The "A" Laws

"Do you think it will truly be possible to produce a theory of everything? A unified field theory that will explain all that exists in a simple equation which can be printed on a kid's t-shirt? How would that change man's place in the universe?" I asked Stephen Hawking for "Times in Mykonos" (after presenting him with a t-shirt containing Greek letters).

"I give it a fifty-fifty chance," Hawking answered. "I said so twenty years ago and I still have the same outlook. I think there's a fifty-fifty possibility that the unified field theory will be discovered within our lifetime." Source

Milo Wolff explanation is showing us that all our present science laws are the end results of wave reactions.

In essence this means everything is really built from spherical standing waves or as Milo Wolff calls them, space resonances.

The electron, Milo Wolff found, is actually reproducing itself, via scalar waves, from surrounding electrons.

If Milo Wolff is right, which he most probably is, then when you are looking at things in the microcosm you may not be looking at things smaller but you are, in fact, looking at things tuned to a higher frequency than you are tuned to.

Things that you see as smaller than you have a shorter wavelength than you and things that you see as larger than you have a longer wavelength than you do.

This leads us to some simple frequency laws called the "A" Laws.

The "A" Laws are laws for everything stable --- every free spherical entity --- existing in the microcosm or the macrocosm.

The "A" Laws give us a fair representation of the vector forces produced by all these orbits, precessions and spins.

Quantum scientists will tell you that the electron does not spin like the earth spins because quantum scientists see frequency as being the important component, of the electron's spin, and not our inertia.

They are correct - because this is a frequency universe - but they are not entirely correct because one cannot entirely dismiss the proof that the electron has inertial type qualities, which Niels Bohr won the Nobel Prize for explaining in 1922. Explanation

To completely understand what Bohr found, in this new hypothesis we picture the design of the universe the way it really is and we see - what quantum scientists should see - that inertia is an element of frequency.

Therefore, inertial rules or laws cannot be moved from one spin/orbit frequency reference frame (gauge) to another entirely different spin/orbit frequency reference frame (gauge).

But you can have various types of inertial qualities in each different type of spin/orbit reference frame (gauge).

By visualizing each spin/orbit frequency reference frame separately, these "A" Laws break down complicated multidimensional problems into an understandable 3-D reference frame.

Using this new frequency picture, we cannot expect the electron to have our type of inertia, nevertheless it does have inertial qualities - as Niels Bohr showed - in its own different space-time realm (gauge).

Most of the solar system's angular momentum is in the planets and not in the sun. explanation This is giving you a message: You can see the planets are acting like ball or roller bearings and their spin "fits in" with the action of the inner race (sun) and outer race (surroundings).

All these free spinning entities - either in the micro or macro world - "fit in" their spin this way. But it's same frequency surroundings that is of paramount importance here.

All these free spinning entities - either in the micro or macro world - bind with their same frequency surroundings in a similar manner to the way an electron on a distant star binds with an electron in your eye, giving you a quantum of light that loses no energy no matter the distance.

All these free spinning entities - either in the micro or macro world - bind with their same frequency surroundings with individual quantum type exchanges that lose no strength with distance.

It is simply the number of these chance binding connections that falls off with the square of the distance making us think the strength of each is falling off with the distance squared.

The main premise of all of this is that we must visualize each different spin/orbit frequency system of spherical standing wave entities as an entirely different gauge or as an entirely different space-time realm or as an entirely different Hilbert space Explanation

Einstein knew this entire universe was built on one simple set of laws and these "A" Laws are the closest things we have to describe this principle that this universe uses to build both the microcosm and macrocosm.

In other words, these gauge rules we are now using in quantum mechanics are incorrect views because we are receiving these views in our space-time realm and not in the space-time realm of the micro world in which they are actually occurring

We view the micro world incorrectly because it is in an entirely different space-time realm (gauge) than we are in.

Using these simple "A" Laws you can see what is really going on in each gauge.

Using these simple "A" Laws you can actually visualize Einstein's unified field.

This new concept, that I'm trying to put forth here, is that the various gauge rules used in quantum science are really only common, subset, inertial laws of relative motion, which are incorrectly seen by us. We see these incorrectly because we see things quite differently in our quite different frequency space-time, subset, inertial reference frame.

I showed back then that the electron's magnetism and charge - that we see in our reference frame - are really nothing but laws of relative motion induced by the inertial qualities of the electron in the electron's entirely different frequency space-time inertial system.

This new concept - a continuation of my 1966 book idea - states that all spherical standing wave entities (electrons, stars, etc.) will have spin and other motion induced by inertial qualities that are caused by the relative motion of similar surrounding spherical standing wave entities (electrons, stars, etc.).

Not long after my book was published with a full page write up in the N.Y. Times Book Review section in 1967, Robert H. Dicke explanation wrote that while there were many theories of gravity being caused by relative motion this was not the case because no interference fringes were being observed.

Dicke failed to realize two important things: 1. He had no way of seeing gravitational fringes because he didn't even know what frequency the gravitational frequency was. And 2. If relative motion was also responsible for the actual production of space-time then, indeed, we might see no interference fringes being produced.

Milo Wolff also informs us that we must take the surroundings into consideration (Mach's Principle) Explanation. This, in essence, implies relative motion

We are going to consider that since all particles are space resonances then they are all behaving with simple inertial type forces and gyro torque but in their own space-time system (gauge). This information, however, gets distorted to us in our far different space-time system (gauge)

These "A" Laws will allow us to correctly look inside every different space-time system (every different gauge).

We are most certainly not doing this now.

Milo Wolff emphasizes the importance of what Berkeley, Mach, Foucault, Maxwell and many other distinguished scientists showed us: And this is that we must take the surroundings into consideration (Mach's Principle) Explanation

You must take same frequency surroundings into consideration when using these "A" Laws.

