NEW! Click one of the following links. The SIMPLICITY, of our universe, that modern physics totally misses.
Even Einstein didn't know how close he was to the answer of his Unified Field Theory when he wrote the following. "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on 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." Now in retrospect Einstein was quite right when he wrote that above in 1954, about a year before he died. Einstein's teacher, Hermann Minkowski, had already come up with the correct assessment of spacetime and the spacetime interval. When we look through the Hubble telescope through space, then we are also looking back through time, so it's really spacetime. And IMPORTANT — Einstein saw this spacetime was also a repulsive force. Einstein had seen that Minkowski's spacetime was also related to his (Einstein's) 'Cosmological Constant repulsive force', that Einstein knew, and we now know hold all these 5 BASIC spinning things apart in both microcosm and macrocosm, i.e. quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and superclusters of galaxies. Einstein, saw modern physics was wrong, and should have seen that all he needed was a simple phase law (relative motion law), because that is ALL that really exists in this totally spinning macrocosm. That's really ALL that exists in this spinning microcosm too. What I didn't know at the time was that many others had put forth relative motion theories that were all promptly squelched by physicist Robert H. Dicke who claimed gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was, then we would see evidence of gravitational interference fringes in our largest telescopes. Since we do, in fact, NOW see these gravitational interference fringes in the Hubble telescope, then this, more than anything else tells us that relative motion MUST be the cause of all gravitational type attractive forces: the very OPPOSITE of spacetime repulsive forces. More than half a century ago there was a good article, in Scientific American about Ampère's 1823 Long Wire Law that made me rethink — and suspect even more — everything I had learned in electronics. In 1823, André M. Ampère took two batteries and connected each to a long wire, with both wires parallel to each other. When the current went the same direction (inphase) through both wires, the wires attracted. When Ampère reversed one of the batteries and the current went through the wires in opposite directions (outofphase), then the wires repelled each other. The unit of electrical current, the Amp, was named after Ampère for this simple discovery in 1823 — relating the FORCE directly and SIMPLY to the movement (current) producing it. This fundamental basic simplicity of Ampère's 1823 Law — using NO plus or minus charges, or north and south magnetic poles — is now totally obscured by the more complicated math and rules of the FaradayMaxwell field theory, coming half a century after Ampère, that must use imaginary plus and minus charges and north and south poles. We have electrons all spinning at the same EXACT frequency. They have two choices: They can either spin or move inphase with each other or spin or move outofphase with each other. This is where Ampère lucked out. Ampère didn't know about their spin but he made an 1823 law about their movements showing PARALLEL MOVEMENTS (FLOWS), of electrons, IN THE SAME DIRECTION (inphase) ATTRACT EACH OTHER. —and— PARALLEL FLOWS, of electrons. IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS (outofphase) REPEL EACH OTHER. Ampère's 1823 Law.
Phase Symmetry attraction is simple:
THINGS inphase ATTRACT
This LAW replaces modern physics !!!
And (what Ampère didn't know) electrons & every other spinning entity from quarks to galactic superclusters whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE IN THE SAME DIRECTION (inphase) will ATTRACT each other. —and— All spinning entities whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS to each other (outofphase) will REPEL each other, also is Ampère's 1823 Law.The Marie in AndréMarie came from Ampère's mother's name: At that time in France it was a common practice to denote the mother in the child's name. Ampère gave us this concept that things in phase always attract — entanglement — and things out of phase always repel. He gave us this concept using relative motion rather than phase but it's the same thing really if you analyze it. Use relative motion in your own spacetime realm or lower frequency realms and use phase in higher frequency spacetime realms. Simply use whichever method makes it clearer to you. We've shown, in the prelude, that even Albert Einstein — a year before he died — considered the concept of fields to be a bad concept. Yet most items on the internet will show magnetic fields being associated with what Ampère discovered. Forget FIELDS: Ampère's 1823 long wire discovery had nothing in it about magnetic fields. Forget his later laws incorporating magnetism in 1827. Field theory was mainly England's great gift to us. Today's enhanced field concept came from Faraday and Maxwell, and as Einstein shows us, it turned out to be a bad mistake. Field theory may explain repulsive force space, but it blinds us to the TRUE attractive forces that are always inphase, quantum entanglements. One example is Newton's gravitational field concept that blinds us and prevents us from seeing the TRUE cause of Dark Matter. Ampère didn't know about electrons but he did know something in his wires were moving so he gave us a system of laws that have nothing to do with MAGNETIC fields. This below essentially is what Ampère said about long parallel wires in 1823: 1. Long parallel wires having things in them moving the same direction caused the wires to attract. 