1

General Science / Re: What is centrifugal force?

« on: 17/11/2016 12:08:51 »

Nilak said: Actually light cannot move in a static space beacause it automatically changes the geometry of space as it travels but you can imagine a static homogeneous infinite space before you release a EM wave, which will go straight.
All I want to say is that deviation of light occurs only where and while space changes geometry. Of course if you treat the photon quantum mechanically things get a bit messed up but again the probability to go straight is the highest.
Jerry replied: The question is “To be or not to be”. Does space really exist? Is space something? Somehow magical space does something. If space does not exist and only the electromagnetic fields and the gravitational field exists, plus dark matter and low energy  dark energy photons, then we have to define how things operate in terms of these things. That leads us to classical engineering  type problems and solutions.  So we can look at the universe in terms of properties of space and time or in terms of the stuff within space. We then have two choices, a mathematical solution defined by the properties of space and time and an engineering solution where we seek to understand what is happening within the stuff within space.
  So for the mathematical solution you say that light cannot move in static space because it changes the geometry of space as it travels.  At first these words were strange to me but as I dwell on them for the mathematical solution a light wave must react with space in order to survive. Ok that makes sense for the case where space is something.
Nilak says” By newtonian mechanics, an object that travels in a gravitational filed gains kinetic energy and loses potential energy, hence no energy input. But in there is no gravitational field the object goes straight. If you magically introduce a large object with mass that creates  a gravitational filed, the object will deviate from a straight line. The introduction of the massive object means introducing energy into the system. This means the object genuinely travels straight. To deviate it you need energy.
If the massive object was already present the deviation was already in progress hence no energy transfer.
That is the difference.
Jerry says: There are two possibilities. An object can have its own gravitational field that travels with it or space creates the gravitational field. If an object has its own gravitational field then this field is 13.78 billion light years in size.  Thus what we see in a particle is a focal point of what it is. An alternative is that a particle interacts with the dark energy photonic field to create the gravitational field. In either case space has no properties. Other alternatives is that the various fields are physically separated from each other by tiny differences in time. Thus the positive and negative electric fields never coexist.
  We then have many possibilities from space is nothing to space is everything. Photons can interact with space or photons can be independent of space. Another possibility is that space is merely a different state of the gravitational field. We say that the gravitational field has  deviation in intensity and thus a direction. Yet it is possible for the field to be neutral. Thus the gravitational field can be looked upon as clay that can be molded and twisted into interesting shapes. There are many interesting possibilities for sure.

2

New Theories / Re: What is centrifugal force?

« on: 31/10/2016 13:11:20 »

jerrygg38,

   You still have an effect without a cause. Einstein suggested you could not have motion in an Aether type special arrangement. I would agree because that would produce a preferred direction which violates relativity. The only energy state that does not violate relativity is a spin state of your dot particles. A wave being of the spin particles themselves. Nature makes the most out of the least. All we have are made from neutrons, protons and electrons. All mass might be made from just positrons and negatrons. And they might be made from micro mass in suns as fusion. If the sun was only made of coal and air it would only burn for 20 years. Rather then using up hydrogen it could be the creation of hydrogen from micro mass energy. Removing energy spin by fusion itself.

The standard claim of a BB to create mass short circuits answers that are holistic. Sometimes it is our prejudice that drive us to inaccurate conclusions or stop us from different paths.

  We have no answer for how the universe came to be. To me it is an oscillating space time entity that always existed for billions of billions of cycles forever. What was the first cause? Who knows?
  Who made my dot-waves? The same cause that made the universe. Why does dot-waves move at velocity C?  Same reason.  It the BB the right answer? Perhaps, perhaps not. Is there a better answer or another answer? Who knows? Has science been on a wrong path? Perhaps. Or has science only been slightly off course?
  So we are on a ship going into the unknown. We are in Einstein's elevator and we want to know what lies ahead. To me the BB is basically correct. To others it is not. However eventually man will know the truth.

3

General Science / Re: What is centrifugal force?

« on: 31/10/2016 12:33:16 »

There is something that makes the light go straight. The same thing makes everything travel straight when nothing serious to interact with. To change the course you need to do something. That translates to a force.

