1. This is my conceptual idea/s for describing Space. Im looking for constructive criticism. I noted some basic premises that I hope explain my concepts. Im not a scientific writer and im sure that my ideas may not flow smoothly as a reader, this is a first draft after all. If you read all of this, then i will appreciate your thoughts and comments. Thanks. Note: This post has to be separated into 2 because of its size.

Part 1

Spatial Theorywith Balancing Theory E_universe=1/F_space

Premises:
-The simplest idea that accounts for allobservations and experiments thus the most probable for universal truth.
i.e. (E=MC^2)
-The terms matter/energy are interchangeable.
-Laws of physical matter and energy must beinclusive of each other. Matter is energy in a different state.
Definitions as used:
-Entropy (E-universe) is describing the property ofmatter and energy to increase/stretch space; Achieving greatest separation;Polarization of space.
-Spatial epicenter-If you could put a sphere aroundall matter and energy in the universe, the spatial epicenter would exist nearthe center of the sphere. Most accurately described as taking 1 single atomoutside this sphere, the gravitational center of all remaining matter/energy inthe universe would have a pull on the single atom to this Spatial epicenter.
Spatial Theory is the inverse relationship asE_universe=1/F_space
-All detectable and undetectable matter/energyexists in the domain of space.
Key points of Spatial Theory
- The universe will never becompletely static. Change will always occur.
- The inverse relationshipof the entropy to the minimizing force of space does not describe a quantity ofthese values, only that they exist in a relationship of equal and opposingforces.
- Space will never reach itsabsolute minimum of zero, but the force of Spatial Minimization (maximumefficiency of Space) will always be towards this value.
- Entropy of the universewill expand space only to a finite amount.
-Total Space is neither aspecific value nor infinite value. The complete value of space is alwayschanging based on its existence with matter.
Space will always have an effecton matter/energy. Matter/energy will always have an effect on space.

Spatial Theory
Matter/energy:
-Theuniverse will never reach a value of zero for space (f-space) nor energy/matter(E-universe). Spatial theory can’texist with the Big-Bang theory. The trend in the data that supports a Big-Bang(increased rate of expansion; ‘universe cooling off’) relates to the point whena stronger F_space resulted in the shift to stronger entropic state. A shifttowards the extreme point of entropy would be the observed ‘cooling off’ as thevolume of finite space is increased.
-Matter/energyis inherently entropic and this universal entropy is inversely equal andopposing to the efficiency of Space. The smaller the Space (f-space), thegreater the universal entropy for a given definite quantity of matter/energy.
A largerSpace will yield lower total universal entropy (rate of increase). This meansthat the physics of the universe (i.e. gravity) are dependent on where theuniversal state of entropy and space exist. The equilibrium is not staticbecause change must and will always occur because the interaction between spaceand energy/matter which will always affect each other.
EXPANDED IDEAS:
Time:
-Time is not a fundamental dimension of theuniverse. Time is the observation of change (the rate of change in space and thereforetime will always proceed forward with regards to perspective. However it is areasonable assumption that if the rate of change in one part of space is slowerthan the relative rate of change in another, then the change in time will notbe observed to be same in both places. All time is relative to the currentobservable changes. A person at the boundaries of space would observe earthcircling the sun much faster with respect to his perspective of time. Timealways proceeds at a linear rate with respect to the observer, allowing for an increasedbent observation of time that proceeds at a different rate with respect to theobserver. However, a point in time (A) for both is still equidistant to anygiven point (B) in time. Time does not change the universe; The changes of theuniverse allow for the observation of time (change).
Space:
Space is maximized at its smallest value. Gravity isthe observation of space attempting to reach its smallest and thereby is mostefficient state. Spatial maximization (smallest value) is the equal and inverseopposing force of the entropic force matter/energy that pulls space away fromits maximization (its smallest state of zero).
Again, the total value of space will never reachzero because energy of the universe increases as space nears zero. Space is thephysical domain of all matter/energy. Matter doesn’t escape space, butenergy/matter may be created or consumed when space is expanded or compressed.
Probable mathematical value of space-The size of theuniverse can be measured by the maximum distance that light (emitted at 180degrees to the overall spatial epicenter plus its emission source distance fromthis epicenter) can reach before space returns the light (matter) back towardsthe spatial epicenter. It may even be possible that light emitted from a sourcethat is bent by the spatial epicenter may return to its origin giving a view ofthe dark side of the moon from earth, for example.
Light:
Wave properties of radiation are the observations ofspace as energy travels through space.
The theory that all matter/energy has an effect onspace and vice versa is key idea explanation for why space and energy willnever exist in a complete equilibrium nor completely remove each other:
** Change will always occur **
Without space, matter and energy would never slowdown. Matter and energy would continue to increase space, and this would be arun-away system of pure energy in its highest kinetic form. The mere existenceof energy in a lowered state as matter is the effect of space on energy.
All Energy has mass (and occupies the dimension ofspace) and therefore the dimension of Space (observed as properties of gravityi.e.) will have an increased observable effect on matter/energy as it travels throughincreased distances of space (observed as wave-like). Measurement of light in a'vacuum' still travels through space.
The most precise measurement of the speed of lightwould be the most accurate over the shortest distance.
light (the speed and ultimately its kinetic energy)traveling through space will continue to be reduced as it proceeds away from the spatial epicenter (like drag); increased as it proceeds towards the spatialepicenter. This will contribute to some of the red-shifting observed fromd istance sources.

