Click for a GOOD e-BOOK
It's Science & FREE here
nite & day since 1991

Page 1. of 15 main pages +

Click this for Page 2

Downloads here are
absolutely free!!
& NO pop up ads with these


Another Joan of Arc?

The T.O.E. that eluded Einstein . . . Fitzpatrick's Theory of Everything

Universities Asleep at the Switch


QUARKS do more than we think.


QUARKS do more- in ADOBE PDF
Down to Earth stories to stimulate your imagination

All the Fundamental Forces are merely PHASE relationships???


Type latitude & longitude in this Excel software (below) & get a precise sundial for any spot on earth.

Garden Sundial

Wall Dial

The Sundial Book

Sean
Fitz's Theory of Everything

a phase universe

a short, concise ToE version

Caribbean

The Troubles

Latest book REVIEWS
Sun Table
* * * * * * * *




Fitz's Theory of Everything:


Fitzpatrick's Profile

Perlmutter's discovery - Fitz

Cambridge T.O.E.


Phase Symmetry Extra SHORT


FREE Animations



Hi Res Photo

N.Y. WTC

Wolfram's 1,000 page "A New Kind of Science"

4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts.

Fitz's latest book in Adobe

Phase symmetry (color) htm

For the very latest in science, click these links:

Phase symmetry (color) pdf

FREE Animations

All SPIN is caused by PHASE

SPIN is caused by PHASE in pdf

 

 

 

WHILE MAGNETISM IS CAUSED BY THE ELECTRON SPIN - GRAVITY AND INERTIA ARE CAUSED BY THE QUARK SPIN. 8/30/2012


These books by Fitzpatrick brought to you free by MAGPUL Industries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctPyeNZqFho

WELCOME

to this faster opening but much shorter web page.


Simply CLICK any of THESE LINKS to get what you want.


Click blue link below for the old, original, variety web page that millions have enjoyed and talked about over the years.

Old, original, variety web page viewed by millions

Click on any of these blue links to get what you want.

 

The Continuum Hypothesis is relevant to the universe too. 9/29/2014

Quanta is derived from spacetime. 5/11/2014

"You can't square a speed." Astronomer Tom Van Flandern 5-09-2014

"Can't square a speed" Tom Van F. 5-09-2014 also in Adobe.pdf - speed.squared.pdf

Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12/02/2013

Nature perfected the superheterodyne principle long before Armstrong. 12/01/2013

Why we have Plancks constant. 11/28/2013

Scientific American disputes supersymmetry. 11/17/2013

Collapse of the wave function. 7/25/2013

Elaborate Design of our Universe. 6/02/2013

Gravity Waves sought by Andrew Geraci. 5/18/2013

Dark Matter -- Dark Energy. 5/04/2013

Electron Spin Enigma. 4/07/2013

A new look at DARK MATTER. 4/04/2013

LOGIC doesn't exist unless you know exactly what Space and Time are. 3/22/2013

CERN's   GOD PARTICLE. 3/16/2013

A New Extraordinary Kind of Science. 3/08/2013

QUARKS do more than we think + Why Fission, Fusion & the Periodic Table. 2/28/2013

A frequency world in the macrocosm too? 1/26/2013

Sigma Bond strengths in the microcosm. 10/01/2012

While Einstein's Unification of the Fields may not be possible, a Unification of the GAUGES has already taken place. 9/23/2012

A MONEY SUPPLY WARNING. 8/16/2012

This newly discovered "God Particle" (Higgs Boson) is best seen - not as a particle - but as a Bose-Einstein condensate force where impedance matched binding is transferred from one place to another. 7/04/2012

An important Quark message no one is heeding 11/27/2011

The Complete Model of Binding Energy - Jan. 11, 2011

You can learn more from 2 magnets than thousands of books 12/28/2010

a TRUE Grinch Christmas Story 12/26/2010

it's chemistry 12/25/2010

An Aether Universe composed of quantum sized chunks of Aether 11/16/2010

Fitz finds a Fact ("phase coherence") gets #1 TOP SPOT on Google 9/22/2010

Are Sigma and Pi chemical bonding and Magnetism the same force? 9/20/2010

Phase coherence & the Inverse Square Law 9/05/2010

e-mails to Hilton and to & from Dr. Milo Wolff 8/21/2010

Why we have Gravity 8/17/2010

Harmonics and Lisi's E8 model 8/14/2010

a delayed response to Dr. Michio Kaku 8/02/2010

NASA shows us some Big Bang problems 7/26/2010

Are all the Fundamental Forces nothing but PHASE relationships? 7/4/2010

Dr. Milo Wolff congratulates Bill Gilmour on discovering the "Equation of the Cosmos". 6/21/2010

Too many SpaceTime Realms? - NASA shows us there is a problem! 6/01/2010

Dark Energy and Dark Matter from NASA 4/23/2010

Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force 4/13/2010

Shades of Einstein and Fred Hoyle 4/06/2010

Bose-Einstein Condensate is proof this is a scalar, standing wave universe 3/26/2010

