Welcome to the Structure of Reality Website
New Work ! coming soon
Welcome to the future of thought about the physical reality we humans find ourselves in. In my mind it is not a question of ‘if’, but a question of ‘when’ it will become one of the mainstream ideas about the physical world of matter. But then new ideas are rarely accepted without a struggle against the established status quo. In this case the reader can make a difference by referring others to this website and spreading the news about the theory by word of mouth or through social media. Take a little time to read this short introduction to the theory and judge its merits for yourself.
Time having a beginning...ha! First nothing exists, then something exists...ha! Such great talented people, yet.... Is the Earth still flat? is it already 2017? Such stupid questions.
There can only be one objective reality and it has to be perfect.
What is this theory about ? It is not a theory of physics based on abstract mathematical calculation, but rather it is a conceptual framework based on logic and rational conclusions. It forms a foundation theory from which a full and comprehensive theory for physics can be generated. Apart from physics it has far reaching implications about a range of topics including the human condition and our place in the universe at large.
There are unique qualities no other theory can make claim to. This is the only theory about the physical world that is fully 'self explained' or 'self contained' within its own parameters. Ultimately it explains the general nature of all things existing and all of their possible configurations. But to understand it you don't need to be a rocket scientist or read large volumes of text nor plough through abstract mathematical formulations. It is based on a fully intuitive rationale open to all enquiring minds to follow.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE 'STRUCTURE OF REALITY' THEORY. (This version of the Introduction was first published on 7th March 2014. A number of improvements in its expression have been added since. For a detailed account of its full history read the about page.)
PART 1 - micro physics
Current ideas are based on conceptually incomprehensive mathematical factors. I will deal with these during the course of this exposition, but first let's start in a Cartesian manner without any preconceptions. Open your mind and think of the beginning of our ideas about the physical world. Based on simple perceptive observation the universe appears to extend in all directions to an undefined distance. There are limits to our range of direct observation perceptive or even instrumental to some billions of light years distance. Beyond that logical projections are possible based on the observed regions. Accordingly the spatial region should extend infinitely without ending. A Cartesian three dimensional geometry can define this relationship, clearly indicating that the spatial region extends to infinity in all directions. Space is three dimensionally structured with time a fourth dimension which is a necessary part of the formula, as it provides continued existence to the three dimensional spatial region. With infinite extension there can be no absolute centre location, only relative centres with finitely defined parameters.
In this way he spatial region can be considered an infinitely extended emptiness that provides room for matter and forces to exist within. While the emptiness is absolute and real, it is actually never found to be empty as will be explained later when discussing the underlying micro-infrastructure. Matter and forces occupy the spatial emptiness, but apart from basic common attributes like three dimensionality, matter is certainly not a continuous single shapeless, unreactive, immutable infinite entity like the host environment of empty space, but is always and everywhere fragmented in finite portions, having shape and structure. A causal evolution of these matter parts exists through interaction with a range of forces, though interestingly, forces always emanate from matter itself and therefore can be considered a function of matter.
In the overall sense matter distribution is likely the same throughout the entire universe as in the already observed regions. Some evidence appears to show a diminution of matter content at very far distances, and only primordial objects visible in the extreme outer regions, but this will be shown to be an incorrect interpretation of the evidence. On overall scales of the infinite universe matter should be evenly distributed throughout, though on smaller, limited local scales this can vary considerably. There can be no gravitational collapse since at any location in space there is an equal amount of gravitational attraction coming from every direction, thereby keeping everything reasonably in place. The spatial emptiness is indivisible, it cannot curve, it has no shape and is immutable and unreactive to itself or anything within it. But the invisible micro matter infrastructure within space can be subject to curvature. This will be explained further.
