ANSWER to the way this entire universe is built is this one, simple building principle!
ANSWER in htm: -
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
A spherical, scalar, standing wave universe
Bohr* once screamed at Feynman*, "Learn quantum theory!" while the thing Feynman was trying to explain to Bohr was one of the greatest advancements in quantum theory ever. *Neils Bohr Nobel Prize for physics 1922 - - *Richard Feynman Nobel Prize for physics 1965
Two important aspects needed to see the big picture are being totally neglected: they are phase and the surroundings.
Ernst Mach and a host of others have saidsurroundings are involved. But Mach's Principle has only been given lip service because it seems not to agree with some very popular science beliefs. Few scientists consider even digging into the possibility of G. Berkeley and E. Mach being right because we have neither the math nor the computers capable of working out all these billions of billions of possible linkages with the surrounding stars. But these surrounding stars must be involved because gyros hold to these surrounding stars. We know this because super accurate gyroscopes that hold their plane of rotation to the stars are absolutely necessary in our airliners and for space travel. Gyroscopes, pendulums and vibrating elements all exhibit the same 23 hour 56 minute and 4 second cycle of rotation. This is one sidereal day or the time period it takes the earth to rotate once in space (in relation to the stars).
Once you know present science hasn't given us even the foggiest notion of why this is happening then you know we have a major problem with present science. You also know present science isn't giving us the correct image of what Ernst Mach knew how our surroundings are involved (Machs Principle): therefore you must devise a way to see the accurate "big picture" with the tools you have at your disposal right now.
This revolutionary new hypothesis has the Copenhagen interpretation of "complementarity" because it shows us the same thing our present science shows us plus by spending about 30 minutes reading this, you will know:
1: exactly what space and time are.
3: You will know where gravity comes from and why it bends light.
Even though you will then knowfar more than they do about this entire universe, they will continue to receive their big pay checks.
That, unfortunately, is something not in my power to change.
We have to bring back the Bohr-LeBroglie wave-particle concept into this new hypothesis as we examine this far different concept.
And it is a far different concept from our present thinking too.
But it works!
These Resonances must have internal binding, and also external binding with their surroundings. They must remain in perfect"resonance" with their surroundings in order for them to remain
Themain argument against this is that the stars and galaxies are nothing like the electrons because electrons obey the laws of magnetism and charge. This is true. But why ? Because without seeing the aspects of phase and the surroundings we fail to see all these invisible forces behaving exactly the same way the main argument for this which will be seen when we analyze the Big Bang in which, most scientists agree, the first atom was built and the electron first created. A bit later we will dig more into what this Big Bang teaches us as it gives us the main argument for this (SSSWR) building block.
The first thing we have to do is change the standard model concept of differentgauges* to an entirely different concept where we think of every different gauge as a different spacetime realm and then coming into your focus will be the veritable theory of everything everyone is looking for. *(For instance: QED realm of the electron is an entirely different gauge from QCD realm of the quark: Both use different rules and math for each different gauge.)
Different frequency (SSSWR)s electrons and quarks, that quantum scientists see as in entirely different gauges, in the standard model are actually different areas of spacetime producing entirely different space and time setups with an entirely different spacetime interval from each other in each higher or lower spin/orbit frequency realm. These
Even though we might not view the electron as a solid we must assume that it will behaveexactly as a solid within certain strict parameters in its own spacetime realm. As you read on you'll see why.
I found the basicfoundation stone of this in 1966 when I published my first book that got a full page spread page 29 of The Sunday Book Review section in the New York Times on June 18th 1967.
All these things behave as solids within certain strict parameters in their own spacetime realms (gauges).
This is why we must return to the way Bohr saw the electron!
Here's the way to visualize it:
Neils Bohr saw a solid electron in motion and utilized this concept of a tiny spherical electron in motion to prove what gave us the different colors and thereby Bohr won the Nobel Prize.
The fact that you can see colors is oneproof the electron acts like a solid sphere orbiting the nucleus. Yes, only within very strict limits I agree yet the proof of that solid electron orbiting remains.
Exceed thesestrict parameters in the microcosm and you must revert to the Hartree Approximations. Exceed these strict parameters here and in the macrocosm and you must revert to General Relativity.
This is really a frequency universe overallbut it's the behaving of these (SSSWR)s as a solid under very, very strict parameters that is the key that all of us have overlooked! We must see things as solid particles as well as frequencies. We use Newton's laws and our other natural laws all the time and as long as we don't go too fast as the planet Mercury or our mass doesn't change too much, these laws work just fine because we are remaining in that category of extremely strict parameters of mass and speed.
Think of the electron more as being in an actual orbit when needed and forget this new wave concept of orbitals when we need to explain certain things better. Use electrons as solid, spherical, spinnning particles much like Bohrs explanations.
When I was young and working in 1964, the government issued me their top First Class Radio License # P1-7-4087 withRADAR endorsement enabling me to work on about any transmitter available so this tells you I know a bit about electrons.
Again, this cannot be visualized unless we return back to the way Bohr saw these electrons as solid, spinning, spherical resonances.
Electrons that normally repel can, however, snap together and build even a lot better than Lego blocks because they can attract and bind with other electrons at two 90 degree positions but only those two positions their poles and at their equator. Both of these attracting positions are used in magnetism and chemical bonding but only the equatorial bonding position is used in giving us energy (radiation).
Once again, because it'simportant that you know this:
Electrons repel other electrons except in two positions where they will attract each other and bond together not only in magnetism and chemical bonding but in distant bonding to give us radiation.
If we disregard minor orbit plane attractions, there areno other positions than the following two where electrons themselves attract other electrons:
Seeing electrons as spinning particles made sense to Bohr and it makes sense to us today especially if we use Ampere's Laws Ampere's Laws (Click link.), that work in every gauge.
Ampere's Lawsshow you, unmistakably, all the forces are derived the same way in every gauge via relative motion or relative phase whichever way you want to view it.
You must also understand that Ampere's Laws give us the best reason for magnetism: In Iron many electron spin axes will line up exactly in a domain. As that iron is magnetized, all of these domains will attempt to line up exactly together as well. With a pair of earphones you can actually hear the click the Barkhausen effect of these individual domains as they line up. Thus you have all these spin axes lined up together the same way in magnetic bonding. You do not have all these spins lined up together the same way, in chemical bonding.
Bohr's electron in motion type of thinkingmust be done to understand why the sigma type bond in chemical bonding is the stronger bond while in magnetism the same spin up/spin down sigma type bond is the weaker bond. With north pole up and north pole down on two magnets, their sides will attract many sigma type bonds but this is the weaker attraction. The stronger polar attraction comes with the same two magnets, both north poles up, and stacked on top of each other, pole on top of pole many pi type polar bonds. Thus similar spins on the same spin axis line (pi type polar bond) gives the stronger magnetic attraction.
However, thispi type polar bond gives the weaker chemical attraction simply because these polar pi bond electrons are in actual motion, in overlapping orbits, and both are only lined up pole over pole (same spin axis line) for an infinitely short period of time during each of their orbits.
The spin up/spin downsigma bonds, in chemical bonding, are in constant binding during their entire orbit because they are both spinning in the same equatorial spin plane. Not so with a polar pi chemical bond; all those are in overlapping orbits and they only have a direct pole over pole overlap now and then. Since the duration of the sigma bond is continuous, the sigma bond ends up as the stronger of the two in chemical bonding even though it is really the weaker bond as is plainly seen in magnetism.
If the above still hasnt sunk in, read this: http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm (Click link.)
The above two paragraphs in italics showing the sigma type chemical bond to be the stronger but the sigma type magnetic bond to be the weaker are really all the proof one needs to know all these electrons are absolutely moving along on real orbits in there. You cannot see this electron movement on real orbits at all using the new standard model orbital concept.
I've been asking the standard model theorists why this isn't proof that these electrons arereally moving in those orbits exactly like Neils Bohr said. No answer yet.
So for clarity, change the present standard model orbital concept back to Bohr's orbits.
