Comment to TimcastIRL

Tim, I had to rewrite the comment because YouTube deleted it. Probably because they’d call it misinformation.
Anyway, note the username.
Okay. The whole double slit experiment thing perfectly demonstrates how mainstream science is incorrect when it comes to the Standard Model.
They believe that particles are made up of pieces of matter comprised of many other pieces of matter yet they call it “fundamental.” No. It would be comprised of “one” fundamental piece of matter unique from all others. They go on to believe that “election’s” orbit this matter and the number of these gives the particle it’s properties. Again, incorrect. Something spinning around something isn’t going to create something unique.
Because they realized that light seems to be both, they created the double slit experiment so they could determine whether light was a particle or a wave. But, their misunderstanding of what light is is only compounded by the experiment’s results.
They believe that “observation” magically bestows physical characteristics to matter. On its face this is rediculous. They’ve created a whole new science called Quantum Mechanics eith a bunch of theories and explanations made to fit their failure to understand why the particle, demonstrates an “interference pattern” on the wall behind the two slits. (Proving its a wave) And, why they cant seem to predict where this “change” is going to occur. (Uncertainty principle.)
I have a blog site “thesingularityeffect.wordpress.com” where i get into some of this. My theories are based on the work of a Mr. David LaPoint who once ran a plasma research lab in Canada experimenting with “plasma structures in vacuum.” David made some didcoveries during these experiments and created a video series called “The Primer Fields.” A sort of “video” research paper.
Peer reviee is the strongest testiment to any theory and with today’s internet, believe, these findings have been challenged harshly. And successfully defended i might add.
Particles of matter, (including light) ARE indeed fundamental in nature. Comprised of only one thing. Energy. Particles are understood to be “concentrations of Energy.”
What gives any particle its characteristic’s are how dense the energy is, the size of the particles structure, and its related magnetic field. A particle of solid matter, let’s say, Carbon. Would have a large very dense structure and a very small or weak magnetic field. This would cause it to bump into everything if it had the momentum to do so, thus slowing it down and causing it to easentially “rest “
Light on the other hand would bump into virtually nothing* as the concentration of energy (COE) is an extremely small structure that is not dense at all and has a very large magnetic field.
More information on this can be found at my site in the primer fields catagory.
The reason the double slit experiment is so controversial in my opinion is because it completely validates their hypothesis (Not.) (since they literally made the results fit their theories.)
(*)I said a moment ago that light would bump into virtually nothing. Thats not exacly correctsince we know that it can and will bounce off of surfaces (reflection) can be diverted (refraction) and will interfere even with itself. The statement was to simply illistrate a point.
The reason mainstream science came up with the uncertainty principle is because they cant predict where a particle is at any given time even if they just fired it themselves. My theories however, explain this.
“As the particle travels through the slits it does in fact interfere with itself thus changing it’s direction based on its frequency, sending it to “hit the wall” in the places characteristic of said frequency. (Different freauency, different magnetic field, different interference pattern.)
The reason they cant predict anything is because they fail to realise that when their detector’s come into contact eith the field the entire COE forms at that spot essentially causing the particle to be observed somewhere they didnt expect.
They think that the contact with the field should change the particles direction like it bounced ehen contacting the field. (doesnt work that way.)
Anyway…
I could go on for days. As it is though, this comment is going to cause me headaches for the next three years as I’m going to have to now defend it to every mainstream yahoo with a pencil, the ability to write linear algebra, and perform differential equations. lol
What can I say.. I got triggered! lol