Strange

So we agree. But there always comes a point where the question can't be answered.

In general science can't answer that question. Outside of metaphysics and religion, nothing can answer that question.

And as he/she/it can't be bothered to do that, why should I care about him/her/it. Insipid drivel.

So he is a terrorist, then?

You might find caustics relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)?

There is an excellent BBC Radio program called Inside the Ethics Committee which looks at the difficult decisions that doctors, patients and carers often have to make about medical treatment. They face profound life-changing (possibly life-ending) decisions. This is not "only entertaining". (Not to be confused with the program The Moral Maze, which claims to explore moral issues but is just an excuse for tabloid journalists to hurl insults and logical fallacies at each other. I assume it is supposed to be entertaining but it just serves to confirm what scum tabloid journalists are. Yes Daily Mail, I am looking at you.)

This page has good overview of the issues re defining species http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Gravity. And the lack of an external force to make them change. In other words: inertia. (If you want to be metaphysical about it, it is because they can't be bothered to change.)

We can define a coordinate system for space (and time) without the presence of any particles. Therefore space-time can exist without any matter or energy. In fact, theoretical physicists sometimes use such models to understand how space-time behaves. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution_(general_relativity)#Examples In your model, it looks like space would only be infinite if there were an infinite number of particles. Why do you assume that is the case? Well, congratulations on being interested and imaginative. The next step is to learn a little bit more about what current models say before trying to extend or overthrow them!

I am not aware of any direct effects on us. However, the moon causes tides and they have an idea fife the on some organisms on or near coasts.

The statistics of the correlations only matches the case where the polarisation (spin) is undetermined, not when they are determined (hidden variables). Read this and try to *understand* it instead of rejecting it because you think it is wrong http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

You haven't shown that there is any bad assumption. (You may believe there is, but that is hardly relevant, given the level of expertise you have demonstrated.)

That conjecture seems highly unlikely as this thought experiment was created by Einstein in order to explain the relativity of simultaneity.

But never forget that, in science, these creative endeavours have to be tested (experimentally) against reality. Otherwise they are just-so stories.

It is true that the escape velocity at the event horizon is c, but that is not the reason you can't escape. Even though this is often given as the reason. After all, you can leave the surface of the Earth, temporarily, at less than the escape velocity but you can never leave a black hole. The reason is tha space is so curved that there are no paths that lead out of the event horizon.

Also, how exactly do the peaks and valleys of the wave influence the path of the particle? Also, if these are "energy waves" where does the energy go? Does something stop the waves when the particle is detected?

Is this an example of the Venturi effect? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

From the point of view of someone on the train, the bullet will go past at 2000 mph (and gradually fall to the ground). Form the point of view of someone standing beside the train as it passes, the bullet will just fall to the ground. This is related to the interesting fact that bullet fired from a gun will fall to the ground at the same rate as one just dropped.

This is a science forum. There is already a scientific theory that explains how quantum "particles" (fields) behave. This is able to explain things like superposition, entanglement and predict the outcome of experiments such as the dual-slit (as well as variants such as the delayed choice). You have a vague explanation based on what science tells us. But what use is it? It isn't science, because it has no predictive power. You could not have used it to predict the wave-particel nature, you could not have used it to predict the results of the dual slit experiment, if you didn't already know these things. It is not science, it is a fairy tale to explain what we already know. So what is the point? So you admit you are retrofitting your explanation to what is already known from a scientific theory?

Electrons are point particles and so have no shape. This is the challenge of reading popular science articles!

You are basing this on the known fact that single particles can produce an interference pattern, for example. Would you have predicted this before the *scientific* theory did? How does your idea explain delayed choice experiments? Can it predict *anything*?

What is electric charge?

So apart from retrofitting an explanation to things we already know (I.e. predicted by theory) does your idea have any use? For example, can you predict (quantitatively) anything? And how does this fit with delayed choice experiments?

Tides have an effect on organisms living in tidal regions. That is probably about it. That sounds implausible. A wave? What sort of wave? That is one source of natural background radiation, which is one source of mutations that can lead to variations in the genome, which is required for evolution. So a very small effect.

Apart from: 1. Magnetism attracts and repels. Gravity only attracts. 2. You can shield magnetism but not gravity. 3. Gravity falls of with an inverse square law while magnetism follows an inverse cube law 4. All forms of mass and energy (and pressure and momentum flow and ...) cause gravity but not magnetism. 5. And on and on. So certainly not "everything". Your opinion has little value. You should learn the basics of physics.