conway said:
Cesiumfrog, it's hard for me to know what to make of all this. A week ago I would have never believed that a group like Jaynes et. al. could be the universally acknowledged leaders of the "semi-classical school" without having dealt with my "little antennas with their radiation resistance". When SpectraCat steadfastly maintained this all last week, I could only marvel at what I considered his ignorance or willful blindness, especially when he insisted he knew all about "semi-classical treatments". How, I wondered, can he believe he knows what he's talking about if he's never even heard of calculating the radiation resistance of the hydrogen atom to get the Einstein A coefficient?
Cesiumfrog, I know I'm going to disappoint you because I sense that you feel you are being patient with me, trying to gently guide me back onto the right path by shaking of the blinders that prevent me from seeing the light. The sad fact is that what you have told me today only reinforces my conviction, my dementia as FrameDragger so ably diagnosed it, that I know things that nobody else does, that I'm on the track of something really big. Because if Jaynes et al weren't dealing in my little antennas, then maybe I'm the first. Maybe I have the answer to the big questions that have been puzzling the great thinkers for over a century...well, you see how the mind works.
What you probably can't imagine is how many different ways that I find support for my obsession. I don't want to provoke you but the fact is that I find several baffling contradictions, for lack of a better word, in your own arguments as presented in the four short paragraphs above; I'd like to try to explain them to you from my point of view, but I am almost sure that it would all end badly as it did with SpectraCat. You would take my attemps to explain my ideas as insufferable arrogance and gross disrespect for those who are obviously more knowledgeable than me.
Conway, I don't believe you're demented. I laid out a number of possiblities, of which "mental illness" is simply one, and not dementia. Given some time, I find you to be somewhat contradictory. When it comes to general physics, you seem utterly capable, able to give advice, etc. It may just be that this is the current limit of your understanding in the context of an internet forum.
If a trusted advisor, professor, rabbi, whatever... whom you presented your theory to carefully examined it, then laughed it off... how would you react? Your retreat into sarcasm and bitterness is understandable given the admittedly semi-hostile environment around you at this point. I wish that you would stop being defensive long enough to answer the questions posed to you by SpectraCat and Cesiumfrog, rather than beat a hastey retreat into the rhetoric of desperation.
Maybe you're just a crank, and I'm giving you too much credit (which would be odd, I'm not usually generous in that fashion), but I think this is a self-esteem issue for you, or some kind of article of faith. Maybe the issue is that you are unwilling to present your theory in the face of criticism and even scorn? If so, I would ask that you consider weathering the storm.
Personally, I think you want to get to point C from A without passing through B, and it pisses you off to have what you thought (think?) is a really elegant theory that still makes some kind of sense to you, blown away by literally EVERYONE you presented it to. That only leaves your ego (in the psychological sense, not the insult) very little room:
1.) You can admit that you're wrong, go back to the drawing board and resume at the point where you decided the learning was done, and it was time to become an amatuer theoretician. This is the healthy and normal response, albiet an unpleasant one
2.) You reject the faceless non-people who are just text on a screen to you after all, and stick to the principles and gumption that took you this far. Not a bad choice, but rigid, and therefore prone to rupture when you encounter more personal rejection
3.) We are all assholes who don't recognize your genius. Despite the professionals here believing otherwise, you are right in the face of all denial. What you formulated makes sense, following naturally from patterns you picked up during research and schooling for a career other than physics. This is very intuitive for you, and a joy ("obsession"), and who are we to piss all over it, right?
4.) Get lost in the numerology. "What you probably can't imagine is how many different ways that I find support for my obsession." I can believe it, much as I can believe that people see the Madonna in a pancake, or that we all see patterns because we're hardwired to find them (even when they are not there). People believe in god, a devil, angels, etc... your faith is hardly stranger. This is your religion, and we're not respecting that, much as you're not respecting that you came to a site, presented a theory, and upon rejection of it you now refuse to engage other than to defend your IMAGE.
It's always some variation on the old theme: MICE: "Money, Ideology, Compromise/Coercian, Ego". They'll make you betray confidences, change your life, and maybe end it... naturally they drive us to more subtle and less destructive ends. Ideology, and Ego for you conway, but not dementia. You're not stupid, or forgetful... you're excited like an addict chasing a high, and if you have to give up the notion of being "on to something big", then what's the point, right? Doesn't the knowledge that you're discovering something that eludes "great thinkers for over a century" excite and please you? It's like a secret garden, but sadly you made the error of turning over your fantasy to the cold embrace of the scientific method.
My advice? Find meaning, excitement, and purpose beyond "the next big thing". If that's what you think science is, and how most of physics is "done", you're in for some pain. Finally, if you're unwilling to engage someone as helpful and polite as cesiumfrog, why bother with any of this? What's the worst thing that could happen... Cesium rejects your hyothesis. The issue of "arrogance" was not your theory, but the manner in which you present it, as being on a par with QED and QFTs in general. I also seem to recall you kept telling Cat that something was "his theory" versus "your theory", when it was really "you vs. QM".
I suspect that if you don't actively attempt to piss off the people you present this theory to, you stand to learn something. Of course, to make this cicle complete, maybe you don't WANT that. Think about what you really want out of this... to crow about a theory you can't/won't share or adequately defend?
Orrr... maybe he was siphoned away by the staff... 
