Thank you, Bkuehlhorn, for your comments.
There are already photon-photon interaction articles out there. I am a structural philosopher, so I am doing the structural talking. I asked a good number of physicists in the know about photon-photon interaction, and some said yes, others said it cannot be denied, and most said Go to school and learn a thing or two. Of course, I only needed to hear that it was possible and so I have an alternate explanation to gravitational lensing. I look at what is possible and find at least two different options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
Thank you for wanting to fix up the "Spacetime is real, and time is not the same everywhere" sentence. I have a hard time showing the conflict for the non-scientific reader, and your fix tries to fix it up too well. I hope you see that the way you fixed it up makes it possible to see both sentences as fully aligned. I need to show the conflict. Your fix makes it very hard to see the conflict, which is also obvious from your conclusion how the second sentence simply describes the observation.
I hope you see that for me Spacetime is correct, but Einstein hung his hat in the wrong spot. GR explains something about matter's behavior that Newton's CM explanations could not.
Yet pointing it skyward is not very logical when we are talking matter and its behavior.
The fix is to point the explanations to matter, and not to spacetime.
The fourth motion is NOT gravity based. And that is the perfect spot to hang that hat. The behaviors we see explained by GR can all be explained by Updated Classical Mechanics.
The initial speed of matter is ongoing, the fastest out there, and that speed is not based on gravity. The speed of Moon and Earth is greatest in the direction away from where their matter originated.
--
The non-materialized energy is a must.
One cannot have matter be the 100% result. That is impossible. If it were possible that matter were the 100% result, then the material universe would have lasted 15 minutes tops. It would have reverted straight back into whatever it was that it derived from.
So, a fundamental separation must have taken place, and I truly do not care how we formulate that state in which the fundamental separation occurred (and only after which matter was able to get established). But we need a current universe that has two realities, a material and a non-material reality; it cannot be done with just a single reality. We need the complexity otherwise all would have reverted back to how it was.
Energy and matter are related. But to state that there is just one closed system and not two requires evidence that cannot be given.
The original closed system produced a fundamental separation that birthed a closed system of neutrons and protons. Naturally, the original closed system diminished by exactly that amount of energy.
Here is the conundrum. If we add the electrons to the secondary closed system, then the math will never be right. The electrons are added to neutralize the positive charges of the protons, but they are not of the secondary closed system. So, with the electrons, parts of the primary closed system is inserted into the material results.
I hope you see that if we have two closed systems and an interaction, then it becomes hard to figure out what the total of energy in the universe is, particularly since some will be invisible.
1 + x = 1
But we can say that the total energy equals 1. That way, we don't have to do any difficult calculations.
Before and after, we have 1 as the total.
The x represents then the change that occurred among that energy. And that x is obviously 0.
The 'divorce' or the fundamental separation that occurred in the prior state of the universe (of whatever setting, I have no preference) should be considered a fact by any self-respecting scientist. The divorce is placed before the equal sign because that divorce is of the prior state. It birthed a nothing of the fundamental kind.
Thank you for sparring with me. I like that.