2.

3. Balance Theory
Spatial theory needs expanding or atleast theaddition of the Spatial Balancing Theory. The inverse relationship of Entropyto the Minimizing Force of Space does not describe a quantity of these values,only that they exist in relationship of equal but opposing forces.
In support of the Spatial Theory, a few more keyideas must be expanded upon.
If the universe continued to expand indefinitely,then the entropy of the universe would expand at the same rate. For the same argument,the opposite could happen with zero entropy and Space being non existant as theBig-Bang Theory suggests. In opposition to this theory, you would still needsome form of energy or matter (albeit only 1 atom) put into this state ofnothingness to drive entropy up, thereby increasing space. This state of spacein the big bang theory would undoubtedly require the Higgs-Boson Particle asbeing the spark, however, the existence of this God-Particle does more todisprove the theory than support it. Creation or Destruction of matter mustoccur as an effect of stretching or compressing of space. Before the appearanceof a Higgs-Boson particle could appear in a Big-Bang model, something wouldhave to change which implies everything was already changing and never a staticstate of nothingness to begin with. The existence of a Higgs-Boson particlewould require a dynamic environment rather than a static state of nothingness.The Spatial theory does allow for creation/destruction of matter as space isstretched or compressed. The author suspects that expansion of the universeconsumes energy and the compression of space creates energy.
Weakness of Space:
Volume is the weakness of space. It is its own worstenemy. Space is like a rubber ball, as entropy of the universe expands spacethe kinetic/thermal energies driving entropy inside the ball will cause it toexpand and increasing the volume of Space. This energy is essentially dispersedand a 'cooling' off of the universe occurs. The force of spatial minimization(for maximum efficiency) will eventually gain momentum and this 'rubber ball'will return to its original size and continue to compress until the potentialenergy is converted as kinetic/thermal energy and starting the cycle over again.
With regard to an increasing rate of expansion ofthe universe (current observations), once this rate pushes space past thebalanced point, observed forces of gravity would be increasing exponentially.Measurable effects of gravity will change over time (for a given mass).Observations of distant galaxies should show slightly lower gravitationalvalues for calculated masses. The calculations of mass for a system must beindependent of gravity calculations to see this discrepancy.
This rubber banding affect will always continuealthough not necessarily uniformly. Imagine a 3 dimensional 'atomic model' withthe electron cloud being the edges of space in its given existence. Theseelectrons don't exist around the atom uniformly, rather the location of the farthestelectrons may be where the space has the momentarily weakest hold. Where theelectrons are not found, entropy would be the weaker force. This flux of forceswould be most dynamic nearest the center as well as its edges of this 'atomic model'.
Spatial Balance takes into account the relativedefinite value of energy for the universe but does not exclude the phenomenonthat spatial stretching and compression most likely has on creation/destructionof energy matter.
This spatial balance is the byproduct of therelationship between the opposing forces and is the critical key concept for preventingthe universe becoming zero as well as becoming infinitely huge. Although weconsider the distances quite infinite, the 'size' of space is limited to howfar entropy of the universe can push against the force of minimization ofspace.

4. Apoligize for the coding problems when I pasted from Office...hope it's not painful to read

5. Well, your first premise simply seems to be restating Occams razor.

Your second premise is wrong. Matter and energy are not interchangable. E=mc2 says that a given mass is equivalent to a a certain amount of energy, not that it's the same.

Your third premise is also incorrect. Matter is not energy in a different form.

