SEE, — HOW the complexities of FIELD THEORIES HID from us, the fact that relative motion
(phase) between all these spinning entities, in the micro & macro universe,
gives us all the attractive
and repulsive Fundamental Forces.
Oct-29-2018.
Field Theories in html: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.html
Also, Field Theories in Word: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdf
Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed
the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
Fitz's first book in 1966
Fitz's 1966 book in PDF
This was
the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
For 4 Decades of my writings: click http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
Abstract
of
A spherical, scalar, standing wave universe
Bohr* once screamed at Feynman*, "Learn
quantum theory!" while the thing Feynman was trying to explain to
Bohr was one of the greatest advancements in quantum theory ever. *Neils Bohr Nobel Prize for
physics 1922 - - *Richard Feynman Nobel Prize for physics 1965
Scientists haven’t changed. The prima donnas
still reject new advancements just as the Catholic authorities refused to even
look through Galileo’s telescope.
Two important aspects needed – to see the big picture – are being totally neglected: they are phase and the surroundings.
Ernst Mach and a host of others have said surroundings are involved. But Mach's Principle has only been
given lip service because it seems not to agree with some very popular science
beliefs. Few scientists consider even digging into the possibility of G.
Berkeley and E. Mach being right because we have neither the math nor the
computers capable of working out all these billions of billions of possible
linkages with the surrounding stars. But these surrounding stars must be involved because gyros hold to these surrounding stars. We know this because super accurate
gyroscopes – that hold their plane of
rotation to the stars – are absolutely
necessary in our airliners and for space travel. Gyroscopes, pendulums and
vibrating elements all exhibit the same 23 hour 56 minute and 4 second cycle of
rotation. This is one sidereal day or the time period it takes the earth to
rotate once in space (in relation to the stars).
Once you know present science hasn't given us
even the foggiest notion of why this is happening then you know we have a major
problem with present science. You also know present science isn't giving us the
correct image – of what Ernst Mach knew – how
our surroundings are involved (Mach’s Principle):
therefore you must devise a way to see the accurate "big picture" with the tools you have at your disposal right now.
This revolutionary new hypothesis has the
Copenhagen interpretation of "complementarity" because it shows us
the same thing our present science shows us plus
by spending about 30 minutes reading this, you will know:
1: exactly what space and time are.
2: You will see how to unify the
fundamental forces.
3: You will know where gravity comes from and
why it bends light.
4: You will also clearly understand why a
quantum of light comes to your eye from a distant star full strength with no
energy loss whatsoever, yet the total amount
of light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance.
5: But most important: You will
understand what causes Inertial Mass and that this newly discovered "God
Particle" (Higgs Boson) is best seen - not as a particle - but as a
Bose-Einstein condensate force where impedance matched binding is transferred
from one place to another.
You will then absolutely
know more than all the top scientists know.
Even though you will then know far more than they do about this entire
universe, they will continue to receive their big pay checks.
That, unfortunately, is something
not in my power to change.
OK, Let’s get on to describing how this
universe works, that we find ourselves in.
We have to bring back the Bohr-LeBroglie
wave-particle concept into this new hypothesis as we examine this far different
concept.
And it is a far different concept from our
present thinking too.
But it works!
If you will read this, and a few of my
other papers giving even more facts, you will see that this has to be
the answer to this universe we find ourselves in because this new concept explains almost everything that we still can't
comprehend using only the standard model.
This new concept envisions that our entire
universe is composed of one special type of building block – or rather a building sphere or spheroid – called a Spherical, or even better yet, a
Spinning, Scalar, Standing Wave Resonance (SSSWR). They all must
have spin, yet they are not always exactly spherical. (While their main frequencies are perfectly
scalar to the main frequencies of all the other similar entities
in their surroundings, their spin
frequencies are only scalar to the average of the others in their
surroundings: this is extremely important because without this there would be
no space or force.) You will see why later.
These Resonances must have internal
binding, and also external binding with their surroundings. They must remain in
perfect "resonance" with their surroundings in order for them to
remain spherical spinning, scalar, standing waves. These reproduce – similar
to ordinary standing waves – via
energy that they themselves emit and absorb as explained by Dr. Milo Wolff (Click link.). I’m in debt to
Milo Wolff for showing me the importance of the scalar aspect of all of
this and the function of the Hubble limit. These spinning, standing wave entities orbit and spin in a spacetime
realm solely via their own energy, produced at their own frequency. To
remain here they must have certain proportions and have the correct
frequency so that they can perfectly "resonate" with
their surrounding neighbors.
