VERIFICATION 

1. Absolute reference frame
Motion is the quantum propagation of information through the static space elements grid. So there is an absolute frame of reference, the quantum space grid. Since this absolute frame of reference is invisible, one consequence of its existence would be an additional invisible velocity vector in the visible relative motion of bodies. An example would be an undefined velocity vector relating to the motion of our planet through space.
Special and General Relativity account for all known relative information between two massive entities allowing for accurate measurement of the gravitational force.
If it can be experimentally confirmed that the force of gravity is actually measured to fluctuate relative to Earth's rotations through space, this would indicate the existence of an undefined reference frame.
Fluctuations should be aligned with Earth’s cycles. All the following conditions should be confirmed as periodic gravitational fluctuations:
 Earth’s rotation around its axis  Earth’s rotation around the Sun  Axis rotations relating to both the above
It is imperative that all the above conditions should be verified if indication of the grid’s existence is to be substantiated.
Solar rotation around the galaxy would also account for gravitational influence, yet the time frame does not allow for conclusive results. Depending on the measurements’ accuracy, galactic rotation may be ignored.
If measurements of the gravitational constant G can be accurate enough, and if they can indicate such periodic fluctuations outside the margin of error of instrumentation, then this would account as an indication of validity for the Quantum Space Elements proposal.
If indication of validity is observed, then more elaborate experiments could be performed using existing accelerators. Measuring gravity fluctuations around the ring, and throughout the acceleration curve, would perhaps provide more than just an indication of validity.
Note: In QSE terms, the Earth's motion through the grid translates into different CT states according to the quantum relativity section. Those states are unaccounted for by the traditional methods used to calculate the value of G, since the absolute reference frame is ignored. According to QSE, Earth's orbits in space can be described as points moving in parallel along the Conscious and Absolute Time Lines and in an eternal cycle. (Animation)
The diagram below demonstrates this in a somehow exaggerated version for the sake of clarity. In reality the displacements within the curves are almost undetectable, since the orbital velocity of planets is incomparable to light speed and therefore to the frequency of the universe. The CT differential is very small at those speeds, but not zero. Accurate experimentation techniques should be able to verify those unaccounted for fluctuations of CT as fluctuations of the gravitational constant G aligned with our planet's orbital cycles.
2. Time Geometry (quantized time)
According to the discussion in the quantum relativity section, the necessary transition time between any two events occurring in the universe (ΔΤ) manifests itself at velocities close to the speed of light. This is because only at this speed CT diminishes and becomes comparable to ΔΤ. When those two dimensions of time (ΔΤ & CT) get to be of similar order of magnitude, then the apparent linearity of events (the continuous flow of events) should break down. Experimentally observing events materializing at such special conditions should produce a noncontinuous flow.
More specifically, an experiment measuring the actual speed of accelerating particles (the actual distance travelled over time and not the inferred speed through energy gained), would at some point observe further acceleration in quantized steps as opposed to a continuous flow asymptotic to light speed. Such an observation would produce evidence of quantized time and ΔΤ; the undetected dimension of time.
What is being suggested is that the particle's energy is not linearly related to its speed. Energy is stored within the particle before it is translated into speed in quantized steps. These steps are detectable only at relativistic speed, which means only at the special condition of events materializing at a frequency that is fast enough to be comparable to the frequency of the universe.
Executing this experiment would require a dense grid of observations each at different values of energy gained plotted against actual speed. If an even increase of energy gained is observed to produce an uneven acceleration curve, this should be attributed to quantized time.
If a detector could produce one “ping” every time a particle or a particle beam passed through, then the distance travelled would be the circumference of the accelerator and the time to complete each circle would be the frequency of those “pings”. If the variation of this frequency is not perfectly aligned with the energy gained by the particles, but is observed to be quantized (and therefore delayed) in response to the energy gained, then this experiment would have produced a strong indication of the quantized nature of time.
Factoring this frequency down to audible levels and feeding it through a loudspeaker would produce an interesting experience to those observing the experiment. A continuous increase in energy would produce a discontinuous escalation in pitch. Humans would have, for the first time, actually sensed the effect of cosmic time flow.
