[alancalverd]

AFAIK GR explains, with minimal, testable assumptions, why observers at different gravitational potentials see the signals from each others' sources differently. And since an object moving at constant speed cannot be aware of the fact (i.e. there is no absolute motion) , SR likewise explains what observers moving relative to each other will see. The relative positions and speed of the observers is always crucial because there is no absolute observer and an observer fixed close to the source does not observe any effect. That's why it is called relativity.

So the relevance to the proposed theory is via Occam: the only assumption in relativity is the constancy of c, which is independently derived by Maxwell and demonstrated by experiment. There is no point in introducing any new hypotheses unless they explain something we already know but can't explain. 

Don't get too hung up on "observer". It's simply a generalised term for separating cause and effect, or source and detector. Doesn't imply any sentient beings.

[timey (OP)]

Don't get too hung up on "observer". It's simply a generalised term for separating cause and effect, or source and detector. Doesn't imply any sentient beings.

It is you who keeps on bringing up the observer factor.  I am quite clear on the fact that position or motion relative to the g-field will change that which an observer observes.
See:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70259.msg513174#msg513174

There is no point in introducing any new hypotheses unless they explain something we already know but can't explain.

Yes - this being the point of my model.

So without detracting from the relativity of relativity, can we now talk about light changing frequency in the gravitational field in terms of my hypothesis, and can we now talk about the acceleration and deceleration of the motions of m in relation to M in terms of my hypothesis?

[alancalverd]

The conventional equations for gravitational redshift and gravitational attractive force are established to a reasonable level of experimental precision and do not invoke any new hypotheses.

What is the anomaly you are trying to resolve?

[timey (OP)]

There is no anomaly with the conventional equations for gravitational redshift and gravitational attractive force.

But it is a known fact that there is no description of physical cause and effect mechanics for gravitational acceleration.

This is the anomaly I seek to resolve.

[alancalverd]

Aha!

Something to consider is the effect of interposing a third mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment describes the classic method for measuring G, but what happens if you place a slab of metal between the large and small balls? Does the gravitational field add or subtract? If it adds, (a) we are looking for particle or quasiparticle that originates in matter and can penetrate matter without attenuation, but can interact with matter in a sucking mode or (b) mass does something to spacetime.

I think that the existing Einstein model of spacetime warping gives the correct answer without invoking spooky particles, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[timey (OP)]

I also think that the existing Einstein model of spacetime warping gives the correct answer without invoking spooky particles, but I do think that a few minor adjustments of interpretation of observation can be made in order to describe why.

My hypothesis is that the phenomenon of time is energy related.

Frequency is energy related where frequency and energy are proportional to each other.  What I am suggesting is that where frequency increases this is because there has been an increase in the rate of time due to an increase in energy, and that where wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, the lesser length of the wavelength (as compared to the length of the previously lower energy, lower frequency wavelength) is time related rather than distance related.

I am suggesting that Debroglie matter waves, all emitting sources, and already emitted light shifting in frequency can follow this remit.

Before I put this into the context of both gravitational attraction and the accelerations and decelerations observed of the gravitational field, is there any part of this post that needs clarification for you to understand it? 

[alancalverd]

As far as gravitational energy is concerned, yes there is a clear relation between gravitational potential difference and observed time. But the concept of energy is simply "the scalar which is conserved", so it isn't clear how the potential energy of a battery, for instance, has any effect on time inside or outside the battery. And during a mass-energy exchange such as pair production, positronium collapse and gamma emission, what happens to time?

You might consider the stability of neutrons, having a 15 minute halflife in free space but being apparently infinitely stable in some (but not all) nuclei. That might lead to a classical model of nuclear stability, and if it is predictive, you might have evidence for the value of your hypothesis.

[timey (OP)]

Alan you may well be correct.  I am not all that up on the intimate details of how particles interact, all I can do here is tell you about the patterns that I have recognized as being a possibility.
I came upon this hypothesis of mine by thinking about what time is doing where there isn't any mass.