Einstein and Schrödingerboth said these solid things we see in motion are only "illusions". Yes, our eyes cannot see all this microcosm motion; the above paragraphs prove that. Also if things move too fast or get too massive the old Newtonian rules that worked when held within strict parameters of mass and speed now fail us. Present quantum scientists, Einstein, Schrödinger and even I agree in a way, with this "illusion" concept but if held within strict parameters we can work out, and have worked out, wonderful mathematical solutions using this concept of a solid mass in motion; so use it! Don't throw the baby out the window with the bath water as present quantum theorists have done.
Im not asking anything too revolutionary: Im only asking the quantum theorists who know its a frequency universe to visualize the electron as we used to see it. Step back in time and see the solid aspect of the electron exactly like Bohr saw it. Also keep this concept of a solid in motion within strict parameters as Bohr did.
Im asking the others who see things as solids to understand this is really a frequency universe, like the quantum folks know it is, but you can use this concept of solid items in motion only if you keep it within strict parameters.
If this is done then both the aspect of phase and the surroundings can enter into it and we gain two thirds more of the big picture whereas now with the standard model alone, we are only seeing the initial one third of the big picture.
Everything in this universe can be seen as orbiting and spinning in their respective realms. Spin motion is the prevailing factor you must mostly watch in the microcosm while obiting motion is what you must mainly observe elsewhere. However it's stillrelative motion or relative phase, whichever way you care to observe it.
** In this new concept * *
** * wavelength = size * * *
We ourselves, being built of waves, sensewavelength as size.
Also remember, wavelength is the reciprocal of frequency.
Therefore(SSSWR)s from higher energy, higher frequency shorter wavelength spacetime realms will appear smaller to us and (SSSWR)s from lower energy, lower frequency longer wavelength spacetime realms will appear larger to us as we look at them from our space time arrangement here on earth. But this is mainly to be used for us, for what we see in our spacetime realm (gauge).
(Please don't confuse this with the de Broglie wavelength formula that concerns momentum and which is best solely used in the microcosm an entirely different spacetime realm (gauge) from us.)
Differentgauges use different math and laws with the exception of Amperes Laws which all gauges use.
Sometimes we can take our laws or our rules into othergauges providing its done within certain strict parameters.
However, you can always use Amperes Laws in everygauge because every gauge uses phase or relative motion the same way.
And once again with added clarity for reinforcement:
Chemists know there are two types of chemical bonds where two atoms are held together by a pair of their electrons (also SSSWRs) establishing an attractivesigma or pi bond. In this paper I am mainly discussing the sigma bond. Im referring to a special inverted pair of electrons having attractive bonding: these are a pair of spin up/spin down electrons a sigma bond that chemists apply to the close chemical bond, but it still applies here even though these electrons, bonding together, are quite distant. They are also called "Cooper pairs" but by whatever name you call them, they as many fail to understand are simply nothing more than the well-known chemical sigma bond by two electrons with opposite spins whose spins are both spinning in the same spin plane.
This cannot be visualized unless we return back to the way Bohr saw these as solid, spinning, spherical resonances.
The attractive binding force of these electrons comes whenever an inverted pair of (spin-up/spin-down) (SSSWR)s are in the same equatorial spin plane while their closest sides are like gears meshing, not clashing and an equal amount of mass from each of their closest sides is in phase. All bindings/bondings must be similarly impedance matched. (Sections of their closest sides [each having equal mass] are like gears meshing going in the same direction therefore are in phase!)
Thisin phase bond a sigma bond retains its full strength of attraction all the way to the Hubble limit.
If a sigma bond did not remain at full strength all the way to theHubble limit, there wouldn't even be one quantum of energy produced or available anywhere.
Its thenumber of these binding (SSSWR) pairs that is inversely proportional to the distance squared.
No electrons here bond/bind with any electrons beyond theHubble limit.
Why does this electron to electron bonding cease entirely at theHubble limit? Because this distance is the longest distance two electrons can line up their spin planes using Ampere's Laws, which are the only laws that are not subset laws and that work perfectly in every gauge (spacetime realm).
This newly discovered "God Particle" (Higgs Boson) is best seen - not as a particle - but as a Bose-Einstein condensate force where impedance matched quark spin binding is transferred from one place to another.
