A bit of light on
an important Matterseen by
This paper, by Fitzpatrick, brought to you free by R.M.F. founder of
give us a glimpse of possibilities in our future.
But where Michael Crichton really hits the nail on the head, is in his bookDISCLOSURE.
In this book he points to our biggest unsolved "Science Problem".
It's the wave-particle problem argued about, for years, between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.
Herein, I quote from Michael Crichton's bookDisclosure.
But first Crichton shows us a pictorial where light from one narrow slit additionally goes through a pair of narrow slits, making a long series of light and dark bars.
But then if the light, from that first slit, is shined through four slits, instead of two, there are half as many light bars as before, because where frequencies are allignedin-phase, the light energy is increased, and in those spots where the waves are more out-of-phase, with each other, the light energy is decreased, and those areas appear darker.
Crichton then explains this phenomenon a bit differently inthis color below (... are my omissions):
"The usual explanation is what I've drawnthe light passing through the slits acts like two waves that overlap. In some places they add to each other, and in other places they cancel each other out. And that makes a pattern of alternating light and dark on the wall. We say the waves interfere with each other, and this is an interference pattern."
... "So what's wrong with all that?"
"What's wrong," ... "is that I just gave you a nineteenth century explanation. It was perfectly acceptable when everybody believed that light was a wave. But since Einstein, we know light consists of particles called photons. How do you explain a bunch of photons making this pattern?"
This, quoteabove, from Crichton's book DISCLOSURE, many see as our largest science problem even today!
Wave Theory explains much of what we know, and quantum (particle) theory explains other things, but neither theory explains much about each other.
Also, neither theory, nor both, can explain everything.
Only one concept shows us why, instead of one theory, we have these two theories: this enlightened unification concept, believe it or not, was given to us in the nineteenth century by Andre M. Ampere in the 1820s.
And this, indeed, is hard for many to accept today.
In the 1820s Ampere gave us hislong wire laws.
I read about them more than half a century ago in Scientific American, and for many years, on the internet, you could only read about them in my posts. Now they've arrived with abundant field theory to utterly confuse the reader. Today you'll find no one but me mentioning anything about them on the internet, showing them having apractical unification value as simple PHASE laws as I write this on April 11, 2018.
If you read the original Scientific American article then you will plainly see what Ampere is telling you: electrons that arein-phase, attract, and electrons that are out-of-phase, repel. Why screw that up with a lot of unnecessary, inappropriate field math that tells you nothing of value?
Keep reading this and you'll read Einstein's exact words telling you the field concept,in finding the truth is worthless.
Moreover, this simple concept ofin-phase, attract & out-of-phase, repel behind Ampere's long wire laws does, indeed, unify wave and quantum theories, thus solving the science problem that Michael Crichton showed everyone in his book Disclosure.
It's obvious, in the following paragraph, that we live in one spacetime realm and electrons in another.
One very important thing that you need to know in quantum theory, is that for binding to be possible, there must be an exact impedance match between the two electrons the binding energy that one electron uses to bind must exactly equal this same photon binding energy that the other uses to bind together, and the two electrons must be spinning the same way, exactly on the same spin axis to make a pi bond, or spin-up & spin-down in the same exact spin plane, at energy transfer to make a sigma bond. No matter how much distance is between the two electrons, they witness this transfer of binding together as taking place instantly even though you in your particular spacetime realm do not.
These two bound electrons at whatever distance are now bound &attracted together spinning in-phase on the same spin axis (a pi bond). A pair of opposite spinning electrons can also be bound & attracted together with their closest sides spinning together in-phase, in the same spin plane (a sigma bond).
Your eyes see light, with all its colors, via (let's call these)sigma TYPE* bonding.
Those electrons bound together, spinning the same way on the same spin axis, are bound together with a higher quantum of energy (api bond) than the spin-up & spin-down pair of electrons bound together, in the same spin plane, with only their closest sides in-phase (a sigma bond).
Now for sigma TYPE* bonds:
The strongest sigma bond is when both electrons are spin-up & spin-down in the same spin plane but light colors, for example are derived via sigma TYPE bonds where the binding pair are in parallel spin planes giving us, not one specific quantum of energy, like a pi bond, but various quanta of energy bundles via different strength bindings. Without this we would not see color.
So, these sigma TYPE bonds are all a bit weaker than the true sigma bond where both electrons spin in the same spin plane.
These sigma TYPE bonds are also involved in ordinary magnetism. I remember, as a kid, noticing the polar attraction of an alnico magnet was more than twice as strong pole to pole (pi binding) as the, non-polar side to siide, attraction was with the magnets inverted (sigma + sigma TYPE binding).
This makes sense too when one realizes that the entire mass of the two electrons areattracting in-phase with a pi bond, but only a small wedge of each is attracting in-phase with a sigma bond or sigma TYPE bonds. This makes each sigma bond much, much weaker than a pi bond.
But, the number of these sigma TYPE bonds is so great, that for each pi bond, the accumulated amount of energy binding for each pi bond works out to a bit more than twice that same percentage share of energy for accumulated sigma + sigma TYPE bonds: thus the old alnico magnets bind with more than twice the strength pole to pole, as the sides of the same magnets do when the poles are inverted.
If you understand all of the above, I can assure you that you can now carry on an intelligent conversation with many quantum physicists.
In fact, you might even come across a few who don't even know this much.
In quantum theory it'sonly these bindings that migrate or flow from a high energy area to a lower energy area.
This tells us while energy flows from high energy areas to lower energy areas, there isno real electron flow!
So, nineteenth century electron flow now changes to twentieth century binding flow.
Even though it doesn't seem to make much sense, to us in our spacetime realm sensing this (photon binding) movement (energy flow) this way, is the vital essence of quantum mechanics.
So, quantum theory does show us that energy flow is far more complicated than the nineteenth century wave mechanics would have us believe.
All the above relates to what NASA scientistDr. Milo Wolff taught us in his Wave Structure of Matter. These spinning entities, such as quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & superclusters, are all standing wave entities: they never resonate with other waves, but their spin frequencies DO. These spin frequencies therefore are not standing waves; they DO resonate together with other spin frequencies to produce binding energy.
In an e-mail to me, here are Milo Wolff's exact words & capitalization,"Yes, spin/orbital frequencies are always resonant like two strings of a piano. These are your energy binding exchanges and inertial mass binding exchanges.
Scalar resonances are STANDING WAVE resonances that are NEVER absorbed, NEVER bind, nor link with similar standing wave resonances by THEMSELVES.
They link only via their spin and orbital transverse vector frequencies."
Thank you, Dr. Milo Wolff.
Please remember, that Michael Crichton showed us both thein-phase resonances: bands of light, and the darker bands that were caused by out-of-phase frequencies.
Ampere's long wire lawsshow us both in-phase resonances and out-of-phase frequencies too, and these are showing us something else. Moreover, something similarly important is happening: in Milo Wolff's Wave Structure of Matter, when the spins of these standing wave entities are in-phase, these entities attract, and when the spins of these standing wave entities are out-of-phase, these entities repel.
How about this now!
How did this present science establishment entirely miss this?
This is something so simple and also so crucial as to determining the truth of what's really going onin this entire universe.
And, even today our present science establishment still fails to see this.
Incredibly,Ampere's laws, seen as phase laws give us a Phase Symmetry concept that is a true Theory of Everything.
