[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

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.

I said it is an analogy because if light blueshifts as it goes lower into the gravity well, I thought you said that a clock should do that as well, but I've seen now you have a different hypothesis. As for the frequency vs. wavelength, the general formula is f=v/λ. If v increases and the wavelength increases the result can be either a constant frequency, a decrease or an increase in frequency. For light v=c=constant therefore the frequency is always inversely proportional to the wavelength. Why would lambda increase with velocity? Just look at an OAM light beam and it just does that. It is a fact.

[alancalverd]

Sorry, Timey, you are spouting absolute nonsense. We've been around this block before and I thought you understood the experimental results. Apparently not. I'm out.

[timey (OP)]

Sorry, Timey, you are spouting absolute nonsense. We've been around this block before and I thought you understood the experimental results. Apparently not. I'm out.

Sorry, Timey, you are spouting absolute nonsense. We've been around this block before and I thought you understood the experimental results. Apparently not. I'm out.

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.

That 'is' the experimental and predicted results.
You, as a physicist cannot state otherwise because you will be incorrect.

As to my contracting model and my model's interpretation of observations and the experimentally verified results, a contracting model will not interpret observation in the same way as an expanding model.

What seems to be the problem here Alan is your inability to consider a model that isn't exactly the same as the current model, and this, considering the board title "New Theories" is what 'is' nonsensical.

[nilak]

mgh=pe
and where m=0:
gh=gravitational field energy.

Again, if m=0 then pe=0 in that equality. Or I'm just missing somethig?
gh is not energy but gravitational potential (because gravitational potential is per unit (1) mass) , unless there is a special case where m=1kg.

I am simply adding a new suggestion, this being that the phenomenon of time is physically caused by energy

I agree with you here. That is because it is also the conclusion following my hypothesis.

You say that if the potential energy of the clock gets lower its frequency goes down. If your clock has a Ep potential energy at h1 and it free falls till h0 it will loose(Epl is the amount lost) part of Ep which goes into kinetic energy now Ek.
E0=Ep=Ep-Epl+Ek
Epl=Ek
But at h0 the clock is held in place (by a net for example) and we measure its energy again. Now its kinetic energy is absorbed by the net and the new energy becomes E1=Ep-Epl therefore E1<E0.

Well, my hypothesis is exactly the opposite. I don't consider the Ep as intrinsic to the clocks energy but only as a energy gain possibility (potential) only if the clocks falls down but the clock doesn't have that energy yet. The clock falls and gains energy then its Ek is absorbed by the net. Therefore no kinetic energy change in the process and the clock should hold its frequency. However, my hypothesis says that although the atom stops, the kinetic energy increase (because even if the atom was initially at rest its electons were in motion) of electrons around the atom is retained. Futthermore as a comparison to your model, my hypothesis says a fermions at a higher velocity has a higher frequency but also a higher wavelength and the wavelength is responsible for the clock's frequency decrease. (I'm sorry I'm probably exaggerating with my model).

[timey (OP)]

mgh=pe
and where m=0:
gh=gravitational field energy.

Again, if m=0 then pe=0 in that equality. Or I'm just missing somethig?
gh is not energy but gravitational potential (because gravitational potential is per unit (1) mass) , unless there is a special case where m=1kg.

Look Nilak, I am not versed in maths...
By saying gh=gravitational field energy what I am looking to describe is more conventionally termed (I think) as g(r)= GMearth/r^2.

I am trying to attribute the gravitational field itself with energy where the energy is greater at closer radius to M.

[GoC]

I am trying to attribute the gravitational field itself with energy where the energy is greater at closer radius to M.

You have it backwards. Dilation increases to the center of mass. The energy expands to become less dense. It is the density of energy affecting the clock in GR. The density of energy decreases as the mass increases. At the speed of light attraction in a very large sun the expansion is so great particles can no longer remain apart and a BH is formed. The mass of our sun would occupy about 1.7 miles in diameter.

[timey (OP)]

https://socratic.org/questions/explain-how-force-energy-and-work-are-related-1

: Socreatic.org
When a force acts on an object as the object travels some distance, the work done on the object is equal to the force times the distance. And when work is done on an object, its energyincreases by an amount equal to the work.

Therefore it stands to reason that as an objects energy increases by the work done by the force, that the force has an energy that it imparts to the object.

A gravitational field has more force nearer M than it does further away.

[alancalverd]

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.

For the last time, ever, light is observed to be blue shifted when seen from a lower gravitational potential than its source. Clocks are seen to run faster when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the signal source. Same phenomenon, same process.