The reason we have Einstein's 'principle of equivalence' 3/19/2010

Determining quark mass via Scattering. 2/20/2010

Cahill's Quantum Foam theory. 2/03/2010

Why QUARKS have assymptotic freedom. 1/06/2010

What a photon really is. 1/03/2010

Why gravity = acceleration.1/02/2010

Einstein's photon 1/01/2010

This is a phase universe 12/14/2009

An accelerating, expanding universe ? 12/16/2009

Schrödinger's Universe 7/17/2008

The Scalar Wave aspect of A.G. Lisi's model 4/19/2008

Here's what Frederik K. Houtman says, Milo 2/12/2008

EINSTEIN's Most Important DISCOVERY 1/12/2008

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything 11/19/2007

Consider this possibility of Time and Space. 10/13/2007

The Physical Origin of Electron Spin. 10/4/2007

String Theory wanes while interest in WSM grows. 8/12/2007

Mississippi Bridge Disaster 8/2/2007

Fitzpatrick responds to mathematical physicist A. Bermanseder 1/16/2007

This universe is a quantum computer. 1/7/2007

It begins here. 12/6/2006

Some science problems 12/03/2006

Solving these science problems 11/26/2006

The Vector Scalar relationship between force, space and time. 1/18/2006

Understanding the wave aspect of space and time. 12/10/2005

Why we fail to see spin conservation in the quark realm. 11/17/2005

Where does C2come from? 9/11/2005

Binary stars act exactly like electrons 9/6/2005

What is Energy? 9/1/2005

Charles Scott's hypothesis 8/5/2005

Not waves but resonances 8/3/2005

Euclidean geometric motion 7/5/2005

A NEW Science Tool 5/22/2005

importance of SCALAR WAVES 4/11/2005

Speed of Gravity is 9x1016 meters per second. 4/10/2005

The Limits of Logic 4/6/2005

Bosons? 4/3/2005

A short excerp from Feynman's QED 4/2/2005

Time Dilation 3/31/2005

a Space and Motion caveat 3/30/2005

The Standard Model's concept of the particle 3/28/2005

Fitz and Bermanseder discuss a possible quantum gravity scenario. 3/26/2005

Can you do the math for this? 3/21/2005

"Why the Strong Force acts the way it does." 3/18/2005


Gabriel 1/15-18/2004


"Saul Perlmutter's "Acceleration Discovery"." 10/15/2003


Shedding Light on Energy Quanta." 6/11/2003


German AUFBAU Laws 5/12/2003


Index html 6/01/2002



MAGPUL Industries has posted Fitzpatrick's books and articles on this web site FREE for over nine years.

If Fitzpatrick's theory is right then all binary stars of the same mass must have opposite spins from each other with their closest sides going in the same direction (like gears meshing and not clashing). None of the other stars, according to Fitzpatrick's hypothesis, will be spinning this way with its closest neighbor star.

If I was an astronomer, with the very latest spectrographic equipment, then I would most certainly be checking this out now.


EINSTEIN'S MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY
was not e=mc2 or Relativity
but it was something he discovered about a year before he died:


In 1954
Einstein Said: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

This is also the essense of what Fitzpatrick is saying, "You cannot use Faraday's field concept to unify the invisible forces. You must use Ampere's relative motion concept, which turns out to be a phase relationship."



The words below are the final words in Stephen Wolfram's 1,000 page, best selling book "A New Kind of Science".

"Looking at the progress of science over the course of history one might assume that it would only be a matter of time before everything would somehow be predicted by science. But the Principle of Computational Equivalence--and the phenomenon of computational irreducibility--now shows that this will never happen.

There will always be details that can be reduced further--and that will allow science to continue to show progress. But we now know that there are some fundamental boundaries to science and knowledge.

And indeed in the end the Principle of Computational Equivalence encapsulates both the ultimate power and the ultimate weakness of science. For it implies that all the wonders of our universe can in effect be captured by simple rules, yet it shows that there can be no way to know all the consequences of these rules, except in effect just to watch and see how they unfold."

Stephen Wolfram's basic premise -- all throughout his massive book -- is that there are simple rules as to how this ENTIRE universe works.

Fitzpatrick says the very same thing plus he gives you these few, simple rules predicted by Stephen Wolfram.

What you have, says Fitzpatrick, is a seemingly unlimited spectrum of spinning, scalar, standing wave resonances, similar to the meson resonances except these are stable. All of these spinning, scalar, standing wave resonances have gyroscopic reaction and obey Ampere's Laws.

This is all you really need to build the universe you see all around you.

This is an extremely simple universe providing you look at it as a scalar, standing wave universe.

As Dr. Milo Wolff showed, each electron is a scalar standing wave entity giving and receiving energy to and from other surrounding electrons out to the Hubble limit (a finite amount).

But each electron has spin, which IS also scalar in respect to the TOTAL of the surrounding electrons but spin is NOT scalar to individual electrons and therein lies the rub.

A greater difference in TIME is simply more out of phase with the principal scalar frequency and a greater distance (more space) is merely more out of phase with the spin frequency.

Repulsive force equates with more space just like the tensor math in GR.

Attractive force equates with less space like the tensor math as well.

Believe it or not, it is as simple as that.

Stephen Wolfram is absolutely right, it turns out.


There are two ways to view this universe

  1. Using our present science view obtained as everything is portrayed in one frequency, spin/orbit, spacetime reference frame.

    The advantage of using this present science method is that today's math can be used for accurate answers providing you do keep within certain parameters and do not venture into another frequency, spin/orbit, spacetime realm (microcosm).

    The disadvantage of this present science method is that by using this method you are condemned to seeing 4 different fundamental forces instead of seeing it all as one type of force.

  2. Viewing the various different frequency, spin/orbit reference frames as if a type of motion existed in each of them.
    (Using motion in the microcosm is far superior to plus and minus charges and lines of force if you wish to see the "big picture" approximation that Dirac predicted.)

The advantage of using this method is that all forces can be seen simply as one type of force. See Ampere's Universal Particle/Motion Law

The disadvantage of this method is that no present math is available to give us an accurate picture of things using this model.

Nobel prize winner Feynman understood the importance of using the concept of motion for unification. Look what he said about this in his famous QED

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

 


If you like String Theory TOE math then you will just LOVE this:
3/14/2005 Mathematical physicist Tony Bermanseder's WSM, String, TOE math letters
These Tony B. Quantum Relativity math letters should be required reading for 101 String theorists.



Gravity Probe B is now in orbit to determine what John Wheeler calls " Gravitomagnetism" . . A new force? . Einstein said it should be simpler. . Believe it or not it is simple if you look at it the way Ampere did. . I'll give you a much better way to understand what is really going on in this universe. . But you will have to bear with me over a few rough stepping stones.

