[alancalverd]

An additional Axiom: "The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"

Speed being length divided by time, this defines the "rate of time" as being measured in meters per second, and clearly being a knowable quantity.

What is the local rate of time at some known place on earth? It must be measurable or calculable at, say, Teddington or Paris.

[jeffreyH]

It is a simple fact that whatever you see today is the result of what happened yesterday or 13 billion years ago, depending on where you look.

As you can see from my analysis in #1064, it doesn't matter what happened between the source and the detector: gravitational red shift depends only on the relative gravitational potentials at the time and place of the source and detector.

Energy is conserved. A photon starts its life with kinetic energy hf and an arbitrary potential energy dependent on the mass of its source. As it travels it may gain or lose potential energy by passing near other masses, but each such gain or loss is reflected by a change in f as seen by an observer at that point in space and is recovered as the photon leaves that point.

Imagine a frictionless ball rolling along a bumpy surface: it loses kinetic energy as it climbs a bump, and gains k.e. on the way down. Its final kinetic energy depends only on the initial k.e. and the height difference between start and finish.  The velocity of a photon is constant but its k.e. is its frequency.

I gave up but can't leave this post unremarked. Alan has said here all that needs to be said.

[timey (OP)]

It is a simple fact that whatever you see today is the result of what happened yesterday or 13 billion years ago, depending on where you look.

As you can see from my analysis in #1064, it doesn't matter what happened between the source and the detector: gravitational red shift depends only on the relative gravitational potentials at the time and place of the source and detector.

Energy is conserved. A photon starts its life with kinetic energy hf and an arbitrary potential energy dependent on the mass of its source. As it travels it may gain or lose potential energy by passing near other masses, but each such gain or loss is reflected by a change in f as seen by an observer at that point in space and is recovered as the photon leaves that point.

Imagine a frictionless ball rolling along a bumpy surface: it loses kinetic energy as it climbs a bump, and gains k.e. on the way down. Its final kinetic energy depends only on the initial k.e. and the height difference between start and finish.  The velocity of a photon is constant but its k.e. is its frequency.

I gave up but can't leave this post unremarked. Alan has said here all that needs to be said.

Erm, yes... A very good desciption of general relativity.

If we were talking exclusively about a theory of general relativity, then I agree, what more is there to say.

I am talking about theoretical physics here, and am introducing a new theory and model.  Therefore if I should wish to describe my model, then by all logical remit, the post that Alan has made is NOT all there is to say...A fact that is backed up by all those books that theoretical physicist write about MOND, DSSR, VLS, etc...

Hello?  Due logical process?

Whether or not the theory has any merit or not is another matter, but if my memory serves me well, you said you were starting to understand my theory. What happened?

[timey (OP)]

An additional Axiom: "The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"

Speed being length divided by time, this defines the "rate of time" as being measured in meters per second, and clearly being a knowable quantity.

What is the local rate of time at some known place on earth? It must be measurable or calculable at, say, Teddington or Paris.

OK - yes the speed of light is a speed, and you say

speed being length divided by time, this defines the "rate of time" as being measured in meters per second, and clearly being a knowable quantity.

Decription 1: In general relativity a second changes length with each change of position of difference in the gravity potential, (leading to considerations by some physicists as to possibility of variable speed of light).
But also in general relativity the speed of light is measured as covering 1 metre per second in each and every reference frame.

Description 2: In special relativity, (which can only be used when travelling at a 'constant speed', ie: flat space with no gravity accelerations/decellerations) a second is held as a constant length against a constant speed of light.
But also in special relativity a metre changes length, and the magntude of the amount by which the metre changes length is dependent on by how much of a percentage of the speed of light the object has as it's travelling speed.

The objective of the spacetime structure of my model is to describe both general and special relativity effects within one mathemetical structure.
With regards to my model's additional axiom: "The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time", one must remember that in my model there is a seperate dimension of time for where m=0.  The local rate of time for light at a position in the gravity potential of the gravitational mass, will not be the same as the rate of time for mass in the same position in the gravity potential of the gravitational mass.