The main argument against
this is that the stars and galaxies are nothing like the electrons
because electrons obey the laws of magnetism and charge. This is true. But why
? Because without seeing the aspects of phase
and the surroundings we fail to see all these
invisible forces behaving exactly the same way – the main argument for this – which will be seen when we analyze the Big Bang
in which, most scientists agree, the first atom was built and the electron
first created. A bit later we will dig more into what this Big Bang
teaches us as it gives us the main argument for
this (SSSWR) building
block.
The first thing we have to do is change the
standard model concept of different gauges* to an entirely different
concept where we think of every different gauge as a different spacetime realm and then
coming into your focus will be the veritable theory of everything everyone is
looking for. *(For
instance: QED – realm of the electron – is an entirely different gauge
from QCD – realm
of the quark: Both use different rules and math
for each different gauge.)
Different frequency (SSSWR)s – electrons and quarks, that quantum scientists
see as in entirely different gauges, in the standard model – are
actually different areas of spacetime producing
entirely different space and time setups with an entirely different
spacetime interval from each other
in each higher or lower spin/orbit frequency realm. These spherical
spinning, scalar, standing wave resonances
can only be detected as round solid objects in their own spin/orbit
frequency spacetime realm. This is why we don’t see the electron as solid,
looking at it from our
spacetime realm. This is
also why we don’t view galaxies as quite solid either. And this being quasi-solid
– like a variegated galaxy – is another reason why it’s important to bring
back the wave-particle duality to this new concept.
Even though we might not view the electron as
a solid we must assume that it will behave exactly
as a solid within
certain strict parameters in its own spacetime realm. As you read on you'll see why.
I found the basic foundation stone
of this in 1966 when I published my first book that got a full page spread – page 29 of The Sunday Book Review section – in the
New York Times on June 18th 1967.
All these things behave as solids within certain strict parameters in their own
spacetime realms (gauges).
This is why we must return to the
way Bohr saw the electron!
Here's the way to visualize it:
Neils Bohr saw a solid electron in
motion and utilized this concept – of
a tiny spherical electron in motion – to prove what gave us the different colors and
thereby Bohr won the Nobel Prize.
The fact that you can see colors is one proof the electron acts like a solid sphere
orbiting the nucleus. Yes, only within very strict
limits – I agree – yet the proof
of that solid electron orbiting remains.
Exceed these strict
parameters in the microcosm and you must revert to the Hartree
Approximations. Exceed these strict parameters
here and in the macrocosm and you must revert to General Relativity.
This is really a frequency
universe overall but it's the behaving of these (SSSWR)s as a solid under very, very strict parameters that is the key that all of us have overlooked! We must see things as solid particles
as well as frequencies. We use Newton's laws and our other natural laws all
the time and as long as we don't go too fast – as the planet Mercury – or
our mass doesn't change too much, these laws work just fine because we are remaining in that category of extremely strict parameters of mass and
speed.
Don’t throw away Euclid and Newton just
yet in the microcosm. Venture along with me using a solid electron that orbits and spins
and observe what happens then!
Think of the electron more as being in an
actual orbit – when needed – and
forget this new wave concept of orbitals
when we need to explain certain things better. Use electrons as solid, spherical, spinnning
particles much like Bohr’s explanations.
When I was young and working in 1964, the
government issued me their top First Class Radio License # P1-7-4087
with RADAR endorsement enabling me to work on about any transmitter available so
this tells you I know a bit about electrons.
Again, this cannot be visualized unless we
return back to the way Bohr saw these electrons as solid, spinning,
spherical resonances.
Electrons – that normally repel – can, however, snap together and build even a lot better than
Lego blocks because they can attract and bind with other
electrons at two 90 degree
positions – but only
those two positions – their poles
and at their equator. Both of these attracting positions are used in
magnetism and chemical bonding but only the equatorial bonding position is used in giving
us energy (radiation).
Once again, because it's important that you know this:
Electrons repel
other electrons except in two
positions where they will attract
each other and bond together not only in magnetism and chemical bonding but in distant bonding to
give us radiation.