If you want a simple picture of how this complicated universe is working then absolutely nothing gives you a better model than Ampere's laws, that we'll look at.

or

Fitzpatrick's

view of this universe



"Unfortunately, it is also a dictum of history that the intellectual establishment is the last to accept new ideas."

Dr. Ravi Batra



a Theory of Everything internet paper that gives you a far simpler way to understand this complicated universe.

&

a prelude to Charles Scott's FREE epic Astronomy e-book

 

****

Einstein's search for a Unified Field Theory

 

It's been over 50 years now since Einstein's search for his Unified Field Concept. . It's been over two centuries since Faraday tried to unify magnetism and gravity. . Magnetism and gravity were the only two fundamental invisible forces known in Faraday's time. . Next came the weak force and evidence of the strong force, which Einstein knew about. . Einstein took it upon himself to try to unify the invisible, fundamental forces but he failed.


About now the reader is going to ask, "Who is this guy writing this and what position is he in to tell us all this and to put out a Theory of Everything."


Well I'm a radioman or at least that's what I set out to be and it's how I think of myself. . This following bit of history is necessary because it shows how I became a firm believer in Ampere's relative motion concept that, I discovered not only gives you a simple model of this universe but merges general relativity with string theory.

I lived in Linden, New Jersey in the 1940s and before the 1940s ended and before I graduated from high school, I had, in my pocket, my class B Amateur Radio License W2YDW, my Class A Amateur Radio License, my 2nd Class Radiotelephone license and my private pilot's license all obtained by my own efforts studying and working by selling magazines, newspapers and working in stores. . I also had my own 150-watt amateur radio station up & running then that I built from war surplus junk. . I had two 812As in the final in push-pull. They were fancy things with finned tantalum plates that I couldn't get cheap and they cost me an enormous $5 apiece way back then. . That was a lot of money for a kid to fork out in those days.

I graduated from Linden High School and still have the copy of their Cynosure of 1950 and underneath my picture it says, "Science is the key to life" and how right they were.

I learned to fly at Bart's Airport near Budd Lake, N.J. and those hours in the air over northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania were the golden hours of my youth that I will never forget.

After graduating from Linden High, I bought a 1937 Chevy (with an actual 20,000 miles on it) from a little old lady for $300 and drove it to Florida to see the Miami Air Show. . I simply stayed in Florida and never came back to New Jersey winters again. Miami was country back then. . I loved it. . I bought an Aeronca 7-AC Champion aircraft and flew and flew and flew all over South Florida.

But this epic really begins one day in the brand spanking new air-conditioned Pan American Airline complex that Juan Trippe built on 36th Street in Miami to house the southern part of his almost 4 decade old world wide enterprise that Juan Trippe thought would last forever. . But who would have ever believed that Maggie Thatcher, who once operated a grocery store, would become Prime Minister of England? . And who would have ever thought she would read the works of an economist named Friedrich von Hayek? . And who would have ever expected she would have convinced Ronald Regan that deregulation was the road to prosperity? . And who would have anticipated that Regan would have listened to her and move to deregulate the airlines? . Shortly thereafter Juan Trippe's vast worldwide empire of the air came to an abrupt end.

But before that happened at Pan Am, one day Jim Ingraham had overhauled an RCA Radar Indicator which was "in sync" at the bottom instead of at the top. . While seeking a remedy to prevent that ever happening again, I looked at the indicator coil. . And I noted that this problem would not happen if the electrons in the top outside wires, in the rotating coil, went in the same direction as the electrons in the cathode ray tube beam, during sync.

I will never forget that RCA Radar Indicator or that day at Pan Am because it has taken me down a far different path in life than I would have gone down without it.

I realized that day: Ampere's relative motion concept was the true universal concept that everyone was looking for. . It was indeed the Holy Grail while the Faraday-Maxwell concept was only the best way to view it from a single reference frame basis. . Yes, all of our electronic engineering depends upon it. . But this same concept is absolutely wrong when trying to find out how this entire universe functions. . Not only the Faraday-Maxwell electronic laws, but all our science laws, are nothing but subset laws.

Subset laws, Kurt Gödel proved, may have limited worth. . These subset laws are indeed limited to a narrow band of frequencies.

Our science laws, along with their necessary math, are strictly limited to a narrow frequency range of parameters. . I saw the limits to our precious science laws that day:

I saw that those electrons in the cathode ray tube were being attracted to the coil for the very same reason that I was being attracted to the earth.
We were both moving on parallel geodesics.

Wasn't this
Ampere's Universal Particle/Motion Law?

Even Feynman saw the importance of motion. . Read what he says in his famous QED.

You must look at surroundings (Mach's principle) and parallel paths along with "geodesic balance paths" and present science totally fails in this respect.

Isn't this why Gravity Probe B is up there to check "frame dragging" or "Gravitomagnetism"?

The paths of not only planets, but everything orbiting, must now be seen as a "geodesic balance path" where the attraction to the central entity being orbited is equal to the attraction to the surroundings. . And now you can also see the reason for spins and the angular inclination of the spin axis.

I realized that Ampere had done, in the early 1800s, what Einstein had sought to do and neither Einstein nor anyone else, for that matter, had caught on to it.

I realized, as I held that RCA Indicator, that both gravity and magnetism were nothing more than similar effects of relative motion, which is the fruition of Ampere's concept and at the same time these are also distortions of spacetime, which was Einstein's concept.

I realized that day: Ampere had discovered, in the 1800s, an essential part of what Einstein was looking for a hundred years later.

The year that I held that RCA indicator in my hands was 1966. . I wrote a small 64 page book about what I had discovered and there was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.

