James,
I wrote, "I only say what conventional scientific method says: the truth of a proposition is determined by correspondence between abstract theory and physical result."
You replied, "This cannot be the standard scientific practice."
I assure you that it is. It is exceedingly easy to verify -- simply by random checking of peer reviewed journals in the physical sciences -- that the scientific content of the articles contain nothing more than correspondence between theory and result. When physical results are not available, theoretical results and thought experiments may be substituted; the principle, however, is the same.
Though I appreciate that you want to do science in a different way, James -- you have to build the foundation for it from the ground up. It won't make sense to scientists trained in a specific method to try and fit your results to well established theories and models. I also appreciate that you have a theory that you say recapitulates the results of relativty -- do you know that string theory also recapitulates all the results of not only relativity but particle physics as well, via relativistic quantum field theory? Why do you think string theorists are dismayed that many if not most physicists don't accept that those results are good enough for a bona fide physical theory?
In physics, theories come and go. The ones that take root and grow, are those that contribute something new to the disicipline, in terms of physical predictions. Does your theory (or model, whatever you call it) do that? If so, use that prediction to promote your view; strip it down to the essentials of theory and result. And be prepared to be wrong -- for if there is no possibility that your program fails, it isn't science at all.
Best,
Tom
