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.




R. B. Duncan Press

Page 2. of 7 pages
Back to Page 1.

Basics: in various languages

Norwegian
Ampere Lover

Dutch
De Wetten van de Ampère

French
Les Lois de l'Ampère




Portuguese
Leis Do Ampère

Danish
Ampère Love

Greek
oikn

Page 2.
Click for page 3.


Back to Web Page

To get what you want:
Click on any of the blue links.


Polish
Ampere Lawsk

Czech
Ampér Soudní proces

Finnish
Ampere's Oikeusjuttu
 

 

continued from page 1.

In the quantum world the standard model Explanation leaves a lot to be desired. . Not only that but we are being led entirely in the wrong direction. . This present science offers no explanation as to why we are forced to use relativity corrections (even in GPS). Explanation And since it offers no answer as to why we have gravity or any of the other invisible forces then what both Stephen Wolfram and Daniel Fitzpatrick point out becomes extremely important.



I wrote this web page as an introduction to Fitzpatrick's e-books. . I know this is a lengthy web page but in the past decades Fitzpatrick has written far more than the few books herein displayed. . This long web page emphasizes some of the more important ideas in those other publications that you cannot get here. . So, in addition to these few e-books that you can get here, I believe this protracted offering of mine is also well worth reading.



How does Nobel Prize winner John F. Nash's concept of "equilibrium" Explanation also show us why all these atoms and stars stay separated?
You'll have to read through this lengthy dissertation to see why.



This web page is indeed a long, detailed presentation. . But unlike most scientific journals, this is sprinkled throughout with surprises. . So it's far less boring than most things printed up by a university press. . It's also seasoned with a few authentic scientific firsts, which should appeal to those with such specialized tastes.



Lincoln Barnett, who was a friend of Einstein, wrote the best seller "The Universe and Dr. Einstein " Explanation and he wrote numerous articles on relativity for the Britannica. . Lincoln Barnett wrote an encouraging letter to Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. when Fitzpatrick published his first book in 1966 showing that Ampere Explanation essentially laid the cornerstone for a simple, understandable unified field concept. You will find a full page in the Sunday Book Review section of the New York Times devoted to Fitzpatrick's book. This page in the Times has a big picture of a galaxy on it. . I forget which Sunday or even which month it was but I know the year was 1967. . If someone finds it, please give me the date and I'll update this web page.



Since his retirement, Fitzpatrick has put more of the pieces of this great puzzle together and has finally given us "a New Kind of Science" predicted by Stephen Wolfram.



Now, in this FREE e-book, Fitzpatrick shows you exactly why we have gravity and all the other invisible forces.



"It's so simple. It's so obvious. Why didn't I think of this?" will be the statement of a good number of scientists in many universities as this gets further attention.



These extremely simple Aufbau Laws or "A" Laws finally bring a clarity to the reasons we have both magnetism and gravity. . All you have now is utter confusion. . The majority of high school graduates today do not even know that the north pole of the earth is really a south magnetic pole. Explanation . With gravity the confusion is even worse because none in these universities can tell you the real reason why the arms of these spiral galaxies can exceed the speed of their escape velocity and still not fly all apart.



Using these "A" Laws, a kid in grammar school can easily visualize both magnetism and gravity correctly and understand far more of what is really going on than all those being presently graduated in all the high schools and all the universities.

The "A" Laws



The Hartree approximations Explanation are proof that a brand new type of frequency math general relativity must replace the special relativity now being used in quantum mechanics. . Using only special relativity, quantum scientists will disagree about the distorted information that moves from that gauge (that TYPE of reference frame) to our reference frame here. . These easy to use "A" Laws show us the electron is in its own space-time Explanation and not in our space-time. . Therefore we will not see the correct aspects of the electron's spin in our space-time reference frame.



Spin is presently viewed as simply a certain movement of a solid. . We do not see the complex wave function involved. . There is a complex wave function involved which these Aufbau or "A" Laws point out.



