animations.

Why we have general relativity

or

Why items increase in mass with speed

 

It's because this is a Schrödinger frequency universe
And in it we have Fitzpatrick's RPR
R
elative Phase Relationships
Ernst Mach was right: Surroundings are involved.
Nobel laureate Niels Bohr was also right:
These can be considered spinning entities
(in their own space-time realm).

 

The quantum folks know this is a frequency universe but the rest of us are taking some time to catch on to all of this.

Gyroscopes, pendulums, vibrating elements and helium 2 all hold their positions to the surrounding stars via binding energy. Every pilot with an instrument rating not only knows this but depends on this. Airliners must have these gyro devices so pilots can fly in bad weather. It's impossible for airlines to exist without having gyro instruments that hold their positions to the surrounding stars. Pilots absolutely depend on this gyro instrumentation while flying in the polar regions where a magnetic compass is ineffective. Our spacecraft could never get to the moon without these gyro devices either.

The binding to the surrounding stars used by these gyro devices is a phase coherence binding, where the same frequencies of the same phase bind together allowing gyroscopes, pendulums, vibrating elements and helium 2 to bind with the fixed stars. These gyroscopic devices provide the pilot of an airliner or spacecraft with another type of viable heading to fly, the same as he also can fly with a viable magnetic compass heading (while flying here in earth's atmosphere).

Berkeley, Mach, Einstein and even Maxwell told us that inertial mass depended on our surrounding universe (the surrounding stars). All the gyro instruments used on airplanes and ships depend on gyros that hold their positions of alignment to the surrounding stars (phase coherence). So a type of phase coherence binding -- with the stars -- is definitely there. We know we gain energy with a change in close binding. In fact this is called binding energy. The gyro shows us there must be a far distant binding as well as close binding. In 1851 Focault suspended a pendulum on a long wire from the top of the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. This made newspaper headlines all over the world when everyone saw the direction of the pendulum swing did not stay in the same path but actually rotated. This swing direction made a complete rotation every 23 hours and 56 minutes. The earth rotates once every 24 hours in respect to the sun but it rotates once in respect to the stars in 23 hours and 56 minutes. Navigators know this as a sidereal day. So Focault's pendulum actually swung back and forth in a straight line that remained in the same position and that never varied in relation to the surrounding stars -- because of phase coherence !

Think about this now: Focault's pendulum held its swing position with the surrounding stars even though they are thousands of billions of times further away than the earth and many billions of times further from us than our own sun. These are certainly some strong binding linkages, aren't they?

There is a good reason these binding linkages are so strong. It's not distance; it's mass that matters. The strength of these bonds do not diminish as the square of the distance! The inverse square relationship does indeed enter into it but has absolutely nothing to do with the strength of each individual quantum energy bond. The total mass of the surrounding stars is what completely overwhelms our sun and earth in respect to what the gyro senses! The mass of the surrounding stars is so much greater than our earth & sun that gyro devices bind to these surrounding stars instead. And a bit more about these bonds to the surrounding stars three paragraphs later. As doctor Milo Wolff says, "Those stars are far more than ornaments in the night sky. They are connected to us and we are connected to them. Berkeley, Mach and quite a few others realized that!"

This is Fitzpatrick's RPR - - - Relative Phase Relationships.

So we have known gyroscopes, pendulums and vibrating elements held their position in space in relation to the surrounding stars since 1851. There is no possible way they could do this unless there was some strong type of binding between those aforementioned items and the surrounding stars.

If you read http://www.amperefitz.com/why.we.have.gravity.htm then you will see it's the closest sides of electrons binding that give us magnetic attractions and the closest sides of quarks binding that give us the strong force and gravitational attractions. Gravity along with inertia can both also be seen as a form of strong force leakage.

Gravity and inertia, incidently, (strong force leakage) is the reason nuclear physicists see that quark spin is not being conserved. They are missing this strong force leakage causing gravity and inertia. Once this is considered then quark spin is most certainly conserved.

This binding with the surrounding stars is what gives us mass. Mass is not weight; it's inertial mass. This means it's the resistance to movement, which can only be binding with the surrounding stars.

More binding with the surrounding stars gives more resistance to movement or more inertial mass. This is Mach's principle.

The whole essense of Mach's principle is that binding with the surrounding stars gives us our inertial mass. But here we have to stop and do some original thinking: We know the electron spin creates the magnetic force. If you read my other papers then you will see the quark spin causes not only the strong force but gravity as well. So by speeding up an object -- if these objects themselves are frequencies -- this binding, of the closest sides of quarks with the closest sides of quarks in the stars, is done at a higher frequency (higher energy level). Higher frequency is synonymous with higher energy: (This, in fact, is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics.) Thus the object gains -- more resistance to movement within the surroundings -- or more mass (inertia) -- as the speed increases because the frequency of each individual quantum bond has now increased. Each individual quantum bond is based solely on the translational motion of the closest sides of the spinning entities doing the binding. They must see themselves at the same exact frequency and their impedance must exactly match or no bonding whatsoever is possible. But match they do because there are so many in the distant stars to match and bond to.

