Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the
relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
Fitz's first book in 1966
Fitz's 1966 book in Word . . . . . . . . . . . Fitz's
1966 book in PDF
http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.html
WIMPs in Word . . . . May 9, 2019 ALL you
need to . . . . WIMPs in
PDF
know about Dark Matter particles - (WIMPs).
This was
the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
© 2000
A bit of light on
Fitzpatrick's
Theory of Everything
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
© All rights reserved
In this you will see the
universe's building
principle.
This special High School level, Internet
abridged version is more than 80% of
the full, elaborate, printed edition.
It takes up 675 KB of disk space.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
© 2000
Dedicated to Dr. Frank R.
Caputo who is still very much with us and who lived his long life as American
as John Wayne and as honest as Pericles.
Since this was written and
published Dr. Frank R. Caputo of LaVilla Drive in Miami Springs, Florida - my
neighbor of many years - has passed away.
For many years this has been on
the internet totally devoid of links by which readers could better understand
it so I've begun to add a few here and there
1. Why can't anyone give us
a Theory of Everything ?
Someone
has: It's in front of you right now.
If you
promise to stay awake and keep reading then I'll hand a genuine "Theory of Everything" to you, right here, on a silver platter.
It is
plain to see everything is showing you these particles are built from waves. Especially quantum theory and superstring are
showing you the building blocks are waves, therefore all you have to do is ask the following:
"How can a wave universe be designed to make us see things as particles?" Then the logical answer to unification is
right in front of you.
Fate
played a role in the discovery of how this universe really works because I had
the luck to be working on all the right things in the right areas at the right
times.
Albert
Einstein was correct: The answer
is an extremely simple and relatively easy to understand unified principle.
Einstein predicted the human mind would be able to comprehend it. I'm afraid
this universe is not quite what most think it is and while these invisible
forces can be unified, this would have to be termed more of a unified principle
than a unified field.
Dirac,
however, said this entire universe
was extremely complex and he too is correct.
You
couldn't want a simpler foundation wave-particle principle.
What
you have here is an exceptionally simple cornerstone wave-particle principle,
that almost anyone can understand, producing a highly complex universe that no
one will ever understand in its entirety. This extremely
simple principle only
takes up about as many lines as you have already read. Explaining why we never
saw this principle and how this extremely simple principle builds this entire
universe makes this an exceedingly long book.
In this
Theory of Everything you will find the essence of unification:
* All the forces have a common origin.
* All the forces have identical properties.
The problem is that they are not presently related by exact
mathematical symmetries because our actual universe is primarily a
wave-particle universe all the way throughout and it is not even close to being
the universe that today's scientists think it is. All of us have held on to too
many of our old ideas a bit too long even though all the evidence was right
there in front of us showing us the truth.
^
Even
without this perfectly accurate mathematical relationship yet in place, you can
still obtain a very good picture of what is really going on in this universe if
you continue reading.
You
might say that this universe turns out to be much like a cake containing
Einstein's ingredients but having been baked by Niels Bohr and having Paul
Dirac's icing on it.
The
theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring have provided all the
necessary input that anyone needs to see this amazing "Theory of
Everything".
It's
simply that you have to understand all the subtle evidence in those
above-mentioned theories. No one seems to be paying even the slightest bit of
attention to all the correct vine covered road signs: Instead they are all
following their old well tested, well worn science road maps.
I'm
very much afraid that you cannot locate this Holy Grail by using all those old
well tested, well worn road maps that this present science guild has amply
provided to you and you will see the reason for this as you read on. Instead
you will have to keep looking for these often well hidden special relativity,
general relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring road signs that are
hiding underneath all that side of the road foliage. I'll point them all out to
you as we proceed.
You do not have
to be an expert or even a mathematician to understand this extremely simple
principle but you will have to put some effort into understanding how this extremely
simple principle
works to form this entire universe.
One of the hardest parts will be erasing the blackboard of some of
these things you think are true.
Here's a "for instance": Why is it that you cannot
see all this motion in the microcosm yet you can see all this motion in the
macrocosm?
There is a definite reason for this-that
you'll see as you read on-and it isn't the reason
present science exhorts.
Many
people-even some scientists-will throw up their hands in despair with Einstein's
general relativity that uses such things as curved space and space-time. It
doesn't have to be quite this mysterious if you use this extremely simple
explanation that shows you why it must
be so. In addition, you will find some slightly clearer concepts that will
enable you to better "see"
into some of these enigmatic areas of quantum mechanics, relativity and
superstring.
I'm
pretty old and I can remember when all
tires had tubes inside them and when they got a hole in them these tubes had to
be patched. They continually needed patching the same as our science today
continually needs patching.
Einstein's
relativity contain all the mathematical patches for your 19th-century
science tubes and if you want to run your old science car then you have to keep
patching things with Einstein's relativity patches all the time to get any
accuracy at all. You use Einstein's special
relativity patches in the microcosm and Einstein's general relativity patches in the
macrocosm. You still have to use relativity even if you don't like it or don't
understand it. You will have to believe me when I tell you there are scientists-who feel they have a good enough grasp of relativity-who do have to use it but don't like it and also do
not fully comprehend it.
There
is no doubt about this either. This new
exposition is a great simplifier and all the information anyone needs for an easy to understand
Theory of Everything is right here for all to see-if
they look hard enough for the information-in
relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring theory.
First
you do have to uncover all those fairly well hidden road signs and then second you must know how to read all those road
signs after you do finally locate and uncover them.
Those
aforementioned theories are essentially telling you what is wrong with your
present science setup. Moreover, they are informing you how the true universe
is built.
Keep
reading and I'll take you through everything step by step and show you what is
wrong and how it all went wrong as humankind pieced together this present
science structure that most people now believe in. I will also show you the
problems because you must understand the problems if you want to see all the
various important things that went into giving
us all this present science structure that we have today.
We had
this wonderful world of science that the smartest of scientists, from the
entire world, had all contributed to and methodically put together extremely
carefully step by step for several thousands of years. It was all going
together beautifully just like clockwork but then suddenly, out of nowhere like
a giant tornado, came all the problems.
About
1823, the very first major problem with our neatly constructed world of science
arrived. It was put forth by Wilhelm Olbers who had studied the amount of light
that we receive from our sun and from all these other stars at the various
distances we are from them.
He saw
that all these stars were adding up around us at the rate of the volume of a
sphere or 4/3 p
R3 but this was a much, faster rate than
the light depletion rate to us that was being diminished by the square of the
distance( R2).
Therefore
we get the following and this is known as Olbers' Paradox.
Olbers
then asked, "Why are we not blinded by all of this light?"
This
was the very first indication that all our methodically built house of cards or
19th-century science was probably wrong because if space was this
uniform, geometric thing that our scientists were all claiming it was then we
should, in fact, have far, far, far more light coming to us here on earth from
all those distant stars but we don't: We get very little light from all those
far away stars.
Why? (This will be answered later.)
Then came
the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 and this showed us if one adds the
velocity of the earth in its orbit to the speed of light then one still only
gets the speed of light.
So at
the turn of the century, science went into a virtual upheaval mainly because of
this Michelson-Morley experiment that showed the speed of light to be a
constant, independent of the velocity of the source and independent of the
velocity of the observer.
Before
that, we had a universe that we thought had only
Motion and Euclidean geometry. (The geometry you learned about in school.)
Now
take these three following items:
* #1. Motion
* #2. Euclidean geometry
* #3. The speed of light being a constant
^
Basically,
you can build an easily understandable universe with any two of the above but not all three.
Before the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 scientists
thought the universe was built with the above #1 and #2.
If you
consider a rock then you could see it as built with #2 and #3 because it
remains a solid even though you know electrons are in motion inside it but in
the rock all this motion seems to get canceled out so that you essentially have
no motion. Please remember this concept of the rock because it, in essence, is
the concept of a quasi steady-state universe (see chapter 5). So then using only the above #2 and #3, this
ultra, ultra high frequency motion is restricted. And we find
that with the speed of light a constant, motion is actually
restricted, isn't it? (Later you'll see why
motion is restricted.)
The
NASA satellite tracker knows this universe is built using #1 and #3 because
when he uses your high school geometry to track these inter planetary voyagers,
they are simply not there when he aims his dish antenna to the spot. He then
has to correct his Euclidean geometry, using Einstein's math, to find where to
aim his dish antenna to get the spacecraft's signals.
It is
perfectly obvious therefore that this universe is not using anything even close
to your idea of distance measurements. It does seem to understand your idea of frequency and motion
though even though it does not use them exactly as you do.
Please
remember those two terms of frequency and
motion: They will come up again and
again. Once you see that something cannot go faster than the speed of light
then you know you must define the term motion quite differently from the
way this science "in-crowd" is presently defining it. Here's our new
motion statement but don't worry about understanding it right now because we'll
dig into the full meaning of it later.
* Motion is something that is "seen" quite differently by different subset systems. 3/8/2005
^
After
the Michelson-Morley experiment there was turmoil in the scientific world
simply because it all didn't seem to add up somehow. It was all eventually more
or less haphazardly resolved with the Lorentz contraction and various other
patches but the enigma of the speed of light remaining a constant was still
essentially there. Exactly why it was a constant and exactly why you could not
obtain a faster speed, no one ever really found out. So essentially the
Michelson-Morley experiment still presents this presently accepted view of
science with quite a riddle even though our basic 19th-century
science foundation is constantly and extensively being patched all the time
using the tools Einstein provided us with in special relativity and general
relativity.
All of
this can be totally avoided by accepting this new view of the universe. While
future computers and math will monopolize and utilize this new view,
unfortunately this new view will not currently work at all with your present
math. You will still be using Einstein's corrective relativity math for quite a
while yet. This new view beautifully resolves this seemingly incompatible
reason for the results of that Michelson-Morley experiment. Using this new view
of the universe, the Michelson-Morley experiment answer makes perfect sense.
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 17th
century principles entirely failed. But remember this is still only patching this
old 15th+16th+17th+18th+19th century accumulated science
foundation. No one provided us with a good thoroughbred set of 20th
century science rules. I will, however, give
you a good set of laws herein for the 21st century though.
All
these things discovered after Olbers' Paradox and especially after 1887 made it
perfectly obvious to every scientist that our basic science structure was way
out of alignment with the actual truth.
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.
Few
even attempted to look around to try to find out what was really wrong.
And
most still haven't either.
I
attempted it.
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.
What
you must understand is that mathematics is the very soul of science. It always
was and it always will be. No one will ever change that.
Johannes
Kepler used math to prove all the planets moved in elliptical orbits.
Isaac
Newton used math to prove the law of gravity.
Ole
Römer used math to discover the speed of light and this goes on and on and on.
Math
was important to me in my working years and it still is now in my retirement.
Math is the very soul of science and it is the sword of Excaliber that every
scientist carries next to him just as the Vikings always carried their swords
right next to them all the time.
So now
when I state that it has been our math that has led us down the wrong road,
most scientists who are reading this will immediately chuck this into the waste
basket and they will have nothing more to do with anything else that I write as
well.
So I
know I'm going to lose many of my readers at this point by making that previous
statement but this is the way I have to put it because this is the road we have
all been led down. You will see exactly why this happened.
I'll
then make another statement that is even more preposterous: It is the sentence
that follows.
You do
not have to know any math at all to see this new big picture of unification.
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.
Not
only that but it's probably even a simpler revelation than Einstein himself
thought when he made that prediction.
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.
What
Einstein did not know was that even though the big picture can be made
relatively simple, this brand new math must take into consideration things that
today's scientists do not even think exist. This universe is more like the
universe that Dirac predicted; it's very complicated and not nearly as simple
as most scientists today suspect.
But
even though this universe is extremely complex, any good high school student
who is interested in science, and gets good grades in science, should be able
to see this big simplified picture.
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.
This is
one of those books that needs to be chewed well and digested for you to get the
main idea behind it all. You won't be able to skim through this one and get the
"big picture" because, I'm afraid, this is a whole brand new ball
game: It's too much of a change from today's scientific "big
picture".
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.
Most of
gravity emanates from the spin of quarks, which spin at a much higher frequency
than electrons. This is too high a frequency to polarize. Much of gravity
emanates at the galactic spin rate, which is at the other extreme end of the
spectrum and it may be virtually impossible, as well, to attempt polarization
at this ultra, ultra long wave end of this bandwidth of frequencies immediately
concerning us here on our earth. After you have read all of this then you will
have all the necessary information to determine for yourself whether this
polarization prediction by Einstein was a good prediction or not. Also you will
see why Paul A. M. Dirac's monopole prediction will be hard to justify on one
hand but even harder to rule out practically because you will be presented with
a sort of physical evidence of it herein. Having said that, you will also see
another prediction of Dirac's that the future would bring forth a theory which
would express the fundamental laws of nature that would be intuitively
constructed only on the basis of approximations, mainly because of the highly
complex nature of this universe.
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 20th-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.
If the
polarization of these standing waves change rapidly enough and trace out a
sphere, then they actually become a spherical particle. They will then behave
like spherical particles especially to all their exact sister particle copies.
Understanding this, I took this one step further and saw that every
micro or macro spin/orbit-frequency level, of different type
particles, was also different because in this brand new
context, for any specific calculation, you absolutely must define a place of
rest and this can only be at one spot on one
specific orbiting geodesic.
While
Einstein was a loner, Niels Bohr was not and he gathered around him in
Copenhagen others who all worked diligently at quantum mechanics. These same
years in America, Henry Ford gathered people around him diligently cranking out
cars. America and Copenhagen, in those years, cranked out one new miracle after
another. Einstein was fully eclipsed behind all these Copenhagen quantum
mechanics' miracles discovered by the many who gathered at Bohr's home.
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."
*
* *
2. What went wrong
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.
While
present science doesn't even give us the foggiest idea of what this force might
be that holds these gyroscopes to the fixed stars, this new theory most
certainly does.
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
1820 in France, Andre Ampere-who had mastered all the math of that age by the
time he was 12 years old and who the "amp" is named after-constructed
the first electrical measuring instrument ever made and gave us one of the very
first magnetic-electrical rules.
About
this same period of time, across the water in England, Michael Faraday-who was not
a mathematician-gave us his electrical
rules.
Incidentally much later, in honor of Faraday, the scientific world
named the farad the unit of capacitance.
Faraday thought he could unify the fields of gravity and magnetism
and even suffered depression when he failed.
Now
came a juxtaposition of sorts because the world accepted Faraday's rules and
used these instead of Ampere's laws because Faraday's rules were found to be
more suitable when adapting to the mathematics of the day.
Well,
in hindsight it turns out this was the wrong fork of the road to turn down for
unification because it ensured that as you constructed your science empire on
Faraday's rules, you lost your chance of being able to easily unify these four
fundamental invisible forces of magnetism, gravity and the strong and weak
force.
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.
The
answer is clockwise.
However,
very few people will immediately know this because Faraday's lines of force
totally obscure this. Ampere's laws, on the other hand, do not use lines of
force and once Ampere's laws are perfected and adapted they even disclose not
only this spin presence but also this clockwise direction of spin rotation.
Magnetism,
Niels Bohr proved, is caused by the electron's spin and the direction of the
electron's spin rotation determines the direction of magnetism.
The
same way Faraday's rules hide the electron's rotation from you, they also hide
unification from you as well, because they show you things they shouldn't and
they don't show you things they should. It's as simple as that.
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.
In
addition, that wasn't the only wrong fork of the road we turned down either.
Einstein
and Bohr argued over which fork of the road to take and here I have to state
this was the second wrong fork in the road toward unification that we took.
It's
indeed true that Bohr finally, totally eclipsed Einstein and everyone agrees
that Einstein's attempt, in his later years, to unify the four fundamental
forces of gravity, magnetism and the strong and weak forces was a complete
failure. However, that does not mean this was the wrong road to take. I'll
prove to you herein that it was the correct road leading to unification of
those four fundamental invisible forces.
You
cannot get to unification unless you go down both the Ampere and Einstein forks
of the road.
Having
said all that, I also must state that we would not have all the material things
in this world that we have today had we not taken the Faraday and Bohr forks of
the road.
James
C. Maxwell's equations worked beautifully with Faraday's picture of things and
as soon as Heinrich Hertz clarified Maxwell's equations then radio took off
like a storm. It grew about as fast as this computer revolution is growing today.
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.
And if
we had not gone down these two wrong forks of the road then I would never have
noticed all these well hidden road signs and you would not have this simple big
picture answer to unification before you now.
So we
probably had to go down those wrong forks of the road anyway to get the answer.
Never-the-less
if you want unification, you have to completely backtrack and take the
Ampere-Einstein road because no easily understandable grand unified theory is
to be found down the Faraday-Bohr road.
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.
Einstein
failed in his attempt to unify the four fundamental forces and Bohr eventually
failed too when he tried to use his modified centrifugal force to obtain the
spectral lines in atoms more massive than the single electron hydrogen atom.
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?
That is precisely what this new theory is stating.
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.
With
both of these failures of Einstein to unify the four fundamental forces and of
Bohr to match the spectral lines in the more massive atoms, are to be found the
gems of those hidden road signs that point out all the correct roads to take.
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.
* All the forces have a common origin.
* All the forces have identical properties.
Einstein
failed because there is indeed an extremely simple unified principle
with unified "A" laws and
special terms for these laws but there is no single, particle
type, unified field. There is a big difference between a unified
principle and a unified field and you will see why we can have one without the
other.
In
addition to all this, as you probably already know, none of your scientific
rules work in the microcosm. All your scientific rules must be kept out of the
microcosm and above that magic level of Planck's constant.
The
only things that work below the level of Planck's constant are the gauge
theories of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the essential tool
scientists use to predict are local gauge invariance which gives the theory a
type of symmetry that governs the math.
You
have to ask yourself why our scientific rules cannot be used in the microcosm
and our "A" Laws will show you
why.
Both
local gauge invariance and therefore this symmetry change drastically with
spin/orbit particle-frequency
levels: For instance, you have different gauge invariance and symmetry in QCD
than you have in QED and, of course, a different symmetry means that you use
different math in QCD than you do in QED.
You use
QCD to study quarks. You use QED to study the behavior of the electrons that
build up the various atoms.
Later
our "A" Laws will make it perfectly
obvious to you why this must be this
way.
Here's
the advantage of the "A" Laws:
While quantum theory divides up the study of quarks and electrons into QCD and
QED respectfully, the "A" Laws
also divide all particle levels into something similar to quantum mechanics'
local gauge theories except by using the "A"
Laws you use the same laws and same terminology for each different spin/orbit particle-frequency level.
At this
point the reader will question this and say that if you use the same laws and same terminology
then you don't need different levels.
Ah, but
you do because each different wave-particle level will be at an entirely different spin/orbit-frequency
and this my good friends is primarily a wave and frequency
universe.
This is another hidden quantum mechanics' road sign all covered
over with vines and leaves.
Not only are surroundings important but it's the matching
spin/orbit-frequencies of these surroundings that
are tremendously important.
Please remember that just as your radio or television can only tune
into one frequency spectrum at a time, your mind also can only tune into
one frequency spectrum at a time. You simply cannot see this entire universe at
once. In this universe deck of cards, you can only see one card at a time just
as you can only get one station at a time on your radio or TV. Your mind is no
different from your radio or TV in this respect.
Superstring and Quantum mechanics are telling you this is
really a wave and frequency
universe.
One other extremely important reason that you must have this
division into separate spin/orbit levels is that you
must define a place of rest. You
can no longer afford to forget this mandatory place of rest. This
place of rest only exists, at one spot, on
a certain geodesic so you must specify which geodesic, therefore
you must specify which spin/orbit-frequency level.
These hidden Quantum mechanics' QED and QCD road signs are pointing
out to you that only one specific place of rest is allowed for each card
in this universe deck of cards. In other words you must have separate cards for
each separate particle-frequency level.
This is
why-as in quantum theory-things must be separated into different
spin/orbital particle-frequency levels
because the surroundings are different for every
spin/orbit-frequency level. In
this theory, surroundings and the frequencies of these spins and orbits are the key
to inertial qualities.
You'll
see later exactly how this all works.
Since
these wave-particle levels are all subset
particle levels then what information you have for one wave-particle level is
worthless in another level: You can't use information in one and move it to
another just the same as information in QED can not be directly used in QCD in
quantum mechanics. From this, you can see the reason QCD must be different from
QED and the reason is simple: It is a difference of spin/orbital frequency and different surroundings.
Now I
may lose some quantum people reading this as I use that above statement.
If you
are still onboard after that pronouncement then look at this next one.
The
universe you think you have is nothing like the universe you really have.
Here's
what you really have: Quantum theory divides up things into local gauge theories
so that QED is for looking at electrons and QCD is for looking at quarks and
the strong
force that govern quarks.
But the
"A" Laws divide up all spin/orbit levels into distinct
spin/orbit-frequency levels and by doing so
gravity can be easily added to the unification scheme. So with the "A" Laws you now have the electron spin/orbit
frequency level and the quark spin/orbit-frequency level, the same as quantum theory but then
to get the gravitational forces, you must add the quark spin/orbit-frequency level and galaxy spin/orbit-frequency level; Virgo super-cluster spin/orbit-frequency level and this may even go on. The gravity
wave bandspread, I'm afraid, is a wide spectrum of waves at the Quark spin frequency plus
a great many diverse extra long and ultra long waves emanating from Galaxy and Virgo super-cluster spin frequencies
of even lower frequencies. But the beauty of these "A" Laws is this: All
laws and terminology for each
distinct spin/orbit-frequency level are the same. Even though you are
still stuck like quantum theory with different sections, now you have the same
laws and terms for all the sections so you can readily see how they all join
together and this is much harder to presently do in quantum mechanics that uses
different laws and terms for the different
gauge theories. Even without the help of math yet, these pages should be a big
help to you in seeing what's really going on and later with correct utilization
of the proper math, this new theory will give this world big changes in
science.
Because
now we have to take the surroundings into
consideration, we do not have the computers yet that can fully utilize
this new knowledge. But with this new information we can mathematically now
definitely incorporate gravity into quantum theory. While this essentially is
unification in some respects. It is not the best achievable method of
unification that you will eventually have using these "A" Laws properly together with future
super-computers.
Therefore
I repeat, in this Theory you will find that using our new "A" Laws:
* All the forces have a common origin.
* All the forces have identical properties.
(We need to work on the required mathematical symmetries.)
^
I hope
with this statement that I haven't lost a lot more readers.
If all
this is a bit too much for you then don't worry even one little bit. Just
remember that each permanent wave-particle level will require something similar
to an entirely different gauge theory because each different permanent particle
level will have a different symmetry governing its equations because each
spin/orbit-frequency level will have far
different surroundings as governed by our
forthcoming "A" Laws.
I use
the terms particle-frequency level or spin/orbit-frequency level to be essentially the
"A" Law equivalent of the
quantum theory systems requiring local gauge theory.
We
certainly end up with considerably more levels than quantum mechanics but we
come out a bit better than having to use quantum theory's different
terminologies because instead, now we are able to use the same laws and
terms in all spin/orbit-frequency levels and, of course, we can include gravity
this way where quantum theory simply cannot.
And my
friends you have just learned-later I'll show
you more about this-something that many
scientists might not be fully aware of yet: You
will always have different subset rules-a different local gauge theory-for every different permanent spin/orbit-frequency level discovered.
Why?
Because
of their surroundings according to our "A" Laws. Mach and Berkeley were correct:
Each different particle level has a different frequency
border on each side of it. Each different wave-particle level has an entirely
different microcosm and macrocosm. Yes, I'm afraid these are the things that
our "A" Laws will show you
determine a different local gauge invariance. Therefore, there will be a different
symmetry of equations and different inertial qualities
for each different spin/orbit particle-frequency
level.
A
particle can not even remain a particle unless its surroundings
are correct. You'll see exactly why later when we get into the "A" Laws. While protons seemingly last
forever by themselves, neutrons simply cannot: Neutrons must have protons in
their close proximity to survive. Once a neutron is pulled out of the nucleus,
it can only last about ten minutes before it decays into a proton, an electron
and an antineutrino by the beta decay process. So this is telling you surroundings are important for particle stability. You
will see in chapter 5 and 18 why the neutron needs the proton for stability.
You
will see exactly why surroundings cause inertia
when we get into our "A" Laws.
Because our surroundings in the macrocosm are
homogeneous and isotropic in the large (spread out evenly over space and time) then
our present high priests of science seem to be correct when they inform us our surroundings most likely do not cause inertia. But if
our surroundings were not so evenly spread out
all around us then we would have seen long ago that these priests of science
were wrong and Mach and Berkeley were right and our macrocosm was causing this
inertia that we feel.
Einstein's
special and general relativity are far different creatures from Bohr's quantum
mechanics. I shouldn't really call it Bohr's quantum mechanics because Planck
and Einstein really started it, but Bohr took it over and made it his. Einstein
hated it going in the direction that Bohr took it too, and Einstein did not
hesitate to voice his opinion about that either.
Einstein
always wanted exact answers and you can see in both special and general
relativity that you always get exact answers.
Not so
in quantum mechanics though, where you sometimes only get a high probability
that something will happen.
To see
the big picture you do not have to be an expert in either relativity or quantum
mechanics but you do have to understand basically what gauge invariance and
symmetry are all about. This much of quantum theory is extremely important.
Gauge
invariance-also sometimes called
"eich" invariance-is the distinctive
manner in which that particular system always reacts to something.
Symmetry
is more or less the symmetric way everything is being built at that particular
level and this can-most of the time-best be described mathematically: Say for
instance your child builds an octagon with Tinker Toys. If this octagon is
rotated 45 degrees on the table, the transformation ends up with the octagon
not being changed: You could therefore say these items built with Tinker Toys
will all have a certain symmetry of construction. If another child builds a
square building out of Lego blocks, and this is rotated 90 degrees, on the
table, it will have the same appearance after the 90 degree transformation: So
these things he builds out of Lego blocks will all have a certain type symmetry
of construction that will have a different description mathematically from the
items that are built out of Tinker Toys.
* Quantum mechanics, together
with these "A" Laws, is showing you-beyond
any doubt-that each particle level has its own distinct style of local gauge
invariance. Therefore, each particle level has its own distinctive type of
symmetry as well.
^
Each particle-level will therefore-in this new theory-have
its own distinctive type of inertial qualities.
There is a distinction between our inertia
and the other non-quark particles that will all also display inertial qualities. Chapter 13 covers inertia.
If you use the correct common terms and our new "A"
Laws then you can improve upon the quantum mechanics' system of entirely
different rules and terminology for each distinct spin/orbit-frequency level or
local gauge theory.
You can substitute and then use the same
"A" Laws and the same terms for each
spin/orbit-frequency level.
If you
forget all else about what quantum mechanics is telling you then please
remember this because this is
important. This is one of those prevalent road signs that they all could easily
see but somehow couldn't exactly understand.
You
could say quantum mechanics started when Max Planck discovered that all
radiation energy waves are given off in individual chunks or quanta. For
instance your eye needs at least 11 of these individual quantum chunks of light
coming from a distant star before your eye can see that star. Some animals can even
see things with less than 11 quanta of light emanating from them. If your eyes
were eleven times as sensitive as they now are then you would actually see each
individual quantum of light and those stars that you now see only in a
telescope might then even seem to be flickering on and off and look like
sparkling bubbles in a sky of champagne.
Einstein
immediately saw the importance of what Planck discovered, and Einstein dug the
foundation for quantum mechanics by giving us the first quantified particle,
the photon.
The
problem with all of these new discoveries was that none of these things were
predicted or even should be happening according to this 19th-century
world of science as this new 20th-century unfolded-and by the way,
we are still using all this 15th-century to 19th-century
science accumulation, as our science foundation, today.
Einstein
proved-using methods all scientists
agreed with-that if a man in a super
fast train passed by a man standing near the tracks then when this man standing
saw two simultaneous lightning flashes then the man inside the train would have
to see the lightning flash in front of the train first, before he saw the one
in the rear of the train.
This
essentially meant that time for the super fast moving man was not the same as
time for the man standing still.
This
was all too much for the majority of the people at that time, and I remember a
World Book encyclopedia that my father bought for us about the time of the
Second World War and it went out of its way to say that this was not a theory
that Einstein was putting forth: It was only a hypothesis which they then
emphasized was far less than a full theory.
Einstein
was the first to show us we now have a problem with time as well as space.
The big
revelation that Olbers' Paradox showed us was that space was not uniform. If
space was uniform all throughout then we could not possibly have Olbers'
Paradox and all this starlight would indeed blind us. The tensor math of general
relativity is designed to give us a more accurate prediction of gravity in
those more massive or higher speed situations where Newton's laws entirely
break down. One simple explanation of Olbers' Paradox according to general
relativity, considering we have a quasi steady-state
universe, would be that space is not uniform: It gets curved more around
massive stars and more space than usual gets super densely packed around all
these massive stars that we see in the night sky. So all that light gets lost
in all that extra densely packed space around those stars before it can even
get to us.
This
would be one way of answering what is happening but there may be a better
concept of explaining this as well.
While
curved space may be the answer given by general relativity, you will see some
additional clarification to this concentrated light loss around the stars and
the concentrated area of charge close to the electron-in this new theory-which
will be given in chapter 15. "Proof of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence using
these "A"
Laws" that you will find toward the end of this book.
What
you have to realize is that these massive stars-such as our sun-begin to act
on light and begin to act like black holes restricting a certain percentage of
their light to us somewhat before they get so extensively massive that all their light is prevented from coming to
us. You get a certain amount of water vapor evaporation well before
the boiling point of water and you also get a certain amount of light loss well
before the black hole point as well. It does
not
work like a light switch where, at the black hole surface, the switch gets snapped and 100% of the light and gravitational
attraction suddenly stops: While light, to us, stops at the event horizon
(surface) of a black hole, gravitational attraction, to us, continues further
inside the black hole up to the singularity. Black hole link Galaxies act
something like this as well at light frequencies: Far more light comes to us
from the less dense outer portions of the various galaxies than from the far
more dense inner central portions. This theory, you will see later, explains it
as wider
"angular
lock on" along with general
relativity's more curved space: It's essentially the same
thing really but adding a little different twist that seems to me to be a bit
more acceptable to the average human mind.
Another
term you will see is the "blitzseit" (defined in chapter 4) which together
with "angular lock on" (defined in chapter 15) can be used along with Einstein's curved space to
give you a much better and fuller picture of how and why this tensor math of
general relativity works as well as it does. Later you will realize, using both
of these terms, that you can plainly see why gravity always increases with
aggregation but light acts reciprocally and diminishes around super massive
objects. Personally, I like to look at it picturing Einstein's curved space as
actually causing "angular lock on" than simply using the curved space
concept by itself but I'll mostly refer to it as curved space herein because
this is more or less the generally accepted terminology.
The
electron's charge is tightly and densely concentrated right around the electron
in a very similar manner as this light loss is concentrated around all the
stars. You can see this when you hit something with a hammer. When you hit a
piece of steel or a nail with a hammer, nothing touches really. The atoms in
the hammer and the steel or nail both have a swarm of electrons around them and
these electrons never really touch each other. What you feel, when the hammer
hits, is this tightly packed area of charge concentrated right around every
electron.
Remember,
no electrons touched, so nothing touched: What you felt was "action at a
distance" or concentrated
wave action in the hammer electrons acting against other concentrated wave
action in the steel or nail electrons.
But
this is our main problem because we have all been brought up to entirely
discount this "action at a distance"
or concentrated wave action and instead we substitute our subset idea of two
distinct particles colliding which we know is essentially not true because
nothing actually touches. Those exterior electrons of
both the hammer and the steel or nail simply do not ever touch each other. Since
we know this, then why not simply attribute this entire colliding action to "action at a
distance" and the reaction
to the collision as to the underlying wave action from which it really stems?
If
charge was uniform all throughout then when you hit a piece of steel or a nail
with a hammer it would feel as if you were hitting something softer.
Therefore,
the way charge gets concentrated around these electrons is similar to the way
general relativity explains that space is curved and concentrated around all
these stars giving us the answer that Olbers never found.
To top
all this off Einstein went on to prove it is not space and it is not time but
it is really space-time.
Space changes and time changes but the average overall
space-time interval space-time interval link never changes in each individual spin/orbit-frequency level nor
does it change in this system of ours. (Those underlined,
clarifying words are extremely important.)
In
relativity, we find the space-time interval is similar to the hypotenuse of a
right triangle with space being one side and time being the other.
If the
hypotenuse always stays the same length, you can make the time side larger but
then the space side becomes shorter. If you make the space side longer, the
time side, of the triangle. must get shorter.
Einstein
showed us this then he moved into another area and showed us that E=MC2.
In the
half century since Einstein died no one has been able to figure out what kind
of a universe setup this can possibly be where space can be packed around all
these stars much like charge is packed tightly around all these electrons. On
top of that, time and space changes and energy can be converted into mass.
Moreover, topping that off now with Fitzpatrick's theory you have
the surroundings entering into all of this and
complicating things even more.
And
this person writing this says he has an extremely simple answer to all of this?
Come
on!
*
* *
3.