Milo Wolff correctly states "In Dirac's theoretical work the spin of a particle is measured in units of angular momentum, like rotating objects of human size. But particle spin is uniquely a quantum phenomenon, different than human scale angular momentum. Its value is fixed and independent of particle mass or angular velocity."



"The reason that its value is fixed and independent of particle mass or angular velocity is that the electron receives the majority of its inertial qualities from its surrounding similar, same scalar frequency, electrons and not from the surrounding quarks from which we receive our inertial mass.



And present science has a bad problem with the invariance of the space-time interval because gravitation - all the major universities teach - is a force that acts instantly. . The universities are saying the same thing that Tom VanFlandern, astro physicist of the University of Maryland, is saying that gravity acts instantly. . .One of the reasons is that this universe would not be stable if it didn't. . The other reason is that light has aberration (proagation delay) but gravitation does not, therefore, if gravity isn't acting instantly then at least it must be acting far, far faster than the speed of light.



Do you see what this means? . . It means that the space-time interval, considering gravity, has to be far, far different from our space-time interval in which we use the velocity c (speed of light). . You must come to the conclusion that each one of Milo Wolff's different scalar wave entities has a different space-time interval. . There is no other conclusion." . D. Fitzpatrick



The electron orbits the tri-quark nucleus because of a similar quark-electron harmonic frequency (which we correctly or incorrectly measure as the electron's mass).



It is plain to see the "A" Laws tell us that an entity's full inertial mass will only exist in one gauge. . Inertial mass cannot be entirely transferred out of any one particular spin/orbit frequency reference frame. . In other words we simply do not see the entire correct inertial mass of the electron in our reference frame. . Our reference frame is a quark-electron subharmonic frequency. . The electron is a scalar wave composition of waves at the de Broglie wavelength. These are at a much higher frequency reference frame than our reference frame.



Or as Milo Wolff so accurately puts it: "The frequency mc2/h of the waves was first proposed by Schroedinger and deBroglie, proportional to the mass of the electron. This frequency is the mass so that mass measurements are actually frequency measurements. There is no mass 'substance' in nature."



The quantum people, who do not understand this and who do not understand that a different gauge means an entirely different space-time interval (different frequency space resonance) and who understand nothing of general relativity nor of these new "A" Laws will claim that the spin of the electron is different from the earth's spin. . It is and it isn't. . It is not absolutely different and people who say it is, are absolutely wrong and scientists Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck were absolutely right: . The electron spins exactly like the earth spins---but in its own TYPE of space-time reference frame (gauge), Explanation which is certainly not our reference frame.



Fitzpatrick spells it out to the quantum experts in terms they understand. . He says, "The advantages of using a new form of general relativity based on Milo Wolff's math, over the special relativity now being used in quantum mechanics, is that it will be more accurate than the Hartree approximations. . It will allow one to quantize without fixing another gauge, because this is essentially what general relativity does. . It will also allow one to see that the same type distortion of space-time that causes the earth's spin also causes the electron's spin. . It---like the "A" Laws---will allow one to clearly see that the spin of the smallest particle is really no different from the spin of the largest super cluster."




Fitzpatrick then continues:



"All the electron really has is a form of gyroscopic inertia in its own spin/orbit frequency reference frame (gauge) but we mistakenly see this as magnetism and charge in this entirely different subset reference frame of ours. . I've been explaining the essentials of this in various publications since 1966."



"In 1925 Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck not only discovered that the electron was spinning but they also saw they could determine the direction in which these electrons were spinning. Explanation This was the first time we could see our laws of magnetism were obscuring the correct picture. . Our present laws of magnetism were derived long before anyone even knew about electrons and these laws should have been changed in 1925 with this discovery of the electron spin. . Unfortunately this entire world seems perfectly content with its inept, bureaucratic educational system and these laws of magnetism were never changed."



