[timey (OP)]

Yes - the fact that my model adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.

A clock cannot measure open space, because when you put the clock into open space, the space is no longer open, but has the mass of the clock in it.

In my model the mass of the clock, and indeed any mass, is subject to an equal addition of gravity potential energy at h from M.  It is h from M that determines this gravity potential value, where the mass value of m in relation to M is irrelevant.

That all mass is affected equally at h from M adheres again to the equivalence principle, and gives physical cause for the concept of a person ageing in keeping with the clock in their reference frame.
(and has astonishing consequences with respect to QM)

[timey (OP)]

As well as my answer to your question as per post above...

A black hole does not follow relativity.

GR predicts black holes doesn't it?


In any case:

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general-relativity/2012/fall

Check out the black holes lecture, in particular the second half regarding event horizon and in-falling objects!

[timey (OP)]

There are literally dozens and dozens of books dedicated to the fact that NOBODY understands relativity.  We only understand that it works...
...And that if we invent a mechanism, that we dub 'dark energy', to push everything apart, and invent a mechanism, that we dub 'dark mass', to hold everything in, that the maths of Relativity works for most things, but has trouble with galaxies, and breaks down in black holes.
NOBODY understands the underlying mechanics of relativity.  The physical causes are lacking.

In looking to make alteration to GR, clearly the logical approach is to explore a remit of GR that does not require dark energy or dark mass.

This is actually a lot simpler than one might imagine!

If we dispense with dark energy, the universe is no longer pushed outward.
Adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation gives alternative description of the red shift distance correlation, also giving a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
In that we now have a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, we must look to the force of gravitational attraction.
This new cause of gravitational acceleration does not give physical cause for the 'attractive' factor of gravity, so we must look at the possibilities of the value of g and G being a split value.

The force of gravity is incredibly weak, and that the force of gravity is so weak is a confounding factor over vast distances between masses...
Therefore a split value between 'attractive' force, and 'accelerative' force is a distinct possibility.
Given that the attractive force will be of a far lesser value than the accelerative force, dark mass will no longer be necessary to stop galaxies flying apart.
(Edit: The acceleration of gravitational attraction causes an 'inward' stress factor, with the outer masses of the galaxy moving through 'slower' time than the inner masses.)
[/size][/color]
I think that the gravitational coupling constant may be of relevance here, and the "magnetic moment of a an electron responsible for an attractive force*"

(*The text in inverted comma's is not my idea, but one I read about put forward by John Faust)

[GoC]

It is h from M that determines this gravity potential value, where the mass value of m in relation to M is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting the h from say the center of the earth where your weightless, if there was a sphere in the center, is the same h you would have in open space away from the earth?

[timey (OP)]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

h from M is height from M.  In the middle of the earth there is no h from M.

In the middle of the earth gravity potential energy will be 0, but the contra directional gravitational time dilation giving cause for the 'acceleration' of gravitational 'attraction' will be at the maximum for that M.

This differs from current physics, in that it is gravity potential in current physics that is being used to describe the 'acceleration' of gravity.
In my model, gravity potential is the exact opposite to inertial free fall, inertial free fall being contra directional gravitational time dilation related.

In my model gravity potential is related only to the value of M and not of m, because we have split the value of G or g into 'attraction', and 'acceleration', and the 'acceleration' of m in relation to M is not based in the 'attractive' force.
Therefore we don't use the actual value of m to calculate the gravity potential energy for m at h from M, only the h of m from M...
...And it is the increase in gravity potential energy for m at h from M that causes increase in frequency for all m at h from M, including the mechanisms of clocks.
Higher frequency = faster tick rate.

As there is no h at reference frame middle of earth, there is no gravity potential energy, but the force of gravitational 'attraction' is greater where mass becomes more compressed, and a more 'attractive' force will cause the subsequent contra directional gravitational time dilation to be inherent with a shorter length of second.

So time dilation for m in relation to M is escalating with the greater gravity potential at h from M. (ie: getting faster/shorter length of seconds)
And the contra directional time dilation is diminishing with the diminishing gravity field of open space in relation to M. (ie: getting slower/longer length of seconds)

Therefore both gravitational time dilations will converge in value, I had thought at ground level earth, but yes, perhaps they may properly converge at reference frame middle of the earth.
(SR time dilation being additional to the picture)

[GoC]

Acceleration slows a clock tick rate. Deceleration speeds up a clock tick rate. Both cause gravity. 

[timey (OP)]

Acceleration slows a clock tick rate. Deceleration speeds up a clock tick rate. Both cause gravity. 