One more even worse problem
Gödel's
proof, some feel, is only a mathematical entity that has nothing much
whatsoever to do with our real world.
To
those who think that way I will now quote these few words, informing them about
Gödel's proof, from the 1997 Britannica CD:
"This
proof has become a hallmark of 20th-century mathematics, and its
repercussions continue to be felt. . ."
Incidentally, I like the 1997 Britannica CD better than the
in-house browser types that came after it and I like it even better than my new
Britannica 2000 DVD because the 1997 CD uses Netscape Navigator and I can
enlarge the font sizes-important to us old
timers-and it can be also used on the Mac and there are many more options
with it as well.
If I
could add to that 1997 CD quotation, I would simply say that the preceding
Britannica description is a vast understatement because Gödel's proof is eventually going to
bring down this complete science system used today. (This is being initially published in the year 2000.)
Gödel's
proof does have everything to do with
our present science set of rules and it does this because-and I'll continue to show this to you herein-our science is built upon subset rules and our
present rules of science are anything but universal global laws.
If
centrifugal force was a global universal law then Bohr would not have had to
modify it before he took it below the level of Planck's constant, and he would
also have been able to take it to the more massive atoms as well-but he
couldn't.
We
can't take any of our scientific rules or even very many of our scientific
terms down into the microcosm below that magic level of Planck's constant.
We are
forced to use only gauge invariance with the resulting math symmetry in the
microcosm.
So this
means what?
This
means that since both your scientific terminology and your scientific rules do
not work everywhere at any speed and with any mass,
without being corrected, then they most
certainly are subset terms and rules and are both subject to Gödel's proof.
Gödel's
proof tells you this: If you somehow are trapped entirely within any subset
system then you might never know if all the laws you have built for this system
are really true or not.
So this
pertains to all of us here on earth because we are most certainly trapped here
within our subset system. If there is no way we can even peer out far enough
into the microcosm or macrocosm, then we might never be able to see if all our
highly prized scientific rules are absolutely true global universal laws or
not.
Once
you see that our scientific rules cannot be carried into the microcosm, and on
top of that you have to keep correcting your present science rules with
Einstein's relativity corrections all the time, then this tells you there is a
real problem here indeed with our science being true global universal science.
You
know from quantum mechanics that you do have this thing called local gauge
invariance so there is one option open to you. Today's science guild is not
going to like it one bit, but I'm afraid that they will have to buy into it
eventually.
You
have the option of downgrading all your thousands of years of accumulated
scientific rules and terms.
You can
downgrade them from supreme global importance to something similar to local
gauge invariance and merely treat them as rules for this particular
proton-neutron particle level in a similar way to what's presently being done
in quantum mechanics.
You
would then have:
* QED subset
rules for local gauge invariance and symmetry for the electron particle level.
* QCD subset
rules for local gauge invariance and symmetry for the quark particle level.
* Our old science rules transformed
into subset rules for this proton-neutron particle level, which is the
closest microcosm level that begins to enter our science rules world.
^
You
must treat each one of those above levels as a
single card in a group of cards that you are holding in your hands.
It must be treated similarly to QED and QCD in quantum mechanics.
You therefore cannot move either your rules or even much of your
terminology from card to card.
Our "A" Laws, later, should convince you that this is the correct
reasoning.
I can
hear the howls about this one.
This
statement will lose me even more readers but at least they can't burn me at the
stake like they did Giordano Bruno or do to me what they did to Antoine
Lavoisier.
Once upon a time, the great scientists of this world believed in
phlogiston, a mystical substance that sometimes supposedly weighed less than
nothing. During this phlogiston era came Antoine Lavoisier who produced a gas
he called oxigine. Lavoisier was the first
person ever who saw that this oxygen in the air is the substance that allows
things to burn when they combine with it and in one fell swoop he, more than
anyone else, ended the phlogiston era. His country-forever
thankful to him for this great discovery-chopped
his head off with the guillotine.
And my
fellow reader, such is the world we live in.
But "not to worry": You are not a friend of the old French
nobility nor are you expressing any opinions or producing any new gas; you are
just reading.
Getting
back to our subject again, I have now tried to show you herewith that all your
science is subset science and subject to Gödel's proof.
I
strongly feel there is no doubt about this. All your present scientific rules
and terminology must be downgraded to a form of local gauge invariance and used
that way. Your basic science structure simply cannot be changed all the time
with some mathematical relativity corrections if you are using this same
science foundation as you try to use various mathematical endeavors to see how
this entire universe works.
Therefore,
it looks like things are so mystifying that I'm off to a really bad start.
Is this
the same writer who promised you a simple big picture of this universe?
Why is
he making things even more complicated?
Because
I have to show you we have some major problems here with our present science
structure.
This science
system has to be downgraded simply because it has been misleading you: I don't
mean misleading you in everyday life because it has given you a cheap,
efficient, mathematically 99.9% accurate system that in turn has provided you
with better production of things that you consider you absolutely need here on
earth. I'm talking about misleading you toward a Theory of Everything.
This
present science system has given us miracles indeed in new things for us to buy
and new weapons that the military cannot live without. I'm not telling you not
to use your present science system. If you have a car that is running then,
certainly, make use of it but this does not prevent you from looking for a
better car.
Yes,
this present science system is a mathematically simple and wonderful system and
a very, very efficient system math-wise compared to what you will need if and
when you do shift to this new system that I'm advising. We do not even have
computers yet that are good enough to process the massive amount of information
that will eventually be needed to properly work out problems in this new
science that I'm portraying herein: This is a far, far, far more complicated
universe than most presently suspect. Only the big picture is easier to see.
Once you bring in all the surroundings into the
picture then the new math becomes simply tremendous. After you see these "A" Laws, you'll see why I say this.
Because
the math in Fitzpatrick's system will be so extensive, the speed of computers
will have to go up much, much more and the price per computation will have to
come down much, much lower than it is now before this new system will be
economically feasible. When computers do become good enough though then this
new system will allow the people using it to produce close to the strongest
metal alloys that will ever be produced; the lightest and strongest aluminum or
whatever alloys that will ever be produced; the best lubricants that will ever
be produced; the best weapons that will ever be produced and so on and so
forth. You will begin a new age once you change over to this system of science
with the forthcoming future faster and more efficient computers.
This,
however, does not mean that you have to wait until that day to see a splendid,
3D, full color, big picture of everything and it doesn't mean the big picture
is hard to see: It isn't. It only means that the math is going to be quite a
bit harder.
What
these disciplines of relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring are telling
you is that your present science system is only
good here on earth at this proton-neutron particle level and what
Gödel's proof is telling you is that neither you nor this science guild will
even know this unless everyone sticks their heads out of their present science
shells and looks for these hidden road signs.
The
human mind developed inside this closed, subset system here on earth where it
felt it was at rest. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for sticking his
head out and saying we were not at rest
here on the earth and Galileo-who had
far more powerful friends-barely escaped
that same fate but instead was put under house arrest for the rest of his life
after saying the earth moved and then recanted this in public so he could save
his life.
This
"idea" you incorrectly have, of being "at
rest" when you most certainly are not, must absolutely be
"defined" and pin pointed to a certain spot in this new theory. We
can no longer afford to be as lax in such things, as is sloppily allowed, in
your present science. Isn't this a road sign that quantum theory has put forth
but that is now hidden by all the weeds?
Whether
it was the Catholic Church ruling in those days of Bruno and Galileo or whether
it is this "in-crowd" of scientists that rules today, the results for
sticking your head out and publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is the same:
Your head gets chopped off, only it's now done quietly financially instead of
on the public square brutally.
Many
hundreds of years have passed since Bruno and Galileo, yet all your present
science still deals with things at rest or at certain speeds
when you know full well nothing in this
universe is at rest and speed gets changed with relativity corrections and indeed even gets
limited, so this is proof there is a problem with speed as well. When you know,
full well, there is something basically wrong with these two terms "at rest" and "speed"
then if both of these present science foundation stones are flaky, this is also
telling you something is basically unsound with your present science structure
isn't it?
Gödel's
proof is telling you that you can design a certain subset science and even
refine the math for it and 100% of the people will be deceived by it just so
long as they never come into contact with something that points out the
ineffectiveness of that certain science.
Quantum
theory, along with special and general relativity, is now bringing you into
contact with different science-religions aren't they?
They
are: And those science-religions are just as good as yours are now that yours
has been downgraded.
You
must therefore keep your science world downgraded to just another local gauge
theory.
It must
be held within certain parameters.
It
needs a big red warning label on it
saying:
WARNING-Use only on earth for measuring things at this
proton-neutron particle level and use only at low speeds and at low mass.
In this next paragraph and throughout this text I use the word "see" in
quotes to indicate how that particular system would
actually see it if it had eyes like you have.
Don't lose hope because now with common terms and our "A"
Laws, we can replace all of the quantum mechanics local gauge theories terms
and rules with these same "A"
Laws and their terms. So we can essentially unify all the local gauge
theories with our common terms and "A"
Laws.
Our
science rules are only 99.9% correct because you will see from our "A" Laws that this universe is a frequency universe and it is highly dependent on
certain frequencies. You will see that
spinning and orbiting particles get "tuned in"
to their surroundings and thus derive their
inertial qualities from similar items also "tuned in"
to the same identical spin/orbit-frequency: This will be the spin/orbit frequency bandwidth at that particle level. We are
built out of several types of particles that have more than one type of surroundings according to our "A" Laws. Our atoms are built up of two
distinct types of particles. Since these two distinct particles will "see" their own distinct types of
macrocosm frequency spin/orbit bandwidths then
you will have to view the inertial qualities of each from that particle's
spin/orbit-frequency bandwidth viewpoint. You
will never be able to see all the inertial qualities of a particle correctly
unless you view them from that particles own local gauge system's (local gauge theory's) frequency spin/orbital bandwidth viewpoint. Don't worry
about the frequency aspect of it now, but I
must include it here to make you aware of what's coming. We happen to be
composed of both the heavier proton-neutron type particles and the much
less massive electron. Later I will show you that we "see" the electron as less massive, but
what we are measuring and calling the electron's mass is only its "lock
on" to the proton's subharmonic frequency.
This is only a portion of the electron's true inertial qualities. You will see
later using our new "A" Laws
that much of the electron's inertial properties have to come from its sister
electrons of the same exact spin/orbit-frequency in its surroundings,
but we see these inertial qualities of the electron displayed to us-in our lower spin/orbit
frequency level-as either light,
velocity, magnetism or charge.
Only after you downgrade all your science to spin/orbit-frequency levels can you understand why Werner Heisenberg could not get both the electron's velocity and its momentum at the same time. Heisenberg link
Once
you downgrade to a type of local gauge invariance then you realize that other
systems' viewpoints have as much weight as yours do because these are all subset viewpoints now.
Coming
up are an extremely simple
powerful set of laws-more powerful than anything science has yet properly
utilized-that will show you exactly how this entire universe is operating "from
this universe's point of view".
When
you use these new "A" Laws
then you will see both our proton-neutron viewpoint and the electron's
viewpoint: They are quite different.
This is
the essence of this theory. Your brain knows this
subset system best because it was developed here. Since you know there are
other subset systems then try to find the common denominators in all of these. Use only these common denominators and then you will better
understand each
subset system you look at. Yes, you are limited: Your mind is designed in such
a way that you can only look at one subset system at a time but if your mind is
designed so you cannot see the full deck of cards at once then at least this
way you can see one card at a time and after seeing a few cards then you will
have a better idea of what the full deck looks like even though you will never
be able to completely see all of it at once. Later we'll look at
this as being a major part of the reason for the Heisenberg-Bohr idea of
complementarity.
When
Heisenberg viewed the electron's velocity he had to be viewing it from our
proton-neutron's viewpoint because we see it as having velocity but-like you-the
electron surprisingly "sees"
itself at rest. Remember, in this new theory you have separate
frequency cards and a separate place of rest in each of those
spin/orbit frequency cards. (I want
to remind you again that I've put the "sees" in
quotes because we really know the electron has no eyes but I'm sure you
understand what I mean even though this would not get by if published by any of
the science guild's regular publishers.)
You'll
see later that when Heisenberg measured the electron's momentum he was looking
at it more from the electron's viewpoint. From our viewpoint using our place of rest, the electron's behavior is
seen as either velocity, light, magnetism or charge. Heisenberg could not get
the velocity from the electron's viewpoint because an electron, especially one
that is on an orbital geodesic, views itself as having no velocity and being at
rest the same as you think you are at rest all the time as you sit on this
earth as it stays on a geodesic orbit around the sun.
With this
next description of the geodesic, you will begin
to see how surroundings enter this picture.
Nothing
is really at rest in this universe but the closest to being at rest in this
theory is traveling on an orbital geodesic and this goes for you or planets or
stars or even electrons. This necessitates a different spin/orbit-frequency level
for each spinning orbiting entity. The "A"
Laws will show you there is no way around this: So in this theory each spinning orbiting entity gets its
very own spin/orbit-frequency level card but they still use the
same "A" Laws and terminology as all the other
spin/orbit-frequency systems.
So much
for the coming attractions. What you have to understand at this point-as this
chapter closes-is that your wonderful science system along with mostly all of
its terminology must be downgraded to a type of local gauge theory spin/orbit-frequency card that uses common terms
and common "A" Laws. This way
you can see each card and better understand the entire deck of cards.
Don't
let all these bad problems worry you though. Just remember if you want a fast,
big picture of what is really going on then you had better keep reading.
This
big, 3D picture does not compete with quantum mechanics or relativity. You use
it in conjunction
with relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring.
I want
to end this chapter with a couple of questions and then a thought and then a
statement.
Is it
indeed possible that a well-known scientist could have inadvertently given us
the answer to unification and even this scientist was not aware of how
important this was?
And on
top of that another question.
Could
that answer have stayed right in front of the noses of all the best scientists
in this world for one hundred and forty-seven years before someone realized it
was a method whereby unification of these invisible fields could be
accomplished?
Now,
look at Gödel's proof. It tells you that this is a distinct possibility.
Now I'll tell you something: This did
indeed happen.
*
* *
4. Local gauge
invariance
Quantum
scientists have never discovered any type of global quantum mechanics'
rules for all types of particles. They have discovered that only rules for each
separate local particle system are reliable. There are only two things
that are of such great importance in quantum mechanics that you absolutely have
to learn about them: They are gauge invariance and symmetry. I would suggest using all the
encyclopedia CDs that you have and reading everything you can about those two
and related subjects.
So far,
scientists have only found local gauge invariance to be good: They
haven't found any valid universal global type of gauge invariance.
This is
because they are dealing with particles and not waves. This entire universe is
basically all waves. You can be fairly well certain that there is such a thing
as global pure wave invariance because-as you'll see later-this must have given
us the "big bang" using the reasoning of this new theory. In quantum
mechanics, pure energy (waves) can be turned into particles but I'm afraid that
the mere construction of particles-where each different particle has different surroundings-prevents us from ever having anything but
something similar to local gauge invariance as far as particles are
concerned: This is because surroundings determine
inertial qualities and different frequency surroundings cause different inertial qualities. Therefore, you will never find any genuine global universal type of particle gauge
invariance.
But I
have discovered something almost
as good: What I have found is that you can translate and reduce your present
science terminology to a common language that every "eich" or local
gauge system understands. Then-even though there is no such thing as a genuine
global unified field-you now will have the ability to look at each subset local
gauge system, including our own, and see how each of these subset systems works
using the same terms and principles for each local gauge system. You will understand
all of this as you read on.
You
might be able to have a unified field theory if you dealt solely in waves and
left particle theory entirely out of it.
This is a wave universe. Unfortunately, your mind has been developed in a
particle world that most scientists do
not yet know is only a subset world. So the human mind is condemned to working
in this subset world of these particle-frequencies that are in this octave or
so of particle-frequencies in which we find ourselves. We are thus limited to
frequencies with which we find we can interact.
So in
all practicality you might say there definitely is no global unified field particle
law: The frequency aspect of our "A"
Laws, where the particle world mixes with the wave world, prevents this but
there most certainly is one big global frequency and wave picture.
* What
you do have now are these "A"
Laws and global terminology. So what you do is substitute this much simpler
global terminology for all your present science terminology and then using
these "A" Laws, 'presto', any spin/orbit-frequency
system fits like the correct puzzle piece beautifully into this entire global
universe system merely because now you are using the same
terminology and "A" Laws in place of different subset local gauge theories.
^
Later
you'll get these wonderful "A"
Laws: They will show you how each subset, spin/orbit-frequency system functions
"from the universe's global point of view". You will then see that all your
terminology must be translated into these few global terms as well before you
can work out things using these "A"
Laws.
Remember,
we have downgraded all our science, and its terminology as well, to a type of
local gauge invariance at this proton-neutron particle level. In addition,
there is one thing more: In 1922, Arthur Holly Compton showed that waves could
act like particles. In this, you will begin to see that all particles can be
thought of as nothing more than standing waves.
This
statement will not be surprising to anyone working in the field of quantum
mechanics: They are all aware of this.
What
will surprise them are the hidden road signs I've discovered especially in
superstring discipline.
Let's
stop and put on our thinking caps: You have this universe now with all these
massive problems and on top of that I've just added another that you didn't
even know you had and I've downgraded all your science as well.
What kind of a universe setup gives us all these effects?
Remember
that it has to give us every single thing we are observing in the disciplines
of special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring.
On top of that, it must also show you the reason why all your mathematical
attempts at any grand unified theory have led to nothing but failure.
The
problem with people-scientists are
people-is that they jump onto the latest
bandwagon that seems to be moving along fastest at that present time. My old,
heavy, book type 1967 Britannica uses the words, "as
if by magic" to describe how the
answers come out of these mystical, mathematical manipulations of quantum
mechanics: Yes, they most certainly did appear magical long ago as people
looked into this frequency world of quantum mechanics. But you must understand
that this magical local gauge bandwagon can go only so far. Your magic, in
quantum theory, suddenly runs out when you shift to another completely
different spin/orbit-frequency level as it did in QED. Then you need to find
another mystic set of rules that you can move into to get your magical answers
from that particular local gauge spin/orbit-frequency level such as when QCD
was developed. What the people in quantum mechanics haven't realized yet is
that there are far more levels than merely QED and QCD and when you bring in
these other levels then you bring gravity in as well. And you already know
gravity uses neither the rules of QED or QCD. Why not adopt the "A" Laws and use them for each of these
separate levels?
Since
both quantum mechanics and your science rules are local gauge rules, I find it
hard to believe that anyone would try to first tackle a complicated
mathematical unification of these four invisible fundamental forces before they had some conceptual, general big
picture of what was really happening in this universe as a whole.
This
general big picture is here right now so why not look at it. When you see it
then you can compare it to the already unified fields of magnetism and the weak
force and to the standard model to see if it makes sense. Isn't that a fair
enough approach?
Look,
let's be realistic about this: Mach told you inertia was caused by our surroundings. Surroundings are important to the
electron and Bohr had to modify centrifugal force a bit before he took it into
the microcosm and then while it did work in the single electron hydrogen atom,
it did not work at all in the more massive atoms: This tells us once more that surroundings are playing an important part in all of
this as well. If this is so then we would expect far different rules for each
particle level mainly because each level would have different surroundings: Now isn't this exactly what we find we
have here? The forthcoming extremely simple
"A" Laws will give you further
proof of this.
There
is only one possible type of setup that can do this: Superstring theory has put
out another road sign telling you how some of this is done too.
You do
not need any such things as charge or magnetism to explain this either. It all
can be explained by simple inertial qualities
of everything providing you look at inertia
correctly. You must realize that the all-important things here are the
following spin frequency, motion,
orientation and inertial qualities
of the electron. These are common terms to all spin/orbit-frequency levels and
these terms become of paramount importance when explaining how either charge or
magnetism really works. It's positively all inertial qualities and nothing more than that when you are
observing things correctly. You use charge or magnetism most effectively
whenever you are restricted to your particular subset spin/orbit-frequency
system but never if you want to
easily see unification.
For
those of you who say you cannot look at things two different ways then I'd
suggest these people look at the four entirely
different speeds being indicated on the front panel to the crew of the modern
jet airliner: These are airspeed, true airspeed, Mach
and ground speed. If the flight
crew hasn't the least problem with these four different ways of looking at
their speed then why should you have problems with only two different ways of
looking at things in this universe? Now on
to standing waves.
Erwin
Schrödinger showed us that these discrete quanta, in quantum mechanics, could
also be represented by orbitals of discrete standing waves while de Broglie
showed us that particles themselves could be thought of as waves.
Compton
also showed us particles act like waves. Quantum theory shows everything as
waves too. So the foundation of everything seems to be waves: The cornerstones
of resonances must be regular waves that are quickly absorbed and the
foundations of permanent particles must therefore be standing waves that remain
and are not so easily absorbed.
Superstring
theory shows us that all particles can be seen as one dimensional 10-33 cm. (decimal point plus
thirty-three zeros then 1) (Planck length)
massless strings with a different vibration for every different particle. And
the way these strings interact is exactly the way the particles interact as
well. This is telling you that all particles are nothing but waves of various
frequencies.
Incidentally, while we are on the subject of superstring theory,
you can combine this new theory of Fitzpatrick's with
superstring to explain the masses of the particles which superstring itself
doesn't presently do.
Quantum
theory has proven to us that you can take pure energy and create particles from
this energy. While we know this to be absolutely true, our minds have a hard
time understanding such a thing and from this we learn a valuable lesson: Your mind can't easily
comprehend the all wave world in which pure energy can create particles.
This is done all the time in quantum mechanics. Your mind, however, can't
easily understand this because your mind was developed in a subset system. This
tells me your mind might not be able to visualize the entire global wave
picture without super-computer assist. But if you build up a series of subset pictures using the same laws and same terminology
then you can put all these subset pictures together-like you put together a
deck of cards-and get a pretty good global, 3D, color picture of what is really
going on in this entire universe even though your mind is still only a single
card type subset developed mind.
So
while this may indeed be a wave universe, our minds,
because of the different local gauge time frames, see these things that the big bang produced-these
spherically encapsulated waves or wave trains-as particles and therefore we are
going to have to make use of some laws that incorporate this particle (or short spherical
wave train) aspect of these
waves.
This
means our "A" Laws will only
fit one subset system at a time but this is all we really need anyway, isn't it? If you can only see one card at a time, you can
still get an idea of what the entire deck of cards looks like together even
though you may never be able to see either the full deck or more than one card
at a time. You will have to see things as sort of both waves and particles but
this will be better than no unification at all, which is what we presently
have.
Now, if
a particle is a spinning standing wave entity-which we'll dig into later-then
all particles should be-in some way-similar
and they are because they will all have inertial qualities of some sort. What this means is that
however small we can find particles in this universe they will all show inertial qualities.
I didn't say inertia. I said inertial qualities:
There is a difference. We will delve into this.
I intend to show you exactly what inertia is later and that is
something no one else on this earth right now can show you.
Now, if
all particles are spinning standing waves and all are, in
some sense, similar, then where does this plus and minus charge come
from? You can only have this element of
charge in an unbalanced spin situation: This is why you never see it when all
the spins are balanced such as in the noble gases. Charge is a manifestation of
an almost totally free electron's spin frequency and whether it remains free or
becomes "locked". Something must be "locked" into
position before you can even have this aspect of opposite charge. We will go into that in detail too later.
Charge is a valid entity in quantum mechanics and I am not questioning its use
therein: I am merely going to show you what it really consists of.
Now, if
a "tuned circuit" tunes in to a particular frequency only, will a
spinning particle also tune in to another spinning particle spinning at the
same frequency? The
answer is . . .
Before
we answer this we have to look at what Max Planck discovered. You have a coil
on your car that gives you a spark for your spark plugs. In school, you learned
about transformer action where the voltage increases as a ratio of the turns on
a transformer's windings. Well, that's only part of the story. Max Planck
discovered there was a bit more to it than that. He found that frequency plays
an even greater role in all of this. It was known that frequency played a role
but Max Planck gave us the correct role. If you connect the primary of you
car's coil to a 12-volt train transformer then the secondary will read somewhat
more than a thousand volts. It takes twenty times this much voltage to fire a
spark plug. The same coil-transformer does provide twenty times this on your
car. Where does this gigantic voltage increase come from? Well, I saw this for the very first time on some of the
ignition analyzers that came out on the late model constellation aircraft-I
know the super G model had it. You could distinctly see the radio frequency
jags given off by the coil and capacitor "tuned circuit" that was
placed across the ignition points. Remember, when these points opened, a spark
was created and sparks are in the radio frequency range. (The very first Morse
code radio transmitters were spark transmitters.)
The capacitor, along with the coil windings, creates a "tuned
circuit" that keeps these radio waves resonating a bit longer, more or
less like a flywheel effect. Your 60 cycle train transformer switched the coil
on and off sixty times each second and got a bit over a thousand volts on the
secondary but your car "coil-capacitor" circuitry switches the coil
on and off several hundred thousand times a second
(radio
frequency) and gets twenty
thousand volts. So it wasn't transformer action that gave you all this
voltage to fire your spark plugs: It was having the correct capacitor and coil "tuned circuit" and using the much higher
frequency involvement that Max Planck
discovered that made all the difference in getting twenty times more of spark voltage that fired your spark plugs
or sparking plugs to my more British educated readers.
You can
see the light from distant stars. These stars also give out heat like our sun
but you can't feel it. Why? Because, for one
thing, light waves are at a much higher frequency than
heat waves and therefore generate a much higher voltage
than heat waves and we understand this because of Max Planck again. Even if we
take the light spectrum itself, we find that because the violet colors are at a
higher frequency than the red colors therefore
each quantum of violet light has about twice the
voltage energy of a quantum of red light. Max Planck is behind it
once more.
But Max
Planck is showing you something far more important if you look for the hidden
road sign: Not only the electron can produce this high frequency feature of
Planck's constant but if you go anywhere in the spin/orbit-frequency spectrum
of this entire universe then from the lower spin/orbit-frequency level point of
view it will always "see"
the higher spin/orbit-frequency spectrum-not
acting quite like the electron of course-but
yet showing some aspect of not only Planck's approach to a solid as frequency
is increased but something similar to relativity as well.
Yes, you see the voltage increase of Planck's constant in the higher
frequency things and you see much higher frequency things than that as solids
because your frequency is so low now that your low frequency wave is modulating-transforming
and becoming a part of-these
much higher frequency waves. But you will no longer see these higher frequency
waves as waves once you cross the threshold where the spherical polarization
change of these waves is faster than your "blitzseit" of time can
effectively note such polarization. These waves at this higher frequency now
will appear as a solid particle to you.
You
must understand that as two frequencies get further and further apart, the
subharmonic "tuning" effect between the two gets less and less. What
takes over then is the modulation of the higher frequency wave by the lower
frequency wave. Planck's voltage increase is in the subharmonic tuning range
and the solid stage is the final modulation range. This is why you could say
Planck's effect causes you to see things approaching a solid as frequency keeps
increasing. This is really a wave and frequency universe all throughout and the
spectrum is tremendous.
My
description of this being a piano key universe should be seen as all these spin
orbit/frequency levels being a bit further apart frequency wise than regular
piano keys: They will be further out of that "tuned" frequency area
and more into that modulating area.
Anyway,
you know when you look at a solid (much higher frequency)
object, such as a rock, that it is not really solid inside but it is made up of
these molecules that have all these electrons buzzing around like bees but
going much faster and they are doing all this over and over and over again with
an accuracy better than any digital clock we can build. Now you know this to be
a fact, don't you?
If you
enlarge one nucleus in one of those rock atoms to the size of a pinhead then
the closest electron would be as far from that pinhead sized
nucleus as the top of a forty-story building is from its base.
This is telling you that if all this system of electron motion inside this rock stops then
there is simply no more rock because it's mostly all empty space. And precisely
this spin/orbiting motion stopping is what
happens when a particle and anti-particle collide. Most of your present 15th-century
science system sees a 15th-century rock and not something of 99.9999% empty space. Please remember this
because this is trying to prove to you that the electrons in your eyes and
fingers are tuned to the same bandwidth as the rock electron orbital waves and
this is what is making you see it as solid because it is absolutely not solid. It
is 99.9999% empty space and you simply cannot dismiss this.
Spin and motion on orbiting geodesics is seen by much lower
spin/orbit-frequency levels as a solid. You cannot transfer the same
motion from one spin/orbit-frequency system to another.
Now you can understand that motion statement you saw in the
beginning of this book.
* Motion is
something that is "seen" quite differently by different subset systems.
^
This is
another vine covered road sign that no one saw because this is pointing out to
you that this thing you call motion-that you have used for a foundation block
for your science-simply doesn't exist if viewed from outside your system such
as we view the rock. The rock looks solid to us doesn't it? Yet we know all those electrons are moving all
around inside it yet to us out here all that motion somehow seems to be
canceled out entirely. That's the problem with motion-you can't move it from
one subset spin/orbit-frequency system to another. But you can use it providing
that you use it only within one particular
spin/orbit-frequency system at a time and that's the way we will
do it in this new Theory of Everything.
Once
you know the speed of light is a constant then this demands investigation-not patching-because
this is a vine covered hidden road sign telling you that all your motion in
your system ends up being totally nullified if looked at from several lower
particle-frequency levels.
Motion is OK if only used inside your subset system.
Inside
the rock all these moving electrons must be making these "tuned
circuit" type of "blitzseit", momentary connections with everything
within that atom or molecule.
This "blitzseit"-by
the way-is the shortest interval of time measurable in any local gauge theory (spin/orbit-frequency
level): It will differ
from local gauge theory to local gauge theory
(spin/orbit-frequency
level to spin/orbit-frequency level).
You
will see this exact "tuned circuit", momentary, "blitzseit"
binding method later when we come to the "A"
Laws. The thing you must keep firmly in mind is that all binding is momentary but repetitious and the same elements
will always bind with the same strength no matter what the distance. You cannot
distinguish binding from quanta in this theory other than the fact that quanta
are electron binding elements. In this theory all things can bind in momentary
but repetitious quanta type chunks where each distinct entity binds with the
same distinct energy no matter how far the distance. Different entities,
however, will bind with different strengths. In this theory, quanta would be a
subset of the many types of binding. The fact that light energy comes from
electron quanta binding does not alter the fact that these electron quanta are still a binding subset: Atomic energy comes from
the quark binding energy quanta and you will see this as you read on.
Our
"A" Laws show you why we have
particles binding together and why aggregations of these same particles must
remain a certain distance away from each other as we see in both the microcosm
and macrocosm.
If you
think of that then think of superstring theory and then you can see that if
this universe has spin-which it has-then if a certain wavelength or better yet
a wave train of a certain wavelength were given a spin then it would not only
have spin but precession as well and it would really describe a spheroid. You
have the choice-under relativity-of either seeing it spinning or the universe as
a whole spinning: It makes no difference. Each wave will still be seen to shift
a slight bit before the next wave and the entire encapsulated wave train will
still describe a spheroid. Therefore, you are seeing that particles are
behaving the same as the waves they are built from and this is essentially what
Compton saw. Isn't this what superstring is telling you as well?
For those of you who understand string theory, a plain quantum
string is a wave and a closed looped string is-because
of precession-a spherical particle and you don't have to be a mathematician to
see there would be an infinite number of these vibrating, closed looped strings
(string theory) all
spaced apart at various periodic frequencies much like piano keys.
Now on
earth here all these radio waves of any wavelength all finally get absorbed but
if there really was a big bang and so many of these waves-of one particular
wavelength-were produced then there would be absolutely nothing at that
wavelength that could possibly absorb all
of them if they were processed correctly.
And if they were processed correctly then
they could be made so that they could not only stay here but be given this
superstring spin, precession and a spheroid shape as well, couldn't they? This spheroid encapsulation is so very important
in building this entire universe.
Now
take a giant step.
I never
did like George A. Gamow's particular explanation of the big bang because it
never showed me where all that energy came from in the first place so I have a
much better answer. Gamow modified Lemaître's big bang: Now I shall slightly
modify Gamow's big bang.
I am
not a cosmologist. You should see, before you finish, that cosmology is only
valid if kept within certain parameters. I have no intentions herein of even
contemplating how all this was built. I am only going to describe to you what
must, in fact, already have been here.
OK,
let's say we have this universe of spin/orbit-frequency levels where each
orbiting level is very much like a piano key tuned to a certain frequency much
like a single piano key is tuned to all the rest of the piano keys (string theory).
The
separation between all these encapsulated spheroid wave train frequencies is
extremely critical: All sister particles of the exact same frequency-for a
stable global universe-must all "see" themselves remaining a certain
distance apart distance wise: Part of this is because of a
feature called "angular lock on" which comes later. This entire group
of similar particles must also be separated frequency wise from the other
higher and lower frequency groups exactly like keys on a piano (string theory).
Remember
this is a frequency universe and since all particles are waves, whether similar
or not, they must all be kept far enough apart-both
distance wise and frequency wise-so that there are no close harmonics between
any of them that can rob any particular object or group of an excess amount of
energy.
Yet,
they must all have some far distant subharmonic frequency of linkage with the
piano key type particle group above and below them in frequency. These linkages can only be momentary and the particle
momentarily linked must be able to regain its energy equilibrium from its surroundings.
