The phenomena described in relativity present an interesting problem:
The relationships and descriptions provided in relativity (both special
& general) are fundamental to describing the behavior of the universe
(e.g. E=MC2) and yet, there seems to be no framework within which
those phenomena make sense.
The situation looks to be analogous to the one before the Sun centered
model of the solar system was developed. The then "earth centered"
model provided reasonable descriptions of some phenomena (e.g. day/night,
seasons eclipses etc.) yet some observations (e.g. the motion of planets)
could not be made sense of without major, and apparently arbitrary, modifications
to the model.
In the case of relativity, conventional representations are framed
in terms of space, clocks and fields. All of these concepts are derived from
/Newtonian framework, a framework that relativity shows to be (as Einstein
put it) "an illusion". Basically, if relativity is right, then the classical
universe does not exist and cannot provide access to understanding the fundamental
stucture of reality.
It is argued that the use of these "hangover" classical objects in relativity
is the source of the specific problems that occur in the theory (e.g. one
cannot readily represent the interface between matter and fields).
The article presents the viewpoint that:
1) the mathematical relationships that occur in relativity are accurate.
2) that these phenomena could reasonably be expected if time and
existence occurred in a particular way.
The result is a model in which the existence of matter is seen as "occurring"
at the speed of light, and action at a distance is modeled as the effect
that the past "existence" of one object has on the "present" of another.