Thank you for your extensive reply :) Let me share my two cents on your points, I hope honest and direct opinions are welcome...

The very same things could be said of quantum mechanics. It uses observations and then interprets them.

I have to strongly disagree here. You are conflating two things that are very different. The math (as the laws that apply) in quantum mechanics is absolutely rigorous and has proven to have great predictive power. There is very little discussion about the actual math and laws and this scientific theory has been tried and tested and offers reliable explanation for a great dial of data. On top of that, it is constantly being applied in new technologies and our understanding of it is part of our current technological progress.

The thing that is up for debate are not so much the specifics and details of the theory, but the interpretation. We have more than one competing interpretations but this takes nothing away from the rigor and reliability of the theory itself. If different interpretations can lead to different hypothesis and predictions, with time they will be tested and we'll continue expanding our knowledge and understanding. But until then, it's absolutely OK for us to understand, agree on and apply this scientific theory, without knowing the answer to the question why is quantum mechanics the case and what does it arise from. Either way, it is what it is and we have a clear understanding and description of that. Could that be improved? Sure, but replacing it with an unsubstantiated claim is not the way to go by any means.

Btw, do you really disagree with the statement that arguments, simplicity and logic are not evidence? Because if you did, that would be absolutely preposterous to me and I would like to hear why you thought so, but hopefully that is not the case and you understand the huge difference.

Ultimately, quantum mechanics is the result of jumping to conclusions.

Could you please point me to the such jumps to conclusions as I am currently not aware of them?

It has become so widely accepted because it is a very good approximation of how things work, but it is in no way a fundamental description of the underlying reality.

All scientific theory is approximation of how things work and the amounts of data we have show how likely a particular theory is to be the fundamental description underlying reality, but since we can't look at all the data possible, there is always a chance that something is off. But the more data we gather and the more we repeat and refine our experiments, the smaller this chance becomes until it becomes utterly minuscule. But thinking we could ever get it to an absolute zero is most probably a delusion.

How do you propose we get to the 100% underlying truths anyway? Logic and arguments are tools that can help us make conclusions based on true premises, but the only way to establish true premises is through evidence and it doesn't usually offer the fundamental 100% certainty you are talking about. But it's the best if not the only thing we have to get us as close to truth as possible.

[...] and concluded that reality is waves.

How and when was that concluded?

It far too quickly dismissed the importance of particles in playing roles in producing what we see.

Do you really think so? Do you really think there are no and have been no physicists looking into the possibility of underlying smaller particles that make up an electron when it starts acting like a wave? Look back at the history of quantum mechanics in a bit more depth and you'll see that there have been all kinds of propositions and hypothesized interpretations and many of those have been tested and dismissed because of contradictions with particular sets of evidence.

it does not match all observations

I would love to learn about the observations it does not match. Can you point me to some. Does your hypothesis match all observations including those? Have you done the math to show that this is indeed the case? Because if you do those things your Nobel prize would be in the bag already and you'd end up on the cover of magazines. If that ends up happing I would be super proud to have had this conversation with you now (not that I'm not interested in what you have to say either way and not that I'm not enjoying learning about your point of view, because I am).

Btw, I quoted quantum mechanics because it's an example of a class of observations that absolutely contradict our intuitions and absolutely defy the arguments from what the nature we are used to does (that you seem to be making as well). Quantum mechanics is one of those things that we couldn't have imagined and learned in any other way but through experiment and observation.

This is why I know.

Dude, you switch to know waaaay too early. Do the math of your model and show that it fits a wide variety of observations. We have very precise measurements of all kinds of phenomena in both the micro scale and the macro scale, your hypothesis should be able to reliably explain all of those phenomena and all the maths should work out. I still maintain that you are at the hypothesis stage and you haven't even started developing your hypothesis into something substantial and testable. Like pick one of those unexplained observations and show that your hypothesis explains it to start with. That would at least be some real evidence.

Because I understand that what I just said above about electromagnetism being a result of gravity fundamentally and unequivocally proves the model is true. I cannot reiterate it enough, this is the most non-trivial piece of information I can possibly present to support everything I have to say.

What you said about gravity is an assertion, don't you get it? For it to be fact or a piece of factual information, you need some serious evidence and you don't have enough if any. You haven't even demonstrated the internal consistency of your model, let alone that it meshes with reality on all levels we have information on. The fact that you are willing to throw the words fundamentally and unequivocally around is not proper substantiation for your claims by any means. Neither is the fact that you have though about it long. Many people thought about things long and hard and came to some conclusions based on logic, but their hypotheses ended up being refuted, so that's another supposed piece of evidence you keep repeating that has zero real value as evidence. You can stress and reiterate as much as you want, you haven't proven something until you have proven it and proving something of this proportions is not an easy feat. That is just, like it or not, how things are.

