[alancalverd]

Excuse my lacking in knowledge of elementary mathematics.

Nothing to do with maths. Physics.

The clock in the greater gravity field will have more potential energy than the clock in the lesser gravity field.

Agreed?

Beware of imprecise or elliptical statements. The clock subject to the higher value of g will appear to run slower. Predicted and demonstrated fact.

[timey (OP)]

Not being sure if mg=weight, or if m is incorporating the weight within the value of itself in the mgh is merely an non understanding of the construct of the math, nothing to do with physics which for me is all about shapes and curves and patterns which are indeed maths but aren't expressed in mathematical format.

*

But in the instance of the conditions of position that my experiment suggests, the clock in the denser location 'will' have a greater value of pe won't it?

If you can answer that question we might be able to discuss some unconventional physics, which is indeed my purpose here Alan, to explain to you my New Theory, right?

And given that you are engaging with me here, this is to the purpose of understanding what this New Theory incorporates, right?
Or do you have some other reason for posting in response to the proposition of a new idea?

Because if you aren't going to actually 'hear' the new idea, engage with the premiss of it, and explore the parameters, then what is it that you are doing?

[alancalverd]

Once again: mass is an inherent and fixed property of a body. Weight is the gravitational force on that body in trhe presence of another, and varies with gravitational field.

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 g_b<g_b because 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.

You can see how important it is to recognise the sign convention that gravitational potential is zero in deep space and negative close to an attractor.

[timey (OP)]

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.

I have read umpteen physics books and have just finished reading John D Barrow's book on Theories of Everything, again...
Do not confuse my non-understanding of mathematical format with a lack of understanding of conventional physics.

The experiment that I suggest is not moving anything anywhere.
The clocks are placed at 2 differing locations and measured relative to each other.  The radius of centripetal motion is the same for both clocks.  This ensures that the SR time dilation effects of centripetal motion are equal for both clocks.  It also ensures that sea level is the same distance from centre of earth.
Sea level is now the point that h will be measured from.
One clock is located at a dense location and the other is located at a significantly less dense location, where both locations are the same h from sea level.
pe=mgh, where g can be measured at both locations, and the clock in the denser location where the measure of g is greater will have a greater value of pe.

If we raised both clocks at their locations by a metre, they will both be observed to run faster, i.e. have a greater frequency of electron transitions, where both clocks will have an increased value of pe.
If we place clocks at each of the locations a metre below the original h, the clocks will be observed to run slower, i.e. have a lesser frequency of electron transitions, where both clocks will have a decreased value of pe.

Conventional physics states that potential energy is not the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions observed of the clock...

My theory of time explores the notion that potential energy is indeed the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions.
If my theory is correct then at these 2 locations each clock will be observed to have a higher frequency when raised a metre above its original location, and will be observed to have a lower frequency when placed a metre below its original location, as per GR predictions and experimental evidence, but the clock in the denser location will always be running faster than the clock in the less dense location when placed at the same h's.

In this manner no transgressions are made from the predictions of GR, but the 'interpretation' that bigger M's are running slower time than smaller M's, that is born of the observed fact of a clock running slower nearer to M is wrong.

If my theory is wrong then the clock at the denser location will run slower.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and one that I'm quite sure that you cannot possibly misunderstand...
(and as the ReasearchGate chat forum illustrates in its thread 'Where does mgh potential energy reside", I am far from being the first person in the world to consider that it resides and reacts within the mass)

Would you now like to engage in a discussion concerning the far reaching ramifications - that are inclusive of a physical cause for the wave function, a physical cause for gravitational acceleration/deceleration, a physical cause for Big Bang, a physical cause for Inflation period, the standard model being unified with gravity, and the negation of the necessity for Dark Matter and Dark Energy - of my theory being correct?

[timey (OP)]

I did actually note a serious challenge to the premiss of my theory that Pete posted on Mikes thread involving the Shapiro delay...
I'm going to have to wait until I have access to a computer to investigate the exact parameters of this type of observation because I cannot view pdf's on my phone.

[timey (OP)]

Actually this Shapiro delay doesn't pose a problem for my theory at-all.

According to my theory all motions in space are subject to being accelerated or decelerated by my model's addition of a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon that is caused by gravitational field energy where m=0. i.e 'open space'.
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.

Introduce the Sun onto the stage and we have an attractive body in the vicinity just off centre between source and target that causes the radar beam to bend...
In my model this bending of the radar beam is caused by time speeding up in the gravitational field of the Sun, which would lead one to think that the radar beam would take less time to complete the round trip than it would without the Sun being in the vicinity just off centre between source and target... it certainly had me thinking such until I thought it through properly...
However, the distance involved in the bend caused by the gravitational field of the Sun will add to the distance that the radar beam travels, as compared to the distance without the Sun in the vicinity, and the extra time it takes for the radar beam to travel the extra distance of this bend caused by the Sun and return to source will be the cause of the observed time delay.

