Anyway, in order to explain it further, a motion is considered a change in position and a speed the rate of change of position. But, what happens when an object moves without changing position? By definition, it can't.

But consider it over a period of time. What would happen if an object were to speed up, without changing it's position over time? The answer is simple: it has to move back and forth to keep it's position. When one measures the change in position from start to end, it will be zero as if it hadn't moved at all. In other words unless we see the object moving back and forth, or in other words, unless we see it vibrating, we cannot see the difference between an object at rest and an object in motion.

We can measure the rate at which an object vibrates though. We call it a frequency. In order for my hypothesis to work, all matter must vibrate at a certain frequency. So what happens when matter is accelerated? It speeds up. Either resulting in a motion OR a change in frequency. Therefore, by this logic, a difference in acceleration doesn't necessarily mean a difference in the relative motion of objects, it can also translate in objects having different frequencies

To summarise: all matter in the universe accelerates, but the resistance of matter towards acceleration causes some objects to accelerate faster than others. This leads to different frequencies, who will have an effect upon eachother as they try to align their frequencies. It causes certain matter to accelerate, but the effect translates into motion, rather than in a change of frequency.

How is it not required? You're predicting that all mass is accelerating. That acceleration must come from somewhere.
It must be accounted for.
If it exists, it's observable. Are you saying we currently do not have the means of observing it?

This is confusing...
Acceleration causes gravity but gravity balances acceleration causing them to accelerate at the same speed.
But if that's the case, then stable systems that are accelerating at the same speed relative to eachother would seem at rest and therefore not gravitate on each other.
Ok so, gravity is not based on mass - it is based on acceleration? Mass only dictates how far the field of gravitational influence spreads?

Ok- I have ONE question then. To this question I do require a direct answer showing all your math (sorry-):
We are living within a Solar System in which you have Various planets that range greatly in both Speed and in Mass. This includes tiny objects beyond the orbit of Massive Jupiter, like Pluto, Plutos Moons and way out there is Sedna...
Using your Theory of Gravitation, explain the orbits of planets, their moons, using their current speeds and gravitational attraction. Explain what holds Sedan in orbit around the Sun. Explain how the Sun is accelerating Relative to Us, Jupiter is accelerating relative to us that explains their massive gravity. Explain why tiny Pluto must be accelerating very little compared to Jupiter. Explain whether or not the Periodic Comets which accelerate greatly around the Sun demonstrate much stronger gravity than they do while out past the orbit of Neptune. (This comet one should be EASY!) Explain whether or not Observation of the actual speeds of the planets and observation of their gravity is accurate to your theory. IF they are not- explain why they are not.

I would think better of you than for you to come up with Imponderables (Unknown accelerations of unknown causes of acceleration) to account for your theory.

In short- the question is, Why does observation of the solar system so greatly contradict your theory and blow it right out of the water....?

because he never looked?

A common trend in ATM seems to be that theories are never checked against observation unless it is a 'this picture looks like' type of theory.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

All mass is accelerating yes, but if the acceleration doesn't result in an observable motion relative to the reference frame, how would you see it? The object would appear to be at rest compared to the reference frame. In order to explain for that, I say that object is accelerating back and forth, causing a vibration or a frequency rather than a relative motion.

Afaik the current explanation for the acceleration of the universe is dark energy. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have no better explanation, nor do I know what causes objects to accelerate in the first place. If you want to know a why, that doesn't involve dark energy, then I'm afraid I cannot answer you as I'm trying to defend a hypothesis that explains how gravity works.

I meant observable in a visual way. We cannot see an expansion, but we should be able to measure change in frequencies.

Difference in acceleration between two objects causes gravity. There's a subtle difference. What I'm saying is that gravity is a force that equals these differences, causing matter to accelerate at the same ratio.


Depends. The motion is what you see. If both systems move at the same speed relative towards eachother, you still don't know their acceleration. The reason for that is that acceleration can result in both a change in motion or a change in frequency. Therefore, two objects moving at the same speed relative to eachother can have a different acceleration and will gravitate on eachother.

