[timey (OP)]

Again GoC, you are completely missing the fact that having a temporally dilated g-field would result in the measuring stick remaining unchanged!
Constant metres!

The speed of light does remain constant as it is held relative to the dilated second of the g-field.
The equivalence principle is upheld in that in each reference frame, the speed of light remains 299 792 458 metres held relative to the length of second of that reference frame.

Then for particles with rest mass, all m at h from M experiences an equal addition of gravity potential energy that is derived from its position at h from M, and is not calculated with respect to mass value, (this notion is synonymous to free fall back to front), and again, the equivalence principle is upheld...
All m at h from M remains the equivalent to each other in any reference frame, and this gives us a physical cause for a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock, and reciprocally a physical cause as to why m at h from M does not register that their clock is time dilated.

A clever person might note that the light and the mass will be subject to differing rates of time, and they would be correct.  The lights time is negative to the m at h from M's time at that coordinate.
However, m at h from M would not be able to distinguish this, because if the m at h from M's rate of time is of equal difference to that of the g-field, with respect to ground level M, but positive rather than negative, the light will appear to be travelling 299 792 458 metres from the point of view of both rates of time.

My way gives us a fully described cyclic universe.
...And it is current physics that is the MESS!

[Mike Gale]

Remember your measuring stick also changes distances. This is what equivalence is all about. Not just time as you understand it but distance for reaction rates measured by a frames clock. Your position puts reaction rates and all physics different between frames. What a mess. Curvature of space and lensing of galaxies show dilation. Gravity follows dilation and Pe to the center of mass. We can measure the dilation and Pe differences as reaction rates but the reaction rates always follow the frames tick rate. So the physics are the same in every frame.

You want to change the speed of light? The speed is the same as a constant where energy dilation increases the distance light has to travel at a constant. This is the easiest way to follow physics. Your way causes more confusion and is inaccurate because dilation is viewable in space. Light is constant!!

You must be careful with the language. Equating mass with distance doesn't change the physics because both are subject to the same dilation. It is nothing more than a change of units, no different than the concept of light years. Variable light speed on the other hand is an alternative way to interpret the Schwarzschild metric. Spatially dependent dilation is an equally valid approach. It's just a matter of preference. If you find one way easier to understand, then stick with it by all means. But keep in mind that they are in fact equivalent and be prepared to mentally translate when conversing with those in the other camp.

[timey (OP)]

Mike - you are working on the basis of SR time dilation alone.  I haven't included SR time dilation to the picture at-all (for the moment).

I am using 'only' the attractive force of the g-field when I say the the g-field is temporally derived, rather than spatially.

As far as I am concerned the way that you are using time dilation is 2 dimensional and places the responsibility for changes in space at the foot of mass changes due to velocity and a 'stretchy' space.
My way treats space as a third dimension that is caused by the g-field that is determined by M.  The stretchy-ness of space is caused by temporal changes within the g-field itself.  It takes a longer or shorter amount of time to travel distance at 'any' velocity.

(I am the only person in this camp!)

[Mike Gale]

Again GoC, you are completely missing the fact that having a temporally dilated g-field would result in the measuring stick remaining unchanged!
Constant metres!

The speed of light does remain constant as it is held relative to the dilated second of the g-field.
The equivalence principle is upheld in that in each reference frame, the speed of light remains 299 792 458 metres held relative to the length of second of that reference frame.

Then for particles with rest mass, all m at h from M experiences an equal addition of gravity potential energy that is derived from its position at h from M, and is not calculated with respect to mass value, (this notion is synonymous to free fall back to front), and again, the equivalence principle is upheld...
All m at h from M remains the equivalent to each other in any reference frame, and this gives us a physical cause for a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock, and reciprocally a physical cause as to why m at h from M does not register that their clock is time dilated.

A clever person might note that the light and the mass will be subject to differing rates of time, and they would be correct.  The lights time is negative to the m at h from M's time at that coordinate.
However, m at h from M would not be able to distinguish this, because if the m at h from M's rate of time is of equal difference to that of the g-field, with respect to ground level M, but positive rather than negative, the light will appear to be travelling 299 792 458 metres from the point of view of both rates of time.

My way gives us a fully described cyclic universe.
...And it is current physics that is the MESS!

You have revealed a flaw in your theory. The passage of time cannot depend on who you are or how much mass you comprise. Well, it can I suppose, but it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is no evidence that big people perceive time any differently than smaller ones. Unless your mass is comparable to your planet of course. That's why GR is formulated in terms of a negligibly small test mass.

[timey (OP)]

Actually there is!  Everyone has an ideal weight for their height, and if one is overweight, one won't live as long as one would if one isn't.

Also - bodies are a direct result of the gravitational force.  If we go somewhere where gravity is differing, bodies suffer a consequence.

[Mike Gale]

Biology is not going to make this any easier. Let's stick with the test mass.

