...I suggest you read it.

I'm responding only to defend my work.

Since you clearly don't understand the significance of the remarkable developments in 20th-Century Physics, then there is no way to appreciate what lies ahead in the 21st.

Here is the closing section of Physics: Decade by Decade in a concluding chapter called "Cosmic and Terrestrial Challenges for the Twenty-First Century."

...The only reasonable conclusion is that the future of the science is as unpredictable now as it was 100 years ago.

David Gross (1941- ) of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, would agree. Gross shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics for the development of Quantum Chromodynamics (the strong-force version of quantum electrodynamics) during the 1970s and has been a strong proponent of string theory. His work made him a natural selection to give the closing address at the 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics, held in Brussels, Begium, in December, 2005, a prestigious event with a history going back to the 1911, the year that Rutherford announced his discovery of the atomic nucleus. "Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory. But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break."

He compared the present state of the theory with the puzzling discoveries of radioactivity, which was discovered by Becquerel in 1896, described in detail by Rutherford and Soddy in the first decade of the 20th century, but was not explained until quantum mechanics was well developed. Physicists "were missing something absolutely fundamental" at the time of the first Solvay Conference, he noted. "We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then."

Some might view Gross' words about the future of physics as discouraging, but they should not be interpreted that way. The missing theoretical ingredient is a challenge, not a failure. Physicists are, as always, engaging in difficult quests. New Einsteins, Rutherfords, Paulis, Meitners, Feynmans, Bardeens, Gell-Manns, Alvarezes, Hawkings, and Ledermans are already at work, looking for new ways to view old problems. Will 21st-century physics yield the Higgs particle, a theory of high-temperature superconductivity, or a theory of everything? Will physics-based technologies lead to fusion power, quantum computers, and remarkable materials?

The answer to many of those questions is almost certain to be yes.

Like any good history, its real point is to provide insights into the present and future. But since you reject Newton's third law and the fundamental basis of relativity, I don't feel bad that you are rejecting my much less significant insights as well.

I'm now signing off of this thread. I leave in anticipation that you will claim that your theory is as ground-breaking as all the others I mention. The difference, which you apparently do not see, is that those theories have withstood challenges and have been supported by observation and experiments.

Yours is nothing more than a set of outrageous assertions with nothing to support them. You have still not answered the questions and challenges that I, along with an anonymous poster, have raised.

If you want credibility, you need to respond to such questions. Attacking the questioners or their work may succeed in politics, but it does not "cut it" in science.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)