No! Gravity is based on both. As I have stated before, mass also determines the polarity. The total strength of the pull on both objects is determined by the difference in acceleration, but the mass also determines the direction of the pull (from less massive towards more massive objects), which means the forces experienced upon both objects will be asymmetric in the case of unequal masses.

If you require math, then I cannot answer you at this point. I'm equally sorry. Maybe I'll be able to provide it to you at a later point in time, but I won't make any promises. I am however willing to answer based on logic if that is acceptable to you.

So far, my theory explains gravity, but as you may have guessed by now, I'm not actually sure what causes the orbits. The best I have been able to come up with so far, is that if gravity is the equivalent force to electricity when it comes to masses and their accelerations, there could be an equal effect as to that of magnetism to account for the orbits, similar to this. In other words, the only way for me to expain orbits at this point is by invoking the gravitational equivalents of Lorentz forces.

But if you want an honest answer, then I don't know. Question is, if I cannot account for the orbits of planets, can you live with the idea that orbits may be caused by something different?

They are accelerating in the sense that their frequency, or if you don't want to call it that, their vibration is changing, rather than their motions, causing the difference in acceleration, causing gravity.

A comet approaches the Sun in a straight path and gravity bends it around the Sun, accelerating it in the process. I don't see the conflict with my theory, other than perhaps a disagreement in vocabulary. I'd say the comets experience a greater gravitational pull as they get closer, but that they do not experience greater gravity overall, since gravitational pull is the force upon one object relative to the other and gravity is the force upon both pulling them together.

The reason to account for that is once again the polarity of mass. A comet that is being pulled towards the Sun by gravity and "misses it" so to speak, will experience the same amount of gravity, but it's gravitational pull will first of all increase as it gets closer and secondly it will gradually change direction as smaller masses are being pulled towards larger masses.

Why does it accelerate? Because that's what gravity does: it accelerates slower objects to match the acceleration of faster ones and vice versa. If the Sun has such a strong acceleration, why don't we see it moving relative to us then? Because the acceleration of the Sun is changing it's frequency, rather than changing it's motion.

Based upon my explanation, I hope to have convinced you that my theory does match observations. If it doesn't according to you, then it means I'm missing something and that my theory needs correction. However, before I do so, I must be sure that we are understanding eachother correctly.

The accelerations are not unknown. It's just that I think you believe accelerations must result in a change in position, while this not necessarily true. However as to what causes these accelerations, that's a different story. My theory cannot answer the why, only the how.

Well, there are two options. Either observations contradict and my theory is wrong. Or either I'm failing in my explanations to show that my theory does not contradict with the observations. Either way, it means I still have some work to do, but I'll do my best to correct it one way or another so that it does match... :P

Look. Whatever you may think of me, I'm not going to deny observational evidence, just so I can justify my theory, ok?

What I'm trying to deny here is the claim that my theory doesn't match that evidence or cannot account for it.

There's a difference and I hope I will be able to prove you both wrong. If I can't, then either my theory is wrong or I fail to explain it adequately. One way or another, you have made it both quite clear that I am the one who has to make sure I can prove my claims, so that is what I'm going to do. It's rather hard for me, because I cannot back it up with math at this point, but then it means I'm to going to have to try it in a different way.

So even if I have to correct my theory over and over OR repeat the same thing using 500 different ways of describing it OR having to search for 200 000 different examples of evidence to clarify what I mean, then that is what I'm going to do.

Glad we got that worked out, assuming that at least this post is clear enough and that we understand eachother. Do we?

Huuuhh?!?!
You may as well have just said "Magic did it."
You seem to be grasping at straws with this statement.
No. Hold on.
You said that there must be an acceleration. I pointed out that the Acceleration of Expansion is not applicable. You said it wasn't necessary.
I said you need to account for your accelerations. You backtracked and started talking about expansion again.
Seiryuu, Tell what is causing the accelerations within the solar system or galaxy that is resulting in Gravity.

