[Hal (OP)]

My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion.

Gravitational time dilation isn’t a function of the uniformity of the gravitational field. It’s a function of the gravitational potential.
So for instance, a clock on Earth will run faster than one sitting on Mercury despite the stronger gravitational field on Earth.  A rock in freefall just above Earth will undergo greater coordinate (absolute) acceleration than a rock in freefall just above the surface of Mercury.  There’s thus a stronger field just above Earth, and yet less dilation.
Another example is the uniform field inside a hollow region inside something like Earth. Completely uniform field inside that hollow (per Newton’s shell theorem), and yet clocks there will be more dilated than a clock sitting on the surface.

So your assumption of a uniform gravitational field doesn’t allow your clocks to keep absolute time.  To do that, you’re going to need to measure absolute gravitational potential. Is Silvertooth going to similarly just assume that Earth’s surface is at maximum potential just like he assumes Earth to be (incredibly near) the exact center of the universe?

and zero gravitational field around the clock. (  But any non zero constant velocity and non zero constant gravitational field should be possible, but I just prefer zero values).

Since one can move upward from a clock on Earth, it is not at zero potential. Zero potential is the potential of a universe with zero mass in it. To compute the potential at Earth then, one only needs to account for all the mass of the universe.  The computation isn’t all that difficult if you assume uniform mass density above a certain scale.  A few minor adjustments from there to account for the planet, sun, galaxy, and not much else. But the mistake is to wave the computation away and assume it needn’t be done.

How old is the universe currently?  According to Earth clock, it is about 13.8 BY old, but that clock is dilated by some percentage.  So what's the real age?

I still prefer ‘gravitational field strength’ , not ‘gravitational potential’ , description of gravitational ‘time dilation’ effect. My reason is that there is no way to have an absolute clock if gravitational ‘time dilation’ depends on gravitational potential because gravitational potential cannot be sensed/detected at a point in space. There is no sensor to detect gravitational potential at a point in space, so that it can be used for automatic correction of clock rates.

Therefore, my absolute clocks will have gravitational field sensors onboard to automatically correct their rates by using correction tables, to stay in synch.

But this also leads me to question the ‘gravitational potential’ description of general relativity (GRT). We know that the current practice is to adjust GPS clocks on earth, prior to launch. That correction works correctly only for one altitude. The question is: is it theoretically possible (according to GRT) to have an (atomic) clock that automatically adjusts its rate with altitude? For example, an onboard system senses the gravitational potential to automatically adjust the clock rate. But there is no sensor for gravitational potential at a point of space. There can only be a gravitational field sensor. So, according to general relativity, there is no way to automatically adjust clock rates with altitude.

This raises yet another question. If there is no sensor for gravitational potential, how can the rate of an atomic clock respond to changes in gravitational potential in the first place? I mean the atoms in an atomic clock cannot sense gravitational potential to change their rates accordingly. In other words, general relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation cannot exist. Wouldn’t this disprove ‘gravitational potential’ description of general relativity?

[Halc]

I still prefer ‘gravitational field strength’ , not ‘gravitational potential’ , description of gravitational ‘time dilation’ effect. My reason is that there is no way to have an absolute clock if gravitational ‘time dilation’ depends on gravitational potential because gravitational potential cannot be sensed/detected at a point in space.

So you admit to preferring an answer you know is wrong because the right answer doesn’t allow you to answer the absolute dilation question. It does, but you just didn’t work it out.

There is no sensor to detect gravitational potential at a point in space, so that it can be used for automatic correction of clock rates.

There’s no sensor to detect field strength at a point in space either. Imagine a clock on board a ship doing a slingshot around Jupiter. How it is going to measure the field strength (quite high) as it gets close to the planet. One can compute it by knowing the mass and size of Jupiter and measuring the distance to it, but that’s an external measurement, not an internal field strength sensor.

There is also no sensor to detect absolute motion, also required to have a clock that tells absolute time.