If we disregard minor orbit plane attractions,
there are no other positions than
the following two where electrons
themselves attract other electrons:
1.
The stronger, polar
attractive bond is when both are on the same
spin axis line and both electrons have the same spin (both
spinning in the same direction). (a pi type polar
bond).
2.
The weaker attractive bond is when their spin planes
are in the same plane and both
electrons have opposite spins (a sigma
type bond). This is the more prevalent chemical
bond because spin planes tend to line up where spin axes, (polar pi
type bonds), do not and spin axes will even avoid lining up unless held
firmly in place by a close sigma bond and
this can only happen where many electrons have snapped into place, like Lego
blocks, in close chemical
bonding.
This is why all distant bonds
have to be sigma bonds.
Seeing electrons as spinning particles
made sense to Bohr and it makes sense to us today especially if we use Ampere's Laws Ampere's Laws (Click link.), that work in every gauge.
Ampere's Laws show you, unmistakably, all the forces are
derived the same way – in every gauge – via relative motion or relative
phase whichever way you want to view it.
Ampere's Laws make these two paragraphs, and the next two in
italics, crystal clear: Two electrons spinning in the same direction –
having the same spin axis – give the strongest magnetic attraction, to each other,
because the entire mass of both electrons are in phase together (a pi type polar bond). However, a spin up/spin down electron pair, both
spinning in the same spin plane, have a weaker magnetic attraction because only the deep
sections of their closest sides are in
phase together (a sigma
type bond).
You must also understand that Ampere's Laws give us the best reason for
magnetism: In Iron many electron spin axes will line up exactly in a domain. As
that iron is magnetized, all of these domains will attempt to line up exactly
together as well. With a pair of earphones you can actually hear the click the Barkhausen effect of these individual domains as they line up. Thus you have all these
spin axes lined up together the same
way in magnetic bonding. You do not have all these spins
lined up together the same way, in chemical
bonding.
Bohr's electron in motion
type of thinking must be done
to understand why the sigma type bond in chemical
bonding is the stronger bond while in
magnetism the same spin up/spin down sigma type bond is the weaker bond. With north pole up and north pole down on two
magnets, their sides will attract – many sigma type bonds – but this is the weaker attraction. The stronger polar attraction comes with the same two magnets, both north
poles up, and stacked on top of each other, pole on top of pole – many pi type polar bonds. Thus
similar spins on the same
spin axis line (pi type polar bond) gives the stronger magnetic
attraction.
However, this pi type polar bond gives the weaker chemical
attraction simply because these polar pi bond
electrons are in actual motion, in overlapping orbits, and both are only
lined up pole over pole (same
spin axis line) for an infinitely short period of time during
each of their orbits.
The spin up/spin down sigma bonds, in chemical
bonding, are in constant binding during their entire
orbit because they are both spinning in the same
equatorial spin plane. Not so with a polar
pi chemical bond; all those are in
overlapping orbits and they only have a direct pole over pole overlap
now and then. Since the duration of the sigma bond is
continuous, the sigma bond ends up as the stronger of the two in chemical bonding even though it is really the
weaker bond as is plainly seen in magnetism.
If the above still hasn’t sunk in, read this:
http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
(Click link.)
The above two paragraphs in italics – showing the sigma
type chemical
bond to be the stronger but the sigma type magnetic bond to be the
weaker – are really all the
proof one needs to know all these electrons are absolutely moving along on real orbits in there. You cannot see this electron movement on
real orbits at all using
the new standard model orbital concept.
I've been asking the standard
model theorists why this isn't proof that these electrons are really moving in those orbits exactly like Neils Bohr said. – – No
answer yet.
So for clarity, change the present
standard model orbital concept back to Bohr's orbits.
Einstein and Schrödinger both said these solid things we see in
motion are only "illusions". Yes, our eyes
cannot see all this microcosm motion;
the above paragraphs prove that. Also if things move too fast or get too
massive the old Newtonian rules that worked when held within strict parameters of mass and speed now fail us.
Present quantum scientists, Einstein, Schrödinger and even I agree in a way,
with this "illusion" concept
but if held within strict
parameters we can work out, and have worked out, wonderful
mathematical solutions using this concept of a solid mass in motion; so use it! Don't throw the baby
out the window with the bath water as present quantum theorists have done.
