Did AMPERE discover what EINSTEIN couldn't? Phase Symmetry

. . READ Phase Symmetry Now FREE . . Click Here.


Background for this 2nd book

Gimbal's Department Store, in New York City. sold me a war surplus Sherman tank radio transmitter and receiver for $79.99 in 1946.

Back then you had to learn Morse code and pass a test sending and receiving 13 words a minute, in that dot-dash Morse code, before you could even get on the air. And then you had to use Morse code for one entire year before they would even consider giving you the test for the Class A Amateur Radio License where you could speak on the air using a microphone.

So I took the train from New Jersey to New York and arrived at the Federal Communication Commission's office on Cortlandt Street and passed their test by sending and receiving 13 words a minute of Morse code. There was also a radio test that I passed but for me that was nothing compared to the code test.

This gave me a Class B Amateur Radio License whereby I could send Morse code messages to other Amateur Radio operators on any of the CW Ham bands.

I did this for one year then was able to apply for my Class A Amateur Radio License. Again I took the train to New York and passed a much stiffer radio theory test, which got me my most prized possession. I got my Class A Amateur Radio License that allowed me to talk right over the microphone to other Hams. I felt, way back then, that this was one tremendous achievement.

But this transmitter was only 40 watts so I built a Class A/B amplifier with two 812As in push-pull and was then putting out about two hundred watts. Transmitters and antennas taught me a valuable lesson in the methods of reducing standing waves. This was necessary if you wanted signal strength.

I would never have recognized the importance of standing waves in this universe without that early radio transmitter experience.

Impedance matching was another bit of radio knowledge that I learned back then that I also found, later on, was an essential part of our entire universe as well.

Impedance matching and standing waves is what it is all about as far as the radio side of it is concerned.

I learned to fly way back then too. I got my private pilot license in 1949 when I was the ripe old age of sixteen.

I wasn't any rich kid. I made the money for my radio station selling Colliers Magazine and the Saturday Evening Post and delivering the Elizabeth Daily Journal newspaper to people.

I made the money for my flight lessons working at a soda fountain.

I went to Miami in 1950 and bought an Aeronca Champion 7AC Airplane for $500 and flew and flew and flew.

But my money ran out and I had to join the Army. Because I was a draft age tourist kid, I couldn't find much work in Miami at that time even though I held a 2nd Class Radio license.

I put three years in the Army Signal Corps and returned to Miami going to Embry Riddle on the G.I. Bill.

In Miami I got my 1st Class Radio License and I put all new fabric on a Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser Airplane with a changeable pitch Aeromatic propeller and flew it many thousands of miles. I really loved that airplane.

Pan American World Airways paid half of my college tuition and I'll be ever grateful, to them, for this.

It was while working for Pan Am in 1966 that I saw the immense importance of what Ampere discovered in the 1820s.That is really when the groundwork for my first book started. Even though I got an approving letter from Lincoln Barnett for what I discovered and published about Ampere's Laws, I knew I had many years of hard work ahead of me before I could put out a book showing how we could see a simple model that showed the fundamental forces as being unified.

It's hard to believe but I recently typed "Ampere's long wire laws" into Google and got nothing.

How could everyone in these Universities have entirely forgotten one of the most important laws of science ever published?

I've never understood this total lack of interest in something so simple, which explains things that seem so complex.

I still don't understand why everyone missed it.

In fact, that's what this book is all about. (Click book to read FREE.)

FREE e-Book

In the right hand column you will see the word's Stephen Wolfram gave in a recent speech. He is no dummy. He has one of the worlds most brilliant minds. Look at what he says.

He's telling you that you can see into complicated things using a simple model.

That's exactly what "Universities Asleep at the Switch" gives you.

This is the very first simple model anyone has ever given that portrays exactly how this entire universe functions.

This is the first SIMPLE "Aufbau" or Construction Model of this universe.

These are the first SIMPLE "Aufbau" orConstruction Laws of this entire universe as well.

This book gives you a simple model with simple rules whereby you can understand exactly how this entire universe functions.

Einstein's Unified Field Theory SOLVED?



Even Einstein didn't know how close he was to the answer of his Unified Field Theory when he wrote the following.