There is a problem though, with current ideas projecting all kinds of impossible attributes such as space creation and expansion indicated by a 'Doppler' effect for the observed redshift of light with distance thereby suggesting an expanding universe with space being created between objects. Supposedly it all started some billions of years ago from a miniscule compression to an almighty explosion referred to as the 'big bang', with everything then racing away from each other. Spatial emptiness expanding from nothing, or rather something created from nothing? Ideas to overcome the problem of the seeming impossibilities offer all kinds of extra dimensional solutions that are proposed using a range of abstract mathematical concepts. It may also be proposed that space is a product of matter itself or vice versa with everything interchangeable, space, matter, forces, energy etc.., and that in fact an independent emptiness does not exist, with matter not just occupying space but is itself part of the spatial creation. Then there is the problem of time to deal with. How can time have not existed previously to the 'big bang', just coming into existence with the initial explosion? Try to wrap that around your brain. The 'big bang' idea assumes a huge amount of matter compressed to a tiny volume, so tiny that it has virtually zero size, but then much larger compressed conglomerations of matter tend to burn off through nuclear reaction and/or explode under the enormous pressures created? All these attempts at solution are mentally incomprehensible brain twisters based on purely mathematical projections of all kinds with the excuse given that the mind cannot conceptually comprehend such complexity . In the absence of other explanations this might have to do, as it has so far, but it has certainly not given any complete solutions to the world of space and matter. The 'big bang' idea underpins current understanding of the universe, but what if the so called 'Doppler' effect based on the red-shift of light with distance could be shown to be the result of something else not related to spatial expansion or accelerated matter recession?
The lensing of light when passing close to a strong gravitational object is already well observed and it is associated with a redshift of its wavelength. We can currently measure major lensing effects, but then, light passes close to major gravitational objects relatively few times while the universe is full of gravitation coming from every which direction as light travels on its very long journey across space to get to us. With huge numbers of turning or weaving however slightly responding to minor gravitational forces as light travels in relatively empty regions, there is no reason to think it is not affected in the same way by redshift however slight.. Over long distances this is likely to accumulate until it becomes measurable. The effect could then be mistaken for 'Doppler' acceleration if the redshifts are percentile based. This can possibly be tested through measuring comparative lensing redshifts for percentile changes. But who is going to actually do this ? Not likely anyone will take the suggestion of a non-academic in light of the most prominent careers depending on the real Doppler effect and the big bang theory. Who would agree to rewrite all the books, debunk all those eminences, change the curriculums and in fact change nearly everything? Surely it is too hard to even contemplate. Nevertheless it must be proposed, if even for the future.
Another visible phenomenon which is used to verify the big bang idea is the appearance of 'primordial states' of matter at most outer regions of observation, with the claim that it represents an early state of matter evolution. When light emanates from a source the circular light-front keeps expanding. Every time the circumference of the wavefront doubles, its energy is halved. In this way over long distances the light keeps fading until it is no longer visible. But just before this happens, only the strongest light sources retain their visibility. These happen to be what is considered the 'primordial' sources. It is also thought that no space exists beyond these distances, a totally untenable assumption.
In this theory the structure of matter will be revealed, but time will also be shown in a new perspective. For instance, if the spatial environment is considered as an emptiness without its matter content, there can be no concept of time passage formed. It can only be thought of as an emptiness existing in a never ending present moment. This is actually the root concept of time previously never subject to discussion. When matter is added, the regular passing of time becomes possible by measuring the steady rhythms of material functions. Further aspects of time will come under scrutiny after the examination of matter.
