[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

 Think about this.

 Photons.
 On this tough we will exchange the concept of what is a photon, and to not complicate with the regular assumption "photons" will keep being the energy presented on light, but just as for reference.
  On this speculation, photon B here would be the tinny particles of energy that composes light.
 In addition every time I mention gravity, I'll be inadvertently refereeing to it as Photon B..

 I'll try to make it shorter, so people with more scientific knowledge can think about the impossibility..

 There we have our Sun, and here we have the Earth.
 Let's suppose that "Light/photons A" have being suddenly started to be emitted towards Earth.
 Those photons A are but smallest amount of quanta of energy, they are light itself.
  But they, photons A/light are traveling "trough" something, that was previously there, on that scenario, space. As photons A have just started from being emitted (at C) from the sun towards earth, lets assume that space and time where already there.
   Space and time are in correlation? Yes they are!
 The existence of space and time are codependent? Yes they are!
 Both are the same thing? No they are not!

Now let's introduce photons B(gravity)
  Photons B would be the gravitational waves, they on this example, where not originated from space, but they are happening on space due the existence of energy. So we could theoretical assume that gravity is a final product of the energy and space themselves...
  All the aspects of all there is, here, will be interpreted as being an equation, and as result gravity is a "final" product. It, gravity does not belong to any other force "alone".
 Gravity than cannot be related with only one aspect, it is the sum of all aspects, by all effects gravity in here is it's own existence.

 Lets assume that Light(photons A) are but the past of the occurrence of gravity(photons B).
  Photons A, the light as we know are not something real, on the present, our present here on the Earth.
  Photons A, the light has a constant speed. If it is finite or not is not important here.
  Photons A, the light, is space energy. Every single "moment" photons B are occurring they are producing space. That space has physical size, but it does not have references or dimensions.
 
 At the very moment we accept that Photons B are instantaneous from Sun to Earth. we are assuming that gravity not being from the sun as photons A, the light seems to be, with a constant speed.
   Photons B is gravity itself only with a fancy name to suggest correlation.
 Now photons B do have mass. Which means that Gravity has mass.
Although they do not have the meanings for it. They do not experience time and if they don't, they do not know reference or distances, on time. For this very reason the photons B that from gravity are mass less, they have no size, no physical shape, and they only exist in the future of our present. Meaning that light is a event frozen in space time, this is our frame. Where light does not speed up magically on its own properties. Light has none. Light/photons A, are but a past image, no matter the distance they are traveling, or if light is happening at 1 meter of your eyes. Any light is on the past of the next dilatation.

 Light is not at C from it's own, nor is time and space.  Light is limiting itself at C, unwillingly.
 
 C on this speculation would be the constant "rate" in witch time correlates itself with space.

 One has gravity that has a instantaneous state of being, trough out the void.
 One has energy that due size(quanta) receives certain configurations on this void.
 There is a velocity, in witch things can happen, in witch energy can be quantify by space.
  That velocity I supposing to be C.
  C than being why not to say the speed of time!
 It's does not need to be constant when in comparison to any other frame, but must remain constant on its actual frame of existence.

I'm subjecting here that light travels trough gravity, for it represents the past passage of gravity.
  Gravity precedes light. gravity are waves that happened in the first place, without time, and producing space.
  Time arrives to the scene at C, because, of light.

  Light has not a speed of it's own. Gravity occurs because of energy.
 Mass is still not exist at this point nor matter.

 The instantaneous occurrence of gravity from the sun towards the earth on the example, pavement the roads for occurrence of light.
  The very limitation on constant C, introduces a delay on the frame, when in comparison with gravity. This difference of occurrence in between state of gravitational waves, and vector on the energy of the light, results in time.
  Time here is used to represent dilatation caused by energy, that nor causes mass, but that receives mass from light itself.

 Photons B/gravity have being occurring, followed by the occurrence of photons A/light.
 As long light has being occurring, photons A have constantly gain mass at C, and lost mass at a instantaneous speed at gravity. Although this very mass, photonic mass has not being lost.
 That lost mass accumulates within time, helping to expand space at C.
  Space must be expanding at C, for time needs the occurrence of light in order to exist.

 I'm considering the dark matter presented trough out space time as the mass of the future photons A(light) happening on the past... Reason why we cannot detect dark matter at close range. There should be a speed in witch this mass will accumulate and eventually help to form matter.

 Now I believe the main point of the speculation. A question, now ignoring the toughs above.

 Is the mass on matter, at any giving instant on time, presented on the interior of the atomic structure?
 Or the mass of matter is constantly "given" to it by dark matter on the future frame?

 By that I mean, how one does proof, that the mass of any giving atom, at any giving instant, at any given frame of existence, is not given to it, from the next frame of existence?
  I'm assuming here that the future is now, the present is a frozen existence without time which we do not experience. And that the past is a vector, and at the same time it's that past and future are both in correlation with each other, but never with the present...

 Every future frame is already a past frame, at least for energy.
 That matter, that we only exist inside the past future of a instantaneous present of static energy that does not experience time or light.

 I'm suggesting that in the "time" I take to write the word:
 "BUS"
 That on this example, in between I'm writing each of the three letters B-U-S, there was constantly a frozen existence of energy, "trapped" in between Past and Future.
 And that the only reason why I can move, even exist, is because of gravity and motion.

  I do not believe in that in the first place, that's why is a question.
 I'm basically suggesting that any frame of observation we do, is on the past, doesn't matter in which direction we decide to observe things, matter, light nor energy, we will be always looking into a future previous frame...

 Many believe that interstellar travel will be achieved by speeding up to C.
 Many times I tend to consider that consider if is not the opposite. That would be slow down something to make it gets near the present frame, and let gravity do it's job.

 Has being proven that acceleration "towards the distant past" reduces mass for the object is considered to be smaller.
 I wondering that something considerable more practical could be achieved by slowing down nearby the present frame.

[M@tt]

Well, I like where that post was heading. Matter is energy etc. But gravity is not a wave. Waves take time to transfer. I have another explanation for dark matter.

Apparently they tell us that the centrifugal spin on a galaxy is too great to keep it together. So they think there is dark matter to provide the 5 times the mass than there measurably is to keep galaxies from flinging apart. So, I have decided that the only force not subject to relative speed (energy transfer) is gravity. Alright, gravity is a force not energy but combined with momentum it is, like tide energy. E.g. Heat, needs to radiate from the Sun at best otherwise heat transfer must conduct or convect more slowly. Light, transfers at the speed of light. Sound, the speed of sound waves through a medium. Electricity, needs to set up a field to produce current and coulombs move slowly. Momentum, objects move as fast as mass can travel, usually well within the speed of light relative to each other or there would be massive explosive collisions until things settled down after a few billion years or so and formed planets and stars due to the pooling effect of gravity (take note for later**). Any I miss? Point is they all need time to transfer over distance. But gravity, nup. It's there and everywhere already, all of the time. It's just weaker the further you are away from the source. I could say the same about magnetism. If the field is already there as in a permanent magnet, same. E.g. If you observe a planet you have to take into account the speed of light because by the time you see it it has already moved further across the sky. Not so with gravity. The force of gravity on the Earth from said planet is instant. Therefore the Earth shall be influenced by a slight gravitational pull from said planet along a vector ahead of the path of the planet that you observe on delayed time. See what I mean now OK?

So, given that gravity of the Earth or any matter for that matter as a matter of fact is immune to time transfer it will be not only influenced by matter we can see but also by any other matter POTENTIALLY travelling faster than the speed of light just as much as the matter we can see. Therefore I propose that dark matter is just normal matter that is travelling faster than the speed of light relative to us and we can't detect it as a result, except by calculating gravity. But if so, wouldn't this matter travelling FTL be a long way away from us due to it's speed? Not if it is spinning in a galaxy just like us as it inevitably would because it is the same as our matter. Maybe it is spinning in the other direction to us or the same direction but FTL regardless. And it must occupy the same space as us too to create the gravity needed to hold a galaxy together. And it would occupy the same space because they are attracted to each other by the force of gravity, the only force that can interact between each "domain". That also means that two objects travelling faster than the speed of light to each other travel through each other. It also means that given the gravity required to keep a galaxy together is 5 times stronger than observed it means there are at least 5 galaxies in the same space, each travelling FTL to each other. That means 5 "FTL domains" in which one galaxy each resides. That is greater than 5 times the speed of light.

