[Colin2B]

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).

That wasn’t the question I was asking - see below.
PS what is “the density of g”?

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.

This was what I was asking.
“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?”
In other words, your theory unlinks gp, g and time dilation so what is the relationship between them. We know you can always determine g from gp measurements & vice versa, so as dilation is no longer dependent on gp near the anomaly, what is the relationship.

PS I assume you've seen Alan's reply re gravitational wave. You have to remember that by the time it reaches us it is a plane wave front - albeit a rather unusual one - you need to observe the passage of the wave as a distant observer to measure the dilation as @alancalverd points out. There are suggestions for a satellite network of atomic clocks to detect g waves.

[timey (OP)]

No - what I am saying is that g is the gravitational Mass, and that gp is the gravity potential for mass elevated in the space that surrounds that Mass.
Now general relativity is 'generally' calculated as gravitational mass M, but this does not take into account any 'anomaly' of g on M.  Geological density is not uniform on M, and these non-uniformities are what I am referring to as 'anomalies' of g.
So - what I am saying is that, as per observation, clocks do tick faster when elevated in the gp, but that a further test of general relativity can be conducted by comparing clocks at the same elevation, but under different circumstances of magnitude of g.

Under this remit of experiment, conventional general relativity states that the clock in the denser location/greater magnitude of g will tick slower.
This is where my model differs and states that the clock in the denser location/greater magnitude of g will tick faster.
My model also states that the clock in the denser location will tick faster when elevated, so there is no deviation at all from observation, or even that much departure from conventional general relativity equations.
And, best of all, the theory can be tested!

I didn't see Alan's gravitational wave post, I'll look for it now.

[timey (OP)]

Here you have said it all:

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,

On the basis that we are observing from the 'far away clock', this next statement is superfluous:

so the net effect will be zero.

We will see clock A being shifted by the wave, and shift back when the wave has passed, and we will see clock B being shifted by the wave, and shift back when the wave has passed.

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B In addition to post 1041

There are suggestions for a satellite network of atomic clocks to detect g waves.

In answer to the above, yes, I do know, (for anyone reading that doesn't, see link below) and did myself suggest that clocks could be used to detect gravitational waves, on a gravitational wave thread at this forum, at the time of the press release of the first gravitational wave.

But it would be far cheaper to do it from the ground, at the LIGO site, and better b/c direct comparisons could be made between the 'differing' (? chuckle) methodology.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-gravity-atomic-clocks.html

[Colin2B]

Now general relativity is 'generally' calculated as gravitational mass M, but this does not take into account any 'anomaly' of g on M.  Geological density is not uniform on M, and these non-uniformities are what I am referring to as 'anomalies' of g.

Yes we all know that, but you are talking about the difference between a spherical cow and a real one.
For classroom teaching it is very convenient to consider the mass of earth as uniform, but we all know that is not the real world. This is why everyone in the real world talks about the geoid and lines of equipotential, these lines vary in height depending on local density. This means that the calculation of gp includes density variations. However, this still doesn’t explain why your theory predicts that a clock will tick faster near an increase in g. It’s the why I’m interested in.

[timey (OP)]

Yes we all know that, but you are talking about the difference between a spherical cow and a real one.

You were asking what I meant by anomolies in g, and that is my answer to that question.

For classroom teaching it is very convenient to consider the mass of earth as uniform, but we all know that is not the real world. This is why everyone in the real world talks about the geoid and lines of equipotential, these lines vary in height depending on local density.

Yes, but they also vary in g at differring hieghts and locations due to the density of the local geological composition, so lack of height does not necessarily mean lack of geological density, and visa versa.

This means that the calculation of gp includes density variations.

Yes - the calculation of gp will be inclusive of density variations, but it is ONLY variations in hieght, or speed that have been precision tested as of yet. Variations in g have not been tested.

However, this still doesn’t explain why your theory predicts that a clock will tick faster near an increase in g. It’s the why I’m interested in.

