Scroll Down for more animations.
You can't get the animation source code from 99% of the animation sites on the internet, so it's impossible to send these animations -- stripped of source code -- to others even though you may have put it on your computer.
NEVER right mouse click Save Picture as -- because you strip away the animation source code and the worthless animation stays only in your computer. You can't send it to others.
You must COPY and PASTE to get the source code along with the animation but 99% of animation sites want to save money by insulating you from their server source code so COPY & PASTE won't be available with those 99%.
Thousands of GIFs, (animations in Graphic Interchange Format) you can simply COPY then PASTE into e-mail or other realms or into Word. . . . Images, done that way, are transferable!
Transferable animations need a server source code. So select & scroll with your mouse until picture darkens then COPY & PASTE!
All animation images here are transferable !If you want it in "my space" or "goodreads" or wherever source code must be completely spelled out, then right mouse click the image in Word. Then click "View Source" to get the source code that you can transfer to wherever you like.
(Copying to Word won't work if you have Vista basic for your operating system.)
You can only transfer images this way with about 1% of the animations available on the internet. But you can do this with ALL the animations that you see here on my site. That's why these animations are worth their weight in gold. Some are on my server sites and some are on other servers. All these images will transfer and work !
Don't right mouse click to "Save Picture as".
Unless you have a server, this simply puts a worthless picture on your computer.
Get even more animations from these links below:
Want my opinion? -- These 7 links here, are good & all 11 links below have been here, on this site, as long as I have — for decades !!
You can get images with source code from these sites.
Here are some that teach you things:
THIS PAGE & SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION
THIS PAGE & SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Even Einstein didn't know how close he was to the answer of his Unified Field Theory when he wrote the following.
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on thefield concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
. . Albert Einstein Now in retrospect
here's what we see.
Einstein was quite right when he wrote thatabove in 1954, about a year before he died.
Einstein's teacher, Hermann Minkowski, had already come up with the correct assessment of spacetime and the spacetime interval.When we look through the Hubble telescope through space, then we are also looking back through time, so it's really spacetime. And IMPORTANT — Einstein saw this spacetime was also a repulsive force.Einstein had seen that Minkowski's spacetime was also related to his (Einstein's) 'Cosmological Constant repulsive force', that Einstein knew, and we now know hold all these 5 BASIC spinning things apart in both microcosm and macrocosm, i.e. quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.
Einstein, saw modern physics was wrong, and should have seen that all he needed was a simple phase law (relative motion law), because that is ALL that really exists in this totally spinning macrocosm.
That's really ALL that exists in this spinning microcosm too. What I didn't know at the time was that many others had put forthrelative motion theories that were all promptly squelched by physicist Robert H. Dicke who claimed gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was, then we would see evidence of gravitational interference fringes in our largest telescopes. Since we do, in fact, NOW see these gravitational interference fringes in the Hubble telescope, then this, more than anything else tells us that relative motion MUST be the cause of all gravitational type attractive forces: the very OPPOSITE of spacetime repulsive forces.
More than half a century ago there was a good article, in Scientific American about Ampère's 1823 Long Wire Law that made me re-think — and suspect even more — everything I had learned in electronics.
In 1823, André M. Ampère took two batteries and connected each to a long wire, with both wires parallel to each other. When the current went thesame direction (in-phase) through both wires, the wires attracted. When Ampère reversed one of the batteries and the current went through the wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase), then the wires repelled each other.
The unit of electrical current, the Amp, was named after Ampère for this simple discovery in 1823 — relating the FORCE directly and SIMPLY to the movement (current) producing it.
This fundamental basic simplicity of Ampère's 1823 Law — using NO plus or minus charges, or north and south magnetic poles — is now totally obscured by the more complicated math and rules of the Faraday-Maxwell field theory,coming half a century after Ampère, that must use imaginary plus and minus charges and north and south poles.
We have electrons all spinning at the same EXACT frequency. They have two choices: They can either spin or move in-phase with each other or spin or move out-of-phase with each other. This is where Ampère lucked out. Ampère didn't know about their spin buthe made an 1823 law about their movements showing PARALLEL MOVEMENTS (FLOWS), of electrons, IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
—and—PARALLEL FLOWS, of electrons. IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS (out-of-phase) REPEL EACH OTHER. Ampère's 1823 Law.