From Lincoln Barnett, who wrote the best seller "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", I got a letter of approval and from scientist Robert Dicke I got blasted. . Only years later did I finally see Dicke's error and why I was indeed right and why Dicke was very, very wrong.

Einstein had said, while working on his Unified Field Theory, that looking for this unified field concept was like trying to imagine what a dinosaur looked like after finding only one of its bones.

In my bookFitzpatrick's First Book FREE, . I mentioned that I had discovered a few more dinosaur bones. . At that time I had not fully understood the important role frequency was to play in all of this, nor had I read what Kurt Gödel had said.



Einstein was looking for a simple answer

And the answer is simple too. . Ampere showed us how spacetime essentially works. . But Ampere wasn't thinking about spacetime because he hadn't any idea way back then that space and time were essentially one thing. . It took Minkowsky---one of Einstein's teachers---to realize this after he saw what Einstein had come up with.

I have a high regard for Einstein and especially for his general theory of relativity. . I hope that the FREE e-books on this web page will show you approximately how that all works. . I will not go into any of the tensor math of Einstein's though. . You can get all of it, that you want, by searching Google. .

Here's essentially what I'm trying to put forth: . You must see, what Yale University teaches its astronomy students, that the speed of gravity has to be far, far faster than the speed of light for a stable universe. . Thus the speed of light and gravity are NOT the same.
Speed of Gravity is 9x1016 meters per second.
This is sending a very important message to you.

It's telling you what's really going on. . It actually shows you WHY we have Einstein's principle of equivalence or why it is impossible to distinguish the difference between the effects of a gravitational field and an acceleration.

Gravity IS an acceleration because there is no such speed of 9 x 1016 meters per second here in our spacetime realm. . This speed of gravity, stated by Yale and proven by Van Flandern as being far faster than the speed of light, can only exist in the spacetime realm of the quarks. . This is too fast a velocity for a speed in our spacetime realm so even though it can be noted here, as it has by Yale and Van Flandern, . it can only be measured directly as an acceleration here.

From this you can see what's really going on: . The mind senses different spacetime realms -- different rules & math used -- in each different frequency spin/orbit system. . We use, for instance, QCD rules and math for the quark spin/orbit frequency range; QED rules and math for the electron spin/orbit frequency range and our present science rules and math for our spacetime realm we sense we are in here. . This is what is making you THINK there are different forces such as gravity, plus and minus charges and flux lines of force when there is really only one force.

And this one force is space creation---just as in the tensor math of general relativity---but it is different types of space creation at different frequencies. which is exactly what string theory is telling you isn't it?

Would you like to know WHY we see these four fundamental forces instead of seeing it as one force, which it supposedly really is?

The reason we see these four different fundamental forces is because our mind senses distinctly different frequency spin/orbit spacetime realms causing them.

I will give you a model of this universe that will show it all as one force.

The big worry that we have with renormalization in QED is sending us a crystal clear message that we are seeing it as different spacetime realms. . That we use gauge invariance is another verification and the straw that broke the camel's back comes after we closely investigate what Feynman and his associates received the Nobel prize for. Feynman lectures . All doubt is gone then and we see it has to be set up, seemingly, as different spacetime realms.

If we see each different frequency spin/orbit system as having a different spacetime realm then each of these also must have a distinctly different "spacetme interval".

"spacetime interval"???
Confused?
Type any unfamiliar terms, like this. into Google.

What is this term "spacetime interval"?

Einstein and Minkowsy found time is tied up with space.
There is a relationship between the two.
Space and time change with a change of velocity or mass.

The relation of time to space is the relation of one side of a right triangle to the other with the hypotenuse being what is called the "spacetime interval".

With the hypotenuse staying the same, any change in one side of the triangle will result in a corresponding change in the other side. . So if space changes then time has to change also and vice versa. . So space changes and time changes. . We would rather refer to the quantity that does not change namely the "spacetime interval".

So knowing the hypotenuse (spacetime interval) stays the same, many scientists merely drop the term interval and call it spacetime. . I'll try to use the entire term here.

. Quite a few of today's scientists are still not aware of limiting the spacetime realm frequency range if accuracy is required while quantum scientists, since Feynman's elucidation, are very aware of fixing the gauge, thus limiting the frequency range involved, before they even make an attempt to quantify.

Fizpatrick's 11th law is: "The more accuracy you want, the more you must narrow the range of frequencies involved. . Also, the greater the frequency range you view, the less accuracy you will have (with present math)."
See
Fitz's Universal Spacetime Resonance Laws

Now you know a part of the reason for Heisenberg's uncertainty.

The other part of Heisenberg's uncertainty stems from the fact that momentum is derived from the spacetime realm of the quark while position is derived from the spacetime realm of the electron. . I hope you will see the reasoning involved as you read this.

Both quantum and string theories have taught us this is primarily a frequency-resonance universe.

QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) deals with probabilities, yet it is able to predict with the highest accuracy of any theory. . If you keep reading then you will see exactly WHY that is so.

The way QED accomplishes this is that it uses a novel method called "squaring the amplitude" to effectively approximate the in phase - out of phase patterns of electrons that exist along the "spacetime interval" (in the path through both space and time).

I am going to give you a visual model of how I see this universe. . You may not like this model. . You may not even believe in this model. . Yet this model does show why QED and the other sciences work as well as they do.

The way it all works is similar to the way you hear radio programs on your radio. . The superheterodyne circuitry in your radio mixes together frequencies that you cannot hear. . This gives you frequencies that you can hear.

Since you are built of quarks and electrons then guess what happens when all those spin/orbital/precession frequencies are mixed?

It results in a "spacetime interval" phase pattern of frequencies that you will see as Euclidean space, time and even motion for everything constructed of quarks and electrons, which includes you. . This is suggested---but not absolutely proven---by Young's experiment. . This phase pattern provides you with space that will stay Euclidean as long as you don't get too massive or exceed .01% of your available speeds.

