[R. N. Boyd]:

"Sub waves" are still waves.

I don't know much about elementary particles but with waves in the ocean it is clear. You need more physical degrees of freedom but when you have those you can have multiple different kinds of waves. Surface gravity waves are one kind, but when you realize that the internal ocean has complex continuum dynamics and degrees of freedom known as temperature and salinity, there are all sorts of other waves possible. The oceanographers know about many of them.

But this is no different from the notion that classical electromagnetism is on vector fields and thus polarization---the particular relationship between the electrical and magnetic fields---matters. Polarization increases the classes of waves that can propagate beyond, e.g., a longitudinal scalar theory like linear acoustics. Think about the various TE/TM/TEM modes of wave guides.

And yes, in quantum mechanics, there certainly *are* internal degrees of freedom beyond classical physics: it's called 'spin'.

With new degrees of freedom and new physics you can have new effects, and sure enough there are spin waves.

The point is though that if there are new kinds of waves, there has to be new degrees of freedom and that physics should be manifesting itself all over the place, just as spin was bamboozling early QM experimenters almost right from the start.

You may discover that gravitation incorporates a term for charge, in expressions other than those found in this particular quaternionic version. Also, contemplate the Biefield-Brown effect...

I see no physical evidence that "...the origin of charge is (directly) related to micro-variances in the SOL [speed of light]." How can such a description apply to a proton at rest, for example? Where are such variances in the speed of light, for the proton at rest, living? Yet, as we know, the proton at rest still has a positive charge. Perhaps some situation exists in the internal structure of the proton, of which we are not yet cognizant? (*Another* job for my subquantum microscope!)

Have you ever contemplated that in any wave system that there can exist sub-waves? In other words, waves can exist which travel internal to the media underlying the "surface" waves. In other words, waves beneath the waves. Such subwaves can be sources of nonlinearities in when measurements are performed on the "surface" waves. (aka, "noise".)

However, there may be sequences of periodicity in these subwaves, much as certain chaotic systems which exhibit apparent randomity when viewed from one angle and periodicity when viewed from a different angle.

One analogy is to a body of water. There can be waves on the surface of the water, and waves which travel beneath the surface of the water. Can there be subwaves of the waves beneath the surface? I think so. Let us contemplate, what are harmonics and overtones? Consider that the square wave is the composite of all harmonically related frequencies and overtones.

A similar statement can be made regarding the sine wave, if I'm not mistaken. Was it the all the even-numbered harmonics, in the case of the sine wave? As I understand it, the sine wave and the square wave can be decomposed into constituent harmonics. What is the relevance of such harmonics as related to light of a given wavelength?

Such subwaves could exist in both gravitational and E/M varieties (assuming that gravitational waves exist). This, then could imply a "subspace" or a "pre-space". If such subwaves exist, it is possible that there may be successively finer layers of such subwaves.

This may be completely wrong, but it's been an entertaining conjecture.

[S. Burns]:

In Eq 0.10, coulombs constant 8.99E9 is just 1/(4*pi*e0). This term is just the standard charge attraction force kqQ/r^2. Waser's interpretation of the first term being gravitational is incorrect. He derived electrostatic plus gravitational force equals total attraction force. This is correct but sheds no light on anything new. For like charges, the force is repulsive hence the negative sign.

BBE is a good point. My guess is a complete gravitational expression could be derived from Quaternionic derivations but I wish mathematicians would revisit the "setting to zero the second quaternion part" as in Definition 1 of Waser's paper. Anyway, he clearly shows the origin of charge is (directly) related to micro- variances in the SOL. This in itself is significant and may be the origin of charge itself. Anyway you slice it, they are very interesting papers.