The universe is made of only one particle

I will begin with the double slit experiment. The suggested interpretation of the experiment sounds plausible at the beginning, but if you examine it a bit more, you would find out that it is mistaken. First of all, I understand that the article's author states that when a photon is shot in a sea of a photon ether, it creates a pulse, or rather a wave of photons, by "pushing" them, just like a water molecule would do in a normal sea. The problem is, the photon detector records the spots on which photons land, meaning it counts them. Therefore, I think that shooting one particle and recording a pulse of thousands instead would have drawn the scientists' attention a little bit. Am I not right? Michelson and Morley: Indeed, there could have been a little error of +2/-2, the former confirming your claim. On the other hand, the latter, by taking into account the fact that the rotating disc on which the experiment was conducted is, as I mentioned again on the Sagnac experiment, a non-inertial frame of reference, confirms my claim too. I noticed that while elaborating on your theory, apart from your particle, you also mentioned the existence of neutrons. That gives us two particles, with photons -from your explanation of the double slit experiment- making it three. Were you not to argue for the existence of a sole particle? Concerning the videos that you linked me to (I watched EM 01 00 and EM 01 01, as they were the only ones on etherial mechanics), I found them really interesting, on the aspect that it described really well how the ether would work if it existed. The videos' creator did a good job, although he took the existence of the ether for granted and did not elaborate on why did he believe that the ether exists. Twins and clock paradox: Time is not a counting system, but rather the measured, via counting systems such as seconds, quantity. This quantity is, according to relativity, able to be distorted by the existence of matter, acceleration and more factors. Until you disprove it, you have no right to call Einstein and other scientists nitwits. And I believe that disproving it will be quite difficult, considering that you have not even bothered to mention the experiments and articles I linked you to concerning relativity. Fractals can be seen anywhere in the macroscopic universe because they are the more efficient way for matter to "flow" through the vacuum of space, under the pull of a high concentration of mass. I do agree that matter tends to spin, from microscopic to macroscopic level. Never did I deny that. But that does not in any way prove the existence of a single particle in the universe. Furthermore, you ascribed various properties to the spin of particles, without even trying to provide the slightest piece of evidence about your claims, but only tried to persuade me that your hypothesis may be able to explain the universe as well as quantum mechanics does (yes, it does, for it can explain matter, electricity, gravity and so on; as for empty space, the topic is still under research). Hence, it is absurd to say that the current theories must be incorrect, while yours is right. Thank you for the debate.