For the record, I am not happy with Dark Energy or Dark Matter explanations.
Ok, so it IS observable, after-all, then?
Now Hang On! We just covered whether it's observable or not!
I thought it's now agreed that it is!
Now you are saying we cannot know the acceleration between the two?
Will you make up your mind, please?

That is what I quoted you on. Don't act like I said something different. I didn't. That is what you said and what I quoted you on.
It is unacceptable.
The math is required.
Why do you think the Math is required, Seiryuu?
It doesn't explain it at all!
You invented some feel good happy go lucky notion off the top of your head that doesn't account for the observations- yet you are in denial about it. See your following post after the One I'm replying to.
I have my responses to that at the end of this post.
Don't you think that may be an important factor?
You seem to care more about defending your theory than you do to actually learn the real science involved. This last paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and shows a complete lack of understanding of celestial mechanics and gravity and magnetism all together.
This is why I jumped on your back to begin with Seiryuu. This is why I didn't want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
READ Wikipedia, don't just use it to pull a quote off of. It would take very little effort on your part to do the actual research on the orbits, gravity, electricity and magnetism. You seem more inclined to ignore the science because it gets in the way of you supporting your pet theory.

Why should I?
Why should I live with a mystery when current theory explains it rather well?
Why should I discard the science that has put us on the Moon
Has put probes around most every planet
Put probes throughout the solar system and beyond
Predicted planetary motions and gravity to very high accuracy
in favor of a mystery that you offer that is based on nonsense, handwaiving, speculations that don't account for themselves and predictions that phenomenally fail against observation?

The answer to your question is a resounding no.
The frequency of vibrations.
of course.
Why didn't I see it sooner!
I've been such a fool!!

Seiryuu, if you can back that statement up, you will win a Nobel.

You can't though. You ignore the observational evidence in order to arrive at that conclusion.

This is in direct conflict with everything you have said so far.

If I were to stand on a comet out past Neptune... And then if I were to stand on that same comet while it was within the orbit of Mercury, How much would I weigh on the comets surface at each of those points?

Explain Frequency or drop it.

And while you're looking up pretty words to explain "frequency"- you might look into Conservation Laws as well.
Not in the least.
Your explanation was:
I don't know, I can't account for orbits, Be happy with a mystery, I can't do the math, there's this mysterious frequency of vibrations that has eluded observational studies.
Frequency and vibrations... I'm trying... really... I am...

What the heck are you talking about now?
This didn't make a lick of sense!
Explain accelerations that have no motion.
And if you are NOW claiming that your theory doesn't explain the why only the how (Which contradicts your statements in the OP) why is it better than current theory which does the same exact thing- and does it much more accurately and matches observation which yours fails to do?

I repeat- look up Conservation Laws.


I don't see how you can think your theory doesn't contradict observation.

But after your comet explanation- I can't help but wonder
Conservation...
Tell me, does the Sun lose any acceleration when the comet passes?

Seiryuu, Yes, you are!
Take a look at your posts!
What we think of you is irrelevant. What we think of your theory is relevant. If you are going to claim you are trying to learn to correct it- then you need to back up that claim by cracking open some books too.
I can point out that you are likable as a person, with a great attitude and a calm demeanor on the board. That has no bearing on how I will react to your theory.
This doesn't even make any sense whatsoever- and your are going to THEN claim that you're not going to try to justify your theory?
It's called Self Awareness. Employ it.

LoL.
Good luck.

500?
200,000?
See....


This is what I was talking about doing it the hard way. Long, complicated, confusing hard way.
So it's going to take 500 different ways of explaining or 200,000 examples to achieve what could be achieved much more easily and faster if you open some books and ask relevant questions


Gotta do it the hard way...

Neverfly, with all due respect, but it sounds like you're attacking my theory based on the vocabulary and terms I use instead of trying to understand the concepts behind it and what I actually mean. I'm not saying you are, but that's how it feels to me and I'm not gonna claim I always use the correct vocabulary or terms that I should be using, but I'm trying to explain it as good as I can.