My theory predicts that a clock will tick faster near a bigger mass than it will near a smaller mass because of the added axiom of "+energy=shorter seconds", where the observation of a faster clock rate in the gravity potential is then calculated as per its frequency with an associated energy (that must accompany a frequency) of something like mgh/m=e

Edit: Where a bigger Mass (gravitational M creating the gp) will have a greater associated energy.

[timey (OP)]

So - in addition to post above...

On these maps, from GOCE and GRACE, there will be elevations from sea level that are composed of different densities of rock, and the g will be greater in a denser area than it is in a less dense area.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2011/03/New_GOCE_geoid

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3655

My experiment suggests placing a clock at an elevation from sea level on a denser location, and placing another clock at the same elevation from sea level but on a less dense location (taking into account centripetal speed differences of longitude) and measuring the difference between g. (this being a different experiment than measuring the difference in gp between 2 clocks where 1 is elevated above the other)

Are you understanding now @Colin2B?

[alancalverd]

Not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/now-next/img/geoid.jpg is a good example of the measurement of g over the entire planet as seen from a constant height* above sea level, so that experiment has already been done, and we know that the variation is due to the density of the intervening material because we have been using gravimetry for mineral prospecting for well over a  hundred years.

As gravitational potential is gh, we also know that the redshift in a radial gravitational field is δE/E = δ(gh)/c² = gδh/c² where δh is the height difference between source and detector (Pound-Rebka and many subsequent experimental proofs) at fairly constant g (i.e. when h<<R_earth).

And we know that if δh = 0 and g is constant, there is no redshift (Mossbauer)

And our GPS clocks are corrected for δ(gh) because g varies with h when h is commensurate with R_earth.

The experiment you describe is just a complicated inversion of the P-R experiment where δh = 0  and you vary g between stations. *Your experimental difficulty is to define h since the geographical geoid is as wobbly as the gravitational one. The theory applies to an idealised spherical attractor so the conventional experiment uses a radial (vertical) track, allowing us to measure δh without knowing h. 

Since the equation has been demonstrated true to a considerable degree of precision, is it really likely that rotating the experiment through 90° will produce a different answer? It's not just a matter of precision, but sign: you are predicting a blueshift where everyone else has observed a redshift, by measuring a shift (in whatever direction) where everyone else has observed zero.

Here's an analogy. It is 10 miles from A to B and I can run at 10 mph, so I say "it will take me an hour to get to B". You are saying "that's irrelevant. I know the distance and the time it takes you, but I want to measure your speed, and it won't be 10 mph according to my model of the universe." 

Oddly, I've just had the same argument with a local road planner who assures me that the road past my house is permanently congested and needs a bus lane "because the computer model says so", whereas I have actually measured the traffic speed in the rush hour and know that it is faster than a bus can go. And not just me - it's the preferred route for emergency services. I wondered briefly if you might be related, but she refuses to do any actual measurements!

[Colin2B]

Are you understanding now @Colin2B?

On these maps, from GOCE and GRACE, there will be elevations from sea level that are composed of different densities of rock, and the g will be greater in a denser area than it is in a less dense area.

yes, I understand this, it is all part of the std geoid mapping process.

My experiment suggests placing a clock at an elevation from sea level on a denser location, and placing another clock at the same elevation from sea level but on a less dense location (taking into account centripetal speed differences of longitude) and measuring the difference between g. (this being a different experiment than measuring the difference in gp between 2 clocks where 1 is elevated above the other)

yes, i understand this as it is consistent with your previous descriptions of the experiment. Also measurements of gp and g based on the geoid take account of centripetal effect.

My theory predicts that a clock will tick faster near a bigger mass than it will near a smaller mass because of the added axiom of "+energy=shorter seconds", where the observation of a faster clock rate in the gravity potential is then calculated as per its frequency with an associated energy (that must accompany a frequency) of something like mgh/m=e

Edit: Where a bigger Mass (gravitational M creating the gp) will have a greater associated energy.

this is what i don’t understand.
I suppose i will have to wait until you have finished writing out your whole paper, and see everything laid out, in order to understand your thinking.

