🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7Hqxj.5118$Mh2.2507@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Max Keon wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Max Keon wrote:
>>>> You clearly stated that the em-radiation going up is shifted to
>>>> lower frequency. But it's only the clock rate stationed with the
>>>> observer at the top that is blueshifted. There is no "photon
>>>> frequency" change at all.
>>>
>>> Quantities like frequency, clock rate, and energy are all COORDINATE
>>> DEPENDENT. Whether or not they change in the Pound-Rebka experiment
>>> depends on which coordinates you choose to use. The spatial coordinates
>>> don't matter, here. If you choose a time coordinate determined by
>>> standard clocks at every location of interest, you will observe that the
>>> frequency and energy of the radiation changes;
>>
>> How does that change anything? You declare that time is constant,
>> which automatically distorts the spatial coordinates to comply
>> with that requirement.

> No, this has no effect whatsoever on the spatial coordinates. It is
> purely a choice of time coordinate, and how one does that is arbitrary.
> To ascribe the effect to changes in cock rate with altitude, you must
> select a specific time coordinate. But that choice is YOURS, and there's
> no physical content in your CHOICE, and other people can legitimately
> differ, choose a different time coordinate, and ascribe the measured
> effect to change in photon frequency rather than changes in clock rates.

Viewed with a telescope from the frame of reference of one clock,
all other clocks at different altitudes can be _clearly_ seen to
be running at different rates. If you want all clocks to display
the same time rate, CLEARLY, you are going to have to bend
something Tom.

If you arbitrarily choose a time coordinate system, you distort
space-time according to GM/r/c^2 as a natural consequence.

>>>    if you use a single
>>> master clock with slave clocks at each location that are slaved to the
>>> master via EM pulses (as in Schwarzschild coordinates), then you will
>>> observe that the clock rates change but the radiation frequency does
>>> not. The former is what Pound and Rebka implicitly used, as their
>>> Moessbauer resonators are standard clocks.
>>
>> No, the former is not what Pound and Rebka implicitly used at
>> all.

> Sure it is! They are using the Fe atoms as clocks -- which are
> equivalent to standard clocks; they are not using slave clocks paced by
> a distant master clock.

With my telescope mounted alongside my clock, I read the display
on a lower altitude clock and note that it's showing a retarded
time rate. Yet according to you, I can arbitrarily choose to be
part of a time coordinate system, incorporating all clocks so
that they are running at the same rate as mine. But I can CLEARLY
SEE that this is never the case.

>> In the real world, time and space are inseparable.

> Hmmm. That is a model-dependent statement. In GR it is a
> COORDINATE-dependent statement. The coordinates you choose are not
> special in any way, and your CHOICE does not dictate physical properties
> of space, time, clocks, or experimental results.

It may be a coordinate dependent statement in GR, but GR is based
purely on observation and can't postulate such things as you
propose. Time coordinates and spatial coordinates are totally
interlinked as a unit and if you want to postulate that GR
postulates such a thing, that's your problem, but don't expect
anyone to listen to you. I know I won't. Whatever coordinate
system is chosen to describe an event, every other coordinate
system must describe that same event so that there are no
conflicting results.


Perhaps you would like to know how it all works in the zero
origin universe? I'll tell you anyway.

This paragraph is common for your universe as well as mine;
A clock slowing rate per distance from a gravity source alters
according to GM/r/c^2. If a gravitating mass is split in two and
the two halves placed at the same common radius on either side
of a clock, the clock slowing rate will be determined by the same
formula. Even if the mass is distributed uniformly around the
clock as a hollow sphere of the same radius, the clock slowing
is still determined by that formula, and the same result will
prevail. Whether or not the distribution of matter is isotropic,
the global consequence to the mechanism which drives an atomic
clock rate is always the same. It's a natural consequence of the
formula. c^2 is a constant in this case.

That's where the similarity ends.

In the zero origin universe the speed of light is not constant,
and dimension shrinks and stretches accordingly.

From my high altitude frame of reference, the dimension
stretch that's occurring deeper into a gravity well cannot be
comprehended because it's taking place in a dimension that's
advanced in time. Meaning that the speed of light (rate of
existence) has increased and bridges the increased distance in
the same time as I perceive the time distance according to the
speed of light in my FOR. In the time advanced realm, the
oscillating components of an atomic clock or any electronic
interaction which includes the motion of matter, has further
to travel than it would in my FOR.

When the universe has evolved to a point where the matter
concentrations have developed to "almost" form a singularity and
the stretch of dimension has evolved to a level where the speed
of light is almost instantaneous relative to now, the components
involved in all electronic interactions will have huge distances
to cover. Motion of any kind will be almost non existent relative
to now, but, apart from an enormous speed of light, it will still
be business as usual.

The equation  c' = c+GM/r/c  gives the updated speed of light
required to accommodate time slowing according to GM/r/c^2.
 1-c/c'  confirms that the added dimension accommodates the
observed time slowing.

 e.g.
 c = 3e+8
 c' = c+GM/r/c  for an Earth surface radius clock is
 300000000.2084 m/sec.  1-c/c' =  6.946e-10 sec/sec extra travel
 time, which is correct.

The speed of light in the frame of reference needs to be set to
the standard speed of light for the local universe in its current
state of evolution. That will prevail in every FOR at this time.

It may all seem rather bizarre and perhaps not too clear, but I
do expect _you_ to understand all of it, even if you think it's
wrong.

-----

Max Keon