Now... I don't know if my info is correct, but I think that most breakthroughs in science have seemed illogical under the eyes of most scientists when they first came into being. Relativity and Quantum Physics... fractional dimensions... little strings that form multidimentional membranes when they vibrate... sounds stupid, right? What was the first thing that proved them right, as fairly good aproximations of what reality looks like? Math, of course
Relativity , Quantum Physics and String Theory are not so big breakthroughs as they may seems. Also for me they are perfectly logical.
I will not argue with you what is the place of mathematics. I only think that math is just an intrument , it depends from logic how it will be used. You can have great math but if you use to find the density of God, or to calculate how many devils can stay on the tip of a needle and other bullshits it will be useless. Logic determines the correct consequence of conclusions, the correct questions and answers. Math only refines logic and gives it quantatve measure.
Whatever. I had not present my theory but only a basic part from its logic. I can't prove it mathematicly because it means solution of a great number of differential equations and other quite heavy tasks. I can however offer experiments for proving it. I can also offer common observation that may prove it indirectly.
I can not compete with QM and GR. After all these are fields in which thousends of people had been working for a lot of time. There must be something usefull . My goal is not to wipe them out, they must just step on a firm basis. It is the same with classical and quantum physics. You can use classical physics equally good and without QM , but QM is a better fundament for classical physics and you can see much more things if you rebuild physics on this new fundament. I believe that case with MAC is the same , it is more firm fundament for both - QM and classical physics.
Besides I am not scared if someone can prove that I am wrong. I will be very happy if this happens because he/she must offer something better. Also you can oppose a theory with logical means, not only with experimental facts. I can not accept something that does not fit in my logic even if entire world tells me that it is so.