What is matter and how is matter structured? The many variations of the atom and its chemistry of interaction creates the world of matter that we are part of and perceive. But the atomic structure is known to be a composite of much smaller parts in rapid interaction. The very rapid interaction of parts creates a much wider/larger structure. But the nucleus is also composite and its parts are now also known to be composite. The question arises as to where this reduction to a group of smaller interactive parts end? Or does it end at all? Is it like a fractal coastline zooming in to more and more details ad infinitum? The search goes on for more particles and modern colliders are discovering many new components. Some unwind into the seeming 'nothingness' disappearing into the void, actually too small to detect, or re-integrating into other existing structures. Then how far can this reduction process continue? The spatial environment as an infinite emptiness can offer no resistance to further deconstruction into smaller and smaller parts to any degree of minisculeness whatsoever, even to infinity. A simple finite solution, of an ultimate particle downscale has no credence as many attempts have failed, most succumbing to a 'vicious regress' requiring new explanations at each step. The search for a finite answer has been long and complex and the utilisation of extra dimensions attempt to overcome the problems such as space warping and circularity, strings and things none of which make sense in other than abstract mathematical terms. There is competition between these brain twisting theories, but none of these have yielded any conclusive results. These extra dimensional theories may sound very exciting and have proved powerful in inspiring the human imagination into fantasy. Modern art and culture has been greatly influenced by them. But so have many other mystical and fantastical ideas or ghostly tales. As the facts stand at present none of these theories have yet succeed in solving the physics problem in its entirety, not even Quantum or Relativity theories which seem to rule their respective fields of competence, yet unable to reconcile into a single theoretical solution.
There is of course the remaining solution of an infinity of downscale steps into smaller and smaller and yet even smaller groups of interactive parts. As with the infinity of extension and of time, the mind can be uneasy on infinite solutions. It may at first impression be difficult to accept, our minds having been conditioned in our limited experience and observations to finite outcomes. The other difficulty is that infinity can never be proved by direct observation or be quantified in the usual manner. Yet it does not in any sense mean it cannot be rationally understood, as infinity is not actually counter intuitive and it can be comprehended by the imagination. If matter keeps reducing infinitely to the interactive function of smaller and smaller parts in a never ending sequence of deconstruction, each particle in this never-ending chain holds its roots in an infinity of further reduction.
There is a lot more to it than just this. The deepest secrets of matter are yet to be revealed.
PART 2 - macro physics
An infinite deconstruction to smaller and smaller interactive parts means there would be no ultimate finite foundation to matter, but then, every structure type deconstructed into has its roots in a further infinity of further deconstructions. In this way matter is certainly not without foundations, and very strong foundations indeed. But with the idea of an infinite deconstruction into smaller and smaller interactive elements, another very important question arises. The deconstruction downscale is one way of looking at it, but taken from the other direction, from the small scale upward, the process of structure building eventually reaches the atomic form, and does it then terminate with our discerned world of matter? It does not quite make sense. After an infinity of steps why terminate at this point? Or perhaps it doesn't. Is it possible that the process continues into the large scales of astronomy as well? In fact there are large scale structures commonly found like stars and their solar systems, their galaxies, their clusters and even larger formations. This may indicate a possible continuance, but how can the large scale structures be seen as part of the same system? How can the micro world of extremely rapid dynamics and space enclosure be compared to the larger scale objects of astronomy where cyclical interaction is extremely slow and therefore no possibility to creating the kind of regions of exclusion observed on small scales.
Yet there may be a way to compare them, however there are crucial time factors to reconsider. These time factors have never yet been subject of discussion. The infinity of spatial extension allows for the existence of any larger size structure whatsoever even to infinity. Adding the time factor as continuing into the infinite future, the huge structures of the macro world of astronomy can, with a simple modification of the time concept, be seen to function as rapidly as atomic structure. It is not actually changing the definition of time but broadening its range of understanding. A simple thought experiment may clarify the issue. As the mind thinks way upscale in the structuring process where the huge formations exist, the cyclical interaction at this level would look very slow by our way of seeing it, almost at a standstill. For us to perceive our world of matter a moment of discernment can be defined as a fraction of a second. The moments are tagged together to form a continuous stream. While we define a moment as a fraction of a second, on the large scale this could never be significant enough. When a moment is redefined to considerably longer intervals, like millions or trillions of years or more, and they are tagged together rapidly as we do our moments, these huge mega-structures of astronomy could be seen with a rapid dynamics comparable to our world of atoms. Any objects existing in this mega world built from these huge interacting formations could be seen by a perceiving being also built from them in much the same way we see our world. Of course it would look different but it is all one physics appearing differently at different scale levels.
With the redefined moments to rapid sequences of very long periods of our time, perceiving creatures in a mega world would perceive their materiality to be evolving not entirely differently from the way we see ours. Their perception mechanisms and other instruments they may utilise would be built from and function based on the dynamics of their mega based 'micro matter' that creates their world. With further matter construction to infinity of large scales many other even larger scale matter style environments could exist, perhaps an infinity of them. In the downscale reduction it is the reverse argument to the upscale, with tiny structures evolving very rapidly and any perceiving creatures that may exist in these downscale materialities would be created by their micro matter base and their world by our view would be evolving extremely rapidly, but they would also perceive their environment not unlike we perceive ours. From our point of view the evolution of events would be far too rapid and in very miniscule scale to be discerned by us, perhaps ever.
The infinite transformations of the matter process produces infinite layers of different structure types, each type spread throughout the entire universe, the same universe but at different scales and different dynamics. Atoms for instance could be said to be spread throughout the universe, as they are. On a larger scale levels it could be said that solar systems are spread throughout the universe, as they are, and then galaxies, then their larger formations and so on. The same applies at each level downscale with an infinity of layers upscale and downscale. This strongly suggests that our matter base has an underlying layer of micro infrastructure. A separate work is in the making to describe this invisible micro matter infrastructure through which all larger matter must pass.
So far the discussion has been about size differences, but there is the question of dynamics. There is an important dynamic process that drives the entire system. It is cyclicality, but not in the sense of orbital cyclicality only. For instance, a back and forth pulsation can be considered cyclical as can many other configurations. In galaxies with billons of stars there are some that disintegrate and others are created from their debris so there are roughly the same number maintained. On micro scales electrons cycle very rapidly about (not necessarily around) the nucleus. The cyclical movement is rapid enough to set up a sphere of relative solidity or impenetrability. Electrons themselves are now subject of investigation as to their internal structure. The main atomic nuclear parts, the protons are also known to be composite, created by even smaller rapidly interacting parts. They in turn are also bound to be composite with cyclical paths considerably shorter at each step downscale. While the paths shorten the speeds at which these shorter paths are traversed are not significantly reduced thereby creating higher cyclical frequencies at each step of reduction downscale. With upscale structuring into the world of astronomy the cyclical paths are considerably longer at each level upscale but the speed at which they can be traversed has a maximum value, so lower cyclical frequencies are inevitable with each upscale transformation. With an infinity of structure layers representing unique and different types of formations both upscale and downscale, there can be no limit to variation. Every step upscale or down reveals different configuration types that are spread throughout the universe.
In summary, the interaction of structures both upscale and down is facilitated by various types of forces. But in fact forces emanate from matter itself and are therefore functions of matter. The dynamics behind the system is cyclicality. Downscale cyclical frequencies increase, upscale cyclical frequencies decrease. Toward the micro, at present we are looking at several levels deep. Beyond that the minute structure types involved are too small and frequencies too rapid to presently discern as matter having substance, appearing as energy only. But a zero mass solution can only be relative. There is a mass, there is always a mass however small it may be. On larger scales at our level of matter discernment we can observe energy stored and transferred from matter to matter. On micro scales energy that may appear without an obvious matter host would have its matter base at micro levels below our present discernment capabilities. In ultimate terms of the overall reality, our perceived world of substance happens to be positioned somewhere along an infinite chain of upward structuring ranging from infinitely small to the infinitely large. The Structure of Reality theory is unique as it presents a totally self-contained universe, a complete and comprehensive and exhaustive model of reality which can be understood, with nothing required to be brought in from outside its own parameters. It explains what reality is and how it works. It is the foundation concept from which a detailed physics can be generated. It is also the ultimate human understanding of how we fit in and what we are to the overall reality at large.
