[timey (OP)]

The only oscillator whose frequency indicates a second is, by definition, a cesium clock.

...and the Relativity app that I spoke about in post 488 shows clearly that were these app users to carry portable cesium atomic clocks about their daily routines of change in location, and speed of doing so that all of these cesium atomic clocks would be running at differing rates.

So what was that about the definition of a second?
The point that I was making in post 488 was that
a) A cesium clock is subject to differing oscillations at differing speeds and altitudes where the people with these clocks will have aged faster or slower dependent on their clock's oscillations.
But:
b) That (where I wildly exaggerated the time differences between the person on the station and the person on the high speed train passing the station), because the person on the high speed train and the person sitting at the station can both take a photo of the sun setting at the same moment the train passes the station, where if they send each other a text of the picture they took, the sun would be in the same position in the sky in both pictures, the amount of time that has elapsed during the day will be the same period of time no matter how the person at the train station or the person on the high speed train ages in the experience of their clock's time.
Suggesting:
c) That the time that everyone using the Relativity app is ageing by and experiencing is a ***separate issue** from the time that they are moving around in.

[alancalverd]

Your cesium clock measures time at the place where you are. We are quite used to thermometers and barometers telling us the local temperature and pressure, and there's no need for a universal frame of either.

Your two photographs will show the sun in the same position because "the amount of time that has elapsed during the day" is defined by the position of the sun relative to the earth. But "the amount of time that has elapsed since you set off on your journey" will depend on whether you are measuring it, or someone standing still on the earth, or moving in another train. The Haefle-Keating experiment showed just that. And since the clocks have no universal reference point, they are all correct. That's SR. GR extends the mathematics to an accelerating or gravitational reference frame and comes up with different, but entirely proven, numbers.       

So time is affected by relative speed and gravitation, to what appears to be an entirely predictable extent. What's the problem you are trying to solve by pretending otherwise?

Let's go back to thermometers and barometers. We expect that they will all read the same when next to each other, and we have a notion of absolute zero temperature and absolute vacuum, at which point we would hope they all read zero respectively.  "Deep space" gives us a notion of zero gravitational field, for what it's worth, and we can detect acceleration, so we can find a point where that is zero too. So in principle we can use a clock to measure speed, acceleration or gravitational field, by comparing it with a "deep space" clock . Problem is that we know it is affected by all three variables, so it isn't obvious which one we are measuring unless we can also measure our velocity relative to the reference clock.   

[timey (OP)]

So time is affected by relative speed and gravitation, to what appears to be an entirely predictable extent. What's the problem you are trying to solve by pretending otherwise?

I am not pretending anything, and have not in any way disagreed with the predicted.

On the mobile phone relativity app the app is calculating how one's relative speed and position of altitude affects one's ageing throughout their daily routine.
(Clearly the differences are minuscule, but this wouldn't be the case in more extreme parts of the universe)
The differences can be held relative to the mobile phone's usual clock, and therefore the mobile phone's usual clock can be known as the reference time, where a 'set' amount of time elapses between sunrise and sun set on any given day.

Therefore the Relativity app clock's time that is displayed relative to the mobile phone's usual clock is a ***separate issue*** to the mobile phone's usual clock's time.

The mobile phone's usual clock is 'historically' based on the motions of the planet in relation to the sun, where a cesium atomic clock calibrated at sea level, despite the differing altitudes due to equatorial bulge and the differing centripetal speeds at differing longitudes, will run at the same rate at sea level Equator and sea level Polar, providing us with a standardisation of the length of a second.
(which I have, by stating the clock as calibrated at sea level Earth, attributed this standard to being the length of a second at the position of sea level Earth)

Clearly anyone using the relativity app anywhere on the planet will notice differing times from the standard as soon as they start moving around and changing altitude...
(We won't go into geological density differences as of yet)
...and these differing rates of time that the app users are registering due to their changes in relative speed and altitude are merely a faster or slower means of measuring the reference time.

However, the important bit of these considerations is that the people moving about at relative speeds relative to the centripetal speed of their longitude, and changing their positions of altitude held relative to sea level, will all be ***physically ageing*** in keeping with their relativity app clock.
They are doing so, as predicted by GR calculations.
(and these very same calculations can be used to calculate the gravitational shift of light, i.e. blueshift.)

So - this suggests that changes in oscillations are occurring not only for the atoms of the clock, but also for the atoms of the person.

