[captcass]

Having been analysing the situation, my analysis further compounded through having discussed these matters here at this site for last 2 years, my diagnosis is that there seems to be some confusion surrounding the interpretation of the equivalence principle.

One of the postulates of SR, upon which GR is built, is the EP. In SR we begin with 2 observers who have EQUAL tick rates and length of a meter. They are then separated and put in motion and the Lorentz contractions kick in and we get each observer seeing the other's tick rate as slower and meter as shorter.
 GR describes the relative motion based upon these contractions.
What gets confusing is that GR describes the actual reality we live in, even though we know it is the illusion. We know that it is the illusion, because we stipulate it is so as the EP postulate in SR. We are just stuck with the illusion as our reality.
This is why Einstein said, "Reality is just an illusion, albeit a darned persistent one.".
The EP is correct. each observer, no matter where in the universe, even at the event horizon of a black hole, experiences the same tick rate and length of a meter in their inertial frame as everyone else.
This very much implies that the "true motion" of objects can be determined from their relative motion, just as the "true motion" of a target on a radar screen can be determined by designating one's own motion as  "true motion" and then using the target's "relative motion" to your designated "true motion".to determine the target's "true motion".
I can't give you math on this yet. I have been working in that direction as a part of a larger concept and I expect the math to be complicated.
However, as it is stipulated in SR, and since our actual reality is built upon the relativistic postulates, we must accept that there is a universal tic k rate for all observers, a universal second.

[alancalverd]

So you keep saying, but what experimental test has been conducted in the intervening fields for you to state this as factual physics, Alan?

https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf is a very  readable account of the errors affecting GPS timing.

The gravitational field of the moon is enormous, and enormously variable  - it causes all the water on the earth to move, every day! But it doesn't appear to concern the guys responsible for your satellite navigation system.

Interestingly, you can find plenty of maps of the gravitational geoid, which show that your proposed experiment (or at least its inverse) of clocks at the same gravitational potential and different radii from the centre of the earth is being conducted continuously by the GPS.

[timey (OP)]

Interestingly, you can find plenty of maps of the gravitational geoid, which show that your proposed experiment (or at least its inverse) of clocks at the same gravitational potential and different radii from the centre of the earth is being conducted continuously by the GPS.

No it isn't.

The experiment that I suggest has not EVER been conducted.

But it will be conducted when NIST achieve their plans on getting their lab sensitive clocks portable.
It was actually around two years ago that NIST were saying that their portable clocks would be ready in 2 years.

Edit: There isn't any part of that PDF that my proposal changes.  My model is compatible with both special and general relativity principles.

[Colin2B]

But it will be conducted when NIST achieve their plans on getting their lab sensitive clocks portable.
It was actually around two years ago that NIST were saying that their portable clocks would be ready in 2 years.

They are testing them at the site in Boulder. Various locations around the site are being accurately surveyed for height and gravimeters are being used to measure g and GP at that point. Haven’t heard any anomoly reports yet.

Have you thought of any other tests? I’m thinking places where light is passing through varying g field. How about heavy binary systems, there must be some where field is large and varies quickly.

[alancalverd]

I’m thinking places where light is passing through varying g field.

Like the space between the moon and earth? Very well characterised, significant and highly predictable variation in gravitational field, with several very precise clocks flying through it, plenty of stars (including a very bright one with a spectrum that has been studied for over 400 years) outside it, and no apparent effect on the red shift of anything.

Exactly as one would expect, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good hypothesis.

[jeffreyH]

Very simply, you have to explain why the observed red shift of distant objects is greater than that of nearby objects of similar mass. As I have explained since #966, you can't blame anything (or even a vast expanse of nothing) between the source and the observer. Your model has to consider only the gravitational red shift of the source and its motion relative to the observer.

In my model that has been slowly contracting from an almost uniform sea of particles and energy:
Light emitted from a distant galaxy (already clumped) 10 billion years ago, will travel through voids that are weakening in gravity as matter further clumps (over 10 billion years) 'while' the light is travelling, and this will cause a gravitational redshift to the travelling light.

