Peter,
Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won't be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself and if so, to give basic beginning concepts that can be expounded upon to allow for the development of a new revelation of the way the world is constructed and works that over a period of a couple hundred years will lead to a great increase in man's abilities to control the world around him. Of course, like all increases in power it can be used for either good or evil and it will undoubtedly be used to one degree or another for both, so the introduction of the knowledge is not necessarily a predictor of a better world or for that matter neither does it predestinate a worse one. It will be up to man to decide that. It will be a different one, however. We are not our only limiting factor. We can only work incrementally from what has been observed and learned before us. The trick is to learn to discern the true information from the false and to always keep one's mind open to all the data and continually look in all directions for new understandings. One should not be satisfied with learning how something works, but must also work to understand why it works that way and be willing to completely give up previous beliefs and understandings if observations suggest that it is necessary. It is always best to periodically go back to the beginning and look at the world again from the basics on up in the light of the new observational discoveries (data) that have been made.
The sub-energy concept comes from one such trip back to basic concepts of the behavior of energy and matter that led to a deeper understanding of the structure of the world and how that structure works. It is just an inevitable part of the way things are made. I prefer to work with each person directly rather than through links to prewritten material. My concern is not to produce information clones, but to produce the ability to develop the concepts directly.
Good analogy.
Many wrong turns have been made over a long period of time. You have the right idea of retracing back on the paths, but I found that it was necessary to retrace all the way back to the beginning (climb all the way out of the rabbit hole) and start over using the updated observational data that was not available to those who previously took those paths at the time that they took them. To this I added something that most scientists tend to like to stay away from and some even think to be unscientific, which is the question (Why?) followed by the question (What?). Most scientists are content with trying to answer the question (How?) How does it work? They spend much time looking at the numbers and their relationships to each other, so that they can try to predict the next step in the chain of numbers. It is like a man desiring to get a better understanding of his car, so he checks and finds out that when driving on flat ground a certain amount of depression on the accelerator yields a certain acceleration which brings the car's speed up to a certain level where it then stays as long as the peddle is kept in the same position. He notices that if he drives the car that way over a period of time the amount of gas in the gas tank decreases at a specific rate per unit of time and is happy that he has found this important relationship. He calls it his gallons per hour theory and quickly follows that up by observing that he travels a certain distance in that same period of time, so now he has his miles per hour theory. In a brilliant moment of insight he connects the two theories together to come up with the miles per gallon theory. By now he is extraordinarily happy with his achievements. Then someone asks him why do those things work that way and what is behind the scenes that generates those effects? His immediate answer is, that is not a scientific question. Science is only concerned with how it works. The why and what questions are for the philosophers to answer. This answer, of course, saves him much time and a lot of work trying to intelligently answer those questions. That would require some logical thought and might not be able to be arrived at by using only the numbers that he has available at the time. He might have to look deeper and actually do new observations to be sure he gets the best answer that he can to those questions. Even then he may only gain a visualization of how it could logically work and may not be able to prove that it actually works that way and he may even be completely wrong. Of course, if he had looked at science history, he would have seen that even those visualizations of things such as the structure of the atom that were lacking or even completely wrong led to tests of those visualizations that then led to better new more accurate visualizations and understandings of why the things that were observed were the way that they were observed and what behind the scenes mechanisms caused them to come out that way.
My approach (path) was to start from the most basic structures that make up at least most of the world that we observe (energy photons and matter particles) and as I looked at the basic observed attributes of those structures I begin by asking why the observational data was as it was and what structure was behind the scenes that generated the observed results. One of the most basic things that needed to be explained was the observation that energy can change into matter and matter can change into energy. This meant that they were both just different manifestations of a more basic entity. One of the keys to the answer to what that more basic entity is, came from another observation about matter, which was that when two slow moving matter particles collide, they will just tend to bounce off of each other, but when their motion is increased to near the speed of light, the collision causes several new particles to be produced. It was obvious that the new particles were created from the added motion since that was all that was added. This along with other observations led to the visualization that motion itself is the basic entity from which all other entities are formed. It is the only thing that is truly conserved of itself. Of course, matter particles and energy photons do not behave the same in every way and the differences had to be explained, but this was not difficult if these entities have motions that exist in other places than the first three dimensions. It only takes possible motions in two more dimensions to explain those differences. The motion in one of those dimensions causes the frequency, wavelength, and variable dynamic mass effects of energy photons and also similar effects in matter particles, while the motion in the other dimension (only matter particles have this motion) causes the rest mass in matter particles due to the angular motion components that it generates as it causes an energy photon to take a curved path that causes its path to become and enclosed three dimensional closed path to generate the matter particle. This enclosed path particle can then stay in one place in three-dimensional space even though it is still traveling at great speed around that path. More details had to be added as to how these motions accomplish these things, but that is also not that difficult, especially in the case of the first one mentioned above. These details have to do mostly with the structure of the two new dimensions and how they interface with the first three dimensions. From this followed the concept that entities could exist that only have motions in the first three dimensions and thus the sub-energy concept was born. This new concept greatly aided in the explanation of energy transfer and charge mechanisms, etc. It also has much to do with the structure of the mechanism of gravity, but I will not go into that now as that is for a later time.
Ah yes, frequency modulation (FM). I listen to some FM stations from time to time. Your right its much more real than AM. I love how people so often use such mnemonics apparently thinking that it makes it easier to understand what they are talking about than if they just gave the complete name that usually actually at least partially explains the meaning that they are trying to get across. Of course, it may just be that it is easier to write the 2 letters than the whole name, but it adds to the confusion of those who have not yet come across the specific meaning that you are talking about for that mnemonic. If I get my head around it, wouldn't the center of gravity be at the center of my head? Of course, then if my ego is also located at the center of my head (ego centric (EC)) one would have to consider whether it was due to the effects of gravity, thus generating the whole new field of GEC or is that ECG.
The alternative should be able to explain both SR and QM effects and it can because both are limited structures that do not utilize the whole structure of reality. My kingdom is not of this world, but I will work with you if you desire and try to help you if I can.
Peace.
Paul