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

Now in retrospect
here's what we see.

Einstein was quite right when he wrote that above in 1954, about a year before he died.

Einstein's teacher, Hermann Minkowski, had already come up with the correct assessment of spacetime and the spacetime interval.

When we look through the Hubble telescope through space, then we are also looking back through time, so it's really spacetime. And IMPORTANT — Einstein saw this spacetime was also a repulsive force.

Einstein had seen that Minkowski's spacetime was also related to his (Einstein's) 'Cosmological Constant repulsive force', that Einstein knew, and we now know hold all these 5 BASIC spinning things apart in both microcosm and macrocosm, i.e. quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.

Einstein, saw modern physics was wrong, and should have seen that all he needed was a simple phase law (relative motion law), because that is ALL that really exists in this totally spinning macrocosm.

That's really ALL that exists in this spinning microcosm too. What I didn't know at the time was that many others had put forth relative motion theories that were all promptly squelched by physicist Robert H. Dicke who claimed gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was, then we would see evidence of gravitational interference fringes in our largest telescopes. Since we do, in fact, NOW see these gravitational interference fringes in the Hubble telescope, then this, more than anything else tells us that relative motion MUST be the cause of all gravitational type attractive forces: the very OPPOSITE of spacetime repulsive forces.

More than half a century ago there was a good article, in Scientific American about Ampère's 1823 Long Wire Law that made me re-think — and suspect even more — everything I had learned in electronics.

In 1823, André M. Ampère took two batteries and connected each to a long wire, with both wires parallel to each other. When the current went the same direction (in-phase) through both wires, the wires attracted. When Ampère reversed one of the batteries and the current went through the wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase), then the wires repelled each other.

The unit of electrical current, the Amp, was named after Ampère for this simple discovery in 1823 — relating the FORCE directly and SIMPLY to the movement (current) producing it.

This fundamental basic simplicity of Ampère's 1823 Law — using NO plus or minus charges, or north and south magnetic poles — is now totally obscured by the more complicated math and rules of the Faraday-Maxwell field theory, coming half a century after Ampère, that must use imaginary plus and minus charges and north and south poles.

We have electrons all spinning at the same EXACT frequency. They have two choices: They can either spin or move in-phase with each other or spin or move out-of-phase with each other. This is where Ampère lucked out. Ampère didn't know about their spin but he made an 1823 law about their movements showing PARALLEL MOVEMENTS (FLOWS), of electrons, IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) ATTRACT EACH OTHER.


PARALLEL FLOWS, of electrons. IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS (out-of-phase) REPEL EACH OTHER. Ampère's 1823 Law.


Phase Symmetry attraction is simple:

Quantum coupling (binding energy) is a spin up
& spin down electron with their closest sides
in-phase, while orientation changes quanta sizes.
These can be close (magnetism) or distant,
thereby producing waves (light, radio etc.).

Superposition has far, far more binding energy
because both electrons are spinning the same
direction on the same spin axis, keeping BOTH
ENTIRE electrons in-phase with each other.
This type quantum binding has ONE size,
and can be close (magnetism) or distant, but
this type energy is not a general wave producer.


THINGS out-of-phase REPEL.


This LAW replaces modern physics !!!
And the country that develops this Phase Symmetry framework first wins BIG.


And (what Ampère didn't know) electrons & every other spinning entity from quarks to galactic superclusters whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) will ATTRACT each other.


All spinning entities whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS to each other (out-of-phase) will REPEL each other, also is Ampère's 1823 Law.

The Marie in André-Marie came from Ampère's mother's name: At that time in France it was a common practice to denote the mother in the child's name.

Ampère gave us this concept that things in phase always attract entanglement — and things out of phase always repel.

He gave us this concept using relative motion rather than phase but it's the same thing really if you analyze it. Use relative motion in your own spacetime realm or lower frequency realms and use phase in higher frequency spacetime realms.

Simply use whichever method makes it clearer to you.

We've shown, in the prelude, that even Albert Einstein a year before he died — considered the concept of fields to be a bad concept.

