>>14391569My goal for this thread was to show that there exists authoritative dissent against the tenants of relativistic and quantomechanical physics, that are otherwise purported to be indisputable by both science educators (to new aspiring scientists) and so called communicators (to the wider public).
Other threads concerning the, understandably slow and of variable quality, developments of research in this direction, have been posted in the past, and will be posted in the future, to the dismay of those who don't like to see them.
People bitching on the internet such as you and me, regardless of what their real world academic status may be, are more akin to propagandists. It's not the role of anyone on here to theorize or experiment, but to share information, and maybe make their case and dispute.
You may not like it, but those who have solidified the consensus around the relativistic and quantomechanical doctrine did so not by resolving the issues of their time, but by proposing good enough solutions that allowed them to sidestep them, and aggressively defend them among the public (starting from Einstein), push for them among the next generation of physicists, and wait for the old guard to disappear, while said old guard, principled as they were, let it happen to themselves by failing to play the same game and "letting people decide for themselves" without ever making and defending a well constructed and up to date public case for themselves, as that would be polarizing the discussion, and self censoring those who did among themselves, as that would be stooping to their level.
One cannot conjecture a scientific theory of the magnitude you request out of thin air, from no resources, from sparse previous research, while being vilified and ostracised for doing so.
No one is going to find anything in the direction no one is looking towards. Even worse, no one is going to accept any solution coming from the direction defined as 'not harbouring any solution'.
