5:32 PM 1/1/2001
Click one of the following links.
Even Einstein didn't know how close he was to the answer of his Unified Field Theory when he wrote the following. "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the
Even Einstein didn't know how close he was to the answer of his Unified Field Theory when he wrote the following.
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on thefield concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Now in retrospect
Einstein was quite right when he wrote thatabove in 1954, about a year before he died.
Einstein's teacher, Hermann Minkowski, had already come up with the correct assessment of spacetime and the spacetime interval. Einstein had seen that Minkowski's spacetime was also related to Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force, that Einstein knew, held all these 5 BASIC spinning things apart in both microcosm and macrocosm, i.e. quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.
Einstein, saw modern physics was wrong, and should have seen that all he needed was a simple relative motion law, because that is ALL that really exists in the macrocosm.
That's really ALL that exists in the microcosm too. What I didn't know at the time was that many others had put forthrelative motion theories that were all promptly squelched by physicist Robert H. Dicke who claimed gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was, then we would see evidence of gravitational interference fringes in our largest telescopes. Since we do, in fact, NOW see these gravitational interference fringes in the Hubble telescope, then this, more than anything else tells us that relative motion MUST be the cause of gravity.
We have electrons all spinning at the same EXACT frequency. They have two choices: They can either spin or move in-phase with each other or spin or move out-of-phase with each other. This is where Ampère lucked out. Ampère didn't know about their spin but he made a law about their movements showing PARALLEL MOVEMENTS (FLOWS), of electrons, IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) ATTRACT EACH OTHER. —and—
—and—PARALLEL FLOWS, of electrons. IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS (out-of-phase) REPEL EACH OTHER. Ampère's 1823 Law.
Phase Symmetry is simple:
And (what Ampère didn't know) electrons & every other spinning entity from quarks to galactic superclusters whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) will ATTRACT each other. —and—
—and—All spinning entities whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS (out-of-phase) to each other will REPEL each other, also is Ampère's 1823 Law.
I began to see this simple relative motion law in the early 1940s when my father bought, and let me use his 20,000 ohms per volt, volt-ohmmeter, and this relative motion concept really grew more intense, in my mind, in the mid 1940s when my father and I went halves in buying a war surplus Sherman Tank radio transmitter-receiver, for $79.95 from Gimbals Department Store in New York, and got it working by using two car batteries to give us 12 volts to drive the units' power supply generators. These two batteries we charged with a rectified & filtered 2 amps, using a war surplus 12 volt 'rectifilter', which supplied enough current to recharge the batteries but had not quite enough current capacity to run the transmitter-receivers' power supply generators directly by itself.
I had assembled a pretty good picture of how a simple relative motion law was working in the microcosm by 1965, while working for Pan American Airlines, in the Radio Department, using my U.S. 1st Class Radio License with RADAR Endorsement #P1-7-4087.
This meant reverting back to Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823, and disregarding ALL later laws using fields & charges, which even includes Ampère's later laws.
It was crystal clear to me then, that there was only ONE simple relative motion rule for ALL these forces in our universe. In fact, I was solving more radio problems using that one rule than using all the garbage beliefs of charge, magnetism and field theory, that I knew by then could not possibly exist. In fact, they obscure us in seeing the actual attractive and repulsive forces.
I wrote a 64 page book about this simple relative motion law in 1966. Fitzpatrick's First Book (Click Link) There was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.
In my 87th year on this earth, I've managed to convince quite a few people, around the world, that this is what is really happening, but it's hard to change established religious beliefs, and that's exactly what today's modern physics is. Even Einstein saw that in 1954.
While we cannot obtain a Unified Field Theory, we can obtain a working relative motion law by substituting speed for voltage and mass for current in Ampère's Law. We now have the computing capacity to give ourselves a working relative motion law. This may sound impossible but this actually can be done today. I've done all I could putting many of its foundation stones in place. See http://www.rbduncan.com and also read 4 decades of my papers FREE by clicking
Science will make one huge quantum leap once this is done.
Here's how it's done:
When you are measuring amps,you are really measuring the quantity of electrons passing your measuring point. In the macrocosm you use the same amount of energy, passing your measuring point, with its force falling off at the 'square of the distance' just the same as in Ampère's original 1823 Law.
The problem comes with voltage.We see it as pressure. However, we can't measure pressure in the macrocosm, but I've realized for years that we are not measuring the pressure of electrons. We are measuring the SPEED of those electrons and calling it voltage.
SPEED is something we certainly can measure in the macrocosm.
So, what does this tell you?
It tells you the answer Einstein was trying to find with his Unified Field Theory — and with SIMPLER MATH too.
