>>11757037My point is that calling it a wave particle duality is irrational. Light has inertia, which is why large masses bend it's path and looks to have quanta(looks like a particle), and it perturbates, which is why you get that wave-like pattern when sensing it.
Therefore, light, and all energy, amounts to a field-circuit of inertia. This is what it must be as a thing cannot be two separate, contradictory things at the same time. The duality of light is precisely this assertion.
As it stands, quantum people separate the mass, or inertia, from the wave. I'm saying that both are just different ways of representing the same thing - a 3d inertial field-circuit. One represents the quanta of energy, the other qualia. The reason the math checks out is because given the context of analyzing only quanta or qualia, the wave or the particle is sufficient. My issue with the duality is that it is only a sufficient way to represent energy on paper, it isn't how energy actually exists.
>>11757048>I'm upset that you disagree.>You care less about the history of my field than the reality of it.>You are the smoothbrain here.lol
>>11757068When quantum faggots say "No evidence" to answer a question of a lack of contradiction they are based and infallible like here
>>11756703When I say the exact same thing, I'm inventing proof.
Real, high IQ stuff.
Good work.
>>11757715>not my jobOk. Thanks for sharing.
>>11757063Good, getting temp banned from places only because I upset monkeys who won't think shows me I'm saying something worthwhile.
Rent free, my friend, rent free.
