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.
This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
The big push now is in obtaining cheap, reliable, controllable fusion power.
The thing that no one seems to understand is that fusion energy is obtained exactly the same way as chemical energy in that in the two methods, fermions are aligned up similarly in BOTH.
Either the poles of two same spin fermions are aligned up closer, such as in pi bonding, or the sides of a spin up - spin down fermion are aligned closer as in sigma bonding.
This is EXACTLY what also happens in the release of fusion power.
It's hard to believe that even the experts don't seem to understand that these fermions are obeying the Aufbau Laws or Ampere's 1825 laws corrected for relative motion and frequency.
Ampere's Laws and WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) are important elements in the quest for a Theory of Everything.
Dan Fitzpatrick Jr.
There were only two important areas in which I and your neighbor in Wales, Caroline Thompson, agreed upon.
After reading this (below) from Caroline I saw that now there is only one area left where we agree and that is the absolute irrelevancy of the Bell tests.
In this (below) Caroline repudiates the one important universal law that builds our ENTIRE universe:
I will NEVER forget a previous e-mail from Caroline. (I'm trying to find it.)
In that previous e-mail, Caroline and I discussed these out of phase resonances. I believed she published something like this - below in red - too, Caroline and I agreed with this following idea:Space (repulsive force) is being constantly produced between out of phase resonances whereas no space (binding) is being produced between in phase resonances.
She might not have quite said ALL of this but the above was exactly the picture I got at the end of our e-mail discussion and I sure wished that I had thought of it first.
Yahoo's Wave Structure of Matter Group
Message # 4378
also on my server at http://www.rbduncan.com/Carolines.htm
From: "Caroline H Thompson" <ch.thompson1@v...>
Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:46 am
Subject: How attractive forces work
Discussion recently seems to me to have little bearing on the wave structure
Let's get back to earth. I've been working for the past couple of days
re-vamping my original PWA paper
<http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/phi-waves.htm> to make a
chapter for a new book to be published by Apeiron. I got to re-thinking
about attraction. I'd described it before in very anthropomorphic terms,
but with a little help from Gabriel LaFreniere's ideas
(<http://glafreniere.com/>) I think I can now make it more scientific.
Here's what I wrote yesterday:
My original inspiration for phi-waves was as an explanation for the Coulomb
force, which was to be determined by the gradient of their amplitude, but
how can I explain in terms of wave centres why positive charges should move
one way and negative the other? I?m not sure what a ?positive charge? is!
I have provisionally identified electrons with wave centres, and it seems
reasonable that they should be pushed towards regions of lower phi-wave
amplitude, so that if positive charge means merely that the sources are
pulsating with lower amplitude this would account for an electron moving
towards a proton, but why should the proton move to meet it? Why should
like positive charges repel?
Perhaps my original idea that out-of-phase waves always push wave centres
was wrong. Could it be that they push wave centres that are pulsating at
almost maximum amplitude whilst they effectively pull those that are below
par? Let us reconsider what is happening to make a wave centre move. The
centre, after all, only really exists as such for part of its cycle, when
the phi value is high. Phi then decreases to zero and the centre re-forms,
possibly in a slightly different position. It has not really been pushed or
pulled at all, just regenerated in a new place. There is thus no reason why
there should not be an actual pulling effect. By re-forming a little nearer
to the dominant phi-wave source (which presumably is ?negatively charged?,
having strong pulsations), a weakly pulsating centre will become stronger.
Does this make sense? It seems to me to be a slight improvement on saying
that the positively charge body is hungry for phi-input and therefore moves
towards a good phi-source! What may in fact happen is the weak wave centre
vacillates -- keeps "changing its mind" -- there I go again,
anthropomorphising! Anyway, a weak ("positively charged") wave centre keeps
disappearing and reappearing, but presumably can't in practice move to just
*any* new site since it would not exist at all if it were not already in a
slightly advantageous position. One "good" position is bound to be
surrounded by other reasonably good ones, since all owe their properties to
being at exact integer numbers of wavelengths away from other wave centres.
Our weak wave centre can partly re-form in several of these alternative
sites at once but the strongest "re-incarnation" will be one that is nearer
to the new strong source -- the new negatively charged body that has been
introduced into the environment.
It seems to take quite a few words to describe what's happening. An
important feature of my new idea is that I'm no longer saying that
out-of-phase phi-waves always push wave centres. They push strong wave
centres but attract weak ones.
Caroline H. Thompson ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.727 / Virus Database: 482 - Release Date: 26/07/2004