The ANSWER Einstein looked for Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.htm*

Also ANSWER in Word: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.doc*

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.pdf*

QUICK Extra-Extra-SHORT

Version of

Fitzpatrick's

Theory of Everything

By Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

© 2002

In a book, that the New York Times devoted a full page to in their Sunday Book Review in 1967, I showed that Ampere's laws not only worked in electronics but these "A" Laws also made sense in understanding how this entire universe works as well.

The two great enigmatic proofs of present science.

The gyroscope, pendulum, vibrating elements, helium-2 and even individual protons and neutrons, unless thwarted by decoherence, attempt to hold to the fixed stars. Scientists call this "Mach's principle" even though George Berkeley discovered it long before Ernst Mach.

So present science says proof #1 is:

There ** is** an absolute reference frame.

But special relativity, backed up by the fact that the speed of light is a constant independent of the velocity of the source or observer, gives you the Galileo-Einstein concept or the next great proof.

And present science also says Proof #2 is:

There is ** no such thing** as an absolute reference frame.

The present science, taught by all the universities in this year of 2002, gives us many circumstances where __both__ of the aforementioned proofs are valid.

How can this be?

That most certainly is a riddle wrapped in an enigma but it is exactly the way present science portrays it to us today.

Believe it or not but these two seemingly diametrically opposed truths give you a superb clue as to how this universe is really built.

You cannot ask which proof is correct!

You must ask what is wrong with present science that I cannot understand this.

Einstein knew about this conflict and admirably resolved it in his __general__ relativity where, with his tensor math. Space time---one might say---is curved, squeezed or compressed.

But general relativity is not the final answer because it does not unify the invisible forces. Einstein knew this too and was working on the final answer when he died.

Einstein said this final answer would be simple and Dirac predicted that even if it was complicated the human mind would be able to understand an approximation of it.

Both of them, it seems, were right in a way.

Because here's the answer:

Also read R. Duncan's lengthy spiel in his web page at http://www.rbduncan.com

Chapter One

Mathematicians Needed

Theoretical physicist Stephen Wolfram has written a brand new record breaking book called "A New Kind of Science". In the book he predicts we will find "**a new kind of science**".

Well, here is the "**new kind of science**" that Stephen Wolfram seems to be looking for.

The premise put forth herein is that this is a universe of spherical standing waves.

It's not all that complicated, really. The concept is simple and Dirac's prediction comes true because he predicted that the human mind would be able to see approximately what was really going on. And the human mind easily can too.

It's the math that will really become complicated but we are not going to worry about that right now. We'll let the people running the future super computers worry about that.

A universe constructed entirely of spherical standing waves would give us relativity, quantum mechanics and essentially what we find we actually have in this universe we see all around us.

And it will agree with the absolute reference frame that the gyro shows we have. Also it will agree with the exact opposite view of special relativity proven by the speed of light being a constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer. This is important because any unified field theory absolutely must resolve the disparity between these two opposite views.

But the most important fact is that a spherical standing wave universe would be a universe in which these new __simple__ "A" Laws will work.

Present science simply doesn't give us the slightest reason why we have gravity, or for that matter, why we have any of these invisible forces.

Using only 20^{th} century science, you will never fully understand Einstein's mass energy relationship. After you comprehend the various aspects of this new __easy__ __to__ __understand__ "A" Law concept then you will clearly see why energy has to equal mass that is being created at the rate of the speed of light squared. In other words E = MC^{2}. You will then see what both mass and energy really are.

Why do we have this thing called inertia or inertial mass?

What is this thing called energy?

Go back to 1917 when people all believed in Einstein's cosmological constant, which gives a steady repulsive force between all the stars, galaxies and super clusters. Most people believed in a steady state universe way back then.

All the universities now claim that this was a big blunder made by Einstein.

But was it?

Saul Perlmutter says, "Einstein was right all the time." And now more scientists are swinging over and saying Perlmutter is correct and perhaps all these universities have been wrong now for the past 75 years.

See, if we have this acceleration that Perlmutter's group recently discovered---and others have added to Perlmutter's findings---then we are back 75 years again to a repulsive force, steady state universe and here's why.

Let's apply Einstein's principle of equivalence to this equal and opposite force of gravity because if it applies to gravity then it also must apply to gravity's equal and opposite force as well.

Einstein gave us this principle of equivalence. In it gravity is equivalent to an accelerating __contraction__.

Then with gravity's equal but opposite force, this cosmological constant all around us, this encompassing repulsive force would be equivalent to an accelerating __expansion__.

And this is what we think we see, isn't it?

But it must be only a **perceived** accelerating expansion caused by Einstein's principle of equivalence.

