* Motion is something that is "seen" quite differently by different subset systems. 3/8/2005

Einstein's papers in 1905 (microcosm tire patch kit) and 1915-16 (macrocosm tire patch kit) showed us exactly how much error all of our scientific rules would have, not only in the microcosm, but also in the various cases where speed or mass was high and Newton's 17^th century principles entirely failed. But remember this is still only patching this old 15^th+16^th+17^th+18^th+19^th century accumulated science foundation. No one provided us with a good thoroughbred set of 20^th century science rules. I will, however, give you a good set of laws herein for the 21^st century though.

Even with all of the proof that our basic system of science was in need of a major overhaul, scientists did absolutely nothing but add some necessary relativity corrective patches.

I had the "luck of the Irish" in that not only was I immersed in this right from my youth but later I also was involved with things in areas that proved invaluable in this particular quest. Even with all of that, after I found most of the bones it still took me over 33 years to completely solve the problem and put the entire skeleton of Einstein's dinosaur together. The answer is contained herein.

As I said, Einstein was right. He predicted the answer would be simple enough that the human mind could understand it, and it most certainly is.

Yes that's right: It's an extremely simple answer that requires absolutely no mathematical procedures of any type. I will show you precisely what this universe uses and it most certainly doesn't use any of our present math. I'm going to give you a big, extremely simple picture of unification in 3-D and living color without the need for you to know even the slightest bit of math.

I will be able to show you this extremely simple unifying principle and how it works providing you have some knowledge of science and/or you do some homework and if you try to concentrate on what I'm telling you.

Einstein's general relativity tensor math formulation works-it's the best thing we have-and we have no other choice but to use it whether we believe he was right about the entire setup or not. He gave us veritable diamonds of new science. We will be looking closely at some of his other ideas too. Never have so many of us owed so much to so few of these early scientists even though all of them did make some mistakes now and then: For instance Einstein claimed gravity was a wave and therefore he predicted it could be polarized. Yes, gravity is a wave all right and you will even get the wavelength for gravity herein so theoretically it might be polarized. We think we know a lot about polarization of light waves, RADAR waves and much longer radio waves as well. But even as I type these words scientists are working on a new discovery where more information can be put out on one frequency provided that you have a multiple antenna arrangement with a different polarization in each single antenna inside this multiple transmitting and multiple receiving set of antennas. Not only are we still learning about polarization but it is this very factor of polarization, along with the Planck's constant factor, that makes us sense these ultra, ultra high frequencies of the orbiting electrons as a solid mass. We know they are moving and we should sense all this movement but we don't so we know polarization has aspects at these ultra, ultra short wavelengths (many thousands of times shorter than the light frequencies) that still remain somewhat of a mystery to us. If you ask the question if it is even possible to polarize at these ultra, ultra short wavelengths then the answer is possibly no. You will discover that the gravity wave(s) is/are at two extreme ends of the spectrum.

That prediction of Dirac's is a perfect description of this universe and this new theory that you are about to read. You will see this universe turns out to be far, far, far more complex than most scientists presently think. Dirac was right about it being extremely complicated and he was also right about predicting that a way would be found to see a big picture of approximately how it all works.

Not listening to other great scientists was an error many of our 20^th-century scientists made: They made a great many of these type errors too. One of the biggest mistakes ever made was in not listening to David Hilbert. Hilbert spelled it all out when he questioned geometry. This text would be far too long if I went into all of Hilbert's analyzing but I'll give you a small fraction of it here right now: Hilbert asked, "What is this dimensionless thing we call a point?"