QED shows you that energy is constructed in quanta. . Now I am going to show you a visual picture of how this electron phase pattern produces space and time that are constructed in quanta as well.

Keeping frequencies in mind, the next paragraph is of vital importance:



In both special and general relativity the "spacetime interval" remains invariant. . But the parameters that it remains invariant in are not a greater frequency range than one spin/orbit frequency system. . And this, folks, makes it a whole new science ball game.



While string theory correctly gives us many dimensions for many frequencies, the human mind does not need that much accuracy so it has a broadened frequency range and instead of sensing a dimension for each frequency it senses a single dimensional spacetime realm for each spin/orbit frequency range or less.

Ampere's relative motion concept shows you the difference in force between magnetism and charge is one of relative motion.

A magnetic force is always derived from the spin of electrons that are "locked" into a certain position on orbitals.

Charge is always derived from "free" electrons or "free" ions.

We'll see this as we look at:

How "frame draging" or "gravitomagnetism", that will be measured by Gravity Probe B, is best seen using Ampere's concept that merges general relativity with string theory


Read the FREE e-books on this web page for more about all this.

You know---at least the intelligent ones know---that we do have general relativity and we do have quantum theory and string theory. . These are all giving you hidden road signs as to the answer that Einstein was trying to find.

You have the speed of light being a constant, independent of the velocity of the source and of the observer. . This throws Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics to the winds. We know this is so; therefore we must accept it.

Now we have one more very important ingredient added to the stew and that is the finding of Saul Perlmutter that this expansion of our universe is accelerating. . Others have also proven this, so this must indeed be true.

So if you have a universe where the speed of light is a constant and we have general relativity and quantum theory and an accelerating, expanding universe to boot then what in god's name could be simple about it?

Ah, but it IS extremely simple when you look at it carefully and correctly.

Gravity Probe B will show us that we must look at gravity differently. . We will have to add the spin factor that causes what present science terms "frame dragging" or "Gravitomagnetism".

But this doesn't complicate things. . It actually simplifies it providing you look at it the way Ampere did using relative motion.

If Einstein's principle of equivalence applies to gravity then it must also continue to apply even if gravity is found to be a bipolar force.

So the first simplification comes from Einstein's principle of equivalence: . It is telling you, something that everyone except Saul Perlmutter and Dr. Milo Wolff eeem to be missing now, that you cannot discern the effects of an accelerating, expansion from Einstein's original cosmological constant repulsive force.

But which one is it?

Do we have an accelerating, expansion or Einstein's repulsive force between all the stars and galaxies, holding them apart?

You can figure it out by simple deduction.

Yes, the CMBR proves we had a Big Bang but is it still expanding now?

Maybe but maybe not. . This WAS the situation that we were in for over half a century until Saul Perlmutter's group studied the supernovas.

Perlmutter's group found this expansion seems to be accelerating and since then this has been proven by others.

Thank God for Perlmutter.

Because now we know which one to choose from.

It's the one Perlmutter himself chose.

He chose Einstein's repulsive force between everything.

Why?

Because even though Saul Perlmutter discovered this acceleration, he also knew it could not be discerned from Einstein's original cosmological constant. . Therefore he knew and published that this repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity---first predicted by Einstein---exists between every star, galaxy and supercluster keeping them apart exactly like things in the microcosm are kept apart.

A Big Bang could leave us with an expansion but there is no possible way it could leave us with an accelerating, expansion. . There would need to be a present force there to continue to accelerate and the Big Bang force was a past force.

So what Perlmutter has shown us is that gravity can no longer be seen as a monopole force.

Gravity must now be seen as a bipolar force exactly like the other bipolar forces

That's why I said "Thank God for Perlmutter." . He put a few drops of science into a barrel full of ignorance.

It will take time for those few drops of science to completely sterilize the barrel of ignorance but it eventually will. . It took the universities of the world about thirty years before they all admitted Newton was right.

Perlmutter proved this is gravity's equal and opposite force out there between everything keeping them apart, so this makes gravity a bipolar force. .

Indeed, Saul Perlmutter now claims, exactly what Einstein once claimed, that this opposite but equal force of gravity---that cannot be discerned from an accelerating, expansion---does exist between all the stars, galaxies and superclusters, holding them apart (far different from the Standard Model that describes the superclusters as NOT gravitationally interacting).

Thus gravity MUST NOW BE SEEN CORRECTLY as a bipolar force. . Things are held apart here in our solar system and in the macrocosm for the same reason they are held apart in the microcosm.
As I've been asking the expansionists for four decades now:
"Do we have an expansion here and none in the microcosm just because you are here?"

See: Expanding Universe Religion
&
Sol Eisenberg Ph.D

Einstein's principle of equivalence is telling you that you cannot tell the difference between an accelerating, expansion and Einstein's original cosmological constant.

Einstein's original cosmological constant was a repulsive force between the stars and galaxies keeping everything apart exactly like it does in the microcosm.

Scientific reasoning now tells you the accelerating, expansion is only a popular delusion of present science.
Einstein's repulsive force is what is really there.

The choice is clear. You must do what Saul Perlmutter did and pick Einstein's repulsive force between everything.


So welcome back to the 1920s and into a steady-state universe once more.

Getting simpler, isn't it?

Not only is all this---thanks to Saul Perlmutter---greatly simplified now but the construction principles of this entire universe are also quite simple: . They are all obeying nothing but Ampere's Laws.

This entire universe cares little for our present science. It only obeys its simple Aufbau Laws
(German translation "construction laws").

But be forewarned: the construction principle for weather is simple too. The principle underlying all weather is that hot air rises. . It's the various effects that this finally causes that gets really complicated and with this universe of ours it is exactly the same. . But once you understand the main principle then you will better understand this universe.

