The equation E=MC squared tells us that 2 fundamental particles spinning at the speed of light are mass and energy equivalents.
No it doesn’t, as E=mc^2 doesn’t have any applicability to speed. Indeed, the equations that account for mass and energy of a fast moving object show that its impossible for an object to move or spin at the speed of light. Because of this, your sentence appears to be meaningless word salad.
I call it the the logic of inevitable consequences.
So you are making things up?
The observation is the energy that the sun produces which has to come from some small particle source.
Like... say Fusion? A well evidenced and experimentally verified process that agrees with all the observation evidence of the Sun, theories of subatomic physics and gravity.
The sun's gravity squeezes the aether particles together giving C squared energy.
Aether particles? So they exist? How do you know? What is your observational evidence? What is your experimental evidence.
Please provide a scientific explanation and justification for why you believe the particles you can’t show exist convert mass to energy when squeezed. By what process does this operate,
The universe is like a jigsaw puzzle which has only one correct solution. If you make one small error the whole concept falls apart.
Jigsaws don’t fall apart when you make one small error....
This a perfect metaphor actually. Scientific theories produce a big picture, like a jigsaw: just because some parts are missing doesn’t mean the entire constructed picture so far is completely wrong and needs to be torn up.
The standard or accepted model is totally wrong because it can't unify matter, gravity, space, light and energy. Whereas, my theory has no missing pieces and everything is accountable.
You don’t have a theory. A theory must have an explanation, and must have supporting evidence. It’s not even a hypothesis - as hypothesis must be logical and potentially testable. What you have - is a series of assertions that don’t really make any sense, and seem barely even tangentially related to the things your trying to explain.
Now, what you are confused about, is that the standard and accepted model is not “totally wrong” - it doesn’t explain all parts of the universe in all ways - but it does explain particular parts exceptionally well.
in that respect no science here is “totally wrong”, because it fully explains much of the universe and the observations. It is merely incomplete.
My theory is 100% logical and doesn't rely on magical fields and action at a distance nonsense. My theory is 100% mechanical with no bullshite airy fairy magic.
You have literally pulled the whole thing out of your ass without any plausible justification, or evidence. Your theory makes no logical sense, is devoid of any supporting evidence, and appears to be the construct of an irrational bumbling idiot.