Dear Joe,
It appears to me that you make many assumptions and treat them as facts without giving any logical reason for them. Of course, you may have valid reasons for them and have just not given them yet, so I will point out a few and you can give me your basis for them.
1. "The real Universe must consist only of real light and real matter". It seems to me that other things could exist. As an example fields could be composed of something other than matter and light, etc.
2. "Real light does not have a surface." It seems to me that the wave front in the wave theory of light could be considered a surface. In the photon particle theory the photon could have a surface. Even in the structural motion theory man does not currently have the ability to determine whether the structural points of the motions involved have surfaces or not.
3. "Real matter does have a surface and a sub-surface." Man's current theories treat matter particles as point objects. Such objects would not have a surface. Point particles could not have a sub-surface. In the structural motion theory an energy photon travels in a three dimensional enclosed path to create a matter particle. That path is not a true surface because the photon's motion's structural points are each at most only at one point at a time as they trace out their cyclical motion paths. The sub-energy motion flow patterns could possibly be considered a type of sub-surface in that it exists within the matter particle, but a sub-surface without a true surface would not make sense to many.
4. "Because real matter has a surface, it must always be in motion." In man's current theories a matter particle could conceivably be at rest and large scale objects can be either at rest or in motion in reference to other objects. In the structural motion theory, all matter particles are composed of motions, so if the motions are all stopped the matter ceases to exist, but if you are talking about a large scale surface like that on a solid wooden ball, the motion of the surface of the ball in three dimensional space could either be zero or some positive motion level.
5. "That motion can only be of an absolute constant speed." At least on the surface this does not seem to make sense because if all matter was traveling at the absolute speed, one matter object could not change its position relative to any other matter object traveling in the same direction because to do so would require it to travel at a different speed, so that it could catch up to that object by going faster or so that the other object could catch up to it by going slower, etc. In the real universe that we can observe matter objects traveling in the same direction can change positions relative to each other. As an example, one car can pass another one when they are both traveling in the same direction down a road. How can they both be traveling at the same ultimate speed?
6. "Material surface can only speed through inert light." In the real universe light traveling through empty space always does appear to travel at the same speed. If all light is standing still, when you turn on an electric light, it might generate light, but that light could not leave the place of its origin and travel out in all directions, because it could not move.
7. "Material sub-surface must only speed at an inconsistent speed." We have already talked about this and you have not provided me with an explanation of how the sub-surface of a solid wooden ball could travel at a velocity less than the speed of light and not be left behind by its surface if its surface travels at the speed of light.
8. "The real Universe is infinite." Man has not been able to determine whether the universe is infinite or not. What is your evidence that it is?
9. "This means that there must be an infinite amount of real stationary light in the real Universe. This also means that there must be an infinite amount of real matter in the real Universe." This is also not evident from the information that you have provided to me. It seems entirely possible that an infinite universe containing infinite space could have in it just one particle of matter or one photon of energy somewhere in that space or any other finite number for that matter. If one aspect of the universe is infinite it does not follow that all other aspects must also be infinite. Some theories consider that space is somehow brought into existence as matter or energy expands, but this is not the only possibility. Space could have been made first and then sub-energy, energy, and matter could have been added to it later, as an example. How do you view this concept?
10. "After all, you have to be touching something at all times. Your surface and the surface of whatever you are touching have to be traveling at the same constant speed." It would seem that an object such as a solid wooden ball could be located out in space such that it would not be touching any other matter. It is also not true that your surface and the surface of whatever you are touching have to be traveling at the same speed. As an example, If you hold a solid wooden ball in your hand and lift your hand above your shoulder and then let the ball roll up your arm toward your shoulder it is continually touching you, but it is traveling at some speed up your arm and you and your arm are not traveling in that way at that speed because if they were the ball and your arm would both be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and it would therefore not be able to roll up your arm.
11. "Your sub-surface and the sub-surface of whatever you are touching has to be traveling at an inconsistent speed in order for you and whatever you are touching to be observed as being apparently different." This does not seem to make sense because in most cases we do not see or observe the sub-surface of things, but only see their surfaces. We usually observe things to be apparently different by observations of differing surface shape, texture, color, and pattern structure, etc. Motion can play a part, but it is usually relative motions of the surfaces involved.
We do both agree that the real universe exists here and now.
I base my postulated universe on observed reality. My point is that your postulated universe seems to be in contradiction to observed reality (not just in areas that cannot be directly observed, but also in things that we observe around us all the time in the above mentioned ways). It could be, however, that you can explain the above apparent inconsistencies with observed observations and you may have a logical argument for the necessity for some of your concepts to be the way that you present them, so I wait for your explanation of them, as I may just not be understanding them due to lack of details that you can provide to me.