How Einstein missedAmpere's laws while searching for his Theory of Everything, I'll never know. I saw, and showed how Ampere's laws easily unified both magnetism and electrostatics making it the basic true unification concept, in my first book in 1966: this was 2 years before the quark was discovered. Fitzpatrick's First Book There was a full page in the New York Times devoted exclusively about this book on June 18th 1967. "Fitzpatrick's First Book" also in Adobe.pdf - pge1.pdf
Einstein tried to unify gravitational and electronic laws, but no one knew about the quark then, so Einstein, even though he knew spin existed in both microcosm and macrocosm, was never able to recognize the important aspect ofSPIN in unifying gravitational and electron forces.
Therefore, Einstein could not possibly have understood that a quark, even smaller than the electron, that spun at a higher harmonic frequency than the electron, was causing gravity that Einstein saw as a macrocosm force.
Einstein tried to unify the forces. He failed not so much because he wasn't smart enough. It was because enough information wasn't quite there yet. Einstein died in 1955, but our quark knowledge didn't arrive until 1968, via Murry Gell-Mann and George Zweig.
So, on to thisSPIN:
WhenSPIN exists in both forces, then perhaps a unifying phase law will exist in both too.
As we look atAmpere's laws, we see these nineteenth century laws do unify both micro and macro SPIN worlds, and thus give us our unifying theory.
Ampere's lawstell us this Attractive force or binding is derived from the IN-PHASE binding of these distant microcosm or macrocosm spins to each other.
Ampere's lawstell us this Repulsive force or space is derived from the Out-of-PHASE (space creation) of these distant microcosm or macrocosm spins to each other.
This is it!
This is it!
This is it!
And it's so simple!
Einstein was looking for a law that kept all these spinning things so far apart both in the microcosm and the macrocosm, (Einstein's Cosmological Constant) and here it is!
This also solves the problem Michael Crichton showed us, becauseAmpere's laws clearly show us what both wave and quantum theories show us.
And it most certainly makes quantum theory more complete, which was Einstein's main argument against belief in quantum theory while arguing with Bohr.
Richard Feynman said,"No one understands quantum theory." (a quote in Michael Crichton's book Disclosure). Now with Ampere's laws, and perhaps this paper, even the majority in the present science establishment can finally understand quantum theory.
However, there are some new rules about theclosest sides of these spinning entities, plus a few other things, we must consider.
I spent more than half a century eliminating unwantedstanding waves. I knew they would accumulate wherever radio waves existed. I knew immediately, that my good friend, NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff was right when he showed me this had to be a spinning, standing wave universe.
Our present scienceestablishment, cannot tell us why space and time are inseparable: as we look, with the Hubble telescope, further out into space then we also look further back into time. This could only happen if we were really in NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff's frequency - wave universe that used Ampere's Phase Laws to determine all attractive or repulsive forces.
In such a frequency universe TIME could not be separated from SPACE.
We know the microcosm is a frequency universe: spacetime along with Milo Wolff shows us this entire universe must be a frequency universe usingAmpere's Laws.
Amperegave us laws for both the 25% of mass we know and the other 75% of the Dark Matter mass in our universe (everything). We need more math for Ampere's laws, that give the best BIG PICTURE of EVERYTHING that's really going on in this universe.
IfAmpere shows you everything that's going on and present science doesn't, then which do you believe?
Star, galaxy and galactic clusterspins are too low in frequency to bend light the exact same intensity and manner that inertial mass does: they are spin frequencies, however, and eventually will be proved they are the cause of Dark Matter via Dicke's null test.
Eventually, Dicke's null test will give us these exact spin frequencies that are bending light. The Hubble telescope has already shown us the interference fringes to prove frequencies ARE involved, which even Dicke was not aware of when he suggested an eventual null test, if it seemed that frequencies were involved.
Because these Dark Matter macrocosm spins are at a much lower frequency than the quark spins causing inertial mass, then Dark Matter mass will have a far different interference pattern from gravitational inertial mass caused by spinning quarks.
The quark spins causing gravity are spinning at a higher harmonic of the electron spin and ultra-fast enough to bend light the most. Gravity is the linking of all these entities together at the ultra-fast spin frequency, while these macrocosm entities link themselves together by their own, slower DARK MATTER macrocosm spin frequencies.
It's ironic that Einstein looked all his life for, laws that Andre Ampere had already discovered: these laws unify both microcosm and macrocosm forces.
And Dr. Amber Straughn will undoubtedly give us even more knowledge about very early galactic activity after the James Webb Space Telescope gets functioning.
In this, you will also see a bit more of the reason why mass converts into energy.
Astronomers are finding more and more things in our universe that present science cannot explain. How is this universe built?
It is built from spinning entities, spinning at different frequencies where PHASE is of the utmost importance, yet PHASE is completely overlooked by our science establishment.
Ampere gave us a PHASE science model, a new way to look at these spinning entities.
Ampere's ultra simple phase building block science model answer coincides with what the new study by A. Cattaneo et al. attempts to do.
The answer to this "Dark Matter" is simple, and it's an answer Einstein would have loved because he warned about field theory's continuous structures that the present establishment, even yet, firmly believes in.
You'll see why field theory, and two especially bad myths, have kept us from seeing the BIG PICTURE. I'm certain that field theory has a role to play solving problems after the establishment finally sees what's really going on.
But that, may take considerable time.
This is because even scientists have a hard time giving up things they firmly believe in.
Einstein, unfortunately, used the field concept all his life, to see the BIG PICTURE, but then in 1954 about a year before he died, he said this: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field 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."
This answer to "Dark Matter" is correct, and Einstein turns out to be absolutely right aboutthe rest of modern physics too.
This universe is not built in a consistent enough way to use field theory to unify the forces, or see the BIG PICTURE. Only after we learn more about those forces, can the field concept be applied. I've proven this in internet papers you can get free by clicking those links at the end of this internet paper.
Mathematician, Stephen Wolfram has proven, that we need the basicsimple model that builds this universe first, even before we start on any math.
Using Wolfram's ultra simple building blocks, here's Ampere'sultra simple phase building block model answer that works with this non-consistent universe!
Einstein endeavored with his Unified Field theory, because he KNEWtrue science laws should work ALL the time, and Einstein clearly SAW that until we achieve a unification of the forces, we won't even have the basic framework of this giant science jigsaw puzzle in place. So we are forced to remain in this era of present science where we are now, using science laws that fail to show us everything we need to know.
We need to knowwhy all these entities in our universe are spinning and our science laws are silent about that.
Thissimple new phase model uses this spin.
Even though Einstein's Unified Field theory was a failure, unification of the forces in the macro and micro worlds, must be done even before we can attempt to see the BIG PICTURE of what's really going on in this universe.
This ultra simple phase building blocktrue science model, built on Ampere's Laws, is far simpler than present science, and it finally shows us the BIG PICTURE of reality of what's really going on in our universe.
HERE: read mathematician, Stephen Wolfram's best selling book "A New Kind of Science". It's free:Wolfram'sBook
He proves, that for a complicated universe, you need its basicsimple, building model FIRST. You do the math, after you see the correct model (Ampere's Model). Stephen Wolfram has proven, beyond any doubt, THE MATH HAS TO BE DONE LATER!
In this internet paper, you are not only getting the neededsimple model, but this also includes the necessary basic unification of the forces that Andre M. Ampere gave us in the 1820s, that even Einstein failed to see: this seems incredible, but it's true.
You are about to see anultra simple phase building block model method, able to unify the forces, that was discovered and published in France, by the prominent scientist Ampere, yet all this remained unobserved by the establishment for about 200 years.
This 'universities asleep' FACT will be taught, one day, to every school child in France.
Ampere'sunification model is as good, or better than the one Einstein searched for.
We now need more math to fit Ampere'snew, ultra simple phase building block model.
