[guest4091]

timey quotes: the op:

On the one hand what I observe is that there is a school of thought that states that a caesium atomic clock placed at a higher gravity potential only 'appears' to have a higher frequency from the perspective of the lower gravity potential...
And that if one places oneself at the higher gravity potential with the clock, then the frequency of the clock will be the same as it was in the lower gravity potential, and that it will now 'appear' to you that the lower gravity potential clock has a lower frequency.
This is a direct consequence of the equivalence principle, and the concept that a caesium atom will be equivalent in each reference frame.
...and it would seem that the same school of thought is prevalent regarding SR time dilation...
This being that one's atomic clock aboard a rocket in relative motion will also be observed by oneself to be ticking 'normally', and it is the stationary rocket who's clock is observed to be running slow.
But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.
Then on the other hand - there is the school of thought that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock as described in the NIST link above, and the link below.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/humans-age-in-space.htm
Physically it just isn't possible for both concepts to reside in 'sensible' physics.
Of course there is a way of turning the equivalence principle on its head to describe why a person ages in keeping with their clock, that also retains the speed of light in each reference frame, but it requires that one take the school of thought that what one observes of the other reference frame is not just an appearance and that the other clock really is running at a differing rate.

The motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction applies to all processes involving em energy transfers. This would include biological, which are chemical, the physics of atoms. If your sense of time rate changes with your local clock, atomic, mechanical, etc., then you aren't aware of the effect. If your ruler shrinks simultaneously with your space can, you still measure the same length inside.
This is the first postulate of SR that the description of physics is the same for any inertial frame. The first postulate is actually a  consequence of the second, the speed of light is constant and independent of its source. The td and lc effectively produce a scaled down absolute rest frame from any inertial frame. This eliminates having to reference the arf or the center of the universe, etc., before forming equations of physics. The contradictory behavior you and others think exists as mentioned above vanishes when considering the altered perception. Einstein emphasized the role of the observer, but not far enough to label relativity as a theory of perception , which is an essential part.
The examples mentioned above are cases where the observer participates in the same effects that act on the local clock, i.e. you adapt to that reference frame, and with altered perception you are able to observe the differences in the remote clocks that you left.
In the SR train scenario, the passenger perceives a straight vertical trajectory for a falling object in the train vs a curved one for the viewer standing outside the train. The trajectories are perceptions and observer dependent.
In the GR elevator scenario, while the box is accelerating upward, a light signal passes through holes in the box. The outside viewer Louie sees a horizontal path for the light, while the viewer inside the box Vinnie sees a curved path. The equivalence principle states that Vinnie can't determine if the box is accelerating upward or resting at a fixed position in a gravitational field. Therefore Vinnie should see a light signal follow a curved path in a strong g-field. (verified in 1919). In relativity, perception depends on the state of motion for the observer.
I don't see any discrepancy.

[timey (OP)]

But I'm not talking about a discrepancy with the results of calculation other than the fact that conventional physics cannot explain the mechanics of how gravity does what it does, the mechanics of Big Bang and Inflation, and relies on Dark Matter and Dark Energy to describe the universe,.

The discrepancy I am suggesting exists is concerning the fact that time runs faster out in "space', where I am pointing out that the experimental evidence is only proving that time runs faster for mass out in space. i.e. m in M's gravity field.

If one takes the view that I have described in previous posts, this opens the door to a differing means of calculating and this means will unify quantum with gravity, explain the how of gravity and provide description of a fully described cyclic universe inclusive of Big Bangs and Inflation periods without introducing any unobserved phenomenon other than the 3rd aspect of time dilation that my model adds which can be indirectly observed as being the physical cause of the acceleration/deceleration that is observed of m in the open space of M's gravitational field.

The physics books I read are quite clear that a theory of everything will be a 'better' description of our universe than the one that currently exists, and that a 'better' description is 'required' to provide description of the mechanics of gravity, the mechanics of Big Bang, the mechanics of Inflation, and unify quantum with gravity, which is what my model does.

GR mathematics will describe a contracting universe, and a contracting universe such as my model describes does not need Dark Energy or Dark Matter to make the theory viable.

The only linear relation is f max=kT, max freq is proportional to absolute temp.

Not if one calculates that the free electron is mass and treats the mass of the free electrons of the black body as if behaving in the same way as the bound electrons of the cesium atom that comprise the mechanism of an atomic clock, where frequency changes in the light emissions of the black body and the changes of the resonant frequency of the microwave beam that is exciting the cesium atoms of the clock are considered as both being caused by changes in energy.

With regards to SR, if space is temporally dilated rather than spatially dilated then non-euclidean geometry is a function of time dilation, and length contraction is due to the time one measures the objects motion with.  However, calculating alternatively will result in the same values where the observer of a length/mass is calculating the acceleration of gravity and the dilation of space as being 2 issues that affect distance traveled, and my model states accelerated/decelerated motion caused by gravity and the dilation of space as being one and the same thing.