Once again remember because each sigma bond retains its full strength of attraction all the way to the Hubble limit, each quantum of energy is delivered with no energy loss at all. It is the total amount of this energy that arrives in the inverse square ratio. (Its only the number of sigma bonding pairs that diminish as the inverse distance squared.)
The QCD quantum theorists claim quark spin is not conserved! Why? Because they could not equate these abrupt quark position shifts with any force, like we can with the electron.Well I can and Ill show you: Yes, they are mistaken because the spin that they see that is not conserved is really conserved because it is this quantum quark spin force, which is really impedance matched quark to distant quark bonding that is causing gravity and inertia. So the quark strong force is not entirely contained inside the proton or neutron after all. And there is more: What is improperly called asymptotic quark freedom occurs because as these three different size quarks get closer together, near the nuclear center, their combined mass gets so high that their binding (spin) frequencies which must be either the same or an exact harmonic to attract each other get distorted by their new much higher grouped mass the closer they get. So the closer they get to each other their attraction changes somewhat. It is not really asymptotic quark freedom because quarks near the outside edge of protons and neutrons are being pulled there by impedance matched bondings of quarks in the distant surroundings thereby giving us both inertia and gravity. Quarks being pulled toward the exterior of protons and neutrons are our indicators of gravitational and inertial quanta. So much for the standard models tall tale of quark strong force containment and this hypocrisy of asymptotic freedom. No such quark freedom exists!
These erroneous quark concepts were handed to us by the high priests who could not figure out and probably didn't even try to find out why gyros held to the stars and who gave us another erroneous reason called force carrying particles why a quantum of light from a distant star came to our eyes with no energy loss. These holy men of science entirely missed the boat on all these distant electron and quark sigma type bonds.
It's hard for me to believe that when Mach's principle needed further investigation that our great men of science preferred to only give it lip service in spite of the overwhelming evidence in its favor. As my good friend Milo Wolff stated,"Those stars are far more than simply ornaments up there."
Its perfectly obvious what is going on, in the quark realm, yet most people would rather read the dictates of the high priests instead of doing any mental work whatsoever themselves. The high priests are generally right but like Aristotle they are never always right.
Strong force containment will go down with phlogiston as the two worst concepts in the history of science.
There is noforce tensor in the tensor math of general relativity. There is only more or less space that must be converted to force. This new concept shows us exactly how this actually works! What the tensor math shows us is that force and space are being produced the same way. This new concept shows us exactly how this is being done. You will see, in this new concept that both space and force are being produced by phase differences of the closest sides of these resonances and what counts is really the phase difference of their spin frequencies.
Time is not produced by the spin frequency but by aphase change in the main scalar frequency of the spherical, standing wave itself. This acts as a clock as the scalar phase changes between all the (SSSWR)s as they emit and absorb energy while rebuilding themselves. The following is indeed only a possibility: Consider this universe having a finite size with a scalar phase shift constantly in effect like a clock moving among all the (SSSWR)s. This phase shift, in a finite universe, would be at exactly 180 degrees opposite to our (SSSWR)s in the portion of the universe opposite to us making those particles in that portion of our universe opposite us anti-particles. This would be far, far, far beyond the Hubble limit or the Amperefitz limit from us and therefore could not affect us in any way. Most might not consider this to even be a probability but, in this new concept, it is a distinct, definite possibility if this universe is finite.
Space/force in all these different frequency spacetime realms are produced by the spin frequencies. The tensor math of general relativity shows curved space producing force, in much the same manner, in the macrocosm.
In a similar mannerattractive force is being produced from space between sigma bond pairs of (spin-up/spin-down) (SSSWR)s because their closest sides are spinning in the same plane like gears meshing in phase with each other; not like the closest sides of all the others having their spins in various directions that produce the average out of phase amount (space).
Space, produced by these (SSSWR)s is really nothing but the average amount of out of phase condition of the closest sides of all of these many, many, many similar (SSSWR)s in a particular system. In fact this is what keeps everything far apart both in the microcosm and the macrocosm.
If a thin, deep section on both of theclosest sides of two distant sigma bond (spin-up/spin-down) spinning, scalar, standing wave (SSSWR)s are exactly in phase including identical portions of mass on both, then those two thin deep sections of the closest sides would have a very powerful attraction because there would actually be a minimum of space between them because space, again, is the average amount everything is out of phase with everything else in that one particular frequency spacetime realm.
In our realm if solids go too fast speed of the planet Mercury for instance then we need Einsteins general relativity patches. Similarly in the microcosm, if we vary too far, we must use the Hartree approximations. But there is in every spacetime realm an area (within strict parameters) in which a solid will obey the essence of Newtonian laws exactly. This shows the method for the first attempt at mathematically unifying the fundamental forces.
This is why we must return to the way Bohr saw it!
Allattractive forces come from being in phase more than this average out of phase amount (space).
All repulsive force comes about by being more out of phase than this average out of phase amount (space).
(This way, no photons, gluons, gravitons or any other force carrying particles are needed!)
In the atomic makeup of things, the electron of one spacetime realm gauge (term used by quantum theorists) orbits the realm of the quark that has an entirely different gauge spacetime realm.
There is absolutely no evidence of this happening in the macrocosm (a much lower frequency spacetime realm).
The only way that this onegauge orbiting another gauge can possibly be explained atoms being created is that an all neutron universe suddenly underwent an extensive beta decay. So, in my opinion, our celebrated Big Bang was really an extensive beta decay of a once stable all neutron universe.
It's the rotation of these two different gauges spacetime realms, around each other, that give us this intense microcosm spin factor of same size spheres which in turn gives these numerous sigma and pi bonds. This differentiates the layout of the microcosm in respect to the more different size spheres and spheroids in the more planar type layout of the macrocosm.
Astronomers will eventually find that all binary stars, of the same size and mass, have inverted spins and do orbit each other using a sigma style bonding as well, proving it isphase bonding in the macrocosm as well as in the microcosm. But the many different sizes of things in the macrocosm prevent the prevalent sigma and pi style of bonding observed in the microcosm. This, and us being in an entirely different spin/orbit frequency spacetime realm, is why we see it as magnetism and charge in the microcosm.
Remember, this space, that we see, is nothing but theaverage amount of out of phase condition at this particular spin/orbit frequency band of this particular bunch of (SSSWR)s that compose us.
A major premise of this extraordinary new hypothesis is that particular frequency(SSSWR)s keep themselves in a relatively stable spacetime realm which they themselves are actually producing. But this spacetime realm is linked to even higher frequency (SSSWR)s in various ways via harmonics: For instance, an important quark spin frequency turns out to be the square of the electron's spin frequency. It is this harmonic that allows gravity to bend light and it is this harmonic that gives us the well-known quantity c2. This tremendous square of our space being produced in the quark realm cannot be directly transferred to our realm but that force is transferred! The acceleration effects of so much extra space certainly is transferred and we feel these force effects here on earth as an acceleration of 32 feet per second, per second.
Moreover, the quark may be linked to even higher frequency(SSSWR) spin/orbit spacetime realms that we are not aware of.
This new premise allows higher energy, higher frequency"resonating" (SSSWR) spacetime systems to be the foundation of lower energy, lower frequency "resonating" systems and these in turn can become the foundation of even lower frequency "resonating" (SSSWR) spin/orbit systems: possibly even ad-infinitum? (Solar systems building galaxies and galaxies being the foundation to super clusters etc.?). This would work out to be a fairly stable system because lower energy spacetime realms would be depending on higher energy, higher frequency spacetime realms and higher energy systems can always support lower frequency systems of a lower energy requirement. Any energy leakage between the realm levels would in time be less and less and more toward the outer, lower frequency spacetime realms as time for this entire universe wore on. In fact it's the author's thinking that the Big Bang was caused by such an energy leakage in a spacetime realm, which in time affected all the pure neutrons in a perfectly stable neutron only universe where too much energy leakage, over time, eventually made this all neutron spacetime realm unstable, resulting in a wholesale beta decay and the conversion of half the neutrons in this entire neutron universe into protons and electrons. The first atoms being thereby constructed inside of which, half of the original neutrons remained safe.