However, a few thoughts to add to what Alan says.
With the geoid, lines of equipotential represent lines of equal energy, so if you follow them you do no work (water on a surface which follows these equipotentials will not flow even though the line may appear to slope when viewed by accurate surveying equipment). So, if you are adding energy (from where?) it should be reflected in these lines.
Also, as I’ve said before, these lines also determine g so near a density anomaly your theory should predict that g decreases, which is not what is measured nor what you are saying.
Just trying to think through how the maths of your theory would work compared to current physics.

[timey (OP)]

Actually @alancalverd the traffic planner sounds much more like she might be related to you. (chuckle) She has a model built on parameters that she refuses to consider beyond.

@Colin2B
General relativity has made an 'assumption' that b/c a clock runs faster at elevation, that time runs slower on a bigger mass, and from that assumption deduces that time runs faster out in space where there is no mass.  So GR states additions of g to gravitational mass as causing slower time, and the resulting change in gp of elevated clocks (ticking faster) will, as a result of additional g to the gravitational mass, run slower time.

My model does not make this assumption.  I see that it is just as possible to say that:
Additions of g to gravitational mass cause faster time, and the resulting change in gp of elevated clocks (ticking faster) will, as a result of additional g to the gravitational mass, run faster time.
This does not change any 'observation' that we observe, or change any near earth general/special relativity 'observer' calculations such as made by the GPS system.
(Additionally: Where GR then deduces from it's 'assumption' of slower time on the bigger mass, that time runs faster in space, my model deduces the opposite, and that time for m and M differs from time for where m=0)

Alan makes a good point where he says:
" The experiment you describe is just a complicated inversion of the P-R experiment where δh = 0  and you vary g between stations."

...This is an experiment that has the potential to confirm if the assumption that general relativity has made concerning what time does on the bigger mass is correct.
Every stone, and every nook and cranny, right?

When we get to pages 8, 9, & 10, this is where the description of plus and minus changes in the timing of clocks (m in relation to M) is, and I will elaborate on how that relates to energy there.

[alancalverd]

additions of g to gravitational mass

What on earth (or in space) does this mean?

In physics, g is the resultant acceleration in free fall of a small test object towards a much larger one, or more precisely the mutual acceleration of two masses towards their barycentre. I don't see how you can add an acceleration (LT^-2) to a mass (M).

But then we scientists are an unimaginative lot.

[timey (OP)]

Sorry, but as we were talking about what occurs near a bigger mass, or a smaller mass, additions of g to a gravitational mass would follow additions of m. ie: increasing the gravitational mass making it bigger.

Edit: Or you might find lesser g in a location on earth that is composed of low density rock, and greater g in a location that is composed of high density rock.

Edit 2: Additionally, one might find that a tiny magnitude of g was added to the gravitational mass of Earth for the duration of a gravitational wave hit.

[Colin2B]

When we get to pages 8, 9, & 10, this is where the description of plus and minus changes in the timing of clocks (m in relation to M) is, and I will elaborate on how that relates to energy there.

Ok. It is worth facing the questions Alan & I have raised head on, possibly referred out to annex for detail so they can be worked through step by step. At the moment i can’t see how the maths will work to match current to yours, it would mean a change to the way g/gp works.
We’ll have to wait until you get there as you’ve obviously thought it through in detail.

[alancalverd]

Sorry, but as we were talking about what occurs near a bigger mass, or a smaller mass, additions of g to a gravitational mass would follow additions of m. ie: increasing the gravitational mass making it bigger.

So you mean adding mass. Much effort would have been saved by saying so.

Edit: Or you might find lesser g in a location on earth that is composed of low density rock, and greater g in a location that is composed of high density rock.

Never mind "might". Everybody knows it is true- it is how we do geological surveys for oil and minerals.

So the question is why would you expect an experiment that has been done thousands of times, i.e the measurement of gravitational potential, to give a different answer next time?

[timey (OP)]

Sorry you have completely lost me Alan.

Clearly you understand the experiment in that you have said this:
"The experiment you describe is just a complicated inversion of the P-R experiment where δh = 0  and you vary g between stations."

