[jeffreyH]

Timey said, "Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?"

It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.

[PmbPhy]

Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.

That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm

Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?

That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?

[timey (OP)]

Timey said, "Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?"

It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.

Hi JefferyH
My view of this compression due to gravity field appreciates that the coils of the frequency get closer together, however it does not equate this phenomenon with a longer moment, but I'm not going to "bang on" about it any further until I've considered this website posted below.

yes I agree, having a complete understanding of the current maths will become a great help to me in my quest. However it is actually possible to visualise percentages, ratio's and sliding scales in ones mind, but again, I do agree that any visualisation does really need to be expressed mathematically for it to be considered as a theory. 

[timey (OP)]

Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.

That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm

Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?

That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?

Ok, I'm reading the website, second time through, and I have some considerations that I need clarifying before I can answer properly.  There are a lot of maths that I understand (loosely speaking) to be travelling light pulses between coordinate times and that the resulting change in frequency of this light is deemed due to gravity potential.
Could you tell me please:

What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?
What is the causality of the gravitational potential?
What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?
On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?

[David Cooper]

What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?

Nowhere...we just don't see all of the "time" that the light is happening in.

But we do see all the light, so you aren't explaining anything real. The expansion of the universe means it takes longer to reach us and when it arrives its frequency is lower, but all the light is still there. If the differences in improper time (which is a more appropriate name for your "coordinate time") were stopping us seeing the light without the expansion being real, we would see something radically different from what we actually see because your mechanism would stop us from seeing some of the light when it reaches us rather than delaying its arrival.

But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.

If you consider that the universe is an open system expanding universe then yes you are right.  If the universe is a closed system non expanding universe then no, there is a "lot" of missing light.

Except it isn't missing, but would have to be delayed instead and have its frequency reduced. You clearly haven't thought through the implications of that frequency reduction, because frequency can only be seen to reduce if you have an expansion of the space the light's travelling through or if you have something delaying the transmission of that light in a way that continually increases that delay. You have not explained any mechanism in your model for that, so how does space know whether to delay the light more, less or maintain the current delay? How does it know if it is to pretend that space is expanding , contracting or staying the same?

Lol, lol, lol.  The news?  Bah!  And yes they can regarding the moon, it's called "high tide" and "spring tide"...

There is no connection with earthquakes sufficient to warn people to get outside before they hit.

Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?

The only frequency that's higher in a stronger gravity field is your imaginary improper time which does the opposite of the proper time recorded by actual clocks.

And the black hole adds no energy to the action of its fundamental compression abilities because it's time has stopped and all energy and information concerning it and the mass it consumes are now "lost"?

All fo the energy in a black hole that things carry into it ends up as part of the mass of the black hole. The physics of what actually happens inside a black hole is unknown though - we have descriptions of what might happen there if different theories are true, but finding a problem with time in one theory does not invalidate other theories which handle time in more rational ways.

My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.

Goodness me!  It is "time"... gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction that causes the appearance of an expanded universe in my model.

But you have not explained how your model handles the pretence of expansion. All you've done is assert that some of the light which is seen is not seen even though it is seen. Your model has nothing in it to control the ongoing pretence of expansion to maintain that apparent expansion, so what stops it stopping? If we have two galaxies pretending to move apart while not actually doing so, what are they doing with their gravitational pull and improper time to make the space in between them decide to go on changing to pretend that there's an ongoing expansion taking place?

Gravity and velocity affect both time and distance on a sliding scale and in balance with each other.  Therefore the "absolute" or "actual" time of the "original Minkowski space time matrix" can be deduced by calculating both types of time dilation and their affect on each other to establish the "absolute/actual" time of the traveler or the mass involved.  The parameters of the 3 distance factors, ie: the 3 dimensions of space in the "original Minkowski space time matrix" are predetermined and not withstanding any shift in gravitational relationship within the sytstem, can be considered as "constant".  The fact of the variable speeds of light, whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment, acts as a constraint on the system.  Your rockets time factors will always mesh no matter what gravity field you travel them in, at whichever velocity.

What the heck does all that actually mean?

"Time" is the cause of the further expansion in my model.

"Time" could equally be the cause of further contraction without changing any of the numbers (because your "time" is controlled by gravitational strength, and that's the same whether it's expanding or contracting), so how in the world is this "time" driving an expansion rather than a contraction?

