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
WIMPs in Word . . . . May 9, 2019 ALL you need to . . . . WIMPs in PDF
know about Dark Matter particles - (WIMPs).

EVERYTHING here is FREE, & NO pop up ads with these either.

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

R. B. Duncan Press


Page 6. of 6 pages.

Back to Page 1. - - to Web Page.

Continued from Page 5.

Chapter 18.

Continuing now
38 years later
New discoveries add validity
to this 1966 book below

Scroll down.


I wrote this book, pictured above, in 1966 because while working on an overhaul problem of the RCA RADAR scope at Pan American Airlines I realized by using Ampere's 1825 laws, instead of the more commonly used Faraday-Maxwell electrical laws, I could not only see the direction that the electron was spinning but Ampere's laws also showed me why I was being attracted to this earth. . I will never forget that day as long as I live.

The above book may eventually turn out to be recognized as an important science publication. . There were only 10, 000 of them printed. . If you have one then you had better hold on to it and not sell it because someday it may become a valuable item.

In spite of the tons of garbage put out by university presses throughout the world telling otherwise, there are two things that Einstein was absolutely right about:

#1. There is no aether. . No aether is needed if we utilize Milo Wolff's (SR) 'Space Resonance' concept.

#2. The speed of light (C) is the fastest velocity that our reference frame is "tuned to". . Again here we need to consider Milo Wolff's (SR) concept, and view Einstein's analogy in light of the (SR), a bit different than even Einstein saw it.

And there is a caveat to the above. . The speed of light is NOT the fastest speed for many other reference frames such as the space-time reference frame of the quark. . That is C2 . . More about this later.

The preponderance of the evidence, now coming in, is squarely on the side of this Ampere-relative motion concept as seen in the Law of Relative Motion that was laid out in the above book. . New pieces of the puzzle are rapidly falling into place with knowledge obtained by the various space telescopes and these new revolutionary non mechanical gyros. . All of this is pointing in this Ampere-relative motion direction.

Names, words or phrases that you do not understand on this page, or on the previous pages, can be clarified by simply copying them and then pasting them into Google. . Add quote marks to get exact phrase such as "space telescopes".

I'd suggest that you learn what a space-time interval is by clicking on this space-time interval link. . But please look at this formula for the space-time interval: ds2 = (cdt)2 - dl2 . . Please note the term (cdt) where c = the speed of light. . . This is the speed of not only light but action at a distance and if this changes, as will be shown, then the space-time interval is NOT invariant but will also change.

I intend to show you that in the quark realm the term C in the above space-time interval formula changes to C2.

In other words the - supposedly invariant - space-time interval CHANGES.

Quarks, that have a 'scalar wave resonance' frequency one octave higher than the electron, will have an entirely different space-time interval and therefore an entirely different space-time realm from ours.

What this page is mostly about is the fact that things that are viewed as merely motion in a reference frame realm of a certain space-time interval may be viewed as a force in an entirely different space-time interval reference frame.

When you are observing things in the microcosm and macrocosm, you are looking at things that are in various different space-time interval, reference frame realms.

They have an entirely different space-time from yours.

This is the reason we THINK we see all these different, distinct forces.

Milo Wolff showed us the electron is a scalar wave resonance resonating with ALL the surrounding electrons. . This IS important.

It is the makeup of BOTH the surroundings and the entities themselves that determine if and when a scalar wave resonance will develop.

They come like keys on a piano - ONLY at certain spots in this infinite frequency spectrum.

And some get entirely eliminated such as the positron gets entirely eliminated by harmonics emanating from the tri-quark entities making up both the neutron and proton.

But every distinct scalar wave resonance entity has its own space-time interval.

Why ? . . Because the term c in the space-time interval formula means the speed of action at a distance and this changes for every scalar wave resonance frequency.

Scalar resonances are those things, we know exist, such as quarks, electrons, assemblages of quarks and electrons, orbitals, orbits, solar systems, galaxies, and etc.

Your science laws cover only a small scalar wave resonance bandspread of this infinite frequency spectrum.

Therefore your science laws are merely nothing but subset rules for another 'gauge ' like those used in quantum mechanics.

Strange as it may seem:

what I am going to try to impress upon you herein is that gravity, charge and magnetism are merely motions in three different space-time interval realms. . Yet they are seen by us as three distinct forces in our fourth space-time realm.

Milo Wolff has already shown us that his 'space resonances' (SR) effectively unify the 4 fundamental forces.

As this book points out: there is only one common element in the fields of the four fundamental forces and that is:


(SR) motion relative to
same frequency surroundings

So if a unified field answer, for those extremely different fields is sought, it MUST be as a concept of relative motion, and Ampere in 1825 gave us the best laws ever for examining things such as that.

I saw, way back in 1966, that it was all nothing but relative motion in regard to the surroundings and that gravity, charge and magnetism were merely certain motions in their respective spin/orbit frequency reference frame realms that 'appeared ' to me as gravity, charge and magnetism in my reference frame realm.

But the most important thing that I have learned, so far, in this search for a common law for all these invisible forces, was taught to me by Kurt Gödel whose famous proof shows us that if we try to look at this entire universe from one, single reference frame then we are defeating our purpose, if we want to see the 'big picture'.

You are condemned to thinking you have universal laws when all you have are subset rules for one reference frame if your mind remains only in one, single reference frame realm. . You are then like a radio that stays tuned to only one frequency.

Kurt Gödel is saying: you are forced to see 4 different fundamental forces only because you allow your mind to remain tuned to a specific subset reference frame realm.

You MUST shift to, and use, different reference frames - the same way different 'gauges ' are used in quantum theory - if you want to see the 'big picture' or see any universal laws.

There is no such thing, in present science, as global gauge invariance for this entire universe. . In other words our present science, that restricts us to one single reference frame realm, can have NO universal laws. . All we have now are subset rules for each particular fundamental force. . This shows our world is a wave world and we are really using different 'gauges ' just like in quantum theory.

We are finding out that we must view things - not as we see them in our realm - but as they really are, in their own space-time reference frame realms, and with Dr. Milo Wolff's elegant yet simple mathematical proof, that the electron is a scalar wave 'space resonance ' (SR), we can now view things as scalar wave resonances in their own space-time realms. . Plus Milo has given us the math to do this.

Milo has shown us that we must now view all things as both waves and particles just as we presently view light.

What several scientists have recently discovered shows that the above 1966 book was the first publication on earth to correctly point out the approximation of everything, that Dirac predicted we'd find or the first genuine unified field theory that Einstein was looking for.

If we merely add frequency to the Law of Relative Motion in the above book then we get a frequency modification of Ampere's laws 1825 which are a similar set of laws that become the epitome of the quest in the above book.

Milo Wolff's 'space resonances ' (SR) and his wave density concept are the cornerstones upon which this universe is built. . His Minimum Amplitude Principle show us how waves behave. . It and this frequency modification of Ampere's laws 1825 are similar in that they both take into consideration the surroundings (Mach's principle). . Watch what they show us.

The reason that Ampere's laws work is that this universe is really nothing but a wave universe all throughout from the microcosm to the macrocosm

The Superposition principle is the CORNERSTONE of wave action behind those above laws of Ampere.

It's simple

just as Einstein predicted.

As it pertains to scalar 'space resonances '

this is it, below:


Scalar, standing wave 'space resonances ', with similar same frequency surrounding entities, give us what we term particles, orbitals, orbits, inertial qualities and our concept of time.

These spinning, standing wave, scalar 'space resonances ', that we see as particles, orbitals, agglomerations of particles or orbits, produce lower frequency transverse waves that give us ALL our vector forces.

Repulsive force (space) - between these scalar wave 'space resonances ' - is produced by out of phase transverse waves, while in phase transverse waves create no space or cause, what we term, attractive forces.


Believe it or not: this entire universe is as simple as that explanation above.

However, not only all the surroundings (via Mach's principle), but their frequencies, now must also be taken into consideration, therefore the mathematics involved will be the very reciprocal of simplicity

I saw part of this first in 1966 using the Law of Relative Motion.

Later I added the necessary frequency modification to it to obtain these similar set of laws Ampere's laws 1825 or The "A" Laws that are modified laws of Ampere which allow you to work out problems both in the microcosm or macrocosm or here in more electrical problems than you can solve with the present, most used, Faraday-Maxwell concept.

Tom Van Flandern, noted astro physicist with the University of Maryland, tells us that the speed of gravity is substantially greater than the speed of light. . The proof of this, says Tom Van Flandern, is that gravity has no detectable aberration (propagation delay) but light definitely has. . Read what he says in his web page.

As Tom Van Flandern tells us, in his web page, his Celestial Mechanics instructors at Yale taught him that gravitational interaction between everything had to be taken as instantaneous. .

What's that!. . Run that by me again. . Yale says gravity acts faster than light? . Yale says gravity acts instantly? . Hey, what's going on here?. . Everyone knows that's impossible! . Shades of Isaac Newton!

Yes, I'm afraid that's true. . In Celestial Mechanics, gravity must be considered as acting instantly. . And yes that is faster than the speed of light.

Even considering gravity acting at the speed of light is far, far too slow to keep this entire universe stabilized.

Are we seeing things instantaneous or are we seeing an 'apparent ' speed of C2 ? ? ? . . And C2, my old friend Adrian Bagley had to remind me, is acceleration. . More about this later.

Chapter 19.

Murray Gell-Mann's
realm of the Quark

Before we do enter Murray Gell-Mann's quark realm, I have to state 'No man is an island.' and I must stop here now and thank others for their help. . At Pan American Airlines, even though I had my pilot's license, First Class Radio license and Airframe and Powerplant mechanics license, I was continually asking all the specialists about things and their help aided me in getting Pan Am's many airliners back into the air again.

I want to thank Fulbright Scholar Milo Wolff for his many e-mail letters about the wave structure of matter (WSM), along with his book 'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' that enabled me to look into SU(2) space and his specialty, the realm of the electron and see his mathematical proof that the electron is indeed a standing wave scalar 'space resonance '. . I also am indebted to Tom Van Flandern for pointing out to me that the erudite reader will never accept such a thing as squaring the speed of light, because while C2 is acceptable in the realm of mathematics, it is not acceptable as a 'speed ' particularly in our reference frame (our realm).

As Tom Van Flandern said in an e-mail to me, "When you square a speed, it likewise can no longer be a speed. In fact, in physics, speed squared has the units and the property of energy. (It is energy per unit mass.)"

My statement about C2 was also noted by Dr. Sol Aisenberg, another well known astro physicist, who read it, and posted this crystal clear, concise argument to the above in the following words:

"Speed has the dimensions of L/Sec. . Speed squared has the dimensions of L*L/sec*sec. . How can you explain the difference in dimensional analysis - a standard verification technique in physics?"

To both of these men, and others asking the same question, I have to say, Yes, this m/s speed becomes (m/s)2 acceleration now, doesn't it?. . It is indeed happening.

Are all of you so blind that you can't see what this universe is doing?

Don't you see what this squaring the speed of light is telling you?

If you consider solid entities to be Milo Wolff's space resonances then you are seeing the cause of the Newton-Einstein Principle of Equivalence.

Squaring the speed of light does give a speed that is too fast in our reference frame. . But according to Wheeler and Feynmann, we can assume such a speed does exist in another space-time realm if it is not directly observable in our reference frame, which in this case it is not, because it only 'appears ' to be faster than the speed of light. . Also before we give such a concept as 'squaring the speed of light ' an absolute no, let us enter the realm of the quark.

In fact, as we enter the space-time realm of the quark we see what Tom Van Flandern and Sol Aisenberg are discussing is especially important.

It gives us a vitally important link between our realm and the quark realm.

Speed squared in our reference frame becomes 'what we see ' as actual energy in the quark's realm or reference frame.

By the same token: quark to quark binding energy - to those quarks in the 'fixed stars' - 'appears ' to us here in our reference frame as speed at the rate of C2.

Quarks reside in an entirely different realm than we do. . Quantum theorists call it a different 'gauge '. . String theorists call it a different 'dimension '. . Actually I believe the relativity description is the most accurate: The space-time interval of the quark realm is entirely different from the space-time interval of our realm here.

Things that are not possible here - such as a speed of C2 can exist in the realm of the quark. . But we will see this as a form of energy.

Isn't this the gist of astro physicists Sol Aisenberg's and Tom Van Flandern's statements ? ?

These Ampere's laws 1825 or The "A" Laws will enable you to entirely leave your reference frame realm and actually step into those other frequency spin/orbit realms.

You must not forget that each spin/orbit frequency realm has a different symmetry and a different space-time interval. . Quantum theorists will call this a different 'gauge '.

It's not so much that the microcosm is smaller and the macrocosm is larger. . The important thing to remember is that the microcosm is at a far higher frequency realm than we are here and the macrocosm realm is at a far lower frequency realm than we are here.

Enough of that, we'll step back into our own realm again and take over where we left off.

The two things you have to ask yourself are:

1. Why does gravity 'appear ' to act instantly or at a speed of C2 ? ? ?

2. Why do we get the C2 in Einstein's formula E=MC2 ? ? ?

Is energy a calculus derivative ?

Is energy derived at a binding energy change rate of C2 for quarks and C for electrons ?

Berkeley, Mach and Maxwell all said you had to consider the surroundings.

Is present science doing that? . . No, it isn't.

Once you come to realize that inertial mass is nothing more than quarks binding with other quarks in the surrounding 'fixed stars'
then it's certainly looking more and more as if Berkeley, Mach and Maxwell were absolutely right .


C (the speed of light) is the binding energy change rate that electrons bind with other electrons

ENERGY - via electrons - is any shift (either more or less) of binding change of electrons between themselves (their local atom/molecule) and the inertial surrounding electrons.

C2 (the speed of light squared) is the binding energy change rate that quarks bind with other quarks.

ENERGY - via quarks - is any shift (either more or less) of binding change of quarks between themselves (their local atom) and the inertial surrounding quarks in the 'fixed stars'.


Let's say Tom Van Flandern is right and let's say the speed of gravity appears to us in our reference frame - not quite as instantaneous - but a wee bit slower as C2 (the speed of light squared).

This would not mean that there is such a speed as C2 in our realm but that the speed of gravity would appear to us as C2, here in our reference frame, particularly if the spin of certain quarks were spinning exactly one octave higher in frequency than the electrons.

Spinning quarks could attract other distant quarks similar to the way the spin of electrons, locked on certain orbitals, attract other distant electrons both in magnetism and sigma and pi bonding. . If this is so, then you not only have discovered what causes gravity but you will have solved the unified field quest put forth in the above book; . To boot you will have shown the reason for C2 in Einstein's famous formula E=MC2.

The above 1966 book explained all our invisible forces were caused by the same thing that gave us our constancy of light and Dr. Milo Wolff has mathematically proven it is all the constancy of light (or 'space resonance', scalar wave action with all the surrounding electrons). . Few realize yet, that Milo Wolff's contribution to science is truly immense. . In 1983 he mathematically showed why we get the Compton wavelength and the de Broglie wavelength with scalar space resonances and how scalar resonances fit in not only with quantum theory but relativity as well. . Milo has given us the very first mathematical proof of Mach's principle, and his scalar wave math is the very first universal math that has the potential to be utilized in both the microcosm and macrocosm.

Also extremely important is the simple fact that - like the cyclic pitch needed by the helicopter blade - all the forces are derived by that same translational motion shown throughout this 1966 book. . As you will have noted, I have since found that frequencies are very important as well. . And last but not least is:

Saul Perlmutter's recent super nova study that shows - as Saul Perlmutter himself says - Einstein was right about his original cosmological constant, so this puts us back once more into a steady-state universe. . . In the many publications that I have sent to the Library of Congress in these past decades, and put out on the internet in the past years, I have always stated that this had to be a steady-state universe.

If the quark spin frequency, of certain quarks, is exactly one octave higher in frequency than the electron spin frequency, then the speed of gravity, inertial mass and the strong force [the speed of C2 (spinning quarks attracting other distant quarks)] although physically impossible in our realm, will nevertheless be represented to us in our reference frame as C2 (the speed of light squared) .

Knowing this, and with a bit more reading, you can even see why Erwin Schrödinger said charge was merely schaumkamm.

In other words space-time, gravity and inertial mass are all being produced mainly by the quark strong force - a weakened portion of which must emanate outside of protons and neutrons - and this is all being produced (as seen by us in our reference frame) at the square of the rate that electrons propagate light.

Even though this apparent C2 speed of gravity is not absolutely instantaneous, it will certainly seem to be instantaneous to us with the accuracy of our present measuring instruments.

Now add what you have learned here to what you will read and learn in the free e-books that you can get on the web page link below and you will then comprehend what Einstein was looking for, a genuine unified field theory. . And the concept is indeed simple as Einstein said it would be.

Thanks for taking the time to read all of this. . . Fitz

* * * back to Page 1. * * *

Click here for Page 1.

Click above to go back to Page 1.

* * * back to Web Page. * * *

Click here for Web Page

Click above to go back to Web Page.


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