It might save an awful lot of time if you post me evidence of the experiment I suggest having been conducted a thousand times.

Edit: Or are you confusing geological surveys that use a gravimeter to measure gravity as evidence of clock shifts?
Far as I know, NIST are the only people who have directly tested general relativity with precision clocks, and they have only tested relative speed, and changes in elevation (gp), but they have not tested for difference in g.

[jeffreyH]

The universe may be either expanding, static or contracting. In the case of a static universe nothing changes globally. For both the expanding and contracting cases the value of all contributions to individual points in the gravitational field change over time. The sources are either moving apart or closer together. Over time these gradual changes must have an influence on the waves propagation through spacetime. It is not just the shift but the change in the rate of shift that is important to take into account. I have no idea if this effect is negligible or if it has been included in calculations.

[timey (OP)]

The universe may be either expanding, static or contracting. In the case of a static universe nothing changes globally. For both the expanding and contracting cases the value of all contributions to individual points in the gravitational field change over time. The sources are either moving apart or closer together. Over time these gradual changes must have an influence on the waves propagation through spacetime. It is not just the shift but the change in the rate of shift that is important to take into account. I have no idea if this effect is negligible or if it has been included in calculations.

OK, so now we have jumped from talking about near earth experiments concerning g, and we have moved back to talking about if the intervening gravitational field that exists between galaxy clusters is neglibigle in a contracting universe with regards to redshift observations.

I just went through all that in great length wth Alan, over some 30 or so posts, before we started talking experiments.
The short answer is that the intervening fields between masses (galaxy clusters) are not negligible in my contracting model (they are negligible in expanding model), and this effect is paramount to my model's description of cosmological redshifts observations with regards to Hubble's ladder.

Expanding model: Redshifts are velocity related for the greater part, and (g.source minus g.receiver) gravitationally shifted.
(The CMB is purely velocity related shifts)

My contracting model: Redshifts are aprox. 92% gravitationally shifted by changes in the intervening field including (g.source minus g.receiver), and 8% velocity related shifted.
(The CMB radiation is 100% gravitationally shifted by changes in the intervening field)

[timey (OP)]

As we have now jumped back to the contracting aspects, this article below (I could post arXiv papers instead) gives a good description, indirectly, of why it is that my model, that is much, much older than 13.8 billion years (our rate of time) 'could' be useful.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/earliest-black-hole-gives-rare-glimpse-of-ancient-universe-20171206?utm_content=buffera559a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[alancalverd]

It might save an awful lot of time if you post me evidence of the experiment I suggest having been conducted a thousand times.

Gravitational potential difference is δ(gh). Red shift, calculated from δ(gh), turns out to have the calculated value. It doesn't matter whether you vary gh (by flying a GPS satellite in an elliptical orbit over the wobbly gravimetric geoid - see the Ashby paper I quoted earlier) or just h (by the P-R experiment), we always get the calculated red shift.  A clock has no means of knowing g, h, or gh,  unless you introduce a new and wholly unknown force that (a) is mass-dependent and (b) only affects clocks, or you send it a time signal from an identical clock at h = 0 - and even then, you can only determine the product gh from the red shift.

I think I'll give this a rest now. You are clever enough to understand elementary physics but apparently determined to pretend not to. Let's not spoil a friendship.

[timey (OP)]

@alancalverd
The point of my suggested experiment is that h remains 'constant' and that it is ONLY a variation of g that is measured via the 2 clocks, FROM a 3rd clock ('far away clock') that is placed elsewhere.
The GPS, P-R experiment, and the NIST GR clock experiments are not inclusive of a measurement of ONLY a variation of g.

Placing clocks at gravitational wave sites would be 'just' a variation of g for the duration of the hit.
Or the experiment that I suggest as to placing clocks at different locations at same elevation, but of different geological density would also be 'just' a variation of g.

But by all means give it a rest Alan.  I am indeed very fond of you, warts and all, but I am also finding our exchanges frustrating, so no probs, and look forward to reading your always entertaining quips on someone elses thread.  All the best.