If personal fantasy is an option and you can create a sensor of your choice, why not outfit your clocks with a potential sensor instead of a field strength sensor? Either way uses a sensor that doesn't exist, but at least now your clocks (also outfitted with a fantasy motion sensor) will be in sync.

Therefore, my absolute clocks will have gravitational field sensors onboard to automatically correct their rates by using correction tables, to stay in synch.

Since you’ve chosen a wrong preference above, your clocks will not be in sync, even if they had this magical field strength sensor. So now your clocks on Earth and Mercury get out of sync even faster than a pair of clocks with no correction at all, which is OK because it still gives you warm fuzzies.

The question is: is it theoretically possible (according to GRT) to have an (atomic) clock that automatically adjusts its rate with altitude? For example, an onboard system senses the gravitational potential to automatically adjust the clock rate. But there is no sensor for gravitational potential at a point of space. There can only be a gravitational field sensor.

Neither sensor exists.

So, according to general relativity, there is no way to automatically adjust clock rates with altitude.

There isn’t an altitude sensor either. OK, airplanes have them, but they work I think via air pressure, or a combo of GPS and ground radar. Not sure how it works since air pressure varies from day to day and the latter method wasn't always an option. It certainly doesn’t work via some kind of gravity sensor.

This raises yet another question. If there is no sensor for gravitational potential, how can the rate of an atomic clock respond to changes in gravitational potential in the first place?

They don’t. Clocks measure time, not any kind of adjusted time.

In other words, general relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation cannot exist.

It is the theory that originally predicted the opposite, so you know this is wrong.

I see you’re going to avoid this question:

How old is the universe currently?  According to Earth clock, it is about 13.8 BY old, but that clock is dilated by some percentage.  So what's the real age?

No need to do the math. Just look it up on the web. Surely somebody else has done it. I have.

[gem]

Hi all
Halc/anyone a question in regards to direction and potential and time dilation and the figures we approximated earlier, let's take the example we used earlier and sent a light source out from mercury and earth to the edge of the solar system similar to:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

we would get a red shifting corresponding with the velocity/gravitational time dilation we calculated earlier ie uphill all the way.

But if we sent a light source towards the centre of the sun from both locations, we would get an initial red shift (uphill) then blue shift (downhill) for both locations and a different time dilation difference than the one calculated earlier. ? 

So a question comes to mind as to which is the correct way of calculating the potential from the surface of a body ?

As i am then not sure if it makes a difference to an atomic clock when factoring in the suns time dilation for  midday/midnight on the surface of a body like mercury/earth makes a difference in this regard.

[Halc]

So a question comes to mind as to which is the correct way of calculating the potential from the surface of a body ?

They're all correct. None of the statements you posted are mutually contradictory. You're right, the potential goes up and down at various locations based on what's nearby. The potential difference between the sun's surface and Mercury is massively more than the potential difference between Mercury and the 'edge of the solar system', wherever that is.

As i am then not sure if it makes a difference to an atomic clock when factoring in the suns time dilation for  midday/midnight on the surface of a body like mercury/earth makes a difference in this regard.

The potential on one side of Mercury isn't the same as on the other. Ditto for Earth. 'Stationary' clocks at sea level run faster at night.

[evan_au]

There is no sensor to detect gravitational potential at a point in space, so that it can be used for automatic correction of clock rates.

There is no way to detect absolute gravitational potential, but there is a way to detect the gradient and direction.
- Some of the most accurate atomic clocks have been used in an experiment where they were synchronised to each other, and then one was raised by 1 foot, and the difference in clock rates was measurable.
- These accurate atomic clocks are not portable, but the next generation of optical clocks should be able to measure the gravitational gradient.

As you say, this is not exactly a local measurement.
So you may as well make use of other non-local measurements, like radio signals from Earth, proximity to the Sun or another planet, etc.