Light around a star
  The question of what makes light go straight is the geometric nature of dot-waves. The photonic dot-waves consist of positive and negative charges which are separated by half a wavelength. The same is true of the photon which consists of huge numbers of dot-waves. When the negative dot-wave is at a zero point, the positive dot-waves is at maximum radius. The positive dot-wave attracts the negative and flows toward it. As it does it contracts but the negative expands. Thus the photon is a motor mechanism which goes from a point to a spherical surface and back to a point as it travels at the speed of light C.
  For an object moving at velocity V, it contains billions of billions of photonic oscillations which produce a straight line motion.
  When a photon travels close to a star, it encounters dot-waves traveling around the star. It absorbs some of these mini-photons which produce a new vector image and the photon bends around the star. As it leaves the vicinity of the star into lower gravitational fields, it loses some dot-waves and continues on its way.

4

New Theories / Re: What is centrifugal force?

« on: 28/10/2016 15:33:13 »

Goc siad:When you are climbing the tree of knowledge what test do you have to know you are not out on a limb? Science today no longer questions its position on the tree. Our limb does not provide the tools necessary to understand gravity, magnetism or even what is described as a charge. Labels fix our thoughts to fail exploration. We give ourselves our limitations. Non repeatable experiments are subjective opinion no matter how much you respect the source.
Jerrygg: What you say may be true of main body science with its vested interests. It is sad that people who have spent 20-30 years on string theory have little to do but repeat the same nonsense. You are an outsider and have your theory. Perhaps you should self publish it on kindle. It cost almost nothing. Then you will have a book to offer to others. Who will buy it?  I am not a big bookseller. I do not advertise but my books sell in small volume. The most important thing to me is that some professors of physics ask for a copy when I offer it to them. And who are these people? There are many professors who are not satisfied with the answers that are presently available. If you look up the various reports of professors doing original and new research, there is a small group of people who do not accept that present science has all the answers. Thus they are interested in my books. However I must admit that I am not the greatest writer and present too many new ideas to them. So my work has not been good enough. One wanted me to be part of a seminar at his university and present my theory. But I am too old for that. So perhaps with my latest rewrite "Relativity and the Dot-wave Theory" I have found the right mixture of ideas to appeal to more professors. In any event I get  some good comments from them over the years but my effort has not been good enough. But I still hope that I find the right words to express my theory correctly.

5

New Theories / Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?

« on: 27/10/2016 14:49:30 »

   The science experts here are very knowledgeable. they appear to me to understand Einstein's work quite well. For myself my main interest is his equations which I turn into Doppler components. It was over 50 years ago that I first studied Einstein's equations in physics class. In 1981 I restudied it and compared the equations with the Einsteinian Doppler equations in the classified library. Yet I was not really that interested in relativity and general relativity.
  In my hands  is Relativity (The Special and General Theory) by Albert Einstein First published in 1920 and turned into pdf ebook by Jose Menendez. So I read Einstein's words and look at the experts and compare them.
  You have your own ideas which gives you an understanding of the universe in terms of your ideas. They make sense to you. But millions of physicists and scientists and mathematicians in the world agree with the scientists herein.
   For myself I am trying to add something on to Einstein's work. So first I must understand it and then add to it. But you are trying to reinterpret it and that is basically an impossible task.

6

New Theories / Re: Alternative discussion - why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?

« on: 25/10/2016 10:41:34 »

It might be easier to see the difference if you make clear that local measurements are what we use. The universe you look out on is a result of your local 'measurement'. We haven't found any 'global truths' that I know of. What we call the 'universe' is always the result of you interacting locally with it, taking its 'measurement', as it might be expressed. It's a subtle thing to think about but it is true. And when it comes to relativity is actually accentuates the truth of this local interpretation, as it tells you that with different speeds, mass, etc, your experience/measurements will vary. Some things will still hold true though, no matter your speed or mass. Those include 'c', a meter, and a second.

   The only thing true is the speed of light C. Meters will vary and seconds will vary. For any particle velocity
LT = LoTo
   The product of length times time is always the same for any particle. If it speed up its size will drop and its internal clock will slow. If it slows down its size will expand and its clock will speed up. The Earth is moving slowly relative to the speed of light C, so our differences in size and clock are very small.

7

New Theories / Re: Alternative discussion - why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?

« on: 24/10/2016 13:06:16 »

  I finished my study of relativity which I put in my new book "Relativity and the Dot-wave Theory". The theory basically finds the fundamental energy level of the electric and gravitational fields. So my understanding of Einstein's work has changed since my last comment. It was good rereading Einstein's 1920 book "Relativity" and seeing the various discussions.
   It is clear to me now that Einstein's work is basically very good but that frames of reference are dependent upon the primary gravitational field. Upon this Earth the Earths field is primary. Thus everything must relate to this field first and to other fields second. When near the sun everything depends upon the sun's field.
   The question of the speed of light being independent of ones frame of reference is always true as long as the reference is the primary gravitational field. Thus instead of simple relativity we must use conditional relativity. With that, the clock paradox problem goes away.
   I call the world of light, the light speed C universe. In this electromagnetic/gravitational field universe, everything travels at C. The MM experiment is looking at the world of C. It doesn't matter whether one is moving toward the light or away from the light. It is not possible for the instrument to detect any difference.
   Our world is a world where things move at speeds near zero to speeds of C. But we do not live in the world of C.
   We look at the far stars and they appear to be moving quite fast. Yet relative to the world of C, they are moving as slow as we are. So the absolute speed relative to us means nothing to them. All they care about it that they are moving slowly relative to the world of C.
   So we try to figure out how things behave relative to our ruler and our clock. Einstein entered the world of C in his mind. And he found two important things.
Velocity = meters/second = C for world of C.
Meters x Seconds = Constant for any particular particle
Thus LT = LoTo  as per Einsteins equations
   This is an important law of the world of C. He found the governing equations for the variation of length and time with velocity. As length shrinks time dilates and vice versa.
  So when we enter the world of the fields the answers change. And the speed of light is always the same everywhere we are and no matter how fast we are going or what direction we are traveling. And this is quite amazing to us. It is a different world for sure.

8

New Theories / Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?

« on: 18/10/2016 15:21:15 »

I believe in Relativity completely. Yes there is a mechanical cause for relativity. Why do electrons move? Answer that and mechanical engineering falls into place. Said GoC
  Yes Einstein’s calculations are excellent. His predictions are also excellent. However I believe in conditional relativity which places the primary gravitational field as the platform. Light from the far stars leaves the stars relative to their galaxy gravitational field. It then travels to our galaxy. Relativity applies. Then it travels to our solar system relativity again applies. Finally it reaches our Earth and our predominate field. Most of the redshift was from the far galaxy to our galaxy. All along the way, the color of the light changes.
  Likewise two aircraft moving in opposite directions on a north south course will each have a slowing of their clocks relative to the Earth clock. However they will read exactly the same. The error of Einstein was not to consider the primary gravitational field. Thus the clock paradox is meaningless. Furthermore if you could go into pure outer space without a predominate gravitational field, the spaceship would explode. So the imaginary experiment of Einstein is invalid. Yet I agree that he produced great equations but he omitted the Doppler Components
Mass Forward = MoC/(C-V)
Mass Rear = MoC/(C+V)
Mi = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
  The error of Einstein was that his answer is the geometric mean of the frontal mass and the rearward mass. Yet the Doppler Components are old history and were kept away from the general population because they were stamped secret years ago.
  As far as why an electron moves, that is a question I never heard of. Of course I am not a physicist but an EE so there is a lot of physics that I do not know. The alternate question is why doesn’t an electron move? How can you stop it? Everything in the universe is made from light speed C dot-waves. You cannot stop them. Even a dot-wave in a mass like state oscillates at the speed of light within its small radius. There is nothing in the universe that is not moving at light speed C. Stationary objects are internally oscillating at that speed. So how can you stop an electron?

9

New Theories / Re: What if an aether existed?

« on: 18/09/2016 15:14:56 »

   The question of the Aether or no Aether requires us to understand what the gravitational field and the electromagnetic fields are made of.  The other question is what constitutes mass? Einstein’s special relativity and general relativity are excellent mathematical solutions which match experimental data. So they give true answers to measurements. But do they tell us what the gravitational field consists of? Do they tell us what the electromagnetic field consist of? What are the lowest quanta of charge in the universe? What are the lowest quanta of mass in the universe?  Thus we want to know that the fundamental construction of the universe consists of.
   If we compress space-time from infinity toward zero radius, we get photons and particles that have mass and charge. Thus we compress the Aether and get the physical universe. If the Aether did not exist then we would not exist. It is obvious that the Aether is not a stationary entity. It is also obvious that there are huge numbers of negative and positive sub-particles which form the electromagnetic fields. It is also obvious that there are huge numbers of bipolar sub-particles which make up the gravitational field and the photonic waves.
  We then live in a sea of plus, minus, and bipolar sub-particles. The energy levels are so small and their charges are so small that we cannot detect them. In addition small groups of them make up tiny masses and tiny photons. The tiny masses make up the dark matter in the universe and the tiny photons make up the dark energy in the universe.
  The question is how do they work? And why does Einstein’s relativity provide us with the excellent describing function as to how they work? In any event we do not have a stationary Aether. We live in a universe that in many respects mirrors the general gas law except the photonic sub-particles are all traveling at the speed of light C. That validates Einstein’s work as the best fit describing function.

