You should do this to get the complete version.

Completely forget about charge now and only look at our new "A" Laws and what they say.

Ampere's Corollary, written in almost Ampere's own words, tells us that if we have two free spinning electrons then each of them will try to make the other line up with them so the spins are in parallel planes and going in the same direction. This force comes in as the cosine of the angle of the planes of the two spins. This would indeed make the spins parallel and make both electrons attract each other. But it would only do this if we did not have gyroscopic torque in both electrons. Remember, this torque acts at 90 degrees to the way Ampere's corollary works

As Ampere's Corollary force begins to act, it in turn causes this 90-degree gyroscopic torque to twist both of those totally free electrons away from any attracting position, doesn't it?

So because of this gyro torque, two free electrons can never remain in a full attracting position. They will therefore be forced to stay more in a repelling position and therefore free electrons will always end up repelling each other and this repelling is not explained by using this thing called charge: it is explained only by simply using global inertial qualities and our new global "A" Laws.

Not only will they be put into this position but they will constantly be held in this position as well because both Ampere's Corollary force and the opposing gyroscopic force are constantly acting to keep them this way.

Therefore, this is Einstein's cosmological constant as explained by Ampere in the 1820s.

All those billions of dollars in paychecks, since the 1820s, going to all those people in all those universities and not a single one of them saw this?

I used to read every issue of Scientific American when I was young. In one issue, well over forty years ago, I read about Ampere's long wire laws that took him about seven years to completely solve way back in the 1820s. Ampere was surprised when Faraday was given the acclaim for figuring out the relationship between electricity and magnetism because Ampere thought that he had figured it out first. Now we know the electron has spin. So if we use Ampere's Laws as relative motion laws then we find Ampere did not only figure it out first but that we should have seen that his motion laws were far more important than Faraday's field laws, for seeing an approximate big picture of everything.

The reason that we are still using Faraday's laws is that Maxwell gave us the math to use with them. You cannot use any present math with Ampere's Laws because they are universal, global laws. You will see, as you read on, that all our present math is restricted to one particular local gage theory and cannot be used with global, universal laws that cover all gauges.

Ampere's laws, however, give you the best big picture, by far, of what's really going on in this entire universe. Try using them. You'll see for yourself.

You cannot use local gauge theory to see what is going on in another gauge. Quantum theorists will tell you this. All present math is tied to a certain gauge and can only be used in that particular gauge. This is why Einstein saw in 1954 that he was wasting his time trying to find a unified field (of various gauges) using fields with present math. You'll see exactly why this is so as you read on.

A good bit after I read that Scientific American article about Ampere, I was working on a RCA RADAR indicator problem at Pan American World Airways. I figured out a method whereby one would not install the yoke coil in wrong. I saw that if one made certain that the electron beam from the filament went to the phosphor screen in the same direction as the electrons were moving in the top of the coil then the coil would be installed right and the sync spoke would be at the top like it should be.

Then I remembered the Scientific American article, that I had read about Ampere's long wire laws, and I said, "My God! Ampere has shown me not only why the beam is attracted to the coil but why I'm attracted to the earth."

I'll never forget that day as long as I live.

I published what I found and got an approving letter from Lincoln Barnett who had written the best seller "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" and many general relativity articles for the Encyclopedia Britannica. I still have Barnett's letter although most of the things I tried to save from those days are now gone with the wind.

But that was about forty years ago and it has taken me more than a third of a century to get the rest of the puzzle solved so as to be able to write this book about how it all works.

I remember, long ago, that Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, married this young chick who later divorced him stating "Politics just consumed him".

Solving this didn't consume me. I did other things such as fly airplanes and work to feed my family and I built my own house and studied for my masters degree but I do have to admit that solving this was always on the back burner simmering all those many years. In my spare time, I always tried to picture the correct solution

The 1996 Britannica CD sold for $1,000. When the price fell enough I got a Britannica CD in 1997 and that is when the final pieces of the master puzzle all started falling into their proper positions.

A bit later I got in touch with Dr. Milo Wolff on the Internet and with his help was able to put all the pieces of the puzzle into place. I owe him a lot. Without him, I would not have been able to write this book.

No one person is smart enough to figure everything out. Each of us contributes a bit to the common store of knowledge.

And this is basically what Milo Wolff found the electron to be doing. It keeps rebuilding and reproducing itself, exactly the way standing waves do, while refusing to radiate away its energy.

Later Milo found the spin of the electron also to be doing what a standing wave did.

Others had tried to establish this but failed. Milo, however, discovered these were not regular standing waves but scalar, standing waves. Milo's math was the first to prove it.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the orbit or orbital of the electron must be doing the same thing as both the electron and its spin. Because when either the orbit (orbital) or spin shifts we either gain or lose a quantum of energy. Niels Bohr got the Nobel Prize for discovering the energy involved in various orbital changes and later Dirac showed the energy involved in electrons shifting from spin up to spin down or vice versa.