This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.

What is the causality of this "real time" ?

It controls the unfolding of events, with other clocks running slow in proportions to that real time dependent on their movement through the fabric of space or by the slowing of light caused by gravity.

You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).

How does LET handle this impossible case?

A clock stopped completely by movement or gravity is only recording apparent time, so time is actually passing at full speed for a stopped clock which is unable to register it.

My point being: what evidence do we have of this fabric?  It's all very well saying such and such would happen if there were such a fabric...

Without a fabric, you have nothing to impose a geometrical arrangement of locations on the content of the universe.

in any case, just how sound waves can be analogised to light waves in that situation is beyond me.

Any kind of wave which has its speed controlled by the medium it travels through can be used as a direct analogy.

My theory states time dilation due to gravity field as responsible for the appearance of an expansion of distance, which is actually not an expansion of distance but an expansion of time. (There is no associated puzzle attached to this explanation)

As I keep telling you, your mechanism does not even account for the difference between expansion and contraction, never mind handle any increase in the rate of expansion caused by dark energy.

We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.

No, the maths that you are using to determine what you are seeing do not have enough "reach" to understand what it is that you are seeing.

The maths has the reach to account for what the tools do not allow us to access.

If you do use a clock, you have an associated mass, the relationship of which relative to the main body of mass, the earth,  not being taken into account in the current equations.

Light moving through space is the purest clock and it has no mass. If it is running through deep space and is not slowed by gravity, it runs close to full speed. If it is running in a gravity well, it runs more slowly.

(Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)

Why would anyone try to do that when it's such an unrewarding task?

Yes, ... No light goes missing!  We just can't see it.  We don't have the "time".

We see all of it. None of it is missing and none of it goes unseen. Your theory is trying to describe a universe that doesn't match up with the one we are in.

If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.

Not if you have a determined gravitationally induced length of moment to work your calculations our from through your movement through reference frames of variable lengths of moment.  "Time" being this "fabric" of space.

If you have some weird way of working out how to measure absolute time and know that it is absolute time that you are measuring, write out the maths for it and apply for your Nobel Prize now.

How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.

Of course you can tell if your moving or not.  Why would you think otherwise, that's stupid.  You can work out what speed you are going by taking your x miles per earth hour and adding on the same percentage of itself per reference frames across space as the percentage by which the length of a moment in those reference frames increases

If you're right, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can find a way to turn that paragraph into actual maths (and spell out what magic tricks you're trying to play with reference frames).

The fabric of space that you refer to, in my model...this fabric is time and how can you place time outside of time?

Which kind of time is this? Improper time? That isn't going to work - it's just an inverted version of proper time and has no useful role in anything other than for solving imaginary problems that bear no relation to the universe we see.

Why would you consider the physics behind the Big Bang to be inaccessible to science?  In my model the black hole phenomenon is responsible for both the Big Crunch (although not in the reversal format) and the Big Bang.  If my inverted time dilation due to gravity field maths pan out, these maths should explain the whole scenario.  It is only the "way" that you are thinking about the universe that affords you this attitude of "acceptable" unexplained-ness.

If I wired all the inputs and outputs of your brain to a simulated universe such that you were only able to operate within that virtual space, you would have no access to the outside to determine how the virtual universe works. We are in the same kind of position and may never be able to see outside of the universe to get proof of how it actually works. We will come up with theories which might account for how it works, but that may be as far as we can go.

As for your model, if it doesn't distinguish between the big bang and a black hole, it's just plain wrong. Black holes sit within a space fabric. The big bang involved a singularity (or near-singularity) which included the entire space fabric.

There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.

Again, goodness me!  I have told you how to detect time dilation due to gravity field.  From the local gravity field .  I've told you what it's use is.  To measure time and distance in time.  I've told you that these differences in time ratios across distance will filter out the light that is flooding this closed system universe.    The light is not missing, it's there but we don't see it.  Our length of moment is too short to view all of the length of a longer moment, therefore we will not "see" everything that is going on.

And yet we do see it all - we don't miss anything due to any filtering or clocks running slow (or your imaginary improper time running slow).

I think you are becoming confused and muddling my model up with the current model.  No light is going missing in the current model because everything is very far apart and still expanding in actual distance.  Please note: in a closed system non expanding universe, light does not have anywhere else to go, savvy?

