Dear Jacek,
Thanks for taking the time to briefly skim my essay. I do see several areas where our thinking parallels each other. We both agree that Relativity is "aether neutral" and for the need of a medium for waves and for the existence of matter being fundamentally "wave-icle". (I prefer to use my definition of a 4D Space~Time Medium, rather than aether). However, I don't see any details in your paper that would enable anyone to make ANY measurable prediction - experimentalists love when their measurements match at least ONE theories' model.
1. External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) - similar idea to what I'm calling a Higher Dimensional perspective, where I'm totally into the idea that everything we see, hear, touch, even our physical selves, are projections (shadows) of this "invisible" hyper-reality. Furthermore, ONLY from a higher mental perspective -- above physical sensory perceptions - can one hope to achieve an understanding of our physical experience. (It is at this higher level that one can resolve the goals of Gauge Theory - this is, where I was able to see that Planck-time,-length are covariant.
2. Correspondence Rule: any model should have a 1-to-1 correspondence of parts with the real things they intend to model. So too must a mathematical model represent the geometric parts. The underlying geometric framework that QM so desperately needed was unknown to modern science; until I published this paper. In QM energy corresponds with time derivative iℏ ∂/∂t, and momentum with -iℏ∇. In my description of how quantum gravity works, on page 6, you will see similar math constructs.
3. Empirical domain: being the collection of experiential observations and experimental measurements. Please note the degree of specific equations and numerical values that I specify. Contrast this with your paper is completely void of ANY measurable quantities.
4. Your "Force is any interaction transferring energy." & "Force is...a manifestation of spacetime geometry." True, understanding how quantum phenomena shapes the "Now Manifold" into temporal dents - the root-cause of gravity -- and EM whirlpools-twists is key to understanding forces. The so called Strong and Weak Force are not forces at all, turns out they are merely the entanglement of the wave-icles that are the root-causes of so called particle. Let me be specific as some other forms of force manifestation:
[math]Force = \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{dE}{dt} = area \times pressure = \frac{photons}{area} = \frac{c^2}{K_\Theta}
[/math]
[math]\quad = \frac{4\pi ElectricFluxDensity}{\epsilon_0} = 4\pi Z_0 MagneticFieldIntensity
[/math]
5. In the context of Newtonian physics it would be true "A propagation delay in gravity would lead to unstable planetary and stellar orbits...", the delay would translate into an increase in angular momentum, which is commonly believed to make orbits unstable, HOWEVER no one, until just now, ever suggested that Space~Time itself expands during this whole process. The increase in angular momentum would be needed in order to accommodate universal expansion. I'm not satisfied with the proposed answers that my research thus far has found. Let me defer answering this issue at this time.
6. I do find your information about Thurston geometries interesting, and Hook's Law (and its corresponding harmonic oscillator frequency equation) particularly applicable and fruitful for my work.
7. I like your/Tegmark emphasis on no "baggage" - it makes me think about many of the crop circles that seem to be trying to teach fundamentally profound things about reality.
8. I'm having a hard time picturing your idea of assigning Thruston geometries to individual particles. How do you describe mass & charge?
Frankly, I was surprised and hurt by your low scoring of 3 for my paper. If you only knew the years of study and a month of intense effort I put into squeezing all these ideas into 9-page
