floatSpace in regards to Relativity

Until now, my strategy of problem solving has been a grand unification by means of identifying basic principles of the nature of the universe. I have tried to accomplish this by merging the concepts of space/time and mass/energy, so that all of these concepts spawn from one element of existence simply taking different forms by consequence of the local events position in relation to the whole of the universe. Now I will identify several problems in the current model.

Problem One: the Variable Perception of the Sequence of Events

Einstein's theories of special and general relativity state that the perception of the simultaneity, and likewise the asynchrony, of any given event to another depends on the relationship between said event to the observer in terms of their relative spacialSpeed to each other. Mysteriously, the perception of temporalSpeed becomes split between the event and the observer. It seems to me that the sequence of events, the eternal process of causality becomes muddled in a confusing relativism calling into to question the idea of now regardless of spacial differences. For instance, astronomers often quote "the stars as we see them in the night sky do not look that way now, but we are in actuality seeing the stars as they were millions of years ago. In that sense, there is an eternal present in which all things are happening at the same time, but we are unable to detect or experience the now because of the limitation of the speed of light. The information is unable to travel across the vast distances in time for us to be able to see what is happening now.

Can there be an eternal present, an ordered contiuum of events that occur simultaneously, and yet still allow for the perceptions of observers in this coherent existence to percieve a difference in the sequence of events?

Problem Two: Relative Mass and Relative temporalSpeed

As an observer moves closer and closer to the speed of light, his mass increases. And as we know from the General Theory of Relativity, as Mass increases, time slows down for the observer in relation to all outside events. Take these two examples as illustrations of these principles.

space ship example
a spaceship leaves earth, then initiates a journey to a distant star near lightspeed
the pilot of the spaceship experiences time passing normally. He gets to the planet let's say 40 years later, then immediately begins his return trip. 40 years later, he arrives at earth (assuming the earth and the star were not in motion relative to each other [which would probably not be the case in reality]). 80 Years have passed for the pilot of the spaceship. But, how much time has passed on Earth? According to GR, much more time than 80 years would have passed on Earth. In fact, everybody the pilot knew would probably be long dead.

blackhole example
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity state that the perception of the simultaneity, and likewise the asynchrony, of any given event to another depends on the relationship between said event to the observer in terms of their relative spacialSpeed to each other. Mysteriously, the perception of temporalSpeed becomes split between the event and the observer. It seems to me that the sequence of events, the eternal process of causality becomes muddled in a confusing relativism calling into to question the idea of now regardless of spacial differences. For instance, astronomers often quote "the stars as we see them in the night sky do not look that way now, but we are in actuality seeing the stars as they were millions of years ago. In that sense, there is an eternal present in which all things are happening at the same time, but we are unable to detect or experience the now because of the limitation of the speed of light. The information is unable to travel across the vast distances in time for us to be able to see what is happening now.

Can there be an eternal present, an ordered contiuum of events that occur simultaneously, and yet still allow for the perceptions of observers in this coherent existence to percieve a difference in the sequence of events?

Problem Two: Relative Mass and Relative temporalSpeed

As an observer moves closer and closer to the speed of light, his mass increases. And as we know from the General Theory of Relativity, as Mass increases, time slows down for the observer in relation to all outside events. Take these two examples as illustrations of these principles.

space ship example
a spaceship leaves earth, then initiates a journey to a distant star near lightspeed
the pilot of the spaceship experiences time passing normally. He gets to the planet let's say 40 years later, then immediately begins his return trip. 40 years later, he arrives at earth (assuming the earth and the star were not in motion relative to each other [which would probably not be the case in reality]). 80 Years have passed for the pilot of the spaceship. But, how much time has passed on Earth? According to GR, much more time than 80 years would have passed on Earth. In fact, everybody the pilot knew would probably be long dead.

black hole example
a black hole is a star so massive that its gravitational pull does not allow for light to escape, light being the most massless particle that we know of. The event horizon of a black hole is the point of no return, when an observer comes so close to it that his escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, then he has crossed the event horizon. Let's imagine an astronaut drifting through space and his spaceship's propulsion equipment has broken down beyond repair. The ship is on a collision course with a black hole. Unable to do anything, the astronaut prepares himself for the most amazing fireworks that any human has ever seen. As he approaches the black hole, the starry sky betrays a darkspot, where no stars shine, and this darkness slowly swallows up more and more of the view until it has taken 50% of the sky. Half of the sky is Darkness, the other half is the light from the observable universe still flowing into it. The astronaut's time slows down in relation to the outside universe. What does this mean... Well, when we look at the stars, we see them standing still, twinkling quietly. That's because our experience travels so fast that the stars look as though they are not in motion. In reality they are in motion. So as the astronaut accelerates towards the center of the black hole, the movie of the stars, to him, is accelerating. First the stars begin to budge, then they pick up speed and start to dance around each other. The most noticeable aspect of the sky would be the rotation of the Milky Way, which would turn from a cloud of stars in a blazing wheel of spiral energy. The astronaut would experience the collision of the Milky way with the Andromeda Galaxy in a matter of seconds to him. The incredible fluidity and water-like elegance of the cosmic light show would be an amazing sight, and perhaps, if the astronaut survives the tidal forces in the rotating black hole for long enough, he would be able to witness the extinction of all light into black holes, marking the end of an era in the known universe. That would be a movie ticket I would consider buying.