Again, if I fail at doing so, I'm sorry and I will try again, but so far nothing I have stated feels as if it contradicts to me while it clearly does to you. How can this be if we're talking about the same things? It tells me we're not and this mostly my failure, but still.

It may be my failure to understand the concepts of your theory due to my tiny brain. I can't change that.
But what you have described so far is extremely unsupported and confusing.
I agree that communication is important and this does require terms we all can understand.
Maybe we can take it one smaller step at a time instead.

Can you explain Conservation to me?

How does the 'frequency of vibration' effect gravity?

I should be able to measure a difference in the weight of my kettle as it gets hot. It's 'vibration' would change

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The chances that you fail to understand what I'm saying are very slim. The problem is that for me it all seems coherant and logical in my mind, but when trying to explain I guess I'm mixing it all up. Call me stupid if you like.

Taking it in smaller steps seems a very good idea, as right now I'm trying to answer all of your questions at the same time and I get confused myself, trying to match it with the evidence you bring up. You have accused me for this multiple times that I'm too busy defending my theory rather than asking questions and learning the real science involved, but you must understand that from my point of view it all seems to make a lot more sense and it is equally frustrating when I feel I get misunderstood. I'm aware that all of this is my own fault due to trying to make it fit based upon my own misconceptions and not even realising that, but in my mind it doesn't feel that way as I do genuinely believe that my hypothesis matches observations. Guess that remains to be seen, but you'll have to bear with me.

If I understand it correctly: any change in a property of an object in an observed frame would have to be compensated somehow by another change. So if the solar system for example accelerates at a constant rate, any acceleration within the system would have to be compensated by a deceleration so that the system keeps it's original rate.

I want to clarify this bit-again...
In the ATM forum, you must defend and be prepared to defend your theories.

But in the beginning, you introduced the theory claiming that you want to learn.

Now, you can't really have it both ways. If you are going to introduce a theory- you should already have done the learning. How can you have a theory if you haven't?
So.. You are supposed to defend your theory here. The only reason it came up at all is because you were claiming to want to learn the actual science.

How can you learn the actual science if you are too busy defending your theory? How can you focus on the foundations you need to have a solid theory if you're skipping the process required to make that foundation and going right to theory making?
This is why I said defend your theory here in ATM or ask questions in Q&A, but do not expect to have your cake and eat it too.
In ATM, folks CAN simply say, "No. That's wrong" and not tell you why. Because you are the one making the claim, it's on you to understand the workings of your claim.
Most folks will be more than happy to tell you why. But they don't have to do so.

As far as asking questions, I would encourage you to post a thread in Q&A and lure Grant Hutchison into sharing his brain with you. He would be ideal for this topic.
There are many knowledgeable people on the topic, I point him out directly because he's more often a poster, very easy going and hard to upset, knows his stuff and quick to help.
He's a great resource.

How does Conservation play into your theory?

We have measured the gravitational force between masses here on Earth. In fact, it was done 210 years ago. (Cavendish experiment)

We measure, at non-relativistic velocities and masses, an attractive force that is proportional to the mass of each body and inversely proportional to the square of their distance from each other. There are no magnetism analogies sufficient to explain orbits, and good luck coming up with one that makes them work. We must calculate gravitational effects to extreme accuracy, even taking relativistic effects into account, to predict the paths of our space probes. If things behave as you seem to be describing (which is still extremely unclear), none of our predictions for spacecraft trajectories or the positions of bodies in the solar system would work.

Ask me again once I have managed to come up with a coherant explanation that attempts to match observations.

I don't know, I have a lot of figuring out to do.

Point taken. I think the first problem in my theory is that I have my concepts of gravity mixed up with the gravitational force and use both terms in the wrong places. However, on the bright side, this is an easy step to correct.

As for the analogies with magnetism, it's interesting that you mention that they alone are not sufficient to explain orbits as it still leaves them open as a potential factor involved. However for now, I'm going to drop the notion as well untill I actually need it and have something to base it on.

Thanks for your reply.

Revised theory based upon everyone's comments and criticisms.