BTW, I may not 'speak' like a physicist, this being because I do not have a formal education as a physicist, but I have studied physics for getting on for 10 years now, and I am more than familiar with the link you provide, as well as having read 'Quantum', not to mention 5 books entirely dedicated to SR and GR, plus dozens of books that cover all 3 subjects as well as a whole host of related considerations inclusive of what is required to produce a theory of everything.

[alancalverd]

The discrepancy I am suggesting exists is concerning the fact that time runs faster out in "space', where I am pointing out that the experimental evidence is only proving that time runs faster for mass out in space. i.e. m in M's gravity field.

Except that it is also experimentally true when m = 0. Gravitational lensing happens to photons, and is entirely consistent with GR.

[timey (OP)]

Gravitational lensing is caused by light being bent towards mass.

Light under the remit of SR is being calculated via a time dilation factor.  Time is said to stop for anything travelling at light speed.  Or, it is said that light does not experience time.  Whichever way one chooses to approach the subject, it is not light's own experience of time that is causing it to be bent towards mass.

GR states that time 'in space' gets slower near mass, yet we observe that there is a phenomenon called gravitational acceleration that accelerates all bodies m near M.  If time gets slower nearer to M then why is m's motion accelerated as it gets closer to M?  Whichever way one chooses to approach the subject, it is not a GR time dilation of space that causes accelerated motion...

SR is used to describe light travelling in space, but time has no meaning for the light itself, so what is SR describing?  If time has no meaning for light itself then SR is just describing a dilation of space in which light is being what?  Is it describing that the 'length' of light is being contracted while describing that the 'length' of space is being dilated?

My model states that the light is bent towards the mass because gravitational acceleration is caused by a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon that affects 'open space' where m=0, and that this 3rd aspect time dilation where m=0 runs at a faster rate nearer to mass.  This gives physical cause to both gravitational acceleration near mass and the dilation of space where it is not the 'length' of space that is dilated, it is the 'time' in space that is being dilated.

This is an alternative description of spacetime that will be compatible with the mathematics of GR and results in my cyclic model of a contracting universe.

[guest4091]

GR has been successfully verified regarding its predictions via many and varied experiments. I think "discrepancy" is a poor choice of words.
The theory is "limited" as to how much detail it provides regarding behavior of physical entities, eg. how does the g-field work, ...but aren't all theories. Newton never explained how a dominant mass could affect the motion of a smaller distant mass. Knowledge is a continuing process of refinement.

Light under the remit of SR is being calculated via a time dilation factor.  Time is said to stop for anything travelling at light speed.  Or, it is said that light does not experience time.  Whichever way one chooses to approach the subject, it is not light's own experience of time that is causing it to be bent towards mass.

Time dilation results from motion. Time is just a process that is programmed into a device called a clock.

GR states that time 'in space' gets slower near mass, yet we observe that there is a phenomenon called gravitational acceleration that accelerates all bodies m near M.  If time gets slower nearer to M then why is m's motion accelerated as it gets closer to M?  Whichever way one chooses to approach the subject, it is not a GR time dilation of space that causes accelerated motion...

Space is not time dilated, processes are, which includes clocks. If you also accelerate in SR to a different speed, a clock runs slower.

SR is used to describe light travelling in space, but time has no meaning for the light itself, so what is SR describing?  If time has no meaning for light itself then SR is just describing a dilation of space in which light is being what?  Is it describing that the 'length' of light is being contracted while describing that the 'length' of space is being dilated?

SR describes the effects of motion on observers of physical events and provides coordinate transformations between observers based on their relative velocities. Light is a measuring tool.

[timey (OP)]

phyti - it's pretty difficult to decide on a thread title that is a question.  At the time I opened this thread the thread title related to a part of what I was talking abut with Mike.
What this thread should be called now is "Hey hello there, I've got a theory of everything that unifies relativity and quantum, thus fully describing a cyclic universe that has been contracting since the moment that inflation ended, and I want some help with the maths"...

I am posting at this forum purely on the basis of Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" where chapter 1 is named "The Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics".

: Lee Smolin
Problem 1: "Problem of quantum gravity" - Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.

Problem 2: "The foundation problems of quantum mechanics" - Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.

Problem 3: "The unification of the particles and forces" - Determine whether or not various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single fundamental entity.

Problem 4: "The constants of the standard model" - Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen by nature.

Problem 5: "Cosmological mysteries" - Explain dark matter and dark energy.  Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales.  More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including dark energy, have the values that they do.

My model answers, or potentially answers, all 5 of these questions.

