The only real paradox in my theory is not found in the mathematics. It’s not in the physics either — which is rigorously derived, peer-reviewed, and published across more than 20 academic papers. The paradox is in the response: or rather, the lack of one.
Elementary Cycles Theory offers something extraordinary — a unified description of quantum and classical mechanics, of gauge interactions and gravitation, of the foundations of time and causality. These are the kinds of results that, in any fair system, should make physicists jump out of their chairs. But instead of debate, challenge, or even attempted falsification, the response has been silence. Ignored not because it’s wrong, but because it dares to propose something fundamentally new — and perhaps because it wasn’t stamped with the right institutional labels.
This is the paradox: a revolutionary framework is here, its validity certified by rigorous peer review — and yet the scientific community looks away. And platforms like arXiv, which claim to be open, have actively contributed to suppressing visibility.
So I ask: what does it take to be heard when the science is sound, but the system fears disruption?
Lascia un commento