[Mike Gale]

In my model no-one has to disagree about anything.  Distances are constant, and just by understanding which rate of time one is using to measure, everything is abundantly clear to everyone no matter where they are, although they may not be observing the entire pis tire where rates of time differ vastly, because the observation will be proportional to the difference in rate of time and observations will result in being descrete, or quantised.

If space is invariant then SR dictates that light speed depends on the velocity of the observer and the direction of the light ray. That leads to nonsense because the inertial mass of an object would depend on its direction of travel relative to the observer. It also flies in the face of the Michelson-Morley result.

[timey (OP)]

Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected.  Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.

Did you not read my post of 293?

I mentioned before about how my model views that light cannot exceed the local rate of time and therefore the M&M experiment's inline motion arm does not shrink.

[timey (OP)]

Look - my model makes a very subtle difference to the equivalence principle by stating the observation of one's own clock as observer dependent, instead of the other clock in a differing gravity potential, and an addition that states the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time.

All of the other changes occur as a result of doing so.

Frequency and energy changes 'do' occur at differing gravity potentials for mass, due to pe, and lights frequency and energy changes are occurring due to the 3rd time dilation.

Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.
Black holes and any value of M greater than Earth have a faster rate of time than Earth, not slower.

GR time dilation only affects mass in relation to M
SR affects m in relation to m's GR time dilation via m's velocity, where the speed of light is held relative to the 3rd time dilation, and is 'only' experienced by the traveller, although the observation of the traveler will be proportional to the rate of time of the observer and rendered quantised.
The 3rd time dilation only affects space and light, where the 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M via the g-field, and all m's and M's motion is affected by it.

And this 3rd time dilation gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity and physical cause for a temporally derived curvature of space.

[Mike Gale]

Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected.  Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.

Then you are proposing to throw SR out the window. I can't help you with that. Many have tried. All have failed. Note that, although SR has consequences for the concept of inertial mass (which are confirmed by experiment), it does not depend on it.

[Mike Gale]

Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.

This is demonstrably untrue. I understand that you are proposing that time also runs faster due to one's own mass, but that is also demonstrably untrue. Einstein's light clock, which is the time keeper in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is massless for example.

[timey (OP)]

Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected.  Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.

Then you are proposing to throw SR out the window. I can't help you with that. Many have tried. All have failed. Note that, although SR has consequences for the concept of inertial mass (which are confirmed by experiment), it does not depend on it.

I'm proposing that SR as a means of describing spatial space curvature be placed on the window ledge, in favour of the 3rd time dilation describing a temporal space curvature, and then aback off the ledge for a re-instating of SR time dilation as a rate of time experienced by the traveler, and the travellers perception of spacial dilation as being a result of the slower time.
The observer will observe length contraction due to a proportional observation that will be proportional to the difference between rate of time of observer and observed.

Hardy throwing SR out the window verbatim is it.  More like subjecting its    position of relevance to a minor remix I think...

This adheres to experiment that confirms SR velocity related time dilation for m in relative motion.

[Mike Gale]

Did you not read my post of 293?

Yes, but you covered a lot of ground in that post. We can't debate everything at once.

[Mike Gale]

I'm proposing that SR as a means of describing spatial space curvature be placed on the window ledge, in favour of the 3rd time dilation describing a temporal space curvature, and then aback off the ledge for a re-instating of SR time dilation as a rate of time experienced by the traveler, and the travellers perception of spacial dilation as being a result of the slower time.

Your 3rd dilation depends on M. SR describes the case where M=0. They are not interchangeable.

[Mike Gale]

I'm sure you misspoke, but temporal space curvature is on the verge of an oxymoron. It would mean that space curvature changes over time. That's a horse of a completely different colour (viz. gravitational waves.) I think you were trying to attribute space curvature to time dilation and that means light speed depends on the direction of travel in the absence of gravity. I think I mentioned before that you can actually balance the space-time books with a variable light speed interpretation of SR, but it leads to contradiction when you apply that geometry to real life scenarios. Wikipedia has a good article on that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light.) Interestingly, Einstein was the first to propose the idea.

[timey (OP)]

Where M=0 that is a 0 gravity field with no M in it, and the 3rd time dilation will stop with an infinitely long length of second.

You seem to be applying the 3rd time dilation to mass here.

You don't seem to understand that GR time dilation for m at h from M and the 3rd time for open space at h from M are the exact opposite of each other at each h from M.
Both are being caused by the g-field of M and the values will converge with each other at sea level (Earth), or equivalent to sea level for any other M.
So at sea level Earth 3rd time dilation and GR time dilation are equal.  All m at h from sea level earth will experience an increase in rate of time, i.e. GR time dilation, and all open space at h from sea level Earth will experience a decrease in rate of time, i.e. the 3rd time dilation, which will cause a body of m, any value, thrown upwards to decelerate at same rate, and cause the body of m, any value, to accelerate at same rate on the way back down.

