Hi Dr. Dick,
You have written some revealing things recently; giving detail on your ideas of "unknown data"; and giving a concise math theorem description.
I have been diligent as ever. Now, there are potential difficulties with your unknown data; I wrote two replies here regarding your explanation. Can you rescue your system?
Further, I proposed a test of your claim. What do you think?
Luis has gone simpler still in a way; it may seem like parody; but his arguments are serious and deserve serious defense if you disagree.
Note that R.P.Feynman has already stated that much of physics is explained by the system known as "quantum electrodynamics"; and that this system involves something "ridiculuous": "adding little arrows drawn on paper".
So fear not the laughter of Luis; he may be in Feynman's company; will you laugh with them? What is really going on here?
You know that any arrangement of faces on a Rubik's cube can be found along the way while travelling between any other two arrangements.
The number of intermediary arrangements will vary depending on the three arrangements in question.
Is your paper like that?
Luis suggests your work is like that circular reasoning game "think of a number. double it. Add 40. Divide the result by 2. Subtract 20. You have got back your number!"
"Any number can be modelled by this!" sounds like an oversimplification of your work. But what if the fancy tricks involved ALL variables; that neatly juggled their respective positions to always maintain a relationship between them, a relationship given by your "fundamental equation"?