150 Fitzpatrick's "A" Laws
The Similarity of
Fitzpatrick's "A" Laws
and
The Anu Pair
This is a copy as backup.
* The 1st. "A" Law. The space-time interval is diminished the most between any two objects, the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel paths in the same direction at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects will attract each other.
* The 2nd. "A" Law. Both space and time are created the most between any two objects, the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel paths in opposite directions at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects will repel each other.
Discovered 07/12/04. The "A" Laws featured here describe the same laws that govern the Anu pair, found in file 134 Anu Questions and Answers and file 110 Anu, the Root of Anunnaki. I developed the very simple Anu Theory from collections of information about the roots of Anunnaki and from cosmology studies. The path I took and Fitzpatrick's path have been separate and unknown to each other until now. Both theories cannot be more simple.
When Fitzpatrick notes "the closest sides of two objects (standing spherical waves) moving on parallel paths in the same direction, attract each other", or "the closest sides of two objects (standing spherical waves) moving on parallel paths in the opposite directions, repel each other", it is the same as saying...
In the Anu Theory, two vortexes, representing "a Cooper pair" (standing spherical waves), which spin oppositely, one spinning counterclockwise and the other clockwise, will attract", and is the same thing as Fitzpatrick saying "moving on parallel paths in the same direction."
In the Anu Theory, two vortexes, representing "a Cooper pair" (standing spherical waves), which spin exactly the same, one spinning clockwise and the other also clockwise, will repel", and is the same thing as Fitzpatrick saying "moving on parallel paths in opposite directions."
|
Web Page at: www.rbduncan.com
Is this the answer Einstein was looking for?
Fitzpatrick'sTheory of EverythingIn this you will see theuniverse's building principle.
Contents
1. Why can't anyone give us a Theory of
Everything?
2. What went wrong
3. One more even worse problem
4. Local gauge invariance
5. Fitzpatrick's "A" laws
6. Chemical Bonding
7. Einstein's cosmological constant; the electron's charge and a bit more
8. Ferromagnetism
9. The big picture
10. Gravity and the "bad quarter"
11. Transformers, motors & generators
12. Various other forms of magnetism
13. Inertia & angular momentum
14. Steady-State plus de Broglie
15. Proof of Einstein's principle of equivalence
using the "A" Laws
16. Light & Planck's constant
17. Einstein's gravity wave prediction
18. Space-time & Who are you?
19. Einstein called this his "Biggest Blunder".
20. Tiny Clusters of Matter
21. Summing this all up
This special High School level,
Internet abridged version is
more than 80% of the full, elaborate, printed edition.
It takes up 675 KB of disk space.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
© 2000
Dedicated to Dr. Frank R. Caputo who is still very much with us and who lived his long life as American as John Wayne and as honest as Pericles.
1. Why can't anyone give us a Theory of
Everything?
Back to Contents
Someone has: It's in front of you right now.
If you promise to stay awake and keep reading then I'll hand a genuine "Theory of
Everything" to you, right here, on a silver platter.
It is plain to see everything is showing you these particles are built from waves.
Especially quantum theory and superstring are showing you the building blocks are
waves, therefore all you have to do is ask the following: "How can a wave universe be
designed to make us see things as particles?" Then the logical answer to unification is
right in front of you.
Fate played a role in the discovery of how this universe really works because I had the
luck to be working on all the right things in the right areas at the right times.
Albert Einstein was correct: The answer is an extremely simple and relatively
easy to understand unified principle. Einstein predicted the human mind would be able
to comprehend it. I'm afraid this universe is not quite what most think it is and while
these invisible forces can be unified, this would have to be termed more of a unified
principle than a unified field.
Dirac, however, said this entire universe was extremely complex and he too is
correct.
You couldn't want a simpler foundation wave-particle principle.
What you have here is an exceptionally simple cornerstone wave-particle principle,
that almost anyone can understand, producing a highly complex universe that no one
will ever understand in its entirety. This extremely simple principle only takes up
about as many lines as you have already read. Explaining why we never saw this
principle and how this extremely simple principle builds this entire universe makes
this an exceedingly long book.
In this Theory of Everything you will find the essence of unification:
* All the forces have a common origin.
* All the forces have identical properties.
Ê
The problem is that they are not presently related by exact mathematical symmetries
because our actual universe is primarily a wave-particle universe all the way throughout
and it is not even close to being the universe that today's scientists think it is. All of us have
held on to too many of our old ideas a bit too long even though all the evidence was right there
in front of us showing us the truth.