This can only lead one to the conclusion that we are in a binding-balanced universe. While radio people constantly look for ways to eliminate all the standing waves they can, to increase signal strength, this universe does just the opposite and puts all these scalar, standing wave entities (items and their spins and orbits) here as its building blocks.

I haven't seen any university presses printing this though. I presume that they are all still asleep at the switch while this brand new kind of science train rolls right on by them.

As you look at these "A" Laws you can immediately see that for each single frequency spin/orbit level this must indeed be a type of steady-state universe.

We must be in a steady-state universe. This was put forth in an article "A Different Approach to Cosmology" that appeared in the April 1999 edition of Physics Today written by Geoffrey Burbidge, Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar saying we were actually in a quasi steady-state universe.

In the previous chapter, you read about Saul Perlmutter's insistence that gravity's equal and opposite repulsive force (Einstein's cosmological constant) exists, holding all the stars and galaxies apart.

Well, let's call this the Einstein-Perlmutter repulsive force. Let's suppose it is out there holding all the stars and galaxies apart.

You must be made aware of the fact, if you aren't already, that the favored religion believed in today, and printed up in the university presses, is that we are in an expanding universe. This expanding universe religion is not as highly favored in England as it is in America thanks to Englishman Fred Hoyle, now departed.

Big verbal bouts are now going on in academia about whether this expansion is really accelerating or not.

But now look at what Saul Perlmutter himself says: He states that we now have Einstein's cosmological constant, a repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity, repelling all the stars from each other and all the galaxies from each other as well.

Well, this was the way most universities were preaching it almost ninety years ago in 1917 after Einstein gave us his cosmological constant repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity. This, said Einstein, held all the stars and galaxies apart. Back then everybody believed in a steady-state universe.

Then from where did we get this expanding universe?

Well, here's where it started:

The more massive the star, the more the red shift.

Stars that are moving away from us also have a red shift (Doppler effect).

Edwin P. Hubble discovered one more reason for a red shift and he found the further away stars were from us that the more we saw them as red shifted too.

That great astronomer Hubble then warned everyone about assuming this red shift to be telling us this universe was expanding.

Then out came the very concept about which Hubble warned.

It was put forth by a Catholic priest named Lemaître.

Einstein kept telling him he was wrong but then as Lemaître's speeches gained in popularity Einstein made an abrupt 180 degree about turn and told him he was right. Einstein then said he had committed his "biggest blunder" by believing in some more of his own math, that he had published a decade before, and then finally doubting Lemaître.

Thus came about that famous religious conversion, from a steady-state to an expanding universe, of all the university presses by this Catholic priest from Belgium.

It was not, however, a good enough tale for the atomic scientists. George Gamow, who hung out with all the great ones at Niels Bohr's house in Copenhagen, was the one who spiced it up with enough atomic fusion so that even the atomic scientists would kneel down and give homage to this new expanding universe religion, which now even the great Einstein professed to believe in.

What more does a religion need than that to take hold and it most certainly did.

It hasn't been quite with us for its hundredth year anniversary celebration yet though and if this book is successful then it might never make its hundredth year either.

Einstein originally said there was a repulsive force equal and opposite of gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart when this was thought to be a steady-state universe almost ninety years ago in 1917.

Now that Saul Perlmutter has told us this force is back again then this returns us to a steady-state universe.

Moreover, this third reason is an absolute certainty: If the gyro force hasn't weakened—which it hasn't done—then we have to be in a steady-state universe.

So the truth is gang, you see that red shift, which Hubble discovered then warned about, because of all those repulsive forces out there, between all the various stars, and nothing more. There will be more about the reason for this particular type of light dispersion, because of those many repulsive forces between all the stars, later in Chapter 10. It works sort of like a diffraction grating.

You will see even more proofs of a steady-state universe as you continue to read.

If I and many, many others already see this is a steady-state universe then I think the multitude will also eventually join the team to remove that religious conversion and restore some common sense and sanity back into the scientific community.

Things are greatly simplified this way as well. Watch and read on. You'll see that this is a binding-balanced universe. The microcosm is perfectly balanced and so is the macrocosm.

See, as you already have learned, distance has no effect on this binding strength. It is all balanced-binding with the surroundings. If binding energy always equals mass lost, then isn't hydrogen fusion energy a binding shift from the surrounding fixed stars of a quantum of some binding that is then gained by the final hydrogen nuclei that came closer together with fusion?

Remember, you will get a spin binding attraction whenever the spins, of two scalar wave entities, are in the same equatorial plane or parallel axial spin planes (same spin axis) with the closest sides, between this pair, going in the same direction (like gears meshing and not clashing).

When two hydrogen nuclei are brought closer together (fusion) then more binding is developed between them resulting with them having fewer of these bonds left now to bind with the surroundings.

Binding with the surroundings is what is giving us inertia.

Inertia is the resistance to a change in position. That's why we say a spinning flywheel has gyroscopic inertia. It resists a change in position.

Mass is not weight. Mass is the measure of inertia, the term used to measure the resistance to change in position that an item has.

The units we have in mass are used to measure this resistance to a change in position (inertia) that an item has.

So isn't mass (the measure of inertia) binding with the fixed stars?

Remember, the strength of these spin-bindings do not vary with distance. Only the number of them decreases with the square of the distance.

What is ironic is that Saul Perlmutter, who headed the group that discovered this acceleration, had the choice of accepting it or Einstein's original cosmological constant repulsive force. He made the choice to choose Einstein's cosmological repulsive force that is equal and opposite to gravity.

This is the very first time, that I'm aware of, that a person who made a major discovery also made a pronouncement telling the world that the discovery means something entirely different from what everyone thought it originally meant.

Thank God, we have people like Saul Perlmutter.

And no more Catholic priests preaching science—please. We need to go forward and not backward again for another hundred years.

This universe constantly strives to stay in balance with the surroundings. This balancing is the key. With this balancing, you end up with a steady-state universe.

It will be hard for the average reader to believe that our surroundings affect us. Nevertheless, this was discovered by Berkeley and then pronounced by Mach and then by Maxwell and then finally mathematically proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by Doctor Milo Wolff who showed us it is same frequency surroundings that are important as well. All this doesn't fit in well with any of our present science. But it certainly does fit in well with this brand new kind of science though. You will see how it works.

Ampere showed us that when electrons travel the same direction on parallel wires then these wires would attract. You are also traveling the same direction as the earth and on a parallel path with the earth—compared to the surroundings—and you are attracted to the earth too.

Is this what gravity is all about? It doesn't sound like present science does it?

It isn't. It's this brand new kind of science though. It works, and what's more it does unify gravitational forces with magnetism and the electrical forces.

And this is what is truly important. This was what I discovered at Pan American Airlines in 1966.

I saw it was all indeed explained by Ampere's Laws but then I spent more than a third of a century asking myself what was the rest of the story and why do Ampere's Laws work so well?

All in this book was what I eventually discovered had to be happening.

I could have kicked myself for not seeing it all earlier because I had the top radio licenses and should have seen it far sooner than I did.

Space or rather the spacetime interval will be created the least between scalar resonance entities that are in phase and most between scalar resonance entities that are the opposite from this which normally would be 180 degrees out of phase.

You would see the items in phase as attracting and the 180-degree out of phase items as repelling and the average items half way between both extremes as being neutral.

And this is the way we actually see all the forces isn't it?

Gravity is seen by present science as different from all the invisible forces in that it is seen as a monopole, by present science, instead of a bi-pole force like all the others.

But now we can see it correctly as a bi-pole force with the Perlmutter-Einstein repulsive force that is equal and opposite to gravity.

So behind Ampere's Laws is this phase relationship that is either creating a maximum amount of space, causing a repelling force, or reducing more space than average causing an attractive force.

Einstein told us gravity was a wave and with this, you can actually see how it works can't you?

Einstein's, general relativity, tensor math shows us that more or less space - than average - is equivalent to a force and you now can see how this works too.

We will also see that space is only space at some certain frequency. Einstein was right: gravity is a wave. You'll even see the frequency of gravity (attraction made by less space than average).

General relativity's tensor math has either more or less space because there is no element of force in the tensor math so it is doing exactly what this brand new kind of science is doing. The tensor math of general relativity gives us more or less space in place of force. This universe creates more or less space thereby giving us force via the uneven distribution the same as in general relativity. So the tensor math of general relativity has been showing these mathematicians what the universe was doing all these years but nobody was paying even a bit of attention. At least if they were paying attention it was never printed up by any university presses anywhere.

Our time evidently is dependent upon the rate that the scalar, standing wave of the electron reproduces itself whereas space seems to be related to the average of all the vector spin forces generated by the electron's spin.

The electron's clock ticking is related to c.

The quark's clock ticking is related to c².

If you keep reading then you will discover the important spacetime relationship between c and c², and this is something that even those in the universities are still not aware of yet as this book makes its first appearance.

Berkeley, Mach and Maxwell were right; surroundings do give us our inertia. Dr. Milo Wolff showed us it's same frequency surroundings that produce the electron and its spin, which gives us the attractive force. Therefore, it must be same frequency surroundings and some sort of spin that gives us gravitational attraction and inertia.

Yes, it is the electron's spin that allows the electron to give us magnetism and it’s the quark spin that allows the quark to give us gravity and inertia.

In the last chapter you saw the more an entity resists a change in direction the more inertia it is said to have.

Why do objects resist a change in direction?

Why do objects prefer certain geodesic paths to travel in?

This chapter answers those questions.

Newton gave us the math, so many in present science claim they have answered that last question because they can do the math. But have they given us the answer to all these planetary orbits?

As you read further, then you will see they haven't.

Also present science can give no good reason why the gyroscope holds to the fixed stars.

This brand new kind of science can. It's spin-binding.

We know that the electron spin causes magnetism and we will get a spin binding attraction whenever the spins, of two scalar wave entities, are in the same equatorial plane or parallel axial spin planes with the closest sides, between this pair, going in the same direction (like gears meshing and not clashing).