Second, there is no spatial epicenter of the universe.

The third is simply a self-evident tautology.

In your key points, only the first is true, and it's another self-evident statement.

There is no 'minimizing force of space'.

Everything so far is either wrong or simply self-evident. I see no reason to read on any further.

6. E=mc^2 does say that matter can be converted to energy which is the whole premise of the equation, the conservation of mass. Ever heard of fission? This combined total of universal matter and energy would be the forces behind expansion. I encourage you to be more accurate with your criticism if possible.

first, i defined my definition how i described entropy...because i narrowly deviated from the standard definition of entropy used in chemistry. In Chemistry, entropy is a key principle in describing spontaneous reactions along with enthalpy changes because of the importance of entropy in thermodynamics. The fact that i loosely describe the quantitative total value of all matter and energy as a word Entropy, (which in its traditional definition does decribe the tendency of the universe to reach homogenous dissipation) is not a critical fault in the theory.

econdly, if you would have read further, i described what i called Spatial Epicenter. Your opinion that a spatial minimizing force cant exist is because...why? because you cant touch it? When you touch gravity, let me know. I also described gravity as the observation of this force.

Yes, some of the things I have written may seem self evident-but the implications and meanings are not. Saying that all matter and energy exist in Space excludes ideas of anti matter, dark energy, etc...things that may be described to be outside the rules of space. If you would like to post a different opion would be acceptable and welcomed.

I have spent time in developing ideas that take many possibilities into account, you spent less than a minute to be useless and rude....mostly useless.

7. Point of note, i would like to add that I have just completed 2 semesters of Chemistry and Calculus. I am taking Calc 2 and 3 along with ODE (ordinary differential equations). Physics in the fall and spring as well. This theory is a work in progress as i further my studies. Im looking for criticism that may have some value towards developing a full working Theory that may project more than the 1 or 2 predictions I have already stated. I do believe this model will scale down for the quantum mechanics issues in Einstiens theory of Relativity as well.

8. I have spent time in developing ideas that take many possibilities into account, you spent less than a minute to be useless and rude....mostly useless
Pointing out that you're wrong is useless? Since you're not inclined to listen to any criticism, I suppose you're right. There was nothing particularly rude about it, unless you feel being told you're wrong is rude. In which case, you're in for a rough life.

Saying that all matter and energy exist in Space excludes ideas of anti matter, dark energy, etc...things that may be described to be outside the rules of space
Outside the rules of space?

Physics in the fall and spring as well.
I'd stongly urge you to wait for another two semesters before trying this.

9. Originally Posted by Mays
-Entropy (E-universe) is describing the property ofmatter and energy to increase/stretch space; Achieving greatest separation;Polarization of space.
This is not the commonly accepted definition of entropy. Entropy has nothing to do space, it it a thermodynamic property of systems.

-Spatial epicenter-If you could put a sphere aroundall matter and energy in the universe, the spatial epicenter would exist nearthe center of the sphere.
No it wouldn't. The universe does not have a centre point.

Spatial Theory is the inverse relationship asE_universe=1/F_space
This is meaningless.

-Time is not a fundamental dimension of theuniverse.
Yes it is, as clearly evidenced in the Einstein field equations, which are experimentally very well verified.

Wave properties of radiation are the observations ofspace as energy travels through space.
No, it is the result of quantum mechanical wave-particle duality.

10. Im new here so i dont know how to place quotes etc, thanks for the feed back markus....some comments to clarify my points tho. Gravity is the least understood albeit the most ovserved feature in nature. The central concept of my idea/theory is that matter and energy behave similarly (overall in the system) as gas does to fill volume as well as exerting pressure against all sides....and in this case, the boundrary of space. I used "sphere" to describe an idea that there is a boundary, not necissarily that it is spherical, only that the behavior of the farthest matter and energy would have the strongest pull back towards central point...therefore maintaining some 'shape'. The central point of this theory though is that these 2 equal and opposing forces could account for a cyclic expansion and compression of the universe.

If my choice in using the word entropy invokes some other idea, i will gladly try to find a more accepting 'term' but this was a one-sitting write up any suggestions would be great. Thats why I have put my ideas up here for criticism in the first place.

I understand and accept the logic of time as an important dimension in space. Just that time or 'rate' is not part the the relationship of between these forces. How space behaves is not a variable in the equation. I do fully realize that that time however, can be and would be necessary to view observations of the theory. I may have put 'too' much in this post with regards to time, but it can be removed from the theory with exception of the proof. Since we are able to see the behavior of systems millions of years ago, I am proposing that there should be an irregularity in expected gravity calculations.

