1. If a theory reproduces existing experimental results properly, most people I know accept it as a valid entry. However, e.g. here on RG you find plenty of people who want to replace quantum mechanics with their thingy, but all they have is a new solution for the hydrogen atom while the Schrödinger equation provides a formalism to explain a bazillion of spectroscopic results. If you want to replace a theory with a new one, you need to prove it is more powerful than the previous one, otherwise "meh" or at best "noted" is the only expectable answer because you don't give people a reason why you should be the one guy whose stuff they should read out of the millions of publications in existence.

2. That's false. Let's use the hyrogen atom I mentioned above: the Schrödinger equation with the exactly solvable Hamiltonian (i.e. just kinetic and Coulomb energy) gives correct spectroscopic energies in the first digits, but if you go beyond, you will first find the three scalar relativistic corrections and if you look even closer hyperfine splittings. Therefore, assuming the additional digits are correct because the first ones are is bogus.

3. Therefore the physics community didn't fail and maybe you should work on your argumentation skills instead.

Jürgen Weippert You are not a theoretical Physicist. I doubt that you even know what framework is being talked about here and what was achieved.

Since you put on the tags "communism" and "government", you have not specified any framework I could know about.

Your claims are so wrong that the contents of a "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics Part I" lecture were more than sufficient to come up with a meaningful contradiction.

Jürgen Weippert

1. I did not created those tags, they were associated automatically. I will change them asap if its possible. Thanks for pointing this out.

2. Since you are not a theoretical physicist, I don't see the point of arguing with you about any theory or an idea which require rigor. I don't argue when there exist clear proofs.

Thank for for commenting anyway.

You know, that's what I meant by "argumentation skills". You don't know what I know and what I'm capable of understanding. Both here and on the other question I coanswered all you had to offer was to declare anyone, who gave valid counterpoints, unqualified in one or the other way. It's the same here: especially your point 2 is primitively wrong and I used an introduction-level example to prove that; this is not a question of mathematical rigor but of understanding the proper relation between theory and experiment and you are obviously lacking that.

Therefore, since you refuse to argue in a proper physical way, you don't have the right to complain about being ignored.

I will also allow myself a final needlesting: if mathematicians are as open towards your theories as you claim, where is a publication of yours in a proper peer-reviewed mathematics journal?

Jürgen Weippert

1. frameworks motivated by clean and elegant proofs will be more easily accepted by the Pure mathematicians than the conservative Physics community. That's my underlining assumption.

2. You are simply wrong about what you wrote. First of all, you don't know what framework we discuss here, How it connects regimes of theory and experiment , what problems it solves and by which mathematical operates. I would refer you to this work if your arguments/counters would have impressed me. That is far from the case.

3. I was hoping to encounter Theoretical Physicist's familiar with recent theoretical developments, not people from different disciplines arguing without even knowing the running of coupling magnitudes at the electroweak scale.

3.1) Lastly, as mentioned before, There is no place for arguments when there exist clean proofs.