For Adam,
I appreciate the link you gave, it is interesting. I understand the concepts behind the "red shift" and "space curvature". I am still grappling with the concepts of "time" and the size of the universe. For instance, if the light left the galaxy 13 billion years ago and we detect it now, then it means that the universe is 13 billion years older than it was when the light left the galaxy. If the universe is expanding, it has had 13 billion years of time to expand further since the time that the light left the galaxy. Is the size of the universe estimated to today's date or to the date 13 billion years ago when the light left the galaxy? How accurate is the estimate of the expansion rate?
I always try to simplify complex ideas in order to understand them better.
For this problem I would simplify it by imagining that I and a friend are standing on a very long road, the road has no end in sight in either direction, there may be a slight curvature to the road also. I hand my carrier pigeon to my friend and we start walking in different directions along the road. After many days the carrier pigeon lands on my shoulder. Now I know some facts about my bird, it flies at a constant speed (say 30 km/h) and takes the shortest possible distance to me without stopping or slowing down. (It may curve a little bit around obstacles.) From the condition of the bird I can estimate that the bird was in flight about 13 days. The question then is: How far am I from my friend?
I have not studied all the information at the site you gave me, so at this point in time I can only say that I am still confused about the accuracy of the distance measurements and the concept of the big bang. We are not at the center of the universe. The "red shift" occurs in all directions, so how big is the universe?

Perhaps SDAI is right or perhaps the universe is MUCH larger than the scientists imagine it to be.

For SDAI-Tech1:

You said:
So atomic mass, to me, is simply movements of energy. This energy exists in waves, wave packets and fields and forms the atom and its component parts. I think that mass is the illusion. It never really existed. It only seems to exist from a finite perspective.

If I understand your idea correctly, you seem to lump the "kinetic" and the "potential" energies together under the same word.
I also believe that energy exists in waves, wave packets and fields, but I would consider that type of energy to be "kinetic" in its fundamental "effects".
I do not believe that mass is an "illusion", I believe that "mass" in its "essence" is that which gives "density" to the waves and wave packets, without density the wave packets could not interact with each other.

Cheers
Johannes