R. B. Duncan Press

Page 7. of 7 pages.

Back to Page 1. - - to Web Page.

Continued from Page 6.

Chapter 19.

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 186, 000² mps. (part of the c² in our math) ? ? ? . . And c², my old friend Adrian Bagley had to remind me, stems from acceleration or time squared (in the quark realm). . More about this later.

ENTER
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 Rhoades 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 the speed of light squared removed from math, 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.).

Yes, yes, yes, exactly.

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 quantity c² 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 (It is energy per unit mass.) now, isn't it?. . I am only squaring the numerator. . The quark realm is squaring the denominator for you.

The answer to all this can also be found in String Theory.

String Theory is right on about the vector forces - which it may someday unify - even though it is completely lacking in such as Milo Wolff's math that shows us the particles themselves and their spin which in turn gives us these vector forces.

String Theory sees the quark correctly in another dimension.

But this faster than light speed is in another spacetime realm, NOT in our realm. . According to Wheeler and Feynman, we will indeed notice this speed but we will never be able to measure it directly because it does not actually exist in our realm.

TIME is accelerated, so to speak, in the quark's realm, compared to our realm, so you will get the sec. per sec. denominator, in the abovementioned m/s, because of this acceleration won't you?

So everything is there for c² as seen from our spacetime realm here isn't it?

This is why the quantity c² appears in our reference frame math.

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

Don't you see what this "speed of light squared" 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.

186, 000² mps. does give a speed that is far too fast to exist in our reference frame. . But according to Wheeler and Feynmann, we can assume such a speed does exist in another spacetime realm. . Also it will not be directly measurable 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 a 186, 000² mps. velocity ' an absolute no, let us enter the realm of the quark.

In fact, as we enter the spacetime 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.

So c² 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 186, 000² mps. or c² in our math.

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 spacetime interval of the quark realm is entirely different from the spacetime interval of our realm here.

Things that are not possible here - such as a speed of 186, 000² mps. or what we notice as c² can exist in the realm of the quark. . But we will see this as a form of energy (acceleration).

By correctly pointing out that c² was not a speed but acceleration or energy instead, isn't this the inadvertent 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 spacetime 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 186, 000² mps.(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 ?

Is SU(2) Symmetry telling us that for every two electron rotations we also have exactly one quark orbital sequence in the proton? . (I know the electron can not be viewed as spinning like a top in our spacetime realm but it most certainly MUST be viewed that way in its own dimension because our minds understand motion so to understand a unification concept all we actually have is motion and nothing else.)

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 .

_________

The speed of light (c) 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.

The speed of light squared (c²) 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 186, 000² miles per second.

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 186, 000² miles per second and as c², here in our reference frame math, particularly if the spin of certain quarks were spinning an exact number of octaves higher in frequency than the electrons (a close harmonic).

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 an exact number of octaves higher in frequency (close harmonic) than the electron spin frequency, then the speed of gravity, inertial mass and the strong force [a speed of 186, 000² mps. (spinning quarks attracting other distant quarks)] although physically impossible in our realm, will nevertheless be represented to us in our reference frame math 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 spacetime, 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 186, 000² mps. 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.


	Page 7. of 7 pages. Back to Page 1. - - to Web Page. Continued from Page 6. Chapter 19. 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 186, 000² mps. (part of the c² in our math) ? ? ? . . And c², my old friend Adrian Bagley had to remind me, stems from acceleration or time squared (in the quark realm). . More about this later. ENTER 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 Rhoades 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 the speed of light squared removed from math, 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.). Yes, yes, yes, exactly. 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 quantity c² in the following words: "Speed has the dimensions of L/Sec. . Speed squared has the dimensions of LL/secsec. . 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 (It is energy per unit mass.) now, isn't it?. . I am only squaring the numerator. . The quark realm is squaring the denominator for you. The answer to all this can also be found in String Theory. String Theory is right on about the vector forces - which it may someday unify - even though it is completely lacking in such as Milo Wolff's math that shows us the particles themselves and their spin which in turn gives us these vector forces. String Theory sees the quark correctly in another dimension. But this faster than light speed is in another spacetime realm, NOT in our realm. . According to Wheeler and Feynman, we will indeed notice this speed but we will never be able to measure it directly because it does not actually exist in our realm. TIME is accelerated, so to speak, in the quark's realm, compared to our realm, so you will get the sec. per sec. denominator, in the abovementioned m/s, because of this acceleration won't you? So everything is there for c² as seen from our spacetime realm here isn't it? This is why the quantity c² appears in our reference frame math. Are all of you so blind that you can't see what this universe is doing? Don't you see what this "speed of light squared" 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. 186, 000² mps. does give a speed that is far too fast to exist in our reference frame. . But according to Wheeler and Feynmann, we can assume such a speed does exist in another spacetime realm. . Also it will not be directly measurable 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 a 186, 000² mps. velocity ' an absolute no, let us enter the realm of the quark. In fact, as we enter the spacetime 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. So c² 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 186, 000² mps. or c² in our math. 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 spacetime interval of the quark realm is entirely different from the spacetime interval of our realm here. Things that are not possible here - such as a speed of 186, 000² mps. or what we notice as c² can exist in the realm of the quark. . But we will see this as a form of energy (acceleration). By correctly pointing out that c² was not a speed but acceleration or energy instead, isn't this the inadvertent 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 spacetime 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 186, 000² mps.(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 ? Is SU(2) Symmetry telling us that for every two electron rotations we also have exactly one quark orbital sequence in the proton? . (I know the electron can not be viewed as spinning like a top in our spacetime realm but it most certainly MUST be viewed that way in its own dimension because our minds understand motion so to understand a unification concept all we actually have is motion and nothing else.) 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 . _________ The speed of light (c) 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. The speed of light squared (c²) 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 186, 000² miles per second. 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 186, 000² miles per second and as c², here in our reference frame math, particularly if the spin of certain quarks were spinning an exact number of octaves higher in frequency than the electrons (a close harmonic). 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 an exact number of octaves higher in frequency (close harmonic) than the electron spin frequency, then the speed of gravity, inertial mass and the strong force [a speed of 186, 000² mps. (spinning quarks attracting other distant quarks)] although physically impossible in our realm, will nevertheless be represented to us in our reference frame math 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 spacetime, 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 186, 000² mps. 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.
	~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~