Im most surprised that people aren't taking issue with the underlying idea that gravity forces, the force the I described as a minimizing force....would actually gain or lose value for a given mass based on how stretched or compressed Space is. I also believe these values may scale locally as well, which may be suitable for quantum mechanics, which I not remotely an expect on. So feed back on this matter would be great also.

The quantum mechanical wave-duality as you put it is why i suggested the effect that a photon of light has on space....and the inclusion that these observations support my theory that space is directly affected by matter and energy, and vice versa. I recognize that i used loose definitions and ideas to support my Theory. A fully developed theory would require me to write a full novel, which would be beyond the scope of this forum...but i do take from your points that it will eventually be a must.

Im trying to start from a central theory that does take into account all scientific fields....and as I study these disciplines and apply my theory to them to find discrepancies.

Thanks again

11. Originally Posted by Mays
Gravity is the least understood albeit the most ovserved feature in nature. The central concept of my idea/theory is that matter and energy behave similarly (overall in the system) as gas does to fill volume as well as exerting pressure against all sides....and in this case, the boundrary of space. I used "sphere" to describe an idea that there is a boundary, not necissarily that it is spherical, only that the behavior of the farthest matter and energy would have the strongest pull back towards central point...therefore maintaining some 'shape'. The central point of this theory though is that these 2 equal and opposing forces could account for a cyclic expansion and compression of the universe.
A few points here :

1. Actually gravity is very well understood, we have a well developed theory for it, called General Relativity. It gives us a comprehensive picture of gravity on the macro scale
2. Space does not have a boundary
3. Space also does not have a centre point

I understand and accept the logic of time as an important dimension in space.
Time is not a dimension in space; spatial and temporal dimensions are different from each other, but they are part of the same manifold

How space behaves is not a variable in the equation.
Not sure what you mean by this.

Im most surprised that people aren't taking issue with the underlying idea that gravity forces, the force the I described as a minimizing force....would actually gain or lose value for a given mass based on how stretched or compressed Space is.
I am also not sure what you mean by this.
In General Relativity the gravitational field is self-interacting, because all forms of energy are a source of gravity, and that includes the field itself.

and the inclusion that these observations support my theory that space is directly affected by matter and energy, and vice versa.
Yes, energy and space-time are mutually interacting, as shown in General Relativity.

A fully developed theory would require me to write a full novel, which would be beyond the scope of this forum..
You don't need to write a novel, all you need is an appropriate mathematical formulation.

12. The mathmatical equation for theory in the first line is E (the entropy forces of mass/energy) = 1/minimizing force of space <---- no time or rate...only the relationship.

We have a great understanding of the calculations of gravity...not what causes gravity. I may be wrong, but nothing in the theory of relativity specifically describes
what causes gravity, only how to calculate the effects of gravity. Which does not scale down for quantum mechanics...the reason for all the research in this field resulting
in current string theories, etc...

I am proposing gravity is the observation of a spatial forces which is space being stretched past its efficency.....in a nutshell, space wants to be zero, its matter and energy that are the
opposing forces that prevent space from getting to zero.

I will expand on the fundamental effect of what i am proposing for gravity some more....for a given mass, the gravity of this mass exerted on another mass is definite. My theory says
that gravity (the pull of space to minimize) will increase or decrease depending on whether space is expanding or compressing. For example, we currently observe the universe expanding,
however...i am proposing that if we are able to observe a given system....for discussion, lets say 1 billion light years away. If we can independently determine the mass of 2 objects in proximity to each other (by independent, it must be independent by calculation of mass that exludes any use of gravity forces by our current measuring comparissons)...then calculate the gravity forces between these objects, you will find a discrepancy....because 1 billion years ago, Space was more compressed and gravity should be seem to be stronger for the given mass as compared to the gravity of a specific mass today.

The mass of most objects is determined using the gravity and the effects of gravity between 2 objects. We may or may not be able to observe a planet orbiting a sun, but we know it exists because of a wobbling effect on the star it orbits for example. Based on these observations and rate of the orbit around the star, we can determine the mass of the orbiting planet....however, this method will not work to prove or disprove my theory because we are applying current standards of gravity to calculate the mass. Which if my theory is correct, these mass calculations would have a slight discrepancy because 1 billion years ago gravity was actually stronger for the given mass. It will be necessary to calculate the mass of the object from a method that does not use gravity observations to determine the mass. Which unfortunately for me is extremely difficult but I do not believe to be impossible. Another point of clarity, this discrepancy would be observed to be the greatest from the most distance sources rather than something relatively near. Because the nearer the system is that we are observing would result in a smaller discrepancy.