This led to my viewing the phenomenon where a clock's frequency is observed to change as being energy related, and viewing the fact that a person aging in keeping with their clock can be due to the same addition or subtraction of energy that is occurring at differing gravity potentials via the equation mgh - where there 'may' be a possible argument for potential energy being responsible for a change in energy level to cause the change in frequency of electron transitions for a clock observed to have a differing frequency from the clock in the potential one is viewing from.

This then led me to examining the fact that if one measures the clock observed in another potential by the rate of time one is observing occurring in that potential, then the clock in the other potential will be ticking at the same rate one's own clock is in the potential one is viewing the other clock from.

Turning this thought upon its head, now I go to the black body experiment and look at how Planck's h constant is a joules per second measurement.
E=hf.  E changes with changes in f, but h remains constant.
But there is a possibility to do things differently here.

By stating frequency as being indicative of the rate of time occurring for an emitting source, we can hold frequency as constant in the face of variable seconds.  Now Planck's h constant will be variable because joules per second is held relative to a variable second where the change in length of a second is indicated in the change of frequency.
This system has negated the quantum nature of energy levels.

Now that the frequency of the light being emitted from the black body has been linked to changes in energy that are not quantised, we can examine light shifting frequency with changes in gravitational field energy, where the equation mgh can describe the changes in energy for the shifting light because where m=0 the changes in energy are just due to changes in g and h.

If we now say that the gravitational field itself also is an m=0 scenario, we can attribute the gravitational field energy as causing a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon where m=0.  This 3rd aspect is in addition to the known time dilation's of altitude and motion where m doesn't =0.
This 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon is related to the gravitational field energy which is greater nearer to mass.  This 3rd aspect of time dilation, that will never affect the rate of time for a clock or observer, has a faster rate nearer to mass.
Although this 3rd aspect of time dilation will never affect the rate of time for a clock or observer it will affect the rate of motion a body of m will experience in the gravitational field of M.  It will decelerate the motion of m away from M, and accelerate the motion of m towards M. i.e. gravitational acceleration.
This 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon being the physical cause of gravitational acceleration.

This is just half the story because if potential energy is increasing the frequency of electron transitions of a clock in the higher potential then the frequency of the magnetic moments of the electrons will also be increased.
This being the physical cause for gravitational attraction.

Leading to a whole bunch of reinterpretations of observation that go on to result in my cyclic model of the universe.   

[nilak]

For a photon isn't the potential energy Ep=E/c^2 gx=hf/c^2 gx?
x is the height. h-Planck's constant.
I have indicated that E could remain constant, because f is held constant (only time rate changes) , but you are saying we should vary h. I'm not sure about this.

[timey (OP)]

I am referring to the Planck Einstein relation.

If one holds frequency constant in the face of variable seconds, this will result in joules per variable second and the h constant will as a result not be a constant of quantised energy packets, but will result in a continuum.

[nilak]

I am referring to the Planck Einstein relation.

Me too. The above relation was only for potential energy.

If one holds frequency constant in the face of variable seconds, this will result in joules per variable second and the h constant will as a result not be a constant of quantised energy packets, but will result in a continuum.

Here is a thought experiment. A spaceship moves at constant speed and a light beam is sent from an outside source that hits the spaceship.
An outside observer will see the frequency relative to a stationary point (relative to the source and the observer), constant. The wavelength will also be constant. If we think classically, the amplitude is also constant. In QM the photons will have constant energy in the observer's frame. The observer can also measure the frequency that wave crests hit the ship. This frequency will be higher, but the amplitudes will be the same. For the outside observer, there will be a difference of velocity between the ship and the photons. That means the photons will hit with more momentum. An observer on board will measure a higher frequency photons, and will assume they have higher intrinsic energy. If he wants to define f constant, he will need to increase h. For a classical wave, it will also measure a higher amplitude.
This shows how a classical wave energy can appear to be proportional to frequency.

[alancalverd]

You cannot view photons as not being quantised, because we can count them and they are!

[timey (OP)]

Without detracting from the art of photon counting wot-so-ever, the system that I suggest results in a compatibility between quantum and GR.

