It was 'my opinion' of dolphin's interpretation of Stafford's work that I was addressing. By thinking that I was critizing Stafford's work, you were again changing the subject.
Apparently you do not understand what a theory is. Here is an example of your thinking:
**"Another example, Stafford cannot derive shift symmetry from his final equation."
Right. And he cannot bake a cake from it either.
Must his theory do all and everythihng to have validity? **
My statement is an example that no theory is circular in the sense that the axioms or assumptions can be derived from the solutions. All theories have this property. So Stafford's theory is consistent with this. To claim, or think that I am claiming, that Stafford's theory is not valid because it is not circular exemplifies your lack of understanding.
**So tell us, what status quo does Dr. Dick's theory fail to overturn? **
His theory does not contradict any theory known to physics and verified by experiment. For example, it does not overturn the standard model. So in a sense his theory fails to overturn all accepted theories of physics. But what he has shown is important because, using a very novel and clever theoretical derivation, he can derive wave function equations from more limited and simple assumptions (or definitions if you will) than heretofore thought possible.
** Are you saying nobody can test this paper's
theories with experiment?**
On the contrary, since Stafford derived the known equations of physics, they have already been amply verified by experiment.
**If only theoretical physicists would realize this, they would stop wasting their time
and become lab physicists.**
This just illustrates your lack of understanding of the scientific process. Actually it does not matter whether theory preceeds or follows experiment. But both are required for a theory to be valid.
**Mr. Yanniru may blow on his nails to dry the polish now that he has demolished Dr. Dick's theses...
or . . .well, not quite. **
Someone once criticized you for not being able to think outside of the box. My opinion is that you always think outside of the box. It seems that you never quite understand what you are responding to.