2. But if things in one wire moved one way and in the other parallel wire they moved the opposite way then this caused the wires to repel. Then he gave us a bit of math for various angles if the wires — in which these things above were moving — were not exactly parallel. And this gives us by far our best observance at how those things inside the wires — electrons — are behaving in relation to one another. This tells us essentially the idea of plus and minus charge is wrong because these electrons do not always repel each other. Regularly, like in Ampere's long wires, they attract each other. In all cases, phase is a better concept to use than charge (positive ions and negative electrons). Absolutely correct in all cases, Ampère's phase concept also shows you which way the electron spins. When you see the much more highly complicated FaradayMaxwell concept doesn't, then it's simple to know which concept to use. Ampere didn't know these things as electrons but now we think we know a bit more about them. These are essentially Ampère's Relative Motion Laws: Ampere's Laws http://www.rbduncan.com/Ampere or Aufbau Laws http://www.rbduncan.com/aufbaulaws.htm or http://www.rbduncan.com/theALaws.htm http://www.rbduncan.com/theALaws.htm or Relative Motion Law http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm or Gold Universal particle relative motion law http://www.amperefitz.com/plawrm.htm These are also phase laws with which all the forces can be unified: http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm. Why only a few of us see this today, is something that I still can't figure out! I began to see this simple relative motion law in the early 1940s when my father bought, and let me use his 20,000 ohms per volt, voltohmmeter, and this relative motion concept really grew more intense, in my mind, in the mid 1940s when my father and I went halves in buying a war surplus Sherman Tank radio transmitterreceiver, for $79.95 from Gimbals Department Store in New York, and got it working by using two car batteries to give us 12 volts to drive the units' power supply generators. These two batteries we charged with a rectified & filtered 2 amps, using a war surplus 12 volt 'rectifilter', which supplied enough current to recharge the batteries but had not quite enough current capacity to run the transmitterreceivers' power supply generators directly by itself. I had assembled a pretty good picture of how a simple relative motion law was working in the microcosm by 1965, while working for Pan American Airlines, in the Radio Department, using my U.S. 1st Class Radio License with RADAR Endorsement #P174087. This meant reverting back to Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823, and disregarding ALL later laws using fields & charges, which even includes Ampère's later laws. It was crystal clear to me then, that there was only ONE simple relative motion rule for ALL these forces in our universe. In fact, I was solving more radio problems using that one rule than using all the garbage beliefs of charge, magnetism and field theory, that I knew by then could not possibly exist. In fact, they obscure us in seeing the actual attractive and repulsive forces. I wrote a 64 page book about this simple relative motion law in 1966. Fitzpatrick's First Book (Click Link) There was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section. In my 87th year on this earth, I've managed to convince quite a few people, around the world, that this is what is really happening, but it's hard to change established religious beliefs, and that's exactly what today's modern physics is. Even Einstein saw that in 1954. While we cannot obtain a Unified Field Theory, we can obtain a working relative motion law by substituting speed for voltage and mass for current in Ampère's Law. We now have the computing capacity to give ourselves a working relative motion law. This may sound impossible but this actually can be done today. I've done all I could putting many of its foundation stones in place. See http://www.rbduncan.com and also read 4 decades of my papers FREE by clicking Science will make one huge quantum leap once this is done. Here's how it's done: When you are measuring amps, you are really measuring the quantity of electrons passing your measuring point. In the macrocosm you use the same amount of energy, passing your measuring point, with its force falling off at the 'square of the distance' just the same as in Ampère's original 1823 Law. The problem comes with voltage. We see it as pressure. However, we can't measure pressure in the macrocosm, but I've realized for years that we are not measuring the pressure of electrons. We are measuring the SPEED of those electrons and calling it voltage. SPEED is something we certainly can measure in the macrocosm. So, what does this tell you? It tells you the answer Einstein was trying to find with his Unified Field Theory — and with SIMPLER MATH too. What we are unifying are ALL the FORCES. We are unifying ALL the attractive and repulsive forces in this universe using Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823. What can't be unified are the spacetime realms produced by the different frequency spins of spinning quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic superclusters: their spins are all at a different frequency. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, the same as radio frequencies (radio stations) are all different. Our very concepts of LARGE & small are derived from a frequency, resonance world we know nothing about. The quark spins at a resonance of AT LEAST 20 billion times FASTER than the electron, yet this superhigh resonance attracts the electron & builds molecules AND gives us our concepts of LARGE & small. We see these faster spinning things (higher spin frequencies) as small, and the slower spinning things (lower spin frequencies) as LARGE. Even though this seems incomprehensible, it's a fact! And you will have UNIFICATION now because as you start using Ampère's Law for all this, then you will understand EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES SPACE & TIME (spacetime). This is something you don't know now. We have many spacetime realms but 5 BASIC spin frequency spacetime realms: quark, electron, star, galaxy and galactic supercluster. The electron is the only one of those above 5 spinning entities that has the same EXACT spin frequency for all electrons, making the same EXACT spacetime realm for all electrons. Each of the above 5 BASIC spinning entities — spinning in all directions, mostly outofphase with each other — are producing — repulsive force, — holding themselves far, far apart, and producing different spacetime realms (different space and time) at different spin frequencies. These are the only 5 BASIC spinning entities we know about, but MODERN PHYSICS, unfortunately, allows infinitely larger accumulations than galactic superclusters and infinitely smaller building blocks than quarks. Einstein had put most of this picture of our universe together when he warned us about modern physics in 1954. WE ARE IN A FREQUENCY UNIVERSE — not only in the microcosm — BUT ALL THROUGHOUT — hard even to imagine! Make no mistake about that! We have limits in our spacetime realm. But does this spin frequency universe have a limit in spin frequencies either higher or lower? Does this universe have a limit of these spinning entities being too small or too large? Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823 solves that problem as well: IT GIVES US A LIMITED UNIVERSE! WHY? Because it shows us conclusively that this is a universe that is FOLDED BACK ON ITSELF! Because gravity, and inertia, acting at least 20 billion times FASTER than the speed of light shows us the vast distance that the quark spin is effective. Then how much more effective is a smaller, even higher frequency, FASTER SPINNING building block particle of the quark going to be? It's effective distance will extend even further than the quark's spin frequency! This is how this UNIVERSE GETS FOLDED BACK ON ITSELF! This answers one of our biggest science/physics problems: it gets FOLDED BACK because the higher quark and faster, SMALLER, shorter spin frequencies can penetrate the LARGE amount of space produced by the slower spinning galaxies & galactic superclusters whose slow spin frequencies produce LARGER, longer waves that, in turn, PRODUCE — less time — but SO MUCH more SPACE! Some similar entity exists between spinning electrons as it does between spinning galaxies: it's simply the RATIO of space to time in each that is DIFFERENT! There is more TIME than SPACE between electrons than there is between galaxies, but SOME ENTITY between these different spacetime gauges is giving this ENTIRE spinning UNIVERSE a certain BALANCE. 1. Now we must ask ourselves an important question: If we are, indeed, in such a frequency universe as this, then could our concepts of large and small be WAVELENGTH concepts? Faster spinning, higher frequency (smaller WAVELENGTH) spinning entities seem to be smaller, and slower spinning, lower frequency (larger WAVELENGTH) spinning entities seem to be larger. 2. Could our two concepts of space and time be erroneous concepts? Relativity scientists see this repulsive force as ONE thing, i. e. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant), or Minkowski's spacetime. I've been asking myself those two questions (in the above paragraphs 1. and 2.) for a good many years now. I've made considerable progress in answering these two questions in paragraphs 1. and 2. in the following links below. Last, but not least, we solve even more of Niels Bohr's Complementarity Problem, because we see how an electron, from the quark's spacetime realm view, might look somewhat like our galaxy. Precession, with each revolution — over a long period of time — results in a perfectly round PARTICLE or Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, SCALAR, standing wave. Therefore, a tremendously longer period of TIME (RATEofCHANGE caused by spin frequencies) must exist between quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & superclusters of galaxies for this universe to be stable. We only know the binding speed of two of these: electrons bind together at the speed of light, and quarks bind together at, or more than, 20 billion times the speed of light (2x10^{10c}). vanFlandern Quark (gravitational) radiation is also at, or more than 2x10^{10c} in velocity, and in a similar neighborhood of 2x10^{10}, of the electron, in energy and higher frequencies. A subtantial amount of quark radiation, in supernovae, results in a substantial amount of electron (light) radiation: in a hypernova — and in beams of Quasar energy — it's probably more like 99.x% of quark radiation to the resulting amount of electron radiation given off. All of these spinning entities, in our universe seek stability. Perfect stability would be achieved when the binding energy to the surroundings equaled the binding energy inside the spinning entity (PARTICLE) itself. Future supercomputers will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that stability is achieved in these different space/motion ratios (gauges) when — a similar balancing entity — exists between all these spinning entities from quarks to super clusters, and this SIMILAR or NEAR EQUALITY — of matching internal binding energy with BALANCED inertial binding to the surroundings — is of supreme importance! Today, this