Quoting: "From that I got that gravity is related to space-time and it affects everything all the time in a sequence of events."
Well, the way I modelled it seems to fit what physicists say. But I'm not sure what physicists think about my view yet.... (one said something like: I should publish what I think I figured out , as clearly as possible)
"Is this the sequence of events that people are studying to discover how long the universe will exist? Has existed?"
Well, it seems very strange but according to Dr. Richard Stafford who has been active at this forum; most of modern physics is (I suggest: allegedly) circular arguments.
I found my own way to show that: if you take ANY sequence (e.g. a specific order of cards in a pack); then look at EVERY WAY you could get that sequence from ANY OTHER different order (of cards in a pack say); including every "path" to get from the one order to the other via ANY intermediate different order; you end out with a lot of different ways of describing the event:
"I have a pack of cards. I shuffle them. At least one card is in a different place now. How did I shuffle them? What happened; what swaps did I make between first state of the pack of cards, and final state of the pack of cards?"
Some of the ways of shuffling the pack; occur in more than one path to get to the final result. For example all ways that leave the top twenty cards order intact, share that aspect of the path from first state of the pack to last state of the pack.
Some ways of shuffling the pack interfere with descriptions of other ways: changing cards in the top twenty interferes with a path that leaves those unchanged; the descriptions of these two pathways clash.
So what you are doing is comparing comparisons.
What physicists seem to do is look at a "path" description of (in this macro-example I use cards) going from one order of cards in a pack to a new order by some unknown intermediate steps).
They then maybe? look at a sub-detail of the path from initial to final state and work out how frequent is the overlap of the sub-detail with every other way that detail could happen? Not sure exactly in this context but have a model not posted of how their theory "quantum electrodynamics" seems circular.
They don't seem to predict an event so much as predict whether they will see a particular perspective on an event but that comes from their definition of the event itself?
For example the way they define "electron" etc. binds the event initial and final states; then they figure out every way they could define those things and still fit their definition of "electron" in an "event"?
"Is it possible our Universe is part of something bigger? I mean; our Universe started from something so small and so dense that it's impossible to imagine yes? well if that is the start of our "chess game" maybe it is just one move in a bigger chess game were the game goes "the small initial ball becomes unstable ,exploding, creating light, heat and debris the energy goes in every direction but due to the speherical shape of space time it all goes to the same point making another infinatly dense infinatly small ball which pulls in all the debris and time(?) falls through space time and starts again a little different" I know that this is very simple again! sorry and I know that there are theories about the universe collapsing i've not read any but is that the general idea?
If so then gravity, time and energy must be in equilibrium over the whole universe whats that relation?
I think I'm in way over my head!"
What you said sounds like: I have this idea that the whole universe is created everywhere from every meeting within it; reality not inside time but outside it..