Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: timey on 16/02/2017 03:18:52

This thread is an offshoot from Mike's thread that can be found here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0)
Ever since I saw this information breaking in the national news:
https://www.nist.gov/newsevents/news/2010/09/nistpairaluminumatomicclocksrevealeinsteinsrelativitypersonalscale (https://www.nist.gov/newsevents/news/2010/09/nistpairaluminumatomicclocksrevealeinsteinsrelativitypersonalscale)
I have been researching every aspect, and am well read on both caesium atomic clocks and quantum clocks  so the information that I have given is good, as a synopsis, although admittedly after reading the available info now, rather than back in 2010, I see they have seriously overcome the problems that I read about concerning the unreliability of the quantum clock.
Having been analysing the situation, my analysis further compounded through having discussed these matters here at this site for last 2 years, my diagnosis is that there seems to be some confusion surrounding the interpretation of the equivalence principle.
On the one hand what I observe is that there is a school of thought that states that a caesium atomic clock placed at a higher gravity potential only 'appears' to have a higher frequency from the perspective of the lower gravity potential...
And that if one places oneself at the higher gravity potential with the clock, then the frequency of the clock will be the same as it was in the lower gravity potential, and that it will now 'appear' to you that the lower gravity potential clock has a lower frequency.
This is a direct consequence of the equivalence principle, and the concept that a caesium atom will be equivalent in each reference frame.
...and it would seem that the same school of thought is prevalent regarding SR time dilation...
This being that one's atomic clock aboard a rocket in relative motion will also be observed by oneself to be ticking 'normally', and it is the stationary rocket who's clock is observed to be running slow.
But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.
Then on the other hand  there is the school of thought that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock as described in the NIST link above, and the link below.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/humansageinspace.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/humansageinspace.htm)
Physically it just isn't possible for both concepts to reside in 'sensible' physics.
Of course there is a way of turning the equivalence principle on its head to describe why a person ages in keeping with their clock, that also retains the speed of light in each reference frame, but it requires that one take the school of thought that what one observes of the other reference frame is not just an appearance and that the other clock really is running at a differing rate.
If a clock is indeed running at different rates in differing gravity potentials, then a clock with respect to gravitational time dilation can be calibrated at sea level, and all differences mapped for an absolute reference frame in which SR effects will be infinitely more calculable.
(This being relevant to your thread)
Therefore my fascination for the standard second stems from the above.
But, far more significantly in my view, also because the speed of light, frequency, energy, and just about every action/time aspect of physics is indeed held relative to the standard second.
I really cannot understand why nobody seems to recognise the significance of this.

But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.
That's a common mistake with SR. Your interpretation of GR is correct. An observer at lower elevation sees the clock running faster whereas an observer at higher elevation sees the clock running slower. If you climb up or down, you will find that the clock has gained or lost time respectively. In SR, each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower. If you accelerate into the other reference frame, you will find that the clock has lost time. If the clock decelerates into your reference frame, you will find that you have lost time. It seems nonsensical, but that's the nature of the beast and you have to get your head around the concept before you delve into GR. The Twins Paradox is very instructive in that regard and Viascience (on YouTube) does a good job on it.

I've read at least 5 books entirely dedicated to the subject of SR and GR, and Einstein's own papers, while practically every other physics book I've read also is inclusive of the subject.
And... I am totally sick to death of the twin paradox. What more is there to say about it? It's not complicated to understand.
Yes it does seem nonsensical under the current remit of physics, because it is nonsensical under the remit of current physics. And where something is nonsensical it's generally because it is wrong.
Therefore, because the observations stand as sound of time being lost under the remit of SR, and time being gained under the remit of GR at h from M, where a person with the clock will age in keeping with the clock, the equivalence principle is challenged.
One cannot state the other reference frame as equivalent by stating that the atom does not have a lower, or a higher frequency via SR and GR.
The only means available to uphold the equivalence principle under this remit, is to state 'all' atoms as having a lesser or higher frequency under SR and GR circumstance, and this gives 'physical cause' for the concept of a person ageing in keeping with their clock, and also the physical cause for the clock one is ageing in keeping with ticking 'normally'.
This can be reflected in this statement:
As the body rises it loses kinetic energy and gains potential energy. As it descends it loses pe and gains ke.
One could mention that the balance between pe and ke in this manner will ensure that the energy of the atom will remain the same in the higher reference frame as it is in the lower reference frame, and there is a consideration to support this having an effect on a clock.
This being that the moving clock has a greater ke than the stationary clock. If a greater ke causes a slower tick rate in a clock in relative motion, then a clock in a higher gravity potential will tick faster at a 'higher frequency' with less ke.
But then one must look at what light is doing when it is approaching M and the fact of light gaining ke...
This being because lights frequency increases with the increased ke and decreased pe as it moves into the lower gravity potential, which is the opposite of what is occurring for the atom.
Leading me to my theory of an additional contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and the fact that light has no rest mass, and therefore the possibility arises that light is not affected by pe. That light might be being affected solely by this additional time dilation that my model adds.
And adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation then gives a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, and the fact that all m in free fall accelerates at the 'same rate', in that as m or light approaches M, the increasingly shortening length of seconds of this contra directional gravitational time dilation of 'open space' will accelerate all value of mass in free fall at the same rate.
Because this added contra directional time dilation is the exact value of GR time dilation at h from M only negative, the equivalence principle is upheld, in that the speed of light will be observed as constant at 299 792 458 metres per second at any gravity potential by the observer in the reference frame, due to the fact that if the speed of light travels a metre in a slower time that is equal in value to the faster rate of time of the observer, the distance travelled by the light will be equal under the remit of both rates of time.
As shown in line 2 and 3 of this diagram:
(https://s1.postimg.org/53hr6kpl7/image.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/53hr6kpl7/)
The m will see the light travelling by the remit of its 10% faster second, and the light will be travelling under the remit of open space's 10% slower second, but the distance travelled by the light will be the same distance.
Because the 90% light speed will take 10% longer to get there, and 'appear' to be travelling 10% longer metres per second of 'space'.
And the 110% light speed will take 10% shorter to get there, and will be appear to be travelling 10% shorter metres per the second of the m.
But according to m at h, and m's clock, the speed of light will be travelling 299 792 458 metres per its rate of second, and according to the rate of time of 'open space', the speed of light will be travelling at 299 792 458 metres per open space's second, and the equivalence principle is upheld.
Now isn't that a more interesting conversation than the twin paradox?
I'll bet you haven't heard anything like that put forward before...
Honestly Mike, with all due respect to you, but as far as I'm concerned the twin paradox conversation is about as welcome to me, as "Stairway to Heaven" is to a guitar shop floor attendant.
Im not suggesting changes to current physics because I do not understand the current physics, I'm doing it because I do.
Have you read "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin?

We all interpret relativity with our own key. If you think relativity is incorrect you are using the wrong key. You cannot take what you are told in a book or by anyone here and interpret it to your understanding. Consider your in a maze and have to remember all the dead ends to reach the true understanding. You do not actually recognize the dead ends so you can continue on a path of misunderstanding. I can tell by not giving enough information about the statements and in some cases being incorrect in the statements where the confusion comes. I can tweak those statements to follow observations to follow relativity. When you understand relativity and its math completely its like looking at the maze from up top viewing the dead ends. I have to go to work but will be back and try to clear some confusion.

"Current physics" is what actually happens, as far as we can measure it.
It happens that photon frequency shifts correlate exactly with expectation as gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
It's fun to play Stairway to Heaven, Milestones, and the intro to Surrey with the Fringe on Top, and ask who first wrote that chord sequence. I think it was CPE Bach.

Physics has always been the same. Our current understanding of physics keep changing with new discoveries. Relativity and its math are a fixed state of relationships between mass, the photon and time.
I've read at least 5 books entirely dedicated to the subject of SR and GR, and Einstein's own papers, while practically every other physics book I've read also is inclusive of the subject.
And... I am totally sick to death of the twin paradox. What more is there to say about it? It's not complicated to understand.
Yes it does seem nonsensical under the current remit of physics, because it is nonsensical under the remit of current physics. And where something is nonsensical it's generally because it is wrong.
Not in the case of relativity. It's the understanding of relativity that is incorrect.
Therefore, because the observations stand as sound of time being lost under the remit of SR, and time being gained under the remit of GR at h from M, where a person with the clock will age in keeping with the clock, the equivalence principle is challenged.
Than I will challenge your understanding of relativity equivalence principle.
One cannot state the other reference frame as equivalent by stating that the atom does not have a lower, or a higher frequency via SR and GR.
True
[/quote]
The only means available to uphold the equivalence principle under this remit, is to state 'all' atoms as having a lesser or higher frequency under SR and GR circumstance, and this gives 'physical cause' for the concept of a person ageing in keeping with their clock, and also the physical cause for the clock one is ageing in keeping with ticking 'normally'. [/quote]
True.
This can be reflected in this statement:
As the body rises it loses kinetic energy and gains potential energy. As it descends it loses pe and gains ke.
Not accurate. Potential and kinetic both lose energy. He is confusing dilation with an increase in mass. While gamma expansion would normally be seen as an increase in mass by those who do not understand what gamma represents, the mass remains the same while the density of energy is reduced. This allows mass to be more attracted to mass mimicking more gravity but the reduction of pe causes attraction of gravity. g=a weight issues from the energy spectrum only and not more mass. Current physics treat gamma as an increase in mass. That is incorrect subjective thinking because they do not know how gravity attraction actually works. Dilation causes a loss of energy density. It is to expanded space the mass is attracted causing less friction to spacetime.
One could mention that the balance between pe and ke in this manner will ensure that the energy of the atom will remain the same in the higher reference frame as it is in the lower reference frame, and there is a consideration to support this having an effect on a clock.
Your clock is affected by the dilation of potential energy by having the photon have to go further because pe is dilated. Your clock tick rate is a measurement of the potential energy state of your current position. Your reaction rate and biological clock are matched to your tick rate yes. And we haven't gotten past GR for equivalency.
[/quote]
This being that the moving clock has a greater ke than the stationary clock. If a greater ke causes a slower tick rate in a clock in relative motion, then a clock in a higher gravity potential will tick faster at a 'higher frequency' with less ke. [/quote]
Ok this is the part where you have to understand the nature of equivalence in relativity. You are confusing motion with equivalence same as confusing gravity attraction with equivalence. Motion and gravity attraction are not what is necessarily equivalent. Acceleration and deceleration both cause gravity. Deceleration your clock ticks faster acceleration the clock runs slower. Motion is not what is equivalent necessarily but it can be. Lets take the Earth and say there is a tube through the center. The gravitational center your clock ticks the slowest and you are not attracted to another position. No gravity. The dilation of pe is the greatest. Your kinetic energy is also zero as stationary with no direction to go. What is equivalent is taking a spaceship and going with earths dilated state in space and traveling up to 32 ft/s/s linearly in 8,000 feet and stop accelerating instantly. The clock in the center of earth and on your ship will tick at the same energy state by tick rate. Now SR does not have physical dilation. It is the change in energy state c by vector motion. The electron cycles (this is a subjective path as a cycle term) slower because some of the electron cycle is used for vector motion for total available c. It is the reduction of energy between SR and GR that has equivalency. Frequency is controlled by the energy state for both SR and GR. Both change the angle of wave creation by their equivalence ratio.
But then one must look at what light is doing when it is approaching M and the fact of light gaining ke...
This being because lights frequency increases with the increased ke and decreased pe as it moves into the lower gravity potential, which is the opposite of what is occurring for the atom.
And there is the confusion.
Leading me to my theory of an additional contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and the fact that light has no rest mass, and therefore the possibility arises that light is not affected by pe. That light might be being affected solely by this additional time dilation that my model adds.
Leading you away from relativity. It's all explained by the correct interpretation of relativity.
And adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation then gives a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, and the fact that all m in free fall accelerates at the 'same rate', in that as m or light approaches M, the increasingly shortening length of seconds of this contra directional gravitational time dilation of 'open space' will accelerate all value of mass in free fall at the same rate.
Dilation and reduction in pe is the cause of gravity attraction. While free fall is indistinguishable they are not actually at the same rate. It is a ratio of the weight of the earth's dilation vs. a ball or feather in a vacuum. The difference is meaningless but there is a difference.
Because this added contra directional time dilation is the exact value of GR time dilation at h from M only negative, the equivalence principle is upheld, in that the speed of light will be observed as constant at 299 792 458 metres per second at any gravity potential by the observer in the reference frame, due to the fact that if the speed of light travels a metre in a slower time that is equal in value to the faster rate of time of the observer, the distance travelled by the light will be equal under the remit of both rates of time.
The speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame. In GR dilation the physical measuring stick increases without mass being added and energy being lost per volume. In SR speed energy ratio between cycle and total energy for vector motion c ratio which light has to travel further due to motion causes a visual lengthening of your measuring stick and an actual lengthening of light in a light clock. Mechanical and light clocks both tick the same rate in a frame proving equivalence between GR and SR.
As shown in line 2 and 3 of this diagram:
(https://s1.postimg.org/53hr6kpl7/image.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/53hr6kpl7/)
The m will see the light travelling by the remit of its 10% faster second, and the light will be travelling under the remit of open space's 10% slower second, but the distance travelled by the light will be the same distance.
Because the 90% light speed will take 10% longer to get there, and 'appear' to be travelling 10% longer metres per second of 'space'.
And the 110% light speed will take 10% shorter to get there, and will be appear to be travelling 10% shorter metres per the second of the m.
But according to m at h, and m's clock, the speed of light will be travelling 299 792 458 metres per its rate of second, and according to the rate of time of 'open space', the speed of light will be travelling at 299 792 458 metres per open space's second, and the equivalence principle is upheld.
Now isn't that a more interesting conversation than the twin paradox?
I'll bet you haven't heard anything like that put forward before...
Honestly Mike, with all due respect to you, but as far as I'm concerned the twin paradox conversation is about as welcome to me, as "Stairway to Heaven" is to a guitar shop floor attendant.
Im not suggesting changes to current physics because I do not understand the current physics, I'm doing it because I do.
Have you read "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin?
There is no trouble with physics. It's the understanding of physics that prove difficult for some.

"Current physics" is what actually happens, as far as we can measure it.
It happens that photon frequency shifts correlate exactly with expectation as gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
It's fun to play Stairway to Heaven, Milestones, and the intro to Surrey with the Fringe on Top, and ask who first wrote that chord sequence. I think it was CPE Bach.
Yes  and any different way of interpreting these measurements, will 'have' to use the same measurements, otherwise the new interpretation won't be proportional to that which we observe, and therefore will be wrong.
If a new interpretation of the measurements doesn't require inventing Dark Energy and Dark Matter in order to render the interpretation of observed measurements as valid, and gives physical cause for measurements that are at present physically unaccounted for, then the new interpretation, as an experimental venture, is 'worthy' of calculating.
You say: "...as far as we can measure"
I say: "...you can't put a clock into 'open space' and measure what time is doing in 'open space', because by placing any'thing' into an 'open space' that space is no longer open, but has some'thing' in it!
By Bach aye! It was in playing Stairway to Heaven at a guitar shop (Andy's) that I found out about guitar shop attendant aversion!
(GoC  don't bother! I actually think your interpretation of relativity to be 'pants'. But I would never in a million years get on your threads and talk to you like you talk to me. As far as I am concerned you are welcome to your ideas, and your right to express them...
And... I am not saying relativity is wrong, I am saying it is incomplete, which is exactly how Einstein himself described his own theory! If Einstein could accept this as fact then why can't you?)

I believe it to be complete. It describes energy and mass perfectly in ratio with observation and math. I am sorry for your emotions and I believe you are further along then most. Just thinking for yourself wins that prize. Einstein was far from perfect but relativity by postulates has never missed an observation.
I am only giving you relativity issues in favor of relativity. If you can show that relativity is incorrect I sure would be interested. Your ideas move results out of the GR and SR equivalency. All I am doing is showing equivalency is correct and observed. v0 for dilation can never be measured to be v0. Different tick rates prove different distances in GR and dilation of length.
Your conjecture is not strong enough. I can only help you make it stronger by challenging it. You need to think your way around my arguments. My arguments are relativity is correct and complete. If you cannot chip away at me how well are you going to do against the truly intelligent. I am only of average intelligence. We only grow through adversity. I find you to be somewhat interesting and I am trying to help you grow. Lose the emotion. You might be more intelligent than I am and end up being one of the greats. Grow or stagnate its always a choice.

Relativity is not complete because Dark Energy and Dark Matter are 'not' physically observed. Only the necessity for their observation is observed.
Different tick rates prove different distances in GR and dilation of length.
Only because these different tick rates are being measured via the speed of light being held relative to a standard second.
Hold the speed of light relative to the tick rate in that reference frame, and the dilation, or contraction, of length does not occur, and the metre can remain constant.

Constant to what? There is no standard frame of reference. Relativity keeps everything referenced to c as a constant. If you say the speed of light changes in every frame ratio's no longer follow observations.

If there is no frame of reference with which to hold anything relative to, then the fact that the speed of light is held constant to the time period of a standard second is challenged.
All physics measurements of time in relation to action are held relative to a standard second.
Simply calculate the speed of light via the tick rate of the differing reference frame and the metre remains constant.

Wow! That was a flurry of ideas. I see that you (timey) are a nonbeliever when it comes to the Twin's Paradox. You're not alone in that belief. The crux of the dissent is that the moving clock slows down during the acceleration phase, drifts during the cruising phase and speeds up during the declaration phase. SR says the same is true from the other perspective, but it's a bit paradoxical because only one of the clocks actually feels the force of acceleration or deceleration. There's no good answer to that, but you can make a good case for the SR interpretation, as Viascience does, and it is compelling that other consequences of SR such as relativistic mass are consistent with observation. The naysayers have all their work ahead of them.

Mike (chuckle)... I have my sights set a great deal higher, and in a much wider picture than you seem to be appreciating.
I am not a non believer in the twin paradox, and I don't have a problem with SR.
What I do think is that there is a missing component to physics, I think I have found it, and when GR and SR are superimposed into the fact of this missing component  this component being a phenomenon that is already observed but currently has no 'physical cause'  that a fully described cyclic universe emerges, and a theory of everything that unites the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum.
I am not a naysayer. What I am is indeed a yaysayer to everything concerning current physics except Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the notion of expansion, where all aspects apart from these are remixed into another arrangement in relation to the added component.
I am talking GR as Einstein wrote it, inclusive of the retraction of his cosmological constant (that ensured a steady state), minus the concept of the Hubble effect, (ie: a currently contracting universe), while turning the equivalence principle upside down.
My model is basically just current physics turned back to front, inside out, and upside down.
I lifted this from somewhere else I'm chatting:
what Einstein said (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22): "the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".
It can work just as equally if one says:
"The curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is 'temporally' variable"
To far better and more sensible results!

I might add that the accepted response to the "who feels the force?" argument is that feelings have nothing to do with it. The force is simply an artifact of changing reference frames. Acceleration serves to change velocity but it is velocity that dictates ones perception of time and space. Be that as it may, this only takes you further down the rabbit hole because GR deals in accelerated reference frames. It's still too early to panic though because free fall in GR is in perfect agreement with that premise. It is only when you consider reference frames that are stationary within a gravitational field that things get muddy again. My take on that is this: holding your position in a gravitational field takes additional energy, which is not accounted for in the SC metric. In other words, the SC metric tells you how things look from afar, but it doesn't tell you much about what's going on in your neighbourhood. That's why there's no GR equivalent to the Lorentz transform.

GR does make some predictions about your local universe though. For one thing, light can go around in circles so you can see the back of your head if you manage to reach the horizon (where SC will hold you in place with no added energy.) The problem is, you have to wait until the end of time for light to complete a round trip.

And how do you see the situation working with 3 time dilations?
Because if one adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space, this being contra directional to GR gravitational time dilation  and also includes GR gravitational time dilation  then you can superimpose SR time dilation on top of this picture for a 3 dimensional time matrix annexed to the space time matrix, where the 3 space dimensions in relation to the 3 time dimensions result in the time aspect of the space time matrix.
With mass being directly affected by GR and SR time dilation, and indirectly affected by the contra directional time dilation of open space in that mass must move through it, while light is only affected by the contra directional time dilation, because it has no mass. (rest mass)
And there you have an alternative to using the Lorentz Transformations for the SC metric, where a metre is held constant, and it is these 3 dimensions of time that are the variables.
If you apply this remit to the universe, you will find that black holes are not atall how current physics believes, and that a cyclic universe emerges.
You will also find that the equivalence principle will require being turned upside down as explained in post 2.

I think you're talking about directional time dilation, in which space is invariant and time passes at different rates in different directions of space. That's the variable light speed approach to SR, which is debunked by Michelson and Morley.

The Michelson Morley was conducted inline motion in a uniform gravity field rather than the gravitational gradient that I am talking about...
However, my model makes an a addition to the equivalence principle that light cannot exceed the rate of local time. So my model would suggest that that the inline light of the Michelson Morley 'is' slowing down because it cannot travel faster than 299 792 458 metres per second of the reference frame, and subsequently the arm of the experiment does not contract.
The LIGO results are treated to the same school of thought, where the light in the tubes is blue shifted by the gravity wave, for the duration of the gravity wave, and that the light is travelling at the speed of light relative to a 'shorter' second than occurs at that reference frame's usual gravity field, without the addition of the gravity wave's gravity field... And, we can find that the tubes of the LIGO do not contract.
This being due to the contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model adds for open space.
Point your experiment arm, or tube, upwards' into the gravitational gradient, and the light will redshift on it's outward journey, where my model states that the light is moving into reference frames with 'longer seconds, and it will blueshift on the return journey, where the seconds will become shorter on the way back down...
This is mathematically indistinguishable from applying GR gravitational time dilation to red shift/blue shift under the same circumstance, because one gravitational time dilation is the equal to the other linearly, but in opposing direction.
(ie: where the 'clock' ticks x amount faster with GR time dilation, because light is 'not' affected by the GR time dilation, the light is then only affected by the contra directional gravitational time dilation which is the equal to GR x faster time, but negative, so it is x amount slower time)
In my model the 'motion' related time dilation of SR isn't used to calculate the fact of light travelling across space. It is only the contra directional gravitational time dilation that is used.
And all this contra directional gravitational time dilation is doing, is transferring the notion of 'spatially' variable space, into 'temporally' variable space, where light speed calculated relative to the 'longer' seconds of these temporally variable reference frames, remains a speed of 299 792 458 constant metres, per variable seconds.
Mass is what defines the rate of this contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation defines how Mass moves through open space.

I'm having trouble following your arguments because you use unconventional terms like contradirectional dilation without explanation. Dilation is not directional in SR so I presume you're talking about GR, in which case you are suggesting that time speeds up as you approach a black hole. That would fly in the face of gravitational lensing, even if space is invariant. Can you clarify?

The reason why the terminology 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' is unfamiliar to you is because I am the person responsible for coining this terminology, and the notion of it's existence as a third phenomenon of time dilation that now gives us 'physical cause' for the acceleration of gravity.
Yes, yes, yes, it does mean that time speeds up when you approach a black hole!
(But hark on the fact that you being a piece of mass yourself, that you would experience your time as being faster than that of the black hole itself, ie: GR gravitational time dilation, and as you are accelerated towards the black hole by the increasingly faster rates of time of the contra directional gravitational time dilation, your own clock will be becoming increasingly slower in its rate of time. On Earth, the time dilations would converge at ground, sea level, to then carry on down into the ground, where your clock would run slower still, and the contra directional time dilation gets faster still...*Not atall sure about a black hole having a ground level though, ;) ...)
*'you', being a body of mass, would also be experiencing SR time dilation effects due to the acceleration.
Oh, I'm so pleased... This shows you have given the matter some thought. Yay!
Gravitational lensing  yes I can clarify:
Remembering that the contra directional time dilation is the equal in value to GR gravitational time dilation at h from M, only negative, and is the mechanism that accelerates mass, or light towards a body of mass, or decelerates mass or light away from a body of mass...
When light approaches mass it blue shifts into faster time...
If the light source is directly behind a big mass located inbetween observation point and light source, the light that is travelling past this mass on its way to the observation point, will bend towards the mass because of the faster time around this mass. From the observation point this will appear like a brighter halo of light, partly due to the bending, and partly due to the blue shifting.
If that sounds exactly like the current explanation, it's because it is exactly like the current explanation.
It matters not if the time near the mass, or the mass cluster, the light is bending around is running fast or slow, so long as the value of the time dilations are equal in value, (positive and negative), the bend and the blueshift remain as observed by calculation using either.

I still don't understand why you think a black hole might be white, but if that was indeed the case then a gravitational lens would be convex rather than concave and we would see a starkly different picture in the Eddington and Hubble (telescope) images. How do you account for that?

Nope  not a white hole. The black hole remains a black hole.
Reversing the concept of time running faster in 'open space' than it does for bodies of mass, does not reverse the parameters for the black hole itself. All it does is give 'physical cause' for the observed acceleration of gravity caused by the mass of the black hole.
Yes  this does mean that a black hole is full of energy, but it remains black because light cannot shine there.
What I am suggesting is that a black hole is inherent with the same properties as are attributed to the 'current physics' Big Bang, pre inflation. That all matter in the black hole is so compressed, and hot, that the conditions there are a plasma, are opaque, and that light cannot 'shine'.
This is relevant to my model, in that my model's contraction will eventually result in all matter being contained in a singular black hole, that without any gravitational counterpart to cause a stabilisation, it will explode all of its content via its super luminal jets, and spew particles across space to create a sea, that is formed of these particles, which then start forming into clumps during this next cycle of a period of slow contraction.
I am suggesting that the black holes observed today are miniature representations of the Big Bang phenomenon, that will not explode and empty 'all' of their content, as in the Big Bang 'proper', but are partially displaying the super luminal jets of a 'proper' Big Bang when consuming big masses. Only partially, because these black holes still have gravitational counterparts in the universe holding them stable, and when consuming a big mass, such as a star, they become partially unstable, causing them to partially spew particles via super luminal jets due to being rendered partially unstable by the sudden change in gravitational field as the star is consumed.
The event horizon of a black hole is simply the point at which the plasma begins and light can no longer shine...
I don't really understand why you would think that the gravitational lensing would be resulting as convex instead of concave.
At present it is the gravitational attraction/acceleration of the mass the light is bending around that causes the phenomenon. All I've done is give the accelerative force a physical cause... Why would it change the observation?

You're missing my point. The black hole is white if time speeds up on approach. What goes on inside is irrelevant.
The difference between a concave lens and a convex lens is that one concentrates light rays onto a focal point and the other diverges them away from a focal point. If a black hole was equivalent to a convex lens, objects in the background would appear to be farther away from the gravitating mass rather than closer to it. That would be contrary to Eddington's observations and images from the Hubble telescope.

No  the black hole would only be a white hole if you reversed its time under current physics remit, where space is 'spatially' variable.
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/whatwhitehole/
It's unclear to me quite what is meant by 'a time reversal of a black hole'. Do they mean gravitational variable time, or are they talking about reversing sequential time?
In either case, this is not what I am suggesting atall. I'm suggesting that these 'spatially' variable spaces in space are 'temporally' variable instead.
With Eddington, and gravitational lensing, what we are observing is light being bent towards the gravitational mass as it passes this mass on its way to us.
Light travels in straight lines, not curves, unless it is curved due to space being curved by the gravitation of a mass. When the light source is behind the inbetween mass in relation to the observation point, then the halo of light is basically just a 'kink' in the straight line that light is taking. Looking at a kink in a straight line of light who's trajectory is head on to observation, will result in a band of light, or a halo, as the gravitation of the mass pulls the light inwards.
Stating that the gravitational force pulling that light inwards is 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' related does not change the observation.

Good grief  it's like the Marie Celeste on this site at mo...
Anyway  if someone were here, then they might ask me:
"If black holes are so plasma hot that conditions are opaque and light can't shine, then how come we don't observe the relevant heat signature?"

That guy on IFL is talking through his hat. GR does not predict white holes. It just doesn't disprove them. They are certainly not the time reversal of black holes. That's the problem with Internet articles like that. No peer review. I expect he'll get a dressing down from his editor if anyone of influence gets wind of his ramblings.
A white hole is simply repulsive gravity. It pushes instead of pulling. Although it is the basis for Big Bang theory, it is entirely speculative. There is circumstantial evidence of the Big Bang, but I would place both theories in that category. They're akin to the celestial teapot because you can't prove that they don't exist.

As for light traveling in straight lines, that's a bit of a misnomer. A light ray is an abstraction of a light wave. It describes the path of constant phase. It's tempting to think of a photon as a particle that travels through space, but that's not quite right. It is the QM wave function that travels through space. The particle doesn't actually exist until it is detected. In the context of GR, you will be better served to think of light as an extended wave or a whole bunch of particles surfing on a wave.
Feynman's book QED is an approachable account of this concept. The proof of the pudding is that, although the majority of photons obey the laws of optics, the range of reflection angles that are actually observed cannot be explained in terms of surface defects or imperfect collimation.

Well thanks for clearing that up!
And yes  there is a lot of missinformation on the net, which is why I rather read books by respected and qualified physicists.
In any case white holes have bog all to do with my model, nor repulsive gravity.
Btw, I am still reading your thread, however not being mathematically proficient, any input from me would be entirely redundant, but I'm still reading and waiting to hear what any person who is mathematically proficient says... given that anyone logs in! It's dead as a door nail round here at the mo. I've never seen it so quiet!
I'm pretty well read on quantum as well, although to say so my understanding of in depth particle physics is lacking. My model does apply itself in that region where the added contra directional gravitational time dilation applied to quantum results in a continuum that unites the standard model with gravity...
But there's little point in talking about this until the cosmological aspects are understood.
Wave, photon, or both, the trajectory of light does follow the curvature of space though doesn't it?

Just saw your edit
QED  I've read it

Yes. Light rays follow geodesics.

So an observation of a 'head on' (for want of better terminology) trajectory of light that has a 'kink' in it caused by curvature of space surrounding a mass located between light source and observation point will result in a band, or halo of light?

Kink is not the right word. Space bends, but it doesn't fold. And there is no halo effect. Light rays do not disperse as they travel through curvy space. If I am sufficiently far removed to perceive the curvature of space in your neighbourhood, we will simply disagree about the location of the emitter when a light ray strikes your eye. You will use the angle of incidence to project the light ray backwards in a straight line. I can see that your perception is in error, but if we both walk towards where we think the emitter is located, we will end up at the same place.
That's not to say that gravitational lensing is innocuous. It creates some fantastic optical illusions. The image of space beyond the black hole is distorted and objects can appear to be duplicated on either side. Viascience gives some excellent examples of this.

Ok, kink is not the correct word.
To explain:
Without the mass inbetween, what we are observing is the portion of the stars 360 degree in all directions light shine that arrives at our location, which is just a tiny, minuscule portion of this stars light.
To create something to visualise, I now draw a straight line from us to the star. (I appreciate this is a vast over simplification, of course there are other geodesic considerations going on, but to simplify).
Now we will circle this initial line with 9 more lines between us and the star.
Looking 'head on' at these lines arriving at us, we can now think of our end of these lines being points, where we cannot see the lines themselves, only the ends of the lines.
Now looking at the light source as being behind the mass that is inbetween, with the mass covering the middle point, and our surrounding 9 points being visible.
These points, when represented as lines will be bent towards this mass.
Now time dilation comes into play. Calculate this time dilation as slower time or faster time for same observation.
As slower time near mass:
The light is slowing near the mass, with faster light arriving more quickly than light is leaving, therefore as the light is bent towards the mass by the unknown processes of gravitational force, there is also more of it there as it is arriving faster than it leaves. The light will also blueshift near the mass and have more energy.
Represented as a line, the line is bent inwards towards the mass and carries on out of the gravitational field of the mass towards us.
As a point, the point will become stretched a little. Lots and lots of points being bent inwards will create a band of light, or halo.
As faster time:
The light is speeding up as it approaches the mass and is bent inwards by the process of time getting faster near mass, but slows down when it has passed, creating a build up of the faster moving light that is now slowing when leaving the gravitational field. The light is blue shifted and has more energy.
Represented as a line, again the light is bent inwards and then carries on towards us.
As a point, again the point will become stretched a little. Lots and lots of points being bent inwards will create a band of light, or halo.
In both instances, what is occurring is that when the light is bent inwards towards the mass inbetween, light that would otherwise be passing by our own location on other trajectories, unseen by us, is directed towards us by this bending inwards, resulting in us seeing more of the light.
I'll have a watch of that Viascience to see what he is saying, but to say so, if the time dilation surrounding the inbetween mass is of faster time, rather than slower, I can easily visualise why duplicate images would be apparent behind a black hole...

Maybe I misunderstood your concept of a halo. An extended bright object directly behind a black hold does indeed appear as a halo around the black hole. It's called an Einstein ring. An offaxis object appears as an arc, which may be duplicated on the opposite side. This can be interpreted in terms of time dilation, but you can't have it both ways. Light rays are bent towards the black hole if time slows down towards the centre, in which case the background image is stretched outwards. They are deflected away from the black hold if time speeds up towards the centre, in which case the background image is squashed inwards.

I'm sorry, but as far as I have read, the reason why light is pulled inwards towards a gravitational mass is due to gravity.
The bigger the mass, the greater the bend.
...and this bend will be inwards towards the mass.
By stating gravity as being for the greater part due to 'contra directional gravitational time dilation', all I'm doing is giving a physical cause for the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration.

P.S. By stating time as running faster closer to mass than it does for open space, this will not cause light to bend outwards. I just can't see how you are arriving at this conclusion...

Maybe I misunderstood your concept of a halo. An extended bright object directly behind a black hold does indeed appear as a halo around the black hole. It's called an Einstein ring. An offaxis object appears as an arc, which may be duplicated on the opposite side. This can be interpreted in terms of time dilation, but you can't have it both ways. Light rays are bent towards the black hole if time slows down towards the centre, in which case the background image is stretched outwards. They are deflected away from the black hold if time speeds up towards the centre, in which case the background image is squashed inwards.
Light bends away from a BH. There is no energy in a BH from the surface to the center. There is no gravitational dilation within a BH. There is no motion in a BH. Relativity does not work within a BH. Time measurements are severely slowed near a BH as dilation is at its greatest. Light can not reach a BH because light is energy while a BH retains no time energy. It just becomes a mass sucker with no internal motion. Images bend completely around a BH causing the Einstein ring which is the threshold between the BH and fundamental energy.

GoC  That is blatantly wrong! Black holes are gravitational masses. Please stop talking shite on my threads!
When astronomers refer to lensing, they are talking about an effect called gravitational lensing. Normal lenses such as the ones in a magnifying glass or a pair of spectacles work by bending light rays that pass through them in a process known as refraction, in order to focus the light somewhere (such as in your eye).
Light will not be focused towards one's eye if it is being bent outwards, end of story.
All the info you need is on the net. What's the matter with you?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

GoC  That is blatantly wrong! Black holes are gravitational masses. Please stop talking shite on my threads
Light will not be focused towards one's eye if it is being bent outwards, end of story.
The sun sets behind the horizon And we still view the sun above the horizon. Light is bent towards your position of view in this case. I am just correcting you to follow observations in reality. Please look it up for yourself. Einstein proved light is bent around massive objects in space to view the same star in two different apparent positions in space. There is enough wrong with the internet not to add more.

And... all of your post above is due to light being bent 'inwards' 'towards' the gravitational mass.
Light bends away from a BH.
No it doesn't!
A black hole that is gravitationally lensing a light source located at a distance directly behind, will be bending the light inwards to create the effect of an Einstein ring, as is quite clearly remarked upon in the link I provided.
Are you telling me Wikapedia is missinformed?

Maybe I misunderstood your concept of a halo. An extended bright object directly behind a black hold does indeed appear as a halo around the black hole. It's called an Einstein ring. An offaxis object appears as an arc, which may be duplicated on the opposite side. This can be interpreted in terms of time dilation, but you can't have it both ways. Light rays are bent towards the black hole if time slows down towards the centre, in which case the background image is stretched outwards. They are deflected away from the black hold if time speeds up towards the centre, in which case the background image is squashed inwards.
Light bends away from a BH. There is no energy in a BH from the surface to the center. There is no gravitational dilation within a BH. There is no motion in a BH. Relativity does not work within a BH. Time measurements are severely slowed near a BH as dilation is at its greatest. Light can not reach a BH because light is energy while a BH retains no time energy. It just becomes a mass sucker with no internal motion. Images bend completely around a BH causing the Einstein ring which is the threshold between the BH and fundamental energy.
You are speculating when you talk about what goes on inside a black hole because the SC metric is silent in that domain. It predicts nonsense, as you pointed out when you said relativity doesn't work in that domain. Images are not bent "completely" around a black hole. The light ray that goes directly towards the centre is not diverted at all for example. It simply stalls at the horizon at the end of time. Otherwise you are correct. Conventional wisdom says time slows down on approach and that is indeed consistent with observation. Timey contends that the reverse may be true and she is vehemently unconvinced that that is contrary to observation. I thought my analogy to a conventional lens might clear things up, but I probably just confused things even more because a gravitational lens does not focus light like a regular lens does. In deference to Einstein's adage that failure to explain physical concepts like this in everyday language demonstrates a lack of understanding, the onus is on us (the physicists) to convince Timey that she's wrong. To that end, I still think the root of the problem is a lack of understanding about optics, not GR. The question is, what would the background image look like if time speeds up on approach?

Of course a gravitational lens does not work like a magnifying glass lens, as the big mass is not a concave piece of glass!
However, there is a reason why it is called a lens, in that gravitational lensing does bend light via refraction, that otherwise would not arrive in ones eye, so that it does arrive in ones eye.
Now listen up!
****I am quite 'clear' that conventional physics states that a black hole is running on slow or stopped time.****
This model that I am putting forward, is an experimental model that is looking at the remit of time running slower in open space than it does for mass.
This being on the basis that GR gravitational time dilation is observed as time running faster at h from M, and that a clock in space cannot measure what time is doing in open space, because once you put a clock
In open space to measure time in open space, the space with the clock in it is no longer open.
Therefore open space cannot be measured by a clock.
I am neither right nor wrong in experimenting with the notion of time running slower for open space than it does for mass. What I am is ***experimental***
May I make a reminder that this is the board for "New Theories". There is no need to convince me that I am wrong. I am fully aware that my ideas are NOT current physics.
Now that we have cleared this up, please let us get back to that which we were talking about...
By stating time as running slower for open space than it does for mass, it will be observed that seconds get shorter and shorter the closer to mass one gets, and this will cause an acceleration.
Therefore  my model attributes this notion to the 'observed' acceleration of gravitational attraction.
As current physics attributes gravitational lensing as light being pulled inwards towards a mass by gravity, stating that time is running faster for mass than it does in open space will NOT change the observation of gravitational lensing.
However one makes description of the physical cause for the observation of the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, it will not change the observation of the effect of gravitational acceleration.
Therefore there is a physical possibility that time running slower in space and faster for mass could exist.
If it does, then this concept leads us to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything that unites gravity with the standard model for a continuum in quantum.
Which is why I am looking for a competent mathematician to calculate this experimental model  ok?

Hmmm. I think you made my point, Riddle me this then. What happens to that onaxis light ray in your model? It certainly doesn't stall at the horizon. It would impact the black hole at an astronomical speed.

No it won't. This being because both GR and SR time dilations must also be brought to bear.
And my model is inclusive of a 3 way time matrix annexed to the space time matrix which I have explained in the thread "My model of a cyclic universe continued'.
Edit: An analogy of this time matrix using some simplified analogous mathematics can be found on that thread in post 33, and 34

Okay, I was ignoring spatial dilation because I understood that (or rather the lack of that) to be part of your model. If you take that into account, the light ray would impact the black hole at light speed in a finite amount of time.

Nope  there is no 'spatial' dilation in my model, only 'temporal'.
See edit above, and post 33 and 34 of my model of a cyclic universe continued.

That's my point. Without spatial dilation, the light ray exceeds light speed.

Not if the speed of light is travelling at 299 792 458 meters per second of that reference frame.
The equivalence principle is upheld.

Speed is distance over time. If one varies and the other does not then speed must change.

If you travel one metre at a constant speed that is held relative to a longer or shorter 'variable' second. Then the distance remains the same, and it just takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to travel that metre.

Exactly. The light ray therefore impacts the black hole at light speed in a finite amount of time. There's nothing to stop it from penetrating the horizon and it exceeds light speed on the other side. In the other direction, it stalls at a certain distance from the horizon. That makes absolutely no sense because time does not stall in free space.

That's correct. Now you can measure inside the black holes reference frame where the speed of light 'would be' 299 792 458 metres per second of BH reference frame, which would be dependent on BH mass size, and time in open space will only stall at 0 gravity

BTW, the mathematical formulation you seek is:
ds^2 = A*(cdt)^2  dr^2  r^2*d(angle)^2
where A is positive and a function of r.
I might add that there is no way to reconcile this equality with SR or GR.

Hey thanks! Although it will take me quite some hours to crawl at my mathematical pace to understand that.
Also with regards to last post of mine:
I say 'would be', because actually light will not be able to shine in a black hole of this description. It will be plasma super hot, opaque, and light cannot shine.

BTW, the mathematical formulation you seek is:
ds^2 = A*(cdt)^2  dr^2  r^2*d(angle)^2
where A is positive and a function of r.
I might add that there is no way to reconcile this equality with SR or GR.
Yes there is, (or there should be) because both are super imposed into the CDG time dilation for 'mass only'!
Edit: minus the SR spatial considerations, which are then reinterpreted and shuffled over to describe why we don't register massive heat signature for BH's.

Right you are. I stand corrected. That formula is in fact the one I'm advocating on my "New Theories" thread (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0)). The difference between your model and mine is whether A increases or decreases on approach.
The reason why people balk at this idea is that it seems to neglect spatial dilation. However, that is only true for a suspended reference frame (i.e. one that is not in free fall.) It is perfectly consistent with SR if A=1 in free space and it is identical to the SC metric in the free fall case if A is the SC scaling factor. Any other case requires additional energy, which is not available in the metric.
Having said that, I can't imagine any argument that would justify A being proportional to r. The only way A can increase on approach is if gravity is repulsive, as in a white hole. That would mean A=(1+rs/r) rather than A=(1rs/r). I think your model involves something like A=(1+r/rs) and that blows up in free space (where rs=0.)

One of the reasons why I think that you will be able to calculate my model Mike, is because of your variable speeds of light.
It's a not such a big leap in thinking to get from what you are doing, to what I am trying to do.
The only way A can increase on approach is if gravity is repulsive, as in a white hole.
You are missing the fact that in my model, A 'is' gravity, for the greater part that is. My model splits G or g into an attraction that will have a very much reduced value, and the rest is the CDG time dilation related 'acceleration' that accelerates the attraction.
We don't need to add this CDG time dilation 'as well' as gravity, as per how current remit calculates gravity.
GR can then be added for m in relation to M, and SR for relative motion sits on top of this, with the CDG time dilation being what defines the speed of light of the reference frame m is moving through, and SR time dilation is affected because the percentage of the speed of light that the speed that m is travelling at becomes variable.
Have a read of the last four posts on 'my model of a cyclic universe continued again'. You will see more what I am thinking then...

Variable light speed was not my idea. Einstein wrote about it at length (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22 (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22)). It just never caught on as a useful way of thinking about GR. Not that it's invalid, he just didn't find it helpful when explaining GR to nonbelievers. I expect it was hard enough to convince them that the speed of light is invariant in an SR context and chose to let that sleeping dog lie.
It's not really fair to say that the SC scaling factor is gravity, although it certainly involves the concept. Gravity is a force whereas the scaling factor represents energy. (A force is the rate of change of energy.) The scaling factor is in fact an expression of conservation of energy for the free fall case. GR theorists cringe at that definition. They contend that it is something completely different and any resemblance to classical concepts like conservation of energy is purely coincidental. I contend that they are confused because they have forgotten to account for SR effects when formulating the metric. But I digress.
Splitting gravity into two parts is a new one on me. Can you give me the executive overview or do I have to tackle four more discussion threads?

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.
Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.
The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

Variable light speed was not my idea. Einstein wrote about it at length (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22 (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22)). It just never caught on as a useful way of thinking about GR. Not that it's invalid, he just didn't find it helpful when explaining GR to nonbelievers. I expect it was hard enough to convince them that the speed of light is invariant in an SR context and chose to let that sleeping dog lie.
It's not really fair to say that the SC scaling factor is gravity, although it certainly involves the concept. Gravity is a force whereas the scaling factor represents energy. (A force is the rate of change of energy.) The scaling factor is in fact an expression of conservation of energy for the free fall case. GR theorists cringe at that definition. They contend that it is something completely different and any resemblance to classical concepts like conservation of energy is purely coincidental. I contend that they are confused because they have forgotten to account for SR effects when formulating the metric. But I digress.
Splitting gravity into two parts is a new one on me. Can you give me the executive overview or do I have to tackle four more discussion threads?
Of course I know what Einstein said. I've read those papers. What I meant was that it is because you can recognise Einstein's reference, and with respect that in your own interpretation of what you are doing that you appear to be open to alternative, (alternative that makes sense to me under current physics remits btw), that it will be easier for you to make the mental leap to understand and calculate these differences that I add...
And to say so it's really quite heartening to have a conversation that is progressive.
At present in physics we have this force called gravity. We know everything about it mathematically down to the very last minute detail, apart from 'why' it does what it does...
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that gravity accelerates objects towards the greater mass.
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that m, no matter its value, will free fall to towards M at the same rate.
Also  I think it worth mentioning that physics does not have a fully coherent theory of time. This is well documented in all of the books I've read.
Ok look  Just for the time being banish all thought's of GR time dilation and SR time dilation from your mind completely, and just think of what I'm saying in terms of attributing a physical cause for the fact that objects are accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m no matter its value, free falls at the same rate towards M.
Now place into this picture  of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m, no matter it's value, free falls towards M at the same rate  a time dilation that is inherent to the gfield surrounding M, where the seconds get progressively longer at h from M...
... Thinking upon this you will find that a physical mechanism as such would account for both the observation of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and the observation that m, no matter it's value, will free fall towards M at the same rate...
And after scratching your head, and rubbing your chin while you hmmm and ahh for a while, you would realise that this is 'well cool' because this means that all the maths for this concept already exist!
But then there are a few hurdles, such as that GR time dilation states clocks as ticking faster at h from M...
But... It occurs to one, or perhaps it was dawns upon, that it is quite possible for both to be happening simultaneously, because in relation to what is occurring on M, each will be the opposite of each other equally, and just because m's time is as such doesn't negate m from being accelerated towards the greater mass.
SR time dilation* can then be added to the picture to move GR time dilated m through this time dilated related gfield.
* Not length contraction.
The remit of quite how this could work is laid out (only a few paragraphs) in posts 33 and 34 of this thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0
Unfortunately there is no 'find post' function on this site, so if you want me to copy and paste those posts to this thread I will, but if you read the last 4 most recent posts, if you have already understood what I have said above, then these last 4 posts should suffice.

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.
Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.
The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...
You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.
Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.
The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...
You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?
Equivalence principle!!????

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR (or at least my interpretation of it) extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW  you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.
Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.
The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...
You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?
Equivalence principle!!????
The equivalence principle, which states that observers in free fall do not feel their own weight, is not in contention here.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW  you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".
Agreed to a point, but I hold to the side that time is rigid and space is squishy...

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.
Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.
The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...
You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?
Equivalence principle!!????
The equivalence principle, which states that observers in free fall do not feel their own weight, is not in contention here.
Topic: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW  you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".
Agreed to a point, but I hold to the side that time is rigid and space is squishy...
My comment was in regard to timey's theory. I don't know what yours is and I strongly suggest that you take it up in a new thread. Otherwise this one will become incomprehensible.

Reply #65 appears to be a typo. Authors are allowed to withdraw their comments so I would ask Spring Theory to do so and I will then delete this one.

Variable light speed was not my idea. Einstein wrote about it at length (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22 (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22)). It just never caught on as a useful way of thinking about GR. Not that it's invalid, he just didn't find it helpful when explaining GR to nonbelievers. I expect it was hard enough to convince them that the speed of light is invariant in an SR context and chose to let that sleeping dog lie.
It's not really fair to say that the SC scaling factor is gravity, although it certainly involves the concept. Gravity is a force whereas the scaling factor represents energy. (A force is the rate of change of energy.) The scaling factor is in fact an expression of conservation of energy for the free fall case. GR theorists cringe at that definition. They contend that it is something completely different and any resemblance to classical concepts like conservation of energy is purely coincidental. I contend that they are confused because they have forgotten to account for SR effects when formulating the metric. But I digress.
Splitting gravity into two parts is a new one on me. Can you give me the executive overview or do I have to tackle four more discussion threads?
Of course I know what Einstein said. I've read those papers. What I meant was that it is because you can recognise Einstein's reference, and with respect that in your own interpretation of what you are doing that you appear to be open to alternative, (alternative that makes sense to me under current physics remits btw), that it will be easier for you to make the mental leap to understand and calculate these differences that I add...
And to say so it's really quite heartening to have a conversation that is progressive.
At present in physics we have this force called gravity. We know everything about it mathematically down to the very last minute detail, apart from 'why' it does what it does...
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that gravity accelerates objects towards the greater mass.
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that m, no matter its value, will free fall to towards M at the same rate.
Also  I think it worth mentioning that physics does not have a fully coherent theory of time. This is well documented in all of the books I've read.
Ok look  Just for the time being banish all thought's of GR time dilation and SR time dilation from your mind completely, and just think of what I'm saying in terms of attributing a physical cause for the fact that objects are accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m no matter its value, free falls at the same rate towards M.
Now place into this picture  of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m, no matter it's value, free falls towards M at the same rate  a time dilation that is inherent to the gfield surrounding M, where the seconds get progressively longer at h from M...
... Thinking upon this you will find that a physical mechanism as such would account for both the observation of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and the observation that m, no matter it's value, will free fall towards M at the same rate...
And after scratching your head, and rubbing your chin while you hmmm and ahh for a while, you would realise that this is 'well cool' because this means that all the maths for this concept already exist!
But then there are a few hurdles, such as that GR time dilation states clocks as ticking faster at h from M...
But... It occurs to one, or perhaps it was dawns upon, that it is quite possible for both to be happening simultaneously, because in relation to what is occurring on M, each will be the opposite of each other equally, and just because m's time is as such doesn't negate m from being accelerated towards the greater mass.
SR time dilation* can then be added to the picture to move GR time dilated m through this time dilated related gfield.
* Not length contraction.
The remit of quite how this could work is laid out (only a few paragraphs) in posts 33 and 34 of this thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0
Unfortunately there is no 'find post' function on this site, so if you want me to copy and paste those posts to this thread I will, but if you read the last 4 most recent posts, if you have already understood what I have said above, then these last 4 posts should suffice.
I understand your reference to the cars in different lanes. That is the prelude to understanding Relativity GR. What you need to understand is your measuring stick (your meter stick) becomes physically larger and you measure distances with a larger (longer) measuring stick. As an example the distance to the sun would be say 92.9 million miles distance with a larger Earth vs. 93 million miles on the present size of our Earth. You measure a shorter distance in a slower clocks frame. This will feel counter intuitive until you work it out correctly. You need to get over this hump to recognize relativity to be correct.
SR is a visual measuring stick change and GR is a physical measuring stick change that has equivalence between SR and GR. SR being the hypotenuse for light travel and GR being dilation of space. Both have there equivalencies in being relative to c energy state.
You can understand relativity as motion, time or energy. I have found the easiest for me is through energy. Geometry of motion for SR and energy state of dilation for GR. The clock measures dilation in GR and speed in SR. The equivalency is through the clock tick rate.
It's complicated until you understand it properly. Once that happens you wonder what was so difficult to understand. I can see both you and Mike are on the path. Relativity is the correct fork in the road. Gravity is explained by dilation of energy for the Pe state. There is an increase in dilation to the center of mass which can be followed orthogonally by the reduction of Pe to the center of mass. Mass has no fundamental energy. Electrons are moved by c. BH's have no time energy motion at all. No c period. Energy actually bends around a BH and the photon is a wave on energy. No direct access to a BH like you can with normal mass. Anyone suggesting light can reach a BH does not understand Relativity properly.
Normal mass (the atom) has a ratio of a marble to a football field where the electron travels 100 yards to a marble. A black Hole is a football field full of marbles. The fundamental energy of time and motion are excluded from a BH. The surface to the center is the same Pe=0. The fundamental energy c curves around the BH because of this. BH's are out of the relativity nature of normal mass and space.
So the equivalence principle is alive and well in normal mass.

Reply #65 appears to be a typo. Authors are allowed to withdraw their comments so I would ask Spring Theory to do so and I will then delete this one.
Not a typo.

Mike, to retain continuity I have posted my post that you answered, your answer, and my answer to your answer below...
At present in physics we have this force called gravity. We know everything about it mathematically down to the very last minute detail, apart from 'why' it does what it does...
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that gravity accelerates objects towards the greater mass.
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that m, no matter its value, will free fall to towards M at the same rate.
Also  I think it worth mentioning that physics does not have a fully coherent theory of time. This is well documented in all of the books I've read.
Ok look  Just for the time being banish all thought's of GR time dilation and SR time dilation from your mind completely, and just think of what I'm saying in terms of attributing a physical cause for the fact that objects are accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m no matter its value, free falls at the same rate towards M.
Now place into this picture  of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m, no matter it's value, free falls towards M at the same rate  a time dilation that is inherent to the gfield surrounding M, where the seconds get progressively longer at h from M...
... Thinking upon this you will find that a physical mechanism as such would account for both the observation of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and the observation that m, no matter it's value, will free fall towards M at the same rate...
And after scratching your head, and rubbing your chin while you hmmm and ahh for a while, you would realise that this is 'well cool' because this means that all the maths for this concept already exist!
But then there are a few hurdles, such as that GR time dilation states clocks as ticking faster at h from M...
But... It occurs to one, or perhaps it was dawns upon, that it is quite possible for both to be happening simultaneously, because in relation to what is occurring on M, each will be the opposite of each other equally, and just because m's time is as such doesn't negate m from being accelerated towards the greater mass.
SR can then be added to the picture to move GR time dilated m through this time dilated related gfield.
The remit of quite how this could work is laid out (only a few paragraphs) in posts 33 and 34 of this thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0)
Unfortunately there is no 'find post' function on this site, so if you want me to copy and paste those posts to this thread I will, but if you read the last 4 most recent posts, if you have already understood what I have said above, then these last 4 posts should suffice.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR (or at least my interpretation of it) extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW  you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".
Ok  going at it one step at a time...
No  I am suggesting the exact opposite. I am suggesting that gravity is 'almost' entirely time dilation related*.
Not GR time dilation related.
Not SR time dilation related.
But due to a time dilation that is inherent to 'open spaces' in relation to M, that 'cannot' be measured by a clock...
(*This time dilation can be thought of as kinetic energy related)
This being because when you place a clock in an open space, that space is no longer open, and what is being measured is not what time is doing in the open space gfield surrounding M, but is measuring what time does for m in relation to M. The measuring of a clock ticking faster at h from M being GR time dilation.*
(*This can be thought of as being gravity potential related)
The above is indeed the entire premises for my model.
If you have any questions about the above, ask now...
If you understand the above, and recognise that this 'new' time dilation can give physical cause for the observed actions of gravity, we can move on to looking at the mathematical structure of SR, the fact that these maths can describe physical observation, and examine 'actual' physical cause for both SR time dilation, and its associated length contraction maths.

I think it's a mistake to attribute time dilation to GR so I'm with you there. My argument is that SR has that phenomenon covered for the free fall case and all other cases involve additional energy, which is not available in the GR metric. But it's certainly a mistake to disregard SR and attribute time dilation to something new. SR is a definitive account of KE. GR is all about PE.

My model doesn't disregard SR time dilation in the slightest, and gives physical description of why SR length contraction mathematics work in the current maths to describe observation.

Oh yes. I see. I read your list of nots backwards. You're conceding SR dilation and GR dilation (if there is such a thing), but you think there may be something more to gravity. I am reminded of Laplace's response to Napoleon's question about the absence of God in his physics. He is purported to have said, "I had no need of that hypothesis." Religious connotations aside, I think the same thing applies here. Perhaps I should address the question that sparked this discussion (i.e. the title of this thread.)
The answer to that question is no. There is no discrepancy. The equivalence principle is perfectly consistent with GR. It was in fact the founding principle, which inspired Einstein to seek answers. He called it the happiest thought of his life. It's disappointing that he didn't go to greater lengths to tie it into SR, but it's understandable because GR was a stunning breakthrough in and of itself. We stand in awe and despite what some egos claim, we still struggle to comprehend. I get that you seek comprehension, but I don't see the need to invent new causes for gravity. What's the motivation? The scientific method dictates that we have faith in SR and GR until they are proven wrong by observation. As the optimist said when she fell past the 20th storey, "So far, so good."

Well she said  that would be all very well, but last time I checked the situation, GR and SR, in order to describe, so brilliantly and adequately, these observations of our universe, (under the remit of current physics model), cannot make this description without the 'added' and as of yet 'unobserved' dimensions of Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.
... And this model that I am trying to describe, by altering the dimensions of the equivalence principle ever so slightly, just uses what we 'do' observe.
And what physical cause is given to gravity as per current model?
What exactly is it that you are calculating when you calculate using G or g?
And isn't it a direct consequence of the equivalence principle that you are unsure if SR or GR time dilation is real or not?
On the one hand it is said that these time dilations only appear to happen from the other reference frame, and on the other hand a person ages in keeping with their time dilated clock...
How does one go about physically reconciling this anomaly?

I see. You're trying to defeat the Dark Side, which is GR's answer to galaxy rotation curves. Good point. That would certainly qualify as a faithshaking observation. You could have made that more clear in the topic title though. If you ask me, dark matter is a contrived solution. It points to a flaw in the physics as opposed to a new form of matter. I suspect it's an artifact of the weak field approximation, which is used to calibrate the SC metric. I think I know how to fix the metric, but there's a still lot of math to be done in order to debunk DM conclusively. It may well be that my theory is the same as yours, but it's too early to tell.
As to your probing questions:
Q1: what physical cause is given to gravity as per current model?
A1: Variable speed of light, which could be due to time dilation or spatial dilation, but not both.
Q2: what exactly is it that you are calculating when you calculate using G or g?
A2: Those constants represent coupling between mass and space. They are essentially unit conversion factors. You can actually measure distance in terms of mass or express mass in terms of distance. That's what the SC scaling distance is all about. Mass is essentially a hole in space. The same is true of the speed of light. It is essentially a unit conversion factor between space and time.
Q3: isn't it a direct consequence of the equivalence principle that you are unsure if SR or GR time dilation is real or not?
A3: I wouldn't say that we're unsure about SR or GR dilation. Given the equivalence principle, they are in perfect agreement with almost all observations of the solar system. (I say almost because precession of a planet's axis of rotation remains unexplained. That may be a lack of mathematical skill as opposed to a defect in the model though.) The model doesn't seem to hold for galaxies, but the metric is demonstrably dubious for strong fields. It therefore seems likely that the problem is in the metric as opposed to the principle itself. For now we have to stick with the DM explanation in order to compile evidence. It is an obvious cop out, but it's a workable thesis until something better comes along. It's annoying when its proponents talk like it's a done deal though. Ego hinders progress.
Q4: how does one go about physically reconciling this anomaly [with regards to reference frames]?
A4: I think SR and GR have us covered there. One's perception of the universe depends on one's velocity and the local field strength. Both of those factors are observerdependent. The relationship between reference frames is difficult to comprehend, but the logic is infallible.

My model is a fully described cyclic universe that makes all of its development from particle form to what we see today in a 'contraction' period that was initiated as soon as the inflation period of my model's Big Bang* stopped inflating...
...Therefore I am challenging Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation...
... stating the acceleration of gravity as contra directional gravitational time dilation related...
And in a contracting universe where the acceleration of gravity is time dilation related the necessity for Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is negated.
*The Big Bang of my cyclic model is due to the eventual contraction of all mass in the universe into one super super massive black hole.which will explode via its super luminal jets, where all the mass and energy of this universe are inflated into a sea of particles that start clumping together in a slow and prelonged contraction that accelerates in that contraction as matter further clumps. ie: cyclic
(I'm pretty certain that I've posted this info in this thread)
1/ variable speed of light is not a physical cause for gravity. It can be a physical consequence of gravity, but cannot be describing a physical cause for gravity.
So again  what physical cause are you giving gravity?
2/ Those constants are mathematical numbers based on measurement and observation.
You are calculating a phenomenon of which you know what it does, but not what it is, nor what causes it.
3/ I would contend and state that the equivalence principle is not making adequate description, because according to the equivalence principle the clock in the other reference frame is ticking with the same energy and frequency as the clock in your own reference frame, and this is in direct contention to the notion that one ages in keeping with their time dilated clock.
4/ I disagree... As per in 3/, the logic stinks! My rendition of the equivalence principle ensures that all remains equivalent, and unifies gravity with the standard model for a continuum in quantum.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0)
Did you see this thread (only 4 short posts so far)

Ah, yes. Hubble expansion. That's a bit of a kerfuffle. The root of that phenomenon is the white hole known as the Big Bang. It seems to suggest dark energy, but I suspect that is an artifact of the metric defect, just like DM.
You are speculating when you talk about masses combining to form bigger black holes. The SC metric does not permit that without invoking QM and that's an entirely new kettle of fish. Despite Hawking's best efforts, the relationship between GR and QM continues to elude us. I am hopeful that correcting the defect in the metric will shed some light on that subject, but I don't have anything to hang my hat on yet. Note that the inflationary period of Big Bang theory is entirely contrived, just like DM and DE. It is an observation, not a causal explanation.
1) Variable light speed is the cause of gravity. Dilation is the cause of variable light speed. Mass is the cause (or a cause) of dilation. The theory has nothing to say about the cause of mass. It just is.
2) Call them what you will. The fact remains that they are unit conversion factors. The laws of physics are unchanged if you set both of them equal to one. All that changes is your units of measure. The GR interpretation of mass is the size of a hole in space. The SR interpretation of space is distance traveled in a unit of time at light speed. Another way of thinking about that is the number of wave cycles between events.
3) Incorrect. Energy is observerdependent.
4) Many people have tried to poke holes in Einstein's logic. All (including me) have failed.