Now I ask you to return to the blackbody where, never mind the physics of how temperature results in radiation, the spectrum of frequency shift is described by the Planck Einstein relation, and ask you to put aside your prejudices and consider that an increase in frequency is indicative of a shorter second...

(E=hf... Where Planck has used a standard reference second (mobile phone's usual clock) to measure Joules via)

...and recalculate Joules per second via a variable second that is in keeping with the frequency of the emitted radiation, where the quantised nature of Planck's treatment of the data will then not be necessary.
The energy additions causing higher frequency will, under this remit of measurement, fit the frequency spectrum as an energy continuum.

[alancalverd]

[Now I ask you to return to the blackbody where, never mind the physics of how temperature results in radiation, the spectrum of frequency shift is described by the Planck Einstein relation, and ask you to put aside your prejudices and consider that an increase in frequency is indicative of a shorter second...

There is no "spectrum of frequency shift". The blackbody spectrum is temperature-dependent. Nothing "shifts" at the higher temperature, but the maximum energy of free electrons within the body has increased, so it is capable of releasing higher energy photons, and more photons at any other energy below that.

We know that time runs slower at a lower gravitational potential, so a clock at a higher potential appears to be generating "shorter seconds", and characteristic photons (i.e. line spectra) are blueshifted compared with those generated at the lower potential. Wholly different mechanism from the temperature dependence of blackbody radiation.

[timey (OP)]

There is no "spectrum of frequency shift".

I am quite simply referring to the Planck Einstein relation where there is a relationship between Planck's h constant that emerged from Planck's treatment of energy within the data, as we have discussed as per a Wiki Link in the posts above, and the frequency of a photon.

I am quite well aware of how current physics views the time dilation phenomenon.
The temperature dependence of the blackbody is irrelevant to this discussion.  It's the resulting energy of the photons that is of relevance...
Where I will now quote myself:

: timey
never mind the physics of how temperature results in radiation, the spectrum of frequency shift is described by the Planck Einstein relation, and ask you to put aside your prejudices and consider that an increase in frequency is indicative of a shorter second."

...and know that where I have said spectrum of frequency shift, that I am referring to the fact that the frequency changes as a continuum from low frequency to higher frequency, where energy and frequency are proportional to each other and E=hf.

And that in asking that the increases in frequency be held relative to shorter seconds in order that frequency remain constant, and suggesting that measuring Joules per shorter second relative to the increased frequency will result in an energy continuum, one should realise that:
a) This has nothing to do with temperature and only has to do with the resulting energy producing photons.
b) This considering +energy=shorter seconds is a "New Theory" bit of the discussion.
c) This "New Theory" bit of the discussion, although not predicted by  GR, does follow GR mathematics for an energy continuum, where wave'length' becomes ***time dilation*** related where:
slower time=longer wavelength
faster time=shorter wavelength
and:
d) This results in describing a relationship between the energy of the g-field, i.e. gravitational force energy, and any other type of energy conversation resulting in oscillations of any type.
(see DeBroglie wavelengths)

However this remit, although compatible with the continuum of GR mathematics, has taken the notion of time running fast in 'space' and replaced it with the notion of time running faster for 'mass' in relation to the potential energy of the g-field of M, where the +energy=shorter seconds remit applied to the spectrum of stars of differing M results in time running faster for the bigger stars than it does for smaller stars...

...This directly relates to the next change to conventional physics that my model makes.
This being to attribute another separate phenomenon of time dilation to the g-field of M where m=0 and no potential energy is added, that gives cause for the accelerative force observed of the g-field relating to M.
This renders Einstein's laws of gravity as compatible with both Newtonian geometry, and the summing up of gravity fields as per Newtonian gravity, which means that this remit will also be compatible with electrodynamics.

[Mike Gale]

You cannot pin time dilation to space because SR dictates that a moving observer passing through a point in space perceives time differently than one who is standing still at the same location. Furthermore, the discrepancy is not symmetric in the way you might expect. Each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower.

[timey (OP)]

But I'm not pinning time dilation to space. 

I'm suggesting that motions in the g-field are accelerated or decelerated by a time dilation that is occurring in the g-field.
That this 'additional' time dilation of the g-field will not affect any clock because a clock is mass where the clock will gain or lose potential energy in the g-field, or in relative motion to the g-field and this gaining or losing of potential energy is what is causing the observed GR (altitude) and SR (relative motion) time dilations.