A method such as this would be enough to link each particle with its
microsystem and its macrosystem but yet not rob it or give it an excessive
amount of extra energy. When you master our "A"
Laws, you will see that just enough attractive and repelling linkage is there
to give us this type of universe we live in. You will also see exactly how
energy is transferred.
This
"A" Law world is your real
world and your macrocosm is composed of the lower
particle-frequencies and your microsystem is composed of the higher particle-frequencies. You see the
microcosm as smaller but it really isn't: From the "universe's
point of view" the
microcosm elements are all merely higher frequency spherical encapsulated waves
or wave trains.
At this
point, some are going to say this writer must have it backwards because if
higher frequencies are smaller particles and lower frequencies are larger
particles then this is just the reverse of the de Broglie wavelength.
I can
assure you that this is the correct way and later I'll point out everything
about the de Broglie wavelength to you.
Gödel's
proof has pointed out to you something is wrong so, to see the big picture, you
must change your idea of small to higher frequencies and your idea of large to
lower frequencies. These are terms this universe will accept.
Once we
have seen that Louis V. de Broglie, Schrödinger and Compton have shown us it is
all waves then let's use a slightly different terminology along with some brand
new laws.
Remember,
we want to see this big picture from the "universe's point of view".
We are not interested in seeing things any longer using terminology strictly
from our spin/orbit-frequency level's point of view because that view, using
the old rules and that strict old terminology, has been getting us nowhere.
Gödel's proof has been amply warning you about this for almost seventy years
now. That was another road sign everyone entirely missed: Incredible!
So this
universe is just like one big universal piano with God only knows how many
keys. See, we are only aware of the few keys in our particular octave or so:
This may be far, far less than a billionth of a billionth of a billionth and so
on of what may in fact be here. These keys are all the permanent particle
groups such as the electron, quark, proton-neutron and then solar system and
galaxy and the Virgo super-cluster that contains our galaxy and the other
galaxies around us, and from there we can even imagine larger clusters and we
can continue on and on: All of these things are orbiting-vibrating (string theory)-a certain specified frequency apart; even
further apart than piano keys.
Yes,
you read correctly. I did add solar system, galaxy and Virgo super-cluster and
so on to the list of the microcosm elements and by doing so we add gravity to
the equation because all of these much lower spin/orbit frequencies make up the
well modulated gravity wave but they all do not contribute equally to it by any
means. Eventually when humans are able to determine, detect and measure these
frequencies of rotation better than is presently being done then they will find
all these too will fit perfectly into those piano key frequency slots just the
same as do all the microsystem particles but the problem for you is that you
have no receptors designed yet for the solar system spin/orbit-frequency level;
galaxy spin/orbit-frequency level or the Virgo super-cluster
spin/orbit-frequency level.
The
fact that you have to keep changing universal standard time by a second every
now and then tells you gravity is not steady and this is another hidden road
sign warning you that gravity is a long wave modulated by other ultra long and
extra long waves.
Your
present science rules are derived from your experiences here at rest on earth and therefore they will come closest
to some average of both the proton-neutron and the solar system spin/orbit
frequency levels.
You
also have these "blitzseit" momentary "tuned circuit" antenna
connections between everything just as must be happening inside each atom over
and over and over again with an accuracy we can only dream of achieving.
You see
all these "blitzseit" momentary "tuned circuit"
connections as particles, space and time. This was the very best your mind
could do for you: You must realize, at this point, that relativity has proven
that your mind's idea of one single space and time setup for everything in this
universe is not quite good enough.
You
must now stop thinking of space and time per se and think of it like quantum
theory does: Quantum theory has set the pattern with
QED and QCD. This is kindergarten for what's coming: It's all going
to be separate spin/orbit-frequency levels with each one being a separate card
in this big universe deck of cards that we can't see but these individual cards
we can see. As I will mention herein many times, unlike quantum mechanics, we
will use a standard set of new laws and new terms
for each different spin/orbit-frequency level-each different card. In other
words we will have different particle levels but we
will only have one set of laws and one set of terms for all of these
various spin/orbit-frequency levels from electron to quark to proton-neutron to
solar system to galaxy to Virgo super-cluster.
The big
bang was merely the retuning
of a few of these spin/orbit-frequency system keys of this big universe grand
piano: This explains why the big bang began not simply at one point but instead
"all
throughout" the universe. This
is a necessary assumption for a big bang model that you can calculate the
history of all the way back to Planck time. Before Planck time, in this new
theory, electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons, solar system and galaxies never
even existed but some other type particles and aggregations with slightly
different spin/orbit-frequencies did in fact exist. These previous piano keys
though had gotten slightly too far out of tune for continued existence in this
master global grand piano type of universe.
Resonances;
all bosons; photons, gluons, etc., could also be seen as particles in this new
concept just like they are in quantum theory but since they do not have
that main qualifier for permanency-this mandatory piano key tuning that is paramount in this theory-they are excluded from particle status in
this new concept. In this new theory, Bohr is seen as being correct by saying
that the photon was merely a wave.
By using this new piano key (string theory) concept of permanent particles, I've been
able to sweep the house a lot cleaner than Bohr has: When you can thus
eliminate over two hundred momentary particles, it clarifies the waters
tremendously.
While
resonances; all bosons; photons, gluons, etc., are indeed also waves, the only
spherical encapsulated waves that will be able to stay here as permanent
particles are those that are at exactly the correct piano key frequencies
spaced at specified intervals. What must have happened was that somehow, over
time, too much energy was lost or gained by one specific octave or so of keys
and this universe indeed has some type of global wave and frequency gauge
invariance making it mandatory that all these keys stay perfectly in tune with
each other. Our big bang was merely an automatic piano tuning of sorts with all
new particle-frequencies arriving "all throughout"
as the quark and these protons and neutrons and electrons and then eventually
us. Although we think of the big bang as something tremendous, I'm sure that to
this entire, global, unseen universe spectrum, it was only a whimper of
available energy. The big bang was simply a normal balancing and piano key
tuning that this universe must from time to time be forced to resort to. This
universe, my friends, is far more than
billions of billions of billions of times greater than many of our present
scientists even suspect. It is also a frequency universe that to you may look
solid in spots but yet these supposedly solid objects when placed in the proper
motion will all-much like the electron-display some extremely similar wave like
qualities. Because the foundations of all solid objects are really waves then
we will find certain motions in every level where these supposedly solid
objects will all behave the same and thus we can come up with a standard set of
laws and terms.
The
reason objects appear solid to you is that, here on earth, your "blitzseit"
of time is too long compared to the "blitzseit" of the electron and you will not be able to
determine the polarization of this electron's orbital wavelength so it's no
longer possible for you to see it as a wave and it has to appear as a solid to
you. For you to see this as a wave, its polarization has to stay relatively the
same during your "blitzseit" of time but since the orbital of the
electron is changing its polarization so quickly compared to your "blitzseit"
of time, you simply cannot pick it up as a wave train and you sense it as a
particle instead of the spherical wave train that it really is. This is why we
sense the Planck's constant approach to a solid as frequency keeps being
increased.
I got
slightly off the course of the big bang there but going back to the big bang
now, isn't this better than Gamov's (He spelled it this Russian way too.) explanation that doesn't explain
where all the energy for the big bang came from?
Not
being a cosmologist, I can't tell you how it all got here but at least I'm glad
I can be of some help to you in clearing up a few loose ends.
The one
thing you absolutely must remember is that your present science with all its
rules and terms can never be used and mixed with our forthcoming "A" Laws.
Remember
that we've downgraded all our present science to something like local gauge
invariance and these rules and terminology are to be used in one local
spin/orbit-frequency level at a time.
So use
your science and your terms here and when looking at it from the global "universe's
point of view", use
the "A" Laws and their
terminology.
You
must never mix these sets or parts of these sets.
Use all
of one set or all of the other set.
If you
understand all of this-and you've read
your encyclopedia CDs-then you
understand as much as you really need to know about properly using and working
with these new types of concepts such as local gauge invariance and symmetry.
* *
*
5. Fitzpatrick's "A"
laws
Ampere
gave us the laws that we should have seen were the ones this universe uses but
it was the ideas that Faraday advanced that we embraced, so Faraday's set of
local gauge theory rules won out over a superb, global, universal set of laws.
Humans
adopted these local gauge theory rules, instead of the universal global laws
because these local gauge rules seemed to be so
easily proven mathematically.
Einstein
proved all that seemed to be was not. But this
did not in any way affect this 19th-century science structure nor
did it adversely affect any of the high priests of that scientific religion
type of structure: They merely added some special relativity corrections to the microcosm and some general
relativity corrections to the macrocosm;
then they sat back and continued to collect their paychecks. I ask you in all
sincerity now, how do you search for a grand unified theory using a crumbling
science structure that forever is needing many relativity corrections all
the time?
You
must understand that you are in a frequency world. You can comprehend only some
of it. But this is all you need to understand in order to see the big
unification picture.
If your
science foundation is only half truths to begin with then when you input your
computers you are simply putting garbage in and you will still keep getting
garbage out, just the same as you have always been getting. But the attitude
seems to be, "If the taxpayer is paying for it then what the hell."
You must realize that you need a brand new science structure:
You need a new, universal, global edifice of some
sort.
These
coming generations of humans will witness the proof of these new universal laws
using the future super-computers.
This
new theory, even minus the necessary math, will give you this big picture, road
map of everything as seen in each local gauge view-that all the present
theories simply don't-so take it and utilize it. Even with this extremely
limited terminology and without all the math yet in place it still will show
you which roads to take in all of the present fields of relativity, quantum and
superstring theories and it will also show you which paths to avoid. Your
present math cannot do this but this new theory most certainly can.
Again, use this new theory in conjunction with
what you now already have.
Superstring
theory is correct as it portrays these dimensions being folded up when you only
view from one local gauge viewpoint. From your viewpoint, the electron's
dimension is folded up to point size or zero. You will find out the electron "sees" itself as definitely having a
dimension and it is because of this dimension that you get what you see as
light, velocity, magnetism and charge while from the electron's point of view
all it has are simple inertial qualities.
I'm
trying to show you that there are other local views besides yours. They are just
as good as yours are too. You have to translate all your present scientific
terminology to common terms and then you can see both their view and yours.
After you do this translating, you'll see that all local gauge
theories-including ours-can use the same "A"
Laws. You then use that new global terminology along
with these new "A" Laws as you look at each separate local gauge view.
This is
the only way meaningful unification can ever be achieved.
It will
take you a while, as you look around this new place, to see exactly how this
new house is built. You will have to read a few parts of this over and over
again until you fully understand it. It took me over thirty years to get it all
down pat but I've got the keys now and I'm letting you inside this new structure
so you shouldn't have anywhere near the number of problems that I had in
figuring it all out.
We will
soon have a look at these "A"
Laws. But first we need to take notice of a few more things.
Niels
Bohr saw light as a wave and Einstein preferred seeing the photon of light as a
particle. While in this theory it's a wave only, if you have studied science
then you should know why each of them had a valid argument under their old
science rules.
Having
said all that, you still have to see that this theory is telling you what
Compton told you that waves sometimes
act similarly to particles. You simply cannot ignore this.
The attributes of all particles stem from the attributes of the
waves from which these particles are composed.
When you see two things hit, you attribute this action to the
particles themselves but you fail to attribute it to the correct underlying
wave concentration at that point of collision. Nothing
really touches. No electrons ever touch each other. You are witnessing concentrated
wave action from a distance that you call
particle action. Things can and do also repel
and attract even though from your or other standpoints they may be from a
further distance or far away.
When you see two billiard balls collide and bounce apart, this
action that you see and understand as "normal particle action" does
not actually exist because no atomic particles in those billiard balls ever
even came close to touching each other. Seeing those billiard balls colliding
is about the same as a person who sees how to drive a car but knows nothing
about what makes that car run. It was really the underlying concentrated
"wave action" that we do not fully understand that made those
billiard balls spring apart after they collided. Our minds and our scientists
have certainly simplified it. This simplification was
done at a price. Relativity
shows us the price was accuracy.
We also
must take into consideration the Niels Bohr-Werner Heisenberg theory of
complementarity that essentially says that the human mind somehow only gets
part of the picture each way that observations are made but all of these
separate observations go together to complement the big picture of what
must really be here.
Albert
Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Louis de Broglie and many other physicists did not agree
with the Bohr-Heisenberg idea of complementarity.
Complementarity
presents us with a major problem because if we accept it then we, like Bohr and
Heisenberg, essentially throw in the towel and admit possible defeat saying the
human mind may never be able to completely understand what is behind it all.
Bohr
and Heisenberg have put forward a good point about this one mainly because of
the subset nature of our science which Einstein totally ignored even though
Gödel's proof was published in Einstein's native German language in 1931 and
Kurt Gödel along with Einstein were both members of the Institute of Advanced
Study at Princeton, N. J..
The
wave foundation to everything is another aspect leading to complementarity and
I've struggled with this for decades and I now see that without future
super-computer assist that we may never know what
is behind it all as far as this global universe
wave foundation is concerned, but we can, presently at least, get
to the unification answer providing that we understand the subset nature of our
science and we treat each of these subset systems as a separate card in the
universal deck of cards. Quantum theory has shown us
the correct approach. Merely improve upon it.
These
thousands of years of retained subset particle knowledge of things must have
given us the Heisenberg-Bohr aspect of complementarity.
For
example, we wouldn't see the complete picture by looking at it in the particle
world because this is only a subset world. We are not able to see the big
picture of everything in the wave world simply because we are not trained-nor are most of us able-to see things as waves. We see things as
particles.
This, I
now feel, is the reason for the Heisenberg-Bohr aspect of complementarity.
If all
things are only waves then all particles have to be thought of as similar from
microcosm to macrocosm in that they all essentially are made up of nothing but
big bang produced spinning, precessing, spheroid encapsulated standing waves
that ended up perfectly balanced between close binding and macrocosm binding.
OK hold on tight, here's where you, once more, begin to see the
actions of Berkeley's and Mach's surroundings.
All permanent particles have their close binding and their
macrocosm binding perfectly matched.
One
particle that doesn't is the neutron: This is why the neutron needs protons in
the vicinity because with these protons close at hand then the neutron's close
binding and macrocosm binding are perfectly matched and the neutron can then
remain here. See chapter 18.
The one
lesson that must be learned is that when something is given a new spin or new
orbit then this upsets the original close binding to macrocosm binding. Energy is merely the temporary disruption of close to
macrocosm binding that results in a new spin/orbital arrangement also
having close binding equal to macrocosm binding. In other words, energy is a temporary binding interruption while the close to macrocosm binding is being changed.
It can be changed more in either direction too.
This is why you can either gain or lose energy. We'll
go into this later. It is possible for the big bang to have re-tuned the piano
keys so that various frequencies of spherical encapsulated particle-frequency types were produced as
the particles we now have and these exactly fit into the proper piano key
frequency slots and stayed here, while any others were quickly absorbed much
like resonances are yet.
We must
also answer the question from what substance are these waves built? You will see that in this new hypothesis, with
waves simply being an imbalance between close binding and macrocosm binding,
that the answer to this is much better than you are presently getting in the
standard model now being used in quantum theory.
If all
things are in reality nothing but spinning standing wave spheres then this
forces you to search even harder now for the real source of these invisible
forces of magnetism, gravity, charge, centrifugal force, inertia, gyroscopic
inertia and the strong and weak forces.
We are
now going to dismiss from our minds our old laws of gravity, magnetism, charge,
centrifugal force, and the strong and weak force and substitute some simple new
all purpose laws that will take the place
of all of those aforementioned old subset rules.
The old
rules don't go into the trashcan: Far from it. Not only is your present math
designed especially to use with these old rules but your mind will have a bit
of a problem working with these new unified force "A" Laws as well. However, in spite of all
this you must temporarily dismiss those old rules completely from your mind
whenever you are using these new laws. It's going to be hard but if you fail to
do this then you will definitely not see the big picture of why everything all works
the way it does.
To move
from your old subset rules to global laws, so you can get the big picture, use
only these new "A" Laws. You
can't mix your old rules and terms with these new "A" Laws and their terms. Either use one set
of rules and terms or the other but do not
mix them.
As you
start using these new "A" laws
it will be like riding a bicycle for the very first time.
There
is no other choice but to use gravity, magnetism and the strong and weak forces
as you are examining things in your world but as you try to see the
relationships between yourself and the micro or macro worlds then you are best
to entirely forget your old rules and use nothing but these new "A" Laws.
It must
be thought of as switching from driving a gearshift car to driving a car with
an automatic transmission whenever you want to see the entire big picture of
everything.
As
previously stated, some old factors that you do need to continue to keep in
mind-as you switch over-are all the inertial attributes of things, especially those of angular momentum
caused by the gyroscope, pendulum and vibrating elements. There are good and
substantial reasons for doing this because this new unified force is really in
essence an inertial type force in many respects.
All particles of any type will have some form of inertial
qualities.
Keep in
mind as you use these "A" Laws
that vibrating things are essentially the same as spinning things seen edgewise
especially when you take into consideration the "bad quarter" that we
cover later. This force can see right through certain things because a
different frequency can sometimes become transparent. The terms "spinning or moving" in the coming
laws also pertains to vibrating things as well.
Be
warned that the forthcoming picture of the universe that is about to be
revealed to you is not at all what you expect. It is definitely not what
present scientists want simply because the way math is presently being used is
not going to work at all using this new notion. If you have dwelt either in the
realm of general relativity or in the world of quantum mechanics then you will
see why this works so beautifully with both of those worlds. I am not saying it
will work beautifully mathematically in
both of these worlds: The strange part about this image is that you really
don't have to be proficient in math at all to clearly see the big picture of
things as you piece everything together using only this brand new hypothesis.
Here
are your new simple global laws that this universe uses. Remember the word "see" was used in quotes to emphasize
that these frequencies and paths must be seen by those portions from that
particular local gauge spin/orbit-frequency view and not yours. In the coming
laws, the word "object" means a spherically encapsulated standing
wave permanent particle of any frequency or aggregation of same.
I told
you the principle would be extremely simple and these "A" Laws are. They are also definitely
wave-particle laws and therefore subset laws that our subset developed minds
can understand and use.
The
French will call these the Ampere Laws
and the Germans will call them the Aufbau
Laws. I'll stay out of this and simply call them the "A" Laws.
* The 1st. "A" Law
The
space-time interval is diminished the most between any two
objects, 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 are created the most between any two objects, 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 space-time 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 comes
later-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.
* The Aufbau or Ampere
Corollary
The
aforementioned forces, or space-time intervals, between two objects 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 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 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.
^
Remember it's the space-time interval that is being
diminished by the 1st "A"
Law and increased by the 2nd and this can be seen as either simply more
space or more time or both: Also
remember that this perception will depend on the observer's geodesic or path
and to you it will seem as if it's always space and never time that is being
created or diminished but read chapter 18.
Remember also that this space and time that is either created or
diminished will be altogether different at different frequencies.
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 was put forth in an article "A Different
Approach to Cosmology" that appeared in the April 1999 edition of Physics
Today written by Geoffrey Burbidge, Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar
saying we were actually in a quasi steady-state universe.
You must keep in mind that your world is only a few of these 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 with Planck's
approach to a solid as frequency is increased and relativity and all the rest
of the things we associate with our electron's behavior.
Remember that the electron
is also built from waves so it is not that much different from
all other particles in this respect. But we
see it at a higher frequency and
this is why we ascribe all these magical qualities to it when we really
shouldn't. These magical qualities merely come from the higher electron frequency.
We can determine the spin/orbit bandwidth of the solar system
because this is the easiest bandwidth to determine and after that, scientists
must try to determine all these other spin/orbit-frequency bandwidths and how
far apart they all are from each other frequency wise. We'll find some common
separation ratio there not only between particles but also between the micro
and macro worlds.
To us
human beings, that are composed of a narrow band of these frequencies, the universe
has to be termed a quasi steady-state universe and now we know the human mind
had to do the best it could to cope with such a universe. The use of the four
fundamental forces, that we are now using, was a novel way various human minds
finally found to cope with the different forces in such a universe. The old 19th-century
science worked fine providing we remained slow and not too massive-where none of Einstein's relativity math would
be needed-and this is precisely the
arena that humans found themselves in for several thousands of years before
1887, the year of the Michelson-Morley experiment. From 1887 on and especially
after Einstein's papers in 1905 & 1915-16, in light of all this new
knowledge, everyone has seen our ancient rules simply do not work properly
anymore.
Scientists
did not derive the correct universal laws that would work properly. Instead
they started making new rules and then used these new rules as patches on some
of the ancient thousand year old rules but now this patchwork quilt of various
types of old and new rules used with various types of old and new math is
becoming more and more laboriously unworkable. It is becoming less and less
understandable as well.
The
entire universe that has no mind at all seems to have no problem whatsoever of
understanding it because it doesn't use our scientific local terminology at
all: It simply uses these "A"
Laws.
* You will notice
a certain aspect of Planck's approach to a solid as frequency is increased and
that of impedance matching with these laws as well.
^
You
will see this aspect of Planck's approach to a solid as frequency is increased
with these laws because in general, this attraction or repulsion will increase
as the particle spin or movement increases in frequency-as viewed from the lower frequency (larger) particle. As you will later see this perspective of
it cannot be directly included along with the "A"
Laws because surroundings will also affect this
and surroundings of different frequency objects
will not only all be different but some, unlike our inertia, will not be
homogeneous and isotropic in the large.
Because
of the aspect of Planck's approach to a solid as frequency is increased we will
not notice as strong an action by slower spinning or orbiting entities: Venus,
for instance, always points the same face toward this Earth when the two
planets come closest together which undoubtedly is some subharmonic frequency
relationship between the Earth and Venus which are both almost equal in mass.
And this is E PLURIBUS UNUM (one among many)
of the numerous planetary motions that will get solved once scientists
understand that they must be looking at all these spin and orbiting
frequencies. Each spin and orbit is there for a reason and this reason is that
of perfect balance between close neighbors and the macrocosm.
This spin/orbit-frequency science upgrade is one science upgrade you
had better heed.
The inertial qualities of the locking on sister particles
or aggregations (Venus
and Earth are about equal in mass.)
must be the same for maximum "lock on": This is equality of
impedance. You already know impedance has to match in radio circuitry for
maximum energy transfer.
There
is no such thing as an elementary particle in this new theory because these
have to be built of waves which themselves are being generated from another
spin/orbit-frequency level and since our mind seems only to be able to
comprehend one spin/orbit-frequency level at a time then we will have problems
with these waves because they are imbalances between particle levels. You must
remember that all particles are essentially built of waves which themselves are
imbalances between their close binding and macrocosm binding but the trick of
this big bang spherically encapsulated wave is that it spins and precesses and arrives
back just in the nick of time to be exactly at the starting point again every
time the "blitzseit" in several lower levels below begins. This
lower spin/orbit-frequency level must
see all energy transfers in its microcosm as already having been completed and not
as being underway.
Space and time are actually being produced by these various
spherical encapsulated wave particle levels all spaced apart at essential
spin/orbit frequencies like piano keys.
This manufacture of space and time by these big bang processed wave
train spheres did a good job of preventing their absorption: This our minds
can comprehend.
We must
consider all these particle-levels together with the galaxies and upward that
we can detect are only an infinitesimal fraction of what must really be here.
These things are also telling you that these simple "A" Laws, that you see here, are only a tiny
part of what is yet to come.
Remember
this next paragraph? You have seen it
before.
Space changes and time changes but the average overall
space-time interval never changes in each individual spin/orbit-frequency level
nor does it change in this system of ours.
This is
pointing out to you the fact that whenever you do diminish space-time in one
particular spot then you also must be creating that exact amount of space-time
somewhere else in the same subset system: In fact this is Einstein's original
"cosmological constant". This is
telling you that rectilinear motion or motion on geodesics inside a system does
not change the overall average space-time setup in that particular subset local
gauge system. This is why when you look at a rock, from your place of rest and
from your lower spin/orbit particle-frequency level, it looks solid.
All of this will be hard for you to believe but the universe from
the smallest unit in the microcosm to the largest unit in the macrocosm uses only
those previous laws, in bold black print, to
build itself.
The
rest of this text-and especially all my earlier books from 1967 on-are simply
an explanation of how these two "A"
Laws work and therefore how this entire universe works using only these two extremely simple
laws.
As you
put these "A" Laws to work,
you will then begin to see the universe that Einstein's mathematics showed to
him but you will not need any math at all to see even more than Einstein saw.
You will begin to see a brand new universe that is truly astounding. Using
these "A" Laws, many more of
our present relativity and quantum problems get solved and you get answers to
everything that present science simply cannot give even the foggiest reason
for. You also now get direction and this
you have never before had and this may well be the most important thing this
new theory gives to you right now.
As you use these "A"
Laws more and more then you will begin to see why we
have relativity and why we have quantum mechanics and why we
have superstring and why we
have reality.
Many
readers will be acutely aware of the lack of math that is needed to accompany
those previous "A" Laws in bold
black print. You will have to be philosopher enough to accept those
limitations that have been forced upon you while this new math structure is (possibly
surreptitiously in some places) currently
being assembled (See
the longer printed version). Besides
that, people in the publishing business have sternly forewarned me that the
number of general readers of this will drop off exponentially to the number of
mathematical formulas that are included in this.
Henri
Poincare always claimed that Euclid's methods were far, far more important than
any of his math. Since Poincare was one of the most eminent mathematicians of
his time and since these publishing experts must know what they are talking
about then this is another reason I'll not be adding any perplexing
mathematical formulas in any of this text. The length of this treatise alone
should be enough of a problem for you.
I do
need to remind you once more that the math that will eventually be developed
for these "A" Laws shall in
the long run be far, far more accurate than anything you presently can draw
upon. Using the law of gravity, we now can work out only the orbits of
everything in our solar system. And as I said before using these "A" Laws in our solar system eventually, it
now appears, we will be able to get even the spins of the planets along with
the differential spin of the sun as well as the orbits of everything.
So now
is the time to put on your thinking cap.
I hope
you remember earlier when I was explaining Einstein's space and time right
triangle that I explicitly stated that in relativity the space-time interval (the hypotenuse)
stayed the same all the time: I also said that it stayed more or less the same
in our particle system.
The
space-time interval does roughly stay the same overall in each particle system
but it does change drastically from spin/orbit-frequency system to
spin/orbit-frequency system and these "A"
Laws are showing you exactly how and why it will change so much.
The
concept of the space-time interval is an important concept in relativity but
unfortunately it is not quite acceptable to our subset minds so it's best if
you break it down into space and time the way your mind does. Here's the way you do it: Consider our "A" Laws as manufacturing space instead of space-time, Then
if you consider each "blitzseit" of space that is either created or
diminished by the spin of two quarks then this "blitzseit" of space created or diminished by these
quarks would be worth more time than that "blitzseit" of space created by two spinning electrons
and worth less
time than that "blitzseit" of space created by several spinning
galaxies. This is one way you could look at space-time. The human mind is
extremely versatile in that it is able to see different concepts.
Besides
the necessity of each spin/orbit frequency level having its own distinct place
of rest, another reason that we must have different gauge theories for each
different spin/orbit-frequency level is that the space-time interval changes so
greatly from particle level to particle level because of the different amount
of wave-particles and the various frequencies and various symmetries of
construction in the diverse surroundings. This
additionally is why we need to have all these different spin/orbit-frequency
levels and why Einstein never found any unified field.
Distance, motion, mass, space and time are all things that only
relate to one certain subset spin/orbit-frequency level and these terms
absolutely do not have the same meaning if taken outside of the system in which
they are used. If
you doubt this then look once again at that rock we looked at earlier that
looks solid but in which we know electrons are really in motion.
This may be a unified frequency wave world but it most certainly
is not a unified spin/orbit particle-frequency world.
You can
plainly see, by looking at our "A"
laws, that the construction of the space-time interval is entirely different
for various spin/orbit-frequency levels.
* This
means that both time, distance and motion are different for different
particle-frequencies. Therefore time, distance and motion at the proton-neutron
level is nothing at all such as that experienced by the electron.
^
Time
and distance or shall we say the space-time interval is similar to white light.
Even though you think there is such a thing as white light, you know that no
laser can manufacture white light simply because there is no such thing as
monochromatic white light. Lasers can produce colored light because all the
various colored light waves do exist. White light is a mixture of all
the colors. Your distances, along with your space or your time, like white light, are
all nothing but a mixture of all the various distances or space or time of the
different spin frequencies produced by the electrons or the quarks or the
protons or neutrons or the solar system or the galaxy and so on.
In fact, present science has improperly lumped together the
proton-neutron particle frequency level with the solar system and the galaxy
and Virgo super-cluster particle levels as far as mass, inertia and
gravitational qualities are concerned.
A big problem for future scientists will be in separating all this
out. Just as gravity extends to several spin/orbit-frequency levels, so does
everything else. Once certain places of rest are specified then with future
super-computers, people will have to determine which spin/orbit
particle-frequency levels are giving what percentage of the particular inertial
qualities they are looking for.
Places of rest must be defined and then each of these
entirely separate evaluations must be made strictly from each of those
respectively. Only after this is done will you have a mathematically superior
setup to the one you use now.
You must look at only one spin/orbit-frequency card at a
time.
This is
going to present many problems to us too: For instance, I have included this
proton-neutron spin/orbit-frequency level along with and being a lower
frequency than QED (electron) and
QCD (quark). You do have lower particle-frequencies than
these though. The solar system and galaxies are also creating and diminishing
space and time at their various spin and orbiting frequencies aren't they? Is present science taking this into
consideration?
The
answer is no.
Our
present science, unknowingly,
thoroughly mixes this proton-neutron
level with the solar system level and the galaxy level and even this place of
rest in the Virgo super-cluster level. It's going to be up to future scientists
to resolve these different levels. What role are these super low frequencies
playing in all of this?
Even though your mind thinks otherwise, you cannot accurately
specify a certain distance or a certain time or space measurement unless you
specify the exact spin/orbit-frequency level.
Now I
certainly hope you understand that the time, distance and motion that you see
is essentially the same as the white light that you see. The triumvirate of
time-distance-motion and the white light that you see are creations that your
mind has developed especially for you. Neither exists in the way your mind is
portraying them to you.
* These "A"
Laws also are telling you that at different frequencies or different
smaller or larger levels (from your local view, using the present science) that
from your viewpoint you would see these different levels having entirely
different symmetry setups.
^
From
the point of view of our present science system, each different particle-level
will be constructed differently. From any local gauge viewpoint it will look
like each different particle level has an entirely different gauge theory with
a different symmetry governing its equations. This is why Bohr had to change
centrifugal force a bit before he got all those spectral lines corresponding to
the orbital drops in the single electron hydrogen atom and why he could not get
them lined up in the heavier atoms.
* But
using these "A" Laws
and translating all your present local gauge terminology into frequency, motion, orientation
and inertial qualities-as
seen by that particular spin/orbit-frequency level-you
then see the global, universal picture of what is really going on because you
now have one terminology for all spin/orbit-frequency levels including ours
here on earth. This then becomes the theory that Dirac predicted.
^
You can
also see from the "A" Laws
that surroundings of the same frequency are the
key to the distinct local gauge invariance and symmetry of each distinct
particle level as seen by our present science system.
These
"A" Laws are showing you that surroundings of the same spin/orbit-frequency determine the inertial qualities of any one particular
spin/orbit-frequency level local gauge view.
The
quarks surrounding us determine our inertial qualities
and the surroundings of the electrons-because
they are at a far different spin frequency-determine the inertial qualities of the electron. Because the proton
is at some subharmonic of the electron's frequency then the electron behavior
is also going to be somewhat determined by all the protons in the surroundings
as well.
These
"A" Laws, therefore, start out
by explaining the reason we need quantum mechanics to view the microcosm and
that it in turn has to be split up into QED and QCD because in each of these
areas you are examining different spin/orbit-frequency levels. Hence you have
learned that each level of spinning and rotating things will have a different
symmetry from the ones above or below it as we look at it using our ancient
terms and viewing it from our narrow local gauge viewpoint.
And
this is the way quantum theory sees it isn't it?
Because
our "A" Laws create or delete
space and time per se then there will be no possible way to test to see if they
are indeed building or diminishing space as I have shown herein. You will see
later that some of the gravity wave modulating frequency depends on the
frequency of the rotation of the Virgo super-cluster and both inertia and
gyroscopic inertia depend on the frequency of the rotation of the quark. This
means both of these two frequencies are
way out of the range of
any existing frequency measuring devices that could possibly be used to further
check this using any type of interference
or fringe test. So at the present time
this can't be proven; neither can it be disproved.
Please
also remember that interference or fringe testing can not be carried to much lower
spin/orbit-frequency levels because all motion in one particle-level gets
completely canceled out when observing from much lower spin/orbit-frequency
levels.
Before
we leave this section I want to point out one other important global universal
law and it is Newton's 3rd law of motion.
It is a
global universal law and every bit as important as these "A" laws. It is the following:
* Every
action has an equal and opposite reaction.
There
is no guarantee though that 100% of these reactions will be contained in each
separate local gauge system spin/orbit-frequency level.