Even without this perfectly accurate mathematical relationship yet in place, you can
still obtain a very good picture of what is really going on in this universe if you
continue reading.
You might say that this universe turns out to be much like a cake containing Einstein's
ingredients but having been baked by Niels Bohr and having Paul Dirac's icing on it.
The theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring have provided all the
necessary input that anyone needs to see this amazing "Theory of Everything".
It's simply that you have to understand all the subtle evidence in those
above-mentioned theories. No one seems to be paying even the slightest bit of
attention to all the correct vine covered road signs: Instead they are all following
their old well tested, well worn science road maps.
I'm very much afraid that you cannot locate this Holy Grail by using all those old well
tested, well worn road maps that this present science guild has amply provided to you
and you will see the reason for this as you read on. Instead you will have to keep
looking for these often well hidden special relativity, general relativity, quantum
mechanics and superstring road signs that are hiding underneath all that side of the
road foliage. I'll point them all out to you as we proceed.
You do not have to be an expert or even a mathematician to understand this extremely
simple principle but you will have to put some effort into understanding how this
extremely simple principle works to form this entire universe.
One of the hardest parts will be erasing the blackboard of some of these
things you think are true.
Here's a "for instance": Why is it that you cannot see all this motion in the microcosm yet
you can see all this motion in the macrocosm?
There is a definite reason for this...that you'll see as you read on...and it isn't the
reason present science exhorts.
Many people...even some scientists...will throw up their hands in despair with Einstein's
general relativity that uses such things as curved space and space-time. It doesn't
have to be quite this mysterious if you use this extremely simple explanation that
shows you why it must be so. In addition, you will find some slightly clearer concepts
that will enable you to better "see" into some of these enigmatic areas of quantum
mechanics, relativity and superstring.
I'm pretty old and I can remember when all tires had tubes inside them and when they
got a hole in them these tubes had to be patched. They continually needed patching the
same as our science today continually needs patching. Einstein's relativity contain all
the mathematical patches for your 19th-century science tubes and if you want to run
your old science car then you have to keep patching things with Einstein's relativity
patches all the time to get any accuracy at all. You use Einstein's special relativity
patches in the microcosm and Einstein's general relativity patches in the macrocosm.
You still have to use relativity even if you don't like it or don't understand it. You will
have to believe me when I tell you there are scientists...who feel they have a good
enough grasp of relativity...who do have to use it but don't like it and also do not fully
comprehend it.
There is no doubt about this either. This new exposition is a great simplifier and all
the information anyone needs for an easy to understand Theory of Everything is right
here for all to see...if they look hard enough for the information...in relativity, quantum
mechanics and superstring theory.
First you do have to uncover all those fairly well hidden road signs and then second
you must know how to read all those road signs after you do finally locate and uncover
them.
Those aforementioned theories are essentially telling you what is wrong with your
present science setup. Moreover, they are informing you how the true universe is built.
Keep reading and I'll take you through everything step by step and show you what is
wrong and how it all went wrong as humankind pieced together this present science
structure that most people now believe in. I will also show you the problems because
you must understand the problems if you want to see all the various important things
that went into giving us all this present science structure that we have today.
We had this wonderful world of science that the smartest of scientists, from the
entire world, had all contributed to and methodically put together extremely carefully
step by step for several thousands of years. It was all going together beautifully just
like clockwork but then suddenly, out of nowhere like a giant tornado, came all the
problems.
About 1823, the very first major problem with our neatly constructed world of
science arrived. It was put forth by Wilhelm Olbers who had studied the amount of
light that we receive from our sun and from all these other stars at the various
distances we are from them.
He saw that all these stars were adding up around us at the rate of the volume of a
sphere or 4/3 p R^3 but this was a much, faster rate than the light depletion rate to
us that was being diminished by the square of the distance( R^2).
Therefore we get the following and this is known as Olbers' Paradox.
Olbers then asked, "Why are we not blinded by all of this light?"
This was the very first indication that all our methodically built house of cards or
19th-century science was probably wrong because if space was this uniform,
geometric thing that our scientists were all claiming it was then we should, in fact,
have far, far, far more light coming to us here on earth from all those distant stars
but we don't: We get very little light from all those far away stars.
Why? (This will be answered later.)