This is all dependent on my models description of an anistropically distributed energy in space that is proportional to the distribution of the gravity potential of the gravitational mass, where the axiom "the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time", goes hand in hand with the other added axiom "+energy=shorter seconds" where I am attributing the clock's increase in frequency of electron transitions with an increase in energy.
(giving a physical causation for high energy physics at elevation. ie: lighting, and other electron/positron observations)

Now one must remember that the objective is to describe both general and special relativity effects in one mathematical structure, where the geometry of space is not spatially curved, but is curved by the changes in time that my model adds for where m=0)

Looking at how this might work:
If we take description 1, general relativity's remit of faster length seconds in the higher gravity potential, which GR uses to describe an extended hypotenuse for non Euclidean geometry/Riemannian geometry/curvature...where we consider that the speed of light can be held relative to those faster/shorter length seconds, (which is a known general relativity consideration)...
And then, going to description 2, consider (as a new venture) that special relativity is using a constant speed of light across this curved area of space that is the gravity potential of the gravitational mass. As per this remit, as a combination of both considerations, then from the special relativity point of view the speed of light is becoming lesser in the faster time. If not, then one would have to hold the speed of light relative to each faster ticking clock in the higher potential in order to maintain a constant speed for the light in each of the reference frames it is passing through as it travels into the higher potential of the gravitational mass.

Consideration 1: So my model says that the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time, and that the local rate of time for light in the higher potential comprises of longer length seconds.  These longer length seconds will be exactly as much longer in length as the amount by which the shorter seconds are shorter, as compared to the observers clock, that is in the referece frame with the observer of the faster ticking clock.

Now we can go back to description 2:
quote:
"But also in special relativity a metre changes length"

Under the remit of consideration 1, this is the same as saying that a reference frame with a shorter length second will measure llight travelling a shorter distance than 299 792 458 metres per second, ie: a shorter metre.

Consideration 2: And we can also say that an object that is travelling at a constant speed 'through' the longer length seconds that my model adds, will apear not to have travelled as far. ie: a shorter metre.

This all is however complicated by:
Description 2 quote:
"and the magntude of the amount by which the metre changes length is dependent on by how much of a percentage of the speed of light the object has as it's travelling speed."

Ok, well we can uncomplicate that somewhat, and say that any speed the object has is a consequence of the gravitational potential, and any acceleration or decelleration that an object experiences in the gravity potential is gravity related.

So - forget about Paris or Teddington, and remembering that these considerations are concerning an alternate spacetime structure that will fit observation, let's go back to clocks 1 on the ground, clock 2 elevated above clock 1, and clock 3 elevated above clock 2, and a light source radiating electromagnetic radiation that is escaping the gravity well.

The escaping electromagnetic radiation is observed by clock 2 as redshifted as compared to how clock 1 observes the radiation.  Clock 3 observes the radiation from the ground as more redshifted than clock 2 does.

Clock 3 observes that clock 2 is less redshifted than clock 1, but... (and please correct me if I am wrong) Clock 3 observes the same magnitude of redshift of clock 1 that it observes of the redshift of the electromagnetic radiation radiating from the light source on the ground.
The clock on the ground, clock 1, observes clock 3 to be blueshifted, and...(please correct me if I am wrong) clock 1 observes clock 3 to be blueshifted by the same magnitude as clock 3 observes clock 1 to be redshifted.