Newton's
3rd law of motion is a big factor in the constant balancing that
continually goes on in the universe.
In
closing this chapter I want to say that while a certain motion that you see may
be meaningless to the entire universe as a whole, it is not meaningless to you
inside this subset system. So while the term "motion" may strictly be
subset local terminology, we never-the-less can still use this term
"motion" in these "A"
Laws because we will only be looking at one subset spin/orbit-frequency level
at a time. But when you can look at one, then another, then another using the
same laws and same terminology then you can put each of these single playing
card type pictures together to see the big global universal deck of cards-or at least a portion of the deck-in all its full magnificent 3-D and color.
The
final thing that I want to say about these extremely
simple "A" Laws is this: Yes, they are indeed simple
but so is the principle that hot air rises and so is the principle that the
earth turns. But the earth turns giving us a type of pseudo force called
coriolis force and this combined with the simple principle of hot air rising
gives us all this extremely complicated pattern of the weather and the weather
is anything but simple. This essentially is a similar setup to this universe
where a few simple "A" Laws
have created such an impenetrable monstrosity that it has bewildered humans for
thousands of years and will continue to bewilder them for thousands more.
*
* *
6. Chemical Bonding
When a
proton and electron both join to form a hydrogen atom, they both lose mass and
this, scientists tell us, is the amount of binding energy they have gained and
you can figure the amount of mass converted to binding energy by using
Einstein's formula E=MC2
Once
you see that a quantum of light does not diminish no matter how far the
distance then this tells you binding energy also does not diminish with
distance either because they are both essentially the same things but at
different frequencies and you can derive energy from both as well: A quantum of
light is at a higher frequency (electron) than
a quantum of binding energy (quark).
Therefore
mass is, in a sense, only binding with the macrocosm surroundings
and Berkeley and Mach were both right. You could say it was either mass that
the proton and electron lost (They lose mass when they bind to form a hydrogen atom.) or it was merely binding with the rest of
the universe that was now, not lost but instead, merely switched in equal
amounts to closer binding with themselves to form the hydrogen atom.
Entirely
discard all your old science and use nothing but our new "A" Laws in observing the following
relationships in chemical bonding.
At
first, you will be apt to say that all the space between everything in these
atoms is being created by the 2nd "A"
Law: While this is true, this is not quite all of the story. Later when you see
why-by using
only inertial qualities-electrons
repel each other, in chapter 7. This will
also show you how both of these laws working together determine the
symmetry of the space-time construction of the particle elements in each
separate spin/orbit-frequency level.
Quantum
theory uses the term "overlap"
where these electron orbitals from adjacent atoms overlap
and bind in covalent bonding.
In p (pi) bonding
the spins of two electrons from two different atoms become momentarily
parallel. They will frequently overlap with the
"locked" pole
of one electron-spin-up-attracting the "locked"
pole of the other electron-also
spin-up-causing these two different atoms to bond in p (pi) bonding.
Remember these electrons do have size and they "see" their
closest portions, in this case their poles,
are spinning in the same direction (both either spin-up or both either spin down) at the same frequency. Thus, the "A" Law shows these will attract. These
electrons in p
(pi) bonding only attract each other and bond during this extremely short interval
of pole to pole
overlap and not during a
good part of the entire orbital. All p (pi) bonds are fleeting but repetitious and the
strength of these bonds will depend on the length of time these poles remain parallel to
each other while facing each other and spinning in the same direction.
Both quantum mechanics and our new 1st "A" Law provide us with the answer to p (pi) bonding.
In d (sigma)
bonding, electrons from two different atoms bind these two atoms together far
differently from the ones in p
(pi) bonding. In this d (sigma)
type of bonding these two electron orbitals are not parallel to each other but
are merged into one plane yet the overlap is still here but in a far different manner.
These two electrons from the two different atoms or molecules remain on
opposite ends of these two in line orbitals. These two electrons are also
"paired" and "locked" with
one spin-up and the other spin-down but these two electrons "lock" with their closest sides
going in the same direction (the 1st "A" Law) and
not their
poles.
The
important sides are the closest sides because these are the only sides where
there will be a tiny segment where both electrons will "see" that
portion of themselves traveling parallel and in the same direction.
There
is a certain aspect of d
(sigma) bonding (using the "bad quarter" that comes later) where
these two electrons being on two separate orbitals yet in the same plane will sense each other exactly like two
vertical antennas will sense each other. Two vertical antennas and the closest portions of two d (sigma) bound electrons-when you consider the "bad quarter"
that comes in chapter 10-will both "see"
each other moving like electrons on two vertical antennas. Thus, the transfer of any radio frequency or of even
light to your eye can be seen as a simple vertical antenna radio frequency
transfer. Since humans are adept at changing
concepts, you could also say that in the previous vertical antenna energy
transfer this transfer was made possible because space was being removed from
between these two antennas by our 1st
"A" Law. Remember, whether it's
space or time or both that are being changed depends on the frequency of the
geodesic or path of the observer and in this vertical antenna case it's space
that is being removed: Read chapter 18.
Each of
these electrons not only orbit their own individual nucleus but they
also both orbit an imaginary common "sigma spot" between their
two atoms. These two orbitals do not overlap as parallel orbitals such as in p (pi) bonding
but here they unite in the same plane
and become one single orbital plane really
in this shared common area around the imaginary "sigma spot". The
placement of this "sigma spot" determines the amount of ionic bonding
that will also prevail because all bonding is really a combination of both
covalent and ionic bonding.
This
new concept sees ionic bonding merely as the electron using subharmonic bonding
with the protons in the nucleus.
Quantum
theory gives you a probability that these electrons will be more often
found in a certain area. These "A"
Laws, utilizing precession, will show you that as well. One more thing too:
Both of these electrons will be orbiting exactly on the opposite sides of the
same orbital as the other electron but this is not what is most relevant here:
What is most relevant is that one electron will be spin-up and the other
spin-down and their closest sides
(and the
"bad quarters" of both-covered later)
will constantly "see"
each other exactly in phase and the same mass on the closest sides. Thus, both
electrons will attract each other at least a good portion of the entire orbital
using their closest sides according to
our 1st "A" Law.
Remember this is a d
(sigma) bond.
Although
the closest sides of these two electrons may attract each other with less force
than the closest poles, you must remember that in p (pi) bonding
these poles only overlap a small fraction of
the orbital. Whereas in d
(sigma) bonding the sides of these two electrons "see"
and attract each other more of the entire orbital so the d (sigma) bond is
the stronger of the two.
There
is one other reason that d
(sigma) bonding can be stronger than p (pi) bonding and this is because d (sigma) bonding
utilizes impedance matching that incorporates a greater attraction because of
the effect of the "bad quarter" that will be covered later in chapter
10.
You
must also keep in mind that free electrons that are allowed to roll, precess
and spiral-this proof comes later-will always repel other free electrons but
once these free electrons are "locked in"
then all this changes and they act exactly like magnets or like an opposite charge to another electron.
Any electron that is perfectly free, such
as resembling a gyroscope in gimbals, cannot be locked with another free electron. You will see later, in chapter 7, why all free spinning objects in
this universe must repel all other similar free spinning objects.
An electron bound to another electron or the nucleus loses its
freedom and thereby is, in effect, locked into a certain position
and thus it can attract other electrons.
These
can lock in many ways. They can lock together for part of the time. They can
"lock on" for part of an orbital. They can use either their sides to
lock or a stronger lock with their poles. Two somewhat restricted electrons can
lock together or one free electron can "lock on" to some electrons
that are already locked.
To this
present science guild, who remain in the Faraday-Franklin dim and distant past
era of darkness, this locking is seen as either
magnetism or opposite charges.
Space is frequency conscious and these electrons that are locked and
binding together are essentially removing space between themselves but that
space is only at the electron's spin frequency:
When you see two magnets come together then all you see is space being removed at the electron's spin frequency and you call this
attraction.
We know
that magnetism is caused by both the electron's spin and its orbital motion.
Binding energy is also caused by various spin and other motions of the various
particles. Unlike iron, we could expect, in many substances, to get much more
than 2% of the total attractive force on some orbitals.
In
ionic bonding, the bonding is really a bond that results from the electron's
attraction to the nucleus. This would really be a close subharmonic frequency
bond in this new concept. Subharmonic frequency bonds are normally the weaker
bonds but in this case it's the strongest bond because the nucleus holds a
steadfast bond while the other d (sigma) and p (pi) covalent
bonding must be done with other similar moving, wobbling, precessing electrons.
The most prolific and numerous chemical bonds are the d (sigma) and p (pi) covalent
bonds. What is plain to see from quantum theory is that covalent bonds are
definitely not electron to nucleus close subharmonic bonds like ionic bonding.
Covalent bonds are those frozen or "locked"
electrons being attracted to other electrons by exact same frequency of spin
and this our 1st "A"
Law will show.
The
above terms "frozen" and "locked" really should read
"somewhat frozen" and "somewhat locked" because if these
electrons were perfectly frozen and locked and without any kind of wobble
whatsoever then covalent bonds would be as strong or stronger than ionic
nuclear bonds but they are definitely not, so from this we know quite a bit of
electron to electron perturbation must still exist even when electrons are
"locked" together.
This 1st "A"
Law essentially unifies the old concepts of Benjamin Franklin's opposite charge
attraction and Faraday's magnetic unlike pole attraction. In
both of the above situations, the electron's total freedom stops and you have
"lock on" and you'll see this better as you continue.
There are various types of "lock ons" because the electron
wobbles and precesses: All electron to electron attractions are done with
moving electrons both of which are being highly disturbed by their surroundings.
They simply are not going to be spinning perfectly parallel to each other 100%
of the time but the subharmonic bonding to the nucleus is far different because
the proton(s) in the nucleus are not being this much disturbed and can provide
a much steadier "lock on" and therefore a much more powerful
"lock on" than the electron to electron "lock on". Thus,
this subharmonic "lock on" is much more powerful than the electron to
electron same exact frequency "lock on". Normally subharmonic
"lock ons" would be less powerful.
Covalent
bonds are really the electron orbitals of two adjacent atoms simply overlapping
and/or the spins attracting each other via the 1st "A" Law. Once you realize this then you can
easily see how covalent bonding really works.
A "locked"
electron-even while it's on an orbital-is really nothing more than a tiny
magnet. These electrons are now "locked" into position and are
no longer free to wobble, so now in a sense can become tiny magnets and they
stay orbiting with their closest sides or poles in phase with another electron
from an adjacent atom. These "locked" electrons can bind like magnets or opposite
charges through either most of the entire orbital or a good part of an
orbital and our law tells us if the closest sides of these electrons are
spinning in the same direction then this will be a d (sigma) bond
and if the orbits overlap so their closest poles face each other and
these poles spin in the same direction then this is a p (pi) bond. You
can use either quantum theory or our "A"
Laws to describe this bonding.
Today's
quantum scientists claim that the spin-up electron neutralizes the spin-down
electron completely. First we see them binding as we look at their functions in
their micro world and yes, they eventually do neutralize each other as we look
on it from our perspective in the macro world but there is certainly a lot of
binding that goes on there before this neutralization happens.
You
simply could have no covalent bonding without electron pairing because unless
an electron is held steady and "locked"
either with closest sides or closest poles then the electrons would never
attract each other like tiny magnets nor would they attract like opposite
charges but they would keep twisting, wobbling and precessing, all of which
would repel a similar free electron and you will see that our "A" Laws explain all the whys and wherefores
about this in chapter 7.
Electrons
have to "see" each other as lined up, not free,
but "locked" in place to act like tiny
magnets or opposite charges thereby attracting each other: "Resonance"
is the term quantum theory uses to describe this in phase feature. One more
important thing about this pairing is that electron pairing is the rule rather
than the exception: This generally is the least energy setup. In other words,
their mass-inertia-will be less when they are paired than when they
are unpaired usually. All of this brings us to the final thing pairing shows us
and it is that the electron must be able to "see"
its paired partner right through the nucleus which must mean the electron is
composed of waves that are of a far different frequency yet some harmonic of
the waves comprising the protons in the nucleus.
A
single unpaired electron from an atom can also bind with another from an
adjacent atom as long as the electron, its closest sides are in phase with, has
also been stabilized by pairing in that adjacent atom. The paired electron then
for a time can lock in the free unpaired electron.
Some
orbitals will repel others-spins reversed or orbits out of phase-and these will
be destructive orbits and these are also known about and can be calculated with
the math of quantum mechanics. (Quantum mechanics would refer to this as an antisymmetric
wave.) Our 2nd
"A" Law tells us why we have
these.
The
principle behind all chemical bonding is that the interacting parts of these
binding atoms all will lose mass and this mass will be turned into binding
energy via E=MC2 thus binding these components together. This is the current accepted scientific reasoning. In this new theory the term mass or M (in the preceding formula) is really only
macrocosm binding. Although you will suffer in accuracy using only
these new "A" Laws without any
math, I believe they will be put to work to advantage first in this area of
chemical bonding. Using these new laws, you can certainly picture how
everything works. You've never had anything quite as directive as this before.
We have
the Pauli exclusion principle that says two electrons on the same orbital must
have their spins reversed-one spin-up and the other spin-down. The reason for
this is simple. Our 1st "A"
Law shows us why: Electrons have a dimension. The closest sides, of each of the
above, are spinning at the same frequency in the same direction.
Now you
have Hund's rule that states that if two orbitals are open then the two
electrons that settle in will both be spinning the same direction. On two
separate orbitals these electrons would be a distance from each other and
whichever way the prevailing magnetic moment would be, it would affect them
both so they would both spin the same way. These two electrons will stay well
away from each other now because their closest sides will be spinning opposite
to each other thus repelling them.
You get
the maximum bonding in the least energy state; the "A" Law reason for this comes later even
though you might have figured it out already but you should entirely comprehend
the reason for this before you finish chapter 13
that covers inertia. Our present science says binding energy can also be
considered mass: This is where the energy for the atom bomb comes from. The
binding energy curve (Look it up in an encyclopedia CD.)
is one of the most important curves in all of science. While your present
science considers binding energy to be an equivalent to mass, you will need our
"A" Laws to show you exactly why this is so. They do clearly show this to you
while your present science simply doesn't.
Covalent
bonding is a spin to spin attraction where a pair of electrons is shared
between the bound atoms and this is a highly directional attraction because
these electron closest poles or closest sides that are spinning in the same direction
at the same frequency bind together even though the electrons themselves remain
a distance apart.
The
covalent spin to spin attraction is highly discriminating: It only attracts
those closest poles that are spinning in the same direction-unlike poles.
Unlike magnetic poles or opposite
charges will always have some portion of something "locked"
and facing each other that will be spinning in the same
direction thus they will always attract.
The real problem with Faraday's magnetic rule is that it tells
you that opposite poles attract but when you look at these opposite poles then
the facing electrons in these opposite poles see themselves spinning in the same
direction and this is what is doing the attracting.
The above tells you why I previously stated that Faraday's rules
don't show you what they should and show you things, like this, that they
really shouldn't because this prevents you from seeing the real reason
for the attraction or the repulsion. In fact, Faraday's rules will give you the
exact opposite impression as to what is really happening.
Today
descriptions of bonding are worked out by quantum mechanics math but some of it
is getting very complicated and this is where I proffer the use of this new law
for direction and help. Someday when
we have finalized the proper math structure for these new "A" laws then you will no longer even need
quantum mechanics to work out the bonding or at least things will be changed so
much that you will no longer even recognize it as the old quantum theory.
In this
universe of these "A" Laws,
all spinning objects have this property of attracting and repelling. Remember
the spin has to be at the right frequency or a harmonic thereof. And remember
Planck who showed us that the faster these things spin then the more the
attractive or repelling force as viewed from the lower frequency (bigger) object. Symmetry
and such things as an antisymmetric wave function take on a whole new light
because now we see exactly what is positively behind it all. Today's scientists
will tell you that all of this spin is not real spin anyway. I'll say they are
right about many of these because many of their particles are momentary and can
not be considered permanent particles
in this new theory. So far, in quantum mechanics, there have been about 200
particles discovered and many of these are classed as Fermi-Dirac and therefore
have anti-particles as well, so this even increases the number of these pure
wave like entities.
The
electron, however, is a permanent particle and the electron-as viewed in our
subset system-has to be
considered having a true honest to goodness spin along with honest to
goodness gyroscopic inertia.
*
* *
7. Einstein's cosmological
constant; the electron's charge and a bit more
Einstein
saw that all this space between everything in this universe implied that there
had to be a force equal to gravity but this had to be some type of a repelling
force. Einstein saw this in 1917, the era when almost 100% of scientists still
believed in a steady-state universe. The era of almost 100% steady-state
universe believers ended in 1927 with Belgian cleric, Georges Lemaître
successfully preaching his gospel of an expanding universe. Willem de Sitter
had considered an expanding universe earlier but it was not quite like
Lemâitre's big bang model that, in the roaring twenties, seemed to catch the
public's attention. This model of Lemaître's expanding universe was modified by
another big bang model put forth by George Gamow and his friends in the 1940's
and Gamow's modified big bang model seems to have even gained in popularity
especially since the publication in 1965 of the discovery of the cosmic
background radiation. This radiation is 2.74 degrees Kelvin in temperature and
of frequencies in the border of microwave and infrared and was even predicted
by Gamow and his group back in 1948.
The COBE satellite instrumentation sent back to earth important
information about this radiation that has provoked arguments and raised the
tempers of many cosmologists.
This background radiation seems to indicate that something
indeed happened.
This big bang, supposedly, happened about ten or maybe even
fifteen billion or some think possibly even twenty billion years ago: That's
ten or fifteen or twenty American billion (in
which a billion is a thousand, million) and not
ten or fifteen or twenty English billion (in
which a billion is a million, million).
Now
that this new theory adopts the view of a quasi steady-state universe then
Einstein's "cosmological constant"
repelling force is again necessary but what causes it?
Einstein put forth no ideas about this. (Wait and you'll see.)
Even
before we start on this, we notice that these atoms in the microcosm also are
well separated much the same as all the stars in the universe. It seems that
our "A" Laws are the only laws that tell us why this is.
Once you see all this separation (99.9999%
empty space) both in the macrocosm and microcosm then it
doesn't take much of a brain to convince you that there is only one
precept behind it all and that all your science, that
gives entirely different rules for the microcosm from what it does for the
macrocosm, must be seriously outdated.
This
"Theory of Everything" says that once you change your idea of small
to higher frequency and your idea of large to lower frequency then electrons
and stars are both essentially built up of spherically encapsulated spinning
standing waves and the differences between electrons and stars will be
basically one of spin and orbiting frequency
which will determine a different symmetry of construction but yet of a basic
wave foundation.
The
"A" Laws will show you that
the big differences between these two can only be in their surroundings that will cause a differing symmetry of
construction. Similar surrounding objects spinning and orbiting at the same frequency are extremely important in giving all these
items-whether electrons or stars-their inertial qualities, local gauge
invariance and the resulting symmetry of construction.
The surroundings of all these stars are homogeneous and
isotropic in the large while the surroundings of
electrons are nothing like this at all. With magnets, you can drastically
change the surroundings of electrons thereby
changing their inertial qualities. You can call it changing their magnetic
fields if you want but it's still changing their surroundings.
Niels
Bohr showed us that 98% of the magnetism in iron is caused by the spin of the
electron. The orbital motion of the electron should really be the largest cause
of magnetism but in iron this gets mostly canceled out so that the electron's
orbital motion only contributes about 2% to iron's magnetism.
Nature
continually tries to balance all movements of all particles and the orbital, if
shifting is possible, always gets shifted first before the spin. The electron
is one particle we know of that has problems getting its spins and orbitals
totally balanced. The worst imbalance is in iron where one atom will have many
more electrons spinning one way than in all the other directions. These
electrons will line up with electrons that have similarly oriented spins in
many more atoms of iron and form a domain in which all
the electrons in the domain flip either spin-up or spin-down all at the same
time.
Picture
the atom as having essentially three types of electrons-also caused by their surroundings-and those closer to the nucleus we'll call the majority of
the electrons: These simply cannot shift their spins but some of them do give
off energy by dropping to a lower orbital. They cannot, however, change from a
spin-up to a spin-down no matter how the magnetic field around them changes
because they are too close to the nucleus and "locked" in to it too
tightly.
Other
electrons further from the nucleus, on certain orbitals, are flip-able electrons: These most certainly can
suddenly flip and change their spins from spin-up to spin-down with a change of
a nearby magnetic field. Flip-able electrons are found locked in place in the d
or f shells of the iron atom. Flip-able electrons act like tiny magnets;
in fact, they are the smallest magnetic moment. These flip-able electrons that
can easily flip over and spin the other way are not the furthest from the
nucleus though. Electrons furthest out are called free electrons or valence electrons or sometimes they are
called conduction electrons. These are the electrons that we say have this
thing called charge. Flip-able electrons also sometimes do.
The majority electrons, occasionally dropping to a
lower orbital, are forced to precess and wobble and doing this show their
inertial qualities to us as light.
The flip-able electrons show their inertial qualities
to us mainly as magnetism but
sometimes they can also have an attraction or repulsion similar to charge as we
saw in the previous chapter.
The free electrons mainly show their inertial
qualities to us as charge.
Only in your narrow subset system can you retain the concept of
charge.
In this big picture of everything, there are no such things as plus
and minus charges.
Please pay attention to the following.
Electrons
can exhibit either ferromagnetism attraction or an attraction such as unlike
charges when they are "locked" or a repulsive behavior such as with
similar type charge or similar magnetic poles when they are "free":
Our "A" Laws show us why this
is and in the next 8 paragraphs you have
the best explanation of why electrons repel each other.
Lets
look at these free electrons first: They spin and hence they have inertial
qualities and this includes gyroscopic inertia which always provides this force
90 degrees to any external force acting on such a spinning item.
Completely
forget about charge now and only look at our new "A" Laws and what they say.
The 1st
"A" Law tells us that there is
a possibility that two free electrons can attract each other providing that any
portion of their closest sides are spinning in the same direction at the same
frequency. This means either their sides can be spinning in the same directions
or they can be lined up so that both of their poles can be spinning in the same
directions: Any such two electrons will attract each other.
Then we
see that there is something else: This attracting force comes in as the cosine
of the angle of the movement.
As this
force begins to act, it in turn causes this 90-degree gyroscopic torque to twist both of those totally free electrons away from
this initial attracting position, doesn't it?
So
because of this gyro torque, two free electrons can never remain in a full
attracting position and they will therefore be forced to stay more in a repelling position and therefore free
electrons will always end up repelling each other and this repelling is not
explained by using this thing called charge: it is explained only by simply
using global inertial qualities
and our new global "A" Laws.
The above 8 paragraphs explain not only why electrons repel each
other but they also explain why any two perfectly free similar
spinning objects must repel each other. So now you know why both
electrons and galaxies stay well away from each other.
This is Einstein's cosmological constant.
Whenever you have a positive charge then
you have something that is being shifted which
in turn synchronizes in with the spin of an electron and "locks" it
in place thus "locking" in a free electron or an electron from an adjacent atom and
binding with it and this is seen by present science as a positive and
negative item attracting each other
when it really is only the system obeying our "A"
Laws.
Something somewhere has to be "locked" in
place and synchronized in frequency with the electron's spin or a close
subharmonic of the spin to get any kind of attracting force:
Such things as positive and negative charges do not exist in this
theory:
This theory, in fact, explains what charge is.
The
proton attracts an electron because when two up quarks combine with one down
quark to form a proton then something in this special type of assemblage is
able to synchronize in with the electron's spin frequency and "lock" it thereby preventing the electron from
precessing or wobbling and therefore it can attract the electron.
This is why aggregations come together (gravity) and
larger aggregations come together and accumulate because as these things grow
in size there are more things "locked" in
place strengthening the attractive force of the 1st "A"
Law.
Once we
know more about quarks and we learn exactly how those two up quarks and the one
down quark in the proton are set up then we will know more about how this type
of attractive quark strong
force binding functions. Attraction is always a synchronized frequency attraction and it is not simply the old idea of plus and minus
charges.
All attractions in this theory must be synchronized
frequency attractions.
Here is
something that I learned while working on radio transmitters: In order to
transfer energy between the stages, not only must the frequency be exactly the
same but the impedance of both stages has to match and the power of the
emitting stage must be able to be absorbed by the next stage in line as well or
no power can be transferred.
I see
the universe in a similar light as the radio transmitter and there is no doubt
in my mind at all that, like the radio transmitter stages, if all that light
from all the stars were not being seen as instantly absorbed in several lower
levels then we would have no light being given off by the stars. That instant
absorption of light-that we see-from
electron to electron, in our spin/orbit-frequency level, as soon as they
produce it, is an essential factor in those star electrons being able to give
off all their light. It's simply an instant electron balancing act seen totally
within several lower levels or in this local gauge system: That's all it is.
The electrons on the star will give off energy and balance whenever they can do
this. But because so few electrons are ever correctly lined up in each projector
frame, this limits the amount of light. Motion gets totally balanced out in
each subset spin/orbit-frequency level as seen from several lower
spin/orbit-frequency levels.
When you know electrons are rapidly moving around inside a rock
then you also know that to see the rock as solid, your smallest increment of
time or "blitzseit" must be extremely larger than
the "blitzseit" at the electron's
spin/orbit-frequency level.
If you
look toward the macrocosm then you can see motion between everything in the
macrocosm because your "blitzseit" time period is of a shorter duration than
that in the macrocosm. It's all frequencies and the microcosm is at a higher
frequency than you are (It's at a shorter wavelength than you are.) and the
macrocosm is at a lower frequency than you are. (It's at a longer wavelength than you are.)
Only in
the macrocosm, where time is slowed down considerably, does light seem not to be instantly absorbed but from your
viewpoint it most certainly is, the same as it is in every stage in a radio
transmitter.
These
four things: frequency, impedance,
phase and alignment
all have to match when an orbiting electron transfers energy to another
orbiting electron just the same as it does in a radio circuit. These orbits of
both the sender and the receiver of the energy have to be oriented exactly and
in the case of the electron perhaps within an extremely tiny fraction of one
degree. This transferring of energy is not an easy thing to do. It looks easy,
simply because there are so many electrons in the universe that there are
always some in the correct mode to do it. Impedance always has to match for
proper transfer of power in radio and in the electron's spin or orbit too: Here
impedance would be considered matching if both electrons have the same exact
mass at points on their closest sides. If
orbitals were elliptical then this orientation
would also have to match. All this is not as easy as it seems because you
must remember the slightest orbital forward movement must change the electron's
mass. Elsewhere in here I have said that energy transfer is not an easy thing
to accomplish. We have so many electrons though that it looks easy because
there are always some that will exactly fit the bill for an exchange situation.
For the
essentially simple light quantum energy transfer, such as between a star and
your eye, the orbits of both sending and receiving electrons have to "see
themselves" as being exactly in the same plane: Mass, on their closest
sides, does have to match exactly too. You'll see this same effect later in
inertia also.
Now
let's go to the stars and you will see the same "A" Laws apply there as well and, as you can
see, these too will always have to remain in a repelling position with each
other.
Close
binary stars of the same mass, on the other hand, will always be spinning so
that their closest sides are always moving in the same direction at the same
frequency.
So here
you can see that our "A" Laws
tell you exactly why we have Einstein's "cosmological
constant" not only in the sky but in the microcosm as well.
Now
this can be checked but not with electrons because they move too fast but
eventually super-computers will check throughout this entire universe and
eventually even these high priests of this contemporary science type religion
will be startled to find that all the stars are in a position where they are
spinning in such a way as to repel their closest neighbor.
And, by
the way, this goes for galaxies as well.
So you
can also say these stars and galaxies will someday all be found to be spinning
in a way that creates space and time between themselves and their closest neighbor.
The
stars and galaxies are all repelling each other or creating space between
themselves by the use of our new "A"
Laws.
You
will also notice that the stars and galaxies are also creating time between
themselves and all of this creation of space and time gives us the explanation
for the red shift and is also one of the reasons that this theory shows the two
NASA probes Pioneer 10 and 11 seem to be slowing down as they travel on through
space.
This is
the creation of space and time that results in this curvature or distortion of
the space-time continuum described by Einstein.
All
these stars are repelling all the other stars and creating-and curving-space
and time between themselves so you must assume space and time is not uniformly
distributed and more of it is curved and packed more tightly around all these
stars and therefore these "A" Laws
are correct and space and time and/or this repelling force-Einstein's "cosmological constant"-is being generated by all of these stars much in the
same way that all of these free electrons generate this thing we call charge.
Another easier way of looking at it using "angular lock on" comes
later.
Scientists
agree that electrons have both size and spin. Most consider the electron's
point like size to be insignificant. It's hardly that. To the electron its
size, shape and spin are all extremely significant factors. To this electron,
our space is the thing that changes. The "A"
Laws clearly show you why this is so: Size is determined separately by each
spin/orbit-frequency level and merely because you see something as a certain
size this doesn't mean it really is that certain size in its own subset system
as you see it in your local subset system.
When
the future super-computers come on line to process all of this, they will be
programmed also in frequencies because these particles that we see are only in
our limited frequency bandwidth. To see the entire universal global picture you
have to consider frequencies. You must concern yourself more with waves.
Remember this entire universe is a global frequency
universe and things you see as solids only exist for you and about an octave or
so around you in this subset spin/orbit-frequency level.
Max Planck has shown you that as you look at higher, then higher,
then even higher frequencies, then from your lower spin/orbit level these
highest frequency spin/orbitals approach a solid.
What superstring theory is telling you is that you are really
like a radio. You are tuned into spherical standing wave stations on your dial.
These stations are the particles that science knows about and the galaxies in
the macrocosm are the spherical wave stations on the low frequency end of the
dial. But you can only tune into things on your dial even though these things,
you can tune into and notice, may be just the smallest fraction of 1% of what
is out there.
Superstring shows you what Compton, Schrödinger and de Broglie
have also shown you: It's a frequency and wave universe. If you see a rock as
solid then that only means your receptors are tuned in to a frequency that is
some extreme lower frequency of the orbitals of those electrons in the rock:
That's all seeing things as solid means. It most certainly doesn't mean the
things you see as solid are really solid: They are not. They most certainly are
only waves.
Again, what you constantly must remember is that the things you see
as solid are not: They are 99.9999% empty space, aren't they? They
are waves and you must be "tuned
in" to these waves or they will effectively not exist as far as you are
concerned. As long as you stay alive, you stay "tuned
in". As long as you stay "tuned
in" you stay alive. Things that are not "tuned
in" can't even react with your universe because to them it simply
doesn't exist because to them they can't "tune
in" to these wavelengths; they are not on the dial.
Your distance, speed, mass, space and time all vanish just like the
radio station that you tune away from when you select another radio station.
This is a frequency universe,
my friend.
That rock that you see as solid but is really 99.9999% empty
space, suddenly becomes 100% empty space if either you or it shifts frequency
enough. Just a slight frequency shift to two lower spin/orbit-frequency levels
and all the electron motion in that rock now seems to vanish doesn't it? At
the solar system level, the rock looks solid doesn't it?
You can see from this that our biggest problem is our own minds that
attempt to make reasonable assumptions basing things on a solid particle world
in which one supreme unified type of space and time exists. Einstein has
proven that such a world does not exist. Once you know this to be a
fact then the next step is to try to find out what type of a universe would
exist that will give us all these things we see in reality plus what we
also have in relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring theories as well.
And getting back to the rock concept again, we see that both you
and the rock will suddenly vanish if this universe is forced once more to
retune the piano keys of the electron, quark or proton-neutron particles: It
had to do this to similar particles once already.
Heisenberg showed us that we can't tune into a wave without either
destroying it or affecting it in some manner but here is the beauty of these
spherical encapsulated standing wave particles: You can momentarily tune
into them provided that they can immediately recover this "blitzseit" of
energy from their surroundings which they in fact do.
This is why it all appears to
be solid to you.
However, it will only appear to be solid to you if your frequency
is that extreme lower frequency. If
your frequency is too far away though then it vanishes completely like a radio
station does when you tune away from it.
This is why distance, speed, mass, space and time all vanish just like
the radio station that you tune away from when you examine another subset
system and tune into a different spin/orbit-frequency level.
Heisenberg had to tune into one level to get the electron's velocity
and to tune into another level to get its momentum didn't he?
You
absolutely must only use these new "A"
Laws with their terminology of frequency and motion. You have to
entirely forget your old rules and all your old terminology concepts whenever you
are trying to see either several different subset spin/orbit-frequency levels
or the big picture of this entire universe.
We do
have a quasi steady-state universe and this is why Einstein's "cosmological constant" repelling force must
equal the total of gravitational attracting forces exactly.
Now
that we know we have a quasi steady-state universe then we see our two exactly opposite "A"
Laws show us why the attracting force has to exactly equal the repelling force and
therefore why we have Einstein's "cosmological
constant" in not only the macrosystem but in the micro world as
well. In the microcosm scientists presently see this attracting and repelling
as either charge or magnetism.
Charge,
as we said before, can only exist in an unbalanced system and the positive
charge always exists in a situation where an orbital or something is shifted
causing some element of the unit and another free electron to "lock on" together using the 1st "A" Law. Attractions
are always done with some element "locked" while in repelling, both elements must be spinning in
different directions or entirely free such as a gyroscope in gimbals:
It really has nothing to do with plus and minus
charges in this new theory.
Let's
look at how a so-called negative item and a positive item behave in a magnetic
field. We'll use a negative beta particle that bends one way and a positive
alpha particle that bends in the opposite direction.
A beta
particle is really a high speed electron going from 10% to 99.8% of the speed
of light and it is obvious that both its spin and curve of travel will be in
the same direction as the electrons are going in the electromagnetic coils that
are producing the field.
The
alpha particle takes an opposite curve because
it is really a high-speed helium nucleus. The proton in this nucleus is unlike
the high speed electron that is free but instead here a portion of the proton
in the nucleus gets "locked"
now making the proton-neutron assembly rotate in a direction opposite to the high speed electron. Again, if you
grasp the Frisbee at this "bad quarter" it will twist in the opposite direction to the way the electrons are
traveling in the electromagnet that is applying the field. And this is the direction the Alpha particle curves.
*
* *
8. Ferromagnetism
Surroundings
play a most important part in magnetism. Look at the energy curve. Iron is
located right at the midrange peak. Cobalt and nickel are right next to it.
Only these three metals show a high degree of strong ferromagnetism.
Why?
In
chapter 5 we spoke about the binding
balance and in chapter 18 we go further
into the importance of balance between close binding and macrocosm binding.
Look where iron is located on the energy chart. It is neither the heaviest
element nor the lightest but exactly midrange
between everything. Theoretically all elements lighter than iron could give off
energy by atomic fusion and all the elements heavier than iron could give off
energy by atomic fission. This actually happens too in various parts of our
universe at sundry times with star formations and supernova explosions and
probably even more types of things with which we are not yet acquainted. The
result of all of this various energy creation is the production of iron. You
can theoretically get atomic energy out of everything except iron. When you get
down to iron though you are finished. You can't go any further than that. Iron
is the atomic energy ash heap. You simply can't get any atomic energy out of
iron. It's at the very peak of the energy curve. And it is also midrange isn't it?
What is
that telling you?
It's
showing you the main thesis thread that is running clear through this
exposition: Surroundings are the key here.
Everything gets perfectly balanced out all throughout our
universe except for these spinning electrons in the d and f
shells in iron that are midway
exactly between their close binding inner neighbors
and their outer neighbors.
The only electrons that can be flipped from spin-up to spin-down or
vice versa are those that are exactly midway between
their inner and outer surroundings.
Doesn't this mean anything to you?
This is telling you that if the electron is on an orbital further
in or if the electron is on an orbital further
out then it is getting too much more
of a lock from either one direction or the other to be able to flip
back again isn't it?
When an electron is on a geodesic then it is the totality of both
spin and obital that is perfectly matched between close items and macrocosm
items. When the spin flips then the orbital also must change slightly to
compensate for the flipped spin difference.
This is another hidden road sign that is roaring to you that surroundings are
as important as Berkeley and Mach said they were.
In
heating iron, as you get it hotter and hotter you will actually keep changing
the crystal structure of the layout of the iron molecules and the structure of
these greatly determine its magnetism.
If you
heat an iron magnet above the Curie temperature which is 1,043K then it loses
its strong ferromagnetic quality and becomes weakly paramagnetic. In other
words at that temperature it can still exhibit some magnetic qualities
providing you add an additional magnetic field.
Remember
the geodesic or balanced energy path that was discussed earlier in chapter 6. "Chemical
bonding"?
Heat is
something that increases all the particle movement in the area heated and this
will make far more close "A"
Law linkages available to each electron. This creates more of these 90-degree
Frisbee and gyro type counter movements and therefore this creates more of a
destructive environment for strong ferromagnetism. Heat substantially raises
all these least energy path geodesics.
Super-cooling
can have just the opposite effect and this we dwell on in chapter 12. "Various forms of
magnetism".
In the
iron atom electrons fill the d and f shells by the first of
Hund's rules which is maximizing the same direction of spin and this means up
to five electrons spinning the same way in the d shell and up to seven
spinning the same way in the f shell. You can use our 1st,
"A" Law instead of the
combination of Hund's rules and the Pauli exclusion principle and the Curie
temperature and so forth and so on. Our new "A"
Laws show you all this as well, in fact, these are what the universe itself is
actually using to build all of this.
This
universe is a great balancer and it balances all transfer motion completely out
in each subset system in a single "blitzseit" of the several lower spin/orbit-frequency
levels and it balances things out globally all throughout the universe this way
as well. You will witness this balancing act, however, inside your
spin/orbit-frequency level: One result of orbital balancing (You must remember that
orbitals have leverage over spins and orbitals will therefore balance first.) that you will see in your
spin/orbit-frequency level is this magnetism of the electron where the worst
spin imbalance seems to be with all these electrons spinning the same way in
these d and f shells that in turn form into stronger domains
thereby causing a considerable amount of ferromagnetism.
Even though there seems to be a spin
imbalance in magnetism, there is no close to macrocosm imbalance in
spin/orbital totality because the orbitals have adjusted to compensate for
this.
Magnetism
is far more complicated than the easy lessons learned in high school. There are
six types of magnetism. Each type is caused by a separate distinctive style of
electron spin and orbital behavior. Magnetism is created by spinning electrons
that not only are moving on orbitals but they also spin and therefore have
considerable gyroscopic torque that causes both them and their orbitals to
precess. The variety of their surroundings and these
different modes of precession are some of the things that gives the 6 different
forms of magnetism that we find by magnetizing various materials. Iron, nickel
and cobalt exhibit the style of magnetism you are most familiar with: It's
called Ferromagnetism.
Ferromagnetism
is always a special grouping of similarly oriented electrons that form with
other groups into crystal type domains and all electrons in these domains click
into position at the same time as the magnetic field is slowly increased and these
clicks can actually be heard as Heinrich G. Barkhausen heard them for the first
time in 1919 using an amplifier and headphones. Ferromagnetism is the strongest
type of magnetism and can exist without an applied electro magnetic field.
Ferromagnetic materials can-and as in the case of iron generally do-amplify the
applied electro magnetic field strength by a thousand times or more and this
ferromagnetic field is always stronger centrally which is definitely not the
case with diamagnetism. Levitation is not possible with ferromagnetism because
of this magnetic force being centrally concentrated. This you can see as you
hold two magnets together so they repel each other and they try to twist away
from that central strongest point.
* *
*
9. The big picture
Let us
stop here and think a bit about solving problems in a universe as complicated
as the one in which we have found ourselves.
We
can't use our present science because it is only local gauge theory; neither
can we use many of the mathematical procedures that go along with all this
local gauge science terminology.
This
told me-in no uncertain terms-that I could not trust any of today's
mathematical procedures to get at the truth of unification. It had to be done
by a process of positively eliminating all those various other possible setups
that conflicted with relativity, quantum theory, superstring and reality.
Up
until now the use of math has reigned supreme in the discovering of new science
breakthroughs but not this time my friends. That was one of the big surprises
for this person too. I saw, early in the game, that math would be of no use
whatsoever in solving this problem. It was Kurt Gödel who showed me that math
was not going to play the big role in figuring this one out. Two big factors
helped me in this: One was my long standing belief that the electron's behavior
could be easily explained once we found what inertia was. My intuition was
right about that too. The other big factor was that I had seen, early in life,
that Ampere's laws were pure gold compared to Faraday's lines of force. My life
was spent troubleshooting and I soon found out Ampere's laws helped me
tremendously and Faraday's didn't. The difference between the two, in this
pragmatic world of real problem solving on tremendously expensive equipment,
was like the difference between night and day.
Where
time was money, instead of using Faraday's slow, complicated, round-about
rules, I used the clear, concise, fast Ampere method for decades which kept me
way ahead of my peer group and this also gave me the necessary training whereby
I could, eventually, make use of Ampere's laws in solving this unification
problem as well.
The
idea you have that you are built from the microsystem is not all that wrong
because in this theory all the electron movement in the microcosm will all have
to eventually be balanced out at your level thus the electron orbital microcosm
will be a stable platform upon which to build. Geodesics are also important
because they are always the paths of least resistance, so to speak. The
universe can therefore build from them because they will make an extremely good
foundation.
You
must keep in mind that these new "A"
Laws will be giving you a mind picture of only one spin/orbit-frequency world
at a time, but you will be getting the picture more toward the "universe's
point of view" and
not so much in the narrow subset view of your local gauge theory.
If you
use the terms of inertial qualities, speed, distance, size and momentum then
you must also specify the spin/orbit-frequency level because these are
only local gauge terms and they are useless unless you define the specific
local gauge environment you are talking about. These terms also are worthless
when trying to see the entire global picture but where they are priceless is in
getting a mathematically cheap and extremely efficient 99.9% accurate image of
this narrow spin/orbit-frequency level mainly because our surroundings are homogeneous and isotropic in the
large. The math for a much better 100% accurate global view is going to be far,
far more expensive indeed.
The
waves created by moving entities will seemingly get stronger with a rise in
frequency when viewed from a lower subharmonic spin/orbit-frequency: Max Planck
showed us this. This is inextricably linked to the fact that you, from the
earth's much lower spin/orbit frequency, see the orbiting electrons in the rock
as all solid.
Remember
that this universe tries its best to stay in balance by equating momentary,
repetitious close binding to momentary, repetitious macrocosm binding. Wave energy is a temporary disruption
of the equilibrium with an end attempt at
better balancing between close items and macrocosm items. Or energy is a temporary
binding interruption while the close to
macrocosm binding is being changed. In this new theory, as in our
present science structure, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and anything that moves most probably
causes some type of disturbance. There would also be cases when this would not happen as in the next paragraph.
A
neutrino can pass right through your world and neither you nor the neutrino
might realize it because the proton-neutron spin/orbit-frequency differs from
the spin/orbit-frequency of the neutrino so much that there are no close
subharmonic frequencies so neither one can rob much energy from the other. This
shows you that you can have absolute zero mass in Fitzpatrick's theory because
if the neutrino is not spinning or vibrating at any frequency or subharmonic
frequency of any quarks or hadrons then it absolutely must have zero mass from
the quark-hadron point of view. This, however, does not mean it will have zero
inertial qualities because, in this theory, these will come from similar
neutrinos or other things in the surroundings
that are the same spin/orbit-frequency as the neutrino.
Our
inertia (mass) here
is obtained at the quark-hadron bandwidth, but inertial qualities are obtained
at any bandwidth by similar surrounding objects. You can have inertial
qualities without having any of our particular inertia (mass) whatsoever. You, therefore, absolutely can
have zero mass in this theory.
Please remember this. Mass is measured at our proton-neutron
frequency bandwidth and this might extend a bit higher and a bit lower:
Gravity, on the other hand, may extend from the proton-neutron particle
frequency level way past the Virgo super-cluster particle-frequency level.
Just because we can't see things at a far distance at the much
higher light electron frequency bandwidth, doesn't mean we can't feel things
further out than this at the much lower mass bandwidth.
Essentially,
this is all about frequencies. In a nutshell, the main thing you have to see is
that this entire universe is made up of all these various "tuned
circuits". This entire universe operates on that same "tuned
circuit" analogy.
Fitzpatrick's theory sees the photons, gluons and all bosons for
that matter of quantum mechanics as only momentary "tuned circuit"
connections. Even permanent particle binding connections only take place when
the transmitter antenna is suddenly and momentarily perfectly in the same plane
as the receiving antenna: These two would both simply view each other as
vertical antennas that way. However these momentary "tuned circuit"
connections generally cannot remain. Neither can resonances remain because they
get immediately absorbed. Only those specified piano key frequencies can remain
here as permanent particles.
To
remain here as a permanent particle the standing wave or wave train sphere
composing it must be at a discrete distance frequency wise from all the other
higher and lower particle-frequencies (string theory). The
standing wave(s)
also must be given a certain spin and precession whereby they resemble a
spheroid to their identical sister particles therefore any "tuned
circuit" "lock on" with their sister particles can only be
fleeting and inconsequential to the particle's spheroid structure.
A
permanent particle spheroid has to be exact in that its wave train never
gets out of phase in the least while retracing its steps over and over and over
again. In turning all these waves into spheroid particles the universe achieves
better universal balance all throughout.
This is
what superstring theory is really telling you.
As
previously stated, on earth, all waves that you presently call waves, photons,
gluons, all bosons and resonances, etc., eventually get absorbed by something
but if nothing was there to absorb other certain waves then they could have
remained after the "big bang" and could have been turned into these
spheroid particles by the spin of both their microcosm and macrocosm.
You can
call it spin. You can call it isospin. This is that part of the wave world that
our minds are simply not fully comprehending. We do know as long as this
spheroid wave train holds all its frequency relationships with both its close
binding and macrocosm binding, it remains a permanent particle.
As a
boat makes waves when it moves so do these spheroid wave train particles make
energy waves whenever they move from one geodesic to a lower geodesic much the
same as electrons do when they drop to a lower orbital. Why? Because the lower orbit geodesic is a faster
frequency and in this frequency world the balance has thus been upset. The
particle, itself, is changed with this energy change too. Gyroscopic inertia is
a good example of this and there is an entire chapter about this coming.
You
cannot get another radio or TV station unless you tune in to it and the
antennas-both yours and the station's-have to be positioned correctly for both of you
to get a signal exchange: It's exactly the same in this particle world too.
This
universe tries to stay in balance using these piano key type particles set up
at critical frequency spacings much like the critical frequency spacing of the
keys on the piano. These piano keys set up the basic framework for this
universe (string
theory).
Energy
must be thought of as nothing more than a momentary disturbance between all
these, more or less, permanent piano keys. In other words, all energy is a temporary
disruption of the equilibrium with an end
attempt at better balancing between close items and the macrocosm and sometimes
even between (piano keys) particle levels. These particles stay on geodesics.
This is what a geodesic is: It is the path taken for the best balancing between
what the item is revolving around and its macrocosm.
* There
is only this low amount of subharmonic frequency linkage from one subset
spin/orbit-frequency level to the next local gauge system spin/orbit-frequency
level therefore we at this local gauge level will never see the complete
universal frequency linkage between everything in this entire universe. You
will also only be aware of a tiny fraction of all that is here.
^
Keep
all this in your mind as we move along and show what is really taking place and
why distances are different for different particle levels.
Distance
for you at the proton-neutron's spin/orbit-frequency level is far different
from distance for the electron at its spin/orbit-frequency level. Far different
features for each level was the problem Heisenberg discovered because the
electron "sees" itself at
rest and having both inertial qualities and size at its own
spin/orbit-frequency level.
*
* *
10. Gravity and the "bad
quarter"
The
reason that you are attracted to this earth can be shown by these "A" laws. Nothing is at rest in this
universe. Everything is in motion therefore much space and time is being
created according to our new "A"
Laws. But because you are on a parallel path with this earth and going in the
same direction as it is then there will be some actual attraction to the earth
and some actual repelling by your macrocosm so your simple force of gravity is
really the resultant of different opposition forces and therefore this so
called force of gravity is a far, far, far more complicated force than today's
scientists think it is. It will require far, far, far, more massive computers
than we have today to figure this all out exactly too. When we are able to do
this then you will be able to work out the spins of everything as well as the
orbits and this is something that you cannot do now.
This theory states that if anything in this entire universe is
spinning a certain way now, then there is something setup now in
its surroundings making it spin that way.
The idea that certain things were simply left with a certain spin
or spin orientation, merely because of some event in the dim and distant past-such
as is presently claimed for the planet Uranus-
doesn't play too well in this new theory.
Let's
sum up that you feel this force of gravity because it's the resultant of the
repelling forces of the macrocosm and the attractive forces to the earth
because you and the earth are going on parallel paths in the same direction at
the same frequency. This is not quite as simple as Newton imagined. Think about
it.
And our
"A" Laws show us that it is
this way for everything in our microcosm and macrocosm as well.
J. H.
Oort has shown us how much material we must have in space for these galaxies to
rotate the way they do and this is twice what we find we really have. So where
is all this "missing mass"? It may
be missing but then again, it may not be missing: You have learned herein that
you must only use your old subset science in this subset system here on earth. Some of it you may be able to use in the macrocosm
but you should know full well by now that you can't use all of it there. It will take gigantic future
super-computers taking into consideration the attraction and repelling set up
by the proton-neutron spin/orbit-frequency level; solar system
spin/orbit-frequency level and the galaxy spin/orbit-frequency level. These
will have to be separated. Then these will have to be combined with what it
gets from the Virgo super-cluster spin/orbit-frequency before you will get
things accurate enough so you can obtain the spins of everything. All of our
macrosystem knowledge must now be painstakingly reevaluated and this is going
to take generations while we improve these "A"
Laws so that we can build a firm foundation of math for them. You have to
remember that with this new theory each spin/orbit-frequency really means each
level of spinning and rotating things so this means, for
determining gravity accurately, that you can no longer confuse and
combine the proton-neutron level with the solar system level and the galaxy
level and the Virgo super-cluster level as these present day scientists are
doing. Also as you look further out into the macrocosm you see less of the surroundings.
Surroundings are a big factor in this new theory but seeing with your eyes is merely using one frequency and these surroundings are at lower frequencies and we haven't
even scratched the surface in building efficient devices that can scan and
receive these much lower frequencies.
The
galaxies may rotate and behave like they do because all these stars are adding
up all around us at the rate of 4/3 pR3 plus the fact that
this is a quasi steady-state universe and therefore the gravity wave can be
felt from a further distance away
than the light wave: This may be why the galaxies behave and rotate as if the
universe contained more mass.
Einstein was correct and gravity is a wave and hence it is
no different from light, therefore it has to keep adding up in a steady-state universe
but you must have another type of a gravity type red shift and some type of
"angular lock on" process-the same as at the shorter light
frequency-that considerably weakens certain more massive portions (Olbers' paradox) and
keeps the total gravitational attraction, here on earth, from being
overwhelmingly strong.
Please
do not confuse inertia with gravity.
* Inertia is the impedance to change their attachment that spinning
quarks have with other spinning attached quarks because of the 1st
"A" Law.
* Gravity is the attraction that locked aggregations of spinning
quarks have for other locked quark aggregations versus all other surrounding moving aggregates. How much of it stems
from a certain place of rest versus the difference
of each of the rotations of our solar system, galaxy or Virgo super cluster
remains to be seen.
^
Tomorrow's
scientists will be more aware of and not confuse these "at rest"
spin/orbit-frequency levels. Today's scientists are not even aware that various
"at rest" spin/orbit-frequency levels even exist.
Remember
that your mind is a subset mind and you must state the subset level you are
describing. Your mind is limited. It can only work on one spin/orbit-frequency
card at a time. So, don't
mix them!
While
Olbers didn't know about the Red Shift and the curvature of space caused by
gravity, he did see the implications that things added up all around us much
faster than they were decreased by the square of the distance. It's the same
with gravity too because this pertains to all waves of any type. We know that
we are limited to a certain distance out that we can see stars. Gravity-we now see because of its far, far lower frequency-has to be felt from a much, much further
distance away than we can see light emanating from.
This
means that Einstein's finite universe extends a certain distance for the
proton-neutron particle frequency and this extension is well beyond the limits
of the finite universe that the electron's in our vicinity can sense using
light waves.
Many of
the things learned in radio can be brought into this area and many things that
we know about in this area can also be brought into the area of antenna design
and so far in antenna design you are only now seeing the tip of the iceberg
that is yet to be revealed to you once you start using the elements shown to
you by this new concept of Everything.
You
will also see-and very plainly so I hope, as you read other things-that
Einstein was basically correct when he said space-time is curved.
It is
this curvature of space-time-and increase of "angular lock on" (coming later)-that is the real reason for the red shift we
sense.
I'm
sure there will be other various future concepts slightly modifying Einstein's
relativity: But they will all be like the various speed indicators in the
modern jet-liner basically showing the same thing but with a significant
different twist so it better fits the specialized problem being solved.
Not
only light but all frequencies
throughout this universe everywhere, not only in the macrocosm but in the
microcosm as well, will be shifted in frequency as seen from another observer's
point of view simply because the observer resides in a different space-time
setup. The macrocosm's frequency seems
the reverse of the microcosm's frequency to us in between.
With
future super-computer assist, human minds may eventually figure out exactly why
this seems so.
Getting
back on track again, you simply wouldn't have this much gravitational
attraction in Lemaître's expanding universe: That's one of the reasons why the
expansion people are looking for all this "missing mass". What this
all seems to boil down to is that the way these spiral galaxies are rotating is
proving that there is far more gravitational attraction in this universe than
we once thought we had. We therefore know we are in a type of steady-state
universe and perhaps there is no such thing as all the "missing mass"
that you would need to find in a Lemaître type expanding universe. It's going
to take generations to figure this all out. Now. Let's move on to how all this
gravity affects light.
We
already know that an increase in gravity at the source
of light, shifts light toward the red: It lowers the frequency. But in addition,
as proved several years after Einstein predicted it, stars in the transfer zone-in this particular case our own
sun-will also slow light down enough to bend it. Even though these observations
were done in 1919, 1922, 1929 and 1951 and all proved that light in the transfer zone
from a star to the earth was being slowed down by gravitational force-our own sun-yet no one realized that if these rotating
galaxies were responding to all this unknown mass then all light coming to the earth from distant stars
also must be slowed down by this same unknown mass type gravitational force
during light's lengthy trip in the transfer zone-as
sensed by us in our subset spin/orbit-frequency level.
This
tells us that we also must take into consideration the total amount of
gravitation felt in the area of the light transfer zone-not merely from our sun
but from all the other stars as well-and
the time that we, in our subset
system, sense these light waves to be in the transfer zone, doesn't it?
The
total gravitational attraction that light experiences in the transfer zone from all the stars will lower the
frequency of light in addition to the gravity of the light
source.
While
this might have escaped people's attention or seemed inconsequential before,
now with this added gravitational attraction that we find we have in our
universe, shown by these rotating galaxies, this gives us far more
gravitational attraction than we thought we previously had. Does this give us
the exact amount of gravitational attraction for the exact amount of "Red Shift" we find that we have in
our universe today? If it does then we no
longer have any need for Lemaître's expanding universe. Therefore, this pushes
us more toward a quasi steady-state universe.
There are a good many scientific problems with accepting either
a pure steady-state or an expanding universe per se. There are far fewer
problems with accepting a quasi steady-state universe that is set up
along the lines put forth by this new theory.
The
gyroscope, pendulum and vibrating elements all maintain their position in
relation to the fixed stars. This new reasoning tells us why. They would have
to keep this reference to the fixed stars if indeed inertia was caused by the
linking of all similar spins and orbits of the components of matter to the rest
of the universe.
Even
certain super-cooled substances such as all the isotopes of super-cooled liquid
helium that are being spun in a container will entirely stop spinning, even
though the container does not, as the temperature approaches absolute zero. As
the temperature nears absolute zero, the liquid helium inside the spinning
container will come to a complete stop, holding a place at rest with the fixed
stars. This is because the intense cold temperature has tremendously reduced
all the close linkages to the container itself because they can no longer
swivel and they must swivel a bit to link effectively. This is the exact
opposite of the Curie temperature above which an item loses its permanent magnetism
because of too many close linkages.
Even
the gyroscopes that were used aboard aircraft thirty years ago were sensitive
and accurate enough that they could act like this super-cold liquid helium too.
Many a time I would place the axis of a rotating aircraft gyro almost
vertically straight up-pointed at the sun-at
noon time and come back at supper time to see the axis now almost horizontal
but still pointed at the sun that was now
setting in the west.
The gyro had held its position with the fixed stars and the earth
had simply rotated under it.
When I first witnessed this, I immediately thought about the
pronouncements made by both George Berkeley and Ernst Mach.
Besides
the double right hand rule it's easy to know which way a gyroscope is going to precess
if you know why it precesses. It
precesses simply because here again we have these quarks in the spinning wheel
that have to align up with others of exactly the same "bad quarter"
mass somewhere in the universe. So take a spinning bicycle wheel and look at
that portion of the tire and rim at the instant you push it to make it change
direction and the first initial path that this tire and rim take at that spot
you moved-projected on the sky-is the new path in which that entire wheel has
to follow. You will notice this best with a bicycle wheel: You won't notice
this as much with heavier wheels because the higher torque will react before
you can give them much initial movement. So once you know how a gyroscope
really works then it is simple to see which way it will precess. You can throw
away the complicated double right hand rule. Let's move on.
You
need to have locked items to have
either a magnetic unlike pole effect or an opposite charge attracting effect.
Before any aggregations of anything can attract
and accumulate anywhere together, they have to be first locked so
they can no longer act as if they were like gyroscopes in gimbals.
Free items must always spin and repel similar free spinning
items.
Magnetism
and the opposite charge effect are both caused by all these locked electrons
where many are locked in the same direction. Inertia is caused by the locked
quark triumvirate. The proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark
while the neutron is built of two down quarks and one up quark. Both of these
quark triumvirates are assembled in such a way that it prevents the quarks from
wobbling when they move closer together so they do not give off any waves as
electrons do when they fall further to the center of the atom. This triumvirate
locking is a form of locking that prevents all these quarks from ever being
locked in one direction such as an entire domain of electrons on the d
and f shells in iron.
Later
we'll take up inertia: Inertia is a bit more complicated. To see the cause of
inertia it is going to take some thinking. This is where mind pictures played
an important part and I had to come up with an answer that made sense compared
to special and general relativity and quantum mechanics as well. It took me
quite a while and I finally found the answer but I can not explain it to you
without using Murray Gel-Mann's quark and Rachel Carson's example of the
"bad quarter" of a hurricane.
First
of all to understand inertia you must understand what relativity and quantum
mechanics are showing you and you must also listen to Ernst Mach and George
Berkeley who told you inertia was being caused by all the rest of the universe.
How can
that possibly be?
OK,
first let's look at a Rachel Carson statement where she said she didn't believe
any wooden vessel could withstand the "bad quarter" of a severe
hurricane. While this undoubtedly is true, what exactly is this "bad
quarter" anyway?
The
"bad quarter" of a hurricane is that sectional quarter near the eyewall
and further out where the forward speed of the storm adds to the circulatory wind speed.
For
instance if a northern hemisphere storm is rotating counter-clockwise at 120
mph and also traveling toward the North at 25 mph then if you got caught, near
the eyewall, in that bad east quarter
section you would get hit with winds of 145 mph with
the destructive force increasing as the square of the wind speed. Whereas
if you were in the western portion of the
same storm, near the same eyewall, you might have winds of only about 95 mph.
The destructive force, therefore, would be about two and a third
times greater in that "bad quarter" in the eastern portion of the
storm with those 145 mph winds than in the western quarter of the storm that
had those less powerful 95 mph winds.
All
free, spinning, moving entities have this important "bad quarter"
effect similar to the hurricane. It doesn't really matter what the entity is,
as long as it is free and it is moving with some forward speed: If it is both
spinning and also moving with some forward speed then it will have this
"bad quarter" effect. Even items orbiting on
a geodesic have a certain amount of this "bad quarter" effect.
Later,
when you see how light is produced, some will say this "bad quarter"
effect is here producing the light and this will be true. You must remember at
this time the electron is not on one permanent geodesic but it is changing geodesics.
This
"bad quarter" effect plays one of the most important roles in our
explanation of how all things really work in this universe and today's
scientists have missed this significant road sign entirely.
This
"bad quarter" plays a significant role in many things and is the
prime explanation of this force we call gyroscopic inertia or angular momentum.
The
"bad quarter" motion that you will see time and time again in both
the micro and macro worlds is the same force that would tip a helicopter over
if the operator had no cyclic pitch control. Igor Sikorsky made the helicopter
a practical machine by his invention of the mechanism that allowed the pitch of
the main rotor to change as the blade turned: This is called cyclic pitch.
Cyclic pitch works this way: If, on a stationary helicopter, the tips of the
main rotor blade are going 400 mph and now you fly the helicopter at a 100 mph forward speed, then one main rotor blade (blade moving to the
rear) is, on one side, cutting
through the surrounding air at 300 mph. The opposite main rotor blade is moving
through the surrounding air at 500 mph on the other side of the copter (measurements at the
blade tip). This would
turn the copter over were it not for the cyclic pitch mechanism where the main
rotor blade pitch on the 500 mph side is now reduced, and it is increased-scooping in more air-each
time the blade is on the 300 mph side.
When
you see a spiraling object in nature, then think of the helicopter blade that
does not have the cyclic pitch
but instead has a pre-Sikorsky fixed pitch and that has to keep turning over
and over if it has any forward speed. This entire universe both micro and macro
is loaded with this type of pre-Sikorsky fixed pitch precession of all kinds
and it all comes because of this identical fixed pitched blade phenomenon but
instead of air it's a mass increase but the idea behind all precession is
exactly the same as the fixed pitch helicopter blade or the hurricane. If you
think of it in these terms then you will immediately see the other forces
causing this spiral. You can even call this fixed pitch blade itself spiraling
a form of precession if you want to. The electron precesses because it too has
a pre-Sikorsky fixed pitch or this "bad quarter" like the hurricane.
By the way, waves-processed correctly by the big bang-precess like this too to form a particle.
For this next paragraph you must remember that general relativity
shows us that mass increases as speed is increased.
Like the
aforementioned helicopter blade and the hurricane, spinning and rotating items
that also have forward speed are going to act exactly like the helicopter blade
but instead of having more lift on one side they are going to have more mass on
one side and this will destroy their linking with previously linked objects and
they will be forced to link with like objects also having a mass increase on
one side as well: In radio an effect similar to this is known as impedance
matching. And I will repeat once more that this is the reason gyroscopic
inertia or angular momentum acts like a spring storing energy as the
accelerated object speeds up because each linkage with distant stars in this
universe takes more and more energy as the object is further accelerated. The
newly accelerated particle has more "bad quarter" mass and it must
find a higher "bad quarter" mass object far away in the universe to
bind with as well and so the "wind up like a spring" inertial or
gyroscopic effect is noticed. Again, you have impedance matching here exactly
the same as you do in radio but here it is the rotation of the quarks producing
it where the quarks are all homogeneous and isotropic in the large whereas in
radio the spinning electrons-that are not homogeneous and isotropic in the
large-produce what we see as a magnetic effect.
I did sneak a bit of inertia and angular momentum into this
chapter but I'll go over all this again further on in this book.
Keep
all this in mind about this "bad quarter" during this next chapter
and when we get to inertia later.
*
* *
11. Transformers, motors
& generators
First
of all you must realize that, even though we can't measure it exactly, the
electron has a size. One absolute proof of this, that has been around longer
than I have, shows it must be larger than 1.4 x 10-12 cm, (.0000000000014 twelve
decimal places to the left of the 1.4)
From
this we know the electron is not point sized.
Before
this, absolutely no one had closely examined all the spin-up and spin-down
electron pairs that are everywhere. Why hadn't they?
Why didn't scientists ask why we had so many of them?
The two
electrons we see on normal orbitals with one spin-up and the other spin-down
and the two electrons in d
(sigma) bonding and the
electrons transferring a quantum of light all
are similar spin-up and spin-down electron pairs that constantly stay in the
same plane and lock with their closest sides going
the same direction and in the same phase but with these entire
electrons really 180 degrees out of phase with each other during both
precession and orbiting. These electrons attract each other and lock with their
closest sides together using the 1st "A" Law.
It does
not matter in the least if they are rotating around the same nucleus or not:
It's the spin-up, spin-down, both in the same plane that always is there. The
closest sides of both of these electrons are going in the same direction at the
same frequency and this according to our 1st "A" Law is what really matters.
It's
also imperative that you analyze the "bad quarter" in d (sigma) bonding and these side to side
"lock ons". Here you have a sort of Sikorsky's cyclic pitch where the
"bad quarter" will actually be working much like cyclic pitch and
this becomes of paramount importance in binding the closest sides in d (sigma) bonding and all of this side to
side type of locking using the 1st "A"
Law.
Everything
in this universe is tied in a similar way to everything else through the
attraction or if you want to put it the space diminishing process that comes
because of our new 1st "A"
Law.
A
single locked electron can only attract another sister locked electron when
either the sides or poles of each are going in the same direction at the same
frequency: This is what chemical bonding is all about really. A permanent
magnet works because of electrons locking either sides or poles. A permanent
magnet locks strongest at its poles, not because some fictitious
lines of force are concentrated there but, because here the complete circular path is locking
whereas in the side attractions only the closest sides of all the electrons are
going in the same direction at the same frequency with the "bad
quarter" mass actually matching at the closest sides like Sikorsky's
cyclic pitch.
With
everything balanced, this "bad quarter" matching on the closest sides
is enough to make a tremendous difference in this electron to electron
behavior.
In
chemical bonding the polar or p
(pi) bonding is only momentary and hence weaker than the side to side or d (sigma) bonding
that more or less remains a constant bond especially when the closest sides of
these twisting, wobbling, precessing electrons stay locked together and "in phase" with each other. To two electrons,
their size and orbital diameter are large indeed therefore they "see" a far different distance than we do
between their closest and opposite sides. Magnets have a weaker side to side
attraction and repulsion much like individual electrons once they are locked in
place. You must consider the sides when working out all these actions in d (sigma)
chemical bonding, transformer, motor and generator actions.
