Shedding a bit more light on how
ALL invisible forces are transmitted.

Is this done via

Field Theory

or

Quantum Entanglement?

http://time.com/4083823/einstein-entanglement-quantum/?xid=newsletter-brief


 

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
&
Richard Mark Fitzpatrick
C.E.O. & founder of Magpul

© January. 2017

 

Einstein, unfortunately, used the field concept all his life 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."

Einstein is warning us about both field theory and modern science isn't he?

The originators of field theory didn't know what Max Planck later discovered, that all energy was always delivered in quantum sized pieces, and each of these always came to your eye at the same energy level (color) by stars at vastly different distances. I'm afraid I could never understand the establishment's belief that field theory, where things had to get weaker and weaker with distance, could explain such a thing as that!

There is no way field theory can explain how those same size pieces of energy can go all those vastly different distances without losing any energy whatsoever.

I will show you, herein, what actually happens.

I've been at this science investigation process since 1948 when I thought Einstein really had a good chance of unifying the forces. On my desk in front of me is a wide, double faced Aristo slide rule that I bought in Germany in 1952. I've used it almost every day of my life since then. It's practically obsolete now, but still gives approximate answers faster than a computer takes to come on.

However, you'll find little math in this because I learned a long time ago, that the amount of readers, of whatever is written, is inversely proportional to the amount of math included therein.

Thinking about the field and Einstein's warning about "continuous structures" I saw, about 1960, what I had to do mathematically was to prove any new individual force concept, that I came up with, would give identical results as the original field theory. This took several years but I finally found the answer. Not only that but this new concept was exactly like Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" because it combined the SPACE we see, with the repulsive force holding everything vast distances apart. Also, I knew Einstein's warning about "continuous structures" was far more important than the establishment realized: this is a universe built of individual forces and individual units of spacetime. The fact that Einstein tried everything but failed, and then in 1954 told us exactly why he failed, was positive proof, to me, that space (spacetime) is not a "continuous structure" even though our minds tell us otherwise.

Quantum Theory tells us energy, that one time was thought to be a "continuous structure" is not because we have absolute proof that energy is always delivered in these quantum CHUNKS. I'm using that very unscientific term to get the correct idea across. Energy is always delivered in these CHUNKS of energy that scientists refer to, in Latin, as quantum (singular chunk) and quanta (plural chunks): since we are speaking English here, then I'll keep the word chunk so those who do not know Latin can understand exactly what I mean.

In this new "Phase" concept, all binding energy quanta (mass times motion) quanta are In-Phase (attractive force) quantum chunks and spacetime (Einstein's Cosmological Constant) are Out-of-Phase (repulsive force) quantum chunks.

That's all there is in this entire universe. That's essentially it! And one binding chunk must vanish before another equal sized binding chunk can been made.

There can be no transfer of energy unless an un-binding takes place with a new binding. Once you see these two things must happen together, then you know Energy via quantum entanglement is a BALANCING move.

So to understand this universe you must understand that these mass-energy attractive quantum chunks can only be formed when an un-binding is Impedance Matched with a new Binding whose results give a better balance of energy over a larger area. And these can only form by binding if no repulsive force spacetime quantum chunks are in the way of their binding.

Individual spinning entities are causing individual forces; this isn't a field! What could be clearer than that! It was 1954 before Einstein saw this.

We have a myth of "strong force containment". By not looking for the cause of gravity and inertia, they got that one wrong.

I showed this was wrong years ago. Anyway, not knowing what caused asymptotic freedom, and not investigating why we had gravity and inertia, 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 both gravity and inertia!

Newton taught that gravity acts instantly. All the astronomical colleges in the world teach their students that the speed of light is too slow for gravity to act because then this universe would be too unstable.

Noted Astronomer Tom Van Flandern shows us the slowest  speed gravity can be, in what is probably the best paper ever written on the speed of gravity: You can read it by simply clicking that aforementioned link.

Astronomers know that there is aberration with light but absolutely no aberration with gravity:

The only spinning, standing wave entities that could give us gravity 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 both gravity and inertia.

We have two spacetime realms giving us two speeds of binding quanta: in the electron spacetime realm light travels at the speed of light or c. But in the quark spacetime realm the quark spins at the tenth harmonic of the electron's spin frequency so gravity travels at, what we see, as the speed of light squared or c2: this we see as instantly.