The fact that the amount space is being stretched actually determines gravity says that gravity can even behave differently based on mass....which is why the problems with relative theory has difficulties with micro systems....such as the nucleus of an atom of electrons. And with brief thought, this may even be the best place to look for the scaling effect of space on gravity.

13. Originally Posted by Mays
We have a great understanding of the calculations of gravity...not what causes gravity. I may be wrong, but nothing in the theory of relativity specifically describes
what causes gravity, only how to calculate the effects of gravity.
You are wrong. Gravity is cause by mass or energy) changing the geometry of space-time.

My theory says
that gravity (the pull of space to minimize) will increase or decrease depending on whether space is expanding or compressing.
But the expansion of space is part of general relativity, which also explains gravity. You can't pick and choose which bits of a theory you want to use and which bits to ignore.

The fact that the amount space is being stretched actually determines gravity says that gravity can even behave differently based on mass....which is why the problems with relative theory has difficulties with micro systems....such as the nucleus of an atom of electrons.
No, that isn't the reason at all.

14. We have a great understanding of the calculations of gravity...not what causes gravity.
Like Strange already pointed, that is not correct. Gravity is caused by the presence of energy - any form of energy -, with the effect being a change in space-time geometry.

Which does not scale down for quantum mechanics...
Almost correct - it does not scale down to quantum field theory. We do not yet have a complete, consistent QFT of gravity, but this will only be a matter of time. It is a very active area of research at the moment.

...then calculate the gravity forces between these objects, you will find a discrepancy....
Not sure how you want to determine mass of distant objects without resorting to calculations. What we do know, however, is that far away ( =old ) objects behave in exactly the same way as expected by the usual laws of GR. There do not appear to be any discrepancies.

It will be necessary to calculate the mass of the object from a method that does not use gravity observations to determine the mass.
I am not aware of any such observational method, all measurements of mass are done via the observed effects on other nearby objects.

Which if my theory is correct, these mass calculations would have a slight discrepancy because 1 billion years ago gravity was actually stronger for the given mass
I can think of at least two good reasons why it is highly unlikely that the force of gravity was any different in the past ( and there are probably many more ) :

1. The laws of gravity are actually a direct result of the number of dimensions a space-time has. Under Newton, 3+1 dimensions automatically lead to the usual inverse square law, whereas under Einstein, the field equations are the only rank 2 tensor equations which in the weak field approximation reduce to the correct Newton relations. In other words - given that the space-time dimension are the same, you can't really get different laws of gravity
2. Despite what most people think, it is indeed possible to formulate a QFT for gravity using a Lagrangian density for a spin 2 boson field - this leads to the postulate of the graviton particle. Even though that model is not renormalizable, it nonetheless immediately gives the usual inverse square law for gravity.

....which is why the problems with relative theory has difficulties with micro systems....
No, those QFTs can be easily formulated, the big issue is that they are not renormalizable ( i.e. they contain unphysical infinities ).

15. Strange, i will abstain from any further relations to micro systems, because i have very little understanding of where current science lies on these issues. As i stated before, I only suggested an idea...If your statement is valid that micro systems dont have issues with scaling, i will accept that.

I would like to counter your statement that I am wrong about what causes gravity. Obviously the prescense of mass causes observable gravity, i am only suggesting that it is not mass directly, only that the disturbance mass has on space...and so now my idea that its spatial forces attmepting to minimize the space that matter is occupying will result in what we see as gravity.

16. Originally Posted by Mays
Obviously the prescense of mass causes observable gravity, i am only suggesting that it is not mass directly, only that the disturbance mass has on space...and so now my idea that its spatial forces attmepting to minimize the space that matter is occupying will result in what we see as gravity.
We already have a perfectly good theory that explains how mass (or energy, amongst other things) affect space and cause gravity. Can you explain what is wrong with that theory or why yours is better?

17. Strange, for you comment about what the theory of relativity says about expansion, what i have read on the matter says that the GR theory predicted expansion based on calculations. It was only later that this was proven. Though I admit i don't know what these equations found that suggested this, but I presume that many of these calculations used measurements of gravity in combination with observations. I dont argue the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, only offering a solution to explain how it could be expanding at an increasing rate without having originated as a Big-Bang.