Einstein himself said his logic was incomplete, and illogical.
I will watch you and your metric with interest. And if you get a bit bored atall while reconciling length contraction to the percentage of the coordinate speed of light your mass or light is travelling at in relation to distance travelled  just for laughs try setting time set at stopped in a 0 gravity field, and then recalculate a prediction for the cosmological constant...
With regards to my own model, I've given it a great deal of incredibly deep thought for many years now, having read a lot of books that have told me all of the matters that need addressing in order to produce a theory of everything, of which my model addresses them all.
However  to understand my model, it would take the same type of paradigm shift in thinking that a person conditioned to think in terms of the geocentric model would have had to employ to start thinking in terms of the heliocentric model.
I'm not going to argue about relativity here, I find doing so incredibly boring. It's all anyone ever does, back and forth, back and forth.
Many theoretical physicists are looking at the possibility of current physics being wrong, trying new ideas, new metric, MOND, MOG, etc, and if I can't find a progressive discussion that isn't going to result in the words 'incorrect because relativity says so', I'd rather put my energy into learning the maths that need to be employed to describe what I am describing in my model.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0)
Did you see this thread (only 4 short posts so far)
I did not. Thanks for pointing that out. They seem to be struggling with the relativistic version of KE. Not sure what they're after.

Einstein himself said his logic was incomplete, and illogical.
I will watch you and your metric with interest. And if you get a bit bored atall while reconciling length contraction to the percentage of the coordinate speed of light your mass or light is travelling at in relation to distance travelled  just for laughs try setting time set at stopped in a 0 gravity field, and then recalculate a prediction for the cosmological constant...
With regards to my own model, I've given it a great deal of incredibly deep thought for many years now, having read a lot of books that have told me all of the matters that need addressing in order to produce a theory of everything, of which my model addresses them all.
However  to understand my model, it would take the same type of paradigm shift in thinking that a person conditioned to think in terms of the geocentric model would have had to employ to start thinking in terms of the heliocentric model.
I'm not going to argue about relativity here, I find doing so incredibly boring. It's all anyone ever does, back and forth, back and forth.
Many theoretical physicists are looking at the possibility of current physics being wrong, trying new ideas, new metric, MOND, MOG, etc, and if I can't find a progressive discussion that isn't going to result in the words 'incorrect because relativity says so', I'd rather put my energy into learning the maths that need to be employed to describe what I am describing in my model.
I've never read anything that suggests Einstein was in doubt. He was certainly aware of purported paradoxes like the tale of two twins and Bell's spaceship, but those have since been solved as far as I know.
I don't know what MOG is, but I've read about MOND. It's is an interesting twist on gravity that involves variable G. I haven't looked at it since I noticed that the SC metric permits a variable light speed interpretation. It may be the same theory as mine, but it's hard to tell because they confuse the bejeebers out of G.
It is not relativity that makes you incorrect about energy, or at least it's not SR or GR. Energy is observer dependent in Galilean relativity, too. Viascience gives a good example involving a pingpong ball and a bat. From the ball's perspective, the bat is moving. From the bat's perspective, the ball is moving. The energy associated with each depends on your point of view.

Yes  but both bat and ball are moving with respect to space  and who cares about the bat or the ball's point of view?
If there are no spatially variable spaces, then one can know where both the bat and the ball are with respect to space, and not bother with what the bat or the ball is perceiving.
I really recommend you reading Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics'. It takes you to all the places in current physics that do not correlate with each other, and makes great description in brief of all kinds of recognised, Wikapedia documented, alternatives that people have been working on.

The weird thing about the bat and ball scenario is that momentum is not conserved unless they are of equal mass. Einstein solved that problem by making mass depend on velocity. There's a similar thought experiment involving a mass that emits light. Conserving momentum in that scenario is tricky.

But in the case of free fall velocity is not mass dependent, so how can mass be velocity dependent?

I just noticed another common misconception in your last response. It's pointless to talk about things moving with respect to space unless you specify whose space you're talking about. There is no absolute reference frame. If you find a reference frame in which you are standing still, I can find another in which you are moving. It's all relative.

But in the case of free fall velocity is not mass dependent, so how can mass be velocity dependent?
Velocity is not mass dependent, but mass is velocity dependent. It increases with velocity. The classical equation of motion (mv=mat) neglects this effect. The relativistically correct version is:
mv*gamma=mat

Post 85:
So what? It's quite clear that nothing in the universe is at rest.
Post 86:
"Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:
"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass  belonging to the magnitude of a 4vector  to a very different concept, the time component of a 4vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."
So if we are talking about the time component of a 4 vector that is a geometric property of space time itself?

Lots of things are at rest. It depends on your on your own state of motion.
I don't know where you got that quote, but it's a nonsequitur. GR theorists certainly prefer 4momentum over relativistic mass, but it's just a bookkeeping trick. They are one and the same phenomenon. As I said before, mass is a measure of distance and distance is an observerdependent quantity.

Mass is a measure of distance?
Under what premise can you say that?
Time is a measure of distance, and if the speed of light is to be held variable to variable distances, then the speed of light can also be held variable to variable seconds where distance then remains constant, and frequency is then the observer dependent phenomenon.
Edit: What exactly is at rest?

rs = 2GM/c^{2}
If you set 2G/c^{2}=1 then M=rs.
i.e. 1 kg = c^{2}/2G meters.
That's the old metric of course. For the new one:
1 kg = c^{2}/G meters.

Ok
rs = 2GM/c2
If you set 2G/c2=1 then M=rs
r*s
r is radius
s is the the Swartzchild radius?
Why does one set 2G/c^2 = 1 ?

No. rs is r_{s}. I'm just a lazy typer. You can set G and c to whatever you want. All that changes is the units of measure for mass and distance. In fact, setting c=1 is a common practice because E=m instead of E=mc^{2}. It saves you a lot of typing, but it's easy to lose track of the relationship between G and c for example.

But what is rs?
And what is 1?
This is where I got the quote btw:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

Sorry. r_{s} is the Schwarzschild scaling distance. It's the radius of a black hole.

Good, good. I'm learning!
And what is the relevance of 1?

An arbitrary choice for illustrative purposes. Like I said, you can set G and c to any values you like. The only thing that changes is the units of measure for mass and distance.

But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.
That's a common mistake with SR. Your interpretation of GR is correct. An observer at lower elevation sees the clock running faster whereas an observer at higher elevation sees the clock running slower. If you climb up or down, you will find that the clock has gained or lost time respectively. In SR, each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower. If you accelerate into the other reference frame, you will find that the clock has lost time. If the clock decelerates into your reference frame, you will find that you have lost time. It seems nonsensical, but that's the nature of the beast and you have to get your head around the concept before you delve into GR. The Twins Paradox is very instructive in that regard and Viascience (on YouTube) does a good job on it.
With GR, reference is energy dependent based on gravitational potential; up and down the spacetime well. With SR there are two affects going on. One affect is a reference mirage, while the other affect is also energy dependent. In the twin paradox, only one twin will age slower, even though, when in motion, both references see each other moving via the principle of equivalency. One reference sees reality, while the other reference sees a mirage. In SR, Einstein added a relativistic mass term, which works as an energy balance, analogous to mass and gravity. It provides the energy balance which separates the mirage from the real affect. However, it not easy to measure relativistic mass.
A mirage is not a hallucination. A mirage, like a lake in the desert can be photographed, because it is based on the bending of light. There is physical basis for a mirage, It is not just the imagination. However, even though it may look and photograph, like water, it is still an illusion. This is why we need to be careful about bold claims the universe, by mistaking mirages for the real thing. That would be the basis for a magic trick, since you can show hard data that appears to make the mirage, real. Mirages can photograph well.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crystalinks.com%2Fmirage506.jpg&hash=a939e3904a7e72280a58d8b898caa236)

Mass is a measure of distance?
Under what premise can you say that?
Time is a measure of distance, and if the speed of light is to be held variable to variable distances, then the speed of light can also be held variable to variable seconds where distance then remains constant, and frequency is then the observer dependent phenomenon.
Edit: What exactly is at rest?
Yes you could but then the reaction time as a rate would suffer between frames. Remember your measuring stick also changes distances. This is what equivalence is all about. Not just time as you understand it but distance for reaction rates measured by a frames clock. Your position puts reaction rates and all physics different between frames. What a mess. Curvature of space and lensing of galaxies show dilation. Gravity follows dilation and Pe to the center of mass. We can measure the dilation and Pe differences as reaction rates but the reaction rates always follow the frames tick rate. So the physics are the same in every frame.
You want to change the speed of light? The speed is the same as a constant where energy dilation increases the distance light has to travel at a constant. This is the easiest way to follow physics. Your way causes more confusion and is inaccurate because dilation is viewable in space. Light is constant!!

With GR, reference is energy dependent based on gravitational potential; up and down the spacetime well. With SR there are two affects going on. One affect is a reference mirage, while the other affect is also energy dependent. In the twin paradox, only one twin will age slower, even though, when in motion, both references see each other moving via the principle of equivalency. One reference sees reality, while the other reference sees a mirage. In SR, Einstein added a relativistic mass term, which works as an energy balance, analogous to mass and gravity. It provides the energy balance which separates the mirage from the real affect. However, it not easy to measure relativistic mass.
Ah yes. Einstein called that a stubbornly persistent illusion. In other words, what you see is literally what you get. The point he was trying to make is that it doesn't matter if the effect is real or not. What matters is the observables. Relativistic mass is a case in point. It is not an addon. It emerges from SR when you apply conservation of momentum and it is borne out by observation.

Again GoC, you are completely missing the fact that having a temporally dilated gfield would result in the measuring stick remaining unchanged!
Constant metres!
The speed of light does remain constant as it is held relative to the dilated second of the gfield.
The equivalence principle is upheld in that in each reference frame, the speed of light remains 299 792 458 metres held relative to the length of second of that reference frame.
Then for particles with rest mass, all m at h from M experiences an equal addition of gravity potential energy that is derived from its position at h from M, and is not calculated with respect to mass value, (this notion is synonymous to free fall back to front), and again, the equivalence principle is upheld...
All m at h from M remains the equivalent to each other in any reference frame, and this gives us a physical cause for a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock, and reciprocally a physical cause as to why m at h from M does not register that their clock is time dilated.
A clever person might note that the light and the mass will be subject to differing rates of time, and they would be correct. The lights time is negative to the m at h from M's time at that coordinate.
However, m at h from M would not be able to distinguish this, because if the m at h from M's rate of time is of equal difference to that of the gfield, with respect to ground level M, but positive rather than negative, the light will appear to be travelling 299 792 458 metres from the point of view of both rates of time.
My way gives us a fully described cyclic universe.
...And it is current physics that is the MESS!

Remember your measuring stick also changes distances. This is what equivalence is all about. Not just time as you understand it but distance for reaction rates measured by a frames clock. Your position puts reaction rates and all physics different between frames. What a mess. Curvature of space and lensing of galaxies show dilation. Gravity follows dilation and Pe to the center of mass. We can measure the dilation and Pe differences as reaction rates but the reaction rates always follow the frames tick rate. So the physics are the same in every frame.
You want to change the speed of light? The speed is the same as a constant where energy dilation increases the distance light has to travel at a constant. This is the easiest way to follow physics. Your way causes more confusion and is inaccurate because dilation is viewable in space. Light is constant!!
You must be careful with the language. Equating mass with distance doesn't change the physics because both are subject to the same dilation. It is nothing more than a change of units, no different than the concept of light years. Variable light speed on the other hand is an alternative way to interpret the Schwarzschild metric. Spatially dependent dilation is an equally valid approach. It's just a matter of preference. If you find one way easier to understand, then stick with it by all means. But keep in mind that they are in fact equivalent and be prepared to mentally translate when conversing with those in the other camp.

Mike  you are working on the basis of SR time dilation alone. I haven't included SR time dilation to the picture atall (for the moment).
I am using 'only' the attractive force of the gfield when I say the the gfield is temporally derived, rather than spatially.
As far as I am concerned the way that you are using time dilation is 2 dimensional and places the responsibility for changes in space at the foot of mass changes due to velocity and a 'stretchy' space.
My way treats space as a third dimension that is caused by the gfield that is determined by M. The stretchyness of space is caused by temporal changes within the gfield itself. It takes a longer or shorter amount of time to travel distance at 'any' velocity.
(I am the only person in this camp!)

Again GoC, you are completely missing the fact that having a temporally dilated gfield would result in the measuring stick remaining unchanged!
Constant metres!
The speed of light does remain constant as it is held relative to the dilated second of the gfield.
The equivalence principle is upheld in that in each reference frame, the speed of light remains 299 792 458 metres held relative to the length of second of that reference frame.
Then for particles with rest mass, all m at h from M experiences an equal addition of gravity potential energy that is derived from its position at h from M, and is not calculated with respect to mass value, (this notion is synonymous to free fall back to front), and again, the equivalence principle is upheld...
All m at h from M remains the equivalent to each other in any reference frame, and this gives us a physical cause for a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock, and reciprocally a physical cause as to why m at h from M does not register that their clock is time dilated.
A clever person might note that the light and the mass will be subject to differing rates of time, and they would be correct. The lights time is negative to the m at h from M's time at that coordinate.
However, m at h from M would not be able to distinguish this, because if the m at h from M's rate of time is of equal difference to that of the gfield, with respect to ground level M, but positive rather than negative, the light will appear to be travelling 299 792 458 metres from the point of view of both rates of time.
My way gives us a fully described cyclic universe.
...And it is current physics that is the MESS!
You have revealed a flaw in your theory. The passage of time cannot depend on who you are or how much mass you comprise. Well, it can I suppose, but it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is no evidence that big people perceive time any differently than smaller ones. Unless your mass is comparable to your planet of course. That's why GR is formulated in terms of a negligibly small test mass.

Actually there is! Everyone has an ideal weight for their height, and if one is overweight, one won't live as long as one would if one isn't.
Also  bodies are a direct result of the gravitational force. If we go somewhere where gravity is differing, bodies suffer a consequence.

Biology is not going to make this any easier. Let's stick with the test mass.

Biology is a direct result of energy, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a connection.

I am using 'only' the attractive force of the gfield when I say the the gfield is temporally derived, rather than spatially.
Yes, but surely you understand that gravity is a function of position, not time. It is only a function of time when you're in motion with respect to the gravitational field.

No  I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.

Biology is a direct result of energy, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a connection.
That's an oversimplification. My point is that biological concepts (such as the relationship between weight and lifespan) are emergent phenomena. The line between physics and biology is a long and winding road.

It's not if one turns the equivalence principle upside down like I am.

No  I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.
But that's my point. We are arguing about the validity of an interpretation. Both views are valid. Whatever gets you through the night. Just don't confuse an interpretation with a law of physics.

It's not if one turns the equivalence principle upside down like I am.
Okay. Case in point then. There are many reasons why obesity is correlated with a shorter lifespan. Excess fat in the body puts pressure on the organs, making them less efficient. The heart has to move more blood to keep the fat cells alive. Fat cells consume energy that would otherwise be available for other bodily functions. Fat cells reproduce so an obese person rolls the genetic dice more often. Thinking about this, I am reminded that I must go on a diet. The point is, these are emergent phenomena. It's more than just observerdependent energy.

But by turning the equivalence principle upside down, energy is NOT observer dependent!

No  I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.
But that's my point. We are arguing about the validity of an interpretation. Both views are valid. Whatever gets you through the night. Just don't confuse an interpretation with a law of physics.
The view that the gfield itself being inherent with a contra directional gravitational time dilation without considering m at h from M, but just considering the coordinate of h from M doesn't exist in current physics.
This is an entirely new interpretation of gravitational acceleration in the gfield, and would 'change' the interpretation of the laws of physics, to great advantage I'll add, because in doing so this solves all current physics conundrums!

Contra directional dilation (CDD) is certainly a new idea, but it has no basis in physics unless you can establish a need and a cause. Note that the SC metric divorces itself from m by making it negligibly small. That's one of the rules of the game. If you invoke m, you change the game and all bets are off. I understand that you are indeed trying to change the game, but your motive is baseless as far as I can tell. There is no observation or experiment that contradicts GR or SR principles. The equivalence principle is alive and well. Anomalies like galaxy rotation curves demand a refinement of the law, not necessarily a new one (like CDD, DM or DE.)

Currently Mike, you are calculating G and g without knowing what it is that you are calculating.
Adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation for the gfield surrounding M gives G and g physical cause.
By adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation, in addition to both GR gravitational time dilation, and SR motion related time dilation, this model can provide a fully described cyclic universe where the Big Bang, inflation, and contraction are given physical cause.
How does your relativistic correction go on to give physical cause for the Big Bang? It doesn't! And can't!
P.S. If you want to lose weight eat more protein inclusive of the fat, and lay off the carbs.
...and since you are in USA (?) avoid anything sweetened with corn syrup. Apart from it likely being genetically modified, which causes inflammation within the digestive system, leading to a whole host of associated health problems, including auto immune disorders, even when not genetically modified cannot be digested into energy form and causes the spare tyre syndrome.

I don't calculate them. They are observed quantities. They are certainly not defined by any law of physics, not even yours. The Big Bang has no cause in any stretch of the imagination. It is purported to be a quantum fluke, which is just a fancy version of the anthropic principle. It directs us to shut up and calculate. Note that there are plenty of plausible alternatives to the Big Bang. They just can't get any traction because they are all consistent with observation. There's a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened", which is worthwhile if you're interested in that sort of thing.
My proposed correction to the SC metric is equivalent to the cosmic constant, although it would be more aptly described as a cosmic variable.

Gravitational acceleration is an observed quantity that at present has no physical causation in current physics. This is s well documented fact.
My model's rendition of the Big Bang does have physical cause, although if one traced my model's universe's cycles back in time to the first Big Bang, which my model places in the microscopic region, in that each cycle of my model's universe is bigger than the last, admittedly my model is also at a loss to describe how something was created out of nothing!

Gravitational acceleration is an observed quantity that at present has no physical causation in current physics. This is s well documented fact.
My model's rendition of the Big Bang does have physical cause, although if one traced back my model's universe's cycles back in time to the first Big Bang, which my model places in the microscopic region, in that each cycle of my model's universe is bigger than the last, admittedly my model is also at a loss to describe how something was created out of nothing!
Depends what you consider to be a causal explanation. Mass is the cause of gravity. Nobody knows what causes mass. Have you ever heard the expression that "it's turtles all the way down"? If not, Google it.

Yes indeed, mass is the cause of gravity, but gravitational acceleration is yet to be given a physical cause.
My model states that mass is created by virtual particles, under the remit of this contra directional gravitational time dilation which renders quantum as a continuum, and all that 'complex' space being time dilation, a virtual particle will have 'the time' in which to become real.

Gravitational acceleration is caused by variable light speed. Variable light speed is caused by dilation. Dilation is caused by mass. Back to square one.
You are invoking several physical concepts out of context. Virtual particles for example are a way of thinking about energy and momentum transport in QM. They have no basis in relativity and no objective reality (hence the name.)

Ah  well... variable light speed is caused by the contra directional gravitational time dilation inherent to the gfield, the gfield is caused by mass, and we are back to square 2  square root 2 in fact, and Pythagorus!
The contra directional gravitational time dilation and the change to the equivalence principle cause QM to be a continuum that can be united with this altered rendition of relativity.

Now that you bring it up, GR is really nothing more than an extension of Pythagorus for curved space.

Have you seen this:
http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Relativistic%20Escape%20Velocity%20using%20Special%20Relativity.htm
...of interest to me only in that he is using golden ratio in relation to square root 2.
(Great conversation btw, I'm really enjoying it!)

Yes. I quoted that article before. Jeffrey argues that it's not peer reviewed, but I can't find any fault with it.
BTW  QM is utterly incompatible with a continuum. That would lead us back to the ultraviolet catastrophe.

And SR is the hypotenuse of Pythagoras. GR is a dilation radius issue and physical.

I'm going to be out of touch of a while. I'm off to Australia. I may pick this up when I get there if time permits.

Not with the change I make to the equivalence principle.
Planck's h constant becomes a time dilation related phenomenon, where the energy being added to the atoms of the black body are causing the atoms to be running at a faster rate of time and emit higher frequency photons.
If you take this time dilation factor into account, the ultraviolet catastrophe doesn't occur.
Hope you have good time in Oz, are you going West or East?

I'm back sooner than I thought. WiFi is.a wonderful thing.
And SR is the hypotenuse of Pythagoras. GR is a dilation radius issue and physical.
No. SR extends the concept of a right triangle by projecting it onto a curved surface. There's more to it of course, but that's more or less how it starts once you realize that spacetime is curved.

Not with the change I make to the equivalence principle.
Planck's h constant becomes a time dilation related phenomenon, where the energy being added to the atoms of the black body are causing the atoms to be running at a faster rate of time and emit higher frequency photons.
If you take this time dilation factor into account, the ultraviolet catastrophe doesn't occur.
Hope you have good time in Oz, are you going West or East?
The only thing that saves us from the UV catastrophe is quantization. That's what Planck's h is all about. It defines the granularity of space (or time if you prefer.) It's an outlandish idea and Planck himself didn't actually believe it at first. He offered it up as an anecdote to highlight the discrepancy between the classical model of a black body radiator and the experimental result. One would think it should be subject to relativity since it involves energy, but it's actually an invariant. You don't need to mess with it to conserve energy in a relativistic context. Again though, it's really just another one of those unit conversion factors. It relates frequency to energy. You can set it equal to 1 if it gets in the way, but you have to compensate in all of your other conversion factors.

West

If you calculate the energy and frequency increases per shorter length seconds as energy is increased then the quantised nature of the experiment is a continuum.
West aye? I hung out in Freemantle, Perth for a while back in 88. If you're there on holiday, (rather than business) then, although my info is just a tad out of date, I found Margaret River to be lovely, great surf if you like that sort of thing, and the petrified forest is amazing.

I'm back sooner than I thought. WiFi is.a wonderful thing.
And SR is the hypotenuse of Pythagoras. GR is a dilation radius issue and physical.
No. SR extends the concept of a right triangle by projecting it onto a curved surface. There's more to it of course, but that's more or less how it starts once you realize that spacetime is curved.
You are looking at two different issues
Ok Mike here is the data:
The Lorentz contraction for half the speed of light is 0.866025. Where does that come from? Lets look at half the speed of light as a right triangle. It creates a 30,60,90 triangle. When we look at Cos 30 we get 0.866025 relative to the speed of light as 1 for the motion of light. It takes about 13.4% longer to travel the distance as perpendicular. That is your Lorentz contraction. Your light clock is affected by that same issue to reduce the tick rate. When you relate it to reaction time of a frame the cycle time of the electron also is affected by that same 13.4% reduction. Light and mechanical clocks tick at the same rate in every frame. So the biological reaction rate is slowed and affects your biological aging clock
If you drew a line between two points of a circle you would be correct it does not include the additional circle radius. That is your confusion. All vector speeds give the same hypotenuse issue but you cannot draw a line between two points of a circle or sphere for an accurate distance of light.
So what exactly is your answer as No mean mathematically?
In GR your curve is a two dimensional understanding of a three dimensional issue. Dilation is a sphere from a round object with a gradient of its dilation of energy. Dilation of energy being its greatest in the center of mass where energy is the least dense (dilated the most) out. As the difference between the most dilated position increases as a dilation gradient, attraction to the center of mass increases while your clock tick rate also increases measuring the energy gradient state increase away from the center of mass.
The physical energy dilation in GR matches the Pythagoras hypotenuse travel distance in SR for equivalency. Relativity is just a plain beautiful mathematical representation of the observed universe.

I'm back sooner than I thought. WiFi is.a wonderful thing.
And SR is the hypotenuse of Pythagoras. GR is a dilation radius issue and physical.
No. SR extends the concept of a right triangle by projecting it onto a curved surface. There's more to it of course, but that's more or less how it starts once you realize that spacetime is curved.
In my model Mike, the right triangle is extended by the time dilation of the gfield itself via G or g, of which their values are 'already' being used in the current mathematics.
The concept of this dilation, or curvature of space being time dilation related means that everything 'appears' to curve through space because it is taking a longer time to travel a metre in the weaker gfield, and a shorter time to travel a metre in the stronger gfield.
Therefore any acceleration, or deceleration, that m, or M, or light, is subject to in the gfield can be calculated as time dilation related, and the triangle isn't extended spatially, it is extended temporally.
If one now adds GR time dilation, and SR time dilation on top of this gfield, as is 'already' occurring in the current maths, one will find that the SR 'action' of extending the right triangle for a curvature of space has 'already' been taken care of by the time dilated gfield.
No need to add curvature twice!

No need to add curvature twice!
Of course not. Physical dilation of GR and hypotenuse of speed for SR. With the photon time and distance are related. So temporal speed and distance are interchangeable.
Because of dilation and no ability to observe 90 degrees or even 180 degree reflection time is never fixed. There is no preferred frame.

No preferred frame for what exactly?
Why is that relevant?
P.S.
Space is dilated.
GR contracts time, so how does GR cause space dilation?
Faster seconds cause acceleration in the decelerated gfield, not deceleration.

The result of what you are defending so vigorously, on my New Theories thread GoC, is that SR is making space longer, and GR is making things go faster, over a longer space, ie: metres comprised of 'empty nothing' that stretch, and this stretching of nothing then serves to retain the desired notion of constant speed...
How can 'nothing' be stretched?
Magic perhaps?
Or do you wish to take the view of there being a 'fabric' of space that is stretched?
A fabric that is imperceivable, and to all intents and purposes, apart from the stretchiness, is entirely indistinguishable from being anything but empty tracts of distance between clumps of mass.
...and you declare GR and SR to be a brilliant and perfect mathematical description of our universe?
I don't think so...

Ok Mike here is the data:
The Lorentz contraction for half the speed of light is 0.866025. Where does that come from? Lets look at half the speed of light as a right triangle. It creates a 30,60,90 triangle. When we look at Cos 30 we get 0.866025 relative to the speed of light as 1 for the motion of light. It takes about 13.4% longer to travel the distance as perpendicular. That is your Lorentz contraction. Your light clock is affected by that same issue to reduce the tick rate. When you relate it to reaction time of a frame the cycle time of the electron also is affected by that same 13.4% reduction. Light and mechanical clocks tick at the same rate in every frame. So the biological reaction rate is slowed and affects your biological aging clock
If you drew a line between two points of a circle you would be correct it does not include the additional circle radius. That is your confusion. All vector speeds give the same hypotenuse issue but you cannot draw a line between two points of a circle or sphere for an accurate distance of light.
So what exactly is your answer as No mean mathematically?
In GR your curve is a two dimensional understanding of a three dimensional issue. Dilation is a sphere from a round object with a gradient of its dilation of energy. Dilation of energy being its greatest in the center of mass where energy is the least dense (dilated the most) out. As the difference between the most dilated position increases as a dilation gradient, attraction to the center of mass increases while your clock tick rate also increases measuring the energy gradient state increase away from the center of mass.
The physical energy dilation in GR matches the Pythagoras hypotenuse travel distance in SR for equivalency. Relativity is just a plain beautiful mathematical representation of the observed universe.
It's getting hard to follow a conversation on this thread because we're pursuing a number of different topics in parallel. This one started with Reply#126 in which you seemed to imply that Pythagoras is only partially accounted for in SR and it is not until you consider GR that the concept is fully embraced. That is patently false. SR introduces a twist on Pythagoras in which c^{2}=a^{2}b^{2} rather than c^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}. (It's a pinch as opposed to a rotation.) What GR brings to the table is the idea of geodesics in curved space.

The result of what you are defending so vigorously, on my New Theories thread GoC, is that SR is making space longer, and GR is making things go faster, over a longer space, ie: metres comprised of 'empty nothing' that stretch, and this stretching of nothing then serves to retain the desired notion of constant speed...
Your assumptions dictate your understanding. Incorrect assumptions predict incorrect results.
How can 'nothing' be stretched?
Magic perhaps?
It would have to be magic to stretch zero. Go back to your assumptions for the proper answer.
Or do you wish to take the view of there being a 'fabric' of space that is stretched?
Its either that or magic. We all have that choice. I prefer fabric myself. How do you stretch zero?
A fabric that is imperceivable, and to all intents and purposes, apart from the stretchiness, is entirely indistinguishable from being anything but empty tracts of distance between clumps of mass.
Anything at the speed of light would need something faster than the speed of light to allow detection other than orthogonally. How do you stretch zero?
...and you declare GR and SR to be a brilliant and perfect mathematical description of our universe?
Yes because I took the time to understand relativity and not the shortcuts to misunderstanding.
I don't think so...
Many that go down the rabbit hole of relativity are confused by the logic controlling the rabbit hole. When you study the rabbit hole a pattern forms. Then you can leave the rabbit hole and view the universe in a different light. No pun intended.
No preferred frame for what exactly?
To measure with of course. When you understand that is no longer a valid question.
Why is that relevant?
Because there is no standard to use as a calibration.
P.S.
Space is dilated.
Ok what is being dilated? Nothing? I would disagree.
GR contracts time, so how does GR cause space dilation?
GR does not contract time. This is your assumption. GR expands energy and a clock measures the energy density of space. Spacetime is an energy state.
Faster seconds cause acceleration in the decelerated gfield, not deceleration.
You are confused in the rabbit hole. Energy is expanded and light has further to go through space at c. Clocks slow as they descend a gravity hole. Pe decreases as it descends a gravity well. Energy expands as it descends a gravity well. GR expansion of energy matches SR hypotenuse travel distance to match equivalence of energy c for clock tick rates.
Learn the patterns before you make judgments about relativity.
Mike has a good grasp of relativity. He does not understand it the way I do but still understands it his way. We both understand it needs a matrix I take the matrix further to create conditions that cause relativity. I may be correct or incorrect but relativity is correct by all observations.

Relativity involves a lot of ratios and when a ratio changes, it can be hard to figure out whether that is due to the numerator changing or the denominator. Sometimes it's important. Sometimes not. The trick is to learn the difference. A convention or preference is not worth arguing about.
It's also easy to get trapped in the aether argument. Space and time are ultimately just units of measure. They have no objective meaning in and of themselves. They certainly must measure something though and that could be described as an aether. The nature of the aether is elusive. It seems to have intrinsic energy (akin to tension in a guitar string.) It is not the rigid stage that Newton envisioned, but a squishy stage doesn't really clarify anything. In order to make any progress, you have to put all that on the shelf (as Newton did) and think about what the math is trying to tell you.

If one considers this aether to be a time dilation phenomenon it solves the problem in all respects.
But I'm getting really bored of saying so... Either someone here is going to take the notion seriously and calculate it, or their not.
In the mean time (excuse the pun), how you finding Oz, and have you seen Tombstone?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69840.0

Before we can formulate a mathematical description of your model we have to separate the philosophy from the physics. I don't think we're there yet.

I keep getting hung up on the term "standard second" because, in my mind at least, that translates to a preferred reference frame. I think you mean to say "proper time", which is what you measure on a stationary clock. Does that sound right? If so, you would be well served to adopt that terminology when conversing with physicists. The concept of proper time gets fuzzy in GR because it's not invariant like it is in SR unless you are talking about a free fall reference frame.

The standard second is what all units of measurement that involve time are held relative to.
Speed of light = 299 792 458 metres per standard second...
Frequency = wave cycles per standard second...
Joules per standard second...
Etc...
So it is good news that you are hung up on the term standard second translating to a preferred reference frame, because that is exactly and entirely my point!
My point being that if one measures all the above as per the rate of time as per the clock in the 'other' reference frame, then distance, frequency, and energy measurements will be exactly the same in each and every reference frame.*
The equivalence principle currently states that this is the case, but for the reason that the clock is ticking normally in the other reference frame, as per a standard second measurement, and only appears different from the other reference frame.
The difference I make just states that the clock is actually physically ticking at a differing rate to the standard second, but it will appear normal if you go to that other reference frame for the reason that you and your atoms will also be ticking at the differing rate of that reference frame, therefore giving a physical reason for the notion of ageing in keeping with ones time dilated clock.
*But... 'a clock' cannot measure what time is doing in open space.
Therefore it is my suggestion that there is something different going on with time in open space than there is for a clock, (and m in general), when placed in open space.
So 'proper time' is the time on the stationary clock. But what rate is 'proper time' running at?
Why do you say that SR time is invariant?
Clearly the clock in the frame that is in relative motion to the stationary clock is ticking at a slower rate.
But how can you state the stationary clock as stationary?
A stationary clock can be considered stationary held relative to a clock that is not in motion with respect to the stationary clock, but neither clocks are actually stationary. Both will be in motion relative to a clock somewhere else.
Furthermore, both clocks may be stationary with respect to each other, but be placed in differing gravity potentials.
For instance: Place your first clock on ground, and your second clock on a helicopter at a height of 100 metres, and then rather than the helicopter maintain its position directly above the ground clock, whereas the clock on the helicopter would be in motion faster than the ground clock, ask your helicopter to be in motion as per the clock on the ground, where the helicopter will observe the ground clock to be moving away with the rotation of the earth.
Both clocks are now stationary with respect to each other, but the helicopters clock will be ticking faster.
Which clock is displaying the 'proper time' in this instance?

The standard second is what all units of measurement that involve time are held relative to.
There is no standard second.
Speed of light = 299 792 458 metres per standard second...
Frequency = wave cycles per standard second...
Joules per standard second...
Etc...
So it is good news that you are hung up on the term standard second translating to a preferred reference frame, because that is exactly and entirely my point!
You can mathematically chose to vary the speed of light. I am not hung up on a preferred frame. If you vary the speed of light there is still no preferred frame. Mike explained that.
My point being that if one measures all the above as per the rate of time as per the clock in the 'other' reference frame, then distance, frequency, and energy measurements will be exactly the same in each and every reference frame.*
No the ratios of speed of light to reaction and distance measurements are the same in every frame. There is a distinct difference you may not be understanding.
The equivalence principle currently states that this is the case, but for the reason that the clock is ticking normally in the other reference frame, as per a standard second measurement, and only appears different from the other reference frame.
Yes observed to be physically different with equivalent ratios of reaction, SOL and distance within that frame but not between frames.
The difference I make just states that the clock is actually physically ticking at a differing rate to the standard second, but it will appear normal if you go to that other reference frame for the reason that you and your atoms will also be ticking at the differing rate of that reference frame, therefore giving a physical reason for the notion of ageing in keeping with ones time dilated clock.
Except for the standard second reference that is essentially correct. There is no standard reference frame of a standard second.
*But... 'a clock' cannot measure what time is doing in open space.
It can measure the energy density of the space it occupies. We can then compare spacetime energy by tick rate. A clock only measures the energy of a frame in terms of tick rate.
Therefore it is my suggestion that there is something different going on with time in open space than there is for a clock, (and m in general), when placed in open space.
Yes but the dilation of mass is insignificant for a ratio of masses we are measuring against. You suggest all mass falls at the same rate in a vacuum. The truth is we can not measure the difference in attraction because it is also insignificant. M is attracted to m and m is attracted to M. Divide the mass of the earth by the mass of either item and there is no significant difference. We cannot measure the difference.
So 'proper time' is the time on the stationary clock. But what rate is 'proper time' running at?
There is no such thing as a stationary clock.
Why do you say that SR time is invariant?
Because we do not view objects as perpendicular. It's always an angle greater than 90 degrees by vector. c is constant while geometry of motion is corrected by relativity. If relativity was wrong than geometry of motion is wrong. I trust math.
Clearly the clock in the frame that is in relative motion to the stationary clock is ticking at a slower rate.
No such thing as a stationary clock.
But how can you state the stationary clock as stationary?
Before understanding relativity if I did I was wrong. There is no such thing as a stationary clock.
A stationary clock can be considered stationary held relative to a clock that is not in motion with respect to the stationary clock, but neither clocks are actually stationary. Both will be in motion relative to a clock somewhere else.
So we can only measure the ratio's of the energy state of a frame. What is your issue with relativity's equivalency principle?
Furthermore, both clocks may be stationary with respect to each other, but be placed in differing gravity potentials.
So we are back to measuring the energy ratios based on how much of c is being used by each frame. Nothing to do with being stationary. There is no stationary. That is a local illusion.
For instance: Place your first clock on ground, and your second clock on a helicopter at a height of 100 metres, and then rather than the helicopter maintain its position directly above the ground clock, whereas the clock on the helicopter would be in motion faster than the ground clock, ask your helicopter to be in motion as per the clock on the ground, where the helicopter will observe the ground clock to be moving away with the rotation of the earth.
Both clocks are now stationary with respect to each other, but the helicopters clock will be ticking faster.
This means the clocks are in different energy frames. Clocks measure the energy state of the frame it occupies.
Which clock is displaying the 'proper time' in this instance?
Both are displaying the 'proper energy state' of the frame they are occupying. Can you define time properly?

If a clock is displaying the energy state of the reference frame it is occupying, then one cannot state that energy is observer dependent.
If a clock measures the energy state of the reference frame of space it is occupying, this statement in itself separates the clock from the reference frame of the space it is measuring. Now you have 2 reference frames. The reference frame of the clock, and the reference frame of space the clock is measuring.
As the clock is now occupying the reference frame of the space, how can you say the clock is making a measurement of the space it is occupying?
The clock is measuring the reference frame of its own self when in that space, not the other way round.
Define time:
Time is not a measurement to be imposed upon the universe, but is a reactive phenomenon inherent 'within' the universe.

If a clock is displaying the energy state of the reference frame it is occupying, then one cannot state that energy is observer dependent.
True, energy needs no observer to exist.
If a clock measures the energy state of the reference frame of space it is occupying, this statement in itself separates the clock from the reference frame of the space it is measuring.
No it's in the frames energy state to measure. As in a thermometer for temperature.
Now you have 2 reference frames.
Yes energy and mass. E=mc^2. mc for energy moving electrons and c for energy occupying space. Electrons and photons are confounded in every frame by c.
The reference frame of the clock, and the reference frame of space the clock is measuring.
They are confounded in the same frame to measure the same speed of light in every frame.
As the clock is now occupying the reference frame of the space, how can you say the clock is making a measurement of the space it is occupying?
By measuring the same speed of light in every frame. Once again mechanical and light clocks tick at the same rate in every frame so the photon and the electron are confounded in every frame.
The clock is measuring the reference frame of its own self when in that space, not the other way round.
Yes and the electron mechanical clock ticks at the same rate as the photon clock. The photon is pure energy displayed as distance.
Define time:
Time is not a measurement to be imposed upon the universe,
Correct man has no power over fundamental energy.
but is a reactive phenomenon inherent 'within' the universe.
The reaction phenomena is moving the electrons confounded with the photons in every frame. Time=Motion =Energy c. Relativity explains it all already. It even explains gravity as a difference in energy states and mass being attracted to the lowest energy state by dilation in GR.
Learn relativity mathematics. The gamma term is dilation of energy.

Go and find me the Dark Energy and Dark Matter that are required for Relativity to be a viable theory...
Without them Relativity is dead!
Until such time please excuse me while I discuss this alternative that describes all observation without them.

A clock can be stationary with respect to an observer. Your biological clock is a case in point. It just doesn't make sense to talk about the reference frame of space because space and time are observer dependent quantities. The standard second is whatever you perceive it to be in your reference frame. Everybody has a different perspective on that. The clock on the helicopter runs faster than one on the ground because they are in different reference frames. SR can't cope with that scenario because, even though the observers are stationary with respect to one another, they are accelerated to different extents. In classical terms, they have different PEs. PE can be interpreted as variable light speed in GR. You can attribute that to time dilation or space dilation, but not both (as in SR.)

Mike  it doesn't make sense that space and time are observer dependent.
... And this is where the staunch Relativist will tell me I don't understand relativity, which is wrong. I do understand, and it doesn't make physical sense.
My objective is to make sense of the observations without the need to invoke any unobserved quantities.
My model can do this  but it requires that one assume that the energy and frequency of a GR time dilated clock, and the energy and frequency of an SR time dilated clock are 'not' observer dependent, and that gravitational acceleration/deceleration are a third time dilation phenomenon.
Yes  a second may be whatever one perceives it to be, however the maths describing all observations hold the NIST standard second relative to that observation via measurement. Therefore the standard second is being used as the preferred reference frame whether one recognises the fact or not.
If one measures a differing rate of time via the standard second, energy and frequency will be greater, or lesser than a reference frame where one is stating a standard second.
What physics comprises of currently is a bunch of very different mathematical systems of which one may employ one or the other of a choice. But none of these systems can describe the whole shebang, only portions of it.
A unified theory of everything will employ one system of mathematics that can describe all observations without relying on unobserved quantities.
This has been my goal...
I think my model and the changes that I suggest to the current mathematical systems are capable of doing such.
The clock on the helicopter that is maintaining the same speed as the clock on the ground, observing the clock on the ground moving away with the rotation of the planet is relevant.
This being because when NIST conducted their ground level relativity tests, they measured a clock that was at a greater radius than the clock on the ground, (albeit just 1 metre greater radius) therefore the elevated clock is experiencing a greater speed than the lower clock is, and will be subject to greater SR effects.

Relativity may not make sense in your world view, but it is a perfectly consistent account of observation (except perhaps galaxy rotation curves.). The mathematical logic is infallible.
BTW  I am enjoying a sunny day in Perth and I can report that the laws of physics are alive and well down here, too.

Note also that SR cannot cope with acceleration. It describes KE in the context of uniform motion. GR describes PE in a stationary context, although it is also valid for free fall because PE=KE in that case.

In answer to post 151:
I remember that the sky looks much higher in Perth than it does in UK. Observer dependency, or more Dark Energy down under. Wotcha reckon? ;)
Look  I agree that relativity gives a very good, in fact the best representation of the universe that physics currently has. There is no doubt about this, I am not contending the fact, and indeed am in awe of its brilliance myself...
Especially considering how Einstein was so very much less informed than we are today.
But come on Mike, the very author of this theory declared it incomplete, was sure that he was missing something, and spent the rest of his life trying to figure out what and why...
There are only so many ways of fitting observation together into an architecture of mechanical viability. My model's alterations are all merely a transference of the current concepts and mathematics into an altered arrangement. Mostly just switching polarities really.
There are many problems with current physics. They are well documented in all the physics books I've read  and I have spent the last 9 years giving it a lot of indepth thought and research.
There are many observations that do not agree with current theory.
For one  since the advent of the Hubble telescope, a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville plasma physics have conducting a surface brightness test first suggested by Richard Tolman.
When observing closer galaxies in relation to very distant galaxies they have found that there is an anomaly with luminosity magnitude:
http://www.scinews.com/astronomy/scienceuniversenotexpanding01940.html
Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.
“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.

In addition to my answer to post 151
Note also that SR cannot cope with acceleration. It describes KE in the context of uniform motion. GR describes PE in a stationary context, although it is also valid for free fall because PE=KE in that case.
Yes  and PE is related to GR gravitational time dilation...
... And I'm suggesting that this description of KE is related to my model's contra directional gravitational time dilation, that gives physical cause to the acceleration, or deceleration, of gravity.
Edit: This also gives a counterpart reason for the dilation of space that is equivalent to SR dilation of the metre, this being a temporal dilation to replace SR's spatial dilation.

Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.

Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.
DM and DE actually give cause to Relativity. The two different descriptions are actually one thing. The point structure of the Aether with spin for energy c creating Relativity. The Aether spin is Quantum Mechanics creating c. A planet has pe gradient. A solar system has pe gradient. A galaxy has a pe gradient. When the voyagers left our solar system they appeared to slow down. To this day scientists are scratching their heads wondering why? The threshold of the solar systems pe decrease was crossed and the clock tick rate increased. That signaled a slow down in their model not truly understanding relativity affects in the correct model.
Main streams model is red shift from SR only for galaxies. There is also a GR red shift not being accounted for by our pe position of observation further out in our galaxy. Light from galaxies mostly come from 25% in the center of galaxies where dilation is the greatest. We are out in the 75% distance from center. Einstein was probably correct in his steady state. We make up the BB due to main streams model of no medium of gravitational potential (pe). Now reason for a BB. BH's actually prove the BB time line wrong. There whole model needs revamping not relativity. Aether, Spacetime, Energy, DM and DE call it anything you like but transfer has to have a medium and that medium is what we call the spectrum.

Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.
No  Einstein added his cosmological constant to GR that ensured that his rendition of a steady state did not CONTRACT!
Henrietta Swan Leavitt noticed that there was a correlation between red shift and distance, which Hubble then calculated as being velocity related.
This is what began the trend to the wide scale acceptance of the Big Bang notion and an expanding universe, and therefore Einstein retracted his cosmological constant as folly.
It is since we have discovered that the red shifts of the red shift distance correlation are getting redder, that Einstein's cosmological constant has come back into the forefront to become significant to an accelerated expansion of the universe, because in conjunction with Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation, the cosmological constant has become relevant to Dark Energy as a means of describing this accelerated expansion.
No  his theory was not in perfect agreement with observation at his death. In consideration of QM and the fact that GR and QM are incompatible, Einstein was dissatisfied.
It is not I personally who contends relativity. Nor did I invent any of the contentions to relativity that I discuss. These are all contentions that qualified and respected physicists, who for the most part hold positions in respected Universities, who's books I've read, who's research I've investigated, etc, have put forward.
The DES, a project designed to identify Dark Energy, a supposed 5 year project, supposedly concluding in 2016, has found no sign of the stuff, and Dark Matter itself also remains elusive.

Nothing can be measured directly at the speed of light. It will remain elusive until we recognize the orthogonal measurements are all related to c as a constant fundamental energy. It's out there just not recognized for what it is they are measuring.

If mass, or space, or time, or a combination of all 3, are contracted or dilated  then a change in energy occurs, either as a result, or due to being the cause...
And this c you are on about is 'just' speed. A speed GoC...comprende? Just a speed!
Ok?

I agree that c is the universal speed limit, and that despite dilation or contraction of time, that c remains constant in each and every reference frame.
My model clearly adheres to this axiom within the changes I make to the equivalence principle.

... And not only does my model strictly adhere to the axiom of c being the universal speed limit, it actually manages to do so far better and more adhesivly than conventional relativity, which has a reference frame known as 'the fabric of space' that conventional relativity states as exempt from this axiom.
So as far as conventional relativity goes, relativity contravenes its own self stated axiom, this axiom being the very foundation that relativity itself is built upon!

To suggest there is nothing controlling the electron and photon to be confounded is a violation of logic in the first order. But that in no way interferes with Relativity based on its postulates. There has to be a substance creating the spectrum. The substance confirms mechanics over the magic of main stream beliefs in no fabric.

Who suggested that there is nothing controlling the electron and photon to be confounded?
I'm trying to describe a new interpretation of relativity here. I really don't appreciate your input. I think your grasp on conventional relativity is lacking. You continually bleat on about confounded this and energy dilation that, fundamental c, and so on, while not engaging with the topic or responding to that which is being discussed.
I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is time dilation related, and outlining a change to the equivalence principle.
Unfortunately I'm also having to point out the 'documented' flaws in conventional relativity as well.
If you even responded in kind to the 'current physics relativity' flaws that I'm pointing out, rather than engaging in the changes I suggest  I could just about forgive you  but you do neither. You just clog up the thread with your confoundedness notion making it difficult to retain topical continuity.
Again  with all due respect, I do really wish you would open your own thread to talk about confounded particles upon.

I agree with Timey about staying on topic. It's always tempting to interject your own hypotheses. I could be accused of that too, but I only do so to illustrate alternative points of view when the discussion ventures into areas of overlap.
As for the cosmological constant, timey is right that it was supposed to stop the universe from contracting, but it has the opposite effect for a white hole. The point is that Hubble's discovery alleviated the need for any such thing. But accelerated expansion suggests that Einstein was actually on the right track. The cosmological variable is a better way to account for that because it is not an ad hoc factor. There is actually a physical explanation for it.

Only if Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation interpretation is valid.
If not then Einstein was on the right track but blindsided by his steady state preconceptions...
What did you think about the findings of Eric Lerner and his team of astrophysics concerning the magnitude of very distant galaxies in relation to those much closer?
Btw  point of contention, the evidence for expansion, and accelerated expansion is not physical, nor fact, but is merely an interpretation of an observation!

I would say accelerated red shift is an observation, which is by definition a fact. As such, it demands an explanation and the best one going comes from SR and GR. The only sticking point is that GR doesn't quite match observation unless you invoke DE. We're working on that.
As for fading galaxies, there are many possible explanations. Estimating galactic mass is an inexact science for example. Intergalactic dust is not out of the question either. It's worth investigating, but it's too early to draw any conclusions.

Who suggested that there is nothing controlling the electron and photon to be confounded?
I'm trying to describe a new interpretation of relativity here. I really don't appreciate your input. I think your grasp on conventional relativity is lacking. You continually bleat on a to relativity about confounded this and energy dilation that, fundamental c, and so on, while not engaging with the topic or responding to that which is being discussed.
The confounding of the electron and photon is the very essence of equivalence between SR and GR. Nothing wrong with Relativity issues related to equivalency. I am trying to show you that. Your frustration is due to not being able to find a conjecture to invalidate relativity.
I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is time dilation related, and outlining a change to the equivalence principle.
Gravitational acceleration is time related. Its in Einstein's gamma factor.
Unfortunately I'm also having to point out the 'documented' flaws in conventional relativity as well.
Your pointing out flaws in subjective interpretation only and not flaws in relativity equivalence.
If you even responded in kind to the 'current physics relativity' flaws that I'm pointing out, rather than engaging in the changes I suggest  I could just about forgive you  but you do neither.
There are no flaws in relativity for those who understand relativity correctly. Equivalency is a corner stone of relativity. Forgive your self if you cannot really find a flaw.
You just clog up the thread with your confoundedness notion making it difficult to retain topical continuity.
Confounded electron and photon in every frame is the very definition of equivalency. This is observed as fact!!!!!! The subjective nature of cause is the only issue.
Again  with all due respect, I do really wish you would open your own thread to talk about confounded particles upon.
Prove relativity observations of physics not being the same in every frame. Then there is a equivalency issue. Until then you need to understand relativity is correct.
[/quote]

Perhaps I missed something. What's this business about confounded electrons and photons? And how is it relevant to timey's theory?
Note that the equivalency principle is that objects in free fall do not feel their own weight. You seem to be talking about something else entirely.

Perhaps I missed something. What's this business about confounded electrons and photons? And how is it relevant to timey's theory?
Note that the equivalency principle is that objects in free fall do not feel their own weight. You seem to be talking about something else entirely.
Or perhaps you are not including something. Equivalency is between SR and GR. Acceleration in SR and gravity in GR. Speed, time and distance are interrelated within a frame. When you measure the same speed of light in every frame the time, speed measured and distance measured are the same in every frame. This also has to do with equivalency. You said the same earlier in the thread. So for there to be a discrepancy in equivalency between SR and GR she would have to prove the electron and photon are not adjusted by the same amount to maintain the same observation of the SOL. Do you understand all of the ramifications of equivalency?
Timey needs to prove the observations of the SOL of every frame is not the same. Just like a sentence in a paragraph you can not pick words that change the meaning of the paragraph. If she understood enough about the entire equivalence issue she would understand where her objections are incorrect. I cannot help her frustration trying to change the physical nature of the universe. She is correct about the subjective reasoning of main stream. But not about the equivalency which is much more than free fall.

The observation of red shift could just as easily be attributed to the light having taken a longer amount of time to travel, than distance/c, which is exactly what the velocity related interpretation is saying...
And therefore if one takes the 'speed' attributed to a red shift, and the 'distance' to the light source, and says:
distance/speed=time*c=distance/c=time
...one can know by how much of a longer time the light took to travel, and that will be by how much time has slowed in 'open space' due to a gravitational deceleration caused by the weaker gfields of open space.
Anyway I OFFICIALLY give up.
It is the mark of an educated person to be able to consider an idea that they do not believe in themselves, and physics is not a belief, it's a system of mathematics based on interpretation of observation.
Anything can be calculated, but I dare say that it's too much for any mathematician who may be among the thousands and thousands of people who have been viewing my many threads.
Like everything else in my life this is done  finished  and OVER.
I cannot carry on anymore.

Don't despair. It is the quest for knowledge that is exciting, not the knowing. Feynman himself said he was content to die not knowing all the answers. He just enjoyed discovering things for himself.
My last post was directed at GoC by the way and I didn't understand anything he said in Reply #169. It would be nice to know peoples' credentials so we can tell if they're talking from a position of authority. I have a master's degree in engineering physics and no formal training in GR.

I am a bum on the streets can't you tell?
Authority is an illusion in theoretical issues involved with the universe. I started out in engineering and switched to chemistry. My father was interested in quantum mechanics and we discussed it going to and from DuPont together. That was where my interest began. The past 15 years of my life I have had an obsession with relativity learning all I could. Many times I thought relativity was just plain wrong. But each time I found the path to show relativity to be correct. Equivalency was the most interesting and the same time most difficult between GR and SR. Einstein could not explain this well for GR. SR is simple angles in geometry of motion.
My biggest obstacle was to discard the subjective opinions from the past so called authorities. No one is an authority of the universe. It is all speculation. I do consider myself to have a fair amount of intelligence but not exceptional. I learned relativity by math, motion, clock tick rate and as energy related to c. One more postulate I used was the cycle rate of the electron. Whatever that actually might be. At c there is no energy for cycling of the electron. From there I related relativity to fundamental energy c. That was my breakthrough for understanding relativity. The math is taught by the "authorities" and that is the easy part. How do you understand dilation in GR when the authorities claim there is nothing to dilate. As an engineering student you must have understood mechanics was always involved in all aspects of motion. Electrons do not move themselves. If you learned anything in engineering nothing can only create nothing. The electron and the photon measure the same distance in every frame (equivalency) between SR (photon) and GR (electron). The authorities will grant that to be true. Physics are the same in every frame. Tick rate of a clock is not the same in every frame. Energy c and distance c measure total available energy. The clock tick rate measures the energy of a frame by the distance between ticks.
Dilation in GR is an increase in distance for energy. Less energy per volume of space. This is engineering logic and needs no authority. The "authorities" will tell you there is nothing out there to dilate. That's when I think what moves the electrons? Mathematicians can violate mechanics but how can a mechanical engineer violate mechanics? All energy (QM) comes from c of space and mass occupies space within the sea of energy. The electrons are a conduit for that energy. Mechanics of mass is based on kinetic energy supplied by fundamental energy that move the electrons. You have that or magic. As an engineer I would hope you chose mechanics over magic. E= kinetic mass c * fundamental c. Without the energy for motion there would be no motion (QM).
Although I ended up in pharmaceuticals as an analytical supervisor my passion has been analyzing relativity.

Thanks for that. I advocate disclosure of credentials not to brag, but rather to clarify the source of my lack of understanding. If I don't understand what you're talking about, there are two possibilities: (1) you are using technical jargon to describe a mainstream concept, in which case I can refer to the literature to get up to speed; or (2) you are conveying your own ideas in your own language, in which case you are my only source of information.
I think you (Goc) are confusing reference frames with frames of a movie (i.e. snapshots in time.) They are related concepts, but quite different. A reference frame in SR is a coordinate system that moves with respect to another with constant velocity. GR deals with special cases of accelerated motion, particularly those involving free fall and rotation (i.e. orbital motion.) In that case, reference frames are snapshots in time.
Also, what you refer to as kinetic mass seems to be related to Newton's concept of inertial mass. I think you are suggesting that E=mc_{1}c_{2} where c_{1} and c_{2} are two different speeds of light. I can't imagine what the physical justification for that would be, but maybe I don't understand what you're trying to convey.

What you are suggesting here is that there is an absolute background frame of reference. This cannot be reconciled with relativity.

The only way to proceed with your ideas is to start with SR and a sphere 1 light second in radius. Then consider the sphere to have photon emitters all around the surface set to fire all at the same time. Obviously just for this thought experiment. If they are all set to converge at the origin of the sphere then barring any unseen events they should all converge at the same time.
Then for GR do the same for a sphere near but no centred on a large mass. Now the photons will not all converge at once.

What you are suggesting here is that there is an absolute background frame of reference. This cannot be reconciled with relativity.
Energy can be reconciled with Relativity being the very cause of Relativity. There is no absolute background!!!!! There is absolute c total energy available. The energy density is not constant but the energy c is constant. Equivalence proves c to be constant. Measurement by a clock measures the density of c in your frame.
The only way to proceed with your ideas is to start with SR and a sphere 1 light second in radius. Then consider the sphere to have photon emitters all around the surface set to fire all at the same time.
Relativity would negate that approach because of equivalence in SR and GR. How would you measure one second and where? Would you use light for measured distance to the center? If you did you already fouled your test. You cannot use the thing you are measuring for distance. Light cannot be part of the measurement.
Obviously just for this thought experiment. If they are all set to converge at the origin of the sphere then barring any unseen events they should all converge at the same time.
Simultaneity of relativity measurements will be an issue also.. This is a failed experiment before it even starts. Use a better design!!
Then for GR do the same for a sphere near but no centred on a large mass. Now the photons will not all converge at once.
If you measure the distance with light and then use light for that distance the thought experiment would work for being the same distance light would travel to the center. But that would be ridicules. Uniform time is not possible in a dilated frame. Just like acceleration does not allow uniform time. Understand time before using time in an experiment.
Relativity will not allow the point you are trying to make. I understand your point.
You have been taught subjective ideas and you carry them with you into discussions of Relativity.
Main stream is in a maze not understanding their model hit a dead end. There is a mechanical reason for Relativity. Main stream threw away their tools so they have no ability to work on the mechanics.

Mike  please accept my apologies. My outburst wasn't directed specifically at you. It is born of sheer frustration that I cannot seem to get through to anyone concerning what I'm saying, and existence itself is not that appealing to me since I lost my horses and my way of life.
Ok  so you are an engineer first and foremost. This is good, and I can work with you from the basis of an engineering point of view, and will elaborate. I find your understanding of relativity to be very good, but if you want to get a really good grip on current state of physics, then I beseech you to read Lee Smolin's book 'The trouble with physics'. Then we can talk from the basis of a professional theoretical physicist, and his professional equivalents observations of current physics and where relativity falls short.
Meanwhile, I have been discussing Joe Newman's energy motor, posts 82, 83, and 87 here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69522.50
Copy and paste back to my thread here if you can find any part of what I say there is something you can relate to, not to clog up James's thread.
*
Jeff  Mike, in his relativistic correction to the Swartschild metric is using GR time dilation as a means to variable speeds of light.
My theory attributes the speed of light as variably derived via a time dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
Mike is using the PE value.
I am using the KE value, this being to describe the absolute reference frame.* Where I then also use the PE value for GR time dilation for m only.
This ensures that m, and the location of space that m is in, are always the positive and negative of each other in relation to M, and therefore light, travelling at the speed of light via either the negative value rate of time, or the positive value rate of time will ALWAYS travel 299 792 458 metres from either point of view...
And also describes how m and M and light move through the absolute reference frame of open space.
Then SR time dilation is drawn on top of this picture to describe relative motion, for m and M's experience of their own time, *but there is no need to use the length contraction/dilation concept of SR, because this has already been taken care of as a temporal dilation in the absolute reference frame.
It's a different way of calculating the same observations.
*
GoC  I've read your 'define time' thread. I kind of understand what you are talking about, but the basic physics references are lacking. You make good points, but more from the philosophy based perspective.
If you want to talk on 'my' threads you 'must' speak from a physics based perspective. I advise that you also read 'The Trouble with Physics' to understand where relativity falls short.
I don't mean to be horrible to you, but I am indeed trying to describe something extremely specific here that is important to me.
You are welcome to join in with regards to the topic, but please get up to speed on the subject matter, I have little patience otherwise.

timey Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.

timey Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.
In that case you have no business posting on this thread.
This is the type of post that makes me feel like deleting my profile here!

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond one's visible horizon in any given direction and as they become visible over time, I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points. That makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.
Having said that, there is in fact a preferred reference frame in a GR scenario, specifically that of the gravitating mass. In that sense, timey is correct.

timey Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.
This is the type of post that makes me feel like deleting my profile here!
You have already provided an authoritative reference to debunk this opinion.

