0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm not sure this counts as a theory.
As far as I'm aware it hasn't been tested. At best it's a hypothesis.
In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) is constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[1]A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
I think that as engineers we tend to use the term, theory, much as the general population thinks of it. Physicists place more importance tests and acceptance by other physicists. The last paragraph in the quoted text says it.This is Wiki on Scientific Theory Quote from: the articleIn the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) is constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[1]A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
At last, something expressed in simple english. Your concept of high energy and low energy dot waves is intriguing. But I have a problem with your opening para. Isn't photonic energy, as you put it, exactly the same as electromagnetic energy. Wasn't that Maxwell? How do you separate the two? Is it a nascent potential of some kind?I like the concept of neutral bipolar dot waves. But how does the spin produce a particle? And why three gyroscopic planes? If they're neutral waves, then wouldn't they just move in synch? And why then are stable particles composed of not less than three sub-particles? Is it because they somehow attenuated by those planes? Every particle, sub-particle, plus charge, minus charge, plus magnetic photon, minus magnetic photon, gravitational photon, and photon is composed of the dot-waves. Empty space itself is packed with dot-waves.I'm absolutely with you here. It sort of fits with my own idea - that particles are composites of a fundamental particle. For some reason you need that fundamental 'thing' to be a wave? Is there a reason for this? You've lost me with these dimensions. If there's a separation between these dimensions it must surely be defined? What I'm actually asking is this. A tiny difference in their time dimensions would not account for the known paradox of paired particles' simultaneous adjustment of spin - a non-local effect?I can sort of buy that the world is sandwiched between t- and t+ but if they both have three dimensions of space we're left with twelve dimensions, the mechanical (us) having its own time and three space dimensions. Does that fit with string theories? I would have thought it's at least 2 dimensions too many. I know that there is one theory where 11 dimensions are used. I've never heard of 12? The bipolar dot-waves live within the mechanical universe. The plus dot-waves live within the plus electrical universe and the minus dot-waves live within the minus electrical universe. There is a constant flow of plus and minus dots into the mechanical universe and visa-versa. The dot-waves exhibit different characteristics depending upon which universe they are operating in.I like those symmetries.I can't get my head around the thought that electic or mangnetic fields could be stationary. And what is a photonic field?JerryGG38 - I think I see where you're going with this. I have no idea how to guage whether it's right or wrong because I cannot understand your equations. In effect the manfest - our world - is forever being 'coupled and decoupled' from what you term those gyroscopic planes. I'm in no position to argue it's merits. But it does seem to lack a certain logical cohesion. Perhaps it's in the math?Still struggling with this.
Thanks for the good answers. First thing I did when I got back was check this post. Delighted to find that you'd responded to the questions. So patient - JerryGG38! And I'm in awe of your knowledge. But I first have to digest your answers before I can 'move on' so to speak. Don't rip up any more of your ideas. At least not until I've had a chance to try and catch up with them.