With Einstein's old concept you can say---because of Einstein's principle of equivalence---both the red shift and Perlmutter's acceleration comes about solely because of that repulsive

force out there (Einstein's cosmological constant) between all the stars and galaxies. You could also visualize this force between atoms and molecules. This would make our macrocosm more or less steady state and similar to our microcosm.

Saul Perlmutter's newly discovered acceleration, therefore, makes a lot of sense with Einstein's old 1917 view of the universe but ** not **with the most popular expansion view of the universe believed in today.

So it looks like Perlmutter's group has returned us back in time 75 years or so and we have once again returned to a repulsive force, steady state universe.

Moving on from there, it's my view that we had a Big Bang but it stopped expanding a long, long time ago.

As I said, the red shift and Perlmutter's discovered acceleration are caused by Einstein's cosmological constant, which as I stated, is this repulsive force holding everything apart. Read on to see why.

Perlmutter's newly discovered acceleration clashes head on with today's popular present science belief.

So it most certainly looks as if this popular view of science, that the universities are dishing out to us today, is wrong as theoretical physicist Stephen Wolfram implies in his popular, best selling book "**a new kind of science**".

Let's see what else this old view that Einstein gave us of a repulsive force, steady state universe shows us:

Look! With this old view of Einstein's you can now see Einstein's mass-energy equivalent because you can actually vsualize what mass and energy are.

Mass is the permanent binding of entities with the macrocosm

surroundings.

Energy is any CHANGE of this binding with the macrocosm surroundings.

Now---as you read further---you will understand why a gyro works.

You will then also understand binding energy because when an electron and proton join together with MORE binding energy, to form a hydrogen atom. This is binding they have LOST to the macrocosm surroundings.

Voila! You now understand the reason we have Einstein's mass-energy equivalent!

But we must see everything then as spherical standing waves and perfect Milo Wolff's frequency math if we want to use future super-computers to show us what's really happening as Stephen Wolfram says will happen someday.

Einstein's formula E = MC^{2} above could be read, as Energy is mass that is being created at the rate of the speed of light squared.

From the above formula, we can see our space and also our time as being created at a much slower rate than we know mass is actually being created from pure energy.

We could therefore see our time and our space as being created at a rate that is the square root of the rate that mass itself is actually being created from pure energy.

From Einstein's formula above, our space time could be visualized as being created at the speed of light.

This new concept not only shows us what causes gravity and these invisible forces but it also shows us that Einstein was initially correct when he claimed we had this other invisible force that he termed the "cosmological constant".

I, myself, am certain that this new science is closer to the way the universe actually operates than this popular 20^{th} century science in use today.

I am also certain that in time, with better computers using a type of math similar to Milo Wolff's new frequency math, this "New Kind of Science" will provide more accurate answers to many things than this 20^{th} century science ever could. This seems to be Stephen Wolfram's opinion as well.

Our present science was developed as we looked out from this single reference frame here on earth. But these views are all views from one single, lone reference frame so these are all views from a SUBSET reference frame.

Kurt Gödel, who worked with Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, has proven that you cannot trust views from SUBSET reference frames no matter how good they look to you from within that SUBSET reference frame.

While 20^{th} century science looks good, it is still SUBSET derived science.

Even though I will present this new hypothesis to you, I am not implying that this new concept will be seen as better than the 20^{th} century science you now have. It's quite the opposite because I am certain that the science we have now will be here until mankind lasts simply because the human mind can easily understand it. And for 99% of what humans will ever want to do, inside this galaxy, this 20^{th} century science will work just fine.

The problem, with this present 20^{th} century science, comes when one looks into the microcosm or outside the galaxy: One simply cannot properly extend this present 20^{th} century science and math in these directions.

This new concept will be totally unfamiliar to today's scientists. But since it will work not only here but in the microcosm and in the extended macrocosm as well then, as time goes on, it will become the accepted method to solve questions where a unification of the forces is necessary and where Heisenberg's uncertainty is a problem.

This new concept can be used today to give you the "big picture" of how this universe actually works and the "big picture" of unification of the invisible forces.

Einstein gave us the mathematical patches to Newtonian mechanics but Einstein could not give us a full picture of how this universe is really built. For a century now we've been searching for this answer. We've been looking for a credible Theory of Everything.

If you are a good mathematician then you had better take a look at this.

I'll give you a workable Theory of Everything concept but then you will have to supply the math for it. Andre M. Ampere gave us a bit of the math for it but much more is needed.

Here's the problem: All our present science uses math that calculates things measured from a certain place of rest (one singular reference frame). While this seems fine to us who feel we are at rest here on this earth, there is a problem with this because there is nothing really at rest in this entire universe. We are on this earth, which is actually on a geodesic path and this is the closest thing to a place of rest.