After many decades of problem solving, of troubles on the various latest devices our scientists were turning out, I saw the discrepancy between what the universities told us to believe and what was really happening. Links to what I found, and most of what I have written, is available to you all, free of charge, at the end of this internet paper.
OK, here's the way we must look at galactic attractions and repulsions; pay attention to these following words, IN EXTRA LARGE PRINT, that I've said before:
of this universe is not complex;
It's aspinning, standing wave universe where all forces use only two simple phase rules:
TheCLOSEST SIDES of these spinning entities must be seen as
Andre M. Ampere's two laws above are the basic building block laws for everyattractive and every repulsive force in the microcosm and macrocosm.
Those two laws above, that actually unify the forces, from all these spinning entities quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters are essentially the same two laws that Ampere derived about two hundred years ago. You can read the exact words about this, from the Britannica, herein toward the end of this.
The basic building blocks for this entire complicated universe are nothing but those two SIMPLEattractive and repulsive PHASE LAWS, given to us by Ampere.
These two basic laws of Ampere, alone, are the reason stars are built and others explode.
What is absolutely incredible is the fact that for years,Einstein looked for these laws but never found them.
We know electrons and quarks cause forces, but It's quite a paradigm shift from present science to say all these spinning items quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters produce similar forces, but if you keep reading, then you'll see they do.
Ampere did what Einstein couldn't:the majority will eventually see this.
The faster the spin, then the stronger the force produced: the quark gives the strongest force. But only a very limited number of these quark strong force links end up penetrating completely through the high tri-quark density area inside protons and neutrons.
We'll look at this quark strong force, along with the forces produced by the spinning macrocosm objects, whose immense mass would tend to increase forces produced but whose low spin frequencies compared to quark or electron would tend to lower forces produced.
This exceptionallysimple model answer to what is really going on in this universe applies to stars, galaxies and galactic superclusters as well as to similar spinning items in the microcosm.
I've used this you can too to get a fairly good BIG PICTURE of what's really going on in our universe, and this is what one really needs to solve today's science problems.
It's also simpler than today's science and even far simpler than anyone could imagine.
The next paragraph spells out the simplicity of it all.
It's this simplelinking of the CLOSEST SIDES IN-PHASE between the spins of distant stars, galaxies and galactic clusters, that are oriented correctly, that gives us this Dark Matter attractive force, in addition to the gravitational force.
The orientation for the strongestin-phase, attractive force whether it's spinning electrons causing magnetic attraction or spinning macrocosm objects causing DARK MATTER attraction is when both entities spin the same direction, on the same spin axis, at the same frequency.
More forces in Chapt. 7http://www.amperefitz.com/phase.symmetry.htm
The math, for all this, is not going to be simple:we will, eventually, get the math for this and then science will be light years ahead of where it is today.
Einstein needed a fudge factor for General Relativity so he used the Greek capital letter lambda, necessary for a steady-state universe, that he and the majority of the scientific community believed in at that time.
To express General Relativity, this was used along with another of Einstein's concepts, the energy density holding all these spinning entities a vast distance apart in the macrocosm. Today this is called "Einstein's Cosmological Constant".
If you expand an atom so each electron is the size of a pin head, then the closest electron will beas far away from the nucleus, it is revolving around, as the fortieth story in a modern building is from the street below. Hence, this vast space of Einstein's Cosmological Constant is almost exactly duplicated in the microcosm as well.
So, we might as well say we have "Einstein's Cosmological Constant" in the microcosm too, where we see a similar repulsive energy density with vast space there as well.
Contrary to present science, this new model shows, "Einstein's Cosmological Constant" repulsive energy density of the vacuum of space remains because a certain "critical balance" is always there between in-phase and out-of-phase forces, existing between the closest sides of quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters. But you will be three quarters of the way through this before you'll be convinced of that.
Do a little thinking In a world of eternal spinning entities, these will always attempt tobalance themselves if they attract when their closest sides are in-phase and repel when their closest sides are out-of-phase.
This is the way it is, not the way the establishment presently believes it is.
While the establishment uses entirely different laws for the microcosm as it does for the macrocosm, in this we are going to take a good hard look at thesenew simple phase rules; you'll see they do indeed pertain to both micro and macro forces: this is similar to the unifying that Einstein tried to do.
Let's call all these spinning things in both micro and macro worlds spinning, standing waves, a name given them by Dr. Milo Wolff; you'll see the reason why later.
You will finally see the BIG PICTURE of what's really going on after replacing present science rules with these new phase laws even though there is very little math yet for this new concept.
I saw it was relative motion orPHASE causing simple magnetism, years before I got my First Class Radio License with RADAR endorsement, in 1958, allowing me to work on almost any transmitter built.
In my earlier publications I used the term "relative motion" to describe what was going on things attracting always had the same "relative motion" together but if this is a frequency universe then the term PHASE is the more appropriate term to use.
It's apparent, with electrons, that it's the CLOSEST SIDESlinking IN-PHASE that causes the attraction in magnetism, with quark harmonically captured electrons.
Entirely free electrons don't act that way: they try to attract each other, but can't.
Inertia acts even in the microcosm with a gyroscopic force in conjunction with, but at a right angle to every electron polar attractive force movement when free electrons attempt to attract to each other. But this causes each free electron to precess away from the other free electron's strong polar attracting point.
Each electron will precess the same amount.
Thus, the CLOSEST SIDES of free electrons can never bein-phase attracting, and will always be out-of-phase repelling.
This is the real reason all free electrons repel each other.
For 70 years now thisTRUTH has allowed me to solve far more science problems than those who believed in Benjamin Franklin's plus and minus charges.
The very same thing that goes on in the microcosm, is also happening in the macrocosm.
Does the establishment see it?
They have nothing, in the macrocosm, at that spin frequency to detect it!
Stars, galaxies and galactic clusters have the same strong, polar, in-phase, attraction, to same spin frequency items as the "free" electron, and like "free" electrons they also try to attract to each other.
Stars, galaxies and galactic clusters, that can attract, nonetheless, end up repelling each other acting exactly the same as free electrons most of the time, but in the macrocosm everything is not the same size and exact spin frequency as in the electron's spacetime realm.
This is the reason our galaxy is being pulled toward the Andromeda galaxy, that is much larger than our galaxy.Same size galaxies with same spin frequencies won't do this their gravitational attractive pull will be offset by an equal out-of-phase repelling force, because each will precess the same amount.
Similar, same size galaxies will ALWAYS repel other same size galaxies, for the same reason same size electrons ALWAYS repel each other, because each identical item will precess the same amount.
Here's the number one rule for free spinning, standing waves: each identical, closest entity will precess the same amount.
This works with smaller items as well: this is the reason billions of these same size items are in each distinct section of Saturn's rings.
As in the macrocosm, enough out-of-phase repelling is also in the microcosm and this is WHY we have Einstein's Cosmological Constant in the microcosm too.
So here's the reality: inertia acts with the same gyroscopic force, at a right angle to every polar spin attractive force movement in the macrocosm precessing everything from stars to galactic super clustersjust like it does with free electrons so that we will seldom see the CLOSEST SIDES of anything in the macrocosm except binary stars linking IN-PHASE.
This keeps their Closest Sides out-of-phase with each other so they repel each other.
A few of us see this repelling of free electrons in the microcosm happens for the same exact reason that it does in the macrocosm.
But the majority would rather believe in two hundred year old myths than do any actual new research and new thinking,
Now, because of present Hubble telescope, and other observations, it will soon be apparent to all of us that, similar size, binary stars are always spin-up and spin-down and that their CLOSEST SIDES are alwayslinking IN-PHASE.
