Oct-29-2018.

Also, **Field Theories** in Word: *http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc*

& **Field Theories** in Adobe pdf: *http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdf*

This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.

How Ampere's concept merges general relativity with string theory

Fitzpatrick's

view of this universe

a Theory of Everything paper

&

a prelude to Charles Scott's free epic Astronomy e-book

Ó **2005**

****

Einstein's search for a Unified Field Theory

It's been over 50 years now since Einstein's search for his Unified Field Concept. It's been over two centuries since Faraday tried to unify magnetism and gravity. Magnetism and gravity were the only two fundamental invisible forces known in Faraday's time. Next came the weak force and evidence of the strong force, which Einstein knew about. Einstein took it upon himself to try to unify the invisible, fundamental forces but he failed.

Would you like to know **WHY** we see these four fundamental forces instead of seeing it as one force, which it supposedly really is?

The reason we see these four **different** fundamental forces is because our mind senses distinctly **different** spacetime realms causing them.

I will give you a model of this universe that will show it as **one force**.

The big worry that we have with renormalization in QED is sending us a crystal clear message that we * are* seeing it as different spacetime realms. That we use gauge invariance is another verification and the straw that broke the camel's back comes after we closely investigate what Feynman and his associates received the Nobel prize for. All doubt is gone then and we see it has to be set up, seemingly, as

If we see each different frequency spin/orbit system as having a **different** spacetime realm then each of these also * must have* a distinctly

What is this term **"spacetime interval"**?

Einstein and Minkowsy found time is tied up with space.

There is a relationship between the two.

The relation of time to space is the relation of one side of a right triangle to the other with the hypotenuse being what is called the "spacetime interval".

Type any unfamiliar terms, like this. into *Google*.

So knowing the hypotenuse (spacetime interval) **stays the same,** many scientists merely drop the term interval and call it spacetime. I'll try to use the entire term here.

With the hypotenuse **staying the same**, any change in one side of the triangle will result in a corresponding change in the other side. So if space changes then time has to change also and vice versa. So space changes and time changes. We would rather refer to the quantity that does ** not** change namely the "spacetime interval".

Quite a few of today's scientists are still not aware of limiting the spacetime realm frequency if accuracy is required while quantum scientists, since Feynman's elucidation, are very aware of *fixing the gauge* thus limiting the frequency range involved, before they even make an attempt to quantify.

**Fizpatrick's 11 ^{th} law is:**

Now you know a part of the reason for Heisenberg's uncertainty.

The other part of Heisenberg's uncertainty stems from the fact that momentum is derived from the spacetime realm of the quark while position is derived from the spacetime realm of the electron. . I hope you will see the reasoning involved as you read this.

Both quantum and string theories have taught us this is **primarily** a frequency-resonance universe.

QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) deals with probabilities, yet it is able to predict with the highest accuracy of any theory. If you keep reading then you will see exactly **WHY** that is so.

The way QED accomplishes this is that it uses a novel method called "squaring the amplitude" to effectively approximate the in phase - out of phase patterns of electrons that exist along the **"spacetime interval"** (in the path through both space and time).

I am going to give you a visual model of how I see this universe. You may not like this model. You may not even believe in this model. Yet this model does show **why** QED and the other sciences work as they do.

The way it all works is similar to the way you hear radio programs on your radio. The superheterodyne circuitry in your radio mixes together frequencies that you cannot hear. This gives you frequencies that you can hear.

Since you are built of quarks and electrons then guess what happens when all those spin/orbital/precession frequencies are mixed?

It results in a spacetime interval phase pattern of frequencies that you will see as Euclidean space, time and even motion for everything constructed of quarks and electrons, which includes you. This is suggested---but not absolutely proven---by *Young's experiment*. This phase pattern provides you with space that will stay Euclidean as long as you don't get too massive or exceed .01% of your available speeds.

QED shows you that energy is constructed in quanta. Now I am going to show you a visual picture of how this electron phase pattern produces space and time that are constructed in quanta as well.

Keeping frequencies in mind, the next paragraph is of vital importance:

In both special and general relativity the spacetime interval remains invariant. But the parameters that it remains invariant in are** **__not__** **__a__ __greater__ __frequency__ __range__** **__than__** one spin/orbit frequency system.** And this, folks, makes it a whole new science ball game.