What we are unifying are ALL the FORCES. We are unifying ALL the attractive and repulsive forces in this universe using Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823.What can't be unified are the spacetime realms produced by the different frequency spins of spinning quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic super-clusters: their spins are all at a different frequency. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, the same as radio frequencies (radio stations) are all different.
For some reason, yet unknown we see these faster spinning things (higher spin frequency) as SMALL, and the slower spinning things (lower spin frequencies) as LARGE.
Even though this is incomprehensible, you will have UNIFICATION now because as you start using Ampère's Law for all this, then you will understand EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES SPACE & TIME (spacetime).
This is something you don't know now.
We have many spacetime realms but 5 BASIC spin frequency spacetime realms: quark, electron, star, galaxy and galactic super-cluster.
The electron is the only one of those above 5 spinning entities that has the same EXACT spin frequency for all electrons, making the same EXACT spacetime realm for all electrons.
Each of the above 5 BASIC spinning entities —spinning in all directions, mostly out-of-phase with each other — are producing — repulsive force, — holding themselves far, far apart, and producing different spacetime realms (different space and time) at different spin frequencies.
These are the only 5 BASIC spinning entities we know about. There may be thousands more larger than galactic super clusters and thousands even smaller than quarks.WE ARE IN A FREQUENCY UNIVERSE. Make no mistake about that! We have limits in our spacetime realm. But does this spin frequency universe have a limit in spin frequencies either higher or lower? Does this universe have a limit of these spinning entities being too small or too large?
WhileAmpère's simple relative motion law of 1823 solves one of our biggest science problems, it most certainly creates an even larger problem of understanding a universe that can exist that possibly extends both larger or smaller in an infinite direction both ways.
1.Now we must ask ourselves an important question: If we are, indeed, in such a frequency universe as this, then could our concepts of large and small be frequency concepts? Faster spinning, higher frequency spinning entities seem to be smaller, and slower spinning, lower frequency spinning entities seem to be larger.
2.Could our two concepts of space and time be erroneous concepts? Relativity scientists see this repulsive force as ONE thing, i. e. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant), or Minkowski's spacetime.
I've been asking myself those two questions (in the above paragraphs1. and 2.) for a good many years now.
I've made considerable progress in answering these two questions in paragraphs1. and 2. in the following links below.
Last, but not least,we solve even more of Niels Bohr's Complementarity Problem, because we see how an electron, from the quark's spacetime realm view, might look somewhat like our galaxy.
Precession, with each revolution — over a long period of time — results in a perfectly round PARTICLE or Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, SCALAR, standing wave.
Therefore, a tremendously longer period of time (spacetime) must exist between quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & super-clusters of galaxies for this universe to be stable.
Now you have the WHY for the Big Bang.
Thanks for reading this.
Electricians and radio people understand the importance of PHASE in regard to FORCE. I guess it was beneath the dignity of all the theoretical physicsts, so far, to even consider the PHASE aspect of any unified force theory.
And many sought to unify spacetime realms that simply can't be unified. Einstein was so close! If he had worked in early radio, instead of the Swiss Patent Office, would he have gotten it? It's an incredible story: Einstein completed 99% of what was needed but missed unification by a hair.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
I cannot teach anybody anything.
(Click aScalar link below for # 1. Answer.
Scalarin htm: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.htm
Also,Scalar in Word: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.doc
AndScalar in Adobe pdf: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.pdf
Withoutthis new knowledge of Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823, modern physics has become so dysfunctional that it cannot tell us what causes Dark Matter. Fixing that dysfunction is the challenge at hand. Change begins with understanding, and I wrote WIMPs to provide some. It also partially answers the question in paragraph 2., giving you a good idea of what's really going on.
(Click a WIMPs link below.)
WIMPsin html: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.html
Also,WIMPs in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.doc
AndWIMPs in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.pdf
April 30 2019343 years ago Roemer gave us a good, approximate SPEED OF LIGHT. He saw an anomaly of about fifteen minutes existed between the orbiting times of Jupiter's moons — shifting back and forth — when Earth was nearest and furthest from Jupiter. Roemer published the fact, in 1676, that light from the sun took half of this fifteen minute or so interval to get to our Earth.
Newton took this knowledge, and with his invention of calculus plus a tremendous amount of more effort, published in 1687, the phenomenal fact that the speed of gravitational attraction had to be instantaneous.