In accordance with the viewpoint that GR time dilation and SR time dilation may be considered as 2 parts of a singular time dilation phenomenon, this additional time dilation can be thought of as a 3rd part of this singular phenomenon in that it just states that pe=mgh and when m=0, no potential energy is added or subtracted, where the time dilation for m=0 can be calculated via the gravitational field strength equation (where we say strength is energy), where g(r)= GmE/r^2.

[timey (OP)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

:Wiki
Wave–particle duality is the concept that every elementary particle or quanticentity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classicalconcepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scaleobjects. As Albert Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."[1]

What this remit that I am suggesting does is unite the point particle model with the wave function model via a physical causation for the wave function of the particle.

[timey (OP)]

You cannot pin time dilation to space because SR dictates that a moving observer passing through a point in space perceives time differently than one who is standing still at the same location. Furthermore, the discrepancy is not symmetric in the way you might expect. Each observer perceives the other's clock to run slower.

The problem (as far as I'm concerned) with conventional SR is, that despite the remit of GR stating that time is running at differing rates, i.e. differing lengths of seconds, at differing gravity potentials, all SR calculations are held relative to the speed of light, where the speed of light is universally being held relative to the invariant time period of a standard second.

By doing this one is defaulting SR to the remit of a preferred frame.  This preferred frame being the frame of reference where a second 'is' the length of a standard second.

Furthermore SR combines a time dilation factor with a length contraction factor, both of which are determined by the percentage of the speed of light that the travellers motion/speed constitutes, which means that SR is also holding the speed of the traveller relative to the preferred frame of a standard second.

As far as I'm concerned I don't have a problem with the notion of standardising a second, or using the preferred reference frame of a standard second, so long as one realises that is what one is doing...
An atomic cessium clock can be calibrated at sea level Earth to the time period of a standard second, and despite the differences in altitude and centripetal motion between sea level equator and sea level polar which cancel each other out, a cessium atomic clock will run at the same rate at sea level of any longitude on the planet, (leaving aside geological density considerations for now), where any differences from the from the gravity potential and relative motion of any longitude of sea level Earth may then be measured as differing from that length of second if one keeps track of the centripetal rotation and altitude of equatorial bulge at that longitude.*

But - I can see that in order to incorporate both GR and SR time dilation effects simultaneously in all given circumstance is not easily achieved under the current remit.
In some cases GR effects are included, as I have discussed regarding the Relativity app in previous posts, and as laid out in this post concerning equatorial bulge versus centripetal motion.
But when SR is used to describe the motions of light travelling across space, it uses a (non GR) flat space describing the (GR) curvature of space via length contraction and time dilation, where all measurements are by default being held relative to the preferred frame of a standard second.

*Ok - so we know via the remit of conventional physics mathematics that there is an orbital radius from Earth where the orbital speed required to maintain that radius exactly cancels out the GR effects of altitude, where a clock will run at the same rate at this orbital speed, at that radius, as a clock at sea level Earth does...
But SR is being calculated on the basis that the speed of light is held relative to this standard length of second at each and every radius, and is also holding orbital speeds relative to this standard length of second.

If we then take into consideration that SR is also incorporating a calculation of a differing length of measuring stick, this is where it all starts to get super interesting...
At this radius where orbital speed SR time dilation exactly cancels out GR altitude time dilation, the length of a metre will be differing according to conventional SR remit.
But hang on a mo - this is an exact symmetry of what we observe of a longitude on Earth isn't it?
As the distance from centre of Earth increases at longitudes closer to the equatorial bulge causing greater altitude, the speed of centripetal motion also increases and this exactly cancels out the GR altitude time dilation at each and every longitude...
Therefore the calculation of a differing length of measuring stick that SR incorporates within it's time dilation calculation will exactly replicate the proportional differences between altitude of equatorial bulge in relation to centripetal speed of the longitudes on Earth.

So my first question is:
When calculating the centripetal speed of a longitude in relation to altitude of equatorial bulge, is the calculation of the SR effects inclusive of the change in the length of a measuring stick, or have these SR changes in the length of a measuring stick been considered as negligible at these low speeds?

(It is my intention to put all this in the context of the premiss of my model, but will do so in stages, because I've found that longer posts are not responded to)

[Mike Gale]

There is no preferred RF in SR because, as Galileo observed, all motion is relative. You may think I'm moving and you're standing still, but from my perspective you're moving and I'm standing still. GR puts a twist on that by introducing a 3rd reference point and a field, which distorts our perspectives.

