If time dilation slows things down in a gravitational spacetime, then what causes things to accelerate in it ?

[mariuslvasile]

Since the light would be slowed down by gravitational time dilation (as seen by outside observer), the regions with lower gravitational potential would act like a medium with higher refractive index causing light to deflect. This reasoning allowed Einstein in 1911 to reproduce the incorrect Newtonian value for the deflection of light.[41] At the time he only considered the time-dilating manifestation of gravity, which is the dominating contribution at non-relativistic speeds ; however relativistic objects travel through space a comparable amount as they do though time, so purely spatial curvature becomes just as important. After constructing the full theory of general relativity, Einstein solved in 1915[42] the full post-Newtonian approximation for the Sun's gravity and calculated the correct amount of light deflection – double the Newtonian value. Einstein's prediction was confirmed by many experiments, starting with Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse expedition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

So if gravitational time-dilation, which is the dominating contribution at non-relativistic speeds, slows light down, why do non-relativistic things accelerate as the time dilation increases ? Shouldnt they decelerate ?
As they say space curvature does not matter for non relativistic speeds like an apple has for example.
Time dilation alone is what makes gravity work for our apple.
Why does the apple accelerate towards earth then, if time dilation only slows things down in a gravitational well, as it does in the case of light ? It seems that time dilation can only cause gravitational deceleration, not acceleration ! And space curvation really doesnt do anything for the apple, or any object which doesnt travel close to the speed of light, cause that's what them relative scientists say. But if the apple was moving close to the speed of light, then the curvature of space will slow it down as well. Cause in the case of relativistic speeds that space curvation really comes into play, further bending the light's way.

And surely they must know what they're talking about, since they understand his theory better than Einstein himself:

Ever since mathematicians have invaded the general theory of relativity, I myself dont understand it anymore.

[crawler]

Since the light would be slowed down by gravitational time dilation (as seen by outside observer), the regions with lower gravitational potential would act like a medium with higher refractive index causing light to deflect. This reasoning allowed Einstein in 1911 to reproduce the incorrect Newtonian value for the deflection of light.[41] At the time he only considered the time-dilating manifestation of gravity, which is the dominating contribution at non-relativistic speeds ; however relativistic objects travel through space a comparable amount as they do though time, so purely spatial curvature becomes just as important. After constructing the full theory of general relativity, Einstein solved in 1915[42] the full post-Newtonian approximation for the Sun's gravity and calculated the correct amount of light deflection – double the Newtonian value. Einstein's prediction was confirmed by many experiments, starting with Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse expedition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

So if gravitational time-dilation, which is the dominating contribution at non-relativistic speeds, slows light down, why do non-relativistic things accelerate as the time dilation increases ? Shouldnt they decelerate ?
As they say space curvature does not matter for non relativistic speeds like an apple has for example.
Time dilation alone is what makes gravity work for our apple.
Why does the apple accelerate towards earth then, if time dilation only slows things down in a gravitational well, as it does in the case of light ? It seems that time dilation can only cause gravitational deceleration, not acceleration ! And space curvation really doesnt do anything for the apple, or any object which doesnt travel close to the speed of light, cause that's what them relative scientists say. But if the apple was moving close to the speed of light, then the curvature of space will slow it down as well. Cause in the case of relativistic speeds that space curvation really comes into play, further bending the light's way.

And surely they must know what they're talking about, since they understand his theory better than Einstein himself:

Ever since mathematicians have invaded the general theory of relativity, I myself dont understand it anymore.

I have enjoyed my years of reading about STR & GTR & Einstein. STR & GTR are komplete krapp. Their is no such thing as time or time dilation.
However, the math contribution to bending due to silly Einstein's silly rods is equal to the bending due to silly Einstein's silly clocks, at infinity at least.

[mariuslvasile]

Indeed, and all this time dilation/length contraction non-sense was invented by Lorentz, not by Einstein, in order to save the aether after the 'null result' of the MM experiment. But the aether did not need to be saved by illogical fudge factors, because the speed of light in aether does not depend on the motion of earth in the aether, just like the speed of sound does not depend on the motion of a source through air. And therefore the whole premise of the MM experiment, that speed of light should change depending on the motion of the source in the aether, was wrong.

But anyway the fact that Einstein stole these concepts which were developed by Lorentz specifically in the context of his aether theory, and stuffed them into a theory which rejects the aether, SR, shows just how 'smart' Einstein really was.

[crawler]

Indeed, and all this time dilation/length contraction non-sense was invented by Lorentz, not by Einstein, in order to save the aether after the 'null result' of the MM experiment. But the aether did not need to be saved by illogical fudge factors, because the speed of light in aether does not depend on the motion of earth in the aether, just like the speed of sound does not depend on the motion of a source through air. And therefore the whole premise of the MM experiment, that speed of light should change depending on the motion of the source in the aether, was wrong.

But anyway the fact that Einstein stole these concepts which were developed by Lorentz specifically in the context of his aether theory, and stuffed them into a theory which rejects the aether, SR, shows just how 'smart' Einstein really was.

But, nonetheless, relativistic effects (due to the aetherwind) do affect clocks & rods, in every experiment everywhere at all times.

[mariuslvasile]

But, nonetheless, relativistic effects (due to the aetherwind) do affect clocks & rods, in every experiment everywhere at all times.

Wrong, no rods have ever been contracted in any relativistic experiment. That just doesn't happen, because Lorentz theory is wrong.
And an aether wind would only affect a light clock which doesnt actually exist. To assume that ALL clocks would be affected by it is as dumb as saying that air winds affect all clocks, because we imagine a sound clock which is affected by wind.
And a sound clock is just as valid as Einstein's light clock, because none of them actually exist.

[crawler]

But, nonetheless, relativistic effects (due to the aetherwind) do affect clocks & rods, in every experiment everywhere at all times.

Wrong, no rods have ever been contracted in any relativistic experiment. That just doesn't happen, because Lorentz theory is wrong.
And an aether wind would only affect a light clock which doesnt actually exist. To assume that ALL clocks would be affected by it is as dumb as saying that air winds affect all clocks, because we imagine a sound clock which is affected by wind.
And a sound clock is just as valid as Einstein's light clock, because none of them actually exist.

All rods are affected by aetherwind, everywhere, all the time.
Due to the aetherwind affecting the force/action of em forces (ie affecting the size/shape of solids)(which we call length contraction)(but might not actually affect length)(ie it might affect width moreso)(who knows?).
Yes, Lorentz relativity & all other historic relativities are BS.
Yes, the light clock analysis is BS.