dleviwing,
I get the impression that you haven't read my theories, which I made a link to at the start of this thread "
Creation by Collision". Within them, I totally reject any force whatsoever, and explain that in detail. Just because I admit to individual particles doesn't mean I am admitting to forces to bind them. I feel this is where you are misinterpreting. I think you have reached out and taken hold of the powerful tool of absolute motion and have not used it to it's fullest potential to allow it to cancel out alot of the other abstract idea's your theories hold on to.
The particles within my system, I feel are necessary for the framework, because it is their proximity to each other that sets the stage for our reality. In my opinion, particles in constant motion with constant and equal velocity within space have all of the interactions required to produce all of our observed phenomenon, and when I say particles, I don't mean electrons, protons, nuetrons, or any of the other fabricated existences that are seemingly necessary to describe force. If there is no force, there is no need for these creations either. One particle will do and I'll even let you call it what ever you like.
That's the whole premise of my work. Individual particles of matter, exact in all deminsions even velocity, within a container of space have all of the properties needed to build a world, perhaps not our world, but a world of near equal interactions and phenomenon none the less.
What are we recognizing when we look at a large formation of matter. Being as all things are in motion, we are recognizing particles of matter with near equal trajectories through space and time. Their proximity makes them what they are. Thus, matter in motion has potiental for equal trajectories which can create the phenomenon of the formation of larger material objects. Where in that is there a need for a bonding agent such as force. They are just going down the same road of existence side by side.
I view space as full of these particles, and they are all colliding into each other at different distances, being as they are of equal mass and velocity, they merely rebound to collide with another. The result of all of this is a continual loss of the amount of space they are defending by their collisions. You could call this an orbit if you like, but they aren't running in circles. They are going in straight trajectories at continually different collision angles with other particles which creates an orbital effect. This is what we see when we view the planets, spheres. A sphere in my system is the framework of particles near the center having smaller orbits as they run into each other, than particles along the outer edges of the sphere. In other words, the more massive solids live at the center, just like Earth.
This sets up a frequency of sorts due to equal velocity and constant motion, whereby their orbital diameter is in direct relation to their collisions per unit of time. The more collisions per time, the smaller the orbit. The smaller the orbit, the more of them that can fit into a volume of space. Thus, the more massive the object.
Due to the only interaction being a one on one collision, mass would be a product of collisions per second within a massive object. It would take an object with equal collisions per second to move another object. The lower the frequency of the individuals in the group, the more of them needed to act upon the more compact higher frequency object to equal it's mass. It takes a bigger loaf of bread to move a smaller stone.
Due to all of this inward retraction of orbital loss within the sphere, a type of kenetic gravity is formed from the inward motion of all of the particles, and being as the particles are at tremendous maximum speeds in relation to the relatively slow changes of the sphere which they form, electromagnitism would be seemingly observable when there is a sudden change within the near equalibrium by a particle suddenly changing it's orbital diameter, whereby, every particle which would have collided with it and the ones that would have collided with them, are all effected at the speed of "light". They all shift their orbits to maintain collision, because the particles they would have collided with at the outer edges of their orbits have now beed allowed to move closer or further to the source of the disturbance.
I also explain my thought on percieved magnatism, within my theory, which is the source that would allow disturbances of orbits which allows a rift through the system at max speed, and I relate all of this to Einstein's relativity.
At this point I have explained the strong force, gravity, electromagnatism, and weak force, which could be any gradual change due to a drift in collision or trajectory of any sized group, and no magic was necessary.
To further allow me to try to persuade you to see the world through my eyes, I would only ask that you fully read my theory before you make suggestions to me on how much further I have to go with it. I don't feel a wave formation can describe what I just did as elegantly or simply in that few words. I'm not knocking them. I just feel that the "minimal fundamental properties" of a system with absolute motion isn't a wave of any kind. It's a particle.
I am only asking that you give my thoughts a chance. I am most positive that you will see problems with the system I've presented, but at least your judging me on the right system now. For you to accuse me of needing forces within my system assures me that you either haven't read it, or I didn't explain it well enough, and if that is the case I appologize. I will try to do better.
That being said, if you really choose to help me, please fully read and at least try to comprehend what I present, at which point, I will take any advice you offer with the utmost respect and humility, because I do feel as though you have much to offer. I just think you were a little quick to judge what I was presenting. If you find that the interactions I describe contradict in some way or are inadmissable, I would love to further this discussion with someone of your obvious intelligence.