But this geodesic path the earth takes most certainly can not be considered a place of rest if we want to put together a Theory of Everything, which has to take into consideration everything in this entire universe. This will include all the particles in quantum mechanics & all the macrocosm objects we will ever want to deal with in general relativity.

Some will say our science laws will work OK in all reference frames but a proviso must be added and the truth is that our science laws will change with different surroundings.

Foucault was the first to demonstrate what Berkeley, Mach and Maxwell claimed that our surroundings cause our inertia. Our present science totally ignores this even though Einstein initially predicated his theory of general relativity on the principle that the surroundings were homogeneous and isotropic (more or less evenly distributed throughout).

The proof that Berkeley, Foucault, Mach and Maxwell were right can be seen by looking at the proton and electron. When they join to form a hydrogen atom, their combined joint mass is less than their original individual masses. This loss of mass is called a gain in "binding energy" (because mass = energy).

Present science fails to see this as a binding energy exchange. By coming together, the electron and the proton lose some binding with the surroundings (*inertial mass*).

This small bit of binding that was lost with the surroundings (*binding energy*) was now gained by the particles exchanging the binding to bind with each other.

The electron and proton both lose a percentage of their binding with the rest of the universe and transfer this small amount to binding together with each other.

All energy creations are nothing more than binding changes.

Present science states this too. Where it fails is not structuring what Berkeley, Foucault, Mach and Maxwell pointed out: Inertial mass is really binding with the rest of the universe. Once this is seen then it is also clear that energy is nothing more than binding changes with the rest of the universe. This is the mass-energy relationship given to us by Einstein.

Once you understand this then you see exactly what mass and energy are all about and you realize that space time for these tiny particles must not be the same space time that you see.

Now on to another facet of these surroundings.

Quantum Theory is built on the fact that we cannot take Newton's laws into the microcosm.

Niels Bohr was able, after a bit of fudging, to actually take centrifugal force into the microcosm and with this he showed that certain electron orbital drops produced certain quanta (spectral lines) but he could only match these in the single electron hydrogen & helium atoms. With different surroundings, of heavier atoms, his modified centrifugal force no longer was valid.

This is one more message telling us that the Galileo-Einstein concept that all reference frames are identical simply isn't true whenever surroundings are sufficiently changed.

But there is a way around this different surroundings difficulty. Ampere essentially gave us a method in 1822---even before James Clerk Maxwell was born---to unify not only the four fundamental forces but also all invisible forces. The trouble was Ampere couldn't do the math for this even though he was a math prodigy and knew all the math of his era by the time he was 12. We can add a few very simple modifications to Ampere's original 1822 laws, plus consider surroundings, and "Presto" we have a top notch universal law we can use to give us the Unified Field that Einstein was looking for. __Or__ it gives us the "big picture" of a modern Theory of Everything, but unfortunately---like Ampere before us---we still can't do the math for it yet today.

Chapter Two

The "A" Laws

Science teaches us that the tiny spinning electron acts exactly like the magnet that millions of them spinning in the same direction make. Science also tells us that a gyroscope always holds its position to the fixed stars. And you know are attracted to this earth so you are remiss in you acquisitiveness if you do not look for some __common__ reason for all these invisible attractions.

The first "A" Law gives you this __common__ reason for all these invisible attractions: Things that travel in the same path or geodesic---compared to the surroundings---will attract.

It's hard to believe, but true, that all the scientists in all the universities have missed this important fact.

The "A" Law premise is that space time is being constantly generated by entities moving in various geodesics.

Thus you get the LEAST space time creation (attractive binding force) between entities where their closest sides are traveling in exact geodesics at the same frequency or a harmonic thereof.

-----

This "A" Law premise is a simple premise but you must now look at force in much the same way it is seen in general relativity.

For instance a vacuum does not really cause a suction force. It is the air pressure surrounding everything that pushes into the vacuum and causes a pressurized force.

-----

Use the same pressure analogy in dealing with these invisible forces too because force in both methods is obtained in almost exactly the same way

In this new concept things on various different paths actually cause a creation of space time and this we can visualize similarly to the aforementioned air pressure.

When a strong magnet aligns electrons in a piece of steel so all the spins are going in the same direction, each locked in place electron behaves like a tiny magnet.

We are now going to forget lines of force emanating from the north and south poles and say this alignment was caused and now holds because the spins are all going in the same direction. Then the polar attraction will be greatest because then all electrons on the same spin axis will see the others moving in the same geodesic path at the same frequency and therefore less space time will be generated between them giving this vacuum effect mentioned earlier.

But this happens only once these electrons are "__locked__" in place.