Which is precisely your problem - if there is no expansion and yet we are still seeing all the light arrive (which we are), then your understanding of it is woefully wrong. If there is no expansion, light isn't being filtered out, but is being held back by something which is delaying it, and delaying it more and more over time, but your mechanism doesn't account for that and merely asserts that we don't see the light because we don't have enough time to see it, even though we do. All the light still gets to us, eventually - we just have to wait longer and longer for it to arrive as the expansion (or pretence of expansion) continues to increase the delays.

It is true that I have not provided figures, however my piece of logic is incredibly simple

The correct word is "lacking".

Fact is you just can't visualise the concept of a moment of shorter length not being able to fully observe a moment of longer length or that a longer length of moment will produce a longer distance in time that is not an actual distance.

That's because if your clock is running slow, you still see everything playing out, but it all appears to happen faster and it becomes more energetic in terms of perceived frequencies. None of the action goes missing.

Time dilation/contraction due to gravity field it is then. ... found at every coordinate "in" my model of the universe.  It's use is described above.

You need to describe it in full detail with numbers and worked examples to get it across. You don't appear to be able to do that yet, and once you get to the point where you can, you'll find that it doesn't work. So, you need to get on with doing that and then get back to us. I can't afford to go on putting so much time into commenting on something that isn't even at the half-baked stage - I have other work that I should be getting on with.

Again, it does not do anything to the light.  A closed system universe being flooded with light is not my concept, it's been used as an argument against the universe being a closed system.  In my closed system model this light is not apparent even though it's there because we cannot view the entirety of a longer length of moment from within a shorter length of moment.(Stop confusing my model with other models David, this might help no end, it would certainly save you from having to type that bit "the missing light that isn't missing" again.)

I'm not confusing it with other models - I'm comparing it with the observed universe and pointing out that the two things don't match up.

Can you give me some indication as to what you need to program "one little bit of it"?

I want to be able to write a program like the one I described earlier in which a rocket hovers near a black hole and lowers a clock on a cable, then raises it again. I want to be able to apply your theory to this to show the proper time on the clock, and on a clock that stays in the rocket, and a clock further out which we're using as a standard coordinate time, and I want to be able to calculate your improper time for the different clocks as well. Once that's been done, I then want to explore what your improper time does for the speed of light through the system to work out what optical distortions it would impose on the action, and I'd like to see how some of the light is not seen even though it is all seen. It's all very simple stuff I'm asking for. Just show some worked examles of simple scanarios like the above with some numbers. I need to know what equasions to apply and how to apply them. All basic stuff which anyone should be able to provide in the course of describing their theory.

From what I understand there are computer programs in operation designed for messing around with the parameters of mass, gravity field, time dilation and other factors found in our universe.  One can simply  change the settings and press "go" and it simulates what would happen.

If you're doing something radically different with an improper time being added into it, you need to write a custom program to handle it.

I have "given" an existing equation, the equation that produces these progressively increasing distances as the change in the settings of these parameters with time stopped being set at 0 gravity field.  I understand that you need more precise figures, ie: percentages of the speed of light.  As the speed of light is variable in my model, and I have already explained this, I suspect that I'd need to create new tensor maths for my model in order to provide you with the exact figures you'd need.

I didn't notice you provide what I'm asking for. I'm offering to be a computer and I'm asking you to program me to simulate a little part of your model. It doesn't get any easier than that.

My model of the universe is the "only" model that I have ever heard of that does "not" introduce anything that we do "not" observe into the equation or rely on any factor outside of our universe, while getting the universe behind the Big Bang and giving cause for the universes collapse.

It introduces a description of a universe which doesn't match up with the one we live in.

What specifics other than the maths am I avoiding please?

The specifics that would enable a program to be written. Piles of words making woolly claims are not good enough - you need to spell things out with precision and nail your definitions.

[timey (OP)]

Hi David

I'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it.  You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive.  My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect.  Let's just leave it at that aye!

All best, Vikki

[PmbPhy]

What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?
What is the causality of the gravitational potential?
What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?
On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?

