in present science has prepared us for this ANSWER!
ANSWER in htm: -
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
Back to page 1.
Page 7. of fifteen pages
Back to page 6. - - Page 8.
Continued from page 6.
Stephen Wolfram is absolutely correct: Our present science and math are most certainly both the wrong paths to travel for unification. . Stephen Wolfram points out that future super computers will show us the errors of our ancestors. . These super computers must be entirely programmed with new frequency math methods similar to Milo Wolff's so that they work in ALL types of surroundings. . The fault of present science is that it specifies a different set of science laws for use in each different set of surroundings. . So what we need is this additional Aufbau FREQUENCY science concept that works the same in all surroundings. . For unification we are going to have to start first with Fitzpatrick's brand "new kind of science". . For an instant, crystal-clear concept of "everything" you can use these "A" Laws in ANY type of surroundings. . Now, what we'll have to do is further develop and perfect Milo Wolff's new math method so it works flawlessly with this new concept. . It's a lucid, crystal-clear concept. . And it's simpler than anyone has ever imagined--providing you see this is a wave universe composed of spherical standing wave entities. . To see the "big picture" of unification, you must entirely let go of Newtonian mechanics, which Einstein proved was not the right answer because it's not a true law. . Once you know something is a subset law, forget it. . Don't try to add corrections to it. . Look for the true law and the right answer.
But BEFORE we get these super computers and BEFORE we develop the new math programming for them:
If you want the best view of this entire universe but you insist on consolidating this view mathematically to this single subset reference frame then Edward Witten's matrix idea in string theory becomes a powerful concept. But beware, like Einstein's tensor math, some calculations can lead to erroneous conclusions.
Heisenberg was the first to discover the value of matrix algebra in dealing with frequencies in the quantum world and undoubtedly Edward Witten was the first to see the importance of matrix algebra in unifying the math of the various string theories.
Yes, string theory, particularly M theory, is mathematically correct:
1. Claiming it's all based on frequencies and quantum type frames (strings).
2. Claiming surrounding frequencies, and their harmonics, are important.
3. Claiming we have worm holes (certain directions between two entities that contain less space-time).
4. Claiming the important wavelength of gravity is an exceptionally tiny wavelength (string).
5. Claiming we have other dimensions or other "branes".
6. Giving us the math for how the various frequencies of this universe appear to us in our single, subset reference frame or space-time realm.
This Ampere or Aufbau concept employs similar frequency reasoning. . However, by using this Aufbau concept you are not restricted to this single, subset reference frame in which you are held captive via the math of string theory.
Since our minds were developed in a three dimensional plus time world, then why not use this Aufbau or "A" Law concept which divides all the various gauges or space-time realms into separate 3-D + time spin/orbit frequency systems.
It's true we do not have the math for it yet but these "A" Laws most definitely do give us a good mind's eye picture of how the entire universe is working,
By using this Ampere or Aufbau concept you can actually see the correct and erroneous math paths in both Einstein's tensor math and string theory math.
In this "A" Law or Aufbau concept, you can actually visualize HOW a singularity becomes another dimension or another Brane.
The "A" Laws show you how gyroscopic inertia is connected, via less space-time (worm holes), to this other singularity dimension or "brane".
If you like string theory then you will love these "A" Laws. . They give you an actual mind's eye picture of not only what string theory math shows but also of what those curled up dimensions really are.
To see what these curled up dimensions in string theory are, you must understand alternating current impedance. . It is far different from direct current resistance. . Impedance goes hand in hand with the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. . For energy to be transferred in quanta, the impedance of the entities transferring the energy must match perfectly.
To transfer light or heat energy, impedance must match and both electrons must "see" themselves at the same exact energy level. . One must be spin up and the other spin down. . They must both "see" themselves precessing at the same frequency. . So as far as this particular energy transfer goes, all other electrons can be considered to have curled up dimensions.
The matter inside a singularity is built of quarks the same as we are but these quarks are in a higher gravitatiojnal area making them seem more massive and therefore at a higher impedance than our quarks hence their dimensions are curled up from our point of view. . These quarks, inside the singularity, can not normally be detected by us unless we increase the mass of some of our quarks to match them. . This can be done by imparting energy to a flywheel or gyro - and producing gyroscopic inertia. . By this method we create a worm hole to this other singularity or other "brane".
Scalar wave frequencies determine time. . You will not be on the same Minkowsky light cone as another object unless your scalar wave frequencies match those of the other object. . Hence all objects with different scalar wave frequencies than yours can be considered to have curled up dimensions.
So with this Aufbau concept, you can actually see what these curled up dimensions of string theory really are.
But remember, string theory sees it from this single, subset reference frame ONLY.
These "A" Laws see it from the entire universe's point of view.
To understand this universe correctly, you need BOTH views.