The physics books I read say that 'we' can't currently do compatibility between quantum and GR, but that 'we' would very much like to be able to. 

[timey (OP)]

Ok then, lets examine photon counting...

The first observation is that photon counting occurs via time based units.

Photon flux is measured per unit time where the unit of time is a standard second.
Photon intensitiy is a count per steradian per standard second.
Photon radiance is a count per square metre per steradian per standard second.
Photon irradiance is a count per square metre per standard second.
Photon exitance is a count per square metre per standard second

The energy of a single photon at wavelength λ is Qp = h⋅c / λ with h = Planck's constant and c = velocity of light.

Where:
The speed of light c is a distance held relative to a standard second.
Planck's h constant is a count of joules per standard second.
Wavelength is a 'spatial' measure of distance between wavecyles as determined by the frequency of wavecycles where frequency is a count of wavecycles per standard second.

Let's now look at the equation where:
The energy of a single photon at wavelength λ is Qp = h⋅c / λ

h and c have been defined, so to further examine wavelength:

 λ=h/p
p=h/ λ

Examining p further:

p=h*vbar
where:
vbar=va
where in the case of light:
v=c
but what is 'a' equal to?

If p=h/ λ, but can also be calculated as p=h*vbar, which can also be expressed as p=h*(v*a), then what we are looking at is a relationship between wavelength and (v*a).
So - because the dfference between the calculations amounts to a mulitlication and division of h, p=h/ λ is the inverse of p=h*(v*a), h*(v*a) must be represetative of frequency where E=hf

On the one hand wavelength is a 'spatial' measure of distance between wavecyles, as determined by the frequency of wavecycles, where frequency is a count of wavecycles per standard second.
On the other hand (v*a) is the measure of the speed of light c, where c is a distance held relative to a standard second, multiplied by 'a' where 'a' must be the measure of the change in frequency.

My hypothesis simply states that wavelength is a 'temporal' measure of distance between wavecyles as determined by the frequency of wavecycles where frequency is a count of wavecycles per variable seconds.
 
One can hold frequency constant in the face of variable time based units and as a result Planck's h constant will be variable, and a continuum...
Or alternatively one can state that 'a' is equal to a change in the rate of time, where λ=h/p and p=h*(v*a).

Going back to:  The energy of a single photon at wavelength λ is Qp = h⋅c / λ

Considering wavelength as a 'temporal' measure of distance between wavecyles where:
Instead of more or less distance being covered in a constant time, it is the same amount of distance being covered in faster or slower time...

This is now dividing the sum of h*c by the remit of a wavelength that is representative of a faster or slower rate of time where:

The point particle model of the photon and its wave-function will be compatible with GR mathematics.

Anyone investigating this representation of the maths will understand that this changes the remit of Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation where Einstein's equations of GR will be valid as per a contracting model.

[alancalverd]

One here, one there...who mentioned time? One here, now another one....OK, so some time has elapsed but it doesn't matter how much: as long as the events are separated by space or time, we can count them. And they are, so photons are quantised. 

But tell me more about p = h*vbar and vbar = va. What do vbar and a represent?

[timey (OP)]

You may read about p = h*vbar here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation

Combining de Broglie's postulate with the Planck–Einstein relation leads to p=h*vbar

(the v has a bar over it that I cannot represent in this format)

A bar over v is indicative of v changing where the changes to v are caused by a, a being acceleration...
But light travels at c, c being a constant distance held relative to a standard second, so there is no change to v, and where there are changes to p via h*(v*a) they are related to changes in frequency, and therefore to changes in energy.

who mentioned time?

Physics did.  All the measurements of photon counting are held relative to the unit time period of a standard second.

OK, so some time has elapsed but it doesn't matter how much: as long as the events are separated by space or time, we can count them. And they are, so photons are quantised.

Electrons are quantised, where it does matter very much to know where an electron is and how fast it is moving.
We know that time has elapsed between positions and velocities where (it would seem to me) with regards to distance travelled, to matter very much that one undestand how much time has elapsed.
This being because under the current remit of calculating these matters it is only possible to know the probability of how events are separated by space or time.

