[deleted]
Basudeba
Thanks for re-posting your post of 22nd (1 of 3) which I have gone through again in details. The following needs explanation as the 'contradictions' are indeed only apparent;
1) In saying I do the opposite to most and 'assume the problem is with me' it means I don't turn away and assume I'm reading nonsense but persist, as you say. I use logic, so didn't consider anything else would be assumed! (Though clearly I can not always fully understand or resolve everything_. You make wrong assumptions as you seem to automatically assume others are less intelligent than yourself, and wrong assumptions are at the heart of all wrong science!
2) When I say; "ensure I fully understand and look at different viewpoints..." It is not logical or valid English to respond "there may be other viewpoints"!
3) Again you have misunderstood; "paradoxes are my life blood, as they all have a choice of solutions." It means precisely what you suggested as a COUNTER argument! It means I focus on finding and resolving paradoxes as they always have solutions unseen by the current paradigm.
4) I said I believe even QM will eventually prove logical to us once our understanding reaches the correct level. and you ask "But how do you know what is the correct level?" Again this is logically flawed. It is clear that when it becomes logical it is at the correct level to become logical! You will note I did not say 'correct' as, philosophically, that can never be proved.
5) I did indeed understand your; "frame of reference not connected to your frame." I suspect this may be only semantics, but the whole explanation of frame transition hinges on it, and it is what I referred you have not studied in the DFM, where ALL frames are 'connected'. This seems in may be a logical step beyond all I've seen in your work. It's embodied in your distinguishing between light scattered directly towards you from that scattered at an angle.
Light may travel across many frame boundaries, and 'Stokes' or 'Anti Stokes' scattered at each subject to their vectors, so all are 'connected' but only two can ever be connected 'locally'.
6) I have explained my concept in great detail, and only give Gedankens to assist others. (bus, train, river etc.) I agree ref objects moving in different frames, but do not understand "objects are perceived only during transition", which seems to imply objects at rest in the same frame are not visible!? Please explain. How does your version explain 7c gas jets in plain English.
7) When I write; "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!" The convention of the use of inverted commas in this context around 'dark matter' means I refer to the TERM 'dark matter' as used by others, which means I'm inferring plasma IS dark matter. It's the famous 'Duck' analogy. If it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't care if you've always called it a 'Dodo', Whether that's what your community believes or not I shall test the assumption that it may just be a duck!
In general terms I've confirmed we agree on up to 99% of your theory. But then however we diverge. I have studied and compared the two divergent paths. Yours seems quite plausible and interesting, yielding some promising results, but seemingly without falsifiability. I accept I may be wrong as there are parts I don't fully understand.]
However, my path goes on the explain the basis of Equivalence, tying SR into GR with a quantum mechanism, giving full unification. At last count there were also over a dozen paradoxes and anomalies it resolves. All that is lost if I try to use your divergent path. Again I may be wrong, and if you can find consistency I'd be delighted, and our joint model may be powerful enough for a paradigm shift. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to consider any alternatives outside yours and consider any change or development. That's how 'old' science operates. (I don't work that way, my structure has evolved using many specialist components from many fields). I've done the same with Sreenath and found greater potential for compatibility in the later stages, which we're exploring with others.
I say again your work is excellent Basudeba, and much of the core is very consistent with mine. You say; "no one in the scientific community agrees with your views". That may be your view, but if the essay marks can be considered as any indication at least some seem to find some agreement. You should be aware that kind of inappropriate comment along with your misunderstandings cleared up up above is what can put people off support, agreement and collaboration.
If you're prepared to also study my half of our divergence not just your own I will be happy to discuss.
Peter