Imagine a clock that generated a time signal by electrons moving between energy levels with a small energy difference. That would produce an electromagnetic (radiofrequency) wave whose  frequency defined time. Now imagine an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons moving between levels with a much larger energy difference - light. At what photon energy do you think the mechanism of blue shift  suddenly reverses, and why?

Or let's make it really simple. A mechanical clock operates a shutter that allows blue light to pass for 0.1 seconds every second. We observe it from a lower gravitational potential. Are you saying that the clock appears to run faster but the light gets redder? You know that isn't the case.

[timey (OP)]

For the last time, ever, light is observed to be blue shifted when seen from a lower gravitational potential than its source. Clocks are seen to run faster when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the signal source. Same phenomenon, same process.

Yes - same phenomenon, yes- same process...
But the frequency of 'already emitted' light shifts to a LOWER frequency in the HIGHER potential, and the clock shifts to a HIGHER frequency in the HIGHER potential.
The maths specify this as being such, and why these phenomenon are viewed as they are in or from a location in the gravity potential is blatantly obvious.

Imagine a clock that generated a time signal by electrons moving between energy levels with a small energy difference. That would produce an electromagnetic (radiofrequency) wave whose  frequency defined time

The length of a second is already defined, so the frequency of the electromagnetic wave caused by electrons moving between energy levels would have to be synonymous to the length of an already defined second.
The frequency of the electron transitions between 2 certain ground states of the caesium atom was chosen because it is synonymous with the length of the 'already defined by history' length of second and keeps time to the tune of this length of second much better than any predecessor of time keeping did.
The quantum clock now keeps time 37 times better than the caesium atomic clock.  It operates at a frequency 100,000 times higher than the frequencies used in NIST-F1 and other similar time standards around the world.
All this means is that there are a lot more wave cycles within the time period length of a second than the atomic clock counterpart's frequency has.  Therefore a second can be more precisely broken down into fractions of a second and makes for a more precise measurement.
It does not mean that the length of a second has been altered.

Now imagine an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons moving between levels with a much larger energy difference - light. At what photon energy do you think the mechanism of blue shift  suddenly reverses, and why?

I don't think that the mechanism of blue shift reverses and have never said that.
The caesium atom 'emits' photons.  Blue shifting occurs for 'already emitted' photons.

Are you suggesting that the caesium atom is 'emitting' higher frequency photons in the higher gravity potential?
Observing from the lower potential the emitted photon can 'only' be viewed when it reaches the lower potential, and we know that the photon will have been blueshifted as it travelled from the higher potential to the lower potential...

[alancalverd]

I don't know why I bother. Pehaps I care.

Gravitational redshifts and clock variations depend only on the relative positions of the source and observer, and they behave in exactly the same way.

There is no point in your trying to explain a phenomenon that does not occur.

[nilak]

I think Timey wants to say that if we have a clock that has 1 Hz at the ground level and emmits a blue light and  then we place it much higher, its frequency will increase at say 2Hz. The observer will also see it flashing at 2Hz (or perhaps will see it higher) and expects the blue laser to emmit a higher frequency wavelength (say violet)  than it was on the ground because time runs faster. Furthermore, as the light travels down to the observer if the light was violet it gets even more blueshifted to say UV.
However, I'm not sure you can do that in relativity. You simply observe the light frequency and the clock frequency and assume that is how time runs there relative to you.

[jeffreyH]

The problem is you cannot directly compare here with somewhere else. There has to be some sort of transformation involved. In the case of special relativity it is the Lorentz transformation. People who don't understand the mathematics of relativity can adopt erroneous notions.

[timey (OP)]

I don't know why I bother. Pehaps I care.

Gravitational redshifts and clock variations depend only on the relative positions of the source and observer, and they behave in exactly the same way.

There is no point in your trying to explain a phenomenon that does not occur.

It is a prediction of General Relativity that a clock will run faster at elevation than it does at a lower elevation and that one's position in the gravitational field affects what one observes of the clock in the differing gravity potential.
(What have I said here that is not correct?)

Already emitted light will blueshift towards the gravitational field M and redshift away from the gravitational field M as per the diagram in this wiki link:

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

Yes - the observation of what one observes of redshifted or blue shifted light depends on the observers position in the gravity field, but the maths describe that the light is shifting whether anyone is observing or not.
(What have I said here that is not correct?)

I know that what I am saying is correct.

What I wish to discuss within these experimentally verified physical facts is that the frequency source (an atom, i.e. not m=0) that comprises the mechanism of the clock - a clock that is observed to run faster from the lower potential, or observed to run slower from the higher potential - this frequency source of the clock has a frequency that gets 'higher' in the higher potential...
... but light emitted in the lower potential will be observed to have a 'lower' frequency when it arrives 'in' the higher potential.