Quantum theorists had us thinking the quark strong force fell off entirely within the confines of the proton and neutron. That mathematical guesstimate on their part simply wasn't true because they didn't understand the importance of same frequency spin-binding.

The entire concept that quantum theory has that the quark strong force is fully contained inside the proton and neutron is absolutely wrong. They failed to look at the super high density of the three quarks in both the proton and neutron to see how that would affect spin-binding frequencies. You will see what is actually happening in Chapters 5 and 15.

Quarks merely find it hard to spin-bind inside that tri-quark high-density area. It’s as simple as that. Outside of it, they spin-bind the same as electrons do.

The three quarks probably bind together with their poles axially. This is the strongest binding method if it's steady. Quarks bind with more distant quarks equatorially. This method is the weaker of the two binding methods.

Gravity cannot be caused by anything the electron does because electromagnetic radiation can all be shielded and gravity can't.

The attraction of magnetism comes from the electron's spin. This, quantum theorists know.

The attraction of gravity comes from the quark's spin. This, they don't know.

It's all surroundings, surroundings, surroundings and spins, spins, spins. It's surroundings and either spin or orbital binding. This, they don't entirely know either.

The main attractions come from spin-bindings. This, they see a bit of.

We know that electrons are the important source of all chemical actions but we have forgotten the quarks.

This quark to quark spin-binding plays a part not only in atomic and molecular binding but is the main element in the binding energy of atomic energy.

We know that electromagnetic radiation can be shielded but what else do we know about shielding?

We know that gravity can't be shielded by anything. This is significant because it tells us that the electrons encircling the tri-quark protons and neutrons cannot possibly, in any way, keep those quarks inside the proton and neutron from spin-binding with other quarks, even those in the distant fixed stars. This knowledge is of vital importance.

Virtual proof that this does indeed happen is in small clusters of elements of two or three or four atoms where insufficient encircling electrons can not make full use of their own spin-bindings. We therefore see a higher percentage of the quark binding forces taking over whereby these small clusters take on entirely different aspects as to what the same atoms normally do in larger groups that have the full amount of electron encirclement.

Three quarks bind together to form the neutron and proton. As I said, this close binding of the three quarks might be more a polar axial type bonding. Because of the extreme density, the three quarks will not even recognize that they are spinning at the same frequency unless they are separated from each other by about the radius of a proton or neutron. You will have frequency dispersion here as well. This extreme density area is what causes the asymptotic freedom of the quarks inside a proton or neutron.

This necessary distance, because of the extreme density, is another aspect of the super dense quark world that quantum theorists failed to grasp.

This is so simple to see. Didn't they understand the principles involved in general relativity?

Didn't they understand that when mass increases then time slows and frequencies change as on super dense stars? Didn't they also understand frequency dispersion?

What they also didn't understand was what Ampere told them over one hundred and eighty years ago.

Not seeing this spin frequency aspect of the strong force had everyone believing that the strong force was fully contained inside the proton and neutron.

The quantum physicists didn't see that the quarks could not bind strongly at a close distance because the density was too great for one quark to fully "see" the frequency spin of the other two until it got about the radius of a proton away from the other two.

Remember, you will get a spin binding attraction whenever the spins, of two scalar wave entities, are in the same equatorial plane or parallel axial spin planes with the closest sides, between this pair, going in the same direction (like gears meshing and not clashing).

Seeing the strong force this way tells you that quarks can not strongly bind in the high-density tri quark area and they can strongly bind anywhere else.

This is the very opposite of QCD gospel.

And people listened to that old QCD gospel too.

Therefore, no one even looked for any evidence of quark to quark distant spin-binding such as we knew the electron had.

That was a super disaster.

That set us way back.

Quarks that are inside the proton and neutron bind with other far distant quarks in the surrounding stars via a spin up spin down, side to side equatorial binding when their spins are in the same spin plane. This is what gives all the quarks their massive amount of inertia.

This quark spin-binding, like the electron's spin-binding, does not fall off with the square of the distance. Only the number of bonding pairs falls off, perhaps, with the square of the distance.

Whereas present science has centrifugal force, this new science does not. What it has in place of centrifugal force is binding with the surrounding stars and translational motion where speeds start moving up higher on the asymptotic energy curve wherein relativistic mass will be increased.

Now you have learned something of vital importance which is: in this binding-balanced universe all orbits of planets or orbitals of quarks and electrons are determined not via centrifugal force but by a binding-balanced spin and orbit geodesic path. This geodesic spin and orbit path keeps a binding-balance between the thing or things it is rotating around and its same frequency surroundings.

Remember, the spin is also a geodesic balanced path. Even though this text will be explaining orbit geodesic paths, we must keep in mind that all these spins are here for the same reason. They are here to keep the spinning item in balance as well.

The angular momentum, of all spins, has to be conserved. As any entity moves, relative to the surroundings, the spins of its components, electrons and quarks are constantly shifted as the entity moves.