What if every spinning entity from electrons to galaxies behaves the same as the electron?

Once you realize that all these FREE spinning entities are gyroscopes and will precess 90 degrees to any applied force then you see why all of these FREE spinning entities we see in the microcosm or macrocosm, no matter how small or large, will repel each other similar to electrons.

If a FREE electron would happen to attract another FREE electron when either its poles or closest sides were going in the same direction then both of these electrons would be forced to __precess__ and __twist__ 90 degrees AWAY from this applied attractive force.

Therefore they would be forced to remain in a position to their nearest neighbor where more repulsion than attraction was taking place.

Thus you have Einstein's cosmological constant which Einstein said was a repulsive force between everything.

So I guess Einstein was right all the time and Saul Perlmutter is right today.

While these "A" Laws are laws that work in any surroundings, these are also laws that depend on the surroundings to work. None of our other science laws seem to be based on anything like this and therein lies the problem in developing the math for these new "A" Laws.

George Berkeley, Ernst Mach, James Clerk Maxwell and a host of others all claimed that our surroundings caused our inertia. Einstein was also of this opinion when he first published general relativity and he saw the importance of the surroundings not being changed. He, in fact, emphasized that our surroundings were evenly spread out all around us with a consistent density. Since taking these surroundings into consideration would make all the science math far more complicated, mathematicians rationalized and felt no reason to consider the surroundings. They completely forgot about what these important people said and what Foucault showed us. We fitted our scientific theory to the math we already had and that seemed to work well enough for everyone even though we were warned by these great men. Kurt Gödel gave us another extremely important warning we were completely deaf to. Kurt Gödel proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when you view from a subset single reference frame, such as we do from here on this earth, then you may __THINK__ all your science laws are true laws when they are not true laws for the ENTIRE universe. And this is exactly what has happened.

When you see you cannot take your science laws into the microcosm then this is Kurt Gödel's message to you that something with your precious science laws is awry.

Even Einstein gave us the proof that Newton was wrong. Einstein gave us the corrections for Newtonian mechanics but Einstein failed to find the correct "big picture" of how it really all worked.

But I ** can** give you the "big picture" of how it all works but I cannot do the math for it. Can you? If you can then a splendid place in history awaits you.

Now, I'm going to change the scientific theory a bit and put surroundings back in. The problem then will be to find new math to fit this new theory that includes these important surroundings. But it's a much better theory than anything we've got now because it actually gives you a "big crystal clear picture" of unification.

Remember, surroundings are the key here: And here's the Aufbau Law Theory or Construction Law Theory of our entire universe.

Einstein wanted a simple answer and this is really simple but it's different from what your peer group is handing out presently.

Look! You can see that you live in a universe that does have quantum theory and that does have general relativity and this is also a universe in which the speed of light remains a constant. When you see all this then you must see something is drastically wrong with the ideas handed to you by your ancestors.

Change your thinking to this new concept. Then you will immediately see exactly why you will have quantum theory and general relativity.

We are going to __add__ to what Berkeley, Mach, Foucault and Maxwell pointed out. We are going to say that not only is inertia created by our surroundings but, in this new Aufbau Law Theory, that space time is __also__ generated by the surroundings, especially generated by all this motion in these surroundings.

Another important item is that we are going to say space time is frequency conscious.

But the main thing you must realize is that all your various invisible forces are nothing more than various space time creations. You must remember that space time can be generated at various frequencies. But the space time that you see is only the space time generated at this quark-electron subharmonic frequency,

These "A" laws agree with what we find is happening in the world of general relativity and the quantum world.

Now, consider the ** surroundings** in all of this and these "A" Laws will show you the whys & wherefores of space time creation, which can also be seen as all those invisible forces we know so well but that we've eliminated now for this special viewing.

Some quantum purists will resent the concept of physical spin being brought into the microcosm. I fully understand their concern but the word spin does approximate what is really going on. I would remind the quantum purists that Dirac predicted the human mind would eventually find an "approximation" of how this all worked. The following laws are such an "approximation" of how it all works.

Remember these are the laws for ** every** spinning, scalar, standing wave resonance, from the smallest spinning particle to the largest spinning super cluster of galaxies.

**VERY LATEST IN SCIENCE:** 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*

**Science & fiction E--BOOKS, pop up ad killers, software & much, much more ALL FREE at **the above link too.

And for that book that was described in a ** FULL PAGE** of the New York Times Sunday Book Review in 1967.

It's FREE in e-book form

Click Fitzpatrick's First Book (FREE)

Thanks for reading this:

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*

*See: **Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013*

See: http://www.rbduncan.com and http://www.amperefitz.com

click: *http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm*

*Order a copy of "Universities Asleep at the Switch" NOW.*