These questions are based on common misconceptions of physics. In particular the misconception in this case is the assumption that physics can explain why things happen and as such explain the cause. However it's not the task of physics to explain what causes things to happen. It simply can't be done any other way. All we can do is observe and describe nature. We can't explain why it does what it does in general. It's only task is to describe it. That said, there are times when we can find a cause but that doesn't apply to the axioms of physics. By following the derivation you should be able to understand the cause through the description of what's happening.

For example; nobody knows why gravity can exert of force on an object. All that we know is that it does happen. In Newtonian theory the force is given by

F = GMm/r²

If a force can be expressed as the negative of the gradient of a function U(r, t) then that function is called the gravitational potential energy. The gravitational energy per unit mass is called the gravitational potential, V(r, t).

U(r, t) = mV(r, t)

You can learn more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential

[PmbPhy]

<snipped HUGE quote>
Hi David

I'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it.  You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive.  My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect.  Let's just leave it at that aye!

All best, Vikki

Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.

[timey (OP)]

Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.

Yes, certainly.  I've since fixed the offending post.

I'm giving my answer to your other posts more thought and will reply later.

In the mean time I'll say thanks, because although simple equations such as F=MA are understood, any explanations that illuminate the movement of mathematical concepts through functions into a word format are significantly welcome in my book...

[David Cooper]

Hi Vikki,

I was trying to be constructive by helping you to see parts of your theory that don't stand up - if you take those things on board you will then be able to focus on what remains and see more clearly what needs to be done with it. There is one very specific area you should be looking at, and that's why I've asked you several times for some of the maths involving a simple situation near a black hole. If you can't work out how to apply the relevant formulae yourself, there are people here who will be able to help. If we can get to the point where ticking rates of clocks at different depths in a gravity well can be calculated, and also the ticks of the improper time at those locations, we can then start looking at what happens to light and its frequency as it travels from one of those locations to another. At that point, we will be able to investigate your idea of improper time preventing some of the light being seen, and then you might finally understand that you can't play fast and loose with frequency - that's where I wanted to take things because I think it blows apart your theory in a very straightforward way, but instead of providing the numbers or spelling out what would need to be done to calculate them, your posts exploded into wide-ranging attacks on all sorts of other issues which displayed a matching range of holes in your knowledge of physics, and when you did try to focus on the relevant points, you did so with impenetrable, woolly descriptions which no one has a hope of following due to a lack of any definition of many of the terms used (or misused). If I come across as sounding annoyed, it's because you're not prepared to home in on the crunch points which will destroy your theory.

You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive.  My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.

Your model has to be able to handle an apparent expansion even if it isn't actually expanding - I was merely asking for the missing mechanisms to handle that, and you should be keen to supply them. If I didn't want to understand your theory, I wouldn't be pressing you to fill in the holes.

[David Cooper]

Let me spell it out for you without waiting for the numbers. Frequency is a record of the ticks of a clock.

If you count these ticks as they leave one location and count them again when they arrive at another location, you can measure the difference in the relative rates at which clocks are running at those two locations, though that only applies if you can also travel between the two locations repeatedly and determine that they are the same distance apart throughout.

If these two locations are at different altitudes within a gravity well, the clock lower in the well is ticking at a slower rate, and any signal with a frequency of any kind being sent to it from the higher location will be perceived as having a higher frequency than it actually has.

Your imagined improper time runs faster at the lower location, but that has no impact on the frequency of any signal generated there and sent to the higher location as it is proper time that determines the frequency of that signal, and when the signal arrives at the higher location, the higher proper time there results in that signal being measured as having a lower frequency than was perceived at the lower location where it was generated.

Your improper time is running slower at the higher location, and you claim that this means less of the light (let's assume the signal is a laser beam) is seen from the higher location because there is less improper time there to see the signal with, but every single tick of the lower clock written into the light is received at the higher location, more spread out than they were when they left the lower location, and all the energy of the light which was put into generating it at the lower location is detected as arriving at the higher location - none of it goes missing and none of it goes unseen, so I can't see how your improper time has any role to play in this at all.

[timey (OP)]

Your model has to be able to handle an apparent expansion even if it isn't actually expanding - I was merely asking for the missing mechanisms to handle that, and you should be keen to supply them. If I didn't want to understand your theory, I wouldn't be pressing you to fill in the holes.