Problem 1 - general relativity and quantum are combined by a re-interpretation of the time dilation phenomenon and the introduction of an additional 3rd aspect of time dilation where m=0.
Problem 2 - is solved by remit of the solving of problem 1, where a combination of making sense of the theory and inventing a new theory is employed.
Problem 3 - should be solved by remit of solving problem 1, but this is where a mathematician needs to be employed.
Problem 4 - will be solved if problem 3 can be mathematically resolved by remit of solving problem 1
Problem 5 - is solved by remit of solving problem 1, where dark energy and dark matter do not exist but the values they have will be pertinent to the remit of how problem 1 has been resolved.

SR describes the effects of motion on observers of physical events and provides coordinate transformations between observers based on their relative velocities. Light is a measuring tool.

So what of SR describing the effects of motion on the physical event of light travelling across space, gravitational lensing of light, and the coordinate transformations between observer of light and light itself?

[timey (OP)]

The difference between the theories...

Special relativity was first (1905) and deals with how motion, the perception of time and velocity are relative not absolute and dependent on the relative velocity of the observers. This includes E=mc^2, the way time is experienced differently by different observers moving at different fractions of the speed of light, the way that velocities add and thus how no particle with mass can ever go (or exceed) the speed of light, etc.

General relativity (1915) is a theory of gravity which replaces Newton's universal law of gravity (and reduces to it for large distances) and is a mathematical framework that describes how space-time is curved and bent by the presence of mass and how this structure effects the motion of particles. It is called general relativity because its solution in flat space (i.e. ones with no masses around) reduces to the equations of special relativity, thus special relativity is a "special" case of general relativity.

Thus, if people are talking about: Atomic clocks on space-ships not experiencing the same time, the twin-paradox, the inability to exceed the speed of light, the contraction of an object as it approaches the speed of light, etc. They're talking about special relativity.

If people are talking about: Space-time curvature due to a star or a planet, the bending of light around a star, planet or galaxy (gravitational lensing), the expansion of the universe, the big bang, etc. They're talking about general relativity.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-sr-and-gr.568598/

I'll add - that if people are talking about Atomic clocks at differing GP's not experiencing the same time, then they are talking about general relativity, but when people are talking about Atomic clocks at differing GP's at differing longitudes on Earth moving at differing centripetal motions, they are talking about a combination of general relativity and special relativity.

I thought I would post the above to negate replies that seek to repeat the description.

*

My model seeks to take the matter a stage further in that where a combination of general relativity and special relativity is used to describe clocks at differing GP's at differing longitudes on Earth moving at differing centripetal motions, my model extends this combination of general relativity and special relativity to the remit of describing clocks on space ships not experiencing the same time, the twin paradox, and the fact that no spaceship can travel at the speed of light, and indeed also give explanation as to why trying to achieve such speeds would be contrary to arriving at one's destination in a 'shorter' amount of time.

Due to the addition of this 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon where m=0, my models rendition of SR is altered from the conventional description, but there is no way anyone is going to understand the altered rendition until one understands the alteration that my model is making to GR, so I'm concentrating on GR at the moment...

Where the first thing to understand is that my model is using the GR mathematics to describe a universe that is currently contracting.  GR mathematics 'minus Einstein's cosmological constant' will describe a universe that is currently contracting.
(This incorporates a re-interpretation of Hubble's velocity related red shift/distance correlation which is realized by the addition of the 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon where m=0)

The second thing to understand is that my model uses GR 'only' to describe the passage of light in the gravitational field.
(Again - this incorporates a re-interpretation of Hubble's velocity related red shift/distance correlation which is realized by the addition of the 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon where m=0)

The third thing to understand is that by adding the 3rd aspect of time dilation where m=0 my model has given a physical cause to the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration/deceleration of the motions of m in the gravitational field* that gives explanation of why all value m accelerates at the same rate in free fall.
(*The mathematics for MOND could be significant in that they modify Newton's laws to describe galaxies without dark matter)

The fourth thing to understand is that by adding the 3rd aspect of time dilation where m=0, my model has redifined the understanding of clocks not experiencing the same time at differing GP's and equates this with electrons (free or bound) not experiencing the the same energy levels, where my model takes this thought to the black body and states an increase in frequency of light emissions as being due to an electron experiencing a 'shorter' second.
(This incorporates a re-interpretation of Planck's h constant as a function of time dilation where all the same maths can be used as is, but dividing by wavelength will be a division by the GR time dilation factor and should be able (need help with this) to be employed to locate an electron, where the necessity for probability maths will be negated.  And when applied to light in the gravitational field, changes in gravitationally shifted light's wavelength at differing GP's are then indicative of changes in the rate of time due to the 3rd aspect time dilation factor of the m=0 gravity field of space., where the strength of the gravity field at that GP dictates the rate of time.  When applied to electromagnetic considerations, this should unify gravity and quantum)

The fifth thing to understand is that by adding the 3rd aspect of time dilation where m=0, this has redefined the premise of Hubble's velocity related red shift/distance correlation as a temporal red shift/distance correlation where it is now possible to consider a contracting universe that can be described by GR mathematics minus Einstein's cosmological constant, and think upon how a contracting universe will proceed.

