[timey (OP)]

If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant then space must be compressed equally in all directions.

If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant, by holding the speed of light relative to the longer seconds space will be temporally dilated.

[guest4091]

Timey;
In SR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion, resulting in time dilation.
In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation. In SR we can identify the source of energy applied to the clock. In GR, it's the g-field, but we have no theory to explain how the energy is transferred from the dominant mass M to the field.
In both cases, time dilation results from motion regardless of the energy source.
Why do you propose a theory that reverses cause and effect?
(If I interpreted your idea correctly)

[timey (OP)]

In SR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion, resulting in time dilation.

... Agreed.

In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation.

... Agreed, it results in SR motion related time dilation.

In SR we can identify the source of energy applied to the clock. In GR, it's the g-field,

Ok well - In my model the action of the force of the g-field causing motion is 3rd time dilation related.  The 3rd time dilation comprises of seconds that get longer in the weaker g-field.

but we have no theory to explain how the energy is transferred from the dominant mass M to the field.

In order to describe how the 3rd time dilation is caused we must look to GR time dilation.
With the addition of the 3rd time dilation for the g-field, this renders GR time dilation as a phenomenon that is experienced by m in relation to M, where the frequency of m's electron transitions are then linked to potential energy on the basis that a higher frequency usually is accompanied by a higher level of energy.  pe=mgh where pe/m ensures that all value of m is affected equally.
Where m=0 we are now looking to the value of the g-field for energy, where a weaker g-field has less energy.
In this manner we can say that free energy, (i.e. energy not bound to mass), such as the value of the g-field at any h from M, is the cause of the 3rd time dilation, and that this 3rd time dilation is the cause of the observed frequency and energy changes occurring for already emitted light (also energy not bound to mass) in the g-field.

Now SR time dilation must be accounted for... (not so simple)
A clock in relative motion has a lower frequency.  I am now looking for a reason for motion to reduce energy to account for a lower frequency of electron transitions.
In the case of free fall we could say that potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy where kinetic energy does not affect the frequency of the constituents of body m, but this isn't sufficient.  In a constant potential, additional energy input would be required to initiate movement, and it would be the additional energy that would be being converted into kinetic energy.  A fuel to energy conversion would have bog all to do with an onboard clock's frequency.
Ok - so we know that at any location in the universe a body will have its own rest mass energy + the potential energy associated with its position.  The potential energy that a body will have is reliant on its position with respect to the bigger body Mass.
If we consider that a smaller body at rest with respect to the bigger body has a a value of potential energy, then we could say that any motion with respect to the bigger body can reduce this value of potential energy and that this will reduce the energy and frequency of the workings of the clock.
This remit will also work in the free fall case, (where the acceleration is 3rd time dilation related), and also in the case of deceleration experienced by m<<<M. (where the deceleration experienced is 3rd time dilation related)
... I get frustrated here (as a non-mathematician) because I suspect that, not relativistic mass itself, but the value of relativistic mass and the way it is calculated is pertinent to this SR time dilation remit I suggest, where I understand that relativistic mass is negligible at non-relativistic speeds, but note that SR time dilation is also negligible at non-relativistic speeds.

The goal of the mission is to describe the phenomenon of time itself as a reactive within the universe rather than a measurement of sequential events, and when this remit is then applied to quantum, by understanding that frequency is time dilation related, (GR time dilated point of fact), when re-calculating the blackbody under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds, the quantum nature of the energy additions should be negated as a continuum.

[Mike Gale]

You do not need the Einstein field equations to describe spacetime.

That is true for the case of uniform motion (i.e. SR.) Otherwise EFE (i.e. GR) is your best bet.

[Mike Gale]

They don't sell red diesel at Birchanger Green....

The relevance of that reference is lost on me.

[Mike Gale]

If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant, by holding the speed of light relative to the longer seconds space will be temporally dilated.

We are saying the same thing. There is no distinction between temporally dilated space and (unqualified) dilated space: d=ct, where 'c' is light speed and 't' is the flight time of a light ray as perceived by the observer.

[Mike Gale]

In SR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion, resulting in time dilation.