Nowhere have I ever read that SR is the cause of gravity!  Only that accelerations caused by gravity cause SR...

I can accept that what you have said 'may' form a part of your personal theory, but please be clear that this is not an accurate description of current physics remit!

[timey (OP)]

Therefore both gravitational time dilations will converge in value, I had thought at ground level earth, but yes, perhaps they may properly converge at reference frame middle of the earth.

I realise I've been a bit loose in description - so just to clarify:

What I mean is that both gravitational time dilations will converge at the value of a standard second at a certain value of h from centre of M that should be somewhere around sea level.

Then GR gravitational time dilation will increase in length of second (time getting slower) with the gravity potential decrease from sea level to centre of M, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation will be decreased in length of second (time getting faster) with the increased compression of mass from sea level to centre of M.

[GoC]

Then GR gravitational time dilation will increase in length of second (time getting slower) with the gravity potential decrease from sea level to centre of M, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation will be decreased in length of second (time getting faster) with the increased compression of mass from sea level to centre of M.

This is where you do not understand relativity. Time ticks slower as you approach the center of the planet. Pressure has nothing to do with it.

[timey (OP)]

Nope you are very wrong - I do understand the remit and observations of Relativity.
I understand full well that what I am describing here is NOT conventional Relativity, and I also understand this is what YOU are not understanding, nor even reading my posts properly to ensure that you do understand.

What part of 'a clock' is mass', are you not comprehending?

Yes - We 'measure a clock' to be ticking slower at a closer h to M , than we do when the clock is at a further h from M.
(A fact that remains fully described within my model)

Now then... Please tell me GoC, how is it possible for a clock to measure what time is doing in 'open space' in relation to M?

It's not physically possible for a clock to measure 'open space' in relation to M, because as soon as you put a clock in open space, the space is not open anymore, and what will be being measured is the tick rate that is occurring for the m of the clock at h in relation to M.
(Where my model 'adds' a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and states this as the physical cause for the observed phenomenon of gravitational acceleration that m experiences in free fall from a h from M.

Can you please understand this very basic premise?

Yes?
or
No?

[GoC]

Nope you are very wrong - I do understand the remit and observations of Relativity.
I understand full well that what I am describing here is NOT conventional Relativity, and I also understand this is what YOU are not understanding, nor even reading my posts properly to ensure that you do understand.

We can only view ratio's of tick rate for time. There is no rest frame. The clock dilates space even when in space, yes. But this is not the point of my claim. You have to understand relativity properly before you can expect to argue against its application. Observations prove clocks slow there tick rate as they descend a gravity well. It follows potential energy decrease approaching the gravitational center. Am I wrong when you suggested clocks tick rate increases as you approach the center of a planet?

  the contra directional gravitational time dilation will be decreased in length of second (time getting faster) with the increased compression of mass from sea level to centre of M.

Both the observed tick rate and relativity says tick rate slows with the increase in mass M towards the center. A vacuum tube through the center of the earth would tick slower as it descended towards the center. Pressure has nothing to do with it other than compressing more mass in a shorter distance. This would affect the clock in a vacuum tube same as a pressure tube.

What part of 'a clock' is mass', are you not comprehending
Yes - We 'measure a clock' to be ticking slower at a closer h to M , than we do when the clock is at a further h from M.
(A fact that remains fully described within my model)

Now then... Please tell me GoC, how is it possible for a clock to measure what time is doing in 'open space' in relation to M?

We can use atomic clocks to obtain a ratio of tick rates. Time does not have a measurable rest state. There is no reference frame.

It's not physically possible for a clock to measure 'open space' in relation to M, because as soon as you put a clock in open space, the space is not open anymore, and what will be being measured is the tick rate that is occurring for the m of the clock at h in relation to M.
(Where my model 'adds' a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and states this as the physical cause for the observed phenomenon of gravitational acceleration that m experiences in free fall from a h from M.

Time cannot be measured at a fixed value when mass is in the universe. The added dilation in space is the same as the added dilation on earth for the clock. We can only get a ratio of tick rates.

Can you please understand this very basic premise?

Yes?
or
No?

Let's discuss your understanding of dilation. Dilation of mass is expansion in GR and causes light to travel further per tick. Your measuring stick increases by the exact amount light has extra to travel. So we measure the same speed of light in every gravity potential.
Now dilation in SR. Vector velocity increases space the cycle time of the electron has to travel through. Light also travels through the same amount of extra space. So the speed of light at any vector velocity measures the same as the cycle time of the electron. The speed of light is measured to be the same at all possible vector speeds

Now lets look at what is meant by contraction. When the distance light has to travel increases, the view decreases with distance and angle viewed. A visual contraction. When the distance the electron or photon has to travel increases, the tick rate slows in the light and physical clocks using cycle time.

Dilation of mass increases as potential energy decreases to the center of mass. Dilation of mass is the curve of space energy potential. Energy potential is at its least value in the gravitational center.

The center of mass is equivalent to the inertial speed of a space ship after the acceleration (gravity) from the surface of a planet decreasing to the center of a planet where it is inertial

You are trying to take an observed phenomena and change it to an unobserved phenomena. A theory has to follow observations and math.

Do you still question my understanding of what you are saying?

[timey (OP)]

Yes I do still question your understanding of what I am describing...

No I am not taking one phenomenon and changing it into another.
I'm giving a physical cause to a phenomenon that has 'never' previously been given a physical cause.
And this physical cause then gives alternate reason for observation.

Firstly, as you do seem to have an understanding of conventional Relativity, surely you must be aware that while Relativity describes the acceleration of gravity, it provides no physical causation for the phenomenon.

Secondly, I sincerely doubt that it will have escaped your education that it is a well understood concept in physics that the act of incorporating a measuring device into a reference frame that one wishes to measure, physically changes the reference frame one is measuring.

Again - to place a clock into an open space to make measurement of that open space causes the space one is measuring not to be empty.
One will never be able to measure what the phenomenon of time is doing in open space, because to place a clock in an open space causes the space not to be empty.

The only means of making observation of what time may be doing in open space is to
a) observe the acceleration of m in free fall in relation to M.
(ie: all value of m accelerates at the same rate in free fall)
...and
b) observe the extra length in lights wavelength when red shifted away from M.
Or reciprocally, observe the decreased length in lights wavelength when blue shifted towards M.

Simply subject the extra, or lesser portion of the wavelength to the speed distance time formula, where the speed is the speed of light, to obtain a time value, and add or subtract this time value to, or from the length of a standard second, to know the length of second in that reference frame.

Now a metre in all reference frames will always measure as a constant.

This is an alternate means for an interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, and describes a universe that is not expanding, and is most likely contracting...

...Although I do hold that a steady state would be possible in a balanced universe under this 'new' interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, as we were initially discussing, but point you to the fact of the Higgs Bosun value that physicists state is indicative of a non balanced universe, and therefore the possibility of a cyclic universe.

[timey (OP)]

Please read why Maxwell could not explain gravity...

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm

In particular this:

Quote: Maxwell
"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress."

...and I have been able to imagine a physical cause for such a state of stress.

[GoC]

timey

You have not shown a mechanical cause for gravity.

Relativity already has a mechanical reason for gravity. Space time energy moves electrons by absorbing that energy from space. The space energy dilates (less space time energy density of energy for the same space) more towards the center of attraction (gravity). This dilation of energy is the curve Einstein was referring to for the cause of gravity. It's a linear increase in dilation to the center of gravity. It's a linear decrease in potential energy. Clocks tick slower because the dilation creates a greater distance for light and the electron to travel. Your system does not confound the photon and electron. Mass is attracted to more dilated space because it takes less resistance from energy. A BH is the ultimate dilation of energy because inside a BH there is no space energy so they do not experience time. All they can do is suck more mass towards the final entropy of mass.

Einstein already had gravity understood while many lesser minds could not follow his lead. Einstein suggested and probably correct only about 10% of the population could understand relativity. If you truly understand Einstein's relativity there are few questions left for the mechanics of the universe.

There is a point in studying relativity where relativity becomes intuitive.

[timey (OP)]

timey

You have not shown a mechanical cause for gravity.

Relativity already has a mechanical reason for gravity. Space time energy moves electrons by absorbing that energy from space. The space energy dilates (less space time energy density of energy for the same space) more towards the center of attraction (gravity). This dilation of energy is the curve Einstein was referring to for the cause of gravity. It's a linear increase in dilation to the center of gravity. It's a linear decrease in potential energy. Clocks tick slower because the dilation creates a greater distance for light and the electron to travel. Your system does not confound the photon and electron. Mass is attracted to more dilated space because it takes less resistance from energy. A BH is the ultimate dilation of energy because inside a BH there is no space energy so they do not experience time. All they can do is suck more mass towards the final entropy of mass.

Einstein already had gravity understood while many lesser minds could not follow his lead. Einstein suggested and probably correct only about 10% of the population could understand relativity. If you truly understand Einstein's relativity there are few questions left for the mechanics of the universe.

