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.
Field Theories in html:

Also, Field Theories in Word:

& Field Theories in Adobe 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

EVERYTHING on these links herein are FREE, & NO pop up ads with these either.

This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.

A Quark message no one is heeding.


Present science assures us the quark has assymptotic freedom and quark spin is not conserved.

These two things are revealing a message of immense importance and no one seems to be listening.

We say the spin of the electron is conserved because we can see that magnetic force is equated with every change of electron spin. We also know all the various quanta of light associated with each orbital change of the electron.

But none of these electron generated forces are gravitational in nature because we know only magnetism and magnetic wave radiation (light etc.) are associated with each of the changes of electron movement. Since we can match each electron movement with each force generated, we know gravity does not come from any activity of the electron. We also know from these matching equalities that electron spin is conserved.

The fact that the quark has assymptotic freedom and that quark spin seems not to be conserved tells us that gravity and inertia may stem from quark to far distant quark - binding - motions that scientists fail to see and understand.

I realized this could be correct and as I kept looking I discovered even more things that told me this was the correct assumption and that we were in a scalar, standing wave universe exactly as Dr. Milo Wolff portrays.

Once you see what is really going on then you will see quark spin really is conserved and assymptotic freedom is not real freedom but when a quark moves from the center of the proton to the outer edge of the proton it is being pulled there via binding with a far distant quark.

We have a tiny percentage of, what could be termed, strong force leaks - quarks binding with far distant quarks - that cause inertia (inertial mass) and gravity.

Berkeley and Mach were absolutely right. Inertia (inertial mass) is being caused by our surroundings.

More evidence is this:

The Hartree approximations are showing us that the formula for converting the mass - the electron loses as it gives off a quantum of light energy - seems to be approaching E=m as the electron moves further and further away from the vicinity of the quark.

Which brings us to this conclusion:

Quarks binding with distant quarks in the surroundings cause inertial mass and electrons binding with surrounding distant electrons give electrons their distinctive inertial mass. If all of these bonds were also impedance matched bonds then you would have the reason that energy cannot be created or destroyed nor mass can be created or destroyed but that the two - energy and mass - can be converted one to the other via distant binding (energy) changes. Isn't this exactly the type of answer scientists have been looking for?


E=mc2 can only be used when converting quark mass into energy (items which contain quarks). The reason for this - using Dr. Milo Wolff's scalar, standing wave hypothesis - is the scalar frequency of the quark is the square of the scalar frequency of the electron. This means that while the fastest speed in our realm is the speed of light or 3 x 10 8 meters per second, the fastest speed in the quark realm is 9 x 10 16 meters per second that would appear in our math as the speed of light squared (c2) - which is also the speed of gravity - because gravity is a quark generated force. All major universities teach their astronomers that the speed of light is far too low a speed for gravity. Astronomers all agree with Newton that gravity acts almost instantly or at 9 x 10 16 meters per second. Note: Van Flandern

Nov. 27, 2011 (This may be reproduced if it is reproduced in its entirety)

I have gone into all this reasoning in depth in many other previous papers:

photon "Photon" by Fitzpatrick also in Adobe.pdf - photon.pdf

phton Click the following pdf link to see what a PHOTON really is: Now in Adobe.pdf - phton.pdf



Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts
And here's this page duplicated in Adobe.pdf: