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.

Response to W:

W: 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?

GG: My photonic energy is bipolar electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetic energy is positive or negative but photonic energy is a balanced blend of the two. The moon revolves around the Earth. The moon produces a photonic field which cuts the earth and produced bipolar electromagnetic fields called eddy currents.

These cause the oceans to rise and move. The Earth cuts the moon and over time slows the moon’s spin.

W: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?

GG: If you take a gyroscope (buy a child’s toy gyro) and spin it, notice that it resists motion in the plane of the spin. (I used to work for Sperry Gryro) Notice that it resists motion in the plane of the spin but does not resist motion perpendicular to the spin. If we take three gyro’s in orthogonal planes, and spin them (this is hard to do with the toys) however we now have a three dimensional gyro which will resist motion in all three dimensions.

Mass resists motion in any direction. Therefore mass is composed of a three dimensional gyro. Three orthogonal spins produce mass. Therefore it is self-evident to me that mass is the product of three spins. Mass is not an independent property but is produced by electrical spins.

W:And why then are stable particles composed of not less than three sub-particles? Is it because they somehow attenuated by those planes?

GG: The electron is only a singularity but splits into three sub-particles within the neutron. In general you need three sub-particles to produce a spherical shaped particle. The electron comes and goes. It is more particle photon than particle. In the Bohr atom it forms a spherical plane. Therefore I consider the electron to be its own quark and not a particle as such.

GG: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.

W: 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?

GG: 28 years ago I started with the plus dot and the minus dot. Over time they lost credibility in my mind. All of nature appears as particle-waves. Therefore I changed to the dot-wave. My dot wave is a point at some time and expands outward as a wave as other times. Then it returns to a point again.

W: 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?

GG: The time distance is very tiny. (Plank time). However once the dot-waves contract to the Plank radius, the time distance is huge. (PS: I am not aware of the paradox you refer to).

W: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?

GG: The way I look at it is that there are three physical dimensions X, Y, Z and three time dimensions T+, T-, T0 which gives us only six dimensions. However if you are in the T+ universe you could say that there X+, Y+,Z+ dimensions and the same for the zero and the same for the minus. Then you would get nine dimensions looking that way. Once you say you are in the X+,Y+,Z+ universe you cannot say you are also in the t+, T-, or To dimensions.

So I can say we have six or nine dimensions but not twelve. However it doesn’t matter how we define it since tiny time differences are quite feasible. We could also say tiny light speed differences are quite feasible.

As far as never heard of twelve, I have my own independent thoughts. I am not limited by the thoughts of others. I never heard of eleven until I started to read string theory a few months ago.

GG: 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.

W: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?

GG: Most fields are always moving. However if we take a proton which is relatively stationary, It will be surrounded by stationary patterns of minus and then plus dots. If we move the proton, the stationary patterns will move. Thus moving dots are magnetic fields.

The photonic field is the balanced electromagnetic field. Gravity is one example. Starlight contains moving photonic fields.

W: 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.

GG: Thanks for the good questions.