If we were to admit the postulate of relativity, we would find the same number in the law of gravitation and the laws of electromagnetism—the speed of light—and we would find it again in all other forces of any origin whatsoever. This state of affairs may be explained in one of two ways: either everything in the universe would be of electromagnetic origin, or this aspect—shared, as it were, by all physical phenomena—would be a mere epiphenomenon, something due to our methods of measurement.  How do we go about measuring? The first response will be: we transport solid objects considered to be rigid, one on top of the other. But that is no longer true in the current theory if we admit the Lorentzian contraction. In this theory, two lengths are equal, by definition, if they are traversed by light in equal times.

Perhaps if we were to abandon this definition Lorentz’s theory would be as fully overthrown as was Ptolemy’s system by Copernicus’s intervention. Should that happen someday, it would not prove that Lorentz’s efforts were in vain, because regardless of what one may think, Ptolemy was useful to Copernicus.

M. H. Poincaré (1906). Sur la dynamique de l’électron. In: Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo 21.1, pp. 129–175. Translated by Scott Walter In J. Renn (ed.), The Genesis of General Relativity Vol. 3: Theories of Gravitation in the Twilight of Classical Physics; Part I (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 201)

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the “Schwarzschild singularities” do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The “Schwarzschild singularity” does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity

A. Einstein, “On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses,” The Annals of Mathematics, vol. 40, Art. no. 4, Oct. 1939

Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. It has been worked out in great detail to form a scheme of admirable logical consistency that has been inculcated ever since to every young student of theoretical physics.

The view I am opposing is so widely accepted, without ever being questioned, that I would have some difficulties in making you believe that I really, really consider it inadequate and wish to abandon it. It is, as I said, the probability view of quantum mechanics. You know how it pervades the whole system. It is always implied in everything a quantum theorist tells you. Nearly every result he pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that … happening ─ with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does behave this way ─ namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid alternatives come into play only when we make an observation-which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it. And I wonder that he is not afraid, when he puts a ten-pound note {or his wrist-watch} into his drawer in the evening, he might find it dissolved in the morning, because he has not kept watching it.

E. Schrödinger (Ed. Michel Bitbol), The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Dublin Seminars (1949-1955 And Other Unpublished Essays). Ox-Bow Press, Connecticut, USA, 1995

In biology we are faced with an entirely different situation. A single group of atoms existing only in one copy produces orderly events, marvelously tuned in with each other and us number of with the environment according to most subtle laws. I said existing only in one copy, for after all we have the example of the egg and of the unicellular organism. In the following stages of a higher organism the copies are multiplied, that is true. But to what extent? Something like 10¹⁴ in a grown mammal, I understand. What is that! Only a millionth of the number of molecules in one cubic inch of air. Though comparatively bulky, by coalescing they would form but a tiny drop of liquid. And look at the way they are actually distributed. Every cell harbours just one of them (or two, if we bear in mind diploidy). Since we know the power this tiny central office has in the isolated cell, do they not resemble stations of local government dispersed through the body, communicating with each other with great ease, thanks to the code that is common to all of them? Well, this is a fantastic description, perhaps less becoming a scientist than a poet. However, it needs no poetical imagination but only clear and sober scientific reflection to recognize that we are here obviously faced with events whose regular and lawful unfolding is guided by a ‘mechanism’ entirely different from the ‘probability mechanism’ of physics

Schrodinger, What is Life? (Canto Classics). Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Completeness: To be complete a theory of gravity must be capable of analyzing from “first principles” the outcome of every experiment of interest. It must therefore mesh with and incorporate a consistent set of laws for electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and all other physics. No theory is complete if it postulates that atomic clocks measure the “interval” $\dd\tau = (-g_{\alpha\beta}\dd x^{\alpha}\dd x^{\beta})^{1/2}$ constructed from a particular metric. Atomic clocks are complex systems whose behavior must be calculated from the fundamental laws of quantum theory and electromagnetism. No theory is complete if it postulates that planets move on geodesics. Planets are complex systems whose motion must be calculated from fundamental laws for the response of stressed matter to gravity.

A. Einstein, “On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses,” The Annals of Mathematics, vol. 40, Art. no. 4, Oct. 1939

Q-thruster physics model formally is a non-local hidden variables theory or a pilot wave theory, and so what is a pilot wave theory?  Pilot wave theories are a family of realist interpretations of quantum mechanics that maintain that the probabilistic nature that we see from quantum mechanics is due to some sub-quantum dynamics that explains that stochasticity. Said a different way in in the pilot-wave theory reality is deterministic at the microscopic level, and said another way microscopic particles in the pilot wave point-of-view follow real trajectories over time just like larger classical bodies.

G. White. Q thrusters. In Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device, Breakthrough Discuss – Day Two, 2018.