..why should professional physicists have a lower standard...
Well, try to define the "height of standard" quantity, please. Should the scientific theory be consistent at logical, rather then formal level - or vice-versa?
For example, Ptolemy's geocentric theory is able to compute the intervals of solar eclipes and planet conjunctions with high precision due its advanced formal approach based on abstract geometry (an epicycle model, in particular) and it was used so for whole medieval age with success.
Whereas heliocentric model is poorly defined in formal way, because it relies of validity of gravitational law and mass of planets, which cannot be measured well. It only enables us to predict order of Venus phases by using of the naive picture bellow. Please consider, this is still the only testable prediction of heliocentric model, because it's formal theory wasn't elaborated yet. No equations means no calculations, it means no quantitative predictions.
Now, suppose the order of Venus phases was observed experimentally in telescope and it was found confirming heliocentric model firmly, whereas denying the geocentric one.
Now the question is: which theory scientists should prefer under such circumstances for future? The quantitative, but falsified qualitatively - or the qualitative with no quantitative predictions?
This example can serve as a quite practical measure of standard preference and priorities in science. Could you explain/support your stance by some rigorous proof?
..After he became famous, he surely was a professional physicist...
I see? Would I become a "proffesional physicist", when becoming famous?
..Have you published in any peer-reviewed journals?...
Are you kidding me? I wasn't allowed to present my ideas even on laymen forums, like this one..
