In transit gravitational redshift

Hi David, Maybe I'm on the wrong topic here. Redshift is measured in time units and therein lies the problem of time keeping. The photon is red shifted by all the forces you are suggesting but I still see no reason to assume the clock is emitting photons of a different frequency. The reason everyone does this is because the equation E=hf is misused. Jan is right this has been going on for 100 years.

<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, Maybe I'm on the wrong topic here. Redshift is measured in time units and therein lies the problem of time keeping. The photon is red shifted by all the forces you are suggesting but I still see no reason to assume the clock is emitting photons of a different frequency. The reason everyone does this is because the equation E=hf is misused. Jan is right this has been going on for 100 years.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think it has been fairly well known in physics that the frequency of the light emitted by an atom is determined by the frequency of the oscillation rate of the atom. If the oscillation rate goes down for some reason, the frequency of the light the atom emits goes down.

Several pages in this tutorial series explain it in different ways:

www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/wavpart4.html

www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html

“We learned earlier that radiation is caused by wiggling charges, and the rate of the wiggling determines the wavelength.”

www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/index.html

The atom emits photons reguardless of how the process is modeled. And there are a lot of different ways to model this process none of which make a lot of sense. But, the issue here is weather or not the atom emits photons of a different frequency due to force or weather or not the photon is redshifted after the process is done and the photon has been emitted. All this other stuff you keep posting just changes the subject and I'm starting to think that is all you want to do here. If the process is as believed by most people that the atom in fact is forced to emit photons of a different frequency then as you say clocks are slowed by force. So far I see this: The atom emits photons that are redshifted by force after the process is done. The clock is not slowed but rather the frequency shift is in the photon. This is quite an important detail because spectra from any source would be different depending on which one process is correct. I don't think both ways are.

<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 />So far I see this: The atom emits photons that are redshifted by force after the process is done. The clock is not slowed but rather the frequency shift is in the photon. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, you’ve heard my opinion about it. Now you tell us how you think light waves/photons are emitted at always the same frequency, no matter how much the oscillation rate of the atom speeds up or slows down, and how do they redshift and blueshift while in transit?

Hi David, I'm am not devoted to any model of what the process really is but I do see two very different ways it can proceed. One way is how you are promoting the idea that the atom is forced into emitting photons altered by forces and the other way is the idea that photons are redshifted after they are emitted by the atom. The first way is more or less the standard model now in favor. It has problems that are ignored or as to how the redshift is accounted for there is an added time dialation equation that is harmful. It is clear to me the second option is better. If the atom under force emits photons at the same frequency that are then redshifted(+or-) all the observed spectra makes clear what force is causing the unusual lines. If the redshift is from something that happens inside the atom (as in the first way) the redshift would not increase with distance and it does increase. I am trying to understand the process and models are of little help.

<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 />If the redshift is from something that happens inside the atom (as in the first way) the redshift would not increase with distance and it does increase.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Jim,

How does a “gravitational redshift” increase with distance? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that. Are you talking about the redshift of the more distant galaxies being redshifted more? If so, that is not a “gravitational redshift”, that is a motion-related redshift, ie a classical “Doppler Effect”. The galaxy itself is not redshifted at the galaxy. But, with a “gravitational redshift”, the redshift starts at the atoms that are emitting the light. That’s why I think they are emitted already redshifted.