Your post is not easy to follow.
You seem to be talking about fields that scale up and down. I have thought about all being controlled by a gavity field in one direction and energy field at right angles making 3d spacetime, it sort of works when you picture it, it can up to a point explain Black Holes and the orbits of the planets and will scale from Quantum up to the universe, but I have no way of telling how accurate it is or how to include the other forces as its based on gravity and kinetic energy.
Infinity is a common question, my view is that it is a concept not a number and can only exist outside the finite.
Not sure where you are going with time, there must be a reason for time dilation perhaps time scales as well as the rest of the universe.
Does science contain as many inconsistencies as it claims the bible contains. Quote: "How much is being swept under the carpet because it is inconsistent with accepted theory?
You are right - it is probably not easy to follow - not even for myself
- because the ideas are not mainstream - and they are not directly explainable via mathematics - which by the majority is beieng seen as a tremendous weakness - and there is no established nor accepted language.
(imagine if you had to introduce concepts like imaginary particles - event horizon - rubber sheet being effected by mass and not vice Versa - instantaneous - continuous etc etc etc)
My opinion is that when mathematics is being applied to any idea / theory, then at the same time the said insight is being limited to mathematic metaphors and the axiomatic rules of mathematics, which is not necessarily a good thing when we are dealing with the fundamental insight of Universe.
Universe is NOT mathematics - Universe is about how we humans perceive Universe. Human mind IS the interface between noumenal world and fenomenal world, respectively. Physics is about how we humans understand and explain noumenal world by use of metaphors and in this way human tries to explain and understand this translation - which is being governed not only by our so-called physical senses. Copy-paste Wiki: "Senses are physiological capacities of organisms that provide inputs for perception. The senses and their operation, classification, and theory are overlapping topics studied by a variety of fields, most notably neuroscience, cognitive psychology (or cognitive science), and philosophy of perception."
Quote: "You seem to be talking about fields that scale up and down. I have thought about all being controlled by a gavity field in one direction and energy field at right angles making 3d spacetime"
I am not in favor of ideas being dependent on vaquely defined and different "fields" - because there must be something more fundamental behind such fields. And this is where the concept of my fundamental metaphor in the form of "object of sameness" comes into play. And this metaphor can be out-folded in the idea about how such objects of sameness organize themselves scale-wise in a matter-wave dualism, and where universe best can be seen as scales, and how such scales (a scale will by its very definition be finite - whereas there can be an infinite number of scales) can be turned into existence by an observer belonging to the same scale - and observer being made of the same "stuff" as the scale. Yours controlling fields belongs to similar or better to say identical organized scales - but in the next-following Russian Doll scale.
Imagine that gravity IS a derived function of the very phenomenon of change - and that energy fields are the derived functions of what the change has effected. Not easily graspable - but IMO giving rise to a consistent idea.
Time is a derived function of change - and time logically scales as well as rest of universe scale towards smaller and smaller without ever reaching zero. Any time increment can be thought smaller just like any "particle-like" expression can be thought smaller. Mathematics cannot handle such a system IMO, and mathematics cannot as far as I can understand, express the phenomenon of this dynamic ping pong between existence and change. It is more of a philosophical insight.
Quote: "How much is being swept under the carpet because it is inconsistent with accepted theory?"
A lot - I would say.