Where it is noted that probability is calculated via perturbations of time.

[alancalverd]

Mystery revealed. Your "vbar" is not a v with a bar, but "nu" bar - wavenumber. Nothing to do with velocity or acceleration at all. We sometimes use a bar to indicate an average, but not in this instance. 

When I see two spots on an x-ray film (i.e. most days) I know that there were two quantum events. Each time I hear a click from a geiger counter, I know there was a single quantum event. I can compare two radiation sources by counting the number of clicks produced by A in the time taken for B to produce 100 clicks - no time standards required, and if B is a gram of radium I have measured the activity of A in hectocuries. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect gives a good account of the experimental investigations that demonstrated the quantum nature of light, with no reference to "standard seconds" or anything else assocated with the measurement of time.

[timey (OP)]

Yes  Alan, that is correct...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+is+a+wave+number&oq=what+is+a+wave+number&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8926j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In the physical sciences, the wavenumber (also wave number) is the spatial frequency of a wave, either in cycles per unit distance or radians per unit distance.
It can be envisaged as the number of waves that exist over a specified distance (analogous to frequency being the number of cycles or radians per unit time).

The spatial frequency of a wave is dependent upon the number of cycles per unit of distance, i.e frequency related and therefore subject to acceleration deceleration of rate.
And the number of cycles per unit distance is dependent upon the number of cycles per unit time, i.e.frequency related and therefore subject to acceleration deceleration of rate
All changes to these parameters are dependent upon an acceleration or deceleration of frequency, and frequency is dependent on energy.
The unit of distance is dependent upon velocity in relation to the unit of time, and the unit of time being used is a second, specifically the standard second.
However, GR is quite clear on the fact that different rates of time are occurring, and that these different rates of time occur independently of each other and simultaneously to each other...
...And this is not reflected in the practice of measuring all phenomenon held relative to a static unit of time.

When I see two spots on an x-ray film (i.e. most days) I know that there were two quantum events. Each time I hear a click from a geiger counter, I know there was a single quantum event. I can compare two radiation sources by counting the number of clicks produced by A in the time taken for B to produce 100 clicks - no time standards required, and if B is a gram of radium I have measured the activity of A in hectocuries. 

And how does that measure up to the amount of time it takes for the cesium atomic clock that I'm placing in your laboratory to complete 9,192,631,770 wave cycles?

Lets get a mate of yours to compare clicks he hears on a geiger counter at a higher gravity potential to your lab, where you are watching your mate conduct these measurements.
As far as your mate is concerned the atomic clock that I have placed in his lab is completing 9,192,631,770 wave cycles and the measurements that he saw you compare to the wave cycles of your clock, when he was with you in your lower potential lab, when made by himself in the higher potential are no different to the proportions of the measurements you made.
You on the other hand are observing that your mates clock in the higher potential is completing 9,192,631,770 wave cycles, while your clock has only completed 9,092,631,770 wave cycles.  A 100,000 wave cycle difference.  Your mates geiger counter is making clicks that are closer together than the measurement you took in your lab.
Your mate looks down and observes that his atomic clock has completed 9,292,631,770 wave cycles by the time your clock has completed 9,192,631,770 wave cycles.  He asks you to measure your gieger counter again, and as you do he measures that there is more time between the clicks of your gieger than there was when he measured his. 
Then your mate has a thought and asks you to increase the electric voltage (energy) of the ionized events that your geiger counter is counting.  When your geiger counter is making clicks at the same rate as his he asks you to stop.
He asks you by what measure of energy did you increase your ionized events by...and wonders if the ionized events occurring in his higher potential have been increased in energy due to his position in the higher potential.

Thanks for the link.  It's basically a brief synopsis of the more than several books that I have read on the subject that have given description involving an estimated 800 or so pages, if not more.

: wiki link
In 1887, Heinrich Hertz[2][3] discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily.

Does this per chance mean that more sparks are observed held relative to a unit of time, as compared to the amount of sparks created by electrodes illuminated with lesser energy photons when held relative to the same unit of time?