The reason that an entity's spin is a geodesic balanced path—as stated in the above paragraph—is that the angular momentum of the spinning entity itself equals the total of the angular momentum of all the electrons and quarks that the rectilinear or orbital motion is constantly displacing.

This will only work in a binding balanced universe.

Newton's 3^rd law of motion shows us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In a binding balanced universe, angular momentum must of necessity be conserved. So both orbits and spins are balanced geodesic paths between entities and their surroundings.

The mere fact that we have Newton's 3^rd law tells you this is a binding balanced universe. You couldn't have such a thing as Newton's 3^rd law in an expanding universe.

If you think you could have Newton's 3^rd law in an expanding universe then you explain to me what causes it. Because I've just explained to you how a binding balanced universe causes us to have Newton's 3^rd law of motion.

This is one of the most important lessons anyone will ever learn and absolutely no university press anywhere has printed it.

Why?

Your tax money has been paying them super salaries to find out about these things.

But instead of finding out the truth they were all printing fiction stories about an expanding universe and many other fictitious things, such as opposites attracting, that poisoned the minds of the young who would in turn be taking important university positions.

Any nation that allows its universities to continue down this road of ignorance—letting them do whatever they want to do—will be flushed down the tube by a country that finally puts the fear of God into all of its educational systems making them do what they are supposed to do, educate the public. There will always be those who say it cannot be done. Let them look at Singapore.

If that's what it takes to survive then you had better insist on the Singapore method of education.

No one can foresee the future but one can get a high probability of certain outcomes. In the coming years the country that establishes a no-nonsense, high science input, educational system that works, will win and the others will be the big losers.

That finishes this editorial in the opinion section and now we'll get back on track to the science again.

This is a binding-balanced, steady-state universe from microcosm to macrocosm.

There will always be those folks around who will stay with the ancient centrifugal force concept.

But if centrifugal force pulls things towards the fixed stars then there must be some sort of force there. It's a spin-binding force between the thing rotating and the fixed stars. It has to be.

If it's something else then you tell me what it is.

When future scientists of a thousand years from now draw the line through the date when real science departed from this affenstahl science then the date will be when this book first came out.

No, I'm not conceited, in fact, I don't even think I'm half as smart as I really am.

But I have been on this earth a really long time so I can afford to joke now and then.

That's what life is all about. Isn't it? But believe me this book is no joke. The big joke will be on those who will continue to argue against this brand new kind of science. You had better think twice about remaining in a country whose government goes to sleep on this one. It might be too dangerous. It may take a while to put this all together into computers, then again it might not. One never knows. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen in the future.

Marconi said others had made all the important discoveries and that all he did was to put them all together to give us the radio.

That's really all I did as well. I simply put together what others have discovered to give you this brand new kind of science that finally unifies not only the four fundamental invisible forces but also all invisible forces. It's really so simple that after this book comes out many are going to say, "Why didn't I think of that."

A new type frequency math will be used later but right now there is no math whatsoever that is going to help anyone see the big picture better than by simply using Ampere's Laws and this scalar, standing wave concept. It is plain to see that any math is restricted to one frequency spin/orbit system such as is presently being done in QED, where electrons are studied, and QCD where quarks are looked at. Both of these are using far different math and rules from each other. And these are both far different from our science rules and math that we use here in everyday life.

The pioneers in this next era are going to be frequency searchers. They are going to be searching, among other things, for the spin frequencies of electrons, quarks and galaxies.

All our science laws can be explained by these frequencies.

They are the basis for Ampere's Laws.

It's a shame that Einstein didn't stick with his belief in the surroundings and Mach's principle.

In fact it was Einstein who made the phrase "Mach's principle" popular. Einstein didn't know that Berkeley had proclaimed it first. Einstein claimed that his general relativity was based on Mach's principle and the importance of the surroundings being homogeneous and isotropic.

I'm certain if someone had discovered that acceleration, like Saul Perlmutter's group did, while Einstein was still alive then Einstein would never have listened to Lemaître. Einstein then would have seen gravity as a bipolar force and he would have seen the other acceleration half of his principle of equivalence. So we lost almost a hundred years on that one.

Einstein also should have listened more to his good friend Kurt Gödel. They both worked together on a few things at the Institute for Advanced Physics in Princeton. In addition, they both spoke German.

Each had discovered important pieces of the grand master puzzle but neither Einstein nor Gödel put those two important pieces together and they could have easily done so over half a century ago and saved us a lot of wasted years.

This goes to show you that we all make mistakes, even the best of us.

Now we will go to surroundings and binding energy.

The atom bomb works because of binding energy.

So now, we can finally see what energy really is.

Energy is nothing more than an upset of this binding balance.

This is something a person believing in an expanding universe would never spot.

But you have to realize that educated people once believed in phlogiston which supposedly was a substance that weighed less than nothing. Isaac Newton believed in phlogiston along with most of the educated people of his time.

I read a copy of Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" that millionaire Bernard Baruch had given to the Public Library in Miami. He said, reading it had saved him a lot of money.