Graphically, the plots of observations should look similar to the diagram below. Since ΔΤ is of unknown magnitude it is not possible to estimate the speed above which quantized time would become detectable. Most certainly this would be very close to the speed of light and therefore close to the limits of accelerators. This diagram is indicative and may exaggerate the effect of quantized time in the motion of particles and at speeds that can be experimentally achieved. Depending on the density of the observational grid and on the accuracy of the experiment, quantized time should be detectable within the current limits of attainable velocities.
3. Inertial and gravitational mass (inertial manipulation)
This experiment investigates the effect of field superposition on the inertial mass and the passive gravitational mass of the host generating those fields.
An electric field generated by a uniform spherical charge distribution would be radial and directed away from the center of the sphere. The active gravitational field of the sphere propagates in similar fashion. Even though the fields are quantitatively very different, their superposition should not be negligible in the host’s (the sphere’s) inertial mass.
This would be because, according to the proposed concepts of QSE theory, inertia is the consequence of either gravity or electromagnetic field, or both, if they exist simultaneously and in connection to the same host. Each field would introduce additional information into the space elements affected by that field and therefore would increase the total ΔΤ required in resolving the space interactions within the fields. This would manifest as a delay in the response to any change of state of the host, and therefore as a measurable change in the host’s inertia.
The superposition of the two fields would not alter the gradient of saturation differential of the Earth’s gravitational field within the volume of space occupied by them. It is therefore anticipated that the observed passive gravitational force acting upon the sphere would not be affected and would remain constant throughout the experiment. The superposition of the sphere's fields would only affect its inertia and its active gravitational field. The later cannot be gauged and so the experiment focuses only on inertia.
If the spherical mass hangs freely from a spring, the strain measured at rest relates to the passive gravitational force applied on the sphere and its gravitational field by Earth's gravity. If a brisk upward force is applied to the sphere through that same spring, the strain gauged before the sphere begins to move upwards would be proportional to the sphere's inertia.
Repeating this experiment at different levels of charge and until the sphere is fully charged, it should produce an observation of constant passive gravitational strain and of a gradually increased inertial strain. Such observation would allow for differentiating between passive gravitational mass and inertial mass, and would therefore indicate validity of the QSE proposal.
The anticipated difference should be positive; meaning that superposition of the fields should result in positive superposition of the space elements’ saturation and should therefore increase the host’s inertia. However, it would be interesting to repeat the experiment using both, positive and negative charge on the sphere, and compare observations.
In the case of successfully executing this experiment and if observed results are aligned with the above anticipations, then deeper understanding of quantum space properties and interactions would allow for negative superposition of humanintroduced field properties. This would diminish the inertia of the host mass. The energy required to entirely eliminate the inertial mass of a neutral (not charged) host would be equal to the energy of the active gravitational field generated by the host. It would be reasonable to assume that the total active gravitational energy of the sphere is equal to the effective energy of the induced electric field (total energy fed into the sphere minus experimental inefficiencies) multiplied by the ratio of the inertial differential observed. (Animation)
This experiment should be executed in an environment with as little third party information as possible. Optimally, it should be executed in space.
4. Retardation
It is redshift that holds the key to verifying retardation. Timeflow rate is invisible and so it cannot be observed directly. It must be mathematically inferred by the following process:
Observation: The current observational evidence available is cosmological redshift.
Interpretation: In 1929 science was more than ready (and perhaps eager) to accept the solution of expanding space. Observations indicating expanding space were aligned with theoretical necessity. There was little room for second thought. It is now 2018 and for the purpose of this discussion space is to be treated as a constant. The convenience of expanding space must be abandoned.
Reconstruction: All available images of old (distant) universe are distorted because of redshift. Standard models reconstruct those images by assuming expanding space. If this solution is abandoned, there aren’t many available options to use as variables. Energy dissipation (tired light) has already been unsuccessfully considered.
If those distorted images of distant galaxies were mathematically reconstructed by use of time variables (instead of space or energy variables), then perhaps galaxies would have to rotate faster in the distant past. Every periodic event would have to be accelerated. Cosmic constants would become timedependent.
It is understood that even if proposed time deterioration is mathematically coherent, this would still be just an indication; an alternative solution bound by its own assumed conditions. However, this indication would be a good place to start.

This theory is a private proposal. For actual modern science please follow Wikipedia, Britannica, or other.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 4.0 International License.