Then came the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 and this showed us if one adds
the velocity of the earth in its orbit to the speed of light then one still only gets the
speed of light.
So at the turn of the century, science went into a virtual upheaval mainly because of
this Michelson-Morley experiment that showed the speed of light to be a constant,
independent of the velocity of the source and independent of the velocity of the
observer.
Before that, we had a universe that we thought had only Motion and Euclidian
geometry. (The geometry you learned about in school.)
Now take these three following items:
* #1. Motion
* #2. Euclidian geometry
* #3. The speed of light being a constant
Basically, you can build an easily understandable universe with any two of the above
but not all three.
Ê
Before the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 scientists thought the universe was
built with the above #1 and #2.
If you consider a rock then you could see it as built with #2 and #3 because it remains
a solid even though you know electrons are in motion inside it but in the rock all this
motion seems to get canceled out so that you essentially have no motion. Please
remember this concept of the rock because it, in essence, is the concept of a quasi
steady-state universe (see chapter 5). So then using only the above #2 and #3, this
ultra, ultra high frequency motion is restricted. And we find that with the speed of
light a constant, motion is actually restricted, isn't it? (Later you'll see why
motion is restricted.)
The NASA satellite tracker knows this universe is built using #1 and #3 because when
he uses your high school geometry to track these inter planetary voyagers, they are
simply not there when he aims his dish antenna to the spot. He then has to correct his
Euclidian geometry, using Einstein's math, to find where to aim his dish antenna to get
the spacecraft's signals.
It is perfectly obvious therefore that this universe is not using anything even close to
your idea of distance measurements. It does seem to understand your idea of frequency
and motion though even though it does not use them exactly as you do.
Please remember those two terms of frequency and motion: They will come up again
and again. Once you see that something cannot go faster than the speed of light then
you know you must define the term motion quite differently from the way this science
"in-crowd" is presently defining it. Here's our new motion statement but don't worry
about understanding it right now because we'll dig into the full meaning of it later.
* Motion is something that is "seen" quite differently by different subset systems.
After the Michelson-Morley experiment there was turmoil in the scientific world
simply because it all didn't seem to add up somehow. It was all eventually more or
less haphazardly resolved with the Lorentz contraction and various other patches but
the enigma of the speed of light remaining a constant was still essentially there.
Exactly why it was a constant and exactly why you could not obtain a faster speed, no
one ever really found out. So essentially the Michelson-Morley experiment still
presents this presently accepted view of science with quite a riddle even though our
basic 19th-century science foundation is constantly and extensively being patched all
the time using the tools Einstein provided us with in special relativity and general
relativity.
All of this can be totally avoided by accepting this new view of the universe. While
future computers and math will monopolize and utilize this new view, unfortunately
this new view will not currently work at all with your present math. You will still be
using Einstein's corrective relativity math for quite a while yet. This new view
beautifully resolves this seemingly incompatible reason for the results of that
Michelson-Morley experiment. Using this new view of the universe, the
Michelson-Morley experiment answer makes perfect sense.
Einstein's papers in 1905 (microcosm tire patch kit) and 1915-16 (macrocosm
tire patch kit) showed us exactly how much error all of our scientific rules would
have, not only in the microcosm, but also in the various cases where speed or mass
was high and Newton's 17th century principles entirely failed. But remember this is
still only patching this old 15th+16th+17th+18th+19th century accumulated science
foundation. No one provided us with a good thoroughbred set of 20th century science
rules. I will, however, give you a good set of laws herein for the 21st century though.
All these things discovered after Olbers' Paradox and especially after 1887 made it
perfectly obvious to every scientist that our basic science structure was way out of
alignment with the actual truth.
Even with all of the proof that our basic system of science was in need of a major
overhaul, scientists did absolutely nothing but add some necessary relativity
corrective patches.
Few even attempted to look around to try to find out what was really wrong.
And most still haven't either.
I attempted it.
I had the "luck of the Irish" in that not only was I immersed in this right from my
youth but later I also was involved with things in areas that proved invaluable in this
particular quest. Even with all of that, after I found most of the bones it still took me
over 33 years to completely solve the problem and put the entire skeleton of Einstein's
dinosaur together. The answer is contained herein.
What you must understand is that mathematics is the very soul of science. It always
was and it always will be. No one will ever change that.
Johannes Kepler used math to prove all the planets moved in elliptical orbits.