Above I have presented a viable solution to the understanding of reality. Historically, in the absence of a solution the problem of reality has been ignored and put aside, so long as there exist theories that work well enough on their respective scale levels as do Quantum and Relativity theories. But surely something must be missing. Abstract mathematically based attempts to explain physical phenomena can easily be misapplied and it is difficult to spot incorrect attribution to physical elements. The two main theories of Quantum and Relativity still cannot be completely reconciled and it remains a mystery how Relativity can explain the behaviour of larger scale phenomena but cannot operate well enough on the quantum level, and how Quantum physics fails to explain the large scale world where Relativity is so useful. The search for a bridging idea to bring the two theories together has not yielded success for near a century, but not for a lack of trying. Here is a theory that is fully comprehensive and self-contained with nothing imported from the outside to validate it. I believe this is the turning point for future thought about reality. How long it will take for it to be fully recognised I cannot guess. I can only keep refining and perfecting its expression for future generations and bring a new vision to the relatively few who recognise its value today.
Thank you for taking the time in reading the introduction. Hopefully you have gained the insight and beginning to see things differently now. As mentioned before, new theories are never accepted easily. The utter silence of academia over the years deprives the Theory of a forum of discussion which could put any criticisms to the test. It is not a new strategy. Keep in mind that academia is not a democracy. Before the internet there would have been no possibility to bring this theory to he public. Ultimately, it is not the public who decides. It may need a new generation of academics whose careers do not depend on maintaining the status quo to open a formal discussion. But you the reader can make a difference by referring others to the Theory. The Theory needs a forum. I believe I can deal with any of their objections, concerns or criticisms.
The core of my theory is published here but much of my work on the extended version is still not fully ready for publication. I hope to continue toward the complete version of the theory as time permits. I also have thoughts on a number of other topics like philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, art and many other subjects which I hope to eventually publish on this or another website.
Gary T Forbat
EXTRA NOTES ADDE
Note on Time Travel - 30 July 2017
According to Einstein's mathematics all time past and future already exists and that implies time travel in reverse is possible. Then the ability to change the future through reverse time travel proves this part of his theory is wrong. Imagine going back in time and eliminating the possibility of the time traveller being born. Then the traveller never would have existed to go back and change things. My theory clearly explains how time works and what is possible.
Time having a beginning...ha! First nothing exists, then something exists...ha! Such great talented people, yet.... Is the Earth still flat? is it already 2017? Such stupid questions.
Precession of Mercury's Perihelion - 14 July 2017
The precession of the perihelion of mercury’s orbit if not fully explained even by Relativity. It is interesting that Mercury's orbit is the is the closest to the Sun. I took this as my starting point
It is proven that the tilted axis of the Earth affects gravitational attraction. One account I found describes this adequately: “While the spinning of the Earth doesn't directly affect gravity, it does off-set it a little. At the north and south poles objects weigh exactly what they should, and at the equator things weigh slightly less.”
I applied this to the Sun. It stands to reason using the same idea that the spinning of the Sun doesn't directly affect gravitation, but it does off-set it a little. At the points of its axis, at the ‘poles', objects weigh exactly what they would, and at the solar equator things would weigh slightly less.
Like the Earth, the Sun's axis is tilted and the closely orbiting mercury would be affected by the variation of gravitation throughout its orbit. At one point of Mercury’s orbit it is closer to the Sun's equator, at another it is closer to the Point of axis (the pole). Could this be the reason for the precession of Mercury’s perihelion?
The Face and its Cast - The Inversion of Relativity - 11 July 2017
A bronze sculpture is commissioned and a cast is made of the subject's face. The cast contains features in exact inverse of the face. It can be said these represent common features between the cast and the face. But clearly the cast is not the face. If it is declared to be the face, some sense will be made of it, but ultimately it will fail to explain the entire thing. I believe this is the kind of problem with Einstein's Relativity. It is an inverse image successfully explaining some things but failing to explain the entire thing. It has credentials only for large scale objects but fails to explain much of the world of micro physics.
What exactly caused this inverse view? I can only speculate that some unreal or imaginary inputs added in order derive the theory have not been discharged before the theory was completed. There may be some other reason, but it is up to the mathematicians and logicians to check through the details to find the problems .
