Edwin,
I don't presume that you agree with the following statements. They represent my opinion. My work has a unique approach that I have found works very well up to the point of my educational limitation. That limitation leaves my work at an introductory level of presentation. One of its shortcomings compared to your work is that mine is just another mechanical interpretation. However, that shortcoming is shared by theoretical physics. The mechanical ideology has kept physics from being the foundational science that it is purported to be. It is the lowest level of competent interpretation of the nature of the universe. It is useful only for solving mechanical problems.
The theoretical approach to interpreting meaning from empirical evidence has, in my opinion, caused the equations to become subservient. We are learning back from the equations that which the theorists have forced onto them. And, that which the theorists have forced onto the equations has severely reduced their usefulness even from the mechanical perspective. I work to demonstrate that this is the case and that progress in scientific learning depends upon returning the equations of physics back to their empirical roots. That is why the arbitrary decision to make mass an indefinable property, rather than striving harder to establish its direct empirical meaning, gets tossed, by me, so deliberately.
Your expertise is far greater than mine. Your work involves establishing fundamental unity right from the start. I feel certain that that is the first requirement to be met by the correct description of the nature of the universe. As I stated quite some time ago it suits me fine to think that your work could be correct. I am certain in my own mind that current theoretical physics is not correect.
Regarding my own work, there is a conservation principle involved and it results from mass being an inverse acceleration. The principle is one of conservation of acceleration. That which light gives up matter gains and vice versa. One further point of clarification with regard to my treatment of electric charge, polarity is a property of mass, again this results from mass being inverse acceleration.
I often state my opinion in a matter of fact manner as is the case now. I don't think that that is because I believe that I have ultimate answers. No mechanical theory can contain the ultimate answers. I think it results from my impatience with theorists pushing their inventions of the mind in their own matter of fact statements.
James Putnam