If these 5 things can be understood then I could move on to describing the alterations that my model then makes to SR and why my model makes them...
I can also expand upon any of these 5 considerations in more detail should anyone have any questions.

[timey (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

There have been a lot of tests of GR and they show that GR is correct to acceptable percentage. (which is good news for my model because my model uses GR mathematics)

However, I tell you that it would make no significant difference to the results of these tests of GR if we considered that time ran slow out in space for space itself. (not for mass in space)
You will respond by saying how can this be?  Surely if time ran slower out in space then the tests we make of GR, where GR is saying that time runs faster out in space would show that GR is not correct.
I tell you that this 'may' not be the case...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_space

All my model is doing is suggesting that these deviations from Euclidean geometry are not spatial, and are in fact temporal, where the spatial dimensions of the geometry of space remain Euclidean.

So my question is - when the tests of GR set out in the 'tests of general relativity' link provided above are calculated, are the deviations from Euclidean geometry being calculated as spatial additions to the geometric distance between objects? 

[timey (OP)]

Because I'm pretty certain that the answer to my question above is - yes they are.

Now we are venturing into the realm of the two body problem, and I will again refer back to my earlier comment concerning MOND.

If we are considering that deviations from Euclidean geometry are temporally derived, then the mathematics of MOND, modified Newtonian dynamics for a modification of Kepler's law, 'should' be significant.

[timey (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

:wiki
Milgrom's law can be interpreted in two different ways. One possibility is to treat it as a modification to the classical law of inertia (Newton's second law), so that the force on an object is not proportional to the particle's acceleration a but rather to μ(a/a0)a. In this case, the modified dynamics would apply not only to gravitational phenomena, but also those generated by other forces, for example electromagnetism.[10] Alternatively, Milgrom's law can be viewed as leaving Newton's Second Law intact and instead modifying the inverse-square law of gravity...

And I am putting forward the idea that the structure of a non-euclidean geometry of space can be re-interpreted, where deviations from euclidean geometry are temporal.  This approaches the matter in reverse where it is distances that 'may' not be 'as interpreted'...
However, because the maths of MOND can describe motions without addition of dark matter the proportions that these maths are using 'should' be significant to both my proposal of temporally derived deviations from a euclidean geometry of space, and my proposal of potential energy being active 'in' mass.

[guest4091]

timey;
Are you debating with yourself?, and where did everybody go!

Whenever someone proposes a TOE, I respond with the same question.
How can we know if we have seen everything, or discovered everything?
Science publications and history are indicating science isn't there yet. In the constant refinement of knowledge, the historical record shows theories revised or replaced with 'new and improved' ones. The common response to new facts, "it's more complicated than we originally thought". This is not to discourage the inquisitive mind from theorizing or experimenting. A TOE is a gargantuan task, and in light of the uncertainties regarding the phenomena, you and many others, question, ...why not open a bakery
.
I can't offer any help in your quest. GR is more complex than SR, and more work than fun.
The most significant issue I have with your model is time.
Time is not a causative factor. Flipping a coin is a sequence of physical events, but the outcome is independent of time. It's a correlation/measuring tool.
It's easy to visualize time dilation in SR as resulting from motion, but in GR, without clock motion, one idea is the stress of gravitational acceleration (its own weight) on the internal clock components for a clock at rest in a g-field. Eg, in using a portable grinding tool on a surface, applying pressure to the surface will slow the tools rotation speed.
Observing other clocks slowing means they are self adjusting to motion, which preserves the rules of physics, a good thing. ('rules' are human interpretations of the 'laws'.

problem 3. 'Ideal' notions of the physical world, because the mind wants simple models that it can comprehend. Where are those perfect circular orbits, and perfect symmetries, when you want them. The negative side to generalization is, the elements lose their identity. Time is drawn as a line on paper with other lines representing dimensions. This provides the opportunity to interpret as moving in time, since there is nothing to distinguish one from the other. It's the basis for Briane Greens metaphorical moving in time, a common misinterpretation of space-time graphs as road maps!

Then there was the guy who worked for NIST who asked a female coworker to meet him for lunch at 12:00 at Freddies. Upon arriving, he didn't see her anywhere and wondered if she had changed her mind Then he remembered, she works on the floor below him.  Just then she walks in at 857 ms past 12, (he wears an atomic watch).
 

[alancalverd]

That's one heck of a ceiling height!

When I worked in the national standards lab, the blokes in Time Section all wore Mickey Mouse watches.

And here's a thing, observed during a trip to Geneva. Competitive advertisements for mens wristwatches all had a theme of "speed": F1 cars, fighter jets, sprinters, skiers....but surely the whole point of a watch is that it goes at exactly the same speed as everyone else's?  And whilst I have great admiration for Kevin Pietersen's batting, only a fool would wear a wristwatch to open against the West Indies. Is it me, or the rest of the world? 