Looking at any galaxy, it's thesurroundings inside of any galactic cluster, and in deep space further outside being far more out-of-phase than the interior that gives an additional repulsive force between the surroundings and the interior stars in the central portion of the galactic cluster, thus squeezing far more stars and galaxies, than normal, into that central portion, giving us what we see as a BLACK HOLE and also Dark Matter.
This squeezing into the center not only goes for galactic clusters but for ALL spinning, standing waves.
It's thisrepulsive force of the surroundings inside, and in deep space further outside of ANY spinning entity being far more out-of-phase than the interior that gives more interior entities squeezed in to the center, thus giving a greater central density than the overall entity average.
Astronomers all know about this high central density but they don't know WHY this is so.
This is not only WHY we have BLACK HOLES but WHY all these entities are centrally denser than expected, and WHY thesurroundings matter, and WHY the surroundings must be taken into consideration when calculating ANY force.
This intense, out-of-phase, repulsive squeezing force, at the exact plane of the galactic equator, is not only WHY these super massive quasar, black hole, polar jets exist, but it also gives the reason both of these quasar intense polar black hole jets, are EQUAL in force.
Present science gives absolutely no reason for these jets, why they are equal, or what gives us Einstein's Cosmological Constant this vast space and repulsive force density between every spinning thing in the micro and macro world but you will see that this new concept, using surroundings that are always more out-of-phase because of all this spin, most certainly does give the reason for Einstein's Cosmological Constant.
Quark-spin gravitational force is an instantaneous action and far faster than electron-spin force that acts at the slower speed of light. Even the present establishment believes this is a FACT.
Now we are going to move a distance away from what the present establishment believes: let's, forget present science'sstrong force containment and suppose (you'll see later why) gravitational, and centrifugal force are both a quark-spin Strong Force type of instantaneous attractions.
But, because of the high quark density spacetime realm, inside the quark congested nuclei, only a limited number of individual quark to quark external binding linkages will be made. Each quantum energy transfer linkage requiresperfect alignment, and an exact impedance match, or no energy transfer is possible. These are the reasons the quark strong force produces the much weaker attractions of gravitational and centrifugal force.
Gravity comes later, but with inertial and particularly with centrifugal force, you have to realize that exterior portions of those spinning quarks, in any rapidly spinning entity, are nowmore out-of-phase than quarks in YOU, and the faster the item spins, those quark portions now match and attract more quarks, further and further in the deep space area of the surrounding stars that are also more out-of-phase than quarks in YOU.
As you spin things faster and faster, the centrifugal force pull to the stars gets greater and greater because higher frequencies have more binding energy than lower frequencies so portions of the quark spins, in the thing you are moving faster and faster, are matching exact mass and exact frequency of portions of quark spins to those of various distant stars. Both mass and frequency must match exactly to form a quantum, binding, in-phase attraction to the distant stars.
More centrifugal force is therefore determined viamore linking (via matching) of mass and frequencies with the distant stars and nothing more!
From this it's easy to see thatthis new phase MODEL finally gives us the real reason we have centrifugal force!
So, it looks like Stephen Wolfram is right! 'Find the correct model FIRST!'
Yes Stephen, we are going to use this new phasesimple model FIRST and foremost over everything the universities presently are telling us about scientific principles.
As you read further you'll seethis simple phase model shows the EXACT BIG PICTURE of how this complicated universe works, whereas none of the present science & math can, as yet.
What was it again that Einstein said in 1954?"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field 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."
Evidently the establishment never listened to Albert Einstein, George Berkeley, Ernst Mach or present day astronomers either.
Use what you learn here to profit by it. That's what I've done, and it helped me solve many science problems. It's worthless to try to convince the establishment that this is true, because if they wouldn't listen to Einstein then they are not going to listen to you.
I've known for decades that these large spinning entities in the macrocosm produce similar Dark Matter binding forces as the electron but at a much, much lower frequency, in fact, a frequency too low for our detection.
DARK MATTER mass 75% of the mass in our universe does not come from WIMPS. It comes from in-phase, attractive binding between properly positioned spins of distant stars, galaxies and galactic clusters.
All these spinning entities also attract exactly like the electron attraction in magnetism where the polar attraction is the strongest attraction because then the entire mass, of both electrons, is spinning on the same axis, in the same direction, in-phase at the same exact frequency.
Spin-up & spin-down electrons also attract like spin-up & spin-down binary stars but this equatorial in-phase attraction is the weaker attraction also in magnetism because only that limited mass of the closest sides is in-phase then. I've shown why the total equatorial attraction works out to be about half the total polar attraction even though the mass ratio for each single force is far greater than that: read my other papers for that answer. It's a bit too involved to include here.
These Dark Matter forces also powerfully centralize, the same as gravity does to produce a BLACK HOLE at the center of large galaxies, but these larger entities spin at a much lower frequency than either the quark or the electron so they do not bend light quite like the Black Hole gravitational force caused by a very low percentage of quarks whose closest sides find themselves, momentarily, PERFECTLY in-phase.
Remember, one reason the strong quark attractive force creates the weaker gravitational attractive force is because of the limited amount of wormholes existing in the high quark density area, through which these quarks need to link and bind, so as to give us this gravitational force.
The attractive and repulsive forces, that build spacetime, move ONLY in the direction oflinking of the CLOSEST SIDES of these spinning entities. This is one of the numerous reasons we can't use field theory and why all spacetime at any spin frequency is granular and will have wormholes. Not only energy but mass too is delivered, via spacetime, in chunks similar to energy's quantum units.
Einstein was right; structures we thought continuous, are not: it's a whole new ballgame in which you can't use field theory to see a model of the big picture. Modern science,just as Einstein predicted, goes out the window when enough people see this.
To see this better, you will have to understand standing waves and you will have to know why Einstein warned us aboutfield theory and modern science in 1954.
Also, to see this better we'll discusstwo, big, serious myths that, along with field theory, obscure our correct reasoning.
Dr. Milo Wolff one of those scientists that helped get us to the moon showed us that while ordinary standing waves can exist on wires and antennas, onlyspinning, standing waves can exist in free space.
He then gave us his beautiful mathematical proof that the electron has to be considered a SCALAR, spinning, standing wave; he gave us this even before the electron was found to be perfectly spherical.
But if this is a frequency universe, not only in the microcosm but all throughout, and we aretuned to a frequency, close to Planck's constant, then we would only view frequencies higher than us as frequencies; we could not view frequencies lower than our frequency as frequencies: those we would view as something else, perhaps solids, wouldn't we?
So isn't this why we see the macrocosm as such?
Things that we see as larger are merely lower in frequency!
Well, accepting that view or not, we'd be further advanced in science if the establishment had listened to the warnings of both Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein. I gave you Einstein's warning and theblue words below are what Hubble said.
I recently heard a well known cosmologist on TV saying, "Hubble discovered the expanding universe." That simply isn't so. Edwin Hubble discovered the "Red Shift", yes. But Hubble himself warned us thatthe Red Shift may NOT indicate an expanding universe with these words: "The possibility that the red shift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of light from the nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected".
Did the establishment listen to Hubble or Einstein?
So keep reading to see how this all fits together.
Every spinning thing, including quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters, because of their spin, produce more in-phase attractive forces locally and centrally in every spinning item that help hold them together (tighter and away from their surroundings), plus (some in-phase attractions) that pull them toward their surroundings (inertia). These two forces acting against each other, does a bit to help the "critical balance" that is necessary throughout a universe of spinning, standing waves.