While string theory correctly gives us many dimensions for many frequencies, the human mind does not need that much accuracy so it has a broadened frequency range and instead of sensing a dimension for each frequency it senses a single dimensional spacetime realm for each spin/orbit frequency range or less.

Ampere's relative motion concept shows you the difference in force between magnetism and charge is one of relative motion.

A magnetic force is always derived from the spin of electrons that are "locked" into a certain position on orbitals.

Charge is always derived from "free" electrons or "free" ions.

About now the reader is going to ask, "Who is this guy writing this and what position is he in to tell us all this and to put out a Theory of Everything."

Well I'm a radioman or at least that's what I set out to be and it's how I think of myself. This following bit of history is necessary because it shows how I became a firm believer in Ampere's relative motion concept that, I discovered, merges general relativity with string theory.

I lived in Linden, New Jersey in the 1940s and before the 1940s ended and before I graduated from high school, I had, in my pocket, my class B Amateur Radio License W2YDW, my Class A Amateur Radio License, my 2^{nd} Class Radiotelephone license and my private pilot's license all obtained by my own efforts studying and working by selling magazines, newspapers and working in stores. I also had my own 150-watt amateur radio station up & running then. I had two 812As in the final in push-pull. They were fancy things with finned tantalum plates that cost me an enormous $5 apiece way back then. That was a lot of money for a kid to fork out in those days.

I graduated from Linden High School and still have the copy of their Cynosure of 1950 and underneath my picture it says, "Science is the key to life" and how right they were.

I learned to fly at Bart's Airport near Budd Lake, N.J. and those hours in the air over northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania were the golden hours of my youth that I will never forget.

After graduating from Linden High, I bought a 1937 Chevy (with an actual 20,000 miles on it) from a little old lady for $300 and drove it to Florida to see the Miami Air Show. I simply stayed in Florida and never came back to New Jersey winters again. Miami was country back then. I loved it. I bought an Aeronca 7-AC Champion aircraft and flew and flew and flew all over South Florida.

But this epic really begins one day in the brand spanking new air-conditioned Pan American Airline complex that Juan Trippe built on 36^{th} Street in Miami to house the southern part of his almost 4 decade old world wide enterprise that Juan Trippe thought would last forever. But who would have ever believed that Maggie Thatcher, who once operated a grocery store, would become Prime Minister of England? And who would have ever believed that she would read the works of an economist named Friedrich von Hayek? And who would have ever believed she would have convinced Ronald Regan that deregulation was the road to prosperity? And who would have believed that Regan would have listened to her and move to deregulate the airlines? Shortly thereafter Juan Trippe's vast worldwide empire of the air came to an abrupt end.

But before that happened at Pan Am, one day Jim Ingraham had overhauled an RCA Radar Indicator which was "in sync" at the bottom instead of at the top. While seeking a remedy to prevent that ever happening again, I looked at the indicator coil. And I noted that this problem would not happen if the electrons in the top outside wires, in the rotating coil, went in the same direction as the electrons in the cathode ray tube beam, during sync.

I will never forget that RCA Radar Indicator or that day at Pan Am because it has taken me down a far different path in life than I would have gone down without it.

I realized that day: Ampere's concept was the true universal concept that everyone was looking for. It was indeed the Holy Grail while the Faraday-Maxwell concept was **only** the best way to view it from a single reference frame basis. Yes, all of our electronic engineering depended upon it. But this same concept was absolutely wrong when trying to find out how this entire universe functioned. Not only the Faraday-Maxwell electronic laws, but all our science laws, are nothing but subset laws.

Subset laws, Kurt Gödel proved, may have limited worth. These subset laws are indeed limited to a narrow band of frequencies.

Our science laws with their math are strictly limited to a narrow frequency range of parameters. I saw the limits to our precious science laws that day: I saw that those electrons in the cathode ray tube were being attracted to the coil for the very same reason that I was being attracted to the earth. We were both moving on parallel geodesics. Wasn't this *Ampere's Universal Particle/Motion Law*?

Even Feynman saw the importance of motion. Read what he says in his famous *QED*.

You must look at surroundings (Mach's principle) and parallel geodesic paths and present science totally fails in this respect.

The paths of not only planets, but everything orbiting, must now be seen as a "geodesic balance path" where the attraction to the central entity being orbited is equal to the attraction to the surroundings. . And now you can also see the reason for spins and the angular inclination of the spin axis.

I realized that Ampere had done, in the early 1800s, what Einstein had sought to do and neither Einstein nor anyone else, for that matter, had caught on to it.