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.
Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to. :)
Mike  I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario. If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.
Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our gfield trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.
Therefore by knowing where one is in the gfield, and understanding how M is moving to create the gfield, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.
Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to. :)
Mike  I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario. If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.
Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our gfield trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.
Therefore by knowing where one is in the gfield, and understanding how M is moving to create the gfield, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.
My business in the threads is to challenge ideas to either make them stronger or weaker.
I do not think you actually understand what Mike is telling you. You read his words but not his understanding.
Somewhere is always moving in space and the meter never remains constant. The meter is observer dependent. A meter is a meter in every frame but not between frames. Here I am challenging your use of the word meter and its limitations of use in our understanding of relativity. There is no meter we can use as a reference. There is no position in space we can use as stationary for a reference. We cannot know which one of us are moving the most compered to the other. To bring it home there is no rest frame.
If you do not want to have your ideas challenged by relativity all you have is faith. Science is not about faith. Once you start with the equivalency principle there are many obstacles of math and observation you have to overcome to challenge relativity's explanation. Relativity can be explained as energy, motion or time. Mathematically they line up perfectly with each other. This is what you have to overcome. I chose energy to challenge your ideas because that is where you are challenging Relativity.

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.
Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to. :)
Mike  I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario. If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.
Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our gfield trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.
Therefore by knowing where one is in the gfield, and understanding how M is moving to create the gfield, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.
Mike  I wrote the text below to Jeff earlier on in the thread... In vain no doubt as he only makes seagul posts where he does not respond, nor probably even read the replies...
But:
"Jeff  Mike, in his relativistic correction to the Swartschild metric is using GR time dilation as a means to variable speeds of light.
My theory attributes the speed of light as variably derived via a time dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
Mike is using the PE value.
I am using the KE value, this being to describe the absolute reference frame.* Where I then also use the PE value for GR time dilation for m only.
This ensures that m, and the location of space that m is in, are always the positive and negative of each other in relation to M, and therefore light, travelling at the speed of light via either the negative value rate of time, or the positive value rate of time will ALWAYS travel 299 792 458 metres from either point of view...
And also describes how m and M and light move through the absolute reference frame of open space.
Then SR time dilation is drawn on top of this picture to describe relative motion, for m and M's experience of their own time, *but there is no need to use the length contraction/dilation concept of SR, because this has already been taken care of as a temporal dilation in the absolute reference frame."
Therefore one can know exactly where one is in the gfield in relation to anything else,
(btw, I am ignoring GoC from now on)

If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere. Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
Exactly. "Somewhere" is the missing point of reference. Without that third point in space, we can't tell who's moving and who's not. Even if you add a third party, all we can say is that one of us (or both of us) is in motion with respect that observer. Note also that the concept of rotation doesn't make sense if you and I are alone in the universe. All of this comes from Galilean relativity. SR is the next logical step if you invoke conservation of (kinetic) energy.

The point I'm making is that in reality, that 'somewhere', the third reference point 'always' exists.
It is only in a hypothetical scenario that it doesn't. So why bother with it atall?
One must use triangulation wherever one is. It's just that in space stuff gets fuzzy because of time shift. And with SR it gets fuzzy because a spatial shift. Overlaying one on top of the other gets complicated, as the time shift coordinates change with spatial dilation.
In my model the spatial dilation is taken care of as a temporal dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity. This renders your gfield coordinates as static, well not quite because M is moving in relation to m, but it is now possible to triangulate taking only these two opposing time shifts into consideration.
And SR time dilation and conservation of kinetic energy then becomes a very interesting prospect indeed!

Building blocks. You have to understand the 2body problem (SR) before you can make any sense of the 3body problem (GR.) You can't do an end run around SR and jump straight into GR because the latter is based on the former.
BTW  I downloaded Smolin's book. Looks like a good read (thanks for that), but from the TOC and Intro, it is clear that he is well beyond SR and GR and deep into string theory. The theme seems to be that, despite standing on the shoulders of giants, we have made scant little progress in theoretical physics during the last 4 decades. It must have been published before the vindication of Higgs though because that was pretty good.

I don't contest the idea that GR can be interpreted as dilation of time in rigid space, but I do contest the idea that GR time dilation is a substitute for SR. They are complementary effects. GR dilation is due to PE. SR dilation is due to KE.

But I am not suggesting that one consider that GR time dilation is a substitute for SR...
What I am suggesting is that there is a 'third' phenomenon of time dilation inherent to the gfield itself, exactly and equal to GR time dilation at h from M, but negative in value. And that this causes the gravitational acceleration that causes SR time dilation. And that under this remit there is no need to add the spatial dilation that is the resulting companion of the maths of SR. This being because the third time dilation of the gfield has already added this effect as a temporal dilation of space to replace the SR spatial description, and that this suggested temporal description can equally describe the observed curvature of space.
Furthermore, I am suggesting that the current maths can be considered to be already calculate this acceleration caused by the third time dilation in the use of G and g.
As G and g do not have physical cause in current physics, all I have done is give physical cause to mathematics that are already being used, and in that the curvature of space is now represented as a temporal representation, the spatial geometry is back to Newtonian, and the right hand triangle is now not extended as a spatial extension.
It's a differing means of describing observation, that does not require dark energy, or dark matter, to balance the books.

I don't get it. If the 3rd dilation cancels GR dilation, there is no PE. That's just the free fall reference frame, which is fully described by SR.

Ah  but this third time dilation for open space doesn't cancel out GR time dilation...
What it does is separate the concept of m at h from M, from the concept of h from M, where h from M is inherent with open space time dilation that m at h from M experiencing GR time dilation, is in or moving through...
With the third time dilation of open space being the cause of any change in gravitational acceleration or deceleration that m experiences at h from M.
This provides another description of free fall that gives physical cause the the description of the acceleration of gravity, and also gives a physical cause for the curvature of space as a 'temporal' dilation.
Then SR time dilation becomes a description of how motion will 'further' affect the value of GR time dilation for m and M.
Mass experiences the positive value of GR time dilation, and the effects of motion related SR dilation, while moving through the negative value of the third time dilation of open space.
And big bodies of mass, and galaxy clusters will be changing the rate of the negative value of the time dilation of open space 'positively' as they move through the negative value open space time dilation...
This concept is exactly synonymous to the GR remit of mass telling spacetime how to curve, and spacetime telling mass how to move.

It's not clear from your description whether the 3rd dilation cancels GR completely or only in part. Either way, it's an ad hoc factor unless you can justify it with a new or existing law of physics (e.g. conservation of energy or momentum.) In other words, how does one go about calculating it?
The distinction between m at h from M and nothing at h from M is moot because GR is formulated in terms of an infinitesimally small test mass. That means m=0 and volume=0 for all intents and purposes. Note that the coordinate system for the metric is the one in which the gravitating mass (M) is at rest. Proper time is local time. Proper space is more complicated, but Flamm's paraboloid is a good way to think about it. In that view, the local radial dimension is stretched compared to that perceived by a distant observer. Angles around the gravitating mass stay the same. (I contend that the stretch is due to SR, not GR, but I think I am alone in that belief so far.) Note also that SR does not depend on M or G or g or m except insofar as they determine free fall velocity.

Mike the hypothetical third time dilation of open space that I suggest can be thought of as an aether type scenario that M and m are moving through.
You are right that GR time dilation will be affected by this third time dilation, but not in the sense of cancelling it out. You are still thinking in terms of 2 dimensional mathematics.
The GR time dilation will be affected by the hypothetical third time dilation of open space for the reason that the value of M is creating the open space gfield, and the gfield is inherent with the third time dilation that runs counter directional in value to GR time dilation for m at h from M, where the GR time dilation of m at h from M is also related to the value of M.
These concepts can be calculated as a 3 way time dilation matrix annexed to a spacetime matrix, where ones space coordinates in the g field relate
a) to the gfield hypothetical time dilation of h from M
b) to the GR time dilation of m at h from M
c) to the SR time dilation experienced by m due to m's velocity at h from M
...and result a calculation for the time aspect of the spacetime matrix as sequential time.
a) will be causing the curvature of space as a temporal dilation, and m will move as to this curvature
b) will be the time m experiences at h from M
c) will cancel out the GR time dilation effects that m experiences at h from M.
Equivalence principle:
The speed of light is held constant at each coordinate at h from M via the length of second of the hypothetical third time dilation of open space.
Light will cover 299 792 458 metres held relative to the 'longer' second...
But  because the hypothetical time dilation is the negative value of GR time dilation  m at h from M will also observe that the light is travelling at 299 792 458 metres per the 'shorter' second experienced by m at h from M.
Now we implement the part 2 change to the equivalence principle which incorporates stating all m at h from M as gaining energy at gravity potential as an addition that 'doesn't' incorporate calculating in the value of m. In other words, simply add the energy at gravity potential as a blanket addition, where all m is affected to that value equally.
Now all remains equivalent for all at any h from M.
One has a physical reason for the fact of a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock.
And this concept of a blanket addition of potential energy for m at h from M can be thought of as free fall upside down.
Lastly  one then must then use the speed of light value as per held relative to the hypothetical third time dilation timing in order to calculate SR time dilation for m in motion in a changing gfield.
This means that as m moves into gfield coordinates where the speed of light is held relative to the negative value 'longer' seconds, the constant speed that m is travelling at will become a greater percentage of the speed of light of that coordinate, and m will experience an escalation of the slowing of its own experience of time, and take a longer time to cover a metre.
Interestingly Mike, under this remit if m then regulates its speed to remain a constant percentage of the speed of light as held relative to the increasingly longer seconds of the coordinates in the weaker gfield m is travelling through, ie: slows its speed down, SR time dilation effects will be lesser, and m will experience itself as covering a metre faster...
This being because the curvature of space is a temporal dilation where a metre always remains a constant metre, and curvature is simply a matter of there being longer seconds in the weaker gfield.*
We can then see that under this remit of regulating SR time dilation effects via speed control, this can cause m to avoid some of the temporal dilation of space, and therefore avoid at least some of the curvature to get 'there' wherever that may be, quicker.
* If you really examine this structure, you will realise that it is just using the currents maths in a rearranged fashion.
(Even the maths for the concept of length contraction/dilation are used in my model, switched to a concept of an observational time frame dependency that insures the fact of a universal absolute 'now' that all coordinates have in common despite their rates of time differing)

Your recipe for the 3rd dilation is missing ingredients and quantities. On one hand you say it is "the negative value of GR time dilation". On the other you say it "doesn't cancel out GR time dilation." Isn't that contradictory?

Only if you are looking at GR time dilation being inherent to space at h from M, rather than to m at h from M.
I am making a clear separation of m at h from M, from the space of h at M, and stating that m at h from M is experiencing its own time, this being GR, and SR time dilation effects, while moving through a space inherent with a separate time dilation that affects how m moves through this space.
This is stating that both GR and SR time dilation effects occurring for m, and the hypothetical third time dilation occurring for space, are both occurring simultaneously as separate issues, where the value of GR time dilation, and the value of the hypothetical third time dilation both relate back to the value of M via the gfield, and the value of m's SR motion related time dilation effects also relate back to the value of M via the gfield.

As a foot note:
This structure is rendering the concept of time itself as a reactive phenomenon that is related to energy.

SR does not depend on M or m, although it does have implications for both (because they are observer dependent quantities.) There is no distinction between the field for m at h from M and that for nothing at h from M because the field is calculated under the premise that m is vanishingly small. It is certainly true that a finite value of m will alter spacetime in the same manner as M, but that is an unnecessary complication and teaches us nothing new. Note that SR and GR treat time as a function of energy.

What you say is correct in conventional relativity, no doubt about it, and I am not contending this as being the case in conventional relativity.
But... What I am describing above is an altered relativity that describes my contracting cyclic model.
Yes, you are right, conventional relativity is based on the fact that energy and frequency are observer dependent...
My model differs in that while it holds that the observation of light is observer dependent because one can only see light when it arrives at ones location, it holds that the observation of an atom's energy and frequency, that is not at one's location, is not observer dependent but 'is' actually the differing frequency and energy that it is observed to have.
Yes you are correct in the fact that relativity does not consider space as anything but a distance, or fabric, that is extended in the right triangle.
My model differs in that it says that the distance of space itself is not spatially extended in the right triangle, but is instead temporally extended in the right triangle, and it uses the third time dilation of the gfieldfield itself that applies to space 'only,' as a means of a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity in order to achieve this extension of the right triangle as a temporal phenomenon.
This structure that I have put forward can describe a a fully described model of the universe without adding any unknowns that are not observed, unites the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum, and gives mechanics that describe Big Bangs both before and after the fact.
Conventional relativity cannot do this. Therefore I am looking for a mathematician who can create the mathematics to describe my model.
These mathematics will be of the same values as conventional relativity mathematics, but these values are employed in a differing alignment for alternate reasons...
One could consider that what I have done here by considering space as a temporal dilation is give complex numbers a physical reason for existing. A physicality that ensures that one can calculate both the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
Please understand that I have made the changes from conventional relativity, that you note, purposefully and intentionally. These are not misunderstandings of conventional relativity, but are indeed consciously derived alterations.

OK, but you still have to be accurate about what conventional theory does and doesn't do. And you have to demonstrate a need for the 3rd dilation. As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than a dodge around spatial dilation in SR or a reinterpretation of it. In any case, a mathematician is not going to be of any help unless you can specify a recipe for the 3rd dilation, along with ingredients and quantities.

My model differs in that while it holds that the observation of light is observer dependent because one can only see light when it arrives at ones location, it holds that the observation of an atom's energy and frequency, that is not at one's location, is not observer dependent but 'is' actually the differing frequency and energy that it is observed to have.
Are you proposing that a receding clock runs slower and an approaching clock runs faster, such that the round trip time is the same in both reference frames? It is possible to balance the space time books on that premise. The relative velocity of reference frames becomes observer dependent. Spatial dilation is more complicated because time passes at different rates in offaxis directions. The problem is that it is in stark disagreement with the extended longevity of muons in flight. It is also inconsistent with the Twins paradox, which is evidenced by GPS and (more directly) by flying atomic clocks on airplanes.

No  a clock or particle of mass will never be able to measure the hypothetical third time dilation because this time dilation is inherent to space only and the clock or particle will only ever itself experience a combination of GR coordinate time dilation, and SR motion time dilation.
For a clock or particle at rest with respect to the gfield, the third time dilation will have no effect whatsoever. But if the clock or particle is not at rest with respect to the gfield, then the hypothetical third time dilation will affect how the clock or particle moves with respect to changes in the gfield.
The ingredients and quantities can be directly derived via the acceleration/deceleration of gravity, where additional kinetic energy then DOES NOT increase mass and mass value remains constant.
Where, (scratches head, as not sure and still thinking about it):
m/a = time dilation...
 to show direction of thoughts, but perhaps better derived:
p/a = time dilation (?)
Because
p = mv
and the hypothetical third time dilation is then an integral over force, causing acceleration...

Friends,
I would like to add few lines, regarding my opinion on time dilation and c.
Well, it is true that time dilates for two reasons gravity and velocity.
Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. As per Einstein huge masses such as Earth also influences tick rate of the clock. Here it is wonder to me, it is not for criticising, but to discuss facts only, how huge masses influences clock. As per Newton's inverse square law, gravity mainly depends on the size of mass. But as per Einstein, uneven distribution of matter and energy in space time plays key role. Actually, Einstein invented that gravity influences our clocks.
Ok, here the tick rate of clock is influenced by the gravity.
As per the theory proposed by me 'what exactly is gravity' it is the huge energy, which i termed it as 'energy base' is playing key role in gravity. This potential energy is turning out as kinetic energy due to the pressure/force of hydrosphere. Gravity on any planet mainly depends on the 'standard energy' of that planet. Gravity strength at any place mainly depends on the gap between Earth and hydrosphere. However it is also influenced by the energy dilated by Earth which works as anti gravity waves.
The other important reason why time dilates is velocity. In the case of gravity, the clock is influenced by the variations in the gravity. It's ok. But here, in the case of velocity, the source or how and what exactly is influencing the functioning of clock is not known.
There is a big gap here, it is true that if the velocity increases, the ticking rate of clock decreases and of course it is proved. But what exactly is influencing the clock is not known. In the case of gravity, time is dilated due to variations in the gravity. Here, if the velocity increases what happens to clock, and why it dilates. Ok, we are using cesium clock, and there is no mechanical fault, still time dilates.
Ok, in the case of gravity, it is not the fault of clock used, but it is due to gravity. In the case of velocity also, there is no fault of the clock used by us, but some thing outside force is influencing the clock. Here velocity is not an object or thing and some thing is influencing our clocks. When the velocity increases, it is starting influencing our clocks.
As said by timey, a clock dilating on the head of a person, never dilates age of that person.
There is every need for us to rethink, 'what exactly is time dilation'. Our clocks shows only elapsed time due to gravity or velocity. In fact our clocks have no capacity to dilate the universal time. They got to be adjusted to universal time. It is the universal time which is standard time.
Universal time can be dilated due to various reasons. Suppose for any reason, sun started dilating huge energy into the open area. EMF force against the Earth increases and Earth start rotating speedily, completes sun rise and sun set within 11.55 minutes, thereby dilating 5 minutes. In other words, in case if the Sun started dilating small amount of energy, EMF decreases and rotation of Earth slows down and sun rise and sun set will be completed by 12.05, thereby by dilating 5 minutes. Universal time also depends on the gravity of a planet. Suppose if the gravity of a planet weakens, sun rise and sun set also slows down.
Speed of light:
There are number of invisible things influencing speed of light. At present we are taking two mirrors, focusing light on them and measuring the time taken to travel.
But we are feeling that outside is empty and that fresh ray is created each time. This is not at all correct and no fresh ray is created.
Ok, let us study it with simple example. Let us assume that there is a water pipe and it is completely filled with water. When the motor is switched on, fresh water coming from the well pushes the water at the beginning of the pipe and due to force/pressure water start flowing. Here, suppose water pipe is empty, then fresh water first accumulates in the pipe and than start flowing. At present we are taking that water pipe is empty and it is being filled each time and than flowing out.
This is incorrect.
In the case of our universe also, it is not empty and it is not being filled by the Sun energy. In fact Sun energy has no such capacity. Due to Big Bang or whatever it may, all the planets have dilated huge fundamental energy and it led to formation of 'stock of fundamental energy'. Here on this Earth, due to formation of climate 'Energy Base' is developed and it is existing with lot of pressure.
When we switch on the torch light, very small amount of energy, potential energy stored in the battery cell has no capacity to create a Electro magnetic force. It simply creates a force/pressure on the existing energy ray and flow of electrons propogates light. In the example, water pipe is not empty, when the fresh water joins, a force/pressure is created and the water at the end moves out. This is the way and how light travels from one place to other place. Propagation of light at any place mainly depends on the outside energy.
Suppose if we are on the moon, where climate is weak, naturally energy base is also weak and there fore propagation of light is weak. Well, for that on the Earth also light varies according to gravity.
We have tied science to certain limitations. It is like an Elephant trainer, who ties the Elephant with a simple chain. When compared to the strength of the Elephant this chain is nothing. But Elephant feels that it cannot and remains within the boundary. If what exactly is gravity is solved, all these issued will be solved and science will take a straight line of research.
Yours
Psreddy

This thread is exploring the possibility that potential energy is related to GR time dilation, and the possibility of a third time dilation existing that applies only to the gfield itself, where the third time dilation is an integral over force and is the cause of gravitational acceleration.

Hey Mike  shiiiiit, I just had a realisation...
Firstly, my apologies because you were right...and I was wrong. Einstein did have to add his lambada constant to stop the universe expanding, not contracting as I said 'in error' however many posts ago.
I was muddling my own thinking somehow with the facts, but it is from realising my error that I think I've finally figured out how to go about calculating my contracting model.
I find formula easier to understand than numerical calculations because the relationships are proportional, however my understanding of symbols is lacking. I wonder, would you help me out...?
Could you please help me run through the symbols of these maths.
G*u*v + lambada*u*v = 8*pi*G/? Tuv
G, v, and pi are clear. Lambada value is 0.5, but could you please give me a physical description of u, which I think means 'change' and what is the symbol that 8*pi*G is divided by? I've used a question mark, but the symbol looks like a question mark upside down. What does it mean?
And could you clarify for me what T is symbolising here?

Looks like a modified version of the Einstein field equation. The variables u and v are subscripted indices. They refer to rows and columns of a 2D tensor, which is just a fancy name for a matrix in this context. Summation over u and v is implied. (That shorthand was invented by Einstein.) Each index ranges from 1 to 4, corresponding to the 4 dimensions of spacetime. G with no subscripts is likely Newton's constant. G with subscripts is an element of the Einstein tensor, which is an expression of the curvature of spacetime. T_{uv} is an element of the energy tensor. I'm not sure what lambda_{uv} is. Probably a proposed extension to the cosmological constant. The funny symbol (?) would have to be c^{4}. Probably a malfunction in the equation renderer. Note that T_{uv} belongs in the numerator, not the denominator.

Lambda*u*v as I understand it is the cosmological constant that Einstein added to his equation, and then retracted in light of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation.
As to the rest of what you said, I'll have to get myself some translations off the net for some of it.
I'll be back after some thinking time passes.
Thanks Mike!

Ok  Einstein added the cosmological constant Lambada*u*v to his equation to stop the universe from expanding...
Einstein retracted his cosmological constant that stopped his rendition of GR expanding the universe when Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation gave cause for the phenomenon of expansion.
In that my model reinterprets Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation interpretation as being a time dilation related red shift distance correlation via a third time dilation to give physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, the spatial dimensions are now back to being Newtonian, and the curvature of space is now inherent to the open space gfield via this third time dilation.
The first expression of Einstein's equation G*u*v, and the 8*pi*G, I think can already be describing this third time dilation because of the use of G.
So without Hubble's velocity related interpretation, and without the cosmological constant, Einstein's equation leaves us with a universe that is still expanding.
Add the constant back into the equation and we have a steady state.
Physicists describe how Einstein's cosmological constant may be relevant in value as describing the acceleration of the universe via Dark Energy, but as Einstein was using the constant to stop the universe from expanding, how can this constant be used to describe an accelerated expansion?
To describe an accelerated expansion by using the value of Einstein's constant, are they considering the constant in the negative?
Like this:
Guv  lambada*u*v =  8*pi*G/c^4 Tuv

Ah yes. I didn't notice the missing symbol in the 2nd term. It should be Lambda * g_{uv}, not Lambda_{uv}. Lambda is Einstein's cosmological constant. (He called it cosmological because it is the same at every point in space and constant because it doesn't change over time.) g_{uv} is an element of the metric tensor, which is the curved space extension of Pythagorus. The metric tensor is also part of the Einstein tensor.
Don't confuse G with G_{uv}. They are completely different objects. One is a scalar (i.e. a 1 dimensional matrix with 1 element.) The other is an element of a 2D matrix (comprising 4 rows and 4 columns) and usually represents a function involving several variables. Same goes for g and g_{uv}.
Note that the T in T_{uv} is shorthand for total energy.

I just lifted the equation as written in hand writing off a horizon program about about Dark Energy, supposedly as Einstien wrote it.
I daresay that the equation has been reduced to a minimal expression as per esthetics. Less is more beautiful so I hear, which is why everyone fell in love with the Dirac equation...
Are you sure about the extra g?
In the program they were quite clear about how Einstien was annoyed because of having to add the middle term that includes lambada. It had been simply:
Guv = 8+pi*G/c4 Tuv
And Einstien shook Hubble's hand in relief that he could ditch the lambada*u*v, although admittedly it may be my mistake and that I copied the equation down wrong. Not impossible atall.
Oh  and when you said numerator and denominator, which bit of the equation were you referring to please?
P.S. When saying that G 'can' already be describing my model's third time dilation this is only because G is the gravitational constant. Surely any maths that use G are juggling that constant?

A positive value for the cosmological constant makes the universe expand over time. A negative value makes it collapse. Zero corresponds to a static universe.

If Lambda = 0 then G_{uv} = (8*pi*G/c^{4}) * T_{uv}.

You might be right about how Lambda affects expansion and contraction. A positive value is likely necessary to stop the expansion. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense that Einstein abandoned the idea (by setting Lambda=0) when Hubble discovered that the universe was indeed expanding. In that case, a negative value would make it expand faster. A positive value would slow the expansion and a larger positive value would make it collapse.

But that surely is on the basis of Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation.
Einstien was able to remove the constant in the face of Hubble's discovery because Hubble had provided a cause for expansion, but had to relinquish his steady state preconceptions.
Therefore the equation without the constant describes expansion, and without the constant this would be 0 right?
So  when looking at the value of Einstiens constant to describe the acceleration of this expansion, you can't add the constant to describe this acceleration, adding it to the equation causes a steady state, so it must surely be subtracted... No?
Ah yes  just saw your post. Exactly, so subtracting it would cause acceleration

Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.

I don't think you can get accelerated expansion out of a constant though. You'd have to change it to a variable of some sort.

The expansion of the universe without the Dark Energy notion wasn't thought to be a constant speed. It was thought to be slowing down.
However  you do have a point there...
I wrote this before seeing your post:
So in order to describe a contracting universe it would be necessary to add the constant twice right?
But would that be the whole term Lambada*u*v, or Lambada*g*u*v as you say, or would it be a case of doubling the Lambada value?
The Lambada value is 0.5 so doubling that would be in as much as saying +1*u*v or +1*g*u*v (I'll have to look at the program again tomorrow to see if I wrote it down wrong)
if Einstein's equation minus the constant caused an expanding universe, there must be a rate to this expansion within the maths of the equation surely?
And... If the constant stops this rate of expansion, surely there must be an equal and equalising negative rate within that constant?

I don't think you can get accelerated expansion out of a constant though. You'd have to change it to a variable of some sort.
I assume you are familiar with ρ_{vac} = ρ_{Λ} ≡ Λ/8πG
Sorry, equation fn on here isn't working yet so bit laborious to type out with alt codes.
Didn't mean to interrupt your discussion, I'll leave you to it.

Combining the moment of inertia tensor with the stress energy momentum tensor is fun.

Ah  Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.
Mike of course will no doubt recognise the maths of your interjection to understand the context, but I on the other hand could use a few words of explanation to ensure that my guess work is correct.
This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?
Jeff  Yes, thanks for that! I'm sure it is fun for those in the know. So what moment of inertia do you refer to, and is that relevant to Einstein's constant in relation to Dark Energy? Enigmaticism's aren't particularly the remit of being informative I'll have you know.

Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.
Mike  'evidence' is a bit of a strong term for velocity related red shift interpretation.
Evidence was found to support a correlation between red shift and distance, but there is no evidence to support the velocity related interpretation. The 'speed' of a red shift could just as easily be interpreted as a 'rate of time'.

Mr. timey
Well, about dark energy:
Dark energy is unknown form of energy presumed to be exist througt the space and It is also said to be causing expansion of universe. Dark energy is homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity.
Dark energy is said to be slowing down.
Do dark energy causing expansion of universe:
Dark energy is also known as vacuum energy. Do this vacuum is having power.
Ok, let us study it with simple example, basing on which our predecessors estimated strength of dark energy.
Let us take a plastic bucket filled with water. Take another plastic bucket, close the first one using this bucket. Now create vacuum in between these two buckets. Water in the bucket start raising. It is said when vacuum is created, dark energy started creating pressure on the water.
This is incorrect. When vacuum is created, pressure on the water is lost and it is just relaxed and start raising. Here, pressure in between two buckets is low, but pressure inside water is high and it tries to occupy the gap.
Here power of vacuum is possible only when:
01 Pressure outside is high
Actually it is not the power or strength of the Dark energy but outside energy.
So, naturally Dark energy has no role in the expansion or contraction of universe.
Yours
Psreddy

Ah  Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.
I'm not foolish enough to get drawn into this discussion, but as you (I hope) persevere with learning more maths you will find that more of your views change with an understanding of what I was saying.
This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?
A constant is a constant not a variable, but you have to determine the correct value of the constant and equivalences like this can help. However, you are dropping in to the borderland between standard model and GR and one of the more interesting areas of speculation. I'm sure you are already aware of the quantum fluctuation problem and it's link to dark energy, the cosmological constant, etc and no doubt Mike will be happy to discuss it.
Just a final comment. As I look at Alan's recent posts I note you commented:
Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.
The observation doesn't just disappear like a mirage. Last year I took the trouble to write out a simplified explanation of how this works. I note that Pete has also linked to an explanation using a diagrammatic approach, but he also seems convinced you haven't read it.
I'm not going to go over old ground & repeat myself here, because I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive. However, the effect is real but like many measurements eg speed, energy, momentum, it is dependant on where the measurement is being made.

Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.
Mike  'evidence' is a bit of a strong term for velocity related red shift interpretation.
Evidence was found to support a correlation between red shift and distance, but there is no evidence to support the velocity related interpretation. The 'speed' of a red shift could just as easily be interpreted as a 'rate of time'.
My point was simply that Hubble made the measurements and noticed the correlation between distance and speed. He left it up to theorists (like Einstein) to explain the cause of that correlation.

I don't think you can get accelerated expansion out of a constant though. You'd have to change it to a variable of some sort.
I assume you are familiar with ρ_{vac} = ρ_{Λ} ≡ Λ/8πG
Sorry, equation fn on here isn't working yet so bit laborious to type out with alt codes.
Didn't mean to interrupt your discussion, I'll leave you to it.
I am not. That would be the energy density of free space for c=1 I think. Nicely done though. I hadn't thought of using alt codes to render Greek letters.
Wikipedia says "A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe, as observed." I speculated in a previous comment that the constant would have to be changed to a variable in order to account for accelerated expansion because that wasn't discovered until 1998. Why would Einstein drop the constant if GR predicts accelerated expansion and Hubble's data did not? The answer must be that Hubble did observe accelerated expansion and the new data just suggests a faster rate. The literature could be much clearer on this point, but Wikipedia also notes that the level of confidence in the 1998 analysis has dropped from 5sigma to 3sigma so the cosmological constant (and the dark energy from whence it is presumed to originate) may be doomed again.

Ah  Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.
I'm not foolish enough to get drawn into this discussion, but as you (I hope) persevere with learning more maths you will find that more of your views change with an understanding of what I was saying.
This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?
A constant is a constant not a variable, but you have to determine the correct value of the constant and equivalences like this can help. However, you are dropping in to the borderland between standard model and GR and one of the more interesting areas of speculation. I'm sure you are already aware of the quantum fluctuation problem and it's link to dark energy, the cosmological constant, etc and no doubt Mike will be happy to discuss it.
Just a final comment. As I look at Alan's recent posts I note you commented:
Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.
The observation doesn't just disappear like a mirage. Last year I took the trouble to write out a simplified explanation of how this works. I note that Pete has also linked to an explanation using a diagrammatic approach, but he also seems convinced you haven't read it.
I'm not going to go over old ground & repeat myself here, because I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive. However, the effect is real but like many measurements eg speed, energy, momentum, it is dependant on where the measurement is being made.
I wasn't trying to draw you into a conversation of such type. Just an answer as to why you referred to the sum would have been fine.
Something along the lines of:
"Yes timey, if you add the equation I mention like this, for this reason, this resulting in maths that can describe an accelerative or decelerative aspect to adding, or subtracting the lambada constant equation to or from Einstein's equation"
...i.e. putting your input into context, would be just fine.
The only reason that I mentioned to you that my understanding had been altered is a) to try and break the ice a little, and b) because I realise that the system within the current maths by which my model can be calculated is much simpler than I first thought.
Edit: And it was in talking to Alan that I realised this actually..
I know very well that the cosmological constant is related to Dark Energy, and the standard model, and to quantum.
And... as my model, via a subtle change to the equivalence principle, unites the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum, I very much hope the conversation gets that far, where conversations with Mike are enjoyable because although he too is a fairly staunch relative fan, he actually thinks what I'm saying through and the conversation is progressive.
As to some of my conversations you refer to, I really do not need anybody to explain to me how conventional relativity views the situation. I am saying to try viewing it a differing way. And quoting current physics, saying that that is just relativity and pointing me to Alevel physics, or making enigmatic remarks doesn't cut it for me, but maths explanations 'are' very helpful.
I already know that the results of viewing the situation in the way that conventional relativity does are that the standard model is not united with gravity, there is no formal theory on time, and physics cannot get behind the Big Bang or the event horizon of a black hole.
You may prefer to go down the observer dependent rabbit hole, and be my guest, but what happens when there is no observer? sh1t still happens man! And it's what's happening that interests me...
And in any case, the measuring of anywhere is entirely dependent on which time you hold measurement relative to. Make measurements over there by over there's rate of time, all measurements remain the same.
Nobody is ever going to 'tell me' what to think under any circumstances, in any field. I question everything without fail, think it through, make investigation...and hey, do you know what Colin, my investigations tell me that physics is looking for a theory that can unite the current physics.
Has this information reached your ears, Colin?
Or are you prejudice to the possibility that an uneducated nonmathematician is capable of inspired thought, and your commentary trending towards the notion that I will somehow be struck by the foolishness of my notions in the face of the infallible logic of current physics, and that having read many books by cutting edge professional physicists, this will occur due to commentary posted upon this site?
If so I will duly apologise... I always do if I'm in the wrong.

The expansion of the universe without the Dark Energy notion wasn't thought to be a constant speed. It was thought to be slowing down.
However  you do have a point there...
I wrote this before seeing your post:
So in order to describe a contracting universe it would be necessary to add the constant twice right?
But would that be the whole term Lambada*u*v, or Lambada*g*u*v as you say, or would it be a case of doubling the Lambada value?
The Lambada value is 0.5 so doubling that would be in as much as saying +1*u*v or +1*g*u*v (I'll have to look at the program again tomorrow to see if I wrote it down wrong)
if Einstein's equation minus the constant caused an expanding universe, there must be a rate to this expansion within the maths of the equation surely?
And... If the constant stops this rate of expansion, surely there must be an equal and equalising negative rate within that constant?
Wikipedia says Λ=1.19×10^{52} m^{2}
Note that u and v are indices, not multiplicative factors.

Mike  a woman who's name I posted earlier this thread (edit: Henrietta Swan Leavitt, as she should be remembered), noticed that there was a correlation between red shift and distance.* Needless to say a speed would not be noticeable due to the photographic nature of the observation, impossible to observe in real time anyway, and is indeed more to the point entirely experimentally unverifiable.
*Actually to be more precise Leavitt discovered the luminositytime period to determine distance, and:
quote wiki:
After Leavitt's death, Edwin Hubble used the luminosity–period relation for Cepheids together with spectral shifts first measured by fellow astronomer Vesto Slipher at Lowell Observatory to determine that the universe is expanding (see Hubble's law).
Hubble's interpretation added the velocity related aspect...
This interpretation can be interpreted differently to the same dimensions by interpreting the observation as being related to this third time dilation, rather than being velocity related, where the rate of velocity of a red shift can be directly recalculated as a rate of time. Where we are now (of course) considering that galaxies are not expanding away from each other.
By knowing the mass of the star, and the distance of star, one can know the frequency the light started out with and the value of the gfield between.
The third time dilation I propose is inherent to the gfield where light will shift in frequency, as has been experimentally proven, and the third time dilation of the gfield will cause the light to take a longer time to travel. i:e. physical cause for curvature.
Edit: In reply to your post. What I do understand is that the right hand expression of Einstein's equation is equal to the left side. How it gets equal doesn't concern me. What I'm interested in is the fact that without the added expression on the left side, Einstein's equation describes an expanding universe, so there must be some multiplying variable over time inclusive within the left side.
And that by adding the mathematical expression of his constant on the left side, to counteract this expansion over time, there must be an action that is negative with respect to this multiplying variable factor of the left side expression, within the additional expression of the constant to the left side in order to achieve the desired steady state universe that Einstein first sought.
Edit 2: The the multiplying factor over time may well occur on the right side for all I know, but that the equation without the added constant expression causes expansion, and that with it is stopping this expansion is where I'm coming from.

In addition to post above:
Don't get me wrong Mike  I have watched the GR Susskind lectures and am well aware of the complexity that is summed up in those mathematical expressions.
I also understand that I can view the summing up of that complexity into the form of Einstein's equation as the bigger picture of that complexity.
So yes the logic of adding or not adding, or indeed subtracting this mathematical expression of Einstein's constant interests me for the reasons I've said above.

Leavitt's story is unfortunately typical. Credit rarely goes where credit is due. Galileo, Kepler and Darwin are all guilty of the same crime. (I only recently learned of Kepler's guilt in that book you recommended by Smolin. A top rate book. It should be mandatory reading for all would be scientists.)

Note that you can put the cosmological constant on either side of the equation. In fact, the energy density representation is traditionally placed on the RHS with a corresponding change in sign. The equality expressed in Einstein's field equation is that between spacetime curvature and energy.

Contravariance, covariance, basis vectors and dual basis vectors. Vectors and 1forms. Keep reading timey.

pasala: Friends, I would like to add few lines, regarding my opinion on time dilation and c. Well, it is true that time dilates for two reasons gravity and velocity.
It is almost axiomatic that gravity will affect not time, but a clock, this is especially so when a single second is equal to 9,192,631,770 ticks as in an atomic clock. Hence even raising the clock by a few centimetres will result in a difference in the gravitational potential and the loss of whatever fractions of a tick or tock that that translates to. But to say that this is a proof of General Relativity is absolutely nonsensical. It is understandable that if the tick (or tock) was really due to gravity that there should be a quantifiable difference in the time shown by clocks near the sun and clocks near the earth due to the gravitational force of the sun being proportionately greater and with the degrees of measurement available today this is probably what will be found if an experiment is done.
On the other hand if the difference in time were really due to General Relativity the difference in time would not be measured in individual ticks or tocks or fractions of ticks and tocks but in whole minutes, this of course palpably does not happen. So to treat any slight variations in ticks and tocks as a proof of General Relativity is absurd.
Secondly any difference in time in clocks subjected to velocity is adequately explained using purely classical physics. A clock on a plane automatically acquires the velocity of the plane itself and this might also cause a difference in a tick or a tock again nowhere near what is needed to satisfy relativity.
pasala : Speed of light: There are number of invisible things influencing speed of light. At present we are taking two mirrors, focusing light on them and measuring the time taken to travel. But we are feeling that outside is empty and that fresh ray is created each time. This is not at all correct and no fresh ray is created.
I agree with this assessment, it is another way of stating that looking at an object from a different point of view does not necessarily result in a new frame of reference. As I have repeatedly pointed out the existence of a Universal aether would sort out all of these problems in a very prosaic, day to day manner, without any of the exoticism of GR or SR. Also if the speed of light is made constant and everything else is variable what can't you change? You can morph a kitten into a tiger and do anything else you want.
Coming back to the main gist of the argument, it is a great , a very great pity, that not enough attention is given to an investigation of the first causes surrounding the rise of special and general relativity. If the situation is examined it is found to be the ultimate absurdity. Michelson and Morley were looking for an aether that was several millions of time more rigid than steel yet permeable enough for the sun and the planets to pass easily through and at the same time was so elusive as to evade any attempts at detection. What is even more titillating or shocking, depending on one's point of view, is the fact that the Michelson & Morley nonexperiment is still referred to today as if it were the ultimate proof that General Relativity and Special Relativity do in fact exist and are real tangible proofs of the way the Universe functions. As the great GBS said: 'Politics is the last resource of the scoundrel.' It could be equally true to say that "Relativity (whether special or general) is the last resort of a desperate scientist."
All of the greatest Scientific minds including Poincare, Lorentz, Maxwell and indeed Einstein himself truly believed that an aether especially one with electromagnetic properties would solve every problem in physics. Unfortunately no such aether model was forthcoming and as stated above special relativity and general relativity were accepted in an act of desperation since there was no other alternative.
Today NeoClassical physics ( also known as Gestalt Aether Theory) offers a model of the aether which accounts for every known phenomena in physics from electromagnetism, to radio waves to gravity and neutrinos. This theory deserves greater notice.

Leavitt's story is unfortunately typical. Credit rarely goes where credit is due. Galileo, Kepler and Darwin are all guilty of the same crime. (I only recently learned of Kepler's guilt in that book you recommended by Smolin. A top rate book. It should be mandatory reading for all would be scientists.)
Oh good Mike, I'm glad you rated the book. I found it to be incredibly informative about where current theories do correspond with each other. Smolin gives specific instruction about precisely which issues are causing problem, and provides a template within his book concerning the matters that need to be examined marked out in the 5 big questions that cause the current theories not to be unified.
Now I know you have read it, I will get my copy out and reread it that I may talk with you in more precise terms about these questions.
Smolin also talks about the relationship between nonmathematicians and mathematicians concerning theoretical physics, making interesting psychological observations, also giving description of the type of religious dogma that both mathematicians and nonmathematicians can fall foul of when trying to put forward new ideas, and the fact that this attitude towards new ideas can only hamper the progress of physics.
Where he has already laid out an examination of time itself within the remit of current physics, making observation of how SR, GR and the standard model regard the phenomenon of time and what those differences are, concludes the book in discussing his notion that the underlying fault in physics may lie with our perception of time, and that he would have to get his thinking cap on.
My model is derived straight from these observations that Smolin makes about time, where I have taken the view that time is a reactive phenomenon that is inherent to the universe itself, and that this time phenomenon is energy related.
So Einstein's equation and an equality between spacetime curvature and energy is exactly what I want to be looking at, and because my model changes the remit of Hubble's velocity related red shift interpretation, and the model is contracting from just after my model's differing rendition of an inflation period, the fact of adding in, not adding in, or subtracting the mathematical expression of Einstein's constant to his original equation is also of relevance. This being because reinterpreting the red shift distance correlation in the way I suggest results in a nonexpanding universe, however because the universe must be either expanding or contracting, I look towards it contracting and am looking for a way to calculate that within the current maths.
But...there is a possibility within the remit of the reinterpretation my model makes of Hubble's velocity related red shifts that the universe may be a steady state of sorts. This could only be so if there is a precise balance between the formation of black holes from matter, and the formation of stars and planets associated with the 'emissions' either from a black hole, or from the actions surrounding the event horizon that give rise to clouds of high energy particles. There is some evidence to support this type of balance within the data concerning thunder clouds, in that positrons have been observed at high altitude (where there shouldn't be any) and high energy particle transitions are occurring.
In a steady state balanced universe what we would be looking at is a bit of a 'convection (?)' system of transference from one state to the other, and the vague possibility of particle creation within Compton scattering and high energy particle interaction.
This steady state balance does not give description of the Big Bang though. Therefore I prefer the contracting cyclic model that I'm proposing which suggests a bigger picture balance of an eventual transference over sequential time of all clumped matter back to individual particles via a universal singularity of 'all' matter in the form of a singular black hole. Which without having any counterpart gravitational partner to be a balancing factor will explode. (This black hole of the final throws of a universes cycle could be described as the 'white hole' that you have mentioned)
However Mike (chuckle)... Although my mathematical understanding gets better by the day, it really will be quite some time before I will be able to juggle the complexities of current mathematics to competently describe a contracting model as I propose.
Therefore I am looking for a mathematician, in much the same way one might look for an architect to design the type of house one has in mind, who would be up for producing the mathematics that will describe my contracting model.
I know it can be done. Anything can be calculated, (for better or worse, I appreciate). It's just a case of my finding someone who wants to.

Test post:
This topic is not refreshing to recent topics page.

Not at all, the mass doesn't exist, so what we called a mass is only an electromagnetic rotor, each piece of matter is an electromagnetic rotor. If the distance is low, the rotors can be in phase, so there is an attraction. If the distance is higher, (very far in Universe, not km !) the rotors can't be in phase and the gravity can be negative. The inertia is the energy needed to deform matter, and when a matter is moving there is a deformation, when an object moves in translation for example, the deformation gives a potential energy what we called "kinetic energy". So, the inertia mass is the same than the gravity, because the mass doesn't exist, there is only the inertia.
My theory needed only to create the energy and my device do it.

Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.

She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself
I'm agree with that, for me, to change the clock I need a velocity or a mass (not 2 masses). It is explained easily: the matter (each part of matter) is an electromagnetic rotor. The is a high electromagnetic attraction followed by a high electromagnetic repulsion, the mean is an attraction when the distance is low (at level of Universe) and can be a repulsion at far distance when it is not possible to synchronized the rotors because there is an inertia and there is the problem of synchronized N rotors.
How the clock can change with a mass: the electromagnetic rotor (a planet for example) is synchronized with the "clockparticle" of the clock. The clockparticle of the clock rotate around itself at a velocity 'c' (light speed). Attraction: the clockparticle will accelerate because there is an attraction, but it is not possible because the clockparticle is already at 'c'. Repulsion: the clockparticle will decelerate and it can. So the clockparticle need more time to make its round. And a round is necessary to change a step of the matter.
I don't know what is the clockparticle but maybe it has no mass, in fact I don't need a mass for that particle.
I don't know exactly how it operate the attraction/repulsion of the electromagnetic field, especially in 3 dimensions, I would appreciate the Universe more in 2 dimensions because it could be easier to understand my theory and less maths.
The attraction is very (very !) high like the repulsion, it is not a small attraction like gravity.

Or are you prejudice to the possibility that an uneducated nonmathematician is capable of inspired thought.
You really don't know me well enough to make that accusation. Those who do know me suggest I might lean in the opposite direction. May be partly due to in my early schooling being misstreamed so spent a great deal of time with people the school judged to be 'below average'. In many cases below average does not mean lower intelligence, I saw many reasons – prolonged childhood illness (more common then), frequent school moves, lack of home support for learning are just some. I have remained friends with some of those school friends and despite their not having paper qualifications they are more than capable of inspired thought and it is interesting how many who, not having the paper qualifications for a job to match their capabilities, have set up and run their own very successful businesses.
I was fortunate in that my problem was diagnosed and treated, but the slow start meant I left school with no real qualifications. So I had to rely on evening classes to get the qualifications I needed to go into fulltime study, but again in those evening classes I met intelligent thinkers who had missed out.
I have also spend quite a lot of time supporting adult numeracy courses, probably because of what I saw at school, and again I have met very intelligent people who have just not been well served by the school system they were in, or by personal circumstances. We had educational psychologists test our intake to see whether it was possible to tailor teaching technique to individual students, they commented that it was interesting that, despite this being a selfselecting group, a large number scored well above average on both verbal and nonverbal reasoning tests. So no, I don't link intelligence and level of education.
And before you leap to a different conclusion, we have raised 3 daughters and I'm married to a very intelligent woman, so I have no illusions about the intelligence and technical ability of women.
To be honest I don't think you stopped to think before writing this, if you had you might have wondered why I previously suggested you were capable of an OU degree if you lack the ability to think. We might disagree on some ideas and calculations, but that doesn't mean I downrate your intelligence.
At the risk of causing even more misunderstanding:
No, I don't expect you to have a Damascus moment and decide current physics is perfect – even I don't think it is. What I did mean is based on my own experience anything new I learn is reflected back and may change my previous understanding – a sort of 'Ah that's what was meant'.
Neither do I intend to try and teach you relativity. The two items I mentioned show, in different ways, that the way Pete & I think about time dilation (and I'm sure Jeff as well) has common ground with some of your thoughts. Pete has some good diagrams that show why the usual textbook explanation can be misleading, but for some reason they aren't showing in the browser, I've pm'd him about it.
I might remove this in a few days so as not to block the thread.
Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.
Mike
The open nature of the thread title makes it difficult to limit contributions from others. I've said before that the way the theory is presented and the analogies used don't help to make the ideas clear to a reader, particularly as they are spread over a large number of posts stretching back years.
Can I suggest that you agree with Timey a thread title something like 'Scoping and defining Inverted Time Theory'. I think it would be useful to have all the propositions, assumptions, effects eg how is light affected vs test mass, inputs eg evidence, etc and to do so in a brainstorming format ie no critique or analysis at this stage, just clarification.
That way it would be possible limit off topic contributions. I'm sure Jeff would agree to join me in policing any off topic input.

Colin  it was a question not an accusation, but I am conscious of how others reading may perceive conversations that occur on this site, so thanks for your post above. Appreciated!

Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.
Mike  yes, that is the perspective I am examining as being a physical possibility.
I am getting into these temporally spatial considerations at present with Alan on this thread, where I have been looking at potential energy being responsible for an m in relation to M interpretation of GR time dilation, and am now attempting to set that concept into a temporally dilated open space, rather than a spatially dilated open space:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69875.new;topicseen#top

Bad starting point. The gravitational potential sign convention is there because there's no theoretical upper limit to M, so deep space is the zero reference point and gravitational potential is always negative towards M, hence if you like the concept, near space is "temporally constricted". But why bother when the conventional GR dilatation equation works perfectly in practice?

Because the standard model isn't united wth gravity.
Gravity potential energy being converted into kinetic energy to bounce 2 cannonballs of vastly differing mass values off a trampoline to same height implies that potential energy has physical consequences and therefore cannot be 'just' a convention.
And as a side issue  a temporal constriction implies shorter seconds.

Mike
The open nature of the thread title makes it difficult to limit contributions from others. I've said before that the way the theory is presented and the analogies used don't help to make the ideas clear to a reader, particularly as they are spread over a large number of posts stretching back years.
Can I suggest that you agree with Timey a thread title something like 'Scoping and defining Inverted Time Theory'. I think it would be useful to have all the propositions, assumptions, effects eg how is light affected vs test mass, inputs eg evidence, etc and to do so in a brainstorming format ie no critique or analysis at this stage, just clarification.
That way it would be possible limit off topic contributions. I'm sure Jeff would agree to join me in policing any off topic input.
When you open a new thread, you are instructed to ask a question in the title. Maybe the instructions should be extended to make an exception for this section of the forum.
Policing sounds a bit aggressive. Moving them into new threads and leaving links behind would be kinder, but you (and other referees) would then have to coin new titles. Maybe you could use PMs to encourage offenders to do that on their own.

But why bother [with timey's theory] when the conventional GR dilatation equation works perfectly in practice?
Good question. I think the reason why timey wants to abandon spatial dilation is that it's a hard pill to swallow. Bell's spaceship paradox exemplifies the issue. I think she may be jumping the gun though. It's not immediately clear (to me at least) that the new temporal dilation will necessarily invalidate spatial dilation. However, it's hard to argue the point one way or the other without a recipe.

Mike  the recipe for the third time dilation 'is' the 'action' of the acceleration of gravity.
Because the third time dilation of the gfield itself is inherent with faster seconds closer to M, any m in that field being attracted towards M will be accelerated in its trajectory towards M by the fact of shorter seconds closer to M.
Other than m having to move through this open space time dilation, the third time dilation has no connection whatsoever to conventional GR gravitational time dilation, other than GR time dilation being an m in relation to M phenomenon, and that both time dilation a relate back to M via the gfield. It is important to take on board that both of these time dilation are occurring simultaneously to each other.
(When SR time dilation is added in, this architecture then negates the necessity for relativistic mass)
SR time dilation will need to be added in, and that gets more complex (and very interesting), but one would find that SR spatial dilation is no longer necessary to describe curvature.
The third time dilation is already causing this curvature as a temporal dilation, rather than a spatial dilation, and also gives a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, where at present noone has a clue 'why' gravity accelerates as it does, physics only knows that it does.

The problem is, GR dilation has nothing to do with m. It's all about M. The recipe for a stationary observer is dT = dt * sqrt(12GM/rc^{2}), where dT is the change in proper (i.e. local) time and dt is the change is coordinate time (i.e. as perceived by a distant observer.) If both observers are at intermediate locations then dt_{1}/dt_{2} = sqrt((12GM/r_{1}c^{2})/(12GM/r_{2}c^{2})).

That is because GR time dilation is attributed as an open space phenomenon. Current physics states time as running faster at h from M.
My model switches GR time dilation to being an m in relation to M phenomenon, where all m will be subject to time dilation in the gfield regardless of mass value in the same way that all m is subject to accelerating towards M in the gfield regardless of mass value.
My model then attributes the third time dilation to the open space that m is in, and states this as the cause of the acceleration that m experiences in the gfield.

OK, but what is the recipe? How does m affect dilation? Is dT proportional to m or m^{2} for example? Does it depend on the distance to the observer (i.e. h from m)?

Well actually I think that we don't need to include an observer.
A clock will tick faster at elevation due to gravity potential energy. How does one calculate an acceleration for all values of mass?
However one calculates that an acceleration can be equal for all values of mass in the gfield is how one can calculate that time dilation will be equal for all values of mass at any h from M.
The third time dilation can be calculated directly from the red shift blue shift maths where light frequency increases closer to mass as it arrives, and reduces further away from mass as it leaves.

The clock is the observer. Acceleration due to gravity (in a Newtonian context) is simply GM/r^{2}. This is true for all possible values of m and M, but not all possible values of r.

Well G in that equation would be describing the third time dilation which is now attributed to open space gfield.
Now all we need to do is figure out an equation that holds time dilation for m at h from M equal for all values of mass.
Potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy in free fall where a bigger mass will bounce off a trampoline to the same height as a smaller mass. A bigger mass has more potential energy than a smaller mass if held at rest with respect to the gfield, but more potential energy being converted into kinetic energy in free fall doesn't cause the bigger mass to fall faster.
What I'm looking for here is an equation that causes all values of mass to experience an equal degree of time dilation at h from M.

G is nothing more than a unit conversion factor. The point of the equation is that acceleration is proportional to M/r^{2}. The time dilation associated with that relationship is the one I gave above: dT=dt*sqrt(12GM/rc^{2}). These are the equations for m at r from M.

Yes  under current physics remit this is so.
Let me rephrase, the equation using G in relation to M and r^2 describing gravitational acceleration is already describing the third time dilation that my model attributes to open space. The point being that the third time dilation is proportional to M/r^2.
The phenomenon of GR time dilation is then removed from the domain of the open space gfield and is attributed to being an m with respect to M time dilation that all m in relation to radius from M will experience equally.

If the 3rd time dilation depends on M, it is not an attribute of open space. If you hijack GR dilation as the 3rd dilation, you are left lacking a recipe for GR dilation.

It only depends on M for a value in the gfield surrounding M.

The gfield around M extends to infinity. Open space is just locations that are sufficiently removed from M that the gforce is effectively zero.

And therefore the seconds of the 3rd time dilation would get longer to infinity, and time would stop in a 0 gravity field.

Yes, as perceived by a local observer. The distant observer perceives local time to stop at the horizon. The local observer perceives distant time to speed up towards infinity. GPS is a prime example of this.

And what relevance does that actually have?
In fact a local observer in a 0 gravity field is an impossibility because the observer is mass, and if the observer was at rest with respect to the gravity field, his time would be running very fast with respect to the nearest M which would be a great distance away indeed if the gravity field was near 0.

The point is that GR time dilation makes perfect sense. What's missing in your theory is a recipe for the new dilation. The only thing we have established so far is that it depends on the distance of the observer from M, but not on M itself. (Because, if it depended on M then it would be one and the same with GR dilation.)
Note that 0gravity means M=0. There is no GR dilation in that case: dT=dt at all points in space.

No  the 3rd time dilation is an ether type scenario and isn't observed by anyone except in the form of an accelerative force that increases at reduced h from M.
It doesn't need to be described as it already is being described within the current maths.
What does need to be redescribed (for the purpose of my model), is GR time dilation, where the values remain the same, but for the reason that all m at h from M experiences this increased rate of time equally at any given elevation of h from M.
This differs from conventional relativity in that GR time dilation is no longer implying that time gets faster at h from M. It states that time will only be getting faster for m at h from M.
The 3rd time dilation will be getting slower at h from M.
Each will be the equal and opposite of each other at any h from M.

But it is already true that all m at h from M experience the same GR time dilation for a given value of M. You can make m as big or small as you like, as long as m>=0. I think you're talking about another dilation that depends on both m and M when the observer is colocated with m.

But physics makes sums of m at h from M on the basis of a caesium atoms frequency always being 9,192,631,770Hz at any gravity potential...
No  I'm looking to unite the standard model with gravity.

No. The number of oscillations per second (or the number of seconds per oscillation) depends on altitude. You can interpret that as time dilation or variable light speed. The net effect is the same.

So why this obsession with observer dependency?
And if the atom really has a higher frequency at altitude it must have a higher energy...

You need an observer to experience time. A clock is an observer. An observer is a clock. A clock at altitude runs faster because it has more potential energy.

But time does not need an observer to operate. Observer or not it's still does its thing.

No. Time is meaningless without an observer to experience it. The observer doesn't have to be sentient though. Anything that oscillates will do. An atom for example.

A clock at altitude runs faster because it has more potential energy.
Exactly... And all other mass at altitude has more potential energy which is why it experiences time at the same rate that the clock is ticking. All particles will have more energy and higher frequency at altitude.
So this GR time dilation does not have to be associated with the open space surrounding mass that is the gfield being caused by M.
In reply to in between post, yes  all particles will oscillate. The observation of this oscillation will be dependent on where the observer is observing from, but only because an observer holds his observation relative to the rate that his own clock is ticking.

You may now mention that the pe=m times something or another equation, (it would take me time to look it up,) would cause different values of mass to have more or less potential energy at higher altitude than they would at lower altitude, and if the time dilation was potential energy related differing mass values would be subject to different degrees of time dilation at same altitude, which is not what we observe...
...and occilations must remain proportional to each other in every coordinate at h from M, to satisfy the equivalence principle.

You don't need an observer to make the atom oscillate (at least not in a classical sense  some QM theorists would beg to differ.) The oscillation has consequences for the atom independent of any external observer. The point is that the atom is an observer of time and its mass can be arbitrarily small so that it has no significant impact on the passage of time as perceived by any other observer.

Fair do's. I am in agreement.
However it is the m in relation to M that causes it to have additional potential energy. I don't see the atom gaining energy on its own steam, but as per being in a relationship with M.
But as per post above?

The equation you're thinking of is PE=mgh. An object's experience of time at altitude does not depend on its mass. Time dilation depends on the ratio of PE to m (i.e. gh.) Note that g=GM/h^{2}. (These are all classical approximations of course.)

Well in that case all the math can remain more or less the same.
But the interpretation of the reasons for the math have changed with the time dilation interpretation of the acceleration of gravity, where now one calculates time as stopped in the 0 gravity field, and we have a temporally deduced dilation of space where Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation is replaced by this temporal description were wavelength in the gfield is time dilation related, not distance related, and we can go look at adding energy to the particles of the black body of the black body experiment and apply the increase in occilations time dilation being experienced by the black body as being the cause of the emissions of higher energy and frequency photons...

But time does not stop when g=0 (indeed, what would it stop relative to?) and concepts like velocity, frequency and energy are meaningless if time stands still. (We're talking about stationary reference frames of course so we can ignore SR.)

My model would agree with you in that time does not stop for m in a 0 gravity field, for the reason that if m is there it is not a 0 gravity field, and you can't measure a 0 gravity field of m is not there.
m in a near non zero gravity field would have a fast rate, while the gfield itself would have a slow rate.

What about light, for which m=0? You are suggesting that the passage of time depends on the value of m. That is demonstrably not true.

Ah  well you see where lights frequency increases where it gets closer to M, where an m's frequency decreases when it gets closer to M is going in the opposing direction, therefore my model's says that light doesn't have potential energy because it has no mass, and it only experiences the acceleration or deceleration of the 3rd time dilation otherwise known as the acceleration, or deceleration of gravity.
The light gravitationally shifts and the extra/lesser length of wavelength is 3rd time dilation related,

PE is a classical concept. It doesn't make sense for objects travelling at or near light speed or for objects that have no mass.
An observer perceives lower frequencies (i.e. red shift) when peering down a gravity well. You can interpret that as observer time speeding up due to its own mass rather than local time slowing down due to the remote object's proximity to the gravitating mass, but a third party of different mass perceives the same red shift as long as all observers are much lighter than the gravitating mass.

When you open a new thread, you are instructed to ask a question in the title. Maybe the instructions should be extended to make an exception for this section of the forum.
Policing sounds a bit aggressive. Moving them into new threads and leaving links behind would be kinder, but you (and other referees) would then have to coin new titles. Maybe you could use PMs to encourage offenders to do that on their own.
Can't remember where 'it is written' but the question rule is relaxed for new theories and chat etc. It's only enforced in the 3 main sections.
On policing. If it is clear what the purpose of the thread is and stated up front I would expect people to respect that. Although we do our best to be sympathetic in moderating, the moderators are unpaid volunteers and we all have day jobs or projects so we have limited time to manage people who decide to be awkward  and there are quite a few of those.
Have a think how best to set it up  if at all  and we'll do what we can to help it run.
Timey will need to write all this up in a concise form anyway if she's going to publish.
PS Don't see why Bell's is a problem for distance, great teaching aid on accelerated frames. Probably a side issue at this stage anyway, get the system analysis done 1st, detail later.