Isaac Newton used math to prove the law of gravity.
Ole Ršmer used math to discover the speed of light and this goes on and on and on.
Math was important to me in my working years and it still is now in my retirement.
Math is the very soul of science and it is the sword of Excaliber that every scientist
carries next to him just as the Vikings always carried their swords right next to them
all the time.
So now when I state that it has been our math that has led us down the wrong road,
most scientists who are reading this will immediately chuck this into the waste
basket and they will have nothing more to do with anything else that I write as well.
So I know I'm going to lose many of my readers at this point by making that previous
statement but this is the way I have to put it because this is the road we have all been
led down. You will see exactly why this happened.
I'll then make another statement that is even more preposterous: It is the sentence
that follows.
You do not have to know any math at all to see this new big picture of unification.
As I said, Einstein was right. He predicted the answer would be simple enough that
the human mind could understand it, and it most certainly is.
Not only that but it's probably even a simpler revelation than Einstein himself thought
when he made that prediction.
Yes that's right: It's an extremely simple answer that requires absolutely no
mathematical procedures of any type. I will show you precisely what this universe
uses and it most certainly doesn't use any of our present math. I'm going to give you a
big, extremely simple picture of unification in 3-D and living color without the need
for you to know even the slightest bit of math.
What Einstein did not know was that even though the big picture can be made relatively
simple, this brand new math must take into consideration things that todays scientists do
not even think exist. This universe is more like the universe that Dirac predicted; it's very
complicated and not nearly as simple as most scientists today suspect.
But even though this universe is extremely complex, any good high school student who is
interested in science, and gets good grades in science, should be able to see this big
simplified picture.
I will be able to show you this extremely simple unifying principle and how it works
providing you have some knowledge of science and/or you do some homework and if you
try to concentrate on what I'm telling you.
This is one of those books that needs to be chewed well and digested for you to get the
main idea behind it all. You won't be able to skim through this one and get the "big
picture" because, I'm afraid, this is a whole brand new ball game: It's too much of a
change from today's scientific "big picture".
Einstein's general relativity tensor math formulation works...it's the best thing we
have...and we have no other choice but to use it whether we believe he was right about
the entire setup or not. He gave us veritable diamonds of new science. We will be
looking closely at some of his other ideas too. Never have so many of us owed so much
to so few of these early scientists even though all of them did make some mistakes
now and then: For instance Einstein claimed gravity was a wave and therefore he
predicted it could be polarized. Yes, gravity is a wave all right and you will even get
the wavelength for gravity herein so theoretically it might be polarized. We think we
know a lot about polarization of light waves, RADAR waves and much longer radio
waves as well. But even as I type these words scientists are working on a new
discovery where more information can be put out on one frequency provided that you
have a multiple antenna arrangement with a different polarization in each single
antenna inside this multiple transmitting and multiple receiving set of antennas. Not
only are we still learning about polarization but it is this very factor of polarization,
along with the Planck's constant factor, that makes us sense these ultra, ultra high
frequencies of the orbiting electrons as a solid mass. We know they are moving and we
should sense all this movement but we don't so we know polarization has aspects at
these ultra, ultra short wavelengths (many thousands of times shorter than the light
frequencies) that still remain somewhat of a mystery to us. If you ask the question if
it is even possible to polarize at these ultra, ultra short wavelengths then the answer
is possibly no. You will discover that the gravity wave(s) is/are at the other extreme
end of the spectrum and it may be virtually impossible, as well, to attempt
polarization at this ultra, ultra long wave end of this bandwidth of frequencies
immediately concerning us here on our earth. After you have read all of this then you
will have all the necessary information to determine for yourself whether this
polarization prediction by Einstein was a good prediction or not. Also you will see why
Paul A. M. Dirac's monopole prediction will be hard to justify on one hand but even
harder to rule out practically because you will be presented with a sort of physical
evidence of it herein. Having said that, you will also see another prediction of Dirac's
that the future would bring forth a theory which would express the fundamental laws
of nature that would be intuitively constructed only on the basis of approximations,
mainly because of the highly complex nature of this universe.
That prediction of Dirac's is a perfect description of this universe and this new theory
that you are about to read. You will see this universe turns out to be far, far, far more
complex than most scientists presently think. Dirac was right about it being extremely
complicated and he was also right about predicting that a way would be found to see a
big picture of approximately how it all works.