balancing method, in the SPACE between these different gauges — IS THE ONLY THING — that IS quantified (throughout our entire universe) without fixing the gauge! "Gauge invariance" can only mean ONE THING: area that has the SAME space/time (space/motion) RATIO. Relativity, or relationship, of spin frequencies becomes of supreme importance. Now — between the spacetime realms of the electron and stars — we insert another molecular spacetime realm, with a similar spacetime interval as all the others: unfortunately, for modern physics, their building block model has to change to a spinning, orbiting model such as we see in the macrocosm. This is correct, and as Stephen Wolfram has warned us — we need a MODEL for this BEFORE WE DO ANY MATH — yet modern physics has established itself as a true religion when it is only a mixture of mathematical rules that seem to work OK in our particular subset space/time gauge. A few of us have now given you the foundation stones for the correct BALANCED spinorbit MODEL that really works all throughout this universe. Stay on this track. We wouldn't even be here if this universe was perfectly balanced: fission and fusion energy results from our microcosm seeking better stability via IMPROVED BALANCING by converting both larger and smaller elements into iron or elements closer to iron. Atomic power stems from a drastic space/time RATIO change: here's the best nonmathematical explanation. If the term "gauge" refers to a specific space/motion ratio, then the hydrogen bomb is stronger than the old atomic fission bomb because the gauge change to our gauge is more severe: the uranium or heavier element electrons involved are going far slower around the nucleus — closer to our gauge — than the inner hydrogen electrons. Now you have some TRUE facts and the WHY for the Big Bang. Thanks for reading this.
Electricians and radio people understand the importance of PHASE in regard to FORCE. I guess it was beneath the dignity of all the theoretical physicists, so far, to even consider the PHASE aspect of any unified force theory. And many sought to unify spacetime realms that simply can't be unified. Einstein was so close! If he had worked in early radio, instead of the Swiss Patent Office, would he have gotten it? It's an incredible story: Einstein completed 99% of what was needed but missed unification by a hair. Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
I cannot teach anybody anything.
(Click a Scalar link below for # 1. Answer. Scalar in htm:  http://amperefitz.com/scalar.htm Also, Scalar in Word:  http://amperefitz.com/scalar.doc And Scalar in Adobe pdf:  http://amperefitz.com/scalar.pdf Without this new knowledge of Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823, modern physics has become so dysfunctional that it cannot tell us what causes Dark Matter. Fixing that dysfunction is the challenge at hand. Change begins with understanding, and I wrote WIMPs to provide some. It also partially answers the question in paragraph 2., giving you a good idea of what's really going on. WIMPs in html:  http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.html Also, WIMPs in Word:  http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.doc And WIMPs in Adobe pdf:  http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.pdf April 30 2019 343 years ago Roemer gave us a good, approximate SPEED OF LIGHT. He saw an anomaly of about fifteen minutes existed between the orbiting times of Jupiter's moons — shifting back and forth — when Earth was nearest and furthest from Jupiter. Roemer published the fact, in 1676, that light from the sun took half of this fifteen minute or so interval to get to our Earth.Newton took this knowledge, and with his invention of calculus plus a tremendous amount of more effort, published in 1687, the phenomenal fact that the speed of gravitational attraction had to be instantaneous. NASA — before the moon shot — rechecked and found the speed of gravity — was either Newton's instantly or at least 20 billion times the speed of light (2x10^{10c}). Van Flandern I have shown that the particle giving us Earth's gravity and inertia must be spinning at least 20 billion times (2x10^{10}) faster than the electron. That particle is the quark, and strong force containment is nearly correct: it is 99.9999% right. It is the .0001% balance of quarks that are not contained that give us both gravity and inertia. http://rbduncan.com/scalar.cpyR.pdf If you want to learn more, then read SCALAR, which gives us the SCALAR concept of NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff, who helped get us to the moon: quarks, electrons, planets, stars, I crossed out two we don't see as SCALAR. We see galaxies as flat and frozen in time. We fail to see galaxies and superclusters as spherical type SCALAR entities because the timespan of humans is far too short to witness the complete cycle of gyro precessing that will eventually turn galaxies and superclusters into more spherical type SCALAR entities. Most do not yet see that all of these SCALAR spinning entities essentially behave the same way in each of their own different spin frequency spacetime realms, but they do, and this is the big science revelation. It drastically changes and SIMPLIFIES modern physics! SCALAR in htm:  http://rbduncan.com/scalar.htm Also, SCALAR in Word:  http://rbduncan.com/scalar.doc And SCALAR in Adobe pdf:  http://rbduncan.com/scalar.pdf SCALAR, proves Einstein was right in his 1954 warning to us about field theory and modern physics when he said, "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." You will see Wolff's SCALAR concept is the very antithesis of spacetime, giving us a simplification of our entire universe that today's science can't.