[timey (OP)]

Ah yes - funny, funny...

The most significant issue I have with your model is time.
Time is not a causative factor. Flipping a coin is a sequence of physical events, but the outcome is independent of time. It's a correlation/measuring tool.

Time is not a causative factor...?

If you take a body of mass travelling at a constant speed through positions in space that are running at differing rates of time, the constant speed of the mass will be affected by the rate of time of the space it is travelling through.  As the rate of time in the space increases, shorter seconds, the constant speed of the mass travelling through the space will be accelerated.  As the rate of time in the space decreases, longer seconds, the constant speed of the mass travelling through the space will be decelerated.  This looks to me as though time, or more precisely differing rates of time, can be causative of motion.

Note that I am making a distinction between what time is doing in the space the mass is travelling through, and what time is doing in the mass that is being traveled through space.  I can expand, but lets avoid overload in this post...

In any case phyti - when I very first met you here on line at the forum talking to Box on his thread, I asked what you would say if I told you I thought I had a theory of everything, and you said that that you would say "show me the maths".  The maths are GR, GR describing a contracting universe via a re-interpretation of Hubble's interpretation of the red shift/distance correlation.  What can I say?

[guest4091]

In any case phyti - when I very first met you here on line at the forum talking to Box on his thread, I asked what you would say if I told you I thought I had a theory of everything, and you said that that you would say "show me the maths".

That is not something I would say, but have seen it used frequently. (math without an s, as an abbreviation for mathematics.)
Will study the rest of this.

[timey (OP)]

"The Trouble with Physics" chapter 3 : The World as Geometry - pages:40, 41, 42,43

:Lee Smolin
We are not accustomed to thinking of space as an entity with properties of it's own, but it certainly is. Space has three dimensions and it also has a particular geometry, which we learn in school.  Called Euclidean geometry - after Euclid, who worked out its postulates and axioms more than 2000 years ago - it is the study of the properties of space itself.  The theorems of Euclidean geometry tell us what happens to triangles, circles, and lines drawn in space.  But they hold for all objects real or imagined.

A consequence of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is that light rays move in straight lines.  Thus it makes sense to use light rays when tracing the geometry of space.  But if we adopt this idea, we see immediately that Einstein's theory has great implications.  For light rays are bent by gravitational fields, which, in turn, respond to the presence of matter.  The only conclusion to draw is that the presence of matter affects the geometry of space.
In Euclidean geometry, if two straight lines are initially parallel, the can never meet.  But two light rays that are initially parallel can meet in the real world, because if they pass on each side of a star, they will be bent towards each other.  So Euclidean geometry is not true in the real world.  Moreover, the geometry is constantly changing, because matter is constantly moving.  The geometry of space is not like a flat infinite plane.  It is like the surface of the ocean - incredibly dynamic, with great waves and small ripples in it.

Thus, the geometry of space was revealed to be just another field.  Indeed, the geometry of space is almost the same as the gravitational field.  To explain why, we have to recall the partial unification of space and time that Einstein achieved in special relativity.  In this unification, space and time together make up a four-dimensional entity called spacetime.  This has a geometry analogous to Euclidean geometry, in the following precise way.
Consider a straight line in space.  Two particles can travel along it, but one travels at uniform speed, while the other is constantly accelerating.  As far as space is concerned, the two particles travel on the same path.  But they travel on diferent paths in spacetime.  The particle with a constant speed travels on a straight line, not only in space but in space time.  The accelerating particle travels on a curved path in spacetime.

Hence, just as the geometry of space can distinguish a straight line from a curved path, the geometry of spacetime can distinguish a particle moving at a constant speed from one that is accelerating.
But Einstein's equivalence principle tells us that the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished, over small distances, from the effects of acceleration.  Hence, by telling which trajectories are accelerated and which are not, the geometry of spacetime is therefore the gravitational field.

Thus the double unification given by the equivalence principle becomes a triple unification: All motions are equivalent once the effects of gravity are taken into account, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, and the gravitational field is unified with the geometry of space and time.  When worked out in detail, this became Einstein's general theory of relativity, which he published in full form in 1915.

Unfortunately while Einstein's theory tells us what the effects are, and is highly predictive to great precision, the theory does absolutely nothing to explain why these effects occur, i.e. does not describe the physical mechanics that are causing these effects.

:Lee Smolin
the geometry of space can distinguish a straight line from a curved path, the geometry of spacetime can distinguish a particle moving at a constant speed from one that is accelerating

:Lee Smolin
A consequence of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is that light rays move in straight lines

:Lee Smolin
But two light rays that are initially parallel can meet in the real world, because if they pass on each side of a star, they will be bent towards each other

Therefore light rays that are being bent towards each other are doing so under the effect of gravity, but what effect is this?

:Lee Smolin
Einstein's equivalence principle tells us that the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished, over small distances, from the effects of acceleration.  Hence, by telling which trajectories are accelerated and which are not, the geometry of spacetime is therefore the gravitational field.

