Please, be kind. I am not changing directions for the reason you believe but rather because it is so clear that you do not understand at all what I was trying to say. The path we were on was essentially completely beside the point if the point was for you to understand what I was trying to say.
As I stated in my short post, it is quite clear that I am failing to communicate. Please excuse me for having taken off some time to think the issue out. I think the problem is that I am trying to explain a new perspective and you are attempting to put what I am saying into your perspective. The central problem is that what I am attempting to say cannot be put into your perspective; if it could then my complaints and what I am trying to say would be obvious to you.
That being the case, let me try an alternate tack. Let me first present a number of completely independent issues. Issues which I believe can be completely removed from our discussion. Issues which have nothing to do with what I am trying to say.
#1 -The mental model:
Let us first completely ignore what I have done and instead, look directly at the mental model I hold up as defended by that attack (paying absolutely no attention as to how I happen to come up with that model).
In order to clarify exactly what I am talking about, I would like to first present the mental model which underlies the current accepted examination of the universe.
The current mental model (generated by that "primitive wiring which does the interpretation automatically"), fundamentally represents reality as "a collection of objects in a three dimensional space". As time passes, some of these objects change in one way or another.
My mental model, on the other hand (generated by a procedure which I will attempt to explain at some later date) consists of "a collection of objects in a three dimensional space". In my model, time is a parameter of change: "as time passes, some of these objects change in one way or another (that is, in fact, the only reason the parameter is there).
From this perspective, there is absolutely no difference what-so-ever between my mental model and the current mental model accepted by everyone! I have placed no more limits on what those objects may be than does the model generated by that "primitive wiring which does the interpretation automatically". What you choose to call those objects or what characteristics you wish to give to those objects is as open in my model as it is in the model used by everyone.
All your comments about what physics my model does not contain are totally without any basis at all! My model (being identical to the standard) contains all the possibilities contained by the model generated by that "primitive wiring which does the interpretation automatically". If you wish to call some of those objects electrons, or pions or Higgs bosons and give them qualities you desire to give them so that you can produce mathematical relations which explain what you see, you can do that just as well in my mental model as you can in yours as there is a perfect one to one mapping of one into the other: from this perspective, they are absolutely identical!!!
#2 - The job of the scientist:
Scientists attempt to explain the changes (seen as actual events which occur in that model) via things they call "Laws of Physics". These "Laws of Physics" are generated after extensive examination of this collection of objects and how they change. That problem under my model is identical to that problem under their model even down to the issues which are to be explained. If something can be explained in their model, it can be explained in mine (the models are identical). If there exists something which cannot be explained in my model, then it can not be explained in their model as the models are identical!
It follows that I have placed no constraint on the scientist at all! Issues #1 and #2 present no changes what-so-ever in the common perspective and thus are completely outside our discussion.
#3 -- My fundamental equation:
At the end of Chapter 1 and adjusted to 3 dimensions in Chapter 2, I produce what I refer to as my fundamental equation. Ignoring for the moment, exactly how I came to develop that equation, what is significant is the fact that Schrodinger's equation is an approximation to my equation for any circumstance where Schrodinger's equation is deemed a valid approximation to reality. It is further shown that Dirac's equation is also an approximation to my equation when the events are interpreted to have the qualities associated with charged fermions and photons. Finally, it is shown that Maxwell's equations are an approximation to my equation when one is looking at the photon density implied by a distribution of charges.
Simply standing all alone by itself, this observation tends to imply my fundamental equation is more basic than those which can be derived from it. At the same time, just as there is nothing in the validity of Schrodinger's equation or the validity of Dirac's equation or the validity of Maxwell's equations, which denies the possibility of further work in physics, there is nothing in the validity of my equation which denies the possibility of further work in physics!
To hold that the validity of my equation should be questioned because I have not derived the Higgs boson from it is equivalent to denying the validity of Maxwell's' equations because they don't produce the Nuclear force. It is no more than intellectual sophistry.
#4 -- The issue of relativity:
Let us set aside the issue of relativity until a later date. That the issue can be laid aside follows exactly from the theory of relativity itself. The theory of relativity is an explanation of some fundamental aspects observed concerning those objects in our model and how the Laws of physics are dependent upon the frame of reference used to display the results of our experiments with those objects. What the theory of relativity provides us with, is the rule for changing data accumulated in one reference frame to the same set of data as seen in a different reference frame. This is a very convenient thing to be able to do; but the need to do it is only part and parcel of the explanation being developed by those scientists discussed in #2.
In this regard, it is entirely possible to select any frame one desires and then use the correct relativistic relations to convert any given experiment and its results into that frame of reference. To provide us the ability to perform such a conversion is, in fact, exactly the purpose of any theory of relativity! To make life simple, choose a inertial frame with its origin somewhere in the middle of one of those bubbles where the nearest galaxy is far away. Call that frame our working reference frame! Please notice that, within that "working reference frame", simultaneity is a well defined concept. If we ask every scientist to describe his experiment as it would be seen in that particular coordinate system and the results, as they also would be seen in that coordinate system, then the data we have to work with can be seen as completely independent of any theory of relativity.
Remember, I am working with logic here, not with theory! If you say the data I have to work with above is not independent of relativity than I say your theory of relativity is wrong so wait around until you have the correct version. I am speaking here of a valid representation of the data. The logic does not even require you know the correct theory of relativity, it requires only that the problem of performing such a conversion be possible.
