RE: Geocentricity in Modern Physics
I'd say even the most complex solutions start from simple steps, no? Certainly it does not end with simple, but understanding the most complex is essentially impossible without first grasping simplicity. I don't mean to imply that simple means easy either, it is just a targeting of the most fundamental understanding to then branch out from into other areas that can benefit from it. If our interpretations are "wrinkled" when they are off-center from reality, then it acts as an iron repetitively running over the surface to smooth it, or like using finer and finer sand paper to bring surface roughness to a minimum.
I am not familiar with Emergence Theory but from some quick reading into it, it sounds like an attempt to merge all present mainstream models into one (quantum, relativity, standard model, etc), which is extremely flawed from a logical standpoint. It would be akin to plugging wrong answers from one or several math equations into another math equation and expecting to somehow arrive at the correct answer.
Not to hate on it as I have put very little time looking into it in particular, but I feel present models are approximations that only match observations to a point and then they fall apart because they are simply not accurate descriptions of the infinite universe, so anything that uses the same line of thought is easily recognizable as having the same mistakes. I do notice a focus on consciousness which I like. :D
What are your thoughts on it?
Well, as I am in agreement with you regarding present physics models, and Emergence theory seems to have come from an attempt to proceed from the requirement for an observer that the Copenhagen school insists is the explanation for the double slit experiment, I feel it is flawed from the very outset.
The projection of a 3D quasi-crystal from an 8D crystalline underlying reality I don't really have my head wrapped around, so despite the superficial concatenance with particle physics, I don't hold much stock in it.
I don't really hold much stock in extant theories, as quantum mechanics defies ontological principles, and thus consilience with the rest of science, classical physics continually falls prey to shortcomings, such as dark energy and matter, and even Bohm-de Broglie (Pilot Wave) seems to fail to account for the 'choice' of form that occurs during the double slit experiment, although it presents a decent rationale for how particles do incorporate waveforms.
String theory simply makes no falsifiable predictions, and essentially can be twisted to any potential form, so it's more like a variety of potential descriptions rather than a theory of the universe.
I'm yet to fully grasp how gravity might create electromagnetism as you propose, so I am not yet fully behind your theory either. I haven't written it off, but can't fully endorse it until I feel I completely understand it.