In transit gravitational redshift

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br />Hmm, sounds like Lorentz relativity theory, 1895, if we substitute the word “elysium” for his term “the ether”. ... Where does this term “elysium” come from? I’ve never heard of it before and I can’t find much about it on Google.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Modern Lorentzian Relativity (LR) is a direct outgrowth from the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). The main difference is the identification of "the ether" in LET with the local gravitational potential field in LR. To avoid confusion, we found it necessary to make these slight terminology changes, which have some currency in the very recent literature. imcluding our papers in Phys.Letters and Foundations of Physics.

"Elysium" is the corresponding evolution of ether to be identified with the local gravity field. The origin of the term comes from the phrase "light-carrying medium", which became LCM for short in <i>Dark Matter...</i>. When it was identified with the field in "gravitational potential field", it became a natural evolution, phonetically and allegorically, to change "LCM" to "elysium", especially since the latter is always associated with "fields" in Greek mythology. []

The most important feature of elysium, however, is that it does not carry around all that baggage that references to "ether" carry. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

"Elysium" is the corresponding evolution of ether to be identified with the local gravity field. The origin of the term comes from the phrase "light-carrying medium", which became LCM for short in <i>Dark Matter...</i>. When it was identified with the field in "gravitational potential field", it became a natural evolution, phonetically and allegorically, to change "LCM" to "elysium", especially since the latter is always associated with "fields" in Greek mythology. []

The most important feature of elysium, however, is that it does not carry around all that baggage that references to "ether" carry. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Interesting, Tom, thanks for the information. I came up with my own basic “local ether/gravity field” theory too. I first deduced the necessity of a light-speed regulating “medium”, about 12 years ago, from my study of sound waves and various Doppler Effects in sound and light, and with imagining moving areas of air and how they relate to the Doppler Effect and the relative speed of sound. It took several years for me to come up with the gravity relationship as a light-speed regulating medium.

Newton was the first person I know of who mentioned that gravity was “the aether”. See “Optics”, 1704 edition. He also predicted the big bang theory and the rotation of our galaxy. These are little-known facts. Some of these ideas were published in his letters to Bentley, but not in the Principia or Optics. I have an 1803 astronomy book that talks about all the masses of the universe being collected together in a “heap”, and also a “projectile impulse” being imparted to the masses of the universe. This was taken from some of the ideas in Newton’s letters to Bentley.

Einstein was so close to discovering local gravity fields as an “ether”, starting with his 1911 paper, but he never could fully accept or admit an ether. I think he realized it, but he never seemed to want to openly change his original “constancy” postulate, which was incorrect, since he neglected to include fields in the SR theory. He did alter the postulate with the 1911 theory, but he was quite coy and vague about admitting he changed it. Consequently, most people today don’t realize he did change it in 1911.

David, Refering to your post of 2March; I don't have any clear or strong ideas about redshift and clocks other than they are one common factor and not two. Clocks only slow because they are designed that way to balance the redshift and maintain a rether silly idea that has been set in stone from 1901. That idea is summed up in the equation; E=hf. As for gravity fields and redshift there seems to be a lot of resistance and TVF has as good an explaination for it as I have. I have problem with the TVF idea that Hubble redshift is caused by friction rather than gravity but that is a detail several magnetudes less important than getting a new view of Hubble redshift.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />David, Refering to your post of 2March; I don't have any clear or strong ideas about redshift and clocks other than they are one common factor and not two. Clocks only slow because they are designed that way to balance the redshift and maintain a rether silly idea that has been set in stone from 1901. That idea is summed up in the equation; E=hf. As for gravity fields and redshift there seems to be a lot of resistance and TVF has as good an explaination for it as I have. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


My opinion is that the “local time” that Lorentz introduced in 1895 and that Einstein later called “time dilation” is only a natural slow-down in the internal atomic oscillation rates of atoms due to certain environmental conditions experienced by the atoms, such as acceleration, motion through fields, and strong gravity.

I think that in 1905 Einstein mistook this for “real and true ‘time’ slowdown”, rather than just a slowdown of the atomic oscillation rates.

Scientists already knew that pendulum clocks would speed up in a strong gravity field and slow down in a weak one. They also knew that balance wheel clocks could slow down and speed up if they were moved or rocked back and forth on moving ships. These are “clock” slowdowns, not “all of time” slowdowns, and the slowdown in atomic oscillation rates represent the slowdown of a particular type of “clock”. Atomic oscillation rate slowdowns do produce certain “atomic effects” or “atomic time effects”, but these effects are not related to other kinds of time, such as “thermodynamic time” (ie, heat time, which is used by biologists and in certain industries), and they don’t affect large moving-mass time (ie pendulum time, balance wheel time, astronomical time, etc.). I believe there are different kinds of “time”.