February/10/2019 E SPIN PRECESSION in htm: http://rbduncan.com/espinp.htm Also, E SPIN Pr. in Word:  http://rbduncan.com/espinp.doc And E SPIN Pr. in Adobe pdf: http://rbduncan.com/espinp.pdf January/28/2019 a few TRUE science CONCEPTS concepts in htm:  http://rbduncan.com/concepts.htm Also, concepts in Word:  http://rbduncan.com/concepts.doc And concepts in Adobe pdf:  http://rbduncan.com/concepts.pdf Fitzpatrick's writings brought to you free by MAGPUL Industries December232018  This just in  FREE Forces in the electrical world are derived from PHASE. And now we know ALL Fundamental Forces are derived from PHASE between spin frequencies in both microcosm and macrocosm: this, essentially, is Ampère's Law. Fundamental Forces in htm:  http://rbduncan.com/simple.htm Also, Fundamental Forces in Word:  http://rbduncan.com/simple.doc And Fundamental Forces in Adobe pdf:  http://rbduncan.com/simple.pdf Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces. Fitzpatrick's first book in 1966 Fitzpatrick's 1966 book in PDF How FIELD THEORIES obsure & HIDE all fundamental attractive & repulsive FORCES: October292018 How FIELD THEORIES obsure & HIDE all fundamental attractive & repulsive FORCES: Oct292018 in Adobe pdf How FIELD THEORIES obsure & HIDE all fundamental attractive & repulsive FORCES: Oct292018 in Word 3 Changes coming: October32018 3 Changes coming: 1032018 in Adobe pdf 3 Changes coming: 1032018 in Word Answer to Everything: 7102018 Answer to Everything: 7102018 in Adobe pdf Answer to Everything: 7102018 in Word Why gyros defy gravity: 712018 Why gyros defy gravity: 712018 in Adobe pdf Why gyros defy gravity: 712018 in Word Why we see colors: 712018 Why we see colors: 712018 in Adobe pdf Why we see colors: 712018 in Word BritannicaMistake: 6122018 BritannicaMistake: 6122018 in Adobe pdf BritannicaMistake: 6122018 in Word Spacetime simplified: 5252018 Spacetime simplified: 5252018 in Adobe pdf Spacetime simplified: 5252018 in Word Michael Crichton's most important revelation is not in his *Andromeda Strain* or *Jurassic Park* but in his book *Disclosure*: 4112018 Michael Crichton's most important revelation in Adobe pdf: 4112018 Michael Crichton's most important revelation in Word: 4112018 Squaring a speed? c.squared.html 11252017 c.squared.pdf 11252017 (Adobe) c.squared.doc 11252017 (Word) 1/3 shorter EXPANDING UNIVERSE11232017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.htm 1/3 shorter EXPANDING UNIVERSE11232017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.pdf (Adobe) 1/3 shorter EXPANDING UNIVERSE11232017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then why isn't Inertia decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.doc (Word) EXPANDING UNIVERSE11202017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.htm EXPANDING UNIVERSE11202017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.pdf (Adobe) EXPANDING UNIVERSE11202017 PROOF If universe is expanding, then Inertia will be decreasing because Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars in.doc (Word) 772017 Unlike Gravity, DARK MATTER bends light differently: in.htm Dark Matter in.pdf Dark Matter in.doc Quantum 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 html Top Science Rule in our Universe (Word) Top Science Rule in our Universe in pdf Be 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 html Einstein versus quantum theory  New strong force energy quantum discovered !! in pdf Shedding a bit of light on
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 'Einstein never contributed anything to science': 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 people would much rather believe what the universities publish than the truth. 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 MMMs (Mystical Mathematical Methods) that are involved therein. There are two distinctly different types of particles in quantum theory: Nobel scientist Richard Feynman gave this explanation of them, "FermiDirac particles, with fractional spin, tend to repel each other while BoseEinstein particles, with integral spin, tend to clump together." The Boson particle concept — some called gluons evidently because they glue everything together — relies on this complicated mathematical structure. But this paper will show you that the Boson cannot even be called a particle because what is really going on is the very antithesis of a particle in which spacetime is removed similarly to when a positron unites with an electron: In both cases two sets of standing wave frequencies producing spacetime, that are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, cancel each other out. *** It's the absence of spacetime that gives the attraction and not a Boson particle: But you must keep reading to understand exactly what spacetime is frequencywise before you can even comprehend the above statement. *** 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 MMMs at the problem and keep getting these "Answers that appear as if by magic." And then keep doing that again and again to build up and obtain the very latest quantum theory model: This should never be done and this simply cannot be done if this is indeed a spinning, scalar, standing wave universe or you will get more errors than correct answers. 