I think only my math can validate my theory. The way maths of Newton and Einstein validates gravity, similar is the case with my theory.
You do not 'validate' a theory by mathematics. Also, don't delude yourself by thinking you're doing as Newton and Einstein.
Mathematics provides a formalisation for physical concepts and principles put forth by the person developing the work. It allows a rigorous framework to deduce the logical implications of the assumptions/postulates of the work, particularly in regards to predicting the
precise outcomes of experiments. Mathematics cannot validate a physical theory, it cannot prove "This is correct physics" since mathematics is abstract, it is a logical mental construct used by physics for logical deduction. I can write down a logically consistent mathematical framework which I can then claim describes kinematics in the universe, just as Newton had Newtonian mechanics and Einstein had relativity. My version would be as mathematically sound as Newton and Einstein. So which is right, given the mathematics is fine with all of them? In fact we don't even need to consider me, both Newton and Einstein had mathematically sound formalisations but contradicted one another. Which is right? Maths cannot tell us because mathematics allows us to formalise many more possibilities than physical reality manifests.
Newtonian mechanics uses the Euclidean inner product, special relativity uses the Lorentzian inner product, mathematics allows us to explore infinitely many other possible constructs, each with different inner products. It also allows us to explore the properties which would be inherent to ALL such formalisations, regardless of the choice of inner product. This is part of the power of formalising ideas using mathematics, it allows us to quantify the implications of a huge number of possibilities. If someone were to do an experiment which is in contradiction to a property known to be inherent to ALL inner product formalisations then that would be a huge piece of information, as it would mean an entirely different mathematical construct would have to be used.
Mathematical development and consistency is
necessary for a physical model to be viable as science but it is not
sufficient. Nothing is ever
sufficient to validate a physical model. At best experiments allow us to refute those models which predict things contrary to reality but that isn't enough.
Experiments work as a black list, not a white list. A model passing experimental testing, getting published, even being widely accepted as the dominant method, is not put on a white list of "These are definitely correct" but rather it is
not added to a black list of "These are definitely wrong". When a model is shown to be self contradictory or experimentally invalid it is added to the black list. No amount of work, theoretical or experimental, would ever get a model added to the corresponding white list. "Not known to be wrong" is not the same as "Known to be right".
Oh and the "This isn't formatted problem" and "Our journal is not the most appropriate place for this" are two responses often told to hacks as polite versions of "This is obviously bat shit crazy, you're a nut. GO AWAY". Ask Farsight, he's had plenty of rejections
