So here’s the question I always have when you are talking about your work. You have these theories (and proofs) that, if true, would basically up-end a lot of physics as we know it. Yet you seem to actively avoid publishing them in the places where they could have the most impact. You publish them in book form, which isn’t going to move the needle in the scientific community and you don’t have a name like a Laurence Krauss or Michio Kaku to get noticed by the lay public. You publish papers on open source places where they are going to get lost in the chaff of hundreds of crackpot theories (tainting you with guilt by association).
I recognize the appeal of open source and some of the inherent problems associated with the journal “industry” (for lack of a better term). But it’s also the accepted way that science across multiple disciplines moves forward. If your work is as revolutionary as you insinuate, don’t you have an obligation to submit it into the accepted channels and bring it under actual peer review and scrutiny to see if it truly holds up? When you don’t, doesn’t it, quite frankly, indicate that you’re afraid that after evaluation by professionals it wont?