[timey (OP)]

Biology is a direct result of energy, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a connection.

[Mike Gale]

I am using 'only' the attractive force of the g-field when I say the the g-field is temporally derived, rather than spatially.

Yes, but surely you understand that gravity is a function of position, not time. It is only a function of time when you're in motion with respect to the gravitational field.

[timey (OP)]

No - I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.

[Mike Gale]

Biology is a direct result of energy, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a connection.

That's an oversimplification. My point is that biological concepts (such as the relationship between weight and lifespan) are emergent phenomena. The line between physics and biology is a long and winding road.

[timey (OP)]

It's not if one turns the equivalence principle upside down like I am.

[Mike Gale]

No - I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.

But that's my point. We are arguing about the validity of an interpretation. Both views are valid. Whatever gets you through the night. Just don't confuse an interpretation with a law of physics.

[Mike Gale]

It's not if one turns the equivalence principle upside down like I am.

Okay. Case in point then. There are many reasons why obesity is correlated with a shorter lifespan. Excess fat in the body puts pressure on the organs, making them less efficient. The heart has to move more blood to keep the fat cells alive. Fat cells consume energy that would otherwise be available for other bodily functions. Fat cells reproduce so an obese person rolls the genetic dice more often. Thinking about this, I am reminded that I must go on a diet. The point is, these are emergent phenomena. It's more than just observer-dependent energy.

[timey (OP)]

But by turning the equivalence principle upside down, energy is NOT observer dependent!

[timey (OP)]

No - I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.

But that's my point. We are arguing about the validity of an interpretation. Both views are valid. Whatever gets you through the night. Just don't confuse an interpretation with a law of physics.

The view that the g-field itself being inherent with a contra directional gravitational time dilation without considering m at h from M, but just considering the coordinate of h from M doesn't exist in current physics.

This is an entirely new interpretation of gravitational acceleration in the g-field, and would 'change' the interpretation of the laws of physics, to great advantage I'll add, because in doing so this solves all current physics conundrums!

[Mike Gale]

Contra directional dilation (CDD) is certainly a new idea, but it has no basis in physics unless you can establish a need and a cause. Note that the SC metric divorces itself from m by making it negligibly small. That's one of the rules of the game. If you invoke m, you change the game and all bets are off. I understand that you are indeed trying to change the game, but your motive is baseless as far as I can tell. There is no observation or experiment that contradicts GR or SR principles. The equivalence principle is alive and well. Anomalies like galaxy rotation curves demand a refinement of the law, not necessarily a new one (like CDD, DM or DE.)

[timey (OP)]

Currently Mike, you are calculating G and g without knowing what it is that you are calculating.

Adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation for the g-field surrounding M gives G and g physical cause.

By adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation, in addition to both GR gravitational time dilation, and SR motion related time dilation, this model can provide a fully described cyclic universe where the Big Bang, inflation, and contraction are given physical cause.

How does your relativistic correction go on to give physical cause for the Big Bang?  It doesn't!  And can't!

P.S.  If you want to lose weight eat more protein inclusive of the fat, and lay off the carbs.
...and since you are in USA (?) avoid anything sweetened with corn syrup.  Apart from it likely being genetically modified, which causes inflammation within the digestive system, leading to a whole host of associated health problems, including auto immune disorders, even when not genetically modified cannot be digested into energy form and causes the spare tyre syndrome.

[Mike Gale]

I don't calculate them. They are observed quantities. They are certainly not defined by any law of physics, not even yours. The Big Bang has no cause in any stretch of the imagination. It is purported to be a quantum fluke, which is just a fancy version of the anthropic principle. It directs us to shut up and calculate. Note that there are plenty of plausible alternatives to the Big Bang. They just can't get any traction because they are all consistent with observation. There's a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened", which is worthwhile if you're interested in that sort of thing.
My proposed correction to the SC metric is equivalent to the cosmic constant, although it would be more aptly described as a cosmic variable.

[timey (OP)]

Gravitational acceleration is an observed quantity that at present has no physical causation in current physics.  This is s well documented fact.

My model's rendition of the Big Bang does have physical cause, although if one traced my model's universe's cycles back in time to the first Big Bang, which my model places in the microscopic region, in that each cycle of my model's universe is bigger than the last, admittedly my model is also at a loss to describe how something was created out of nothing!

[Mike Gale]

Gravitational acceleration is an observed quantity that at present has no physical causation in current physics.  This is s well documented fact.

My model's rendition of the Big Bang does have physical cause, although if one traced back my model's universe's cycles back in time to the first Big Bang, which my model places in the microscopic region, in that each cycle of my model's universe is bigger than the last, admittedly my model is also at a loss to describe how something was created out of nothing!

Depends what you consider to be a causal explanation. Mass is the cause of gravity. Nobody knows what causes mass. Have you ever heard the expression that "it's turtles all the way down"? If not, Google it.