Not Quite Everything for a

Theory of Everything

but we do indeed

have a model

Here's the model:

The speed of gravity

An important part of the model has been given to us by our astronomers. All the astronomical departments in all of the world's universities teach their students -- *what Newton said *-- that gravity acts instantly and this must be included in their math. There are good and substantial proofs that we simply would not have a stable universe if the speed of gravity was as slow as the speed of light. Astronomers are taught this and most of them accept this as a fact.

Light travels at 300, 000 kilometers per second or 3x10^{5 }kilometers per second (186,000 miles per second).

Now let's square this 300, 000 kilometers: And we get 90, 000, 000, 000 kilometers or 9x10^{10 }kilometers.

Gravity, according to noted *Yale* astronomer *Van Flandern* may even be acting at about a speed of 9x10^{10 }kilometers per second and this would appear to us as an acceleration or *c*^{2} or the speed of light squared. Tom Van Flandern assured me that this speed would be close enough to instantly for most astronomers to accept but later, before he died, Van Flandern thought it could not be less than 6x10^{15} kilometers per second. Van Flandern showed us -- *while light had aberration* -- there was no aberration with gravity and at a speed of 9x10^{10 }kilometers per second, gravity would have no aberration.

The question now becomes: **How can gravity be acting at this incredibly fast and almost instantaneous speed of 9x10 ^{10 }kilometers per second or even this faster speed of 6x10^{15} kilometers per second?**

2. **The answer is in what the tensor math of General Relativity teaches us**

Here is a *quote *from the* Britannica 1997 CD* telling about Einstein's tensor math which **"***led him to an essentially unique tensor equation for the law of gravitation, in which gravitation emerged not as a force but as a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime.*

As you see in the above ** Britannica** quote, there is

*Saul Perlmutter* has surmised, as in **GR**, that this repulsive force is really out there resulting in a return of Einstein's *cosmological constant* (exact equal but opposite repulsive force of gravity) -- *between all the stars and galaxies keeping them apart* -- and gravity becomes -- *as Einstein originally thought* -- a bi-polar force like all the other invisible forces.

Does the Principle of Equivalence also apply to gravity's equal and opposite force? Is this acceleration that Perlmutter's group discovered also indistinguishable from that *cosmological constant* force out there? The gravitational acceleration is only apparent; how about this acceleration that Saul Perlmutter's group discovered?

If Einstein would have stayed on course then he could have even predicted the acceleration that Perlmutter's group recently discovered! But he didn't. He listened to the affenstahl thinking that Georges Lemâitre was filling the universities up with at that time.

For years Einstein told Lemâitre he was wrong but as more and more scientists were won over by Lemâitre then Einstein made an abrupt 180 degree turn, which was ironic because if Einstein had stayed on course then he could even have predicted this acceleration that Perlmutter's group finally discovered. If Einstein would have never listened to Lemâitre then Einstein surely would have eventually seen that one could not discern this *cosmological constant* force out there, holding all the stars and galaxies apart, from an accelerating, expanding universe. This is, after all, Einstein's own Principle of Equivalence being applied to gravity's equal but opposte force. If Einstein had stayed on his original route then he would have been able to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and we would have had a Theory of Everything long before this. It was Lemâitre who most certainly took us all down the wrong road.

The important thing is that **GR** shows us the same thing that creates force must also be creating space!

What is it?

It's the spin/orbit frequencies!

The electron orbitals just about cancel each other out leaving the electron spin frequency as the main cause of magnetic force but it's general knowledge that the orbital frequencies also cause the magnetic force.

What is not general knowledge yet is that the electron's charge may very well be caused by relative translational motion (see these two links: *Phil Fraley* and *Relative Motion*). If this is indeed true then the spins and orbits of other items besides electrons also create force and space. Once you see this then you can actually begin to see a model for a Theory of Everything. We should have listened more closely to what Feynman said about motion. See: *QED*

Using this model, the smallest space that we will be able to see is a 'Planck length', which is being produced by electron orbital frequencies. If you go higher up in frequency then you get Heisenberg's uncertainty to the motion & position of the electron so all your old rules and math become uncertain in this region. In the paragraphs below you will see uncertainty in the galactic spin frequency range so your rules and math are only certain in a specific frequency bandwith. Probably the majority of the space we see is being produced by the spin frequencies of the stars. So our space becomes a limited bandspread in a Schrödinger type of frequency universe.