The further away the source, the greater amount of time the light has been in a weakening field, the greater the redshift.

That is pretty simple I think...
I started talking figures of magnitude in post 1002 if you would care to read it...

Hold that thought.

[Colin2B]

Like the space between the moon and earth? Very well characterised, significant and highly predictable variation in gravitational field,

I agree, but I was looking for something that might convince Timey.

[captcass]

On the one hand what I observe is that there is a school of thought that states that a caesium atomic clock placed at a higher gravity potential only 'appears' to have a higher frequency from the perspective of the lower gravity potential...
And that if one places oneself at the higher gravity potential with the clock, then the frequency of the clock will be the same as it was in the lower gravity potential, and that it will now 'appear' to you that the lower gravity potential clock has a lower frequency.

There are 3 points of view to consider. The observer located AT the higher potential, the observer located AT the lower potential, and an outside observer.
In a gravitational dilation field, (not a motion induced field), all three observers will agree the higher potential clock has a higher tick rate. But all three experience the same tick rate in their own inertial frame. The observer always experiences a 1 s/s tick rate in his/her inertial frame. If it wasn't, c would not be a constant, and c has been confirmed over and over again.
It is important to note that ALL of this is observer dependent......there is no illusion without an observer..

[timey (OP)]

But it will be conducted when NIST achieve their plans on getting their lab sensitive clocks portable.
It was actually around two years ago that NIST were saying that their portable clocks would be ready in 2 years.

They are testing them at the site in Boulder. Various locations around the site are being accurately surveyed for height and gravimeters are being used to measure g and GP at that point. Haven’t heard any anomoly reports yet.

Have you thought of any other tests? I’m thinking places where light is passing through varying g field. How about heavy binary systems, there must be some where field is large and varies quickly.

I had heard that NIST did get the geodesics team in to precisely measure g and gp at the Boulder site in order to narrow down error margins.  I had not heard that they are testing portable clocks yet.  Can you direct me to a link for that?

The gp aspect of general relativity is proven already by NIST' clocks.
With regards to the g aspect, although there may be slight g anomalies at the Boulder site, it would be quite hard to tell an anomaly from an error margin when the clocks are being measured for g differences on the same site.  Not impossible though.
However, you do realise that if NIST had detected any departure from general relativity in conducting such a test of a clock regarding g, that we would not hear of it until many tests had been conducted, where it is noted that NIST have also not released any statement saying that they have now proven the g aspects of general relativity with regards to the ticking of a clock.

Yes - there may be a way to test for g by placing a lab sensitive clock at one of the gravitational wave experiment sites.  The incoming gravity of the wave will be a +gravity for the duration of the wave.
It is not entirely clear to me if the +gravity of a wave would shift a clock, but the minus gravity of just a few inches of difference in height from a gravitational mass does shift a clock.  So if the +gravity of the incoming wave was of the same magnitude difference as the -gravity at few inches elevation, then a clock at a gravitational wave site would be shifted.

Similarly - the GPS system, in that it keeps a record of all previous data, was utilised to search for dark matter.
It didn't find any, however the computer that analysed the data was no doubt programmed to search for points in history where the clocks recorded slower time.
Again, it may be unlikely that the GPS system would be sensitive enough to detect shifts due to gravitational waves - but if it were then I would ask the computer to look for the dates and times that we know gravitational waves were passing, and include a remit for identifying a faster tick rate as well as a slower.

[captcass]

It is not entirely clear to me if the +gravity of a wave would shift a clock, but the minus gravity of just a few inches of difference in height from a gravitational mass does shift a clock.  So if the +gravity of the incoming wave was of the same magnitude difference as the -gravity at few inches elevation, then a clock at a gravitational wave site would be shifted.

