * c in different frames while your equation does not address the gamma term between frames in relativity mathematics.

Nothing to do with models. It's a prediction from general relativity, which is based solely on the discovery that c is invariant, and is borne out by experiment. There is no room for half-truths in physics. Either your equation predicts what happens, or it doesn't.

[GoC]

Alan:

   I agree c is invariant but space distance is not relative to mass gradient dilation. The clock tick rate measures the gamma difference in dilation (expansion).

With dilation the mass expands to measure a longer measuring stick length to match the clocks new tick rate. The ground state of the electron follows a longer volume in space matching the visual increase in SR. The SR angle of light in a light clock changes with speed changes for equivalency with GR reduction of available c.

[timey (OP)]

and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore,

Your obsession with h is worrying. p doesn't change "in relation to h". p changes because the photon's kinetic energy changes as it travels through a gravitational field gradient. The value of h is irrelevant to the fractional change in p, E, L or f, which are all related through c and  given by the same equation (or its inverse, obviously).     

Yes - that's right, p doesn't change in relation to h, but wavelength changes in relation to p in relation to h.

p is changing in relation to v, and v is changing in relation to a, where a is either increasing or decreasing due to a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion, (where relativistic mass in relation to kinetic energy for light in current physics remit ensures 0 acceleration/deceleration), but it is indeed p in relation to h that denotes the change in the wavelength...

[alancalverd]

v doesn't change. We're talking about photons.

[timey (OP)]

Which is why I said:

where a is either increasing or decreasing due to a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion

...for mass accelerated or decelerated in the gravity potential.

... And added this:

(where relativistic mass in relation to kinetic energy for light in current physics remit ensures 0 acceleration/deceleration)

For light in the gravity potential..

In either case:
Wavelength = h/p
where
p = mv
or
p = h*vbar
where
vbar = v/a

And I am looking at acceleration in the gravity potential being 3rd time dilation related, where I am also looking at GR time dilation being potential energy related, and considering that temperature energy added to the blackbody is increasing the rate that an atom of the blackbody emits a photon at, i.e. an increase in rate of electron transitions, and consequently the quantum energy level of the atom that then emits a higher energy, higher rate/frequency of photon.

Planck calculated the energy increases via an invariant second.  Calculate the temperature energy added via the rate (second) of the emitted frequency and the quantum nature is negated.