"Crackpot Physics: proving the Slinky Toy Model" proposes an experiment that could be performed in most university physics labs that would either verify the previous ideas or confirm existing theory.

I think it is really remarkable that you have adopted these simple illustrations to explain complicated ideas.

If you think that the use of three and four year old kids, kindergarten math, and simplistic illustrations, in the Slinky Videos is a deliberate attempt to counter the arrogance associated with dogmatic physics, then you get it. Never the less these are also serious videos.

There were great musicians like Beethoven who composed beautiful music, there were wonderful artists like Rembrandt and Raphael who painted beautiful pictures. This doesn’t mean that everyone who can play music can be a Beethoven or that everyone who can pick up a brush is a Raphael. In the same way there were great Mathematicians like Newton and Henri Lorentz, but just because someone knows maths it doesn’t mean that they are gifted in the same way . So yes, some times simple theories serve as well as more complicated ones do. Again, most people like classical music, just not all the time. Preferences differ, sometimes a simpler solution is more preferable than an abstruse complicated and involved one.

Continuing in the same vein, some people might like to describe physical phenomenon solely through mathematics, this would appeal to statistical mathematicians, others ( Faraday is one example)might like to describe physical phenomena in words and through observation and experiment, even though the mathematicians might claim this is impossible. Still, like the description I have given of the

photon , it might describe something in simpler more accurate terms than the more complicated and abstruse mathematical model.