temporal relativity, a viable alternative?

i've just completed my 'mini-lecture series' on physics "phy w/ sam" on YouTube. i don't have access to video-editing software so please forgive the 'presentation errors' and others evident.. it was fun and i have a good feeling about it.. Today, i attempted to write some professionals 'in the field' (of theoretical physics) about the ideas presented there. i'll keep you updated on any replies.

Surveying the literature (yet again) about related topics produced a list of possible recipients and some inspiration for a fresh article about them. Core to this theory is the concept: conservation of curvature. But before we revisit that concept, let's discuss the related conventional concepts.

Conservation of energy: usually stated as the first law of thermodynamics; energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed. We'll see this is crucial to a realistic model of the photon, a particle of light. Some have joked in the field that "you need a permit/license to use the word 'photon'" because in most instances/interpretations of conventional quantum mechanics, talking about a single photon has no meaning / makes no sense (in those frameworks). Even engineers don't bother explaining why transverse electromagnetic waves (their version of photons) 'self-propagate'. They just do. More on this later.

Conservation of information: much attention (within the field and publicly) has been paid to this concept relating to black-holes and information loss. When an object falls into a black-hole, is the information contained in that object forever lost? Or does it somehow persist on the boundary (the event horizon)? Proponents of string theory and 'the holographic principle' would seem to say "No!" (answering the first question) Roger Penrose would say "Yes!" His theory is more aligned with my way of thinking: black-holes are merely massive neutron stars with event horizons (they have sufficient mass with escape velocity exceeding c, the speed of light). No big deal.

Conservation of curvature: we assume creation was a balanced curvature event; equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created; equal amounts of photons and antiphotons were created. Matter and photons have positive curvature; antimatter and antiphotons have negative curvature. Time slows down near positive curvature (this is a fact of nature); time speeds up near negative curvature (this we assume). Matter attracts gravitationally and in nuclei; antimatter repulses (this we assume). TR explains all of these with temporal curvature: spatially distributed deviation from 'flat time'. That notion directly relates to c, energy propagation rate.

So what exactly is a photon? We propose it's energy changing form: from electromagnetic to temporal distortion to electromagnetic.. We propose: that's the only way for it to propagate (move from one place to another). Why? My guess is solitons, standing waves rarely found in nature, are unstable. Solitons are the macroscopic versions of a solitary unchanging wave. They're extremely rare and always disappear. Ball lightning may be an electromagnetic version of that. That's also extremely rare and always unstable. So perhaps 'nature found a way' to stabilize the micro-version of solitons, photons, by changing the form of energy within. Perhaps it's the only way for energy to propagate, other than spherical gravitational waves, in our universe. It's 'just an idea' but a compelling one..

As photons have very slight positive curvature, so antiphotons must have very slight negative curvature. To explain electromagnetism realistically, some of them must be charged. Otherwise, there's no way for protons and electrons to 'feel' the force of electromagnetism between them. Something real must mediate electromagnetism. They fit the balanced curvature framework.

.. This all started when a gym teacher in junior high told me "I have an idea about electrons and protons I can't prove .. I think they're self-confined photons." i repeated what he said "..self confined photons.. Huh! i need time to think about it.." He just smiled..

A 'few' ;) years later .. We have viable alternatives to the Standard Model, virtual exchange, and inherent randomness. At no time did i actually prove elementary particles are self-confined photons (that concept was left by the wayside), but a lot of interesting/compelling concepts have evolved from that way of thinking.. The impedance of space, the elasticity of space,.. these notions, in themselves, propelled/impelled me down a path i could hardly say "No!" to.. The fact you need elasticity of 'something' in order for it to stretch/deform; the fact you need media impedance to explain different c (it's a fact the speed of light is different depending on media). The fact c directly relates to components of Z0, the impedance of space. The fact the spin of photons, electrons, and protons directly relate to Z0 also made me 'very suspicious'.. Finding an exact relationship between elasticity and impedance was like someone showing you a rainbow for the very first time.. Wow, i could barely believe my eyes.. It can't all be for naught; it can't all be wishful thinking; it can't all be fantasy..

The fact the theory crucially depends on a Prime Cause to explode the singularity (or smash two) should not be reason alone we dismiss the theory. After all, we cannot prove God doesn't exist..

.. The theory is testable as described in the War for Meaning.. Btw, tomorrow i have my first att pre-interview in a long time .. Plz say a few prayers for me .. It couldn't hurt, right?