JosephStang

You clearly don't understand the thing I have clearly described that you are attempting to discuss and failing. I never said anything about a Holonomic guiding wave. That's obviously impossible.

This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. Your appeal to authority is unreasonable in the face of your clear inability to understand the simple geometry I am describing.

It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one.

Someone asked me to describe the Aharonov Bohm effect with the theory, so I did. I'm not even saying anyone's math is wrong. All I'm saying is that the geometry I'm describing is the logical explanation. It's true that mathematical testing is one purpose of experimentation but logical understanding is just as important. This is the most logical understanding. As far as the program, the NASA engineer did the math and gave me the equations and I tried programming it into a simulation. It was a team effort. That isn't a complicated thing to understand.

Bohm might have been an excellent mathematician, but I am not. I'm excellent at logic and programming. I was asked by a NASA engineer to help him program his theory, but it didn't explain quantum physics. I added a travelling wave to his theory and it now explains quantum physics. I described a geometry no one has described or conceived before. I can't do the math. Occam's razor says this is the theory. It can obviously be used to explain logically with words alone every aspect of quantum strangeness. Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Why can't I? As far as Bohmian non-locality, I suppose that would be action on the other side of the time manifold in the Holonomic field, but no one has ever measured that so I don't feel the need to explain it. Bohmian locality with my theory as the base explains all apparently spooky action as deriving from 3D hidden variables. Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle. In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle. Dear Moderator: let's agree this isn't personal. I've said quite a few times I can't do the math while describing this totally new geometry. How should I characterize responses that demand I do the math after I've said repeatedly I can't do the math? Thanks in advance for the rhetorical advice.

It's an example of Bohmian locality. Please understand the difference in the definitions.

Right. Toroid, not circle. Thanks for the correction. The rest of it is just you admitting you can't visualize the geometry.

Please reread the description of the geometry. It's very clear. The circle spins at light speed. There is a travelling wave on it. Because the circle spins at light speed, the wave goes faster than light without any of the circle going faster than light. To demonstrate, get on a train. Make a wave with your arm. The speed of the wave on your arm will be its speed relative to your body plus the train's speed. This is simple geometry.

When I say Haramein field, I'm not talking about his math. I just mean a toroidal pilot wave. Your knee jerk accusation of pseudo-science is illogical in the face of a geometry that would clearly create a toroidal pilot wave that accomplishes Bohmian Holonomy. If you can't approach this totally new geometry with anything other than Occam's razor, you should definitely exit the discussion.

Bohm's response to Bell's inequalities specifically dealt with the definition of locality. In its essence, Bohm described a pilot wave that perfectly carried the hidden variables that Bell's inequalities claim cannot reproduce quantum effects with sub light information. Bell was correct. Bohm is also correct. The pilot wave caused by the Holonomic Toroid is the Haramein field. It works in both STL and FTL. To discuss the Holonomic Toroid correctly, we have to start from first principles. This is true because the HT radically reinvisions all QP theory. As for specifics regarding all measured quantum strangeness, we need to program it and with math. I'm not a mathematician. For that I would need help. It was correct to discard the ether. I'm not supporting it. I'm describing pure flow constrained to the shape of the Holonomic Toroid. Ether is a useful word to describe pure flow. As far as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it should be easy to engineer a scenario with the Holonomic Toroid such that lower order waves in phase with higher order waves interact without the higher order waves interacting.

I'd like to speak further on the claim of animus. I described a geometry. I said "This geometry has 3 straight lines and 3 angles." In response, someone accused me of providing "word salad," because I included no math. The two possible explanations for that accusation are animus or inability to recognize the unique geometry. Responding with the accusation due to inability is a form of animus. Regardless of the geometry's ability to model Quantum Physics, the geometry itself is existential beauty. It shows how information can be carried at faster than light speed without any of the geometry going faster than light. It deserves respect. If you cannot show the proper respect to the geometry, that is a personal failing of yours. Please act accordingly.

The Toroid is not "massive". Mass is an effect of the first order wave, gravity of the second, and dark matter/energy of the third. As far as pure velocity, we use to believe in an ether. The pure velocity I describe is like the ether, but contained in the shape of the Toroid. I didn't say the Compton radius proves the electron and proton are the same. I said it proves they both have classical radii. I'm happy to answer questions that relate exactly to words I have said. When responses do not relate to words I have said, and it's clear there is animus behind them, I respond with animus. That's fair. The competing theory was despised by every big name quantum Physicist because it was not real and local. In other words, 3D. This locality is achieved by Bohmian Holonomy. In other words, all the hidden variables are represented by the 3D geometry. Because it is a 3D geometry, it is inherently superior to any non 3D theory. Since it can be engineered to accomplish all the QP strangeness, it logically claims the high ground. When you respond, you should make it clear that you understand that the proposed geometry is a completely new description that is a self contained system regardless of the math used to describe it. This is true because the geometry is a real geometry without any need to resort to math for its description.

You don't have the ability to imagine? What if I said visualize? Can you do that?

Pure nonsense is not a logical response to a Holonomic 3D geometry. The Compton radius shows that electrons have a scattering radius just like protons. Please provide sane logical responses. Thanks.

Your response is word salad. The described geometry has infinite information depth. It is a 3D geometry. Why would I have to specify position variables while describing a 3D geometry? I agree there is no math. Geometry is not math. I think it's clear from your response that you did not understand the description of the geometry, or you don't understand the difference between geometry and math. As far as electrons and protons being nothing alike, please Google the Compton radius.