There isn’t an altitude sensor either. OK, airplanes have them

From listening to @alancalverd, it seems that (as well as GPS), planes have an air-pressure altimeter:
- They know the altitude and air pressure at the departure airport, and calibrate the altimeter before takeoff.
- They know the altitude and air pressure at the arrival airport, and calibrate the altimeter before starting landing approach.
- In between, where there are planes with many origins and destinations, this is obviously not practical. I understand they use a reference air pressure when flying at altitude, and there is no risk of collision with the ground.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altimeter#Use_in_aircraft

[Halc]

There is no way to detect absolute gravitational potential, but there is a way to detect the gradient and direction.
- Some of the most accurate atomic clocks have been used in an experiment where they were synchronised to each other, and then one was raised by 1 foot, and the difference in clock rates was measurable.

That was measuring the difference in an accelerated reference frame, which works anywhere in space, even in a completely flat gravitational field. It was detecting the direction of acceleration, which can be more easily determined with a plumb bob than a million dollar clock.

As you say, this is not exactly a local measurement.

Is OK. The plumb bob isn't a local measurement either, but both can be done in a box, and that's what counts.

Point is, you can't measure which way Earth is using your method in a non-accelerated environment (anywhere where the plumb-bob doesn't work).  So two clocks a meter apart in a satellite will stay in sync regardless of their orientation.

[Hal (OP)]

There is no way to detect absolute gravitational potential, but there is a way to detect the gradient and direction.
- Some of the most accurate atomic clocks have been used in an experiment where they were synchronised to each other, and then one was raised by 1 foot, and the difference in clock rates was measurable.
- These accurate atomic clocks are not portable, but the next generation of optical clocks should be able to measure the gravitational gradient.

As you say, this is not exactly a local measurement.
So you may as well make use of other non-local measurements, like radio signals from Earth, proximity to the Sun or another planet, etc.

Gravitational potential at a point in space can only be calculated, it cannot be physically sensed, whether by using potential gradient or by using non-local measurements (such as radar ).

Also suppose that an atomic clock is not transported from earth, but somehow built at a point in space. How can such a clock 'know' the gravitational potential at that point, so as to speed up accordingly ? The atoms in the clock have no 'radars' to measure distance from earth and no 'calculators' to compute their potential.

So, if we claim to adjust a clock based on its gravitational potential which we calculated from non-local (altitude) measurements, it would be wrong and artificial.

Also imagine a clock that is affected by thousands of stars and planets. It would be very difficult (according to GRT's gravitational potential) to keep such a clock in synch, whereas it can be corrected instantly based on gravitational field. 


 

[Hal (OP)]

There’s no sensor to detect field strength at a point in space either.

If this was the case, a stone thrown up would not fall back to the ground. And the earth and the planets would leave their orbits and drift into space and there would be no solar system.

[Halc]

Gravitational potential at a point in space can only be calculated, it cannot be physically sensed, whether by using potential gradient or by using non-local measurements (such as radar ).

And yet you don't calculate it, or find where somebody else did.

I know several different units that can be used to express gravitational potential. Joules/kg seems to be the standard, but xkcd did it in km(normalized to Earth gravity) which is equally valid. It can also be expressed as a speed.

Gravitational potential is always negative, so a clock at zero potential runs at a completely undilated rate relative to the inertial frame in which it isn't moving.  No clock can run objectively faster, but other clocks can run faster relative to different inertial frames.

Also suppose that an atomic clock is not transported from earth, but somehow built at a point in space. How can such a clock 'know' the gravitational potential at that point, so as to speed up accordingly ?

Clocks measure time (the temporal length of the worldline they trace) which is completely independent of whatever the potential happens to be locally, or on Earth, or whatever.
One second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" [wiki] and any deviation from that means the clock is counting something other than seconds.
In particular, a second is not defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods ... of a caesium-133 atom on Earth".

The atoms in the clock have no 'radars' to measure distance from earth and no 'calculators' to compute their potential.

GPS clocks are purposefully made to run slow (count bigger seconds) to stay in sync with Earth clocks, but clocks in general have no reason to do that. There is no absolute time anywhere, even if you could get to zero potential. It's still frame dependent.  They know ahead of time the altitude at which they orbit. The satellites don't do their own adjustments. Those come from the ground if/when they need to be done (due to perturbations by passing massive objects say).