Generally when NONE of the so called experts can come up with an answer to something then the answer is almost always in a far different direction than all of those so called experts are thinking. . It's all relative motion. . This is the vital answer that none of the experts thought of and that Robert Dicke even proclaimed could not possibly be. . Bob Dicke gave an adamant NO to Ampere's relative motion concept. . Yet that is essentially the true answer as to how ihis universe actually functions.

I got into airplanes straight out of high school. . I received all my college degrees while working for the airlines. . So how did this high school kid excel in troubleshooting these complicated airliner electronic systems when these college-trained engineers were competing with him? . Well, I found out early on in the game that if one used Ampere's laws while troubleshooting and not that complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept then it was easy to solve electronic problems and to find out what was really going on.

You see, you don't need math to troubleshoot avionics. . You need something clear & simple. . You need something fast. . I discovered early on that Ampere's laws were clear, simple and much faster than the Faraday-Maxwell monstrosity that these university graduates were all using and are still using.

If you want exact quantities than you must go the Faraday-Maxwell route in electronics or the other present science routes in the other specializations because they allow you to do the math. . But if you want a simpler picture, in your mind, of how this is all working then absolutely nothing gives you a better model than Ampere's laws, however, there is no math for them yet. . Even Ampere couldn't match the math to all of them and he was a math prodigy. . He knew all the math of his era by the time he was 12.

It was not until after I retired and read Kurt Gödel that I fully understood why I was far better off using Ampere's laws for electronic troubleshooting. . Reading Gödel's Proof will show you why: . Faraday-Maxwell math is subset math and Gödel warns you never to totally believe in subset math laws. . Well, quantum laws are subset laws too. . And low and behold even Newton's laws are subset laws and Einstein's general relativity corrections for them are subset laws as well. Einstein collaborated with Kurt Gödel. . They were both in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton together. . Einstein should have listened to his friend Kurt Gödel a bit better than he did.

It turns out that Ampere may have hit upon the only non subset, universal laws any human being has ever discovered. And this is why he couldn't do the math for them.
The greater the frequency range you view, the less accuracy you will have (with present math).

Our entire math, that we have here right now, is subset math for subset science rules. . Ampere's laws remain unpopular because we have no math available yet for Ampere's universal laws.

Even so, Ampere's laws give you that top notch "approximation" that Dirac predicted we would discover.

Even though unpopular, Ampere's approximation ALWAYS puts you in the ball park where present science and its math can sometimes lead you far astray.

One more reason for the unpopularity of Ampere's concept is that the surroundings (Mach's principle) must be considered. . Gyroscopes hold to the surrounding stars yet present science discounts the importance of surroundings in their laws. . Ampere's laws show surroundings are vitally important.

Another reason for Ampere's unpopularity is that the spin and orbit/orbital frequencies---that we don't know yet---must ALL be found and taken into consideration, so it is easy for scientists to totally ignore these factors, which they have indeed done using present science.

My hat is off to the string and quantum theorists for showing us how important these spin/orbit frequencies and spin precession and orbit/orbital precession frequencies really are.

Gravity has no aberration yet light does, showing us that Yale University and Van Flandern are correct telling us gravitational attraction and light travel at different speeds. . This is sending an important message to you to do some different type thinking.

It's hard to believe that Newton was closer to estimating the speed of gravity than Einstein, but he was. . Newton thought gravity acted instantly which is closer to its true speed of 9 x 1016 meters per second than 3 x 108 meters per second or the speed of light that Einstein thought it acted at.

Let's return to what I said a few paragraphs before: . When NONE of the so called experts can come up with an answer to something then the answer is generally in a far different direction that all of those so called experts are thinking.

The far different thinking for a universe with all those things we know we have that I mentioned previously is this:

What scientists presently see, as the speed of light is something entirely different. . It's something no one except Dr. Milo Wolff . has thought of: . It is really our spacetime frame rate. . It's a scalar resonance rate. . It's the movie picture frame rate that the electrons, that you are made of, are rebuilding themselves and you.
See
importance of SCALAR WAVES .

Quarks, however, are rebuilding themselves at the square of the rate that electrons rebuild themselves.

If you go to the movies then these were actually produced using 16 individual pictures or frames every second for silent films and 24 frames every second for sound films, which you see one at a time but which your mind sees as really happening. . I'm afraid it's the same in real life. You have these spacetime frames here as well. . But here these are scalar resonance frames. . You will consider, as solid, anything that has a similar frequency scalar resonance or a harmonic thereof. . The entities in our microcosm have higher scalar harmonics thereof and the entities in our macrocosm (galaxies) have lower scalar harmonics thereof.

You can detect transverse waves like light, radio and water waves that travel mainly in one plane but you cannot detect a scalar wave because it is 3D like the multiple skins of an onion. . Instead of seeing individual scalar waves, you see the complete 3D onion that they make. . Every object you see is a scalar wave entity.

I'm not going to go into all the whys and wherefores but if you want to build a universe with relativity, quantum mechanics and all those things previously mentioned then all you have to do is have time being produced for you by BOTH the quark and the electron. . All you need is for your electrons to have a scalar resonance frequency that is exactly the square root of the quark scalar resonance frequency. . You will then see exactly Why E = mc2.

You will have to read a bit about Dr. Milo Wolff to understand the importance of the scalar resonance frequency of the electron.

Each distinct frequency spin/orbit system has its own spacetime realm and its own distinct spacetime interval, which is only good in that particular spacetime realm.

Ampere's laws---slightly modified for frequency---then give you a good idea of when and where this spacetime interval is produced. So here's what you have then:

It's a pretty simple universe building plan.

These are truly universal laws that work both in the microcosm and macrocosm.

I told you the principle would be simple and these "A" Laws are. . They are relative motion laws depending on the surroundings. . They are also definitely wave-particle laws and therefore laws that our subset developed minds can understand and use.