As a unique theory, im not attempting to argue any modern scientific data on what is or has happened, only to explain how the universe behaves as a system. I am however entitled to 'pick and choose' which parts of any theory i choose to include or not include into my theory. And even though your more than able to say you disagree, without a significant evidence....my theory is just as valid as something fantastic as the 11 or 12 dimensions suggested by string theory for example. I am not however as you did suggest, attempting to re-write GR theory, only trying to make a parallel in my ideas with what has already been proposed and as much as possible proven. If I may a incorrect assumption about what has been tested or proven, then please correct me...thats the purpose for putting my ideas here in the first place. I do thank you for your comments.

Markus, thanks for explaining how my assumption of the current scaling of Gravity was incorrect. That is quite useful and I will refrain from refering to QFT because I have very limited understanding of it to begin with. Though my assumption was wrong, I am more than happy to focus on other aspects of my Theory.

My Calculus professor has taken an interest in reading this forum (printed) that i presented to him this morning, I am excited to discuss his feedback as well. I have a short list at this time of great professors I am hoping to share this Idea with over the next few months. So I expect many revisions and possibly complete changes in the future. I am well into my 30's and going back to college for my Electrical Engineering Degree, 2014 here i come! After 11 years on military service on submarines, dont make false assumptions as the dumbass near the top about my life or experiences. The fact is I get paid to go to college full time and my life is very good. Im not here for peoples approval, only to solicit useful ideas and criticism.

18. Originally Posted by Mays
I dont argue the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, only offering a solution to explain how it could be expanding at an increasing rate without having originated as a Big-Bang.
If it is expanding then at some point in the past it must have been smaller and before that even smaller still. That is all the big bang theory says (backed up with rigorous math and detailed evidence). How is your expansion different from that?

I am however entitled to 'pick and choose' which parts of any theory i choose to include or not include into my theory.
No you are not. The theory is coherent whole and all of it is consistent with evidence (which is what "theory" means in science). You can't take some bits and not others. That is a bit like looking at a house and deciding that you don't want those ugly beams that hold the roof up.

The fact is I get paid to go to college full time and my life is very good.
That's great (I'm envious!) but I wonder if you need to get a bit more standard science and math under your belt before making these leaps of imagination...

But I'm relieved you're not the usual, "my theory is right and you are all fools" type we usually get round here.

19. I propose that (in agreement with the big bang thoery) that the universe if expanding, but that it will not always continue to do so....nor has always been expanding in the past. Which is why i included the second part which tries to explain how it is in balance

I do agree you cant keep the ceiling without the ugly beams that hold it up, but you may keep those arguments and ideas that hold it up and put a different roof on it.

consider how little energy it takes to pick up a rock, the entire mass and the gravity of Earth is acting against this action, but it only requires such a small amount of energy, I find it puzzling....comments?

20. Massive amounts of evidence disagree with you.

21. Originally Posted by Mays
Strange, i will abstain from any further relations to micro systems, because i have very little understanding of where current science lies on these issues.
If you do not understand quantum physics very well, then I don't think you are qualified to claim that current mainstream understanding of relativity is faulty, because a number of QFTs are formulated relativistically, e.g. QED, and we know that they give accurate predictions.

Though I admit i don't know what these equations found that suggested this, but I presume that many of these calculations used measurements of gravity in combination with observations
Actually no, they were a direct result of a specific solution to the Einstein field equations, the so-called Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Metric ( FLRW metric ).

As a unique theory, im not attempting to argue any modern scientific data on what is or has happened, only to explain how the universe behaves as a system.
That is an interesting premise, considering that you do not appear to have much understanding of the underlying models such as GR and QFT.

And even though your more than able to say you disagree, without a significant evidence
You are getting this mixed up rather badly. It is yourself who is challenging the accepted physical theories, and as such the onus of proof lies on you - not the other way around. It's called the scientific method.

my theory is just as valid as something fantastic as the 11 or 12 dimensions suggested by string theory for example.
Judging by your posts thus far it is evident that your understanding of String theory must be very limited. Again, as such you are not qualified to make any claims as to its validity or lack thereof.

After 11 years on military service on submarines, dont make false assumptions as the dumbass near the top about my life or experiences.
I don't think anyone has done that. Our opinions are based solely on the material presented in your posts.

22. Originally Posted by Mays