Similarly - the GPS system, in that it keeps a record of all previous data, was utilised to search for dark matter.
It didn't find any, however the computer that analysed the data was no doubt programmed to search for points in history where the clocks recorded slower time.
Again, it may be unlikely that the GPS system would be sensitive enough to detect shifts due to gravitational waves

A gravity wave is an acceleration in tick rate shifting through the continuum. Therefore clocks do exhibit an increase in tick rate while the gravity wave passed through. We would need a much more sensitive clock than we have today to measure the increase, however.
Cesium clocks can measure a tick rate down to about 2*10^-9 seconds while LIGO can measure down to 10^-21 seconds.

[captcass]

Cesium clocks can measure a tick rate down to about 2*10^-9 seconds

Sorry, that should be 10^-14 seconds for cesium clocks.

[timey (OP)]

@captcass Do you mind me asking you who you are and what your status is, if any, as to physics education?
It's just that you have said something that does interest me, but is also completely contrary to conventional physics theory.  You haven't clarified that you are making a change to conventional physics, so perhaps you are simply confused?

A gravity wave is an acceleration in tick rate shifting through the continuum. Therefore clocks do exhibit an increase in tick rate while the gravity wave passed through.

[captcass]

Do you mind me asking you who you are and what your status is, if any, as to physics education?

Hi Timey. I started another thread in the Lighter Side forum that deals with the Hubble Shift and time dilation and Colin2B and another person considered whether it was like your idea.
So yesterday I was just checking out other threads for the first time and saw yours and thought I would drop in. When I saw you wonder if there could be some confusion about the EP I thought I might be able to help clarify.
I am a Cum Laude graduate of a federal academy, '72.  Since then I have studied relativity, cosmology and quantum physics, I can read Einstein in the original.
For the last several years I have been looking at things from the time aspect. It is, after all, spacetime. I don't want to hijack your thread as I am way off mainstream. I am too the point where I believe simple fluctuations in the rate of time might be able to explain it all, including the origin of mass and energy.
I haven't had time to read your whole 21 pages here to see what you folks have covered, but I thought I would try to help clarify the EP thing mentioned in theyour first post, and the GPS measuring thing in the last.
I know the standard current theories, and am fairly sure what I have added to the thread so far is correct from that aspect, though you might see some unorthodox coloring to it in the time aspect.
Sorry if I shouldn't have interjected. 

[timey (OP)]

Sorry if I shouldn't have interjected.

I think I had a speed read over your thread a few days ago.  Colin's assessment was correct with regards to the difference between your idea and mine in his reply to Thebox. What I am doing is way more radical in that my model of a cyclic bounce cosmology universe is 'currently' contracting.

I daresay it would be some venture to try to read the whole of this thread, and I wouldn't recommend it tbh.
I am, at this stage, writing up a paper on my model to submit to arXiv scientific journal, where Colin, Alan, and Jeff are helping me out with a bit of feedback and hopefully some maths expertese.

The name of the thread is due to the nature of the conversation I was having with Mike at the time, and doesn't have much bearing on the content of the thread as such.
No problem for interjection, although I am very focussed here at the moment in my own task and do not wish to debate here.
Nice to meet you, and if you are at-all interested in my theory of time and modification of GR, here is the place where I start introducing the first portion of my revised paper.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg535242#msg535242

And here is my Youtube video that is now being superceded by the improvements in description via the paper I am writing.

Edit: btw, conventional relativity states that +gravity, ie: gravity wave passing, will equal slower time.

[captcass]

Edit: btw, conventional relativity states that +gravity, ie: gravity wave passing, will equal slower time.

Thanks, Timey. I looked at your abstract and I have no business discussing that as I am off into time and am not even looking at expansion and contraction. Indeed, I am thinking there is none. I sure wish you luck with the paper, though.
Re rates of time in the gravity wave, as it is a stretch/compress phenomenon, there would be dilation with the stretch and acceleration with the compression. They successively alter the size of LIGO's antenna. In what I am working on, it is the acceleration/compression aspect that evolves events forward down gradient in a time dilation gradient. (See? Colored by time! )
Anyhoooowwww.. That being said, I'll bow out of this thread.
Have fun, folks!    