The light rays are being bent by the geometry of spacetime, the geometry of spacetime being the gravitational field.  But what is the geometry of space time?
Lets go back...

:Lee Smolin
the geometry of space can distinguish a straight line from a curved path, the geometry of spacetime can distinguish a particle moving at a constant speed from one that is accelerating

But light rays are moving at a constant speed, aren't they?  So how is the geometry of spacetime distinguishing the constant speed of light?

:Lee Smolin
Einstein's equivalence principle tells us that the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished, over small distances, from the effects of acceleration.

So if the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished from the effects of acceleration, then light rays being bent by the geometry of spacetime, where the geometry of spacetime is the gravity field, are indistinguishable from particles being accelerated by the gravitational field.

Now we are looking at motion and acceleration.  And we are also looking, by default, at motion and deceleration.

:Lee Smolin
Einstein succeeded in unifying all kinds of motion.  Uniform motion is indistinguishable from rest.  And acceleration is no different to being at rest but with a gravitational field turned on.

...where I'll add that deceleration is no different to being at rest but with a gravitational field turned on.

:Lee Smolin
Notice here that, as in the successful unification's discussed earlier, more than one unification is happening at once.  Two different kinds of motion are being unified; there is no longer a need to distinguish uniform from accelerated motion.  And the effects of acceleration are being unified with the effects of gravity.

But while there is a unification between different types of motion, and the effects of acceleration are unified with gravity, there is no unification between motion and acceleration/deceleration, where again we go back...

:Lee Smolin
the geometry of space can distinguish a straight line from a curved path, the geometry of spacetime can distinguish a particle moving at a constant speed from one that is accelerating

Where the geometry of spacetime is the gravitational field...
But what 'is' the gravitational field? What in the gravitational field is causing acceleration/deceleration?  What causes uniform motion?

This is where my model adds, in addition to SR relative motion time dilation and GR gravity potential time dilation, a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon for where m=0, i.e. the gravitational field.  This 3rd aspect of time dilation is affected by the strength of the gravitational field, in that where the field is stronger there are shorter seconds, and where the field is weaker there are longer seconds.  This idea unifies the observation of motion with acceleration/deceleration and renders any spacetime deviations from Euclidean geometry as a function of the added 3rd aspect time dilation.

The light rays being bent towards a star are being bent because time in the 'space' near the star is running faster than the time in the 'space' between the background object emitting the light rays and the star that these light rays are being bent towards.

Under this remit the acceleration/deceleration of gravity is an increase or decrease in the local time of 'space' giving physical cause to changes in the motion of particles in the gravitational field.
This 'time related' geometry is compatible with electromagnetic and the reciprocal of this introduction of a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon gives cause for the directional changes that occur in a gravitational field.  This is the part that unifies quantum with gravity which I have discussed previously, but can expand on again if necessary...   

[alancalverd]

If "light rays travel in straight lines" then a single photon cannot interfere with itself in the double-slit experiment. 

[timey (OP)]

But Alan, I did not say that light is not bent from a straight line...

"The Trouble with Physics" chapter 3: Unification becomes a Science - pages 54 & 55

:Lee Smolin
After the idea of unifying all four fundamental forces failed, most theoretical physicists gave up on the idea of relating gravity to the other forces, a decision that made sense because gravity is so much weaker than the other three.  Their attention was drawn instead to the zoo of elementary particles that the experimentalists were discovering in their particle accelerators.  They searched the data for new principles that could at least unify all the different kinds of particles.

Ignoring gravity meant taking a step backward, to the understanding of space and time before Einstein's general theory of relativity.  This was a dangerous thing to do in the long run, as it meant working with ideas that had already been superseded.  But there was also an advantage, in that this approach led to a great simplification of the problem.  The chief lesson of general relativity was that there is no fixed background for space and time; ignoring this meant that you could simply choose the background.  This sent us back to a Newtonian point of view, in which particles and fields inhabit a fixed background of space and time - a background whose properties are fixed eternally.  Thus, the theories that developed from ignoring gravity are background-dependent.

However, it was not necessary to go all the way back to Newton.  One could work within the description of space and time given by Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity.  According to it, the geometry of space is that given by Euclid, which many of us study in junior high school; however, space is mixed with time, in order to accommodate Einstein's two postulates, the relativity of observers and the constancy of the speed of light.  The theory cannot accommodate gravity, but it's the right setting for Maxwell's theory of the electric and magnetic fields.

Once quantum mechanics was fully formulated, the quantum theorists turned their attention to unifying electromagnetism with quantum theory.  As the basic phenomenon of electromagnetism are fields, the unification that would eventually result is called quantum field theory.  And because Einstein's special theory of relativity is the right setting for electromagnetism, these theories can also be seen as unification of quantum theory with special relativity.