Helping tobalance against this CENTRAL massing of in-phase attracting forces, in every spinning entity, is INERTIA acting gyroscopically at right angles to the strong polar attraction movement of every perfectly free spinning entity, thus causing each of these free entities to forever precess around other similar free spinning entities, never able to form the strong polar attraction that each is striving to accomplish; this gives, free spinning things, all these out-of-phase repulsive forces: this is why we have Einstein's Cosmological Constant, out-of-phase, repelling force (space) both in the microcosm and in the macrocosm.
The present scientific establishment has no idea whatsoever that, in a frequency universe that I'm certain this is all throughout a "critical balance" of in-phase to out-of-phase forces must be established and not exceeded for any spinning, standing wave, spacetime realm to be established: thus I say like Einstein said in 1954 "Good-bye to present science."
And it's Hello to an entirely New Kind ofPHASE Science, wherein a preponderance of in-phase star spins cause galactic filaments.
While this universe has the potential to balance, it never does perfectly. We wouldn't have molecules if it did. Fusion is atomic power balancing the lighter elements closer to iron and fission is atomic power balancing the heavier elements closer to iron.
No more atomic energy will be available after this atomic spacetime realm is totally balanced out and all elements are converted to iron, or close to iron. Atomic energy isn't available from iron. Iron is atomic energy's ash heap.
This next item WHY MASS turns into ENERGY, that I told you about in the beginning is hard to believe but true.
Energy is ONLY converted from mass as this universe attempts to balance itself better. But we don't see this.
We don't see this because we don't see the "Big Bang" correctly. (Read Chapter 10http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm)
We also don't see this "critical balance" between every level of spacetime, from quark to super cluster, because of field theory and one of these two great myths that you will shortly see.
Our field theory of present science cannot show us everything, and it is definitely not showing us the fact that, in a spinning, standing wave universe, there is always a 50-50 chance of an initial linkage being either in-phase or out-of-phase, thus a50% chance that the invisible forces being put out by our universe are out-of-phase spacetime forces (actually causing space [repulsion]) with their surroundings: this is Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" pointing us in the direction of unification of the forces because all this IMMENSE space and repulsive energy density between everything from quarks to galactic clusters must be caused by SIMILAR spacetime repulsive forces.
Einstein knew all this SIMILAR tremendously vast space and repulsive force density existed between spinning objects in both the microcosm and macrocosm.
Einstein saw the similarity between these two realms: this is the reason he sought unification of these microcosm and what he thought were macrocosm forces!
Einstein didn't know about the quark.
Einstein's Unified Field theory failed, however, because field theory itself failed.You must be certain you can use field theory before you do use it.
Pure math gave Einstein the Big Picture of how mass related to energy in his famous formula E=mc2, then later in life he saw things didn't work, quite as well for him again, with his Unified Field theory.
Einstein should have realized, this is a frequency universe, and to unify those forces, in both micro and macro worlds, the only common factor available for all these "spinning, standing waves" isPHASE.
If these "spinning, standing waves" fail to maintain acertain definite attractive vs. repelling "critical balance" of forces level with their surroundings then they simply cannot remain stable and they convert mass into energy, or energy into mass, until they do achieve a certain "critical balance" of stability.
Even though theoretically all these spinning entities can balance fairly well; it's the makeup of the different frequency "spinning, standing waves" and their surroundings whether they do balance fairly well.
Let's take a good look at one of these "spinning, standing waves" the ELECTRON:
Freeelectrons that can remain out-of-phase with other free electrons will always repel each other; they have to because of polar attraction and inertia that gyroscopically and immediately acts 90 degrees to that polar attraction initial movement: both electrons are forced to precess around the closest other electron's polar point of maximum attraction. Stars and galaxies do exactly the same thing but since we can only see them in "ultra slow (frozen) motion" we entirely miss all this precession about their polar maximum attracting points. Binary stars, however, attract each other, equatorially, with their closest sides in-phase because of their opposite spins. Yes, spin-up and spin-down electrons magnetically attract each other. This is like same size binary stars whose closest sides spin in-phase with each other, will always attract each other, like those similar electrons do in magnetism.
All scientists realize this being in-phase causes attraction is true after considering it but why isn't this a well known fact taught in science classes?
We know which way electrons, causing magnetism, spin. In magnetism alone,(keeping in mind electron spin direction) the evidence of in-phase attraction and out-of-phase repulsion is overwhelming! It's impossible to miss this if you look, which is easy to do now; there was no Internet when I had to hunt for spin direction of the electron.
Quite a few have 'seen' this over the years but NOT YET most in the establishment, wherein most are not even trying to find a better science vehicle: they are like Henry Ford who for years kept saying as others built better and better cars "No one needs anything better than a Model-T."
The American establishment, like Henry Ford in his later years, is still 'Asleep at the Switch'.How can people not see it's in-phase attraction and out-of-phase repulsion when it's in absolutely, crystal clear, plain sight looking at the cause of simple magnetism?
Not only that but individual spinning entities are causing individualentirely different, polar and equatorial, strong and weak, attractive and repulsive forces; this isn't a field: nor can it, 100% of the time, be mathematically represented as a field! What could be clearer than that! It was 1954 before Einstein saw this, and more than a decade after that before I realized it.
Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift. The further out we look at stars the more their color is shifted lower in frequency, or shall we say, toward the color red which is the lowest visible frequency. Speed, relative motion, and special relativity are all involved here before we can see such a red shift lowering of that distant star light frequency. So here's where you really have to pay attention to what is going on.
Now I'm going to use Stephen Wolfram's simple model approach to explain a bit more about the red shift. Frequencies respond to relative motion: Ampere showed us that. The electrons in your eyes that give you the sensation of light are spinning in a certain direction but the earth is spinning in another direction and the solar system in another and our galaxy in another and the galactic cluster that we are in is spinning even in a different direction. Even though you are not sensitive to these spins in five different spin axes, the electrons in your eyes most certainly are. While you improperly see yourself as stationary with the sky, the electrons in your eye respond only to all this spin induced relative motion that increases the red shift the further you look out into space. Because of the spin in these five different spin axes, the further you look, the more your eye electrons detect a faster and faster relative motion or red shift. It's as simple as that really.
All that multiple spin axes spinning exists! You are not stationary with the sky! The red shift is that relative motion detected between you and the various distant stars!
Hubble got it right, with his warning!
And you will see Hubble got it right if you keep reading.
This next paragraph is of supreme importance. Read it several times.
The relative motionred shift aspect between you and the distant stars is the same whether they actually go around you or you spin in relation to them: this is an important fact!
The spin is there; therefore the relative motion is there and the further you look out into space, the faster the star's relative motion is around you,and the establishment forgot all about this!
You will get thered shift two ways: we see it if those distant stars are either going AROUND us or AWAY from us fast enough. The establishment picked AWAY from us, wrong pick, when they should have seen the relative motion AROUND us and between us and the distant stars was really fast enough where the role of special relativity kicks in!
AWAY from us, thewrong pick, would mean an Expanding universe, but the correct assessment of AROUND us means we live in a Steady-State universe.
Those who believe inWRONG concepts will never arrive at CORRECT answers, even if they are in the vast majority.
And this WRONG pick of the stars going AWAY from us prevented the establishment from seeing that it's this spin that gives us this spacetime, which the establishment failed to recognize as spacetime.
They saw the time involved but missed the space involved so they invented new fictitious expanding universe space.
Once an expanding universe is accepted, by the establishment, then any balanced, steady-state universe concept will be seen as simply radical! And indeed, this is what has happened!