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: Quantum theory has myths that violate science like renormalization and asymptotic freedom that violates spin conservation. There is no freedom in the tri quark assembly of hadrons: Quarks that move toward the outside edge of hadrons are being PULLED there by quarks with opposite spin. By calling it freedom they missed ENTIRELY the proof of the cause of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein claimed he based general relativity on "Mach's Principle". Therefore, Einstein knew this quantum theory, that entirely discarded "Mach's Principle", was a theory that was headed down the wrong road. Quantum theory does not even consider what Ernst Mach knew: Surroundings cause inertial mass. Here's how surroundings cause both mass & energy. This is something quantum theory fails entirely to show you: *** Both electrons and quarks, able to bind, MUST either bind locally or with similar entities in the surrounding stars. This is why energy is conserved and why we have mass. All quark bindings are the same strength whether locally or with quarks in the surrounding stars. 100% of our inertial mass comes from quarks in matter here binding with quarks in the surrounding stars. Most recodable strong force binding energy, comes from down quarks in matter here, previously bound to down quarks in the surrounding stars (causing mass), now returning that binding to local quarks here, thereby giving us energy. Most of these down quark quanta will be 173.8 giga electron volts per energy quantum. I'm afraid strong force containment is another myth or quantum theory fairy tale. Another fairy tale is the force strength goes as the 'inverse distance squared ratio'. I'm sorry, but distance has no effect on electron or quark binding strength; only the NUMBER OF BINDINGS decrease inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Remember, you saw for the very first time here on this page, what a quantum of strong force energy really is !!! (2^{nd} blue paragraph above) *** Most of our mass is strong force mass, produced by down quarks contained in our matter, spinning at the square of the electron spin frequency that are momentarily binding — and pulling similar down quarks, more than 10^{15} meter away, from the triquark unit of hadrons in the surrounding stars. Binding is not simple: In order for electrons or quarks to bind, their spin planes must be an EXACT match. Less than EXACT will not work. Both binding point masses must exactly match: This means there must be PERFECT impedance matching as well or there will be no binding. 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 triquark 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 triquark 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. This is what is happening: Not knowing this Quantum theorists gave us the ridiculous ideas of asymptotic freedom and strong force containment. This is Quantum Theory approaching ancient Egyptian mythology with the blind leading the blind. We lose a quantum of strong force energy and gain its equivalent mass by a local down quark, in a proton here, pulling a down quark, in a surrounding star, more than 10^{15} meter, toward the outside edge of a hadron in that distant star — via impedance matching (Quantum Entanglement) with that other down quark in that surrounding star. 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^{2} is because the down quark spin frequency, causing mass, is the square of the electron's spin frequency. When these same quarks here rebind with local quarks, then mass — derived from binding with the surrounding stars — is turned into energy at the rate of E=mc^{2}. It's as simple as that. *** 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 momentary. They are permanent entities: But this is not so with this quantum of energy flash, that theorists call the top quark. It is really a momentary burst of binding energy, that has no resemblance whatsoever to the quarks that build matter. The so called top quark and Higg's boson both have a momentary existence of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Each has energy of over 100 giga electron volts and are things found in CERN's large hadron collider: They are undoubtedly, therefore, the momentary energy results of locally binding quarks that had been previously bound with quarks in the surrounding stars. These binding energy quanta of over 100 giga electron volts — star binding returned to local binding — are the binding energy methods by which inertial mass is turned into energy: The so called top quark — clearly not a quark — is a, nearly instant, quantum burst of binding energy of 173.8 giga electron volts (2013 Britannica) released by two down quarks. Which quarks produce the Higgs (boson?) which is a, nearly instant, quantum burst of binding energy of about 125 giga electron volts (2013 Britannica), we don't yet know. 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 "strong force containment" another highly illogical quantum theory belief that told them, 'the strong force was totally contained inside the nucleus' therefore they could NEVER witness any strong force quanta: This is why quantum theorists didn't see that BOTH of these infinitesimal bursts were of binding energy. They entirely lost out because they were "true believers" in these complex, Mystical, Mathematical, Methods they themselves had constructed. An unwarranted belief in the three items of renormalization, asymptotic freedom and strong force containment not only ended any hope of quantum theory ever being complete but it prevented quantum theorists seeing what was really going on. That important interval of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second (5 x 10 ^{25} second) was overlooked by quantum theorists but not by us: You know the down quark has to spin two rotations or 720 degrees to produce that quantum of binding energy. You know the electron is spinning at the square root of this frequency: Do the simple math and you, like us, become the first on Earth to know the down