Not listening to other great scientists was an error many of our 20th-century
scientists made: They made a great many of these type errors too. One of the biggest
mistakes ever made was in not listening to David Hilbert. Hilbert spelled it all out
when he questioned geometry. This text would be far too long if I went into all of
Hilbert's analyzing but I'll give you a small fraction of it here right now: Hilbert asked,
"What is this dimensionless thing we call a point?"
Hilbert proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such a conception as an imaginary
point was absolutely useless when examining our entire universe because as you
imagine yourself getting smaller and smaller, while trying to look at things smaller
and smaller, this point must start to take on size. It must get bigger as you keep
getting smaller and smaller, as you try to visualize this tiny micro world. If you could
still keep getting smaller yet, then this thing that was once only a tiny point would
finally take up the size of a marble, then a golfball, then a baseball, then a basketball,
then eventually a lot of the room in your new universe. If you counter this argument
and say, "No, it will not. It will stay at the same point size." Then if that point was at
the end of a three degree angle when you got smaller then what is this same angle now
that you are smaller? Sorry, you lose. Hilbert pulled the rug out of the very
foundations of not only Euclidian geometry but also all types of geometry, because all
types are forced to use points. Geometry is OK only if you keep your same size.
An all-encompassing geometry of both the microcosm and the macrocosm is simply
not OK. When trying to examine both the ultra macrocosm and the ultra microcosm
throughout this entire universe, you will see herein that your geometry will fail.
Einstein's success with general relativity showed that he understood this but this
success also made him think he could somehow mathematically prevail. So Einstein
sidestepped this advice of Hilbert's entirely because in looking for his "Unified Field"
he should have realized that fields depend on geometry. If there is no such thing as an
all-encompassing geometry (You'll even see further proof of this) then surely there
can be no chance for an all-encompassing "Unified Field". But having said that, I now
know Einstein was correct in searching for the one single extremely simple unifying
principle because if I have not discovered it then I have at least found the closest
extremely simple method you will ever get to visualize it.
I always believed if there is, in fact, a unified principle then the foundation for this
must be a unified premise and the premise has to be that this indeed is a 100% wave
universe and these waves have the ability to form into what we perceive is a particle.
There is no other premise, that I know of, which will lead to a unified principle.
Quantum mechanics shows you particles are built from waves. Quantum theory, more
or less, shows you that these waves are assembled into spherical particles. This is
simply because of a rapidly changing wave polarization caused by space-time. These
particles then retain original wave properties while also assuming...because of
changing polarization mainly...brand new individual particle properties. The electron,
for instance, is a far different particle from the quark.
If the polarization of these standing waves change rapidly enough and trace out a
sphere, then they actually become a spherical particle. They will then behave like
spherical particles especially to all their exact sister particle copies.
Understanding this, I took this one step further and saw that every micro or macro
spin/orbit-frequency level, of different type particles, was also different
because in this brand new context, for any specific calculation, you absolutely must
define a place of rest and this can only be at one spot on one specific orbiting
geodesic.
While Einstein was a loner, Niels Bohr was not and he gathered around him in
Copenhagen others who all worked diligently at quantum mechanics. These same years
in America, Henry Ford gathered people around him diligently cranking out cars.
America and Copenhagen, in those years, cranked out one new miracle after another.
Einstein was fully eclipsed behind all these Copenhagen quantum mechanics' miracles
discovered by the many who gathered at Bohr's home.
All types of geometry are useless to us as we try to examine our entire universe. Bohr
knew this ! That's why quantum theory is designed to skirt around it. Einstein...who
with Planck...helped lay the first foundation stones for quantum mechanics, then looked
at what the Copenhagen bunch had done to it. Einstein made some remarks about Bohr,
something like, "God never designed a universe such as Bohr had in mind." Bohr found
out about this later and replied, "Who is Einstein to tell God what He should do."
2. What went wrong
Back to Contents
If you took one of our best directional (horizontal axis) gyroscopes in the best set
of friction free gimbals to either the North or South Pole and kept that gyroscope
spinning then this gyro axis would simply remain in the same position...horizontally
with the fixed stars...as the earth turned completely around under it. If you were at the
pole watching it and timing it then you would know it was holding its position with all
the stars. You, however, would not see it positioned in space with all the fixed stars
because you would be turning along with the earth and you would perceive the axis of
this gyroscope as making a complete rotation each 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09
seconds or one sidereal day. In other words, the gyro is holding its position constantly
to all those fixed stars.
