Dear Janko,
You say: "1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere."
I don't understand your "consciousness is QM" or why you think that the gravitational field is not everywhere. The C-field is everywhere that there is moving mass (or changing gravity), and has little significance elsewhere. As I say in my essay, the C-field provides a "hidden variable"-like interpretation of QM based on the volition aspect of the C-field. So perhaps this is what you mean by "consciousness is QM".
and "2. Let us concentrate on your Lorentz force and 'GEM' force equations. For instance, symmetry between electrostatic and gravitational force. But, in quantum world, these two forces are not symmetric. Gravity describe space, electrostatic force is important at photon and charged particles (not absolutely true). Screening of charge is different than screening of gravitational mass."
Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. The equations are 'formally' symmetric and therefore 'beautiful', but I am not a worshiper of symmetry, and would not want a pure symmetric universe, as I believe symmetry is a limiting factor. In fact, QED and QCD do *not* have symmetry, but only "approximate" symmetry in *all* cases. For full symmetry to hold, the particles must have the same mass, and this is not the case. And the Higgs that is needed for mass and to 'break symmetry' is unneeded since the G/C-field explains mass and breaks chiral symmetry, as required.
And the 'screening' you mention depends upon pos and neg charge. There can be no screening with single-valued mass. So what? There are other questions about screening that go beyond the scope of a comment.
"It also seems to me that your theory does not describe how the space emerge from nothing."
That is correct, and I do not believe that any theory really describes how space emerges from nothing, nor ever will -- perhaps poetically, but not physically. A field implies space, (and you state above that gravity describes space) but how fields or space arise from nothing is unanswerable, and possibly not even a meaningful question.
You say: "Markopoulou has approach where space is emergent (fqxi contest from last year). I support it. Number of three dimensions is consequence of some logic,"
I have been surprised at the number of Platonists who have argued in this forum, but I do not believe that physics comes from math or from logic (a subset of math). This is a religious belief that I do not subscribe to. Arguing about God preceding the universe or about math preceding the universe is the same metaphysical exercise. I've addressed this extensively elsewhere in these comments. And my essay begins by explaining how the 'laws of physics' are not 'outside of physics', something that Platonists apparently do not believe.
You say "Space-time also do not exist without matter."
Another belief that seems to make sense, but cannot be proved. My theory assumes that the G/C-field exists at the big bang, and the field energy has mass equivalence, so I guess this satisfies your statement.
and "All physical quantities should be connected between themselves and explained. Even space, matter and consciousness." I believe that my theory is the only one that connects all of the physical quantities, to such an extent that it predicts no new particles will be found at the Large Hadron Collider. What does your theory predict?
Thanks for the above arguments. I hope I've addressed some of them.
Edwin Eugene Klingman