PE is a classical concept. It doesn't make sense for objects travelling at or near light speed or for objects that have no mass.
If we look at potential energy as a time accelerant for mass, and kinetic energy as a time decelerant for mass, then mass held at rest with respect to the gfield of M will have more potential energy, where pe=mgh, and pe/m = time accelerant, which under that remit will render the time accelerant as equal for all values of m and nonexistent for 0 mass phenomenon such as light, and the gfield itself.
Converting pe into ke will decrease the time accelerant as in free fall. Changing a position at rest with respect to the gfield, to a lower potential at rest with respect to the gfield will not increase ke, but it will decrease the pe and therefore the value of the time accelerant will decrease.
Add pe to a body in the form of an accelerant (fuel) to be converted into pe that is converted into acceleration, where acceleration converts pe into ke resulting in less time accelerant and time slows down for moving body.
An observer perceives lower frequencies (i.e. red shift) when peering down a gravity well. You can interpret that as observer time speeding up due to its own mass rather than local time slowing down due to the remote object's proximity to the gravitating mass,
..."you can interpret that as observer time speeding up due to its own mass"...
I'm suggesting that the observer in this scenarios time would be speeding up not as a product of its own mass, but as a product of its proximity to M. Get another value M and m in same proximity, i.e: at same m at same h from a different value M, will have a differing rate of time. It is M that denotes how much potential energy m will experience at h from M, and pe=mgh, where pe/m then renders the time accelerant as being equal at that h from M for all value of m.
An observer perceives lower frequencies (i.e. red shift) when peering down a gravity well.
Yes and an observer will perceive higher frequencies (i.e. blue shift) when peering up a gravity well.
But light is a differing observation for 2 reasons. Firstly one can only see the light when it arrives at one's observation point, so one is only viewing what the light looks like at their gravity potential.
And secondly that an observer peering down a gravity well, his clock's frequency (and the frequency of all the atoms that make up his body and that of his craft) is increased at that h from M compared to how it would be at a lower gravity potential. Whereas lights frequency is reduced at that h from M compared to what it was in the lower gravity potential.
Therefore my model states that the light being of 0 m doesn't have any pe to increase its frequency at h from M, and is only subject to the 3rd time dilation, this 3rd time dilation being otherwise and more commonly known as the accelerative and declarative force of gravity in the gfield of M that all m and light must move through when experiencing changing positions in the gfield with respect to M.

Except that time dilation applies in the absence of m.

And how would you know that without measuring it?
And how would you measure it without involving mass?

Use a photon.
The interesting point is that we know F = GMm/r^{2} and F = ma if m<<M, but we don't know why m_{grav} = m_{inert }

But the photon can only be observed at one's location in the gravity potential.
And the photon emitter in the gravity potential is a mass.
Back to my Google investigations for full translation of some of those maths terms...and some thinking.

mgrav=minert is part of the equivalence principle.
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.
...and if you consider the possibility that the acceleration is caused by a 3rd time dilation factor in the gfield itself, then acceleration is independent of the nature of the accelerated body  but will be dependent upon the gfield value in relation to the nature of M.

mgrav=minert is not only part the equivalence principle, it is the equivalence principle in its entirety. In Einstein's own words, "observers falling freely in a gravitational field do not feel their own weight." The only caveats are that they do feel tidal forces and it's not clear if the principle holds when escape velocity approaches light speed.

Yes  the equivalence principle, or concepts close to it, also imply that the caesium atom will be of the same frequency in each and every reference frame, and states the speed of light as constant.
The tidal forces being gravitational direction, are, in my model, associated with the magnetic moment/s of an atom, and accelerated in that direction by the 3rd time dilation, otherwise known as the acceleration of gravity.
If it is a time dilation related acceleration this would afford a weightless feeling, and all value of mass would accelerate at same rate.
*
Going back to the Einstein equation and the fact that without adding the mathematical expression of the constant, Einstein's equation describes a universe that is expanding...
Logically speaking, as I mentioned before, this would require that the equation without the expression of the constant has a factor that describes an expansion.
Why does this equation describe expansion?
What is the expanding factor within those mathematics?
For instance, is it distance?
*
In answer to edit: Speed of light held relative to what rate of time?

Yes  the equivalence principle, or concepts close to it, also imply that the caesium atom will be of the same frequency in each and every reference frame, and states the speed of light as constant.
So that's all right, then. And the constancy of c can be demonstrated with a variant of the Michelson Morley experiment without invoking any time measurement.

Unless the Michealson Morley experiment's inline arm does not shrink for the reason that the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time...

In which case, as an inverse effect, the LIGO tubes do not shrink either for the reason that the local rate of time has been affected for the duration of the gravity wave.

I'm not entirely clear how one gets an expanding universe from the SC metric. The only formal derivation I know of is the Friedmann (FD) metric, which is something entirely different: ds^{2} = a(t)^{2}ds_{3}^{2}  c^{2}dt^{2}
The quantity ds_{3} comprises the spatial displacements and a(t) is an arbitrary function of time. You can use GR principles to compute a(t) for any given spatial topology (i.e. flat space, expanding space or contracting space.) The result is then parameterized to align with Hubble's data and, without a cosmological constant, expanding space is presumably the best fit. (I've never seen that calculation, but it has presumably convinced many experts.)
This calculation is entirely contrived because, unlike the SC metric, which is anchored on a gravitating mass, the FD metric is anchored on the observer. SC curvature has a physical explanation, which is the energy of the gravitating mass. FD curvature is empirical. It doesn't depend on the mass of the observer, only Hubble's data. We just give it a name  the Big Bang  and presume that it applies for all points in space.
It seems to me that a more reasonable approach would be to use the SC metric to predict how the universe looks when viewed from inside a gravity well. If you adopt the variable light speed interpretation, the speed of light (and everything else) increases towards infinity as you peer deeper and deeper into space. In this view, the expansion that we perceive from our vantage point here on Earth is primarily due to our proximity to our galactic core. An observer in intergalactic space would perceive flat space.
The reason I bring this up is that timey is trying to reconcile Hubble's data with the SC solution and that's essentially what Friedmann was trying to do.

Ok  it just came back to me why I though Euler's method in relation to Katherine Johnson was relevant to your thread.
You are using GR time dilation to hold your coordinate speed of light relative to. But when adding in SR spatial dilation, this fudges up your position within those GR coordinates, **unless you state your coordinate times as occurring at these variable spatial dimensions, i.e. that the GR time shifts occur not at every h from M, but occur as per extended radius held relative to variable distance**(I'll come back to this thought later)
If you go back and add more GR coordinates to the spatial dilation, then, by using the variable speeds of light within that spatial dilation to calculate, this then again affects the SR spatial dilation and you have to reassess your coordinates...again, and so on.
Right?
It would seem to me that you can hold the speed of light relative to the rate of time at a coordinate, or you can use SR to dilate spatial dimensions, but you cannot use SR to dilate space 'and' hold the speed of light relative to coordinate time because you get a catch 22 going on.
However, in calculating the above, you are already using a calculation that is describing the acceleration of gravity at each coordinate with an inclusion of a rendition of GM/r^2 operating within the maths.
My model has attributed the nature of this acceleration to a physical cause. This being that a 3rd time dilation is inherent to the gfield where seconds are getting shorter and shorter nearer M, and getting longer and longer out in space.
Current maths are already calculating this phenomenon as being gravitational acceleration.
So moving on  anything with mass will be affected by gravity potential, where pe=mgh. Where we can say that pe/m=time dilation equal for all value of m at h from M.
(It is appreciated that there may be a squaring that needs to occur in that equation, I am just illustrating that having arrived at a pe value using the mass value, that by dividing that pe value by the mass value we have an equal distribution of pe for all mass values that will result in an equal time dilation for all mass values at h from M)
Now that we have disassociated GR time dilation from the concept of time running faster for open space and the gfield itself, and attributed this phenomenon as being inherent to m in relation to M only, we can go back to looking at the acceleration of gravity and the attributed 3rd time dilation that gives physical cause for acceleration.
We know that this 3rd time dilation does not directly affect the rate of time for m,**although the acceleration that it causes does**(I'll come back to this thought later), but we can see that m is accelerated in the gfield with respect to M.
Now back to my earlier thought:
**unless you state your coordinate times as occurring at these variable spatial dimensions, i.e. that the GR time shifts occur not at every h from M, but occur as per extended radius held relative to variable distance**
Which will also give rise to problems but serves as a platform for me to say this:
If one considers that the 3rd time dilation, otherwise known as the acceleration of gravity is causing a temporal dilation...
When one holds the speed of light relative to GR time dilation, the GR coordinates will not be affected by the temporal dilation of the 3rd time dilation and the catch 22 is negated.
But... one won't need to add SR spatial dilation to describe curvature, it's already described.
But applying the principle of SR time and spatial dilation to this new picture as a phenomenon experienced by the traveller, rather than as a phenomenon observed by an observer, gets very interesting indeed!
Where I now come back to the thought:
The 3rd time dilation does not affect the the rate of time for m,**although the acceleration that it causes does**
SR (in your rendition), would be holding it's measurements relative to the coordinate speed of light.
So as the coordinate speed of light increases at h from M via being held relative to a GR time dilated shorter second, the 'constant' speed a traveler is travelling at becomes a lesser percentage of that coordinate speed of light, and the time dilation and resulting 'appearance' of spatial dilation that the traveler himself observes will trend to being shorter seconds and shorter distance.
**You may find that there isn't enough head room within a distance travelled for a traveler to experience the distance he is travelling to be lesser, or for the seconds on his clock to become shorter, unless his speed is being constantly decelerated that is...**(I'll come back to this thought)
If you add a decelerating phenomenon to the travellers speed, i.e: outbound into the decelerating force of gravity (3rd time dilation), the speed becomes a lesser percentage of the rising coordinate speed of light, resulting in the traveler experiencing faster seconds, resulting in a perceived shorter distance.
When adding an acceleration to the travellers speed on the inbound into the accelerating force of gravity (3rd time dilation), the speed traveled becomes a greater percentage of the coordinate speed of light. The traveller will perceive a lengthening of his seconds and will perceive distance travelled as being longer.
(There is an argument here that SR time dilation effects cancel out GR time dilation effects)
So, not withstanding the matter of travelling at **constant** speed at an accelerated or decelerated coordinate, whereby it would be possible to equate the factor of a form of additional energy to action conversion that might serve to balance any anomaly in the books, I don't see any reason why an expanding universe cannot be calculated as such, using the 3rd time dilation as an accelerative/decelerative force, and also as a temporally derived curvature of distance in space...
No reason, apart from the fact that lights frequency decreases and the wavelength gets longer at distance from M, which we have put down to the light being stretched by the velocity that light sources are receding away from us, so that's ok then...
But this does nothing to explain why the expansion was caused in the first place, nor the energy required to propel this expansion.
So  to calculate my contracting model, one simply holds the speed of light relative to the 3rd time dilation instead of GR time dilation, while holding SR measurement relative to the speed of light held relative to this 3rd time dilation.
Now the travellers 'constant' speed on the outbound is an escalating percentage of the coordinate speed of light, his personal time becomes increasingly dilated with longer seconds, and he experiences a distance travelled as being longer as a result. (A result he could just as easily attribute to GR time dilation btw)
If adding a decelerating phenomenon to the travellers speed, i.e. the decerative force of gravity (3rd time dilation), the speed becomes a lesser percentage of the speed of light of that coordinate... And if the value of the speed remains a constant percentage of the coordinate speed of light, the traveler will experience his SR effects as constant.
When adding an acceleration to the travellers speed on the inbound into an acceleration of gravity (third time dilation), the speed travelled becomes a lesser percentage of the speed of light of that coordinate... If the value of the speed remains a constant percentage of the coordinate speed of light, the traveller will experience his SR effects as constant.
(I'm not sure if this balance can be achieved via holding the coordinate speed of light relative to GR time dilation, but perhaps it can)
I think my model works better...
By separating GR time dilation for mass from the concept of time running faster in space, we have shown that light which has no mass will not have any potential energy and will not be subject to GR time dilation.
Unlike mass, light's frequency is known to reduce in the weaker gfield, and the longer length in wavelength can be thought to be 3rd time dilation related, which reinterprets Hubble's law as being a temporally deduced red shift distance correlation rather than Hubble's velocity related interpretation.
Now we have established possible cause, we could look to a contracting universe and my model's alternative rendition of Big Bang theory...

I'm not entirely clear how one gets an expanding universe from the SC metric. The only formal derivation I know of is the Friedmann (FD) metric, which is something entirely different: ds^{2} = a(t)^{2}ds_{3}^{2}  c^{2}dt^{2}
You are aware ratio observed density to critical density inversely proportional to Hubble parameter squared. You can link Hubble to cosmological via one of the Friedman Eqs using that equation. A while since I went through this so would need to work through again, but you should be able to get there.
Pity Pete won't join in, he's the expert, worked with Alan Guth and still has access for checking ideas.

THE Alan Guth? Isn't he famously brilliant? I imagine he would be loathe to drudge through this discussion thread because we are still waxing philosophical about timey's theory. We have yet to establish the (mathematical) recipe for her 3rd dilation for example. The relativistic correction to the SC metric thread might be more up his alley: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0).
The density ratio you (Colin2B) speak of goes into the specification of the spatial topology in the Friedmann analysis. It's one of the parameters you fiddle around with to get the FD metric to match Hubble's data.
I encourage timey to study the FD solution though. I think his observercentric metric might be the same as her free space dilation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations))

When you say a recipe for the 3rd time dilation what do you mean?
Is it not enough to describe that this time dilation is the cause of gravitational acceleration. That a body travelling at constant speed in a vacuum can be accelerated towards an M by seconds becoming progressively shorter closer to M, to the accelerative value of GM/r^2(if that is the equation that describes acceleration?)...?
I'll look at the link..

No, those maths are too complex for me, and it sounds like a calculation of an expanding universe. So no, there may be similarities from a mathematical perspective if one were to try and calculate a contracting model, but Freidman is not calculating a contracting model, nor is he stating the accelerative force of gravity as being time dilation related, far as I can see.

Sorry, but it took me over 3 hours to write post 293, gutted really...

Anyway  perhaps someone can help me...
If we were to say that the value of GR time dilation, associated with M Earth, caused an acceleration to an object travelling at a constant speed, i.e. being accelerated by shorter seconds, negating any gravitational attraction or other phenomenon completely, what value of an acceleration would GR time dilation cause in metres per second squared?

When you say a recipe for the 3rd time dilation what do you mean?
Is it not enough to describe that this time dilation is the cause of gravitational acceleration. That a body travelling at constant speed in a vacuum can be accelerated towards an M by seconds becoming progressively shorter closer to M, to the accelerative value of GM/r^2(if that is the equation that describes acceleration?)...?
I'll look at the link..
You are describing an existing interpretation of the SC solution. (The SC solution can be interpreted as variable light speed or variable time speed. The net effect is the same.) In a previous post you had postulated a different source of time dilation, which does not involve a gravitating mass. That's what Friedmann was on about.

Anyway  perhaps someone can help me...
If we were to say that the value of GR time dilation, associated with M Earth, caused an acceleration to an object travelling at a constant speed, i.e. being accelerated by shorter seconds, negating any gravitational attraction or other phenomenon completely, what value of an acceleration would GR time dilation cause in metres per second squared?
GR is consistent with Newton in the scenario you describe (i.e. here on Earth) regardless of whether you interpret it in terms of variable time speed or variable light speed. In other words, acceleration due to gravity is GM/r^{2} if the ratio of M to r^{2} is small enough. GR corrections for other cases are hard to pin down because M loses its meaning in a sufficiently strong field. The SC metric gives something like GM/r^{2}*(1r_{s}/r) where r_{s}=2GM/c^{2}. I don't think that's quite right though because the validity of the SC metric in close proximity to the event horizon is questionable.

If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)
It also means that time only runs faster in space for m in relation to M. Open space h from M is running slower time.
This is NOT the current view. The current view is that time runs slower nearer M and faster out in space. My idea completely changes that notion and the consequences of doing so are immense.
Now when a bigger M is involved such as a black hole, the same will apply, and the M of a black hole will have a much, much faster rate of time than Earth. And where there is m at h from M of black hole, time will run even faster for m only.
And this is what considering gravitational acceleration being time dilation related results in.
Calculating the SC under the remit of gravitational acceleration being time dilation related would result in a completely new picture of the physics for a black hole. No time stopped, no energy/information loss.
Just normal physics on a larger scale.
I don't know where I said that the 3rd time dilation was not related to the gravitational mass, but a gfield surrounding M is obviously caused by M. And the 3rd time dilation is caused by the gfield surrounding M, where the gfield is weaker at greater h from M, and the 3rd time dilation has longer seconds in the weaker gfield.

THE Alan Guth? Isn't he famously brilliant?
Yes Prof at MIT, the leading light on inflation, but free thinking and able to adapt it if necessary.
I imagine he would be loathe to drudge through this discussion thread because we are still waxing philosophical about timey's theory. We have yet to establish the (mathematical) recipe for her 3rd dilation for example. The relativistic correction to the SC metric thread might be more up his alley:
Like most busy people he is unlikely to look unless someone he trusts eg Pete says 'hey this is interesting'.
Some top phyicists do go onto some of the dedicated physics sites.
The density ratio you (Colin2B) speak of goes into the specification of the spatial topology in the Friedmann analysis. It's one of the parameters you fiddle around with to get the FD metric to match Hubble's data.
I thought you would understand
No, those maths are too complex for me, and it sounds like a calculation of an expanding universe. So no, there may be similarities from a mathematical perspective if one were to try and calculate a contracting model, but Freidman is not calculating a contracting model, nor is he stating the accelerative force of gravity as being time dilation related, far as I can see.
You can get to a contracting universe solution via these linking cosmo constant. However, big sticking point is, as you say, g being time related.
Mike, I think overall the issue is that Timey doesn't want an alternative that 'looks similar' unless it has certain specifications. In this respect although current maths solutions might suggest some techniques to use, it's not going to provide an answer.
Timey, somewhere else you mention time quantisation and filtering of time observed. Have you looked at chronons – particles of time?

I have read about the concept of time being quantised, but not recently.
However when I am referring to time in the context of quantisation, I am referring to an observer dependency concept. That an observation of a rate of time that is differing from one's own will be proportional to the difference in rate, and that the observation is then a quantised, or inversely quantised representation.
My model states that if one consider that the temperature energy added to the black body increases the rate of time for the atoms of the black body, that then radiate higher frequency photons, that one can hold the frequency of the photon relative to the rate of time of the emitting atom and all quantised effects will then be negated.

If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)
Accelerating towards something is the same as decelerating away from it. The distinction has to do with initial velocity. Acceleration describes how the velocity of an object changes over time. Velocity describes how its location changes over time. It is possible for an object to experience acceleration yet remain stationary. In that case, it experiences a force, which is proportional to its inertial mass, and acceleration must then be interpreted as a change in the speed of time or, since m=E/c^{2}, a change in the speed of light. In either case, the force changes the object's perception of space (in all directions) because, as Einstein pointed out, light is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

Ok  well here you are saying about an acceleration that is caused by a force that is proportional to inertial mass...
My model differs as to what is the cause of this force, in that my model is saying that the accelerative force is caused not by a force that is proportional to inertial mass, but is caused by the 3rd time dilation of the gfield, which is denoted by h from M.

The force depends on inertial mass, but acceleration (due to gravity) does not. Gravity imposes constant acceleration at a given location. The resulting force depends on the observer's mass. By comparison, a rocket engine imposes constant force so acceleration depends on mass in that case.

In my model  the force depends on value of M, and h from M, and has nothing to do with m.
But there is the question of directional force, and that is why I was asking how many metres per second squared a constant velocity would be accelerated by GR time dilation increases in time in a gravity field.

No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h^{2}. This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it. One way to approach the problem is to recognize that the SC metric can be interpreted in terms of variable light speed. In that case, m and M are variables (because E=mc^{2}.) Even so though, the SC metric breaks down at the horizon so it is unreliable when you get up close and personal.

No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h^{2}. This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it.
In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.

Yes  I understand how the current view is held, but I'm looking at a different means of description that attributes a physical cause for the force occurring, and this is a description that doesn't involve m.
A 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball in a vacuum will both bounce off a perfect reflector to the same height that they were dropped from.
Both cannonballs will accelerate at same rate, and decelerate at same rate...
It is the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy that ensures the bigger ball bounces as high as the smaller ball, more mass=more potential energy for conversion.
But there is no physical description as to why mass should experience acceleration in the gfield, and my rendition gives a physical description where none is being currently given.
And in my model  because time runs slower in space, bigger masses than Earth are not going to have slower rates of time than Earth, as I said before. This negates all trickyness in the strong field.

In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.
True dat. Tidal forces are due to the spherically symmetric nature of the field. If you stand upright in a gravitational field and extend your arms, your hands experience less accleration than your head (because they are farther away from the centre of mass of the gravitating body.) This has dire consequences for your integrity when you are free falling in a strong field. Susskind calls it spaghettification.

And in my model  because time runs slower in space, bigger masses than Earth are not going to have slower rates of time than Earth, as I said before. This negates all trickyness in the strong field.

GPS demonstrates that time runs faster (or light goes faster) in free space.

No  GPS demonstrates that time runs faster for m in space. You can't measure open space, and light that covers distance slower will look exactly the same as light that covers distance quicker. If the positive time and the negative time are equal, the distance travelled will be the same.

The mass of the satellite clock does not factor into the time dilation. And observers who disagree about the speed of time or the speed of light must necessarily disagree about distances in space and therefore simultaneity.

No  and the factor of the mass of any body of mass at that h will not factor into the the time dilation.
pe=mgh. And we can say pe/m so that all atoms within m experience equal pe.
I don't see any reason why time dilation for m at h from M should be any different...

In my model noone has to disagree about anything. Distances are constant, and just by understanding which rate of time one is using to measure, everything is abundantly clear to everyone no matter where they are, although they may not be observing the entire picture where rates of time differ, because the observation will be proportional to the difference in rate of time and observations will result in being descrete, or quantised. This will be more noticeable between vastly differing rates of time, but is indeed apparent in an observation of an atom at elevation to an observer as a change in the frequency of the atom. Measure the atom via the rate of time the atom is experiencing, and the observation of the elevated atom will have the same frequency as the atom on the ground, when measuring the atom on the ground via the rate of time on the ground.

Even so, you are not entirely wrong. One's mass does in fact affect one's perception of the passage of time. That's why GR is formulated in terms of an infinitesimally small test mass. It's a simplifying assumption to make the math easier. You can certainly take that effect into account, but you're not going to learn anything new unless you fully understand the small mass scenario. Nobody can claim that status yet.

In my model noone has to disagree about anything. Distances are constant, and just by understanding which rate of time one is using to measure, everything is abundantly clear to everyone no matter where they are, although they may not be observing the entire pis tire where rates of time differ vastly, because the observation will be proportional to the difference in rate of time and observations will result in being descrete, or quantised.
If space is invariant then SR dictates that light speed depends on the velocity of the observer and the direction of the light ray. That leads to nonsense because the inertial mass of an object would depend on its direction of travel relative to the observer. It also flies in the face of the MichelsonMorley result.

Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected. Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.
Did you not read my post of 293?
I mentioned before about how my model views that light cannot exceed the local rate of time and therefore the M&M experiment's inline motion arm does not shrink.

Look  my model makes a very subtle difference to the equivalence principle by stating the observation of one's own clock as observer dependent, instead of the other clock in a differing gravity potential, and an addition that states the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time.
All of the other changes occur as a result of doing so.
Frequency and energy changes 'do' occur at differing gravity potentials for mass, due to pe, and lights frequency and energy changes are occurring due to the 3rd time dilation.
Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.
Black holes and any value of M greater than Earth have a faster rate of time than Earth, not slower.
GR time dilation only affects mass in relation to M
SR affects m in relation to m's GR time dilation via m's velocity, where the speed of light is held relative to the 3rd time dilation, and is 'only' experienced by the traveller, although the observation of the traveler will be proportional to the rate of time of the observer and rendered quantised.
The 3rd time dilation only affects space and light, where the 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M via the gfield, and all m's and M's motion is affected by it.
And this 3rd time dilation gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity and physical cause for a temporally derived curvature of space.

Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected. Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.
Then you are proposing to throw SR out the window. I can't help you with that. Many have tried. All have failed. Note that, although SR has consequences for the concept of inertial mass (which are confirmed by experiment), it does not depend on it.

Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.
This is demonstrably untrue. I understand that you are proposing that time also runs faster due to one's own mass, but that is also demonstrably untrue. Einstein's light clock, which is the time keeper in the MichelsonMorley experiment, is massless for example.

Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected. Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.
Then you are proposing to throw SR out the window. I can't help you with that. Many have tried. All have failed. Note that, although SR has consequences for the concept of inertial mass (which are confirmed by experiment), it does not depend on it.
I'm proposing that SR as a means of describing spatial space curvature be placed on the window ledge, in favour of the 3rd time dilation describing a temporal space curvature, and then aback off the ledge for a reinstating of SR time dilation as a rate of time experienced by the traveler, and the travellers perception of spacial dilation as being a result of the slower time.
The observer will observe length contraction due to a proportional observation that will be proportional to the difference between rate of time of observer and observed.
Hardy throwing SR out the window verbatim is it. More like subjecting its position of relevance to a minor remix I think...
This adheres to experiment that confirms SR velocity related time dilation for m in relative motion.

Did you not read my post of 293?
Yes, but you covered a lot of ground in that post. We can't debate everything at once.

I'm proposing that SR as a means of describing spatial space curvature be placed on the window ledge, in favour of the 3rd time dilation describing a temporal space curvature, and then aback off the ledge for a reinstating of SR time dilation as a rate of time experienced by the traveler, and the travellers perception of spacial dilation as being a result of the slower time.
Your 3rd dilation depends on M. SR describes the case where M=0. They are not interchangeable.

I'm sure you misspoke, but temporal space curvature is on the verge of an oxymoron. It would mean that space curvature changes over time. That's a horse of a completely different colour (viz. gravitational waves.) I think you were trying to attribute space curvature to time dilation and that means light speed depends on the direction of travel in the absence of gravity. I think I mentioned before that you can actually balance the spacetime books with a variable light speed interpretation of SR, but it leads to contradiction when you apply that geometry to real life scenarios. Wikipedia has a good article on that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light).) Interestingly, Einstein was the first to propose the idea.

Where M=0 that is a 0 gravity field with no M in it, and the 3rd time dilation will stop with an infinitely long length of second.
You seem to be applying the 3rd time dilation to mass here.
You don't seem to understand that GR time dilation for m at h from M and the 3rd time for open space at h from M are the exact opposite of each other at each h from M.
Both are being caused by the gfield of M and the values will converge with each other at sea level (Earth), or equivalent to sea level for any other M.
So at sea level Earth 3rd time dilation and GR time dilation are equal. All m at h from sea level earth will experience an increase in rate of time, i.e. GR time dilation, and all open space at h from sea level Earth will experience a decrease in rate of time, i.e. the 3rd time dilation, which will cause a body of m, any value, thrown upwards to decelerate at same rate, and cause the body of m, any value, to accelerate at same rate on the way back down.
The 'rate' of acceleration/deceleration is the 3rd time dilation I refer to.
The directional force in the gravity field is then held as due to the magnetic moments of m.
Where GR time dilation is increasing the rate of time for m, more magnetic moments occur, and where SR time dilation effect is decreasing as the mass is decelerated by the 3rd time dilation, again more magnetic moments are occurring.
And on the way back down the opposite occurs.
This is why I am trying to find out what the value of an acceleration would be in metres per second squared for near Earth parameters, using GR time dilation time increases as the means for acceleration, while negating all other influences.
Would this result in 9.807 m/s^2?
Or would it be a lesser value?
*
Next post  why would a temporally derived space curvature change over time? The 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M, because it is the value of M that denotes the value of the gfield, and the value of the gfield denotes the value of the 3rd time dilation.
Consider your m travelling in open space over a period of sequential time. As your m moves into the weaker gfield it simply takes a longer amount of sequential time to cover the same distance.
Now we may be on the ground observing the journey, and because (let's just say) we know the mass can only travel at 1 speed, we would see the mass moving at this constant speed being decelerated in the gfield.
We can call the traveler up on his mobile phone, he can tell us that our massive clock that we have with us appears to him to be running slow compared to his clock, and we can tell him not to worry, that's just GR time dilation increasing the rate of time for his clock, and that SR effects will be slowing his clock down, but as he is decelerating at mo, that these SR effects will also be decreasing.
The deceleration in speed that his craft is experiencing, being due to the 3rd time dilation.
If our travellers constant speed is being decelerated by longer seconds in open space, this will cause a temporal curvature of space. If one did not realise that there were longer seconds in the weaker gfield, one would perhaps think that distances had become dilated...
Which 'is' what current physics thinks!
*
Holding light speed relative to the 3rd time dilation is geometrically possible and is synonymous to observation and experiment.

I think I do understand what you are proposing. Your idea is that open space is maximally dilated and the presence of mass energy pulls it back in a way that emulates the SC solution of GR. What I don't understand is your distinction between m at h from M and nothing at h from M. That implies a dependency between open space dilation and M, which you propose to counter with dilation from observer mass. I can't see how that would work because observer mass can be arbitrarily small compared to M.
Now that I say it out loud, I realize we are probably confusing the issue by bringing Hubble and SR into the conversation. By the same token, I would caution you against the use of technical terms like magnetic moment because the concept you have in mind is probably quite different from the one it invokes in the mind of a physicist.
My point about the terminology was that "temporal space curvature" could be misconstrued as gravity waves. Temporallyderived space curvature is more clear and that, as I pointed out, leads to the variable light speed hypothesis.

Yes  whereas you are achieving variable speeds of light for your relativistic correction to the SC by holding the speed of light relative to GR time dilation, whereby this will cause the problems I described in post 293 concerning SR related spatial dilation, and the defining of the specific coordinate location where time shifts are occurring that the speed of light may then be held relative to..
... And my model is holding the speed of light relative to the 3rd time dilation, where the curvature of space is a temporal dilation and the coordinate speed of light is definable at coordinates that are held as constant. i.e. The distance traveled is a straight line comprised of constant metres, but the amount of time it takes to travel this straight line at a constant speed is variable, where it takes a longer time in the weaker gravity field to travel a constant metre.
*
When speaking in terms of a magnetic moment I am referring to that which one may read when googling 'magnetic moment', whereas the wiki and resulting pages are indeed written by physicists.
When looking at the wiki gravity potential page there is a comment:
"Where mass can be held as analogous to charge"...

In that case you are completely off base with magnetic moments because they have nothing to do with GR. Even if you have a theory that relates gravity to magnetic moments, it's probably best to take that off the table for now.

I presume your bystander perceives the traveller to be moving away from the gravitating mass with constant velocity. That's a very complicated scenario. The thrust of the rocket engine has to exceed the force gravity for a while in order to achieve cruising speed. It then has to be reduced abruptly to match the force of gravity at the point where cruising speed is achieved and backed off gradually thereafter to maintain cruising speed as the force of gravity recedes. The rocket engine adds energy to the traveller at a variable rate and that alters the spacetime continuum in an unknown manner. Furthermore, the rocket loses mass over time as it generates thrust.

Mr timey
As said by you:
"Next post  why would a temporally derived space curvature change over time? The 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M, because it is the value of M that denotes the value of the gfield, and the value of the gfield denotes the value of the 3rd time dilation.
Consider your m travelling in open space over a period of sequential time. As your m moves into the weaker gfield it simply takes a longer amount of sequential time to cover the same distance.
Now we may be on the ground observing the journey, and because (let's just say) we know the mass can only travel at 1 speed, we would see the mass moving at this constant speed being decelerated in the gfield.
We can call the traveler up on his mobile phone, he can tell us that our massive clock that we have with us appears to him to be running slow compared to his clock, and we can tell him not to worry, that's just GR time dilation increasing the rate of time for his clock, and that SR effects will be slowing his clock down, but as he is decelerating at mo, that these SR effects will also be decreasing".
I think there is every need for broad discussion on space time. It is true that it is the base for Einstein gravity. As per Einstein even objects "at rest" are actually moving through space time. Actually space time is not just space, but also time. The "velocity" through space time is called a fourvelocity and it is always equal to the speed of light. Space time in gravitation field is curved. The apple moving first only in the time direction starts accelerating in space and the velocity in time becomes velocity in space. The acceleration happens because the time flows slower when the gravitational potential is decreasing. Apple is moving deeper into the gravitational field, thus its velocity in the "time direction" is changing .
Here everything is possible through space time. As per Einstein space time is completely filled with matter and energy and the matter tells space time how to curve. Suppose if the space breaks, naturally time also breaks. It appears to be unbelievable yet it is true. In case Earth is not having space, what happens matter and energy moves out freely without any obstruction. Can we imagine any planet, without space. No. it is impossible and there is no scope for gravity and and it is the death of a planet. So, naturally the stronger the space time the stronger gravity.
It is also said that M decides curvature of space time. Ok, let us see Moon, it is not a small one, but why its space is weak and thus gravity. If the mass of a planet decides gravity on a planet than different planets have to experience different gravity fields, but in real terms it is not happening so.
It is true that Earth is rotating against its own axis and also moving round the sun and for that total universe is moving to an unknown place. Actually, we have to remember one important point that Earth is not rotating and is being made to rotate by the gravity winds. It is not Earth alone, things on the Earth, space and everything is moving.
The apple is not moving, but is being made to move by the gravity winds. Strong gravity winds, hooked Earth so strongly that nothing can escape that much easily. Even matter and energy are not raising abnormally as assumed by Einstein. So, Apple never changes gravity field and it remains in static position, at any time frame.
Gravity continue to accelerate against apple right from its inception. Actually, there is no motion of apple and it is in inertial position permanently. During time frame, apple becomes weak, looses control of the stem and gets into the hands of gravity.
Yours
Psreddy

I presume your bystander perceives the traveller to be moving away from the gravitating mass with constant velocity. That's a very complicated scenario. The thrust of the rocket engine has to exceed the force gravity for a while in order to achieve cruising speed. It then has to be reduced abruptly to match the force of gravity at the point where cruising speed is achieved and backed off gradually thereafter to maintain cruising speed as the force of gravity recedes. The rocket engine adds energy to the traveller at a variable rate and that alters the spacetime continuum in an unknown manner. Furthermore, the rocket loses mass over time as it generates thrust.
Let's say the constant speed is 0.5 light speed, where light speed is held relative to ground clock...
The observer on the ground would see this speed decelerate in the longer seconds of the gfield.
The observer in the craft would observe his speed as decelerated by the longer seconds of the gfield, or he may come to the conclusion that gravity has reduced his speed, and at further distance from M may think that a metre has become longer in the weaker gravity field.
If the observer on the ground then thought that a metre had become longer in the weaker gravity field, then he would think that the craft had become length contracted.
(I will add thrust to this scenario at later date. Keeping it simple for now)
So moving on  the observer in the craft's rate of time will have become increased in the weaker gravity field, (GR), and also decreased by the relative motion (SR)... Where the SR measurement of the decrease in rate of time is held relative to the percentage of the speed of light that the craft's speed is moving at, where the speed of light is still being held relative to the ground clock's time.
You suggest that the SR measurement of the speed of light be held relative to the GR time, or that is what I have deduced that you suggest, Maybe I have this wrong...?
But if I am right, then  when you hold the SR measurement relative to the speed of light held relative to the GR time dilation, the GR time dilation is held relative to a particular coordinate. But then by making the SR calculation this involves a spatial dilation and your GR coordinate changes. So back to SR to recalculate with the changed GR coordinate and the spatial dilation changes again, and so on...
Am I not correct that this catch 22 exists within the remit of holding light speed variable to GR time dilated seconds?

I see. The traveller is in free fall with an initial velocity vector that points away from the gravitating mass. That's a bit simpler, but the scenario can be further simplified (with no loss of generality) by setting initial velocity to zero. We should also stipulate that the entire episode takes place in a weak field so we don't have to worry about the validity of the SC metric near the horizon. In that case, Newtonian dynamics will suffice for the mathematics and all that remains is the philosophical interpretation of gravity, which Newton famously left as an exercise for the reader.
The equivalence principle dictates that traveller time is the same as in open space (i.e. far removed from the gravitating mass) so, if light speed is invariant, traveller space is the same as open space. That's the first point of contention because Flamm's paraboloid indicates that local space is compressed compared to open space. Light speed must therefore decrease as gravity increases. The experts disagree on this point, but we can impose that the observers are colocated at some instant of time so the light speed issue is moot as long as we limit ourselves to radial distance measurements.
GR predicts that bystander time runs slower because the bystander is suspended in the gravitational field, being held in place by a planetary crust or a rocket engine with constant thrust. Slower time with invariant light speed means space is compressed, as per Flamm's paraboloid.
That's the picture painted by GR. The next step is to describe this scenario in the context of your theory.

We cannot set the outbound velocity to 0 because without an initial speed that moves the craft in order to cover the distance that is inherent with slower seconds, a) one will not be moving, and b) there is no apparent speed for these slower seconds to decelerate.
Therefore we have an escape velocity where the outbound speed must be equal to the deceleration. If we have the craft moving at a constant speed, it will decelerate at a certain rate. If we want to upkeep a constant speed, we must accelerate at a certain rate.
Free fall near Earth accelerates at 9.807m/s^2.
In order to upkeep a constant outbound speed, would the craft have to accelerate at 9.807m/s^2?
And why must light speed decrease as gravity increases?
If local space is compressed compared to open space, why would seconds be elongated in a compressed space?
A higher energy, higher frequency, compressed wavelength would be more synonymous with faster time and shorter seconds wouldn't it?
A clock's frequency, and energy is higher with shorter wavelengths when it's tick rate is increased...

Zero velocity is a perfectly valid initial state. That's how Newton's apple got started for example. Newton makes no hypothesis about how the force of gravity gets things moving. The GR view is that a stationary object moves through time at light speed and acceleration simply rotates the velocity vector into the spatial domain. It's a change of heading in the spacetime continuum.
In my simplified scenario, the traveller is in free fall and the bystander is accelerating. That change eliminates the need for variable thrust, which is a significant complication.
Variable light speed is one possible interpretation of GR. Some people prefer to think of it as spacetime dilation, akin to SR. In either case, we have eliminated the effect by placing the observers at the same altitude at some instant of time.
If mass, space and light speed are invariant then higher energy (potential or kinetic) equates to shorter seconds.
Anyway, that's the picture painted by GR. The question is, what does it look like in your theory?

I am talking about Newtons Apple headed outbound, with an observer on the ground, and thrust is exactly what I want to be discussing.
I'm also not talking about what the universe 'looks like' to an observer when measured via differing rates of time.
I want to be talking about what the universe 'is like' with the differing rates of time, and then go back and check that what an observer will observe from his own rate of time is a match to experimentally verified observation.
Apart from an addition and a subtle change to the equivalence principle, the only change that my model makes to current remit is that the accelerative/decelerative force called gravity is a time dilation phenomenon. Everything else stays the same, although the necessity for the 'dark stuff' is negated...
So what GR and SR looks like, is what my model looks like, only the reasons for it looking that way are differing.
Therefore I can't paint you a picture of what my model 'looks like' in relation to GR, as all observation will 'look' as they have always looked, just for differing reason.
So firstly, my model does not use SR to describe a spatial curvature of space, it uses the 3rd time dilation to describe a temporal dilation of space.
The metre always remains constant in my model, it just takes a longer or shorter amount of time for mass or light to travel a metre where the speed of light, or the speed of the mass is now held relative to the 3rd time dilation.
Now we have an observation of curved space that is not spatially dilated.
This is the equal to a Newtonian geometry that is now temporally dilated to an equal of relativity's spatial curvature.
Are you with me so far?
What I'm saying is that the deceleration a constant speed outbound from M will experience is time dilation related. That when holding the slower seconds in space relative to the constant speed, this will decelerate the constant speed.
The same can be said for free fall, where there is an acceleration of 9.807m/s^2 near Earth, and 2 radii distance away from Earth, there is an acceleration of 4.25m/s^2, where my model states the accelerative force as time dilation related.
What we do see in action though is a directional force that determines that a body will fall towards a mass, and that when a mass's speed is decelerated away from mass, when decelerated to a standstill, the directional force will then cause the mass to fall back towards the Earth.
In GR this is called the attraction of gravity.
In my model the acceleration of gravity is time dilation related, but this cannot describe the directional force.
Therefore I am interested in knowing by how many metres per second squared a body of mass must accelerate by to upkeep a constant speed on the outbound.
Is the acceleration needed to upkeep a constant speed on the outbound, the same acceleration that is experienced in free fall on the inbound?

Timey I know you are not going to respond to me but your distances and values are incorrect. The atmosphere is only about 300 miles and 2 radii from the Earths surface is 16,000 miles out in space where you would be weightless and not necessarily attracted to the Earth at all depending on your position with the Earth. Your mass would be to relatively small for the dilation to be affected by the Earth and its vector speed away.
Now lets take half the distance to the center of the Earth. The attraction is about 2.45 m/s^2 until you reach the center where everything on earth is attracted to your position. Gravity like many physical issues is the inverse square of the distance. So like twice the diameter four times the amount. Sight would be twice the distance gives one quarter the viewable size of the object. Distance is not linear.

The initial velocity is a red herring. It can be set to zero without loss of generality. You need to understand that before we can make any progress. Are we agreed that the traveller has no rocket engine?

But this is where direction considerations come into play Mike...
If we set an outbound velocity at 0 the craft won't be going anywhere.
On the other hand, when dropping a craft from a 0 velocity we see the acceleration increases that velocity from 0.
I suppose that we could possibly set velocity at 0 for outbound, and then calculate the acceleration needed to move outwards as a negative velocity.
In any case  is the outbound rate of necessary acceleration, calculated in the negative if you like, the equal of free fall acceleration, being the question?
It should be for the reason that 2 cannonballs of differing mass values (in vacuum) bounce off perfect reflector to the same height they were dropped from.
It is appreciated that current physics has an explanation for this phenomenon, but it should also be appreciated that current physics does not describe 'why' this phenomenon does what it does.
I am looking at this acceleration and deceleration phenomenon as being caused by a 3rd time dilation factor in the gfield.
Which then begs the question of the necessity for a directional force, which I am looking at being due to an electromagnetic phenomenon.

It's true that acceleration vectors are additive. If your rocket accelerates upwards at 'a', the net acceleration will be 'a' minus 'g'. It will hover if a=g, fall if a<g and climb if a>g, but 'a' increases over time because the rocket must lose mass in order to generate thrust. There's no easy way to compute GR dilation for an arbitrary value of 'a', let alone one that varies over time. It gets even more complicated if you equip the rocket with an automatic thrust controller to maintain constant velocity or constant acceleration. In any of these cases, the best you can hope for is a numerical approximation. Note that the planetary crust accelerates the bystander upwards at 'g' so there's no point putting the traveller into that reference frame.

So in my model's scenario where this acceleration/deceleration is caused solely by the 3rd time dilation of the gfield caused by M, now what I am looking for is a minute fractional directional force that increases linearly with the higher gravity potential energy, which is why I look to the magnetic moment of the atom, or rather the rate they occur at, the electron transitions in relation to the quantum energy level and the analogy of gravity potential to the electric field where mass is analogous to charge.
Btw, not that it's immediately important, but adding thrust to rocket can be analogous to carrying potential energy onboard that is converted at 20% or so conversion to energy loss to kinetic energy. As potential energy is converted mass value decreases and less onboard energy is required to achieve same kinetic energy.
In reply to edit: I don't think it matters about an observer, we have the info we need in the value of M.

I'm ignoring your references to magnetic moments, electron state transitions, QM and electric fields as per my last comment on that subject. (i.e. They have nothing to do with GR.)
I assume a "minute fractional force" refers to an infinitesimally small change, in which case you are invoking calculus. That's really just a change in scale. It doesn't change the scenario or make the math any easier.
As for the thrust controller, it is not hard to design an algorithm that will result in approximately constant velocity or approximately constant acceleration. The problem is, the proliferation of variables precludes an exact solution in GR and obfuscates the dilation result.
Regarding the observers, they are nothing more than ideal (i.e. infallible) clocks in space. For our purposes, they are massless and nonsentient.

Well the whole point Mike is that GR only has nothing to do with magnetic moments, and quantum energy levels because the standard model is not united with gravity...
Gravity is a continuum, and quantum is not. The idea that I propose is designed to unite the two. Therefore I am looking at electron transitions in the gravity potential. Electron transitions are directly related to quantum energy levels. Give a physical cause (time dilation), to the rate of the transitions, where the physical cause for the time dilation is potential energy related, and energy is the cause of your time dilation. This negates the quantised nature and quantum is a continuum united with gravity...

QM has nothing to say about the duration of state transitions. They are presumed to occur instantaneously or retroactively (depending on who you ask.) Furthermore, you have not proposed a model to relate gravity to QM or EM phenomena. If your theory relies on an unspecified relationship like that, it is completely useless.

I don't think it is.
Considering the blackbody:
If one takes the frequency of the emitted light to be time related  then rather than measure the energy increase via an invariant time, one measures the increase in energy as per the rate of time synonymous to that increased frequency of light, I am quite sure that the quantised nature of the data can be rendered a continuum.

I think you're talking about the ultraviolet catastrophe, which implies quantization of space and/or time, but you have not related that concept to gravity. A theory based on an unspecified hypothesis is an unspecified theory.

Well because Planck's h constant relates to the shift in frequency of light, and light shifts in the gfield, there is an 'energy' relationship going on there with the gfield energy.
And because a clock's electron transitions shift in frequency in the gravity potential there is a potential 'energy' relationship there... (excuse the pun)
Where +energy=shorter seconds in my model.

Well because Planck's h constant relates to the shift in frequency of light, .
Except it doesn't. The fractional change in wavelength is
L /L_{0}= 1GM/rc^{2}
Any mention of h cancels out, nothing on the righthand side is quantised, and the effect is continuous. If you wish you can substitute f_{0}/f or E_{0}/E for L/L_{0} but the h's still cancel.

Yes  but:
Wavelength = h/p
.... and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore, it's 3rd time dilation related, as per my model that is...
(*in the scenario of the constant gravity potential where +energy to emitting source=higher frequency of emitted light, the frequency of the emitted light is GR time dilation related, and the length of wave is related to the 'rate' at which the photon is emitted from the emitting source)

Well because Planck's h constant relates to the shift in frequency of light, .
Except it doesn't. The fractional change in wavelength is
L /L_{0}= 1GM/rc^{2}
Any mention of h cancels out, nothing on the righthand side is quantised, and the effect is continuous. If you wish you can substitute f_{0}/f or E_{0}/E for L/L_{0} but the h's still cancel.
Yes according to the standard model. Is it possible the physics community is wording their responses with half truths to maintain their model? Although your h cancels out of your equation r is variable * c in different frames while your equation does not address the gamma term between frames in relativity mathematics. Timey is addressing this fact while denying its cause. Physics relativity is the same in every frame but not between frames.
Planck's length is directly dependent on Planck's time and visa versa. c is plank's time but r is relativity's distance. r can change while c remains the same. This would create photon's of different lengths in different gravity potentials. And create different tick rates.

and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore,
Your obsession with h is worrying. p doesn't change "in relation to h". p changes because the photon's kinetic energy changes as it travels through a gravitational field gradient. The value of h is irrelevant to the fractional change in p, E, L or f, which are all related through c and given by the same equation (or its inverse, obviously).

Yes according to the standard model. Is it possible the physics community is wording their responses with half truths to maintain their model? Although your h cancels out of your equation r is variable * c in different frames while your equation does not address the gamma term between frames in relativity mathematics.
Nothing to do with models. It's a prediction from general relativity, which is based solely on the discovery that c is invariant, and is borne out by experiment. There is no room for halftruths in physics. Either your equation predicts what happens, or it doesn't.

Alan:
I agree c is invariant but space distance is not relative to mass gradient dilation. The clock tick rate measures the gamma difference in dilation (expansion).
With dilation the mass expands to measure a longer measuring stick length to match the clocks new tick rate. The ground state of the electron follows a longer volume in space matching the visual increase in SR. The SR angle of light in a light clock changes with speed changes for equivalency with GR reduction of available c.

and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore,
Your obsession with h is worrying. p doesn't change "in relation to h". p changes because the photon's kinetic energy changes as it travels through a gravitational field gradient. The value of h is irrelevant to the fractional change in p, E, L or f, which are all related through c and given by the same equation (or its inverse, obviously).
Yes  that's right, p doesn't change in relation to h, but wavelength changes in relation to p in relation to h.
p is changing in relation to v, and v is changing in relation to a, where a is either increasing or decreasing due to a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion, (where relativistic mass in relation to kinetic energy for light in current physics remit ensures 0 acceleration/deceleration), but it is indeed p in relation to h that denotes the change in the wavelength...

v doesn't change. We're talking about photons.

Which is why I said:
where a is either increasing or decreasing due to a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion
...for mass accelerated or decelerated in the gravity potential.
... And added this:
(where relativistic mass in relation to kinetic energy for light in current physics remit ensures 0 acceleration/deceleration)
For light in the gravity potential..
In either case:
Wavelength = h/p
where
p = mv
or
p = h*vbar
where
vbar = v/a
And I am looking at acceleration in the gravity potential being 3rd time dilation related, where I am also looking at GR time dilation being potential energy related, and considering that temperature energy added to the blackbody is increasing the rate that an atom of the blackbody emits a photon at, i.e. an increase in rate of electron transitions, and consequently the quantum energy level of the atom that then emits a higher energy, higher rate/frequency of photon.
Planck calculated the energy increases via an invariant second. Calculate the temperature energy added via the rate (second) of the emitted frequency and the quantum nature is negated.

I'm lost. What happened to our freefalling traveller? We need to establish timey's prediction for dilation in that case to ensure that her theory is consistent with experiment. If that test fails, then all other debates (like this one about h) are moot.
I think we have the scenario boiled down to brass tacks. In order to ensure we are not pushing the boundaries of GR, we are analyzing a time slice in which a free falling traveller and a stationary bystander are at the same altitude and sufficiently removed from the event horizon that Newton's laws are valid. If the velocity vector is radial, GR says the bystander's clock runs slower by a factor of (12GM/c^{2}r). This is consistent with SR if the traveller is falling at the escape velocity, which means v=0 at infinity. (Any other velocity invalidates the SC solution.) I think timey's theory predicts that the clocks run at the same rate because she attributes time dilation to altitude rather than velocity.

The prediction for the 3rd time dilation 'is' the acceleration or deceleration of gravity in relation to M.
Observed in action experimentally, and in everyday life. Everyone knows that gravity accelerates, but current physics doesn't have a physical cause for the phenomenon.
I'm just giving a physical cause to an observation that we already make, that has previously been given no physical cause.

You're dodging the question. These observers are at the same altitude. Never mind what causes gravity to motivate things. What does your theory predict in terms of clock rates? Faster, slower or the same?

BTW  I described the GR cause (of accelerated motion) in Reply #338.

No  my model does add in SR time dilation.
You do make interesting point though, because I'm not sure what the answer is to your free faller versus bystander consideration, so having a look at it, but you'll have to realise this look of 'mine' won't involve the math.
However, if we place the bystander on the radial orbital velocity where SR time dilation equalises GR time dilation and the clock reads the same rate as a ground clock, the third time dilation would be inherent to the gfield at that radius and would be the equal but opposite value to GR time dilation, whatever that would be if SR time dilation at that velocity, at that radial orbit, hadn't cancelled GR effects out.
The craft+bystander themself would not be registering this 3rd time dilation on the onboard clock, but the motion of the craft will be affected.
Now the question arises as to whom's clock the velocity of the craft is held relative to...
Is it the ground clock?
Is it the crafts clock?
Both are running at the same rate, but if we are holding the speed relative to the crafts clock, then we must appreciate that we are stating that both GR time dilation and SR time dilation are affecting the speed of that craft.
SR measurements can't affect the speed of the craft because if they did the speed of the craft would affect the time dilation, and the time dilation the speed of the craft, and we have a catch 22, so the question is, are we holding the speed of the craft relative to the ground clock, or to the GR time dilation portion of the crafts time?
On the basis that when time is held relative to the ground clock, the acceleration of 9.807m/^2 is a measurement held relative to the ground clock, when accelerating at 9.807m/s^2 on the ground in the unchanging gravity potential the distance covered per second squared is +9.807m...
The speed required to maintain an orbital at our bystanders radius, i.e. orbital velocity, held relative to the 3rd time dilation, which is the exact opposite of what GR time dilation would be at that radius relative to the ground clock, i.e. negative value, is causing the craft to cover 9.807m in a longer amount of time.
But both the ground clock and the bystander understand that that the bystander's clock is running faster, so if both held the speed of the craft relative to the GR time dilation the craft's clock is experiencing, then both would think that the bystander was covering 9.807m in a quicker time.
Ok  so on the basis that near Earth approximation of gravitational acceleration is 9.807m/s^2, and at 2 radii from centre Earth it is around 4.25m/s^2, whatever the value is at the particular radial we are discussing, the radial where SR effects at that orbital velocity cancel out GR effects at h from M, this value of m/s^2 will be relevant to the orbital velocity required for that radial...
So the orbital velocity for each radius will be proportional to the m/s^2 value at that radius, for the reason that the crafts motion has been slowed by the longer seconds there, and it must increase its velocity in each increasing radius in order to counter these slower seconds, and this calculation must take into addition the extra distance involved in travelling the greater distance of that radius.
So according to both the ground clock and the bystander the bystander's speed may have been affected as an increased rate, where the craft is covering 9.807m of the radial distance at a faster rate to the exact value that the craft is actually covering 9.807m of radial distance at a slower rate...
If holding the speed of the craft relative to the 3rd time dilation, this would be a slower speed.
If holding the speed relative to the GR time dilation, this would be a faster speed.
But in both cases, an equal amount of distance, i.e. 9.807m would be travelled at those speeds in both of those rates of time because we are talking about it taking a longer or shorter amount of time to travel a distance.
However... according to the ground clock the bystander and his craft would be covering 9.807m of radial distance at a speed held relative to the ground clock's rate of time, where 9.807m of radial distance covered in a faster time, or covered in an equal value slower time is being calculated as a distance covered by a speed as per the ground clock. i.e. orbital velocity.
So the difference between escape velocity for a particular radius and orbital velocity for that particular radius would be mathematically significant in relation to the 3rd time dilation.
For instance, if we were to say the bystander was orbiting the radius of 2 radii from centre of Earth, the acceleration of gravity at that radius is around 4.25m/s^2. Where my model is saying that if we were to calculate this acceleration as per the second squared of that radius, this would be equal to an acceleration of 9.807m/s^2 at a near Earth radius at near Earth's rate of time.
In other words it just takes a longer amount of time to travel same distance, and it is only by calculating using an invariant time to measure an acceleration, that the distance travelled is reduced to being a 4.25m/s^2 acceleration.
Therefore by remit of the 3rd time dilation, the orbiting craft would only be covering 4.25m of radial distance for every second squared as per held relative to the ground clock and the speed of the craft as held relative to the ground clock would need to be increased in order to still be covering 9.807m of radial distance in the same amount of ground clock time.
It is also worth noting that where current physics holds the SR time dilation effects experienced by the craft as a speed measurement held relative to the ground clock, via the speed of the craft being a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the ground clock  my model holds the SR time dilation effects held relative to the 3rd time dilation, where the speed of the craft is a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the 3rd time dilation.
This will change the value of the SR effects being experienced by the bystander, but does not affect the rate of the speed that the bystander is covering distance at, not from an observer's point of view. It will be the rate that the observer's own clock is ticking at that will influence his assessment of the crafts speed.
This also means that any spatial dilation that the free faller and bystander experience is a product of their own rate of time, and all actual distances remain constant.
So to sum up, the bystander at the 'current physics' radius where SR effects held relative to the ground clock are cancelling out GR effects, in my model  will this be at a radius that is closer to M?
This being for the reason that when holding the SR time dilation effects of that radius's orbital velocity as a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the 3rd time dilation at that velocity, the speed will be a higher percentage of the speed of light at that radius, and SR effects will be increased.
But... If we hold the speed the craft is moving at relative to the 3rd time dilation at that radius, the speed itself is reduced...
By calculating the reduced speed as a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the 3rd time dilation, we should end up with the same proportion of SR effects as when calculating the speed held relative to the ground clock as a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the ground clock, so the SR effects in my model would in fact be at the original radius, and synonymous to that which relativity predicts.
But enough of the bystander aye ;)
The free falling observer would, in my model, have to start from somewhere tangible. Let's say we dropped him at a radius where GR time dilation is twice what it is at the radius where orbital velocity SR effects cancel out the GR effects...
The free falling observer's clock is running 'that much' faster than the bystanders clock, and the bystanders clock is running at the same rate as the ground clock.
Now the question is, what speed will the free falling observer be travelling at by the time he reaches the bystanders radius?
The 3rd time dilation decrease in length of seconds at each decreasing radius in the gfield will have accelerated his speed...
Therefore whatever the value of m/s^2 acceleration existing at the radius we dropped him from in relation to what value m/s*2 acceleration exists at the bystander's radius is relevant.
However, we must recognise that when we say m/s^2, we are holding that measurement relative to the ground clock.
The free faller's clock will have been being decreased at each decreasing radius in its rate of time as per GR time dilation... And at the bystander's radius the free faller's clock will be the GR time dilation at that radius, minus the SR effects due to the velocity he is travelling at.
The bystander and the free faller will be experiencing exactly the same GR time dilation effects, but the experience of their own time will differ due to travelling at differing velocities.*
However, the SR effects that the free faller will be subject to will be greater at the more distant radius. This being because the SR effects related to his speed will be being held relative to his speed being a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the 3rd time dilation length of second at that radius. But again  we can calculate the speed the free faller is falling at as held relative to the 3rd time dilation length of second at each radius, and this will result in the same value as holding the speed of the craft relative to the ground clock, and the speed of the craft as being a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the ground clock.
*A scenario that would be apparent if we dropped the free faller from a radius that was only a few metres above the bystander's radius, where the sequential time involved in a shorter distance for the free faller to accelerate within would be in shorter supply, resulting in a lesser acceleration.
Here we come to the crux of the matter...
Who's time are we holding the sequential time relative to?
If we are not holding speeds and distance subsequently travelled relative to time dilated clock's, then we are not holding sequential time relative to time dilated clock's, and on this consideration we must remember that the ground clock is ideas itself a time dilated clock. There is nothing special about the ground clock's time, other than the fact that a lot of measurements are held relative to it.
We did make it simple for ourselves because the bystanders clock is running at same rate as the ground clock, but it is doing so for different physical reasons.
So  if we slice the moment in time that the free faller happens to pass through the bystanders radius at the moment the bystander is passing the free faller's location at that radius, the bystander will see that the free faller's clock is likely running a tad faster, dependent on the value of the radius he was dropped from, and the free faller will see the bystanders clock running a little slower, again dependent on the radius he was dropped from.
As far as the bystander is concerned the free faller is falling at a speed that is increasing by m/s^2.
As far as the free faller is concerned, the distance that he has fallen is increasing by m/s^2...
Again we must note that this m/s^2 measurement is being held relative to the ground clock, and that the bystander's clock is running at same rate as the ground clock.
Both the ground and the bystander are in agreement with each other regarding speed, sequential time, and m/s^2, and therefore distance travelled, but they are doing so for differing reasons.
The case for the free faller on the other hand is that both the ground clock and the bystander's clock agree that the free faller's clock is running fast. The free faller when at the bystander's radius on the other hand agrees that both the clock on the ground and the bystander's clock are running at same rate, this being a bit slower than his own.
Now the question here is raised in how one interprets the speed the free faller is covering distance at...?
Are we saying that the free faller is covering distance by the remit of a second as held relative to the ground clock?
Or are we saying that the free faller is covering distance by his speed held relative to his own clock?
My model is saying that the free faller is covering distance by his speed held relative to the 3rd time dilation.
The free faller covering distance as per his speed held relative to the 3rd time dilation, would be travelling distance at a constant speed, in variable times that cause the speed to appear accelerated when measured via an invariant time, such as the ground clock's time, and also in this case the bystanders time when at that radius, at that orbital velocity. When holding both speed and SR effects relative to the 3rd time dilation, we arrive at a constant speed to deduce the SR effects from*, (this being the same result as calculating an increased speed with the speed being held relative to a percentage of the speed of light held relative to ground clock), and we may now deduct these SR effects from the GR time dilation effects at that radius for a clock time for the free faller.
(*the free faller's acceleration from a starting point of 0 speed will be 0, and this can't be correct because he will be going nowhere, but his clock's rate will be decreasing, so by holding the speed of 0 relative to his decreasing clock rate, this negative approach to motion will result in a distance travelled, and therefore a speed)
So to sum up  a slice of the free faller's time may be, dependent on the distance between the radius that he was dropped from, slightly slower, or slightly faster than the bystander's clock, where in that instant of sequential time both the free faller and the bystander observe each other.
My model states that it is of no significance that each observes the other as having a differing rate of time because they both share a universally common present moment, where the observation of 1 rate of time from the other is proportional to the difference in rate and will appear quantised, or discrete.
For instance, if we dropped our free faller into free fall at 0.806c as per held relative to the ground clock, the ground clock would observe that speed to be accelerating as the radius decreased, the bystander would observe that speed to be accelerated as per the ground clock does due to the clock's running at same rate, but the free faller would not experience any acceleration of his speed, his speed would remain constant as far as his accelerometer is concerned* but his rate of time will be decreasing as per GR time dilation, and as his speed becomes a lesser percentage of the speed of light held relative to the increasing length of seconds at decreasing radius where the SR effects affecting the free faller will then be reducing. GR time dilation is elf will be reducing into longer seconds, and SR time dilation effects that cause longer seconds will be reducing...
So we have a GR phenomenon that speeds a clock's time up observed as reducing, and an SR phenomenon that when held relative to the 3rd time dilation, results in slowing a clock down, that is reducing. One can see a balance in that scenario where it is possible that the speed of the free faller may be held relative to the rate of time of the free faller's clock for a constant speed.
Lastly, when the bystander observes the free faller who is now travelling 0.806c as per held relative to the ground clock, in the slice of the moment of time that they observe each other, the bystander will observe that the free faller has become length contracted, because the bystander can only view a proportion of the free faller's rate of time. And the free faller will observe that the bystander has become length contracted because the free faller can only view a proportion of the bystander's time. What they are actually viewing of each other is just portions of each other's time, but the motion will blur these discrete packages of the image. If neither were actually moving in relation to each other, which would of course change the remit of the time dilation difference, but let's say that this impossible situation of an observation of 2 very differing rates of time could be observed at close proximity to each other, then the slower time would observe gaps between action of the faster time, and the faster time would observe action missing of the slower time.
The important bit being that we can consider that sequential time is like a light cone scenario, where different rates of time can share the same present moment.
This is not so different a perspective than that of calculating quantum states...
Continued in next post...