I’m not asking anything too revolutionary:
I’m only asking the quantum theorists – who know it’s a frequency universe – to visualize the electron as we used to see it.
Step back in time and see the solid aspect of the electron exactly like
Bohr saw it. Also keep this concept of a solid in motion – within
strict parameters – as
Bohr did.
I’m asking the others – who see things as
solids – to understand this is
really a frequency universe, like the quantum folks know it is, but you can use
this concept of solid items in motion only if you keep it within strict parameters.
If this is done then both the aspect of phase and the surroundings
can enter into it and we gain two thirds more of the big picture whereas now
with the standard model alone, we are only seeing the initial one third of the
big picture.
If you like to see these things as solids
then view it as relative motion. The quantum frequency folks can view
it as relative phase and both can get the big picture.
Everything in this universe can be seen as
orbiting and spinning in their respective realms. Spin motion is the prevailing
factor you must mostly watch in the microcosm while obiting motion is what you
must mainly observe elsewhere. However it's still relative
motion or relative phase,
whichever way you care to observe it.
* * In this new concept * *
* * * wavelength
= size * * *
We ourselves, being built of waves, sense wavelength as size.
Also remember, wavelength is the reciprocal
of frequency.
Therefore (SSSWR)s from higher energy, higher frequency – shorter wavelength – spacetime
realms will appear smaller to us and (SSSWR)s from lower
energy, lower frequency – longer wavelength
– spacetime realms will appear larger to us as we look at them from our space
time arrangement here on earth. But this is mainly to be used for us, for what
we see in our spacetime realm (gauge).
(Please don't confuse this with
the de Broglie wavelength formula that concerns momentum and which is
best solely used in the microcosm – an
entirely different spacetime realm (gauge) from us.)
Different gauges use different math and laws with the exception of Ampere’s Laws which all gauges
use.
So remember, before you quantify – using our subset math & rules – you must fix the gauge. ([fix the gauge] Specify the gauge parameters.) http://www.Ampèrefitz.com/quantize.htm (Click link.)
Sometimes we can take our laws or our rules
into other gauges providing it’s done within certain strict parameters.
However, you can always use Ampere’s
Laws in every gauge because every gauge uses phase or relative
motion the same way.
Remember, these (SSSWR)s are made
up of standing waves. Standing waves are the bane of engineers working on radio
and TV transmitters because they are ruinous! They soak up power and
cause loss of radiation: They are more like matter, than radio waves. Standing
waves keep reproducing themselves by "resonating" and absorbing energy from the other radio waves being
produced. Standing waves will not effectively radiate like regular radio waves.
Wherever radio waves are produced standing waves are their "resonating" byproduct. Engineers have to constantly design
ways to keep as many standing waves as possible away from transmitters and
their antennas. Even for a well designed transmitter to work, there must be
constant diligence by people working on transmitters and antennas to keep
eliminating standing waves. But evidently this universe thrives on standing
waves and is even built from them. They get the energy to reproduce themselves
from similar "resonating" standing
wave entities in their surroundings up to a certain limit in distance. For
instance, an electron in our vicinity would be receiving and also emitting
energy to/from electrons all the way to/from the Hubble limit.
And once again – with
added clarity – for
reinforcement:
Chemists know there are two types of chemical
bonds where two atoms are held together by a pair of their electrons (also SSSWRs)
establishing an attractive sigma or pi bond. In this paper I am mainly discussing the sigma
bond. I’m referring to a special inverted pair of electrons
having attractive bonding: these are a
pair of spin up/spin down electrons – a
sigma bond – that chemists apply to the close chemical bond, but it
still applies here even though these electrons, bonding together, are quite
distant. They are also called "Cooper pairs" but by whatever name you
call them, they – as many fail to understand – are simply
nothing more than the well-known chemical sigma bond by two electrons with opposite
spins whose spins are both spinning in the same spin plane.
This cannot be visualized unless we return
back to the way Bohr saw these as solid, spinning, spherical resonances.
