Space...which is far from empty?
I don't think you know what space means.
Im really surprised no one bothered to answer this for me, in case you didn't realise space is filled with energy and particles, the stuff we know like electromagnetism and matter (radiation, neutrinos etc) and the stuff most don't know about like virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, even at the smallest levels space is something, think of it like a fabric or background noise, i like to think of it as the aether.
What exactly is resonating in your theory?
You've said it is resonance, but of what?
That would be the fabric of space itself.
Like i've said this is an idea or theory, the maths might look much the same, for example an electron passing by a magnetic field might workout similar a photon passing by a black hole, both have similar effects of curving their path but they're quite different in reality.
Bingo. Anyone can come up with 2 or 3 paragraphs of superficially science sounding mumbo jumbo but what matters is forming coherent, workable models from the ideas. For example, it might sound very appealing to think of space as some kind of fluid medium (ie the aether) because it allows you to think of light like waves in water but the fact is you can't really construct workable models from such concepts. On the other hand if you think of things as being built from strings then you can explain black hole entropy, not just conceptually but you can construct a model which predicts precisely what general relativity says about their entropy.
If you can't show your interpretation leads to correct conclusions then your picture is worthless. For example "God did it" can be given as an answer to anything seen in Nature but no rational scientist would accept that and stop thinking any further, yet it's obviously something some people are willing to accept.
No because it is based on available information and thought, things have a likelihood of possibility, my idea is arguably a lot more likely than saying god did it, most understanding comes first from ideas and thought leading to experimentation and mathematical models, like i said maths is useful if you want to use the information but understanding things on a human level is just as valuable, you should never try to stop freethinking, we still don't know the true nature of reality, we know how a lot of stuff acts but that doesn't always tell us what it really is or how it relates.
What precisely do you read? Pop science books? I read tons of those before I went to university and none of them helped me with any actual work. Sure, I could say "Oh I've heard of that concept" but if someone then asked me "So how does it lead to prediction X" I couldn't tell them. If they asked me "So you've heard of X? Use it to predict what Y does." then I couldn't do it. Only by looking at the details of the models, learning the mathematical derivations, getting a working understanding and experience with them was I able to actually do anything of any real use.
You mention circuits. Can you model electron flow through a P-N transistor? I doubt it, though its a core principle in building any computer chip and uses quantum mechanics. How about something easier? Can you model current flow in a generator if you know the layout of the magnets and their motion? Unlikely but all it needs is electromagnetism.
Why does that matter to me though?
Im not necessarily trying to make or do something with this information, im simply trying to come up with a theory that explains or helps us understand why things work the way they do, not detailed maths to make a computer work, that's great for others to do if they wish but most theories start as thoughts based on previous knowledge, if i know a result from an equation said some previous basic theory was true, i can take that knowing what i may come up with is deeper or a different way of understanding.
