[timey (OP)]

This thread is an offshoot from Mike's thread that can be found here:

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/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

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/humans-age-in-space.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.

[Mike Gale]

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.

[timey (OP)]

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:



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?

[GoC]

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.

[alancalverd]

"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.

[GoC]

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:



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.

[timey (OP)]

"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?)

[GoC]

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.

[timey (OP)]

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.

[GoC]

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.

[timey (OP)]

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.

[Mike Gale]

Wow! That was a flurry of ideas. I see that you (timey) are a non-believer 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 nay-sayers have all their work ahead of them.

[timey (OP)]

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: "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!

[Mike Gale]

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.

[Mike Gale]

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.

[timey (OP)]

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 at-all 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.

[Mike Gale]

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.

[timey (OP)]

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.

[Mike Gale]

I'm having trouble following your arguments because you use unconventional terms like contra-directional 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?

[timey (OP)]

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 at-all 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 in-between 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.