In all
the following actions it will be spin-up and spin-down electrons attracting
each other with their sides like in d (sigma)
bonding. You will also have sides repelling here too. The following are all
side to side actions and not exact pole to pole actions which may indeed
happen but which will not be effective in producing the following results
mainly because there is no effective "bad quarter" impedance matching
with exact pole to pole attraction or repulsion.
Transformers,
motors and generators can be shown all to work according to our "A" Laws and this "bad quarter" effect.
You can completely forget all about Faraday's lines of force and you will see
how they all work using these "A"
Laws, the "bad quarter" and inertial type forces.
The
transformer is the most interesting because this new system makes far more
sense than the ancient, one hundred and seventy year old system where you have
magnetic lines of force being cut. Magnetic lines of force are fiction but
these "A" Laws are real.
Electrical
current means a general movement of more electrons in one direction: They are
really moving in all directions and if you prevent the movement of electrons in
one particular direction then you will have an electrical current moving in the
opposite direction and this is essentially where this starts in the
transformer.
The
electrons in the primary wire on the first half cycle all have a forward speed
hence a "bad quarter" and if you've studied and can remember
Einstein's relativity, this will give them all a bit more mass. If you also
remember me saying there will be an aspect of impedance matching in this then
this comes into effect right here in the secondary wire of the transformer
because the conduction electrons here are moving too but haphazardly in all
directions.
The
primary wire electrons have more mass because of their speed and they will tune in
and attract those electrons in the secondary wires, with like mass
that are also moving in the same direction as they are but which are spinning
in the opposite direction like those in d (sigma)
bonding. These electrons will now attract each other, and
move toward each other, because their closest sides are
going in the same direction and have the same increased "bad quarter"
mass as well.
This
essentially kills all secondary coil electron movement in this same direction
because each secondary wire electron-that locks on to a primary wire electron-is now given a powerful almost
ninety-degree tug and pulled toward the surface of the wire. Now an additional
"bad quarter" is created while this secondary wire electron is moving toward the skin of the wire and
this gives it another almost 90 degree
swing that
will entirely reverse its original direction a good 180 degrees.
This is the cause of the reversed current in the secondary wire of
the transformer.
For
this additional "bad quarter" you must add the speed that the
secondary electron is now pulled sideways
from inside the copper wire to the surface of the wire in the transformer. Even
though the copper wire in the transformer is of a small diameter never-the-less
these electrons in the secondary coil wires are being pulled to the outside
surface skin of the wire-by the primary coil electrons whose closest sides are
going in the same direction-each half cycle of the alternating current.
Since
the electron will act like a gyroscope there will be no gyroscopic action if
this "bad quarter" action is exactly at either pole of the electron
or exactly at the electron's equator. But at the equator you do have this 90
degree Frisbee grasping reaction that is quite different from the gyro 90
degree reaction in some respects but produces exactly the same results as the
gyro 90 degree reaction as far as the secondary current is concerned.
There
will be electrons in the secondary wire that will also be parallel to those in
the primary but these will have their closest sides going in opposite
directions and these-according to the 2nd
"A" Law-will be pushed away from the primary wire and
will end up on the opposite side of the secondary wire. Their "bad
quarter" will necessitate them going down the secondary wire also opposite
to the direction of the primary wire current.
The
next half cycle all electrons reverse this procedure and, depending on the
alternating current frequency, some might even travel the full diameter of the
wire again to the other side the next half cycle. In radio, the condition of
these electrons constantly on the skin of the wire is known as skin effect.
So far
we have shown only those electrons that have this exerted force at the equator
but there are others where this "bad quarter" force is exerted at
other points and with these electrons it will not be as if they were grasped
like a Frisbee at that "bad quarter" but these other electrons will
all pivot much like a gyroscope when they are given this added speed crosswise
in the secondary wire and these too will all pivot much like a gyroscope and
all of these will also head down the secondary wire opposite to the current in
the primary wire.
On the
next half cycle when the alternating current reverses then this procedure
entirely reverses again.
Now
with this picture you can see why you have this skin effect at radio
frequencies: The electrons are actually being pushed and pulled toward the skin
of the wire each half cycle.
Not only is this a total inertial
explanation but overall it's a good deal more sensible than the old magnetic
lines of force explanation.
Now for
the motor: In a simple permanent magnet DC motor the current in the armature
winding gives these electrons in it a forward speed and this forward speed
gives them this "bad quarter" which acts like someone grasping a
Frisbee at that "bad quarter" and this 90 degree movement is what moves
the armature wire.
In the
generator it is the movement of the armature itself that adds the forward
motion to each electron and these also are grasped at that "bad
quarter" and they pivot 90 degrees like a Frisbee being grasped and they
move down the armature wire as a current.
Remember
the first electric motor ever made? It was
made by Faraday who put a magnet, pole up, in a dish of mercury and he put a DC
current into a wire that hung over the mid point of the magnet and dangled in
the mercury. The wire went round and round the magnet and newspapers carried
that story all over the world a hundred and seventy-five years ago.
You can do the same experiment today using a car battery and salt
water in a metal pot. Be careful not to short anything because you can get badly burned. Connect
the car battery to the metal pot and the other battery terminal to a metal hook
suspended over the mid point of a pole up magnet that sits in a half inch of
salt water. Cut a wire and form another sharp loop in it so it fits into the
mid point hook. Make this wire just long enough so that it dangles an eighth or
a quarter of an inch into the salt water. The
magnet needs a bit of tape or some such insulation around it so it can't touch
the bare wire and the bare wire cannot be so long that it touches the metal
pot. Keep adding more salt to the water until it works.
Reverse either the magnet poles or the battery and the wire rotation will
reverse.
In
Faraday's motor there were electrons whose "bad quarters" were not
exactly at the equator so these did not act like a Frisbee being grasped at the
"bad quarter" but these electrons pivoted like a gyroscope thus
moving the wire around the magnet.
If you check all these examples closely, you will find all of
them going in the correct directions to verify all these new "A"
Laws.
*
* *
12. Various other forms of
magnetism
Can you
remember earlier where I said the two "A"
Laws were not quite even and the first rule locked things together and the
second rule didn't?
Hold
two magnets together and you can feel that when two unlike poles come together-two poles coming together where the electrons
see their closest facing poles spinning the same way-you
can physically feel this lock.
Whether
this lock is a "lock on" in the micro or macro world it means that
now once two items have "locked on" together this is similar to
Einstein's original "cosmological constant"
in that now there must be an equal repelling force for other objects that
equals the total of this aggregated locking force so
those aggregated items must now also be generating a repelling force to
various other similar aggregated objects provided the other assemblages
have their closest sides spinning in reverse or are spinning and are perfectly
free.
When
magnetic poles repel they never lock but even try to twist away from each
other. When this occurs in magnets then you are really bringing the electron's
gyroscopic inertia into action and you are feeling some of the same type of
inertial torque that keeps your bicycle up. I have also mentioned that this
twisting away is the reason that two free electrons can never come together and
they will always repel. This is also the reason that you can never levitate
anything with ferromagnetism.
The
reason that graphite can be levitated using diamagnetism is that here you are
back to all these spin-up and spin-down electron pairs in graphite again. You
simply can never have any gyro torque at all with one gyro spinning 180 degrees
to its opposite "locked on" paired partner. Levitation is possible
once all this gyro effect is canceled and this is
the atomic layout in graphite.
Our two
laws also show we should have about the same amount of attraction as repulsion
in both the micro and macro worlds don't they?
You
have both attraction and repulsion going on at the same time in the magnetic
world as well and we will look at some of these different varieties and
mixtures.
Paramagnetism
is the term applied to that magnetism shown by those materials such as the rare
earths that when magnetized show some magnetism in the same direction as the
applied magnetic field.
Incomplete
inner shells in the atoms of these substances are the cause of this
paramagnetism.
Our
"A" Laws show the reason for
paramagnetism just as well as Faraday's lines of force. Where our "A" Laws do even better is explaining the
other kinds of magnetism that follow.
Paramagnetic
qualities are seen in most of the elements. The metals are paramagnetic
materials and in non metals where the magnetic response results in a solitary
unpaired electron being left in its orbital and the resultant magnetism being
in the same direction as the applied field. Rod shaped paramagnetic objects
will always align themselves in line with the applied magnetic field. Platinum,
palladium and oxygen are all paramagnetic materials. Unlike diamagnetic
materials, paramagnetism is always in the same direction as the applied field.
Paramagnetic materials emit a very weak magnetic field and generally exhibit a
magnetic field of only one hundredth to a ten thousandth of the field strength
of the applied magnetic field for strong paramagnetic substances and one ten
thousandth to a hundred thousandth of the applied field for materials
exhibiting weak paramagnetism.
Diamagnetism
is a type of "negative" magnetism in that these materials always line
up at right angles to a non-uniform magnetic field. In diamagnetism, you have
the electron orbit precessing and the orbit always
can be more easily shifted than the spin because
of leverage. There is a mass increase every time the electron comes into
that "bad quarter" section of the orbit. You then have both the
Frisbee 90-degree shift and the gyro 90-degree shift aligning the material 90
degrees to the applied magnetic field. Even quantum theory indicates that
diamagnetism is caused by such an orbital shift.
Diamagnetic
materials can be levitated. Levitation is easily achieved using diamagnetism
with graphite being the easiest material to levitate. The electrons responding
in graphite and all other diamagnetic materials all are paired (spin-up,
spin-down) and they enhance levitation
because the field is always opposite to the applied field and it is never
centrally focused. Only tiny diamagnetic objects so far have been able to be
levitated using water-cooled electromagnets drawing around 20,000 amps. Rod shaped
diamagnetic objects will always align themselves perpendicular to the applied
field. A slightly different type of diamagnetism occurs with
superconductors that have a much better stability while being levitated than
other diamagnetic objects.
In antiferromagnetism
our "A" Laws show us the
electrons are laid out so their sides are all going in the same direction thus
attracting each other but when this occurs then you have this spin-up and
spin-down arrangement that makes the stronger poles completely cancel each
other so in antiferromagnetic materials this stronger polar magnetic field is
completely canceled out.
I have
tried to cover many things in this lengthy manuscript but at this point it will
suffice to say that everything you can show with the photon or magnetic lines
of force or charge, I can show using these "A"
Laws. In fact, I can do a lot more: I can provide you with a simple big picture
of unification as well.
If you
read this to the end then you will understand the one simple principle that
Einstein said was here but that he could never find. It's an exceptionally
simple principle. Einstein spent the later part of his life searching for a
simple principle that he thought would provide him with a Unified Field Theory.
Unfortunately, there is no such beast as that particular field theory he was
searching for and if you haven't seen why this is so then you should eventually
see why this has to be so before you finish with this. It is the role the
variety of particle type surroundings play in all
of this that prevent us from having one all encompassing unified field. Instead
of a unified field we have these "A"
Laws: They were given to us by one of the world's greatest physicists long ago
but in all those many years no one recognized it as the long sought after key
to the operation of this entire universe.
*
* *
13. Inertia & angular
momentum
Inertia
is being caused by the spin of the quarks with the sides of the quarks
attracting the sides of other quarks, spinning in the same plane, far away in
the universe. Our "A" Laws
show anything that spins, can attract exactly like a magnet but if all these
quarks keep these spins perfectly balanced and never show any imbalance such as
electrons happen to do massively in iron, cobalt and nickel then, of course,
you would never know that the quark spin could possibly attract another quark
especially if your surroundings are homogeneous
and isotropic in the large. Modern science has simplified inertia tremendously
so it seems to fit the present math here on
earth and then even here at only slow speeds and low mass but unfortunately
inertia changes with higher mass and high speeds so much so that your present
science fails and you have to use relativity corrections. Your universe,
therefore, is not anywhere near as simple as today's scientists think.
As
almost everyone now knows, quarks-in the
proton and neutron-are grouped in groups
of three. Quarks and electrons both have spin and whereas the electron's spin
causes magnetism which will attract other electrons of similar mass that are
oriented correctly, the spin of the quark, in much the same way will attract
and bind onto other correctly oriented, spinning quarks, of the same mass, far,
far away in the fixed stars and this attachment effect is known by us as
inertia.
Just
because you see these stars as far, far, away, you have to remember that when
you looked at that rock you saw nothing inside that rock far from anything
else.
When
you are at rest, some of this feeling of being at rest has to be coming from as
far away as the Virgo super-cluster. To some sort of super-colossal giant viewing
from that Virgo super-cluster spin/orbit-frequency level-and our mind
must only view from one spin/orbit-frequency level at a time-the close binding distances and the
distances to your fixed stars would both
be short range distances.
Distance
is a concept and it changes with frequency. Even present science says that when
a far distant star loses a single quantum of light to your eye there is no energy loss whatsoever in that vast distance.
So this is almost yelling to you through a loudspeaker and telling you that
distance is only a frequency concept that is quite different for different
particle-frequencies.
It's
all waves and even the particle actions that we all know so well really stem
from underlying fundamental wave to wave actions.
As in
light, radio and electro-mechanical actions, impedance matching is important
here as well but the quark is quite unlike those electrons in partially filled d
and f shells that all flip over together the same way and form magnetic
domains that can be easily spotted. The quark always acts individually, locking
on with far away distant quarks to cause inertia and thus since our surroundings are homogeneous and isotropic in the
large then we do not notice all this quark locking. Thus present science has
totally missed all of this and therefore simply accepts inertia as some unknown
factor that can never be discovered. It's hard to believe intelligent people
would do such a thing but this "in-crowd" of scientists today have
most certainly done precisely this.
As we
said before the 1st "A"
Law "locks on" and the 2nd "A" Law doesn't therefore inertia is caused
by all these quarks that they sense are not only spinning but moving in the same
direction as other quarks and thus have the same
matching "bad quarter" mass, as that "bad quarter"
mass on the far away distant stars. Both "see"
themselves as being exactly in the same plane as the ones they lock with and
they also "see"
their closest sides going in the same direction. Once a quark "locks
on" with another quark somewhere in this universe it can hold this side to
side "lock on" for a short period of time or lock on other similar
"bad quarter" mass quarks in the same spin plane. This is essentially
how inertia is caused.
Impedance matching comes into this because these
locking quarks must not only "see"
themselves as spinning but also moving at
the same speed hence their "bad quarter" mass
must identically match.
There must be impedance matching here the same as in radio.
Since
there are plenty of stars out there then there are plenty of other quarks for
them to "lock on". Because these are spread out so evenly we can find
no direct evidence, other than a few hidden road signs, that this is what is
causing our inertia.
Believe
it or not, it is only to you that the rest of the universe looks far away: To
these tiny particles, it doesn't. All particles "see"
is that their "angular lock on"
is narrower: "Angular lock on" will be covered later. The binding force, near or far-like quanta-is exactly the same for quarks of the same
"bad quarter" mass no mater what the distance is.
All
these spin and orbital attractions are the glue that holds everything together.
The 1st "A" Law
shows you why you have binding energy and why you have inertia. The 2nd
"A" Law shows you why we have
all that space between everything (Einstein's
"cosmological constant") and both "A"
Laws show you why we have symmetry.
All
atomic particles must either bind with
close neighbors to form their unit or they can bind with particles far away (in
the fixed stars) to cause inertia (mass). They
must attempt to bind with something and they cannot use the same portions of
themselves to bind with both near and far objects at the same time. Some may
rapidly and repeatedly switch their binding to the best aligned objects whether
near or far but that near-far percentage mostly stays constant. I said mostly
because in an atomic fission explosion a good many do abruptly shift from near
to far binding. In fact, that's the reason for the explosion.
Any mass gain where binding energy is
converted to mass is a shift from near to far (surroundings) binding or
creation of mass.
Any energy gain where mass is converted
into nuclear binding energy is a shift from far (surroundings) to near binding
( fission or fusion),
In this
theory binding energy and mass, are seen as equivalent, but two distinctly
different things: Binding energy is the close binding and mass is the far off
binding with the fixed stars.
So here's something you will find me repeating: All energy
is a temporary disruption of the equilibrium with an
end attempt at better balancing between close items and macrocosm items: That
is all energy is.
Energy can be stored in two ways: You can either store energy by
moving an item to a higher orbit. You can also store energy via binding with
more massive "bad quarters" as in angular momentum (gyroscopic
inertia) or by increasing an item's rectilinear motion.
The
thing you have to remember is that as you increase the speed of an inertial
object in rectilinear motion then you are increasing the speed of those
"bad quarters" of the spinning objects that make up the unit you are
accelerating. This means these "bad quarters" have more mass, the
faster the speed is increased. Thus, you are increasing their gyroscopic
inertia. Using impedance matching with the 1st "A" Law, if a quark has more mass in one of
its "bad quarters" then this quark will have a stronger inertial
"lock on" with things in the universe that also have a similar
"bad quarter" mass on their closest sides. This is also the reason
that gyroscopic inertia increases as you increase the speed of a gyroscope.
I'll go over this again toward the close so you don't forget it. This is
important. Also the following is something else that is even more important.
* When
you see that an atom has less mass than its constituent individual components,
then that almost tells you outright that these electrons, protons and neutrons
have a choice: They can either bind with each other to make the atom or-as
individual unbound units-they can use that same amount
of binding energy to additionally add to their individual inertial binding with
the rest of the universe.
^
I simply cannot understand why present day scientists can
totally ignore this major evidence: This is absolute confirmation that our surroundings
are causing inertia. This is proving to you in no uncertain terms that Berkeley
and Mach were absolutely right.
If scientists agree that binding energy always equals mass lost,
well, why isn't that mass lost considered binding energy too?
Isn't it binding with the fixed stars instead of binding the individual units
together in close binding?
If
quarks in neutrons and protons all suddenly bind inward where previously this
binding was outward to the fixed stars, well, then this immediately temporarily
disrupts the old matched equilibrium
in the vicinity and then re balances and that's mass turned into fusion
energy isn't it?
This
theory is positively showing you exactly
why E
=
MC2.
As I said before energy is simply a temporary
disruption of the equilibrium with an end attempt at better balancing between
close items and the fixed stars.
Remember
near or far binding is momentary, repetitious and always exactly the same strength
for the same units binding: Only "angular lock on" falls off with
distance, not binding energy. "Angular lock on" falls off with the
square of the distance and obeys Einstein's general relativity tensor math, all
of which is covered in detail in chapter 15.
The
CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation shows the initial big bang had to
be "all
throughout" the universe and did
not start at some central spot and travel outward.
This is
telling you that you need to have the rest of the universe out there even before you can have any type of outward
explosion. This means it all had to be out there before the "big
bang" too. Before this new approach came along only a few working in general relativity seemed to
understand this but now everyone can with this new theory.
It is
important to note that the Lemaître-Gamow "big bang" could not have
happened either under general relativity or the premises of this theory unless
something was already out there. A much larger universe of some type had to be already out there under either
assumption.
In this
new theory, people will have to feed enormous amounts of information into
future super-computers to see what could have really gone on during such an
event. Even so, any expansion would have been over as soon as all the piano
keys were finally in tune with all the rest of the piano keys. In this new
theory, the exact particle frequencies are the determining factors in the
stability of the entire universe: When that eventually happens then the
universe is finally in a quasi steady-state of balance.
There
is no such thing as the 19th-century human idea of one all-purpose
type of distance anymore: Einstein proved that. The distance we see is a
composite of all of these various spin frequency distances. Distance has to be
frequency qualified. Time does too because remember, it's the space-time
interval that is frequency conscious. Each spin/orbit-frequency "sees" its own type of time and distance.
These "A" Laws use inertial
qualities, with something similar to a general relativity kind of increase in
every level. Inertial qualities for each spin/orbit-frequency, however, will be
different along with surroundings.
Binding
energy can be extracted from mass even from chemical bonds. When an item binds
with a close neighbor-and loses it with something in the universe-then it
stores energy (binding
energy) in the binding and loses
mass in the proportion given by Einstein's famous formula E =MC 2. When you
consider that C
=
the velocity of light then this formula shows that you get a tremendous amount
of energy-in this case binding energy-from a tiny bit of mass (binding with
the fixed stars). But really, you
are just changing macrocosm binding to close binding.
The energy you get is merely the upset that
you get during this change.
This is why you can have both fission and fusion energy because
you get this upset going both ways from iron on the energy curve.
Get
a very good description of what energy really is by clicking this link: http://www.rbduncan.com/page5.html and scroll
about three quarters of the way down this page.
These
attractions can be both from spins and orbitals and unlike magnetism, a
sideways attraction of one spin-up and one spin-down neighbor can be more
powerful than a polar attraction if they bind with a higher "bad
quarter" mass and/or if it is for a longer time duration such as in d (sigma)
bonding.
The
electrons in the outer orbitals are the ones that bond the strongest with other
electrons in covalent bonding. What does that tell you?
It adds proof that this entire idea is correct and that the electron is
composed of even smaller spinning inertial entities-that
we'll call "de Bs" after de Broglie-because
it is the binding of more and more of these the closer it gets to the nucleus
that gives the closer electrons a higher nuclear binding thus depleting the
amount of binding left for covalent bonding with other electrons. This
difference in electron bonding also validates this theory because since these
electrons are far from the nucleus and binding less with it than the other
inner electrons, then the outer electrons have more binding power left over to
bind with other things won't they? Binding
is an either or process: The binding that it does with the closer things can
not be used-at the same time-to bind with things in the macrocosm.
You
should now be able to see why you always have the most bonding in the lowest
energy state and that is simply because binding is an either or process and
when there is more close binding then there must be less far off binding with
the fixed stars therefore less mass.
I told
you I wanted to cover gyroscopic energy or angular momentum once more before
this chapter ends so what happens to get gyroscopic inertia or angular momentum? Please keep impedance matching in mind: Not only
is it important in radio but immensely important here as well.
You
start riding your bicycle and as you pick up speed then this bicycle holds you
up better. What's really happening?
You
must first consider this entire universe to be composed of free orbiting and
spinning things all held apart by the 2nd "A" Law. Once you accept this then you can
plainly see that everything is composed of gyroscopes in gimbals that
themselves are built of smaller things that are gyroscopes in gimbals that are
also built of even smaller things that essentially also are gyroscopes set in
gimbals and this goes on and on and on.
So as
your bicycle wheel picks up speed the quarks in your wheel have an added
"bad quarter" now and thus their mass increases therefore they must
now only "lock on" with higher mass quarks in our universe. Just so
long as you keep this speed up then you stay up on the bicycle because you
maintain this high "bad quarter" mass attachment with the rest of the
universe. As you get tired of pedaling and your bicycle slows and your wheels
slow down again then all these "bad quarters" diminish and things
return to where they all were originally and it's time for you to get off the
bicycle.
What is
this telling you?
This is
showing you where all this gyroscopic inertial energy is being stored! This is a strong force energy storage mechanism.
The weak link in our present science structure is that it doesn't
show you where all this gyroscopic energy is being stored and this new theory
most certainly does.
A
single inertia-binding quark can be pulled a slight distance away from the
quark triumvirate like a piston acting against a head of compressed air where
it is pulled further and further away as the mass and therefore the binding
energy increases. This asymptotic freedom is your quark energy storage
mechanism for gyroscopic inertia. As "bad
quarter" mass is increased in gyroscopic inertia, the quark is pulled
further out against the strong force.
We therefore learn that gyroscopic inertia or angular momentum is
caused by a change of strong force reaction.
Quarks
do move in and out like pistons against a head of compressed air and this is
called asymptotic freedom. This quark attractive force can effectively swivel a
bit angularly, even though the quark doesn't swivel at all, in the same spin
plane to hold inertial "lock on" with other similarly massive quarks
spinning in the same spin plane but because of this triumvirate grouping of
three quarks, they do not wobble and give off light waves like a single
electron does when it drops more toward the center of the nucleus.
In a
proton that consists of three quarks, these three quarks have considerable
asymptotic freedom when close together but when another quark in the universe
gets an inertial "lock on" on one of these quarks and tries to pull
it out of the proton, the strong force
starts acting before the quark separation from the other two is less than the
diameter of that proton they are building.
The strong force will not allow a single quark to
be pulled away from the quark triumvirate although with sufficient force quark
anti-quark mesons have been obtained.
There
is a big difference between this inertia given to us by the quark's strong force and
these inertial qualities that all these other particles have. Since they don't
have this particular quark triumvirate arrangement that will give them the
quark's strong force then their inertial qualities will have to be
quite a bit different from our inertia where we act against this strong force.
The
same gyroscopic action will be there but it will not act in the intensity as
our inertia. The strong force is why our inertia must be distinguished from the
inertial qualities of other particles and their aggregations.
Our
"A" Laws show us the reason
for all of this because the quark is far denser than a neutron or a neutron star,
both of which are
about 10 14 (1 with fourteen zeros
after it) times the
density of water. A neutron star has about the same density as a neutron or an
atomic nucleus and this is about a million times the density of a white dwarf
star.
The
quark seems to be smaller than 10-18 (decimal point then eighteen zeros then 1) meter or one-thousandth the size of either
the neutron or proton that three quarks build up. You don't have to be a
mathematician to see that this puts the quark far into the density area of a
black hole.
A
neutron star is formed when a supernova collapses and the collapsing core ends
up having about the same mass as our sun but the entire neutron star is only
about 12 miles in diameter.
If the
collapsing core is more than three times the mass of our sun-according to most physicists-then
it cannot become a neutron star and it must become a black hole instead.
If the
quark is only one thousandth as big as either the proton or the neutron (both of which are
approximately as dense as the neutron star)
then it should be many times as dense as the least dense black
hole.
Anyway,
we know the quark is quite dense and because of this density along with
utilizing relativity, a single one of these quarks will not sense these spin
frequencies of the other two quarks as being the same as its own unless this
quark gets close to the distance of the diameter of a proton away from
the other two quarks.
There
are several methods in which this strong force
may be generated by three super dense black hole type spinning quarks. Sorry,
but you will have to wait for the correct full explanation as to exactly why
this happens.
Fantastic
you say. No, only common sense because this answer is the only credible answer
that can possibly be and still agree with special relativity, general
relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring theory.
On the
subject of black holes, you should take note that these have a definite limit of density: Using either our "A" Laws or Einstein's cosmological constant,
you can see where the attractive cohesive force of the black hole plus all the
cohesive force inside the stars in a galaxy must always exactly equal the total
repelling force of all the stars to each other in that same galaxy.
You
simply cannot use your local gauge theory to see how this entire unified global
universe works. The illustrating to your subset mind must be done by the mind
picture method that I have shown you herein.
I feel
that if Einstein would have kept the George Berkeley-Ernst Mach idea of inertia
that he originally had and had heeded David Hilbert and had worked more in
radio, especially on transmitters and antennas then he would have surely gotten
it because it's all frequency that is then coupled with William Thomson's
original idea that it essentially all boils down to motion: And it does really
because it is all frequency and motion as seen from within a subset
spin/orbit-frequency level.
There
may be no such thing as either a certain frequency or a certain motion from a
global universe point of view so these must be ascertained from a subset
spin/orbit-frequency level's point of view which we here on earth have either
rightly or wrongly developed after thousands of years. If this is all you have
then you are forced to use it.
Now I
am going to again repeat something here and state that not only is the orbital
of the electron built of standing wave units but so is the electron itself: In
fact all particles are nothing more than spinning standing wave spheroid
entities. The electron, itself, is nothing more than a spinning standing wave
sphere. I want to pound this home even at the risk of being redundant: All
particles are nothing more than spherical collections of standing waves that
remain stable because they stay perfectly balanced between their sister
particles. In addition, they have the ability to quickly recover-within the "blitzseit" time span of several lower
spin/orbit-frequency levels-this balance
energy with another sister sphere that either adds or subtracts momentary
energy to or from them respectively.
The
electron has a certain spin rotational speed and travels a certain route
because this world of waves keeps it on a geodesic which is the path through
space-time where the electron has a balanced energy level. The electron moves
from being a blurred object with a quasi spin in the old world of quantum
mechanics to this new world where it is a genuine solid spinning standing wave
spheroid particle with real honest to goodness spin along with the resultant
gyroscopic inertia.
At this point, I want to state that eventually the fractional
quark charges will be understood when we can better understand the various
motions contained in these up and down quarks that build both the proton and
neutron.
Scientists
forgot all about the electron's spin frequency. All electrons are spinning-or resonating-at the
same exact frequency. You have seen in chemical bonding and even with magnetism
that electrons do not always repel each other as they always should if there
was such a thing as charge. Under chemical bonding you saw that it is the attraction
that electrons have for one another-when
correctly lined up as they overlap-that
gives us much of the molecular bonding that we have. (covalent
bonds)
If a
particle is nothing but a spinning standing wave spheroid entity that remains
resonating at a particular frequency, then we can expect all particles to
exhibit essentially the same wave qualities. De Broglie-as we said before-discovered
particles do seem to have wavelengths.
What
you essentially have in this universe is a never ending balance game between
all electrons and nuclei where they are throwing off and absorbing energy while
each tries to absorb or move or precess a trifle faster or slower or emit just
the right amount of energy to remain at the lowest energy level in the latest
situation. Since the situation is constantly changing, then so is all this
energy transfer balancing act. The number of electrons that end up matching in
all respects is what it takes to get balanced or to transfer energy from one to
the other. When any two electrons-or anything for that matter-do balance out or transfer energy then
this balancing process or transfer process is carried out within one "blitzseit"
of several lower frequency levels.
Quantum
theory gives the name "resonances" to these quasi particles that do
not remain here long but have the shortest of all known lives.
I, not
only agree with quantum mechanics about this highly appropriate name being given
to these ultra short lived particles but I am going to show you that all
particles are really nothing but "resonances" but some have a certain
ability to remain here longer. You should have seen why they remained here
longer if you kept your nose to the grindstone reading this mind-grinding book.
I'm awful sorry that I failed to tell you it was going to be this hard in the
very beginning of this book but life in general is harder than what you think
it is going to be when you first start out on that too.
You
will think I'm going off on a tangent now but I'm not.
When I
was young, my father impressed upon me the importance of the "tuned
circuit" in radio. We didn't have TV in those good old days. I did see an
oscilloscope though, way back then, that had a screen the huge size of two
inches in diameter.
A
"tuned circuit" in radio is generally a capacitance in parallel with
a coil. The capacitor stores energy but it takes a certain time for it to
charge and this essentially is the secret of the "tuned circuit". A
certain size coil and capacitor will resonate at one certain frequency because
for one half of the cycle the capacitor will be charging one way and on the
next half of the cycle the current will be flowing in the opposite direction.
That's about the basics but how it really works is that a parallel "tuned
circuit", such as you have in your car engine developing its spark
voltage, will short out and destroy all other radio frequencies except the one
it is tuned for while a series "tuned circuit" acts exactly opposite.
All electronic devices are chock-a-block full of "tuned circuits".
The "tuned circuit" enables you to select one single radio or
television station. This basic idea is also why, in transferring a quantum of
light, an electron picks out only one other single electron to transfer its
energy to.
If one
electron can pick out another specific electron to deliver its quantum of
energy to then both electrons must be "tuned circuits".
How can
they be otherwise?
As you
will again read later on in this book, the "tuned circuit" produces a
certain frequency that continually resonates and these continually resonating
frequencies, along with these "tuned circuits" that cause them, are
the most important things in radio, television and computers. Now you can see
where else that they become of paramount importance.
They
are important all throughout this universe and they are important in the area
of inertia as well.
I was
able to assemble this jigsaw puzzle because I perceived that this is a universe
built entirely of "tuned circuits" and of resonating waves and I
spotted some extremely important frequency connections.
*
* *
14. Steady-State plus de
Broglie
The
more massive the star, the more the red shift. Acceleration will also cause
this red shift in the macrocosm and the more the acceleration the more we see
that light is red shifted as well.
Edwin
P. Hubble discovered one more reason for a red shift and he found the further
away stars were from us that the more we saw them as red shifted too.
This
led Georges Lemaître to pronounce that we were in an expanding universe and he
was joined by Gamow, almost two decades later, who then predicted we would find
the background radiation from this violent sudden building of our universe.
Robert H. Dicke started looking for this background radiation and discovered
that it had already been found but its discoverers hadn't realized what it was
they had accidentally discovered.
Einstein,
at first, told Lemaître that this assumption of an expanding universe was
absolutely wrong but then as time went on even Einstein changed his mind and
got on board this new expanding universe ship. With Einstein now on their side
this expanding universe idea took on a whole new life.
Linear
speed would be swiftly changed into angular momentum in this new theory because
of the effect caused by the surroundings and any
of the "Big Bang's" expansion would have eventually completely
stopped and that is exactly what must have happened. Once you accept these
"A" Laws then you must also
accept the fact that the "Big Bang's" expansion had to cease after it
had used up any expansion energy and turned it into the angular momentum of
spinning and orbiting entities.
To all
this I must add that the latest 1997 Britannica says, ". . . while an
actual physical expanding universe is, indeed, the popular view, it is not the
accepted scientific view."