Once you read my other papers showing you exactly what energy is then you see the problem with accepting the present belief of how this universe was built.The beta decay method is the only method whereby this entire universe could be constructed at the same time all throughout. There is absolutely no doubt that precisely this is what happened: the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation shows this is indeed what must have happened.
Carefully read and consider this picture of our universe: Even though each different spin/orbit frequency system ends up with entirely different symmetries or layouts, the underlying individual(SSSWR) space building operation remains exactly the same because their spins will generally be in various directions, thereby creating an average out of phase condition (space) between the closest sides of all (SSSWR)s.
In the macrocosm we have gravity the force holding these things together because the various portions inside or on any (SSSWR) are far more in phase with each other than with the surroundings, therefore we have the in phase gravitational attraction. These in phase bonding attractions then, from microcosm to macrocosm, with any (SSSWR) the highest frequency to the lowest (smallest to the largest using our solid rather than wave view) gives us not only gravity but the force holding all these various spinning, entities together. The bonding force of all these resonances stems from them being more in phase than space (the average amount of out of phase condition). This is why the microcosm and the macrocosm both contain 99.9999% empty space: Both are essentially bonding (in phase) together as units and building (out of phase) space the same way! All this empty space between everything can only be there if all these resonances have both internal bonding and external bonding with their same frequency surroundings. You could eliminate photons, gluons and more of these type of energy exchanging particles from the standard model using this new hypothesis. It would make the concept of aether no longer needed as well.
These resonances must always remain with spins/orbits that keep them emitting/receiving the correct amount of energy to remain a"resonating" standing wave.
To keep this paper short Ive avoided many important things like translational motion, binding energy, inertial mass, and more that you can find in my other papers. See these too and you will then see the big picture how it generally all works as Dirac predicted we would all eventually see.
Your eye lens was not designed by an engineer. Trilobites had a hard calcite lens hundreds of millions of years ago and the soft lens in your eye took hundreds of millions of more years to be developed in a system where the things that reproduced best stayed here and the things that didn't do as well were gone. (Darwins Survival of the Fittest)
The (SSSWR) has evidently been here hundreds of or even thousands of trillions of years. This began long before our universe or the atom was even constructed.
These(SSSWR) units of various frequencies are still here because they have been reproducing themselves all that time the best way possible. (Darwins Survival of the Fittest)
To sum it all up: all our natural laws can be simplified by using these new phase laws with the surroundings instead.
So, I guess we do really have the wave structure of matter universe thatDr. Milo Wolff claims we have.
For4 Decades of my writings: click http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
Here's one on June 12th 2018 telling about a Britannica mistake, but half way through is a most interesting dissertation on how our eyes see COLORS.
Britannica in html:
Britannica in Word:http://rbduncan.com/britannica.doc
Britannica in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/britannica.pdf
See: Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013
Send these links to others you think need to read this page: http://www.amperefitz.com/abstract.htm
Here's the link to this page in Adobe pdf: http://www.amperefitz.com/abstract.pdf (Click or copy any of these links.)
This page is only the ABSTRACT of the page Affenstall Science. Read it too:http://www.amperefitz.com/affenstall.htm
Here's the link to the Affenstall Science page in Adobe pdf:http://www.amperefitz.com/affenstall.pdf
Have a good day & visit my site at goodreads:
Click ANY of these links to get what you want
Read my LATEST 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
There was a full page in the New York Times devoted exclusively aboutFitzpatrick's First Book on June 18th 1967.
"Fitzpatrick's First Book" also in Adobe.pdf -pge1.pdf
Click above links to read that first book of mine free.
I've found out and published a lot more since then: Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
And here's this page duplicated in Adobe.pdf: http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.pdf
Fitzpatrick's website is at http://www.amperefitz.com
Another older website carrying Fitzpatrick's works FREE is:http://www.rbduncan.com
Daniel P.Fitzpatrick Jr.
©This may be copied & disbursed if it's done so in its entirety.
Original: December 26, 2011 Revised February 3, 2012 and July 7, 2012