Vladimir,
Thanks for your kind message on my blog. Really glad you held on for a top 10 place. I'd felt 7th place had become my own after the last 2 years, but I have to say after being passed over twice I'm glad for an improvement. Now we find out if the judges really do support John Templeton's ideal of supporting exploration of advancements not doctrine. I think it's of rare value and well worth preserving.
My aim is only to try to explain and spread the simple logic of the unified 'discrete field' science which clearly better corresponds to nature than what we have now, though astonishingly proving the SR postulates without paradox via QM without wierdness. I see the problems as mainly;
1. It's initial unfamiliarity (as Feynman and others predicted)
2. The inertia of academia due to investment in doctrine (as Planck pointed out).
3. The stage of our intellectual development, so capacity to visualise dynamic evolutions. I see that as subversed by a swing too far to reliance on maths, and the lack of anywhere to 'hook' a new ontology to in our belief systems, which takes us back to No.1.
Do you think that's a fair assessment? In many ways this may be just a matter of presentation. But most importantly, do you have any assistance or ideas you can offer as one coming to the 'DFM' anew? (My last 2 essays are the precursers giving the fundamentals). This one really started as just a falsification exercise. It proved to have far more power that I ever imagined! All help and support welcomed, philosophically included.
Very best of luck in the judging.
Peter