The French may want to call these the Ampere Laws and the Germans will call them the Aufbau Laws. . I'll simply call them the "A" Laws.

 

* The 1st. "A" Law

The spacetime interval is created the LEAST between any two objects (scalar wave resonances), the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel paths in the same direction at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. . You can also say these two objects will attract each other.

 

* The 2nd. "A" Law

Both space and time (spacetime interval) are created the MOST between any two objects (scalar wave resonances), the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel paths in opposite directions at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. . You can also say these two objects will repel each other.

^
^
^
 

Of great importance, in the two preceding laws, is that these laws are frequency laws and they work separately for each separate spin/orbit-frequency level which means these individual wave-particles must "see" themselves doing these things from their viewpoint in their local gauge environment. . It does not matter how some other spin/orbit-frequency level views these things because space and time and indeed the average spacetime interval is entirely different for each different spin/orbit-frequency level.

These two laws look equal and opposite but they are not: . The 1st "A" law "locks on" while its opposite 2nd sister law never does. . This is because the total force is generally centralized and you can feel this 1st "A" law "lock on" when two magnets come together. . These two laws---along with "angular lock on" that you need to read about in my book---result in limits of aggregation being established all throughout this universe. . This is why there are limits to the size of atoms and limits to the size of stars as well. . It also results in all these spin/orbital attractive bindings being quantified and their distances ultimately limited even though these distances may be extensive.

These individual quantum attractions are all full strength right up to the limit of their distance. . This is the reason that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (A quantum of energy comes to your eye from a distant star full strength. No energy is lost in that vast distance.) . It is only the number of these attractions that falls off with the square of the distance. . It is the spin binding of the electron that causes magnetism and the spin binding of the quark with other nearby quarks that give us gravity. . The quark to quark binding with those in the stars gives us inertial mass and gyroscopic inertia (Mach's principle) and none of the individual quantum parts of these attractions are diminished with that vast distance.

 

* The Aufbau or Ampere Corollary

The aforementioned forces, or spacetime intervals, between two objects (scalar wave resonances) will vary proportionally with the cosine of the angle of their paths and they will have a torque that will tend to make the paths parallel and to become oriented so that objects on both paths will be traveling in the same direction.

Or

All objects (scalar wave resonances) that "see" themselves traveling in the same direction on parallel paths at the same frequency will attract and/or space and time, at that frequency, between them diminishes.

All objects (scalar wave resonances) that "see" themselves traveling in opposite directions on parallel paths at the same frequency will repel and/or space and time between them, at that frequency, increases.

The words in green in that corollary are pretty much the way Ampere put it and it is very interesting because it shows us that electrons, stars, galaxies and superclusters ALL act on their close similar neighbors only with either attraction or repulsion exactly like tiny magnets very similar to individual spinning electrons that both bind and repel such as in magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding.

Gravity can no longer be considered a monopole force. . It clearly has a bipolar spin component now like magnetism.

So the positions of all these spinning items are of the utmost importance in relation to each other, which quantum scientists know, but what other scientists absolutely miss. . This spin frequency component of Ampere's law pertains importantly also to stars, galaxies and superclusters. . But, of course, these are in slower acting spacetime realms than electrons.

Thus: the same "A" laws are used in both the microcosm and macrocosm.

With gyroscopic 90 degree torque and Ampere's laws, all free spinning (exactly identical) entities (scalar wave resonances) such as electrons, stars, galaxies and super clusters must repel each other.

The reason for this is that as soon as any polar to polar or side to side attraction is developed between any two exactly identical free spinning entities then EACH of these will develop a different 90 degree gyro torque, in relation to each other, which will twist each of these away from their most attractive positions in relation to each other.>

Absolute proof of this is that out of the millions of stars and galaxies, whose spin orientation we can ascertain, the closest sides of every star or galaxy are moving like gears clashing (not meshing) with their nearest neighbor. . This tells you, according to Ampere, they have ended up in a position that repels their nearest neighbor.

Only binary stars that rotate around each other will have the slightest semblance of a prograde spin. . All other stars have a retrograde spin toward their closest neighbors.

There are about one hundred thousand million galaxies and about a hundred thousand million stars in each galaxy. . When NONE of these, of the ones we can see, violate Ampere's law then this, it seems to me, is absolute proof of not only Ampere's law but also of Einstein's repulsive force between all of the stars and galaxies.

Isn't the accumulative effect of all this, Einstein's original cosmological constant repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity thus now making gravity a bipolar force?

We end up also seeing that attractive force is only possible with things that are "locked" together and are traveling together on similar geodesic paths through their surroundings. So Ampere's Laws are relative motion laws depending on the surroundings (Mach's principle).

And that's the rest of the story that you can now add to what you already knew about gravity, which becomes a bipolar force now.

Remember it's the spacetime interval, or average space, that is being diminished by the 1st "A" Law and increased by the 2nd and this can be seen as simply more space than average (the same as it is seen in the tensor math of GR) or as a repulsive force.

Also remember that this perception will depend on the observer's geodesic path through the surroundings.

Remember also that this spacetime (space and time) that is either created or diminished will be altogether different at different spin/orbit frequencies.

The reason that these "A" laws work is really impedance matching where a small portion of spherical, scalar, standing wave entities that are in phase create no space between themselves or an attractive force. Other small portions of spherical, scalar, standing wave entities that are out of phase do create space or a repulsive force between themselves.

So a tiny portion of these spinning spheres produce two vector resonances that are out of phase creating a repulsive force between themselves or space. . . There is no space creation (or an attraction) between two in phase resonances. Our minds, therefore, see an average of space manufacture along with repulsive and attractive forces.

You can get all the details by clicking on the links for the fREE e-books at the beginning of this web page.