Hilbert proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such a conception as an imaginary point was absolutely useless when examining our entire universe because as you imagine yourself getting smaller and smaller, while trying to look at things smaller and smaller, this point must start to take on size. It must get bigger as you keep getting smaller and smaller, as you try to visualize this tiny micro world. If you could still keep getting smaller yet, then this thing that was once only a tiny point would finally take up the size of a marble, then a golfball, then a baseball, then a basketball, then eventually a lot of the room in your new universe. If you counter this argument and say, "No, it will not. It will stay at the same point size." Then if that point was at the end of a three degree angle when you got smaller then what is this same angle now that you are smaller? Sorry, you lose. Hilbert pulled the rug out of the very foundations of not only Euclidean geometry but also all types of geometry, because all types are forced to use points. Geometry is OK only if you keep your same size. An all-encompassing geometry of both the microcosm and the macrocosm is simply not OK. When trying to examine both the ultra macrocosm and the ultra microcosm throughout this entire universe, you will see herein that your geometry will fail. Einstein's success with general relativity showed that he understood this but this success also made him think he could somehow mathematically prevail. So Einstein sidestepped this advice of Hilbert's entirely because in looking for his "Unified Field" he should have realized that fields depend on geometry. If there is no such thing as an all-encompassing geometry (You'll even see further proof of this) then surely there can be no chance for an all-encompassing "Unified Field". But having said that, I now know Einstein was correct in searching for the one single extremely simple unifying principle because if I have not discovered it then I have at least found the closest extremely simple method you will ever get to visualize it.

I always believed if there is, in fact, a unified principle then the foundation for this must be a unified premise and the premise has to be that this indeed is a 100% wave universe and these waves have the ability to form into what we perceive is a particle. There is no other premise, that I know of, which will lead to a unified principle. Quantum mechanics shows you particles are built from waves. Quantum theory, more or less, shows you that these waves are assembled into spherical particles. This is simply because of a rapidly changing wave polarization caused by space-time. These particles then retain original wave properties while also assuming-because of changing polarization mainly-brand new individual particle properties. The electron, for instance, is a far different particle from the quark.

All types of geometry are useless to us as we try to examine our entire universe. Bohr knew this ! That's why quantum theory is designed to skirt around it. Einstein-who with Planck-helped lay the first foundation stones for quantum mechanics, then looked at what the Copenhagen bunch had done to it. Einstein made some remarks about Bohr, something like, "God never designed a universe such as Bohr had in mind." Bohr found out about this later and replied, "Who is Einstein to tell God what He should do."

* * *

If you took one of our best directional (horizontal axis) gyroscopes in the best set of friction free gimbals to either the North or South Pole and kept that gyroscope spinning then this gyro axis would simply remain in the same position-horizontally with the fixed stars-as the earth turned completely around under it. If you were at the pole watching it and timing it then you would know it was holding its position with all the stars. You, however, would not see it positioned in space with all the fixed stars because you would be turning along with the earth and you would perceive the axis of this gyroscope as making a complete rotation each 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds or one sidereal day. In other words, the gyro is holding its position constantly to all those fixed stars.

Why?

George Berkeley, Ernst Mach and a host of others firmly all believed that there must be some unknown force between the rest of the universe-the fixed stars-and these gyro devices causing the gyro, the pendulum, vibrating things, and today some lasers and some super-cooled elements to behave like this. Einstein himself started out believing this too but later-about 1927-he felt differently about this. Once people see this theory is correct, then they will realize Einstein's change of heart, and later thinking the universe was expanding, was his "biggest blunder" and not his "cosmological constant" that he thought, at the time, was his "biggest blunder".

Einstein's "cosmological constant" was not a blunder: It is here to stay.

Since this was written Saul Perlmutter's group has proven that Einstein's cosmological constant does indeed exist. This indicates we are in a steady-state universe. What about this expanding universe? What does the red-shift indicate then? Click this: http://www.rbduncan.com/page4.html and scroll almost to the end of that page.

Most people reading this will have a strong belief in an expanding universe. In this you will see some of the reasons for this belief. I, once upon a time, also believed in an expanding universe. I no longer think of it using this terminology because relativity has proven that this aspect of it can drastically change for different observers and, besides, now our "A" laws show you exactly what is really going on. Please examine all the evidence in here before you slack off reading this. In some respects while it may seem to be an expanding universe from one particular point of view, you will see as you read on, it will definitely not seem to be an expanding universe from the overall entire universe's point of view and it is this point of view that we must aspire to if we want to achieve a grand unified theory. But let's get back now to the gyroscope and the fixed stars.

What Berkeley saw-long before Jean Foucault essentially proved Berkeley's position by demonstrating the rotation of the earth with his celebrated 200 foot long pendulum-was that this gyroscopic precession at ninety degrees to the applied force could also be explained if the fixed stars were trying to keep that portion of the spinning gyroscope's rim in its new found path now that it had been shifted by some external force. What Berkeley correctly saw has now been all but lost by present day scientists who think of this precession as nothing more than a ninety degree shift in gyro torque for the applied force. They completely fail to see-what Berkeley saw-its connection with the rest of the universe.