My model states that the electromagnetic radiation from the light source on the ground is measured as redshifted by clock 3 partly b/c clock 3 is running faster, and partly b/c it has lost frequency due to (this is where conventional physics say 'kinetic energy loss') the slower rate of time that is occurring in space.
(this being compatible with overlaying special relativity onto curved space via using a constant speed of light for where seconds are getting shorter, noting that this isn't taking into consideration any special relativity slowing of time for the light, or object. How light perceives it's time is not relevant, and for an object who's motions are purely gravity related, in my model 'motion related time' is included as part and parcel of the observation of a clock.  This will be fully described in pages 9, 10, and 11)

The clock is then ticking faster, not b/c 'time' runs faster in space, but as an m in relation to M phenomenon.
Now this is where the other axiom that I add comes in.  This being "+energy=shorter seconds", where the 'energy' of space is anistropically distributed proportional to the gravity potential of the gravitational mass, and m near M has more energy (higher frequency electron transitions) in the higher gravity potential.
(giving a physical causation for high energy physics at elevation. ie: lighting, and other electron/positron observations)

So - Clock 3 observes clock 2 as less redshifted than clock 1.  Clock 2 has an increased frequency of electron transitions as compared to clock 1.  However, clock 3 is observing clock 2 as a light signal, and what I'm going to say is that clock 2 is not ticking as fast as clock 3 thinks it is.
Clock 3 is observing a redshifting of the light released by clock 2.  Half of the magnitude of the shift is due to the amount by which clock 3 is ticking faster than clock 2, and the other half is due to the light travelling into the space of a lower energy higher gravity potential, ie: slower time where m=0. (the extra length in wavelength is a temporal addition instead of a spacial addition)
Clock 2 is observing a blueshift of the light released by clock 3.  Again clock 3 isn't ticking as fast as that blueshift observation suggests.  Half of that observation is due to clock 3 ticking faster, and half of that observation is due to the light travelling into the space of a higher energy lower gravity potential, ie:faster time where m=0. (the lesser length in wavelength is a temporal subtraction instead of a spatial subtraction)

Overlay this with the special relativity length contractions that increase with increased speed (from the observers perspective), and what my model does is either describe why length contractions occur (for special relativity) as a function of both dimensions of time and their time dilations, or re-describe the curvature of space (for general relativity) as a function of changes in a time that occurs where m=0.

That is what page 5, that I am working on now, is concerning.

I kind of recommend that you wait to see the entire paper before trying to understand how my model fits all of these aspects into a contracting scenario, although any help with presentation (and with maths, should you finally understand what I'm up to), would be greatly appreciated.

[Colin2B]

I’m just going to pick up a few items of terminology in case you use this in your paper.

“leading to considerations by some physicists as to possibility of variable speed of light” - most physicists consider this to be the case as per Shaperio delay, but due to length contraction/time dilation

“But also in general relativity the speed of light is measured as covering 1 metre per second in each and every reference frame.” - no it isn’t measured. For convenience c is sometimes set at 1 to simplify calculations.

“In special relativity, (which can only be used when travelling at a 'constant speed', ie: flat space with no gravity accelerations/decellerations) a second is held as a constant length against a constant speed of light.” - SR can be used for acceleration. You need to say “flat spacetime”. Length of a second is dilated in SR.

Sorry if you feel this is a painful process, but if you had ever been involved in a full peer review process you would think you have got off lightly.
The process is there to ensure there are no obvious trip up points which would lead to instant rejection. The final step, which you will need to go through is a spelling, typo, grammar check and double check reference numbers and Fig numbers - easy for them to get separated during editing.

[alancalverd]

The details of the model don't concern me yet. I'm just interested in the concept of "rate of time". If you assert that it is a meaningful quantity, then you should be able to state or calculate it for a location where we generate time signals and all the relevant variables (e.g. g) are known.

No need to worry about the numbers, but if you can give an expression for the rate of time in terms of whatever you consider affects it, we can do the calculation and demonstrate the validity of the basis of your model.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - it's not these type of posts that you make here that are painful. This is constructive criticism, which is indeed helpful.

No I wasn't planning on including theses descriptions in my paper. I was going to be relying on the diagrams to show how length contractions or curvature can be partially described, or described by my added dimension of time for where m=0, noting that in the description of my post that at no point was the special relativity slowing of time used.