I realized that day, as I held that RCA Indicator, that both gravity and magnetism are nothing more than **similar** effects of relative motion, which is the fruition of Ampere's brilliant concept and at the same time these are also distortions of spacetime, which was Einstein's concept.

I realized that day: Ampere had discovered, in the 1800s, an essential part of what Einstein was looking for a hundred years later.

The year that I held that RCA indicator in my hands was 1966. I wrote a small 64 page book about what I had discovered and there was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.

From Lincoln Barnett, who wrote the best seller "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", I got a letter of approval and from scientist Robert Dicke I got blasted. Only years later did I finally see Dicke's error and why I was indeed right and why Dicke was very, very wrong.

Einstein had said, while working on his Unified Field Theory, that looking for this unified field concept was like trying to imagine what a dinosaur looked like after finding only one of its bones.

In my book *Fitzpatrick's First Book* (FREE), I mentioned that I had discovered a few more dinosaur bones. At that time I had not fully understood the important role frequency was to play in all of this, nor had I read what Kurt Gödel had said.

****

Einstein was looking for a simple answer

And the answer is simple too. Ampere showed us how spacetime essentially works. But Ampere wasn't thinking about spacetime because he hadn't any idea way back then that space and time were essentially one thing. It took Minkowsky---one of Einstein's teachers---to realize this after he saw what Einstein had come up with.

I have a high regard for Einstein and especially for his general theory of relativity. I hope that the books on my *web page* will show you approximately how that all works. I will not go into any of the tensor math of Einstein's though. You can get all of it, that you want, by searching *Google*.

Here's essentially what I'm trying to put forth: You __must__ see, what Yale University teaches its astronomy students, that the speed of gravity has to be far, far faster than the speed of light for a stable universe. Thus the speed of light and gravity are NOT the same. *Speed of Gravity is 9x10 ^{16} meters per second.* This is sending a very important message to you.

It's telling you what's really going on. It actually shows you WHY we have Einstein's principle of equivalence or

Gravity **IS** an acceleration because there is no such speed of 9 x 10^{16} meters per second here in our spacetime realm. This speed of gravity, stated by Yale and proven by *Van Flandern* as being far faster than the speed of light, can only exist in the spacetime realm of the quarks. This is too fast a velocity for a speed in our spacetime realm so even though it can be noted here, as it has by Yale and Van Flandern, it can only be measured directly as an acceleration here.

From this you can see what's really going on: The mind senses different spacetime realms -- different rules used -- in each different frequency spin/orbit system. For instance: QCD rules and math for the quark spin/orbit frequency range; QED rules and math for the electron spin/orbit frequency range and our present science rules and math for our spacetime realm we sense we are in here. This is what is making you THINK there are different forces such as gravity, plus and minus charges and flux lines of force when there is really only one force.

And this one force is space creation---just as in the tensor math of general relativity---but it is different types of space creation at different frequencies, which is what string theory is telling you isn't it?.

Read my *web page* and the books therein for more about all this.

You know---at least the intelligent ones know---that we **do** have general relativity and we **do** have quantum theory and string theory. These are all giving you hidden road signs as to the answer that Einstein was trying to find.

You have the speed of light being a constant, independent of the velocity of the source and of the observer. This throws Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics to the winds. We **know** this is so; therefore we must accept it.

Now we have one more very important ingredient added to the stew and that is the finding of *Saul Perlmutter* that this expansion of our universe is accelerating. Others have also proven this, so this must indeed be true.

So if you have a universe where the speed of light is a constant and we have general relativity and quantum theory and an accelerating universe to boot then what in god's name could be simple about it?

Ah, but it **IS** extremely simple when you look at it carefully and correctly.

If Einstein's principle of equivalence applies to gravity then it must also continue to apply even if gravity is found to be a bipolar force.

So the first simplification comes from Einstein's principle of equivalence: It is telling you, **something that everyone except ***Saul Perlmutter* **and ***Dr. Milo Wolff*** eeem to be missing now**, that you cannot discern the effects of an **accelerating**, **expansion** from Einstein's original cosmological constant repulsive force.

But which one is it?

Do we have an accelerating, expansion or Einstein's repulsive force between all the stars and galaxies, holding them apart?

You can figure it out by simple deduction.

Yes, the *CMBR* proves we had a Big Bang but is it still expanding now?