Incorrect. There are no forces in SR. SR dilation is entirely due to velocity. Acceleration due to a force is just the means by which a velocity is achieved. More acceleration gets you there faster than less acceleration, but the net effect is the same.

[Mike Gale]

In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation.

GR does not necessarily involve motion. It works when the observers are held in place by a planetary crust for example. It fails if the observers are experiencing different forces from external sources (i.e. rocket engines), but it is possible to (approximately) compensate with SR in certain variations of that case (e.g. orbital free fall.)

[Mike Gale]

In SR we can identify the source of energy applied to the clock. In GR, it's the g-field, but we have no theory to explain how the energy is transferred from the dominant mass M to the field.

GR explains how the field is influenced by mass (or light) energy. It just doesn't explain why because we don't know exactly what's going on inside the mass (or the light.) You can speculate all day about that, but it's pointless because we can't probe the universe at that scale. That's the string theory dilemma.

[Mike Gale]

In both cases [GR and SR], time dilation results from motion regardless of the energy source.

Again, this is true of SR, but not GR.

[Mike Gale]

Why do you [timey] propose a theory that reverses cause and effect?
(If I interpreted your idea correctly)

I don't think Timey addressed this question in her response so allow me to intervene. Her theory does not violate causality, at least no more so than GR already does (e.g. in the vicinity of the Schwarzschild event horizon.) She is only trying to link time dilation to observer mass.

[timey (OP)]

No - I am not trying to link time dilation to observer mass.

What I'm trying to do is link energy to the phenomenon of time, where the universe has 3 separate time dilations.
1 caused by subtracting/adding pe from mass via motion/lack of motion = SR
1 caused by adding/subtracting pe to mass via position in g-field = GR
1 caused by adding/subtracting g-field energy for g-field of M where m=0 = 3rd time dilation...

Where the 3rd time dilation is the 'action of' acceleration/deceleration of gravity.

The intention here is to dispense with the need for the considerations of any observer and quite simply map out the g-field/s, and the motions of masses that occur in them just by knowing the value of M and operating under the remit of +energy=shorter seconds.
String theory, now you come to mention it, would indeed be infinitely more calculable under this remit.

As for the red diesel comment, well Birchanger Green is a motorway service station, and people don't drive tractors on the motorway.
... I made the comment because where Jeff said that the GR field equations don't describe space time

wiki
They do describe the fundamental interactionof gravitation as a result of spacetimebeing curved by mass and energy

Bit on the overly cryptic side perhaps...but it tickled me at the time. (chuckle).
It's just that Jeff didn't elaborate on his reason for posting that statement, and unless a statement is quantified as to context, one may as well be saying in as much as: 'They don't sell red diesel at Birchanger Green'...

Edit: It occurs Mike that perhaps because you are not from UK, it may be of some relevance to mention that red diesel is a lesser government taxed fuel for off road, and farm purposes only, that is identifiable from regular diesel in that the colour red has been added.

[timey (OP)]

In GR a force is applied to a clock, resulting in motion (free fall), resulting in time dilation.

GR does not necessarily involve motion. It works when the observers are held in place by a planetary crust for example. It fails if the observers are experiencing different forces from external sources (i.e. rocket engines), but it is possible to (approximately) compensate with SR in certain variations of that case (e.g. orbital free fall.)

I think that Phyti was referring to the acceleration or deceleration that is described by GR that is causing motions that cause SR time dilation.

[Mike Gale]

No - I am not trying to link time dilation to observer mass.

What I'm trying to do is link energy to the phenomenon of time, where the universe has 3 separate time dilations.
1 caused by subtracting/adding pe from mass via motion/lack of motion = SR
1 caused by adding/subtracting pe to mass via position in g-field = GR
1 caused by adding/subtracting g-field energy for g-field of M where m=0 = 3rd time dilation...

You contradict yourself because your "corrections" to GR and SR both involve observer mass. Also, I've made this point before, but your 3rd case is the GR case because GR is formulated in the context of an infinitesimally small observer mass.
BTW - we did away with red diesel in Canada because it's an overly complicated way to subsidize farmers.

[timey (OP)]

Canada aye?  And there I was thinking you was in USA.