10

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 09/09/2016 22:26:41 »

jerrygg38, Thebox

     No matter what you think of mathematics theory's have to follow maths valid. You are getting your knowledge from non realists. The Bohr Copenhagen interpretation. Where something comes from nothing and no one even bats an eye. I believe in mechanics that follow math. A photon cannot have mass and follow the equations of Relativity. I believe Relativity is the correct way to interpret our universe. A particle will have entropy. There is no perpetual motion even in light as a particle moving through space. Mechanics have to follow math. If you are trying to explain a photon within the realm of Relativity it cannot be a particle traveling through space. If you disregard Relativity than you can make it anything you want. Or use a weasel word like main stream, a magic virtual particle.

   Relativity is like religion. Some are relativity theists and others are relativity atheists. I am a middle of the road person. To me relativity is a mathematical tool to describe various aspects of the universe. It has many followers. You are a follower. I doubt very much that the strange math of Albert Einstein is more than a first order approximation to the universe. All the beautiful electrical laws that we produce ultimately are merely approximations. They never work perfectly. The Engineer always has to make corrections to them to get things to work. Thus art must be added to science since the laws never work perfectly. So now you believe that Albert Einstein has so perfect a mind that he correctly defined the universe. Yet 1000 years from now he will be long forgotten. His theory will be in the ash heap of science. Future man will laugh at how silly his ideas were.In fact future man will never even have heard of him except in the museum of ancient thoughts.

11

General Science / Re: What could have caused the UFO I observed?

« on: 09/09/2016 13:48:19 »

   Was it summer or winter? What time was it? Usually the UFO's move quite rapidly. Could have been a crop duster with lights working at night. Could have been a banner advertising something. Many possibilities! A swarm of lightning bugs.

12

New Theories / Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity

« on: 23/08/2016 23:10:26 »

The universe is under constant pressure from flows of ambient radiation from all directions simultaneously. At least according to old school.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Your explanations sounds good. If everything is exerting pushing pressure on everything else, then the area between the objects will be depleted and the objects will be pushed together.

13

General Science / What is centrifugal force?

« on: 14/08/2016 19:21:31 »

What is centrifugal force?
  In the previous discussion Alancalverd stated that there was no such thing as centrifugal force. Thus it is just a way of expressing the resultant force tending to push an object away from a string or a gravitational force. It appears that there are two different but similar cases. In the case of a string, the object spinning around a center point wants to go in a straight line. The string prevents this and you end up with a vector problem in which the string has actual centripetal force acting from the center point. This is just simple mechanical engineering 101.
  Now let us look at the Earth spinning around the sun. For simplicity we can say that the ellipse is basically a circle although the equations are the similar. There is no longer a string between the earth and the sun. The simple vector forces of the spinning ball on a rope do not apply but the answers are basically the same. Thus we can say that we have a gravitational centripetal force and a gravitational centrifugal force. This is a much more complex scientific problem.  Since there is no rope between sun and earth, space itself must act to produce the force of attraction.
  However it is not really possible to conceive that space produces an attractive force. The only explanation is that space pushes the Earth and sun together. Einstein produced his general relativity equations to account for the action of space upon the sun and Earth. The pushing together of earth and sun is self-evident to me. So there is no such thing as centripetal force. It is just a mathematical tool.
   Then we are left with centrifugal force. The earth and sun interact by their gravitational fields.  As the earth moves around the sun the earth wants to move in a straight line. At the same time the two gravitational fields tend to combine and set up a combined center. These fields exist further out in space and the net result is the earth is pushed toward the sun and visa-versa. At the same time the sun wobbles around its axis since the center of gravity of the earth/sun combination keeps moving.  Of course the other planets make the wobble of the sun more complex.
  As the Earth moves in a linear fashion and is pushed toward the sun, the earth’s gravitational field tends to push against the sun’s gravitational field. This causes the combined field to look like a circular railroad track. The static fields tend to push the earth toward the sun but the dynamic fields tend to push the earth away from the sun.
  We then have the centripetal force due to the static gravitational forces which tend to bring both earth and sun to a common center point and the centrifugal forces which are dynamic and tend to push the earth away from the sun. These equal and opposite forces then are very similar to the ball and string problem.
    Anyway the previous response by Alancaverd got me to thinking about the centrifugal force. What do you guys think of this analysis?