Also, scientistsfailed to recognize the space involved as space, because viewing it as various spin frequencies makes us see spacetime as time and not space. It's only after we discard the spin frequencies view of all these things that we can view this as space. This difference in viewing is EXACTLY why we see space and time as distinctly different entities even though they are both produced as spacetime via the same out-of-phase forces.
However, we still need to know WHY, in special relativity, is time related mathematically to one side of a right triangle, space to the other side and spacetime to the hypotenuse?
Not only does modern science need re-thinking, as Einstein foresaw, but also with this internet paper, these distinct entities that we think we see, called space and time also need now, to be considered in an entirely different light: those two things are really only one thing as all relativity mathematicians know and that is spacetime.
Einstein's special relativity comes into play here because time slows down with a faster speed. The electrons in your eyes not only see this faster relative motion speed, of those stars going around you, but also the time, of those distant stars, in relation to you is slowed down, thus your eye gives you more and morered shift the further out into this universe that you look.
In troubleshooting, never forget that the high spin frequencies of electrons and quarks both respond to relative motion! The establishment knows all that multiple spin relative motion is there but they forgot about it and didn't listen to Edwin Hubble's warning about prematurely giving the wrong answer to thered shift.
Once you know something like this, that the establishment doesn't, then that puts you way ahead of the mob in troubleshooting. So, to stay ahead, in this game, you must not only see what frequencies see butyou also must eliminate the "myths" that the other guys still believe in.
Here, I continue with the establishment's myths:
INERTIAstems from an attraction to the surrounding stars. But you will soon see that this is the TRUTH; the myths come later.
Pay attention to this proof that our Inertia stems from an attraction to the surrounding stars:
Proof of this inertial attracting force to the surrounding stars is the fact that gyroscopes, pendulums, vibrating elements and Helium-2 all have the same one complete rotation in one sidereal day, which is23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds. This rate of rotation is termed "Earth rate": this is the exact rate (or time) any stationary (relative to the "fixed stars") observer in space, would see this Earth make one complete rotation.
You can VIEW this "Earth rate" using a gyroscope. Many times I've set the axis of an aircraft vertical gyro up at noon time with its axis pointing straight up at the sun. When I came back to it at 5 PM, its axis was tilted west, still pointing to the sun that was setting in the west. It looked like it was following the sun but its rotation was a bit faster and really following the stars.
It's important, considering what comes later, that you remember this absolute PROOF that ourinertia is a connection to the surrounding stars. So read this PROOF again if you didn't completely understand it.
The next paragraph explains why the stars seen at night, directly above, in winter are not the same stars seen, directly above, in summer nights: the difference between a 24 hour solar day and a sidereal day add up, after 182 days, to give the exact opposite stars overnight in summer as in winter.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: One sidereal day, also known as "Earth Rate" or 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds, is the rate the stars make one complete rotation, as we see them going around us.
In our industrial system I've talked to men, directly in charge of people working on highly sensitive gyroscopes, who didn't know this nor did they care about electron spin direction. I showed in 1966 that electron spin direction gives us an essential part of the big picture.
You saw that theinertial gyro "Earth rate" precession of 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds is proof that our inertia depends on the stars. If we had an expanding universe, then with the stars moving further and further away, inertia would be getting less and less with time.
But it isn't! It's the same EXACT amount it was a hundred years ago!
Since Inertia isn't getting less and less with time, thenan EXPANDING UNIVERSE is a myth!
Not only does "Earth rate" prove it's a myth but so does this "Phase concept", because in this concept there is an important "CRITICAL BALANCE" with no possible present expansion, but having said that, I fully see, and you should too by now, if you have paid attention to all of this, also see the reason the establishment thinks it is an expanding universe: so in this game you must understand the other person's mistaken religious beliefs! And, in this way, you come out way ahead!
I'm not calling these people liars but I do have a responsibility of pointing out to you, those who don't tell us the truth.
Earlier you saw the absolute PROOF that Inertial "Earth rate" gyroscopic precession shows inertia is a connection to the surrounding stars and since inertia isn't changing, then an Expanding Universe is a myth.
Not everything can be tested this easily.
But, as you saw for yourself, an expanding universe can be tested.
And it failed the test!
You can see from my PROOF that these people telling you about an expanding universe have a mistaken pseudo-scientific religious belief.
Yes, as previously stated, those who believe inWRONG concepts will never arrive at CORRECT answers, even if they are in the vast majority.
Will the establishment look at this proof that we are really in a steady-state universe? Absolutely not! Years from now the idiots on TV will still be proclaiming that "Hubble discovered the Expanding Universe."
It can be proven, mathematically, that we are LIMITED in measuring expansion, to cases where relativistic space doesn't change. You are vastly exceeding that LIMIT when you say this entire universe is expanding, so let's simply say those people telling us about an expanding universe just aren't telling us the truth. And there is an awful lot more about present science where this truth is lacking too, but I don't have room for all that in this.
In selling you an expanding universe, that doesn't exist, fictitious DARK ENERGY is needed. So whileDARK MATTER is really here, the FICTITIOUS DARK ENERGY, causing a fictitious Expanding Universe, isn't.
Next is themyth of "strong force containment". By not looking for the cause of gravity, inertia and centrifugal force they got that one wrong too.
I showed this was wrong years ago when I wrote, "Because of the extreme quark density, the quarks will not even recognize that they are spinning at the same frequency unless they are separated from each other by about the diameter of a proton or neutron. You will have frequency dispersion here as well. This is what causes the asymptotic freedom of the quarks inside a proton or neutron." After I published the book with that statement, I realized that two quarks of different masses that had different spins in that high spacetime tri-quark density,could very well "appear" with one quark in that lower spacetime density (the distance of a proton or neutron's diameter), by both to be "same frequency spins": thus there could be a strong in-phase attraction there, preventing the removal of a single quark away from the tri-quark proton or neutron.
Anyway, not knowing what caused asymptotic freedom, and not investigating why we had gravity, inertia and centrifugal force, the establishment came up with the myth of strong force containment.
The strong force (between two quarks) is not contained! This is the force that gives us gravity, inertia, and as you saw, centrifugal force.
The establishment sees gravity, centrifugal force and inertia as acting instantly;that might be wrong, but at least they are going far faster than the speed of light: those forces act at a speed that we sense as c2, pretty fast but not quite instantly if our bandspread extends a bit higher in frequency than the quark spin frequency.
We learn, with this new model, that we perceive spin frequencies as speed: proof of that is c2, that we see as the speed of light squared, but this is impossible because every mathematician, worth his salt, knowsyou cannot square a speed. We find c2 really is an unknown harmonic of the spin frequency of the electron; this is the spin frequency of the down quark that harmonically captures electrons: a new look at E=mc2.
The only spinning, standing wave entities that could give us gravity, centrifugal force and inertia are electrons or quarks; since we know 100% of the forces given off by the electron and none give us those forces, then it has to be the quark giving us gravity, centrifugal force and inertia.
Also, all electron forces travel at the speed of light but gravity travels instantly so it must be caused by quarks that spin at somehigher harmonic than electrons: previously I took a guess as to which harmonic, but since our math doesn't work in the quark spacetime realm, it's best to simply say "higher harmonic".
Now finally, we get back again to "Dark Matter". And now that you've seen the phase picture, you don't have to be a mathematician to see that in a galactic cluster,besides gravity, there are far more in-phase attractions, and out-of-phase repulsions with the surrounding galactic clusters at the galactic cluster spin frequency speed that the present science group is not taking even the slightest notice of seeing.
Andthis is it, in a nutshell: what they haven't been looking at, SPINS of items in the macrocosm, is the cause of all this Dark Matter.
Nothing could be simpler, than thesesimple macrocosm phase relationships, to explain why we have "Dark Matter".