But with the Shapiro delay there lies the perfect opportunity to check and see if my theory can actually be mathematically viable.
Since you and Alan know maths, it would be possible for you to ascertain the viability of my idea via this Shapiro effect observation if you were up for it? If you/you's are up for it, then I could post how 'I' see the possibility of describing the Shapiro effect observation via my theory later on tonight?

[timey (OP)]

OK, so I guess the idea of re-describing the precise magnitude of the Shapiro effect via the remit of my theory as a mathematical venture is a non-starter.
For the record, all that is required is an inversing of the curvature of the geometry.

It would help me a lot if someone could confirm exactly what percentage of the magnitude of observed redshift, of electro magnetic radiation escaping into the higher gravity potential, current physics attributes to the measurement of the observed redshift by the faster ticking clock in the higher potential - in comparison to the percentage of the magnitude of the observed redshift of the electro magnetic radiation that is attributed to kinetic energy loss in the higher potential...
(Remembering that the observation of light can only be observed when the light reaches the reference frame it is being observed from)

[Colin2B]

OK, so I guess the idea of re-describing the precise magnitude of the Shapiro effect via the remit of my theory as a mathematical venture is a non-starter.
For the record, all that is required is an inversing of the curvature of the geometry.

Sorry, must have misunderstood, i thought you were going to post something for us to look at.

I’m going to be out for a while with min interaction/thinking time, but hopefully back after next week.

[timey (OP)]

No - I was waiting to hear if you and Alan were up for attempting a re-describing of the Shapiro effect magnitude via the remit of my theory.  This would involve some participation on your part in identifying how the Shapiro effect is being calculated, where I can tell you at each manipulation of the calculation as to how my theory inverts the curve.

If at each point where curvature is calculated, the inverse (or negative) curvature is used as a replacement, the amount of Shapiro effect delay for the inversed (negative) curvatures will be, by due logical process, exactly the same as for the non-inversed (positive) curvatures.

Anyway, maybe after next week when you get more time.

[alancalverd]

As I understand it, the Shapiro delay is the difference between the theoretical straight-line propagation of a signal and its actual geodesic path in the presence of an intervening gravitational field. If you invert the geodesic curvature, the "lensing" effect is inverted from "convex" to "concave" and the signal will not be received at all.

Apropos the calculation of redshift, the "clock rate" or "kinetic energy" calculations give identical results because they are alternative ways of describing the same thing. The good news is that the result is supported by experimental data.

[Colin2B]

In addition to what Alan says about the lensing, inverting the curvature doesn’t give the same result for time delay.
The original calculation uses Schwarzschild metric and increased distance so the inverse calculation would be complex. However, rough idea - consider you model where light is passing through different rates of time. In current view light starts far away in fastest rate of time, approaches mass, spends short time there and goes on to spend longer in faster rate area. The inverse of this means light spend longest time in slow-time area and short time in fast-time area. Clearly the 2 are not mirror images. To get the same result as Shapiro would require a much more complex system than you are proposing.

[timey (OP)]

As I understand it, the Shapiro delay is the difference between the theoretical straight-line propagation of a signal and its actual geodesic path in the presence of an intervening gravitational field. If you invert the geodesic curvature, the "lensing" effect is inverted from "convex" to "concave" and the signal will not be received at all.

Apropos the calculation of redshift, the "clock rate" or "kinetic energy" calculations give identical results because they are alternative ways of describing the same thing. The good news is that the result is supported by experimental data.

This being in reply to both @Colin2B 's post as well as @alancalverd 's

Ok - so 'inverting the geodesic curvature', as in 'light being bent away from an intermediary mass' is not the type of inversing that I am suggesting.  As Colin's post addresses, the matter of inversing the curves is more complex than this.
And it goes without saying that the fact that light is observed to be bent towards an intermediary mass to cause lensing is not invertable.

