[timey (OP)]

Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.

Mike - yes, that is the perspective I am examining as being a physical possibility.

I am getting into these temporally spatial considerations at present with Alan on this thread, where I have been looking at potential energy being responsible for an m in relation to M interpretation of GR time dilation, and am now attempting to set that concept into a temporally dilated open space, rather than a spatially dilated open space:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69875.new;topicseen#top

[alancalverd]

Bad starting point. The gravitational potential sign convention is there because there's no theoretical upper limit to M, so deep space is the zero reference point and gravitational potential is always negative towards M, hence if you like the concept, near space is "temporally constricted". But why bother when the conventional GR dilatation equation works perfectly in practice?   

[timey (OP)]

Because the standard model isn't united wth gravity.

Gravity potential energy being converted into kinetic energy to bounce 2 cannonballs of vastly differing mass values off a trampoline to same height implies that potential energy has physical consequences and therefore cannot be 'just' a convention.

And as a side issue - a temporal constriction implies shorter seconds.

[Mike Gale]

Mike
The open nature of the thread title makes it difficult to limit contributions from others. I've said before that the way the theory is presented and the analogies used don't help to make the ideas clear to a reader, particularly as they are spread over a large number of posts stretching back years.
Can I suggest that you agree with Timey a thread title something like 'Scoping and defining Inverted Time Theory'. I think it would be useful to have all the propositions, assumptions, effects eg how is light affected vs test mass, inputs eg evidence, etc and to do so in a brainstorming format ie no critique or analysis at this stage, just clarification.
That way it would be possible limit off topic contributions. I'm sure Jeff would agree to join me in policing any off topic input.

When you open a new thread, you are instructed to ask a question in the title. Maybe the instructions should be extended to make an exception for this section of the forum.
Policing sounds a bit aggressive. Moving them into new threads and leaving links behind would be kinder, but you (and other referees) would then have to coin new titles. Maybe you could use PMs to encourage offenders to do that on their own.

[Mike Gale]

But why bother [with timey's theory] when the conventional GR dilatation equation works perfectly in practice?   

Good question. I think the reason why timey wants to abandon spatial dilation is that it's a hard pill to swallow. Bell's spaceship paradox exemplifies the issue. I think she may be jumping the gun though. It's not immediately clear (to me at least) that the new temporal dilation will necessarily invalidate spatial dilation. However, it's hard to argue the point one way or the other without a recipe.

[timey (OP)]

Mike - the recipe for the third time dilation 'is' the 'action' of the acceleration of gravity.
Because the third time dilation of the g-field itself is inherent with faster seconds closer to M, any m in that field being attracted towards M will be accelerated in its trajectory towards M by the fact of shorter seconds closer to M.
Other than m having to move through this open space time dilation, the third time dilation has no connection whatsoever to conventional GR gravitational time dilation, other than GR time dilation being an m in relation to M phenomenon, and that both time dilation a relate back to M via the g-field.  It is important to take on board that both of these time dilation are occurring simultaneously to each other.
(When SR time dilation is added in, this architecture then negates the necessity for relativistic mass)

SR time dilation will need to be added in, and that gets more complex (and very interesting), but one would find that SR spatial dilation is no longer necessary to describe curvature.
The third time dilation is already causing this curvature as a temporal dilation, rather than a spatial dilation, and also gives a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, where at present no-one has a clue 'why' gravity accelerates as it does, physics only knows that it does.

[Mike Gale]

The problem is, GR dilation has nothing to do with m. It's all about M. The recipe for a stationary observer is dT = dt * sqrt(1-2GM/rc²), where dT is the change in proper (i.e. local) time and dt is the change is coordinate time (i.e. as perceived by a distant observer.) If both observers are at intermediate locations then dt₁/dt₂ = sqrt((1-2GM/r₁c²)/(1-2GM/r₂c²)).

[timey (OP)]

That is because GR time dilation is attributed as an open space phenomenon.  Current physics states time as running faster at h from M.

My model switches GR time dilation to being an m in relation to M phenomenon, where all m will be subject to time dilation in the g-field regardless of mass value in the same way that all m is subject to accelerating towards M in the g-field regardless of mass value.
My model then attributes the third time dilation to the open space that m is in, and states this as the cause of the acceleration that m experiences in the g-field.

[Mike Gale]

OK, but what is the recipe? How does m affect dilation? Is dT proportional to m or m² for example? Does it depend on the distance to the observer (i.e. h from m)?

[timey (OP)]

Well actually I think that we don't need to include an observer.
A clock will tick faster at elevation due to gravity potential energy.  How does one calculate an acceleration for all values of mass?
However one calculates that an acceleration can be equal for all values of mass in the g-field is how one can calculate that time dilation will be equal for all values of mass at any h from M.

The third time dilation can be calculated directly from the red shift blue shift maths where light frequency increases closer to mass as it arrives, and reduces further away from mass as it leaves.

[Mike Gale]

The clock is the observer. Acceleration due to gravity (in a Newtonian context) is simply GM/r². This is true for all possible values of m and M, but not all possible values of r.

[timey (OP)]

Well G in that equation would be describing the third time dilation which is now attributed to open space g-field.

Now all we need to do is figure out an equation that holds time dilation for m at h from M equal for all values of mass.
Potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy in free fall where a bigger mass will bounce off a trampoline to the same height as a smaller mass.  A bigger mass has more potential energy than a smaller mass if held at rest with respect to the g-field, but more potential energy being converted into kinetic energy in free fall doesn't cause the bigger mass to fall faster.
What I'm looking for here is an equation that causes all values of mass to experience an equal degree of time dilation at h from M.

[Mike Gale]

G is nothing more than a unit conversion factor. The point of the equation is that acceleration is proportional to M/r². The time dilation associated with that relationship is the one I gave above: dT=dt*sqrt(1-2GM/rc²). These are the equations for m at r from M.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - under current physics remit this is so.

Let me rephrase, the equation using G in relation to M and r^2 describing gravitational acceleration is already describing the third time dilation that my model attributes to open space.  The point being that the third time dilation is proportional to M/r^2.

The phenomenon of GR time dilation is then removed from the domain of the open space g-field and is attributed to being an m with respect to M time dilation that all m in relation to radius from M will experience equally.

[Mike Gale]

If the 3rd time dilation depends on M, it is not an attribute of open space. If you hijack GR dilation as the 3rd dilation, you are left lacking a recipe for GR dilation.

[timey (OP)]

It only depends on M for a value in the g-field surrounding M.

[Mike Gale]

The g-field around M extends to infinity. Open space is just locations that are sufficiently removed from M that the g-force is effectively zero.

[timey (OP)]

And therefore the seconds of the 3rd time dilation would get longer to infinity, and time would stop in a 0 gravity field.

[Mike Gale]

Yes, as perceived by a local observer. The distant observer perceives local time to stop at the horizon. The local observer perceives distant time to speed up towards infinity. GPS is a prime example of this.

[timey (OP)]

And what relevance does that actually have?

In fact a local observer in a 0 gravity field is an impossibility because the observer is mass, and if the observer was at rest with respect to the gravity field, his time would be running very fast with respect to the nearest M which would be a great distance away indeed if the gravity field was near 0.