quark's spin frequency is around 10 ^{26} Hertz and the electron's spin frequency is about 10 ^{13} Hertz. Scientists should have seen this but didn't. But quantum theorists made an even worse mistake: This really bad mistake was in seeing Bosons as particles. Bosons are not particles. Bosons are binding energy quanta. "FermiDirac particles, with fractional spin, tend to repel each other while BoseEinstein particles, with integral spin, tend to clump together." As we said earlier, this was Feynman's explanation of it: However, Quantum theorists, including Feynman, failed to see that what they called Bosons were actually momentary binding energy shifts, that look exactly like particles in CERN's large hadron collider. But they are NOT really particles. The photon is a binding energy shift, 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 (spacetime). We know energy cannot be created or destroyed: It can't simply be left in space either. Energy IS conserved !!! So this belief of equating a photon with a Boson particle is ABSOLUTELY WRONG !!! *** ALL attractions, whether in the micro or macro world — you will see as you read on — are IN PHASE BINDING ENERGY 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 "email to Carl Scheider" that comes later on in this paper.*** Forget the expressions top quark and Higgs Boson and tell it like it is as 'two infinitesimal energy bursts' one of 173.8 Gev and the Higgs infinitesimal burst of 125 Gev both of which are gravity/energy or mass/energy shifts, where either gravitational mass or inertial mass is shifted to energy via a quark star/local binding shift !!! 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. Spacetime 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 spacetime ensemble: For instance, when you look at distant stars you are also looking back in time. If you type "Minkowski's light cone" into Google then you will get one explanation of this but the next paragraph gives the best answer as to what is really happening. 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 only when the OUT OF PHASE frequencies, producing a spacetime wave from the electron in your eye EXACTLY match the OUT OF PHASE frequencies, producing a spacetime wave from the electron in the star. Since these electrons are spinning 180 degrees out of phase then their frequencies producing the spacetime in an ultra thin line (wormhole) between them are also exactly 180 degrees out of phase to each other and MUST CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT (similar to a positron and electron). So even though you and the star are far apart, 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 WHY spin upspin down binding energy bonds do not vary in strength with distance: Only the NUMBER of bindings vary. And Minkowski — Einstein's teacher — might have published this himself if he hadn't died so early in life. Now we see Einstein's distorted space even better than Einstein saw it and we see exactly what a wormhole in space really is. Spacetime is built of frequencies the same as particles: But frequencywise spacetime (which also can be considered a repulsive force) is the average or mean amount that the closest sides of all these spinning particles are outofphase with one another. We now know a bit more about spacetime than even Einstein knew but we have a lot more yet to learn about spacetime. Even at the time I'm writing this, Phase Symmetry, that clearly shows you exactly what spacetime is frequencywise, still fails to show us exactly why we see space and time as individual components. 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 spacetime as time and not as space. (I didn't see this until 7112016 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 seeing that Ampère's long wire PHASE laws, not Maxwell's field rules showed us what was really happening while solving an avionics problem at Pan American Airlines in 1966: I saw the forces could indeed be unified adopting Ampère's concepts. Later I saw that Einstein was right in 1954 warning us about field theory. While fields have helped us considerably, they totally obscure the foundation principle of what is really going on. 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 frequencywise: 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 spacetime 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 spacetime 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 'Einstein's thought picture' and ride on a light wave and examine this spacetime ensemble: But instead of riding a light wave in space, could we ride a light wave at the speed of light through time? Yes, I think we can. Possibly this is what we are presently doing as we remain here on this Earth as it travels through spacetime. 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 spacetime 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 spacetime distortions: One of these distortions is that this vast empty space between all these electrons vanishes for us at the electron's spin frequency. Why? Because at that frequency, and a bit lower, we see things as solids. Our spacetime, or speed through time at the speed of light is produced by the spin frequency of the electron. It is not produced by quarks spinning at the square of the electron's spin frequency, giving us a speed of gravity that is very close to instantly and far faster than the speed of light: This is a speed most astronomers now can accept. The quark, however, has a far different spacetime interval from us. The quark is producing spacetime 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 being produced by down quarks acts like an acceleration. Even