Dear Sir,
You have brought out a very interesting detail about eye and vision. We will like to extend your logic. We see through eyes because this is the only sense organ that has the capability to measure electromagnetic radiation. What we say as color is the net reflected wavelengths of light after the full spectrum hits the object and some of it are absorbed by it. We see only these reflected wavelengths within human visible range. Some species may see more colors or different colors because their visible range may be different. But the principle remains same. But when we touch the same object, we cut down the radiation and touch the surface, which is reflecting light. Thus, in both ways, we get incomplete information. You also seem to agree when you say "no eye has ever seen a ball". Only when the various inputs are mixed in our brain, do we know what we are seeing. Since space cannot reflect light, we cannot "see" space. We only see the intervals between surfaces of objects and we call that interval space.
We fail to understand how "the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased". Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy. Temperature is a measure of the ability of a substance, or more generally of any physical system, to transfer heat energy to another physical system. If the "universe" had "zero size", how could it be "infinitely hot"? What was there to transfer energy? And what is zero? It is something that does not exist at here-now. Then it implies that there was no space and time. From where space-time emerged? If it was zero size, how could it expand? By what mechanism? Where from the invisible particles appear? Even electrons and neutrinos are said to possess mass. How could mass exist within zero size. Though this is not your view, since you are using it, could you please explain?
Your observation regarding Newton's law and Galileo's experiment can be rationalized with the example of a man standing on the bank and another standing on an idle boat. Assuming no turbulence, the man on the boat will continue to move at the same speed. A leaf moving on the water will also move at the same speed. The mistake with Newton was his treatment of gravity as an attractive force. The apple and the Earth had the same mass just before it fell. They had the same distance. Then why did not the apple fell earlier? The answer lies not in gravity, but the force that held the apple to its stem. With ripening, it was becoming weaker. When it passed a threshold, only then the apple fell. Till such time, it was stabilized in its position by gravity. Gravity is a stabilizing force. Regarding Mercury, Gerber had already solved it much before, which was plagiarized by Einstein (like Poincare had discovered the equation e = mc2, 5 years before Einstein).
Finally, your conclusion that the "Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light" is interesting. You are hinting at one infinite background structure like the so-called Higg's field, though we do not agree with that concept.
Regards,
basudeba