[captcass]

I am, at this stage, writing up a paper on my model to submit to arXiv scientific journal,

Sorry, just one more comment. arXiv is usually reserved for previously published authors. To get someone who has been published on arXiv to recommend your paper is very difficult as, if thy do so, and you later post something completely off the wall, they will also lose their posting rights.
Just wondering, do you or Colin, Alan or Jeff have papers already in arXiv? I do not. 

[captcass]

I do not.

For good reason, as I have not got it all together yet......

[Colin2B]

I had not heard that they are testing portable clocks yet.  Can you direct me to a link for that?

The photographs i saw were of a small kitchen cabinet sized unit, eminently portable. I’ll see if i kept the reference.

The gp aspect of general relativity is proven already by NIST' clocks.
With regards to the g aspect, although there may be slight g anomalies at the Boulder site, it would be quite hard to tell an anomaly from an error margin when the clocks are being measured for g differences on the same site.  Not impossible though.

This is one aspect of your idea that I’ve asked about before but have not yet understood. You say your idea follows relativity except that near a higher density anomaly the clock will run faster than it would if there were no anomaly. What happens to gp and g near that anomaly?

It is not entirely clear to me if the +gravity of a wave would shift a clock, but the minus gravity of just a few inches of difference in height from a gravitational mass does shift a clock.  So if the +gravity of the incoming wave was of the same magnitude difference as the -gravity at few inches elevation, then a clock at a gravitational wave site would be shifted.

I don’t understand the differentiation you are giving to +gravity and -gravity effect of a wave. Please explain.

[timey (OP)]

@captcass I cannot speak for Colin, Alan or Jeff, but I have not published before and will be seeking endorsement from previously published authors.  And thanks, good luck to you too.

@Colin2B
The portable clocks that they were talking about in the radio program I listened to were sounding like they could be hiked up mountains, or placed at locations around Yellowstone as an immediately tangible reference to elevation changes.
In that they were also saying that new tech means they can move away from the 3 foot fountain chamber in order to reduce size, I had visualised a smaller portable apparatus than kitchen cabinet size.

When I say anomaly, I am talking about an anomaly in g, ie: the density of g differs with the geological density of the local terrain.
If g differs from 1 local to the next, the gp will also differ from 1 local to the next.
The Boulder site is composed of a certain geological density, and within the confines of that local there will not be much difference in geological density, so while it is possible to measure gp differences from any local, it would be hard to measure differences in g, (local density) without placing clocks at 2 separate sites of known significant difference in g, (local density).

An incoming gravity wave will plus it's gravity to the gravity of the local, as it passes by.
My reference to minus gravity was ill-conceived. What I mean is that there is a difference in gravity field between ground level and a few inches above ground level that shifts a clock.  The field is x amount weaker at that elevation from ground level (-gravity).  Should the +gravity of the wave be of a similar magnitude as the -gravity at few inches elevation, then a clock will be shifted by the gravity wave.
General relativity says that clock will tick slower.
My model says that clock will tick faster.  It says it will tick faster because that situation is a difference in g, as opposed to a difference in gp.

@jeffreyH I didn't miss your post and am holding that thought.

[alancalverd]

Interesting scenario. Place a clock at A (source) on the left and and another at B (receiver) on the right, and have a gravity wave pass from left to right. A will initially slow down (red shift) as seen from B then blue shift as B's clock slows down, so the net effect will be zero.

This is exactly the same mechanism as a photon from a distant source passing through any gravitational field on its way to a receiver - i.e. no effect.

If you want to believe that the grav wave speeds up A, then it will also speed up B, so again no effect overall.

A focussed gravitational wave, that passed through A but not B, would be an interesting tool. Its effect is left as an exercise to the reader, but it doesn't represent the passage of a stellar photon towards an observer through an intervening gravitational field.