Talking about Pet theories??? Cycle You tout your pet theories as well. Seems your theory trumps mine. Wow. So how has you pet theories helped you? Why don't you have a working device then? With all your simulators and theory you still have nothing. In fact from your pet theories has anything ever been made that shows gain? No? I wonder why? Maybe the pet theories of yours are so wrong and rightly designed that way that we will never be able to gain period.
It's all theory and if we do not explore new theories then we will be sitting here for eons wasting our time. In fact Newman said the very same thing! You lock you mind up and throw away the key because your theory says that what runs nature is abhorrent. They make up things like electrons and pose it as a real entity when all it is, is a fudge factor like most of your Pet theory states quite clearly. Ignore the obvious and take others ideas of the absurd as fact. Again why hasn't your pet theories gained you anything?
Russ you are surrounding yourself with bad influences. They distract you from the truth and revel in it. Listen to Newman about that.
Ok I think I'm gonna back away from this. Cya later...
Think about the Electric Universe concept and you will see that there is a new understanding of the Plasma that exists in this ELECTRIC Universe..
Butthurt much? You slinked away for days, now you're back spewing ad hominems, only to tuck tail and slink away yet again.
No one was misinterpreting things except for you, and you did so in a disingenuous attempt at patchworking de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory into your pet theory while redefining its precepts. When confronted on this, you became defensive, then ran away.
I have no "pet theory", I subscribe wholly to quantum mechanics, the one mathematical model of our universe which has proven itself accurate to better than one part in one billion, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and is predictive
. Although I do entertain the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory as a viable alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation... which is not unusual... it's becoming more widely accepted every day, it's intuitive, and it's certainly not some crackpot theory (like yours... which says matter cannot be converted to energy and vice versa, in direct contradiction to empirically obtained data)... it was postulated by Max Born, fleshed out and presented by Louis de Broglie, and made more popular by David Bohm... all eminent physicists. (You'll remember that it was Louis de Broglie who first revealed that the mathematics of quantum mechanics predicted that massive particles would exhibit wave-like properties... then conceived of how they do that by fleshing out Born's hypothesized Pilot Wave Theory.)