So, if we claim to adjust a clock based on its gravitational potential which we calculated from non-local (altitude) measurements, it would be wrong and artificial.

Any clock thus adjusted is wrong. The ones in GPS are thus wrong since their purpose is to sync with a remote time rather than actually measure the time.

Also imagine a clock that is affected by thousands of stars and planets.

All clocks are affected by far more than mere thousands of stars and planets. That's what makes computing the potential fun. No one star (other than our own) has much effect on Earth, but there's an awful lot of stars out there and it's quite the mistake to ignore their collective effect.

It would be very difficult (according to GRT's gravitational potential) to keep such a clock in synch, whereas it can be corrected instantly based on gravitational field.

There is no 'in sync'.  Read up on relativity of simultaneity. If two clocks are not in each other's presence, then there's no way they can be objectively in sync. They can only be in sync relative to an arbitrarily chosen convention, and again, if they don't measure time as defined above, they're not accurately measuring time.

If this was the case, a stone thrown up would not fall back to the ground.

But a stone doesn't fall to the ground. It traces a geodesic (a worldline that is locally straight, not curving in any direction).  It is the ground that accelerates up to the rock that makes the two collide after a short time. The ground is not moving along a geodesic due to EM forces acting upon it.
Likewise, planetary orbital worldlines are straight lines, not curves.

[gem]

Hi all
so sorry to be a pain but a couple of questions.

So a question comes to mind as to which is the correct way of calculating the potential from the surface of a body ?

They're all correct. None of the statements you posted are mutually contradictory. You're right, the potential goes up and down at various locations based on what's nearby. The potential difference between the sun's surface and Mercury is massively more than the potential difference between Mercury and the 'edge of the solar system', wherever that is.

As i am then not sure if it makes a difference to an atomic clock when factoring in the suns time dilation for  midday/midnight on the surface of a body like mercury/earth makes a difference in this regard.

The potential on one side of Mercury isn't the same as on the other. Ditto for Earth. 'Stationary' clocks at sea level run faster at night.

If what I posted is not mutually contradictory why do I get a different time dilation value for each scenario ?
I understand why clocks would run faster at night due to increased potential, it's the aspect of whether the suns potential is oriented at the bottom or top of the clock on the surface of mercury/earth makes a difference.
So what I am trying to nail down is which scenario of the velocity/gravitational red shift will the atomic clock show.

(A) To edges of solar system;   escape vel earth + escape vel sun from earth dist  or
(B) towards sun                     ;  escape vel sun from earth distance - escape vel earth

cheers

[Halc]

If what I posted is not mutually contradictory why do I get a different time dilation value for each scenario ?

Dilation (time, length, mass) is all relative, so there is no 'time dilation value'. There's a value relative to some reference is all. The values are different in the various scenarios because either the reference is different, the gravitational potentials are different, or both.

I understand why clocks would run faster at night due to increased potential

Sort of. I said 'stationary', so it assumes no orbital motion and an Earth just held up by a pole at some constant distance from the sun. Earth is in fact an accelerating reference frame (relative to a hypothetical inertial reference frame of the solar system), and clocks at night run the same speed as the day side due to this. Maybe there's some tide-related wiggle that makes clocks run slightly faster at the poles or something. Equivalently, Earth is in free-fall which is locally indistinguishable from being stationary in the middle of nowhere, so clocks should run at the same rate all over Earth per the equivalence principle.

it's the aspect of whether the suns potential is oriented at the bottom or top of the clock on the surface of mercury/earth makes a difference.

The thing being measured is at some altitude. It's essentially a point location. Where the rest of the mechanism is makes no difference. So atomic clocks don't have tops and bottoms. They just have a point of business and the rest is support glitz. What you say is relevant to more crude clocks like a pendulum clock that definitely requires extension to work and might be effected by the potential difference between top and bottom.

So what I am trying to nail down is which scenario of the velocity/gravitational red shift will the atomic clock show.

(A) To edges of solar system;   escape vel earth + escape vel sun from earth dist  or
(B) towards sun                     ;  escape vel sun from earth distance - escape vel earth

Both will show dilation difference. I think you know that. Which shows a red shift depends on who's doing the measuring. The measurement taken at the higher potential will be red shifted relative to the measurement at the lower potential.

You got your math wrong in both A and B above.
You can't linearly add escape velocities.  You add the energy/kg, which is proportional to vel², so adding the squares of the escape velocities will work.

Also you used the wrong terms for B, and forgot one for A:

A = esc vel earth² + esc vel sun from earth dist² - esc vel sun from EoSS dist² (EoSS=Edge of Solar System)
B = esc vel sun² - esc vel sun from earth dist² - esc vel earth².

These give relative potential differences (expressed in vel²) between points, but barely scratch a compute absolute potential (which is always negative) of any of those locations.

[alancalverd]

I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.

In what way have Maxwell's equations failed? When I detect individual photons, where has Planck's theory failed? If we add the relativistic correction for gravitational potential, where does the Pound-Rebka experiment fail to support relativity? 

[alancalverd]

There's a lot of circularity going on here.

What makes sense is the statement that all atomic clocks are correct, but appear different to observers moving relative to the source or at a different gravitational potential from the source, and so far the measured difference is exactly as Einstein predicted.

What's the problem? Which credible experimental result differs?

[gem]

Hi all,
So in regards to points A and B I was just giving a example to ascertain, whether the atomic clock on the surface follows scenario A or B
because I calculated the gravitational time dilation and got different figures for each scenario,
my figure for A came to gravitational time dilation of mercury at surface and sun at mercury distance
       
equals 1.0240193 x10^-7
and  gravitational time dilation of earth at surface and sun at earth distance
equals 4.2269x10^-8 giving a greater time dilation of 6.013x10^-8 sec per sec on mercury as posted earlier

then for B given the clocks are still on the surface but calculate the redshift and blueshift as opposite signs give value of
greater time dilation on mercury of 4.77x10^-9 sec per sec.




 

[hamdani yusuf]

In what way have Maxwell's equations failed?

Quantum theory was conceived to cover observations unexplained by Maxwell theory, such as quantization of radiational energy and stability of atoms. Some physicists argue that Maxwell's theory doesn't comply with Newton's 3rd law, unless if electromagnetic field carries momentum.

[Hal (OP)]

I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.

In what way have Maxwell's equations failed? When I detect individual photons, where has Planck's theory failed? If we add the relativistic correction for gravitational potential, where does the Pound-Rebka experiment fail to support relativity?

Physicists abandoned ether theory when they found experiments appearing to disprove ether theory and abandoned emission theory when they found experiments appearing to disprove emission theory. In hindsight, what eluded them was the idea of creating a model that is a fusion of the two classical theories, instead of discarding them.

Einstein said that if a single experiment detected absolute motion, then his theories of relativity (both the special and the general) would fall like a house of cards. Therefore, there is no point in arguing about the Pound-Rebka, the gravitational time dilation and the gravitational bending of starlight.

Maxwell's equations are correct but incomplete, but special relativity cannot make them complete.

[puppypower]

One tweak that can settle many of these arguments and concerns, is to assume the speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe, instead of a terminal velocity.  Physics is doing this backwards based on hundreds of years of earth-centric traditions that make the earth a relative ground state. The speed of light is the absolute ground state. The speed of light reference is the  floor and not the ceiling.

One experiment that suggests that the speed of light reference is the ground state is the formation of matter and anti-matter. Matter and anti-matter only appear from energy/photons at the upper limits of energy. This implies matter, which defines and sustains all inertial references, appears at the upper limits of energy; inertial is at highest potential. This makes sense since matter, via the forces of nature, gives of energy; c-reference bits when it lowers potential.

Since the speed of light is the same in all inertial references, the speed of light becomes the same holographic ground state, for any and all inertial references, at any scale, since all will see the exact same floor. It is not a question of comparing two far things; relative velocity, but any two things close up, since all use the same fixed base.