While present science tells us nothing about what causes gravity and inertia, this new phase concept certainly does.

Remember, magnetism is composed of TWO types of electron attractive pulls from electrons in the magnet: it's both an electron to electron stronger attractive pull where a very limited number of electrons, spin the same way, and are on the 'same spin axis' (completely in-phase, a pi bond) with other electrons. The second type pull is a weaker electron to electron attraction where only the closest sides of the distant electrons are in-phase, a sigma bond.

As you read, you'll see the quark force is similar because the quark is a spinning, standing wave the same as the electron.

Inertia is composed of TWO types of quark attractive pulls from quarks in the surrounding stars: it's both a quark to quark stronger attractive pull where a very limited number of quarks here, spin the same way, and are on the 'same spin axis' (completely in-phase, similar to electron configuration in a pi chemical bond) with quarks in the stars. The second type pull is a weaker quark to quark attraction where only the closest sides of the distant quarks are in-phase, similar to electron configuration in a sigma chemical bond.

I'll be going over the above again, again and again from now on because I need to impress this picture of a Pi type strong polar binding and the much weaker, bindings of variable strengths via Sigma Bonds that are always spin up - spin down bindings where the closest sides of each entity are moving the same direction in-phase. This is the Phase picture that I need to impress into your mind!

OK, here's where you have to stop and think. Everything from quarks to super clusters of galaxies are vast, vast distances apart. Why? Because of "Einstein's Cosmological Constant"! Since all these spinning, standing wave entities from ultra microscopic to ultra gigantic are behaving the same way, staying vast distances apart, then it is safe to assume that we will find other similarities of force as well providing we find the correct unification concept. And we do. This "Phase" concept shows us ALL of these entities will have SIMILAR FORCES. This means we are going to have quarks with similar forces as the electron: the sole difference being the quark being more massive and spinning faster tells us these similar forces to the electron will be vastly stronger than electron forces. So let's look at the quark's forces, in the following, "Phase wise" similarly to the way we look at the electron's forces.


The Importance of

Tiny Quantum Size Pieces of Spacetime



Einstein
warned us about our belief in these "continuous structures", one of which happens to be space. Spacetime is not a "continuous structure". It is built up of "out-of-phase", repulsive force "Tiny Quantum Size Pieces of Spacetime"; none of which are on that spin axis directly between two distant quarks that are spinning the same direction on the same spin axis at the time of attraction: This means, although we see two quarks being light years apart, any two quarks binding have no actual "Tiny Quantum Size Pieces of Spacetime" directly between themselves. Therefore the INDIVIDUAL quark to quark binding force will not vary with distance, although the NUMBER of these forces will vary inversely with the square of the distance. It's vitally important that you remember this as we proceed.

The establishment tells us that it's a field varying inversely proportional to the square of the distance: well, before you finish reading this colorful document of mine, you will see that "Earth rate" for gyros is only possible with what the paragraph above tells you and it is not possible with field theory. You will plainly see then, the above paragraph is right, and that the establishment made a rather BAD GUESS and you will know then that this was another one they got wrong!

What was that "Earth Rate" for gyros, in the above paragraph?

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 is 23 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 actually SEE this "Earth rate" in a gyroscope. Many times I've set the axis of a 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 our inertia is a connection to the surrounding stars. So read this again if you didn't completely understand it.

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

Once it is seen that energy is always delivered in quantum sized chunks then it should also be seen that using field theory, in looking at this universe, is impractical. This is where field theory should have ended abruptly, but the establishment mistakenly held on to its use in cosmology. A quantum size chunk of red light energy delivered to your eye from stars of different distances means having a force of energy delivery that does not vary in strength with those different distances. After working many years on this problem, I finally saw it would all work out fine if we considered that energy was only delivered by attractive in-phase INDIVIDUAL forces, whose NUMBER varied but whose strength did not vary with distance, that also reset the balance of things in this universe to a better balance: That is the energy keystone!

How does the electron affect this keystone of balance? Because it has only one strong force strength when totally in-phase with another electron; yet multiple weak force strengths when only its closest sides are in-phase with other electrons. Since colors are various strengths we know light stems from the weak electron attractions. The strong force of the electron can upset the balance two ways by making it better or worse but the weak forces, in light transmission, can upset things by delivering an oscillating energy that mostly maintains a similar balance.

