Fitzpatrick's writings brought to you MAGPUL IndustriesClick this Link to return to the SHORTER web pageApril-12-2018 - This just in - FREE Britannica-Mistake: 6-12-2018 in WordSpacetime simplified: 5-25-2018Spacetime simplified: 5-25-2018 in Adobe pdfSpacetime simplified: 5-25-2018 in WordMichael Crichton's most important revelation is not in his *Andromeda Strain* or *Jurassic Park* but in his book *Disclosure*: 4-11-2018Michael Crichton's most important revelation in Adobe pdf: 4-11-2018Michael Crichton's most important revelation in Word: 4-11-2018Squaring a speed? c.squared.html 11-25-2017c.squared.pdf 11-25-2017 (Adobe)c.squared.doc 11-25-2017 (Word)1/3 shorter EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-23-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.htm1/3 shorter (Adobe)EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-23-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.pdf1/3 shorter (Word)EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-23-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.docEXPANDING UNIVERSE11-20-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.htm (Adobe)EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-20-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.pdf (Word)EXPANDING UNIVERSE11-20-2017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.doc7-7-2017 Unlike Gravity, DARK MATTER bends light
differently: in.htmDark Matter in.pdf
Dark Matter in.docQuantum Theory now complete (Einstein's prediction) 1/30/2017 (html)a bit of light on "Everything".1/30/2017 (html)Spinning, Standing Waves 1/24/2017 (html)Top Science Rule in our Universe in htmlTop Science Rule in our Universe (Word) Top Science Rule in our Universe in pdfBe the first to find out exactly what a strong force quantum of energy is by reading "Einstein versus quantum theory". Click one of the two links below:Einstein versus quantum theory - New strong force energy quantum discovered !! in htmlEinstein versus quantum theory - New strong force energy quantum discovered !! in pdf
while looking at the answers given to us via Phase Symmetry If this red background is uncomfortable for your eyes then use one of those two links above. One of them is pdf.
Why did Einstein argue with the quantum theorists for years when everyone knows quantum theory is right? Einstein didn't say quantum theory was wrong: What he said was that quantum theory was not complete. But here I must interject something else of importance that I have learned: I studied German in my high school years. I spoke German then too with people in my neighborhood back then as well. My brother and I still speak German when we are with German speaking people today. What I'll never forget, though, is what I learned when I went to Germany: I spent 1951, 1952 and 1953 in Germany. Hitler's indoctrination program had been so profound and effective that almost every educated person in Germany, that I talked to, told me that And this belief was even stated by non Nazi party members because the U. S. Government never hired anyone who had ever been a Nazi party member (except rocket scientists). From this I learned that Please remember this; I always will. Now back to Einstein: Einstein completed his general relativity with the tensor math that we still use today with perfect results even now. Einstein disliked the ever changing math methods that quantum theorists were using. Einstein was right, in his later years, in his arguments about quantum theory. Quantum theory has an Achilles heel; this is their addiction to the complicated There are two distinctly different types of particles in quantum theory: Nobel scientist The Boson particle concept —
But you must keep reading to understand exactly what space-time is *** And this is not the only defect in quantum theory this paper will be pointing out. Even though Einstein, himself, began quantum theory with his concept of the photon, he disliked the math route that it was taking via math methods that gave, as my 1965 Encyclopaedia Britannica put it, "Answers that appear as if by magic." Quantum theory did, in fact, have some early success with these math methods. Success breeds further success, and that was the beginning of the wondrous mathematical complexities that would later appear in quantum theory. Math is a double edged sword and it will also cut you as well as help you: It must always be used within the parameters of a suitable, comprehensible science model. This, Einstein could plainly see, was not being done in quantum theory. *** I will again state herein — as I've done many times before — what mathematician Stephen Wolfram has so aptly stated, "Math can only explain simple things but a simple model can explain a complicated universe." And Phase Symmetry gives you a simple PHASE model that easily explains this ENTIRE universe. Phase Symmetry gives us the utterly simple answer that Stephen Hawking says exists. It gives us the unification that Einstein told us exists. If you fail to see Phase Symmetry then you fail to see this simple rule that this entire universe follows. *** Einstein knew you cannot keep throwing brand new This should never be done and this Since Einstein's death, quantum theory has continued to be built with building blocks containing both errors and truth. Too many errors and you can end up with something like the ancient Egyptian religion:
There is no Einstein claimed he based general relativity on Quantum theory does not even consider what Ernst Mach knew: Here's how surroundings cause both mass & energy. This is something quantum theory fails *** Both electrons and quarks, able to bind, Most recodable strong force I'm afraid Another fairy tale is the force strength goes as the
^{nd} blue paragraph above)***
square of the electron spin frequency that are momentarily binding — and pulling similar down quarks, more than 10^{-15} meter away, from the tri-quark unit of hadrons in the surrounding stars.