And this is already far too long a post despite my edits, but to go the whole hog:
We can now examine what one observer would observe of the other if we were to send a light signal from each observer to the other, but the free faller being dropped into free fall at 0.806c is unrealistic, I only used that to illustrate an exaggerated proportional observation, but again we can use this exaggeration as an illustration of such.
According to my model both the free faller's and the bystander's light emitters will be emitting a photon as per the electron transitions caused by the sum of SR and GR time dilation effects that are affecting each of them.
At the point in sequential time, (which we have established is the same for both free faller and bystander because both agree that the same amount of distance is being travelled by the free faller, no matter if they cannot agree on the speed, or a time unless referring back to the ground clock(current physics), or 3rd time dilation (my model), where we now have the bystander and the free faller both emit a single photon.
The distance between the free faller and the bystander is 1000 metres, they share the same gravity potential at their locations at this radius, their GR time dilation is equal but they have a vast difference in SR effects going on, due to travelling at differing speeds.
In my model the 2 respective photon's will travel the 1000 metre distance between the bystander and the free faller, and the free faller and the bystander, at a speed of light held relative to the 3rd time dilation of that radius.
This doesn't really matter very much over a distance of 1000 metres within an unchanged gravity potential, the light will just take that much longer to travel the distance...
But the ground clock, the bystander and the free faller will deduce that the distance between the bystander and the free faller is greater than 1000 metres if they are holding the speed of light relative to the ground clock.
If the bystander holds the speed of light relative to his own clock he will agree with that the distance is greater than 1000 metres to the same proportion that the ground clock is, but this is taking into account both the GR and SR effects on his clock. If he were at a differing radius he would have a perspective differing from the ground clock...
The free faller is experiencing a lot more SR time dilation on his clock than the bystander, so according to his clock, the bystander is a much greater distance away than the distance that both the bystander and the ground clock agree upon, but only if he measures the speed of light as held relative to the ground clock with respect to distance. If he holds the speed of light relative to his own clock with respect to distance, the bystander will be much closer. Perhaps closer than the 1000 metres of actual distance between them in fact...
If we hold the speed of light relative to the GR time dilation only, then both the bystander and the free faller will agree on the distance between them, but they will as a result have to hold their own speeds relative to their GR time dilation. The ground clock will disagree on the distance travelled, unless the ground clock also holds the speed of light relative to the GR time dilation, in which case the ground clock would also have to hold the speeds travelled relative to the GR time dilation. When applying SR to achieve curvature of space, as per current physics remit, under the remit of holding the speed of light and speed of craft/free faller relative to GR time dilation, SR must also hold its measurements to the speed of light relative to the GR time dilation, and the GR time dilation coordinate becomes a catch 22 under the remit of spatial dilation.
My model, by attaching the speed of light to the 3rd time dilation, and the speed of the craft to the 3rd time dilation, ensures that distance remains constant where perceived spatial dilation is a temporal perception due to the rate of time on one's clock. The gfield remains unchanged in relation to M and the 3rd time dilation also remains unchanged with relation to M, so it doesn't really matter what anybody's clock is doing really, the important thing is that no matter who's time one is measuring from, the distance covered always remains the same.
Finally  while noting that the gravity potential between bystander and free faller is equal at the moment in time we ask each to emit photons, the photon's emitted by the emitter in the faster rate of time of the bystander will be of higher energy and frequency than the photon's emitted by the emitter in the free faller's slower rate of time.
What one observes of the others photon's will be a proportional observation, where missing action, or gaps between action will cause each to observe a frequency of the others photon's that is not the frequency the photon's were emitted at, but in reality, there would be no such case as a free faller free falling from a start speed of 0.806c, and the difference in frequency between the photon's emitted in locations of differing rates of time between bystander and free faller would be minimal and barely tangible.
Crikes Mike... (chuckle) you got me right at it there let me tell you...

In addition to my 2 posts above outlining my model's remit of the bystander and the free faller...
BTW  I described the GR cause (of accelerated motion) in Reply #338.
Here is post 338:
Zero velocity is a perfectly valid initial state. That's how Newton's apple got started for example. Newton makes no hypothesis about how the force of gravity gets things moving. The GR view is that a stationary object moves through time at light speed and acceleration simply rotates the velocity vector into the spatial domain. It's a change of heading in the spacetime continuum.
In my simplified scenario, the traveller is in free fall and the bystander is accelerating. That change eliminates the need for variable thrust, which is a significant complication.
Variable light speed is one possible interpretation of GR. Some people prefer to think of it as spacetime dilation, akin to SR. In either case, we have eliminated the effect by placing the observers at the same altitude at some instant of time.
If mass, space and light speed are invariant then higher energy (potential or kinetic) equates to shorter seconds.
Anyway, that's the picture painted by GR. The question is, what does it look like in your theory?
I don't see that you have given a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity here... What is the physical cause of the acceleration?
...and if higher kinetic energy leads to shorter seconds then a) why is light of higher kinetic energy near M than further away, and b) why does a clock at rest with respect to the gfield tick faster at h from M?

On the basis that this conversation wasn't continued where you have said this in response to my post:
and where the value of p changes for already emitted light (in the gravitational field*) in relation to the h constant, this extra or lesser length in the wavelength isn't distance related anymore,
Your obsession with h is worrying. p doesn't change "in relation to h". p changes because the photon's kinetic energy changes as it travels through a gravitational field gradient. The value of h is irrelevant to the fractional change in p, E, L or f, which are all related through c and given by the same equation (or its inverse, obviously).
...and I have replied:
Yes  that's right, p doesn't change in relation to h, but wavelength changes in relation to p in relation to h.
p is changing in relation to v, and v is changing in relation to a, where a is either increasing or decreasing due to a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion, (where relativistic mass in relation to kinetic energy for light in current physics remit ensures 0 acceleration/deceleration), but it is indeed p in relation to h that denotes the change in the wavelength...
And you replied:
v doesn't change. We're talking about photons.
Where I then said:
Which is why I said:
where a is either increasing or decreasing due to a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion
...for mass accelerated or decelerated in the gravity potential.
... And added this:
(where relativistic mass in relation to kinetic energy for light in current physics remit ensures 0 acceleration/deceleration)
For light in the gravity potential..
In either case:
Wavelength = h/p
where
p = mv
or
p = h*vbar
where
vbar = v/a
And I am looking at acceleration in the gravity potential being 3rd time dilation related, where I am also looking at GR time dilation being potential energy related, and considering that temperature energy added to the blackbody is increasing the rate that an atom of the blackbody emits a photon at, i.e. an increase in rate of electron transitions, and consequently the quantum energy level of the atom that then emits a higher energy, higher rate/frequency of photon.
Planck calculated the energy increases via an invariant second. Calculate the temperature energy added via the rate (second) of the emitted frequency and the quantum nature is negated.
Do you have anything to say?

I haven't nodded off. Well, technically I did, but I haven't abandoned this thread. I think we are in a different time zone or there was a delay in the forum engine.

Hey no problem  I am on UK time, but sometimes I stay up to talk to you. My reply to your 'dodging an answer' post is somewhat long winded, I'll admit...
P.S. The site isn't refreshing New Theiries threads to the recent topic's page properly, so if you are looking there to see if anyone has posted... it may be that they have but it isn't showing on that page.

The reason I'm trying to change your scenario is that GR gives ambiguous results when the observer is using a rocket engine to overcome (or augment) gravity and SR can't cope with orbital motion. You may have a clear picture of how your theory deals with those cases, but mainstream physics does not. It is therefore impossible to make comparisons unless you concede the simplifications I propose.

I am not sure what the simplifications you wish to make are...
Is it setting speed at 0 on the outbound?

As to the cause of spooky action at a distance, GR and SR interpret acceleration as a change of heading in the spacetime continuum. How a force like gravity changes one's heading is not known. QM postulates an exchange of particles called gravitons, which are essentially photons going backwards in time. However, that explanation only leads to more questions. You ask, what causes 'A'? The answer is 'B'. Then you ask, what causes 'B'? The answer is 'C'. Ad infinitum. At the end of the day, it all boils down to observables and causal relationships. We can observe that your clock is running slower than mine for example. We propose a relationship that explains that observable in terms of another, such as our relative velocity. Then we do experiments to see if there are cases where the relationship doesn't hold. That's the best we can do. You can imagine a cause for the 2nd observable (e.g. goblins and fairies), but there is no way to determine if it is true. That's the dilemma of string theory for example. It seems plausible, but there's no way to test it.

GR is the best theory we have of gravity, but all it does is give a mathematical representation that is the best fit to observation.
This is why my model sets out to use the same mathematics remixed into a differing arrangement that also describes observation.
In very simple terms all my model is doing is trading the spatial dilation that an observer observes to being a temporal dilation that is caused by the attributing the force of the acceleration of gravity to being 3rd time dilation related, where the 3rd time dilation is caused by the strength of the gfield in relation to M, and the curvature of space is a temporal dilation of flat space.
The result of this change knocks on to GR time dilation which becomes a phenomenon that is only affecting m in relation to M, and this is gravity potential energy related.
We then take this change to GR time dilation back to the blackbody and note that temperature energy is causing emissions of photon's that get higher in frequency as more energy is added. Frequency is held relative to an invariant time. Hold frequency relative to variable time, as the frequency escalates, seconds get shorter, and if you calculate the energy added per second held relative to the shorter seconds, the quantum nature deduced via the ultra violet catastrophe is negated.

I am not sure what the simplifications you wish to make are...
Is it setting speed at 0 on the outbound?
As I described in Reply #360, a free falling traveller and a stationary bystander (the latter supported by a planetary crust) are at the same altitude and sufficiently removed from the event horizon that Newton's laws are valid. The velocity vector points radially inwards and is equal to zero if the world line (i.e. flight path) is extrapolated back to an infinite distance, in which case traveller speed at the altitude in question is the socalled escape velocity: sqrt(2GM/r). As a further clarification, traveller velocity is nowhere near light speed.
GR and SR predict that the traveller perceives the bystander clock to run slower by a factor of (12GM/c^{2}r) or, more accurately (if you buy into my relativistic correction to the SC solution), sqrt(1v^{2}/c^{2}). I think your theory predicts that the clocks run at the same rate because it attributes time dilation to altitude rather than velocity.
Note that many GR theorists (I dare say most) make that mistake, too. They usually compensate for their error by invoking SR again and then adding that dilation to the (null) GR result. (I say "again" because GR already incorporates SR if it is interpreted correctly.) You'll see shenanigans like that in the GPS literature for example. It's hard to talk them down because they do get the right answer. It's a case of two wrongs making a right.

I was talking about this on 'my model of a cyclic universe continued', where I had been studying this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trajectory
If
v = square root 2* v orbital
and
d = v*0.4142
where
d/v = 3rd time dilation
Where d is the distance that 'hasn't' been travelled due to the 3rd time dilation, i.e. flat space, temporal curvature...
I'm not so strong on maths though Mike...
The idea is that the speed is constant, it's just the time dilation that accelerates, or decelerates the speed.
If the craft started out at 0 speed, then any acceleration it experiences is 3rd time dilation related.
According to a diagram I made on the square to diagonal, if we hold distance and time constant on the square, and run time dilation up the diagonal, I worked out via dividing the geometry of my diagram into constants, that a temporal dilation can be placed into a Newtonian geometry, and that the time dilation is the value of 0.4142.
So the equation you post where you say
in which case traveller speed at the altitude in question is sqrt(2GM/r).
This speed at each radius can be treated to the maths above (I think, scratches head)
In reply to your edit:
No  you keep on overlooking the fact that my model, despite describing the curvature of space as a temporal dilation of a flat space, this temporal dilation rendering space coordinates as infinitely more definable, still retains the SR effects as a phenomenon that the traveler travelling at that velocity experiences himself.
SR effects are held relative to the 3rd time dilation where the velocity is a percentage of the speed of light held relative to the 3rd time dilation length of second at that radius.
SR time dilation effects will cancel out GR time dilation effects, and SR spatial dilation will be experienced by the traveler due to his slower rate of time, but the velocity he is travelling at, and the speed of light his SR time dilation is held relative to, are both being held relative to the 3rd time dilation length of second at that coordinate.

OK, if I understand correctly, your theory predicts no time dilation for these observers until you invoke SR. I can't fault you for that because, as I said, GR theorists make the same mistake and I am probably in the minority when I express the opinion that they're wrong. It would be nice to have a 2nd opinion from a scholar on this subject (where's Alan Guth when you need him?), but I guess it's off the table for now. I'll have to do some more noodling.

No  I'm saying that GR time dilation and the 3rd time dilation are separate phenomenon that occur simultaneously.
That GR time dilation affects mass only at h from M, and at that h from M the 3rd time dilation will be the exact and equal negative of GR time dilation, where the 3rd time dilation has no effect on the time dilation for mass, but it will affect how that mass moves through space.
SR is then added in for mass only, where SR effects will cancel out GR effects and vice versus.

Understood, but the test mass 'm' does not factor into the GR equations so I'm still at a loss to explain your distinction between dilation for m at h from M and dilation for nothing at h from M. That's the missing recipe I was talking about earlier. As I said, I need to do some more noodling.

Near Earth the acceleration of gravity is 9.807m/s^2.
At 2 radii from centre of Earth, at this radius the acceleration of gravity is 4.25m/s^2.
If you held the measurement of this acceleration relative to the length of a 3rd time dilation second at that radius, then the acceleration would be 9.807m/s^2.
(roughly speaking)
The current GR time dilation perception is that this GR time dilation is inherent to open space where the rate of time gets faster at the higher gravity potential, and that mass in that open space at a particular gravity potential will be affected by that time.
My model changes this and states that GR time dilation only affects the mass via gravity potential energy, and that it is the addition of this potential energy that increases the rate of the electron transitions. i.e. frequency.
Then it states that the gfield of open space itself is inherent with the 3rd time dilation that affects how this mass moves through open space.
I'll leave you to it though, and happy noodlings...

So let's put a clock at 2R. Now put one observer on earth and another on the moon. What do they see?

The clock at 2r will be GR time dilated, so conventional relativity describes what the moon observer will see in relation to what the Earth observer will see  is the answer to your question.
The observation of the 3rd time dilation would be in that the clock without any energy input to maintain its position at 2r, would then be changing position from 2r back to Earth, where the increasingly shorter seconds of the gfield are increasing the speed the clock moves at through the gfield.

So let's put a clock at 2R. Now put one observer on earth and another on the moon. What do they see?
2R from the center of the Earth, from the surface of the Earth or from the atmosphere of the Earth?
The clock at 2r will be GR time dilated, so conventional relativity describes what the moon observer will see in relation to what the Earth observer will see  is the answer to your question.
The observation of the 3rd time dilation would be in that the clock without any energy input to maintain its position at 2r, would then be changing position from 2r back to Earth, where the increasingly shorter seconds of the gfield are increasing the speed the clock moves at through the gfield.
What does GR dilated mean in space. Where is the threshold of attraction for the difference in the inverse square of the distance? There is one for inside the parameter of mass and one for outside the parameter of mass.

R is always taken from the centre of gravity, provided that R > the radius at mean sea level. It's a lot easier than asking where the atmosphere ends, because it doesn't.

So let's put a clock at 2R. Now put one observer on earth and another on the moon. What do they see?
The clock at 2r will be GR time dilated, so conventional relativity describes what the moon observer will see in relation to what the Earth observer will see  is the answer to your question.
The observation of the 3rd time dilation would be in that the clock without any energy input to maintain its position at 2r, would then be changing position from 2r back to Earth, where the increasingly shorter seconds of the gfield are increasing the speed the clock moves at through the gfield.
Any response?

So let's put a clock at 2R. Now put one observer on earth and another on the moon. What do they see?
That's a tough one because the moon's gravity is not trivial and it's orbital speed is variable. The GPS scenario is similar and simpler because the satellite's gravity is trivial and it's orbital speed is effectively constant. A GEO satellite is even easier because it is stationary with respect to the Earth observer. In that case, GR says the satellite clock runs faster or slower by a factor of sqrt(12GM/c^2/R)/sqrt(12GM/c^2/r) and you can take that result to the bank. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation))

Ok  so if we could imagine for the purpose of the calculation that a constant speed  never mind the cause of the movement or consideration of that which is moving  to be moving in the direction of r, away from M, would it be possible for you to calculate the acceleration that a constant speed would accelerate at if the speed were held relative to the faster seconds of each r between R and r?
Edit: This assuming that R is the closer radius, I've had a moment of doubt, but if I've got it wrong way round...

R is indeed the shorter radius, but I've had my own 2nd thoughts. Even though the satellite is stationary with respect to the Earth observer, both are rotating within the SC coordinate system. It's not valid to assume that the SC coordinate system rotates with the Earth unless the satellite is replaced with a hovering rocket (corotating with the Earth observer) or another terrestrial observer at the top of a tall tower. Centripetal acceleration does not amount to the same thing because the satellite does not feel its own weight. We should revise our scenario accordingly to avoid that wrinkle. Constant linear velocity is even more complicated because you have to accelerate in a gravitational field in order to achieve that.

R is always taken from the centre of gravity, provided that R > the radius at mean sea level. It's a lot easier than asking where the atmosphere ends, because it doesn't.
Yes but the density of mass has a threshold where attraction to the Earth for your weight to the center of mass changes abruptly. Being basically weightless in space. There is an abrupt change in tick rate of your clock that is not linear to the center of mass. Basically insignificant change but a change non the less. This is where the gradient dilation changes its acceleration to the center of the Earth.
There probably is no place in the universe where the tick rate remains the same so while we can be somewhat accurate we can never be precise. A mathematicians goal of precision in relativity is a moving target.

R is indeed the shorter radius, but I've had my own 2nd thoughts. Even though the satellite is stationary with respect to the Earth observer, both are rotating within the SC coordinate system. It's not valid to assume that the SC coordinate system rotates with the Earth unless the satellite is replaced with a hovering rocket (corotating with the Earth observer) or another terrestrial observer at the top of a tall tower. Centripetal acceleration does not amount to the same thing because the satellite does not feel its own weight. We should revise our scenario accordingly to avoid that wrinkle. Constant linear velocity is even more complicated because you have to accelerate in a gravitational field in order to achieve that.
Even the top of tower will be rotating faster than the bottom of tower...
The only way, as you say, is to have a hovering rocket that when maintaining height above the Earth, also maintains the same speed of rotation, where the observer on the craft will observe the observer on the ground rotating away from the crafts position, and therefore the speed of both will remain the same.
And yes if we take the gravitational field into consideration this does complicate matters for a trajectory away from M...
However  this is why I said to just consider the calculation as a constant speed  no matter what is causing the motion, or consideration of that which is being moved  to remove gravitational and SR aspects from the calculation.
What I'm interested in is by how much GR time dilation would increase a constant speed between R and r if we held the speed relative to the shorter seconds at each h from M.
What I'm looking for is a m/s^2 acceleration  so having taken into consideration that the shorter seconds of GR time dilation have accelerated this constant speed, clearly the 'acceleration' part described by m/s^2 would then be being held relative to the rate of an 'Earth second' at R, or 'standard second' as per the physics remit of holding metres per second squared relative to the standard second.
Edit: It would be pertinent to my intended direction as to the use of this calculation if you considered r to be 2 radii from centre of Earth...

The point is to get both observers attached to the planet by gravity at different altitudes. That's the simplest case for the SC solution because the metric reduces to: dT/dt = sqrt(1  2GM/c^{2}r). Anything else involves the addition of more variables, which only serve to obfuscate the result. This effect can be measured directly and is actually used to maintain the accuracy of the clocks that track universal time (during seismic events for example.) It can be interpreted as a change in light speed, but most people prefer to think of it as a change in time speed (i.e. time dilation.) The net effect is the same either way because clock speed depends on light speed as well as time speed. Note that acceleration due to gravity is GM/r^{2}.

...just consider the calculation as a constant speed  no matter what is causing the motion, or consideration of that which is being moved  to remove gravitational and SR aspects from the calculation.
SR describes constant velocity in the absence of gravity. GR describes free fall in a gravitational field. It can be extrapolated to describe suspension in a gravitational field, but there is no exact GR solution for any other case, only numerical approximations.
What I'm interested in is by how much GR time dilation would increase a constant speed between R and r if we held the speed relative to the shorter seconds at each h from M.
What I'm looking for is a m/s^2 acceleration  so having taken into consideration that the shorter seconds of GR time dilation have accelerated this constant speed, clearly the 'acceleration' part described by m/s^2 would then be being held relative to the rate of an 'Earth second' at R, or 'standard second' as per the physics remit of holding metres per second squared relative to the standard second.
I think you're talking about free falling from the top of the tower. (Although that's accelerated motion, not constant velocity.) It's easy to compute time dilation for that case relative to an infinitely removed observer, but not so easy when the bystander is on the ground. The SC solution can cope with two free falling observers or two suspended observers, but not one of each. That's the GPS scenario and there is no consensus on the correct way to solve that problem.

No you misunderstand my intention  I'm not referring to any 'actual' physical event in wanting to know by how much a constant speed would be accelerated by in m/s^2, if the constant speed were held relative to GR time dilation at every r, from R to r=2radii.
Excluding the other physical considerations, all I want to know is  if we reduce the length of a second, how much faster will the speed be?
At each and every r, from R to r=2radii, GR time dilated seconds get shorter. (or appear as if they do from the lower potential)
What would the acceleration be in m/s^2 if we held a constant speed relative to the shorter seconds at each radius.
Just to be absolutely clear:
When referring to a speed it is no mystery that a speed is defined as per a distance held relative to a time period. In this case metres travelled per second, and it should be pretty obvious that metres per second are being held relative to the time period of a standard second measurement.
So on this basis we can now hold a constant speed relative to a series of increasingly shorter seconds found to be shorter at each and every r between R and r=2radii, and this will give us an acceleration.
It is the value of this mathematically contrived acceleration that I need to know.
At 2 radii from centre of Earth the acceleration of gravity is 4.25m/s^2, or thereabouts.
At near Earth it is around 9.807m/s^2.
At each and every r between R and r=2 radii, the acceleration decreases.
I want to examine the difference in value between the 'gravitational acceleration' of m/s^2 occurring between r=2radii and R, in relation to this mathematically contrived 'time dilation' acceleration between R and r=2radii  that I'm trying to get you to calculate the value of...
This is actually pertinent to the calculation of my model, where the 'acceleration' of gravity is 3rd time dilation related... In order to calculate my model, each component of the GR field equations must be dissembled and reassembled in an alternative arrangement. Once I know the value of this 'mathematically contrived' acceleration, I'll be in a better position to proceed.

Here's a cheat sheet I made for calculating GR time dilation with the Schwarzschild metric for cases that involve only radial motion. Of particular interest to this thread are the stationary and constant velocity cases, but I'm not entirely satisfied with those two results because they involve additional energy, beyond that which is available in the metric. I think that invalidates the interpretation of proper time as local time. (That's why GPS is so tricky for example.)
Note also that the validity of the Schwarzschild metric in the vicinity of the event horizon is questionable, as I pointed out in this thread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69764.0
If you accept my proposed correction to the metric, the scaling factor changes from (1r_{s}/r) to (1r_{s}/2r)^{2}.
I should also point out that my free fall solutions are only valid for escape velocity (i.e. when KE cancels PE.) Anything else exceeds the energy in the metric.

Do you (Timey) think this is a fair assessment of your theory?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69882.msg510239#msg510239

Do you (Timey) think this is a fair assessment of your theory?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69882.msg510239#msg510239
I think Timey is proposing that spacetime is intrinsically dilated and that's what determines the location and movement of objects in space and time. It's an anthropic argument (i.e. chicken vs. egg) so it's really a matter of philosophy, not physics. The same could be said of string theory of course, but physics is supposed to be about the observables. It seeks to explain how one observable changes in relation to another. An explanation is worthless if it invokes undefined concepts like photontoelectron ratio, electron cycle, electron travel distance, and oscillating mass. You might as well be talking about gnomes and fairies (or strings.)
I expect you're eluding to waveparticle duality. If so, you are way off base because the amplitude of a matter wave is a distance in probability space, not conventional space. That is, matter wave power, which is proportional to amplitude squared, equates to a probability of finding a mass at a given location in space and time. GR and SR have nothing to say about any of that.
At the risk of adding to your confusion, I should add that probability space is only one possible interpretation of QM. There is a respectable theory that the waves are actually electromagnetic in nature. It's incomplete and far from mainstream, though.
Ok  Mike, bringing your post on GoC's thread back here, as I wouldn't want to clog up his thread with my posts, I have more respect...
Firstly, I'm sorry but I do not have access to a computer and am just conducting myself from a phone's operating system, whereby I can't view pdf's, so for the moment I haven't seen the info you posted in pdf format.
Secondly, I am still observing that you are having difficulty stepping outside of the view of conventional GR and SR.
Clearly the conventional view describes a universe that is presently expanding...
My model seeks to describe a universe that is presently contracting, a contraction that has been slowly accelerating from the point that my model's rendition of the universe's inflation period ceased.
This involves a completely different rendition of GR and SR principles, therefore what I am attempting to describe 'will be' different.
However, the differences that my model makes are an alternative means of describing experimentally confirmed observations, without the necessity for an inclusion of Dark matter, or Dark Energy.
I now know more or less exactly how my model can be calculated, bar not having the required value of the information that I was requesting from you...
And what I am seeking is someone well versed in manipulating mathematics, who can can let go of their conventional relativity/quantum preconceptions in order to take specific instructions as how GR and SR and quantum principles can be very subtly changed in order to describe how my model is put together.
Nothing philosophical about it whatsoever...
With regards to what you surmise about my model, the closest you come is in regarding probability space. My model includes a time dilation factor to the quantum region of physics that adds probability space before the fact rather than after, where my model states that the concept of probability space is born of the fact of current physics not taking into account that where frequency is a timing function of energy, +energy = shorter seconds.
My model is based on a theory of time which renders time itself as a reactive phenomenon caused within and as part of the mechanics of the universe, where the rate of time anywhere is a reaction to energy, and different rates of timing are occurring simultaneously as a reaction to their energy state.
As opposed to the current view where time is 'only' a measurement of sequential events, as observed by an observer.
Because your relativistic correction to the SC metric includes holding the speed of light relative to GR time dilation, I had thought that it wouldn't be too much trouble to transpose the amount by which the speed of light would be accelerated by these increases in the rate of time into a m/s^2 value... (between EarthR and r=2radii)
This is all I'm asking...

OK, I stand corrected. You are proposing a new twist on the aether theory. I assume you are aware that aether was the prevailing view before Einstein. You should be intimidated by the fact that he was able to sway so many of the greatest minds of the modern era, but even if you are not, you should study his arguments. Chances are he has already debunked your theory. For starters, you need to account for the MichelsonMorley result.
My model does account for the MichelsonMorley result in that it makes an additional axiom that the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time. As I have said before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law
After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant, which he had designed to modify his equations of general relativity to allow them to produce a static solution, which he thought was the correct state of the universe. The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.[41] After Hubble's discovery that the Universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein called his faulty assumption that the Universe is static his "biggest mistake".[41] On its own, general relativity could predict the expansion of the Universe, which (through observations such as the bending of light by large masses, or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be experimentally observed and compared to his theoretical calculations using particular solutions of the equations he had originally formulated.
Here we can see that the Einstein equations will describe an expanding universe or a contracting universe.
If Hubble's red shift velocities are reinterpreted as being due to slower time in space, then the aether type scenario is that motion is affected by slower time in space.
It's a logical proposition for a contracting universe of the cyclic type that my model describes.

My bias towards mainstream physics is irrelevant. I'm not trying to debunk your theory. (At least not yet.) I'm only trying to identify how it differs from mainstream. Because you are unable to provide a formal derivation, our only recourse is to juxtapose predictions. You obviously have the constant velocity scenario worked out in your mind, but GR can't solve that one without generating controversy. The approach I'm advocating is to define a scenario which is unambiguous in GR and then ask what your theory has to say about it.

I noted earlier that the expanding universe hypothesis comes from the Friedmann solution, not the Schwarzschild solution. Although both are consistent with GR principles, they are distinctly different. Friedmann dilation is exclusively temporal so it is the same for all points in space. Schwarzschild dilation may or may not be temporal, but it most definitely has a spatial dependency.

I cannot lay claim to the variable speed of light (VSL) hypothesis. Einstein floated that idea for several years before he conceded the dilation view. Although VSL has fallen out of favour, neither view is free of controversy.

Well we can start with Dark Energy:
Dark Energy isn't necessary in my model because the universe is not expanding. Although distances between masses, i.e. galaxy clusters are becoming greater, this is because the masses themselves are slowly becoming closer together.
Now for Dark Matter:
Dark matter isn't necessary in my model because gravitational acceleration is 3rd time dilation related.
This completely changes the outlook on gravitational attraction.
With just 1 or 2 bodies m orbiting a central body M at a particular radius, at that radius their movement will be slowed down by the 3rd time dilation. If one calculated the orbital velocity via the 3rd time dilation, comparatively one would say that the m's velocity was increased at radius from main body M, not decreased.
When there are multiple bodies of m at each radius from main body M, as in the galaxy spiral, the 3rd time dilation will not be increasing the length of a second at same rate due to a greater mass distribution.
Again  if we calculated velocity speeds via the 3rd time dilation at that radius, we would find that the orbital speeds at each radius from main body M would be proportional to the 3rd time dilation of open space caused by mass distribution at that radius.
If you are all good with above, next we should address my model's rendition of Big Bang theory, and how my model gives physical mechanics for an inflation period that is analogous to Alan Guth's rendition but gives actual physical cause.
In reply to your further posts:
If Freidmann considered a temporal dilation that was equal everywhere then this differs from my model in that the temporal dilation of my model is dilated in space and contracted near mass, and it is the physical cause of gravitational acceleration. i.e. already included in the Einstein equation.

...the rate of time anywhere is a reaction to energy, and different rates of timing are occurring simultaneously as a reaction to their energy state.
OK, you are proposing that clock speed depends on clock mass as well as gravity and velocity. I presume Einstein's light clock defines the speed limit since light is massless. SR is therefore sacrosanct. That leaves GR, which is consistent with observation. You have to discard some part of it in order to accommodate this new effect without changing the result. The discarded part would have to depend on clock mass in the opposite way. It's a zero sum game. If I say A=B+C and you say A+D=B+C+D, we have said the same thing.

Erm no  I'm saying that mass energy is causing time dilation, and that temperature energy, or potential energy increases will increase that rate of time. All masses will run at differing rates of time, but that when subject to external energy, i.e. temperature energy or potential energy, that all different mass values will be affected equally, thereby upholding the equivalence principle that all is equal in every frame.
So a ceasium atom, or an ion, or an FE57 will all be equal in relation to each other at each gravity potential.
The 3rd time dilation will not register on any clock, and is inherent to the gfield to the value of M, surrounding M, and this time dilation affects how m moves in the gfield surrounding M, and in outer space.
This effect that affects movement in the gfield is not a new effect. This 3rd time dilation is just giving a physical cause to an effect that is being accounted for already in the Einstien equation, this being gravitational acceleration.

I should add that velocity will also affect the time dilation for mass, and that any value of mass will be affected equally by a velocity, as per how temperature energy and potential energy will affect all mass equally, where this velocity related time dilation is connected to kinetic energy.

A temporal dilation that eludes every conceivable clock is no different than the celestial teapot. It may well be that the timing mechanism, which is responsible for atomic decay, is subject to a massdependent temporal dilation. That doesn't change the observable, which is that atoms of different masses decay at different rates. I am reminded of Feynman's account of a Q&A session with some famous physicist of yore. I can't remember who it was, but he was fielding questions on Kepler's laws of planetary motion. The prevailing view of the time was that angels pushed the planets around in the orbits of Copernicus and someone asked what happened to them. In deference to Newton's spooky action at a distance, he pointed out that Kepler's theory was consistent with the angel hypothesis except that they pulled instead of pushing.

It is not a celestial teapot if one can observe the physical results, these being the motions/velocities in space.
And it would be impossible to measure an 'open space' with a clock because a clock is mass.
If one were looking to measure the scenario with light, just look to the frequency of light reducing with the longer seconds of space at increasing h from M, and the increasing frequency of light in the shorter seconds at decreasing h from M.
A clock at rest with respect to the gfield, it's frequency increases in the higher gravity potential.
Lights frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential.
Light has no mass and will not gain potential energy at h from M.

But you're proposing an untestable mechanism for an observable, which is already fully accounted for. Remember Laplace's retort to Napoleon when asked why he neglected to credit God in his book on cosmology? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PierreSimon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis)

Gravity is very far from being fully accounted for. Everyone knows 'what' it does, but not 'how' it does it.
Giving the acceleration of gravity a physical cause that then negates the need for Dark Energy and Dark Matter is a double bonus surely?

Einstein's cause is spacetime dilation. You can propose a mechanism by which mass causes dilation, but it turns into an infinite regression like the turtles hypothesis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

No  the gfield causes the temporal dilation of space and the gfield is caused by M, where the gfield of M affects the motions of m...
The moon is an m in relation to Earth's M, and the planets are m's to the Sun's M.
The Sun is an m in relation to distribution of mass on the radial to central M of Galaxy.
All M's of Galaxy clusters are slowly being pulled together.

That's what Einstein is saying. The difference is that he makes no hypothesis about how mass energy incurs dilation. He just observes that it does and that it doesn't depend depend on 'm'.

That's right, and gravitational acceleration doesn't depend on m either.

Then what do you mean by "m in relation to M"?

Because M is denoting the value of gravity potential at h from M, and the value of the gfield at h from M.

Sure, but what's 'm' got to do with it?

pe=mgh, where pe/m then makes pe equally distributed to m.
Now you have an energy to frequency of electron transitions relationship for m at h from M.

Gravitational potential and gravitational field are the same thing. They are measures of potential energy per unit mass. The value of 'gh' from GR applies to all masses.

That's right  the difference being in my model that anything that is massless is not affected by gravity potential energy. Therefore space itself and light are only affected by the 3rd time dilation, and do not experience GR time dilation.
The third time dilation is what causes m to decelerate m<<<M, and accelerate m>>>M.
The 3rd time dilation is what causes energy to become stretched out over a longer wave length L<<<M, and causes energy to become compressed into shorter wavelength L>>>M.
(L being for light)

But light is demonstrably affected by gravity.

The 3rd time dilation is caused by gravity.
Anywhere where light is demonstrably affected by gravity can be described in terms of a 3rd time dilation related acceleration/deceleration.

There is no need for that hypothesis. The effects of gravity on light are fully accounted for in GR.

...and GR in the form of Einstein's equation can precisely describe a contracting model, but only if red shifts aren't velocity related.
Are you sure that GR describes light's passage across space independently of SR?

Absolutely. And as I said previously, the SC solution has nothing to say about Hubble's data. That's the Friedmann solution.

So if the Friedmann equations are describing the Hubble data in relation to the Einstein equation, then what is Freidmann using as a means to the description?
You mentioned something about him using time to constantly dilate space...
Can you give me a more detailed description?
For instance when you say 'to constantly dilate space', do you mean a constantly time dilated space, or a space that is dilated by constant time?

A clock at rest with respect to the gfield, it's frequency increases in the higher gravity potential.
Lights frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential.
Light has no mass and will not gain potential energy at h from M.
Why do you keep repeating (and now embellishing) this nonsense? We're talking physics, not Mozart! Stic k tot he observed facts: The frequency of any repetitive process appears higher when observed from a lower gravity potential. The frequency of any photon is higher, when received at a lower gravity potential, than observed at the source. The two phenomena are identical.

A clock at rest with respect to the gfield, it's frequency increases in the higher gravity potential.
Lights frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential.
Light has no mass and will not gain potential energy at h from M.
Why do you keep repeating (and now embellishing) this nonsense? We're talking physics, not Mozart! Stic k tot he observed facts: The frequency of any repetitive process appears higher when observed from a lower gravity potential. The frequency of any photon is higher, when received at a lower gravity potential, than observed at the source. The two phenomena are identical. An observer at the same gravitational potential sees no frequency shift.

There is nothing that I have said that renders the observations that you speak of as anything other than the observations you speak of.
Clearly Alan, I am looking to a differing mathematical description as to calculating these observations. A differing means that results in a description of our universe that does not require Dark Energy, or Dark Matter, that will unify the standard model with gravity, and provide mechanics for Big Bang and Inflation.
If you think that is nonsense, then don't participate.
There are many physicists who write about the fact of the standard model and gravity not being unified and perhaps someone else who has read these same books will be more interested in my model than you are.

So if the Friedmann equations are describing the Hubble data in relation to the Einstein equation, then what is Freidmann using as a means to the description?
You mentioned something about him using time to constantly dilate space...
Can you give me a more detailed description?
For instance when you say 'to constantly dilate space', do you mean a constantly time dilated space, or a space that is dilated by constant time?
I think I said exclusively, not constantly. I'm no expert on the subject, but it is presumably energy from the Big Bang that drives Friedmann dilation. The reason why it is exclusively temporal is entirely empirical. Hubble expansion appears to be the same in every direction of space no matter where you're standing or how you're moving. It's really just a way to guesstimate Einstein's cosmological constant.

I thought that red shift velocities are proportional to distance of source.
This meaning that more distant light sources are receding away from us faster.
I've just started a discussion on this subject here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70013.0

In addition to post above...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law
In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his Friedmann equations from Einstein's field equations, showing that the Universe might expand at a rate calculable by the equations.[35] The parameter used by Friedmann is known today as the scale factor which can be considered as a scale invariant form of the proportionality constant of Hubble's law.
...whatever that means (chuckle)
In any case Friedmann deduced this from the Einstein equation which can just as adequately describe a contracting universe, where to reinterpret Hubble's velocity related red shifts one would have to look to the parameter of the 'scale factor'.
What is the scale factor?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)
In the link where they are talking about Hubble's parameter, can you tell me anything about this?
where the dot represents a time derivative.
...and the fact that I am seeing dots over a and d?

It's misleading to say that Friedman's solution emerged from GR. It is certainly consistent with GR, but that is by design. It's really just a curve fit to Hubble's data. Variables like the Hubble scaling factor are entirely contrived. They are nothing more than convenient knobs that you can twiddle to get the equation to fit the data. They hardly qualify as constants of nature.
One of the inputs to the analysis is the desired geometry, which can be flat, oblate or obtuse so the question of expanding, contracting or static is predetermined. The expanding option is the most plausible because it can make the cosmological constant go away (if you twiddle the other knobs in an appropriate manner.) I'm not sure, but I think accelerated expansion requires some more knobs.
The dot denotes rate of change over time: xdot=dx/dt for example.

Well I was just quoting the wiki link.
The Einstien equation can describe a contracting universe where the constant also 'goes away'.
If the Hubble data curve can be transposed into a time dilated curve relative to distance that is not expanding over time, rather than being a velocity curve relative to distance that is expanding over time...this constitutes another method of knob twiddling resulting in a description of a contracting universe.

The Einstein field equations are part and parcel to GR so they are included in the Schwarzschild and Friedmann solutions. Without those equations, GR is just cartography in 4 dimensions. (I say "just", but the mathematics of that are incredibly complex. We stand on the shoulders of giants.)
I think you meant to say that Schwarzschild (not Einstein) can describe a contracting universe, but that's not quite right either. Schwarzschild (or rather Newton, on which it is based) predicts clumping of mass because everything is attracted to everything else. The cosmological constant can counteract gravity with expanding space. I've never seen the mathematical proof, but it presumably does so at large scales so that, although local groups of masses tend to coalesce, highly dispersed ones do not.
It might be possible to tweak Friedmann's knobs to produce a constant rate of expansion, but that wouldn't fit Hubble's data.

It is worth noting that Hubble expansion is far from a done deal. Reckoning distances at cosmological scales is an inexact science. There are also plenty of anomalies (including blueshifted galaxies like Andromeda.) It is entirely possible that redshifted galaxies are simply moving away from us at different, but constant velocities. One smart aleck (I can't remember who) noted that we should not be surprised if the horse that ran the fastest is farthest from the gate half way through the race. Accelerated expansion is not so easily dismissed though.

No  I meant what I posted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.
The Einstein equations in their simplest form can model an expanding or contracting universe. The cosmological constant in either case can be added to counter the expansion, or the contraction to get a steady state.
Therefore if Hubble's velocity related red shifts were reinterpreted as being due to a curve of slower time in space, then Galaxy clusters would be (more or less) maintaining their orbital positions in a space that is slowly contracting at an accelerating rate.
Red shifts and blueshifts as observed would be due to gfields in space becoming weaker (red shift) because distance between light source and observation point are slightly increasing as mass clusters pull closer together, and the gfield is becoming stronger (blueshift) because distance between light source and observation point is closing as mass clusters pull closer together.
(same explanation but without velocity related expansion)
To understand this outlook, one has to consider the initial conditions.
The initial conditions for this contraction in my model are afforded immediately after the period of my model's rendition of an Inflation period which leaves us with a sea of individual particles.
If you can imagine how much space a truckload of tree trunks would take up if we wood chipped it...
Imagine all the clumped mass of the universe in particle form...
These are the initial conditions for contraction in my model where open distances in space are expanding in length because particles are vacating their former positions as mass clumps.

Einstein's field equations are meaningless in isolation of the GR framework. They are simply conservation of energy and momentum constraints expressed in a form that is compatible with 4D cartography.

I am referring to the equation that I posted earlier this thread which is Einstein's equation that describes GR.

I must have missed that, but I expect you were quoting the Schwarzschild solution because Einstein doesn't have one of his own.

If Lambda = 0 then G_{uv} = (8*pi*G/c^{4}) * T_{uv}.
This equation

That's Schwarzschild.

Really? Well I never. The program I lifted that equation from said it was the Einstien equation.
I didn't know the SC was Einstien's equation.

I suppose it's fair to credit Einstein because Schwarzschild's solution is based on his field equations, but it's ambiguous because there are several other solutions, all of which are based on Einstein's constraints.

In any case, that equation can describe a contracting universe.

Agreed, but that equation is only one part of a larger set.

Only when you start adding the Hubble parameter surely?
The program I watched said that Einstien was upset to have had to have added the constant lambda because it ruined the simplistic beauty of his equation.

No wait. That equation is actually part of Einstein's field equations, but it doesn't tell you anything about expansion until you apply it to a scenario like the Schwarzschild solution.

It's true that Einstein was disgusted with his cosmological constant (because it's ad hoc) and was happy to see the end of it when Hubble's data emerged on the scene. But observations of accelerated expansion suggest that he may have been too hasty.

As I understood it, that equation is describing GR in full, and it does describe expansion, or contraction without any additions. This being why Einstien included the constant, to stop his equation from doing either in order to maintain a steady state.
There are no observations of expansion. There are only observations that are interpreted as expansion.

In addition to post above...
The GR field equations, if I remember correctly from the Susskind lectures, include the use of the Lorentz transformations.

The Einstein tensor (denoted G_{uv}) is a fundamental part of GR, but there are lots of other moving parts. I have to admit that I don't really understand how the Schwarzschild solution leads to an expanding universe, but that is indeed what the literature says. I suppose you have to envision an accelerated object as a stationary one with space flowing in the opposite direction. It hurts my brain.

So that is the first expression of the equation, and it is equal to the latter part. The latter part also being moving parts?

...and aren't the GR field equations different from the Einstien equation?
Where Einstein's equation describes GR, but the GR field equations describe moving stuff around under the remit of GR?

The GR field equations, if I remember correctly from the Susskind lectures, include the use of the Lorentz transformations.
Quite right. Lorentz invariance is one of the constraints.

So that is the first expression of the equation, and it is equal to the latter part. The latter part also being moving parts?
The other "moving parts" come from the cartography part of GR.The Einstein tensor is part of an equality that relates energy and momentum to spacetime curvature. The idea is that accelerated motion in flat space is equivalent to uniform motion in curved space.

The Einstein tensor is part of an equality that relates energy and momentum to spacetime curvature. The idea is that accelerated motion in flat space is equivalent to uniform motion in curved space.
Yes  that is why my model's change to the structure is physically possible.
My model states that space is flat, and accelerated motion is uniform motion that is accelerated by a 3rd time dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity...
Where the energy of the gfield causes the 3rd time dilation, the differing lengths of seconds this energy of the gfield causes result in non uniform motion for any m in the gfield.
Gravity potential energy is increased for m at h from M, which will increase the frequency of the electron transitions of any m.
And where m=0, the decreasing gfield value at any h from M will decrease any m=0 energy levels, such as the energy of the gfield itself, and the energy levels of already emitted light.
Where we can say that pe=mgh, and that where m=0 we are talking about there being no additional potential energy at h from M...
Could a calculation such as something like e=gh describe the decreasing values of the gfield at any h from M?
And if so  can a calculation such as e=gh result in values that can be matched to the reduced energy levels for already emitted light<<<M at h from M?

http://homepages.rpi.edu/~newbeh/gersonaguiblava.pdf
Mike  here is a link plotting supernova light curves to the time dilation factor. As they are talking about time dilation slowing the passage of light across space, this must be an SR application.
As per my model, it would be the 3rd time dilation of open space that would be the cause of the light's curve of slower motion across space.
As an aside to add to the basis of my model's 3rd time dilation consideration  in current physics if we apply SR to mass travelling at a percentage of the speed of light, we cannot state the time dilation effects of SR as slowing the velocity of that mass, because if we did then the lesser velocity wouldn't be the same percentage of the speed of light and the time dilation factor would consequently be altered.
It is not possible to calculate a time dilation effect caused by a velocity if the time dilation effect calculated changes the velocity. This is a catch 22.

"Light curve" is insider jargon for temporal variation in intensity. You measure brightness over the course of several days. The idea is that we know how the brightness of a type Ia supernova changes over time so, if you're confident that you're looking at that type of object, the time line can be used as a clock and you can use red shift measurements to figure out how fast that clock should run relative to your own. SR is only involved insofar as it is incorporated into GR. The "tired light" theory, which they purport to have debunked, is an alternative to GR.

Einstein taught us that the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space is to measure the flight time of a light ray. If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant then space must be compressed equally in all directions. That scenario is incompatible with a spherically symmetric gravitational field and cannot be reconciled with the constant velocity scenario of SR.

You do not need the Einstein field equations to describe spacetime.

They don't sell red diesel at Birchanger Green....

If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant then space must be compressed equally in all directions.
If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant, by holding the speed of light relative to the longer seconds space will be temporally dilated.

Timey;
In SR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion, resulting in time dilation.
In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation. In SR we can identify the source of energy applied to the clock. In GR, it's the gfield, but we have no theory to explain how the energy is transferred from the dominant mass M to the field.
In both cases, time dilation results from motion regardless of the energy source.
Why do you propose a theory that reverses cause and effect?
(If I interpreted your idea correctly)

In SR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion, resulting in time dilation.
... Agreed.
In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation.
... Agreed, it results in SR motion related time dilation.
In SR we can identify the source of energy applied to the clock. In GR, it's the gfield,
Ok well  In my model the action of the force of the gfield causing motion is 3rd time dilation related. The 3rd time dilation comprises of seconds that get longer in the weaker gfield.
but we have no theory to explain how the energy is transferred from the dominant mass M to the field.
In order to describe how the 3rd time dilation is caused we must look to GR time dilation.
With the addition of the 3rd time dilation for the gfield, this renders GR time dilation as a phenomenon that is experienced by m in relation to M, where the frequency of m's electron transitions are then linked to potential energy on the basis that a higher frequency usually is accompanied by a higher level of energy. pe=mgh where pe/m ensures that all value of m is affected equally.
Where m=0 we are now looking to the value of the gfield for energy, where a weaker gfield has less energy.
In this manner we can say that free energy, (i.e. energy not bound to mass), such as the value of the gfield at any h from M, is the cause of the 3rd time dilation, and that this 3rd time dilation is the cause of the observed frequency and energy changes occurring for already emitted light (also energy not bound to mass) in the gfield.
Now SR time dilation must be accounted for... (not so simple)
A clock in relative motion has a lower frequency. I am now looking for a reason for motion to reduce energy to account for a lower frequency of electron transitions.
In the case of free fall we could say that potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy where kinetic energy does not affect the frequency of the constituents of body m, but this isn't sufficient. In a constant potential, additional energy input would be required to initiate movement, and it would be the additional energy that would be being converted into kinetic energy. A fuel to energy conversion would have bog all to do with an onboard clock's frequency.
Ok  so we know that at any location in the universe a body will have its own rest mass energy + the potential energy associated with its position. The potential energy that a body will have is reliant on its position with respect to the bigger body Mass.
If we consider that a smaller body at rest with respect to the bigger body has a a value of potential energy, then we could say that any motion with respect to the bigger body can reduce this value of potential energy and that this will reduce the energy and frequency of the workings of the clock.
This remit will also work in the free fall case, (where the acceleration is 3rd time dilation related), and also in the case of deceleration experienced by m<<<M. (where the deceleration experienced is 3rd time dilation related)
... I get frustrated here (as a nonmathematician) because I suspect that, not relativistic mass itself, but the value of relativistic mass and the way it is calculated is pertinent to this SR time dilation remit I suggest, where I understand that relativistic mass is negligible at nonrelativistic speeds, but note that SR time dilation is also negligible at nonrelativistic speeds.
The goal of the mission is to describe the phenomenon of time itself as a reactive within the universe rather than a measurement of sequential events, and when this remit is then applied to quantum, by understanding that frequency is time dilation related, (GR time dilated point of fact), when recalculating the blackbody under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds, the quantum nature of the energy additions should be negated as a continuum.

You do not need the Einstein field equations to describe spacetime.
That is true for the case of uniform motion (i.e. SR.) Otherwise EFE (i.e. GR) is your best bet.

They don't sell red diesel at Birchanger Green....
The relevance of that reference is lost on me.

If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant, by holding the speed of light relative to the longer seconds space will be temporally dilated.
We are saying the same thing. There is no distinction between temporally dilated space and (unqualified) dilated space: d=ct, where 'c' is light speed and 't' is the flight time of a light ray as perceived by the observer.

In SR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion, resulting in time dilation.
Incorrect. There are no forces in SR. SR dilation is entirely due to velocity. Acceleration due to a force is just the means by which a velocity is achieved. More acceleration gets you there faster than less acceleration, but the net effect is the same.

In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation.
GR does not necessarily involve motion. It works when the observers are held in place by a planetary crust for example. It fails if the observers are experiencing different forces from external sources (i.e. rocket engines), but it is possible to (approximately) compensate with SR in certain variations of that case (e.g. orbital free fall.)

In SR we can identify the source of energy applied to the clock. In GR, it's the gfield, but we have no theory to explain how the energy is transferred from the dominant mass M to the field.
GR explains how the field is influenced by mass (or light) energy. It just doesn't explain why because we don't know exactly what's going on inside the mass (or the light.) You can speculate all day about that, but it's pointless because we can't probe the universe at that scale. That's the string theory dilemma.

In both cases [GR and SR], time dilation results from motion regardless of the energy source.
Again, this is true of SR, but not GR.

Why do you [timey] propose a theory that reverses cause and effect?
(If I interpreted your idea correctly)
I don't think Timey addressed this question in her response so allow me to intervene. Her theory does not violate causality, at least no more so than GR already does (e.g. in the vicinity of the Schwarzschild event horizon.) She is only trying to link time dilation to observer mass.

No  I am not trying to link time dilation to observer mass.
What I'm trying to do is link energy to the phenomenon of time, where the universe has 3 separate time dilations.
1 caused by subtracting/adding pe from mass via motion/lack of motion = SR
1 caused by adding/subtracting pe to mass via position in gfield = GR
1 caused by adding/subtracting gfield energy for gfield of M where m=0 = 3rd time dilation...
Where the 3rd time dilation is the 'action of' acceleration/deceleration of gravity.
The intention here is to dispense with the need for the considerations of any observer and quite simply map out the gfield/s, and the motions of masses that occur in them just by knowing the value of M and operating under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds.
String theory, now you come to mention it, would indeed be infinitely more calculable under this remit.
As for the red diesel comment, well Birchanger Green is a motorway service station, and people don't drive tractors on the motorway.
... I made the comment because where Jeff said that the GR field equations don't describe space time
wiki
They do describe the fundamental interactionof gravitation as a result of spacetimebeing curved by mass and energy
Bit on the overly cryptic side perhaps...but it tickled me at the time. (chuckle).
It's just that Jeff didn't elaborate on his reason for posting that statement, and unless a statement is quantified as to context, one may as well be saying in as much as: 'They don't sell red diesel at Birchanger Green'...
Edit: It occurs Mike that perhaps because you are not from UK, it may be of some relevance to mention that red diesel is a lesser government taxed fuel for off road, and farm purposes only, that is identifiable from regular diesel in that the colour red has been added.

In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation.
GR does not necessarily involve motion. It works when the observers are held in place by a planetary crust for example. It fails if the observers are experiencing different forces from external sources (i.e. rocket engines), but it is possible to (approximately) compensate with SR in certain variations of that case (e.g. orbital free fall.)
I think that Phyti was referring to the acceleration or deceleration that is described by GR that is causing motions that cause SR time dilation.

No  I am not trying to link time dilation to observer mass.
What I'm trying to do is link energy to the phenomenon of time, where the universe has 3 separate time dilations.
1 caused by subtracting/adding pe from mass via motion/lack of motion = SR
1 caused by adding/subtracting pe to mass via position in gfield = GR
1 caused by adding/subtracting gfield energy for gfield of M where m=0 = 3rd time dilation...
You contradict yourself because your "corrections" to GR and SR both involve observer mass. Also, I've made this point before, but your 3rd case is the GR case because GR is formulated in the context of an infinitesimally small observer mass.
BTW  we did away with red diesel in Canada because it's an overly complicated way to subsidize farmers.

Canada aye? And there I was thinking you was in USA.
I suppose that your accusation of my contradicting myself depends very much on what you mean by observer mass.
In GR 'conventional', the time dilation at h from M, i.e. the increased frequency of electron transitions, is not thought to be occurring because of any change in external 'energy' additions experienced directly by the mass at h from M.
GR time dilation is thought to be occurring because time gets faster 'at' h from M, whereas it is not known why time gets faster at h from M when observed from the lower potential.
My model simply states mass at h from M as experiencing external energy additions at h from M due to pe=mgh where pe/m ensures that all m is affected equally, and it is these additions of pe that cause increase in the frequency of electron transitions for m at h from M. My model gives this as the physical cause for GR time dilation that is observed of m at h from M from the lower potential.
Now which mass are you referring to as the observer mass please?
If you are referring to the mass at h from m, observed from the lower potential to have a higher frequency of electron transitions, as being the observer mass, then the observer mass at h from M will not observe any change in frequency of itself or any other body of mass at that h from M. All frequencies of electron transitions of any particle value m, although actually physically increased by their position at h from M will all retain their interactive relationships amongst themselves proportionally with an equal addition of potential energy for all.
And since we can just calculate an addition of pe at any h from M, we can remove ourselves from the necessity of being reliant on what an observer observes from any other potential. It's no longer important because we know the cause of the observation.
Same with SR.
but your 3rd case is the GR case because GR is formulated in the context of an infinitesimally small observer mass.
An infinitesimally small mass is not m=0, but I do agree that the 3rd time dilation is the GR case, in that GR is the description of acceleration and deceleration of the motions of mass in the gfield. It's just that GR has neglected to give its case an actual physical cause, and I have added an actual physical cause to GR's case.

My model simply states mass at h from M as experiencing external energy additions at h from M due to pe=mgh where pe/m ensures that all m is affected equally, and it is these additions of pe that cause increase in the frequency of electron transitions for m at h from M.
GR says exactly the same thing, although it applies to any clock (not just your "electron transitions", which I presume are atomic decay rates) and any field strength (not just gh, which is the weak field approximation.)

Now which mass are you referring to as the observer mass please?
If you are referring to the mass at h from m, observed from the lower potential to have a higher frequency of electron transitions, as being the observer mass, then the observer mass at h from M will not observe any change in frequency of itself or any other body of mass at that h from M. All frequencies of electron transitions of any particle value m, although actually physically increased by their position at h from M will all retain their interactive relationships amongst themselves proportionally with an equal addition of potential energy for all.
And since we can just calculate an addition of pe at any h from M, we can remove ourselves from the necessity of being reliant on what an observer observes from any other potential. It's no longer important because we know the cause of the observation.
It is the mass at h from M. Observer mass is measured in the local reference frame. Observers at other locations in the field will perceive a different value. If A is observing B then observer mass is that of B as perceived by B. It is also known as "test mass" because it is the mass that you use to probe the field. It is taken to be arbitrarily small compared to M. Observer A is also presumed to be sufficiently removed from observer B that they don't have any significant influence on one another.

Thanks for clearing that up...
If A observes B, and B observes A, both will observe the other's clock to be of a differing electron transition frequency to their own.
We can just leave it at that now with the observers, because it is possible to predict the electron transition frequency in relation to the gravity potential of the location.
This is the case because at every gravity potential the electron transitions of a caesium atom, when observed from within the same gravity potential will always be observed to have the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
Calibrate the clock in one gravity potential and then raise it by a metre, from the lower potential it will be observed to have a higher frequency. Raise the clock by another metre and it will be observed from 2 metres below to have an even higher frequency than 1 metre clock.
On the basis that the gravitational shift equations for blueshift exactly match the time shift at h from M, where a light emitter at 2 metres emits a photon, and the observer 2 metres below observes the light as blue shifted, mathematically it is possible to map out these frequency of electron transition changes in the gravity potential based on the gravitational shift equations.
So I just don't see the necessity to involve observers because it doesn't matter what something looks like from where*, we only need to consider proportions and relationships.
(*if there is a rainbow in the sky and you are on one side of the valley, and I on the other, we can speak to each other on our mobile phone's about 'wow, do you see the rainbow over there', but your rainbow and my rainbow will be in differing positions in the sky.)
*
...and in answer to your post before the one above:
I am actually almost certain that while the GR time dilation effect is known to be due to position in the gravity potential, that additional potential energy is not thought to be the cause of the time dilation...
Edit: If it were then the standard model would be unified with gravity.
However, if you take the remit of additional pe causing GR time dilation back to the black body and consider that adding temperature energy is also increasing the frequency of electron transitions, which are a result of a higher quantum energy level and result in the emission of higher frequency photons, and then consider that energy added is shortening seconds... when recalculating the temperature energy additions of the black body held relative to the shorter seconds, the quantum nature of these energy additions will be negated.

As a point of order, the atomic clock is based on nuclear decay, not electron state transitions. But as I said before, the observers are the clocks. The concept of time makes no sense in the absence of observers. If time slows down and nobody is there to measure it, there are no consequences so who cares? Imagine yourself as a point particle alone in the universe. How would you measure time? Indeed, how would you measure space? The answer is you can't. You need another point of reference and a means of communication. Communication requires oscillation so the simplest possible universe is one that contains two clocks and some light so they can see each other. The nature of the universe in the absence of those ingredients is moot.

Wiki:
A caesium standard or caesium atomic clock is a primary frequency standard in which electronic transitionsbetween the two hyperfine ground states of caesium133 atoms are used to control the output frequency.
Point of fact, it 'is' the electron transitions that are used to control the output frequency.
The concept of time makes no sense in the absence of observers.
...This is only a valid perspective if one is viewing time as being simply a measurement imposed upon the universe.
I am taking the view that time is a phenomenon that is a reactive within the universe. This view is supported by the remit of both GR and SR observed and experimentally verified time dilations, and is a view that is respectably noted in most physics books where the author is considering the concept of time.
Electron transitions are related to quantum energy levels, where electron transitions that are increasing in frequency are accompanied by a higher quantum energy...
Although there are theories about how particles become high energy in thunderstorms, sand storms, forest fires and volcanoes to result in lightening, quite how these particles become high energy is not fully understood.
But if you look to the caesium atomic clock, the electron transitions are observed to increase in frequency at h from M, so by remit of equivalency the electron transitions of any particle at h from M will also increase, and now you have physical cause for high energy particles at altitude.
If time slows down and nobody is there to measure it, there are no consequences
I just illustrate how time speeding up for particles at altitude has physical consequences... Particles don't measure themselves, they interact with each other based on energy levels.
If particles are experiencing their time based on energy levels, then where there is no mass, i.e. the spaces between masses, the energy levels are much lower.
This is where the 3rd time dilation steps in, but by the nature of m=0, we don't have an observer of any kind to record or measure this time dilation. All we can do is measure the consequences of it, which are that m in the gfield of M will be accelerated towards M by means of the shorter seconds as the gfield increases in strength near M, and decelerated away from M by means of the longer seconds as the gfield decreases in strength further away from M.
So again we see that wether anyone is measuring the situation or not, that the 3rd time dilation has consequences.
The 3rd time dilation has another much more important consequence though, because one must come to the conclusion that time does not run faster out in space, and a black holes time will be running at a far faster rate than anywhere else, which is absolutely fantastic news because GR under this remit can measure inside the black hole.
The mathematics won't break down.
The only portion of the picture that we are missing now is the directional force that tells m which direction to take in the gfield of M.
Here I now hark back to the increased frequency of electron transitions for the particle at h from M, and the magnetic moment of an electron.
:Wiki
From classical electrodynamics, a rotating electrically charged body creates a magnetic dipole with magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity. This analogy holds as an electron indeed behaves like a tiny bar magnet. One consequence is that an external magnetic field exerts a torque on the electron magnetic moment depending on its orientation with respect to the field.
...where I think that an increased frequency of electron transitions will cause magnetic moments to occur more frequently, and this is what 'tells' m to be attracted directionally in the gfield.
Under this remit time is having physical consequences without observer of measurement, because time is part and parcel of 'why' and 'how' everything is moving in the universe.
However, this view only holds in a contracting universe, it won't work for the expanding model.
I am talking about an alternative view on space expansion here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70013.new;topicseen#new
(only 16 posts so far)

I stand corrected on atomic clocks.