14

New Theories / Re: Does a particle's weight increase with speed? More on relativistic mass.

« on: 23/07/2016 14:06:16 »

    The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field.

Weight corresponds to passive gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass.

Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.

That's meaningless.

Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns.

Also meaningless. There is no such thing as "spherical energy patterns". In fact there's no such thing as energy patterns whatsoever. This forum is not a place for your own personal theories of gravity. That's what the New Theories forum is for. This thread is about relativistic mass and weight. It's far from being a complex question. Weight depends on speed - Period!

Please stop taking this thread off topic with all that nonsense.

Sorry to upset you but the question has been studied by several universities funded by the government and written up in the classified libraries. Unfortunately since it involved radar studies the reports were kept under lock and key. I just point out that the information that are taught to students are limited for national security reasons. It has been over 50 years since I studied the reports and even today people are stuck with limited knowledge of the radar studies. Yet for those who try to make radar undetectable it may be better for the world not to know any of the details in the studies. And I was only concerned with the Doppler masses.

15

Just Chat! / Re: Hi, I'm just introducing myself...

« on: 19/07/2016 13:32:11 »

Welcome Scott. I like what you have to say. Yes those with the highest degrees have great memories. And they repeat the same stuff over and over again. My own work is original and some Professors are interested in reading it while most are afraid to fill their mind with new thoughts. As on Professor emailed me recently, the science they work on consists of little bits and pieces of theory that they try to fit into existing theory.
  Look at all the people who work on string theory and hate it. when i worked as an Engineer, the government asked for a project, they paid the bills. My company agreed to do the job. My job was to build something to meet the requirements. I had freedom to design how I chose but it had to meet the defined requirements.
  The institutions define the tasks. They pay the researchers. Some people may  come up with new ideas but the boss has to decide if anyone will do a new task. The government accepts some ideas but again someone must pay. Thus science is locked into ideas that are paid for.
   I do my "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" on my own. It is a hobby and a quest. It is like climbing a mountain that no one climbed before.
  Good luck in your effort. You can always self-publish on Kindle for basically no money. My books used to cost me $6000 each for 1000 copies. Now it costs nothing. However I do not advertise and my sales are small but I do get some professors who I email and who request a copy. Yet these professors are looking for theory beyond the standard model. So there is a audience for my work and perhaps your work although it is not for money.
  I made my living as an Engineer but my hobby was science. And it is a good hobby.

16

New Theories / Re: Does the antiphoton exist?

« on: 17/07/2016 21:37:30 »

You ask what is cold?
   From an engineering viewpoint cold is the absence of heat. Heat relates to vibrations of molecules and atoms. As the universe expands eventually the stars explode and atoms break apart into protons and electrons. eventually their motion ceases and everything is at absolute zero.
  Yet in my dot-wave theory in the end the protons and electrons self destruct. So the internal heat within the particles and sub-particle disappears. then no only are their any photons of light energy but there is no source of heat as well. So heat means nothing at that time and the universe is completely dead.
  But it will compress again. And the universe will get hot at a small dimension. thus we have a heat pump. We go from hot to cold and cold compresses back to hot over and over again.

17

New Theories / Re: Does the antiphoton exist?

« on: 17/07/2016 13:28:53 »

From Alex Siquerira
 
"Photons are created by heat and expeled from heat, and dark energy is atracted to heat, away from cold"

Can you see the "sphere" balancing around the star heat source, as a breading lung, but one that is constanly expanded due heat existing dark energy giving them momentum and sending away, at the same time the outerspace one, due the "limitation" of speed of light velocity falls back agains the star, atracted by its heat source?
 From Jerrygg38:
You seem to have some good thoughts here.You think the dark energy flows toward the heat. This would cause a gravitational compression and force the earth to be pushed toward the sun and the orbit of the Earth would keep it away.
  Yet what is the greatest source of the heat? It is the particles themselves. the proton is hot. thus the proton is radiating the heat.  this causes dark energy to be emitted from the proton. this fills space with dark energy and causes the universe to expand. Gravity then is a sort of kickback effect as energy leaves the proton causing spherical momentum which kicks back. Gravity then is plus and minus. Plus as it pushes back upon matter and minus as it pushes against the galaxies and causes the universe to expand.