Instead of starting from the hypothesis that gravity is caused by a difference in acceleration, I simply redefined gravity as just that, so that gravity becomes an effect instead of a force. Gravitational pull would now mean the force upon both objects, in direct contradiction to what I previously stated. In fact, forget everything I previously stated. I also restored the factor of mass in the gravitational pull to match observations. Although it may still be fundamentally flawed, I think I'm making progress. :P

Still have to include the part about orbits though.

I have been thinking about it further and maybe I'm too attached on my initial hypothesis that gravity is a difference in acceleration. If the effect is an accelerating force and the pull tries to balance two different states, I reckon acceleration isn't even required, a mere difference in speeds will do. Speed still meaning both relative speed and inner speed. If this is the case, the assumption that all matter is accelerating isn't required either for my theory to work and I can drop it.

inner speed?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The speed the object vibrates at, corresponding with it's frequency. I have drawn it out a bit in my revised text to make it more clear.

Since any attempt at formula's clearly isn't something I'm going to figure out myself, I felt I might as well delete the ones I posted earlier.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that gravity is not related to the speed at which a mass moves at through space, but rather the speed at which it moves at through time. In other words, this would mean that gravity would be caused by objects moving at different speeds through time.

This would mean that the time experienced would then depend on the observer. One person who moves faster through time, will experience the length of a second shorter compared to another person, while both will measure the same amount of seconds.

I reckon this would match with the effect of time dilation due to gravity.

OK, I looked at your "revised theory". There is no math. Where are your equations? Let's start with a simple case, write the equation of motion that ties two celestial bodies of mass M and m. Integrate the equation of motion in order to find the trajectory. Let's see it.

Gravity is not related to speed. It is not related to ANY speed. Have you ever taken a physics class or are you making up things as you go?

How so? Can you derive the formula?

Your 'theory' seems to change every time someone suggests something.

I think what you need to do is go and learn some basic Mainstream physics, that way you wouldn't be modifying your ideas with every new snippet of info you pick up in replies to your posts.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

That would be the reason why it's a thought experiment and why I stated the following:

I know it's easy to come up with a text without backing it up, yet I do wonder if that should stop anyone from considering the concepts? If you do not consider concepts meaningful, then indeed I have nothing to offer to you.

Again, not talking about speed that results in relative motion through space. But yes, I am making it up as I go in the sense that I'm exploring possibilities in an attempt to explain something. Some of them will be compatible with what is known, some won't. I try to keep the compatible ones and build from there.

If I could it'd be a lot easier for both of us I guess. But I guess I'm not bright enough for that, so I'm keeping it conceptual.

Why does it match as a concept then?

GR predicts gravitational time dilation depending on the distance from a massive body. The effect is also confirmed. So the question is not whether time dilation happens, the question is why does it occur and how does it relate to gravitional fields? Why does a clock tick faster at higher altitude? GR answers that too: time passing at different rates in regions of gravitational potential.

My notion of time turns it upside down: instead of time passing, I reckon we are moving through the dimension of time. So the effect of time dilation would not be caused by time passing at different rates, but objects moving through time at different rates or speeds. If the Earth moves faster through time compared to an observer in the same reference frame, that observer will notice the Earth to be slowing down. It slows down, because in the same time the observer experiences, for example two seconds, the Earth will have only experienced one, due to it's faster rate of moving through time or in other words, due the length of the seconds becoming shorter (one second becomes half a second).

In other words, I'm relating gravity to speed based upon the combination of my concept of time and observational evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also to understand what I mean, my time concept splits up duration based upon motion through space and duration based upon motion through time, adding two dimensions instead of just one. The concept of gravity based upon a difference in acceleration through time would have the acceleration through space as an effect. Since a frequency is also an inversed time duration, I'm also relating it to gravity.

I don't know how everything would fit together yet, maybe because it doesn't. But even if it doesn't, does that change anything about the value of the individual concepts involved?

Ironicly, first I get accused of trying to justify my theory, despite observational evidence and that I'm not really interested in learning how science really works. Now when I do try to be receptive to suggestions and try to self-correct based upon that information, again it bothers you.