Fundamentally, a clock is nothing more than an oscillator. A caesium clock is no different than a pendulum clock in that regard. It's just more accurate and more reliable. Einstein's light clock is the simplest possible time keeper. You would be well advised to adopt that concept in your deliberations so you don't have to invoke QM concepts like electron state transitions, which are distractions.
As for the relationship between time and the observer, I recommend Sean Carroll's "From Eternity to Here". It's a thorough and entertaining treatment of the nature of time. He's got some pretty good YouTube videos if you can't be bothered with the book.

I've read it.
Quantum is exactly where I want to be because yes you are right, the clock is oscillating faster at h from M, where it's increased frequency can be held relative to the increased potential energy that it gains at h from M.
...And I shall repeat, again and again and again, that if one takes the view that an increase in energy is causing a higher frequency of electron transitions, and that a higher frequency of electron transitions signifies an increase in the rate of time  when one takes this remit back to Planck's black body experiment and considers that temperature energy is increasing the energy level of the blackbody resulting in a higher frequency of electron transitions, resulting in the emission of higher frequency photons, where one includes that an increase in the frequency of electron transitions signifies an increase in the rate of time  when measuring the temperature energy input joules/second held relative to the shorter seconds caused by the increases in energy, the quantum nature of the data will be negated.

You are correct to say that higher frequency equates to faster time (i.e. shorter seconds), but quantum state transitions and black body radiators are red herrings. You can make the same point with a classical oscillator like a pendulum clock. The only difference is the manner in which the oscillation is observed, be it the position of the pendulum or the frequency of emitted photons. In the case of a black body radiator, which emits photons at all frequencies, it is the most popular frequency (i.e. highest intensity) that is of interest for a time keeper.

Again  this is entirely dependent on how one is viewing the phenomenon of time.
You are saying 'time keeping'.
I am saying 'energy reactive'.
The blackbody emits higher frequency photons as an energy reactive.
+energy=higher frequency of emitted photon
A higher frequency of photon emission requires that the emitting body be possessed of a higher frequency of electron transitions, and a higher frequency of electron transitions requires additional energy.
Therefore that which we observe of the electron transitions that control the output of the atomic clock in the higher gravity potential 'could' be viewed as the electron transitions increasing in frequency due to additional energy, this being potential energy, whereas the black body's observed increase in frequency of electron transitions is due to temperature energy.
If one were to apply DeBroglie wave functions to either scenario:
Wavelength =h/p
...via the Einstein Planck relation which should hold for both the function of the light emitter, and the emitted light.
However  if one views the increase in frequency of light emitted from the blackbody as being due to an increase in the electron transitions of the constituent atoms of the blackbody, and calculates this as an increase in the rate of time for the constituent atoms of the blackbody  if one then considers the addition of joules/second as +energy=joules per/shorter second, and then recalculates Planck's blackbody data curve under the remit of 'variable' seconds, then the quantum nature of the Planck ultra violet catastrophe is negated, and Planck's h constant is a function of variable time.
If one then takes this view back to the gfield, one must conclude:
a) that the atom at h from M is emitting a higher frequency photon
and...
b) that the already emitted photon is shifting frequency in the gfield due to the energy of the gfield
...where the gfield at a higher potential has lower energy, in the face of a particle mass at higher potential having a higher energy, where:
pe=mgh
and where m=0, no potential energy is added.

I really wouldn't mind at all if one were to tell me that they had applied the remit of adding joules as per variable second to the ultraviolet catastrophe, and that I am mistaken in thinking that the remit that I suggest results in a continuum that negates the quantum nature of Planck's interpretation of the blackbody data...
However, it's pretty clear to me that I am not mistaken...
If one takes the increase in frequency of the blackbody's emission of photons as an indication of the emitting atoms increased rate of time, and then calculates the additional energy that caused the increase in frequency via the shorter second, the data will be a continuum.
This is exactly the same as the difference between measuring clock's that are in the higher gravity potential 'from' the lower potential via the lower gravity potentials rate of time, as opposed to measuring each clock that is raised into the higher potential 'at' the higher potential location of that clock.
In the 1st instance the rate of time is held as an invariant as per the lower potential clock's rate of time...
This being the same as measuring additions of joules as per invariant second to the blackbody.
In the 2nd instance the rate of time is held as a variable at each gravity potential, where the clock when measured via the rate of time 'at' that gravity potential is always measured as 9,192,631,770 Hz...
This being the same as measuring additions of joules as per variable seconds to the blackbody.
Planck himself would have welcomed this notion with unmitigated joy, as he tried everything to iron out his data, resulting in his h constant that he first described as being a fudge factor.

Can someone please tell me if my suggested treatment of the Planck blackbody data is misconceived or not...

By 'energy reactive', I presume you mean that the characteristic frequency of the atomic clock or black body radiator is affected by time dilation. That is true, but in either case, the radiator is an oscillator (i.e. a clock) and you need a time keeper (i.e. another clock) to measure the frequency of the light. If you need a mental picture of the mechanism by which an electron state transition produces a photon, think of a disk with an offcenter hole rotating on edge in a gravitational field. There are two stable states, one with the hole on the top and another with the hole on the bottom. The transition from one state to the other involves a lot of wobbling. The wobble frequency corresponds to the photon frequency.

Well Mike  I am appreciating your description of oscillations, and point you towards the electron transitions (oscillations) in relation to energy...
But let me now return to the question of time itself.
If you have read Sean Carol's book 'from here to eternity', and you have also read Lee Smolin's book the trouble with physics', then you are aware that physics does not have a fully formed theory on time.
And you yourself must be aware from your own mathematical ventures that while GR is stating variable times, SR by default must hold the speed of light relative to 'a' clock somewhere.
It is a fully accepted notion via GR and SR that time flows at differing rates in the universe and that observers clock's under specified circumstances will not agree.
Now consider that there is actually an experimental app created that can tell a person how fast or slow they are ageing due to their longitude, height above sea level, and speed of travel. This undoubtably being held relative to how a stationary (relative to Earth) person is ageing at a particular longitude and height above sea level...
Thousands of people in the UK were all moving around their daily business experiencing very slightly differing rates of time.
The interesting thing about this is that any of these people using this app will still agree that the day has passed by at the same rate. They can meet up with each other having each spent their day at differing locations of differing height above sea level, differing longitudes, and differing relative motion, but meet to sit down at a specified 'dinner time', where everyone agrees that it is the specified time.
If we, for the purposes of illustration, wildly exaggerated the time differences between differing heights above sea level, longitude, and speed of motion, under the remit of the phone app it is possible to understand that these wildly differing rates of time that the app is registering due to people's differing ageing rates as they go about their daily business would not affect their ability to meet anyone at a specified time for dinner. A person at the station may be ageing say 100 times faster than the person on the high speed train that is passing the station but both will still observe the sun to set when the sun sets.
Now in this case we can clearly work out that the phone app that is using the GPS on one's phone to register one's height above sea level, longitude, and speed of travel in order to apply the GR and SR calculations of time dilations is also providing everyone with a synchronised clock reading, and this clock reading is based on Greenwich Mean Time where all mobile phones, in UK, no matter their circumstances of location or speed, are all keeping the same time.
Therefore the rate a person ages at, even in this wildly exaggerated scenario, would not affect their ability to meet up for dinner at a specified time, or for the person at the station and the person on the high speed train passing through the station to view the sun setting at the same moment that the sun sets.
Let's look at this another way. Continuing our wildly exaggerated differences in ageing scenario, lets say that the mobile phones of all the people using the app were to adjust each mobile phone's clock as per the apps time calculations as to height above sea level, longitude, and speed of travel.
The sun isn't going move at differing rates throughout the day for each differing clock rate. The person at the station ageing 100 times faster than the person on the high speed train passing through the station, their mobile phone's variable clock readings do not agree, but if they both took a picture with their mobile phone of the sunset at the moment the train passed through the station, and then texted each other the picture, it would be clear that the sun would be in the same position in the sky for both people.
From this we can deduce that the rate that a clock runs at does not affect the passing of time as we know it...
People who's personal biological clock's, as per the relativity app, are running faster or slower, than the clock that is calibrated to serve to synchronise the nations mobile phone clock's, are ageing faster or slower, but this ageing faster or slower on a personal scale does not affect the observation of how fast the sun moves across the sky, and 'when' the sun will set.
If the mobile phones were set to display both the variable time, and the synchronised time, then the person on the station who's time was running 100 times faster than the person on the high speed train, and 10% faster than the synchronised mobile phone time, could calculate (in the Spring), that the sun sets 2.46 hours earlier each day that passes, relative to the synchronised time, where the person on the train who's time is running 90% slower than synchronised mobile phone time, could calculate that the sun sets 90 times in one day, relative to the synchronised clock.
The person on the train can see that his 1 and a half hour journey held relative to the synchronised mobile phone time will only take a minute held relative to his variable time clock. Clearly he will not be observing the cows or rabbits in the fields, moving around any faster than cows and rabbits usually move. If he times their movements via his variable clock, they will move at a faster speed when held relative to the variable clock, and if he times their movements via his synchronised mobile phone clock, they will move at slower speeds when held relative to the synchronised clock,
Therefore it is clearly obvious that despite the rate of time the clock's, and the people's biological body clock's are running at, that in each case the 'amount' of time is 'the same', and that each clock is making a differing measure of the 'same amount' of time.
We could now deduce that the clock's and biological body clock's running at differing rates at differing heights from sea level, longitudes, and relative speeds are doing so as a physical reaction to their locational conditions, and that these physical reactions to local conditions do not affect the actual sequential events of the local itself.
This is a description of relativity conventional.
Is there any point here that you disagree with?

Can someone please tell me if my suggested treatment of the Planck blackbody data is misconceived or not...
Yes. The blackbody spectrum is a continuum, not a line spectrum, by definition.
h was never a "fudge factor" but a necessary dimensioned constant required to relate frequency to energy. The value of h depends on your units of measurement (imperial, metric, avoirdupois...) but its dimensions do not.

The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.
If Planck, instead of using an invariant second, had used a variable second to measure his energy per second additions  where the increased energy causes a faster rate of time for the emitter, which then causes a higher frequency photon to be emitted  calculating the energy increases under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds, the ultra violet catastrophe would remain within the classical prediction under this remit.
It doesn't matter which units are used. It only matters that the energy additions are observed to cause frequency increases, and that one consider the increase in frequency to be indicative of a shorter second.
When using the shorter length of second indicated by the increased frequency to measure the energy input that caused the frequency increase, the quantum nature of the energy additions will be negated.
I'm pretty certain that I am not mistaken in the mechanics of this notion.
As an aside, it was Planck himself who was quoted as having referred to his h constant as a fudge factor.
Yes  it was necessary for Planck to add the h constant to make sense of his data and relate energy to frequency, but only because he couldn't figure out any other means by which to form the relationship...
If I am not mistaken the remit I suggest affords another means by which to form the relationship.

Can someone please tell me if my suggested treatment of the Planck blackbody data is misconceived or not...
Yes. The blackbody spectrum is a continuum, not a line spectrum, by definition.
h was never a "fudge factor" but a necessary dimensioned constant required to relate frequency to energy. The value of h depends on your units of measurement (imperial, metric, avoirdupois...) but its dimensions do not.
It's not entirely inaccurate to call it a fudge factor. It was a shot in the dark that paid off. He called it an act of despair. It is admittedly nothing more than a unit conversion factor, but the point is that photon energy depends on frequency and nothing else. That means all light waves have the same amplitude. As such, photon energy is affected by time dilation, but not space dilation (except insofar as the two are related.) It's really just another way of saying that the speed of light is invariant.

Mike  Do you disagree at any point with post 488?

Some, but not all:
1) Time dilation between Earth dwellers does not depend on longitude, only altitude and ground speed.
2) If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.
3) The app would have to involve futuristic physics because we don't currently know how to calculate time dilation as the observers speed up, slow down and change directions. Problems like that have to be solved in a piecemeal fashion using numerical approximation techniques.

At a more southern longitude (in UK) gravity is weaker than it is at a more northern longitude of same altitude. This being because of the equatorial bulge.
However, the time dilation difference at the more southern longitude is exactly cancelled out by the SR effects of the more southern longitude's greater speed of rotation, so you are correct that longitude does not cause a difference in time dilation and that it is only speed and altitude causing a difference.
As to the mobile phone app I refer to, it exists in reality. It was developed by Professor of physics Jim AlKhalilli, and you can watch a program called "Gravity and Me: The force that shapes us"... that refers to this app and is well worth a watch.
Number 2: Yes  precisely, which suggests that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that this time dilation that is affecting mass is not related to the sequential events of the local.
Correct?

The bulge is a red herring because it doesn't affect PE. The physics of rotating reference frames are a quagmire. You should simplify your scenario by assuming a spherical, nonrotating Earth.
Jim's app will employ numerical approximations. It will also suffer from lack of precision in altitude and ground speed.
Your experience of time has nothing to do with your mass, only your altitude and ground speed.

It does affect PE because at the equator the bulge renders one further from the centre of mass. However, as said, and I am quoting Professor Jim AlKhalilli directly, the rotational speed as one gets closer to the equator increases and SR time dilation exactly cancels out the GR time dilation caused by the bulge.
...and Jims app will actually be as precise at determining position, altitude and speed as GPS is.
However this is not the point I am making here.
2) If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.
Number 2: Yes  precisely, which suggests that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that this time dilation that is affecting mass is not related to the sequential events of the local.
Correct?

Jim is wrong on that point. Polar time at sea level is the same as equatorial time at sea level. It's a case of two wrongs making a right. (The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration. SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass. A spherically symmetric, nonrotating Earth is the correct model for calculating GR time dilation on the ground.) The GPS literature paints a more accurate picture. See for example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126919/doestimemoveslowerattheequator

With regards to point #2, mass has nothing to do with it. It's all about ground speed (i.e. SR) and altitude (i.e. GR.)

Note that the Kerr metric describes how to calculate dilation from the perspective of an observer who is not rotating with the Earth. It's not recommended for the faint of heart though.

Jim is wrong on that point.
Polar time at sea level is the same as equatorial time at sea level. It's a case of two wrongs making a right.
Yes that is what Jim said, and what I wrote.
You cannot say this...
(The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration.
...and then say this:
SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass.
...because you have contradicted yourself.
The centripetal acceleration (SR) at the equator exactly cancels out the change in gravity (GR) at the equator *for an observer* at the equator because *the observer* at sea level at the equator is moving in space faster than *the observer* at sea level at a polar location is. This is 'how' the change in gravity (GR) is cancelled by the centripetal acceleration (SR).
I have *highlighted* the term *the observer* above for a reason:
With regards to point #2, mass has nothing to do with it. It's all about ground speed (i.e. SR) and altitude (i.e. GR.)
Without mass being involved, what exactly are we stating as having a ground speed (SR) and altitude (GR)?
It would be impossible to measure either SR or GR effects without a mass being involved.
Therefore:
Suggesting that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that these SR and GR time dilation effects that are affecting mass are not related to the sequential events of the local...
Because, as you have said:
If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.
Where the elapsed time between sunrise and sunset (on any particular day) is an invariant amount of time, but the busybodies have experienced that invariant amount of time (associated with that calendar day) differently to each other.
The point being that despite the busybodies experience of their own time, the *actual amount* of time that has passed from sunrise to sunset (that day) remains the same.
This is illustrated in post 488 by asking the mobile phone app to display both the Relativity app time as to the phones location and speed, and the synchronised time that all mobile phones in UK display as a norm.
To give an idea of direction, I am discussing these matters with a view to examining what the rate of time is doing where m=0, such as the spaces in the universe where mass is absent.

I am proposing a 4th time dilation that completely cancels the 3rd time dilation via vacuum energy. I can't decide yet whether it is Dyson, Hoover or Henry.

Please see your linear space vector thread whereas I am pleased to be adding to your understanding of conventional physics.
No need for an apology!

I agree. You don't need to apologise. I forgive you.

... I've now changed my mind Jeff and will be expecting an apology from you...
And for anyone else reading, please know that I always start out from the viewpoint that the other person has a better understanding of conventional physics than I do  and it is surprising to me how very rarely this is actually the case...

Was it Dyson, Hoover or Henry that gave me away?

That is Freeman Dyson, William G Hoover and Joseph Henry. You can google any one of them and learn a bit of science history.

No  it is your lack of understanding of conventional physics that gives you away.
I suggest that you actually learn about a subject before embarrassing yourself by posing as an authority.

I am definitely not an authority and have an awful lot to learn yet. I have gotten through 26 mathematics and physics books. On a variety of different subjects. I will very likely double the number eventually. I don't profess to have a theory of anything.

But you do profess to know that GR and SR time dilations are one and the same thing...
Which book did you learn that from please?

I think we would all be better served if each and everyone of us would leave our egos at the front door.................Just sayin

Ethos  In my case this is a matter of honour not ego...
I do not have a problem if someone ridicules my posts on the basis of an informed position, but Jeff is basing his response on incorrect information that he has posted in response to my posts on his 'is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields' thread.
I never have a problem admitting my weak spots or mistakes, but I do have a problem with a person posing as an authority and ridiculing me based on an understanding of conventional physics that is incorrect.

Ethos  In my case this is a matter of honour not ego...
I do not have a problem if someone ridicules my posts on the basis of an informed position, but Jeff is basing his response on incorrect information that he has posted in response to my posts on his 'is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields' thread.
I never have a problem admitting my weak spots or mistakes, but I do have a problem with a person posing as an authority and ridiculing me based on an understanding of conventional physics that is incorrect.
My friend, I wasn't singling out anyone in particular.
I've been following all your threads Timey and consider you to be very knowledgeable even though you sometimes stray. But of course, we all do some of that from time to time. So please don't consider this an attack Timey, I wish to only encourage you.
I don't offer my views that often but I do like considering new thoughts our members at various times offer. And I do think you may be on to something but providing empirical evidence is going to be very difficult. You see, the problem with defining shorter or longer seconds hinges upon what you call the "standard second" and establishing this standard requires a universal point of reference. And sadly, no such universal point of reference is attainable according to current understanding.
Please don't consider this an attack my friend, I'm not here to exercise my ego. But there are a few problems you'll need to overcome if your theory is ever to succeed.
Again, I commend you on your logic and suspect you might be right. But to prove your case, you'll need to establish what you call the "universal common now", and I doubt that this is possible. And, you will also need to establish a "universal frame of reference" and that is also going to fail as well.
Do you have a thought on an experiment we could pursue that might navigate around these impediments and effectively come at your theory from a different angle?

The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.
Then if we take a single spectral line, we'd expect it to shift according to the temperature of the emitter. It doesn't. Lines appear and disappear according to whether the temperature is high enough to bring bound electrons into particular energy states, but the interstate energy, and hence the frequency of the photon emitted or absorbed by that state change, is not temperaturedependent. Therefore time is not temperaturedependent. http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm has good diagrams.

Was it Dyson, Hoover or Henry that gave me away?
I'm sure there is a "sucker" joke lurking in the cybersphere.

Ethos
If one considers that GR and SR time dilations are only affecting mass and do not affect the open space around the mass, and then considers that the acceleration of gravity in the gfield surrounding M is due to a 3rd time dilation that is contra directional to GR time dilation in the gfield, then not only can one calibrate a clock to run as per standard second anywhere on Earth at sea level, as long as one remembers the centripetal speed of that longitude from which to calculate SR, one has a standard second to measure further GR and SR effects from, one will also find one has an absolute frame that is determined by the gravity field of M, or more realistically from the multiple gravity fields of M's, from which to do so.

The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.
Then if we take a single spectral line, we'd expect it to shift according to the temperature of the emitter. It doesn't. Lines appear and disappear according to whether the temperature is high enough to bring bound electrons into particular energy states, but the interstate energy, and hence the frequency of the photon emitted or absorbed by that state change, is not temperaturedependent. Therefore time is not temperaturedependent. http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm has good diagrams.
You are correct Alan, time is not temperature dependent...
But temperature is energy dependant, electron transitions are energy dependent, and if one applies temperature to the blackbody, when it gets hot it emits photons.

In addition to post above:
The photons that the blackbody emits as it gets hotter are of higher frequency, and a higher frequency of photon is associated with a higher energy level and also a higher frequency of electron transitions.
Where else do we observe a higher frequency of electron transitions?
Oh yes, that's right, an atomic clock is observed to have a higher frequency of electron transitions in the higher gravity potential, when observed from a lower potential.
We say 'when observed from a lower potential' because if one observes the clock in the higher gravity potential when one is with the clock, it will be the lower potential clock that appears to be running slow.
This being in keeping with GR prediction that clock's will run at progressively faster rates in the progressively higher potentials.
But what is causing the higher frequency of electron transitions for the atomic clock in the higher potential?
A higher frequency of electron transitions requires additional energy. But that's Ok because at the higher gravity potential pe=mgh, where pe/m=an equal energy addition for any value mass, and therefore all mass will be affected equally at each potential.
Now going back to measuring the clocks in differing potentials:
The higher potential clock appears to run fast from the lower potential, and the lower potential clock appears to run slow from the higher potential. Clearly if one is measuring the frequency of electron transitions via variable time then one gets differing results dependant on the clock one decides to measure with.
Bingo!
Take that notion back to the blackbody, (and stars of differing temperatures), and where we observe the results of higher frequency electron transitions (emitted photons), we apply the remit of measuring via variable time, where just like observed with the atomic clock, we say that an increase in the frequency of electron transitions is indicative of a faster rate of time, and then we go back to the ultraviolet catastrophe and apply the +energy equals shorter seconds to the energy increases applied to the blackbody.
To explain further:
When Planck increased the energy input to the blackbody that increased the temperature, he measured these increases as a per second measurement.
Planck used an invariant second...
By measuring these energy increases via a second that is getting shorter in keeping with the electron transition frequency increases, the quantum nature of the energy increase relationship to frequency output will be negated.

To follow up what Ethos is saying and offered in the same spirit and hope of bringing a common understanding:
But you do profess to know that GR and SR time dilations are one and the same thing...
Jeff didn't actually say that, what he did say was:
The time dilation of SR is a special case of the time dilation of GR hence why it I called special relativity. It simply omits the gravitational field and uses flat spacetime exclusively. This is contained within the framework of general relativity. They are only distinguished to show differences caused by the presence or absence of a gravitational field. To make them distinct entities is an artificial device.
You are both 'correct'. SR is a subset (special case) of GR  which can be used to calculate both dilations as one. However, to aid teaching we (artificially?) separate them and usually find it easier to treat them as separate calculations.

Well Colin, of course it is clearly set out in physics that SR is used to describe motion in 'flat' space, but it is also clear that SR is also used to calculate time dilation for orbitals, or centripetal rotations, or relativity apps, that quite clearly also include a GR altitude related time dilation where the SR effects cancel out some, or all of the GR altitude time dilation effects, resulting in a clock that runs slower than a 'ground clock'... however please correct me if I am wrong, but...
The birds eye overview of the physics situation is that there are a multitude of differing means to accurately calculate a multitude of differing circumstances, but there isn't a means by which one method of calculation can describe all circumstance.
For instance:
SR is used in particle physics, but the standard model cannot be united with gravity..
The GR field equations can describe a gravitational field, but cannot describe multiple fields, therefore has trouble describing galaxies.
The GR field equations break down to infinities in a black hole.
Etc...
So to examine SR:
In the Special Theory of Relativity, published in his socalled “miraculous year” of 1905, Einstein had the audacity to turn the question around and ask: what must happen to our common notions of space and time so that when the distance light travels in a given time is measured, the answer is always 300,000 km/s? For example, if a spaceship fires a laser beam at a piece of space debris flying towards it at half the speed of light, the laser beam still travels at exactly the speed of light, not at oneandahalf times the speed of light. He began to realize that either the measurement of the distance must be smaller than expected, or the time taken must be greater than expected, or both.
In a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity tells us that a moving object measures shorter in its direction of motion as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it disappears. It also tells us that moving clocks run more slowly as their velocity increases until, at the speed of light, they stop running altogether. In fact, it also tells us (as we will see in subsequent sections) that the mass of a moving object measures more as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it becomes infinite.
Thus, one person’s interval of space is not the same as another person’s, and time runs at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds.
So  what I am doing is having the audacity to turn the calculations of the observations around and describe these observations under a remit that 'should' be able to describe all circumstance by means of the same method of calculation.
By remit of logic it is my thoughts that a remix is justified because GR holds that the rate of time, i.e. the length of the period of a second, is dependent upon one's coordinate, but SR holds the speed of light relative to a 'specific' period of time... This is a contradiction, therefore logically speaking there will be an alternative method.
This method of calculation that I am suggesting will still be Einstein's equation of GR (describing a contracting universe), and be inclusive of the Lorentz transformation calculation, but I am attributing physical cause and effect mechanics for all phenomenon (inclusive of Big Bang and Inflation) during my remix of where and why these equations are relevant.
The first step is to attribute the phenomenon of the acceleration of gravity a physical cause. A test particle m of any value is observed to accelerate >>>M, and decelerate <<<M. By stating that there is a time dilation phenomenon where m=0, i.e: the gfield surrounding M, that is inherent with longer seconds as the gfield gets weaker with distance from M, what I have done is partially transferred some of the SR remit to the gfield itself, and this now becomes a means of describing space curvature. The dimensions of space as per a Newtonian geometry are, at each coordinate, dilated or contracted by time, where the metres of distance traveled remain constant (no distance curvature), and it takes a longer or shorter amount of time to travel a metre.
Under this remit we have not involved any factor of m when describing the motion of m in relation to M, and this constitutes a means of a description of free fall.
It does not however constitute a description of directional force in the gfield, and for this we must now look to the electron transitions of m in the gravity potential, and the electron transitions in relation to energy increases such as the blackbody.
Within a Newtonian geometry of space that curves motions via an acceleration deceleration of the rate of time, we now have a compatibility with the remit of electrodynamics, and the conversation above concerning the ultraviolet catastrophe and recalculating the energy increases via variable seconds that are getting shorter in keeping with electron transition frequency increases should unite the point particle model with the wave function model.
This then gives us another means of an alternative interpretation of Hubble's red shift velocities, and it becomes possible to consider the contracting model, and we can now go back to the GR observed time dilation phenomenon and add this in again for m in relation to M due to potential energy, and to the SR observed time dilation and add this in for m in relative motion to M, also due to potential energy, where these 2 time dilations and the 3rd time dilation of the gfield can be used in matrix maths annexed to the 3 dimensions of coordinate space to result in the 'proper time' of a four dimensional spacetime matrix.
I can explain the physical mechanics of how this calculation should be articulated, but have no idea how to go about describing such in mathematical format.
And it is the translating of these physical mechanics into mathematical format that I am here at this forum seeking help with.

So we now have the suggestion that increasing the temperature of the groundlevel clock will remove the observed discrepancy between it and the clock at altitude. But it doesn't, because electron state transitions within an atom are not temperaturedependent for a given state  remember what I said about spectral lines in # 513 above.That's quantum mechanics. Time is measured by quantum transitions of bound electrons.
Black body photons are a continuum produced by oscillation of free electrons. Each photon has a discrete energy but there are no forbidden or preferred energies  the definition of blackbody radiation!
The reason for cooling cesium clocks is to reduce thermal (black body!) noise, Doppler jitter, and interference from nearby unwanted neargroundstate transitions that might be excited thermally: the hyperfine splitting is a very weak signal to be detected against a background of all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

In special relativity in a universe containing mass there is never a position within it where there is zero probability of a gravitational force operating on a test mass. Not even in deep space. Therefore special relativity is by necessity artificially contrived. The effect of the force may be infinitesimally small but its probability is never zero is the point.

If there is more than one mass other than the test mass, there is at least one point where the net gravitational field is zero. Just sum the vectors and look carefully!

If there is more than one mass other than the test mass, there is at least one point where the net gravitational field is zero. Just sum the vectors and look carefully!
You got me gov. It's a fair cop.

Will there be a conclusion/resolution concerning the question, in our lifetime?

Will there be a conclusion/resolution concerning the question, in our lifetime?
Quite probably not.

So we now have the suggestion that increasing the temperature of the groundlevel clock will remove the observed discrepancy between it and the clock at altitude. But it doesn't, because electron state transitions within an atom are not temperaturedependent for a given state  remember what I said about spectral lines in # 513 above.That's quantum mechanics. Time is measured by quantum transitions of bound electrons.
Black body photons are a continuum produced by oscillation of free electrons. Each photon has a discrete energy but there are no forbidden or preferred energies  the definition of blackbody radiation!
The reason for cooling cesium clocks is to reduce thermal (black body!) noise, Doppler jitter, and interference from nearby unwanted neargroundstate transitions that might be excited thermally: the hyperfine splitting is a very weak signal to be detected against a background of all sorts of irrelevant stuff.
The electrons of the blackbody emitted frequencies are free electrons.
The electron transitions occurring in the atoms of the blackbody that are associated with a photon being emitted are bound electrons.
In the case of the blackbody, all that 'jitter' caused by inputting energy causes the bound electrons to increase in the frequency of their transitions.
As the energy input is increased the fact that electron transition frequency is increasing is clearly illustrated in the fact the radiation emissions are increased in frequency.
Because of the 'jitter' it would be impossible to observe the electron transitions occurring within the atoms of the blackbody where the energy input is causing a transference of energy to frequency output, but the fact that they are occurring and the value of the frequency can be determined directly from the frequency of the emitted radiation.
The atomic clock on the other hand is being subject to a differing but otherwise incredibly similar energy input. The caesium atoms are being excited by a microwave beam.
Needless to say a microwave beam causes an energy transfer in much the same way as any energy input where more energy will result in a higher temperature.
Therefore the fact is that yes, if one were to calibrate the microwave beam of the lower potential atomic clock differently, that one could cause the lower clock to be calibrated to run, 'in' the lower potential, at the same rate that the clock in a higher potential is running at.
This is an actual scientifically recognised fact, is used to calibrate satellite clocks for certain purposes, and is known as slanting a clock, where I remember Evan making a post about slanting clocks in this way last year.

Do you believe that by rambling incoherently you can mesmerise your victims, sorry audience, into submission?
You are really upsetting me now. All you do is ridicule me because I am saying things that you haven't read in a physics book.
This is New Theories board Jeff.
If you cannot engage in the topic matter do not participate.
There are forum rules you know.

Chris  I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?

The electrons of the blackbody emitted frequencies are free electrons.
The electron transitions occurring in the atoms of the blackbody that are associated with a photon being emitted are bound electrons.
The first sentence is almost true (what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons  it makes more sense). The second sentence therefore cannot be true.
In the case of the blackbody, all that 'jitter' caused by inputting energy causes the bound electrons to increase in the frequency of their transitions.
There is no jitter in blackbody radiation. It is a continuum, not a line spectrum.
As the energy input is increased the fact that electron transition frequency is increasing is clearly illustrated in the fact the radiation emissions are increased in frequency.
Nothing to do with transitions, which are a feature of quantised energy levels. Free electrons can have any energy, and lose it in any quantity, thus radiating a continuum.
And be careful with phrases like "transition frequency"  it's ambiguous and can make you look foolish, which you aren't. "Creative writing" has no place in physics; the poetry is in the observation, not the description..
We'll talk about the meaning of temperature another time.

(what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons  it makes more sense).
Why does it make more sense?
The energy has been added to the blackbody in order for radiation to occur. What you suggest makes it sound as though the blackbody itself is superfluous to the experiment. The blackbody is a conductor and photons are being emitted as a result of energy being conducted via the blackbody.
Energy is converted into heat. I rub my hands together=adding energy, and the atoms of my hand get warmer. If I rubbed them together superfast the atoms in my hand would become heat damaged and could under some very extreme rubbing indeed potentially (although not very likely) cause my hands to burst into flames.
A blackbody is a much better energy conductor than my hands are. One can add energy, where this energy will not cause the atoms of the blackbody to break down, and yes Alan, the blackbody emits a spectrum of frequency that is a continuum.
But the additions of energy it takes to cause this spectrum of frequency that is a continuum is not a continuum. It's quantised, or it is under the remit that Planck measured by. (Light wavelength is h/p, where the wavelength and frequency of a wave are inversely proportional to each other.)
Therefore the radiation itself may not be a line spectrum, but the energy additions causing the radiation are synonymous to a line spectrum.
What I suggest is an alternative remit by which to measure the energy additions resulting in the energy increases also being a continuum to match the radiation continuum.
Nothing to do with transitions, which are a feature of quantised energy levels. Free electrons can have any energy, and lose it in any quantity, thus radiating a continuum.
The point is that the blackbody experiment results in the energy additions being quantised in order to make the data fit the observation of a continuum of radiation.
On the basis that the energy additions are quantised, then the frequency of electron transitions causing photons to be emitted are also relevant.
There is no jitter in blackbody radiation. It is a continuum, not a line spectrum.
The reason for cooling cesium clocks is to reduce thermal (black body!) noise, Doppler jitter, and interference from nearby unwanted neargroundstate transitions that might be excited thermally:
Yes  and this is to enable an element of control as to the output frequency of the clock.
:Scitech
Microwave ovens use radio waves at a specifically set frequency to agitate water molecules in food. As these water molecules get increasingly agitated they begin to vibrate at the atomic level and generate heat.
This is a far cry from what the microwave beam is doing when it excites the cesium atoms of the atomic clock to produce a set frequency of photon but the principle is the same.
The microwave beam exciting the cesium atom causes the atom to vibrate (electron transitions?) at a set frequency by adding energy, and a frequency of photon is emitted by the atom.
The clock when placed in a higher potential has a higher frequency of electron transitions than the lower clock does when observed by the lower clock, and the higher clock observes that the clock in the lower potential is running slow.
In keeping with the GR prediction that time runs faster in the higher potential, and in keeping with the GR prediction that one's own clock will appear to be ticking normally.
However, a higher frequency of electron transitions requires an increase in energy level, unless one is just saying that time runs faster out in space, (why and how one just cannot explain), but I am suggesting, as an alternative, that an energy increase can be realised by considering potential energy.
One of the reasons for doing so (there are a few) stems back to the quantised nature of the blackbody data, where I suggest that one view the frequency increases observed in the radiation of the blackbody as energy input is increased to be indicative of a shorter second, and then recalculate the additions of the energy via the remit of this variable time which 'should' negate the quantum nature of the energy additions to frequency output relationship of the blackbody data.

Or alternatively (lol) the much shorter version:
But Alan  the radiation emitted from the blackbody may be a continuum, but the energy additions are not...
Planck had to quantise the energy additions to fit the data.

please correct me if I am wrong,
No, I'm not going to do that. As you have pointed out before this is new theories and you are at liberty to put forward any ideas you have.
My only purpose in posting was to point out that there had been a misunderstanding.
There is another one here:
(what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons  it makes more sense).
Why does it make more sense?
Compare what you said "emitted frequencies are electrons" with what Alan said "radiation is emitted by free electrons". I think you will agree there is a huge difference.

However, please correct me if I am wrong, but...
The birds eye overview of the physics situation is that there are a multitude of differing means to accurately calculate a multitude of differing circumstances, but there isn't a means by which one method of calculation can describe all circumstance.
This was what I asked you to correct me on if I was wrong.
This has nothing to do with a New Theory. It is a fact that is widely commented upon by professional physicists who are all quite open about the fact that current physics is not adequate in that there is no uniting theory, many known unknowns, and therefore in all likelyhood a multitude of unknown unknowns.
I read books by physicists who are considering these known unknowns in relation to current physics and describing where and why different theories are not compatible, and these are the subjects that I wish to discuss, and explain where I see that the current theories can be calculated differently so that they do unite.
It's fine for Jeff to ask a question on New Theories such as "Is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields?", where clearly under the current remit of GR there isn't. And it's fine for Jeff to chat with Mike who was experimenting with a variable speed of light...
But my wishing to discuss here on this forum the matters that I have read/watched/investigated for last 9 years is ridiculed, where I have to put up with Jeff pretending that he doesn't understand that it is an acceptable point of view that SR and GR time dilations be considered and calculated separately???
And you yourself would decline to comment on the fact that there is not a means of describing all circumstance under the remit of a unified theory???
Feels a bit like discrimination to me...
As to your edit:
This is what I said followed by what Alan said:
The electrons of the blackbody emitted frequencies are free electrons.
The first sentence is almost true (what we actually say is that blackbody radiation is emitted by free electrons 
This is what you said:
Compare what you said "emitted frequencies are electrons" with what Alan said "radiation is emitted by free electrons". I think you will agree there is a huge difference.
The mistake I made was in saying free electrons instead of free energy.
Clearly one would not get any phenomenon of radiation unless energy was being conducted by the blackbody, and the point is that although the spectrum of emitted radiation is a continuum, the measure of the energy additions to cause that continuum of spectrum of emissions is not a continuum, and the method of calculating that I suggest would render the energy additions as a continuum.
Why would you choose to point out a mistake like so, in favour of discussing how current physics doesn't have a unifying theory?
"Hey timey, I'm sure you didn't mean to say electrons there 'cos that don't make sense, but for sure there is a lacking of a unified theory, and that is an interesting take on a means to recalculate the blackbody data.
But just to say, you are aware that if you apply that +energy=shorter seconds remit to the spectrum observed of stars, that because temperature and frequency of stars increases with mass size, this would mean that time would be running faster for the bigger stars than the smaller ones? Which of course flies in the face of currently held theories..."
"Why yes, I am perfectly aware of this and it is good news indeed, because apart from all the other matters in physics that this notion unifies, now GR maths won't break down in black holes."

Jeffrey is hilarious. I had to read that twice because I didn't recognize the brand names at first glance.
Jim is wrong on that point.
Polar time at sea level is the same as equatorial time at sea level. It's a case of two wrongs making a right.
Yes that is what Jim said, and what I wrote.
But you both got the right result for the wrong reason. The Earthfixed, Earthcentric reference frame is rotating from the perspective of a deep space observer, but surfacedwellers are not moving with respect to one another.
You cannot say this...
(The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration.
...and then say this:
SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass.
...because you have contradicted yourself.
It seems contradictory, but it's not because the reference frame in which the bulge manifests is rotating. You have to despin the Earth (to get rid of the equatorial bulge) before you can apply the SC solution. It's a valid approach because rotation is relative.
The centripetal acceleration (SR) at the equator exactly cancels out the change in gravity (GR) at the equator *for an observer* at the equator because *the observer* at sea level at the equator is moving in space faster than *the observer* at sea level at a polar location is. This is 'how' the change in gravity (GR) is cancelled by the centripetal acceleration (SR).
Moving in space relative to what? There are only 3 points of reference in this scenario: 2 surface dwellers and the center of mass. Each is stationary with respect to the others.
I have *highlighted* the term *the observer* above for a reason:
With regards to point #2, mass has nothing to do with it. It's all about ground speed (i.e. SR) and altitude (i.e. GR.)
Without mass being involved, what exactly are we stating as having a ground speed (SR) and altitude (GR)?
It would be impossible to measure either SR or GR effects without a mass being involved.
The observers are just clocks. They need not have mass.
Therefore:
Suggesting that time dilation for mass is a physical reaction caused by the conditions of the local, and that these SR and GR time dilation effects that are affecting mass are not related to the sequential events of the local...
Because, as you have said:
If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.
Where the elapsed time between sunrise and sunset (on any particular day) is an invariant amount of time, but the busybodies have experienced that invariant amount of time (associated with that calendar day) differently to each other.
The point being that despite the busybodies experience of their own time, the *actual amount* of time that has passed from sunrise to sunset (that day) remains the same.
This is illustrated in post 488 by asking the mobile phone app to display both the Relativity app time as to the phones location and speed, and the synchronised time that all mobile phones in UK display as a norm.
To give an idea of direction, I am discussing these matters with a view to examining what the rate of time is doing where m=0, such as the spaces in the universe where mass is absent.
Solar time is invariant. Swatch time is not.

You are not wrong to say that physics doesn't have all the answers, but you must not take offense when people try to poke holes in your theories. Remember how Feynman defined the scientific process: guess, predict and compare. Fending off naysayers is part of step #3. It can test your patience, but at least they don't string you up like Galileo anymore.

Or alternatively (lol) the much shorter version:
But Alan  the radiation emitted from the blackbody may be a continuum, but the energy additions are not...
Planck had to quantise the energy additions to fit the data.
No he didn't. Temperature is not quantised, nor is the thermal energy of a black body.

Microwave ovens use radio waves at a specifically set frequency to agitate water molecules in food. As these water molecules get increasingly agitated they begin to vibrate at the atomic level and generate heat.
This is a far cry from what the microwave beam is doing when it excites the cesium atoms of the atomic clock to produce a set frequency of photon but the principle is the same
The microwave beam exciting the cesium atom causes the atom to vibrate (electron transitions?) at a set frequency by adding energy, and a frequency of photon is emitted by the atom.
No! The frequency we are looklng for has nothing to do with bond stretching or motion of any nucleus at all. It is a spinspin transition of an electron in its ground, not excited, state. There is no "vibration" involved  it's a purely quantum phenomenon for which there is no appropriate mesoscopic model.
The clock when placed in a higher potential has a higher frequency of electron transitions than the lower clock does when observed by the lower clock, and the higher clock observes that the clock in the lower potential is running slow.
You will confuse everyone by talking abour "frequency of transitions", which means the number of transitions occuring per second, not the photon frequency associated with a single transition.
In keeping with the GR prediction that time runs faster in the higher potential, and in keeping with the GR prediction that one's own clock will appear to be ticking normally.
Absolutely correct. Why not leave it at that, since it works?
However, a higher frequency of electron transitions requires an increase in energy level, unless one is just saying that time runs faster out in space, (why and how one just cannot explain), but I am suggesting, as an alternative, that an energy increase can be realised by considering potential energy.
Which is exactly how blue shift is calculated, without reinventing (actually disinventing) the cesium clock. All GR does is to give you a generalised formulation that works in accelerating frames as well as stationary gravitational fields.

Or alternatively (lol) the much shorter version:
But Alan  the radiation emitted from the blackbody may be a continuum, but the energy additions are not...
Planck had to quantise the energy additions to fit the data.
No he didn't. Temperature is not quantised, nor is the thermal energy of a black body.
(Sigh)...
Planck's h constant emerged from his blackbody experiment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Blackbody_radiation
Planck had imposed the quantization of the energy of the oscillators, "a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…" in his own words,[8]but one which would revolutionize physics. Applying this new approach to Wien's displacement law showed that the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator, the first version of what is now sometimes termed the "Planck–Einstein relation":
E
h
f
Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on blackbody radiation: his result, 6.55×10−34 J⋅s, is within 1.2% of the currently accepted value.[6] He was also able to make the first determination of the Boltzmann constant kB from the same data and theory.[9]
The h constant is a Joules per invariant second measurement.
I am saying that: the quantization of the energy of the oscillators
can be avoided by calculating via a variable second where: the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator,
but the frequency of the oscillator is indicative of the length of second.
So  by measuring each frequency via the remit of its variable second, this will result in the mathematics of a constant frequency for all oscillations, and the quantization of the energy of the oscillators
will be negated as a continuum.
Hopefully now that I've interjected the 'proper' terminology, what I'm saying will be more easily understood.

h has nothing to do with quantisation. It is the arbitrary constant that calculates the energy of any photon whose wavelength is known. The quantised photon model simply talks about standing waves in a box, and delivers the black body spectrum whatever the value of h.
Whilst I'm on my high horse, the experimental data was established well before Planck  he "merely" explained it!
The only oscillator whose frequency indicates a second is, by definition, a cesium clock. The idea that the length of a second is determined by the local oscillator would be fine, except that the radio time signal doesn't depend on whether I'm listening on AM (198 kHz) or FM (98 MHz)  it's determined by the clock at MSF, running at umpteen gigahertz and transmitting at 60 kHz.
You might have some fun using your variable time concept to predict atomic orbitals from the gravitational field of a proton and an electron. If it works, I'll be impressed.

The only oscillator whose frequency indicates a second is, by definition, a cesium clock.
...and the Relativity app that I spoke about in post 488 shows clearly that were these app users to carry portable cesium atomic clocks about their daily routines of change in location, and speed of doing so that all of these cesium atomic clocks would be running at differing rates.
So what was that about the definition of a second?
The point that I was making in post 488 was that
a) A cesium clock is subject to differing oscillations at differing speeds and altitudes where the people with these clocks will have aged faster or slower dependent on their clock's oscillations.
But:
b) That (where I wildly exaggerated the time differences between the person on the station and the person on the high speed train passing the station), because the person on the high speed train and the person sitting at the station can both take a photo of the sun setting at the same moment the train passes the station, where if they send each other a text of the picture they took, the sun would be in the same position in the sky in both pictures, the amount of time that has elapsed during the day will be the same period of time no matter how the person at the train station or the person on the high speed train ages in the experience of their clock's time.
Suggesting:
c) That the time that everyone using the Relativity app is ageing by and experiencing is a ***separate issue** from the time that they are moving around in.

Your cesium clock measures time at the place where you are. We are quite used to thermometers and barometers telling us the local temperature and pressure, and there's no need for a universal frame of either.
Your two photographs will show the sun in the same position because "the amount of time that has elapsed during the day" is defined by the position of the sun relative to the earth. But "the amount of time that has elapsed since you set off on your journey" will depend on whether you are measuring it, or someone standing still on the earth, or moving in another train. The HaefleKeating experiment showed just that. And since the clocks have no universal reference point, they are all correct. That's SR. GR extends the mathematics to an accelerating or gravitational reference frame and comes up with different, but entirely proven, numbers.
So time is affected by relative speed and gravitation, to what appears to be an entirely predictable extent. What's the problem you are trying to solve by pretending otherwise?
Let's go back to thermometers and barometers. We expect that they will all read the same when next to each other, and we have a notion of absolute zero temperature and absolute vacuum, at which point we would hope they all read zero respectively. "Deep space" gives us a notion of zero gravitational field, for what it's worth, and we can detect acceleration, so we can find a point where that is zero too. So in principle we can use a clock to measure speed, acceleration or gravitational field, by comparing it with a "deep space" clock . Problem is that we know it is affected by all three variables, so it isn't obvious which one we are measuring unless we can also measure our velocity relative to the reference clock.

So time is affected by relative speed and gravitation, to what appears to be an entirely predictable extent. What's the problem you are trying to solve by pretending otherwise?
I am not pretending anything, and have not in any way disagreed with the predicted.
On the mobile phone relativity app the app is calculating how one's relative speed and position of altitude affects one's ageing throughout their daily routine.
(Clearly the differences are minuscule, but this wouldn't be the case in more extreme parts of the universe)
The differences can be held relative to the mobile phone's usual clock, and therefore the mobile phone's usual clock can be known as the reference time, where a 'set' amount of time elapses between sunrise and sun set on any given day.
Therefore the Relativity app clock's time that is displayed relative to the mobile phone's usual clock is a ***separate issue*** to the mobile phone's usual clock's time.
The mobile phone's usual clock is 'historically' based on the motions of the planet in relation to the sun, where a cesium atomic clock calibrated at sea level, despite the differing altitudes due to equatorial bulge and the differing centripetal speeds at differing longitudes, will run at the same rate at sea level Equator and sea level Polar, providing us with a standardisation of the length of a second.
(which I have, by stating the clock as calibrated at sea level Earth, attributed this standard to being the length of a second at the position of sea level Earth)
Clearly anyone using the relativity app anywhere on the planet will notice differing times from the standard as soon as they start moving around and changing altitude...
(We won't go into geological density differences as of yet)
...and these differing rates of time that the app users are registering due to their changes in relative speed and altitude are merely a faster or slower means of measuring the reference time.
However, the important bit of these considerations is that the people moving about at relative speeds relative to the centripetal speed of their longitude, and changing their positions of altitude held relative to sea level, will all be ***physically ageing*** in keeping with their relativity app clock.
They are doing so, as predicted by GR calculations.
(and these very same calculations can be used to calculate the gravitational shift of light, i.e. blueshift.)
So  this suggests that changes in oscillations are occurring not only for the atoms of the clock, but also for the atoms of the person.
Now I ask you to return to the blackbody where, never mind the physics of how temperature results in radiation, the spectrum of frequency shift is described by the Planck Einstein relation, and ask you to put aside your prejudices and consider that an increase in frequency is indicative of a shorter second...
(E=hf... Where Planck has used a standard reference second (mobile phone's usual clock) to measure Joules via)
...and recalculate Joules per second via a variable second that is in keeping with the frequency of the emitted radiation, where the quantised nature of Planck's treatment of the data will then not be necessary.
The energy additions causing higher frequency will, under this remit of measurement, fit the frequency spectrum as an energy continuum.

[Now I ask you to return to the blackbody where, never mind the physics of how temperature results in radiation, the spectrum of frequency shift is described by the Planck Einstein relation, and ask you to put aside your prejudices and consider that an increase in frequency is indicative of a shorter second...
There is no "spectrum of frequency shift". The blackbody spectrum is temperaturedependent. Nothing "shifts" at the higher temperature, but the maximum energy of free electrons within the body has increased, so it is capable of releasing higher energy photons, and more photons at any other energy below that.
We know that time runs slower at a lower gravitational potential, so a clock at a higher potential appears to be generating "shorter seconds", and characteristic photons (i.e. line spectra) are blueshifted compared with those generated at the lower potential. Wholly different mechanism from the temperature dependence of blackbody radiation.

There is no "spectrum of frequency shift".
I am quite simply referring to the Planck Einstein relation where there is a relationship between Planck's h constant that emerged from Planck's treatment of energy within the data, as we have discussed as per a Wiki Link in the posts above, and the frequency of a photon.
I am quite well aware of how current physics views the time dilation phenomenon.
The temperature dependence of the blackbody is irrelevant to this discussion. It's the resulting energy of the photons that is of relevance...
Where I will now quote myself:
: timey
never mind the physics of how temperature results in radiation, the spectrum of frequency shift is described by the Planck Einstein relation, and ask you to put aside your prejudices and consider that an increase in frequency is indicative of a shorter second."
...and know that where I have said spectrum of frequency shift, that I am referring to the fact that the frequency changes as a continuum from low frequency to higher frequency, where energy and frequency are proportional to each other and E=hf.
And that in asking that the increases in frequency be held relative to shorter seconds in order that frequency remain constant, and suggesting that measuring Joules per shorter second relative to the increased frequency will result in an energy continuum, one should realise that:
a) This has nothing to do with temperature and only has to do with the resulting energy producing photons.
b) This considering +energy=shorter seconds is a "New Theory" bit of the discussion.
c) This "New Theory" bit of the discussion, although not predicted by GR, does follow GR mathematics for an energy continuum, where wave'length' becomes ***time dilation*** related where:
slower time=longer wavelength
faster time=shorter wavelength
and:
d) This results in describing a relationship between the energy of the gfield, i.e. gravitational force energy, and any other type of energy conversation resulting in oscillations of any type.
(see DeBroglie wavelengths)
However this remit, although compatible with the continuum of GR mathematics, has taken the notion of time running fast in 'space' and replaced it with the notion of time running faster for 'mass' in relation to the potential energy of the gfield of M, where the +energy=shorter seconds remit applied to the spectrum of stars of differing M results in time running faster for the bigger stars than it does for smaller stars...
...This directly relates to the next change to conventional physics that my model makes.
This being to attribute another separate phenomenon of time dilation to the gfield of M where m=0 and no potential energy is added, that gives cause for the accelerative force observed of the gfield relating to M.
This renders Einstein's laws of gravity as compatible with both Newtonian geometry, and the summing up of gravity fields as per Newtonian gravity, which means that this remit will also be compatible with electrodynamics.

You cannot pin time dilation to space because SR dictates that a moving observer passing through a point in space perceives time differently than one who is standing still at the same location. Furthermore, the discrepancy is not symmetric in the way you might expect. Each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower.

But I'm not pinning time dilation to space.
I'm suggesting that motions in the gfield are accelerated or decelerated by a time dilation that is occurring in the gfield.
That this 'additional' time dilation of the gfield will not affect any clock because a clock is mass where the clock will gain or lose potential energy in the gfield, or in relative motion to the gfield and this gaining or losing of potential energy is what is causing the observed GR (altitude) and SR (relative motion) time dilations.
In accordance with the viewpoint that GR time dilation and SR time dilation may be considered as 2 parts of a singular time dilation phenomenon, this additional time dilation can be thought of as a 3rd part of this singular phenomenon in that it just states that pe=mgh and when m=0, no potential energy is added or subtracted, where the time dilation for m=0 can be calculated via the gravitational field strength equation (where we say strength is energy), where g(r)= GmE/r^2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
:Wiki
Wave–particle duality is the concept that every elementary particle or quanticentity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classicalconcepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantumscaleobjects. As Albert Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."[1]
What this remit that I am suggesting does is unite the point particle model with the wave function model via a physical causation for the wave function of the particle.

You cannot pin time dilation to space because SR dictates that a moving observer passing through a point in space perceives time differently than one who is standing still at the same location. Furthermore, the discrepancy is not symmetric in the way you might expect. Each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower.
The problem (as far as I'm concerned) with conventional SR is, that despite the remit of GR stating that time is running at differing rates, i.e. differing lengths of seconds, at differing gravity potentials, all SR calculations are held relative to the speed of light, where the speed of light is universally being held relative to the invariant time period of a standard second.
By doing this one is defaulting SR to the remit of a preferred frame. This preferred frame being the frame of reference where a second 'is' the length of a standard second.
Furthermore SR combines a time dilation factor with a length contraction factor, both of which are determined by the percentage of the speed of light that the travellers motion/speed constitutes, which means that SR is also holding the speed of the traveller relative to the preferred frame of a standard second.
As far as I'm concerned I don't have a problem with the notion of standardising a second, or using the preferred reference frame of a standard second, so long as one realises that is what one is doing...
An atomic cessium clock can be calibrated at sea level Earth to the time period of a standard second, and despite the differences in altitude and centripetal motion between sea level equator and sea level polar which cancel each other out, a cessium atomic clock will run at the same rate at sea level of any longitude on the planet, (leaving aside geological density considerations for now), where any differences from the from the gravity potential and relative motion of any longitude of sea level Earth may then be measured as differing from that length of second if one keeps track of the centripetal rotation and altitude of equatorial bulge at that longitude.*
But  I can see that in order to incorporate both GR and SR time dilation effects simultaneously in all given circumstance is not easily achieved under the current remit.
In some cases GR effects are included, as I have discussed regarding the Relativity app in previous posts, and as laid out in this post concerning equatorial bulge versus centripetal motion.
But when SR is used to describe the motions of light travelling across space, it uses a (non GR) flat space describing the (GR) curvature of space via length contraction and time dilation, where all measurements are by default being held relative to the preferred frame of a standard second.
*Ok  so we know via the remit of conventional physics mathematics that there is an orbital radius from Earth where the orbital speed required to maintain that radius exactly cancels out the GR effects of altitude, where a clock will run at the same rate at this orbital speed, at that radius, as a clock at sea level Earth does...
But SR is being calculated on the basis that the speed of light is held relative to this standard length of second at each and every radius, and is also holding orbital speeds relative to this standard length of second.
If we then take into consideration that SR is also incorporating a calculation of a differing length of measuring stick, this is where it all starts to get super interesting...
At this radius where orbital speed SR time dilation exactly cancels out GR altitude time dilation, the length of a metre will be differing according to conventional SR remit.
But hang on a mo  this is an exact symmetry of what we observe of a longitude on Earth isn't it?
As the distance from centre of Earth increases at longitudes closer to the equatorial bulge causing greater altitude, the speed of centripetal motion also increases and this exactly cancels out the GR altitude time dilation at each and every longitude...
Therefore the calculation of a differing length of measuring stick that SR incorporates within it's time dilation calculation will exactly replicate the proportional differences between altitude of equatorial bulge in relation to centripetal speed of the longitudes on Earth.
So my first question is:
When calculating the centripetal speed of a longitude in relation to altitude of equatorial bulge, is the calculation of the SR effects inclusive of the change in the length of a measuring stick, or have these SR changes in the length of a measuring stick been considered as negligible at these low speeds?
(It is my intention to put all this in the context of the premiss of my model, but will do so in stages, because I've found that longer posts are not responded to)

There is no preferred RF in SR because, as Galileo observed, all motion is relative. You may think I'm moving and you're standing still, but from my perspective you're moving and I'm standing still. GR puts a twist on that by introducing a 3rd reference point and a field, which distorts our perspectives.

Well absolutely...apart from the fact that being 'at rest' is a false scenario because nowhere is at rest.
Things or people can only be at rest with respect to each other, and in the case of centripetal acceleration, a person at rest at a polar sea level, and a person at rest at an equatorial sea level may be at rest with respect to the centre of the Earth*, but they are in relative motion to each other with respect to their position of longitude, where the speed at which the equatorial sea level and the polar sea level longitudes are moving around the centre of the Earth through space is differing.
*(Edit: actually on second thoughts unless a person was directly on top of either pole, neither would be at rest with respect to the centre of Earth either, as all positions of longitude will be moving faster than the centre of the Earth.)
But... what about the fact that SR is using the speed of light as a reference point to make its calculations from?
The speed of light is using the reference point of a metre held relative to a set time period...
...and this 'set' time period is a second as denoted by the caesium standard, where it is observed that the caesium standard is not only distorted by relative motion, but also by position in the gravity potential.
You may be disinclined to consider the use of a 'set' time period as being a preferred reference frame, and if you like I shall refer to the use of a 'set' period of time as something else, but what I am wanting to talk about here is the fact that SR is using this caesium standard as a basis to make calculations from.
...And it is more the SR changes in the measuring stick that accompany the SR time dilation calculations that I am interested in discussing with respect to the 21.36km difference in altitude at sea level equator relative to sea level polar, and the fact that the SR time dilation effects caused by the extra rotational speed at each longitude from poles to equator exactly cancels out the GR time dilation effects of increase in altitude at each longitude.
Where I have said:
Therefore the calculation of a differing length of measuring stick that SR incorporates within it's time dilation calculation will exactly replicate the proportional differences between altitude of equatorial bulge in relation to centripetal speed of the longitudes on Earth.
So let's say that we are dispensing with the GR time dilation effects of altitude and we only use the SR effects of time dilation and change in length of measuring stick to calculate the time dilation differences of centripetal motion in relation to the equatorial bulge?
The inline motion of the centripetal acceleration will shorten the measuring stick for a measure of the radius right?
So as the longitudes increase in centripetal motion from poles to equator, is the shortening of the measuring stick proportional to the extra distance of the radius?

If we were to imagine for comparison purposes that there were no equatorial bulge, and that the mass of the Earth were to be redistributed so that the distance to centre of Earth was equal at equatorial sea level and polar sea levels  where we then calibrated our caesium atomic clock at sea level equator  we would observe that the equatorial sea level longitude would still be moving faster with respect to the polar sea levels because the earth is spinning from west to east, but is not spinning from north to south, or south to north... And because we are still a spherical shape, clearly a person at sea level equator and a person at polar sea level are still spinning through space at differing radius to each other.
So now we have a scenario where the centripetal motion at equatorial bulge is still faster than that at the polar sea levels, but the altitudes from centre of earth are equal at every longitude...
As the centripetal motion is reduced at longitudes that are more southern or northern, where the 'reality model's' decreased altitude at more southern and northern longitudes would normally decrease the rate of the GR altitude time dilation at exactly the rate that the decrease in centripetal motion will increase the rate of SR motion time dilation, in this 'imagined model' there is no decrease in altitude at the more northern and more southern longitudes, so GR altitude time dilation will not cancel out the SR motion time dilation effects of the more southern and northern longitudes where the centripetal motion decreases...
So as opposed to the 'reality model' where we have a clock that will run at same rate at polar sea levels as it does at equatorial sea level, this 'imagined model' will have clocks at sea level that run progressively faster as longitudes become more southern or northern and the clocks at the poles will be running the fastest.
I'd be really interested to know the value of that data curve...