Yet most items on the internet will show magnetic fields being associated with what Ampère discovered. Forget FIELDS: Ampère's 1823 long wire discovery had nothing in it about magnetic fields. Forget his later laws incorporating magnetism in 1827.

Field theory was mainly England's great gift to us. Today's enhanced field concept came from Faraday and Maxwell, and as Einstein shows us, it turned out to be a bad mistake.

Field theory may explain repulsive force space, but it blinds us to the TRUE attractive forces that are always in-phase, quantum entanglements. One example is Newton's gravitational field concept that blinds us and prevents us from seeing the TRUE cause of Dark Matter.

Ampère didn't know about electrons but he did know something in his wires were moving so he gave us a system of laws that have nothing to do with MAGNETIC fields.

This below essentially is what Ampère said about long parallel wires in 1823:

1. Long parallel wires having things in them moving the same direction caused the wires to attract.

2. But if things in one wire moved one way and in the other parallel wire they moved the opposite way then this caused the wires to repel.

Then he gave us a bit of math for various angles if the wires in which these things above were moving — were not exactly parallel.

And this gives us by far our best observance at how those things inside the wires electrons — are behaving in relation to one another. This tells us essentially the idea of plus and minus charge is wrong because these electrons do not always repel each other. Regularly, like in Ampere's long wires, they attract each other.

In all cases, phase is a better concept to use than charge (positive ions and negative electrons).

Absolutely correct in all cases, Ampère's phase concept also shows you which way the electron spins. When you see the much more highly complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept doesn't, then it's simple to know which concept to use.

Ampere didn't know these things as electrons but now we think we know a bit more about them.

These are essentially Ampère's Relative Motion Laws: Ampere's Laws http://www.rbduncan.com/Ampere

or Aufbau Laws http://www.rbduncan.com/aufbaulaws.htm

or http://www.rbduncan.com/theALaws.htm http://www.rbduncan.com/theALaws.htm

or Relative Motion Law http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm

or Gold Universal particle relative motion law http://www.amperefitz.com/plawrm.htm

These are also phase laws with which all the forces can be unified: http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm.

Why only a few of us see this today, is something that I still can't figure out!

I began to see this simple relative motion law in the early 1940s when my father bought, and let me use his 20,000 ohms per volt, volt-ohmmeter, and this relative motion concept really grew more intense, in my mind, in the mid 1940s when my father and I went halves in buying a war surplus Sherman Tank radio transmitter-receiver, for $79.95 from Gimbals Department Store in New York, and got it working by using two car batteries to give us 12 volts to drive the units' power supply generators. These two batteries we charged with a rectified & filtered 2 amps, using a war surplus 12 volt 'rectifilter', which supplied enough current to recharge the batteries but had not quite enough current capacity to run the transmitter-receivers' power supply generators directly by itself.

I had assembled a pretty good picture of how a simple relative motion law was working in the microcosm by 1965, while working for Pan American Airlines, in the Radio Department, using my U.S. 1st Class Radio License with RADAR Endorsement #P1-7-4087.

This meant reverting back to Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823, and disregarding ALL later laws using fields & charges, which even includes Ampère's later laws.

It was crystal clear to me then, that there was only ONE simple relative motion rule for ALL these forces in our universe. In fact, I was solving more radio problems using that one rule than using all the garbage beliefs of charge, magnetism and field theory, that I knew by then could not possibly exist. In fact, they obscure us in seeing the actual attractive and repulsive forces.

I wrote a 64 page book about this simple relative motion law in 1966. Fitzpatrick's First Book (Click Link) There was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.

In my 87th year on this earth, I've managed to convince quite a few people, around the world, that this is what is really happening, but it's hard to change established religious beliefs, and that's exactly what today's modern physics is. Even Einstein saw that in 1954.

While we cannot obtain a Unified Field Theory, we can obtain a working relative motion law by substituting speed for voltage and mass for current in Ampère's Law. We now have the computing capacity to give ourselves a working relative motion law. This may sound impossible but this actually can be done today. I've done all I could putting many of its foundation stones in place. See http://www.rbduncan.com and also read 4 decades of my papers FREE by clicking
45 Years of Putting this Jigsaw Puzzle together - of unifying Gravity with all the other forces

Science will make one huge quantum leap once this is done.

Here's how it's done:

When you are measuring amps, you are really measuring the quantity of electrons passing your measuring point. In the macrocosm you use the same amount of energy, passing your measuring point, with its force falling off at the 'square of the distance' just the same as in Ampère's original 1823 Law.

The problem comes with voltage. We see it as pressure. However, we can't measure pressure in the macrocosm, but I've realized for years that we are not measuring the pressure of electrons. We are measuring the SPEED of those electrons and calling it voltage.

SPEED is something we certainly can measure in the macrocosm.

So, what does this tell you?

It tells you the answer Einstein was trying to find with his Unified Field Theory — and with SIMPLER MATH too.

What we are unifying are ALL the FORCES. We are unifying ALL the attractive and repulsive forces in this universe using Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823.

What can't be unified are the spacetime realms produced by the different frequency spins of spinning quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic super-clusters: their spins are all at a different frequency. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, the same as radio frequencies (radio stations) are all different.

For some reason, yet unknown we see these faster spinning things (higher spin frequency) as SMALL, and the slower spinning things (lower spin frequencies) as LARGE.

Even though this is incomprehensible, you will have UNIFICATION now because as you start using Ampère's Law for all this, then you will understand EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES SPACE & TIME (spacetime).

This is something you don't know now.

We have many spacetime realms but 5 BASIC spin frequency spacetime realms: quark, electron, star, galaxy and galactic super-cluster.

The electron is the only one of those above 5 spinning entities that has the same EXACT spin frequency for all electrons, making the same EXACT spacetime realm for all electrons.

Each of the above 5 BASIC spinning entities — spinning in all directions, mostly out-of-phase with each other — are producing — repulsive force, — holding themselves far, far apart, and producing different spacetime realms (different space and time) at different spin frequencies.

These are the only 5 BASIC spinning entities we know about, but MODERN PHYSICS, unfortunately, allows infinitely larger accumulations than galactic super-clusters and infinitely smaller building blocks than quarks.

Einstein had put most of this picture of our universe together when he warned us about modern physics in 1954.

WE ARE IN A FREQUENCY UNIVERSE — not only in the microcosm — BUT ALL THROUGHOUT — hard even to imagine!

Make no mistake about that!

We have limits in our spacetime realm. But does this spin frequency universe have a limit in spin frequencies either higher or lower? Does this universe have a limit of these spinning entities being too small or too large?

Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823 solves that problem as well: IT GIVES US A LIMITED UNIVERSE! WHY?

Because it shows us conclusively that this is a universe that is FOLDED BACK ON ITSELF!

Because gravity, and inertia, acting at least 20 billion times FASTER than the speed of light shows us the vast distance that the quark spin is effective.

Then how much more effective is a smaller, even higher frequency, FASTER SPINNING building block particle of the quark going to be? It's effective distance will extend even further than the quark's spin frequency!


This answers one of our biggest science/physics problems: it gets FOLDED BACK because the higher quark and faster, SMALLER, shorter spin frequencies can penetrate the LARGE amount of space produced by the slower spinning galaxies & galactic super-clusters whose slow spin frequencies produce LARGER, longer waves that, in turn, PRODUCE — less time — but SO MUCH more SPACE!<

This universe has ONE CERTAIN SIZE because the same EXACT amount of SPACETIME exists between spinning electrons as it does between spinning galaxies: it's simply the RATIO of space to time in each that is DIFFERENT!

There is more TIME than SPACE between electrons than there is between galaxies, but the amount of SPACETIME between each is EXACTLY THE SAME, giving this ENTIRE UNIVERSE a certain LIMITED spacetime SIZE.

1. Now we must ask ourselves an important question: If we are, indeed, in such a frequency universe as this, then could our concepts of large and small be frequency concepts? Faster spinning, higher frequency spinning entities seem to be smaller, and slower spinning, lower frequency spinning entities seem to be larger.

2. Could our two concepts of space and time be erroneous concepts? Relativity scientists see this repulsive force as ONE thing, i. e. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant), or Minkowski's spacetime.

I've been asking myself those two questions (in the above paragraphs 1. and 2.) for a good many years now.

I've made considerable progress in answering these two questions in paragraphs 1. and 2. in the following links below.

Last, but not least, we solve even more of Niels Bohr's Complementarity Problem, because we see how an electron, from the quark's spacetime realm view, might look somewhat like our galaxy.

Precession, with each revolution — over a long period of time — results in a perfectly round PARTICLE or Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, SCALAR, standing wave.

Therefore, a tremendously longer period of time (spacetime) must exist between quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & super-clusters of galaxies for this universe to be stable.

We only know the binding speed of two of these: electrons bind together at the speed of light, and quarks bind together at, or more than, 20 billion times the speed of light (2x1010c). vanFlandern

Now you have some TRUE facts and the WHY for the Big Bang.

Thanks for reading this.


Electricians and radio people understand the importance of PHASE in regard to FORCE. I guess it was beneath the dignity of all the theoretical physicsts, so far, to even consider the PHASE aspect of any unified force theory.

And many sought to unify spacetime realms that simply can't be unified. Einstein was so close! If he had worked in early radio, instead of the Swiss Patent Office, would he have gotten it? It's an incredible story: Einstein completed 99% of what was needed but missed unification by a hair.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.


I cannot teach anybody anything.
I can only make them think.


(Click a Scalar link below for # 1. Answer.

Scalar in htm: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.htm

Also, Scalar in Word: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.doc

And Scalar in Adobe pdf: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.pdf

Without this new knowledge of Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823, modern physics has become so dysfunctional that it cannot tell us what causes Dark Matter. Fixing that dysfunction is the challenge at hand. Change begins with understanding, and I wrote WIMPs to provide some. It also partially answers the question in paragraph 2., giving you a good idea of what's really going on.
(Click a WIMPs link below.)

WIMPs in html: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.html

Also, WIMPs in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.doc

And WIMPs in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.pdf

I've supplied plenty of

so you can read my book

Universities Asleep at the Switch

absolutely FREE
in e-book format.

Since then I wrote the best
science book ever written:

Phase Symmetry

Einstein's Unified Field Theory SOLVED?




What NASA's Dr. Milo Wolff found:




The cause of Dark Matter?:


Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.

Fitz's first book in 1966 in html

1966 book in Word

1966 book in ADOBE PDF

4 decades of science:

Four decades

You can read my book

Universities Asleep at the Switch

absolutely FREE
in e-book format.

Since then I wrote the best
science book ever written:

Phase Symmetry

Stephen Wolfram

author of "a New Kind of Science" says:

"In the mathematical traditional of science, one's typically focusing on numbers: can we make a model which'll agree with such-and-such a number about our data?

But particularly when one's looking at more complex behavior, individual numbers are a pretty bad way to characterize what's going on. One really needs a new framework for thinking about models, and modeling.

There are a few parts to it. First of all, one of the great lessons of NKS is that simple models can work--even when what they're explaining seems very complex."

. . . It's like mathematical proofs. Which are supposed to be ever so objective. But really are about trying to explain to people--in terms they accept--why such-and-such a theorem is true.

. . . But ultimately the test of any model is whether it explains or predicts the things one's interested in."

. . . But if one really absorbs the NKS idea that complex things can have simple causes, it has a lot of consequences for one's view of the world. Many of which I think we still have to see.

. . . OK, well what about physics, for example? I'm happy to say that--well, after 25 years or so--cellular automata have now emerged there as kind of a standard type of model in physics. Like fields. Or spin systems. Or whatever.

. . . But if one really absorbs the NKS idea that complex things can have simple causes, it has a lot of consequences for one's view of the world. Many of which I think we still have to see.

. . . Now, of course, perhaps the single greatest modeling challenge for NKS is fundamental physics. Given that we've seen how much can come even from really simple rules, what about the ultimate question: can everything in our universe come from simple rules?"

"Ah yes, it does indeed come from a simple model of frequency spin/orbit systems linked via harmonics and the simple rules Ampere laid down in the 1820s."

D. P. Fitzpatrick





FREE e-Book





FREE e-Book





FREE e-Book