Web Page. . . . . . . . . Fitz's Book
I'm the last person in the world that should be writing a piece about quantum gravity. . But, to ease your mind, let me tell you a bit about why this came about.
Not all problems are solved mathematically. . When I was working for Pan American Airlines, one of our airplanes, with a full load of passengers, went into a dutch roll, completely turning upside down and was diving, upside down, toward the Atlantic Ocean. . The flight crew barely managed to get it leveled out and right side up again when they were less than two thousand feet above the ocean.
Now, all jet airplanes with sweptback wings have installed in them 'yaw damp computers' that will prevent such things as this from happening but such a thing was not even known about way back then. It was this Pan Am crew who first ran into this bad situation.
The engineers and mathematicians were then called in AFTER this had happened. . They worked to solve the problem. . They gave us better airplanes that now use 'yaw damp computers'. . This seems to have worked in most cases. . However Boeing has had a number of 737s crash into the ground in an upside down position in the past several decades even with yaw damp installed. . I heard one 737 captain say, "It started into a dutch roll and I switched yaw damp off and it stopped." . Can the computer put in to stop the problem, interfere with the rudder control system, on this particular airplane, so that it sometimes causes the problem that it was originally supposed to stop? . . Boeing has issued a number of statements all throughout the past decades telling us they have now solved the rudder problem on their 737s. . Let's hope they finally have.
I love working for people who know how to run their oufits. . I hate working for the B. S. artists who while they may indeed be specialists in one particular area, do not understand how the entire system works.
I loved working with Pan Am's Miami line radio crew where 'Uncle Bob' specialized in the political intricacies of Pan Am itself and he left 'Oscar' to concentrate on the avionics problems. . Pan Am 'old timers' will know who I'm talking about. . With that particular, double specialty arrangement, the entire system worked well.
But narrow minded specialists seldom do well when called upon to get the entire system operating. . They work like horses with blinders: they concentrate on their specialty too much and inevitably allow the system to try to operate itself with the result that the blind end up leading the blind.This is exactly the problem we have now with quantum gravity.
The specialists in quantum theory do not understand astronomy and the astronomer specialists could care less about quantum theory.
In the fields of astronomy and quantum theory two people are telling us some very important things we should be listening to. . These two people, in those respective fields, are Tom Van Flandern and Milo Wolff
Tom Van Flandern is not only telling us but has proven that gravity acts instantly which most astronomers know is a fact. . The BIG problem then is that if this is indeed a fact then the space-time interval is only invariant inside of a narrow band of parameters determined by similar surroundings. . Our space-time interval, for instance, is not invariant in the microcosm - which most of us realize because there we use different gauge rules for each different space-time realm - and likewise it is also not invariant in the macrocosm - which few of us realize and instead hunt for illusive dark matter. . See this.
Milo Wolff has given us his Wave Structure of Matter, telling us that all particles are really scalar standing wave resonances (SR)s. . It most certainly looks now like each different frequency (SR) has an entirely different space-time interval.
I've been warning about the surroundings affecting everything including the space-time interval for over thirty years now. . The space-time interval is only invariant in similar frequency-motion-mass surroundings. . When you change either the frequency or the motion or the mass of the surroundings then you remove the parameters inside of which the space-time interval remains invariant.
The space-time interval is only invariant in same frequency realms.
If each different frequency (SR) has a different space-time interval then the space-time interval is not completely invariant everywhere and we have far different space-time realms everywhere. So if you agree Milo Wolff is right about space resonances (SR)s then you might consider that I am right about the (SR) determining not only our time but our space-time realm as well. . This, if you contemplate it, is telling you why you cannot see into the microcosm or the macrocosm because both of these, then, are two entirely different space-time frequency realms from ours.
While the speed of light may be the maximum speed allowed in our particular reference frame here, there must be a faster allowable speed of C2 in the quark realm of the microcosm. . Isn't this what Tom Van Flandern's instantaneous speed of gravity is telling us?
Milo seems to have given us the very first mathematical proof of Mach's principle, that surroundings are most certainly entering into this. . Knowing this we can use a relative motion theory that seems to obey Ampere's 1825 laws.
You can use "Ampere's 1825 Laws" to properly get the "big picture" of this universe and finally see how simple it all is as seen from a frequency/wave aspect.
Since we know that spinning electrons, locked on orbitals, attract other spinning electrons locked on orbitals in magnetism and sigma and pi bonding, then why not believe that quarks, spinning while locked inside the tri-quark entities of neutrons and protons, attract other spinning quarks throughout this universe via quantum action similar to electrons?
Now you have the reason not only for gravity but inertia and inertial mass as well. . And if you include the translational motion, of everything also, then you have a unified field concept.
Please take note that the size of quanta will depend on the size of the space-time interval. . Therefore the quantum of the electron will not be the same size as the quark quantum.
Dirac claimed we would find an approximation of how this all worked,
© 2004 RB Duncan Press