For the benefit of the lay person readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

wiki: "The time delay effect was first observed in 1964, by Irwin Shapiro. Shapiro proposed an observational test of his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury and measure the round-trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 microseconds"

Alan, you say:

As I understand it, the Shapiro delay is the difference between the theoretical straight-line propagation of a signal and its actual geodesic path in the presence of an intervening gravitational field.

So first off, when you say "the theoretical straight-line propagation of a signal", it has to be taken into consideration that in bouncing a signal off Venus (or Mercury) the time increases between Earth and Venus, and the spacial curvature between the gravity wells of Earth and Venus are part and parcel of that 'initial' time measurement of the experiment.

wiki
"In a nearly static gravitational field of moderate strength (say, of stars and planets, but not one of a black hole or close binary system of neutron stars) the effect may be considered as a special case of gravitational time dilation. The measured elapsed time of a light signal in a gravitational field is longer than it would be without the field, and for moderate-strength nearly static fields the difference is directly proportional to the classical gravitational potential, precisely as given by standard gravitational time dilation formulas."

So - question 1:
When wiki say "and for moderate-strength nearly static fields the difference is..." ...does this mean that the following calculations are based on there being flat spacetime between Earth and Venus?

Moving down the wiki page:

wiki
"Shapiro's original formulation was derived from the Schwarzschild solution and included terms to the first order in solar mass (M) for a proposed Earth-based radar pulse bouncing off an inner planet and returning passing close to the Sun:"

...and then there is the first equation. The description of the equation goes on to say:

wiki:
"The right-hand side of this equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray; the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"

So firstly, here it is stating that "the right hand side of the equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray", where presumably this variable speed is being caused by the influence of the intermediary mass (the closer sun).  This re-enforcing question 1, being the question of whether this calculation of a variable speed for the light is being calculated from the initial conditions of a flat spacetime between Earth and Venus?

And secondly it is stating:

wiki: "the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"

Question 2:
Does this mean that it is only the time variants being calculated here, with the 'geodesic curvature' (that is observed via lensing in other experiments) being negligable?

Moving down the wiki page further, the maths appear to change to geometry related, and the Eulidean dot product is applied, arriving at the description:

wiki:
"which is the extra distance the light has to travel"

Question 3:
So as per you saying:

Apropos the calculation of redshift, the "clock rate" or "kinetic energy" calculations give identical results because they are alternative ways of describing the same thing.

Am I seeing here within the Shapiro Effect maths 2 differing means of arriving at the same results?

Laying out how my model makes it's approach:

My model's calculation of the Shapiro Effect would incorporate including the factor of Earth and Venus being in their own gravitational wells.  This is the first instance where the curve is inverted.
General Relativity states this curve as being comprised of slower time at ground level Earth and Venus, and faster rates of time inbetween.
My model states the exact opposite.  It states this curve as being comprised of faster time at ground level Earth and Venus, and slower time inbetween. (In my model it is only objects that are comprised of mass will register faster time in the higher potential, this being an m near M phenomenon)

Note that: The measurement of the amount of time it takes for light to arrive at and bounce back from Venus is determined via experiment and does not discount light taking longer to travel the distance.  In fact if light takes longer to travel the distance, then there is no need to add spatial curvature to the distance. This spatial curvature is already described as a temporal effect by the slower time.
(This is an important distinction.  Instead of describing the geometry as spatial hills and troughs that objects fall into and climb out of, I have introduced a spatially flat geometry where gravitational wells are comprised of rates of time that get progressively faster, and objects moving at constant speed are accelerated by these increases in time when moving into a gravity well, and are decelerated by the decreases in time when moving out of gravity well.  But this isn't to say that light does not bend towards a gravitational mass, as will be discussed in a mo)

Now we are moving the Sun closer and bouncing the light to Venus and back past the presence of the Sun.

General Relativity states that the Sun in closer proximity will cause time to go slower and that this will slow the faster rate of time... (or are the maths starting from a basis of flat spacetime between E and V?)  ...will slow the faster rate of time that is between Earth and Venus, causing a delay in the return of the signal.

