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.
In the microcosm
It's generally believed that sigma bond strengths in the microcosm vary inversely proportional to the distance squared.
While this may be true measuring from the electron to the quark central portion of the atom, it is certainly not true when you measure between the two sigma bound electrons themselves. And remember it is the two electrons themselves that establish the bond in sigma bonding. Yes,the closer the electron is to the atom's center, the stronger the bond. In fact this is the reason we have quanta of various strengths giving us, for instance, different colors: the distance to the central portion of the atom does precisely establish the strength of the bond but this is not the distance you should be measuring if you wish to know the bonding strength - with distance - between any two sigma bound electrons themselves.
The two electrons from the two different atoms establishing a sigma bond between them, will always be those electrons having their orbitals in the same orbital plane.
If you examine sigma bonds in the microcosm this way then you can only come to one conclusion:
Sigma bonds- between the electrons themselves - do not vary in strength with the inverse square of the distance in the microcosm. In fact, these bonds can extend beyond the molecule to distant electrons in distant molecules, and when they do their strength does not vary even one iota with distance. They do, however, have a limited range but it's a pretty long limited range. The fact that the strength of these bonds do not vary with distance and have a range to the Hubble limit, gives us the reason we have both quanta and Mach's principle.
Thenumber of these sigma bonding electron pairs, however, do vary inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of future scientists will proclaim that the understanding that these bonds not vary in strength with distance is essential to understanding why we have both quanta and Mach's principle.
The model that Albert Einstein and his first wife initially put forth was the correct model but then hecompletely rejected it in favor of what he thought his math was telling him. It seems to me, that tells you everything: He simply did not understand the entire concept. He could not have understood what she did!
Why did Einstein depart from the concept of Mach's principle - and his cosmological constant - about the same time he departed from Mileva Maric? This is a strong indicator that it was her model only and not his.
Did she supply the model and he the math?
As Stephen Wolfram shows in his best selling bookA New Kind of Science, the model is worth far, far more than the math in a complicated concept.
If so then both special and general relativity belong to Mileva Maric and definitely not to Albert Einstein.
Daniel P.Fitzpatrick Jr. October 1st, 2012
World Scientist Database - - Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
Have a good day and read:While Einstein's Unification of the Fields may not be possible, a Unification of the GAUGES has already taken place giving us a never before seen universe.
"While Einstein's Unification of the Fields may not be possible, a Unification of the GAUGES has already taken place giving us a never before seen universe." also in Adobe.pdf - ssswr.pdf
"ABSTRACT of scalar, standing wave concept"
"ABSTRACT of scalar, standing wave concept" also in Adobe.pdf -abstract.pdf
Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts
& visit my site at goodreads:
Click ANY of these links to get what you want
Read my book FREE:
http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf (This is the book in Adobe)
http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm (This book link opens faster if you have dial up.)
& super popular now