I discovered what I consider to be new laws of physics under the banner "Universal Specificity," which challenges the venerated theory of relativity.

Why I think I've succeeded: the method I used for scientific discovery is different from and superior to the common method used today. But you be the judge of that. The scientific revolution might start with dethroning relativity, but the real royalty here in need of a permanent throne is the method I use--that's the real revolution. Dethroning relativity was intended to be but a mere use case to demonstrate the power of this method. I did not discover this method, I learned it from other's who discovered it and applied it to this special case. You can learn this method too, if you haven't already, and apply it to your life to great success.

The next two paragraphs are a brief summary comparing and contrasting today's method and the method I use.

Theories are developed today by making assumptions (often called postulates) and deducing consequences to see if those consequences match observations. If the consequences match observation, then the theory gains merit; otherwise, the search continues for the better assumption/theory. From my point of view, making these assumptions (which tend to be generalizations) are an invalid circumvention of a valid inductive method in an attempt to attain the value of inductive knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the consequences if the assumption be true). Lacking a valid method to induce the generalization needed for the theory to be true, an assumption is used instead. Essentially it boils down to the statement "given X is true, here are the consequences...". In short, a guess as to the correct generalization that would explain observations is used to construct a theory that explains those observations. This is the nature of how theories are developed today, Relativity included. Don't believe me, google search, "one-way speed of light problem" to discover the light postulate of relativity has never been proven true, and read up on Universal Specificity to discover why it never will be true.

In contrast to today's method, I have found and use a proper method of induction to validate the correct assumption and proceed in that vein, avoiding guesswork and only going as far as the evidence proves deductively or inductively. This is why I say I have found new laws. My discoveries surrounding Universal Specificity is truly akin to what Kepler did when he discovered his laws of planetary motion had a common cause (the sun) in contrast to Ptolemy who built his model on the assumption that earth was fixed (and a few other assumptions). Oddly too the parallels of the transformation between Ptolemy's model and Kepler's model are eerily similar to the transformation between Relativity and Specificity. Ptolemy assumed earth's local frame was stationary, and we found (through Kepler's discovery) that the earth moves. Likewise, Einstein assumed all inertial frames were stationary, but it was discovered (via Specificity) they are not all stationary (only one is)--where these two different transformations are akin is that they go from a more local perspective to a more universal perspective, or from an "anchored to self" perspective to an "anchored to the thing the self-moves relative to".

One might say that Lorentz first postulated a theory to explain the newly discovered apparent constancy of the speed of light behavior found in experimentation, while keeping the universe fixed; so how is Specificity any different? It's true that Lorentz's Ether theory (LET) was the first to do this, and his frame work is built into Specificity; however, Lorentz, like Einstein, made a tacit assumption too, which was space and time were absolute, and his ether theory never really got away from that assumption remaining an assumption. Specificity did, it proved the assumption under Lorentz Ether Theory was true, even if we cannot construct measuring tools today to detect which inertial frame is universally stationary. Specificity does devise such an experimental device that can determine which frame is universally stationary, if we can construct precise enough clocks--that's in my 8th paper.

To sum up, the basis for Universal Specificity rests on validated assumptions, that is on validated generalizations, thanks to the method I used. And the implications from those are shocking. I could use someone willing to dive into the technical details and critique my work. Anyone interested?

I can tell you that at least some people think the ideas are good, as my discoveries and ideas are cropping up in more and more places (in other people's work) ever since I finalized my work a year ago and started pushing it out there. This is what a scientific revolution would look like today, and you can become a part of it (or even a part of history maybe). Review my work and judge for yourself as to its merits and significance.

YouTube link to playlist introducing the ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Wfn0hrZoQ&list=PLlSHZz935Kv0k5Lq2K_5kwBGOsuixWT-o&pp=gAQBiAQB

GitHub link to the papers and their revision history: https://github.com/mr082844/Investigations_into_Universal_Specificity

Attached is the 6th paper in my investigation into Universal Specificity which both kinematic and gravitational time dilation under total time dilation with a common cause. The rest can be found at the GitHub link.