These books by Fitzpatrick brought to you
MAGPUL Industrieshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctPyeNZqFho
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 millionsClick on any of these links to get what you
want.blue
"
"Can't square a speed" Tom Van F. 5-09-2014
You can learn more from 2
magnets than thousands of books 12/28/2010a TRUE Grinch Christmas Story
12/26/2010it's chemistry
12/25/2010An Aether Universe
composed of quantum sized chunks of Aether 11/16/2010Fitz finds a Fact ("phase
coherence") gets #1 TOP SPOT on Google 9/22/2010Are Sigma and Pi chemical
bonding and Magnetism the same force? 9/20/2010Phase coherence &
the Inverse Square Law 9/05/2010e-mails to Hilton and to &
from Dr. Milo Wolff 8/21/2010Why we have Gravity
8/17/2010Harmonics and Lisi's E8 model
8/14/2010a
delayed response to Dr. Michio Kaku 8/02/2010NASA shows us some Big Bang
problems 7/26/2010Are all the Fundamental
Forces nothing but PHASE relationships? 7/4/2010Dr. Milo Wolff
congratulates Bill Gilmour on discovering the "Equation of the Cosmos".
6/21/2010Too
many SpaceTime Realms? - NASA shows us there is a problem!
6/01/2010Dark Energy and Dark Matter
from NASA 4/23/2010Einstein's Cosmological
Constant repulsive force 4/13/2010Shades of Einstein and
Fred Hoyle 4/06/2010Bose-Einstein
Condensate is proof this is a scalar, standing wave universe
3/26/2010The reason we have
Einstein's 'principle of equivalence' 3/19/2010Determining quark mass
via Scattering. 2/20/2010Cahill's Quantum Foam theory.
2/03/2010Why QUARKS have
assymptotic freedom. 1/06/2010What a photon really is.
1/03/2010Why gravity
= acceleration.1/02/2010Einstein's photon
1/01/2010This is a phase
universe 12/14/2009An
accelerating, expanding universe ? 12/16/2009Schrödinger's Universe
7/17/2008The Scalar Wave aspect of A.G. Lisi's model 4/19/2008 Here's what Frederik K.
Houtman says, Milo 2/12/2008EINSTEIN's Most
Important DISCOVERY 1/12/2008An Exceptionally Simple Theory
of Everything 11/19/2007Consider 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
8/2/2007Fitzpatrick responds to
mathematical physicist A. Bermanseder 1/16/2007This 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. 11/17/2005Where does C^{2}come
from? 9/11/2005 Binary stars act exactly like
electrons 9/6/2005What is Energy?
9/1/2005Charles 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
9x10^{16} 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
3/31/2005a
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). of the other stars,
according to Fitzpatrick's hypothesis, will be spinning this way with its closest
neighbor star. NoneIf 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=mc^{2} 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 - 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. - 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 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
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
lettersThese Tony B. Quantum Relativity math letters should be required reading for 101 String theorists.
If you want a simple picture of how this
complicated universe is working then absolutely nothing gives you a better
model than 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 2 ^{nd} 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 36 ^{th} 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: Isn't this why 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 book 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 Here's essentially what I'm trying to put forth: . You 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 Would you like to know 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
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 "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 change namely the "spacetime
interval". notSo 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
"
See Fitz's Universal Spacetime
Resonance LawsThe 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 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 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 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 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 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 Read the FREE e-books on this web page for more about all this. You know---at least the intelligent ones know---that wedo 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 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.
But this doesn't complicate things. . It actually simplifies it 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 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 Maybe but maybe not. . This 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 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: Einstein's principle of equivalence is telling you that you cannot tell
the difference between an accelerating, expansion and Einstein's original
cosmological constant. 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 This entire universe cares little for our present science. It
Aufbau
Laws(German translation "construction laws"). 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 ^{16} meters per second than 3 x
10^{8} 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 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
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 You will have to read a bit about 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 spacetime interval is direction at the same
frequency or a close harmonic thereof. . You can also say these two
objects will sameattract each other.
* A"
LawBoth space and time (spacetime interval) are created the
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
These two laws look equal and opposite but they are not: . The 1 These
_{
* 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, 2003Click 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*~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* |