Does anyone here understand Theory Development?

[quantumdude]

there's no maths in this thread. I've pointed out an error in that other thread of yours; waiting on the reply.

He did reply.

 

[elas]

I am sure that every mentor on this forum is well aware of the fact that every theory proposed on this forum is easily dismissed by the fact that it is inconsistent with things already known.

As an amateur with no mathematical training worth mentioning I developed my interest in particle physics as a retirement hobby. I took heart from the fact that many leading scientist, including Newton and Einstein are on record as stating their belief that the final solution would be "a thing of great simplicity" (Newton).

Originally I used imaginary numbers to illustrate my concept of a vacuum theory. This was recently replaced using the known masses of fundamental particles. Unfortunately I made an error in converting the known masses into numbers I could use to build tables using Excel. This really should not have prevented professionals from seeing the value of the concept (it is a theory of great simplicity).

I have just finished correcting the errors and now have a theory that uses mass and vacuum to explain the cause of charge, I can also show how mass can be arranged to show quarks in order of there charge and why particles have their particular charge. I am waiting for a reply to a question in the Classic Physics forum before publishing. But the solution should have leaped off the page for anyone of a mathematical leaning.

In contrast to your statement I have been very careful to ensure that my theory deals only with known quantities and forces. I cannot understand why professionals have not applied Occam's Law to their work and gone back to the one known fundamental force that must have existed before creation (given that any force existed) and reworked existing theory eliminating all the unnecessary entities that have been created due to an ignorance of reality at the time they (the entities) were created.