My models states the opposite, and that the Sun is running slightly faster time than Earth and Venus...
(much like satelites of E, where we observe that clocks run slightly faster time above E, but clocks on satelites to E run slightly slower clocks than E, due to SR motion related time dilation)
...and that the closer proximity of the Sun will cause the slower time in the space between Earth and Venus to run slightly faster. It will also cause clocks on E and V to tick marginally faster*, where the latter affects the measurement of the former, (bur dirsnt cancel) leaving us with a faster return time than the measurement when the Sun was not so close... (contrary to experimental evidence)  However, b/c light has energy, and energy is attracted to mass/mass is attracted to energy, the blueshifted light will be curved towards the intermediary mass (Sun).  The amount by which the light is curved is an attraction inwards, accentuated into faster motion by the faster rate of time near the Sun.  The extended curve comprises an extra distance travelled by the light.  (This is not the same as saying that light tavelling from Earth to Venus and back takes longer than the speed of light as per Earth clock to travel, and therefore space must be spatially curved with extra distance. In this 'new description' light is curving across Euclidean geometry to travel extra distance)

Weighing the extra distance travelled against the amount by which the slower time between Earth and Venus has been sped up by the closer proximity of the Sun, in relation to the amount by which the closer proximity of the Sun has increased the tick rates of clocks on Earth and Venus*, one should arrive at the amount by which the light took longer to travel due to the extra distance travelled via the curve of 'gravitational attraction' towards the Sun.
(*Neither Earth or Venus are any closer to the Sun, so no change in gravity potential height from Sun = no slowing of time due to being closer to Sun. When the 3 bodies align with Sun in middle, this causes a temporary overall increase in g field and a very slight 'increase' in tick rate.)

This assembly relies on using a 'newly introduced' time and time dilation factor for where m=0, while using the concept of observed time dilation of clocks in relation to gravitational M, and states that the energy of light will be 'gravitationally attracted' towards the gravitational M via blueshifted energy increases, and this attraction is accentuated by the faster rates of time nearer the gravitational mass.

This will not cause a lensing effect to be concave rather than convex.  Light moving into a gravitational field will be blueshifted and move faster as it is curved inwards  via 'gravitational attraction' towards the intermediary mass, and redshifts as it leaves again having had it's direction slightly changed by the inward curve, ie: more light arrives at observation point Earth, ie: lensing.

So - in order to ascertain if my model's remit can produce the same time delay results as the Shapiro Experiment recorded - first it becomes important to know, via the equations that show this Shapiro result to be compatible with conventional GR and SR, whether or not it was a flat spacetime that was used between Earth and Venus in order to calculate the variations in time that the presence of the Sun was calculated to have effected.

Any idea?

[alancalverd]

This re-enforcing question 1, being the question of whether this calculation of a variable speed for the light is being calculated from the initial conditions of a flat spacetime between Earth and Venus?

As I understand it, yes. And once again, two ways of calculating the same thing. In the Shapiro case I find geodesics in a plastic spacetime rather easier to visualise than time dilatation in a Minkowski spacetime. But then I am very old and feeble of mind.

[Colin2B]

wiki:
"The right-hand side of this equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray; the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"

So firstly, here it is stating that "the right hand side of the equation is primarily due to the variable speed of the light ray", where presumably this variable speed is being caused by the influence of the intermediary mass (the closer sun).  This re-enforcing question 1, being the question of whether this calculation of a variable speed for the light is being calculated from the initial conditions of a flat spacetime between Earth and Venus?

As Alan says, plastic spacetime the curvature of which results in both time and distance changes, so not flat spacetime - else there would be no ‘influence of the intermediary mass’, but flat space ie no curvature of the path. But as Alan says you can separate the 2 to see individual effects.
This is the part due to time dilation. Close to the sun, the effective rate at which time passes is slowed - according to current theory - that slowing is dependant on the GP at the points it passes through, so it slows down both on way in and out (this is not the same as redshift/blueshift) and the time taken is the integral over the entire path. That integral will not be the same if you just invert the time dilations.

