Hello Ray,
You write "I am in favor of replacing all "epicycles" "
What if 'elementary particles' were "epicycles"? Will you be willing to replace these also?
You write: "This is fine for describing bosons, photons are bosons, and photons are involved in our experimental observations."
Where in the mathematical derivations do I say or use 'photons' or properties of 'photons' or Bose-Einstein or Fermi or any other such think? That you seem to 'see' these conceptual ghosts in my work point to the mind-set with which you seek to understand these results. Reality is often simpler than the mind with which we 'see'.
The E(t) that appears in all of my results can be any integrable function. But taken as exponential for simplicity and exactitude of formulation - see my comment in my essay about that! But in the context of my discussions on physics it is 'energy'. Any energy.
You write: "Likewise your eta is a hybrid combination of a Hamiltonian and Action".
Actually, Ray, my eta is undefined and undefinable -- in principle! Therefore, not a 'hybrid' by logical necessity. Eta is the only quantity in all of my mathematical derivations in my essay that could be taken as 'prime physis' (first nature). But the way all my results are derived, eta could also be the fundamental quantity pertaining to any other context. I like to think of eta as being! But then I'd be opening myself up as 'being' metaphysical. An accusation that is really ludicrous coming from physicists with claims of 'time travel' and 'multiverses' and 'backward causality' and 'entanglements'.
You write: "...but you seem to be rederiving Physics that has existed for decades ..."
Well, the same could have been said replacing epicycles with ellipses. Certainly the planetary orbits didn't change. There was no 'new physics' in having one more description of planetary orbits. What was revolutionary, however, is a 'new view' of how the same physical phenomena could be understood better.
You write: "... your Prime Physics ... is a biased perspective of this continuous vs. discrete question."
Ray, I specifically address in my essay just that question of continuous vs. discrete:
1) Energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely.
2) Before there is discrete manifestation of energy, there is a continuous accumulation of energy.
3) For energy to manifest, there is an equilibrium condition locally and a minimum threshold of accumulation that has to occur. This minimum is Planck's constant.
I have no idea what "biased perspective" you are referring to. Is it the 'epicycles' that you want to see in my results and I don't show you? Maybe it is my bias towards 'physical realism' and my expectation that physics provides us with 'physical explanations that make sense'.
Ray, we had similar conversations like this before. I don't believe we have come any closer to understanding one another, but it is always fun trying!
Constantinos