The attractive binding force of these
electrons comes whenever an inverted pair of (spin-up/spin-down) (SSSWR)s are in the
same equatorial spin plane while their closest
sides are like gears meshing, not clashing and an equal amount of mass from
each of their closest sides is in phase. All bindings/bondings must be
similarly impedance matched. (Sections of their closest sides [each having equal mass] are like gears
meshing – going in the same direction – therefore are in
phase!)
This in phase
bond – a sigma bond – retains its full strength of
attraction all the way to the Hubble limit.
If a sigma bond did not
remain at full strength all the way to the Hubble limit, there wouldn't even be one quantum of
energy produced or available anywhere.
It’s the number
of these binding (SSSWR) pairs
that is inversely proportional to the distance
squared.
No electrons here bond/bind with any
electrons beyond the Hubble limit.
Why does this electron to electron bonding
cease entirely at the Hubble limit?
Because this distance is the longest distance two electrons can line up their
spin planes using Ampere's
Laws, which are the only laws that are not
subset laws and that work perfectly in every gauge (spacetime
realm).
* * *
Every (SSSWR) –
including the quark – attracts distant
(SSSWR)s
the same way using impedance matched sigma type bonding where thin,
deep sections of mass are equal on each of the closest sides of the bonding/binding resonances.
This newly discovered "God
Particle" (Higgs Boson) is best seen - not as a particle - but as a
Bose-Einstein condensate force where impedance matched quark spin binding is
transferred from one place to another.
* * *
Similar to the Hubble Limit for the electron,
the quark has a limited distance too that it can bind with distant quarks and
this is the Amperefitz distance.
Once again –
remember – because each sigma bond
retains its full strength of attraction all the way to the Hubble limit, each quantum of energy is delivered
with no energy loss at all. It is the total amount of this energy that arrives in the
inverse square ratio. (It’s
only the number of sigma bonding pairs that diminish as
the inverse distance squared.)
We have recorded every type of force
derived from any spin/orbit change made by the electron so we say electron spin is conserved. Incidentally none of these electron derived forces is
gravitational in nature.
So we must look for another particle
causing gravity. Since spin is always conserved, all we have to do is keep our
eyes open and our brain functioning, which it seems some scientists failed to
do.
The QCD quantum theorists claim quark spin is
not conserved! Why? Because they could not equate these abrupt quark position
shifts with any force, like we can with the electron. Well I can and I’ll show you: Yes, they are
mistaken because the spin that they see that is not conserved is really
conserved because it is this quantum quark spin force, which is really impedance matched
quark to distant quark bonding that is causing gravity and inertia. So
the quark strong force is not entirely contained inside the proton or neutron
after all. And there is more: What is improperly called asymptotic quark
freedom occurs because as these three different size quarks get closer
together, near the nuclear center, their combined mass gets so high that their
binding (spin)
frequencies – which
must be either the same or an exact harmonic to
attract each other – get distorted by
their new much higher grouped mass the closer they get. So the closer they get
to each other their attraction changes somewhat. It is not really asymptotic
quark freedom because quarks near the outside edge of protons and neutrons are
being pulled there by impedance matched bondings of quarks in the distant
surroundings thereby giving us both inertia and gravity. Quarks being pulled toward the exterior of protons
and neutrons are our indicators of gravitational and inertial quanta. So much for the standard model’s tall tale of quark strong
force containment and this hypocrisy of asymptotic freedom. No such quark freedom exists!
These erroneous quark concepts were handed to
us by the high priests who could not figure out – and probably didn't even try to find out – why
gyros held to the stars and who gave
us another erroneous reason –
called force carrying particles – why
a quantum of light from a distant star came to our eyes with no energy loss.
These holy men of science entirely missed
the boat on all these distant
electron and quark sigma type bonds.
It's hard for me to believe that when Mach's
principle needed further investigation that our great men of science preferred
to only give it lip service in spite of the overwhelming evidence in its favor.
As my good friend Milo Wolff stated, "Those stars are far more than simply ornaments up there."
It’s perfectly obvious what is going on, in
the quark realm, yet most people would rather read the dictates of the high
priests instead of doing any mental work whatsoever themselves. The high
priests are generally right but – like
Aristotle – they are never always right.
Strong force containment will go down with
phlogiston as the two worst concepts in the history of science.