Smolin then goes on to describe QED and gauge principle, where quantum is unified with electromagnetism, and the weak and the strong forces, but not with gravity.

But in light of what Smolin says here:

:Lee Smolin
because Einstein's special theory of relativity is the right setting for electromagnetism, these theories can also be seen as unification of quantum theory with special relativity.

This does rather imply that Einstein's general theory of relativity and Einstein's special theory of relativity are NOT unified!

If we examine this more closely, what we can see is that the general theory of relativity is a background independent theory, and the theory of special relativity is a background dependent theory...
Why is special relativity a background dependent theory?
...well I see this as being due to the fact that special relativity is holding an objects speed relative to the same time period as the speed of light is being held relative to, thus by default imposing a preferred frame of reference...

Let's examine this a bit more:

:Lee Smolin
However, it was not necessary to go all the way back to Newton.  One could work within the description of space and time given by Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity.  According to it, the geometry of space is that given by Euclid.

OK - so special relativity is giving a geometry of space that is Euclidean, and general relativity is giving a geometry of space that is non-Euclidean.

General relativity derives non-Euclidean geometry from changes in motion...
Special relativity derives Euclidean geometry from changes in length/distance...

If one applies the distance/speed/time formula, one can calculate the general relativity deviations from Euclidean geometry as being deviations of the rate of time in space that then are the cause of the changes in motion, where these changes in motion do not incorporate differences in distance traveled because it takes a longer or shorter amount of time to travel the same distance, i.e. resulting in euclidean geometry.

If one applies the distance/speed/time formula, one can calculate the special relativity deviations from non-Euclidean geometry as being deviations of the rate of time in space that have been calculated as deviations from the length of 'the measuring stick', where if 'the measuring stick' were not to deviate in length, this would result in both a non-Euclidean geometry and deviations in rate of motion.
(to calculate SR under the remit of my altered GR one would need to incorporate the changes in the 3rd aspect time dilation, where GR and SR can be calculated as a combination by knowing the value of the field.  I can expand on this)

Can anyone see what has happened here?  One is now the upside down of the other, but what have I done?  Is general relativity now a background dependent theory where it is the mass, or the masses of the objects causing 'the field' that causes the 'time related' deviations from Euclidean geometry?
(I now refer you back to my earlier comments about MOND and the modification of Newtonian dynamics...)

By adding a 3rd aspect of the time dilation phenomenon to open space where m=0, this has unified changes in motion in the gravity field with acceleration/deceleration of gravity, and unified the concept of non-Euclidean dimensions in space with Euclidean geometry, where the curves, dynamic waves, and ripples in the gravity field are 3rd aspect time dilation related...
This takes us to the concept of vacuum energy, the concept of potential energy, and my intention to unify the phenomenon of time itself with energy for a unification of quantum with gravity.

[guest4091]

Timey;

If you take a body of mass travelling at a constant speed through positions in space that are running at differing rates of time, the constant speed of the mass will be affected by the rate of time of the space it is travelling through.  As the rate of time in the space increases, shorter seconds, the constant speed of the mass travelling through the space will be accelerated.  As the rate of time in the space decreases, longer seconds, the constant speed of the mass travelling through the space will be decelerated.  This looks to me as though time, or more precisely differing rates of time, can be causative of motion.

Note that I am making a distinction between what time is doing in the space the mass is travelling through, and what time is doing in the mass that is being traveled through space.  I can expand, but lets avoid overload in this post...

The 'rate of time in space' isn't any clearer than 'the gravitational energy in the space surrounding the mass that generates it'.

How would a clock in empty space change its rate if the rate in space is constant?
 
paraphrased from The Meaning of relativity, Albert Einstein, 5th edition 1956:
"In order to give physical significance to the concept of time, processes of some kind are required which enable relations to be established between different places. The type of process should be well understood. The propagation of light in space is the most qualified for this purpose"
Enter the light clock.
Guess I'm not the only one who interprets time this way.

[timey (OP)]

How would a clock in empty space change its rate if the rate in space is constant?