I have a question for you: does a theory have to be correct in order to try and relate different concepts or in order to make an attempt at explaining them in new ways? If I ever want to prove it, then yes, it has to be. But untill then, what makes it so hard to consider ideas that open up new possibilities? Is it because they don't match observations or because I can't back them up? In the first case, I'll keep modifying. In the second case you still have no reason to believe that they are true, but at least there is a remote possibility that they might be.

Isn't science about trying to figure out how stuff works? I'm trying to do it from my limited understanding, yes. I have a lot to learn about basic mainstream physics, yes. But that doesn't stop me from trying to figure things out, consider several options and learning if they are actually possible or not. My first version wasn't, so I modified it in an attempt to match observations. I don't know if this attempt is any beter, but if I can come up somehow with a version that does match all observations conceptually, does it matter if I can back it up with maths or not for you to consider it as a possible theory?

It's about trying to explain the world as accurately as possible.
Making stuff up that you COULD back up if you put some effort into it- but choose not to do so- is not doing science. It's doing philosophy.

In case you haven't noticed yet, I'm doing an effort to try and back it up. I just don't always know how to. I brought up the relation to time dilation, because I reckon my concept matches and gives a possible explanation. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll try to back up more as I'm learning what you call "the real science involved". But I am not capable of learning that mainstream science so fast, so in the meantime I'm using concepts of which I don't know whether they have been verified or not. If I learn about them being disproven, I'll correct. If I learn about them matching observational evidence, I'll use it to back up my claims.

Yes, you are. And it's an admirable effort.
Unlike most ATMer's that swing through, you seem willing to learn and listen to reason.
The reason I raise the issue is that you seem to have done no prior reading on any of this.
Look at the reactions within the posts you have received so far.


Seiryuu, making wild speculations and then having others prove you wrong is probably the hardest way and the most inefficient way to learn something. It's a bit bewildering to me as to why you are choosing it.
It can be difficult to address your assertions at this point.
Like the post above that I quoted you on.

That post originally quoted a different line and then I talked about GR and dilation. I quoted that bit below to show you which part.
I ended up rewriting it and then deleting it altogether.
The reason is because I think it will only muddle things further,
You are jumping in halfway and you can't expect to have a solid foundation halfway in.

No, you have nothing. Period.


"Making it up" is not science. It is called BS.

That keeps it to the standard level of BS. Thank you for acknowledging it.

Not exactly. You would know the exact answer if you knew a little bit of math. You can't do science at the "conceptual" level only. That has another name : sci-fi literature.

Then you will have a hard time explaining the Pound-Rebka experiment in you theoty.



...except that you have no experimental evidence in this direction.



You are.


How so? You are unable to produce any mathematical formalism. This renders your theory useless since it can't make any falsifiable predictions.

I will not deny my lack of knowledge or my lack of scientific background, but what seems can be deceiving. Although what I have written started out with a concept of time from scratch as it's fundation, the reason why it expanded is because I felt dissatisfied with my answers. Since then I have read up a lot. In fact, it was after having written my time concept that I recognized the similarities in GR, while I was reading up on it. I know, similarities can be misleading too, but saying I haven't read up is simply not true. Saying I lack to background to understand it properly, now that may be true.

At any case, if you're still not convinced I'm actually willing to do effort, you're probably not going to believe the fact that ever since I opened this topic I have been reading up nearly daily for several hours in trying to get it right. Sorry to disappoint you.

Try me anyway. The reason why I'm choosing it is simple: I have an analytical mind. Analyzing and relating concepts is what I do and I like to think I'm good it (you may disagree with me ). However I lack the knowledge required to make the correct interpretations and of course, for every misconception I have, the logic will be equally flawed.

I don't expect to have a solid foundation. I don't expect to have it all right either. In fact, that's why I came here. Evaluation by people who actually have a clue. But for my part, being right or wrong is not a requirement for analysis. Even a wrong analyse can be useful, as it can be corrected. A concept can even be valid while the assumptions it is based upon are completely wrong.