The first "A" Law (Ampere's Law) gives you this common relative motion reason for all these invisible attractions: Things that travel in the same direction on the same path or geodesic -- compared to the surroundings -- will attract.

The "A" Law premise is that space-time is being constantly generated by entities moving in various geodesics.

Ampere's original long wire law and the Biot-Savart law Explanation are showing you not only how magnetic fields are produced from currents but these laws are also showing you how space-time is being created via relative motion.

Thus you get the LEAST space-time creation (attractive binding force) between entities where their closest sides are traveling the same direction in parallel geodesics (paths) at the same frequency or a harmonic thereof.

This "A" Law premise is a simple premise but you must now look at force in much the same way as Einstein saw it and as it is seen in general relativity.

For instance, a vacuum does not really cause a suction force. It is the air pressure surrounding everything that pushes into the vacuum and causes a pressurized force.

Use the same pressure analogy in dealing with these invisible forces too because force in both methods is obtained in almost exactly the same way

In this new concept, things on various different paths actually cause a creation of space-time and this we can visualize similarly to the aforementioned air pressure.

I will eventually put the drawings in my 1966 book on this server because they show why translational motion is so important in all of this. But for now you must understand that ANY individual electrons that are locked on orbitals can act as tiny magnets. They can bind to other electrons not only with their poles but (like magnets) also with their sides when their closest sides are going in the same direction similar to d (sigma) bonding in chemical binding.

Certain electrons, "locked" in place on certain orbitals, are flip-able electrons: These can suddenly flip and change their spins from spin-up to spin-down with a change of a nearby magnetic field. Flip-able electrons are found locked in place in the d or f shells of the iron atom. These cause iron to become a magnet. Flip-able electrons act exactly like tiny magnets, in fact, they are the smallest magnetic entities. These flip-able electrons that can easily flip over and spin the other way are not the furthest from the nucleus though.

Electrons furthest out are called free electrons or valence electrons or sometimes they are called conduction electrons.

The polar attraction, similar to p (pi) bonding will be greatest - in magnets - because all electrons aligned on the same spin axis will see the entire portions of the others as moving in the same geodesic path at the same frequency. Therefore less space-time will be generated between them giving this vacuum or attraction effect mentioned earlier.

The polar bond in magnetism is the strongest.

In chemical bonding, however, the polar bonding - p (pi) bonding - is the weakest bond because the polar bond is a repetitious, short duration bond.

In chemical binding the side to side electron attraction - d (sigma) bonding - is the strongest because these spin up-spin down electrons that attract each other with their closest sides moving in the same direction are always in the same orbital planes. Therefore the closest sides of these electrons are continuously attracting each other. This is quite unlike the momentary polar attractions of p (pi) bonding.

If a FREE electron would happen to attract another FREE electron when either its poles or closest sides were going in the same direction (magnetism) then both of these electrons would be forced to precess and twist 90 degrees AWAY from this applied attractive force.

Thus you have, between FREE electrons, what present science sees as charge but which is really nothing more than a microcosm form of Einstein's cosmological constant which Einstein said was a repulsive force between everything in the universe.

As you read further you will see electrons are using only inertial qualities and gyro type torque. They are behaving exactly like all the other spinning entities we see in the macrocosm but our present science view that restricts us to this one space-time reference frame (gauge) can't discern this because we are in an entirely different space-time system.

So I guess Einstein was right about his cosmological constant all the time and Saul Perlmutter is right about his proof of Einstein's cosmological constant today.

These "A" Laws are laws that work in any surroundings. These are also laws that depend on the surroundings to work. None of our other science laws seem to be based on anything like this and therein lies the problem in developing the math for these new "A" Laws.

George Berkeley, Ernst Mach, James Clerk Maxwell and a host of others all claimed that our surroundings caused our inertia. Einstein was also of this opinion when he first published general relativity and he saw the importance of the surroundings not being changed. He, in fact, emphasized that our surroundings were evenly spread out all around us with a consistent density. Since taking these surroundings into consideration would make the science math far more complicated, mathematicians rationalized and felt no reason to consider the surroundings. They completely forgot about what these important people said and what Foucault showed us. We fitted our scientific theory to the math we already had and that seemed to work well enough for everyone. We forgot about the warnings of these great men.

Kurt Gödel gave us another extremely important warning we were completely deaf to. Kurt Gödel proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when you view from a subset single reference frame, such as we do from here on this earth, then you may THINK all your science laws are true laws when they are not true laws for the ENTIRE universe. And this is exactly what has happened.

But I can give you the "big picture" of how it all works but I cannot do the math for it. Can you? If you can then a splendid place in history awaits you.

Now, I'm going to change the scientific theory a bit and put surroundings back in. The problem then will be to find new math to fit this new theory that includes these important surroundings. But it's a much better theory than anything we've got now because it actually gives you a "big crystal clear picture" of unification.

Remember, surroundings are the key here: And here's the Aufbau Law Theory - or - Construction Law Theory of our entire universe.

We are going to add to what Berkeley, Mach, Foucault and Maxwell pointed out. We are going to say that not only is inertia created by our surroundings but, in this new Aufbau Law Theory, that space and time are also generated by the surroundings, especially generated by all this motion in these surroundings.

But the main thing you must realize is that all your various invisible forces are nothing more than various space-time creations. You must remember that space-time can be generated at various frequencies. But the space-time that you see is only the space-time generated at this quark-electron subharmonic frequency,

These "A" laws agree with what we find is happening in the world of general relativity and the quantum world.

Now, consider the surroundings in all of this and these "A" Laws will show you the whys & wherefores of space-time creation, which can also be seen as all those invisible forces we know so well but that we've eliminated now for this special viewing.

The "A" Laws