The number of quarks able to bind are limited indeed because quark spin must also match quark spin and this is difficult to obtain because quark spin frequency changes as the quark moves closer or further from the massive tri-quark entity where time is tremendously slowed down: It's important that you know this fact because this is the main reason the strong force produces the weak force of gravity. Quantum theorists forgot about the massiveness of the tri-quark entity appreciatively slowing down time enough to change quark spin frequency: It does this enough so that a quark pulled away from the other two, becomes more and more in resonance with the other two quarks the further it is pulled away from them.
We lose a In the microcosm, impedance matching, Quantum Entanglement and binding energy transfer are essentially the same things. This is something quantum theorists haven't quite discovered yet. Their worst mistake was equating binding energy shifts with Boson particles and this you will see, if you keep reading, was absolutely wrong. *** The reason we have E=mc
*** This is a binding energy transfer to the stars and from the stars, both being approximately equal with the resulting net energy transfer about zero. The up and down quarks that build matter are not But this is not so with
momentary energy results of locally binding quarks that had been previously bound with quarks in the surrounding stars.
are the binding energy methods by which inertial mass is turned into energy:The Which quarks produce the Higgs CERN physicists seemed to know that the 125 giga electron volt burst had something to do with mass. But they missed the main little jewel (main mass/energy shift) that clearly points out most of our mass shift. And on top of that, they called it a quark. Why? Because they were all true believers in This is why quantum theorists didn't see that BOTH of these infinitesimal bursts were of An unwarranted belief in the three items of That important interval of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second (5 x 10
with fractional spinAs we said earlier, this was Feynman's explanation of it:, tend to repel each other while Bose-Einstein particles, with integral spin, tend to clump together." However, NOT a particle. Our sun and the stars shoot off all kinds of particles, many of which simply get completely lost in space and go nowhere in particular. According to quantum theory, stars do this with photons too. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, because if they did that then energy would not be conserved.Minkowski knew this: That's why we have his light cone that severely limits the exchange to only one definite point in space and in time (space-time). We know energy cannot be created or destroyed: It can't simply be left in space either.
attractions and nothing else.To get a better idea of binding energy — or indeed what energy really is — we need the Fitzpatrick Model because quantum theory is totally devoid of any such model: Take a look at the gears at the beginning of the Fitzpatrick Model in the "e-mail to Carl Scheider" that comes later on in this paper.*** Forget the expressions Even though the original basic concept of quantum theory is above reproach, Einstein saw, early in the game, which way quantum theory was headed. As you yourself can now see, many of these Mystical Mathematical Methods, used in quantum theory, should have been replaced, a long time ago, by more scientific discovery methods that would have made quantum theory more complete. In my world of radio and electronics, standing waves and impedance matching are of paramount importance. I was surprised and even shocked to find out they are also of supreme importance in the microcosm and macrocosm as well: You've seen a bit of this already and you will see more of this as you read on. The percentage of empty space in the microcosm is similar to the percentage of empty space in the macrocosm: For instance if you enlarge an electron to the size of a pin hole then the distance the closest electron is to the nucleus would be about the same distance the fortieth floor of a tall building is to the street below. There is a vast amount of empty space in the microcosm. But we see none of it. Space-time is another thing difficult for us humans to comprehend. We humans have split it up into space and time but this universe, it seems, likes it to remain together in one piece as a space-time ensemble: For instance, when you look at distant stars you are also looking back in time. If you type Phase Symmetry shows us exactly why this is: A spin up electron in your eye bonds with a spin down electron on a distant star there is NO space or time between the in phase binding points of the electron in your eye and the one on that star sending you a quantum of starlight.I'll say this again so you'll remember: Phase Symmetry gives us the utterly simple answer that Stephen Hawking says exists. It gives us the unification that Einstein told us exists. If you fail to see Phase Symmetry then you fail to see this simple rule that this entire universe follows. This is And Minkowski — Now we see Einstein's distorted space even better than Einstein saw it and we see exactly what a wormhole in space really is. Space-time is built of frequencies the same as particles: But We now know a bit more about space-time than even Einstein knew but we have a lot more yet to learn about space-time. Even at the time I'm writing this, Phase Symmetry, that clearly shows you exactly what space-time is frequency-wise, still fails to show us Now a correction to that previously written sentence: The answer has to be IMPEDANCE MATCHING; which here is just as important as in radio cicuitry only here the better we are impedanced matched then the more we see space-time as time