I promised this some time ago so here goes, I will undermine all of modern science by posting my notes... These need considerable reflection and revision... Time, time, I have no Time! (get it :) walka walka walka
All matter is composed of smaller material particulates as yet undetectable because they are not formed into "common matter". These particulates, which I shall term sub-particulates for the purpose of avoiding confusion with the use of particulate to describe other atomic particles, constitute the bulk of an objects mass. This is essential in understanding the relationships of mass and force in the universe. These are far smaller than electrons. these sub-particulates combine to form what we have hitherto called matter and for the purpose of clarity it is advisable to make the distinction that these are not "matter" in the hitherto defined sense because they are not the thing but its constituent parts. These sub-particulates give the appearance of being uniformly attractant.
I imagine that sub-particulates could be very much like charged balloons in their nature and function and could behave in their physical interaction much like charged balloons would.
For one object to effect any impact on the composition or velocity of another object, regardless of its size, their must be some sort of physical contact, meaning the real and actual interposition of one objects location against the others. There are no invisible fields of influence.
Theory: "Iceberg" Matter:
The bulk of the mass of objects we have yet detected is not in the objects themselves that we have observed but in the composition of these smaller sub particulates which are "in it and in orbit" to it and which have hitherto been largely un-hypothesized. (dark matter, is most likely also just a measurement of the sub-particulate medium. Which of course to us appears still as dark since we have not "detected it" yet but we will.) Thus while we can measure the mass of any object, the mass we are measuring is actually the mass of far more matter than we are observing, though this matter is smaller, crude and unformed. Hence all mass is like an Iceberg. We are seeing only the tip above the water but the "object" is in actuality a construct of its component matter, protons neutrons and electrons, but more specifically these are only standing waves in the sub-matter, meaning sub-particulates and the object is not just the standing wave but the mass in which they are flowing. I do not think that these sub-particulates remain in a constant orbit when in the unformed portions of an object. It is quite likely that they are traveling in long pathways as the background of the cosmos and only the greater resistance of passage through a “formulated” body of matter is responsible for the increased presence of such an "iceberg" around said objects, whatever size.
To determine the size of the "iceberg" effect simple modeling of the gravitational field, which is already well known and thoroughly tested, could be used and it would be found that objects of similar density (planets of similar density) would have essentially the same equation to determine the probability of the existence of sub particulates (sub-particulate density) within their close proximity as one another. In fact to visualize this phenomenon you need only take your rubber sheet which has been used countless times as an example for how space is bent and turn it upside down. You now have a very nice graph of the universes sub particulate density. In fact if you were to stack up all the sub particulates at any given moment it would look just like your upside down sheet. Of course, they are moving so fast that they are never in one place for very long.
Gravity is not a field, it is a massive “frictional” attraction. It is the interaction of sub nucleonic sub particulate matter. The essence of gravity is the combined net effect of massive numbers of incredibly miniscule sub particulate attractions. Gravity is composed fundamentally of the same forces that hold atoms together. But it is the "background noise" of particulate interaction. This is why it is comparatively so weak.
There are no force fields. There are no magical influences of one object upon another from a distance. Every interaction is a physical one.
Time does not exist, space does not exist, and accordingly any belief that we are warping or bending either is thoroughly inaccurate. Time is a measurement of relative motion and nothing else, you only travel through time by observing changing motion, thus if you accelerate to near the speed of light and observe a change in time, what you really have observed is non-constancy in the underlying motion, i.e. matter behaves differently at different speeds, and since solar systems themselves are moving quite rapidly this tells us something important.
Light is not a wave in nothing. Nor does light bend space. The fundamental composition of space is not that of a vacuum but rather that of the lack of "organized matter". Space is neither a vacuum nor a fabric. It is more of a soup. And like a soup it is formed with a base of particulate matter and elements of substance such as the planets and the stars. Light travels through the "liquid" (sub particulates) of this soup in much the same way that sound waves travel through water.
The speed of light is not constant, just as the speed of sound is dependent on its medium the speed of light is based in the density of sub particulates and accordingly is approximately the same everywhere on earth and close to the same everywhere near earth and quite possibly everywhere in our solar system. The speed of light on earth can be used to determine the density of sub particulates since most natural effects follow uniform mathematical equations. Accordingly by measuring the density of the medium and the accordant speed of sound we may be able to predict the density of the sub particulate medium. Having done so we may be able to measure the speed of light in an area which would have a different sub particulate density and accordingly determine the density there and the relationship between there and here.
The Speed of light is not a absolute of motion it is merely an absolute of acceleration and hence the foundation for a relative observation of motion. If one were to observe two rays of light emitted by sol at the same time, the one traveling towards the earth and the other away it would be seen that if ones point of view were to be traveling on the ray of light moving toward the earth (will put Einstein on the ray so he can finally have his wish) the other ray would be traveling at twice the speed of light away from you. That said, the speed of light, at least for now, seems to be the maximum natural rate of acceleration. Meaning that we cannot determine a way to make an object travel at greater than this speed. However these sub-particulates could very well be doing just this since there is no force save each other that can slow them down. They could alternately be colliding and accelerating at such speeds as to make the whole universe seem like just a massive game of bumper balls.
