I will evade long posts, and answer only shortly, because I cannot afford myself this much time, that I could this week, so here is a quick answer: I'm simply saying that you should do models and explanations on how much is provable and testable and directly observable, none should make models if they are beyond experiments to test and prove. Light bulb is an truly the most ordinary example-on my stuff works website you could see all those explanations regarding how light bulb works-and none of it is testable, since you do not and you cannot test and prove those models that quantum mechanics offers. Quantum mechanics says about atom, atom's nucleus and flow of electrons and etc. but none of this is testable, the only thing you can test is what you can directly observe in this macroworld, and how the light bulb behaves, you cannot create models and hypotheses that are untestable once you mention atoms and electrons-that is my point. The models that are predictive and that actually work are not those models/hypotheses that untestable hypotheses like QM and relativity are or they are misinterpreted at best based on what you can directly observe, models are predictive and do work thanks to experiments and conclusions from experiments, plus non-stop testings and trials and errors. I already posted above I'm not against you scientists making all kinds of hypotheses, but none of you has the right that models/hypotheses like QM, relativity and similar iareactually proven, those hypotheses/models like relativity are misinterpreted on what is actually tested and proven, while QM is pure guess and nothing more. Plus everyone should evade terms and wrong concepts like that something/everything is created from absolutely nothing-like big bang hypothesis claims because that's 100% proven wrong. That's all from me.