This question already has an answer here:
I desire to contribute for the community. I want to work within the community guidelines while contributing original perspectives. Please note that "original perspective" does not automatically equate as "non-mainstream". I'm attempting to walk this fine line, and the challenge for your moderators is to distinguish between unfamiliar but valid content.
The question title does not question the validity of Einstein's work. It only asks if something was overlooked.
I then identify an observation that is strictly defined by empirical measurement. I then describe the circumstance of the observation and measurement within terms of "what is actually occurring within a given system, and within strict literal terms". In effect, there is nothing within this post that constitutes as being "theoretical".
If I am not venturing theory, but rather just describing the world as it does occur in front of our very eyes, then how can it be said to contradict mainstream? This is my attempt.
May I please have my post assesses to judge if I do in fact achieve these criteria? Original and valid content might be an asset for the community, and I'm not motivated to contribute generic work.
It shouldn't be considered as remarkable that accelerated rates of a force-driven system extend implication to that systems operational forces. Accelerated rates empirically define as a modulated value of force. That is simply how the world works.
Time dilation effect is defined by modulated rates of force-force driven systems. Time dilation looks like acceleration and defines as acceleration. Time dilation is entirely indistinguishable from acceleration caused by force. Thats interesting and deserves inquiry, an example of an equivalence that demonstrates a real relationship between values of force and values of time.
General Relativity can be thought of as possessing two personalities, gravitational force, and spacetime. How exactly Spacetime relates to the generation of gravitational force is a little ambiguous, you have to admit? "bodies following straight lines in curved space?". At some point we need to develop this conversation, and that's going to necessitate inquiry relating properties of time and force. If we can have that conversation within terms of an empirically based observation and measurement, then all the better. Do we outlaw the inquiry because it sounds unfamiliar? Do we only allow questions that have sanctioned answers?
Please look past the unfamiliarity of this observation and validate that it is empirically verifiable. Observational and not theoretical. How could content that fits these criteria be considered as inappropriate?
Identification of natural relationships is an ultimate goal for science
Thank you for your consideration, and I hope my unique brand of contribution can be of use here. I'm willing to take advice on how to modify my approach so that it suits your preferences