Elsewhere you say “Instead of describing the geometry as spatial hills and troughs that objects fall into and climb out of”. Current theory does not describe the geometry as spatial hills and troughs, they are time-dilation hills and troughs the same as you are proposing.

And secondly it is stating:

wiki: "the contribution from the change in path, being of second order in M, is negligible"

Question 2:
Does this mean that it is only the time variants being calculated here, with the 'geodesic curvature' (that is observed via lensing in other experiments) being negligable?"

The lensing itself is not negligible, what is negligible is the additional path length due to lensing. The lengthening of the path due to gravitational bending is only 2.26m but the delay measured by Shapiro was round 200μs equivalent to a distance of 60km.

It would be interesting to work through your scenario for inverted time, can’t promise anything, but it might be a useful exercise for times when I can do nothing but lie back and think.

[timey (OP)]

Elsewhere you say “Instead of describing the geometry as spatial hills and troughs that objects fall into and climb out of”. Current theory does not describe the geometry as spatial hills and troughs, they are time-dilation hills and troughs the same as you are proposing.

Yes - except that GR is (in effect) pasting 'physically', what is in effect longer metres, onto space where there are shorter length seconds in the higher potential, via the geometry of the GR curvature. (light, at light speed per Earth second, travels further than a metre per Earth second in the higher potential)

My model is stating slower seconds* in the higher potential in relation to constant length metres that the light is taking longer to travel.
This construct gives the same result as the GR assembly, and the physical puzzle of curvature being comprised of extra spatial distance is conveniently negated.
(*faster ticking clocks/mass then being an m near M phenomenon)

Checking against SR, if we use SR to measure the light's round trip between Earth and Venus, we are using flat spacetime and length contractions.
GR is saying that seconds are getting shorter in space, and distances are longer via curvature.
So in SR, by using a constant speed of light across a flat space, this (in effect) is the same thing as stating seconds getting longer in the face of the GR remit of seconds getting shorter in the higher potential.
Where in GR remit my model negates the curvature (extra distance) via this addition of a concept of longer seconds in the higher potential stating that the light takes longer to travel a metre.

Now this is complicated, but b/c my model has negated the extra distance of curvature in this manner for GR remit, the SR length contractions calculated of an object inline motion can then be attributed as a product of calculating a constant speed of light over a flat distance, where in fact light speed is covering the metres of the distance in longer period of time, ie: longer seconds  than the speed of light held relative to an Earth second would.  This being due to slower/longer seconds in the space of the higher potential of the gravitational mass.
So this additional dimension of time that my model adds 'should' describe either a) a negative temporal curvature in flat spatial geometry as a replacement for the GR geometry - or b) a negative temporal curvature in flat spatial geometry, where when the speed of light is held relative to the local rate of spacetime for m=0 at each point of change in gravity potential, this negates the SR length contraction calculations.

These slower seconds (of space) then are used as a partial* description of the observed deceleration of an object moving away from a gravitational mass, and conversely, are used as a partial* description of the observed acceleration of an object moving towards a gravitational mass.
(*where the other part of the descriptions are related to the tick rate (frequency of electron transitions) of clocks/mass/object, ie: pages 9, 10, 11 of video, although I am quite sure I can make better description of those pages now, and the energy 'gravitational attraction' of electromagnetic radiation.

Really happy to hear you are going to be having a think about it.  Regardless of whether or not there is any merit to doing so, I've had great fun with it myself.

@alancalverd lol ...you are neither old, nor feeble minded!

[jeffreyH]

@timey said, Whether or not the theory has any merit or not is another matter, but if my memory serves me well, you said you were starting to understand my theory. What happened?

You stopped listening and started to talk nonsense.