and not as space. (I didn't see this until 7-11-2016 so even well past 83, I am still learning.)We probably need a better frequency math before a resolution of space from time can be accomplished. This is the problem I'm working on now. I started this project after a Eureka moment I've been plugging away at this a few hours daily most days since then. Luckily, I've had plenty of days since 1966 to put practically all the pieces of this puzzle together. I don't consider myself a science fanatic. I've enjoyed life and I didn't really put a big portion of my life into this. I simply solved these problems, one by one, like I did at the airlines. I enjoy working, especially when I get the right answers like I did here and back then. But I do certainly believe we are also here to smell the roses in life as well. For me this project is something that has always been sort of simmering on the back burner: However, I may not live long enough to finish my present goal and see space separated from time frequency-wise: The electron spin, for instance, is nothing but one frequency but we humans have separated it into so much space covered in so much time (speed) but it is also the speed limit for our space-time realm. This is also the speed of all electron binding energy. The spin frequency of down quarks is the square of the electron spin frequency and quark to quark binding (giving us gravity and inertia) occurs at a speed that we see as almost instantly. Both gravity and inertia happen at a speed too fast for our electron space-time realm. Why do we humans see these simple spin frequencies of both electrons and quarks as both space and time? This is the ultimate mystery wrapped inside an enigma. Humans give themselves immense problems when they attempt to separate space from time. For instance, examine the following: Let's do something Einstein said he did; let's use Yes, I think we can. Possibly this is what we are presently doing as we remain here on this Earth as it travels through space-time. We know that the speed of light is a constant regardless of the speed of the source or of the speed of the observer: This might mean that the speed of light is the speed of time (in our local space-time realm) regardless of any additional speeds of anything. This could still be true even though Einstein's relativity shows us time for an object slows down as the speed of that object increases. Relativity (Einstein's train example) also shows us that one person can observe two events as simultaneous but another observer, moving a much faster speed, will see the same events happening at different times. So beware of separating space from time and don't confuse your local time from time elsewhere. But that doesn't stop us from examining other effects of space-time distortions:
Our space-time, or speed through time at the speed of light is produced by the spin frequency of the electron. It is The quark, however, has a far different space-time interval from us. The quark is producing space-time at the square of the speed the electron is producing it. This gives you the answer to Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence' or as to why gravity Even though we are in the realm produced by the electron's spin, this does not mean that the electron is in our space-time realm. The electron can be considered having real spin in its space-time realm but for all intents and purposes Knowing about different space-time realms, we can settle one But the spins of stars and galactic clusters and super clusters at a much lower spin frequency than the quark are involved in gravitational force in some way that we can't seem to measure. Will LIGO tell us something about these lower gravitational frequencies? As I've said and published before, gravity has the widest bandspread of all the forces and it's on BOTH sides of the electron frequency bandspread. Our prediction about the LIGO interferometer would be this: The speed of gravitational waves will, eventually as LIGO improves, be seen as both SLOWER & FASTER than the speed of light. The reason for this is that star/spin forces are SLOWER than the electron spin/orbit Yes, electron mass/energy travels at the speed of light but that's the only mass/energy that travels at that speed. So looking at the lower frequency spins, Einstein may not have missed it that much and Einstein didn't know about quarks, did he? It was a few years after Einstein died that the quark particle idea started to be formulated. I still had a firm religious belief in fields more than a decade after Einstein died as well. *** Another Eureka moment came to me when I realized that if we received energy in quantum sized pieces then these binding forces did NOT diminish, even one iota, with distance but only the
See, by reading my papers you can learn something new every paper. I've enjoyed writing every one of them too. Let's take a good look at Phase Symmetry because, when you do, you will find out far more about what's really going on than present science will show you: To see a crystal clear picture of all this, (e-mail to Carl Scheider) Yes, "Quantum Entanglement" in Wikipedia tells about the spin up-spin down bonding that I've been harping about with Phase Symmetry. Dr. Milo Wolff is right and this is a scalar, spinning, standing wave universe. All these spinning entities are scalar, standing waves -- the smallest to the largest -- all throughout this universe even though we don't see it that way. You must visualize them merely having different spins at different spin/orbit frequencies: And using frequencies you can use phase. *** Decades in avionics taught me to trust Ampère rather than Maxwell: So wipe the mind slate clean of fields and all that they imply like monopole gravity, plus and minus charges, north and south poles, etc.