Ok, in any case I offer an apology.  Each time I try and explain it helps me to understand further how I might apply mathematics to my model.  Sorry for becoming frustrated.

I think it may help if I briefly tell you how I came by the idea of my model...because I have in fact thought about my idea more deeply than you might imagine.
In reading Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" in 2010,  Lee's conclusion that physics has the wrong approach to time became apparent to me long before he drew to that conclusion in the book and furthermore I thought I knew why.
Physics does not seem to regard time as being a product and a function of the universe but merely a kind of corridor that the rest of the universe passes through.
I saw time as being a force.  A force that is twinned with gravity like the electromagnetic.  A force that is fundamental in that without it, as nothing can happen in its absence, existence would not exist and that time is a part and parcel of the very structure of our universe.

Setting up a cause and effect chain, whereas the following phenomenon cannot happen without the previous...that goes like this - mass = gravity = time = motion = distance.  Then, using Lee's considerations concerning different types of systems and their restrictions, overlaid with observed data and it's interpretation with respect to what is proven and what is supposition, while also undertaking my own self imposed rule as to not include any unobserved phenomenon, or rely on any factor placed outside of our universe, I juggled concepts and what came out of this juggling was my model.

Time is a product of gravity in my model.  The gravity field determines the rate that a clock ticks at and it determines the frequency of light and atoms. (The GPS clocks tick faster because although they are located in a coordinate of a weaker gravity field, they are experiencing a greater gravity field due to the relationship of their associated mass with earth...IF ANYONE CAN TELL ME IF THIS RELATIONSHIP "IS" BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS, I'd be grateful)
Motion is a product of time and distance is a product of motion.  Motion slows time down.  Motion contracts distance.  Gravity field speeds time up.  Gravity field expands distance.

Because my models expansion in "actual distance" is taken care of in the initial Big Bang, my model is "not" an expanding model and the distances that the gravity field is expanding the universe by are not an actual distance but a distance in time. *** If we travel this distance it will still feel like a distance because of the "time" it will take to travel it. ***
It will also look like a distance.  It will look like a distance because when we view a slower moment from a faster moment we will not be able to see the entirety of the events of the slower moment.  The events that we are looking at are the paths of light rays travelling towards us over reference frames of changing lengths of moment.  We are not seeing every part of those light rays.  We just see a small percentage of the light.
Furthermore, because this light is travelling through progressively slower time that is creating a geodesic curve, we do not see the light source as in its true position (Newtonian gravity((?)) but in its position in distance in time. (On the curve)...

There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field.  Gravity is the causality of time. This time is then affected by motion and this "time dilation due to motion" needs to be calculated in relation to the "time due to gravity field" that the mass is passing in motion through...which is variable according to strength of gravity field  (the gravity field being according to distance from mass and the relationship experienced by this mass in motion due to any other mass in the vicinity.)
From this calculation you can arrive at your "actual time" of journey.
(Due to the ratios of gravity field time, and time in distance, and time dilation due to motion, and that motion causing subsequent length/distance contraction... rockets flown through any strength of gravity field at any velocity should time mesh on account of the variable upper speed limits per reference frame - whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment)

In my model there is no overriding time aspect, no universal time.  The only universal time is "the present".  All reference frames despite their variable lengths of moment operate in the "present". (this being why it is not possible to view the entirety of the events of a longer length of moment from a shorter length of moment.)
In my model all measuring of time motion and distance can be made relative to a gravity field, not relative to another observer.

I realise that this explanation does nothing to provide you with any values.  I believe that the equation that produces the progressively increasing distances is relevant to the ratio by which the decreasing gravity field produces progressively longer moments...(in my model that is)
I'm sorry David, at the present this is the best I can do.

I am going to try getting into a bit of gravity potential talk with PmbPhy now.  I think it relevant that I get more inside the current view of kinetic energy and its connection to motion and gravity potential.

[jeffreyH]

If time is running faster the nearer to a gravitational source then the earth would appear to be rotating at a much slower rate than it actually is for ground based observers. This means that as a spacecraft leaves the earth its observations of the planet would show a speeding up of the angular velocity. To the remote observer the day would appear to be shorter than it is. Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.