[alancalverd]

You can associate a wavenumber with a standing wave, the arches of a bridge, the teeth of a comb....time or speed is not involved. You can measure distance with a standard stick, a surveyor's chain, King Edward's arm, or anything else you like - the modern definition of the meter is purely for convenience.

Not sure how you can introduce acceleration into a discussion on photons, which travel at a constant speed, both theoretically and experimentally. And note that neither the theory nor the experiment refers to any external timebase.

And how does that measure up to the amount of time it takes for the cesium atomic clock that I'm placing in your laboratory to complete 9,192,631,770 wave cycles?

Not at all.

Does this per chance mean that more sparks are observed held relative to a unit of time, as compared to the amount of sparks created by electrodes illuminated with lesser energy photons when held relative to the same unit of time?

No. It means that a smaller electric potential gradient will produce sparks.

[timey (OP)]

You can associate a wavenumber with a standing wave, the arches of a bridge, the teeth of a comb

Where in the case of a Chladni plate the standing wave is caused by frequency.  The arches of a bridge are defined by the frequency of placement of supporting struts, the number of teeth of a comb defines how many hairs it can re-position, and the teeth of a cog defines the frequency of motions that a cog imparts to a system.

You can measure distance with a standard stick, a surveyor's chain, King Edward's arm, or anything else you like - the modern definition of the meter is purely for convenience.

But if one is moving at a constant speed of 1 meter per second and is asked to make a marks on an unmarked tape that they reel out as they move along for every second that passes on their clock, the rate at which the clock is ticking will affect the distance of the measurement.
The 'spatial' distance between the marks will differ with differing tick rates, the tick rates are frequency based, and the marks are synonymous to wave number.

Not sure how you can introduce acceleration into a discussion on photons, which travel at a constant speed, both theoretically and experimentally. And note that neither the theory nor the experiment refers to any external timebase.

I'm quite sure that I explained in great detail several posts ago that it is an acceleration or deceleration of the frequency of a photon that I reffer to, which has a relation to the wave number. wavelength=h/p, p=h*vbar, and vbar=v*a.

Not at all.

So - you are saying that geiger clicks cannot be measured for frequency via the tick rate of a clock?

:physics.info
In 1905, Einstein realized that light was behaving as if it was composed of tiny particles (initially called quanta and later called photons) and that the energy of each particle was proportional to the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation that it was a part of. Recall from the previous section of this book that Max Planck invented the notion of quantized electromagnetic radiation as a way to solve a technical problem with idealized sources of electromagnetic radiation called blackbodies. Recall also that Planck did not believe that radiation was actually broken up into little bits as his mathematical analysis showed. He thought the whole thing was just a contrivance that gave him the right answers. The genius of Einstein was in recognizing that Planck's contrivance was in fact a reasonable description of reality. What we perceive as a continuous wave of electromagnetic radiation is in reality a stream of discrete particles.

I am making the suggestion that the length of a unit of time, i.e. the rate of time of that system, is inversely proportional to the energy of the system, i.e. more energy will increase the timing of the system.   An emitting source is a system.  A receiving source is a system.  Energy is transferred from the emitted light to the receiving system. 
If one considers that the frequency resulting from the energy of a system is indicative of the systems 'timing' then via this new means of mathematical analysis one will find that by holding frequency as constant in the face of variable units of time that the value of Planck's h constant will change with each change in length of time unit and becomes a variable continuum.   

This does not change any observation.  But it does change the current view of what time is and gives physical cause to the phenomenon.  This change to the current view of what time is becomes useful in describing phenomenon that in conventional physics have no cause and effect mechanics (such as the accelerative and attractive force of gravity) and my model of a cyclic universe.

There isn't really any point in my continuing this discussion with you, is there Alan?
You have a certain view of the phenomenon of time being a measurement imposed upon a system, and I am viewing time as being integral to a system as a reactive to energy.
The view I take is compatible with relativity where the remit of relativity results in the fact of differing rates of time occurring independently of each other and simultaneously to each other, where all I am doing is deepening that theory.
However, I don't seem to be able to persuade you to explore a differing view, so lets just call it a day.