Yes, sometimes I regret having opened this thread in the first place. Maybe I should have started out in the Q&A forum. But I did it anyway, so I might as well make good use of the 30 days I've got to try and convince you of perhaps some concepts that may be of value, by looking for ways to back it up and verifying or adressing all the concerns as adequately as possible to the best of my capabilities. It's all I can do.

I regret that I am unable to convince you of it's value.

You may call it as you wish. It depends on your definitions.

Being unable to back it up, doesn't mean it's wrong. Mind you, I never said it was right either. I'm exploring possibilities. You assume a priori that what I written is BS based upon the fact that it is flawed or is insufficiently backed up.

Don't tell me what I can and can't do. You do science your way, I'll do it my way. If I cannot prove my BS you can draw your conclusions, but that won't stop me from trying.

On a side note: with time passing, I don't mean the rate at which seconds pass. I mean the rate at which time passes. It's not measured in seconds. It's measured in t/s, where

t = the amount of time
s = second

As such, you will see it is a measurement of speed.

Not at all, although I can understand the confusion as I reckon we have a miscommunication here in the notion of time, caused by my analogy with half seconds and all. My bad ofc. Then again, I did tell you that to understand what I mean, you'd have to split up duration in seconds from duration in time. Of course, I may also be wrong and you may very well understand what I mean. Please refer to this topic for clarification.

Change in frequency, matches my description.

The absorbtion of the photon causes it's frequency to change, entering a different time frame. Matches.

Hence the need for gravity to accelerate it by motion, so that the resultant speed increase compensates for the difference in frequency.

Different time speeds correspond with different frequencies. Matches.

So I predict that it's speed must be changed first so that the atom may absorb it.

Matches.

Feel free to further point out errors or misconceptions I have.

We'll see. I'll try harder to prove the opposite.

My inability to produce math is irrelevant to the usefullness of the theory. It's going to become very relevant once it needs to proven though, but I'm not sure if I'm intelligent enough to come up with the necessary equations. We'll see.

Let me try another attempt then... My equation might be off though.

Finding G:

F = GMm/r^²
ma = GMm/r^²
a = GM/r^²
(f₁-f₂)(v₁-v₂) = GM/r^²
G = r^²(f₁-f₂)(v₁-v₂)/M (m^³/kg s^²)

Where,

r = distance between two masses
f = frequency of the mass (speed through time, not rotational frequency)
v = speed of the mass through space
M = mass 1
m = mass 2

Gravitational pull:

F = GMm/r^²
F = r^²(f₁-f₂)(v₁-v₂)/M x Mm/r^²
F = m(f₁-f₂)(v₁-v₂)

How's that for a falsifiable prediction?

It's a bit like watching a horse race.
I can be convinced of anything prior to watching the crossing at the finish line.
Yes, you do seem very interested in understanding and asking for corrections.
But that doesn't jive with how you're going about it.
In the meantime, Don't Get To Feeling Discouraged when folks like me say what I said.
You've been holding your head up and that's great. But also think about what's said.
I have an analytical mind as well (At least I like to think so).
You are doing it backwards how I would.
Means that one of us isn't as analytical as he thinks he is.
This can be true but to what end?
If you cannot determine whether or not it's valid, it's useless.
This is why the foundation becomes important if you're going to speculate.
That way, you can get closer to determining validity.
You may also learn that it has no validity at all. Fortunately, you seem open to that possibility- and like a scientist- you seem like you would welcome that.
What value?
Not really.
A junk theory is a junk theory. It's that simple.
No, he assumes it's a junk theory based on already established information that renders your theory into a junk theory.

If you cannot back up the theory and we cannot determine it's validity- Then it Does Not Matter if it is valid or not. Only in your mind will that matter.
The Origin of the Universe (prior to BBT) is similar. It's a matter of pure speculation.
Any theory, currently, about the origin of the Universe is (Like the Heisenberg Principle) neither valid nor invalid.
So that makes it neither right nor wrong- just worthless.
This is NOT how science works by any regard!