Maybe but maybe not. . This **WAS** the situation that we were in for over half a century until Saul Perlmutter's group studied the supernovas.

Perlmutter's group found this expansion seems to be accelerating and since then this has been proven by others.

Thank God for Perlmutter.

Because now we know which one to choose from.

It's the one Perlmutter himself chose.

He chose Einstein's repulsive force between everything.

Why?

Because even though Saul Perlmutter discovered this acceleration, he also knew it could not be discerned from Einstein's original cosmological constant. . Therefore he knew and published that this repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity---first predicted by Einstein---existed between every star, galaxy and supercluster keeping them apart exactly like things in the microcosm are kept apart.

A Big Bang could leave us with an expansion but there is no possible way it could leave us with an accelerating, expansion. . There would need to be a **present** force there to continue to accelerate and the Big Bang force was a **past** force.

So what Perlmutter has shown us is that gravity can no longer be seen as a monopole force.

Gravity must now be seen as a bipolar force exactly like the other bipolar forces

That's why I said "Thank God for Perlmutter." . He put a few drops of science into a barrel full of ignoranance.

It will take time for those few drops of science to completely sterilize the barrel of ignorance but it eventually will. . It took the universities of the world about thirty years before they all admitted Newton was right.

Perlmutter proved this is gravity's equal and opposite force out there between everything keeping them apart, so this makes gravity a bipolar force. .

Indeed, *Saul Perlmutter* now claims, exactly what Einstein once claimed, that this opposite but equal force to gravity does exist between all the stars, galaxies and superclusters, holding them apart (far different from The standard model that describes the superclusters as **NOT** gravitationally interacting).

Thus gravity MUST NOW BE SEEN CORRECTLY as a bipolar force. . Things are held apart in the microcosm for the same reason they are held apart in the macrocosm.

As I've been asking the expansionists for two decades now:** "Do we have an expansion here and not in the microcosm just because you are here?"**

See: Expanding Universe Religion

&

*Sol Eisenberg Ph.D* .

If Einstein's principle of equivalence is telling you that you cannot tell the difference between an accelerating, expansion, that common sense tells you we don't have and Einstein's original cosmological constant repulsive force between everything holding everything apart exactly like it does in the microcosm, then the choice is clear: You pick the repulsive force between everything.

Einstein's original cosmological constant was a repulsive force between the stars and galaxies keeping everything apart exactly like it does in the microcosm.

Scientific reasoning now tells you the accelerating, expansion is only a popular delusion of present science.

Einstein's repulsive force is what is really there.

The choice is clear. You must do what Saul Perlmutter did and pick Einstein's repulsive force between everything.

So welcome back to the 1920s and into a steady-state universe once more.

Getting simpler, isn't it?

Not only is all this greatly simplified now but the construction principles of this entire universe are also quite simple: They are all obeying nothing but *Ampere's Laws*.

This entire universe cares little for our present science. It ** only** obeys its simple

But be forewarned: the construction principle for weather is simple too. The principle underlying all weather is that **hot** air rises. It's the various effects that this finally causes that gets really complicated and with this universe of ours it is exactly the same. But once you understand this principle then you will better understand this universe.

Generally when NONE of the so called experts can come up with an answer to something then the answer is generally in a far different direction than all of those so called experts are thinking. It's all **relative motion**. This is the vital answer that none of the experts thought of and that Robert Dicke even proclaimed could not possibly be. Bob Dicke said an adamant **NO** to Ampere's relative motion concept. Yet that is essentially the true answer as to how this universe actually functions.

I got into airplanes straight out of high school. I received all my college degrees while working for the airlines. So how did this high school kid excel in troubleshooting these complicated airliner electronic systems when these college-trained engineers were competing with him? Well, I found out early on in the game that if one used Ampere's laws while troubleshooting and not that complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept then it was easy to solve electronic problems and to find out what was really going on.

You see, you don't need math to troubleshoot avionics. You need something clear & simple. You need something fast. I discovered early on that Ampere's laws were clear, simple and much faster than the Faraday-Maxwell monstrosity that these university graduates were all using and are **still** using.

If you want exact quantities than you must go the Faraday-Maxwell route because it allows you to do the math. There is no math for Ampere's laws yet. Even Ampere couldn't match the math to all of them and he was a math prodigy. He knew all the math of his era by the time he was 12.