Not only that but you now know one of the speeds that one of these Dark Matter forces acts: galactic cluster spin force must act far, far, far slower than the speed of light, yetmore than a million miles per hour because this is the speed of most galaxies on the outside edge of the clusters. This will be the average speed that spacetime is being created at the galactic cluster spin frequency as seen by us.
Dark Matter is also being created by stars and galaxies at even different speeds.
What the establishment fails to see is that spacetime forces are being created via the spin frequency ofALL its spinning, standing wave entities, this includes quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters. This means there are far more forces out there than gravitational and electrical forces.
There is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time. These not only vary in individual spacetime realms but they vary far more in different spacetime realms because different frequency spinning entities produce different space and different time.
Space and time will also be viewed differently from different spacetime realms. One can only measure accurately in one's own spacetime realm.
There are also far more spacetime realms out there than the quark and electron spacetime realm.
That presents a real problem for us because, in the macrocosm, we are measuringthrough at least three entirely different spacetime realms of stars, galaxies and galactic clusters! And will that measuring also enter into our Dark Matter enigma?
Lots of work for you kids to do figuring all this out; I've done my share.
The reason there is so much space (Einstein's Cosmological Constant) between all these spinning entities, from quarks to galactic clusters, is that, in a spinning, standing wave universe half the forces CAN be in-phase attractive forces and half the forces CAN be out-of-phase repulsive forces.
Therefore, this massive centralization of in-phase attractive forces that we know we have has a good chance of equaling this out-of-phase repulsive force density that we also know we have called Einstein's Cosmological Constant.
All electron forces are emanated at what we term "the speed of light", which is really as we've seen herein the spin frequency of the electron.
Down quarks spin at an unknown harmonic of the electron's spin frequency (or c2) and this is why gravity, inertia and centrifugal force acts instantlyas seen by us.
It's this quark higher harmonic spin, attracting some electrons, that stops thoseorbital electrons from being free electrons.
This is one reason why our spinning, standing wave microcosm is so different from our spinning, standing wave macrocosm.
Back in 1950, while Einstein was still alive, I ground & polished, to a perfect parabola, a 6 inch telescope mirror for Linden High School and after I graduated, I gave them all my radio equipment that I had for my amateur radio station W2YDW. I knew, at that time, if our present science was absolutely right then we should be getting right answers ALL the time and not simply a fraction of the time.
In those days I listened attentively to everything Einstein said, but even then I saw if quantum theory was right, then field theory had to be questioned. I couldn't understand why it was the reverse with Einstein, where he fully accepted field theory but claimed quantum theory was not complete. It wasn't until 1954 that Einstein reversed course. I'll have to look back through my own papers to see precisely when I finally saw the error of believing we could use the field concept to get the BIG PICTURE of how to unify the forces.
Today, I consider myself very lucky indeed to have lived in those wonderful days and to have had over four score and 5 (85) years, of good health, and to have found out exactly why using field theory we haven't been getting ALL the right answers ALL the time.
And one reason for that is, we haven't been considering ALL the various, entirely different forces by using the field concept. So let's forget the field conceptand look at this extremely important concept of Ampere's, that the establishment seems to have entirely forgotten about:
Ampere showed us that when an electrical current was put through two parallel wires in the same direction (in-phase) then those two wires would attract.
Ampere also showed us if electrical currents went through those parallel wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase) then those two wires would repel.
If these laws Ampere gave us are seen asphase symmetry laws then they explain magnetism, AC & DC electric motors and the entire microscopic particle world including gluons far, far better than Maxwell's field theory ever could. Phase symmetry even explains, believe it or not, Gravity. And it explains precisely how Quantum Entanglement works as well. Phase symmetry, therefore, not only unifies the forces but finally also shows us exactly what (spacetime) really is.
Let's take a look at what Ampere showed us almost two hundred years ago:
Copied from Encyclopedia Britannica DVD 2013, "... Had Ampère died before 1820, his name and work would likely have been forgotten. In that year, however, Ampère's friend and eventual eulogist François Arago demonstrated before the members of the French Academy of Sciences the surprising discovery of Danish physicist Hans Christiaan Ørsted that a magnetic needle is deflected by an adjacent electric current. Ampère was well prepared to throw himself fully into this new line of research.
If you look up "Ampere's laws" on the internet today you will get electrical laws quite unknown to Ampere. Yes, Ampere was the first to equate the forces associated with these laws you will find on Google but Ampere did his calculations with long wires; he didn't even know about electrons. There was no such thing as voltage or amperage back then. Current flow (amperage) is named after Ampere.
Just about half a century ago Scientific American published a good account of Ampere's long wire laws. I remember reading it like it was yesterday.Part of it went like the aforementioned Britannica statement or something like the following:
Ampere discovered that whatever was coming out of his batteries when put thesame direction through two parallel long wires made those wires attract each other.
If this substance (later found to be electrons) was put through these long parallel wires in anopposite direction, in each wire, then these long wires repelled each other.
So basically what Ampere gave us was a simple relative motion law.
But you'd never know that or even believe that if you looked up "ampere's law" in a search engine.Try it. You'll see! And this is the big problem, getting the right facts today when EVERYTHING is now all confused with the Faraday-Maxwell field rules and field math.
You could also see Ampere's laws as "PHASE" laws. If the current through two parallel long wires is moving the same direction or "in-phase" then these wires will attract. If the current through these two parallel long wires is moving in opposite directions or "out-of-phase" then these two wires will repel.
If you see Ampere's laws this way then Ampere gave us the initial concept ofphase symmetry which is exactly what Einstein looked for his entire life. This simple model called phase symmetry unifies all the invisible forces.
Mathematician Stephen Wolfram said, "Math can only explain simple things but asimple model can explain a complicated universe."
Phase symmetrygives us the "phase" simple model answer to a Theory of Everything: Ampere's Laws - that apply to SSSWRs
What is absolutely astounding is thatphase symmetry not only simplifies but clarifies this entire complicated universe in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. It's utterly amazing!
To learn exactly WHY we have all these things, you will have to learn what it's taken me many years to learn:
Even though this firm belief in fields have given us some spectacular insights, such as Einstein's General Relativity,phase symmetry makes it crystal clear that field theory has prevented us from seeing the big picture of what is really going on.
If we have done what we have with these half baked rules of science that we have now, just think what we will be able to do once math is developed for these true sciencephase laws.
Phase symmetryends up with the inverse square rule, the same as field theory, but obtains it a different way with impedance matched, resonant quantum bound pairs and the Milo Wolff limit (Hubble limit for the electron).
The Milo Wolff limit is needed with all theseimpedance matched, resonant bonding pairs because these bonds do not lose any of their strength with distance:
This is why your eye receives full quantum packets of energy no matter how far a star is in the distance.
This is a fact that even the establishment believes.
This fact alone should make you wonder about field theory.
Back to these quantum bonding pairs; these pair bonds of their CLOSEST SIDES can be effected in TWO WAYS: the first way is the STRONG force way when both entities spin the same direction, at the same EXACT frequency on the same EXACT spin axis. The second way is the WEAK force way where both attracting entities spin in opposite directions giving the strongest of the weak forces when both spin in the same plane. Or they spin in parallel planes, with only their CLOSEST SIDES going in the same direction (light energy transfer method).
However, the number of bonding pairsdrops off inversely with the square of the distance: thus, phase symmetry ends up with the inverse square rule the same as fields do.
And this is because the NUMBER of direct paths or holes where this binding linkage, can take place also falls off inversely with the square of the distance.
This is why we were tricked into believing in field theory.