Phase Symmetryattraction is simple:
Quantum coupling (binding energy) is a spin up
& spin down electron with their closest sides
in-phase, while orientation changes quanta sizes.
These can be close (magnetism) or distant,
thereby producing waves (light, radio etc.).
Superposition has far, far more binding energy
because both electrons are spinning the same
direction on the same spin axis, keeping BOTH
ENTIRE electrons in-phase with each other.
This type quantum binding has ONE size,
and can be close (magnetism) or distant, but
this type energy is not a general wave producer.
THINGS in-phase ATTRACT
THINGS out-of-phase REPEL.
This LAW replaces modern physics !!!
And the country that develops this Phase Symmetry framework first wins BIG.
And (what André Marie Ampère didn't know) electrons & every other spinning entity from quarks to galactic superclusters whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) will ATTRACT each other.
—and—All spinning entities whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS to each other (out-of-phase) will REPEL each other, also is Ampère's 1823 Law.
The Marie inAndré-Marie came from Ampère's mother's name: At that time in France it was a common practice to denote the mother in the child's name.
Ampère gave us this concept that thingsin phase always attract — entanglement — and things out of phase always repel.
He gave us this concept using relative motion rather than phase but it's the same thing really if you analyze it. Use relative motion in your own spacetime realm or lower frequency realms and use phase in higher frequency spacetime realms.
Simply use whichever method makes it clearer to you.
We've shown, in the prelude and in Chapter 7, that even Albert Einstein— a year before he died — considered the concept of fields to be a bad concept.
Yet most items on the internet will show magnetic fields being associated with what Ampère discovered. Forget FIELDS: Ampère's 1823 long wire discovery had nothing in it about magnetic fields. Forget his later laws incorporating magnetism in 1827.
Field theory was mainly England's great gift to us. Today's enhanced field concept came from Faraday and Maxwell, and as Einstein shows us, it turned out to be a bad mistake.
Field theory may explain repulsive force space, but it blinds us to the TRUE attractive forcesthat are always in-phase, quantum entanglements. One example is Newton's gravitational field concept that blinds us and prevents us from seeing the TRUE cause of Dark Matter.
Ampère didn't know about electrons but he did know something in his wires were moving so he gave us a system of laws that have nothing to do with MAGNETIC fields.
This essentially is what Ampère said in 1823.
And this gives us by far our best observance at how those things inside the wires— electrons — are behaving in relation to one another. This tells us essentially the idea of plus and minus charge is wrong because these electrons do not always repel each other. Regularly, like in Ampere's long wires, they attract each other.
In all cases, phase is a better concept to use than charge (positive ions and negative electrons).
Absolutely correct in all cases, Ampère's phase concept also shows you which way the electron spins. When you see the much more highly complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept doesn't, then it's simple to know which concept to use.
Ampere didn't know these things as electrons but now we think we know a bit more about them.
I began to see thissimple relative motion law in the early 1940s, and I had assembled a pretty good picture of how a simple relative motion law was working in the microcosm by 1965, while working for Pan American Airlines, in the Radio Department, using my U.S. 1st Class Radio License with RADAR Endorsement #P1-7-4087.
This meant reverting back toAmpère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823, and disregarding ALL later laws using fields & charges, which even includes Ampère's later laws.
It wascrystal clear to me then, that there was only ONE simple relative motion rule for ALL these forces in our universe. In fact, I was solving more radio problems using that one rule than using all the garbage beliefs of charge, magnetism and field theory, that I knew by then could not possibly exist. In fact, they obscure us in seeing the actual attractive and repulsive forces.
I wrote a 64 page book about thissimple relative motion law in 1966. Fitzpatrick's First Book (Click Link) There was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.
In my 87th year on this earth, I've managed to convince quite a few people, around the world, that this is what is really happening, butit's hard to change established religious beliefs, and that's exactly what today's modern physics is. Even Einstein saw that in 1954.
While we cannot obtain a Unified Field Theory, we can obtain aworking relative motion law by substituting speed for voltage and mass for current in Ampère's Law. We now have the computing capacity to give ourselves a working relative motion law. This may sound impossible but this actually can be done today. I've done all I could putting many of its foundation stones in place. See http://www.rbduncan.com and also read 4 decades of my papers FREE by clicking
45 Years of Putting this Jigsaw Puzzle together - of unifying Gravity with all the other forces
Science will make one huge quantum leap once this is done.