An expanding universe fits right in with all the rest of Mackay's stories.

The logic of later times is generally not the same as the logic of previous times.

We don't have witch-hunts anymore either.

Now let's go to the atom bomb and then to the hydrogen bomb and see the difference between fission and fusion energy.

We know we get fission energy (the splitting of heavy uranium nuclei) in the atom bomb.

We know we get fusion energy from the fusing together of the lightest hydrogen nuclei. This gives us the hydrogen bomb.

The energy in the hydrogen bomb comes from fusion energy wherein the hydrogen is wrapped around a uranium atom bomb igniter. Then the atom bomb inside explodes igniting the hydrogen fusion bomb for an even greater bang than the atom bomb alone would give.

The big quest now though is for controllable fusion energy. We still haven't been able to get to that stage of the game yet. However, this really doesn't seem to be something that our military-industrial complex is vitally interested in at the moment.

Our military-industrial complex wants the mid east oil used up well before any controllable fusion power comes online. They have an abundance of shale oil in Canada that will come out at a another notch higher in oil prices and this will give us plenty of time to work out controllable fusion energy. It's the opinion of a few people that this is the present policy desired by our military-industrial complex.

One of his generals asked Fredrick the Great, "What will everyone say when you attack that country?"

"Oh, my universities will prove to everyone why we had to attack them," replied Frederick the Great."

Today's universities are still telling us what the ones in charge want us to hear. This hasn't changed that much since the time of Fredrick the Great.

Our military-industrial-university complex sees this following lesson of the past: Millions of people, long ago, had heavy buffalo blankets that they put over their legs when horses were pulling sleighs. This not only kept the people's legs warm but it starved out the Indian (Native American) population here that yellow journalism was saying needed to be starved out.

The ones running things in the military-industrial-university complex are smart enough not to tell us to waste oil. They are telling us just the opposite to make us believe we've created this problem by ourselves. But we don't run things; they do. And the military-industrial-university complex has things all set up for the average American to do, this same thing again with oil, as was previously done with buffaloes.

Everything has been put in place to use up the oil the same way we did using all those buffalo robes. Then this will deplete the cheap oil sources of the Moslem world and we'll be rid of them once and for all like we got rid of the Indians. There are about as many Indians living now as when the first ships brought the first settlers here. The population of the newcomers certainly increased. It was the Native American population that didn't do too well.

I got off the beaten track there for a bit so let's get back to fission and fusion energy.

So far, we have gotten fusion energy from hydrogen nuclei (the lightest element) and fission from uranium nuclei in the heavier end of the scale. But we haven't done nearly as well as the stars have. They have done far better getting energy out of far more elements than we have.

Theoretically, iron is the dividing line between the fission and fusion elements.

Iron is where the binding is balanced best. Remember that it is all balanced binding.

All the elements lighter than iron (to the left of iron on the periodic table) are theoretically capable of giving off energy via atomic fusion. All the heavier elements than iron (to the right of iron on the periodic table) are theoretically capable of giving off fission energy.

These stars are doing all this now, leaving the universe with more and more iron every year they operate. Iron is the pile of ashes left over after both fission and fusion energy has been going on. There is no possible way that either stars or we can get any atomic energy out of iron.

When this universe finally is filled up with enough iron, then even the stars will be all burned out at last and our sky darkened. However, long, long, long before that our sun will expand and become a big giant star with the flames scorching the earth.

But not to worry, none of us will live long enough to see any of that.

The reason permanent particles is underlined in the above statement is because energy can also be generated or completely absorbed via the interaction of a permanent particle with an identical temporary resonance that is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with it (i.e. electrons and positrons).

Present science preachers, in the universities, however, haven't listened to Berkeley, Mach, Maxwell or Wolff. They don't believe in same frequency surroundings having much to do with this. So they have no place whatsoever for a binding, balanced universe, thus they can't give you a simplified answer as to what energy really is. They do know energy is related to binding. In fact, they call it "binding energy" but they haven't learned yet about all these bindings being balanced. Now you have and that puts you far ahead of them in knowing what's really going on. But although they are dumber than you in this respect, the military-industrial-university complex will ensure that no paychecks of their employees are cut because of this massive amount of ignorance on their part.

Now to symmetry:

You can build things with Tinker Toys but they will have an entirely different symmetry of things that you build with Lego blocks.

This is the same way it works in the universe as well.

The microcosm has a far different symmetry from our larger world here.

But the construction (aufbau) laws are the same.

This is something that has escaped notice from the universities as well. They think the construction laws in each different frequency spin/orbit realm are entirely different simply because they are using various different fields instead of seeing all invisible forces as being built up the very same way via scalar resonances. The building blocks in each spin/orbit spacetime realm are nothing but scalar, standing wave resonances. Although they all behave in common in some respects, their frequency differences and closeness of linking harmonics ensure that there will be a distinct difference of symmetry in each different spin/orbit spacetime realm just as there will be a symmetry difference in things built with Lego blocks and Tinker Toys.