18

New Theories / Re: Does this model of the universe represent the true nature of reality?

« on: 15/07/2016 14:18:45 »

]

  Thanks for the information. So as you present, science is devoted to what we can see and measure. thus the proof of the pudding is the ability of different scientists to observe and measure things. A theory then must agree with the measurements.
  Then what would your consider those who go beyond what can be seen or measured? Perhaps philosophical science? The problem is that once you look at another universe of different light speeds, they are possible but the ability to see or measure them cannot be achieved. The same is true of my dot-wave theory. Since the dot-waves have a mass of 1.566E-72Kg and a charge of 2.755E-61 coulombs they can never be measured. Yet I believe that everything is composed of these non-measurable things.
   Everything we see and measure  is based upon interactions with electrons and various sub-particles. this is our world. today several scientists are attempting to look beyond the standard model. I email a lot of people and these type of people ask for a signed copy of my book. Many scientists and physicists either wish me good luck or curse me out for bothering them.
   It is self-evident to some that we have to reach beyond normal science to really understand the universe. Have I done it? Perhaps, perhaps not. But at least I tried.
   Anyway you are a good teacher of science. And if you would like a paper copy of my book, I would be happy to send it to you.

19

New Theories / Re: wave-particle duality is incorrect.

« on: 11/07/2016 23:12:45 »

The natural nature of light is not to travel through man made slits, any effect or result of a man made slit would be observer effect and the act of trying to measure by device creating the effect and displaying a result that is not the natural nature of light .

That is a good point. We measure things in the lab such as breaking apart a proton and then wonder if the proton normally contains quarks or are quarks merely the byproduct of the process. the double slit experiment sees a photon as a single entity that fails to maintain this identity. It is possible that the experiment messed things up but multiple different experiments have shown light to sometimes be photons and sometimes to be waves. And using these properties interesting things have been built. The double slit involves quantum mechanical principles and after thinking about it for many years it appears true to me. Thus for me the probability of it being true is high and being false is low.

20

New Theories / Is Maxwell's laws absolutely true?

« on: 11/07/2016 15:25:20 »

Is Maxwell’s Laws Absolutely true?
  As a Brooklyn Poly Tech BSEE (summa cum laude) and a Sperry/Unisys Radar Dept. research and development engineer, Maxwell’s laws and the associated electrical theory has always been used with highly accurate results. The question is whether the physical universe is built upon these laws or is the laws only the best fit approximations to physical reality? In the practical magnetic courses, we were taught describing functions. These are best fit solutions to complex problems.
   Thus it appears that the laws of physics are merely describing functions for a best fit solution. Einstein’s special relativity is a describing function. People mistake it for actual reality. Maxwell’s equations lead an unsuspecting person to believe that space itself has certain properties such that a moving charge produces a magnetic field. Is that really true? What is a magnetic field?
   The universe I see is composed of plus dot-waves, minus dot-waves, and bipolar dot-waves. Thus we have charges and balanced bipolar charges which makeup the photons and mass. There is no magnetic sub-particle. Thus the magnetic field is really patterns of moving charges. Since the charge of a dot-wave is 2.755E-61 coulombs, the universe is filled with very tiny electrical charges.
   So a moving electron produces a moving field of charge which spins around the electron in the perpendicular direction. Maxwell’s describing function is excellent but Maxwell’s reality is not true. The problem is that the universe is a physical entity and not a mathematical entity. The mathematicians do great work in producing describing functions. However we must all be aware that the describing functions only are a best fit approximation to the physical reality. Unfortunately students are taught to believe that the universe is some sort of mathematical puzzle instead of a very complex structure of simple dot-waves.
   To make matters worse, it appears to me that the entire universe on this cycle started as a ball of energy surrounded by unlimited nothingness. Thus everything we call the properties of space are really the properties of the gravitational wave and the electromagnetic wave which flowed out of that space. Someday people will realize this but this will take looking at the universe from a physical and not a mathematical perspective.