[timey (OP)]

Well absolutely...apart from the fact that being 'at rest' is a false scenario because no-where is at rest.
Things or people can only be at rest with respect to each other, and in the case of centripetal acceleration, a person at rest at a polar sea level, and a person at rest at an equatorial sea level may be at rest with respect to the centre of the Earth*, but they are in relative motion to each other with respect to their position of longitude, where the speed at which the equatorial sea level and the polar sea level longitudes are moving around the centre of the Earth through space is differing.
*(Edit: actually on second thoughts unless a person was directly on top of either pole, neither would be at rest with respect to the centre of Earth either, as all positions of longitude will be moving faster than the centre of the Earth.)

But... what about the fact that SR is using the speed of light as a reference point to make its calculations from?

The speed of light is using the reference point of a metre held relative to a set time period...
...and this 'set' time period is a second as denoted by the caesium standard, where it is observed that the caesium standard is not only distorted by relative motion, but also by position in the gravity potential.

You may be disinclined to consider the use of a 'set' time period as being a preferred reference frame, and if you like I shall refer to the use of a 'set' period of time as something else, but what I am wanting to talk about here is the fact that SR is using this caesium standard as a basis to make calculations from.
...And it is more the SR changes in the measuring stick that accompany the SR time dilation calculations that I am interested in discussing with respect to the 21.36km difference in altitude at sea level equator relative to sea level polar, and the fact that the SR time dilation effects caused by the extra rotational speed at each longitude from poles to equator exactly cancels out the GR time dilation effects of increase in altitude at each longitude.

Where I have said:

Therefore the calculation of a differing length of measuring stick that SR incorporates within it's time dilation calculation will exactly replicate the proportional differences between altitude of equatorial bulge in relation to centripetal speed of the longitudes on Earth.

So let's say that we are dispensing with the GR time dilation effects of altitude and we only use the SR effects of time dilation and change in length of measuring stick to calculate the time dilation differences of centripetal motion in relation to the equatorial bulge?

The inline motion of the centripetal acceleration will shorten the measuring stick for a measure of the radius right?
So as the longitudes increase in centripetal motion from poles to equator, is the shortening of the measuring stick proportional to the extra distance of the radius?

[timey (OP)]

If we were to imagine for comparison purposes that there were no equatorial bulge, and that the mass of the Earth were to be redistributed so that the distance to centre of Earth was equal at equatorial sea level and polar sea levels - where we then calibrated our caesium atomic clock at sea level equator - we would observe that the equatorial sea level longitude would still be moving faster with respect to the polar sea levels because the earth is spinning from west to east, but is not spinning from north to south, or south to north... And because we are still a spherical shape, clearly a person at sea level equator and a person at polar sea level are still spinning through space at differing radius to each other.

So now we have a scenario where the  centripetal motion at equatorial bulge is still faster than that at the polar sea levels, but the altitudes from centre of earth are equal at every longitude...
As the centripetal motion is reduced at longitudes that are more southern or northern, where the 'reality model's' decreased altitude at more southern and northern longitudes would normally decrease the rate of the GR altitude time dilation at exactly the rate that the decrease in centripetal motion will increase the rate of SR motion time dilation, in this 'imagined model' there is no decrease in altitude at the more northern and more southern longitudes, so GR altitude time dilation will not cancel out the SR motion time dilation effects of the more southern and northern longitudes where the centripetal motion decreases...

So as opposed to the 'reality model' where we have a clock that will run at same rate at polar sea levels as it does at equatorial sea level, this 'imagined model' will have clocks at sea level that run progressively faster as longitudes become more southern or northern and the clocks at the poles will be running the fastest.

I'd be really interested to know the value of that data curve...

[timey (OP)]

Because the 21.36km difference in altitude at sea level equatorial bulge relative to polar sea levels causes the GR increases in rate of time, due to the greater altitude as longitudes get closer to the equator, to be exactly cancelled out by the SR decreases in rate of time due to the increases in centripetal acceleration caused by the greater radial distance, the increases in distance from the centre of the Earth that the equatorial bulge causes and the increases in centripetal motion that the increase in radial distance of the bulge causes are special...
(This being no surprise wot-so-ever because the bulge is indeed caused by the centripetal motion.)
... It is possible to obtain the data curve of how the differences in altitude are affecting the rate of time in relation to a data curve of how the differences in centripetal speed are affecting the rate of time.