"If you look down at the north pole face of a magnet the electrons causing the magnetism, in that magnet, will all be spinning clockwise. . Do the same for a magnet with its south pole facing you and the spins will all be counter-clockwise. . However, when you reverse this south pole magnet and see it attracts the other magnet, all the spins in both magnets are now clockwise from your point of view. . So it's no longer opposites attracting once you reverse one of the magnets. . Electrons in both magnets are spinning the SAME way when these magnets are attracting. . The old idea of opposites attracting should have gone out the window in 1925."



"High schools and universities still teach that in magnetism opposites attract. . North and south poles do seem to attract each other if you are ignorant about the electron spin, but this is positively displaying the wrong message. . Exactly the reverse picture that similar geodesic paths attract is what is needed. . We know the spinning electron Explanation is the smallest unit of magnetism and these "A" Laws agree perfectly with what we know as fact. . An example is that these electrons will only attract when they are "locked" in a position so that the closest sides of each are going in the same geodesic path. . These "A" Laws then show us the reason a polar attraction is the strongest of any angular attraction: . In a polar attraction the entire portions of both electrons are spinning in the same geodesic path. . This is a far better and clearer explanation of magnetism than that presently being taught."



"Also, by using this (Ampere's) description of magnetism, you produce a method of unifying not only the invisible forces of magnetism and gravity but the strong and weak forces as well and the laws used in this method are called "Ampere's Laws", "the Aufbau Laws" or simply the "A" Laws."

The "A" Laws



"If you teach science then you have a moral responsibility to teach your students that the attraction in magnetism is caused by similar geodesic paths attracting and NOT opposites attracting. . Poisoning the minds of millions of kids with this ancient BACKWARDS assumption of magnetism has been the biggest factor in preventing several generations of scientists from finding the answer to Einstein's quest for a unified field."



"It's been over 75 years now that scientists and educators knew that electrons would attract other electrons when their closest sides were moving the same way and this attraction is stronger in a polar attraction where the entire portions of these electrons are spinning in the same direction. . Yet they are still preaching "opposites attract" almost the very reverse of this."



"You cannot continue to preach an old legend and claim that you are teaching science."



"When you know what you are teaching is wrong, and actually the reverse is true, then you are as guilty as those Nazi's in Nuremberg who said, "I was only obeying orders."



"And this is only the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong."




"Yes, you can use these old legends (like opposite magnetic poles attract) as long as you match some math to them but they will only work in one gauge (type of reference frame). . Present science has matched some math to many old legends. . People will eventually discover this. . You cannot fool all the people all the time."



"Only electrons that are perfectly FREE are able to repel each other 100% of the time. Read the free T.O.E. e-book to see why. . Electrons that get more or less "locked" into a certain position, spin up or spin down on orbitals, both attract and repel other electrons and act exactly like tiny magnets. . These "locked" electrons---attracting other electrons---ALSO facilitate chemical bonding."



Once you know that two electrons attract whenever the closest sides of these electrons are going in the same geodesic path then it behooves one to ask the following question: . Will all these other spinning entities, we see both in the microcosm and macrocosm, behave the same way? . And the answer surprisingly comes out YES.



The following is Fitzpatrick's 1st Law (of relative motion) and it pertains to all of these spinning entities we see in our universe whether they are in the microcosm or the macrocosm.


Every perfectly FREE spinning entity will always repel another same type, same sized, perfectly FREE spinning entity. . All the invisible attractive forces, in this entire universe, are derived whenever these spinning entities lose some of their freedom and get "locked" somewhat into a certain position in respect to their surroundings.



Looking at this entire universe, all the FREE spinning entities---no matter how large or how small---repel all the other same sized similar entities just like the electron. . Attractive forces come about after these entities get "locked" somewhat into a certain geodesic path or position. . This is what all these universities should be teaching today but they are not. . And this is what this long web page and Fitzpatrick's e-books will explain to you if you take the time to read them.

* * * continued on page 3. * * *

CONTINUED on Page 3.

Click above for Page 3.




Web Page with FREE e-books

 
 





*~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~*