My
science reading began with the beginning of that raging, lengthy, argumentative
Gamow-Hoyle debate where Gamow would hurl unkindly epithets toward Fred Hoyle
and Hoyle-the steady-state universe's champion-would always respond with
derogatory but yet printable remarks about Gamow's "Big Bang" which were two words that were
probably initially meant to ridicule and which may indeed have done so for a
while until they at last became a veritable picture in themselves and gave to
the common man the shortest best phrase expressing the entire idea of the
Lemaître-Gamow Expanding universe.
Now as
I sit here at my computer and contemplate those "good old days" when
I was young, I will now be the very first arbitrator who settles that great
confrontation.
Gamow
may have been right about the Big Bang but Fred Hoyle has never wavered in his
belief of the steady-state universe. Hoyle, who is still here living amongst
us, now sees it's a quasi steady-state universe. So-more
or less like his fellow countryman Arthur Wellesley the 1st, Duke of
Wellington who remained up in front of his troops and held his ground all
throughout the very worst of the battle-Fred
Hoyle essentially wins this victory: Look at a rock that also has spinning and
orbiting electrons inside it and the rock gives you a perfect model of the way
our universal new "A" Laws
work in both the microcosm as well as the macrocosm that-for one
spin/orbit-frequency anyway as seen from several lower spin/orbit-frequency
levels-is also just as steady-state as the rock.
You
must realize that the same as you see that rock as having no motion, the entire
universe sees all your motion as meaningless too. You-in your subset world-have
developed this concept of motion and it is indeed a valid concept as you look
at all these things in your own subset system. But for this universe as a
whole, that is looking at it more or less as you observe that rock, the motions
that you see are simply-in the universe's longer time period-all canceled out.
You now have the answer as to why the speed of light plays such an important
role in your scientific world.
Einstein-who
first conceived of general relativity during the era of the steady-state
universe-made the three following
assumptions:
*
The universe is homogeneous and
isotropic. (It
is more
or less spread out evenly over space and time.)
* This universe would be finite yet
have no borders or edges.
And this would be the effective
universe in this new theory because it is definitely limited to the point where
"angular lock on" is no more. There is more universe past this point
but it has no effect on
our mass (particle-frequency) for
this finite portion in which we find ourselves.
This would be the reason why Einstein's relativity tensor math
works.
* This was a steady-state
universe that didn't vary with time.
But the
problem was, with using these three
assumptions that Einstein found his general relativity equations-that were
first published in 1915-had no solutions whatsoever. So in 1917 he added his
"cosmological constant", which was a
repelling force equal but opposite to gravity that kept all the planets, stars
and galaxies in this universe apart. In other words he saw that such a
steady-state universe must have a certain unknown repulsive force-just the opposite to gravity-that
exactly cancels the effect of gravity and keeps everything in the universe
firmly in place.
Einstein
did hesitate in using this 1917 "cosmological
constant" because it implied some slight problems with his 1905
special relativity. (Special relativity states that under certain conditions you
would not know your orientation but once all these cosmological constant
repelling forces are in place then you most certainly would be able to
orient yourself via these forces.}
Over
ten years later Einstein felt that with his original equations alone (first two assumptions
alone and without the steady-state universe with necessary cosmological
constant) he should have
foreseen an expanding universe. Subsequently when Einstein later thought
we really had an expanding universe, he called the input of his "cosmological constant",
his "biggest blunder".
When Fitzpatrick's theory is proven
correct then everyone will plainly see that Einstein's "biggest blunder"
was in listening to Lemaître.
So now
that we are again back to a somewhat steady-state universe, this new Theory of
Everything beautifully removes Einstein's "cosmological
constant" from that of unknown origin to one whose origin is
now as clear as crystal: The cosmological constant
is equal and opposite to gravity because the 2nd "A" Law is equal and opposite to the 1st
"A" Law. It's as simple as
that.
It took
the world about 40 years to accept Newton's idea of gravity. I guess it will
take another 40 years to bring us all to a quasi steady-state universe. With
all this new information, it certainly looks as if we are headed back again to
a type of steady-state universe notion.
Therefore,
if we are back to a type of steady-state universe concept again then the de
Broglie wavelength reveals another hidden road sign.
The de
Broglie wavelength of an electron can vary with acceleration. An electron
accelerated in a vacuum by a pressure of 1 volt has a de Broglie wavelength of
a bit more than the average X-Ray while one accelerated by 40,000 volts would
have a de Broglie wavelength of 1/10 that of the average X-Ray. It is blue shifted with acceleration.
Then as
we turn to the macrocosm, to us here on earth, there seems to be a red type frequency shift (shift toward a lower frequency-longer wavelength) for all frequencies in the macrocosm and a blue shift (shift toward a higher frequency-shorter wavelength) for all frequencies in the microcosm. To us-as we
look at the microcosm-it will look like a shift to the blue or to a shorter wavelength or higher
frequency: For instance our instruments out here will "sense"
the de Broglie wavelength, in the microcosm, getting shorter as the microcosm
objects are accelerated or get more massive. Thus the microcosm seems to be a reverse of the macrocosm which is to be
expected if space-time is curved and all frequencies are red
shifted in the macrocosm and blue
shifted in the microcosm. You should be glad that this is the method the
universe uses to insure stability because this is what keeps energy from
excessively leaking out of your particular spot in the universe and stops a
catastrophic amount of energy from entering.
The de
Broglie wavelength, in the microcosm, "seems" exactly in
reverse to the red shift in the
macrocosm. The de Broglie wavelength gets blue
shifted. With things of a higher mass or with more acceleration the de Broglie
wavelength gets shorter, not longer.
When
you "sense" that mass or acceleration shifts
wavelengths in the macrocosm to longer
wavelengths and it shifts wavelengths in the microcosm to shorter wavelengths then what is that telling you?
It is
telling you that you are truly seeing how space-time is being built.
You
would only see this reversal of the de Broglie wavelength if all frequencies
were shifted from one space-time area to one of a different consistency. You would never see this reversal in
an expanding universe. You would only see this reversal if the space-time
consistency of you and things of "your size" were far different from
both things of the microcosm and in the macrocosm, for instance if all frequencies were shifted.
Now that
we have dissolved all our science into a mere gauge theory we have no
alternative but to say light-to us in our subset spin/orbit-frequency system-seemingly gets red
shifted in the macrocosm and the de Broglie wavelength also gets seemingly blue
shifted in the microcosm.
It was
Niels Bohr who discovered that as light is being generated in the microcosm it also gets seemingly
blue shifted in the microcosm because
the closer the electron drops toward the massive nucleus then the more the
emitted light goes toward the ultra violet, which is the shorter
wavelength
But in
the macrocosm, it's just the opposite and everything that caused light or any
electromagnetic waves to blue shift in
the microcosm seemingly causes these to red shift in the macrocosm.
We
notice that compared to us inside the microcosm, time seems to be going faster
and space seems to be compressing.
We also
notice that compared to us inside the macrocosm, time seems to be going slower
and space seems to be expanding.
All the
signs that people have read to show the universe is expanding are also there in
the microcosm as well showing them that the microcosm is being compressed.
Niels Bohr even had to add a microcosm compression term to his simple solar
system type math so that he could slightly modify centrifugal force when he
linked the various orbital drops to the different light emissions.
Once
the fact is established that the space-time setup in the microcosm is a direct
reversal of that in the macrocosm then this throws a spotlight onto the
framework of established science thus eliminating any possibility of a universe
that is presently expanding.
Once it
is seen that the microcosm space-time setup is a direct reversal of the
macrocosm then new opportunities in viewing science also open giving mankind a
much greater grasp into the full picture of this enigmatic universe of ours.
If we
look at the microcosm where time seems to us to be compressed then we
understand why, when we look at a rock, we see it as a solid rock even though
we know there are electrons in motion inside it. There is only one reason that
we cannot see this motion and this has to be that these "blitzseits" or
shortest increments of time in the microcosm must be quite compressed and shorter compared to ours here. But if we
reverse things and observe the macrocosm then we should expect the macrocosm "blitzseits"
to be of a longer time duration than
ours and here we should be able to perceive the difference in these
rates of time and we do: Römer saw it first: He saw that it took 8 minutes for
light to come from the sun to us here on earth.
Why can
we see this difference one way when we can't from the other? The answer has to be a microcosm-macrocosm
space-time reversal along with a different time duration for these "blitzseits"
in each distinct level.
One of
the first things that comes swiftly unglued is this present thinking that you
can claim that the de Broglie wavelength gets shorter with an increase of
either mass or acceleration both here and in the microcosm. This is absolutely
wrong.
The de
Broglie wavelength only gets shorter
with mass and/or acceleration in the microcosm. Don't switch
to other subset systems using your old science: Use
our "A"
Laws. You know full well that you cannot take our science rules past
that magic level of Planck's constant and into the microcosm: You also cannot take de
Broglie's mass-velocity formula for the electron's wavelength out of the
microcosm past the magic Planck's constant level and then place it into our
spin/orbit-frequency level here either.
To
equate the much greater mass of things in our world here with a much shorter de
Broglie wavelength-as many scientists are now doing-is pure rubbish.
In
fact, by doing this, they have the de Broglie mass to wavelength ratio of things out here entirely
reversed.
This is
one of the prime factors that have held us back the most. Following is a list
of these principal factors responsible for us remaining in this scientific
darkness.
* Not seeing the microcosm-macrocosm
reversal of the space-time setup and that these are two entirely different
subset systems that border our subset system here.
* Using Faraday's lines of force
that, in effect, prevented us from seeing which way electrons are actually
spinning which you must know to see the real reason for magnetism and for
everything else.
* Failing to see what Gödel's proof
and Hilbert's reasoning are clearly pointing out.
* Failing to see that charge-and all these forces-are
merely variances of speed, spin, alignment and frequency.
* Failing to see that our concept of
time, distance and motion is similar to our concept of white light.
* Failing to see the "A" Laws.
* Failing to see the reason for
Einstein's original "cosmological constant"
and that the reason things repel in the galaxy and giant Virgo super-cluster is
the same reason electrons repel in the microcosm.
*
* *
15. Proof of Einstein's
principle of equivalence using the "A" Laws
Scientists
agree that Einstein's principle of equivalence is correct but as of this
writing, few know precisely why this is
true. This is one of the first publications where people will be able to find
out exactly why it is so.
Thinking
about what we said in the last section, we have to ask ourselves why does gravity act like acceleration according
to this new theory?
As
something accelerates then you are increasing the forward speed of all the
electrons and quarks in the same direction that you are moving the object,
aren't you?
This
increases all their "bad quarters" and hence their mass doesn't it?
This
means that now when they lock with the objects in the universe, to cause
inertia, they are locking with more mass. You have a mass increase don't you?
Now
let's look at the other side of the coin.
The
general theory of relativity shows that when a unit approaches an object of
ponderable mass then this unit gains mass.
According
to Einstein's Principle of Equivalence this mass increase would be equivalent
to that gained by the same unit accelerating instead of being brought close to
the ponderable mass.
Now
that this has been established what we have to do next is show you how this
equivalent mass is given to the unit as it is brought close to the ponderable
mass, don't we?
OK,
remember me saying before, in the beginning of this, that what fell off with
the square of the distance was the way electrons lined up to transmit light?
Something
very similar is now happening in the unit that is now close to the ponderable
mass.
The
closer the unit gets to the ponderable mass then the greater is the amount of
inertial "angular
lock on".
What is
this amount of inertial "angular lock on"?
OK, we
said that all these spins (of quarks mostly) locked
on other far away quarks to cause inertia just as electrons locked on to other
far away electrons to cause light transfer.
In
inertia, these quarks must line up, the same way, in exact same planes. With
light, these electrons must also line up in exact planes. The next question is
how exact is exact? Even though we don't
precisely know this, we do know that since this same type line up of planes
always falls off with distance then we must assume that surroundings more than two light years away will have an
"angular lock on" of far less than a closer ponderable mass.
"Angular
lock on" is one of the things that falls off with distance. At a certain
distance, this "angular lock" on gets so small that "lock
on" is no more and it ceases altogether with both light and inertia.
The
spinning and orbiting things in the unit have the same strength of "lock
ons" to far away things in the universe that they have to the ponderable
close object. Not only that but they must attempt to lock with something. When
they lock with things far away these are fast momentary "lock ons"
because the "angular lock on" is very narrow. This is not so when
they are forced to lock on with things inside a nearby ponderable mass.
The quark
has asymptotic freedom so it can lock for a wider angle than the electron and
this "angular lock on" with close objects is even wider. Close things
lock for a wider
angle. You could also say close things lock for a longer time.
What does that mean for these "bad quarters" of the electrons and
particularly the quarks inside the unit?
It can
only mean while they hold this wider "angular lock on" they are also
both increasing this "bad
quarter" longer thus extending the time
that these masses stay "locked".
Therefore-from
the eye electron's view-this
is definitely changing the wave shape plus this also must be tending to lower
the wobble frequency of the transmitting electron.
Your
eyes are not going to be able to "lock on" with these because the
increased mass in these "bad quarters" will be for a longer time period than the "bad
quarter" periods in your eye. Not only that but now the wobble frequency
of the electron in the star will be a bit slower than the wobble frequency of
the electron in your eye.
The two can't match if the frequency of only one changes and
gets too low. They can't match if the wave shapes of only one changes either.
Remember
all binding is momentary but repetitious: Since we know all binding quanta of the same elements are the same strength
and we also know that these are all momentary locks then what else do we know?
We know
that when electron "angular
lock on" gets too narrow the locking falls off to zero. When it gets too
wide then precisely the same thing eventually happens but for an entirely
different reason: With a wider electron
angular lock on the "bad quarter" time duration is getting so much
longer than the time duration in your eye, at the same points in each wave
cycle, that the impedance matching eventually gets lost. Remember light has to
be given to a wobbling electron that is
a "tuned
circuit" tuned to a certain
frequency and that frequency must remain the same
and it also must remain the same especially on
the closest sides for the transfer of a quanta of energy. Your eye
cannot see these same strength "bad quarters" if they are not equal
at their closest sides. This also effectively changes their impedance while the eye
impedance remains the same so the two no longer will match. The eye has no way to
match this new shape wave. Not only that
but this "bad quarter" longer time duration, while close to the
ponderable object, is lowering the frequency
as well.
But now
think of this: The quark does not wobble like the electron as it moves closer
toward the center of the nucleus and the quark has asymptotic freedom which does allow
both quarks
to get pulled out further and thus quarks keep
this longer "lock on" with quarks that are near massive stars or near
ponderable objects. Here, there is no wobbling nor
energy transfer and both quarks increase in mass the same amount.
You are
essentially moving all these "bad quarters" of these quarks closer
toward the speed of light longer
or you can also say you are increasing the time
of the mass of all these "bad quarters" by giving them a closer and
therefore wider "angular lock
on" because you are also giving them a longer
"angular lock on" aren't you?
We have
Olbers' paradox because this cannot be done when permanently exchanging energy one to the other as with two
electrons. It can be done, however, with an energy build up between two
quarks that are both going up
in energy as they both are pulling equally against their respective strong forces.
So
where light decreases with a wider
"angular lock on", gravity increases with a wider angular "lock on". In other words
with wider "angular lock on".
So for
gravity you have the following reasoning.
The amount of mass increase in these "bad
quarters" (of the quarks) when
the ponderable object is close, is equivalent to
the mass increase you also get by accelerating something and giving the quarks
added speed that also increases a similar "bad quarter" in these
quarks that give us almost all of our inertia.
Therefore
Einstein's Principle of Equivalence is just that because the "bad
quarter" mass increases inside the atoms in the unit are equivalent in amount
whether they are caused by a close ponderable object or by acceleration.
This
new concept shows why Einstein was
correct with his principle of equivalence.
"Angular
lock on" is the answer to Olbers' Paradox and this loss of light to us
from all the stars around us because of this general relativity curved
concentrated space concept around these stars. You can use both curved space
and the concept of "angular lock on" that this new theory supplies to
you. The concentrated charge right around the electron is best seen using
"angular lock on" rather than solely using Einstein's curved space.
With a changing "angular lock on" the strongest repelling would be
concentrated near each electron when they both are the closest.
This
does not, in the least, diminish relativity but it does give you one more
instrument for relativity that you can have installed on your instrument panel.
What
general relativity sees as this curved concentrated space around these stars
can also be thought of as this wider "angular lock on" for these
electrons close to these stars preventing them from transferring their light
energy to our eyes.
Remember
impedance matching! The electrons in your eyes simply can never match the lower frequency nor the longer time mass wave shape of
the majority of these electrons close to the stars.
You can
see it as curved space and/or wider "angular lock ons": Use whichever concept you want to use
just as the pilots flying these jet airliners use whichever of the four speed
indicators are more appropriate for that particular portion of their flight.
What you must always remember is that even though your mind has
been developed in a subset system and it is a subset mind, it is good at
switching concepts and it works best in one such subset system at a time so you
are going to have to be constantly switching concepts all the time. There
is no getting away from this. If
airline pilots can do it then so can you.
Curved
space or wider "angular lock ons" are why centrifugal force is
changed with heavier atomic surroundings: So
Bohr was using the new correct centrifugal force when he matched the
spectral lines for the single electron hydrogen atom and the single electron
helium atom wasn't he?
Now you
see how all the rest of the spectral lines can eventually be matched, don't you?
"Wider
angular lock on", as we said, can also be seen as responsible for the
charge concentration close around each electron: Those "de Bs",
mentioned earlier, also use impedance matching and this-with two free objects such as two
free electrons-will show up as more repelling force concentrated close
to the electrons.
But
quarks and electrons will work differently.
Each spin/orbit-frequency level will have its own distinct symmetry
because it has a distinct different frequency set of surroundings.
*
* *
16. Light & Planck's
constant
The
transfer of light is a 1st "A"
Law, "tuned circuit", "lock on" pull
of one electron for another electron, that we sense, is a distance away. So, as
far as this is concerned, it is similar to the transfer in a transformer.
Remember
in the transformer where the primary electrons pulled and pushed the secondary
electrons closer to the surface of the wire creating an additional "bad
quarter"?
The
slower frequency acts to change the mass of the primary electron long before it
can be pulled to the surface of the copper wire. What this essentially means is
that as the mass of the primary electron increases then the attraction with the
secondary electron is lost and the primary electron must bind with another
secondary electron and then this binding too is lost with a mass increase and
this might go on and on so that in a slow frequency, a large number of primary
electrons are slowed and maybe even none are actually fully reversed in their
direction but still this would mean a change of current in the secondary but at
a higher current but lower voltage than would be effected if each secondary
electron "locked on" to was faster and
was given a grand slam hit and actually reversed in direction by a faster moving primary electron with a far more massive
matching "bad quarter". This is one
of the reasons that we find we have Planck's constant.
This is
essentially why a higher voltage in the primary also produces a higher voltage
in the secondary of either a transformer or your eye.
This is
a universe that attempts to stay in balance. It's never able to do it finally
but it is constantly trying. Energy will always flow from an area of high
concentration to an area of low concentration but the method of transfer is
what limits the amount of energy that is precisely transferred. You will see
exactly why energy is delivered in quanta.
If your
eye-when looking at a far away star-receives one quantum of light from that star then
that one quantum was also released from the star and came to your eye with no
energy loss whatsoever no matter how far the distance. We used to think that
energy dropped off with the square of the distance but quantum mechanics proved
that wrong.
One
fine day in Copenhagen, Niels Bohr proved that when an electron, on that
distant star, drops to a certain level then an electron in your eye goes up
that same amount giving your eye the one quantum of energy the electron on the
star lost. No energy whatsoever was lost in that vast distance. This is the
truth and this is what today's scientists believe. Why don't they believe that
binding energy will also lose no binding energy with distance? They are exactly the same things but at
different frequencies. This theory tells you that your distance has no meaning
outside of your narrow subset local gauge system anyway and therefore since the
electron is outside of your spin/orbit-frequency system, your distance
has no meaning to the electron and it also has no meaning to those quarks
either.
Only
you saw a vast distance to that far away star. Both of those electrons did not:
They only "see" their
"angular lock on" falling off, giving them fewer other electrons that
are lined up properly. They also sub-harmonically "see" protons inside the nucleus. Those
two electrons "see"
none of this time nor all that distance that the slower spinning protons and
neutrons produce that you see. The electron in your eye and the one on that
star merely still "see"
both of their binding sides closer than their own furthest sides. To them, all
that time and distance that you see between the two of them simply doesn't
exist: To them it's time at their
frequency and distance at their frequency that counts.
People working in radio and quantum mechanics understand the
importance of this frequency aspect as to certain sections of
our universe but very few realize how important this frequency aspect is to
this entire universe.
Your mind has given you a good 15th century
"approximation" of how it is all working but I'm afraid this will
have to be vastly improved.
The global universe is a frequency
universe and it understands frequencies but
your subset world is a particle world. Unfortunately your subset mind works
best in this subset particle world but this is not the true
global world.
The way
the square of the distance comes into it is shown by the following:
When
you burn your hand on a hot stove, you may think it is easy to transfer energy
but it is not. It is a good thing it is not too because if it was quite a bit
easier then you would not even be here.
Before
that far away star could transfer its one quantum of energy to your eye, it had
to have its orbital plane lined up exactly in the same plane as the orbital of
the electron in your eye. This theory shows us there is even more: The mass of
both those electrons must be the same. Since a change of speed will change mass
then this means that both orbitals have to "sense" a certain equality
of being at the same speed which is not at all simple. Furthermore each
electron has to "sense" that the other is orbiting exactly out of
phase with it-like two d (sigma)
electrons on the opposite side of the orbital with their closest portions going
in the same directions and being of the same mass-and
remember as we said in the beginning, in the same orbital plane with it too
before that quantum of energy can be transferred. Few electrons will be exactly
lined up like this: This is why you have energy falling off with the square of
the distance.
The number of
electrons that are lined up properly and are available to transmit immediately
is what falls off with the square of the distance. In fact, general relativity
shows you where it falls off even faster than this.
Remember,
there are only 4 terms you can use with these "A"
Laws:
* Frequency
* Motion
(phase)
* Orientation (alignment)
* Inertial
qualities similarity (impedance)
^
In this
theory, one must use the term inertial qualities
instead of the term mass if it is going to
refer to other spin/orbit-frequency levels
besides ours here on earth. I have used the term mass
herein only when it pertains to our world here on earth.
More
terms must be added to this list to begin the "A"
Law mathematical solutions but presently all you need to see the big picture
are these four terms you have here.
These 4 terms along with the "A" Laws are all you need to see
the big picture.
Now we
will go into this transfer in detail.
This
entire universe is continually in a balancing act as all energy in this
universe is continually trying to spread itself from high-energy areas to areas
of lower energy.
Max
Planck taught us that this is all done by moving these quanta of energy.
Niels
Bohr was the first person to show that an electron has to drop to a lower
orbital in order to give off energy. But in this, you will learn quite a bit
more.
In 1912
Bohr showed us that various orbital drops matched various spectral lines, each
being a quantum of energy. Then in 1916, you must remember, Dirac showed us
that energy also could be transferred via other methods besides a full orbital
drop, such as an electron flipping completely over-180
degrees-and since then other methods have been
found.
Color
comes from distinct waves each of which is produced as the electron wobbles
inside and then outside of its slowly shrinking geodesic but these are still
all tiny discrete bits and these are all incremental fractional units of h.
This is because all these wobbling cycles, precessing cycles and spiraling
cycles of these electrons are also gyroscopic fractionals of the electron's
gyroscopic inertia.
Not
only are electrons moving on these orbitals but because of their fast spin they
are like the earth and like many Americans: They are fat around the middle.
Similar to the earth, the electron is an oblate spheroid and thus exactly like
the earth, it is subject to wobbling. We will "sense" this electron's
wobbling frequency to increase-a change
of color toward blue-as it drops closer
to the massive nucleus.
Very
much like the two electrons in d (sigma) bonding that are orbiting two
distinct nuclei, an electron in a high energy area binds with an electron in a
low energy area using their closest sides with both their orbitals in the same
plane and each 180 degrees out of phase in both orbital and wobbling-their "bad
quarters" on their closest and opposite sides are in phase
and going in the same directions and in
this sense are much like two vertical antennas. This will be seen by some as two of Dirac's monopoles
attracting.
This
wobbling then becomes even more intense and seemingly faster as the high
energy electron drops to a lower orbital giving the low energy electron, it has
tuned in with, an exact mirror image of its more intense wobbling and orbital
increase for its own orbital drop. In other words not only is the quantum of
energy exchanged as a mirror image but also each distinct wobble-light wave-is
exchanged as a mirror copy of the emitting electron.
Bohr
showed that an electron would not radiate unless it falls to a lower orbital
inside of its original orbital geodesic.
Fitzpatrick's theory shows you that Bohr was right because energy is a temporary
binding interruption while the close to
macrocosm binding is being changed.
As they change geodesics-one
going up and the other going down-remember
both their "bad quarters" are cycling and pulling them more, then
less, then more, then less: This even helps maintain their wobbling.
Each
distinct wobble is one wave of light because this energy emitting electron is
now excessively wobbling both inside then outside its slowly
collapsing orbital geodesic and the electron must not only radiate whenever it
drops below its defining orbital geodesic line but it must also reciprocate and
receive energy when it jumps above its orbital geodesic line.
Both
transmitting and receiving electrons have set up a rhythm
where both are participating in this wobble rhythm
of exchange. You could say energy is actually passing back and forth as each
wobbles inside and outside its respective orbital geodesic. As this is
happening the orbital of the emitting electron is collapsing and the orbital of
the receiving electron is building up. Each electron is now a tuned circuit
oscillator.
You
must remember that since the earth spins around once in about a day and its
wobble cycle is 26,000 years then we can expect the electron's wobble to be a
much, much longer time period than its spin as well. From this we have to
assume that the frequency of our light waves are at a much, much lower frequency
than the electron spin/orbital frequency. This makes sense too because from
this you can see that the aspect of Planck's approach to a solid as frequency
is increased is showing us that as we-from
the solar system level-approach the
higher frequencies, things are approaching a solid and they do become a solid
at the electron level when viewed from the solar system level such as when you
view the rock.
So the
reason that we see these higher light frequencies giving off higher and higher
voltages as you increase the frequency is that you are now approaching a key
much higher frequency where the electron spin/orbital frequency, as seen from
your much lower solar system spin/orbit-frequency, actually becomes a solid.
Not
only is light energy transmitted this way but, in fact, all radio frequency
energy is transmitted similarly by two electrons that are in the same plane and
"see" each other much like two vertical
antennas: You must take into consideration the "bad quarter" to see
both light and this vertical antenna approach.
As far
as this new theory goes, Niels Bohr was absolutely correct in arguing with
Einstein that the quantum of energy that is being sent out is not this neatly
packaged photon particle described by Einstein. Instead, in this new concept,
all photons are a distinct radio frequency alternating current signal of
a certain quantum of energy that is being transferred from electron to electron
as if there was no space whatsoever between them. If they are lined up
properly, they don't even "see" any
space between themselves. Energy transfers are most certainly not permanent
standing wave spheroid type particles. Neither the photon nor any boson is a
particle in this theory.
A
particle must always be a permanent spinning standing wave spheroid in this new
concept and the photon is not, so in this new theory Einstein's photon package
is ruled out and Niels Bohr, who said "No way" to Einstein about
this, wins this argument hands down. Energy transfer is a wave only in this new
approach.
Remember that energy is only a temporary
binding interruption while the close to macrocosm binding is being changed.
Before
this, absolutely no one had closely examined all spin-up and spin-down electron
pairs that are everywhere. Why didn't they?
Why haven't scientists asked why we had so many of them?
The two
electrons in d
(sigma) bonding and the electrons transferring a quantum of light all are
similar spin-up and spin-down electron pairs that constantly stay in the same
plane but 180 degrees out of phase with each other during both precession and
orbiting and attract each other and lock using their closest opposite sides
that are the same mass and are moving in the same direction at the same
frequency: These are important namely because they can
utilize this "bad quarter" impedance matching or mass matching.
It does
not matter in the least if they are rotating around the same nucleus or not:
It's the spin-up, spin-down, both in the same plane and both 180 degrees out of
phase that matters.
Four
things-frequency, impedance, phase and alignment all have to be correct when an
orbiting electron transfers energy to another orbiting electron just the same
as it does in a radio circuit. Impedance in the electron to electron transfer
meaning that both "see" each
other as the same mass on their closest sides: Of this we are certain.
Everything
in this universe is tied in a similar way to everything else through the
attraction, or if you want to put it "the space diminishing process",
that comes because of our new 1st "A"
Law.
Now we
come to Planck's constant and its vector equivalent mh/.
Planck's
constant is nothing more than the angular momentum of the electron throughout
the specific time that the electron is falling to the lower orbit.
The
term mh/ is the energy emitted by the gyroscopic
inertia of the electron as it drops one complete orbital as viewed by an
observer here on earth and as we need and obtain even more accuracy we will
also have to set up a standard latitude and altitude of this standard place on
earth where such observation is made because there is no such thing as a
standard place of rest here on earth so we must eventually of necessity define
one.
*
* *
17. Einstein's gravity wave
prediction
Einstein
did make the prediction that gravity would be found to be a wave and therefore
it could be polarized.
The
problem with the gravity wave is determining its frequency. Our new idea shows
us that the frequency of some portion of the gravity wave should be longer than
even the cycle of the rotation of our galaxy. Things seen in our solar system
or even our galaxy would "see"
us as in motion so a more perfect place of rest must come from several lower
levels or the Virgo super-cluster. You must then
realize the wavelength of some modulated portion of the gravity wave must be at least the time the larger Virgo super-cluster takes to rotate
around once.
There is good and sufficient evidence to support some portion of
the gravity wave being based even several more spin/orbit-frequency lower
levels than even this Virgo super-cluster: Since we can't even see these lower
levels then we'll have to stop here. I think even stopping here gets the point
across though.
The maximum gravitational attraction is being caused by the
spinning quark some of which must be spinning at the square of the electron's
spin frequency. This is a very high frequency indeed with no way to polarize a
frequency this high.
There are galaxy spin frequencies to those beyond that you cannot
even see-that are responsible for gravitational type effects and also
distances at these various frequencies. Right now present science lumps all
these forces and distances together. You simply will never make rhyme or reason
about gravity from the way science is presently dealing with gravity.
When you consider the aspect of Planck's approach to a solid as
frequency is increased and the difference in frequency between light and the
gravity wave then this amount of gravity that these rotating galaxies are
showing us we have, indicates we are feeling the gravitational attraction of a
universe much, much further than the furthest distance that we can see light
emanating from.
Since
our galaxy rotates around once in about 2.5 X 10 8 (2.5 with eight zeros
after it) years then the time the
Virgo super-cluster rotates around once has to be even much, much, much, more
than that!
How on
earth are you ever going to measure a wave such as that?
How are
you going to ever polarize it?
Not
only do I not see any possibility of doing it in our day and age but I don't
see any future equipment coming on line that might be able to do it in the near
future either.
If
humans remain here long enough then it most probably will be done someday
though.
I
simply doubt that it ever will for many generations though so I am not going to
second guess Einstein on this one.
He made
the prediction. Since you have just about finished reading this exposition of
mine by now then I'll let you decide if anyone will ever polarize the
gravity wave or indeed ever be able to even measure its frequency. One thing
I'm absolutely sure of: It will never be done in my lifetime.
*
* *
18. Space-time & Who are you?
The use
of the space-time interval allows scientists to utilize a wonderful
mathematical correlation between space and time in various situations. That's
all well and good but I always want to know what's behind it all. Why does it
work?
Since
you know-seen
from your subset system-there
is no place at rest in this universe and everything is moving then your time is
a rate of change you see imposed upon you.
You
remain here because your particles have all struck a balance between their
macrocosm binding and their close binding. On the macrocosm extreme you have
the Virgo super-cluster and on the other extreme you have the electron that is
your only connection with your eyes which in turn do all your measuring for
you: Your eyes are your RADAR. The electron is the only RADAR particle you
really have too.
Since
you can't measure to everything in this universe with a measuring tape, you are
forced to use the electron to do this measuring for you. You also have a sense
of a place at rest and this is being imposed upon you from as far away as the
Virgo super-cluster. So here are the frequencies that you can use to detect and
measure: You have the electron, solar system, galaxy and the Virgo
super-cluster. These are the important spin/orbit-frequency levels involved with
your detecting and measuring. Basically from these spin/orbit-frequency levels
you get your entire idea of space; your entire idea of time and your entire
idea of the speed of light as well.
Time is
the rate of change that you sense. So is the speed of light essentially.
Both of
these, therefore, are the ratio of the rotation of the electron compared to the
rotation of possibly the earth, solar system, galaxy or Virgo super-cluster.
Space
and time are things only your brain can devise for you. This is a frequency
world. You are, theoretically, only here for one "blitzseit" at a time. Your brain is here, however, for
longer than that providing all your components stay right in step with all the
right frequencies and your brain keeps functioning.
Your
brain is the thing that has put you into this subset world of the
proton-neutron spin/orbit-frequency level because it can extend itself over a
time period of a much longer duration than the "blitzseit" of the electron.