NASA — before the moon shot — re-checked and found the speed of gravity — was either Newton's instantly or at least 20 billion times the speed of light (2x1010c).Van Flandern
I have shown that the particle giving us Earth's gravity and inertia must be spinning at least 20 billion times (2x1010) faster than the electron. That particle is the quark, and strong force containment is nearly correct: it is 99.9999% right. It is the .0001% balance of quarks that are not contained that give us both gravity and inertia.http://rbduncan.com/scalar.cpyR.pdf
If you want to learn more, then read SCALAR, which gives us the SCALAR concept of NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff, who helped get us to the moon: quarks, electrons, planets, stars,
I crossed out two we don't see as SCALAR. We see galaxies as flat and frozen in time. We fail to see galaxies and super-clusters as spherical type SCALAR entities because the time-span of humans is far too short to witness the complete cycle of gyro precessing that will eventually turn galaxies and super-clusters into more spherical type SCALAR entities.
Most do not yet see that all of these SCALAR spinning entities essentially behave the same way in each of their own different spin frequency spacetime realms, but they do, and this is the big science revelation. It drastically changes and SIMPLIFIES modern physics!
SCALAR in htm: - http://rbduncan.com/scalar.htm
Also,SCALAR in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/scalar.doc
AndSCALAR in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/scalar.pdf
SCALAR, proves Einstein was right in his 1954 warning to us about field theory and modern physics when he said, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
You will see Wolff's SCALAR concept is the very antithesis of spacetime, giving us a simplification of our entire universe that today's science can't.
E SPIN PRECESSION in htm: http://rbduncan.com/espinp.htm
Also,E SPIN Pr. in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/espinp.doc
AndE SPIN Pr. in Adobe pdf: http://rbduncan.com/espinp.pdf
January/28/2019 a few TRUE science CONCEPTS
concepts in htm: - http://rbduncan.com/concepts.htm
Also,concepts in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/concepts.doc
Andconcepts in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/concepts.pdf
Forces in the electrical world are derived from PHASE.
And now we knowALL Fundamental Forces are derived from PHASE between spin frequencies in both microcosm and macrocosm: this, essentially, is Ampère's Law.
It's simple. Dec. 23, 2018
Fundamental Forces in htm: - http://rbduncan.com/simple.htm
Also,Fundamental Forces in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/simple.doc
AndFundamental Forces in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/simple.pdf
Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
Fitzpatrick's first book in 1966
Fitzpatrick's 1966 book in PDF
on these links herein are FREE, & NO pop up ads with these either.
How FIELD THEORIES obsure & HIDE all fundamental attractive & repulsive FORCES: October-29-2018
How FIELD THEORIES obsure & HIDE all fundamental attractive & repulsive FORCES: Oct-29-2018 in Adobe pdf
How FIELD THEORIES obsure & HIDE all fundamental attractive & repulsive FORCES: Oct-29-2018 in Word
3 Changes coming: October-3-2018
3 Changes coming: 10-3-2018 in Adobe pdf
3 Changes coming: 10-3-2018 in Word
Answer to Everything: 7-10-2018
Answer to Everything: 7-10-2018 in Adobe pdf
Answer to Everything: 7-10-2018 in Word
Why gyros defy gravity: 7-1-2018
Why gyros defy gravity: 7-1-2018 in Adobe pdf
Why gyros defy gravity: 7-1-2018 in Word
Why we see colors: 7-1-2018
Why we see colors: 7-1-2018 in Adobe pdf
Why we see colors: 7-1-2018 in Word
Britannica-Mistake: 6-12-2018 in Adobe pdf
Britannica-Mistake: 6-12-2018 in Word
Spacetime simplified: 5-25-2018
Spacetime simplified: 5-25-2018 in Adobe pdf
Spacetime simplified: 5-25-2018 in Word
Michael Crichton's most important revelation is not in his *Andromeda Strain* or *Jurassic Park* but in his book *Disclosure*: 4-11-2018
Michael Crichton's most important revelation in Adobe pdf: 4-11-2018
Michael Crichton's most important revelation in Word: 4-11-2018
Squaring a speed?
c.squared.pdf 11-25-2017 (Adobe)
c.squared.doc 11-25-2017 (Word)
1/3 shorter EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-23-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.htm
1/3 shorter EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-23-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.pdf (Adobe)
1/3 shorterEXPANDING UNIVERSE11-23-2017 PROOFIf universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.doc (Word)
EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-20-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.htm
EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-20-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.pdf (Adobe)
EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-20-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.doc (Word)
7-7-2017 Unlike Gravity, DARK MATTER bends light differently: in.htm Dark Matter in.pdf Dark Matter in.doc
Quantum Theory now complete (Einstein's prediction) 1/30/2017 (html)
a bit of light on "Everything".1/30/2017 (html)
Spinning, Standing Waves 1/24/2017 (html)
Top Science Rule in our Universe (html)
Top Science Rule in our Universe (Word)
Top Science Rule in our Universe (pdf)
Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force
a phase universe
Much longer Web Page that was previously here
Page 1. of 3 pages. Einstein's Most Important Discovery . . . .