REMEMBER: once you know same size quantum chunks of energy are being delivered various distances then you also know that same strength attractive forces are delivering these quantum units, thus no individual force can decrease in strength with distance; there is a distance limit: it's the Hubble limit for the electron and a different limit, we'll call it the Wolff limit, for the quark.

So, once you know that same size quantum chunks of energy are being delivered various distances then you also know that FIELD THEORY IS WRONG when used for these cosmological forces!

Quarks give us gravity via the quark to quark weak and stronger attractive forces. The amount of this gravitational force is somewhat balanced "AGAINST" an attractive INERTIAL pull to the surroundings via both the weak forces of quarks having only their (closest sides in-phase) and the stronger force of quarks spinning the same direction on the same spin axis (completely in-phase) with quarks in the stars.

This is a frequency universe in which we see out-of-phase frequencies as space. We don't seem to see them as the repulsive forces that they are because we have devised nothing yet to measure a few quark generated forces as well as we can measure a few electron generated forces.

We do a better job in understanding that these in-phase attractive forces exist (gravity).

For instance, even though all quarks have movement here on Earth, they are more in-phase with each other here than they are with the quarks in the rest of the universe that have substantially more relative motion: this being more in-phase locally adds to our gravitational attraction.

This being more in-phase locally 'adds' to the reason quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & superclusters bind together.

Balance is important, The proper spin frequency of all these entities is giving them the attraction that's holding them together. Spinning faster than this, they would come apart (centrifugal force).

There is only one perfect balance spin frequency for each spinning, standing wave from quarks to galactic clusters! You must keep that in mind.

Standing wave SPIN FREQUENCY balance is very important! Different spin frequency setups have different balance points; the spin frequency balance point for atomic spin frequencies is iron: this universe is still balancing things after the Big Bang. Fusion is balancing: building up and converting the smaller atoms to iron or closer to iron. Fission is also balancing: splitting the larger atoms so they become iron or closer to iron. There will be no more atomic energy someday: atomic energy is nothing but energy given off as conversion balances things toward iron. The lights will go out all over the universe when the atomic world is finally balanced out and all converted to iron.

We need to see that inertia (like gravitational attraction) is also caused by in-phase quark to quark attractive forces. Inertia, like gravity, is obtained by both the stronger quark to quark attractive force with a few quarks here, spinning the same way, on the same exact spin axis (completely in-phase) with quarks in the surrounding stars and the weaker quark to quark attraction where only their (closest sides are in-phase). The individual in-phase attractive force strength (quark to quark or electron to electron) is not, even a slight amount, affected by distance.

But what we imagine as a force field falling off with the square of the distance in our spacetime realm is not what is happening in the spacetime realm of the quarks in a spinning gyro. If it was, then with a gyro completely attracted to the Earth, we would witness no "Earth rate" at all: however, a gyro that is completely attracted to the sun would have a complete turn, of its axis, in 24 hours instead of 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds. What is happening instead is that the number of quark attractions, to the stars, is falling off inversely with the square of the distance: nevertheless, "each" quark to quark attraction even to the most distant telescopically visible stars, not only doesn't decrease, even the slightest with distance and the two quarks strongly "lock together"! This plus one more very important thing you'll see, my friends if you keep reading, is what gives us the "Earth rate" we see, for gyros, pendulums, vibrating elements and Helium-2.

So, the big deviation from field theory is what is actually happening. There is NO DECREASE OF FORCE WITH DISTANCE in each individual attraction where like objects spin the same direction in-phase on the same spin axis. Doing this they LOCK together and strongly bind, probably not for very long, but the locking effect is there nonetheless. This is not field behavior; a paragraph toward the end gives you the most important reason we see gyroscopic "Earth rate". Again: It's only the NUMBER of these individual binding and locking forces that decrease with distance.

We know with electrons: the strongest attraction is when both are spinning the same direction, on parallel paths, in-phase, at the same frequency, on the same spin axis. It has to be exactly the same with quarks but immensely stronger. There are some other weaker type attractions, between two electrons, when their closest sides are in-phase. This too must be exactly the same with quarks! We know that the electrons are spinning in different directions attracting other electrons with varying strengths.

