Harry ha escrito:

Cheers,
Harald

Hello Harry, long time without contact with you. I just start being
active in this group again. I don't remeber if I introduced to you or
not my Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) concept. In any way, I can
describe with it very easily the changes on time rate for a clock owed
to a gravity field, applying only 1905 Relativity (even without
space-time at all introduced by Minkowski about two years later).
In a HIS, only the inertial frame corresponding to the rest center of
mass of a set of bodies is recognized valid to describe those bodies
(you can verify that in GPS, the Earth's center of mass at rest
inertial frame is the UNIQUE that gives the very-well tested behavior
of all clocks with different velocities, avaling my HIS).(Take any
other inertial frame supposing at rest any other clock of the system
and you will see that relativity formulas do not apply. Relative
velocities between clocks are useless!).
Following Einstein's 1905 relativity, rest mass measures potential
energy. Then, using (as first approximation) the Newtonian -GM/r
potential for a material point with mass M at a distance r, the
potential energy will be U=(-GM/r)m_o for a body with rest mass m_o at
a distance r from the source material point. Of course, that's the
classical view supposing U=0 at infinite r. Measuring m_o the potential
energy (with the c^2 proportional factor), then at r infinite it has a
maximum, measured by a maximal rest mass m_om. Changing the potential
zero to its NATURAL ABSOLUTE VALUE with m_o=0, we have then U=m_om c^2
- (GM/r)m_o. But also U=m_o c^2, and substituting m_o for U/c^2 in the
previous equation, we obtain at the end

U = [1/(1+GM/rc^2)]m_om c^2 = m_o c^2; m_o = m_om/(1+GM/rc^2)

As you see, the rest mass m_o changes with the factor (1+GM/rc^2) that
by sure you can recognize as the same one appearing in General
Relativity, now obtained here without that theory! As the frequency for
a photon emitted by an electron in an atom is proportial to its rest
mass, we obtain the same frequency shift predicted by General
Relativity. This is my answer for the question in the post starting
this thread.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

PD. See my post "Einstein's Sep27 1905 paper" in this group.

"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QZnNf.78150$DM.22086@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

I looked at the reference it looked incomprehensible, I did not

tensor calculus as I should, however I did see that the trivial

explanation

I gave is not quite silly because one idea was that said "a freely

frame is doppler shifted by acceleration due to gravity" this shift is

same for signals climbing out.

In fact in reality this is equivalent to what I said.

Equivalent is the word: it's the equivalence principle - not to be

with identicality!

He said the clock at high altitude when brought back is fast compared to

the

one on the ground showing that the high altitude clock runs faster than

the

low altitude one.

If that is the case then if I fly into a gravity well and loop around

then fly out my time would be younger than my other clock I left in a

higher

orbit.

If you stay long enough in the well, that's the case indeed. It's well

by GPS engineers. If you're lucky Tom Roberts may give a detailed example
(but you can search this group for some old examples yourself of course).

In no way do I believe that.

If I have an atomic clock, say an argon laser and shine it down on an

argon

laser 10,000 feet below (say from a mountain peak) there will be a
gravitational blue shift and the two laser beams when mixed in a non

linear

device will give a beat frequency for that gravitational potential.
Measurement will show that it is the photons that are blue shifted the
argon's transitions are not affected by the gravity potential well.

Over a period of time the difference in frequency may be integrated and

over

an short period the ground level laser will give say 10000 vibrations

the recieved signal from the high laser may be 10010.

As the the high laser is moved down there is a slow reduction in the
gravitational blue shift but also a blue shift due to the movement

the ground level laser.

Over the integration period that re-unites the lasers at the same level

the

shifts do not cancel.

Am I talking total nonsense? Remember this thesis originally said the

argon

transitions were unaffected by the gravity.

You sound confused. See below.

This would imply that for 10010 vibrations high up is equivalent to

vibrations lower down so since the two lasers are unaffected by gravity

must be time that is running slower for the lower laser.

Fascinating.

"Slower time" implies "being younger"...

And since the wavelength is similar then the lengths below must also be
shorter than those above, but not really. A meter at 10,000 feet is the

same

as at 0 feet moving a rule does not change its length. That is because
wavelength times frequency=c.