For simplicity, let me ask, which is a more accurate statement: "Current theory is that 2+2=4," or "2+2=4."?

That's not even a question that makes much sense to answer, mate. Depends on the context and the definitions you want to work with, isn't that obvious? It should also be absolutely obvious that your claims are not of that nature, so why does this statement matter at all?

I understand the nuances between knowledge and belief, and I also understand that what I present is knowledge.

My humble but honest opinion is that you don't. If you would care about my advice as a person that really likes out-of-the-box thinkers who are willing to tackle humongous questions like yourself, read more on the scientific method, logic and epistemology before you move on with your claims and research.

The mere fact that electromagnetism can be shown to be the result of gravity in the model so substantially reduces all of physics that it proves it is so.

That's absolutely not the case. On one hand, supposed and/or claimed simplification of the existing model by itself is by no means proof before you have demonstrated that it is consistent with observations and second of all, you haven't actually shown that electromagnetism is the result of gravity, you have only proposed a basic hypothesis for it.

In this way, both expansion of space and dark energy are misinterpretations of gravitational redshift effects.

You should do the math and show that this great attractor model does in fact match what we are seeing. What I really don't understand about this model is where do you propose this great attractor is in regards to Earth. As it is located in a discrete location, wouldn't the sky look less uniform and very different in each direction depending on the location of the source. Shouldn't part of what we see be redshifted while other parts be blueshifted?

In terms of why the model does that specifically, I am still thinking about this in more detail as I keep researching.

And that's not a jump to a conclusion? How can you claim knowledge when you lack this vital piece of the puzzle? This is really beyond me.

I think we might have to agree to disagree in terms of what exactly constitutes evidence before we even discuss God. :)

What?! What standard of evidence are you proposing? Either way, whatever your standard of evidence is, I would certainly love to hear what you call evidence for God.

While I have a scientific background, having studied chemical engineering in college and working as a patent examiner for 7 years, I do not have any money left or means to go about doing sufficiently thorough experiments to the degree where they would be compelling.

I don't get it, man. Your background means that you should have the chops and experience to get your papers up to par for proper publications. Why not publish your work through the regular channels, formally propose the needed experiments to prove your theory and then look for grants to make them happen or wait for experimental physicists to give them a shot? Why would you spend time on anything else like bringing your ideas to the masses?

The math is literally infinite variables. Ultimately, I have put no effort into trying to apply my model to results of large hadron collider data for example. It is a daunting task as there are many variables at play and the best I can do is to generally look at the trajectories with gravity and an infinite model in mind.

I don't see how that step can be avoided and I don't understand why you would insist to be taken seriously while claiming you have knowledge and not bothering to check your own assumptions and assertions. It doesn't matter if it's hard or easy, the important thing is that it is necessary and you should not claim knowledge before you've done that.

I've contacted hundreds of physicists and received no responses. It is not as easy as it may seem to have one's work given earnest consideration, especially by those who are considered experts. :)

Well, that should tell you something too. It is possible that they are all blind to the genius of your idea, but it is also possible that you haven't brought your research up to par for serious consideration. If a layman like myself can see piles of unsupported claims, imagine what an expert would notice right away. Don't forget that you claim the quantum mechanics is a misconception without presenting serious evidence, only claims without even demonstrating that the math actually works. I'm sure most if not all experts will not see explaining you what the problems with that are as an endeavor worth their time. Keep in mind you can always go a level lower and talk to TAs, grad students and even just people with simple physics degrees. You might still get some help.

And if nobody with valuable credentials and/or skills is willing to take you seriously, you should absolutely consider what might be wrong with your presentation and/or substance. Claiming you know is surely not something that would work in your favor with people with scientific backgrounds and could only score you points with people that have no clue how science works. What will you yield if you have a steemit following or an youtube following that likes your ideas anyway? For experts to be willing to consider and accept your claims, they should be convincing to them, not to the general population.

You might also want to put some energy into finding alternatives (which you probably have of course :P). Something I can think of is that you could become a patron for something like Sixty Symbols and submit a question about problems they might see with your theory. This could lead to an answer that points out an obvious flaw that you haven't considered yet, or if you are onto something someone might actually help you develop your ideas further. I'm sure there are other alternative ways to get in touch with people and present them with your ideas, but if you want someone's help, you should not be preaching to them and you should be ready to look into their feedback. Even if you are sure you know, why bother mentioning it - let your ideas speak for themselves. If they are as iron-clad as you say they are, than they should be equally convincing to at least a fraction of the experts.

Well, I really hope I haven't given you too much flack and that you are not annoyed with me. I hope you appreciate the honesty instead.

Good luck on your journey and keep us posted, especially if you decide and find the resources to get your hands dirty with some real math or with some real experimentation.

Cheers and all the best!