The 'rate' of acceleration/deceleration is the 3rd time dilation I refer to.

The directional force in the gravity field is then held as due to the magnetic moments of m.
Where GR time dilation is increasing the rate of time for m, more magnetic moments occur, and where SR time dilation effect is decreasing as the mass is decelerated by the 3rd time dilation, again more magnetic moments are occurring.
And on the way back down the opposite occurs.

This is why I am trying to find out what the value of an acceleration would be in metres per second squared for near Earth parameters, using GR time dilation time increases as the means for acceleration, while negating all other influences.
Would this result in 9.807 m/s^2?
Or would it be a lesser value?

*

Next post - why would a temporally derived space curvature change over time?  The 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M, because it is the value of M that denotes the value of the g-field, and the value of the g-field denotes the value of the 3rd time dilation.
Consider your m travelling in open space over a period of sequential time.  As your m moves into the weaker g-field it simply takes a longer amount of sequential time to cover the same distance.
Now we may be on the ground observing the journey, and because (let's just say) we know the mass can only travel at 1 speed, we would see the mass moving at this constant speed being decelerated in the g-field.
We can call the traveler up on his mobile phone, he can tell us that our massive clock that we have with us appears to him to be running slow compared to his clock, and we can tell him not to worry, that's just GR time dilation increasing the rate of time for his clock, and that SR effects will be slowing his clock down, but as he is decelerating at mo, that these SR effects will also be decreasing.
The deceleration in speed that his craft is experiencing, being due to the 3rd time dilation.
If our travellers constant speed is being decelerated by longer seconds in open space, this will cause a temporal curvature of space.  If one did not realise that there were longer seconds in the weaker g-field, one would perhaps think that distances had become dilated...
Which 'is' what current physics thinks!

*
Holding light speed relative to the 3rd time dilation is geometrically possible and is synonymous to observation and experiment.

[Mike Gale]

I think I do understand what you are proposing. Your idea is that open space is maximally dilated and the presence of mass energy pulls it back in a way that emulates the SC solution of GR. What I don't understand is your distinction between m at h from M and nothing at h from M. That implies a dependency between open space dilation and M, which you propose to counter with dilation from observer mass. I can't see how that would work because observer mass can be arbitrarily small compared to M.
Now that I say it out loud, I realize we are probably confusing the issue by bringing Hubble and SR into the conversation. By the same token, I would caution you against the use of technical terms like magnetic moment because the concept you have in mind is probably quite different from the one it invokes in the mind of a physicist.
My point about the terminology was that "temporal space curvature" could be misconstrued as gravity waves. Temporally-derived space curvature is more clear and that, as I pointed out, leads to the variable light speed hypothesis.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - whereas you are achieving variable speeds of light for your relativistic correction to the SC by holding the speed of light relative to GR time dilation, whereby this will cause the problems I described in post 293 concerning SR related spatial dilation, and the defining of the specific coordinate location where time shifts are occurring that the speed of light may then be held relative to..
... And my model is holding the speed of light relative to the 3rd time dilation, where the curvature of space is a temporal dilation and the coordinate speed of light is definable at coordinates that are held as constant.  i.e. The distance traveled is a straight line comprised of constant metres, but the amount of time it takes to travel this straight line at a constant speed is variable, where it takes a longer time in the weaker gravity field to travel a constant metre.

*

When speaking in terms of a magnetic moment I am referring to that which one may read when googling 'magnetic moment', whereas the wiki and resulting pages are indeed written by physicists.

When looking at the wiki gravity potential page there is a comment:
"Where mass can be held as analogous to charge"...

[Mike Gale]

In that case you are completely off base with magnetic moments because they have nothing to do with GR. Even if you have a theory that relates gravity to magnetic moments, it's probably best to take that off the table for now.

[Mike Gale]

I presume your bystander perceives the traveller to be moving away from the gravitating mass with constant velocity. That's a very complicated scenario. The thrust of the rocket engine has to exceed the force gravity for a while in order to achieve cruising speed. It then has to be reduced abruptly to match the force of gravity at the point where cruising speed is achieved and backed off gradually thereafter to maintain cruising speed as the force of gravity recedes. The rocket engine adds energy to the traveller at a variable rate and that alters the space-time continuum in an unknown manner. Furthermore, the rocket loses mass over time as it generates thrust.