[timey (OP)]

@timey said, Whether or not the theory has any merit or not is another matter, but if my memory serves me well, you said you were starting to understand my theory. What happened?

You stopped listening and started to talk nonsense.

When one is describing a 'new theory' one does not 'listen', one 'describes'.

And since you have never stated that which you purported to understand, and - unless what you're saying is that any alteration to GR is nonsense which is in direct disagreement with you saying you purport to understand something of the theory - you also never state that which you think is nonsense!

So basically Jeff, your posting here is simply blah, blah, blah about what I'm not sure.  Hopefully at least you saying 'you give up' will have some meaning and you won't post this thread anymore.
I'd be grateful...and anyway, you can converse on the matter of curvature versus length contractions here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72759.20#lastPost

On your own thread.

I won't 'ever' be responding to you again. I find your posts as if purposed to be hurtful, and I've got absolutely zero respect for that vibe.  Goodbye.

[Colin2B]

Ok, last from me for a while. Just some points of detail about current theory/terminology in case you inlude references in your paper. All of this is probably just differences of wording rather than misunderstanding.

Yes - except that GR is (in effect) pasting 'physically', what is in effect longer metres, onto space where there are shorter length seconds in the higher potential, via the geometry of the GR curvature. (light, at light speed per Earth second, travels further than a metre per Earth second in the higher potential)

Although we can calculate them separately the distance and time changes are both the effect of curvature, so it isn’t really “pasted onto”.
Easier to see if we consider SR:

Checking against SR, if we use SR to measure the light's round trip between Earth and Venus, we are using flat spacetime and length contractions.

“using length contraction and time dilation.
A moving rod is seen, by an observer at rest, to be length contracted, but that contraction is because the time at the front of the rod is out of sync with the time at the rear of the rod - time dilation. We might calculate them separately, but length contraction and time dilation are the same thing.
So:

GR is saying that seconds are getting shorter in space, and distances are longer via curvature.

Best to say, seconds are getting shorter and distances are longer via curvature. It is the same effect, curvature causes both.

I will read through the rest, will be interesting to see the write up if you think you can make a better description. Good writing and fun while you are doing it  .

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B  For when you have recovered...

You say:

Best to say, seconds are getting shorter and distances are longer via curvature. It is the same effect, curvature causes both.

OK - so let's examine this.
First off the light.  Light travelling through a position of higher gravity potential is (via remit of GR) travelling at 299 792 458 metres per second of that position of higher potential.  The metre 'does not have to' change length b/c of the shorter length seconds at this position, as it is physically possible that the light can cover a constant length metre in a lesser amount of time, ie: no added distance of curvature.

So now the distance:
The extra distance of curvature is a requirement of observation. If one bounces a light ray off Venus, Venus is x distance from Earth and the light arrives back at Earth within a specific time period.  From the length of this time period 'as per experiment', it is clear that light speed being increased by the rate of faster time in space cannot be the only factor, b/c light takes too long to get back. Hence the added distance of curvature. Add the extra distance of the curvature and the time period in which the light takes to bounce off Venus and back is 'now' compatible with the increases in rate of time out in space.

This is how I understand it from a General Relativity view.

Calculate via SR and:
Now the space is flat between Earth and Venus. The light travels at speed of light as per Earth second for whole distance there and back with no reference to GR time dilation.  Length contractions occur.
Using SR to calculated the light's round trip from Earth to Venus and back will give same results as using GR, and this result is confirmed by experimental evidence.
(Shapiro Experiment uses Schwartzchild Metric to calculate inclusion of closer proximity of Sun during measurement)

This is my understanding (as per the length of the text allows) of the conventional viewpoint.
If this understanding (you may add to it) is a basis we can converse from, then I can show where 'my' changes to this basis occur as laid out in posts 1113 & 1115, and why a calculation made on the basis of my changes will also give the same result and be compatible with already existing experimental results.

Hope you feel better soon.