The fundamental issue is the fact that the information the scientists need to work with can be cast in the form of a set of numbers: i.e., the space time coordinates of every event significant to every experiment (or every event ever recorded by mankind) as they are represented in the above very specific coordinate system. It follows that knowing the correct theory of relativity is not a logical necessity to the problem and the issue may be postponed: i.e., the correct theory of relativity is an explanation of the facts, not a fact to be explained. The facts to be explained are the phenomena observed (the set of events brought up above).
#5 -- The non-issue of naming events:
At this point, a logical non-issue usually arises! Some people will insist that the above (very large) set of events must be named or we will not know what characteristics the event represents. That was the issue I was trying to discuss when I brought up the Volkswagen and the 18 wheeler. The central point is that the definition of any event (its name) is actually a statement concerning the events related to that event: that is, if a certain pattern of events happen to appear in our data, we will give a specific name to an event of interest (that event is of interest because of the pattern of associated events).
You give me a theory to explain the events I see and I suspect your theory will include names of specific events. Whether or not a particular event will be put forth as an example of a specific named entity in your theory (an electron or a Higgs boson) depends very much on the distribution of surrounding events. The name is no more than a convenience of communication which implies some additional "data" is to be included.
It certainly follows that physical reality as perceived of by the scientific community can be seen as totally described by set of numbers.
#5 -- Issues of tautology:
Are any aspects of the standard mental model (generated by that "primitive wiring which does the interpretation automatically") tautological? Yes, there are some aspects of that mental model (as commonly understood) which are tautological (true by definition). One issue, very definitely tautological in nature, is the idea that velocity times time gives the distance traveled. This idea is tautological as the definition of velocity is "the distance traveled" divided by "the time it took to travel that far". I only put that comment in as I would like you to understand exactly what I mean when I say a result is tautological.
I would also like to point out that the concept of velocity (or speed if you leave out the directional characteristic of the concept) was only conceived of (or defined) sometime during the heyday of the ancient Greeks. It is, in fact, a *defined* concept seen to be convenient to the "changes" observed. The tautological result does indeed put some constraints on what would be accepted as a valid explanation of any phenomena put forward by a scientist; however, it should also be noted that it must be true only for objects. If the scientist were to put some other useful concept forward which he could argue applied to some other idea or phenomena (not an object) then he could very easily get around that tautological result. As an explicit example of such a move, consider "phase velocity of a wave".
It is clear that introducing a definition with tautological consequences in no way constrains the scientists ability to explain other events. Likewise, if my perspective (together with some definitions it might suggest) ends up generating some tautological consequences, that fact in itself constrains no scientist from proposing any alternate entities which he feels would provide a useful service in an explanation of some phenomena which has interested him.
I contend that those five issues clearly dispense with the great majority of complaints you have brought up! Let us now return to an examination of exactly what I have done (again, avoiding the perspective I have been trying to explain to you)
Had I done nothing else except present my fundamental equation as the underlying relation which was being approximated by Schrodinger's equation, Dirac's equation and Maxwell's equations, this presentation itself would be as significant as Maxwell's publishing of his results which combined the equations developed by Coulomb, Ampere, Faraday and Oersted into a single coherent relation. I never presented it as such because, when I first deduced it, I had no idea that such was the case.
I had proved that the equation had to be true many years before I was able to find even an approximate solution. I was personally of the opinion that the logic I used to deduce it was far more significant than the result and, I am still convinced of that. But that issue is completely outside the current discussion as it bears directly on my proposed perspective and thus cannot be part of this particular presentation.
What then remains? Only three issues not involving my proposed perspective remain: the development of the fundamental equation itself (which requires a facility in mathematics and is thus outside what can be discussed without teaching you the required mathematics), the demonstration that Schrodinger's equation, Dirac's equation and Maxwell's equations are indeed approximations to my equation (which also requires a facility in mathematics currently beyond your ken) and the issue of relativistic transformations of experimental data (again beyond your current abilities).
With regard to these three issues, the only person on this forum who has brought up any issue (that I am aware of) concerning my mathematical work is Yanniru. His only concern seems to be whether or not the symmetries I point out are assumptions or fundamental requirements of the problem. Other than that, he seems to have no complaints with my mathematics at all. With regard to his complaint, I am firmly convinced that the issue would be settled in my favor were it ever be examined by a competent logician.
The final result of all of the above is that the only issue of concern between us is the nature of my perspective. With regard to that issue let me return for a moment to a circumstance mentioned in sections #4 and #5 above. "The fundamental issue is the fact that the information the scientists need to work with can be cast in the form of a set of numbers."
If that set of numbers is complete (that is, there is utterly no information available outside that set of numbers) then my fundamental equation must be true. That statement relies entirely on my mathematical proof. You have already said on several occasions that you are assuming my math is correct; if you are then you must also assume my fundamental equation is true. If you think the fundamental equation can be false then you think there is an error in my proof!
At this point, if you understood what I said, we should have no disagreements other than whether or not my claims are correct (and that needs to be settled by others). My claim that much of physics is tautological rests entirely on the fact that many of the "Laws of Physics" are displayed in Schrodinger's equation, Dirac's equation, and Maxwell's equation. If one accepts that my fundamental equation cannot be false then whatever is derived from it is tautological in nature.
Now, if you understand what I have put forward above, we can discuss that strange perspective I have! I am of the opinion that my perspective is the only real difference between us.
Have fun -- Dick