You think – because
of this subset, spacetime realm (gauge) you are in – that
you have different forces for gravity, charge,
magnetism, weak force, strong force including quantum exchange particles like
photons, gravitons, gluons and more recent esoteric force
carrying entities like them. Your present science –
by attempting to keep one type of space and one type of time for everything
– has given you a set of different
complicated forces that are far beyond belief!
It's really one simple type of force in different
spin/orbit frequency – gauges – spacetime realms. You'll see for yourself that
it is simple too if you take the time to look at how force
is produced in this new hypothesis.
There is no force tensor
in the tensor math of general relativity. There is only more or less space that
must be converted to force. This new concept
shows us exactly how this actually works! What the tensor math shows us is
that force and space are being produced the same
way. This new concept shows us exactly how this is being done. You
will see, in this new concept that both space and force
are being produced by phase
differences of the closest sides
of these resonances and what counts is really the phase difference of their spin frequencies.
Time is not produced by the spin
frequency but by a phase change in
the main scalar frequency of the spherical, standing wave itself. This acts as
a clock as the scalar phase
changes between all the (SSSWR)s as they emit and absorb energy while rebuilding
themselves. The following is indeed only a
possibility: Consider this
universe having a finite size with a scalar
phase shift constantly in effect – like a clock – moving
among all the (SSSWR)s.
This phase shift, in a finite
universe, would be at exactly 180 degrees – opposite
to our (SSSWR)s – in the portion of the universe opposite to us
making those particles – in that portion of our
universe opposite us – anti-particles. This would be far, far, far
beyond the Hubble limit or the Amperefitz limit from us and therefore could not affect us in
any way. Most might not consider this to even be a probability but, in this new
concept, it is a distinct, definite possibility if this universe is finite.
Space/force is produced in a similar out
of phase manner as time. However,
it is not produced by the main scalar frequency of the (SSSWR) but it is
produced by the spin frequency.
Space/force – in all these different frequency spacetime
realms are produced by the spin frequencies. The tensor math of general
relativity shows curved space producing force, in much the same manner, in the
macrocosm.
In a similar manner attractive force is being produced from space
between sigma bond pairs of (spin-up/spin-down) (SSSWR)s because their closest
sides are – spinning in the same plane – like gears meshing in
phase with each other; not
like the closest sides of all
the others – having their spins in various directions – that produce the average
out of phase amount (space).
* * *
Space, produced by these (SSSWR)s is really nothing but the average amount
of out of phase condition of the closest sides
of all of these many, many, many similar (SSSWR)s in a particular system. In fact this is what
keeps everything far apart both in the microcosm and the macrocosm.
* * *
Anything exactly in
phase is
also in the same spot in space, exactly
like the Bose-Einstein condensate conjecture: (The spin frequencies of these entities are
at a much lower frequency than the main scalar frequency and when you remove
heat then you are removing the effectiveness of these spin frequencies thus
removing space and giving you the Bose-Einstein condensate.)
If a thin, deep section on both of the closest sides of two distant sigma bond
(spin-up/spin-down) spinning, scalar, standing wave (SSSWR)s are exactly in phase including identical
portions of mass on both, then those two thin deep sections of the closest sides would have a very powerful
attraction because there would actually be a minimum of space between them
because space, again, is the average amount everything is out of phase with everything
else in that one particular frequency spacetime realm.
An (SSSWR) – or a
composite of them – will be viewed as a solid
entity in one's own spacetime realm or a variegated solid – as we see a galaxy composed of stars – in a lower frequency spin/orbit frequency
spacetime realm. But motion can not be seen nor can a spherical (SSSWR) of a higher
frequency spin/orbit realm, even be witnessed – as
a solid sphere or spheroid – from
a lower frequency spin/orbit, spacetime realm. Only energy and force
can move either way to/from a higher or to/from a lower frequency realm.
In our realm if solids go too fast – speed of the planet Mercury for instance – then we need Einstein’s general relativity
patches. Similarly in the microcosm, if we vary too far, we must use the
Hartree approximations. But there is – in
every spacetime realm – an area (within strict parameters) in which a solid will obey the essence of
Newtonian laws exactly. This shows the method for the first attempt at
mathematically unifying the fundamental forces.
This is why we must return to
the way Bohr saw it!
* * *
All attractive forces
come from being in phase more than this average out of
phase amount (space).
All repulsive force comes
about by being more out of phase than this average out of
phase amount (space).