What do you mean with "not really"? According to Einstein, the effects are
so real that light *really* is bent!

Cheers,
Harald

It is a metric that has altered space-time in this way. A metric that

proportional to gravitational potential, this is the local value of g,

acceleration due to gravity.

Does this mean that as you approach a massive object space-time is

smaller, how interesting.

So if you drew a graph of space-time the grid would get smaller as you
approach a massive object.

It's completely weird.

If you could see 4-space what would it look like? It is not the trumpet
thing they draw in popular fiction to depict a "black hole". It is

smaller in the centre than outside like the reverse of a hill. Its a

like the special theory where as you travel faster space-time seems to
contract.

Like I always maintain it does not really contract it only seems to it

the manifestation of a metric that is real in a higher demensional

But negative hills? How weird. Thats where on entering the slope,

of

the road getting longer for the path on the ground, it gets shorter, is

that

why we have ET contact stories of transit times to the stars of a couple

of

hours and chats across the galaxy in the usual way? After all at high
velocities the ground velocity is higher than the road speed if it is a
negative hill!

How violently obscure.

I saw in the description you put a pointer to, the number g/c^2. As you

get

closer this number rises towards 1 but the units are different g a

sec-2 c^2 (m/s)^2 so the dimensions are 1/meters. If a body falls from
infinity to hight h then its energy is SUM(GMm/r^2)Del(r) does this mean
that the event horizon is when SUM(GMm/r^2)Del(r)=mc^2 since m cancels

puts the event horizon at the point where a body in free fall reaches

velocity of light, can it do that?

I'm getting very confused, does anything I've said make any sense?

I think I need a course in "the metric tensor". Where do I start, which

OU

course is best to go on, I could not do differential geometry because I
could not integrate along a path an reinmann did not make much headway

with

me.

Anyone got any ideas where to start?

--
Chris
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1141214677.977734.167280@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Chris (no-spam) wrote:

Gravity does not slow down time, however a clock sending out light

pulses

at
the bottom of a gravitational well the light and the pulse frequency

red
shifted as the light climbes out of the well, it has to do that as it
cannot
slow down due to the invariance of c it just looses energy to the
potential
well like a pebble thrown up.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964).
[3] The more accurate measurement with Snider.

However I do not understand the gravitational model of curved space

I

know that particles in free fall in a gravitational fields move in
geodesics
and obey Fermats principle of least time and that Eistien predicts

gravity is non linear and falling in can mean not being able to get

presumably there is a loss through radiation of some sort otherwise
consevation of energy says what falls in can fall out again.

The Scwartzchild solutiion leaves us confused about what
*measures* time and what *measures* acceleration.

Strictly speaking, the fuel tank of a drag race car measures time.
<< invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known
law of conservation of energy; >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Most stable clocks use some form of oscillating mass which
will loose energy if coupled to a nearby mass, just as a tuning
fork accelerometer does so there is some experimental
correlation to GR.

Sue...

--
Chris
"Sylvain" <sylvain.gauthier19gocfec19@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:aznMf.14343$Qs1.201830@wagner.videotron.net...

"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dt8ceh$83c$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...

"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1140223881.900679.207700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Moving at relativistic speed can slow down time because the
energy in time is diverted to energy in motion (???). Another
way to look at it.

But I can't understand how strong gravity slows down time. What's
the exact reasons?

Also suppose one of twins or lovers (of same age) went to space
in a rocketship at relativistic speed. In 20 years. The travelling
lover would only age 3 years. Now suppose the steady lover
decides to slow down time in his location (so he won't
grow old with respect to his travelling lover) by hiring mad
scientists to compress the earth to a small diameter hence
increasing surface gravity or even living in neutron stars where
the strong gravity can slow down time (assuming he can
build structures that can withstand the gravity). Can he
calculate the strength of gravity needed to make his 20
years only 3 years. Now. When the travellingl lover
returns to earth. Can they both be 3 years? Any web
sites that describes this??

Relastic

I am 100 % sure that nobody can answer your question. If sobebody
claims
that he can, he is telling a lie. So you will only get answers like
"learn
some physics" etc.

Henry Haapalainen