Space,
in this theory, might be best seen using the "blitzseits" of the subset proton-neutron
spin/orbit-frequency level where the motions in the electron's
spin/orbit-frequency level begin to get close to motionless. This
proton-neutron subset level is the closest microcosm level that matches most of
your current science rules.
While
these "A" Laws increase or
decrease the space-time interval, all you have seen so far in this text were
descriptions of space being added or
removed: You have had no examples so far of time
being changed by these "A"
Laws.
You can
see time being changed by looking at the macrocosm: We've already gone over
Römer's discovery of the speed of light: The speed of light-to you here on earth-is essentially the difference between the
solar system, galaxy and Virgo super-cluster rotation compared to the electron
rotation. It's simply the ratio of these frequencies compared to the electron's
spin frequency because you are built up of these entities that are nothing but
frequencies themselves really.
For you
to change either your time or your space, you will have to change this ratio:
While this can be done, it will take some fast speeds or extensively massive
conditions or much acceleration before you will ever be able to even measure
the change: The U.S. Air Force actually measured it.
What
you can see, however, is the electron's
higher frequency space created or
deleted by these higher frequency electrons. Their "blitzseits" of time are much faster than your
proton-neutron "blitzseits" of time. You can see how we manipulate time in the various sophisticated antenna designs
that are built for one purpose and that is to cover as much area as possible
and to match that area with a single electron stream using time to match the phase difference between the
single electron stream and the various spots in the large antenna area. This
way you amplify the strength of the
antenna for both transmitting and receiving.
The
lens in your eye does essentially the same thing and is more proof that not
only can you see how space is changed
but time as well.
In this
new universe, you are constantly
changing. In addition, this is true in life as well. Doesn't it feel as if you
are only here for a fraction of a second or so at a time? This is your mind giving you this sense of time that we all
have.
Such is
the main theme of this little notion that I have laid out before you. This
feeling we all have of only existing a second or so at a time might be showing
us that this indeed is the world of "blitzseits" and momentary connections that this whole
brand new idea calls for.
While
you feel you are only here for one of these "blitzseits" at a time, you also feel you are at rest in
this universe don't you? Well, now let's look
at a few things: Where would you have to be situated in this universe to see
yourself at rest?
You
will have to be at a lower spin/orbit-frequency level than the level you are
observing won't you? For instance, you see the rock electrons having all that
particle spin and orbiting motion entirely balanced out while you are observing
from this planetary or solar system level where you now are located. This is at
a longer wavelength or lower
spin/orbit-frequency level isn't it?
This is a lower frequency level, which term we
said earlier in this thesis that we had to use instead of our old subset term
"larger".
OK, so
now that we know all motion gets totally balanced out as seen by several lower
spin/orbit-frequency levels. This means we know that for us to feel at rest,
this feeling of "at rest" must come from the next lower
spin/orbit-frequency than the solar system and the galaxy. So this means the
Virgo super-cluster level doesn't it?
You
can't be getting all this feeling of "at rest" from
this galaxy level because in this level, you along with the earth, are still in
motion. But in the next lowest level-the Virgo super-cluster level-you and the
earth and the sun and whatever are making repetitious motions that from the
super-galaxy's point of view all entirely cancel out: This is the same as you
looking at the rock where all particle motion, in the rock, are repetitious and
completely cancel out.
Therefore,
if some of this feeling of "at rest" comes from-at least-the
Virgo super-cluster level, the lowest spin/orbit-frequency level in our octave
of piano key frequencies, so this must also be where the base line for some of
the modulating frequencies of the gravity wave originates as well. Therefore
the wavelength of some of these modulating waves must be one full revolution of
the Virgo super-cluster which you saw in the last chapter has to be quite a
long time.
This
tells you something, doesn't it?
As we
look from here into the microcosm we see repetitious motion that seems to be
frozen solid and we see ever faster frequencies the further in we look. As we
look out at the macrocosm, we see motion and the further we look the
wavelengths get so long we can't possibly even measure them. If this isn't a
microcosm-macrocosm frequency reversal then I don't know what a reversal is.
"Angular lock on" is also reversed from macrocosm to microcosm:
"Angular lock on" falls off the further things are in the macrocosm
and it gets larger the further you look into the microcosm. This is the reason
items in the microcosm look smaller to you. This is a wave universe and because
each of these momentary "blitzseit" bindings is the same strength then more of them, per unit of time-higher
frequency-will create a higher voltage and thus you can actually see the main
reason for Planck's constant: Only the lower
spin/orbit-frequency, whose "blitzseit" is of a longer time
duration, could possibly sense this "more in a unit
period of time" but
remember this projection is on a curve and not a straight line.
This curve, by the way, may become extremely valuable to future
scientists in initially determining the spin frequencies of everything: These
spin frequencies will be of the utmost importance in future math.
As long
as all these things stay their respective distances and wavelengths apart then
they all survive and remain here.
As long
as all your parts stay merrily in tune with everything then you happily stay
here as well. You can see where life originated can't you? You are a child of this universe aren't you?
You no
longer stay this solid, long lasting thing that you have always seen yourself
as. Now you become nothing more than one
of those continuing momentary, flashing pictures on a movie screen with
millions of past pictures on one side of the real you and millions of future
pictures on the other side of the true you.
All
these frames of yours are changing at one certain fixed frequency with the
micro world changing at a faster frequency and the macroworld changing at a
slower frequency than yours. This is what gives you the micro-macro reversal of
the red shift in the macrocosm and the blue shift in the microcosm.
You
will therefore also see other things rotating and revolving whereas they will
see themselves at rest provided they-like you-are traveling on geodesics.
Things
that were of supreme importance before now lose some of their old clout and the
four things that seem to predominate above all others in this new view of
things, as we move closer to this world of waves, are frequency, motion, orientation and inertial qualities as seen from a particular subset spin/orbit-frequency level.
Space
is equivalent to time. Since our mind cannot cope with the space-time interval,
does it separate it into two things that it can understand, namely space and
time?
Our
mind doesn't understand the space-time interval so maybe it separates it into
space and time. The way it does this may be relatively simple. You know you are
not the same person you were in the first grade in school. What you don't seem
to realize is that you also are not the same person you were a second ago or
even a microsecond ago. Your mind is a continuous system though and it makes you think that you are the same person that
is existing over all these separate frame periods of time.
This is
one more reason that our particle world can not give us the entire picture. And
this is another red
warning light from Kurt Gödel.
You are
living in a world of waves that the mind simply doesn't "see". Your mind has been developed
slowly over millions of years for survival. Human's minds had to be able to
impress humans that larger things could eat them while they could easily kill
and eat smaller things themselves. So this idea of large and small had to be
firmly imprinted on your mind for your survival. The human mind has been
designed especially for this subset particle world and it has undeniable
problems with an all wave universe. It simply wasn't designed to contemplate an
all wave universe.
Although
we may have finally gotten a grand unified theory, this
isn't the end. This is the very beginning of a brand new world
and we still haven't even scratched the surface of this universe yet.
You
will be able to picture this universe that you are in by mostly using these
four terms of frequency, motion, orientation
and inertial qualities because that's all
that you will need to see the big picture. For the math we will need more terms
but this is all you need right now and anything more would only add to your
present confusion as you take your first look at this new universe as it really
is. I have shown you a model of a universe with every particle-level using frequency, motion
orientation and inertial
qualities. If you set up a model universe this way, then it will work
out exactly like the universe that we find ourselves in.
I saw
this basic idea before 1967 and published a book about it then: You will see a
full-page ad in the N.Y. Times Book Review Section for the Sunday of June 18,
1967. The ad has a big picture of a galaxy on it and if you go through the
microfilms for the Sunday N.Y. Times Book Review section for that date then
there is no way that you can possibly miss it.
What I
did not see in 1967 was the important part frequencies played in all of this
and I should have seen this because I had the top federal radio license at that
time and I have absolutely no excuse to offer for the delay in not noticing
that until later.
To whom it may concern: It
is hard for me to believe that I had no competition whatsoever in this area for
over thirty years, particularly since practically every university in the
United States had a copy of my 1967 publication. The Copyright Office has a
record of all my various publications about this method of unification from
1967 until now in the year 2000. So to anyone saying they were ahead of me
publishing any or all of this, I'll not argue with them but we'll simply check
the records to find out who really was, as that great Confederate General
Nathan Bedford Forrest said, ". . . firstus with the mostest." I know
for a fact that, more than anything else, it was the 1997 Britannica CD ROM
that at last provided me with the final rope and string that I needed to be
able to tie all this up together.
Once you see all this turns out to be correct then you must worry
about the long term survival of human life because this informs you that all
the world's scientists who were being paid to investigate all of this, simply
weren't. So then you must ask, "Will they also once more fumble the ball
and bring on an early end to the existence of humans?"
*
* *
19. Einstein called this his
"Biggest Blunder".
Since
we do have a quasi steady-state universe then we do need to emphasize once more
the cause for this "cosmological constant"
that Einstein so wisely saw was necessary with a steady-state
universe.
Einstein
gave us this "cosmological constant"
when he thought we had a steady-state
universe but then about ten years later he changed his mind when he later
thought this universe was expanding. He then called his earlier thinking, about
his original "cosmological constant",
his "biggest blunder".
Now,
that we see it is really a quasi steady-state
universe, we also see our new 1st "A"
Law shows us things that rotate at the same frequency will attract and this
means all inertial things whether these are electrons or larger things like
planets, stars, galaxies or even giant super-galaxies. All of these things will
attract if spinning or orbiting at the same frequency and this attraction will
be seen as greater when looking at the higher frequency from a lower
spin/orbit-frequency view thus we get the effect we do from these higher
frequencies because of the aspect of Planck's approach to a solid as frequency
is increased, looking at higher frequencies from a lower spin/orbit-frequency
level.
All
these things also have surroundings constructed
of the same particle-frequencies therefore they will have some form of
gyroscopic inertia. This gyroscopic inertia acting at 90 degrees will twist these and thus prevent these objects
from ever lining up anywhere near where they are spinning the same direction on
parallel paths. So the 1st "A"
Law attraction tends to negate itself because of this gyroscopic action coming
in slowly as the cosine of the angle of the attracting planes giving the 2nd
"A" Law far more advantage in
keeping all these things apart.
Einstein
never saw this because he never got this far but I'm sure he would be glad to
know that his original "cosmological constant",
that he thought up and then a decade later totally discarded, will be with us
both in the microcosm and macrocosm for as long as people remain here.
*
* *
20. Tiny Clusters of Matter
In our
new concept, similar surroundings play an
important part. The following shows you what happens to only a few atoms when similar surroundings
are entirely removed.
Atomic
clusters of only four or five molecules behave in an entirely different manner
from hundreds of the very same molecules that are joined together. For
instance, three or four atoms of mercury joined together act as an insulator
while many joined together act properly as the liquid metal. Clusters of a few
solitary molecules of any of the metals tend to act as an insulator and not as
a metal. These tiny groups do not seem to bind together with the powerful metal
binding force either.
Since
in this new theory the key to inertial qualities and indeed the way any
substance acts is similar surroundings, this and the following all seem
to support our new "A" Laws.
This
study of tiny clusters is becoming popularized now because of this new electronic
chip industry where circuits are operating on layers of conducting metal of
only a few molecules in depth.
Clusters
are a few atoms, molecules or ions joined together. It can only be because of similar surroundings
that they always behave differently from hundreds of the same types of atoms
and molecules similarly joined together. An example would be that a cluster of
twenty-five atoms of a substance would always invariably have a lower melting
point than a much larger amount of the same substance. Another example would be
that a cluster of four atoms would always behave far differently from the same
atoms all joined in a much larger mass.
Here's
the way to comprehend why this would be so. You saw that Niels Bohr could give
a simple formulation for the single electron hydrogen atom but this breaks down
when more electrons in higher orbits are found in all the other elements. Why? The different
surroundings.
What
have we found out so far?
We have
found out exactly why centrifugal force changes: It's because of different surroundings.
Once
you have another band of electrons circling the first band then you cannot
figure a simple centrifugal force anymore for any inner electrons because they
will sometimes be binding with that outer band of electrons instead of binding
totally with the universe as in pure centrifugal force. The same thing happens
with clusters of only a few atoms, molecules and ions. It's a whole different
setup with things all around them then it is with similar things around them
removed.
Binding
energies of tiny clusters may vary greatly where the binding energy of a
cluster of four atoms may be found to be much greater-or less-than a cluster of
five or three atoms of the same atoms in a larger accumulation. The average
binding energies, however, of those atoms in tiny clusters is generally less
than the binding energies of those found in the larger groups of similar atoms.
That
last sentence is of extreme importance because it hands us a veritable key that
tells us tiny clusters are not able to line up as many spins and orbits to bind
together with as the larger numbers. Why is that?
The law of averages is higher with the larger accumulations.
Where
the larger accumulations of atoms and molecules sometimes all take on a totally
similar crystalline structure, the tiny clusters do not. Four atoms of a
substance may take one form while five may take another form and six atoms of
the same substance may take a far different form. A great many numbers of atoms
or molecules seem to be necessary before they can assume this consistent
similar crystal type formation. All of this is pointing to the importance of surroundings and our new concept.
Sometimes
tiny clusters act like individual molecules and sometimes they don't. Sometimes
they are similar in properties with the larger groups and sometimes they are
not. The one paramount discernible difference between tiny clusters and larger
atomic conglomerations is the variety of their properties. These are never as
consistent as all the larger groups of the very same atoms.
These
small clusters behave differently from regular larger amounts of the same
matter. It seems to me that our new law where the surroundings
are important shows why this happens quite a bit better than any of our present
science does.
*
* *
21. Summing this all up
This is
the very first offering of any type of a portrait of a universe in which we see
all these elements of what we notice in reality being exactly the same as what
we witness in special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics and
superstring theory. Therefore I am presenting this picture of the way things
must really be setup for all the above to coincide.
We all
make mistakes and all scientists have made one big mistake not seeing what was
happening after knowing that electrons and protons always lost mass whenever
they joined together and gained binding energy. When we saw relativity
corrections always had to be made in cases of excessive speed or mass then this
also should have awakened us. We saw that the high percentage of empty space in
the microcosm is about the same as that in the macrocosm and in both of these
there are widely separated spinning and orbiting entities. This should have
told us to look for one principle which
only a very few really tried to look for. Quantum theory is a dead giveaway
that our science is nothing but a bunch of subset rules.
If
there is some other type of setup where reality agrees with all these
aforementioned theories then I would surely like to hear about it. Nothing
except this theory has yet been published that completely unifies everything as
successfully as this one does.
Inertial
qualities must therefore emanate from the surroundings
just as Ernst Mach suggested. These inertial qualities must depend on the
spin/orbit-frequency of all similar surrounding particles. Each different
spin/orbit-frequency in this universe must therefore have a type of Olbers'
Paradox and the aspect of approaching a solid
as frequency is increased and relativity
corrections and a similar frequency shift to
the lower frequency range the same as our red shift. Each of these different
particle-frequencies must be tied to each other by subharmonic frequencies that
are so remote as to link but yet not rob any vital amount of energy from any
one of the various linked particle-frequencies.
Our
space-time setup, here on earth, is mainly being caused by the difference
between the electron's frequency of rotation compared to the rotational
frequency of either the earth, solar system, galaxy or the Virgo super-cluster
or perhaps a combination of all of these: What we see as the speed of light is
really the ratio of those aforementioned rotational frequencies. Since this
ratio remains a constant-for us as we sit
here on earth-then this speed of light also
must remain a constant as we sit here. In fact, all the constants of nature
must be caused by frequency ratios.
Glass
and plastics are transparent to light and certain frequencies are transparent
to other frequencies. This is an edifice that has yet to be built up for this
new theory. As I said before, these "A"
Laws are only the beginning: We have many more doors to open.
Present
science has vastly oversimplified things and it has no method that allows you
to see yourself changing over time and this mandates that you see yourself as
this non-changing entity over time and this unfortunately does not fit in well
at all with the theme of reality or of how we
really feel we are living through time or of
what is really happening in this entire universe.
We must
consider that the "tuned circuit" and the impedance matching aspect
that we see in radio circuitry also play a strong hand in every
spin/orbit-frequency.
Along
with the "tuned circuit" always comes impedance matching that can be
accomplished whenever electrons, quarks or whatever particles and/or
aggregations attract using their sides. There is no way an exact polar
attraction can also have an impedance matching equality of mass. This is the
reason that we see so many of the spin-up and spin-down side attractions such
as in d (sigma)
bonding. The exact polar attractions will not incorporate impedance matching:
The others will all use the more powerful impedance matching aspect where they
attract those objects with an exact similar amount of mass on their closest
sides.
We must
consider this "bad quarter" effect in each of these local gauge
system spin/orbit-frequency worlds.
The
"bad quarter" or cyclic pitch phenomenon we covered earlier that
becomes of the utmost importance in gyroscopic inertia, is essentially derived
from the initial spinning precessing standing wave spheroid.
All the
local gauge terminology must be converted to frequency,
motion, orientation
and inertial qualities and then used
together with the "A" Laws to
determine the proper actions of any particular spin/orbit-frequency level to
obtain the true unification concept as this
universe "sees" it.
This
new universe theory accepts the idea of Dirac's anti-matter. But to remain here
permanently these anti-particles must somehow fit into and be protected by the
grand piano key assembly of permanent particle-frequencies otherwise they will
eventually be absorbed. There is no mystery whatsoever to an anti-particle.
Every anti-particle works exactly opposite to the neutron. As you have already
read herein the neutron is not a stable particle and needs to have protons
nearby to remain stable. Having proton(s) in close proximity ensures that the neutron's
close binding now matches its macrocosm binding.
The anti-particle
works exactly opposite whereas when it comes into close proximity with the
particle then the particle it approaches loses its matched close to macrocosm
binding and now both particle and anti-particle-when together-now both lose their equal close binding to macrocosm
binding and they both disappear: What
disappears is the orbiting at a frequency close to your proton-neutron inertial
frequency you call mass. So what you see is a decrease of mass. So inertia decreases but not inertial qualities. Other
particle-frequencies do not necessarily decrease. Just this one particular
spin/orbit frequency is no more. Smaller particles or higher frequency or
higher spin/orbit frequencies may indeed remain but if they are out of our
detectable range then we may not even pick them up. Inertial mass may disappear
but not inertial qualities. There is nothing at all mysterious about this.
Yes,
quantum theory gives anti-matter equal weight in those wave equations but if
quantum theory doesn't have an input for these permanent piano key frequencies-which it presently doesn't-then their formulation will be wrong some of the
time and it may be quite wrong on anti-matter because as long as anti-matter is
not being supported by the proper piano key wavelengths then it can't remain
here long. So Dirac is right but it's quantum theory that has insufficient and
ineffective methods as it attempts to explain anti-matter.
Henry
Ford is attributed to claiming that the experts all tell you what can't be
done. I've been told that even if the universe does work this way that is
portrayed here then there will be too many movable bodies to contend with and
there is no way mathematically that this could ever be put to a practical use.
My answer is that Einstein has already given us his tensor math formulation
that shows mathematically exactly how it all works within certain parameters
when the surroundings are far enough away and
evenly spread out. The next step is to work out exactly how his formulations do work with our "A" Laws when the surroundings
are not so far away and not so evenly spread out.
In
1958, three Russians-Pavel Cerenkov, Ilya Frank and Igor Tamm-won the Nobel
Prize for discovering what caused that blue light surrounding atomic reactors.
It is now called Cerenkov Radiation. They found it is caused by the speed of
light being exceeded in the viewer's world although the speed of light never
really is exceeded in the world of any of the atomic reactor components. The
speed of light and who is at rest are two things that will change with
different observers.
This
shows you again what our "A"
Laws show you and that is this speed of light is only the fastest speed in our
spin/orbit-frequency level. Your concept of speed
only exists in this limited local gauge spin/orbit-frequency system here on
earth. Your concept of your
speed cannot be carried into the universe as a whole. In our subset
spin/orbit-frequency level, the speed of light is essentially the speed of time
because it essentially is the speed that you see yourself, along with your
space and time, as being built.
This
speed of light-or speed of time-as measured by ourselves in this subset system
of ours is the difference between the Virgo super-cluster's rotation frequency,
galaxy, solar system along with the earth compared to the rotation frequency of
the electrons in yourself as you sit at rest on this earth while the earth is
on its geodesic going around the sun. If you get shot off, in a rocket, from
this earth and increase your speed then all your particles will all have more
massive "bad quarters" that will slow them down and then there will
be less difference between the rotation
frequency of the electrons that compose you and the rotation frequency of the
Virgo super-cluster, galaxy, etc. so therefore your time will be slowed down and if you maintain this speed,
you will age a bit slower than the people in the
world you left.
Space
is also going to be determined by the
difference between the Virgo super-cluster's rotation frequency (along with its
components) and the rotation frequency of the electrons in yourself and the
rocket and remember you are going to see distance differently at this different
spin/orbit-frequency. You have also been reduced in size. In other words you,
along with the rocket and the space inside it, have all shrunk a bit.
Now
this is the reverse of both the microcosm
and the macrocosm where everything is on geodesics. In the microcosm, there is
a space reduction and time gets faster but in the macrocosm space is expanded
and time slows down.
When
you accelerate in rectilinear motion, you get the space reduction of the
microcosm and the time slow down of the macrocosm: And this is extremely
important because this shows you that simple straight line acceleration
maintains this energy strictly inside this subset local gauge
spin/orbit-frequency system. In other words while you may be out of balance
speed wise in your own spin/orbit-frequency level, by rectilinear accelerating
you have not altered the piano key tuning by
shifting energy between piano keys (spin/orbit-frequency
levels).
But
when this energy is added to an orbiting object then the orbit is increased and
thereby you most definitely have created a lower orbiting frequency, haven't
you?
The
universe will try to balance this but, since it's a lower frequency, it may
have to be balanced out in some other spin/orbit-frequency level.
So the
problem with free orbiting objects then is that if they change orbits then they can swing energy out of the
spin/orbit-frequency level and too much of this leakage in or out must have
been what caused the big bang that resulted with us being here now so any change in all this orbiting that we see going on
in both the microcosm and the macrocosm can have both good and bad
consequences.
Fission
or fusion or chemical energy creation is the gain of binding
energy which is essentially a shift to
more close binding from macrocosm binding or a release of mass energy which is a shift
toward the close binding direction.
Getting
back to the rocket, if you maintain this rocket speed then you will age a bit
slower than the people you left back on earth. You won't notice it though
because your clocks aboard the rocket will also slow down along with your
aging. But you can check on this slowing of your time if you return to the
earth and check your clock against the ones on earth. As I mentioned before the
U.S. Air Force actually did this: Two cesium clocks were set at the same time
and one was put aboard an aircraft and the clock on the accelerated speeding
aircraft ended up showing a slower time after the clocks were again brought
back together.
Neither
speed nor any of our other scientific concepts can be carried into the universe
as a whole either. All of the rules that you think are so important to you here
on this earth are only subset rules and these are meaningless to this entire
universe.
We
still have to stay hard at work on the whys and wherefores to further discover
what kind of a universe this really is. I have given you this big picture of
our universe as these "A" Laws
are showing it. This is your starting point. You haven't even had a starting
point up until now.
A
sufficient amount of evidence needed to solve this grand unified theory puzzle
was probably finally in place by 1925 when Goudsmit and Ulenbeck saw the
electron was spinning: So even though you might be getting this hot off the
press, it's still about seventy-five years late in coming to you. We were all
sound asleep like Rip Van Winkle-and I
include myself in there too-and totally
missed all the facts as they floated, like innocent looking clouds, right on by
us.
*
* *
22. Getting away from the
subject
I do
not pretend to be anywhere near the stature of those giants of science such as
Einstein, Hilbert, Newton, Ampere or Kepler. I, however, have read what they
said. I also had a bit of luck or I would never have been able to put forth
this hypothesis for you to read here today.
This is
also a cry for help: Because whenever a unifying principle-either this or
another like it-does indeed come into our grasp then many, more mathematicians
will be required to build a whole new structure of mathematical complexity that
only this universe uses and that we do not yet fully have. More mathematicians
will also be needed to build us an interface from our present system to this
new math. Then even more mathematicians will have to go through and completely
revamp certain small segments of our present day "science". It will
be, in some respects, easier to do all of this with a model right in front of
us that we can visualize, than it was for Einstein to arrive at his tensor
formulation of general relativity without knowing exactly what was going on.
You
must understand the importance of finding this unifying element of the four
invisible forces. Once humanity has this firmly in its grasp then future
computers can give people some incredible things. All the energy man will ever
want or need will be right there for the taking as well. The problem then
becomes a warming earth in-as-much as energy produced here stays here because
our earth is well insulated and a massive amount of cheap energy can't easily
leave. Mankind will be able to do all these good or bad things simply because
computers will then be able to solve exactly how all these molecules must be
lined up for maximum strength or lightest weight or least friction or whatever
quality is desired.
Right
now, it's all hit and miss. Moreover, if we continue going on like this then it
will be hundreds of thousands of years before we can get to the strongest
materials ever. But once we get this unifying principle, then it all comes in
to us with one big bang.
The
scary part of this is that some country might have a massive super secret
program of training mathematicians and putting them on super-computers that go
down this correct unified road for several generations. If the rest of people
in the world were asleep at the switch, then that aforementioned country would
be able to make veritable slaves out of everyone else in the entire world.
There
would be no way that anyone could oppose such a country that had this
advantage. Hitler wanted a thousand year Reich; well, if a country could pull
this off correctly then it would easily rule the earth for a good many
thousands of years with no problems whatsoever. Historian Will Durant said that
even the slaves of Greece and Rome had a good life compared to all the
people under the Pharaohs. Your great, great, great grandchildren-if you go to sleep on this watch-could live their lives as slaves to another country
under masters maybe even more terrible than the Egyptian Pharaohs.
The
little person doesn't always benefit when new areas of knowledge suddenly
appear. A few rich ones always do. About five thousand years ago one big
invention came in. It was writing. It built Egypt and it made the Pharaohs the
richest kings ever. With writing they could keep records and thereby keep
bettering production. Pictures on all the tombs show how they are mass
producing one thing or another. Henry Ford didn't discover mass production: The
Pharaohs were the ones who discovered it. Imagine their surprising discovery as
agricultural methods got better and they discovered that 40% of the people
could easily grow enough food and distribute the food and necessities to all
the people and this left the other 60% of the people for the Pharaoh to draw
from to do what the Pharaoh wanted done. The smart Pharaohs worked hand in hand
with the temples to get as much work as possible out of that other 60% too.
They knew precisely how many extra people were coming on line from this massive
mass production of food supplies so they knew exactly how many they could lose
in the mines and the stone quarries and in battle. They didn't mind losing
plenty in all of those places either. I was on my own in Egypt and about 19 and
even yet I can remember well, the complete day I spent at the Egyptian Museum in
Cairo. There I read, translated into English, the following words to his
workers that some Pharaoh had inscribed on a slab of rock: It said, "I
have given you sandals for your feet. I have brought you food and supplies from
both Upper and Lower Egypt whereby you will be sustained while you carve this
image of mine into this rock which will be pleasing to the gods so that we may
all derive benefit."
I
thought to myself when I read that translation of the stone that it was similar
to all that inspired literature produced by management that decorated the walls
inside the General Motors assembly plant in Linden, New Jersey that I toured
about a year before when I was in my final year of high school.
The
word Amen is an ancient word and I am of the belief that it is nothing more
than the name of the main Egyptian god Amun. The use of "u" instead
of "e" in the word Amun is strictly an educated guess because
hieroglyphics used only consonants. Hieroglyphics were written with no vowels
whatsoever. This name of the god Amun also had another meaning something like
"so be it". I'm also of the belief that the seventh day of rest came
about as a combined labor protest from a group of some of the temples against
the Pharaoh. One particular Pharaoh had a great deal of problems with the
temples. Anyway, the thing to remember is that just a bit of new knowledge
helped create the Pharaohs. What will this "Holy Grail" create when
it too is finally put to use?
All
this is nothing more than a hypothesis: It's merely what I believe is a model
of a universe in which you can plainly see the unifying principle that Einstein
searched for, yet this type of universe would also behave-from our point of view-exactly the same as the universe that we find ourselves
living in. Is this how our own universe is also constructed? I'll leave that answer strictly up to you.
People
with a good science background will have breezed right through this but others
without it I'm sure have found some of this rough sledding. I'm certain that
with the extra effort of using a few good encyclopedia CDs as an aid, you can
do some extra homework and re-read it and this way you will also be able to get
the general gist of what is going on. Maybe that way you will learn as much as
many of these scientists too. You will indeed learn a lot more than a few of
them presently know.
Paul
Dirac's monopole, at first, would seem to be ruled out by this theory but yet
these "A" Laws are all using
the closest parts
of these spinning electrons and this is most definitely a monopole effect isn't
it? And gravity too is more or less a
monopole effect as well. Isn't it? Anyway,
Dirac was right when he predicted that something such as this theory would come
along and Albert Einstein was most certainly right predicting the human mind
could understand it. Niels Bohr saw the entire trend of thinking had to change.
We owe a lot to these three and many, many, many more.
I hope
you have learned by now why you can't go faster than the speed of light.
The
shortest increment of time that we can measure in our spin/orbit-frequency
level is our "blitzseit" which must be somewhere near the time it
takes these spherically encapsulated wave trains to complete one spherical
cycle and build an electron. It takes one of these complete cycles to match the
perfect balance the electron keeps between the close objects and the macrocosm.
So one of these complete cycles is the time it takes to produce an electron at
the electron level.
This
speed of light is the speed that you, along with your space and time, are being
produced so you simply can't go faster in space and time than these
particles-that you are built from-are being produced.
As far
as the aspect of complementarity goes, Heisenberg and Bohr may not come out
winning this one if humans can remain on this earth long enough because with
super-computer assist along the Ampere-Einstein road the certainty of far more
thorough and precise answers are absolutely ensured.
We find what we probably have here is that Einstein's unbounded but
finite universe is really only a portion, of a Fitzpatrick
infinite ???? wave universe: Einstein's universe is that portion of the infinite
???? wave universe that can directly affect
our particle world here.
I've put those question marks after the word infinite simply
because our minds are subset minds and this is indeed a question that cannot be
answered at this time. It seems the Heisenberg-Bohr concept of complementarity
is still with us until we do get those much better computers.
Our minds may not be able to make major inroads into this
seemingly infinite ???? wave universe without future super-computer assist. We don't even
know, at this time, what makes the microcosm appear to us to be higher
frequency waves and the macrocosm to appear to us to be lower frequency
waves: We do not yet fully understand the microcosm-macrocosm frequency
reversal.
So it's
a good possibility that the solution of the Theory of Everything now brings you
to the limit of where the human mind can easily function with the computers of
today. But if people are able to stay here long enough they should eventually
be able to build computers that will be able
to figure even more of it all out.
Logic
and math must always be used together. They will always complement each other
and whenever they fail to do so then this should be a flashing red warning
light telling you something is wrong. The present prevalence of math over logic
is another hidden road sign telling you that you are using subset logic and/or
math.
Anyway,
the final door has not yet been opened: There is plenty of work still out there
for all you young kids that are now coming on line as we old-timers leave. Keep
at it.
Thank
you for reading this. I hope I didn't bore you to death.
And
everyone in this world must now come to the realization that-when the right
people see all this is correct-it's a whole new ball game from there on out. Is
your country one of the many that will be going to sleep on this or will your
country be the one that will take full advantage of Fitzpatrick's Theory of
Everything?
Congratulations
to those of you who have understood the general gist of the things that I have
been ranting and raving about herein. All of this is only one more tiny step in
the science stairway. There are an infinite ???? number of further
steps to climb. I'm very much afraid that up until now, as far as science goes,
humankind hasn't quite got things right yet. If you have understood all of this
then you have just graduated from kindergarten. The real science classes will begin
as of now:
VERY LATEST IN SCIENCE:
web page also http://www.amperefitz.com
And take a quick look at this:
Milo Wolff and String theorists
are correct: It's all resonances.
Here's
one on June 12th 2018 telling about a Britannica mistake, but half way through
is a most interesting dissertation on how our eyes see COLORS.
Britannica
in html:
http://rbduncan.com/britannica.html
Britannica
in Word:http://rbduncan.com/britannica.doc
Britannica
in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/britannica.pdf
Do
Ampere's Laws give us the final answer to DARK MATTER?
7-7-2017.The
final answer to the cause of Dark Matter.htm
Final and SIMPLE answer to the DARK MATTER attractive force.
In Word: 7-7-2017.Answer
to DARK MATTER.doc
7-7-2017 Answer to DARK MATTER also in Adobe.pdf - 7-7-2017.Answer to DARK
MATTER.pdf
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
Talk with others interested in
science at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/
You will find more books in the Files section there too.
Thanks for reading this:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
146 Reid Watson Road
Deer Lodge, TN 37726
Phone: (423) - 965 - 4604
e-mail zeusrdx@yahoo.com
See: http://www.rbduncan.com
and http://www.amperefitz.com