Second Half of this Intro and the Extra Notes Missing ? - 26 June 2017
I checked the live website today and found that half the introduction (part2) together with the extra notes had been somehow deleted. It is a mystery and I will not speculate on how it might have happened. Fortunately I had a recent backup, though not recent enough to retain my last added note which was published earlier this month. I cannot reproduce the exact wording of the missing note, but here it is in a fresh composition:
Light travels away from its source in all directions. Take a star for instance. Its light front forms a circle of energy as it recedes from its source. Whenever the circumference of the light/photon front doubles, its energy in any one direction is halved. As it travels long distances and the circumference of the light front keeps doubling, the energy at any one direction keeps halving. Eventually the energy must be so weak that it is no longer detectable. This is the reason that extremely far away light sources can no longer be visible or indeed detectable by any method. Hence the furthest away detectable objects therefore must be have the highest energy output. While all weaker sources are no longer detectable. This leads to the false assumption that there are only 'primordial' sources at the very extremes representing light representing the earliest forming galaxies after the 'big bang'. But this very obvious concept of the weakening of light energy with distance proves why it looks like there is nothing existing past a certain very far distance, when in fact there is an infinity of galaxies out there past our observational limits all throughout the infinite extension of the spatial environment.
This time I will backup the webpage after every posting and check the live website regularly so nothing will ever disappear again. Not for long anyway. Stay with me readers, there is much more to come.
What is direction ? - 21 March 2017
The earth rotates continually and we are changing direction. The Earth also journeys around the sun in its elliptical orbit, so we are changing direction within the changing direction. The Earth in our solar system, together with the Sun orbits the galactic centre again changing our direction within the changing direction and within our galaxy we are also moving in a certain direction the galaxy is taking. This multiple directional movement within movement , if applied to the structuring system indicates an infinity of directions at the same time. Does this mean that direction of movement can only be defined within finite parameters and in the overall (ultimate) sense the infinity of directions cancel each other out ?
What is this theory about? - 20 December 2016
This is not a theory of physics. It is a framework for reality from which physics can be generated.
Newton and Einstein - 20 December 2016
Newton wasn't entirely wrong and Einstein wasn't entirely right.
Space warping -13 December 2016
If space is a pure emptiness, there can be no spatial warping as emptiness cannot be mutated in any way. But it does not mean that the invisible micro infrastructure through which all objects must traverse cannot warp. As explained previously, space is never actually empty with the entire infinite spatial region full of residual downscale matter layers. These are responsible for the observed universal background radiation and the so called 'dark matter'.
The meaning of emptiness of space - 24 September 2016
By simple observation it is obvious that matter occupies a very small amount of the space of the entire spatial environment, but what seems like empty space is not actually empty. It contains those structure types that are already terminated not making it through upscale to be a significant member of a higher level of structure. Considering time adjustment differences, it makes sense that many structure types terminate and only a lesser percentage make it to higher levels. The terminated unseen residual mix is responsible for the universal background radiation. With scale and time factors taken into account it makes sense that only a small percentage of structuring layers (structure types) make it upscale to the next level of materiality.
What is the meaning of c-square in E=Mc2 - 24 September 2016
This may be just a bit of wild speculation, an idea at a much too early stage to make definite conclusions. But it brings up an interesting question as to how else mass could be defined and what the 'c' squared stands for. In the equation E=Mcsq why is c squared? In terms if the Structure of Reality theory mass could be seen as consisting of the regions occupied by composing particles multiplied by the regions/areas swept out over a defined interval of time. The mass of an atom, for instance, includes the regions occupied by its components like the electrons and protons and the areas swept out by them over the defined interval. The areas swept out are traversed near 'c' and that may account for 'c'. The second level parts, those composing the protons, electrons etc.. are also sweeping out regions a 'c' and his adds the second level integrating of the two levels to 'c' squared. The residual of other levels below those scales are so insignificant for the purpose as not to be relevant.