There is a point in studying relativity where relativity becomes intuitive.

GoC I'm terribly sorry, but as I am now placing you on my Ignore list, there is no further point in you posting in this thread.

I'm placing you on my ignore list because you are not engaging in any part of the discussion that I am putting forward.
Furthermore it would seem that your understanding of superluminal jets, SR causing gravity, and loose descriptions of space time are not based in current physics, while Einstein was reported to have stated that Relativity is so simple it can be understood by a six year old child!

I'm very sorry that you must spout these loose descriptions of Relativity 'at' me without engaging in the links and ideas that I put forward while I am trying to make description of my alternate model.
I am looking for someone to help create mathematical notation for the ideas that 'I' am describing that I may know if my ideas can be proven mathematically viable or not.

Clearly you are not interested in even listening to the description, or discussing any matter outside of your 'energy aura' intuitive interpretation of Relativity, which is so 'loose in description, there is no part at which I can engage in.

Good luck with your whatever that may be, and goodbye.

[timey (OP)]

Again - to place a clock into an open space to make measurement of that open space causes the space one is measuring not to be empty.
One will never be able to measure what the phenomenon of time is doing in open space, because to place a clock in an open space causes the space not to be empty.

The only means of making observation of what time may be doing in open space is to
a) observe the acceleration of m in free fall in relation to M.
(ie: all value of m accelerates at the same rate in free fall)
...and
b) observe the extra length in lights wavelength when red shifted away from M.
Or reciprocally, observe the decreased length in lights wavelength when blue shifted towards M.

Simply subject the extra, or lesser portion of the wavelength to the speed distance time formula, where the speed is the speed of light, to obtain a time value, and add or subtract this time value to, or from the length of a standard second, to know the length of second in that reference frame.

Now a metre in all reference frames will always measure as a constant.

This is an alternate means for an interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, and describes a universe that is not expanding, and is most likely contracting...

What one might well be compelled to ask me, is 'why' it is that the extra or lesser length of wavelength - when transposed into a time value via the speed of light - may be added to (for red shift), or subtracted from (for blue shift), the length of a standard second?
(note: blue shift being red shift in reverse, it would only be necessary to subtract a time value from a standard second in the instance of a greater gravity field than sea level, planet Earth)

Well - Both the frequency of light, and the speed of light are derived in relation to the standard second.  Any measure we make of either, in each and all reference frames, is a direct reference relative to a standard second.
Energy is also measured relative to the standard second, as are most measurements in physics.

Essentially what physics is doing by default, is holding the standard second as an absolute reference frame.
All that is missing is the geometrical co-ordinates of exactly where it is that a second will be standard.

One would have thought it a simple matter to pin point an exact co-ordinate for a standard second as to h in relation to M, and give the universe an absolute reference frame from the basis of this co-ordinate of gravity potential in relation to M, and the basis of a standard second, but an absolute reference frame is confounded by the current physics remit of employing SR to travel light across space and the emergence of variable metres in favour of variable speeds of light.

Here we have come full circle, because in adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, we now have a constant speed of light throughout the whole universe, travelling through these variable seconds of space and metres remain constant.

The consequences of this notion result in the frequency, energy and wavelength of light remaining the same in all reference frames of a non uniform gravity field. ie: not actually being gravitationally shifted at-all...but just taking lengthening amounts of time (red shift), or shortening amounts of time (blue shift) to travel a metre...

...But this only works if one accepts that gravity potential energy is 'actually' and 'physically' causing an increase in energy for all m at h from M, and that an FE57, caesium atom, or any other light source emitter, (or indeed any nucleus/atomic/molecular structure), is going to be of a higher energy level at h from M, and emit a higher frequency photon.

This notion has astonishing consequences for QM and the interpretation of the ultraviolet catastrophe via Planck's h constant.

[GoC]

What one might well be compelled to ask me, is 'why' it is that the extra or lesser length of wavelength - when transposed into a time value via the speed of light - may be added to (for red shift), or subtracted from (for blue shift), the length of a standard second?

The dilation of spaetime energy is the wavelength always at c but different distances.

Well - Both the frequency of light, and the speed of light are derived in relation to the standard second.  Any measure we make of either, in each and all reference frames, is a direct reference relative to a standard second.
Energy is also measured relative to the standard second, as are most measurements in physics.

Energy is the reference frame and there is no standard second. We can only measure the ratio between frames.

Essentially what physics is doing by default, is holding the standard second as an absolute reference frame.
All that is missing is the geometrical co-ordinates of exactly where it is that a second will be standard.