I suppose that your accusation of my contradicting myself depends very much on what you mean by observer mass.
In GR 'conventional', the time dilation at h from M, i.e. the increased frequency of electron transitions, is not thought to be occurring because of any change in external 'energy' additions experienced directly by the mass at h from M.
GR time dilation is thought to be occurring because time gets faster 'at' h from M, whereas it is not known why time gets faster at h from M when observed from the lower potential.

My model simply states mass at h from M as experiencing external energy additions at h from M due to pe=mgh where pe/m ensures that all m is affected equally, and it is these additions of pe that cause increase in the frequency of electron transitions for m at h from M.  My model gives this as the physical cause for GR time dilation that is observed of m at h from M from the lower potential.

Now which mass are you referring to as the observer mass please?
If you are referring to the mass at h from m, observed from the lower potential to have a higher frequency of electron transitions, as being the observer mass, then the observer mass at h from M will not observe any change in frequency of itself or any other body of mass at that h from M. All frequencies of electron transitions of any particle value m, although actually physically increased by their position at h from M will all retain their interactive relationships amongst themselves proportionally with an equal addition of potential energy for all.
And since we can just calculate an addition of pe at any h from M, we can remove ourselves from the necessity of being reliant on what an observer observes from any other potential.  It's no longer important because we know the cause of the observation.

Same with SR.

but your 3rd case is the GR case because GR is formulated in the context of an infinitesimally small observer mass.

An infinitesimally small mass is not m=0, but I do agree that the 3rd time dilation is the GR case, in that GR is the description of acceleration and deceleration of the motions of mass in the g-field.  It's just that GR has neglected to give its case an actual physical cause, and I have added an actual physical cause to GR's case.

[Mike Gale]

My model simply states mass at h from M as experiencing external energy additions at h from M due to pe=mgh where pe/m ensures that all m is affected equally, and it is these additions of pe that cause increase in the frequency of electron transitions for m at h from M.

GR says exactly the same thing, although it applies to any clock (not just your "electron transitions", which I presume are atomic decay rates) and any field strength (not just gh, which is the weak field approximation.)

[Mike Gale]

Now which mass are you referring to as the observer mass please?
If you are referring to the mass at h from m, observed from the lower potential to have a higher frequency of electron transitions, as being the observer mass, then the observer mass at h from M will not observe any change in frequency of itself or any other body of mass at that h from M. All frequencies of electron transitions of any particle value m, although actually physically increased by their position at h from M will all retain their interactive relationships amongst themselves proportionally with an equal addition of potential energy for all.
And since we can just calculate an addition of pe at any h from M, we can remove ourselves from the necessity of being reliant on what an observer observes from any other potential.  It's no longer important because we know the cause of the observation.

It is the mass at h from M. Observer mass is measured in the local reference frame. Observers at other locations in the field will perceive a different value. If A is observing B then observer mass is that of B as perceived by B. It is also known as "test mass" because it is the mass that you use to probe the field. It is taken to be arbitrarily small compared to M. Observer A is also presumed to be sufficiently removed from observer B that they don't have any significant influence on one another.

[timey (OP)]

Thanks for clearing that up...

If A observes B, and B observes A, both will observe the other's clock to be of a differing electron transition frequency to their own.
We can just leave it at that now with the observers, because it is possible to predict the electron transition frequency in relation to the gravity potential of the location.

This is the case because at every gravity potential the electron transitions of a caesium atom, when observed from within the same gravity potential will always be observed to have the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
Calibrate the clock in one gravity potential and then raise it by a metre, from the lower potential it will be observed to have a higher frequency. Raise the clock by another metre and it will be observed from 2 metres below to have an even higher frequency than 1 metre clock.
On the basis that the gravitational shift equations for blueshift exactly match the time shift at h from M, where a light emitter at 2 metres emits a photon, and the observer 2 metres below observes the light as blue shifted, mathematically it is possible to map out these frequency of electron transition changes in the gravity potential based on the gravitational shift equations.

So I just don't see the necessity to involve observers because it doesn't matter what something looks like from where*, we only need to consider proportions and relationships.
(*if there is a rainbow in the sky and you are on one side of the valley, and I on the other, we can speak to each other on our mobile phone's about 'wow, do you see the rainbow over there', but your rainbow and my rainbow will be in differing positions in the sky.)

