in present science has prepared us for this ANSWER!
ANSWER in htm: -
ANSWER in htm: -http://amperefitz.com/answer.htm
Also ANSWER in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/answer.doc
And ANSWER in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/answer.pdf
SINCE HIGH SCHOOL
George, I guess you remember Lester Barr, who taught us Biology at Linden High; well he and I and two other students stayed after school every day practicing until we got our Morse Code up to 13 words a minute. We then all went to the Federal Communications Commission in New York and got our Amateur Radio Licenses so we could transmit on the air. My call letters were W2YDW.
It was from Lester Barr that I first learned aboutstanding waves and how they had to be eliminated from the antenna if you wanted others to hear you. Even before I finished high school I was constantly fighting standing waves, to get my signal out, so others could hear me.
Later, working in Avionics at Pan American World Airways I worked on the very best equipment our country had to measure and eliminatestanding waves, which are the scourge of the radio world. In radio we try to eliminate them but evidently our universe uses them to build with; this I did not discover until my days at Pan Am.
I forget exactly when it was that I read in Scientific American about Ampere's Laws. These are therelative motion laws that Ampere himself discovered and published: http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm and http://www.rbduncan.com/Ampere I found them more useful in troubleshooting than anything else. They even showed me why we see lines of force, north and south poles and + and - charges.
I can remember, as clear as if it was yesterday, when I was trying to solve an RCA RADAR Indicator problem, that I saw Ampere'srelative motion laws were showing me I was being attracted to the earth for the same reason that the cathode ray tube beam was being attracted to the top of the yoke coil in the RCA Indicator. So I essentially saw in 1966 how to unify gravity with quantum mechanics. I published it and still have an approving letter from Lincoln Barnett who wrote The Universe and Doctor Einstein and who also wrote various general relativity articles for the Britannica.
But I got blasted by Robert Dicke who essentially said that gravity could not be caused byrelative motion because if it was then we would be seeing interference fringes and we don't.
By this time I had also worked out the fact that to have the speed of light a constant essentially meant that both space and time had to be things that were constantly manufactured by these quarks and electrons, both of which had to be some sort of spherical standing wave entity.
But then 1996 arrived and with it my Britannica 1997 CD that had just been reduced from $1,000 to a bit less than $200 and from it I found why Gödel's proof was so important and why Robert Dicke was wrong. It was about this time too that I met Doctor Milo Wolff online and found out that I had been right about the electron being a spherical standing wave but Milo showed me it also had to be ascalar, spherical standing wave.
I had online discussions with astronomer Tom Van Flandern -- educated at Yale but now dead -- who told me all the astronomical schools know that gravity has to be acting almost instantly -- far faster than the speed of light -- for this universe to be stable.
I talked to Viv Pope who showed me that the speed of light has to be something else besides a speed.
I had discussions with this gal, Caroline Thompson from Cambridge University -- now departed -- who told me and then later rescinded the fact that space itself and all repulsive forces were out of phase reactions. I saw immediately that she was right, as soon as she told me. God, how I wish I had thought that one up first. Why she later changed her mind, I'll never know.
Even before 2000 I had shown & published that the strong force was not being fully contained within the neutron and that these quarks were alsoscalar, standing wave entities just like the electron but that their spin frequency must be the square of the electron's spin frequency. And with this Robert Dicke had to be wrong because if gravity was being caused by this much higher quark frequency then there was no way we could see the interference fringes at this much higher than light frequency.
I keep updating this link below as to what I have found out so far since the last book was published: