***whereas, I show that I can construct a mental model of unconstrained data (the symmetries definitely not in the "knowable" data) which will display all of these symmetries! That is, it is not necessary at all to assume them!***
Are you saying that you do not assume symmetries? Then why do you also say above that you require scale invariance (which is the principle behind renormalization used in QED, etc).
***First, there is the realization that there must exist another symmetry which has not been studied by modern science: the symmetry of scale invariance. Now that is a symmetry they would not even consider to be rational; yet I show that, not only does it yield rational results, it inevitably leads directly to the requirement of special relativity. Where they had to postulate that the speed of light was constant, I show that symmetry of scale invariance directly results in exactly that consequence.***
You think physics treats scale invariance as irrational? Dick, renormalization, universality, fractals, critical phenomena, second degree phase transitions, etc are all based on scale invariance. Even GR is working scale invariance:
Btw, what are referring to in your paper?
***Secondly, my attack points out exactly where and why there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics: the confused definition of time proposed by scientists!***
Time isn't defined per se. The flow of time is measured by clocks. But, no one is claiming to have fully defined time unless they are speculating. I know you think you know what time is, but you have not one experiment that could be conducted that would show that you do.
*** I realized that our "senses" must be part of the explanation and should not be thought of as part of what the model is trying to explain.***
Here you are heading right straight dab into philosophy. Science can only be based on our senses. Whatever model you construct is already based on sensory inputs, and whatever you say is true only if your sensory inputs are correct.
***Essentially, everyone else attributes their "senses" to reality and never considers their "senses" as part of their explanation of reality.***
Let's prioritize. First you need to have sense impressions before you can explain those sense impressions. Regardless if our sense impressions are part of reality, it is our only connection to reality, and therefore understanding reality requires that we accept our sense impressions as given. You can't reject your sense impressions as being possibly inaccurate since then whatever you decipher would also be in error.
***As far as I know, not only does no one understand exactly what I have done, very few even comprehend where I am coming from. That is a sad thing! But I have better things to do with my life so I am not going to worry about it.***
We have a few choices in interpreting symmetries. We can 1) assume that they are real and that nature is mathematical in some way, or 2) assume that our senses and reasoning are limited to seeing the world through symmetry eyeglasses, or 3) assume that we simply haven't had enough time (or intellect) to devise other formulations of physics that are non-symmetrical approaches, 4) assume that we simply invent physics and that we only think we are right because of the usefulness that we obtain. I'm sure there may be others, but I don't think there is any way to know which is correct (if any of those).
Warm regards, Harv