Theory :Unifying force:
Matter in its common form can be more directly compared to a standing wave in a river than to a brick house. It rafting terms a standing wave is a constant directional force that is created by the continuous arrival and departure of water from upstream. Because the forces which direct that water are nearly continuous the standing wave is nearly continuous. This is the same with matter. The sub particulates which constitute the center of any atoms nucleous may be constantly replaced, but the number of them and their approximate shape tends to remain under uniform conditions. Hence the matter that is “us” is actually always changing but the standing wave that is “us” remains. We are quite anomalous mathematically and physically. Likewise it is apparent in all matter formation that in the absence of motion the forces which seem to hold matter together would lead it to rip into pieces. It would seem that motion is the essential building block of the universe and accordingly only objects whose composite elements (sub particulates) have sufficient motion, are capable of maintaining their form. (thus why they would behave differently at high speeds or near black holes)
Entropy and Thermodynamics notes:
The belief that systems tend towards disorder may be an ill founded one. It hinges of course on our definition of what is orderly. The most uniform distribution of sub-particulate matter would be the most mathematically logical and orderly system. The existence of combinations of such sub-particulate into first elements and then those elements into compounds and then molecules and eventual complex organisms is actually the most disorderly of events and the event of lowest probability. Complex formations are the result of incredibly complex but infinite repetitive interactions of forces and combinations of possibilities. To grab a hold of even a single one of these sub-particulates and combine it into a particle may be more difficult than it would seem. Thus things tend toward an orderly distributed state, the natural state would be a universe with no standing waves, but perfect distribution of particles.
Energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy is mass in motion. But mass does not become energy, it simply contains that energy in its motion. For one amount of mass to be accelerated upwards another must be accelerated downwards. Whether we see it or not, motion is constant. Accordingly:
Refutation of the Big Bang Theory:
The big band theory is a false conception. If the objects/matter which composed the universe at the earliest moment had no motion there is no way in which they could have gained motion. This is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, accordingly, the mass which was so concentrated would also have contained the energy of the entire universe, such a system would be inherently unstable, for what reason would such a system have existed? If such objects had motion they would not have been concentrated unless it was for a short "moment" (moment of course being in terms of the universes timeline, where a moment may be a very very large quantity of time) In other words, the big bang origin is the least likely of all possibilities, to get all matter into one point, would be infinitely improbable. Time is only a measure of motion and so before time would mean, of necessity, before motion. Motion is not spontaneous and therefore must be continuous, according to the laws of the conservation of energy. Hence the big bang as the beginning of the universe must be discounted, it can only at best be seen as a glimpse of a cycle of the universe which both expands and contracts. To have a real conception of the universe we must fully understand these cycles. The best conception of the universe would be one of an average of cyclic probabilities. While I cannot deny that the universe could contract into a very small space, or expand into a seemingly infinite space, the most probable eventualities (including the present one) would be to cycle between points intermediate. To contract the universe into an infinitely small space is infinitely improbable. A.k.a. Impossible. While it physically could happen it is no more likely than all the air molecules on earth suddenly compressing into one persons lungs. We are more likely to learn about our universe by observing the way it is now than by spending time trying to interpolate how it must have been.
To put an end on the universe is as irrational of thinking as to put no end on it. Just as putting a beginning or end on time (the universes motion) would be. But here we leave science and enter philosophy and the limitations of human thought.
Theory : Universal Dynamics:
the universe exists in a state of material flux wherein its mass is constantly redistributed inward and outward and changes from state to state. The probability of any total state is founded in the entropy of that state and accordingly we see the great volume of the universe as in primarily simplistic (seemingly empty, but thick with sub particulate matter) form. Objects of larger mass are mathematical and physical anomalies, which due to the seemingly infinite size of the universe occur with frequency.
Unformulated Thought: Electromagnetic Attraction:
Electrons are clockwise rotations of standing waves in motion. Protons are counter clockwise rotations of the same. Accordingly as the two pass near each other’s "icebergs" of sub particulates they have a dramatic attractive tendency toward each other. They, in essence, decelerate each other in a forward direction while accelerating each other in an attractive direction. Likewise protons with protons will tend to accelerate each other in forward and outward directions and seem to repel each other. The fact that protons seem to take more "space" is probably due to the electron friendly nature of our galaxy, the whole thing may be rotating in an electron friendly pattern, and consequently they can move more freely.
Theory: Time and Space a.k.a. The Theory of Absolute Relativity:
Time does not exist, it is only a measurement of motion relative to other established motion under uniform conditions. Space likewise does not exist and is only a measurement of comparative motion and direction. Neither has any physical bearing the universe or its constituents. They are in a sense figments of our imagination which is founded in motion. Space is what is left when we observe everything that matters. Time is our perception of motion based on our expectation of motion. Time travel is no more difficult then the complete restoration of the universe to an exact previous state, and no easier either.
Theory : Regarding the fundamental relationship of light and sound:
(An impact reaction is essentially that effect of a sound wave as molecules impact each other)
There exist two Fundamental Waveforms, sound and light. The first is Sound. Sound is the maximum rate of natural reaction (Impact reaction) of the physical medium (molecules). The second fundamental waveform is light. Light is the maximum rate of natural impact reaction of the sub particulate medium. It is my firm belief that the human race will someday find a way to break the light barrier just as we have broken the sound barrier, although how we will do so I do not know. There is nothing absolute about the speed of light any more than there is about the speed of sound. They are both the maximum natural impact reaction rate of their media. Just as the speed of sound is determined by its media it is quite likely that the speed of light is determined by its media and accordingly the density of sub particulates between the stars is likely affecting the way we see light from other stars and the rate at which it travels to us.
Refutation of the wave particle duality of light:
You are not observing a duality, light is a wave in smaller particles, when you see what you believe to be a strike of a photon it is really the cumulative effect of multiple impacts of sub nucleonic particles causing an enervation of matter to the next stable energy level, if you were to observe that matter you would see that just before it raising energy levels it is very unstable at its present level.
"As for the universe expanding, how can we know it is expanding if we dont know where the center or the borders are?"
I don't think I adequate stated the observation that the reason nuclear clocks report different times after one is left on earth and one sent around it is that radioactive decay is determined both by the speed of travel and the location in the subparticulate medium...