I apologize for the delay in responding.

1. What does ATM stand for here? Possibly this question no longer relates to my correction.
2. My gravitation theory proposes that the spin of a mass defines its density. To account for the relative motions of the particles making up the mass, it is their motion that causes there to be density. The more density, the more interference with the penetration of paeps and thus the more gravitation. Note that The spins and motions involved include those of the smallest particles to the spin of the massive body itself.
3. ?
4,5,. My gravity particles produce the same impressions as current theory. The resultant bending should be the same.
6. Good question. Possibly the secondary gravitational effect the slowing that accompanies the lensing, would cause additional slowing of the beam and result in a greater redshift like my explanation of the redshift for quasars
Some questions:

1) What, in your ATM idea, is the relationship between the observed 'gravitational redshift' and the mass (let it be 'm') and distance (let it be 'd') of the source? Assume a static universe with just the one source mass and a (massless) observer.

2) How does the mass of an object depend upon "the spin of component particles"?

3) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your ATM idea, as presented, and results of Pound-Rebka experiments?

4) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your ATM idea, as presented, and solar system observations of bending of light (and radio) by the Sun (and Jupiter, and ...)?

5) How - quantitatively - does you idea account for lensed quasars?

6) How would the observed redshift of a distant star change during a micro-lensing event?[/quote]