I am curious how you decide what is controversial. When photons were discussed during physics, how did you come to the conclusion that photons did not exist? There was nothing in the Bible to guide you to this conclusion.
What should I conclude about your knowledge of physics when you claim that the spin on a photon 'comes from what phase the wave is in'
Or when you ask "Does a boson of any flavor even have any mass", why shouldn't I conclude that you don't know the definition of 'boson'? After all you don't have to accept the standard model to know whether a helium nucleus has mass. Did you conclude that the basic stuff that you were learning in chemistry about the periodic table was indoctrination and to be rejected? If so, what guided you to that conclusion? Was it the Bible? Surely the existence of helium does not contradict the Bible.
When you ask, "What is so great about 5 standard deviations?" what should I think about your knowledge of statistics? Isn't in fact the significance of that measure rather obvious AND non-controversial?
Some of the stuff you say is just inexplicable using the assumption that you have learned and simply rejected some concepts.
"If they are particles, they possess the phenomena of charge"
Really? You cannot acknowledge even a single particle that has no charge?
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass