Dear Ray,
"I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. ..."
It did strike me that way and I wish I had thought to express myself in the manner you have. I said something about data compression and filing things in folders. I think of unity in a different way. However, I do see how you are connecting things together. Those connections sometimes fit with existing particles and sometimes require new ones. So, you have been innovative and have predictions that may validate your work. Does this seem fair to say?
"As one person who recognizes the the shortcomings of modern theoretical physics to another, ..."
I did have a different understanding which shows that I did not understand. I thought you accepted theoretical physics as it has developed and were stretching out and adding onto it. I do think you are doing the stretching as in being innovative. Some of your conversations about hyperdrives and hyperspace made me feel that you were not a maverick. Or, are those subjects what make you a maverick?
"...do you have to overthrow all of Physics in one giant sweep? It is difficult enough to get enough support to change one little aspect. You will encounter much resistance if you try to overthrow everything."
I definitely meet stiff resistance. I encounter hostile reactions from moderators of science forums. I encounter low ratings in the essay contests. However, it does not matter. What matters is we can say something new here. Now, with respect to changing one little aspect and working with it instead of blatantly overthrowing all of physics, I tried it the other way. Here is what happened:
I made one change that I thought would work better. It had to do with time. I soon found that I could not touch the theoretical treatment or inclusion of time in equations without changing other parts. Good theory is interconnected in major ways. I changed my approach. I decided to seriously consider that fundamental unity does exist and thought about how to discover it if it really is there. My essay indicates, but does not demonstrate, the path I followed.
Here are a few points that became essential. One is that mass must be defined at the beginning and not left till last. The reason is that if mass is incorrectly interpreted, it affects almost everything that follows theoretically. I did not see how such theory could later reveal the true nature of mass. The second point is that all empirical data consists of units of distance and time. Or, perhaps I should stick, for now, with just pointing out that f=ma was formed to model data that consists only of units of distance and time. For me, this meant that whatever identity I gave to either mass or force must be reducible to units consisting only of distance and time. I can use units of kilograms or newtons for convenience, but their derivations must rely upon the data the revealed them to us. The equation depends fully upon that data. Therefore, force and mass must, in their most fundamental expressions, be expressible solely in units of distance and time. Ultimately, this means that every proposed property must be reducible to units of distance and time. Any units that are fabricated without first finding their roots in distance time are not only artificial, but are impediments when included in our equations. I will leave it there for now. This message will probably cause my rating average to go down some more; however, all that matters is that we get to say our piece in our own way without obstruction. Thank you for your message. Let me know what you think whether positive or negative it is welcome.
James