Einstein's Most Important Discovery
. . . .shows why . . . .
Thisappears to be a Dystopian Universe
Einstein's most important discovery was not E=mc2 or relativity. It was what he discovered even later!
In 1954, about a year before he died, Einstein wrote, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Einstein, back then, was telling us that this whole concept of fields, while being of immense importance if held within strict and narrow parameters, was probably absolutely worthless when trying to figure out this entire universe.
What is so amazing is that almost no one listened to what Einstein said back then in 1954.
Scientists are still using the field concept today to try to figure out what really is going on in this universe of ours over 50 years after Einstein emphatically told them it most probably cannot be done.
As Einstein discovered when we use field concepts, we cannot see our universe as asimple utopian universe. We see it instead as a universe we cannot understand. We see it as a Dystopian Universe.
Not only have scientists wasted their time with the field concept - seeking to unify these invisible fields- but they have spent hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars doing so.
What is crystal clear now, in this day and age, is that both space and these invisible forces come about because of the spin frequencies of these Spinning, Scalar, Standing Wave, Resonances that nature uses as building blocks to build our entire universe.
These SSSWRs were discovered, and mathematically proven, by
This can be seen clearly not by the field concept but by using SSSWRs and the Relative Motion Laws Ampere gave us in the early 1800s.
My estimate is that only a few thousand people on earth see this today.
And I would say that the people who know exactly why Ampere's Laws work so well for these SSSWRs are even fewer in number. And something else that is very important that these Universities have entirely missed:
And something else that is very important that these Universities have entirely missed:
Einstein put words to something Newton understood: It's called The principle of equivalence. It means you cannot discern gravity from an acceleration.
In other words: if you are weightless in a spaceship far from earth and that spaceship begins to accelerate at a speed of 32 feet per second, per second then you would not be able to discern this acceleration force from the force of gravity.
But for us back here on earth, is this acceleration really here?
The answer is no. The gravitational force we feel is here but the acceleration itself is not really here but we do discern this force itself as an acceleration.
Well, then what about this newly discovered acceleration that Saul Perlmutter's group recently discovered.
Saul Perlmutter, himself, stated that we now have Einstein's cosmological constant operating in this universe.
But few listened to that statement just as few listened to Einstein's statement in 1954.
Einstein, himself, said his cosmological constant was a force equal but opposite to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart.
So if there is no actual acceleration via the force of gravity then how can there be any actual acceleration with gravity's equal and opposite force (cosmological constant)?
If the Newton-Einstein principle of equivalence is valid for one (gravity), then it must also be valid for the other (cosmological constant).
Therefore what this essentially means, boys and girls, is that we must have no actual accelerating, expanding universe but we must really be in a steady state universe exactly as that well known British astronomer Fred Hoyle claimed we had, all of his entire life.
As the principle of equivalence states: we can discern the acceleration but it is not really there.
It's the force itself that we are discerning (cosmological constant) and this actual equal and opposite force to gravity we most definitely can discern as the acceleration that Perlmutter's group discovered.
Even at the time I'm writing this, Phase Symmetry, that clearly shows you exactly what space-time is frequency-wise, still fails to show us exactly why we see space and time as individual components. Now a correction to that previously written sentence: The answer has to be IMPEDANCE MATCHING; which here is just as important as in radio circuitry only here the better we are impedanced matched then the more we see space-time as time and not as space. (I didn't see this until 7-11-2016 so even well past 83, I am still learning.)
Phase Symmetry gives us the utterly simple answer that Stephen Hawking says exists. It gives us the unification that Einstein told us exists. If you fail to see Phase Symmetry then you fail to see this simple rule that this entire universe follows. It unifies because quarks, electrons, stars and galaxies obey the same phase rule.
You can peruse all about this at: (Click links.) http://www.rbduncan.com/
and/or by reading this FREE e-book Universities Asleep at the Switch
Quarks are some of the smallest phenomena from which our universe is built. Galaxies are some of the largest. Can the spins of the stars and spins of the tiniest parts of atomic structures all be governed by one set of rules? A Laws.
Planck, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and present day quantum physicists have struggled with this question for decades. But mysteries surrounding light, gravity, magnetism and sub-atomic structures remain. Individual theories explain each, but no single theory has yet been able to explain them all. By scrutinizing existing theory and discovering what physicists have missed, Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. gives you the answers to what really makes our universe tick — and what it means to human beings in the middle of it all.
If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.
Also, Field Theories in Word: & Field Theories in Adobe pdf:
Also, Field Theories in Word:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdfFitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.