I am not saying that the math is not important. However I can give all the math equations I want to describe and predict the effects of the mechanism, such as gravity, but it still does not tell how or why it works. And this is very important because if you do not understand the actual mechanism of how something works, then how can you can you possibly be certain that these equations based upon equations based upon equations are really telling you what you think they are about related mechanisms that interact with the original mechanism.
You are correct that many great discoveries have been made by using math equations dirived from observed effects (since what we don't know is either too small or too big to "see" directly) and many more to come. That is one method of discovery. But you cannot go much beyond the effects of a mechanism without conceptualizing how it actually works. Take gravity for example. Currently it is taught that gravity is an inherient attribute of mass that a "mystical force" reaches out from matter and pulls other matter towards it. This is a cope-out, which basically translates to "we have no &#*^# clue." And it is people like you that blindly and narrowmindedly just accept it as that and, in frustration of not knowing the truth, ridicule those who present a logical alternative theory of the actual mechanism. Incidentally, Albert Einstein was known as "crack pot" at first, since he too conceptualized his theory before he did the math. And he did not completely repair the rift. He brought the two closer together and later denounced his Cosmological Constant and some other work. Then he spent much of his later years trying to come up with a unifying theory. Copernicus was also known as "crack pot", so much so that the church killed him.... So go ahead and pick up your torch to protect your religion, arrogant bishop.
As far as us knowning the phenomenon, that is laughable... If this is the case, give me the exact mechanism for gravity, or what are magnetic lines of force made of exactly and why do they attract/repel. Also why does everyone accept this nonsense that light is both particle and wave. The two are completely exclusive. A wave is defined as energy with no mass moving through a medium and a particle is a mass of matter with structural integrity. It's the same as saying a married bachelor - nonsense. Someone once said, "As someone truly grows wiser, they realize more and more just how little they really know."
If you had read the work, you would have seen that he fully acknowledges it is a work in progress and hopes that many people with more resources and specializations than he explore the mathmatics and the validity of his theory. It is hardly "arm waving" as he has painstakenly tried to account for every unknown/possibly incorrect phenomema he could think of... Some of it is educated guesses based on his main theory, but that's where it all starts. I don't necessarily think all of it is right, but I think it may be the right direction to go in. Instead of casting it aside without analyzing it, come up with why it is wrong (to him, not me as I am not versed enough in his theories to rebut). Because as of yet, no one that I know of has even attempted such a detailed unifying theory to combine the (whether you like to admit it or not) very separate worlds of newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and the theory of relativity. Remember most of these are just that... theories, so don't treat them as laws.