Therefore (as per my 'imagined model of the post above) by ironing out the equatorial bulge so that the distance to centre of earth is equal at sea level of equator and poles, where we can now dispense with GR altitude considerations, and (given that we calibrated the caesium atomic clock at sea level equator) calculate how the rate of time is increasing at each more southern or northern longitude from the equator purely due to the decreases in radial distance at the progressively more southern and northern longitudes of this (now) perfect sphere, where the resulting decreases in centripetal motion at these progressively more southern and northern longitudes are now increasing the SR motion related rate of time, this 'imagined model' is creating a means of examining the 'reality model's' data further.

By comparing the data from the 'imagined model' with the 'reality model', the differences in radial distance at each longitude, compared to the differences in centripetal speed at each longitude, compared to the differences in rate of time at each longitude should be illuminative of the relationship between distance and speed.

While I am of course aware of the ramifications of the Michelson Morley experiment, what I am interested in within this comparison of data curves between the 'reality model' and 'imagined model', is where in these SR time dilation considerations is this notion of a variable measuring stick significant?

[timey (OP)]

I'm suggesting that motions in the g-field are accelerated or decelerated by a time dilation that is occurring in the g-field.
That this 'additional' time dilation of the g-field will not affect any clock because a clock is mass where the clock will gain or lose potential energy in the g-field, or in relative motion to the g-field and this gaining or losing of potential energy is what is causing the observed GR (altitude) and SR (relative motion) time dilations.

In accordance with the viewpoint that GR time dilation and SR time dilation may be considered as 2 parts of a singular time dilation phenomenon, this additional time dilation can be thought of as a 3rd part of this singular phenomenon in that it just states that pe=mgh and when m=0, no potential energy is added or subtracted, where the time dilation for m=0 can be calculated via the gravitational field strength equation (where we say strength is energy), where g(r)= GmE/r^2.

Chris - I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?

[timey (OP)]

: Einstein
However we select from nature a complex (of phenomena) using the criterion of simplicity, in no case will it's theoretical treatment turn out to be forever appropriate... But I do not doubt that the day will come when that description (the general theory of relativity), too, will have to yield to another one, for reasons which at present we do not yet surmise.  I believe that this process of deepening the theory has no limits.

'New Theories of Everything', page 109 'forces and particles' by John D Barrow

Does it not seem more probable that there exist additional forces of nature that are intrinsically very weak, or highly selective in the things they act upon, or which have a minute range?  Such forces may well exist.  They do not play any great role in the structure of the everyday world, or even the world of the present day high energy physicist, but their presence totally determines the form of the ultimate Theory of Everything that we seek.

***or highly selective in the things they act upon***

By considering, where m=0, a 3rd aspect to the time dilation phenomenon that gives physical cause for the observed accelerative/decelerative force of the g-field, the ramifications of doing so give rise to an alternative theory of time dilation being energy related and may provide the unifying theory of everything that will unite the point particle model with the wave function model unifying the standard model with gravity... and do so without detracting from
the premiss of Einstein's mathematics of general relativity, only requiring that one disregard the view that time runs faster at altitude in 'open space' and re-attribute this viewpoint to time running faster for m in relation to proximity to M via potential energy, where pe=mgh and gravitational field energy is g(r)=GmE/r^2...
... m will be subject to + or - potential energy due to position in, and relative motion to, the gravity field, increasing or decreasing the rate of time for m, and where m=0 we say that g(r) is increasing or decreasing the rate of time in the g-field causing the motions of m in relation to M to be accelerated or decelerated towards or away from M.

This means that Einstein's laws of gravity can be described within a Newtonian geometry, multiple gravity fields can be summed up as per Newtonian gravity, and a physical causation for the wave function has been established to unite the point particle model with the wave function model that will describe the quantum model as a continuum to be united with gravity.

This remit will describe all observations as per experimental evidence, but describes a contracting universe as per Einstein's equations of GR, where the difference between my contracting model and the conventional expanding model is that time runs faster for bigger M's than it does for smaller M's, there is now no mathematical requirement for the 'far away clock' in the impossible 0 gravity field running infinitely fast, and consequently the mathematics of Einstein's GR will not break down to infinities in black holes.

Edit: This contracting model does not require Dark Energy or Dark Matter to balance the books and therefore is worthy of consideration.

[alancalverd]

there is now no mathematical requirement for the 'far away clock' in the impossible 0 gravity field running infinitely fast,

A multiple straw man!