We have also been tricked into believing that this is only a frequency universe in the microcosm. I'm afraid it is a frequency universe all throughout and that's why we need thesephase symmetry "phase" rules instead of field theory.
Too few seem to realize that Dr. Milo Wolff has proven the electron is a scalar, spinning, standing wave: once scientists see that the quark is too, then a brand new look at our macrocosm is needed because elements there indicate it too is obeying these scalar, spinning, standing wavephase symmetry phase rules exactly as in the microcosm: and this is truly a revelation.
What we see as the microcosm, are higher frequencies than we are tuned to.What we see as solid, is the frequency we are tuned to. The macrocosm, that we see as larger, but with enormous space between all these spinning things, is a lower frequency than we are tuned to.
ALL of these spinning entities, quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, etc. obey identicalphase symmetry "phase rules" via their spin frequencies. And the higher the spin frequency the higher the energy. The quark has the strongest force and the fastest spin frequency.
Once you know your smaller building blocks are spinning, standing waves and you see the larger building blocks stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters also spinning then you know what your larger building blocks really are. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.)
Stars, galaxies and galactic clusters can not be considered quite as SCALAR as free electrons because their sizes are different and their spin frequencies are too close to each other: this results in more unbalance as well.
Even with that unbalance, indeed, these all are spinning, standing waves: I do believe that my good friend Dr. Milo Wolff got it right, even though only electrons can be considered truly scalar.
We sense that we are built of quarks and electrons. This works in a standing wave universe as well, where the higher frequency standing waves build the lower standing wave structure. The reason for this is that higher frequencies have higher energy than the lower frequencies. We can count, at least, six of these spin frequencies going from quark to super cluster but how many more this universe contains, no one knows.
I promised you a SIMPLE MODEL of our universe and here is its BIG PICTURE:
Our universe is nothing butspinning, standing waves (all attempting to be scalar) at different spin frequencies, producing different spacetime realms at those different spin frequencies; it uses attractive in-phase binding both to transmit energy and to help build mass (spacetime) along with out-of-phase repelling forces.
Spacetime (pure vacuum space) can also be built from only out-of-phase repelling forces.It's that simple, really.
Where field theory sweeps the quark strong force under the rug (strong force containment),phase symmetry doesn't have to because it is this quark spin along with impedance matched, resonant momentary bindings that give us not only gravity but all the inertial forces as well.
The quark obeys the samephase symmetry "phase" rules that electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, etc. use.
We know the maximum star rotation period to be 30 days and our galactic rotation period to be 240 million years: these are several billion cycles apart.
But the separation between the star spin frequency and the electron spin frequency must be more than that or else we could detect the electron's spin frequency: it's above our detecting range.
Thus the spin frequencynorm between each of these entities might be more than many trillion cycles.
All attractions(that we know about) come only via in-phase impedance matched, resonant bonds.
This means, "a certainin-phase mass of the binding pair has to match at the very instant that the bond is made and energy is exchanged."
Phase symmetryeliminates fields and all the force carrying particles of those fields: the bubble chamber evidence of force carrying particles now have to be seen as evidence of an entirely different spacetime distortion from a particle.
If an electron on a distant star is spinning clockwise in the same exact plane as a counter-clockwise electron in your eye then a tiny portion of their closest sides arein-phase and the mass of that tiny portion in-phase is the quantum of light energy that comes into your eye: but both of those tiny portions must have the exact same mass or there will be no "Quantum Entanglement" bonding or energy being transferred.
That quantum of light energy came, that long distance, to your eye with no energy loss whatsoever;the reason for this is that Einstein was right and spacetime is NOT continuous: it is built of quantum chunks. It has holes that allow long distance binding with no energy loss.
There are vast distances between all these spinning entities in both the microcosm and macrocosm enabling these lengthy wormholes.
There is no such thing as energy loss when electrons transfer energy (bind together) through these spacetime holes!
Once more: there is no energy loss through spacetime holes!
How can field theory be justified if there is no energy loss through these spacetime holes?
PROOF of the above is that ALL energy exchanging bonds have the same strength regardless of the distance! It's only thenumber of bonding pairs that decrease inversely proportional to the distance squared.
There are electrons in your eye that are set up to quickly shift binding between binding with electrons on that star and then shift back to closer binding with other electrons in your eye giving you a quantum of light energy, every shift. At the instant of transfer as the electron on the star transfers this quantum of energy the star in the higher energy level instantly replaces it and few today realize all energy transfers work exactly this way.
Every time your eye electron binds with an electron in the star, via "Quantum Entanglement", it gains a quantum of inertial mass (equal to a quantum of energy). When it shifts back to closer binding with your senses, you receive this quantum of light energy. There are many of these electrons in your eye first gaining mass by binding with the stars then shifting that energy to your senses by binding back locally with your senses and doing that over and over again many thousands of times per second.
Einstein showed you space could be distorted. I'm showing you that space exists because of out-of-phase forces. And it's not simply space; it's spacetime because as we look through the Hubble telescope into space, we also are looking back into time.
Space (spacetime) is not uniform nor is it empty: it's built of quantum chunks similar to energy. Except each space-time quantum chunk is an out-of-phase repelling pair, the exact opposite of an in-phase binding energy pair. Electrons and quarks that bind find a "wormhole" through those quantum, repelling pair, chunks of space.
There is a 50% chance these spinning, standing wave entities can be either in-phase or out-of-phase together. This give the possibility of the total energy of all the IN-PHASE attractive force binding quanta in this universe equaling the total energy of all this OUT-OF-PHASE, repulsive force, spacetime structure of this universe.
* * *
Here, and especially in my other internet papers, I've given a very good picture better than anyone has yet of the structure of all these IN-PHASE attractive and binding energy forces, how they work, and why field theory cannot be used to unify them.
* * *
I've also shown how all these out-of-phase entities give us spacetime (space), but it is this OUT-OF-PHASE spacetime structure, containing Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, standing waves, that still eludes us in perfectly explaining the cause of what we see as space and time.
Even though we now have the big picture, the exact linkage model of these out-of-phase repulsive forces, along with these spinning, standing waves, is somewhat yet an enigma.However, I've shown WHY we see this entire spacetime assembly as the individual components of space and time, thereby unwrapping some of this mystery wrapped inside an enigma, but more needs to be done. All scientists should be working on this mystery/enigma now: few are.
Now, thanks to Dr. Milo Wolff who taught me much and also to Stephen Wolfram, who made me work harder, this is the best model or BIG PICTURE of our universe that anyone has so far published.
You saw, part of the picture, herein thatphase symmetry tells us what General Relativity tells us. But by reading my other books and papers, you'll see even more: phase symmetry shows us why mass can be converted into energy and why energy can only be delivered in quantum sized amounts. Also phase symmetry shows us what inertial mass really is and how Ernst Mach was right: surroundings are very much involved. Phase symmetry shows us why we have centrifugal force. It shows us why we have gyroscopic action and it does a much better job of explaining all these things than present science does.
This PAGEDATE: April 11th 2018.
This page in htm: -crichton.htm
Also this page in Word:- crichton.doc
And also the page in Adobe pdf:- crichton.pdf
To keep this page short I had to leave out many more interesting things, but you will have to click on the following links and spend a lot more time reading to see those.
See:Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013
Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013 also in Adobe.pdf- phase.symmetry.pdf
For the LATESTClick: http://www.amperefitz.com
orhttp://www.rbduncan.com which was really the very first web page showing us what was actually going on in our universe.
And of course - click this following link:http://www.rbduncan.com/toprule1.htm
AND 4 Decades of Fitz's papers:
4 Decades of writings of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 314
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.