Notes on my methodology - 18 September 2016
It is obvious I don't approach the subject through mathematics. The method I use I like to call conceptual representation. These concepts can represent very complex situations, all comprehensible and logically feasible. They can contain large numbers of underlying logical assumptions which can all be tested.
But the theory does not begin with a concept. The initial idea is built entirely on observational factual foundations. We have access to observe the spatial environment and there are facts already derived. Nevertheless there are limits to our observational range, whether observing the macro world of astronomical space or the micro world of atomic and sub atomic particles. With space, powerful telescopes can observe so many billions of light years away, but again there is a limit to the range we can access. Nothing suggest that beyond our observational range there is anything different than in the already observed region. The concept of infinitely extended space can be imagined and its infinity understood.
What is the connection between gravitation and acceleration / deceleration? - 01 September 2016
I will need to go over this again to validate the main points further, but at this early stage I can see a connection between gravitation as we find on large objects like planets or stars. As the Theory goes with the structuring process, we are part of a whole range of larger structures as the system is built upscale. This is clearly described in the Introduction to the Structure of Reality, above. Given this structuring process, every large structure we call a strong gravitational object such as our Earth or the Sun, is a smaller part of larger structures in the infinite upscale process. At each upscale step however there is a cyclical movement involved which is likely to reveal a different direction of travel than recorded locally. Both upscale and downscale different directions of cyclical travel are likely be found and at speeds that can reach near or at the maximum velocity such as the speed of light. In other words, in the overall sense every matter object is moving near or at 'c' in every possible direction at the same time. This creates a whole range of accelerations and decelerations thereby creating the 'G' forces we can measure and experience. .....sorry, out of time....to be continued soon
The invisible micro infrastructure - 01 September 2016
There is a simple answer to the universal background radiation and dark matter. Einstein’s cosmological constant may have had some meaning after all. If the universe is static and infinite in extent and matter is spread everywhere throughout it on every scale level of the structuring process, there is bound to be a residual matter underlay on micro scales. Not all structure types continue to build upscale. Roughly less than 10% go through to the next level. The other 90% of structure types terminate and become part of the invisible spatial environment. Nevertheless on much larger scales they could form spatial parts of a very much larger structure.
The basic building blocks of our matter environment is made of atoms. Atoms themselves are composite structures made from very much smaller rapidly interacting parts. Further down the scales, below the quarks are the infinite layers of micro residues. After a few steps downscale the matter layer parts are so small as to register only an energy reading. The universal background radiation represents this residue. It also explains dark matter. But the scale levels just below the atoms, their parts and the quarks have greatest of influence over our immediate space-matter environment. This seems to be an interactive underlay, the micro infrastructure. This itself is a huge subject to be discussed elsewhere.
Lensing and the Doppler like effect- 01 September 2016
There are no regions in the infinite universe where there are no gravitational forces at play at all. In every corner of space some gravitation is active however slight it may be. As light passes through long distances it is affected by many and varied gravitational forces. It is continually tugged in one direction or another and there is a redshift with each change of direction, however large or small. When what we know as an actual lensing phenomena occurs, there is a very strong gravitational interaction and a significant measurable redshift. The minor changes that occur far from close encounter with a strong gravitational objects are so slight they are not each measurable by current standards. The slight gravitational nudges however add up over longer distances and become significant with a pattern emerging resembling a Doppler effect . But it is an equivalence, not an equality.(see added note on 18 September 2016 above).
The Doppler like effect is achieved by percentile redshifts with each directional change. Very close encounters with strong gravitational objects are relatively rare but over long distances a very large number of varied lesser strength gravitation is encountered each causing a degree of redshift however slight. Over very long distances this becomes significant and a 'Doppler' like effect is observed. Unfortunately this has been erroneously equated to a Doppler effect leading to the space expansion theories currently in use. As explained above the universe is static, infinite in extent, with an infinite amount of matter existing in eternal never ending time.