Why not? Matter is energy anyway so if you are not locked into the "God particle" atheist mindset it is easy to imagine. Afterall, if matter really existed, what are these "God particles" made of anyway? "Satoshi God particles" perhaps? Give me a break! As you can see it is a never ending conundrum. Additionally, given that the quintessential example of matter is just inanimate "stuff" they would only possess the property of momentum. Thus colliding and rebounding off each other would occur indefinitely until the same pattern repeated itself like a huge 3D version of that DVD screen saver but full of DVD icons. Lots and lots of DVD icons. Green ick from a primordial soup is not possible no matter how infinite a timeline and evolution would not allegedly occur. The same pattern of collisions would just repeat itself over and over forever. But maybe the God particle has special properties like gravity and polarity right? Well if so, the God particle is a force field anyway isn't it, exerting mysterious forces, not a blob of "stuff". Just took yourself for a ride and landed back where you started with that logic hey? So, no matter how much one bullshits oneself that matter is "stuff", it isn't. It is energy and follows observed laws of physics, as energy does, and these laws of physics are such for no other reason other than that they are as if they were written like code. I mean, even Einstein came up with e=mc2 which creates energy from the destruction of matter and was proven with the first nuke. It's a moot point. So add one more law;

"Matter travelling FTL relative to each other do not interact except by force of gravity"

And because they can only interact by force of gravity and can't collide they don't slow in relation to each other, just as the moon doesn't slow down from air resistance and crash into earth because there is no air in space and thus no resistance to slow momentum . Relative speed is therefore maintained between FTL domains. They will inevitably orbit each other instead and hence occupy the same space. That is why "speed domains" form where matter pools into one universe of relativity or another separated by FTL momentum**.

Now, I think this dark matter they are trying to detect is stronger in June at the DAMA/LIBRA facility and weaker in November it must be due to the gravitational effect of this relative speed change of the Earth to other objects in other "FTL domains" aka "parallel universes". That is what they should be looking at. Could these Dark matter detectors map out something in another FTL domain?

So in summary, as stated;

Matter pools into relatively similar "FTL domains"
"FTL domains" pass through each other and only interact through the force of gravity since gravity is immune to time transfer.
Galaxies in alternate FTL domains occupy the same space because they are attracted to each other by said universal gravity
At least 5 FTL domains exist as there is 5 times more gravity than observed in our FTL domain
A black hole in the centre of a galaxy might be the only way through from one FTL domain to the other but you'll probably get stretched a billion miles long over a billion years or something weird like that yet feel fine and not notice because all of the particles making your body experience the same equal forces as in free fall. Or maybe not and you will die.

I haven't done the math but I'm pretty sure it works in with the theory of relativity too.

[Halc]

Is the mass on matter, at any giving instant on time, presented on the interior of the atomic structure?

This was the only question I could find.
Most of the post was not understandable, perhaps due to being a non-native English speaker.

For an atom, most of the mass is due to binding energy of the components. If you feel a need to give that a precise location, I'm good with binding energy being in the 'interior' of the atomic structure.

Or the mass of matter is constantly "given" to it by dark matter on the future frame?

The mass of an atom has nothing to do with dark matter since an atom is not dark.

By that I mean, how one does proof, that the mass of any giving atom, at any giving instant, at any given frame of existence, is not given to it, from the next frame of existence?

Existence doesn't come in frames, certainly not adjacent slices of time, which this wording seems to imply.

Well, I like where that post was heading.

You do? Your post perhaps should be its own OP. It seems to convey that you've actually learned some physics, and the language for that matter, both absent in the post to which you replied.

[M@tt]

Then there is this:
Then there is the time/space issue:
E.g. What about the centrifugal forces on a galaxy spinning FLT to us? Huge right? But centrifugal force would change with space time too. E.g. If there was a space ship shaped like a spinning wheel to create centrifugal artificial gravity and it was travelling at half the speed of light relative to absolute space (another enigma), the occupants would be spinning in real time and creating normal centrifugal force. But to us on Earth, their real time would be so slow that their ship would also be spinning super slow to us and the centrifugal force negligible relative to our time.
Again, this means that change of momentum forces are proportional to space/time.

Or is the alternate universe theory nonsense and the reason why there is 5 times the gravity there should be is because it only appears that way because the centrifugal force on the galaxies was calculated incorrectly due to not factoring in the changes on centrifugal force caused by time/space and there is only one universe?