Our Euclidean geometry imparted with Newton's laws of motion gave us a wonderful world of accuracy that satisfied everyone until the Michaelson Moreley Experiment just before the beginning of the twentieth century.

Lorentz, Hilbert and Einstein then rushed to our aid with patches. That's all those things (such as relativistic corrections) are. They are mere patches.

They patch up a system that isn't quite right but it does, to its credit, give us accurate answers 99.9% of the time. So it's going to be here for quite a while regardless of how many people, like me, write these books saying it's all wrong.

Therefore, Newton's mathematics, as it pertains to motion, is right only for less than .016% of the available slower speed range and wrong for more than the other 99.984% of the faster available range of speeds.

Because people have lived for thousands of years only in this far lower range of speeds, no one even suspected anything was wrong until the Michaelson-Moreley Experiment. In that experiment when the speed of the earth, in its orbit, was added to the speed of light, it just didn't add.

Our ancestors believed Newton was right because they never encountered any of the faster speeds.

This is common knowledge. Even these universities print things about this. But we usually only travel at these slower speeds anyway and the answers come out right most of the time. So we keep using this old method.

But that's not the route future scientists are going to take. They are going to use the correct methods and get it right every time and not just most of the time.

A scalar quantity has magnitude in all directions such as a globe of light that shines in all directions.

A vector quantity has magnitude in only one direction such as a flashlight that shines in only one direction.

We were told by Einstein that gravity was a spacetime distortion and this is a fact because this brand new kind of science, just the same as general relativity, shows us that all the invisible forces are spacetime distortions. But this new science shows you exactly how these distortions are produced and general relativity doesn't.

Milo Wolff has shown us that the electron and its spin are both scalar, standing waves.

We can presume from this that the electron's orbital, that mimics the spin in giving us energy quanta, is also a scalar, standing wave. In magnetism, for instance, both the orbital and the spin produce magnetism but the orbitals all cancel themselves out (98% do) leaving only the spin as the important cause of magnetism.

From what you have learned so far in this little book you can now put the picture of this universe together.

First, you must understand something quantum physicists understand: Frequency is synonymous with energy. The higher the frequency then the higher the energy.

Once you know this then you can see where the higher frequency entities can afford to build lower frequency entities because each lower frequency entity is only being built with a fraction of the higher frequency entity's energy.

That makes the following possible:

We'll start with the fastest spinning, matter building particle, the quark. It is a scalar quantity that spins and aligns its spin (in phase) with other close and distant quarks to produce attractive vector forces (gravity in one direction, inertia in all directions). It also produces non-aligned or out of phase repulsive vector forces thereby keeping itself away from other quarks. We see the average of these attractive and repulsive forces as space.

These attractive and repulsive vector forces of the quark produce the scalar forces of the electron and its spin and its orbitals. The electron's spin is at a much lower frequency than the quark's spin. The electron's spin is the square root of the quark spin frequency. The electron's spin produces the vector forces that give us magnetism, sigma and pi bonding and light, which is a long distance type of sigma bonding. A quantum of light is given off by a sigma bond between two special electrons that have impedance matched over a distance. No strength is lost in a sigma type bond right out to the Hubble limit.

These forces, together with the quark vector forces, give us the scalar, standing wave resonances of matter that build into the symmetry forms of atoms and molecules.

These atoms and molecules congregate together, via spin and orbital vector forces to give us the scalar entities of stars and planets with their scalar spins and orbits.

The spins of the stars provide vector forces that give us the scalar galaxies and this keeps going on and on and on into infinity perhaps?

The spins of the stars, in this brand new kind of science, keep the stars repelling each other. In present science, the direction that a star spins is not of primary importance but in this brand new kind of science, it most certainly is. Every star has to repel its neighbor star, via Ampere's Laws, so it can not be spinning where any of its closest sides are going in the same direction as the closest sides of the neighbor star. According to this brand new kind of science, of the hundred thousand million stars that we can discern, we will see no neighbor stars, except binary spin up, spin down stars, that are spinning with any of their closest sides in the same direction. Astronomical spectrographic spin detectors are improving immensely. Soon you will have virtual proof of this brand new kind of science working for stars as well as electrons. You will also have proof that all binary stars, of the same mass, are spin up and spin down similar to two spin up, spin down electrons on one orbital.

The bond holding these stars together is a sigma type bond.

A sigma chemical bond is where the overlap region lies directly between the two nuclei. Translated to stars, this would be the barycenter of both star orbits. You are looking at a sigma type bond when you look at two binary stars.

Everyone will someday see that the closest sides, of the two stars, are attracting because of Ampere's Law the same as with electrons in magnetism and sigma bonding. In both of these cases of stars and electrons, the attractive force between them equals exactly the attractive force from the surroundings. In other words their binding energy in both, inward and outward, directions are balanced.

So what else do we learn from these spin up, spin down stars and electrons?

We learn that this is a binding-balanced universe in the microcosm as well as in the macrocosm.

Please note that Ampere's Laws are similar to the tensor math of general relativity where the torsion tensor has only equatorial and axial components.