Kukharchuk's Theory of Gravitation

Physicists have always tried to explain how gravity works on a structural level. We are now able to calculate with unmatched precision the paths of projectiles through the air and even the trajectories of the planetary bodies through the solar system. All the formulas have been written and proven, but the reason for Gravitation eludes us still. Modern physics tells of a massless particle called a graviton that "transmits" the force of gravitation. Somehow, this explanation has always struck me as strange and anti-climactic. The idea that a particle orbiting a quark has to move away from it to "bring" energy and information to another quark seems ad hoc. What happens when this particle is not present? Surely in all likelihood that must happen, that an atom losing its force carrying particles...

Of course, some would say, why would you expect the Universe to conform to your human expectations of order and hierarchy? Well, simply speaking, all the physical laws of the past have been explain using deep explanations about the very nature of the universe. They have shed real light on the mysteries of the world we live in. I refuse to let the mystery of gravitation be put aside by the assumption of a yet undetected particle which magically transmits force and direction to the whole of another atom. Quantum Mechanics it seems, does not satisfy my Relativistic Spirit.

Well, if it's not a particle-transmitted force, I ask myself, "What KIND of explanation would I consider to be satisfactory?" Well, that's easy, a structural explanation. By structure I mean making a statement about the behavior of the whole of the universe by means of identifying a natural law, a natural action.

First, we must stop conceptualizing space and matter as two separate things. They are one in the same. Space is matter, and matter is space. Think of space as a a clear 3-dimensional substance, like water. Water, to us, is a continuous mass of stuff which has a finite space, it cannot go into itself, and no mater what you do to it, if you keep it enclosed, you will not end up with more or less than what you started from. Space is like Water. Matter is that water, but folded into itself, so it gains a shape which seems to stand apart from the rest of the water. Matter is space that has been folded into itself, and thus, "floats" on top of the water. These structures of floating space have very regular building blocks, but their different combinations can create a vast multitude of effects, like the way a few amino acids make up very complex proteins. A very few "elements" of floatspace create all of the effects of the weak and strong forces, chemical bonds, charges, electromagnetism, etc.

Gravitation is different from all these, it has not to do with the structure of the floatspace, but to do with the flow of the water space from the past, a high potential position, to the future, a position of lower energy. To understand this, you must again reconceptualize the idea of floatspace. Floatspace in space folding in on itself. Maintaining the folded shape of the waterspace takes a constant input of energy which is in a sense "used up" by the continuation of the floatspace. If energy(waterspace flowing down -> into the future) were to stop flowing into the floatspace, the shape would evaporate, the being, the matter would dissipate and vanish. One could imagine an experiment using a spherical floatspace "dam" to surround a separate piece of floatspace which would theoretically be cut off from the constant flow of waterspace. If my theory is correct, the dam would cause the targeted floatspace to revert to waterspace, thus creating space itself. One would think that this would release a great amount of energy. However, it would be evident that matter was converted back into energy, but without an explosion, simply with the unfurling of the folds which had previously never been cut off from their constant input of energy. How this would translate into our conceptions of matter and time are as of yet unimaginable to me. I can only say that I will know it when I see it.

So, gravitation becomes the constant swallowing up of waterspace by floatspace. Matter is eating the energy from space in order to preserve its being by constantly refilling itself. That is why bodies of matter move towards each other in a vacuum. Space itself is being used up as energy. The reason floatspace cannot eat floatspace is because it has evolved in a way that it can only intake energy that will fit into the "mouth" of the elementary shapes that make up all matter. Other Floatspace objects do not physically fit.

Disclaimer: I did not do any research. This is an exercise in creativity. It is a thought experiment. What I am trying to accomplish is to see the world in a new way, a way no other person has seen it before, and try to gain understanding of it by fundamentally rewiring the way we think the universe is supposed to work.

RetroCausality

Is it possible that some event in the future caused something in the past, that we are being pulled rather than pushed? If this was proven, could it explain why when you look at somebody from behind them, and focus on them, they turn around and stare right back at you? Or maybe when you see a shooting star, that is a special moment when the future reaches back and sheds some light on your path in life, your destiny.
Just a thought...