Because the 21.36km difference in altitude at sea level equatorial bulge relative to polar sea levels causes the GR increases in rate of time, due to the greater altitude as longitudes get closer to the equator, to be exactly cancelled out by the SR decreases in rate of time due to the increases in centripetal acceleration caused by the greater radial distance, the increases in distance from the centre of the Earth that the equatorial bulge causes and the increases in centripetal motion that the increase in radial distance of the bulge causes are special...
(This being no surprise wotsoever because the bulge is indeed caused by the centripetal motion.)
... It is possible to obtain the data curve of how the differences in altitude are affecting the rate of time in relation to a data curve of how the differences in centripetal speed are affecting the rate of time.
Therefore (as per my 'imagined model of the post above) by ironing out the equatorial bulge so that the distance to centre of earth is equal at sea level of equator and poles, where we can now dispense with GR altitude considerations, and (given that we calibrated the caesium atomic clock at sea level equator) calculate how the rate of time is increasing at each more southern or northern longitude from the equator purely due to the decreases in radial distance at the progressively more southern and northern longitudes of this (now) perfect sphere, where the resulting decreases in centripetal motion at these progressively more southern and northern longitudes are now increasing the SR motion related rate of time, this 'imagined model' is creating a means of examining the 'reality model's' data further.
By comparing the data from the 'imagined model' with the 'reality model', the differences in radial distance at each longitude, compared to the differences in centripetal speed at each longitude, compared to the differences in rate of time at each longitude should be illuminative of the relationship between distance and speed.
While I am of course aware of the ramifications of the Michelson Morley experiment, what I am interested in within this comparison of data curves between the 'reality model' and 'imagined model', is where in these SR time dilation considerations is this notion of a variable measuring stick significant?

I'm suggesting that motions in the gfield are accelerated or decelerated by a time dilation that is occurring in the gfield.
That this 'additional' time dilation of the gfield will not affect any clock because a clock is mass where the clock will gain or lose potential energy in the gfield, or in relative motion to the gfield and this gaining or losing of potential energy is what is causing the observed GR (altitude) and SR (relative motion) time dilations.
In accordance with the viewpoint that GR time dilation and SR time dilation may be considered as 2 parts of a singular time dilation phenomenon, this additional time dilation can be thought of as a 3rd part of this singular phenomenon in that it just states that pe=mgh and when m=0, no potential energy is added or subtracted, where the time dilation for m=0 can be calculated via the gravitational field strength equation (where we say strength is energy), where g(r)= GmE/r^2.
Chris  I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?

: Einstein
However we select from nature a complex (of phenomena) using the criterion of simplicity, in no case will it's theoretical treatment turn out to be forever appropriate... But I do not doubt that the day will come when that description (the general theory of relativity), too, will have to yield to another one, for reasons which at present we do not yet surmise. I believe that this process of deepening the theory has no limits.
'New Theories of Everything', page 109 'forces and particles' by John D Barrow
Does it not seem more probable that there exist additional forces of nature that are intrinsically very weak, or highly selective in the things they act upon, or which have a minute range? Such forces may well exist. They do not play any great role in the structure of the everyday world, or even the world of the present day high energy physicist, but their presence totally determines the form of the ultimate Theory of Everything that we seek.
***or highly selective in the things they act upon***
By considering, where m=0, a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that gives physical cause for the observed accelerative/decelerative force of the gfield, the ramifications of doing so give rise to an alternative theory of time dilation being energy related and may provide the unifying theory of everything that will unite the point particle model with the wave function model unifying the standard model with gravity... and do so without detracting from
the premiss of Einstein's mathematics of general relativity, only requiring that one disregard the view that time runs faster at altitude in 'open space' and reattribute this viewpoint to time running faster for m in relation to proximity to M via potential energy, where pe=mgh and gravitational field energy is g(r)=GmE/r^2...
... m will be subject to + or  potential energy due to position in, and relative motion to, the gravity field, increasing or decreasing the rate of time for m, and where m=0 we say that g(r) is increasing or decreasing the rate of time in the gfield causing the motions of m in relation to M to be accelerated or decelerated towards or away from M.
This means that Einstein's laws of gravity can be described within a Newtonian geometry, multiple gravity fields can be summed up as per Newtonian gravity, and a physical causation for the wave function has been established to unite the point particle model with the wave function model that will describe the quantum model as a continuum to be united with gravity.
This remit will describe all observations as per experimental evidence, but describes a contracting universe as per Einstein's equations of GR, where the difference between my contracting model and the conventional expanding model is that time runs faster for bigger M's than it does for smaller M's, there is now no mathematical requirement for the 'far away clock' in the impossible 0 gravity field running infinitely fast, and consequently the mathematics of Einstein's GR will not break down to infinities in black holes.
Edit: This contracting model does not require Dark Energy or Dark Matter to balance the books and therefore is worthy of consideration.

there is now no mathematical requirement for the 'far away clock' in the impossible 0 gravity field running infinitely fast,
A multiple straw man!
Nothing impossible about a zero gravity field. It is the point at which a clock observed by someone else appears to run at its maximum (not infinite) rate.
Nor is there an infinity in a black hole. In order for the gravitational field in a black hole to be infinite, it must contain the entire mass of the universe in zero volume. If it were not so, we could increase its field by adding mass or squeezing it, so it wasn't infinite to begin with. As far as we know, several black holes exist, so none of them has any infinite properties.

It was my plan to remove all of my 1600+posts from this forum but apparently that is not aloud.
Please deregister my account as I requested on Saturday.

It was my plan to remove all of my 1600+posts from this forum but apparently that is not aloud.
Please deregister my account as I requested on Saturday.
What's up Timey, who's upset you?

there is now no mathematical requirement for the 'far away clock' in the impossible 0 gravity field running infinitely fast,
A multiple straw man!
Nothing impossible about a zero gravity field. It is the point at which a clock observed by someone else appears to run at its maximum (not infinite) rate.
Nor is there an infinity in a black hole. In order for the gravitational field in a black hole to be infinite, it must contain the entire mass of the universe in zero volume. If it were not so, we could increase its field by adding mass or squeezing it, so it wasn't infinite to begin with. As far as we know, several black holes exist, so none of them has any infinite properties.
: Nelson Mandela (almost)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
We were born to make manifest the glory that is within us.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people the permission to do the same.
Now then young Alan, I have had just about as much as I can take of your obtusity, be that purposeful or otherwise...
Physics does not know how fast the 'far away clock' is running, it has never been observed, nor would the gravity field be zero if it had a clock in it.
In any case there is no such thing as a zero gravity field.
http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/10/mythbustersdoeszerogravityexistinspace/
Furthermore, I did not say that a gravity field could be infinite...
What I said was that the maths for conventional GR break down to infinities in a black hole, and that under the remit of my proposed alterations to GR the maths will not break down to infinities in a black hole.
As to my deviations from conventional terminologies that you as a constant bemoan so vociferously...
: Jessica Rabbit
I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.
...please note my profile info.
But perhaps it might be of significance that:
: J R Tolkien
Not all those who wander are lost.
I am proposing a model of the universe that is compatible with GR mathematics, that doesn't require Dark Energy or Dark Matter.
This model 'should' unify the standard model with gravity while providing fully described mechanics for a rendition of Big Bang and Inflation theory.
In short this model has all the criteria for a 'Theory of Everything' inclusive of simplicity and a suggested experiment to prove or disprove itself.
All that is required is for someone of more capability than I to make the calculations to check and see if this model that I am visualising as a geometrical architecture of cause and effect mechanics is actually mathematically viable.*
I don't see this, or my unconventional terminology for that matter, as being a problem for someone of your intelligence, so to be honest I am finding your responses out of keeping with my expectations of you.
*If the model is a mathematical viability, this does not mean that it is correct, it would only mean that this model is viable.
To be proven correct would fall to the outcome of my model's suggested experiment which, when NIST get their portable atomic clocks up and running as planned in next couple of years, it will be possible to conduct...
Only then will this model I suggest be actually proven or disproven... but in the mean time, for someone like yourself who is trained in mathematics, I really don't see a problem with making the calculations that I suggest.
So rather than treating me as though I am the forum's clown why not just do the calculations?
What have you got to lose?

I have explained previously how it is entirely possible to have a zero gravity field, but just for you, here it is again.
Every massive body produces a gravitational field. The field vector is directed towards the center of mass of the body and its magnitude at any distance from the body is given by the usual 1/r^{2} expression. The net field vector at any point in space is the vector sum of all vectors at that point, So there will be a finite number of points in any universe where the net field vector is zero, and in an infinite universe, there will be an infinite number of such points.
The mass of the source clock is irrelevant. The search for a zerofield point is merely the search for the point at which the frequency of that clock, as observed from any other point, is at its maximum.
The problem with deviating from conventional terminology is exactly the same problem as deviating from the local language. It doesn't matter how often or how loudly you shout in English, you won't get fish and chips, but the merest whisper of "poisson et pommes frites" will have monsieur le chef at your service. He's not being cussid, just doing his job, which is not to read your mind but to feed Francophones  or to discuss physics, as the case may be.
A reference to the post where you describe your critical experiment would be much appreciated.

Look  I hate to be pernickety Alan, especially in light of my own shoddy use of terminology, but please allow me to explain, again, that there is no such thing as a zero gravity field.
: Yalescientific.org
Although gravity never reaches zero, it gets close.
What you are referring to (I think) is zero point field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeropoint_energy
A vacuum can be viewed not as empty space but as the combination of all zeropoint fields. In QFT this combination of fields is called the vacuum state, its associated zeropoint energy is called the vacuum energy and the average expectation value of zeropoint energy is called the vacuum expectation value (VEV) also called its condensate. The term zeropoint field(ZPF) is sometimes used when referring to a specific vacuum field. The QED vacuum is a part of the vacuum state which specifically deals with quantum electrodynamics (e.g. electromagnetic interactions between photons, electrons and the vacuum) and the QCD vacuumdeals with quantum chromodynamics(e.g. color charge interactions between quarks, gluons and the vacuum). Recent experiments advocate the idea that particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the underlying quantum vacuum, and that all properties of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions of the zeropoint field.[2]
However:
The idea that "empty" space can have an intrinsic energy associated to it, and that there is no such thing as a "true vacuum" is seemingly unintuitive. For many practical calculations (especially in QED) zeropoint energy is dismissed by fiat in the mathematical model as a constant that may be canceled or as a term that has no physical effect. Such treatment causes problems however, as in Einstein's theory of general relativity the absolute energy value of space is not arbitrary and gives rise to the cosmological constant. Furthermore, many physical effects attributed to zeropoint energy have been experimentally verified, such as spontaneous emission, Casimir force, Lamb shift, magnetic moment of the electron and Delbrück scattering,[3][4]these effects are usually called "radiative corrections".[5] In more complex nonlinear theories (e.g. QCD) zeropoint energy can give rise to a variety of complex phenomena such as multiple stable states, symmetry breaking, chaos and emergence.
Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zeropoint energy, in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[6][7] Physicists John Wheelerand Richard Feynman calculated the zeropoint radiation of the QED vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with one teacup containing enough to boil all the world's oceans[8] while experimental evidence from both the expansion of the universe and the Casimir effect show any such force to be exceptionally weak. This discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem (or vacuum catastrophe) and is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in physics.
Many physicists believe that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature" [9] and that studying it is critical in the search for the theory of everything. Active areas of research include the effects of virtual particles,[10] quantum entanglement,[11]the difference (if any) between inertial and gravitational mass,[12][13] variation in the speed of light,[14][15] a reason for the observed value of the cosmological constant[16] and the nature of dark energy.[17][18]
The concept of zeropoint energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zerogrounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900.
My model's treatment of the blackbody data in relation to the ultra violet catastrophe that led to Planck's introduction of the quanta (as we have discussed previously), recalculates E=hf by holding the frequency as constant in the face of variable length seconds... By shortening the time period of a second in order to keep the frequency constant, the quantum nature of the energy levels becomes a continuum that can be united with gravity.
This unification with gravity is possible because the wave function has been given a physical cause, (i.e. that frequency is time dilation related via energy), uniting the wave function model with the point particle model, where the length of a wave is a function of time, the frequency is the timing, and the energy is causing the rate of the time.
Now we can go back to the 'far away clock'.
: Alan
The search for a zerofield point is merely the search for the point at which the frequency of that clock, as observed from any other point, is at its maximum.
... And the rate that a person with that clock will age is also at its maximum. But what is that maximum and why?
The mass of the source clock is irrelevant.
No  the mass 'value' of the clock is irrelevant, but the fact of the mass itself is highly relevant because if there were no mass present at that location in space, then the pe=mgh would just be pe=gh, or more conventionally, the gravitational field strength (vacuum energy) would be g(r)=GM/r^2, (or whatever the equivalent equation for multiple fields is)
Now we go back to my model's treatment of the ultra violet catastrophe where +energy=shorter seconds, and we attribute the gravitational field strength, or vacuum energy, as the causation of a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon where the difference between the rate of time for a clock at h from M and the rate of time that is occurring for the location of h from M is simply the difference between pe=mgh*, and vacuum energy=g(r).
*(where a pe/mvalue equation distributes the pe equally over all particle constituents of m)
As the clock is placed further away from M it's rate of time will increase... But at each further radius from M the rate of the field time will decrease. This gives the accelerative and decelerative force of the gfield a physical causation. Any body of m moving into the gravity field of >>>M will be observed as accelerated by the shorter seconds, and visa versus <<<M.
So let's look at what you were saying about the 'far away clock' running at maximum... Where the clock is in the zero point field, it's own gravitational mass energy will outweigh the surrounding field energy. When this happens the clock is no longer an m, it's an M...
As a thought experiment  If one were to then take a test particle m from the clock and position it at h from M(clock) in the gravitational field of the clock then the tiny little clock of the test particle will run faster than the rate of time running for M(clock). And one may then repeat the procedure for test particle m when test particle m's own gravitational mass outweighs g(r)=GMclock/r^2 value and test particle m becomes M(test particle) where a tinsy tiny test particle m from M(test particle) will have a faster rate of time at h from M(test particle), etc, etc...
This means that bigger M's, i.e. of greater mass value, are running at faster rates of time than smaller M's.
(There are a multitude of posts over the last 2 years where I have given description of my model's suggested experiment, but it is easier just to write it out again than searching for these posts)
My model's suggested experiment to prove or disprove itself incorporates placing 2 identical atomic clocks at differing locations of the same gravity potential, i.e. altitude and longitude, but of know significant difference in geological density.
My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.
The clock rate vary between different gravitational potential. If there is a difference in the geological density it is hard to find points of the same gravity potential.
If you choose two points A and B, in different locations, if an object than moves between them gains velocity then there is a difference in the gravitational potential. I think this velocity gain is responsible for the clock rate increase.
For a clock in free fall from A to B it's atoms will gain and keep energy even if at B you hold the clock from falling. That energy is equivalent to electrons gaining more velocity.
I think you need to describe the complete scenario that includes the shape of the maasive object that generates gravity.

To be clear Nilak, this experiment that I suggest is an Earthbound experiment.
At sea level Earth a stationary atomic clock will run at the same rate at all longitudes from polar to equator.
The increased rate of time due to altitude of the equatorial bulge is exactly canceled out by the decreased rate of time due to the centripetal motion of the greater radius at equator relative to the poles.
My model's experiment suggests placing 2 identical atomic clocks at differing locations that are at the same altitude to equalise gravity potential, and at the same longitude if possible to ensure equal centripetal motion  (although sea level locations would ensure a natural equalisation of the rate of time of both)  but at locations of known inequality of geological density.
Neither of the clocks will be in motion other than the afore mentioned centripetal motion, and both should be placed upon the ground.
My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.

In that case if you have a hollow massive sphere in deep space, an object inside it will not experience any gravity force. Do you think a clock closer to the surface will tick faster? I don't see any reason to do that.

Your reply illuminates the fact that you haven't quite grasped the premiss set out in post 560. But hey, don't worry about it Nilak... go back, read it again, wait for someone else to respond perhaps.

.........
My model predicts that the clock in the denser location will run faster.
In other words, that a clock at a lower gravitational potential will run faster than one at a higher gravitational potential. Which is exactly the opposite of what we observe, whether it is an atomic clock in a GPS satellite, the redshift of the solar spectrum, the PoundRebka experiment, or even the most recent work with aluminum atom clocks separated by a few meters of height. But the important point is that you have identified the critical experiment. The question is whether it is feasible or whether we can find a feasible substitute.
Rather than look for places where the earth's radius is identical but g is significantly different, you can separate the clocks vertically at a single location and calculate the differential due to circular motion at different heights thus:
the gravitational field at a distance x from the center of gravity of a large body is GM/x^{2} and the centrifugal field is v^{2}/x where v is the tangential velocity.
Now x is around 6.4 x 10^{6} meters at the surface and the tangential velocity at the equator (for simplicity) is 2 x pi x 6.4 x 10^{6} /24 x 3600 = 465 meters/second.
I'll leave it to you to calculate the gravitational field and centrifugal field at, say x = 6.400001 x 10^{6} meters (for the Al clock experiment) or 6.400023 x 10^{6} for the PR experiment. I think you will find that the centrifugal effect is negligible in comparison with the calculated and observed frequency shift, rather as the original experimenters assumed (or calculated). The reason, of course, is that the centrifugal field varies with x whilst the gravitational field varies with x^{2}, but you can apply the centrifugal correction anyway if you wish.
There's no easier experiment than one that has already been done!

I guess you didn't read post 562 which would have informed you that considerations of altitude and centripetal motion are an intrinsic consideration of the proposed experiment.
It is also clear that you did not fully understand the ramifications of the M(clock) and test particle thought experiment of post 560.
What you have understood is that what I am suggesting is the opposite of that which conventional physics would predict, but you are understanding it for the wrong reasons.
Conventional physics would state that in an experiment where 2 clocks are placed at the same altitude, and same centripetal motion as each other, whereas both clock's will run at same rate, if the locations were of differing geological density, the clock in the denser location would run slower. This being because conventional physics believes that because a clock runs faster at altitude from M, and a clock runs slower closer to M, that time runs slower for bigger bodies of mass.
My model, without detracting from the observed and experimentally verified fact that a clock runs faster at altitude from M, and that a clock runs slower closer to M, states that a bigger value M will have a faster rate of time than a smaller value M, where all m at h from M will run faster than M.
As per the premiss set out in post 560 my model is stating that while an m(clock) will run faster in relation to h from M, and slower at decreased h from M, that this is potential energy related as per pe=mgh, where +energy= shorter seconds, but when the value of m's own measure of g outweighs the g at h from M, (such as in zero point field) that m(clock) becomes M(clock) where any test particle in relation to h from M(clock) will run at a faster rate of time than M(clock).
If you have a real good long deep think about this Alan, (and please do that, because you have said that you think me of at least some intelligence, and I really wouldn't be interested in just dicking around trying to tell you an idea I have about physics in favour of just having a laugh dicking around on the 'on the even lighter side' thread 'which was much more fun' if I didn't think I had something of importance to relate to you), you will realise that I am not transgressing any observation or experimentally verified phenomenon in my model's prediction that the clock in the denser location will run faster.
The difference 'at this juncture' between my model and the conventional model is that my model states that where m=0 that potential energy is not added or subtracted, and that where the gfield of M is of lesser energy at h's from M, that the rate of time is energy=longer seconds.
The reason that this possibility has been overlooked by conventional physics (apart from Hubble's contribution) is because where m=0 a clock cannot measure.
However, because light is m=0, where light shifts in the gravitational field and the wave length gets longer <<<M, or shorter >>>M, that the change in the length of the wavelength is gfield '3rd aspect time dilation' related, and where the acceleration >>>M or deceleration <<<M of m's motions in relation to M are observed, this is also gfield '3rd aspect time dilation' related, and this is the means of observing the '3rd aspect time dilation' phenomenon that I am proposing, where the 3rd aspect time dilation is a part and parcel of the time dilation phenomenon entire of which SR and GR time dilation are the other 2 aspects.

"No  the mass 'value' of the clock is irrelevant, but the fact of the mass itself is highly relevant because if there were no mass present at that location in space, then the pe=mgh would just be pe=gh, or more conventionally, the gravitational field strength (vacuum energy) would be g(r)=GM/r^2, (or whatever the equivalent equation for multiple fields is)"
I didn't understand this part.
Why if no mass present the pe=gh ? It looks as if m=1kg.

But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x. Unless you are proposing an entirely new force that looks like gravity, works backwards, only affects clocks, and has never been detected previously.That's pretty radical, especially as the red shift of the solar spectrum (large M compared with M_{earth}) is exactly what you would calculate without it.
As for the addition and subtraction of potential energy in the absence of rest mass, I think you will find this well covered by the explanation of gravitational lensing. It's also interesting that the PR result is exactly what you expect from a calculation of exchange between potential and kinetic energy for a photon.
On a matter of linguistics, "conventional physics" doesn't "believe" anything. We make hypotheses and test them. Fact is that clocks run slower at a lower gravitational potential. The job of theoretical physics is to explain and extrapolate observation, not to dismiss it as belief. Now we have an observation and a theory which so far has predicted the next result, and you want to replace it with a theory that predicts exactly the opposite. Difficult starting point, my friend! As Patrick said to Murphy: "if I was going to Cork I wouldn't start from Dublin" but if you really have to, it's not advisable to begin by assuming Cork to be east of Dublin.

What do you mean by centripetal motion? I think that would mean a motion from a height h to a lower height on a straight line towards the center of rotation ( as viewed from outside the earth).
I suppose you meant the circular motion around the earth center of mass.

That's an interesting definition Alan. Places where gravity is non existent. Would that mean that gravity negates itself? When I think of 'Black Holes' I see that definition of a 'singularity' as being of a 'infinite magnitude', actually I think that is what defines it. Mathematics use this idea of larger and smaller infinities, and using a argument of nothing being 'infinite', assuming one can continue to add to it, may become questionable from that point of view. I don't really like 'different magnitudes' of infinity's myself, have a problem imagining what it should mean, but I think you might agree to that 'filling up' a infinity shouldn't 'change it', presuming it already is infinite?
=
What I'm thinking is not about what one measure outside some event horizon, just that if a infinity ever got 'filled up' it couldn't have been a 'infinity' to start with.

Inside a hollow sphere (perfect and alone in the universe) I think we can say gravity is nonexistent. The spacetime inside it is just flat Minkowski spacetime.

Well, yes, and that Is how I get Alan's argument. I think him to be correct. Although I will differ presumably on the definition of what can be called 'infinite'. That is if you're thinking of a perfect 'sphere' of a even density and referring to it's 'center'
==
Another interesting question might be, should you be able to measure a rotation in your universe?

Another interesting question might be, should you be able to measure a rotation in your universe?
I think we are getting off topic with this question. You should be able to measure a centrifugal force. I remember asking this question but I don't remember the answer. You can view the sphere as made of individual atoms that move an a circular path so the relative motion still exists. The case simplifies to two balls rotating connected by a rod.

The gravity inside a hollow sphere only cancels completely at the centre of mass. If the thickness of your shell equalled the diameter of Jupiter then the closer to an interior surface the greater the force.

But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x.
What on earth are you on about?
A clock is observed to undergo a change in frequency of electron transitions due to changes in the gravitational field. The gravitational field is due to M.
Change the value of M and the clock will be experiencing a changed gravitational field.
Unless you are proposing an entirely new force that looks like gravity, works backwards, only affects clocks, and has never been detected previously.
What I am proposing is that there is a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that does not affect mass. It has never been detected before because it doesn't affect mass. Yes is works 'backwards' or 'contra directional' in the gfield to GR altitude time dilation, and what this means is that time runs at a slower rate in 'open space', where 'open space' is defined as the parts of the universe where there is no mass.
.That's pretty radical, especially as the red shift of the solar spectrum (large M compared with Mearth) is exactly what you would calculate without it.
Yes  exactly! And a time related wavelength will give exactly the same mathematical results as a distance or velocity related wavelength which is why my model 'can' be mathematically viable via the time distance speed formula.
As for the addition and subtraction of potential energy in the absence of rest mass, I think you will find this well covered by the explanation of gravitational lensing.
Where the description of the force of gravity that bends the light is lacking a physical causality.
It's also interesting that the PR result is exactly what you expect from a calculation of exchange between potential and kinetic energy for a photon.
Yes  that is most interesting indeed, because clearly there is something in the gravitational field that is causing the light to be shifted, and this 'something' in the gravitational field is lacking a description of physical causation.
On a matter of linguistics, "conventional physics" doesn't "believe" anything. We make hypotheses and test them. Fact is that clocks run slower at a lower gravitational potential.
Wholeheartedly agreed! My model states the exact same thing...
But do clocks run slower in the greater gravitational field?
Is there a difference between gravity potential energy and gravitational field energy?
Potential energy is added or subtracted for mass at differing gravity potentials.
What occurs for open space?
Is it a 'fact' that 'time' runs faster 'in' the weaker gravity field where there is no mass?
The job of theoretical physics is to explain and extrapolate observation, not to dismiss it as belief.
So  explain and extrapolate the observation of gravitational acceleration please...
Now we have an observation and a theory which so far has predicted the next result,
What we have is an observation of gravitational acceleration and a theory that does not provide physical causation for this phenomenon.
and you want to replace it with a theory that predicts exactly the opposite.
...and this is where you are misunderstanding my theory.
My theory does not repredict any part of GR, it holds all GR predictions as sound.
However, it is the consequence of assuming that the 'fact' of a clock running faster at altitude from M, and the 'fact' of a clock running slower nearer to M means that time is running faster in 'open space' that leads theoretical physics to the 'belief' that bigger M's are running at slower rates of time than smaller M's.
... And this is a 'belief' based on an 'assumption' because it is not physically proven to be 'fact' that a bigger M is running at a slower rate than a smaller M.
All that is proven as 'fact' is that all m in M's gravitational field will age at differing rates due to position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field.
The experiment that I suggest is designed to equalise position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field and therefore measure what rate a clock will run at in a denser location compared to a less dense location.
I've never been to Ireland but as I have friends in Cork, Cork would be a great starting point!

why are you discussing hollow spheres on this thread?
Please stick to the topic matter. If you wish to discuss hollow spheres open another thread.

The gravity inside a hollow sphere only cancels completely at the centre of mass. If the thickness of your shell equalled the diameter of Jupiter then the closer to an interior surface the greater the force.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43626/isspacetimeflatinsideasphericalshell
Well I beg to differ.

Alan  I've reposted my reply to your post incase you missed it:
But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x.
What on earth are you on about?
A clock is observed to undergo a change in frequency of electron transitions due to changes in the gravitational field. The gravitational field is due to M.
Change the value of M and the clock will be experiencing a changed gravitational field.
Unless you are proposing an entirely new force that looks like gravity, works backwards, only affects clocks, and has never been detected previously.
What I am proposing is that there is a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that does not affect mass. It has never been detected before because it doesn't affect mass. Yes is works 'backwards' or 'contra directional' in the gfield to GR altitude time dilation, and what this means is that time runs at a slower rate in 'open space', where 'open space' is defined as the parts of the universe where there is no mass.
.That's pretty radical, especially as the red shift of the solar spectrum (large M compared with Mearth) is exactly what you would calculate without it.
Yes  exactly! And a time related wavelength will give exactly the same mathematical results as a distance or velocity related wavelength which is why my model 'can' be mathematically viable via the time distance speed formula.
As for the addition and subtraction of potential energy in the absence of rest mass, I think you will find this well covered by the explanation of gravitational lensing.
Where the description of the force of gravity that bends the light is lacking a physical causality.
It's also interesting that the PR result is exactly what you expect from a calculation of exchange between potential and kinetic energy for a photon.
Yes  that is most interesting indeed, because clearly there is something in the gravitational field that is causing the light to be shifted, and this 'something' in the gravitational field is lacking a description of physical causation.
On a matter of linguistics, "conventional physics" doesn't "believe" anything. We make hypotheses and test them. Fact is that clocks run slower at a lower gravitational potential.
Wholeheartedly agreed! My model states the exact same thing...
But do clocks run slower in the greater gravitational field?
Is there a difference between gravity potential energy and gravitational field energy?
Potential energy is added or subtracted for mass at differing gravity potentials.
What occurs for open space?
Is it a 'fact' that 'time' runs faster 'in' the weaker gravity field where there is no mass?
The job of theoretical physics is to explain and extrapolate observation, not to dismiss it as belief.
So  explain and extrapolate the observation of gravitational acceleration please...
Now we have an observation and a theory which so far has predicted the next result,
What we have is an observation of gravitational acceleration and a theory that does not provide physical causation for this phenomenon.
and you want to replace it with a theory that predicts exactly the opposite.
...and this is where you are misunderstanding my theory.
My theory does not repredict any part of GR, it holds all GR predictions as sound.
However, it is the consequence of assuming that the 'fact' of a clock running faster at altitude from M, and the 'fact' of a clock running slower nearer to M means that time is running faster in 'open space' that leads theoretical physics to the 'belief' that bigger M's are running at slower rates of time than smaller M's.
... And this is a 'belief' based on an 'assumption' because it is not physically proven to be 'fact' that a bigger M is running at a slower rate than a smaller M.
All that is proven as 'fact' is that all m in M's gravitational field will age at differing rates due to position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field.
The experiment that I suggest is designed to equalise position and relative motion with respect to M's gravitational field and therefore measure what rate a clock will run at in a denser location compared to a less dense location.

Didn't miss it, just wondered whether it was worth the effort of going over old ground again! Glutton for punishment, o here goes......
But the clock doesn't sense M, only the gravitational field associated with it, so it makes no difference whether you increase M or reduce x.
What on earth are you on about?
A clock is observed to undergo a change in frequency of electron transitions due to changes in the gravitational field. The gravitational field is due to M.
Change the value of M and the clock will be experiencing a changed gravitational field.
But you could also change x to get the same result, so the observed frequency isn't a function of M alone but of the gravitational potential GM/x.
Henry Cavendish established in 1797, and practically every national laboratory and astronomical observation since then has confirmed, that G is independent of the density of the attracting body.
So the clock result depends only on M/x, so you might as well vary x at one geographical location, which is a lot easier than looking for local variations in g (the effect of density variation) and correcting for latitude (not longitude!) . Which is exactly what P&R and practically everyone else have done.
Now if I understand your hypothesis, moving a source closer to a massive body will gradually slow the apparent frequency of the source (which is our common observation) until it reaches a point where it speeds up again (which has not been observed). So you are postulating a very shortrange force that hasn't yet been measured, that stops black holes collapsing to zero diameter (because it would take for ever to do so). Is that just the weak force? Or is it remotely possible that the collapse is prevented simply by Heisenberg's indeterminacy?

Alan's post above is one everyone should read through carefully. Make sure you understand it all.

Henry Cavendish established in 1797, and practically every national laboratory and astronomical observation since then has confirmed, that G is independent of the density of the attracting body.
A BH actually proves that statement incorrect.
The difference between a black hole and regular mass is frequency is not possible in a black hole. The frequency produced in a spherical planet is reduced to the center of a planet if atomic clocks follow frequency. A correlation has been established. Time continues to tick slower to the center of a planet if we extend the observed tests.

Alan  you seem to have fallen into the very common trap of believing that you have nothing left to learn.
Henry Cavendish established in 1797, and practically every national laboratory and astronomical observation since then has confirmed, that G is independent of the density of the attracting body.
The program "Gravity and Me: The force that shapes us" is really very informative and entirely disagrees with you on this point.
It takes you on a journey around Britain with a set of laboratory scales and a laboratory weight and quite clearly shows one by how many Newtons that laboratory weight changes due to locational position and conditions.
The physicists are very clear that when they measure the gravity on Dartmoor, that the density of the granite at that position is having an effect on the measurement!
The program takes you to the Cavendish experiment site itself, giving explanation of this experiment.
It also takes you to a laboratory where gravity is measured every day by a highly sensitive machine where gravity is observed to differ on a daily basis, and these differences can be due to the simple fact of the extent of rain fall on that day.
Gravity mapping from space clearly shows that anomalies of gravity on Earth are present due to density differences.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/page3.php
Atomic clocks are used to measure how differences in gravity effect the rate of time.
However, at present these clocks are laboratory bound and have only been able to measure the differences in the rate of time due to change in altitude and relative motion.
The reason why NIST are developing laboratory sensitive portable atomic clocks is actually with the intention of measuring locations of differing density.
You are correct that G is used for astronomical measurements, but really this is an approximation because near Earth gravity measurements differ for many reasons, and one of those reasons is the geological density of the location.
The program also discussed a mobile phone relativity app where the app records one's altitude and speed of motion during the day telling one by what rate they are ageing due to position of altitude and relative motion...
If you are going to be making comment as an authority on gravity, watching this program would be of immense benefit to you.
But you could also change x to get the same result, so the observed frequency isn't a function of M alone but of the gravitational potential GM/x.
The experiment that I suggest is to designed to determine exactly whether the observed frequency of a (stationary to the gravity field) clock is just a function of gravity potential (position of altitude from centre of Earth), or if density of M (gravitational field) will also affect the observed frequency of the clock in any particular fashion, (i.e. increase or decrease the observed frequency).

Your thought experiment seems ambiguous to me. You say the gravitational potential is the same for two points of the same position of altitude from the centre of the earth. That is an aproximation that doesn't take into account local densities. It you add them to the equation, you will find a higher gravity then higher gravitational potential in the denser location. However, the difference is so small that I don't think it you can measure any effect on clocks. But you say that in the denser region clocks will tick faster. What is the reason and what would be the magnitude of the effect?

Your thought experiment seems ambiguous to me.
It is your understanding of the suggested 'actual' (not thought) experiment that is ambiguous.
You say the gravitational potential is the same for two points of the same position of altitude from the centre of the earth.
This is dependant on what you mean by gravity potential...
Gravity potential energy is pe=mgh, where pe stands for potential energy, m is a body of mass in relation to Mearth, g is the strength of the gfield at h, and h 'can' be the height from the centre of the earth.
The gfield of Mearth is not the same thing as the gravity potential of the gfield Earth.
pe=mgh is not the same thing as g(r)=GMearth/r^2.
That is an aproximation that doesn't take into account local densities. It you add them to the equation, you will find a higher gravity then higher gravitational potential in the denser location.
Yes you are correct...
GMearth/r^2 is an approximation. It does not take into account the gravity anomalies found in locations of earth that are at the same altitude from centre of earth, but of differing geological densities.
Taking into account the gravity anomalies of Earth, one will find that the 'g' of g(r)=GMearth/r^2 is differing according to the density of the location.
...And this is exactly what my suggested experiment seeks to measure.
The experiment seeks to place 2 identical atomic clocks in differing locations of the exact same altitude from centre of earth, (to equalise GR altitude time dilation), where these locations share the exact same radius of centripetal motion, (to equalise SR motion related time dilation), but are of known significant difference in geological density.
However, the difference is so small that I don't think it you can measure any effect on clocks.
You are very wrong about this. If a laboratory scale can detect the difference in the weight caused by the anomaly, an atomic clock will be more than able to measure the difference in rate of time this will cause.
But you say that in the denser region clocks will tick faster.
Conventional physics will tell you that the clock in the denser location will run slower. This is why BH's are thought to be being observed as running at very slow, or stopped rates of time.
Although a clock will run faster when it is subject to greater potential energy at greater heights from the centre of gravity, my model predicts that a clock will also run faster if subject to a greater gravitational field, therefore my model predicts that in comparing the 2 clocks under the conditions of the suggested experiment, that the clock in the denser location will run faster.
What is the reason and what would be the magnitude of the effect?
The reason for this is defined by the afore suggested recalculation of the ultraviolet catastrophe under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds and the consequence that because stars of greater temperature are greater in mass value, that time will be running faster for bigger stars than for smaller stars...
In the suggested experiment the magnitude of the effect would be dependent on the anomaly of g.

Henry Cavendish established in 1797, and practically every national laboratory and astronomical observation since then has confirmed, that G is independent of the density of the attracting body.
A BH actually proves that statement incorrect.
The difference between a black hole and regular mass is frequency is not possible in a black hole. The frequency produced in a spherical planet is reduced to the center of a planet if atomic clocks follow frequency. A correlation has been established. Time continues to tick slower to the center of a planet if we extend the observed tests.
That is incorrect. The gravitational potential of a black hole at radius r is the same as for any uncompressed mass of the same value. Assuming that r is outside the surface of the uncompressed mass. Therefore your view of the situation is in error.

Gravity potential energy is pe=mgh, where pe stands for potential energy, m is a body of mass in relation to Mearth, g is the strength of the gfield at h, and h 'can' be the height from the centre of the earth.
Ok, g is the strength of the field at h, but when you use , g is needs to be constant for any height, otherwise you need the g function of h and to integrate the function over h.
Also you can use infinite as a reference point for gravitational potential if the field is not constant.

Your maths text has come out wonky and I can't see what equation you post, but why would this be relevant to a physical experiment?
Under the remit of a change to a greater altitude the equation pe=mgh will incorporate a decrease in value of m, a decrease in value of g, and an increase in value of h, resulting (via the equation pe=mgh) in an increased value of pe.
Under the remit of the suggested experiment and a difference in gravitational field due to density, the equation pe=mgh will incorporate h being held equal for both locations, and in the denser location, an increased value of m, and an increased value of g, resulting in the clock in the denser location (via the equation pe=mgh) having a greater value of pe.
The g of each location can be compared in each location via scale and weight, and therefore the magnitude of the difference in rate of time observed of each clock can be calculated held relative to measurement.

I don't know why you vary m which for calculating gravitational potential it is replaced with 1.
To calculate the gravitational potential at those two points say A and B, I think you can measure the direction and strength of the gravitational field from A and B till a certain height where the difference between them becomes small say 1000km, then extrapolate the g function till infinity. Then integrate the gravitational potential function of h, using the measured g(h).
But, this is for a hypothetical lonely planet with no rotation and no translational motion.
However, you talk about a real experiment and I don't think it is possible to determine the gravitational potential with the precision you want to test your prediction. Also I think the difference in clock rates will be much smaller than the measurement standard deviation.

Alan  you seem to have fallen into the very common trap of believing that you have nothing left to learn.
Henry Cavendish established in 1797, and practically every national laboratory and astronomical observation since then has confirmed, that G is independent of the density of the attracting body.
The program "Gravity and Me: The force that shapes us" is really very informative and entirely disagrees with you on this point.
It takes you on a journey around Britain with a set of laboratory scales and a laboratory weight and quite clearly shows one by how many Newtons that laboratory weight changes due to locational position and conditions.
I have a lot left to learn, but I can recognise the difference between G (the universal gravitational constant) and g (the local acceleration due to gravity). I learned that at the age of 16, and I haven't met any physicists (or geologists, who use the variation in g when prospecting for oil) who didn't know it. Maskeleyne's famous 1774 estimate of the mass of the earth was based on the variation of g around Schiehallion. If the program misled you in that respect, you should complain.
As I have pointed out many times, scientists tend to be very pernickety about language, and even about symbols, and we sometimes make the mistake of thinking that others have as much respect for precise communication.
And by the way you can't measure g with "laboratory scales" for the very reason I mentioned. You need to use a spring balance or an electromagnetic force balance. "Scales" compare the gravitational force gm_{1}: gm_{2} on two lumps of matter, so g cancels out. Terminology matters.

Apropos Dartmoor, or more accurately Bodmin Moor, the engineers working on the A30 improvement scheme umpteen years ago asked for 1000 geological survey points along the proposed route before they would complete the design and fix a price, The first three boreholes hit granite at about 2 m depth so the accountants cancelled the geology contract and insisted on a quote for a design based on granite at 2 m. It turned out that the geologists had hit the only granite boulders in 30 miles of peat bog. Unsurprisingly, the project ran somewhat over time and budget.

As always your diction is entertaining and interesting, but to say so it has nothing to do with placing 2 identical clocks at locations of differing geological density, but of equal height from centre of earth and equal radius of centripetal motion.
The part of the program where they measured the precision laboratory weight with the laboratory sensitive scales revealed that the mass of this weight registered as greater or lesser on the scales as per Newtons under differing gravity potential conditions.
Edit: When they measured Dartmoor because it is closer to the equator, the geological density there compared to a previous measurement on Snowdonia was mentioned as a factor.

Not scales. Never. Scales don't "register newtons": they compare the gravitational force on two masses. Either the program was lying or you have incorrectly renamed a force balance. If the presenter said "scales" he should be taken outside and reeducated. And the precision of the test mass is irrelevant  any lump of nonmagnetic material would do.
But the point is that time depends on the local gravitational field, not the nature of the source of that field. All you have quoted is a demonstration that field depends on mass and distance, and that mass depends on density and volume, so dense rocks produce a stronger field than less dense rocks at a given distance. Nothing new there  it was known to Cavendish, which is why he used gold and lead in his experiments.

Ok  let me rephrase.
A lump of metal of a particular mass was placed upon apparatus.
This was used to demonstrate that the lump of metal registered different values when it was placed on the apparatus at the base of Snowdonia, at the top of Snowdonia, and on Dartmoor closer to the equator.
When they measured Dartmoor, it was remarked upon that because the geological density of Dartmoor is lesser than Snowdonia, that this would be a factor as to the value registered when the lump of metal was placed on the apparatus.
Sticking to conventional physics for this post, if clocks were placed at locations of differing geological density but at the same height from centre of earth, and at same radius of centripetal motion, then as per the remit of conventional physics, the clock in the greater gravity field should run slower.
Under the remit of conventional physics a clock in the greater gravity field will be observed to run slower.

......as predicted and proved by experiment, many times!
We know
g_{y} = g_{max}  w^{2}Rcos^{2}y
where g_{max }is g at the poles, w is the angular velocity of the earth, R the radius of the earth, and y is the latitude.
It is surprising that a shift of only 2 degrees of latitude was distinguishable from the subterranean density effect, but the above equation is sufficiently accurate over small variations in y that it can indeed be used for locating geological anomalies like ore and oil deposits.
Fortunately, national laboratories that maintain time standards are aware of the local value of g and hence can account for the difference between, say, WWV time signals (from Colorado) and MSF (from Cumbria).
Now it seems that your hypothesis is that two clocks operating in the same value of g would run at different rates if their local geology was different. Very spooky. What mechanism do you think tells the clock whether it is sitting over sand, or over granite but under a lead roof, if g is the same in both cases?

Under the remit of conventional physics a clock in the greater gravity field will be observed to run slower.
......as predicted and proved by experiment, many times!
We know
g_{y} = g_{max}  w^{2}Rcos^{2}y
where g_{max }is g at the poles, w is the angular velocity of the earth, R the radius of the earth, and y is the latitude.
It is surprising that a shift of only 2 degrees of latitude was distinguishable from the subterranean density effect, but the above equation is sufficiently accurate over small variations in y that it can indeed be used for locating geological anomalies like ore and oil deposits.
Fortunately, national laboratories that maintain time standards are aware of the local value of g and hence can account for the difference between, say, WWV time signals (from Colorado) and MSF (from Cumbria).
Now it seems that your hypothesis is that two clocks operating in the same value of g would run at different rates if their local geology was different. Very spooky. What mechanism do you think tells the clock whether it is sitting over sand, or over granite but under a lead roof, if g is the same in both cases?
if clocks were placed at locations of differing geological density but at the same height from centre of earth, and at same radius of centripetal motion,
Then g would 'not' be the same for each clock.
A clock will be observed to run faster at a greater altitude  where as per the equation pe=mgh, the difference between the lower clock and the higher clock is that for the higher clock m has decreased in value, g has decreased in value and h has increased in value resulting in an increase in potential energy for the higher clock.
For the 2 clocks of the suggested experiment  placed at locations of equal radius of centripetal motion, (to equalise SR effects) and at equal altitude, but at locations of differing geological density *and therefore at locations of differing g*  the clock in the denser location (compared to the clock in the less dense location) will have an increased m, and an increased g, where h remains the same for both clocks.
Will the clock that is subject to the greater g have a higher value of pe than the clock that is subject to the lesser g?

For the 2 clocks of the suggested experiment  placed at locations of equal radius of centripetal motion, (to equalise SR effects) and at equal altitude, but at locations of differing geological density *and therefore at locations of differing g*  the clock in the denser location (compared to the clock in the less dense location) will have an increased m,
NO NO NO NO NO!
The whole point of the television experiment you quoted, and the entire lives of Galileo, Cavendish, Maskeleyne, Hoyt, Newton, Eotovos, Kater and umpteen others was that the mass of a body does not change with location. Mass and weight are different, which is why we use kilograms for one and newtons for the other. . Scales compare masses; gravimeters, spring balances and suchlike measure weight. Weight = mg.
This is really the most elementary stuff. If you don't understand it, you are wasting your life discussing relativisitic quantum mechanics because you won't understand that either.
All you have said so far is that a clock in a stronger gravitational field will appear to run slow. Everybody agrees with that, because it has been demonstrated.

Excuse my lacking in knowledge of elementary mathematics.
So m stays the same in the equation which really does simplify the matter so...
The clock that is raised in altitude compared to the lower clock will be subject to a decrease in g and an increase in h, where the equation pe=mgh results in a greater value of pe for the higher clock.
On the basis that the above statement is true, is it?
2 identical clocks placed in locations of the same radius of centripetal motion (to equalise SR effects), and at the same altitude from centre of earth so that h is equal for both, but placed in locations of significant differing geological density  the clock in the denser location compared to the clock in the less dense location will have an increased g, where the equation pe=mgh will result in a greater value of pe for the clock in the denser location.
The clock in the greater gravity field will have more potential energy than the clock in the lesser gravity field.
Agreed?

The gravitational acceleration g can vary across the globe [1,2] within approx. 120mGal which is .
I understand that the chart represents the deviation from standard smooth value. For example at the equator it would be a deviation from 9.78 m/s^2
Therefore we can have at one place a1=9.80006 and at another 9.79994.
If we want to see the time dilation due to gravity at a1 and a2 we can use
If we make the notation k as a dilation factor to mean T=T0 • k
For a1 we get k1=1.000 000 000 694 715
and for a2, k2=1.000 000 000 694 707
That is 8 seconds difference in
That mean we need to be able to measure a time rate difference of 1 second over approx. 4 milion years.
Atomic clocks lose only 1 sec over 15 billion years, therefore I think you are right, we can measure the necessary time rate difference between the two locations.
https://astarmathsandphysics.com/alevelphysicsnotes/173forcesandmotion/2811variationoftheaccelerationduetogravityoverthesurfaceoftheearth.html [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth [2]

Nilak  the difference between what is observed of a clock in the gfield concerning a comparison of an elevation of just one metre has already been measured.
The only factor that is negating such an experiment that I suggest is that so far laboratory precision atomic clocks are not portable and have so far only tested the parameters of altitude and relative motion within the lab.
Here is some great discussion on this chat site, where despite the fact that some of the posters, (who are all working in the area of some type of scientific research because that is part of the prerequisite necessary to be a member of this site), are making mistakes concerning potential energy being a contributor to mass value, and other such gaffs, people seem not to be problematic about expressing the understanding that conventional physics has not got all the answers and don't seem to have a problem in exploring the fact.
If I were able to join this site (which I'm not as I cannot prove that my job incorporates research), I would add to the discussion that a cesium atomic clock will be observed to have a higher frequency of electron transitions on top of the mountain as compared to the valley, and that in most areas of physics, a higher frequency is accompanied with a higher energy.
The conversation is interesting to me in that here we can see people who are professional or semi professionals, who have jobs at universities, who are making mistakes despite their obvious status of 'university education', all engaging in the premiss of an exploratory conversation without a hint of any derision being attributed to the OP, or to the mistakes made by some of the replies. Or perhaps the mistakes I spot went unoticed by people replying because they were concentrating on the premiss of the question rather than searching for any means possible to be obtuse to the content and deride the OP, or any of the replies.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_does_mgh_potential_energy_reside_exactly

Excuse my lacking in knowledge of elementary mathematics.
Nothing to do with maths. Physics.
The clock in the greater gravity field will have more potential energy than the clock in the lesser gravity field.
Agreed?
Beware of imprecise or elliptical statements. The clock subject to the higher value of g will appear to run slower. Predicted and demonstrated fact.

Not being sure if mg=weight, or if m is incorporating the weight within the value of itself in the mgh is merely an non understanding of the construct of the math, nothing to do with physics which for me is all about shapes and curves and patterns which are indeed maths but aren't expressed in mathematical format.
*
But in the instance of the conditions of position that my experiment suggests, the clock in the denser location 'will' have a greater value of pe won't it?
If you can answer that question we might be able to discuss some unconventional physics, which is indeed my purpose here Alan, to explain to you my New Theory, right?
And given that you are engaging with me here, this is to the purpose of understanding what this New Theory incorporates, right?
Or do you have some other reason for posting in response to the proposition of a new idea?
Because if you aren't going to actually 'hear' the new idea, engage with the premiss of it, and explore the parameters, then what is it that you are doing?

Once again: mass is an inherent and fixed property of a body. Weight is the gravitational force on that body in trhe presence of another, and varies with gravitational field.
Potential energy is measured with reference to some point. In the case of gravitational potential energy it is relative to the point on the earth's surface a distance h immediately below the starting point. Now you have postulated two starting points a, b with different local values g_{b}<g_{b} because there is a lump of something dense at b.
Now move your test mass from b to a. There being an attractor at b, you have to do some work to move it away, so the potential energy at a must be greater than at b.
You can see how important it is to recognise the sign convention that gravitational potential is zero in deep space and negative close to an attractor.

Potential energy is measured with reference to some point. In the case of gravitational potential energy it is relative to the point on the earth's surface a distance h immediately below the starting point. Now you have postulated two starting points a, b with different local values gb<gbbecause there is a lump of something dense at b.
Now move your test mass from b to a. There being an attractor at b, you have to do some work to move it away, so the potential energy at a must be greater than at b.
I have read umpteen physics books and have just finished reading John D Barrow's book on Theories of Everything, again...
Do not confuse my nonunderstanding of mathematical format with a lack of understanding of conventional physics.
The experiment that I suggest is not moving anything anywhere.
The clocks are placed at 2 differing locations and measured relative to each other. The radius of centripetal motion is the same for both clocks. This ensures that the SR time dilation effects of centripetal motion are equal for both clocks. It also ensures that sea level is the same distance from centre of earth.
Sea level is now the point that h will be measured from.
One clock is located at a dense location and the other is located at a significantly less dense location, where both locations are the same h from sea level.
pe=mgh, where g can be measured at both locations, and the clock in the denser location where the measure of g is greater will have a greater value of pe.
If we raised both clocks at their locations by a metre, they will both be observed to run faster, i.e. have a greater frequency of electron transitions, where both clocks will have an increased value of pe.
If we place clocks at each of the locations a metre below the original h, the clocks will be observed to run slower, i.e. have a lesser frequency of electron transitions, where both clocks will have a decreased value of pe.
Conventional physics states that potential energy is not the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions observed of the clock...
My theory of time explores the notion that potential energy is indeed the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions.
If my theory is correct then at these 2 locations each clock will be observed to have a higher frequency when raised a metre above its original location, and will be observed to have a lower frequency when placed a metre below its original location, as per GR predictions and experimental evidence, but the clock in the denser location will always be running faster than the clock in the less dense location when placed at the same h's.
In this manner no transgressions are made from the predictions of GR, but the 'interpretation' that bigger M's are running slower time than smaller M's, that is born of the observed fact of a clock running slower nearer to M is wrong.
If my theory is wrong then the clock at the denser location will run slower.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and one that I'm quite sure that you cannot possibly misunderstand...
(and as the ReasearchGate chat forum illustrates in its thread 'Where does mgh potential energy reside", I am far from being the first person in the world to consider that it resides and reacts within the mass)
Would you now like to engage in a discussion concerning the far reaching ramifications  that are inclusive of a physical cause for the wave function, a physical cause for gravitational acceleration/deceleration, a physical cause for Big Bang, a physical cause for Inflation period, the standard model being unified with gravity, and the negation of the necessity for Dark Matter and Dark Energy  of my theory being correct?

I did actually note a serious challenge to the premiss of my theory that Pete posted on Mikes thread involving the Shapiro delay...
I'm going to have to wait until I have access to a computer to investigate the exact parameters of this type of observation because I cannot view pdf's on my phone.

Actually this Shapiro delay doesn't pose a problem for my theory atall.
According to my theory all motions in space are subject to being accelerated or decelerated by my model's addition of a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon that is caused by gravitational field energy where m=0. i.e 'open space'.
The radar beam between source Earth and target Venus will travel a curve of time that gets slower as it leaves the Earth and faster as it reaches Venus, but because the parameters are the exact opposite of the curve of time that gets faster as it leaves Earth and slower as it reaches Venus, what we are looking at is the same arc of curve, but for differing reasons.
Introduce the Sun onto the stage and we have an attractive body in the vicinity just off centre between source and target that causes the radar beam to bend...
In my model this bending of the radar beam is caused by time speeding up in the gravitational field of the Sun, which would lead one to think that the radar beam would take less time to complete the round trip than it would without the Sun being in the vicinity just off centre between source and target... it certainly had me thinking such until I thought it through properly...
However, the distance involved in the bend caused by the gravitational field of the Sun will add to the distance that the radar beam travels, as compared to the distance without the Sun in the vicinity, and the extra time it takes for the radar beam to travel the extra distance of this bend caused by the Sun and return to source will be the cause of the observed time delay.
Same arc of curves, same value of time delay, but a mirror image causation... where the maths and values that describe conventional physics can also describe my alternative theory if they are rearranged in their configuration,
Challenge to my theory negated!

Conventional physics states that potential energy is not the cause of the higher or lesser frequency of electron transitions observed of the clock...
"Conventional" physics states that time runs slower at a lower gravitational potential, because that is what we observe. It doesn't matter how you obtain that lower potential, whether by moving closer to the attractor or increasing its mass, g = GM/r^2 is the defining parameter. What's the problem?

The radar beam between source Earth and target Venus will travel a curve of time that gets slower as it leaves the Earth and faster as it reaches Venus, but because the parameters are the exact opposite of the curve of time that gets faster as it leaves Earth and slower as it reaches Venus, what we are looking at is the same arc of curve, but for differing reasons.
So your radar beam does not behave the same as everyone else's? How does it know it's yours?
Even if the starting and finishing points were the same, the curves would be of different shape.

And whilst I'm on my high horse, all clocks behave the same whether they involve the potential energy of electrons (and I can't think of a clock that does) or the escapement wheel of a wristwatch. Except of course for pendulum clocks which depend on the local value of g.

So your radar beam does not behave the same as everyone else's? How does it know it's yours?
Even if the starting and finishing points were the same, the curves would be of different shape.
What on Earth are you on about?
If a straight line trajectory from (a) to (b) takes 2 minutes to travel at a constant speed as measured by a clock in the lab, and we then introduce the fact that there are time variants in the space inbetween (a) and (b) that get steadily more extreme from (a) up to midway point, and then get less extreme from midway point to (b)...
1) It wouldn't be of any consequence to the time of 2 minutes that it had taken to travel between (a) and (b) as measured by the lab clock.
2) It would make no difference to the time measurement of 2 minutes that the lab has made if the time variant was faster or slower at the midway point, so long as the rate of time was faster or slower to the same value in the positive or the negative held relative to the lab clock.
3) Although the trajectory travelled between (a) and (b) is a straight line, if the lab were to create a data graph of the time variants between (a) and (b) held relative to the length of a second as measured by the lab clock, the data curve of the changes in rate of time would constitute the same value of curve be they describing either a faster or slower rate of time at the midway point, so long as the rate of time was faster or slower to the same value in the positive or the negative held relative to the lab clock.
Now introduce point (c) that is placed off centre in between (a) and (b).
1) Point (c) is an attractive body...
Due to the influence of this attractive body (c) the trajectory of the path travelled from (a) to (b) is no longer a straight line. It becomes bent towards (c) and constitutes (with regards to Shapiro delay) a special case of gravitational lensing.
2) Again, It would make no difference to the time measurement the lab has made of more than 2 minutes, that is caused by this curved trajectory if the time variant was considered as faster or slower in the vicinity of (c), so long as the rate of time was faster or slower to the same value in the positive or the negative held relative to the lab clock.
Therefore the Shapiro delay observation does not pose a problem for my theory.
"Conventional" physics states that time runs slower at a lower gravitational potential, because that is what we observe. It doesn't matter how you obtain that lower potential, whether by moving closer to the attractor or increasing its mass, g = GM/r^2 is the defining parameter. What's the problem?
Physics does observe that a clock runs slower at a lower gravity potential, but I observe that physics does not describe 'why'.
I don't have a problem Alan, but I've read that convention physics does have problems in describing some pretty crucial stuff.
Under the remit of my theory this 'pretty crucial stuff', that conventional physics has problems describing, can be described as cause and effect mechanics.
I quite clearly outlined how a clock can be observed to run slower in the lower gravity potential, faster in the higher gravity potential, and 'also' run faster in the greater gravity field.
What's your problem?
all clocks behave the same whether they involve the potential energy of electrons (and I can't think of a clock that does) or the escapement wheel of a wristwatch. Except of course for pendulum clocks which depend on the local value of g.
Actually the fact is that clocks that are basing their time measurement on the frequency of electron transitions are observed not to behave the same in differing gravity potentials...
The experiment that I suggest would determine whether or not potential energy is the cause of the energy changes that are usually required to initiate frequency changes.
And whilst I'm on my high horse
Have you ever considered getting a smaller horse?

We ignorant earthlings use electromagnetic radiation for RAdio Detection And Ranging, in the naive belief that its propagation speed in vacuo is constant.
Anyway, if it wasn't, it is clear that the radius of the path of any projectile passing an attractor, increases with the speed of the projectile, which is why bullets travel further than cricket balls. So if your supposed radar beam speeded up as it left earth for venus, it would describe a quite different banana path from one that slowed down.
Actually the fact is that clocks that are basing their time measurement on the frequency of electron transitions are observed not to behave the same in differing gravity potentials...
A reference would be most helpful.

We ignorant earthlings use electromagnetic radiation for RAdio Detection And Ranging, in the naive belief that its propagation speed in vacuo is constant.
If a straight line trajectory from (a) to (b) takes 2 minutes to travel at a constant speed as measured by the lab clock.
I guess that I too am an earthling, how strange that you should miss the fact.
Anyway, if it wasn't, it is clear that the radius of the path of any projectile passing an attractor, increases with the speed of the projectile, which is why bullets travel further than cricket balls.
As said, this earthling keeps the speed constant held relative to the lab clock, as this is how experiments are measured.
So if your supposed radar beam speeded up as it left earth for venus, it would describe a quite different banana path from one that slowed down.
This earthling's supposed radar beam, at the speed of c held relative to the lab clock, travels into slower time (not faster) on it's way to Venus, where it reaches the point that it starts being subject to Venus's gravity field where it then travels into faster time to bounce off Venus and make the return trip to Earth. (where my model concludes that conventional physics relies on the use of SR to describe this effect)
Yes you are correct that the data curves would differ from each other... One would be the exact inverse of the other where the changes of the rate of time in relation to distance travelled of either description are held relative to the lab clock, and both descriptions will result in the same physical observation.
With respect to the fact that clocks that are basing their time measurement on the frequency of electron transitions are observed not to behave the same in differing gravity potentials...
A reference would be most helpful.
See NIST relativity tests, where clocks are observed to have a higher frequency of electron transitions at 1 metre altitude as observed from the lower potential, and the maths that state that the clock in the lower potential will have a lower frequency of electron transition as observed from the higher potential.

NIST established that clocks at altitude appear to run faster than those on the ground, as expected. They all behave the same way, regardless of the mechanism of their timekeeping. Your previous statement was ambiguous.

It is in fact relevant to the discussion that all clocks behave the same way regardless of their time keeping mechanism.
All clock mechanics operate on a frequency based system...
You can place different types of clocks at same height, and each different mechanism will be operating at a differing frequency, but the time keeping each clock is observed of will be the same.
When the clocks are raised into the higher potential they all are observed, from the lower potential, to have higher frequency. The differences in each clocks frequency between different mechanisms of time keeping at the lower potential will all remain proportional to each other when the clocks are raised into the higher potential.
This must be a truth because otherwise the clocks would not be considered adequate time keepers.
If an increase in potential energy were the cause of the increase in frequency observed of elevated clocks from the lower potential, then this can be described for any type of clock as pe=mgh where pe/m= an equal increase of pe for any value m.

But the frequency of photons is also observed to increase with gravitational potential, by exactly the same amount, even though m = 0. So it's nothing to do with the mass of the clock or any part thereof.
The nice thing about GR is that is is based on one assumption only  the constancy of c  and predicts the observed blue shift and gravitational lensing to an exceptional degree of accuracy. So why invoke any other mechanism?

