It's useless because you aren't offering justifications for your assertions and we're not willing to accept vapid assertions.
More ad hoc attempts are rationalisation. We can track individual particles in some experiments, they do not line up in the way you're describing. There's not only no evidence that particles arrange themselves in the way you describe, there's evidence they don't!
And you can provide no working model based on this principle which gets close to experiments.
No, it doesn't 'explain' anything. It only counts as an explanation if you can demonstrate it leads to behaviour seen in experiments. What you mean is you find the concept personally appealing and therefore you think it's work looking at. As has been said many times to you, the fact something might not be disproven doesn't mean it's worth the same amount of consideration as anything else.
To give an example of that from elsewhere in science there's a large "Teach the controversy" push by bat shit ignorant creationist nut jobs in the US. Their line is that because science cannot disprove "God did it" then creationism should be taught along side evolution in schools and the kids be allowed to make up their mind. But the reasoning fails a couple of ways. Firstly the non-scientific nature of creationism means it shouldn't be taught in science class, at most it should be discussed in religion classes. Secondly whose version of creationism? There's as many versions as there are religions, should we teach them all? What about other ideas? I could say "The universe came about from dragons fighting one another and their breath fire was the big bang!", should that now also be taught in science class? Of course not, teaching every possible alternative explanation, regardless of merit or evidence, is ridiculous.
You're trying to do the same here. You come up with some interpretation of phenomena you don't have any experience with and you think it's worth serious consideration, despite having no working models. It isn't. Why should I consider your views over any of the other hacks here? What makes your ideas right and theirs wrong? Normally if someone asked that question about a mainstream model the justification comes in the form of experimental validation, quantitative models, logical constructions leading to tested predictions. But you can't provide any of that so until you do no one should take your claims as anything more than "Because I say so".
No, the book doesn't deserve something. Your website lacks any viable quantitative models and you expect people to give you money to get the details? Why would anyone want to 'enter deep in the theory' when you've given them no reason to think you have anything worth reading?
If you really think you're onto something then making your work freely available will, in the long run, net you more money. If you have something viable then by getting published in journals will lead, eventually, to a job in research and they pay more than $25. Replacing quantum mechanics and relativity would lead to fame and fortune. Nobel Prizes pay out close to a million bucks! So the fact you hide your details behind a pay barrier suggests you don't really believe you're onto something.
Why do you think you're in any position to tell anyone about maths and physics. You don't have any working knowledge in university level stuff, never mind research level. You've never written work good enough to be published. You haven't worked in the research community. You haven't done any experiments or worked with experimental data properly.
Seriously, given you don't know even university level relativity or quantum mechanics, how can you say anything about its problems? All your knowledge seems to be on a superficial layperson level. What few equations you do write down on your website are light more than high school level. As such you can't critique things like quantum mechanics properly, all you can do is read a pop science layperson explanation and then disagree with that.
Can you provide a quantitative model of this which leads to predictions consistent with experiments? If so please do so.
You seriously think sections 4.2 and 4.3 amount to a proper discussion of how electrons and photons interact? I see nothing more than vapid assertions and a complete failure to construct a viable model. And you think 4.11 explains a replacement for the Standard Model? You don't provide any replacement! To replace the SM you would have to demonstrate it can explain/model all the things the SM can. You don't demonstrate you can model anything.
Where's you calculation of g-2 in electromagnetic processes? Where's your calculation of the running coupling of the strong force? Where's the isospin-mass relation of hardons? Where's the scattering cross section for .... anything? The fact you think 4.2, 4.3 and 4.11 offer anything in the way of replacing mainstream models shows how staggeringly ignorant you are of even the basic premise of science. The number of phenomena the SM can accurately model, the related experimental data and the derivation of those models can literally fill libraries! The LHC can produce terabytes of data every second! All of which, at present, the SM can describe.
You really should actually open a book on either experimental particle physics or an introduction to quantum mechanics. You need to realise just how far behind you are and how far from anything viable your assertions are.