If one draws a graph of the maths of the frequency increases of the clock as it is placed in higher potentials (a perfectly reasonable thing to do because physics has basis within its maths of time running slower nearer to M), and then compares this to the graph of gravitationally shifted light in the gravity field as provided in the Wiki link, it is clearly obvious that while already emitted light will shift to a 'lower' frequency in the higher gravity potential, that a clock will shift to a 'higher' frequency in the higher gravity potential.

It is this difference in the shifting of frequency between what occurs for a clock and what occurs for already emitted light that I wish to discuss with a view to using an alternative interpretation of the observation and an alternative means of calculation to describe the observation...  Where modified mathematics is a common occurrence in physics.

MOND uses a modified calculation to describe galaxies.
The observation of the Galaxy remains the same but the maths describing the observation are differing from Newton's interpretation of the laws of motion and are attempting to describe Galaxy rotation without Dark Matter halo's.

My modifications of 'interpretation' are attempting to give physical cause to gravitational acceleration and this alternative interpretation 'can' be described mathematically (by someone versed in maths)

Gravitational acceleration is a known physical phenomenon with no known physical cause.

[alancalverd]

Yes, there are several equations that give the correct answer. It just happens that the photon shift is more intuitively modelled by having the photon travel from source to observer, and the clock shift is more intuitively modelled by moving the clock away from the observer. However if you had a clock running in space and moved it closer to the earth, an earthbound observer would see it slow down, and if you moved your P&R mossbauer source closer to the earth, the blue shift would decrease. Now you will model both observations with the same GR equation because they are the same observation of the same phenomenon.

The best equation is the one that most accurately describes and predicts the observation.

[timey (OP)]

Clearly...

But GR doesn't provide a description of physical cause for gravitational acceleration, nor does GR provide a description of physical cause for a clock ticking at a differing rate, nor does GR provide a description of physical cause for light shifting in the gravitational field, and GR is incompatable with a quantum description of light.

Therefore - I would like to discuss an alternative interpretation of the observation of the fact that, as per the graphs* show, a clock increases in frequency in the higher potential, and light emitted in the lower potential decreases in frequency in the higher potential.
(*where you may place observers at any location of gravity potential on that graph and work out what they observe if each other if you like, but this won't make an iota of difference to fact that the clock increases in frequency in the higher potential, and that light emitted in the lower potential decreases in frequency in the higher potential.)

Any chance we could have that discussion please?

[alancalverd]

As you persistently misquote the experimental result, there is little point in discussing it.

[timey (OP)]

Is there anyone else out there that can actually recognise that if one draws a graph of gravitationally shifted light that this shows that the frequency of light (any frequency) is shifted to a higher frequency direction towards M, and a lower frequency direction away from M?

Is there anyone else out there that can recognise that if one draws a graph of gravitationally shifted atomic clocks, that the frequencies of the elevated clocks, held relative to the ground clock, will be increased at each elevation, and that this is why physics states that time gets slower nearer to mass?

Honestly Alan I'm despairing of you now!

[alancalverd]

Anyone could, but no physicist would. We are far too pedantic and bound to the truth. 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. Therefore time is affected by gravitational potential. A mathematical model based on this hypothesis has predicted every experimental result to date."   

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

[nilak]

Yes, I thought that's how it worked  according to relativity, and I even incorporated into my model, but I've recently realised (reading Alan's posts) that relativity says something a little easier but different, and therefore my hypothesis is probably incorrect.
If I got this right, you say that if a clock goes up against a gravitational field it's frequency increases. My model shows that if a massive particle does that it's wavelength decreases an I thought that should be a relationship between the clock rate and that wavelength. But this assumption is apparently not needed as the wavelength always depends on its velocity (therefor KE). Anyway the wavelength changes when travelling from higher to lower. In free fall the wavelength gets lower as the particle gains speed but when it stops at a lower level the wavelength goes probably back to where it was.
Your hypothesis is different. You say that energy level is responsible for the tickrate. 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.

[nilak]

The queasy now is, if your clock rate gets higher as it climbs against the gravitational field, and the frequency of light gets lower then the two effects combine and alter the final result, which doesn't seem to happen. The redshift alone slows the frequency of the pulses that come from the clock below, that is because gravity redshifts light but also reduces any pulses of light sent from below. The clock below sends pulses at the same rate but they get rarer as they climb up. If you think the clock that is lower ticks slower then it would further slow down the frequency of pulses.
According to relativity It sounds as if the two clocks remain at the same rate, but the observers see different rates.