What you are describing looks like a hypothesis to me. A hypothesis is an idea. You have an idea. A theory, in the sense it is used by modern physics, is an idea about how the universe works which is supported by some rigorous elements, whether we're talking about some mathematical explorations (such as in the case of string theory, or back in the day, relativity), or observations (early chemical experiments). A theory has withstood challenges and attempts to discredit it by very knowledgeable and determined people.
In short, you should explore your ideas, but you should always have a way to eliminate invalid ideas by testing them or finding their flaws.
Most important of all, a theory should be considered nill (not bad, just without proven utility) if there are no justifications for it outside of your own intuition. Having said that, if your intuition tells you there is a good chance of there being something there, then you definitely should try developing it.
The important aspects of a new theory should be:
A) it explains our universe as well or better as existing theories
B) explains currently unexplained things
C) can make predictions about things not yet observed.
If such predictions from your theory turn out to be false, then your theory has been falsified and you have competently practiced science. If on the other hand the predictions are accurate, then you have joined the club of frontier physicists!
The better a theory is, the more it seems valid as a function of how much people try to tear it apart, and fail. This process often leads to additional unexpected discovery.
Don't get discouraged by your first or currently favorite idea not turning out to be good - in a class I took a few years ago on evolutionary computation, our teacher told us that Einstein invented and mentally tested several ideas PER MINUTE when he was a patent clerk. This is less impressive (yet still very impressive) than it sounds if you understand that in science often discovery is a process of search-and-evaluate. Ideas are a dime a dozen, quite literally. What makes good ideas live longer than bad ones is that they withstand scrutiny.
The toolkit that competent scientists have which many regular citizens lack is refined training for knowing what is plausible and what not, in the physical world. You can have a theory that contradicts existing theories, but it had better be EXPLANATORY, not just POSTULATORY. Because existing theories explain a lot, a new theory that hopes to replace existing ones needs to be better at everything the other theories do.
Harsh, honest and educated scrutiny is the best way to sort good ideas from bad ones.
Good luck!
