Galaxies and star are in pockets of lower d space, and that is where we get the speed of light as a constant, But once we leave a "galaxy bubble" we enter the realms of higher d space (dark matter-energies), where as before light travelled with no resistance through lower d space, it cannot pass through these higher d energies and can only follow the path of lower d space around these dark matter energies.
But you never leave galaxies. Gravity attracts across all distances. There is nowhere in our universe where you are out of the gravity well of a star or galaxy. There is nowhere in our universe where spacetime is not being distorted by gravity.
If I understand my physics correctly, light bends in gravity wells because light does move at a constant speed. The curved path preserves the constant speed of light in areas with distorted spacetime.
I was also thinking, correct me if i am completely off track on this, That basically dark matter is a field of "ions", and as our universe continously expands it causes the ions to be electrcally charged and give of "gamma energy" which we see as these "gamma ray bursts", Seeding new areas of the universe with these new atoms.
Electrons would produce Compton scattering which would be observed as blurred images or opaque areas where light does not pass. That is not what we observe. Dark matter does not appear to interact with light at all, outside of gravitational lensing.
space is different within our solar bubble "heliopause",
Where did you demonstrate that?
each is made up of varying degrees of lower and higher dimensional energies,
Where is the evidence for this?
And as you say lights bends in "gravity wells" and follows a curved path, so depending where light is coming from and the path it as to take around untold gravity wells through different densities of space, can we be sure where anything is?
Of course we can. Light is bending around the Earth's gravity well right now. Do you have problems finding anything?
but i do believe that "all" matter and energies(dark matter), first came from a higher dimension, which dropped into this lower d spaces and rapidly expanded, so all matter and energies used to be "dark matter",
I mentioned Compton scattering before, and it applies to other non-doppler redshifts. These mechanisms scatter light. This will result in either an opaque universe or a universe where distant galaxies are very blurry. We don't observe either. Therefore, dark matter can not be ions, and the observed redshift can not be due to photons interacting with hydrogen or ions.
as we continnue to expand the properties of dark matter change, whether we call these expanded particles, nucleons, ions, or hydrogen h,
Dark matter certainly can't be ions as we have already discussed.
Also, it appears that dark matter can not be hydrogen either. Scientists found two galaxy clusters in the midst of a collision. What they found is that the luminous matter interacted and slowed during the collision. However, there was matter that did not absorb or emit light, and it sailed right past without interacting like normal matter would.
The only type of interaction that dark matter has with normal matter is through gravity. That is inconsistent with hydrogen which would interact with other molecules or atoms of hydrogen, and would emit light at those temperatures.
As I see it, the constancy of the speed of light is used as a sort of standardizing principle, so as to find ways of translating measuring scales between different inertial frames.
I don't think that is the case here (unless I am misunderstanding you).
Photons are not like bullets. People in different inertial frames would measure a different speed for a bullet. Not so with light. The speed of light is measured as being the same in all inertial frames. It isn't standardized to be the same. It IS the same.
the evidence is there, but it as been interpreted wrong,
What is this evidence you are talking about?
physics first went off tracks when the "big bang" theory was put forward, at roughly the same time as the universal background radiation was detected, because they seemed to fit each other it became excepted by most, which as threw science back decades, now all "evidence" is made to fit into this big bang theory.
Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang in 1927. The CMB was not detected until 1964. The CMB was a prediction of the BB model for almost 40 years before it was finally discovered. The Big Bang was first proposed because of the observed correlation between distance and redshift for distant galaxies.
now all "evidence" is made to fit into this big bang theory.
Umm, no. The model is changed to fit the evidence. The latest evidence demonstrates that the expansion is accelerating, so this has been incorporated into the BB model.
There is nothing in the big bang theory that does not fit better in a free falling expanding universe in lower d space, it explains dark matter, blackholes, gamma ray bursts , gravity , galaxy formation, and much more.
What evidence is there for "lower d space"?
You have not got the ability to see a complete picture.
Apparently not since you have dark matter being made up of ions which just doesn't work.
Like i said you have not the ability to think for yourself,
Yes, I do. I actually look at the evidence instead of making stuff up like you do.
As the universe expands lower d space is rushing in,
Based on what evidence?
dark matter also expands as the space within is "unfolded" and ripped, produceing these massive amounts of photons, this is picked up and deposited by the lower d space, which we see as "gamma ray bursts", from what i understand quite luminous.