R. B. Duncan Press
 

 

 
 
More of Fitz's letters.



Back to page 1.

Page 22. of 22 pages

Back to page 21. - - Page 23. (someday)





Continued from page 21.

The "A" Laws

Fitz wrote:

Where Quantum mechanics is wrong.

Why gluons and photons are not needed and why the helium atom may be the only boson:
=========================

 

We don't need particles such as bosons and gluons to explain the attraction in magnetism do we?

The attraction in magnetism always occurs when the closest sides of spinning electrons are going in the same direction.

The polar magnetic attraction is the strongest.

Why?

Because then the entire portions of all electrons are moving in the same direction.

This is space-time being diminished just like relativity is telling you, isn't it?

This is the same reason electrons attract each other in both sigma and pi types of chemical bonding as well.

No intermediary particles are needed there either.

Do you know what a quantum of light really is?

It's a similar, attractive, chance momentary attractive binding just like the spin up - spin down sigma bonding in chemical bonding.

Sigma bonding is a constant spin up - spin down attractive binding between two different electrons from two separate atoms whose orbitals are in the same exact plane.

A quantum of light energy is a momentary spin up - spin down binding between, let's say, an electron on a distant star and an electron in your eye.

No photon needed.

It's simply a chance momentary binding and it's the same identical spin up - spin down electron binding. These do not fall off in intensity with the square of the distance.

Only the number of these fall off with the square of the distance.

Quantum mechanics is wrong about these intermediary particles.

No gluons are needed for the strong force either.

Binding there also is simple and explained via a similar setup.

It too is merely space-time being diminished just as general relativity shows it is elsewhere.

 

Fitz



Sue,

You may have too much faith in quantum theory.

Inertia is one area in which it definitely fails.

You KNOW you cannot remove gyroscopic inertia from items that actually have angular momentum.

But quantum theory does this.

Uhlenbeck discovered the electron's spin in 1925 but his quantum theory peers bitched and he was denied the Nobel prize because many so called quantum experts claimed that angular momentum had no such thing as inertia in the microcosm therefore he could not have discovered spin as we know it.

They were wrong back then and they are wrong now.

Angular momentum certainly does not have OUR inertia in the microcosm but angular momentum in the microcosm is related to quantum numbers which in turn relate to resistance to movement which is a type of inertial quality.

It is not inertia at our frequency. It is a form of inertia at a different frequency but it is nevertheless an inertial quality.

Any resistance to movement is an inertial quality. "That's the meaning of inertia."

But, for those so called quantum theory experts, Uhlenbeck would have gotten the Nobel prize.

Now, because of that same thinking, we are failing to discover controllable atomic fusion energy.

You simply cannot eliminate something because it's different.

But quantum theory most certainly does.

And quantum theory is wrong for doing so.

Since when did cutting off an arm help someone?

Fitz



The "A" Laws




* * * continued on page 23. * * *

Click here for Page 23. (someday)

Click above for Page 23. (someday)



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