"Niels Bohr tried to bring Newtonian mechanics into the quantum world. . Right approach but wrong direction. . For unification we must do the exact opposite and replace Newtonian mechanics with the frequency aspect of the quantum world. . The microcosm has a higher frequency and a different symmetry than the macrocosm but it uses the same basic construction laws that Ampere gave us."
"What Newton's Laws give us, is really the symmetry of construction of this frequency universe at our particular gauge. . While this is useful, it simply does not have the potential of these new Aufbau Laws that show you how this entire universe actually works."
"It's been over 100 years now that Michaelson & Morley Explanation showed everyone the first really bad problem with Newton's mathematically beautiful system. . Einstein failed to find the correct idea and it's been almost 100 years now since Einstein gave us the math patches for Newtonian mechanics. . We've been patching now for 100 years. . Isn't it about time we tried to find out what is really going on?"
"Why keep patching this old Standard Model-T that the universities are letting you drive when someone is handing you the keys to a Luxury Lexus?"
The present science consensus is that Gödel's proof is absolutely correct. . This same scientific consensus is that our present science and math are absolutely correct too. . But this combination is virtually impossible. Something seems to be wrong. . Fitzpatrick shows us that there is no clash providing we view it using this new 21st. Century science "A" Law multiple reference frame concept. And now that I've thought about it all, I have to agree with him.
What Fitzpatrick sees now and what all the universities fail to see now, even in this July of 2002, is that Einstein was originally right and all the repulsive forces exactly equal all the attractive forces in this entire universe. . Fitzpatrick published and extensively showed, in 1966, that all the electronic laws could be attributed to the electron having a type of gyroscopic action. . What he did not see way back then was that ALL items from electrons to galaxies to superclusters ALL have similar forms of gyroscopic action and ALL of these similar spinning items will---because of this gyro action and the "A" Laws---repel each other. . This repulsion is strongest when ALL these items are perfectly free and exactly the same size. . You'll have to read the FREE e-book to see the whys & wherefores.
You can only have an attractive force between things that get "locked" on similar geodesics. . Gravitation appears and gets stronger along with its opposite repulsive force, the cosmological constant, after things lose their total freedom & get "locked" into similar geodesics. . The attractive force of magnetism comes only after normally repulsive electrons lose some of their freedom & get "locked" by spinning in the same geodesics as other electrons. . Our galaxy, for instance, will repel all other galaxies of the same size but because the Andromeda galaxy is much larger than this Milky Way galaxy, then our galaxy loses some of its freedom & is "locked" to Andromeda Explanation and we are therefore attracted to it. . Read the e-book to see exactly why. . Fitzpatrick has taken us from a world of alchemy into the world of true science.
After reading Fitzpatrick's e-book, I'm betting that this popular philosophy, preached by that Belgian cleric Lemaître, will be seen by future historians as even outranking phlogiston Explanation in incredulity. Moreover, I'll predict that it will someday be used as the supreme illustration of an extraordinary popular delusion: where a little knowledge became a dangerous ingredient in the formation of scientific consensus.
In some respects, we've progressed little in the past three-quarters of a century: . I sometimes feel that if one could buy all these universities for what they are worth and sell them for what they are portraying they are worth then one would be rich indeed.
In message #5492 of Yahoo's Theory of Everything Group, Bangstrom (Bob Angstrom) stated that, "Time is the fourth spatial dimension MOVING at the speed of light." This is probably the present scientific consensus. But I know that I'm not the same person I was in kindergarten so consequently, I also must not be the very same person I was a microsecond ago either. Thus, I want to remove one word from Bangstrom's statement and change it: . I want to say, "Time is the fourth spatial dimension BEING CREATED at the speed of light." Then I want to ADD to what Berkeley, Foucault, Mach, Maxwell, Wheeler and Feynman pointed out: I want to say that not only our inertia but our time is also being created by our surroundings causing these spherical standing waves. Explanation Once this is accepted then Ampere's Laws or the Aufbau Laws or the "A" Laws or whatever you want to call them, will show you exactly how space-time is being created and then the answer to unifying all the invisible forces becomes crystal clear. . Only a few of us see this presently but as time goes on and as more people read Fitzpatrick's e-books then that will most certainly change.
"But the diamond in all of this is the reason WHY these "A" Laws work. They work simply because all entities from quarks to galaxies are nothing more than spherical standing waves. They will therefore have a strong interaction to similar entities of the same frequency in their respective surroundings. They will also have a crucial linking interaction to distant subharmonic entities. But most important is the fact that all entities from quarks to galaxies---and even further in both directions---cannot exist as permanent entities unless they are exactly spaced in the frequency spectrum like piano keys, all perfectly tuned in respect to each other, thus making up a type of grand piano of the universe."