though we are in the realm produced by the electron's spin, this does not mean that the electron is in our spacetime realm. It is not. So finding out about the electron itself is a challenge. Our math and spacetime is only good in our local spacetime realm. The electron can be considered having real spin in its spacetime realm but for all intents and purposes we are limited in calculating what we'd like to know about the electron from our spacetime realm. Knowing about different spacetime realms, we can settle one big science argument between Einstein and Newton. Newton said gravity acts instantly. Einstein said gravity acts at the speed of light. Well, both lose this argument. But gravity, as all astronomers know and all astronomical colleges teach, must be acting far, far faster than the speed of light for this universe to be stable. We know inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass. NOW we know quarks cause mass so they must cause gravity too, so the astronomers are absolutely right and Newton was closer to the truth than Einstein who seems to have lost this 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 speed of light frequency range and quark/spin forces are FASTER. Yes, electron mass/energy travels at the speed of light but that's the only mass/energy that travels at that speed. Most of gravitational mass/energy travels FASTER than the speed of light. 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 NUMBER of binding pairs diminished with the square of the distance. I saw THIS was the way forces had to be seen and NOT as fields. I saw then that Einstein was absolutely right in 1954 when he said, "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." *** 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, free, click this link and read: http://www.rbduncan.com (email to Carl Scheider) Yes, "Quantum Entanglement" in Wikipedia tells about the spin upspin 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. If you keep any of these things then you can NEVER unify the forces. Get rid of them and then you can see what is really going on. Start entirely from scratch using only PHASE rules. *** *** Here's the Fitzpatrick Model. Unfortunately present science has no energy model that can show you the mass/energy conversion as this one easily does. Start out by thinking of two identical gears with meshing teeth. One gear can be considered spinning clockwise and the other counterclockwise (spin upspin 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 upspin down Cooper pair of electrons held together with the same in phase bond. Those gears also represent the layout of two (spin upspin 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 upspin 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 OUTOFPHASE repulsive forces, creating also spacetime, do not need any impedance matching yet they MUST equal the INPHASE 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 email 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, spacetime realm. The only real universal rules are PHASE rules. And remember what we learned at the beginning of this paper, people would much rather believe what the universities publish than the truth.
http://www.rbduncan.com/phase.symmetry.htm or http://www.rbduncan.com/phase.symmetry.pdf Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. & Richard Mark Fitzpatrick 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. 12022013 Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12022013 also in Adobe.pdf  phase.symmetry.pdf If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at: Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329 Belmont Village 4310 Bee Cave Road West Lake Hills, TX 78746 Send me your email.

SEE, — HOW the complexities of FIELD THEORIES HID from us, the fact that relative motion (phase) between all these spinning entities, in the micro & macro universe, gives us all the attractive and repulsive Fundamental Forces. Oct292018. Field Theories in html: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.html Also, Field Theories in Word: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc & Field Theories in Adobe pdf: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdf Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.Fitz's first book in 1966 Fitz's 1966 book in PDF All FREE Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.rbduncan.com/4.decades.htm All FREE Everything on this page is absolutely FREE with no ads whatsoever! Why NASA tells us we have 72% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter and 4.6% Atoms. Shades of Einstein & Hoyle. Bose  Einstein Condensate Cahill's Quantum Foam Theory Click this link to find why we have the Principle of Equivalence. . . Do you know why gravity acts like an acceleration? Why the onion layered type spherical aspect of A. Garrett Lisi's model is so important. Einstein's photon. This is a powerful, revolutionary, new book. latest science, click link below: Schrödinger's Universe This NEW QUANTUM PHYSICS will have far more effect on people's minds, down through the ages, of how science is perceived than the effect, down through the ages, that both Jesus and Mohammed had on people's minds in how religion was perceived. A physics Renaissance begins now with this book. latest science, click link below: Schrödinger's Universe
very latest, click link below: 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's books, papers & thoughts Masada latest fiction, click link below: $ after the 2008 Elections $ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Up to the Minute CRUDE OIL price <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  