Start out by thinking of two identical gears with meshing teeth. One gear can be considered spinning clockwise and the other counter-clockwise (spin up-spin down) and the gear teeth will be meshing IN PHASE. Even though both spins are 180 degrees out of phase, if both spins are in the same EXACT plane then a portion of their closest sides are IN PHASE and impedance matched (mass of both tiny portions matching). Therefore this tiny portion IN PHASE locks those two spinning entities together in "Quantum Entanglement" whether these entities are quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, clusters or super clusters.Those gears above show you the spin layout for two similar electrons (with their closest sides in phase) that together produce a sigma chemical bond or a spin up-spin down Cooper pair of electrons held together with the same in phase bond. Those gears also represent the layout of two (spin up-spin down) binary stars attracted to each other with their closest sides in phase. And those gears also represent the way your mass is created by your down quarks having an in phase attraction to opposite spin down quarks in the surrounding stars. This TINY PORTION (in phase), impedance matched, is the quantum of, electron to electron, energy that comes into your eye from a distant star. If ALL these spinning entities have FULL gyroscopic precession, NO TWO can ever attract each other because once their IN PHASE sides begin to attract then precession precesses them well beyond the attraction points. THEREFORE: Totally FREE quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, etc. MUST end up not only repelling each other but NEVER will have ANY portions of themselves IN PHASE, as long as they can FULLY precess. BUT once precession, say in an electron is halted, via a STRONGER down quark spinning at a higher but at a harmonically IN PHASE frequency, then these two units are Quantum Entangled or impedance matched. The entangled electron, that can no longer FULLY precess, now CAN attract other FREE electrons via their IN PHASE sides. Two binary stars (spin up-spin down) attract each other with their closest sides IN PHASE. Sigma and pi chemical bonding and magnetism are ALL instances of electrons attracting other similar electrons via IN PHASE bonds where FULL precession of at least one of the electrons, of the pair, has been lost. In this universe of spinning, scalar, standing waves the OUT-OF-PHASE repulsive forces, creating also space-time, do not need any impedance matching yet they MUST equal the IN-PHASE attractive forces: Einstein foresaw this giving us his cosmological constant repulsive force that was equal to the gravitational attractive force. The speed of light can only be used as a measuring stick through FREE SPACE: That may look like FREE SPACE throughout the macrocosm but it definitely is not because you are measuring through a material (the macrocosm). End of e-mail to Carl Scheider
But forget fields entirely when examining the individual quantum of energy. In this respect we all have to be gauge theorists in certain ways while examining our universe. Don't exceed the local gauge (parameters) with your math or rules. Math and rules are only to be believed in one, spin/orbit frequency, space-time realm. The only real universal rules are PHASE rules. And remember what we learned at the beginning of this paper,
below)links
or
Mathematician Stephen Wolfram said, "Math can only explain simple things but a simple model can explain a complicated universe." Phase symmetry gives us the "phase" simple model answer to a Theory of Everything:
To keep this page short I had to leave out many more interesting things, but you will have to click on one of the following links and spend a lot more time reading to see those. November 18th 2014 See: Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013 Another BOOK by Fitzpatrick |