Yes... I believe that is an entirely natural way to think about it considering cosmological considerations of mass, Hubble's law, and the focus of this being synonymous of expansion... But as a piece of logic, it does not work.

This is why: Light will redshift until the point of the least gravitational field between a receptor and the light source, and from this point on it will blueshift towards the greater gravitational field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experimentWe can see that relativity has been tested, via redshift in the Pound Rebka experiment. This was conducted from ground to the bell tower (?) and reversed, at Harvard. The focus of this experiment was 'time' oriented.

Alan, for me, the most significant information in the 'gravitational redshift' link, of my last post, is this:

"This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation - as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential). There is a corresponding reduction in energy when electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted, as given by Planck's relation, due to the electromagnetic radiation propagating in opposition to the gravitational gradient."

Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential. Now, under the premiss of ITT, consider that time is 'reducing' in rate, as per the frequency of the light. The fact of the ensemble of the current mathematics can be used to ascertain that the fact of lights frequency being inverse to the current remit of a quicker rate of time being significant. And the length by which a wavelength becomes longer is also significant.

Now, if I were a mathematician, or indeed if someone can give me a lesson in scientific calculator usage, (square root 2 being blatantly obvious), I think I could (given some time) turn the current maths inside out to represent what I am trying to describe here with Inverted Time Theory.

Does that make sense?