ALL spinning, standing wave ENTITIES have this one strong attraction positioning setup and many weak varying attraction positioning setups, similar to the electron: this is not field behavior!

The electron that we see as very different is really no different from all the other spinning items we see in our universe. I saw this early in the game: this told me it was not a force FIELD, however, only the NUMBER of each of these individual forces that fell off with the square of the distance. So this concept of a constant field where this strong to weak force setup is so different from a field is a very poor concept indeed.

For each individual strong force attraction there are multiple varied strength weak force individual attractions; the reason for that is, in an individual strong attraction, spin axes must be in line with each other; so there are few positions where this happens compared to opposite spinning electrons whose CLOSEST SIDES ARE IN-PHASE and that have far, far more positions to give weaker side to side attractive forces of various strengths.

This is another reason there will be no "unified field theory"; this hardly noticeable truth also invalidates a good part of present science.

Nevertheless, it's a far different story for frequencies and phases. Using these, we have a model that works!

This phase relationship and these attractive individual strong and weak forces produced by electrons must be exactly the same with spinning quarks (disposing of that myth of "strong force containment") and that even though the distant stars are light years away, there is no such thing as a decrease in attraction between two quarks that are spinning the same direction, (completely in-phase) on parallel paths, at the same frequency (on the same spin axis): this will also be where the strong force is at its stronger attraction to each.

In unification of the forces, it's (happily) good-by to our ultra reliance on present science and field theory forever. Field theory. very useful in many areas, is extremely misleading when used to investigate cosmological forces: the number of these forces decrease with distance but each individual force does not, even to the far distant stars, each of these attractive bonds has the same strong force. And this is one little detail you had better not forget, especially in the following paragraphs.

I loved writing this particular paper and especially the next following paragraphs; they are the clinchers!

There can be no transfer of energy unless an un-binding takes place with a new binding. Present science has this happening in different times: they really happen at the same time when no quantum chunks of spacetime are in their way in this new phase concept. The reason gravity and inertia are both so weak is that now in two different spacetime realms twice as many or more spacetime quantum chunks are in the way to block both gravitational and inertial forces.

It's a necessity that un-binding and binding (energy transfer) take place in the same time frame. Present science has these taking place at different times. The establishment should have seen this was impossible but they didn't. Present science has too many of these impossibilities in it for anyone to really believe in it.

Once you have eliminated all these impossibilities, the model you have left, however improbable this Phase model is the correct MODEL of this universe to believe and match with math to properly unify the forces.

These oncoming paragraphs, especially the big colorful paragraph, are extremely important: keep reading these following paragraphs 'till you understand why gyros hold to the stars, even the far, far distant stars.

Of SUPREME IMPORTANCE is the next big colorful paragraph.

We know this gyro attraction is to the stars because the gyro's axis makes a full turn in 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds. We also know this attraction is between two quarks that are spinning the same direction (completely in-phase), on parallel paths (exactly on the same spin axis) at the same frequency or having opposite spins with their closest sides in-phase. We know the reason these quark attractions are to the stars: it's because the sun (from Earth) subtends an angle of ONLY half a degree and would eliminate over 99.9% of attractions where both must have the same exact spin axis or their closest sides in-phase. But the surrounding universe is in all directions and allows a 100% line up of quark to quark spin axes, or closest sides in-phase, of quarks, here on earth, to a virtual solid hollow sphere of available quarks in that virtual solid spherical wall of possibly even MORE THAN 70 billion, trillion (7 x 1022) surrounding stars.

I have to insert this on October 15, 2016. Yes, even more than 70 billion, trillion; in fact even TEN TIMES MORE: click links below.

Observable Universe contains ten times more galaxies than previously thought

Hubble Space Telescope at ESA - 2 days ago

There Are Ten Times as Many Galaxies as Previously Thought

Smithsonian - 17 hours ago

If you know of any other arrangement that would produce this "Earth rate", for gyros, of 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds then please tell me because I know of no other possible cause.

Friday - January, 27, 2017 DPFJr

Click on these links to see more.

4 Decades of writings of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

This can be copied and distributed by anyone as long as it is copied and distributed in its entirety.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.