One confusion may be connected to photons moving at the speed of light. They are not exactly at the ground state. The reason is, photons contain space-time aspects; wavelength and frequency, that are finite and inertial in character. Photons, although moving at c, are not exactly in the ground state, but contain residual inertial potential. All photons will lower this potential with the ground state, through the universal red shift, which causes all photons to head in the direction of infinite wavelength; zero energy potential.

Our earth reference, at any scale, has an absolute potential relative to the C-reference, since the speed of light is the same in all references. This is the true of all references and is how you order absolute references.

The c-reference ground state, by definition, contains zero energy. The question becomes how can something with zero energy form matter, since matter has finite energy? At the speed of light, space-time breaks down, such that distance and time are no longer connected. Rather each can act independent of the other. One can move in time without space and move in space without time. This describes quantum jumps and atomic electron transitions to give examples.

If one could move in time, without space and/or move in space without time, one would exist in a state of infinite entropy, since all combinations of space and time would be possible, including  that which is not possible in inertial references. Infinite entropy means zero free energy; G=H-TS. Infinite entropy and zero free energy is the ground state. To create the universe, all we need to do is lower entropy, in the c-reference, to retrieve some of the energy within infinite entropy. This will create a potential within the c-reference, since it decreases entropy. As the c-reference adjusts, so does the inertial potential that had been created; big bang forward.

Gravity cause matter to clump and form a more contracted space-time reference. In the limit of a black hole this reference approach the c-reference; space-time point. The c-reference is leading. the change. The expanding universe is also an artifact of the c-reference leading, since this causes all photons to lower potential, as wavelength increases. The c-reference also causes the forces of nature to act, since each instance of action give off photons which make a bridge to the speed of light reference ground state.

In terms of forces and gravity, each will create an acceleration, which is d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. It is space-time plus time. The extra time is coming from the potential that had been induced in the c-reference, to form the universe, as entropy returns back to infinite. This ground state readjustment, drives inertial to give off its energy, via the forces of nature and other energy lowering affects in time.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This will absorb energy and also reflects the c-reference drive. It also implies that useable energy is being removed from the inertial universe, since entropy ties up energy and the amount of tie up has to increase. This energy is conserved, but made net unusable to the universe. I call it dead pool energy. It appears to be a bridge state,  that itself will need to increase entropy due to the c-reference adjusting. One way to describe this is information processing into higher complexity. Entropy defines states of matter so the energy absorbed would contain information of that state.

If we needed to form life, we need a random event in time and space. Dead pool energy is like the  evolving software and inertial is the reacting hardware. Infinite entropy of the c-reference drive allows for unique events inductions, in space-time, that may not follow in a linear or casual fashion.
 

[Bored chemist]

the speed of light reference

You really need to say (comprehensibly) what that means.

[David Cooper]

Perhaps people could get themselves out of the habit of repeating the propaganda about the MMX disproving the aether. Lorentz Ether Theory came into being as a direct response to the MMX null result and is still the best theory we have to account for relativity today.

[Hayseed]

From what I have read and studied, angular relativity and velocity relativity was discovered and described decades before Einstein.   Once from Ampere and confirmed by Weber.  Neither one needs local or space-time to explain it.  Relativity did not come from Einstein.

Take two frames with a constant relative velocity......Einstein was told that the velocity of light was a continuous stream and still measured constant between them.  And for that to be true, then either length or time had to be different in the frames.  So, he simply gave each frame it's own time.  This has been described as genius.  I think differently.

There are two problems with this.  First, they think that light is a continuous stream.  It isn't, it blinks.  And second, they keep measuring light in the same wrong way.  Light does not have frequency, it has duty cycle.

That duty cycle reveals relative velocity, just like the relative velocity of everything thing else.  And I am hoping that these new "quantum" detectors will show someone this......if they can recognize it.  It's another crack in the veil.

The "quantization" of light......is because of intermittence.  It blinks.  It strobes.   It has a duty cycle.