But the frequency of photons is also observed to increase with gravitational potential, by exactly the same amount, even though m = 0.
A photon emitted at h sea level will be measured at 1 metre elevation as having decreased in frequency.
A photon emitted at 1 metre h from sea level will be measured at sea level as having increased in frequency.
A clock (of any type sensitive enough to measure) placed at sea level will be observed from 1 metre h from sea level to have a lower frequency.
A clock (of any type sensitive enough to measure) placed at 1 metre h from sea level will be observed from sea level to have a higher frequency.
It would seem to me that there is a marked difference in how the frequency of light increases in the gravity potential...
This difference being that a clock has a higher frequency in the higher gravity potential, and that light emitted in the lower potential will have a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
So it's nothing to do with the mass of the clock or any part thereof.
That light has no mass constituting a g(r)=GMearth/r^2 equation, and the clock has mass constituting a mgh=pe/m=an equal addition of pe for any mass value, would suggest that the differences in how the frequency of a clock (any type) and how frequency of light are affected by gravity, as I illustrated above can be physically described as the difference between gravity potential energy and gravitational field energy.
The nice thing about GR is that is is based on one assumption only  the constancy of c  and predicts the observed blue shift and gravitational lensing to an exceptional degree of accuracy.
I agree that GR is great, where the fact is that the maths for GR can describe my contracting model...
My model also holds that c is a constant, and for an observer at any gravity potential anywhere on the universe c will always be 299 792 456 m/s^2, and as gravitational field time where m=0 changes from one potential to another, this will be descriptive of red shift and blueshift as per the values of the gravitational shift equation.
The inverted time curve (as described for Shapiro delay a few posts back) will also apply for gravitational lensing observations, where the inverse time curve will describe the observation of the light being curved towards the attracting body.
So why invoke any other mechanism?
In order to attribute physical cause and effect mechanics to the acceleration of gravity, give physical cause for the wave function of the point particle, unite the standard model with gravity, describe a continuum negating quantum, give physical cause and effect mechanics to the Big Bang and Inflation theory and provide physics with a unifying theory of everything.
That's why...

A photon emitted at h sea level will be measured at 1 metre elevation as having decreased in frequency.
A photon emitted at 1 metre h from sea level will be measured at sea level as having increased in frequency.
A clock (of any type sensitive enough to measure) placed at sea level will be observed from 1 metre h from sea level to have a lower frequency.
A clock (of any type sensitive enough to measure) placed at 1 metre h from sea level will be observed from sea level to have a higher frequency.
It would seem to me that there is a marked difference in how the frequency of light increases in the gravity potential...
This difference being that a clock has a higher frequency in the higher gravity potential, and that light emitted in the lower potential will have a lower frequency in the higher gravity potential.
You must amaze yourself sometimes! You say A>B in both cases, so the mechanism must be different because the result is the same. Your future is in politics, not physics.
I admire your concluding chutzpah! Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition needs a new leader who can solve everything with a stroke of the pen. Go for it!

You say A>B in both cases,
I don't know what you mean when you say A>B.
If physics says that time runs slower nearer M then it doesn't matter where the observer is located or what he observes because the maths are telling us that the clock runs slower nearer M, where a decrease in the frequency of the clock is indicative of a slower rate of time...
So a clock at 1 metre above sea level compared to a clock at sea level will have a HIGHER FREQUENCY.
If one records the frequency of a photon emitted at sea level and then records the frequency of that photon when it has reached 1 metre above sea level for comparison purposes, (which again is unnecessary as the maths are descriptive), that photon at 1 metre above sea level will have a LOWER FREQUENCY.
The clock will have a HIGHER FREQUENCY at 1 metre above sea level compared to the clock at sea level.
The photon will have a LOWER FREQUENCY at 1 metre above sea level compared to the frequency it had when emitted at sea level.
That is an observed FACT of physics.
so the mechanism must be different because the result is the same.
The result is not the same.
The result shows a clear difference in how the frequency of emitted light and the frequency of a clock behave in the gravity field.
But the mechanism I propose is the same...
It is a FACT of physics that frequency is proportional to energy.
So in looking at what energy 'may be' causing frequency to change:
mgh=pe
and where m=0:
gh=gravitational field energy.
I am simply adding a new suggestion, this being that the phenomenon of time is physically caused by energy, thus adding a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon  where the decrease in gravitational field energy is indicative of slower rates of time for anywhere where m=0, and that where mgh=pe and pe/m (so any value m will increase or decrease pe equally), m in the gravitational field will be running at a faster rate of time than the field itself where these rates of time occur independently from each other and simultaneously to each other, where the variable gravitational field energy time causes the acceleration or deceleration of m's motions in the gravitational field.
That is not politics.
That is a perfectly simple and tangible mechanism that gives physical cause to the phenomenon of time and to the acceleration of gravity.
I understand that this is not conventional physics, but it is a FACT that conventional physics is perfectly well aware that it does not have a fully formulated Theory of Time.
This Theory of Time results in fully described cause and effect mechanics for a cyclic universe that does not require Dark Energy, Dark Matter, or anything that is not already observed...
All it requires is that one calculate from the viewpoint that +energy=shorter seconds, i.e. a faster rate of time, where different rates of time can occur independently of each other. and simultaneously to each other.*
(*the FACT that different rates of time can occur independently of each other and simultaneously to each other is clearly illustrated by the relativity mobile phone app)
It's not 'hard' Alan...
It's a very simple concept that is highly calculable via GR mathematics. (for someone versed in mathematics).
The experiment that I suggest would serve to prove or disprove this Theory.

Although your analogy with the photon that gets a higher frequency at a lower level, works with my hypothesis except, I get a higher wavelength, but also a higher frequency (because fermions don't travel at constant c, but v varies) for fermions only, I it ( the analogy)doesn't work with standard physics because if the atoms of a clock go lower they gain speed but when the clock stops at that lower level that kinetic energy is lost. My hypothesis says that the electrons kinetic energy will be retained although the atom itself stops.

Although your analogy with the photon that gets a higher frequency at a lower level, works with my hypothesis except, I get a higher wavelength, but also a higher frequency
I have not made an 'analogy'.
It is a physical fact that light, be it redshifted or blue shifted, has a higher frequency the closer it is to M.
It is a physical fact that the clock has a higher frequency the further away it is from M.
As to your theory, I'm sorry to say, but it is my understanding that a value of frequency is always 'inversely' proportional to wavelength.

Although your analogy with the photon that gets a higher frequency at a lower level, works with my hypothesis except, I get a higher wavelength, but also a higher frequency
I have not made an 'analogy'.
It is a physical fact that light, be it redshifted or blue shifted, has a higher frequency the closer it is to M.
It is a physical fact that the clock has a higher frequency the further away it is from M.
As to your theory, I'm sorry to say, but it is my understanding that a value of frequency is always 'inversely' proportional to wavelength.
I said it is an analogy because if light blueshifts as it goes lower into the gravity well, I thought you said that a clock should do that as well, but I've seen now you have a different hypothesis. As for the frequency vs. wavelength, the general formula is f=v/λ. If v increases and the wavelength increases the result can be either a constant frequency, a decrease or an increase in frequency. For light v=c=constant therefore the frequency is always inversely proportional to the wavelength. Why would lambda increase with velocity? Just look at an OAM light beam and it just does that. It is a fact.

Sorry, Timey, you are spouting absolute nonsense. We've been around this block before and I thought you understood the experimental results. Apparently not. I'm out.

Sorry, Timey, you are spouting absolute nonsense. We've been around this block before and I thought you understood the experimental results. Apparently not. I'm out.
Sorry, Timey, you are spouting absolute nonsense. We've been around this block before and I thought you understood the experimental results. Apparently not. I'm out.
It is a physical fact that light, be it redshifted or blue shifted, has a higher frequency the closer it is to M.
It is a physical fact that the clock has a higher frequency the further away it is from M.
That 'is' the experimental and predicted results.
You, as a physicist cannot state otherwise because you will be incorrect.
As to my contracting model and my model's interpretation of observations and the experimentally verified results, a contracting model will not interpret observation in the same way as an expanding model.
What seems to be the problem here Alan is your inability to consider a model that isn't exactly the same as the current model, and this, considering the board title "New Theories" is what 'is' nonsensical.

mgh=pe
and where m=0:
gh=gravitational field energy.
Again, if m=0 then pe=0 in that equality. Or I'm just missing somethig?
gh is not energy but gravitational potential (because gravitational potential is per unit (1) mass) , unless there is a special case where m=1kg.
I am simply adding a new suggestion, this being that the phenomenon of time is physically caused by energy
I agree with you here. That is because it is also the conclusion following my hypothesis.
You say that if the potential energy of the clock gets lower its frequency goes down. If your clock has a Ep potential energy at h1 and it free falls till h0 it will loose(Epl is the amount lost) part of Ep which goes into kinetic energy now Ek.
E0=Ep=EpEpl+Ek
Epl=Ek
But at h0 the clock is held in place (by a net for example) and we measure its energy again. Now its kinetic energy is absorbed by the net and the new energy becomes E1=EpEpl therefore E1<E0.
Well, my hypothesis is exactly the opposite. I don't consider the Ep as intrinsic to the clocks energy but only as a energy gain possibility (potential) only if the clocks falls down but the clock doesn't have that energy yet. The clock falls and gains energy then its Ek is absorbed by the net. Therefore no kinetic energy change in the process and the clock should hold its frequency. However, my hypothesis says that although the atom stops, the kinetic energy increase (because even if the atom was initially at rest its electons were in motion) of electrons around the atom is retained. Futthermore as a comparison to your model, my hypothesis says a fermions at a higher velocity has a higher frequency but also a higher wavelength and the wavelength is responsible for the clock's frequency decrease. (I'm sorry I'm probably exaggerating with my model).

mgh=pe
and where m=0:
gh=gravitational field energy.
Again, if m=0 then pe=0 in that equality. Or I'm just missing somethig?
gh is not energy but gravitational potential (because gravitational potential is per unit (1) mass) , unless there is a special case where m=1kg.
Look Nilak, I am not versed in maths...
By saying gh=gravitational field energy what I am looking to describe is more conventionally termed (I think) as g(r)= GMearth/r^2.
I am trying to attribute the gravitational field itself with energy where the energy is greater at closer radius to M.

I am trying to attribute the gravitational field itself with energy where the energy is greater at closer radius to M.
You have it backwards. Dilation increases to the center of mass. The energy expands to become less dense. It is the density of energy affecting the clock in GR. The density of energy decreases as the mass increases. At the speed of light attraction in a very large sun the expansion is so great particles can no longer remain apart and a BH is formed. The mass of our sun would occupy about 1.7 miles in diameter.

https://socratic.org/questions/explainhowforceenergyandworkarerelated1
: Socreatic.org
When a force acts on an object as the object travels some distance, the work done on the object is equal to the force times the distance. And when work is done on an object, its energyincreases by an amount equal to the work.
Therefore it stands to reason that as an objects energy increases by the work done by the force, that the force has an energy that it imparts to the object.
A gravitational field has more force nearer M than it does further away.

It is a physical fact that light, be it redshifted or blue shifted, has a higher frequency the closer it is to M.
It is a physical fact that the clock has a higher frequency the further away it is from M.
For the last time, ever, light is observed to be blue shifted when seen from a lower gravitational potential than its source. Clocks are seen to run faster when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the signal source. Same phenomenon, same process.
Imagine a clock that generated a time signal by electrons moving between energy levels with a small energy difference. That would produce an electromagnetic (radiofrequency) wave whose frequency defined time. Now imagine an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons moving between levels with a much larger energy difference  light. At what photon energy do you think the mechanism of blue shift suddenly reverses, and why?
Or let's make it really simple. A mechanical clock operates a shutter that allows blue light to pass for 0.1 seconds every second. We observe it from a lower gravitational potential. Are you saying that the clock appears to run faster but the light gets redder? You know that isn't the case.

For the last time, ever, light is observed to be blue shifted when seen from a lower gravitational potential than its source. Clocks are seen to run faster when observed from a lower gravitational potential than the signal source. Same phenomenon, same process.
Yes  same phenomenon, yes same process...
But the frequency of 'already emitted' light shifts to a LOWER frequency in the HIGHER potential, and the clock shifts to a HIGHER frequency in the HIGHER potential.
The maths specify this as being such, and why these phenomenon are viewed as they are in or from a location in the gravity potential is blatantly obvious.
Imagine a clock that generated a time signal by electrons moving between energy levels with a small energy difference. That would produce an electromagnetic (radiofrequency) wave whose frequency defined time
The length of a second is already defined, so the frequency of the electromagnetic wave caused by electrons moving between energy levels would have to be synonymous to the length of an already defined second.
The frequency of the electron transitions between 2 certain ground states of the caesium atom was chosen because it is synonymous with the length of the 'already defined by history' length of second and keeps time to the tune of this length of second much better than any predecessor of time keeping did.
The quantum clock now keeps time 37 times better than the caesium atomic clock. It operates at a frequency 100,000 times higher than the frequencies used in NISTF1 and other similar time standards around the world.
All this means is that there are a lot more wave cycles within the time period length of a second than the atomic clock counterpart's frequency has. Therefore a second can be more precisely broken down into fractions of a second and makes for a more precise measurement.
It does not mean that the length of a second has been altered.
Now imagine an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons moving between levels with a much larger energy difference  light. At what photon energy do you think the mechanism of blue shift suddenly reverses, and why?
I don't think that the mechanism of blue shift reverses and have never said that.
The caesium atom 'emits' photons. Blue shifting occurs for 'already emitted' photons.
Are you suggesting that the caesium atom is 'emitting' higher frequency photons in the higher gravity potential?
Observing from the lower potential the emitted photon can 'only' be viewed when it reaches the lower potential, and we know that the photon will have been blueshifted as it travelled from the higher potential to the lower potential...

I don't know why I bother. Pehaps I care.
Gravitational redshifts and clock variations depend only on the relative positions of the source and observer, and they behave in exactly the same way.
There is no point in your trying to explain a phenomenon that does not occur.

I think Timey wants to say that if we have a clock that has 1 Hz at the ground level and emmits a blue light and then we place it much higher, its frequency will increase at say 2Hz. The observer will also see it flashing at 2Hz (or perhaps will see it higher) and expects the blue laser to emmit a higher frequency wavelength (say violet) than it was on the ground because time runs faster. Furthermore, as the light travels down to the observer if the light was violet it gets even more blueshifted to say UV.
However, I'm not sure you can do that in relativity. You simply observe the light frequency and the clock frequency and assume that is how time runs there relative to you.

The problem is you cannot directly compare here with somewhere else. There has to be some sort of transformation involved. In the case of special relativity it is the Lorentz transformation. People who don't understand the mathematics of relativity can adopt erroneous notions.

I don't know why I bother. Pehaps I care.
Gravitational redshifts and clock variations depend only on the relative positions of the source and observer, and they behave in exactly the same way.
There is no point in your trying to explain a phenomenon that does not occur.
It is a prediction of General Relativity that a clock will run faster at elevation than it does at a lower elevation and that one's position in the gravitational field affects what one observes of the clock in the differing gravity potential.
(What have I said here that is not correct?)
Already emitted light will blueshift towards the gravitational field M and redshift away from the gravitational field M as per the diagram in this wiki link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Yes  the observation of what one observes of redshifted or blue shifted light depends on the observers position in the gravity field, but the maths describe that the light is shifting whether anyone is observing or not.
(What have I said here that is not correct?)
I know that what I am saying is correct.
What I wish to discuss within these experimentally verified physical facts is that the frequency source (an atom, i.e. not m=0) that comprises the mechanism of the clock  a clock that is observed to run faster from the lower potential, or observed to run slower from the higher potential  this frequency source of the clock has a frequency that gets 'higher' in the higher potential...
... but light emitted in the lower potential will be observed to have a 'lower' frequency when it arrives 'in' the higher potential.
If one draws a graph of the maths of the frequency increases of the clock as it is placed in higher potentials (a perfectly reasonable thing to do because physics has basis within its maths of time running slower nearer to M), and then compares this to the graph of gravitationally shifted light in the gravity field as provided in the Wiki link, it is clearly obvious that while already emitted light will shift to a 'lower' frequency in the higher gravity potential, that a clock will shift to a 'higher' frequency in the higher gravity potential.
It is this difference in the shifting of frequency between what occurs for a clock and what occurs for already emitted light that I wish to discuss with a view to using an alternative interpretation of the observation and an alternative means of calculation to describe the observation... Where modified mathematics is a common occurrence in physics.
MOND uses a modified calculation to describe galaxies.
The observation of the Galaxy remains the same but the maths describing the observation are differing from Newton's interpretation of the laws of motion and are attempting to describe Galaxy rotation without Dark Matter halo's.
My modifications of 'interpretation' are attempting to give physical cause to gravitational acceleration and this alternative interpretation 'can' be described mathematically (by someone versed in maths)
Gravitational acceleration is a known physical phenomenon with no known physical cause.

Yes, there are several equations that give the correct answer. It just happens that the photon shift is more intuitively modelled by having the photon travel from source to observer, and the clock shift is more intuitively modelled by moving the clock away from the observer. However if you had a clock running in space and moved it closer to the earth, an earthbound observer would see it slow down, and if you moved your P&R mossbauer source closer to the earth, the blue shift would decrease. Now you will model both observations with the same GR equation because they are the same observation of the same phenomenon.
The best equation is the one that most accurately describes and predicts the observation.

Clearly...
But GR doesn't provide a description of physical cause for gravitational acceleration, nor does GR provide a description of physical cause for a clock ticking at a differing rate, nor does GR provide a description of physical cause for light shifting in the gravitational field, and GR is incompatable with a quantum description of light.
Therefore  I would like to discuss an alternative interpretation of the observation of the fact that, as per the graphs* show, a clock increases in frequency in the higher potential, and light emitted in the lower potential decreases in frequency in the higher potential.
(*where you may place observers at any location of gravity potential on that graph and work out what they observe if each other if you like, but this won't make an iota of difference to fact that the clock increases in frequency in the higher potential, and that light emitted in the lower potential decreases in frequency in the higher potential.)
Any chance we could have that discussion please?

As you persistently misquote the experimental result, there is little point in discussing it.

Is there anyone else out there that can actually recognise that if one draws a graph of gravitationally shifted light that this shows that the frequency of light (any frequency) is shifted to a higher frequency direction towards M, and a lower frequency direction away from M?
Is there anyone else out there that can recognise that if one draws a graph of gravitationally shifted atomic clocks, that the frequencies of the elevated clocks, held relative to the ground clock, will be increased at each elevation, and that this is why physics states that time gets slower nearer to mass?
Honestly Alan I'm despairing of you now!

Anyone could, but no physicist would. We are far too pedantic and bound to the truth. You might get someone to state that
"When observed from a given point, electromagnetic waves and time pulses emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear to have a higher frequency than those generated by the same process locally. When observed from the same gravitational potential as the source, there is no difference, regardless of the mechanism of the source or the reference, or the gravitational potential at that point. Therefore time is affected by gravitational potential. A mathematical model based on this hypothesis has predicted every experimental result to date."
Anything less would have omitted important and relevant facts and conditions.

Yes, I thought that's how it worked according to relativity, and I even incorporated into my model, but I've recently realised (reading Alan's posts) that relativity says something a little easier but different, and therefore my hypothesis is probably incorrect.
If I got this right, you say that if a clock goes up against a gravitational field it's frequency increases. My model shows that if a massive particle does that it's wavelength decreases an I thought that should be a relationship between the clock rate and that wavelength. But this assumption is apparently not needed as the wavelength always depends on its velocity (therefor KE). Anyway the wavelength changes when travelling from higher to lower. In free fall the wavelength gets lower as the particle gains speed but when it stops at a lower level the wavelength goes probably back to where it was.
Your hypothesis is different. You say that energy level is responsible for the tickrate. When moving along the gravitational field, PE varies but KE gets back to zero when stopping at the height you want to do the measurement. That could mean something, but my opinion is PE is not intrinsic of the clock, that is why it is called potential, the clock doesn't have it yet.

The queasy now is, if your clock rate gets higher as it climbs against the gravitational field, and the frequency of light gets lower then the two effects combine and alter the final result, which doesn't seem to happen. The redshift alone slows the frequency of the pulses that come from the clock below, that is because gravity redshifts light but also reduces any pulses of light sent from below. The clock below sends pulses at the same rate but they get rarer as they climb up. If you think the clock that is lower ticks slower then it would further slow down the frequency of pulses.
According to relativity It sounds as if the two clocks remain at the same rate, but the observers see different rates.

Again, postulating the unobservable and confusing source and observer position. The whole point of the experiment and all the arguments that derive from it is that the apparent frequency of any source depends on the relative gravitational potential of the source and observer, and the behavior is exactly the same whether you are looking at the energy of a photon or the rate of reproduction of rabbits. Once you understand that, there is no anomaly.
Explaining how it happens is indeed a whole 'nother thing  indeed a Noether thing  but it's a lot easier to explain one actual phenomenon than two imaginary ones!

When moving along the gravitational field, PE varies but KE gets back to zero when stopping at the height you want to do the measurement. That could mean something, but my opinion is PE is not intrinsic of the clock, that is why it is called potential, the clock doesn't have it yet.
Ok look Nilak  for the purpose of illustration let's look at a damn that is producing electricity.
A body of water is held at a higher gravity potential and within that water held at the higher potential there is the potential to produce x amount of electricity by converting potential energy into kinetic energy.
Energy is always conserved, so where in this scenario does the potential energy reside?

Anyone could, but no physicist would. We are far too pedantic and bound to the truth.
There is a graph on the gravitational shifted light wiki link that shows that light gravitationally shifts in the gravity field.
The rate of time for a BH is thought to run slower than on Earth because it is a bigger mass and although an observer at the BH would not consider his clock to be running slow, he will AGE slower than a person on Earth.
Physicists describing near Earth time dilations concerning depth to centre of Earth and radial centripetal motion differences of longitude use a mathematical system to determine that a clock runs faster at a higher gravity potential radius, but also runs slower due to centripetal motion at that radius, and that in the case of the extra depth due to equatorial bulge, 1 cancels the other so that clocks run at the same rates at sea level of any longitude, despite the extra 23 or so kilometres depth at equator.
The same mathematical system can be drawn as a graph, where the line of curve from sea level for the GR altitude effects will resemble the graph on this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential
The mathematical system is itself representive of a graph...
You might get someone to state that
"When observed from a given point, electromagnetic waves and time pulses emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear to have a higher frequency than those generated by the same process locally. When observed from the same gravitational potential as the source, there is no difference, regardless of the mechanism of the source or the reference, or the gravitational potential at that point.
Isn't this because one is then measuring the scenario as per the clock in that potential rather than at the rate of time of some other potential?
What you are saying suggests that the clock viewed to be ticking at a differing rate from another potential is just a mirage.
If there is no 'actual' difference in the clock's rate of time then a person with a clock that 'appears' to be time dilated from another potential will age at the same rate as a person anywhere else, thus rendering the famous Twin Paradox as a load of old baloney.
Therefore time is affected by gravitational potential.
Sorry, but I thought you just said that the time 'in' a gravity potential runs the same at each potential...
If the time is running at the same rate at each potential then surely under this remit it is not 'the time' that is affected by the potential, it is 'the observation' of time that is affected...
You cannot say that time is occurring at the same rate in each gravity potential and then say that a person ages in keeping with their time dilated clock. That is a contradiction.
A mathematical model based on this hypothesis has predicted every experimental result to date."
And on the basis that this mathematical model is only describing the observation of what is occurring, but fails to describe 'why' it is occurring, this leaves a little room for 'interpretation' of observation so long as the 'interpretation' does not deviate from the values of the mathematical model.
Anything less would have omitted important and relevant facts and conditions.
The mathematical model fails to describe what the physical mechanisms for the observations are...
This being a fact that is widely written upon by physicists in the books that I have been studying.
If we could just accept that these physical processes of altitude related time dilation and motion related time dilation are occurring whether they are being observed by anyone or not, then a graph will show that clocks held at rest with respect to the gravity field will increase in frequency at elevation, and that the increased frequency of the clock will be counterbalanced by a decrease in frequency caused by centripetal motion of radius of longitude, or orbital velocity motion.
At a certain radius from Earth the orbital velocity cancels out the altitude dilation and the clock on the craft orbiting at that radius of altitude, at that orbital velocity will be running at the same rate as the clock on Earth.
This mathematical system is a graph that shows that the frequency of a clock will increase in the higher potential.
The gravitational shift wiki link shows a graph where the frequency of light, be the light red shifting away from M, or blue shifting towards M, always has a lower frequency in the higher potential.
There is 'nothing' in these last 2 paragraphs above that contravenes the conventional view of physics or the mathematical system that describes it...
...and I would really care to start discussing the fact that the frequency of light is gravitationally shifted in the higher potential to a lower frequency in 'unconventional terms' that will describe the acceleration of gravity via a system of cause and effect mechanics that gives the acceleration/deceleration of gravity a physical cause.
Is that too much to ask?

Going back to my suggested 'actual' experiment of placing 2 identical clock's on the surface of the Earth at different locations of the same height of gravity potential, and at the same longitude in order to equalise GR altitude and SR centripetal motion effects, but at locations of significantly differing geological density, where the value of m and h are the same, but the value of g is differing  to define via experiment which clock runs faster...
Please see below a 'thought' experiment that results in equalised parameters. This thought experiment can be calculated via the existing mathematical system but concludes in asking where it is that the factor for the clock on the bigger mass running at a slower rate compared to the clock on the smaller mass resides...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70240.msg512969#msg512969

When moving along the gravitational field, PE varies but KE gets back to zero when stopping at the height you want to do the measurement. That could mean something, but my opinion is PE is not intrinsic of the clock, that is why it is called potential, the clock doesn't have it yet.
Ok look Nilak  for the purpose of illustration let's look at a damn that is producing electricity.
A body of water is held at a higher gravity potential and within that water held at the higher potential there is the potential to produce x amount of electricity by converting potential energy into kinetic energy.
Energy is always conserved, so where in this scenario does the potential energy reside?
If it is potential, the energy doesn't reside within the object but it is somewhere else, like in the gravitational field.
The redshift/blueshift of signals already results in time dilation. If you say the clocks change their frequency, as their potential energy changes, then it would mean the redshift / blueshift of light and signals doesn't happen. That is because, if both phenomena happened then the effect would be doubled than what we see.
If you think your principle is correct then you could try to suggest more experiment that could confirm it.

If it is potential, the energy doesn't reside within the body but it is somewhere else, like in the gravitational field.
If the energy is in the gravitational field then the difference between the equation mgh where m equals zero and where m doesn't equal 0 is significant.
If the dam were not full of water there would be no potential energy to convert.
The redshift/blueshift of signals already results in time dilation. If you say the clocks change their frequency, as their potential energy changes, then it would mean the redshift / blueshift of light and signals doesn't happen.
The clock is placed at elevation so it does have a differing potential energy to the clock below it regardless. Whether this is what is causing the increased frequency of electron transitions or not is the point of my suggested experiment.
Light is redshifted or blue shifted in the gravity field 'after' it has been emitted not 'before'...
But there is an argument for the frequency emitting source of the clock's frequency of electron transitions emitting higher frequency photons in the higher gravity potential...
Measured in the higher gravity potential by the remit of the rate of time of the clock in the higher gravity potential any photons emitted by the emitting source in the higher gravity potential would be measured as having an identical frequency to the frequency of photons emitted by the emitting source in the lower potential when the frequency is measured by the rate of time in the lower potential.
"Measuring by the remit of the rate of time of the clock in the potential one is measuring" being the defining factor.
I already suggested an 'actual experiment' to prove or disprove my theory, and it's a very simple and relatively inexpensive experiment.

I may be wrong but what I understand is the clock run as if they were at the same frequency (if space and time were absolute), only the signal frequency gets altered, but that in relativity means the clocks actually run at different rates.

Nilak  I haven't got time to teach you about how clocks work. Just read all the wiki links and read some books on the subject. That's what I did.
What I will do is leave you with this bit of advice concerning frequency.
The frequencies of differing emitting sources, or the frequencies of differing matter waves are all held relative to the length of second as per the caesium standard.
All of these frequency rates of these differing emitting sources or differing matter waves, as measured in the same gravity potential are quite differing from each other, from very few wave cycles per second to a very high number of wave cycles per second.
If we were to observe a caesium atomic clock at elevation from the lower potential where the observed increase in the higher clocks frequency of electron transitions as compared to the clock in the lower potential, is determined as a shorter length second  and then we were to measure the frequency of all emitting sources and matter waves in the lower potential from the lower potential held relative to this shorter second  then that which we are measuring 'in' the lower potential 'from' the lower potential will have a decreased frequency as compared to measuring the same phenomenon via the standard second.
All we have done is decide to measure that which is in the lower potential by the remit of the shorter second observed of the higher potential.
Also don't forget that wavelength is always inversely proportional to both frequency and energy, but frequency and energy are always proportional to each other...
Good luck with your explorations.

Is this too much to ask?
Well it would seem that it is too much to ask, however this flies in the face of logic considering that each and every physics book that I read describes the incompatibility of quantum physics and general relativity, and most of the physics books I read describe the search for a unifying theory.
Here you have someone, this being me, who is stating that by making a few adjustments in how one interprets observation and experimentally verified observation, that the maths that describe general relativity can describe quantum as a continuum unifying the two theories while negating the necessity for the need for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, or any multiple world scenario.
Yet finding a person who is willing to make calculation of the alternative interpretation of observation seems to be an impossible mission.
Can anyone provide me with a plausible explanation for this paradox?

Oh dear, here comes that boring old pedant again. Red shift is not measured with respect to a cesium clock, but the angle of diffraction of visible photons or the beat of the hydrogen 21 cm line mixed with one generated locally, or a dozen other things including the speed of the moving mossbauer receptor in the PoundRebka experiment, all of which predated the cesium clock. It just happens that atomic clocks are handy for precise measurements in near space.
However you measure time, it is the same for all systems at a given gravitational potential, but observably differs between points at different potentials.
Interpreting observation is indeed what it's all about, but you haven't produced an observation that suggests anything like inverted time dilatation.

If you travel one metre at a constant speed that is held relative to a longer or shorter 'variable' second. Then the distance remains the same, and it just takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to travel that metre.
That is a very pertinent point expressed with clarity. No one has as yet detected length contraction. If you maintained that clarity you would make much better progress.

If you travel one metre at a constant speed that is held relative to a longer or shorter 'variable' second. Then the distance remains the same, and it just takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to travel that metre.
That is a very pertinent point expressed with clarity. No one has as yet detected length contraction. If you maintained that clarity you would make much better progress.
I thought length contraction had been observed with gold ions, I'll try to find a ref.
Timey's point is a valid one. Most people assume length contraction and time dilation are separate phenomena but they are really the same. As soon as you start travelling you measure the distance to your objective as shorter, but the reason is that the clocks in the 'rest frame' are no longer synchronised for you. Also an observer in the rest frame sees clocks at each end of your ship as unsynchonised, hence measures it as contracted in length. Our measurement of time and distance are interrelated. See also Schwarzschild.
PS I forgot to add that this is why GR treats spacetime as one item via the spacetime interval.

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.
You have to remember that all subatomic interactions are indirectly observed, but the contraction is necessary to explain some of the interactions:
https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/physics.asp
I think there might be a wiki ref to it, but I can't find it. If you search on RHIC you should find more material.

However you measure time, it is the same for all systems at a given gravitational potential, but observably differs between points at different potentials.
Interpreting observation is indeed what it's all about, but you haven't produced an observation that suggests anything like inverted time dilatation.
That is because you, within your state of pedant, are refusing to accept the fact that where m=0 there can be no observer.
Therefore any observation of a 3rd aspect of time dilation where m=0 occurring contra directionally to GR altitude time dilation will only be observed indirectly.
I am suggesting that an indirect observation of this potential 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon can be observed in the acceleration and deceleration of motion observed in the gfield and also within the frequency changes that occur for light in the gfield.

We observe electromagnetic radiation, for which m = 0.

@Colin2B I'll let you know what I find. Should be interesting.

We observe electromagnetic radiation, for which m = 0.
Yes we do!
And electromagnetic radiation reduces in frequency when gravitationally shifting 'away' from M.

Or, as a physicist would say, when observed from a higher gravitational potential than the source. Just like a clock.

What relevance does this have to the proposed theory?
There is a system of mathematics called GR that states that a clock will tick faster at each elevation from M.
There is a system of mathematics called SR that states that at the orbital speed of each elevation this increase in the rate of time will be reduced.
There is also a system of mathematics within GR that describes how light shifts in the gravity field. The light will always have a lower frequency in the higher potential no matter which direction it is travelling.
Therefore it really doesn't matter about what an observer observes from whereever.
The proposed theory does not suggest that anyone will observe anything differently to conventional physics.
The proposed theory is concerning the acceleration deceleration of gravity. We know that it occurs whether there is anyone observing or not.

AFAIK GR explains, with minimal, testable assumptions, why observers at different gravitational potentials see the signals from each others' sources differently. And since an object moving at constant speed cannot be aware of the fact (i.e. there is no absolute motion) , SR likewise explains what observers moving relative to each other will see. The relative positions and speed of the observers is always crucial because there is no absolute observer and an observer fixed close to the source does not observe any effect. That's why it is called relativity.
So the relevance to the proposed theory is via Occam: the only assumption in relativity is the constancy of c, which is independently derived by Maxwell and demonstrated by experiment. There is no point in introducing any new hypotheses unless they explain something we already know but can't explain.
Don't get too hung up on "observer". It's simply a generalised term for separating cause and effect, or source and detector. Doesn't imply any sentient beings.

Don't get too hung up on "observer". It's simply a generalised term for separating cause and effect, or source and detector. Doesn't imply any sentient beings.
It is you who keeps on bringing up the observer factor. I am quite clear on the fact that position or motion relative to the gfield will change that which an observer observes.
See:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70259.msg513174#msg513174
There is no point in introducing any new hypotheses unless they explain something we already know but can't explain.
Yes  this being the point of my model.
So without detracting from the relativity of relativity, can we now talk about light changing frequency in the gravitational field in terms of my hypothesis, and can we now talk about the acceleration and deceleration of the motions of m in relation to M in terms of my hypothesis?

The conventional equations for gravitational redshift and gravitational attractive force are established to a reasonable level of experimental precision and do not invoke any new hypotheses.
What is the anomaly you are trying to resolve?

There is no anomaly with the conventional equations for gravitational redshift and gravitational attractive force.
But it is a known fact that there is no description of physical cause and effect mechanics for gravitational acceleration.
This is the anomaly I seek to resolve.

Aha!
Something to consider is the effect of interposing a third mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment describes the classic method for measuring G, but what happens if you place a slab of metal between the large and small balls? Does the gravitational field add or subtract? If it adds, (a) we are looking for particle or quasiparticle that originates in matter and can penetrate matter without attenuation, but can interact with matter in a sucking mode or (b) mass does something to spacetime.
I think that the existing Einstein model of spacetime warping gives the correct answer without invoking spooky particles, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I also think that the existing Einstein model of spacetime warping gives the correct answer without invoking spooky particles, but I do think that a few minor adjustments of interpretation of observation can be made in order to describe why.
My hypothesis is that the phenomenon of time is energy related.
Frequency is energy related where frequency and energy are proportional to each other. What I am suggesting is that where frequency increases this is because there has been an increase in the rate of time due to an increase in energy, and that where wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, the lesser length of the wavelength (as compared to the length of the previously lower energy, lower frequency wavelength) is time related rather than distance related.
I am suggesting that Debroglie matter waves, all emitting sources, and already emitted light shifting in frequency can follow this remit.
Before I put this into the context of both gravitational attraction and the accelerations and decelerations observed of the gravitational field, is there any part of this post that needs clarification for you to understand it?

As far as gravitational energy is concerned, yes there is a clear relation between gravitational potential difference and observed time. But the concept of energy is simply "the scalar which is conserved", so it isn't clear how the potential energy of a battery, for instance, has any effect on time inside or outside the battery. And during a massenergy exchange such as pair production, positronium collapse and gamma emission, what happens to time?
You might consider the stability of neutrons, having a 15 minute halflife in free space but being apparently infinitely stable in some (but not all) nuclei. That might lead to a classical model of nuclear stability, and if it is predictive, you might have evidence for the value of your hypothesis.

Alan you may well be correct. I am not all that up on the intimate details of how particles interact, all I can do here is tell you about the patterns that I have recognized as being a possibility.
I came upon this hypothesis of mine by thinking about what time is doing where there isn't any mass.
This led to my viewing the phenomenon where a clock's frequency is observed to change as being energy related, and viewing the fact that a person aging in keeping with their clock can be due to the same addition or subtraction of energy that is occurring at differing gravity potentials via the equation mgh  where there 'may' be a possible argument for potential energy being responsible for a change in energy level to cause the change in frequency of electron transitions for a clock observed to have a differing frequency from the clock in the potential one is viewing from.
This then led me to examining the fact that if one measures the clock observed in another potential by the rate of time one is observing occurring in that potential, then the clock in the other potential will be ticking at the same rate one's own clock is in the potential one is viewing the other clock from.
Turning this thought upon its head, now I go to the black body experiment and look at how Planck's h constant is a joules per second measurement.
E=hf. E changes with changes in f, but h remains constant.
But there is a possibility to do things differently here.
By stating frequency as being indicative of the rate of time occurring for an emitting source, we can hold frequency as constant in the face of variable seconds. Now Planck's h constant will be variable because joules per second is held relative to a variable second where the change in length of a second is indicated in the change of frequency.
This system has negated the quantum nature of energy levels.
Now that the frequency of the light being emitted from the black body has been linked to changes in energy that are not quantised, we can examine light shifting frequency with changes in gravitational field energy, where the equation mgh can describe the changes in energy for the shifting light because where m=0 the changes in energy are just due to changes in g and h.
If we now say that the gravitational field itself also is an m=0 scenario, we can attribute the gravitational field energy as causing a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon where m=0. This 3rd aspect is in addition to the known time dilation's of altitude and motion where m doesn't =0.
This 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon is related to the gravitational field energy which is greater nearer to mass. This 3rd aspect of time dilation, that will never affect the rate of time for a clock or observer, has a faster rate nearer to mass.
Although this 3rd aspect of time dilation will never affect the rate of time for a clock or observer it will affect the rate of motion a body of m will experience in the gravitational field of M. It will decelerate the motion of m away from M, and accelerate the motion of m towards M. i.e. gravitational acceleration.
This 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon being the physical cause of gravitational acceleration.
This is just half the story because if potential energy is increasing the frequency of electron transitions of a clock in the higher potential then the frequency of the magnetic moments of the electrons will also be increased.
This being the physical cause for gravitational attraction.
Leading to a whole bunch of reinterpretations of observation that go on to result in my cyclic model of the universe.

For a photon isn't the potential energy Ep=E/c^2 gx=hf/c^2 gx?
x is the height. hPlanck's constant.
I have indicated that E could remain constant, because f is held constant (only time rate changes) , but you are saying we should vary h. I'm not sure about this.

I am referring to the Planck Einstein relation.
If one holds frequency constant in the face of variable seconds, this will result in joules per variable second and the h constant will as a result not be a constant of quantised energy packets, but will result in a continuum.

I am referring to the Planck Einstein relation.
Me too. The above relation was only for potential energy.If one holds frequency constant in the face of variable seconds, this will result in joules per variable second and the h constant will as a result not be a constant of quantised energy packets, but will result in a continuum.
Here is a thought experiment. A spaceship moves at constant speed and a light beam is sent from an outside source that hits the spaceship.
An outside observer will see the frequency relative to a stationary point (relative to the source and the observer), constant. The wavelength will also be constant. If we think classically, the amplitude is also constant. In QM the photons will have constant energy in the observer's frame. The observer can also measure the frequency that wave crests hit the ship. This frequency will be higher, but the amplitudes will be the same. For the outside observer, there will be a difference of velocity between the ship and the photons. That means the photons will hit with more momentum. An observer on board will measure a higher frequency photons, and will assume they have higher intrinsic energy. If he wants to define f constant, he will need to increase h. For a classical wave, it will also measure a higher amplitude.
This shows how a classical wave energy can appear to be proportional to frequency.

You cannot view photons as not being quantised, because we can count them and they are!

Without detracting from the art of photon counting wotsoever, the system that I suggest results in a compatibility between quantum and GR.
The physics books I read say that 'we' can't currently do compatibility between quantum and GR, but that 'we' would very much like to be able to.

Ok then, lets examine photon counting...
The first observation is that photon counting occurs via time based units.
Photon flux is measured per unit time where the unit of time is a standard second.
Photon intensitiy is a count per steradian per standard second.
Photon radiance is a count per square metre per steradian per standard second.
Photon irradiance is a count per square metre per standard second.
Photon exitance is a count per square metre per standard second
The energy of a single photon at wavelength λ is Qp = h⋅c / λ with h = Planck's constant and c = velocity of light.
Where:
The speed of light c is a distance held relative to a standard second.
Planck's h constant is a count of joules per standard second.
Wavelength is a 'spatial' measure of distance between wavecyles as determined by the frequency of wavecycles where frequency is a count of wavecycles per standard second.
Let's now look at the equation where:
The energy of a single photon at wavelength λ is Qp = h⋅c / λ
h and c have been defined, so to further examine wavelength:
λ=h/p
p=h/ λ
Examining p further:
p=h*vbar
where:
vbar=va
where in the case of light:
v=c
but what is 'a' equal to?
If p=h/ λ, but can also be calculated as p=h*vbar, which can also be expressed as p=h*(v*a), then what we are looking at is a relationship between wavelength and (v*a).
So  because the dfference between the calculations amounts to a mulitlication and division of h, p=h/ λ is the inverse of p=h*(v*a), h*(v*a) must be represetative of frequency where E=hf
On the one hand wavelength is a 'spatial' measure of distance between wavecyles, as determined by the frequency of wavecycles, where frequency is a count of wavecycles per standard second.
On the other hand (v*a) is the measure of the speed of light c, where c is a distance held relative to a standard second, multiplied by 'a' where 'a' must be the measure of the change in frequency.
My hypothesis simply states that wavelength is a 'temporal' measure of distance between wavecyles as determined by the frequency of wavecycles where frequency is a count of wavecycles per variable seconds.
One can hold frequency constant in the face of variable time based units and as a result Planck's h constant will be variable, and a continuum...
Or alternatively one can state that 'a' is equal to a change in the rate of time, where λ=h/p and p=h*(v*a).
Going back to: The energy of a single photon at wavelength λ is Qp = h⋅c / λ
Considering wavelength as a 'temporal' measure of distance between wavecyles where:
Instead of more or less distance being covered in a constant time, it is the same amount of distance being covered in faster or slower time...
This is now dividing the sum of h*c by the remit of a wavelength that is representative of a faster or slower rate of time where:
The point particle model of the photon and its wavefunction will be compatible with GR mathematics.
Anyone investigating this representation of the maths will understand that this changes the remit of Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation where Einstein's equations of GR will be valid as per a contracting model.

One here, one there...who mentioned time? One here, now another one....OK, so some time has elapsed but it doesn't matter how much: as long as the events are separated by space or time, we can count them. And they are, so photons are quantised.
But tell me more about p = h*vbar and vbar = va. What do vbar and a represent?

You may read about p = h*vbar here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation
Combining de Broglie's postulate with the Planck–Einstein relation leads to p=h*vbar
(the v has a bar over it that I cannot represent in this format)
A bar over v is indicative of v changing where the changes to v are caused by a, a being acceleration...
But light travels at c, c being a constant distance held relative to a standard second, so there is no change to v, and where there are changes to p via h*(v*a) they are related to changes in frequency, and therefore to changes in energy.
who mentioned time?
Physics did. All the measurements of photon counting are held relative to the unit time period of a standard second.
OK, so some time has elapsed but it doesn't matter how much: as long as the events are separated by space or time, we can count them. And they are, so photons are quantised.
Electrons are quantised, where it does matter very much to know where an electron is and how fast it is moving.
We know that time has elapsed between positions and velocities where (it would seem to me) with regards to distance travelled, to matter very much that one undestand how much time has elapsed.
This being because under the current remit of calculating these matters it is only possible to know the probability of how events are separated by space or time.
Where it is noted that probability is calculated via perturbations of time.

Mystery revealed. Your "vbar" is not a v with a bar, but "nu" bar  wavenumber. Nothing to do with velocity or acceleration at all. We sometimes use a bar to indicate an average, but not in this instance.
When I see two spots on an xray film (i.e. most days) I know that there were two quantum events. Each time I hear a click from a geiger counter, I know there was a single quantum event. I can compare two radiation sources by counting the number of clicks produced by A in the time taken for B to produce 100 clicks  no time standards required, and if B is a gram of radium I have measured the activity of A in hectocuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect gives a good account of the experimental investigations that demonstrated the quantum nature of light, with no reference to "standard seconds" or anything else assocated with the measurement of time.

Yes Alan, that is correct...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+is+a+wave+number&oq=what+is+a+wave+number&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8926j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8
In the physical sciences, the wavenumber (also wave number) is the spatial frequency of a wave, either in cycles per unit distance or radians per unit distance.
It can be envisaged as the number of waves that exist over a specified distance (analogous to frequency being the number of cycles or radians per unit time).
The spatial frequency of a wave is dependent upon the number of cycles per unit of distance, i.e frequency related and therefore subject to acceleration deceleration of rate.
And the number of cycles per unit distance is dependent upon the number of cycles per unit time, i.e.frequency related and therefore subject to acceleration deceleration of rate
All changes to these parameters are dependent upon an acceleration or deceleration of frequency, and frequency is dependent on energy.
The unit of distance is dependent upon velocity in relation to the unit of time, and the unit of time being used is a second, specifically the standard second.
However, GR is quite clear on the fact that different rates of time are occurring, and that these different rates of time occur independently of each other and simultaneously to each other...
...And this is not reflected in the practice of measuring all phenomenon held relative to a static unit of time.
When I see two spots on an xray film (i.e. most days) I know that there were two quantum events. Each time I hear a click from a geiger counter, I know there was a single quantum event. I can compare two radiation sources by counting the number of clicks produced by A in the time taken for B to produce 100 clicks  no time standards required, and if B is a gram of radium I have measured the activity of A in hectocuries.
And how does that measure up to the amount of time it takes for the cesium atomic clock that I'm placing in your laboratory to complete 9,192,631,770 wave cycles?
Lets get a mate of yours to compare clicks he hears on a geiger counter at a higher gravity potential to your lab, where you are watching your mate conduct these measurements.
As far as your mate is concerned the atomic clock that I have placed in his lab is completing 9,192,631,770 wave cycles and the measurements that he saw you compare to the wave cycles of your clock, when he was with you in your lower potential lab, when made by himself in the higher potential are no different to the proportions of the measurements you made.
You on the other hand are observing that your mates clock in the higher potential is completing 9,192,631,770 wave cycles, while your clock has only completed 9,092,631,770 wave cycles. A 100,000 wave cycle difference. Your mates geiger counter is making clicks that are closer together than the measurement you took in your lab.
Your mate looks down and observes that his atomic clock has completed 9,292,631,770 wave cycles by the time your clock has completed 9,192,631,770 wave cycles. He asks you to measure your gieger counter again, and as you do he measures that there is more time between the clicks of your gieger than there was when he measured his.
Then your mate has a thought and asks you to increase the electric voltage (energy) of the ionized events that your geiger counter is counting. When your geiger counter is making clicks at the same rate as his he asks you to stop.
He asks you by what measure of energy did you increase your ionized events by...and wonders if the ionized events occurring in his higher potential have been increased in energy due to his position in the higher potential.
Thanks for the link. It's basically a brief synopsis of the more than several books that I have read on the subject that have given description involving an estimated 800 or so pages, if not more.
: wiki link
In 1887, Heinrich Hertz[2][3] discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily.
Does this per chance mean that more sparks are observed held relative to a unit of time, as compared to the amount of sparks created by electrodes illuminated with lesser energy photons when held relative to the same unit of time?

You can associate a wavenumber with a standing wave, the arches of a bridge, the teeth of a comb....time or speed is not involved. You can measure distance with a standard stick, a surveyor's chain, King Edward's arm, or anything else you like  the modern definition of the meter is purely for convenience.
Not sure how you can introduce acceleration into a discussion on photons, which travel at a constant speed, both theoretically and experimentally. And note that neither the theory nor the experiment refers to any external timebase.
And how does that measure up to the amount of time it takes for the cesium atomic clock that I'm placing in your laboratory to complete 9,192,631,770 wave cycles?
Not at all.
Does this per chance mean that more sparks are observed held relative to a unit of time, as compared to the amount of sparks created by electrodes illuminated with lesser energy photons when held relative to the same unit of time?
No. It means that a smaller electric potential gradient will produce sparks.

You can associate a wavenumber with a standing wave, the arches of a bridge, the teeth of a comb
Where in the case of a Chladni plate the standing wave is caused by frequency. The arches of a bridge are defined by the frequency of placement of supporting struts, the number of teeth of a comb defines how many hairs it can reposition, and the teeth of a cog defines the frequency of motions that a cog imparts to a system.
You can measure distance with a standard stick, a surveyor's chain, King Edward's arm, or anything else you like  the modern definition of the meter is purely for convenience.
But if one is moving at a constant speed of 1 meter per second and is asked to make a marks on an unmarked tape that they reel out as they move along for every second that passes on their clock, the rate at which the clock is ticking will affect the distance of the measurement.
The 'spatial' distance between the marks will differ with differing tick rates, the tick rates are frequency based, and the marks are synonymous to wave number.
Not sure how you can introduce acceleration into a discussion on photons, which travel at a constant speed, both theoretically and experimentally. And note that neither the theory nor the experiment refers to any external timebase.
I'm quite sure that I explained in great detail several posts ago that it is an acceleration or deceleration of the frequency of a photon that I reffer to, which has a relation to the wave number. wavelength=h/p, p=h*vbar, and vbar=v*a.
Not at all.
So  you are saying that geiger clicks cannot be measured for frequency via the tick rate of a clock?
:physics.info
In 1905, Einstein realized that light was behaving as if it was composed of tiny particles (initially called quanta and later called photons) and that the energy of each particle was proportional to the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation that it was a part of. Recall from the previous section of this book that Max Planck invented the notion of quantized electromagnetic radiation as a way to solve a technical problem with idealized sources of electromagnetic radiation called blackbodies. Recall also that Planck did not believe that radiation was actually broken up into little bits as his mathematical analysis showed. He thought the whole thing was just a contrivance that gave him the right answers. The genius of Einstein was in recognizing that Planck's contrivance was in fact a reasonable description of reality. What we perceive as a continuous wave of electromagnetic radiation is in reality a stream of discrete particles.
I am making the suggestion that the length of a unit of time, i.e. the rate of time of that system, is inversely proportional to the energy of the system, i.e. more energy will increase the timing of the system. An emitting source is a system. A receiving source is a system. Energy is transferred from the emitted light to the receiving system.
If one considers that the frequency resulting from the energy of a system is indicative of the systems 'timing' then via this new means of mathematical analysis one will find that by holding frequency as constant in the face of variable units of time that the value of Planck's h constant will change with each change in length of time unit and becomes a variable continuum.
This does not change any observation. But it does change the current view of what time is and gives physical cause to the phenomenon. This change to the current view of what time is becomes useful in describing phenomenon that in conventional physics have no cause and effect mechanics (such as the accelerative and attractive force of gravity) and my model of a cyclic universe.
There isn't really any point in my continuing this discussion with you, is there Alan?
You have a certain view of the phenomenon of time being a measurement imposed upon a system, and I am viewing time as being integral to a system as a reactive to energy.
The view I take is compatible with relativity where the remit of relativity results in the fact of differing rates of time occurring independently of each other and simultaneously to each other, where all I am doing is deepening that theory.
However, I don't seem to be able to persuade you to explore a differing view, so lets just call it a day.

You seem to have lost the plot entirely, or to be speaking an alien language. Let's give it a rest.

If it has been detected I would be very interested in the reference.
The electric field strength increases for fast electrons as they contract, and is detectable.
check this link..
https://confslac.stanford.edu/sssepb2013
select this:
Lecture 1. Lecturer Zhirong Huang

That is good news indeed Alan. I'm happy to have your agreement to call it a day, because by all logical deduction one might expect that in considering a 'New Theory' that one may encounter concepts that are alien for the reason that one hasn't heard these concepts before.
And to say so I'm not all that keen on being told that I seem to have lost the plot, especially by someone who's idea of 'mathematical help' incorporates introducing the arches of a bridge and the teeth of a comb into a conversation about juggling the maths of the Planck Einstein relation. It leaves one with the feeling that one isn't really being taken seriously which would be detrimental to my notions of friendship and it pleases me that such detriment has now been averted. I look forward to speaking with you elsewhere on subjects that do not incorporate introducing ideas that are foreign to the current status quo.
*
For anyone else who is actually interested in a potential means to unify the point particle model with the wave function model for a compatibility between quantum and GR...
E=hf, where E is the energy of the particle, h is Planck's h constant, this being a set number of joules per second, and frequency is the number of wave cycles that occur per second, where the distance between these wave cycles is known as wavelength. The remit of the equation E=hf denotes that when f changes, E will change.
I am now going to show how this equation can be juggled so that the resulting value of E remains the same but Planck's h constant is rendered variable and can be described as a continuum of linear progression. To put this proposed interpretation into the context of my model I will hold the measurements of E relative to the gravitational redshift equation and light travelling from our position of gravity potential away from Earth...
It is of little consequence to this description which frequency of light we start out with. What is of consequence is that we have measured the frequency and therefore the distance of a wavelength by the remit of the clock that is in the gravity potential that the light source emitter is in, and for the purpose of this description we will say that these initial measurements of the frequency of the light when being emitted in our position of gravity potential have been held relative to the cesium standard. (this is just a convenience, we could hold frequency relative to any length of second and the differences in frequency due to gravitational shift would remain proportional)
In that the initial measurement is holding frequency relative to the cesium standard, and Planck's h constant is holding joules per second relative to the cesium standard, we can start out with the equation E=hf, but where the gravitational redshift equation is describing the reduction of the lights frequency in the higher potentials we will be holding frequency relative to seconds that are becoming longer than the cesium standard.
This being a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that my model has added which applies only where m=0, and is added on the basis that we are not going to be using the concept of relativistic mass atall in my model, or the concept of SR motion related time dilation and SR length contraction/space dilation to describe the propagation of light in space...
In order to know by how much a 3rd aspect time dilation second has become longer than the cesium standard all we have to do is hold the number of wave cycles as constant by extending the number of micro seconds of the standard second so that the number of wave cycles completed within the extended second of each elevation remains the same at each elevation.
The equation E=hf is now holding frequency as constant. But this does not mean that we are considering E to be constant. What we are looking for is that the energy decreases of the redshifted light remain inversely proportional to the increases in wavelength and that our values remain within the remit of conventional and observed physics.
Clearly we can accomplish this within the equation E=hf where f is now being held constant by making h the variable...
This remit results in a continuum of seconds becoming linearly longer, a continuum of E becoming linearly lesser, and a continuum of the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases.
And the implications of this result are that wavelength has become constant as a distance, where it takes a longer amount of time for the red shifted wave cycles to travel this constant distance as E is reduced by gravitational shifts...
This does not have any impact on the structure of the conventional use of h in physics. One may calculate in conventional manner using Planck's h constant, but in the understanding that in doing so one is juggling a function of time dilation...
The impact that this remit does have on the structure of the mathematics is that one will not need to use probability to calculate beyond the Uncertainty Principle. This method of interpretation means that one can determine position and velocity simultaneously...
(I would care to discuss how an equation like this Qp = h⋅c / λ can be altered for a description of a particle of mass, where under the remit of my proposal, dividing by the Debroglie wavelength of a particle is in as much as dividing by the rate of time of the particle, which should give position... in relation to how an decrease/increase in the energy/frequency of that particle will increase/decrease the particles wavelength)
Given that someone has understood what I have said above, it would then be possible for me to move on and explain how the equation pe=mgh is significant, and differing where m=0 and where m doesn't =0, in order to further describe why a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon 'may' be possible...
And in that a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon 'may' be possible, describe the 'necessary by default of the proposed addition' alteration to the interpretation of why the rate of time is predicted, and observed to be increased (i.e. shorter length of seconds) compared to the clock in the lower potential, for the clock and all m with that clock in the higher gravity potential.

E=hf, where E is the energy of the particle, h is Planck's h constant, this being a set number of joules per second, and frequency is the number of wave cycles that occur per second, where the distance between these wave cycles is known as wavelength. The remit of the equation E=hf denotes that when f changes, E will change.
My friend, I'm not sure you understand dimensional analysis. Let's examine your simple equation: E=hf
In SI units E is measured in Joules: kg* m^2* sec^2
In SI units h is expressed as kg * m^2 * sec^1
and f is expressed in sec^1
(kg * m^2 * sec^2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^1) * (sec^1)
Defining this equation dimensionally correct demands that all values; kg, m, and sec, remain consistent on both sides of the equation. Allowing seconds to become shorter or longer depending upon which side of the equation they reside destroys the dimensional equivalence and undermines the accuracy of the formula.
The value of seconds must remain the same on both sides of the equation if you are to use this formula to validate your theory.

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough...but in holding the gravitational shifted frequency constant by adding the necessary microseconds to the length of a second to ensure that the same number of wave cycles complete in the longer seconds of each elevation, the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases is then due to being held relative to the longer second 'because' f is being held constant.
Therefore I think that hf can be of dimensional accuracy under the remit I propose, and this can be determined by the fact that completing the equation holding either h or f constant will result in the same value of E.

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough...but in holding the gravitational shifted frequency constant by adding the necessary microseconds to the length of a second to ensure that the same number of wave cycles complete in the longer seconds of each elevation, the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases is then due to being held relative to the longer second 'because' f is being held constant.
Therefore I think that hf can be of dimensional accuracy under the remit I propose, and this can be determined by the fact that completing the equation holding either h or f constant will result in the same value of E.
Timey,.....you can't change the value of time on one side of the equation and leave the other values for time as they were. If a kg is more or less than a kg, it's not a kg. The same goes for length and time, the equation will not be dimensionally balanced if you only change the value of time on one side.
If we rewrite the formula: (kg * m^2 *sec ^2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^1) * (.90 sec^1) we have invalidated it because the value of time on one side must equal the value of time on the other.
If you are to provide evidence for your theory, you'll need to offer another equation in support of it because (E=hf) will not meet the test.

Firstly Ethos I wish to thank you because this is exactly the type of discussion that I wish to be engaged in, where I will be learning more about the construct of mathematics no matter if my hypothesis proves to be viable or not.
Timey,.....you can't change the value of time on one side of the equation and leave the other values for time as they were.
This is the exact reasoning that leads me to the notion of juggling the maths in the first place, where I am exploring the notion that the equation under the conventional interpretation actually does lead to a dimensional imbalance that results in the Uncertainty Principle, and that this imbalance "may' be due to holding h and E relative to the same length of second where the physical action of changes in frequency is being caused by rates of time that are not equal to the length of second that h and E are being held relative to.
The same goes for length and time, the equation will not be dimensionally balanced if you only change the value of time on one side.
Length is entirely dependent on the rate of time a constant speed is held relative to. This can be evidenced by the fact of 'spatial' changes in wave length when wave cycles are held relative to a static length of second. By holding frequency constant as a result of changing the length of a second, the 'spatial' wavelength remains a constant distance that wave cycles travelling at constant speed take a longer/shorter amount of time to complete, where the possibility then arises for a consideration that the 'spatial' changes that result from holding wave cycles relative to a static length of second are a function of time
If we rewrite the formula: (kg * m^2 *sec ^2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^1) * (.90 sec^1) we have invalidated it because the value of time on one side must equal the value of time on the other.
Why must joules remain (kg*mass^2*sec^2)? If the time is different on one side then it can be matched on the the other side can't it?
(I'm not understanding the change in the equation you have made. First you have said (kg * m^2 *sec ^2), but you are saying that this is equal to (kg * m^2 * sec^1) * (.90 sec^1). can you explain to me what the difference is between * ^2, and, sec^2 is? My understanding is that *sec^2 is per second squared. And can you explain to me what this sec^1 means?)
Where light is concerned it does not have any rest mass, so kg*mass^2 is then purely related to E. Conventional physics calculates a relativistic mass for light that clearly will be reducing as E is reduced. The means of calculating the changes in E as changes in relativistic mass involve, for the red shifted light, a conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy where potential energy does not contribute to relativistic mass value. (could well be that my understanding here needs to be expanded)
Clearly if my hypothesis is going to be viable then there will be a means of making a mass energy equivalence calculation that is inclusive of a variable length second, although I'm not clear on how to work the premise of (kg*mass^2*sec^2) backwards from E, so perhaps you might help me out in understanding the construct...
If the E of a red shifted frequency must be accompanied by a (kg*mass^2*sec^2) equation, where the higher altitude is the cause of the gravitational red shifted light, does the *sec^2 part of the equation use the conventional physics 'shorter' length of second associated with the higher altitude?

Firstly Ethos I wish to thank you because this is exactly the type of discussion that I wish to be engaged in, where I will be learning more about the construct of mathematics no matter if my hypothesis proves to be viable or not.
I will be honored to help you timey, but I request one consideration of you to begin. I'm old and at present, very sick. Allow this discussion to proceed slowly because I'm not sure how much energy I'll be able to invest. If you would prefer, we could do this via private message or we can continue here in this thread, I'll leave it up to you.

Let's start with some basics:
The formula: E=hf is a simple proportion and represents the relationship that Energy has to Planck's constant and frequency. While it is true that factors can be juggled, the individual factors; (mass, length, and time) must retain their individual integrity. Thus, all masses are calculated in kg, all lengths are calculated in meters, and all seconds are calculated in what our frame has measured as the second. The equation: (kg * m^2 * sec^2) represents Energy of one Joule.
BTW, ........your question about (^2) ..............allow me to elaborate.
(kg * m^2 * sec^2) is the same as: [kg * m^2 / (sec^2)] ............it's just easier to write using ^2.
When you see (sec^2) it's simply means that the former figures are divided by (sec^2).
The equation: E=hf can also be written as: E=(h/sec) because frequency is (1/sec).