Still no standard reference we can measure.

One would have thought it a simple matter to pin point an exact co-ordinate for a standard second as to h in relation to M, and give the universe an absolute reference frame from the basis of this co-ordinate of gravity potential in relation to M, and the basis of a standard second, but an absolute reference frame is confounded by the current physics remit of employing SR to travel light across space and the emergence of variable metres in favour of variable speeds of light.

h in relation to M in what dilation or vector speed? We have no pin point.

Here we have come full circle, because in adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, we now have a constant speed of light throughout the whole universe, travelling through these variable seconds of space and metres remain constant.

Open space in a solar system, galaxy or between galaxies has different dilations of space. There is no std fixed starting point.

The consequences of this notion result in the frequency, energy and wavelength of light remaining the same in all reference frames of a non uniform gravity field. ie: not actually being gravitationally shifted at-all...but just taking lengthening amounts of time (red shift), or shortening amounts of time (blue shift) to travel a metre...

The distance of a meter is different in every frame. The dilation of the frame or speed of the frame determines the shift.

...But this only works if one accepts that gravity potential energy is 'actually' and 'physically' causing an increase in energy for all m at h from M, and that an FE57, caesium atom, or any other light source emitter, (or indeed any nucleus/atomic/molecular structure), is going to be of a higher energy level at h from M, and emit a higher frequency photon.

Lower energy?

This notion has astonishing consequences for QM and the interpretation of the ultraviolet catastrophe via Planck's h constant.

I do not think so.

[timey (OP)]

What one might well be compelled to ask me, is 'why' it is that the extra or lesser length of wavelength - when transposed into a time value via the speed of light - may be added to (for red shift), or subtracted from (for blue shift), the length of a standard second?
(note: blue shift being red shift in reverse, it would only be necessary to subtract a time value from a standard second in the instance of a greater gravity field than sea level, planet Earth)

An observation of light being blue shifted 'could' perhaps be found within the LIGO gravity wave data.

The light in the tubes is being measured at 299 792 458 metres per standard second...
If we take the view point that the gravity wave increases the gravity field for the duration of its passing, and states the light in the tubes as blue shifted as a result - then by attributing the observed 'interference' pattern as being due to the light travelling at 299 792 458 metres per slightly shorter second, as opposed to a slightly longer second, one will find that the tubes have 'not' been contracted.

[timey (OP)]

Again I'll make clear - This is an experimental model of a cyclic universe that makes all of its development in a very slow contraction period.

This model 'could' be viewed as a 'back to front' Bounce theory...
Back to front because all development into clumped mass occurs in a slow contraction period that speeds up as it progresses - as opposed to all development into clumped mass occurring in a fast expansion period that slows down.

Where Bounce theory does not provide the mechanics and physical cause of its outward expansion, my 'back to front' Bounce model states the black hole phenomenon as the physical cause and mechanics for its outward expansion, and states a split value gravity - both an 'attractive gravitational force', and my model's 'accelerative gravitational stress' - responsible for both the development of mass into clumps, and consequently, the contraction period that occurs as a result of mass developing into bigger clumps.

Again - in reading the above posts, one must 'expect' that a description of this 'different' contracting model will require an altered remit of GR and SR.

I am posting my description of this alternative model here at this site in hope of finding someone to help me create mathematical notation to describe this altered remit of Relativity that I am putting forward, to ascertain if this model can be mathematically viable.
(ie: that these altered dimensions can be, albeit for different reasons, proportional in value to GR mathematics and observation)

[timey (OP)]

The interesting thing about this altered remit of relativity is that we now have 3 separate dimensions of time dilations...
GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M.
My model's contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M. (ie:  contra directional to GR gravitational time dilation)
SR motion related time dilation for m in relative motion

This arrangement of time dilations can be viewed as an annexed time matrix to the space time matrix, where there are 3 dimensions of calculable time dilations - which when taken into account result in the time component of the space time matrix.

I understand how matrix mathematics work, (in principle), but could use talking to a person who is trained in maths to understand how this concept I'm putting forward here 'may' or 'may not' be realised.

In posts 33 and 34, my thought experiment outlined, (with a rather crude representation of maths,) more or less how my model views these 3 time dilations interacting with each other, and that a resulting 'proper time' could be achieved.

This would render the space dimensions of the space time matrix as 'distance invariable', and the geometry of curved space as 'purely' time dilation related, also giving physics a 'never before realised', fully comprehensive and complete theory of the phenomenon of time itself.