NOTHING in present science has prepared us for this **ANSWER****!**

Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: - *http://rbduncan.com/answer.htm*

Also ANSWER in Word: - *http://rbduncan.com/answer.doc*

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: - *http://rbduncan.com/answer.pdf*

Understanding Milo Wolff's scalar wave.

If you type "scalar wave" into Google then this link below will be the most popular link. Please read it.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/starwarsnow/scalardetector.htm

In the article are these words, "We represent the longitudinal scalar wave as a horizontal vector, and the usual Hertzian wave as a vertical or "transverse" vector."

Yes, because this is exactly how it is in reality as well.

One of plane geometry's theorems is "If the use the radius of a circle as the hypotenuse of a triangle, then any two sides drawn to it, in half of that circle to make a triangle, will form a right triangle."

That theorem, as I have stated numerous times in many publications, is the best example of the space-time interval (the radius/hypotenuse) remaining the same while space and time (the other two legs of the triangle) vary appreciably.

If you have read the above link then you will note that since the scalar wave representation is at right angles to the transverse wave direction then these are the two elements (scalar wave & transverse wave) that give you your space-time interval.

Ampere's 1825 laws show you exactly how the transverse waves produce two dimensional space.

The scalar waves are producing what we see as particles and our concept of time.

Adding the two legs together, at right angles, gives you the hypotenuse or unvarying space-time interval, which will remain the same (as in the abovementioned semicircle) as long as frequency and surroundings remain the same.

Milo Wolff's mathematical proof of the electron, being a scalar standing wave, is remarkable because it does not exceed the frequency/surroundings parameters within which it remains a valid proof.

Even general relativity (in its present form) violates those parameters a bit but I have no doubt that it will be subsequently modified so as to remain inside those valid proof boundaries.

z