[pasala]

Mr timey
As said by you:
"Next post - why would a temporally derived space curvature change over time?  The 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M, because it is the value of M that denotes the value of the g-field, and the value of the g-field denotes the value of the 3rd time dilation.
Consider your m travelling in open space over a period of sequential time.  As your m moves into the weaker g-field it simply takes a longer amount of sequential time to cover the same distance.
Now we may be on the ground observing the journey, and because (let's just say) we know the mass can only travel at 1 speed, we would see the mass moving at this constant speed being decelerated in the g-field.
We can call the traveler up on his mobile phone, he can tell us that our massive clock that we have with us appears to him to be running slow compared to his clock, and we can tell him not to worry, that's just GR time dilation increasing the rate of time for his clock, and that SR effects will be slowing his clock down, but as he is decelerating at mo, that these SR effects will also be decreasing".

I think there is every need for broad discussion on space time.  It is true that it is the base for Einstein gravity.   As per Einstein even objects "at rest"  are actually moving through space time.  Actually space time is not just space, but also time.  The "velocity" through space time is called a four-velocity and it is always equal to the speed of light.  Space time in gravitation field is curved.  The apple moving first only in the time direction  starts accelerating in space and the velocity in time becomes velocity in space. The acceleration happens because the time flows slower when the gravitational potential is decreasing. Apple is moving deeper into the gravitational field, thus its velocity in the "time direction" is changing .

Here everything is possible through space time.    As per Einstein space time is completely filled with matter and energy and the matter tells space time how to curve.  Suppose if the space breaks, naturally time also breaks.  It appears to be unbelievable yet it is true.  In case Earth is not having space, what happens matter and energy moves out freely without any obstruction. Can we imagine any planet, without space. No. it is impossible and there is no scope for gravity and and it is the death of a planet.  So, naturally the stronger the space time the stronger gravity.   

It is also said that M decides curvature of space time.  Ok, let us see  Moon, it is not a small one, but why its space is weak and thus gravity.  If the mass of a planet decides gravity on a planet than different planets have to experience different gravity fields, but in real terms it is not happening so.

It is true that Earth is rotating against its own axis and also moving round the sun and for that total universe is moving to an unknown place.  Actually, we have to remember one important point that Earth is not rotating and is being made to rotate by the gravity winds.  It is not Earth alone, things on the Earth, space and everything is moving. 

The apple is not moving, but is being made to move by the gravity winds.  Strong gravity winds, hooked Earth so strongly that nothing can escape that much easily.  Even matter and energy are not raising abnormally as assumed by Einstein.  So, Apple never changes gravity field and it remains  in static position, at any time frame. 

Gravity continue to accelerate against apple right from its inception.  Actually, there is no motion of apple and it is in inertial position permanently.  During time frame, apple becomes weak, looses control of the stem and gets into the hands of gravity.

Yours
Psreddy

[timey (OP)]

I presume your bystander perceives the traveller to be moving away from the gravitating mass with constant velocity. That's a very complicated scenario. The thrust of the rocket engine has to exceed the force gravity for a while in order to achieve cruising speed. It then has to be reduced abruptly to match the force of gravity at the point where cruising speed is achieved and backed off gradually thereafter to maintain cruising speed as the force of gravity recedes. The rocket engine adds energy to the traveller at a variable rate and that alters the space-time continuum in an unknown manner. Furthermore, the rocket loses mass over time as it generates thrust.

Let's say the constant speed is 0.5 light speed, where light speed is held relative to ground clock...
The observer on the ground would see this speed decelerate in the longer seconds of the g-field.
The observer in the craft would observe his speed as decelerated by the longer seconds of the g-field, or he may come to the conclusion that gravity has reduced his speed, and at further distance from M may think that a metre has become longer in the weaker gravity field.
If the observer on the ground then thought that a metre had become longer in the weaker gravity field, then he would think that the craft had become length contracted.
(I will add thrust to this scenario at later date.  Keeping it simple for now)

So moving on - the observer in the craft's rate of time will have become increased in the weaker gravity field, (GR), and also decreased by the relative motion (SR)... Where the SR measurement of the decrease in rate of time is held relative to the percentage of the speed of light that the craft's speed is moving at, where the speed of light is still being held relative to the ground clock's time.

You suggest that the SR measurement of the speed of light be held relative to the GR time, or that is what I have deduced that you suggest,  Maybe I have this wrong...?
But if I am right, then - when you hold the SR measurement relative to the speed of light held relative to the GR time dilation, the GR time dilation is held relative to a particular coordinate. But then by making the SR calculation this involves a spatial dilation and your GR coordinate changes.  So back to SR to recalculate with the changed GR coordinate and the spatial dilation changes again, and so on...
Am I not correct that this catch 22 exists within the remit of holding light speed variable to GR time dilated seconds?