Same arc of curves, same value of time delay, but a mirror image causation... where the maths and values that describe conventional physics can also describe my alternative theory if they are rearranged in their configuration,

Challenge to my theory negated!

[alancalverd]

Conventional physics states that potential energy is not the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions observed of the clock...

"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? 

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

And whilst I'm on my high horse, 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.

[timey (OP)]

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.

What on Earth are you on about?

If a straight line trajectory from (a) to (b) takes 2 minutes to travel at a constant speed as measured by a clock in the lab, and we then introduce the fact that there are time variants in the space in-between (a) and (b) that get steadily more extreme from (a) up to midway point, and then get less extreme from midway point to (b)...

1) It wouldn't be of any consequence to the time of 2 minutes that it had taken to travel between (a) and (b) as measured by the lab clock.

2) It would make no difference to the time measurement of 2 minutes that the lab has made if the time variant was faster or slower at the midway point, so long as the rate of time was faster or slower to the same value in the positive or the negative held relative to the lab clock.

3) Although the trajectory travelled between (a) and (b) is a straight line, if the lab were to create a data graph of the time variants between (a) and (b) held relative to the length of a second as measured by the lab clock, the data curve of the changes in rate of time would constitute the same value of curve be they describing either a faster or slower rate of time at the midway point, so long as the rate of time was faster or slower to the same value in the positive or the negative held relative to the lab clock.

Now introduce point (c) that is placed off centre in between (a) and (b).

1) Point (c) is an attractive body...
Due to the influence of this attractive body (c) the trajectory of the path travelled from (a) to (b) is no longer a straight line.  It becomes bent towards (c) and constitutes (with regards to Shapiro delay) a special case of gravitational lensing.

2) Again, It would make no difference to the time measurement the lab has made of more than 2 minutes, that is caused by this curved trajectory if the time variant was considered as faster or slower in the vicinity of (c), so long as the rate of time was faster or slower to the same value in the positive or the negative held relative to the lab clock.

Therefore the Shapiro delay observation does not pose a problem for my theory.

"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?

Physics does observe that a clock runs slower at a lower gravity potential, but I observe that physics does not describe 'why'.
I don't have a problem Alan, but I've read that convention physics does have problems in describing some pretty crucial stuff.
Under the remit of my theory this 'pretty crucial stuff', that conventional physics has problems describing, can be described as cause and effect mechanics.
I quite clearly outlined how a clock can be observed to run slower in the lower gravity potential, faster in the higher gravity potential, and 'also' run faster in the greater gravity field.
What's your 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.

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...
The experiment that I suggest would determine whether or not potential energy is the cause of the energy changes that are usually required to initiate frequency changes.

And whilst I'm on my high horse

Have you ever considered getting a smaller horse?

[alancalverd]

We ignorant earthlings use electromagnetic radiation for RAdio Detection And Ranging, in the naive belief that its propagation speed in vacuo is constant.   

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.

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...

A reference would be most helpful.

[timey (OP)]

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.

I guess that I too am an earthling, how strange that you should miss the fact.

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.

As said, this earthling keeps the speed constant held relative to the lab clock, as this is how experiments are measured.

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.

This earthling's supposed radar beam, at the speed of c held relative to the lab clock, travels into slower time (not faster) on it's way to Venus, where it reaches the point that it starts being subject to Venus's gravity field where it then travels into faster time to bounce off Venus and make the return trip to Earth. (where my model concludes that conventional physics relies on the use of SR to describe this effect)

Yes you are correct that the data curves would differ from each other...  One would be the exact inverse of the other where the changes of the rate of time in relation to distance travelled of either description are held relative to the lab clock, and both descriptions will result in the same physical observation.

With respect to the fact 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...

A reference would be most helpful.

See NIST relativity tests, where clocks are observed to have a higher frequency of electron transitions at 1 metre altitude as observed from the lower potential, and the maths that state that the clock in the lower potential will have a lower frequency of electron transition as observed from the higher potential.

[alancalverd]

NIST established that clocks at altitude appear to run faster than those on the ground, as expected. They all behave the same way, regardless of the mechanism of their timekeeping. Your previous statement was ambiguous.

[timey (OP)]

It is in fact relevant to the discussion that all clocks behave the same way regardless of their time keeping mechanism.

All clock mechanics operate on a frequency based system...
You can place different types of clocks at same height, and each different mechanism will be operating at a differing frequency, but the time keeping each clock is observed of will be the same.

When the clocks are raised into the higher potential they all are observed, from the lower potential, to have higher frequency.  The differences in each clocks frequency between different mechanisms of time keeping at the lower potential will all remain proportional to each other when the clocks are raised into the higher potential.
This must be a truth because otherwise the clocks would not be considered adequate time keepers.

If an increase in potential energy were the cause of the increase in frequency observed of elevated clocks from the lower potential, then this can be described for any type of clock as pe=mgh where pe/m= an equal increase of pe for any value m.

[alancalverd]

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?

