Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. Many dont like it when somebody plays around with sacred constants. Constancy of light for example. But in my opinion second guessing everything is a time honored tradition of those who eventually overturned and improved on conventions. And besides, rationalizing these dynamics and learning them for oneself, is far more effective within considerations of veriabilities and their variable consequences. In this respect, whether light is variable or a constant is not the point, but rather, consideration of the puzzles in this way teaches flexibility of thought. And is effective for teasing out the nature of associations between things. The difference between you, and a person who allowed their rationale to be corralled by convention without asking questions, is you will have learnt the underlying reasonings, having questioned the reasonings.
Its a puzzle. You grab a piece and jam it anywhere and everywhere, and even try to force a fit if you like. And even if a thing doesnt work, knowing why it doesnt work can be as illuminating as if it did work. Holding puzzle pieces sacred to convention only limits a persons chances of learning something new.
I havent read through everything here yet, but I do like it. Theres alot to take in, so I'll do it in bite sized pieces, or I could start making my coffee stronger. But I've read enough to be satisfied, you have build up a literacy model in your mind which is consistent with many aspects of nature. So whether you're right or wrong, thats still a commendable effort. And even if you do turn up some problems within youre theory, there is no-doubt you are approaching real truths. I think the best evidence of things is found in the associations and interactions between various phenomena, and describing those in a self consistency, and that seams to be a focus of your considerations. I think you have good instincts, and nicely done.