It was not until after I retired and read Kurt Gödel that I fully understood why I was far better off using Ampere's laws for electronic troubleshooting. Reading Gödel's Proof will show you why: Faraday-Maxwell math is subset math and Gödel warns you never to totally believe in subset math laws. Well, quantum laws are subset laws too. And low and behold even Newton's laws are subset laws and Einstein's general relativity corrections for them are subset laws as well. Einstein collaborated with Kurt Gödel. They were both in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton together. Einstein should have listened to his friend Kurt Gödel a bit better than he did.

It turns out that Ampere may have hit upon the only **non **subset, universal laws any human being has ever discovered. And this is why he couldn't do the math for them. The greater the frequency range you view, the less accuracy you will have (with present math).

Our entire math, that we have here right now, is subset math for subset science rules. We don't seem to have any math available yet for Ampere's universal laws.

Even so, Ampere's laws give you that top notch **"approximation"** that Dirac predicted we would discover.

Even though unpopular, Ampere's approximation ALWAYS puts you in the ball park where present science and its math can sometimes lead you far astray.

One more reason for the unpopularity of Ampere's concept is that the surroundings (Mach's principle) must be considered. Gyroscopes hold to the stars yet present science discounts the importance of the surroundings in its laws. Ampere's laws show surroundings are vitally important.

Another reason for the unpopularity of Ampere is that the spin and orbit/orbital frequencies---that we don't know yet---must ALL be found and taken into consideration, so it is easy for scientists to totally ignore these factors, which they have indeed done using present science.

My hat is off to the string and quantum theorists for showing us how important these spin/orbit frequencies and spin precession and orbit/orbital precession frequencies really are.

Gravity has no aberration yet light does, showing us that Yale University and *Van Flandern* are correct telling us gravitational attraction and light travel at **different** speeds This is sending an important message to you to do some **different** type thinking.

It's hard to believe that Newton was closer to estimating the speed of gravity than Einstein, but he was. Newton thought gravity acted instantly which is closer to its true speed of 9 x 10^{16} meters per second than 3 x 10^{8} meters per second or the speed of light that Einstein thought it acted at.

Let's return to what I said a few paragraphs before: When NONE of the so called experts can come up with an answer to something then the answer is generally in a far different direction that all of those so called experts are thinking.

The far different thinking for a universe with all those things we know we have that I mentioned previously is this:

What scientists presently see, as the speed of light is something entirely different. It's something no one except *Dr. Milo Wolff* has thought of: It is really **our** spacetime frame rate. It's a scalar resonance rate. It's the movie picture frame rate that the electrons, that you are made of, are rebuilding themselves and you. See *importance of SCALAR WAVES* .

Quarks, however, are rebuilding themselves at the **square** of the rate that electrons rebuild themselves.

If you go to the movies then these were actually produced using 16 individual pictures or frames every second for silent films and 24 frames every second for sound films, which you see one at a time but which your mind sees as really happening. I'm afraid it's the same in real life. You have these spacetime frames here as well. But here these are **scalar **resonance frames. You will consider, as solid, anything that has a similar frequency scalar resonance or a harmonic thereof. The entities in our microcosm have higher scalar harmonics thereof and the entities in our macrocosm (galaxies) have lower scalar harmonics thereof.

You can detect transverse waves like light, radio and water waves that travel mainly in one plane but you cannot detect a scalar wave because it is 3D like the multiple skins of an onion. Instead of seeing individual scalar waves, you see the complete 3D onion that they make. Every object you see is a scalar wave entity.

I'm not going to go into all the whys and wherefores but if you want to build a universe with relativity, quantum mechanics and all those things previously mentioned then all you have to do is have time being produced for you by BOTH the quark and the electron. All you need is for your electrons to have a scalar resonance frequency that is **exactly** the square root of the quark scalar resonance frequency. You will then see **exactly** *Why E = mc2*.

You will have to read a bit about *Dr. Milo Wolff* to understand the importance of the scalar resonance frequency of the electron.

Each distinct frequency spin/orbit system has its own spacetime realm and its own distinct spacetime interval, which is only good in that particular spacetime realm.

Ampere's laws---slightly modified for frequency---then give you a good idea of when and where this spacetime interval is produced. So here's what you have then:

It's a pretty simple universe building plan.

These are truly universal laws that work both in the microcosm and macrocosm.

I told you the principle would be ** simple** and these "

The French may want to call these the **A**mpere Laws and the Germans will call them the **A**ufbau Laws. I'll simply call them the "**A**" Laws.