(This way, no photons, gluons, gravitons or any
other force carrying particles are needed!)
* * *
Because of strong harmonic bond links with both
higher and lower frequency levels, each spin/orbit frequency level will have
entirely different layout symmetries: We have three different quarks in the
quark level and only one electron size in the electron level. When size is
limited then spin becomes of the utmost importance because same sized
spheres can have in phase frequency pairing such
as the electrons have with sigma and pi bonding and quarks have with spin
frequency bonding done at a quark spin frequency the square of the electron
spin frequency.
In the atomic makeup of things, the electron
of one spacetime realm – gauge – (term used by quantum theorists) orbits the
realm of the quark that has an entirely different – gauge – spacetime realm.
There is absolutely no evidence of this
happening in the macrocosm (a much lower frequency spacetime realm).
The only way that this one gauge orbiting another gauge can possibly be
explained – atoms being created – is that
an all neutron universe suddenly underwent an extensive beta decay. So, in my
opinion, our celebrated Big Bang was really an extensive beta decay of a
once stable all neutron universe.
It's the rotation of these two different – gauges – spacetime
realms, around each other, that give us this intense microcosm spin factor of same
size spheres – which in
turn gives these numerous sigma and pi bonds. This differentiates the layout of the microcosm
in respect to the more different size spheres and spheroids in
the more planar type layout of the macrocosm.
Astronomers will eventually find that all
binary stars, of the same size and mass, have inverted spins and do orbit each
other using a sigma style bonding as well, proving it is phase bonding in the macrocosm as well as in
the microcosm. But the many different sizes of things in the macrocosm prevent
the prevalent sigma and pi style of bonding observed in the microcosm. This,
and us being in an entirely different spin/orbit frequency spacetime realm, is
why we see it as magnetism and charge in the microcosm.
Time is something that especially enters the
picture of components that are built of many of these (SSSWR)s that are
linked together because as these linkages change this also is seen as time
changing.
* *
Remember, this space, that we see, is nothing
but the average amount of out of phase condition at this particular
spin/orbit frequency band of this particular bunch of (SSSWR)s that
compose us.
* *
A major premise of this extraordinary new
hypothesis is that particular frequency (SSSWR)s keep themselves in a relatively stable
spacetime realm which they themselves are actually producing. But this
spacetime realm is linked to even higher frequency (SSSWR)s in various ways via harmonics: For instance, an
important quark spin frequency turns out to be the square
of the electron's spin frequency. It is this harmonic that allows gravity to
bend light and it is this harmonic that gives us the well-known quantity c2.
This tremendous square of our space being
produced in the quark realm cannot be directly transferred to our realm but that force is transferred! The
acceleration effects of so much extra space certainly is transferred and we
feel these force effects here on
earth as an acceleration of 32 feet per second, per second.
Moreover, the quark may be linked to even
higher frequency (SSSWR) spin/orbit spacetime realms that we are not
aware of.
This new premise allows higher energy, higher
frequency "resonating" (SSSWR) spacetime systems to be the foundation of lower energy, lower frequency "resonating" systems and these in turn can become the foundation of even lower frequency "resonating" (SSSWR) spin/orbit
systems: possibly even ad-infinitum? (Solar systems building galaxies and
galaxies being the foundation to super clusters
etc.?). This would work out to be a fairly stable system because lower energy
spacetime realms would be depending on higher energy, higher frequency
spacetime realms and higher energy systems can always support lower frequency
systems of a lower energy requirement. Any energy leakage between the realm
levels would – in time – be less and less and more toward the outer,
lower frequency spacetime realms as time for this entire universe wore on. In
fact it's the author's thinking that the Big Bang was caused by
such an energy leakage in a spacetime realm, which –
in time – affected all the pure neutrons
in a perfectly stable neutron only universe where too much energy leakage, over
time, eventually made this all neutron spacetime realm unstable, resulting in a
wholesale beta decay and the conversion of half the neutrons – in this entire neutron universe – into protons and electrons. The first atoms
being thereby constructed inside of which, half of the original neutrons
remained safe.
Once you read my other papers showing you
exactly what energy is then you see the problem with accepting the present
belief of how this universe was built. The beta
decay method is the only method whereby this entire universe could be
constructed at the same time all throughout. There is absolutely no
doubt that precisely this is what happened: the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation shows this is indeed what must have happened.