[timey (OP)]

Hi PmbPhy

Relativistic mass as I understand is kinetic energy due to motion.  Relativistic energy or relativistic momentum perhaps also being relevant terminology. (Correct me, I'm learning)

Although I've got a good "visual" on the resulting physics of all this interplay I'm crap at terminology and am missing which bit of which terminology does which job.
Can you help me out?
With regards to gravity potential -
This is the negative of the force that would bring the mass in from infinity.  Is this calculated as per the inverse square law proportional to distance from mass as with gravity field, or is it other considerations?
With regards to potential energy - is this purely motion related or does the gravity potential add in some way to the magnitude?
How does time getting faster in space relate to this potential energy?
How does reduction in frequency of light relate to gravity potential/potential energy?
Kinetic energy and relativistic mass in relation to motion and light - ?
Gravity potential seems also to be connected to kinetic energy.

With regards to causality.  I'll rephrase my questions:

Do the clocks, far away clock, clock 1 and clock 2 have a cause for the rate of time their keeping?

In relation to the Pound Rebka experiment, my understanding is because light has relativistic mass that it has a lower frequency leaving a gravity field than when it arrives into one...  You have said that this is also the case for light being pointed back at earth from space...(?) (this also being from a gravity field, I'll point out)
The gravity field affects the frequency of light due to its relativistic mass, (in my simple understanding ) or... if this light is not attributed this relativistic mass then my model states this effect to be due to gravitational time in an absence of mass in distance "relaxing" length of frequency and therefore length of moments into longer resolutions.

[timey (OP)]

Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.

Well no, not at-all JeffreyH.

If the observer was within the gravitational pull of the earth then it's time will be running just a minuscule bit faster than the clocks on earth.  It will observe no change in the rotation of the earth.
If the observer was far away from the gravitational reach of the earth, or any other body of mass, it would be viewing the earth's shorter length of moment from its longer length of moment.  The rotation of the earth would not appear faster, it would in fact be a fragmented view if indeed we had a really, really strong telescope in the space craft with which to view this effect through.

[timey (OP)]

P.S.  The only circumstances that I can envisage increasing the rotations of the earth are for instance if the sun was in a slingshot ecliptic with another "dark star"...as the two stars began on their "inner" ecliptic rotation, the overall gravity field would increase, the sun would be travelling faster and the planets would have to rotate faster to keep up, in which case our days would get shorter and our length of moments on earth would get shorter, ie: frequencies would get higher.

P.S.S ... And that would be "elliptic" not "ecliptic" ... (Lol, terminology really does make a difference)

[timey (OP)]

The simplest means of proving/disproving this piece of logic I have proposed ie: my model, would be to find two locations at the lowest possible and exact same elevation relative to the earths radius, one of which we know to be of a denser consistency than the other... and place atomic clocks that have been synchronised to each other upon both locations to record any differences.

[David Cooper]

Time is a product of gravity in my model.  The gravity field determines the rate that a clock ticks at and it determines the frequency of light and atoms. (The GPS clocks tick faster because although they are located in a coordinate of a weaker gravity field, they are experiencing a greater gravity field due to the relationship of their associated mass with earth...IF ANYONE CAN TELL ME IF THIS RELATIONSHIP "IS" BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS, I'd be grateful)

There is a thing called proper time in SR/GR (and apparent time in LET) which relates to the ticking rates of perfect clocks. Proper time determines the frequency of light that is produced at the location of each clock, doubtless because some mechanism that generates light oscillates under the control of proper time and writes the sine waves into the light with a frequency which shows the oscillation rate and which gives the light a particular colour - these are two representations of the same proper time. You assert repeatedly that your "coordinate time" (which I have renamed improper time as it is not a coordinate time and is essentially an invertion of proper time) will determine the frequency of things like light, but that is not true - the frequency is always directly tied to proper time without any inversion. You then assert that the frequency we see isn't the real frequency, but that we're only seeing a fragmented version of events, but that cannot be true - we see every up and down of every sine wave and every tick of every clock, and we can go to count them at source if we want to, whereupon we find exactly the same number of ticks as we see when looking from another location where proper time runs at a different rate. There is no fragmentation - all the ticks are seen, and all the action is smooth.