[timey (OP)]

But the frequency of photons is also observed to increase with gravitational potential, by exactly the same amount, even though m = 0.

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.

So it's nothing to do with the mass of the clock or any part thereof.

That light has no mass constituting a g(r)=GMearth/r^2 equation, and the clock has mass constituting a mgh=pe/m=an equal addition of pe for any mass value, would suggest that the differences in how the frequency of a clock (any type) and how frequency of light are affected by gravity, as I illustrated above can be physically described as the difference between gravity potential energy and gravitational field energy.

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.

I agree that GR is great, where the fact is that the maths for GR can describe my contracting model...
My model also holds that c is a constant, and for an observer at any gravity potential anywhere on the universe c will always be 299 792 456 m/s^2, and as gravitational field time where m=0 changes from one potential to another, this will be descriptive of red shift and blueshift as per the values of the gravitational shift equation.

The inverted time curve (as described for Shapiro delay a few posts back) will also apply for gravitational lensing observations, where the inverse time curve will describe the observation of the light being curved towards the attracting body.

So why invoke any other mechanism?

In order to attribute physical cause and effect mechanics to the acceleration of gravity, give physical cause for the wave function of the point particle, unite the standard model with gravity, describe a continuum negating quantum, give physical cause and effect mechanics to the Big Bang and Inflation theory and provide physics with a unifying theory of everything.

That's why...

[alancalverd]

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 must amaze yourself sometimes! You say A>B in both cases, so the mechanism must be different because the result is the same. Your future is in politics, not physics.

I admire your concluding chutzpah! Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition needs a new leader who can solve everything  with a stroke of the pen. Go for it!

[timey (OP)]

You say A>B in both cases,

I don't know what you mean when you say A>B.
If physics says that time runs slower nearer M then it doesn't matter where the observer is located or what he observes because the maths are telling us that the clock runs slower nearer M, where a decrease in the frequency of the clock is indicative of a slower rate of time...
So a clock at 1 metre above sea level compared to a clock at sea level will have a HIGHER FREQUENCY.
If one records the frequency of a photon emitted at sea level and then records the frequency of that photon when it has reached 1 metre above sea level for comparison purposes, (which again is unnecessary as the maths are descriptive), that photon at 1 metre above sea level will have a LOWER FREQUENCY.

The clock will have a HIGHER FREQUENCY at 1 metre above sea level compared to the clock at sea level.
The photon will have a LOWER FREQUENCY at 1 metre above sea level compared to the frequency it had when emitted at sea level.

That is an observed FACT of physics.

so the mechanism must be different because the result is the same.

The result is not the same.
The result shows a clear difference in how the frequency of emitted light and the frequency of a clock behave in the gravity field.

But the mechanism I propose is the same...
It is a FACT of physics that frequency is proportional to energy.
So in looking at what energy 'may be' causing frequency to change:
mgh=pe
and where m=0:
gh=gravitational field energy.

I am simply adding a new suggestion, this being that the phenomenon of time is physically caused by energy, thus adding a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon - where the decrease in gravitational field energy is indicative of slower rates of time for anywhere where m=0, and that where mgh=pe and pe/m (so any value m will increase or decrease pe equally), m in the gravitational field will be running at a faster rate of time than the field itself where these rates of time occur independently from each other and simultaneously to each other, where the variable gravitational field energy time causes the acceleration or deceleration of m's motions in the gravitational field.

That is not politics.
That is a perfectly simple and tangible mechanism that gives physical cause to the phenomenon of time and to the acceleration of gravity.

I understand that this is not conventional physics, but it is a FACT that conventional physics is perfectly well aware that it does not have a fully formulated Theory of Time.

This Theory of Time results in fully described cause and effect mechanics for a cyclic universe that does not require Dark Energy, Dark Matter, or anything that is not already observed...
All it requires is that one calculate from the viewpoint that +energy=shorter seconds, i.e. a faster rate of time, where different rates of time can occur independently of each other. and simultaneously to each other.*
(*the FACT that different rates of time can occur independently of each other and simultaneously to each other is clearly illustrated by the relativity mobile phone app)

It's not 'hard' Alan...
It's a very simple concept that is highly calculable via GR mathematics. (for someone versed in mathematics).

The experiment that I suggest would serve to prove or disprove this Theory.

[nilak]

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 (because fermions don't travel at constant c, but v varies) for fermions only, I it ( the analogy)doesn't work with standard physics because if the atoms of a clock go lower they gain speed but when the clock stops at that lower level that kinetic energy is lost. My hypothesis says that the electrons kinetic energy will be retained although the atom itself stops.

[timey (OP)]

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

I have not made an 'analogy'.

It is a physical fact that light, be it redshifted or blue shifted, has a higher frequency the closer it is to M.
It is a physical fact that the clock has a higher frequency the further away it is from M.

As to your theory, I'm sorry to say, but it is my understanding that a value of frequency is always 'inversely' proportional to wavelength.