Here's how it's done:
When you are measuring amps,you are really measuring the quantity of electrons passing your measuring point. In the macrocosm you use the same amount of energy, passing your measuring point, with its force falling off at the 'square of the distance' just the same as in Ampère's original 1823 Law.
The problem comes with voltage.We see it as pressure. However, we can't measure pressure in the macrocosm, but I've realized for years that we are not measuring the pressure of electrons. We are measuring the SPEED of those electrons and calling it voltage.
SPEED is something we certainly can measure in the macrocosm.
So, what does this tell you?
It tells you the answer Einstein was trying to find with his Unified Field Theory — and with SIMPLER MATH too.
What we are unifying are ALL the FORCES. We are unifying ALL the attractive and repulsive forces in this universe using Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823.What can't be unified are the spacetime realms produced by the different frequency spins of spinning quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic super-clusters: their spins are all at a different frequency. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, the same as radio frequencies (radio stations) are all different.
Our very concepts of LARGE & small are derived from a frequency, resonance world we know nothing about.
The quark spins at a resonance of AT LEAST 20 billion times FASTER than the electron, yet this super-high resonance attracts the electron & builds molecules AND gives us our concepts of LARGE & small.
We see these faster spinning things (higher spin frequencies) as small, and the slower spinning things (lower spin frequencies) as LARGE.
Even though this seems incomprehensible, it's a fact! And you will have UNIFICATION now because as you start using Ampère's Law for all this, then you will understand EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES SPACE & TIME (spacetime).
This is something you don't know now.
We have many spacetime realms but 5 BASIC spin frequency spacetime realms: quark, electron, star, galaxy and galactic super-cluster.
The electron is the only one of those above 5 spinning entities that has the same EXACT spin frequency for all electrons, making the same EXACT spacetime realm for all electrons.
Each of the above 5 BASIC spinning entities —spinning in all directions, mostly out-of-phase with each other — are producing — repulsive force, — holding themselves far, far apart, and producing different spacetime realms (different space and time) at different spin frequencies.
These are the only 5 BASIC spinning entities we know about, but MODERN PHYSICS, unfortunately, allows infinitely larger accumulations than galactic super-clusters and infinitely smaller building blocks than quarks.
Einstein had put most of this picture of our universe together when he warned us about modern physics in 1954.
WE ARE IN A FREQUENCY UNIVERSE — not only in the microcosm — BUT ALL THROUGHOUT — hard even to imagine!
Make no mistake about that!
We have limits in our spacetime realm. But does this spin frequency universe have a limit in spin frequencies either higher or lower? Does this universe have a limit of these spinning entities being too small or too large?
Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823 solves that problem as well: IT GIVES US A LIMITED UNIVERSE! WHY?
Because it shows us conclusively that this is a universe that is FOLDED BACK ON ITSELF!
Because gravity, and inertia, acting at least 20 billion times FASTER than the speed of light shows us the vast distance that the quark spin is effective.
Then how much more effective is a smaller, even higher frequency, FASTER SPINNING building block particle of the quark going to be? It's effective distance will extend even further than the quark's spin frequency!
This is how this UNIVERSE GETS FOLDED BACK ON ITSELF!
This answers one of our biggest science/physics problems: it gets FOLDED BACK because the higher quark and faster, SMALLER, shorter spin frequencies can penetrate the LARGE amount of space produced by the slower spinning galaxies & galactic super-clusters whose slow spin frequencies produce LARGER, longer waves that, in turn, PRODUCE — less time — but SO MUCH more SPACE!
Some similar entity exists between spinning electrons as it does between spinning galaxies: it's simply the RATIO of space to time in each that is DIFFERENT!
There is more TIME than SPACE between electrons than there is between galaxies, but SOME ENTITY between these different spacetime gauges is giving this ENTIRE spinning UNIVERSE a certain BALANCE.
1.Now we must ask ourselves an important question: If we are, indeed, in such a frequency universe as this, then could our concepts of large and small be WAVELENGTH concepts? Faster spinning, higher frequency (smaller WAVELENGTH) spinning entities seem to be smaller, and slower spinning, lower frequency (larger WAVELENGTH) spinning entities seem to be larger.
2.Could our two concepts of space and time be erroneous concepts? Relativity scientists see this repulsive force as ONE thing, i. e. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant), or Minkowski's spacetime.