Your theory breaks right there, so you need to find another version of the theory which doesn't contradict what we see and measure. Repeatedly claiming our view is fragmented and that something ticks faster deep in a gravity well than it looks from further out just won't hack it - we can go there and check that it isn't ticking faster than it appears to be, and when we do this we indeed find that it isn't ticking faster than it appears to be. Let's put a planet near a black hole and spin it, then we can count the number of times it spins from higher up. You assert that it spins more times than we see, but we can send someone down to it to count the rotations and then get him to come back up to tell us how many rotations he experienced from there while we watched from above, and the numbers of rotations will match up. If you want to build a valid theory, it has to stop contradicting that.

You also have a bizarre idea that the further away a clock gets from another source of gravity, the stronger the gravitational field it's in will be due to a "relationship of their associated mass with earth". The gravitational field will weaken as they move further apart, and the clock may have no mass of its own if it is the purest kind of clock, light, so it has no mass to be part of a relationship of associated mass. However, you don't need to add this complication because it contradicts another part of your own theory - you already claim that from a higher location the view of the lower location will be fragmented such that the lower clock will actually be ticking faster than the higher clock but merely looking slower, so you don't need to go through contortions trying to account for it in a different way that contradicts that. The view of the higher clock from the lower one would also have to have a different view of things from the reality, so while it's doing its extra ticks (which even a local observer can't see, but let's ignore that for the moment) that aren't seen from the higher clock, the view it has of the higher clock have to be the opposite of fragmented - it has to see more ticks from the higher clock than the higher clock actually makes!

Can you still not see the problem with this?

The events that we are looking at are the paths of light rays travelling towards us over reference frames of changing lengths of moment.  We are not seeing every part of those light rays.  We just see a small percentage of the light.

You also have to stop using reference frames as a mechansim - they are just frames used for analysis and only one should be used at a time.

There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field.

Then your model denies that there is a proper time and it cannot account for the way clocks actually tick other than by asserting that they don't tick in the way they appear to and that cycles go missing due to fragmentary views, but that contradicts reality.

In my model there is no overriding time aspect, no universal time.  The only universal time is "the present".  All reference frames despite their variable lengths of moment operate in the "present". (this being why it is not possible to view the entirety of the events of a longer length of moment from a shorter length of moment.)
In my model all measuring of time motion and distance can be made relative to a gravity field, not relative to another observer.

It is one heck of a mess, and I wish you could see that, because I'm sure you have other talents that you could be putting your time into. This theory is not viable. Focus on the frequency issue and the number of ticks generated at different locations. Look at how they can be counted by someone at the scene and compare that by how they are counted by someone watching from afar where proper time runs at a different rate. Think through the implications of fragmentation (and its opposite twin which you haven't even considered) where some ticks have to go missing (or be seen more than once - awkward if each tick has a number encoded into it so that any interruption to the sequence stands out clearly). You don't need more maths - you just need to think this bit through. Here's a simple thought experiment - you send someone down towards a black hole and he (you're not going to waste a woman on this in case she's sucked in) signals a series of numbers back up to you at a rate of one per second by his watch. Every two seconds, you receive a number from him, and each number is one up from the one before. You send numbers down to him as well, sending one every second by your watch and making each number one bigger than the one before. He receives two numbers from you every second and none of them are missing or repeated. Both of you are seeing the full picture with no ticks (numbers) going missing and none being repeated. There is no fragmentation (and no opposite of it either with repeated action). Your theory dies right there.

[timey (OP)]

I really am sorry David but your interpretation of what is happening in my model is beyond me.  You cannot base your interpretation of a closed system non expanding model on the same premiss as an open sytstem expanding model.  It just can't be done!  You keep trying to "add" my concepts to the concepts of the current model rather than replacing the concepts in the current model with the alternative I propose.

I myself am in full understanding of the premiss of my model, having had a long history of having no problem whatsoever in taking on board all sorts of complicated concepts across the board, but again - as I did in the header post - I stress that I appreciate this does not make my model a "viable" model.

It occurs to me that while it is a logical possibility that someone who is not "qualified" may have a relevant idea in any field, logically speaking it is not possible for someone who is not qualified in that field to dismiss an idea out of hand because they do not understand it.

[timey (OP)]

Ok then David, let us get into it...

The GPS clocks run a small fraction of a second faster than clocks on earth.

What specifically causes this "proper time" clock to tick one tick in one reference frame per 2 ticks in another reference frame?
Distance apart?
Gravity field?