A big lesson here is that our space is limited from the high orbiting frequencies of the electrons to the lower spin frequencies of the stars. These are the parameters -- *or the bandspread* -- of our spacetime realm.

We have to divide this universe into spacetime realms (*frequency bandwidths*). The string theory folks will understand this.

We can't see into the spacetime realm of the quark because the quark's spin frequency is simply too high for our spacetime realm but as Wheeler and Feynman showed us, we cannot measure what is outside of our spacetime realm but we certainly can detect it and we do: We detect this quark produced space as *c*^{2} or acceleration. If this model is correct then motion is something that only exists, and can be measured, inside of one particular spacetime realm but it can be detected outside that realm. Actual motion and translational motion may exist in the microcosm after all. We detect this microcosm motion --* in our lower frequency realm* -- as magnetism and charge.

We also have failed to see the force/space being produced by the galactic spin frequencies. Proof of this is that we are measuring the speed of spiral galaxy arms as going faster than their escape velocity and this is impossible.

Not seeing this extra galactic-spin force/space produced a flaw in R. T. Cahill's Quantum Foam Theory *Cahill*. Cahill violated the all important caveat that Wheeler, Feynman and Quantum Theory have proven: **You must not use conventional measurements outside of our spacetime realm where the spacetime interval is entirely different.** Even though Cahill did make this mistake, he did indeed get the speed of gravity right.

In this model, electron spin frequencies produce magnetic force, and the spins of the various stars and galaxies produce Einstein's *cosmological constant* or this repulsive force between all the stars and galaxies, holding them apart, while the quark spins give us the vast majority of our gravitational and inertial forces (*inertial mass*).

Evidently there are at least two quark spin frequencies that -- at the exterior of a proton or neutron -- combine to form a harmonic that is the square of the electron's spin frequency.

Electrons are repelling electrons thus producing space -- *that we see* -- at the rate of the speed of light or *c*.

Quarks are causing gravity, inertia and other quarks are even creating space -- *too high in frequency for us to see* -- at the rate of 9x10^{10 }kilometers per second or what we see as the speed of light squared or *c*^{2}. When you consider the massive amount of space being produced in our reference frame via electrons and the star spin frequencies then we probably do approach Van Flandern's latest estimate of not less than a gravitational speed of 6x10^{15} kilometers per second. Even though we cannot see __all__ of this space, we can detect an orbit change or spin shift, where mass is changed into energy via Einstein's formula E=m*c*^{2}.

Thus as you see the origin of *c*^{2} then Einstein's formula E=m*c*^{2} makes perfect sense.

All the fundamental forces can be seen as behaving exactly the same way by using the laws of **Andre M. Ampère**. *Ampere's Laws* and considering particles as scalar, standing waves as *Dr. Milo Wolff's Web Site* suggests. But even then we do not as yet have quite everything to completely figure out this 'Theory of Everything' in this Schrödinger type frequency universe.

What is not covered in this short paper is the result of these spin/orbit frequencies being in phase or out of phase with each other and because phase is so incredibly important to understanding this universe, you should read

And be sure to read: *http://www.amperefitz.com/acceleratingexpandinguniverse.htm*

See this short, clear picture: *http://www.amperefitz.com/principle-of-equivalence.htm*

Also *http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm*

And *http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm*

& *http://www.amperefitz.com/assymfree.htm*

There's a lot more too.

And this you can find out by buying my latest book *Universities Asleep at the Switch* at Amazon.com or by reading it FREE simply by clicking the following links:

*http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm* (This link is faster if you have dial up.)

*http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf* (This is the book FREE in Adobe.).

*Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatricks's Books, Papers and Thoughts*

Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm

Web pages are at: *http://www.amperefitz.com* & *http://www.rbduncan.com*

Thanks for reading this. Let me know what YOU think. e-mail is *Th1nker@indiainfo.com*

This page can be copied and published by anyone as long as it is copied and published in its entirety.

Feb. 23, 2010