i have proof!

[WilbyInebriated]

Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known.

wrong. coherent means:
â€"adjective
1. logically connected; consistent: a coherent argument.
2. cohering; sticking together: a coherent mass of sticky candies.
3. having a natural or due agreement of parts; harmonious: a coherent design.
4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed phase relationship, as in coherent light.

So, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.

could you specify which unexplained behaviors your red herring pertains to?

[TinselKoala]

wrong. coherent means:
â€"adjective
1. logically connected; consistent: a coherent argument.
2. cohering; sticking together: a coherent mass of sticky candies.
3. having a natural or due agreement of parts; harmonious: a coherent design.
4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed phase relationship, as in coherent light.
could you specify which unexplained behaviors your red herring pertains to?

Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly.

It's  not up to me to show how somebody else's weak conjectures predict and explain any currently unexplained phenomena. That is what a THEORY is supposed to do. I am asking for the creator of the "Theory" outlined here to list one or more currently unexplained behaviours that his "theory" explains or predicts. Any real theory of anything can do this -- it's what theories do.

Your trolling is getting pretty weak, maybe you need to go back to sleep under your bridge for a while.

[WilbyInebriated]

Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly.

It's  not up to me to show how somebody else's weak conjectures predict and explain any currently unexplained phenomena. That is what a THEORY is supposed to do. I am asking for the creator of the "Theory" outlined here to list one or more currently unexplained behaviours that his "theory" explains or predicts. Any real theory of anything can do this -- it's what theories do.

Your trolling is getting pretty weak, maybe you need to go back to sleep under your bridge for a while.

still engaging in logical fallacies i see... 

what part of the definition do you have trouble understanding? you said "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." nowhere, i repeat, NOWHERE in the definition of that word does it say anything remotely close to what you said. furthermore, something can be coherent without "sticking together with what is already known".  it does this by being logically connected; consistent... as per the definition.

your fallacies are getting pretty weak, maybe you need to brush up...

[Omnibus]

still engaging in logical fallacies i see... 

what part of the definition do you have trouble understanding? you said "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." nowhere, i repeat, NOWHERE in the definition of that word does it say anything remotely close to what you said. furthermore, something can be coherent without "sticking together with what is already known".  it does this by being logically connected; consistent... as per the definition.

your fallacies are getting pretty weak, maybe you need to brush up...

Never mind sticking together with what's already known. If what is proposed is internally contradictory it is indeed incoherent. Such a proposal isn't even a theory. Internally contradictory proposal is simply called nonsense. You'll shoot down that thing right there if you can point out the internal contradiction.

[Bizzy]

Hi David,
As several have asked is there a way for you to physically prove your theory. Or perhaps give us a simplied diagram of what you are discussing so we can examine and digest it.
Thanks
Bizzy