However, there is one other picture that you must build in your mind: It's these spin frequencies. Imagine each quark having longitudinal stripes painted on it. If we move fast enough then certain quarks will see these stripes at a faster frequency and other quarks will see these stripes at a lower or slower frequency rate and this all will depend on the direction we are moving in relation to the orientation of these quarks in the surrounding stars. So some of our quarks will impedance match the quarks in the surroundings with a higher linking bond and others will match with a lower frequency (lower binding energy) bond. However, the ones matching with the higher frequency bond are higher up on the assymptotic curve of the speed of light so our mean (average) quark gravitational attraction gets stronger as we move faster.

This is exactly what happens with gyroscopic inertia as well. If you could spin the rim of a gyro as fast as the planet Mercury is moving then you would see the relativistic mass increase show up there too.

When you ride your bicycle the added translational motion of certain sectors of quark spins are going up higher on the speed of light ayssmptote curve and these are matching with those in surrounding stars holding you up on your bicycle. The concept of strong force containment is simply wrong.

REMEMBER: each of the spinning entities must impedance match with a higher frequency item (higher energy) with the surrounding stars than it did before it was accelerated: Thus the relative mass increase.

NOTE: this is a mass increase (frequency increase) RELATIVE to the way the surrounding star frequencies link to it -- a sort of Doppler effect seen by the surrounding stars. Thus we must use Einstein's relativity correction for this additional mass of Mercury to figure its precession.

This -- relative increase in mass -- is exactly what Einstein's general relativity predicts.

Now a quote from HyperPhysics: "According to the principle of equivalence from general relativity, any frequency shift which can be shown to arise from acceleration of a radiating source could also be produced by the appropriate gravitational field. Thus the expected shift in radiation frequency in a gravitational field can be related to the relativistic doppler shift experienced from an accelerating light source. "

The above paragraph is telling you that everything that I have shown you, that an accelerated speed produces, will also be produced via a gravitational field. Therefore a larger mass and subsequent increased gravitational field will have the same consequences as more speed. In this respect excess speed and excess mass are equivalent: This IS the principle of equivalence.

But this is merely a general explanation of why we have general relativity: I've published other papers explaining all this in far more detail.

Since we do have Einstein's general relativity then we come full circle because this proves we must be in a type of Schrödinger frequency universe.

And this goes to show me, a person who has been dealing with frequencies and standing waves for over half a century now, that even though Einstein knew gravity was a wave and Newton and Einstein both have given us the best mathematical description of gravity available for their times, neither of them had the slightest idea that both gravity and inertia were being caused mainly by frequency coherence and impedance matching. By the way, this is also the reason for the "conservation of energy" - - that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be shifted via an impedance matched energy transfer utilizing frequency coherence.

For what it's worth if Einstein's concept of speed is always considered motion RELATIVE to the same frequency surroundings then even the spins of galaxies should be considered automatically. In that case I think Einstein's tensor rules and math, that predicts the mass of everything, will need no corrections as long as humans last. I don't think even Einstein realized this when he saw the falsehood of fields in 1954.

Also you now can unify all the forces and see what space and time are by using Fitzpatrick's RPR - - - Relative Phase Relationships.

It's all phase relationships!

The surrounding stars are involved (Mach's principle) so this makes it RELATIVE Phase Relationships.

It's R P R

Billions of dollars are spent every year on gyros that hold to the surrounding stars yet the movement away from Mach's principle gets stronger and stronger every year. This I don't understand at all!

It's nothing but RPR

RPR is so simple and so important yet everyone went to sleep at the switch with this.

In every case the forces from the stars are equal or close to equal, in strength, to the known forces yet the universities have entirely missed this. To me this is simply incredible!

I've shown, in numerous papers, not only how the 4 fundamental forces are unified by RPR but I've shown how space and time are also being produced via RPR.  

9-20-2010





To read more about PHASE click the following links:

http://www.amperefitz.com/phase.htm

and http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

 

Thank you,

Have a good day & visit my site at goodreads:

http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/276352

 

Click ANY of these links to get what you want

 

You can buy my book "Universities Asleep at the Switch " at Amazon.com

Or even better yet:

Read my book FREE by clicking links below:

http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf (This is the book in Adobe)

or

http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm (This book link opens faster if you have dial up.)

 

& super popular now

http://www.amperefitz.com/top.spot.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/phase.coherence.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/why.we.have.gravity.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/principle-of-equivalence.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/acceleratingexpandinguniverse.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.cos.c.htm

http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm

 

 

Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts

Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm