The Observer

This "paper" is one you are referencing? If so, I think you've been had. The first piece of mathematics is in chapter 5 and it makes no sense. It just pulled the equation for momentum out of nowhere, differentiated it and called it the uncertainty? Where did the de broglie momentum equation come from? In what sense is its time derivative its uncertainty? What does it mean to be centred on the time derivative of wavelength? It hasn't been deriving anything, its just throwing in a few known QM equations every so often, with no justification. I'm sorry dude, but this is not how you do physics. Not at all. If you want to debate QM you have to actually develop a theory from the ground up, not describe a some things in words and then drop a bunch of equation derived from the postulates of quantum mechanics where it fits your needs. It said that it would develop the theory of waves in chapters 7-9. But then it didn't. It started right with some work salad about relativity and then stated some known equations from SR. I fear this is a result of the way mathematics/physics was taught in high schools. Just formulas stated outright, with no derivation or actual development of the theory. Also, I'm no professional, but even I can see how flawed this "paper" is.

There are many things I am skeptical about. The uncertainty principle is a really fundamental part of quantum mechanics. But there is nothing strange about this. Are you familiar with the classical uncertainty principle brought in through standard Fourier analysis of waves? There quantum uncertainty principle arises for the same reason. I also don't really know what you mean by wave direction. And what is so weird about superposition? Its just Fourier's theory, that applies to any kind of waves. Sound waves can be decomposed into a superposition of simple waves. Its actually really important for describing the wave packets. Another thing you should know, is that it isn't the philosophical aspects of QM that are incompatible with GR, its the mathematics itself. If you are just shifting points of view then the mathematics will still not work. However you also seem to be saying that the math is different. Which aspects are different? When I saw quantum mechanics for the first time in my second year modern physics class we developed the theory from the ground up mathematically. You will need to do that with your theory as well and make sure you can reproduce all of the accepted science. The double slit experiment is basically just a neat trick, commonly used to show an very visible aspect of the theory but it's hardly important to theory itself. Just explaining that alone is not good enough. Physics is done with mathematics, not wordy philosophical arguments.

It is of my philosophical opinion that if two interpretations give all the same results then there is literally no difference in the theories and it is senseless to say one is correct over the other. Perhaps if your interpretation leads to new insights then it can be of value. If you are just reinterpreting the same maths because you are unhappy with how others are interpreting it then go ahead. But then you are just doing philosophy and not physics... However, I doubt that your formulation as it stands is capable of reproducing the full quantum theory.

A meteor does not need to go nuclear to cause a very serious explosion.

You are reading far to much into the analogies and interpretations given and not nearly enough into the actual mathematics if you ask me. There is nothing weird about the quantum world. Our natural intuition is the weird thing.

What about it exactly was too weird? The media and popular science books really hype it up as "spooky and strange" but if you do a real treatment of it, it really isn't so weird as they make it out to be. If your university was spending a lot of ideas on speculative theories like multiple universes then I would question the particular university you were attending. What level of physics did you make it to if you don't mind me asking? I also think you might be taking Feynman diagrams a little too seriously.

This is a discussion forum, not a place for you to advertise your website.

The integral from a to infinity does not exist if thats what you are asking.

Zero is a set, just like every other number.

The fact that if we want to look closely at it, we have to hit it with something really energetic.

Then you don't have a theory, you have a speculation.

In your first video, each sentence is more or less completely unrelated to the previous sentence. I have no idea what you are talking about, you change topics every 5 seconds. You didn't even give arguments, you just stated a bunch of random things. Unfortunately, that 10% of serial killers in a single study had similar birthdays is not going to convince anybody that you have proven astrology.

Its specific observable behaviour is why we know its there. Its just a name we have given to the fact that the large scale gravitational effects of systems of galaxies doesn't agree with our current models. Its called dark matter cause we can't see it. Its a name for an observation, its not a theory in an of itself.

Why are you writing the press release and not you know, the press?

The proof to which you refer is in the great book A Mathematicians Apology by GH Hardy but I'm quite surprised to hear that you proved it in Grade 10. I suppose an advanced class could have done it, it certainly isn't too hard. However the existence of square roots of all real numbers was quite a bit more advanced than that.

Your grade 10 class proved that the square root of two is irrational?

I've proved the existence of square roots in an analysis class. It takes the completeness axiom and a certain amount of cleverness. There is no way that it is taught in grade 10.

Do you have a link to your data?

Are talking about the real numbers 0 and 1 or the integers 0 and 1?

Its the like joke about clubbing baby seals. Neither interpretation is wrong, its just a poorly written sentence!

I really don't see how you can say that a measurement of root 2 is impossible to measure out precisely and at the same time believe that you can measure out 1 or 2 exactly. We can calculate the values of root two to any precision. Certainly to as precise as you could ever, even theoretically measure. The infinite number zeroes coming after the number aren't written down but in a sense they are still there.

Measure Theory I think you are looking for something like this. Unfortunately it is a somewhat technical subject.

Most kids enjoy getting drunk too. I hardly think that is the issue here.

Or perhaps they will?

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say gravity is just a "metaphor".