This spin factor also relates to the hundred thousand million galaxies that we can discern as well and of all those we can see, it’s the same.

So this is a frequency universe where the spins of scalar entities make vector forces that produce lower frequency scalar entities that spin and produce vector forces that produce even lower frequency scalar entities that spin and produce vector forces that produce even lower frequency scalar entities which. . . . And this must go on and on and on and on ad infinitum perhaps.

It's like a universe grand piano with a keyboard of conceivably infinite length.

This is not the way we see it though. We see higher frequency scalar resonance entities as smaller and lower frequency scalar resonance entities as larger.

The Russians seem to be way ahead of the Americans in scalar wave knowledge.

Sound is a longitudinal waveform where the wave is in the same direction as the wave travels while water waves are transverse waves where the wave goes in right angles to the direction the wave travels.

Radio waves, light, and heat waves are seen by present science as transverse waves the same as water waves.

All of these waveforms can be represented on an oscilloscope that shows them changing direction with time. A scalar wave though cannot because it has no direction that changes with time. Therefore, you cannot detect a scalar wave as a wave. You can only see a scalar wave as an entity providing it is at the same relative frequency the scalar wave components are at that build you or some close harmonic thereof.

This is why you cannot see into these event horizon spaces that surround the singularity of a black hole, in the middle of the big galaxies. Around the black hole singularity is a space we notice that we also cannot see into. This is called the event horizon. We cannot see into the singularity point simply because the mass is so great that it bends back all light trying to escape. This is also the reason that it is an imperceptibly small point. In fact, it is so small a point that we can't even measure it. But around this point is the event horizon space that we also notice is a black space. There are other reasons we cannot see into this event horizon space. The relative scalar frequency (and relative spin frequency, hence also relative mass) of the electrons inside the event horizon is too much higher than ours.

Now to space:

Space has to be continually produced just the same as you have to be continually produced.

Are you the same person that you were in the first grade?

The answer is no.

Your brain merely thinks you are the same person because, as these repeating standing waves show us, all your components have been completely replaced many billions of times since you were in the first grade.

You are like the first airplane to fly across the United States.

I bought a book, about the flight, from the widow of Calbraith P. Rodgers who flew the Vin Fiz across the U.S. and I saw it where it is now in the Smithsonian. My father actually witnessed part of this historic flight as Rodgers flew directly over him in September of 1911.

The only problem is that the carbonated grape juice company, owned by Armour who sponsored the flight, sent many airplane replacement parts in a train along with Rodgers. The only part on the original airplane to get to California with Rodgers, according to the book I have, was a strut to which the bottle of soda pop was attached. Even the original bottle of Vin Fiz never made it completely across America.

Nevertheless, there it hangs in the Smithsonian today.

And this is the same with us. Legally we are the same person even though all our parts have been replaced over and over again many billions of times.

In fact, these standing waves are why we have space and these waves are why we have motion. These waves are also why you are here and why you have life.

Some good friends of mine insist in calling these resonances instead of waves because they are far different from transverse water waves. I have no problem with that, in fact, I call them resonances when I can. But fanatically doing this would necessitate calling a light wave a light resonance instead. Perhaps this may be done in the future but as for now I had better stick with the word wave so people who read this book today will know what I'm talking about.

There is no real space or real motion per se for this entire universe of frequencies. This is a universe of resonances where these things such as space and motion can be sensed only within a certain frequency spin/orbit system.

The quantum folks see a good part of this picture and this is why they are so adamant about the electron not being something that spins like a top. Most quantum mechanics people see it all as resonances.

However, seeing it all as resonances is for tomorrow's super-computers. Today we have to use Neils Bohr's concept and see it as we see spherical things here.

We can't see into the electron's spacetime realm but there are harmonic linkages from there into our spacetime realm by which we can ascertain things there.

The motion laws of Ampere are not the reason that things behave the way they do. We use this motion concept as a sort of Occam's Razor tool to simplify the resonance aspect of it. Even when this is known, it will be far too hard to understand without future super-computers that we do not yet have. Stephen Wolfram tells us a very similar true story in his book "A New Kind of Science".

Milo Wolf is particularly interested in scalar, standing waves and their math. He once asked me when it was that I saw things as spherical standing waves. I couldn't answer him exactly. But I did publish in 2000, perhaps even earlier, the following:

As previously stated, the frequency of the quark spin is the square of the spin frequency of the electron's spin and from this we are deriving c² in our math. In some way that we do not yet understand, these spin frequencies are directly related to the maximum speed in that particular particle's spacetime realm.

Now we get to the tachyonic, or faster than light speed, aspect of the quark.

Mathematicians will say you cannot square a speed and get another faster speed and this is true. It's the frequency really that is squared. Later, please note the distance is being squared, not the speed. I am simply relating what is happening in our math and giving us the quantity c², which frequency denotes far too fast a speed for our realm but not too fast a speed for the quark realm.

Where you take time twice (per second, per second or per second squared) you really have acceleration and this is what c² is. This i