It would seem that you have not understood what I am saying.
1 -  A clock put into the higher potential, empty space or otherwise, will tick faster than a clock in the lower potential as per GR.  Let's get it clear that I am NOT disputing this verified by experiment fact.
2 - What I am suggesting is that putting a clock into empty space will not be measuring what time is doing in empty space, but will be measuring what time is doing for m in relation to M at that potential.
3 - What I am suggesting is that the rate of time in space is NOT constant, that the rate of time in space will be running faster closer to mass M and slower further from mass M , but that you will NEVER be able to measure this time that is occurring in empty space with a clock because the clock is mass.
4 - What I am suggesting is that if you drop the clock that is in the higher potential open space, it will accelerate towards the lower potential, and that it is the time that is occurring in open space that causes this acceleration of motion because as the clock falls into the lower potential the rate of time in the open space of the lower potentials gets faster closer to M and this will cause a body in motion to experience accelerated motion.
5 - What I'm suggesting is that if you throw the clock from the lower potential into the higher potential, that the clock will be decelerated as it moves into the higher potential, and that it is the time that is occurring in open space that causes this deceleration of motion because as the clock rises into the higher potentials, the rate of time in the open space of the higher potentials gets slower further from M and this will cause a body in motion to experience decelerated motion.
6 - What I am suggesting is that the rate of time that is occurring for the clock is differing from the rate of time that is occurring in the open space the clock is moving through, and that this contributes to all values of m falling at same rate of acceleration towards M.
7 - What I am also suggesting is that the rate of time that the clock is experiencing (GR time dilation) will have a direct bearing on the number of magnetic moments occurring for the clock, or any particle of mass, where at higher potentials there will be more frequent magnetic moments, at lower potentials there will be less frequent magnetic moments, where this is also a contributing factor to all values of m falling at same rate of acceleration towards M, gives the gravity field directionality, and also describes WHY gravity is so weak but at the same time so far reaching.

I am quite sure that my interpretation satisfies all of Einstein's requirements...

Enter the light clock.

The cesium atomic clock is a light clock.  It is indeed a microwave beam that excites the atoms at a particular frequency, and it is this particular frequency that is observed to differ when observed from a non-local potential.
However I have been perusing the 'mechanical relativity' thread.  What type of light clock are you proposing, or more to the point, where in the gravity potential are the photon's going to be emitted from the emitting source?

Guess I'm not the only one who interprets time this way.

No you are not the only person.  Physics books agree with GR and SR interpretations, but also agree that there is no known physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, and that quantum and gravity have not been unified.  I am the one who is 'the only' person who is interpreting gravitational acceleration as 3rd aspect time dilation related.  This is part of my "New Theory", and it is my new theory that I aim to describe here...

[timey (OP)]

How would a clock in empty space change its rate if the rate in space is constant?

This is indeed a pertinent question though...

The physics books do not give any description as to 'how' a clock changes it's rate (as per GR) in the differing potentials of space, they only describe that a clock's rate of time will change.

Clearly, from the nature of the question, you are assuming that the rate of time for a clock in the differing potentials of space is changing because the rate of time in the differing potentials of space changes.

The physics books do not give any description as to 'how' the rate of time (as per GR) in the differing potentials of space changes, they only describe that a clock's rate of time will change when it is placed in differing potentials.

What I have done is separate the notion of time in the differing potentials of space from the notion (and observation) of time for the clock in the differing potentials of space into two independent issues, where the clock "in' the gravity potential is ticking at a rate that is independent and differing from the rate of time in the space of that position of gravity potential, and stating that the notion of the rate of time in space can be observed as being responsible for the observed changes in the rate of motion mass experiences in the gravity field...
Now we have a situation where the phenomenon of time for mass (GR and SR) occurs as a separate issue from, but 'inside' the phenomenon of time for space.

Now to describe 'how' these rates of time that are independent of each other are being changed.

What I am saying is that +energy=shorter seconds, and that -energy=longer seconds...
GR time dilation can be described as gaining potential energy in the higher potential and losing potential energy in the lower potential.
SR time dilation can be described as losing, or gaining potential energy due to motion relative to the gravitational field.
3rd aspect time dilation of space, where m=0, can be described as vacuum energy related, where vacuum energy and gravitational field strength are one and the same thing and the stronger field can describe +energy, and the weaker field can be described as -energy.

This unifies the phenomenon of time with energy, and leads us from potential energy and vacuum energy to the doorstep of temperature energy and back to the black body to apply the +energy=shorter seconds remit to the data for a re-interpretation of the function of Planck's h constant...
... And the realization that under the remit that I propose, bigger masses will not be running at slower rates of time.  Bigger masses will be running at faster rates of time.

This opens the door onto my changes to the conventional concept of time running faster in space for clocks...

Where my idea is that as a body m moves further away from M, there will come a point where body m's own gravity field will outweigh body M's influence on the field at that distance, and body m will then have it's own field around it.  From the point that body m attains a field around itself that is stronger than body M's influence on the field at that distance, body m's rate of time will be decreasing instead of increasing as body M's field becomes weaker with body m's increased distance from M.
Just to be clear let's describe this in reverse...
Body m has it's own gravitational field.  As body m becomes captured by body M's gravitational field, it's rate of time will be increasing as it is influenced by body M's field.  It's rate of time will be increased up till the point of distance from M that M's gravitational field at that distance outweighs body m's own gravitational field.  When body M's gravitational field at that distance outweigh's body m's gravitational field, body m's rate of time will start to decrease as body m gets closer M.
My idea states that it is the 3rd aspect time dilation of space that is causing the increased motion of body m as it free falls towards M.
Now would be the time to add SR time dilation (but not length contraction because that mathematical necessity is already being described via the 3rd aspect time dilation) for orbital speeds and motion caused by free fall.