Seems to me that Einstein occasionally assigned an "inherent potential" to stuff.
What is that supposed to mean?
Again please provide a reference and also please explain why this is relevant to your incorrect claims about Bohm?
What do you mean "falsification"? The problem with the StackExchange post is that it uses relativistic mass which confuses people like you who don't seem to be able to keep it separate from mass and which is a point made and acknowledged by the author in the comments below the post on StackExchange.
It was you who decided to hunt down loads of irrelevant stuff instead of just admitting that what you said about Bohmian mechanics had no basis in what Bohm or anyone else actually said. It is not my fault if you decided to demonstrate by example that you don't know what you are talking about instead of just admitting it.
My word for what?
What Bohm paper? If you've linked it I've missed it.
Please, give me a break. You are just resisting constructive exchange.
And which you vehemently opposed accompanied by ad hominem.
Then say which Bohm paper you mean. As far as I can see you've linked a Wiki page and a Results in Physics paper and a StackExchange post none of which support your "inherent potential" nonsense.
No. My position is that it has no mass. I never said anything about relativistic mass and your continuing inability to distinguish between mass and relativistic mass is your problem not mine.
OFF TOPIC!!!
What Bohm? Then why did you bring him up?
Where did I say they are the same? You want to play games, go play in the sandbox.
Photons are particles. It seems you are wholly unfamiliar with Bohmian Mechanics. You may want to check it out.
Post #42 where you said "@ c , it's mass is the equivalent of its energy divided by c^2" which is wrong unless you are confusing mass and relativistic mass and post #45 where you said "[energy divided by \(c^2\)] is mass!" which is wrong unless you are confusing mass and relativistic mass and post #99 where you said "If a photon never has any kind of mass" which is not what the StackExchange article says and is only the same as what I've said if you are confusing mass and relativistic mass.
I'm not unfamiliar with it but I've never read anything about Bohmian mechanics claiming what you said it did which is why I asked for a freaking reference which you have not provided instead choosing to offer irrelevant links so I can only conclude this is because it doesn't say what you say it does.
Don't be ridiculous!
I can’t learn anymore
By the way I’ve gotten two different hypothesis from other members on my main theory so could you please stop closing my thread. It’s disheartening to hear extrapolation from sources you trust guide your decisions.