The majority of my present scientific peers claim that the gyroscope does this merely because this is what it intrinsically will do. I'm afraid that this answer simply will not do. Your present science lacks the ability to show you why the gyroscope holds to all the fixed stars and this is a fact no one can deny. The majority of scientists will eventually get it right one of these days but the problem is that it takes them such a long time to get such things as this right. We'll come back again to these gyros later.

About this same period of time, across the water in England, Michael Faraday-who was not a mathematician-gave us his electrical rules.

I'll give you a good example by asking you to consider the following: Without looking at any other references, tell me in which direction-clockwise or counterclockwise-as you look down at the north pole of a magnet, which way all the electrons are spinning that are causing this magnetism.

Therefore, this is the reason that I said mathematics-our trusty sword-ended up cutting us badly instead of cutting out all the vegetation that prevented us from seeing all those unification road signs.

The same thing happened on the Bohr fork of the road where first QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) then QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) were formed. Then the fields of magnetism and the weak force were mathematically unified and from that came the standard model.

Both Dirac and Einstein have to be credited with believing that the human mind could conceive of a better answer than present science was offering. Both believed scientists could find out "what was behind it all". And this is the road you have to take. Bohr quit this Dirac-Einstein road and moved full time into quantum mechanics' magic math manipulations just a slight bit too early. So you can't take Bohr's magical math road here because, as you will see later, this is a subset dead end road. Einstein believed the answer was simple and Dirac believed the answer was complicated but some approximation would come along to allow us to understand it. Both Einstein and Dirac, in a way, will be proven right for trying to find out what was behind it all. Both will also be proven right for sensing we had to travel down the intuition road a bit further to achieve unification.

Today's "in-group" claims that Bohr's work was all coincidental because he did not really derive these various spectral lines but he imposed what he wanted on to his model. This may indeed be true but what if this modified centrifugal force that he used, to obtain the spectral lines of the single electron atoms of hydrogen and helium, was indeed the true, new centrifugal force caused by the changed surroundings in the microcosm around those electrons?

The mere fact that Bohr did obtain the spectral lines for the single electron hydrogen atom but then couldn't for the more massive atoms shows you that centrifugal force was different with the different surroundings: This is the whole crux of this entire thesis because you know that magnets can be produced by either strong magnets or an electric current in their surroundings. On top of this, both George Berkeley and Ernst Mach claimed our surroundings were likewise causing our inertia: You will see, as you read this, that they were both absolutely right about this too. If this is true then centrifugal force would indeed have also changed with the different surroundings and Bohr therefore may indeed have found the new, true centrifugal force to use to match all those spectral lines in the single electron hydrogen and helium atoms.

We know that we are dependent on the microcosm staying more or less the same but are we also dependent on the macrocosm (things exterior to us) remaining the same too?

What type of a universe is this where surroundings are this important to change not only the magnetic field but also centrifugal force and to actually cause inertia as well? Keep reading and you'll find out.

Stop and think! What are these things telling you?

In the case of Einstein, I understood Hilbert's warning that told me it was definitely not a unified field. Instead-providing we adopt universal laws and terms-we can, therefore, very well have an extremely simple unified principle if this is basically an all wave universe, which everything so far seems to indicate it is.

I was indoctrinated into radio theory by my father at an early age and soon saw the microcosm was all waves but much later to my astonishment I found the wave aspect, including of all things impedance matching, was in the macrocosm as well. This, to a veteran of all of these things, was extremely hard to believe.

In the case of Bohr's use of centrifugal force, this told me that something in these more massive atoms are proving-beyond a shadow of a doubt too-that centrifugal force is changing with the surroundings which it would do if both Mach and Berkeley were right. So therefore centrifugal force is merely a subset rule: It is not a global universal law such as you think it is.

Not only is centrifugal force a subset force but so are your four fundamental forces as well. In chapter 5 you will see that our new extremely simple "A" Laws completely replace, not only the four fundamental forces, but all your old subset invisible forces. Not only that but you end up with the following.