Oh this is a subject I have researched extensively. My theory was gravity is a consequence of matter's movement through time, I had a whole thing explaining it and even some math(rudimentary math at best) to explain it. It was just a theory and an amateur one at that. When I was young I fancied myself a amateur scientist and even though I didn't have a degree I would make some big break through and get an honorary doctorate. Big dreams ones that I have learned are just not reasonable. I had all kinds of big ideas when I was young many of which I almost blew my self up trying to realize. Some of the experiments I did with plasma probably should have killed me and possible half the neighbor hood. One thing I never did that I always wanted to do was build a particle accelerator. It would be fun! Think about it you could test creating entangled particles and see if you could charge a battery wirelessly with entangled electrons. You could mess around with spooky action at a distance as Einstein called it. I've always been a big dreamer, I try to keep myself a little closer to earth these days.
Did your theory make accurate predictions that are testable?
It did, but just because it can predict one part of the physical world doesn't mean it predicts all of it correctly I posted it on-line a long long time ago and it got absolutely shredded. It made about 2 accurate predictions and did not account for many many things. I came up with it after I read a biography on Einstein and thought I was smarter than I was. I wouldn't share it with anyone again, getting ripped apart once was plenty. It was based on the idea that gravity only effects things that move slower than c.
LOL We can be pretty unforgiving in academia.
It's also worth noting that science progresses one death at a time. People aren't too keen on admitting they were wrong.
I say that because I imagine much of the response was ego. That tends to color things and make people respond with a lack of niceties.
Having done peer review and been subjected to peer review, it's not much nicer even among those with accreditation.
To be accepted, it must answer all the questions that the previous theory did AND make testable predictions. If it doesn't meet those predictions, it's wrong.
(post is archived)