Albert Einstein is quoted as having said...
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction.There is no logical path to these laws,only intuition,resting on sympathetic understanding of experience can reach them.In this methodological uncertainty one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is in no doubt correct,theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest.
It seems that Mark Kaufman does not agree with Albert Einstein on this matter.He is not alone.Intuition and logical deduction do not appear to be held in high regard.So many scientists despair of finding the solution that will answer the fundamental questions of physics.After all, as Einstein said, there are any number of possibilities.
However despite Mark Kaufman's pessimism on the subject, the solution is not too complex to be reached but very simple.Albert Einstein is also quoted as having said .."Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." However theoretical physics has become increasingly complex, so that it is almost incomprehensible.
It is incorrect to assume that the solution can be found with increasing layers of complexity.Breaking the problem down into falsifiable chunks is a different approach, but sounds akin to a massive exercise in trial and error learning.This can be slow and painful.Though luck can come in to play too.
Rather than using trial and error, I have built up the solution. Starting with time. This was the most obvious candidate as the trouble maker. The grandfather paradox being a big clue that time is inadequately comprehended. I later found that the problem of time consumed Einstein's later years.
After some deviation down the blind alleys of multidimensional time and assumptions of the veracity of universal expansion, I realised that the problem lay in 3 different concepts being muddled together.This then allowed a new understanding of what the 4th dimension represents. From here more and more pieces came together to form a very simple, self consistent explanatory model.
I am optimistic that the main premises of the model will be upheld even if the detail is falsified or deemed unacceptable.There are 3 concepts of time muddled together.
2 realities.(separated by Prime reality interface.)
Answer to the ultimate question?
Whether the Prime Quaternion model is the single one that proves itself decidedly superior to all the rest has yet to be decided.Perhaps it is just another one of any number of possible solutions.