I’ve had experience with a certain unusual kind of “clock”, a rotating-mass clock, i.e. a flywheel-based clock, and it will slow down or speed up depending on how the case of the clock is moved or rotated, relative to the direction of rotation of the flywheel. This requires direct motion of the clock case and acceleration, but just “relative motion” will not affect the rate of this kind of clock. In fact, just “relative motion” alone will not alter the rate of any kind of clock, including atomic clocks, since no physical force is placed on or taken away from the clock due only to “relative motion”.

Einstein finally realized some of the errors of his 1905 SR paper and he switched over from balance wheel mechanical clocks to atomic clocks in his 1911 gravitational redshift paper.

Hi David, There are two different topics developing here-one is redshift and the other clocks slowing. Sticking with clocks-I wonder if there is data indicating the atom is in fact forced to alter its rate of emmission(or whatever term fits the operation). It is said atomic clocks are very precise in their frequency but if they are pressured by just about everything to change frequency then how can spectrocopy be relied upon. Everything measured by that process would be distorted by the emmission of photons of a different frequency. I wonder if the data indicates that is true-do you know?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Hi David,

It is said atomic clocks are very precise in their frequency but if they are pressured by just about everything to change frequency then how can spectrocopy be relied upon. Everything measured by that process would be distorted by the emmission of photons of a different frequency. I wonder if the data indicates that is true-do you know?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, I’ll give you my opinion. The “tick rate” of an atomic clock is the internal harmonic oscillation rate(s) of atoms. This is judged and calculated by means of observing the frequency of the light emitted by the atom. The frequency of the light is apparently tied directly to the frequency of the internal oscillation rate of the atom. This information was deduced in late 19th Century atomic theory. When the internal oscillation rate of the atom changes, the frequency of the light it emits changes.

I’ve talked with several guys who work with atomic clocks. They’ve said that a lot of things make atomic clocks “drift”. There is no such thing as an atomic clock ticking for “millions of years” and remaining accurate to just “a second or so”. They all drift, burp, hiccup, jump, and change time and frequency fairly often. You can find plenty of government and industry websites that tell about correcting for atomic clock drift.

What they do is remain very steady for short periods of time, usually weeks or months, unless moved, unless they get too cold or hot, unless they are affected by outside forces in any way. Atomic clock people go to a lot of trouble trying to keep them as stable as possible for as long as possible, but they are very delicate and change rates frequently, for several reasons.

There are no single atomic “master clocks”, because of this general unreliability. All governments that use them, and scientists too, have to average the “tick” rates among several, among many, since each one tends to vary so much.

Now get this: The US averages several atomic clocks, in different places and at different elevations, and then they compare their rates with astronomical time. Then they calculate in the “leap seconds” to match astronomical time. So, US time is actually sundial time, with slight variations in the earth’s daily rotation rate smoothed out by use of several averaged atomic clocks.

Quite a lot of industry doesn’t even use atomic time. Much of industry uses “thermodynamic” time, which is basically local “heat time” as compared to astronomical time. For example, do you know that white plastic plumbing pipe? PVC pipe? I talked to a guy at a big lab in Cleveland who said they determined the average lifespan for PVC pipe, by forcing their samples to age more rapidly. They decided on a PVC formula that would allow the average pipe to last for about 50 years. Well, these lab tests didn’t need any atomic clocks. A regular sundial would have worked just as well. They went by annual astronomical time, earth/sun revolution time. They put their test samples under high heat and pressure to force the aging process to go faster. So they didn’t have to wait 50 years for the pipe to age “50 years” at normal earth temperatures and pressures. They had two “closed system”, one was the basic earth system, which went by astronomical time, and the other was the container the pipe test material was sealed inside. Inside that container, the “thermodynamic” time rate went way up.

Look at the artificial diamond and ruby industry. They don’t need atomic clock accuracy. They do basically the same as the pipe and plastic testers do. They can age diamond and ruby material rapidly with high temperatures and high pressures inside a “closed system” container. This is apparently more of a molecular thing than an internal atomic thing.

I think most experimental and theoretical biologists go by “thermodynamic” time. They have something called an “enzyme reaction velocity”. This is determined mainly by temperature. This is what makes our bodies work, and this is why we usually need to keep them at 98.6 F, so that all the chemical reactions inside us will take place at the correct rate.

Einstein and some other early atomic scientists just assumed that atomic time represented all of “true time”. But apparently they never consulted the biologists about this. Mechanical “balance wheel” clocks, like the ones in Einstein’s SR paper, do not slow down or speed up at the same rates as atomic oscillation rates slow down and speed up under various environmental conditions. For example, a pendulum clock will speed up in a strong gravity field, whereas an atomic clock will slow down. So, atomic time does not represent all of “true time”.