[aNYCguy]

Your summary of your theory isn't coherent. But the one thing which seems fairly clear is that you dispute even Special Relativity, which puts you in a pretty difficult place regarding agreement with experimental evidence.

You'll have to explain, for example, where the energy of a nuclear bomb blast comes from if not liberated from mass. You'll have to explain why particles accelerated to near-light speeds are observed to gain mass. And your postulation of an absolute coordinate system implies a variable speed of light, which will cause you some big problems.

[lafroste]

The summary was just that, a summary. Detailed discussion requires far more space. I do dispute special relativity, but in a more narrow scope than you may expect.

No one has asked for an explanation of a nuclear bomb. Yes, the energy is liberated from mass. You remind me of the unjust king, who demanded to be given all knowledge while standing on one leg. I never claimed to know all things. Just a plausible framework. Before you tear it apart, perhaps you should attempt to understand the halting scratched I have made.

[lafroste]

You'll have to explain why particles accelerated to near-light speeds are observed to gain mass.

If I am correct, the particle accelerated to near light speed does not actually gain mass, it has an apparent mass gain when observed from outside because it's time has slowed down. I have decided that the choice between more mass/less time is indistinguishable outside of the system under study. Since both sets of equations reduce to the same expression, one cannot look at this case to determine what is really going on.