Carefully read and consider this picture of our universe: Even
though each different spin/orbit frequency system ends up with entirely
different symmetries or layouts, the underlying individual (SSSWR) space
building operation remains exactly the same because their spins will generally
be in various directions, thereby creating an average
out of phase condition (space) between the
closest sides of all (SSSWR)s.
In the macrocosm we have gravity – the force holding these things together – because the various portions inside or on any (SSSWR) are far
more in phase with each other
than with the surroundings, therefore we have the in phase gravitational attraction.
These in phase bonding
attractions then, from microcosm to macrocosm, with any (SSSWR) – the highest frequency to the lowest – (smallest to the largest using our solid
rather than wave view) gives us not only gravity but the force holding all
these various spinning, entities together. The bonding force of all these
resonances stems from them being more in phase than space (the average amount of out of phase condition). This is why the microcosm and the macrocosm both
contain 99.9999% empty space: Both are essentially bonding (in phase) together as units –
and building (out of
phase) space – the same way! All this empty space between
everything can only be there if all these resonances have both internal bonding
and external bonding with their same frequency surroundings. You could eliminate photons, gluons and
more of these type of energy exchanging particles from the standard model using
this new hypothesis. It
would make the concept of aether no longer needed as well.
These resonances must always remain with
spins/orbits that keep them emitting/receiving the correct amount of energy to
remain a "resonating" standing wave.
To keep this paper short I’ve avoided many
important things like translational motion, binding energy, inertial mass, and
more that you can find in my other papers. See these too and you will then see
the big picture – how it generally all
works – as Dirac predicted we would all
eventually see.
Your eye lens was not designed by an
engineer. Trilobites had a hard calcite lens hundreds of millions of years ago
and the soft lens in your eye took hundreds of millions of more years to be
developed in a system where the things that reproduced best stayed here and the
things that didn't do as well were gone. (Darwin’s Survival of the
Fittest)
The (SSSWR) has evidently been here
hundreds of or even thousands of trillions of years. This began long
before our universe – or the atom – was even constructed.
These (SSSWR) units
of various frequencies are still here because they have been reproducing
themselves – all that time – the best way possible. (Darwin’s
Survival of the Fittest)
To
sum it all up: all our natural laws can be
simplified by using these new phase laws with the surroundings instead.
So, I guess we do really have the wave
structure of matter universe that Dr.
Milo Wolff claims we have.
Send these links to others you think need to
read this page: http://www.amperefitz.com/abstract.htm
Here's the link – to
this page – in Adobe pdf: http://www.amperefitz.com/abstract.pdf (Click or copy any of these links.)
This page is only the ABSTRACT of the
page Affenstall Science. Read it too: http://www.amperefitz.com/affenstall.htm
Here's the link to the Affenstall Science
page in Adobe pdf: http://www.amperefitz.com/affenstall.pdf
Thank you,
Have a good day & visit my site at goodreads:
http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/276352
Click ANY of these links to get
what you want
Read my LATEST book FREE:
http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf (This is the book in Adobe)
or
http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm (This book link opens faster if you have dial up.)
& super popular now
http://www.amperefitz.com/principle-of-equivalence.htm
http://www.amperefitz.com/acceleratingexpandinguniverse.htm
http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm
There was a full page in the
New York Times devoted exclusively about Fitzpatrick's
First Book on June 18th 1967.
"Fitzpatrick's First Book" also in Adobe.pdf - pge1.pdf
Click above links to read that first book of mine free.
I've found out and published a lot more since
then: Over 4
Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
And here's this page duplicated in Adobe.pdf:
http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.pdf
Fitzpatrick's website is at http://www.amperefitz.com
Another older website carrying Fitzpatrick's works FREE is: http://www.rbduncan.com
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
© This may be copied & disbursed if it's done so in its entirety.
Original: December 26, 2011 Revised February
3, 2012 and July 7, 2012
Anyone
may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they
paste it in its entirety.
To
paste any of my pages to your desktop in their entirety, FREE, do as follows.
1.
Right click link of page.
2.
Click - send target as.
3.
Click - save.
Daniel
P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
©
July 7, 2012
If
any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329
Belmont Village
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.