This is why, from quarks to galaxies, you will see 99. 9999% empty space between ALL of these various spinning entities no matter what their size. . So you are not seeing actual solid entities. . .What you are really seeing is a spherical standing wave frequency system of infinite frequencies in which there are no destructive close harmonics and only far distant linking harmonics. . This makes energy transfer possible but not prevalent thereby providing a basic stability to this universe. . Fitzpatrick's new hypothesis is the epitome of science. .
"This is an infinite spectrum, spherical standing wave universe that obeys the frequency math of Rhodes Scholar Milo Wolff and settles into a state of Nash Equilibrium. . In this universe, space-time is being generated at an infinite spectrum of frequencies but you are only "tuned to" and aware of a few octaves of this infinite range of space-time frequencies. . Such a universe, from your subset, single reference frame, inertial point of view---as Einstein noted---will appear to be finite yet unbounded. . Read the e-book to see why."
"But in such a universe that is close to an infinite frequency, infinite energy universe there will be a certain, extremely slow, accumulative energy leakage between different frequency "piano keys". . Thus every so often this universe grand piano must be re-tuned and this generates a spectacular Big Bang. . This tells you the Big Bang that we know about was E PLURIBUS UNUM."
This also tells you our Big Bang did not start the way George Gamow Explanation claimed. . An extensive already expanded all neutron universe must have been here eons before the event that caued the cosmic microwave background radiation. . And this event was the end of a lengthy beta decay evolution that took ages occurring ALL THROUGHOUT an already expanded all neutron universe.
"We now have this new insight plus we know the fine structure constant is changing. Explanation This drastically changes the cosmological picture. . Using all this new knowledge, the case can definitely be made that this universe, we see around us, was once an already expanded all neutron universe, possibly even with perfectly dark neutron stars (no electrons back then). . The neutron must have been a stable particle and an expanded all neutron universe must have existed for thousands of billions of years BEFORE this event that caused the cosmic microwave background radiation. . Long, long before the end of that event, energy slowly but ceaselessly moved between the various frequency spherical standing wave "piano keys". . At the end of this long period, piano tuning time arrived as the neutron became unstable. . A lengthy Beta Decay Explanation Big Bang then occurred all throughout this expanded neutron star universe. . Finally when half the neutrons were converted into protons and electrons it stopped, resulting in the first atoms, molecules and ultimately this repulsive force, steady state universe we have here today". Mathematical physicist Tony Bermanseder agrees with this using his mathematical proof of a Beta Decay Big Bang
"But as you switch to this new concept then you also must switch mysteries. . No longer is it a mystery as to what caused the last big bang and neither is it a mystery where the energy came from to cause it. . The new mystery, that comes with this new concept, is why we have a universe that we can consider to be an infinite frequency universe."
"The extra spatial dimensions of string theory Explanation are also brought in but these are "tuned to" the spin/orbit frequencies of the various entities (piano keys) involved. . Our inertia is a bell curve of frequencies predominating at the high quark spin frequency and tapering off at the lower electron spin frequency but still present at the galaxy spin frequency."
"We arrive at our time though from the quark-electron subharmonic frequency or the frequency that the electron precesses around the tri-quark nucleus. . This is the frame rate we discern that our world is actually being produced for us therefore this is a rate we will never see exceeded."
For a more accurate assessment our old concepts must change. . These "A" Laws are only a beginning. . There's a lot more to come. . For instance, the idea of a "certain distance" is an irrational, subset concept of limited use to humans who are only "tuned to" these quark-electron harmonic frequencies. . While distance may seem a valid concept between similar standing wave entities, you move into Heisenberg's realm of uncertainty as you view various frequencies the old 20th century way. . For an entire universe of infinite frequencies, even the idea of distance is meaningless. . You do lose some old concepts but infinity becomes a much more useful tool and Heisenberg's uncertainty totally vanishes using the "A" Law, frequency method.
The "A" Laws
For supreme mathematical accuracy, a method akin to Milo Wolff's new frequency method will eventually emerge to become the best way to have computers view everything. . The reason for this is that each of these new frequency math reference frames can be linked together via computer in much the same way that these spherical standing wave entities are actually linked together in the real world.
The reason that these transverse waves need no aether medium to function in is that there really is no such thing as motion per se in this entire frequency universe. . We are tuned to this quark-electron harmonic frequency and this is the reason we perceive such things as time, space and motion.
We must take an entirely different look at this universe. . These terms such as motion, distance, speed, acceleration, larger and smaller will have actual meaning to us who are tuned to some harmonic of the quark electron spin frequency. . But these terms have no meaning whatsoever to this entire frequency universe. . So future super computers will have to translate what is really happening frequency wise into these terms that our minds can comprehend.
Continued on page 8.
Click ABOVE for page 8.
Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughtshttp://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
*~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~*