[Mike Gale]

I see. The traveller is in free fall with an initial velocity vector that points away from the gravitating mass. That's a bit simpler, but the scenario can be further simplified (with no loss of generality) by setting initial velocity to zero. We should also stipulate that the entire episode takes place in a weak field so we don't have to worry about the validity of the SC metric near the horizon. In that case, Newtonian dynamics will suffice for the mathematics and all that remains is the philosophical interpretation of gravity, which Newton famously left as an exercise for the reader.
The equivalence principle dictates that traveller time is the same as in open space (i.e. far removed from the gravitating mass) so, if light speed is invariant, traveller space is the same as open space. That's the first point of contention because Flamm's paraboloid indicates that local space is compressed compared to open space. Light speed must therefore decrease as gravity increases. The experts disagree on this point, but we can impose that the observers are colocated at some instant of time so the light speed issue is moot as long as we limit ourselves to radial distance measurements.
GR predicts that bystander time runs slower because the bystander is suspended in the gravitational field, being held in place by a planetary crust or a rocket engine with constant thrust. Slower time with invariant light speed means space is compressed, as per Flamm's paraboloid.
That's the picture painted by GR. The next step is to describe this scenario in the context of your theory.

[timey (OP)]

We cannot set the outbound velocity to 0 because without an initial speed that moves the craft in order to cover the distance that is inherent with slower seconds, a) one will not be moving, and b) there is no apparent speed for these slower seconds to decelerate.
Therefore we have an escape velocity where the outbound speed must be equal to the deceleration.  If we have the craft moving at a constant speed, it will decelerate at a certain rate.  If we want to upkeep a constant speed, we must accelerate at a certain rate.
Free fall near Earth accelerates at 9.807m/s^2.
In order to upkeep a constant outbound speed, would the craft have to accelerate at 9.807m/s^2?

And why must light speed decrease as gravity increases?
If local space is compressed compared to open space, why would seconds be elongated in a compressed space?
A higher energy, higher frequency, compressed wavelength would be more synonymous with faster time and shorter seconds wouldn't it?
A clock's frequency, and energy is higher with shorter wavelengths when it's tick rate is increased...

[Mike Gale]

Zero velocity is a perfectly valid initial state. That's how Newton's apple got started for example. Newton makes no hypothesis about how the force of gravity gets things moving. The GR view is that a stationary object moves through time at light speed and acceleration simply rotates the velocity vector into the spatial domain. It's a change of heading in the spacetime continuum.

In my simplified scenario, the traveller is in free fall and the bystander is accelerating. That change eliminates the need for variable thrust, which is a significant complication.

Variable light speed is one possible interpretation of GR. Some people prefer to think of it as spacetime dilation, akin to SR. In either case, we have eliminated the effect by placing the observers at the same altitude at some instant of time.

If mass, space and light speed are invariant then higher energy (potential or kinetic) equates to shorter seconds.

Anyway, that's the picture painted by GR. The question is, what does it look like in your theory?

[timey (OP)]

I am talking about Newtons Apple headed outbound, with an observer on the ground, and thrust is exactly what I want to be discussing.

I'm also not talking about what the universe 'looks like' to an observer when measured via differing rates of time.
I want to be talking about what the universe 'is like' with the differing rates of time, and then go back and check that what an observer will observe from his own rate of time is a match to experimentally verified observation.

Apart from an addition and a subtle change to the equivalence principle, the only change that my model makes to current remit is that the accelerative/decelerative force called gravity is a time dilation phenomenon.  Everything else stays the same, although the necessity for the 'dark stuff' is negated...
So what GR and SR looks like, is what my model looks like, only the reasons for it looking that way are differing.
Therefore I can't paint you a picture of what my model 'looks like' in relation to GR, as all observation will 'look' as they have always looked, just for differing reason.

So firstly, my model does not use SR to describe a spatial curvature of space, it uses the 3rd time dilation to describe a temporal dilation of space.
The metre always remains constant in my model, it just takes a longer or shorter amount of time for mass or light to travel a metre where the speed of light, or the speed of the mass is now held relative to the 3rd time dilation.
Now we have an observation of curved space that is not spatially dilated.
This is the equal to a Newtonian geometry that is now temporally dilated to an equal of relativity's spatial curvature.

Are you with me so far?

What I'm saying is that the deceleration a constant speed outbound from M will experience is time dilation related.  That when holding the slower seconds in space relative to the constant speed, this will decelerate the constant speed.
The same can be said for free fall, where there is an acceleration of 9.807m/s^2 near Earth, and 2 radii distance away from Earth, there is an acceleration of 4.25m/s^2, where my model states the accelerative force as time dilation related.

What we do see in action though is a directional force that determines that a body will fall towards a mass, and that when a mass's speed is decelerated away from mass,  when decelerated to a standstill, the directional force will then cause the mass to fall back towards the Earth.
In GR this is called the attraction of gravity.
In my model the acceleration of gravity is time dilation related, but this cannot describe the directional force.

Therefore I am interested in knowing by how many metres per second squared a body of mass must accelerate by to upkeep a constant speed on the outbound.
Is the acceleration needed to upkeep a constant speed on the outbound, the same acceleration that is experienced in free fall on the inbound?