I've been asking myself those two questions (in the above paragraphs1. and 2.) for a good many years now.
I've made considerable progress in answering these two questions in paragraphs1. and 2. in the following links below.
Last, but not least,we solve even more of Niels Bohr's Complementarity Problem, because we see how an electron, from the quark's spacetime realm view, might look somewhat like our galaxy.
Precession, with each revolution — over a long period of time — results in a perfectly round PARTICLE or Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, SCALAR, standing wave.
Therefore, a tremendously longer period of TIME (RATE-of-CHANGE caused by spin frequencies) must exist between quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & super-clusters of galaxies for this universe to be stable.
We only know the binding speed of two of these: electrons bind together at the speed of light, and quarks bind together at, or more than, 20 billion times the speed of light (2x1010c).vanFlandern
Quark (gravitational) radiation is also at, or more than 2x1010c.
All of these spinning entities, in our universe seek stability. Perfect stability would be achieved when the binding energy to the surroundings equaled the binding energy inside the spinning entity (PARTICLE) itself.
Future super-computers will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that stability is achieved in these different space/motion ratios (gauges) when — a similar balancing entity — exists between all these spinning entities from quarks to super clusters, and this SIMILAR or NEAR EQUALITY — of matching internal binding energy with BALANCED inertial binding to the surroundings — is of supreme importance!Today, this balancing method, in the SPACE between these different gauges — IS THE ONLY THING — that IS quantified (throughout our entire universe) without fixing the gauge!
"Gauge invariance" can only mean ONE THING: area that has the SAME space/time (space/motion) RATIO.
Relativity, or relationship, of spin frequencies becomes of supreme importance.
Now — between the spacetime realms of the electron and stars — we insert another molecular spacetime realm similar to all the others: unfortunately, for modern physics, their building block model has to change to a spinning, orbiting model such as we see in the macrocosm.
This is correct, and as Stephen Wolfram has warned us — we need a MODEL for this BEFORE WE DO ANY MATH — yet modern physics has established itself as a true religion when it is only a mixture of mathematical rules that seem to work OK in our particular subset space/time gauge. A few of us have now given you the foundation stones for the correct BALANCED spin-orbit MODEL that really works all throughout this universe. Stay on this track.
We wouldn't even be here if this universe was perfectly balanced: fission and fusion energy results from our microcosm seeking better stability via IMPROVED BALANCING by converting both larger and smaller elements into iron or elements closer to iron.
Atomic power stems from a drastic space/time RATIO change: here's the best non-mathematical explanation.
If the term "gauge" refers to a specific space/motion ratio, then the hydrogen bomb is stronger than the old atomic fission bomb because the gauge change to our gauge is more severe: the uranium or heavier element electrons involved are going far slower around the nucleus — closer to our gauge — than the inner hydrogen electrons.
Now you have some TRUE facts and the WHY for the Big Bang.
Thanks for reading this.
Electricians and radio people understand the importance of PHASE in regard to FORCE. I guess it was beneath the dignity of all the theoretical physicists, so far, to even consider the PHASE aspect of any unified force theory.
And many sought to unify spacetime realms that simply can't be unified. Einstein was so close! If he had worked in early radio, instead of the Swiss Patent Office, would he have gotten it? It's an incredible story: Einstein completed 99% of what was needed but missed unification by a hair.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
I cannot teach anybody anything.
(Click aScalar link below for the #1 Answer.
Scalarin htm: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.htm
Also,Scalar in Word: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.doc
AndScalar in Adobe pdf: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.pdf
Withoutthis new knowledge of Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823, modern physics has become so dysfunctional that it cannot tell us what causes Dark Matter. Fixing that dysfunction is the challenge at hand. Change begins with understanding, and I wrote WIMPs to provide some, giving you a good idea of what's really going on.
(Click a WIMPs link below.)
WIMPsin html: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.html
Also,WIMPs in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.doc
AndWIMPs in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.pdf
ABOVE again in html, Word (doc) & Adobe (pdf):
Einstein's Unified Field Theory SOLVED?
If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.
Einstein's Unified Field Theory SOLVED?
The cause of DARK MATTER:
I've supplied plenty of
so you can read my book
Universities Asleep at the Switch
in e-book format.
Here's the best
science book ever written:
These links,on left hand side of page, will give you more web sites with even