*

...and in answer to your post before the one above:
I am actually almost certain that while the GR time dilation effect is known to be due to position in the gravity potential, that additional potential energy is not thought to be the cause of the time dilation...
Edit: If it were then the standard model would be unified with gravity.

However, if you take the remit of additional pe causing GR time dilation back to the black body and consider that adding temperature energy is also increasing the frequency of electron transitions, which are a result of a higher quantum energy level and result in the emission of higher frequency photons, and then consider that energy added is shortening seconds... when re-calculating the temperature energy additions of the black body held relative to the shorter seconds, the quantum nature of these energy additions will be negated.

[Mike Gale]

As a point of order, the atomic clock is based on nuclear decay, not electron state transitions. But as I said before, the observers are the clocks. The concept of time makes no sense in the absence of observers. If time slows down and nobody is there to measure it, there are no consequences so who cares? Imagine yourself as a point particle alone in the universe. How would you measure time? Indeed, how would you measure space? The answer is you can't. You need another point of reference and a means of communication. Communication requires oscillation so the simplest possible universe is one that contains two clocks and some light so they can see each other. The nature of the universe in the absence of those ingredients is moot.

[timey (OP)]

Wiki:
A caesium standard or caesium atomic clock is a primary frequency standard in which electronic transitionsbetween the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms are used to control the output frequency.

Point of fact, it 'is' the electron transitions that are used to control the output frequency.

The concept of time makes no sense in the absence of observers.

...This is only a valid perspective if one is viewing time as being simply a measurement imposed upon the universe.
I am taking the view that time is a phenomenon that is a reactive within the universe.  This view is supported by the remit of both GR and SR observed and experimentally verified time dilations, and is a view that is respectably noted in most physics books where the author is considering the concept of time.

Electron transitions are related to quantum energy levels, where electron transitions that are increasing in frequency are accompanied by a higher quantum energy...
Although there are theories about how particles become high energy in thunderstorms, sand storms, forest fires and volcanoes to result in lightening, quite how these particles become high energy is not fully understood.
But if you look to the caesium atomic clock, the electron transitions are observed to increase in frequency at h from M, so by remit of equivalency the electron transitions of any particle at h from M will also increase, and now you have physical cause for high energy particles at altitude.

If time slows down and nobody is there to measure it, there are no consequences

I just illustrate how time speeding up for particles at altitude has physical consequences...  Particles don't measure themselves, they interact with each other based on energy levels.
If particles are experiencing their time based on energy levels, then where there is no mass, i.e. the spaces between masses, the energy levels are much lower.
This is where the 3rd time dilation steps in, but by the nature of m=0, we don't have an observer of any kind to record or measure this time dilation.  All we can do is measure the consequences of it, which are that m in the g-field of M will be accelerated towards M by means of the shorter seconds as the g-field increases in strength near M, and decelerated away from M by means of the longer seconds as the g-field decreases in strength further away from M.

So again we see that wether anyone is measuring the situation or not, that the 3rd time dilation has consequences.
The 3rd time dilation has another much more important consequence though, because one must come to the conclusion that time does not run faster out in space, and a black holes time will be running at a far faster rate than anywhere else, which is absolutely fantastic news because GR under this remit can measure inside the black hole.
The mathematics won't break down.

The only portion of the picture that we are missing now is the directional force that tells m which direction to take in the g-field of M.
Here I now hark back to the increased frequency of electron transitions for the particle at h from M, and the magnetic moment of an electron.

:Wiki
From classical electrodynamics, a rotating electrically charged body creates a magnetic dipole with magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity. This analogy holds as an electron indeed behaves like a tiny bar magnet. One consequence is that an external magnetic field exerts a torque on the electron magnetic moment depending on its orientation with respect to the field.

...where I think that an increased frequency of electron transitions will cause magnetic moments to occur more frequently, and this is what 'tells' m to be attracted directionally in the g-field.

Under this remit time is having physical consequences without observer of measurement, because time is part and parcel of 'why' and 'how' everything is moving in the universe.

However, this view only holds in a contracting universe, it won't work for the expanding model.

I am talking about an alternative view on space expansion here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70013.new;topicseen#new

(only 16 posts so far)