Nothing impossible about a zero gravity field. It is the point at which a clock observed by someone else appears to run at its maximum (not infinite) rate.

Nor is there an infinity in a black hole. In order for the gravitational field in a black hole to be infinite, it must contain the entire mass of the universe in zero volume. If it were not so, we could increase its field by adding mass or squeezing it, so it wasn't infinite to begin with. As far as we know, several black holes exist, so none of them has any infinite properties.

[timey (OP)]

It was my plan to remove all of my 1600+posts from this forum but apparently that is not aloud.
Please de-register my account as I requested on Saturday.

[Demolitiondaley]

It was my plan to remove all of my 1600+posts from this forum but apparently that is not aloud.
Please de-register my account as I requested on Saturday.

What's up Timey, who's upset you?

[timey (OP)]

there is now no mathematical requirement for the 'far away clock' in the impossible 0 gravity field running infinitely fast,

A multiple straw man!

Nothing impossible about a zero gravity field. It is the point at which a clock observed by someone else appears to run at its maximum (not infinite) rate.

Nor is there an infinity in a black hole. In order for the gravitational field in a black hole to be infinite, it must contain the entire mass of the universe in zero volume. If it were not so, we could increase its field by adding mass or squeezing it, so it wasn't infinite to begin with. As far as we know, several black holes exist, so none of them has any infinite properties.

: Nelson Mandela (almost)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
We were born to make manifest the glory that is within us.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people the permission to do the same.

Now then young Alan, I have had just about as much as I can take of your obtusity, be that purposeful or otherwise...

Physics does not know how fast the 'far away clock' is running, it has never been observed, nor would the gravity field be zero if it had a clock in it.
In any case there is no such thing as a zero gravity field.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/10/mythbusters-does-zero-gravity-exist-in-space/

Furthermore, I did not say that a gravity field could be infinite...
What I said was that the maths for conventional GR break down to infinities in a black hole, and that under the remit of my proposed alterations to GR the maths will not break down to infinities in a black hole.

As to my deviations from conventional terminologies that you as a constant bemoan so vociferously...

: Jessica Rabbit
I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.

...please note my profile info.

But perhaps it might be of significance that:

: J R Tolkien
Not all those who wander are lost.

I am proposing a model of the universe that is compatible with GR mathematics, that doesn't require Dark Energy or Dark Matter.
This model 'should' unify the standard model with gravity while providing fully described mechanics for a rendition of Big Bang and Inflation theory.

In short this model has all the criteria for a 'Theory of Everything' inclusive of simplicity and a suggested experiment to prove or disprove itself.

All that is required is for someone of more capability than I to make the calculations to check and see if this model that I am visualising as a geometrical architecture of cause and effect mechanics is actually mathematically viable.*

I don't see this, or my unconventional terminology for that matter, as being a problem for someone of your intelligence, so to be honest I am finding your responses out of keeping with my expectations of you.

*If the model is a mathematical viability, this does not mean that it is correct, it would only mean that this model is viable.

To be proven correct would fall to the outcome of my model's suggested experiment which, when NIST get their portable atomic clocks up and running as planned in next couple of years, it will be possible to conduct...
Only then will this model I suggest be actually proven or disproven... but in the mean time, for someone like yourself who is trained in mathematics, I really don't see a problem with making the calculations that I suggest.

So rather than treating me as though I am the forum's clown why not just do the calculations?
What have you got to lose?

[alancalverd]

I have explained previously how it is entirely possible to have a zero gravity field, but just for you, here it is again.

Every massive body produces a gravitational field. The field vector is directed towards the center of mass of the body and its magnitude at any distance from the body is given by the usual 1/r² expression. The net field vector at any point in space is the vector sum of all vectors at that point, So there will be a finite number of points in any universe where the net field vector is zero, and in an infinite universe, there will be an infinite number of such points.

The mass of the source clock is irrelevant. The search for a zero-field point is merely the search for the point at which the frequency of that clock, as observed from any other point, is at its maximum.

The problem with deviating from conventional terminology is exactly the same problem as deviating from the local language. It doesn't matter how often or how loudly you shout in English, you won't get fish and chips, but the merest whisper of "poisson et pommes frites" will have monsieur le chef at your service. He's not being cussid, just doing his job, which is not to read your mind but to feed Francophones - or to discuss physics, as the case may be.

A reference to the post where you describe your critical experiment would be much appreciated.