[lafroste]

Sure, but time is not a field. What it is, is hard to say, but field isn't it.

That was kind of my point. Perhaps time is a field (meaning it can have different magnitudes, though likely constrained orientation). The thought is that gravity is actually the result of mass interacting with time fields. If that thought is anywhere near correct, then one could test that by measuring time flow (via accurate clock) in deep space versus one at sea level. I would expect that two perfect clocks, one at sea level, one at 175,000 ft orbit would read one second different after about 86 years (the clock at sea level lagging the one in space). Has this difference ever been measured?

[PatrickHenry]

I would expect that two perfect clocks, one at sea level, one at 175,000 ft orbit would read one second different after about 86 years (the clock at sea level lagging the one in space). Has this difference ever been measured?

Clocks do slow down due to gravity, as they also do when accelerated. Yes, this has been measured, and the effect is exactly as predicted by special relativity. I think synchronized clocks (atomic clocks, not your everyday alarm clocks) will diverge enough to be detected when one is at ground level and the other is taken to the top of a tall building.

[RightWhale]

Has this difference ever been measured?

Yes. The gravitational field affects the flow of time.

[Erasmus]

I would expect that two perfect clocks, one at sea level, one at 175,000 ft orbit would read one second different after about 86 years (the clock at sea level lagging the one in space).

Not to pick nits, but you better make that at least a million feet.

< ]8^0)