As you look at these laws, you can immediately see that for each single spin/orbit-frequency, this must indeed be a type of steady-state universe exactly as must be seen now that Perlmutter is explaining to us that Einstein's cosmological constant---a repelling force---is between each star, galaxy, super cluster, etc.

 

There may be no smallest particle. There may be no largest entity in this all resonance universe.

It may be that we are even far more insignificant than we now believe. . Each of these different frequency spin/orbit systems may exist like piano keys on a universe grand piano that has a keyboard of infinite length.

You must keep in mind that your world is only a few of these spin/orbit piano keys and that anywhere you go on this piano keyboard that the lower keys will "see" the higher keys performing much like we see our electrons performing.



Use The "A" Laws for a longer explanation

or The Aufbau Laws for a really short explanation.



Quantum theorists are still not fully aware of the following:

Quantum units of energy exchanges, between two electrons, are restricted to a spin up - spin down electron pair.

Both electrons must be spinning in the same equatorial plane.

Impedance matching is also involved.

The balanced spin of this electron pair makes it a temporary boson while the quantum of energy is being transferred from one electron to the other.

What is most important here is that you understand that while the electrons transferring this quantum of energy may seem an immense distance apart, it is as if there is NO DISTANCE WHATSOEVER between the impedance matched portions of those two electrons because distance is really a frequency contrivance.

Space is not something that is simply there. . Space has to be constantly rebuilt the same as we have to be constantly rebuilt. When a spin up - spin down electron pair exchange energy, no matter how distant they may seem, the portions of the electrons exchange the energy as if there is NO DISTANCE between them.

Time is best seen as a scalar quantity but NOT space. . Space between two items is a vector, out of phase, spin frequency contrivance. . In an energy transfer where the two portions are in phase then energy is transferred as if there is no space between them..

Earlier I said, "QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) deals with probabilities, yet it is able to predict with the highest accuracy of any theory. . If you keep reading then I'll show you exactly WHY that is so."

Now I'll show you WHY.

QED uses what is called the square of the amplitude (probability) to correctly determine the actual number of the aforementioned, resonating, bosonic, spin up - spin down electron pairs that are in the correct position and lined up exactly right, having the correct impedance, to transfer energy, in that path, to and from the points involved.

But WHY is the square of the amplitude so important in QED?

Because this is determined by mass and mass is caused by the quark whose scalar, resonance rate is the square of the electron's scalar, resonance rate.

QED's square of the amplitude is derived because it is a direct match to the scalar, resonance rate of the quarks that cause inertial mass.

As of this writing (8/21/2005) we can suspect even those QED mathematicians, who can properly do the math for all this, are not fully aware of the reality stated above. . They are, believe it or not, like the Druid priests of Stonehenge who had worked out the methods to properly forecast eclipses but who did not know WHY their methods worked.

DPFJr

 

 

****

Here's a link to Charles Scott's e-book entitled "The Backside of the Universe". You can click this link http://www.rbduncan.com/scott.htm to get a commentary about C. Scott's revolutionary e-book.

After clicking the above link, you will find a red link to get Scott's entire e-book FREE.

Scott's book is important because it adds proof to the fact that it is all relative motion and string theory is correct and we do, in fact, have these different frequency dimensions.

We definitely do have our mind sensing these different frequency spacetime realms.

And these are the things that make us believe we see four different fundamental forces when there is really only one fundamental force that should be correctly viewed from a multiple viewpoint of various spacetime realms.

This takes us back to what Ampere discovered, that it all can be seen as relative motion and this is telling us Charles Scott' hypothesis is absolutely right.

Charles Scott's revolutionary e-book entitled "The Backside of the Universe" needs publicizing.

It is the forerunner of what Stephen Wolfram said we would someday arrive at: "A New Kind of Science".

 

This link Is there a more fundamental theory? - More than just strings ends with the following words:


"We still don't know what the fundamental theory behind string theory is, but judging from all of these relationships, it must be a very interesting and rich theory, one where distance scales, coupling strengths and even the number of dimensions in spacetime are not fixed concepts but fluid entities that shift with our point of view."


Yes, exactly right, string theorists are arriving at the same concept of this universe that I have already portrayed in this web page.

Want to know this fundamental theory behind String Theory?

Read this web page and it will easily explain, to you, this rich theory where distances and dimensions ". . .are not fixed concepts but fluid entities that shift with our point of view".


Yes, this is a frequency or resonance universe much like that which Dr. Milo Wolff is portraying but our concepts of distances and time will be based entirely upon the spin/orbit frequencies of the particles from which we are constructed.

Even the spacetime interval will change with the change to another particle's spin/orbit frequency.

For instance, the spacetime interval represented by the constant c in our realm, of the electron, will change to the spacetime interval represented by the constant c2 in the realm of the quark. . Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

Comments or complaints about anything on this site???
post to: Robert B. Duncan



(c) 2001 - 2009, RB Duncan Press, All Rights Reserved

Site Design by Page Design Studio


If you're interested in science then read the rest of these web pages.
They eliminats tons of garbage and greatly simplify science. . They will put you a quantum leap ahead of the pack in understanding relativity and quantum mechanics.



In less than a year there were more than a Quarter of a Million accesses to this site & over a Million by April 23rd, 2003 & over TWO Million by September 9th, 2003

Click for OLD Web Page total hits as of 9-06-2003 - - (server change)



Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Theory of Everything greatly simplifies science. . Using these simple Aufbau Laws or "A" Laws, you can actually understand how everything in this universe works including special relativity (easiest to learn) and general relativity Explanation (hardest to learn).



Fitzpatrick's "A" Laws - that have many of the aspects of string theory - give us the very first, simple, understandable unified field answer because they see forces as spacetime creations similar to general relativity.



* * * continued on page 2. * * *

 
 
CONTINUED on Page 2.

Click above for Page 2.














(almost forgot) ADULT xxxSEAN version

*~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~*