Why?
George Berkeley, Ernst Mach and a host of others firmly all believed that there must be
some unknown force between the rest of the universe...the fixed stars...and these gyro
devices causing the gyro, the pendulum, vibrating things, and today some lasers and
some super-cooled elements to behave like this. Einstein himself started out believing
this too but later...about 1927...he felt differently about this. Once people see this
theory is correct, then they will realize Einstein's change of heart, and later thinking
the universe was expanding, was his "biggest blunder" and not his "cosmological
constant" that he thought, at the time, was his "biggest blunder".
Einstein's "cosmological constant" was not a blunder: It is here to stay.
Most people reading this will have a strong belief in an expanding universe. In this you
will see some of the reasons for this belief. I, once upon a time, also believed in an
expanding universe. I no longer think of it using this terminology because relativity
has proven that this aspect of it can drastically change for different observers and,
besides, now our "A" laws show you exactly what is really going on. Please examine all
the evidence in here before you slack off reading this. In some respects while it may
seem to be an expanding universe from one particular point of view, you will see as
you read on, it will definitely not seem to be an expanding universe from the overall
entire universe's point of view and it is this point of view that we must aspire to if
we want to achieve a grand unified theory. But let's get back now to the gyroscope and
the fixed stars.
While present science doesn't even give us the foggiest idea of what this force might
be that holds these gyroscopes to the fixed stars, this new theory most certainly does.
What Berkeley saw...long before Jean Foucault essentially proved Berkeley's position by
demonstrating the rotation of the earth with his celebrated 200 foot long
pendulum...was that this gyroscopic precession at ninety degrees to the applied force
could also be explained if the fixed stars were trying to keep that portion of the
spinning gyroscope's rim in its new found path now that it had been shifted by some
external force. What Berkeley correctly saw has now been all but lost by present day
scientists who think of this precession as nothing more than a ninety degree shift in
gyro torque for the applied force. They completely fail to see...what Berkeley saw...its
connection with the rest of the universe.
The majority of my present scientific peers claim that the gyroscope does this merely
because this is what it intrinsically will do. I'm afraid that this answer simply will
not do. Your present science lacks the ability to show you why the
gyroscope holds to all the fixed stars and this is a fact no one can deny.
The majority of scientists will eventually get it right one of these days but the
problem is that it takes them such a long time to get such things as this right. We'll
come back again to these gyros later.
About 1820 in France, Andre Ampere...who had mastered all the math of that age by the
time he was 12 years old and who the "amp" is named after...constructed the first
electrical measuring instrument ever made and gave us one of the very first
magnetic-electrical rules.
About this same period of time, across the water in England, Michael Faraday...who was
not a mathematician...gave us his electrical rules.
Incidentally much later, in honor of Faraday, the scientific world named the farad the
unit of capacitance.
Faraday thought he could unify the fields of gravity and magnetism and even suffered
depression when he failed.
Now came a juxtaposition of sorts because the world accepted Faraday's rules and
used these instead of Ampere's laws because Faraday's rules were found to be more
suitable when adapting to the mathematics of the day.
Well, in hindsight it turns out this was the wrong fork of the road to turn down for
unification because it ensured that as you constructed your science empire on
Faraday's rules, you lost your chance of being able to easily unify these four
fundamental invisible forces of magnetism, gravity and the strong and weak force.
I'll give you a good example by asking you to consider the following: Without looking at
any other references, tell me in which direction...clockwise or counterclockwise...as
you look down at the north pole of a magnet, which way all the electrons are spinning
that are causing this magnetism. 1 Correction. R.Grace
The answer is clockwise.
However, very few people will immediately know this because Faraday's lines of force
totally obscure this. Ampere's laws, on the other hand, do not use lines of force and
once Ampere's laws are perfected and adapted they even disclose not only this spin
presence but also this clockwise direction of spin rotation.
Magnetism, Niels Bohr proved, is caused by the electron's spin and the direction of the
electron's spin rotation determines the direction of magnetism. 1 Correction. R.Grace
The same way Faraday's rules hide the electron's rotation from you, they also hide
unification from you as well, because they show you things they shouldn't and they
don't show you things they should. It's as simple as that.
Therefore, this is the reason that I said mathematics...our trusty sword...ended up
cutting us badly instead of cutting out all the vegetation that prevented us from
seeing all those unification road signs.
In addition, that wasn't the only wrong fork of the road we turned down either.
Einstein and Bohr argued over which fork of the road to take and here I have to state
this was the second wrong fork in the road toward unification that we took.
It's indeed true that Bohr finally, totally eclipsed Einstein and everyone agrees that
Einstein's attempt, in his later years, to unify the four fundamental forces of gravity,
magnetism and the strong and weak forces was a complete failure. However, that does
not mean this was the wrong road to take. I'll prove to you herein that it was the
correct road leading to unification of those four fundamental invisible forces.
You cannot get to unification unless you go down both the Ampere and Einstein forks of
the road.
Having said all that, I also must state that we would not have all the material things
in this world that we have today had we not taken the Faraday and Bohr forks of the
road.
James C. Maxwell's equations worked beautifully with Faraday's picture of things and
as soon as Heinrich Hertz clarified Maxwell's equations then radio took off like a
storm. It grew about as fast as this computer revolution is growing today.
The same thing happened on the Bohr fork of the road where first QED (Quantum
Electrodynamics) then QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) were formed. Then the fields
of magnetism and the weak force were mathematically unified and from that came the
standard model.
And if we had not gone down these two wrong forks of the road then I would never have
noticed all these well hidden road signs and you would not have this simple big picture
answer to unification before you now.
So we probably had to go down those wrong forks of the road anyway to get the
answer.
Never-the-less if you want unification, you have to completely backtrack and take the
Ampere-Einstein road because no easily understandable grand unified theory is to be
found down the Faraday-Bohr road.
Both Dirac and Einstein have to be credited with believing that the human mind could
conceive of a better answer than present science was offering. Both believed
scientists could find out "what was behind it all". And this is the road you have to
take. Bohr quit this Dirac-Einstein road and moved full time into quantum mechanics'
magic math manipulations just a slight bit too early. So you can't take Bohr's magical
math road here because, as you will see later, this is a subset dead end road. Einstein
believed the answer was simple and Dirac believed the answer was complicated but
some approximation would come along to allow us to understand it. Both Einstein and
Dirac, in a way, will be proven right for trying to find out what was behind it all. Both
will also be proven right for sensing we had to travel down the intuition road a bit
further to achieve unification.
Einstein failed in his attempt to unify the four fundamental forces and Bohr eventually
failed too when he tried to use his modified centrifugal force to obtain the spectral
lines in atoms more massive than the single electron hydrogen atom.
Today's "in-group" claims that Bohr's work was all coincidental because he did not
really derive these various spectral lines but he imposed what he wanted on to his
model. This may indeed be true but what if this modified centrifugal force that he
used, to obtain the spectral lines of the single electron atoms of hydrogen and helium,
was indeed the true, new centrifugal force caused by the changed surroundings in the
microcosm around those electrons?
That is precisely what this new theory is stating.
The mere fact that Bohr did obtain the spectral lines for the single electron hydrogen
atom but then couldn't for the more massive atoms shows you that centrifugal force
was different with the different surroundings: This is the whole crux of this entire
thesis because you know that magnets can be produced by either strong magnets or an
electric current in their surroundings. On top of this, both George Berkeley and Ernst
Mach claimed our surroundings were likewise causing our inertia: You will see, as you
read this, that they were both absolutely right about this too. If this is true then
centrifugal force would indeed have also changed with the different surroundings and
Bohr therefore may indeed have found the new, true centrifugal force to use to
match all those spectral lines in the single electron hydrogen and helium atoms.
We know that we are dependent on the microcosm staying more or less the same but
are we also dependent on the macrocosm (things exterior to us) remaining the same
too?
What type of a universe is this where surroundings are this important to change not
only the magnetic field but also centrifugal force and to actually cause inertia as
well? Keep reading and you'll find out.
With both of these failures of Einstein to unify the four fundamental forces and of
Bohr to match the spectral lines in the more massive atoms, are to be found the gems
of those hidden road signs that point out all the correct roads to take.
Stop and think! What are these things telling you?
In the case of Einstein, I understood Hilbert's warning that told me it was definitely
not a unified field. Instead...providing we adopt universal laws and terms...we can,
therefore, very well have an extremely simple unified principle if this is
basically an all wave universe, which everything so far seems to indicate it is.
I was indoctrinated into radio theory by my father at an early age and soon saw the
microcosm was all waves but much later to my astonishment I found the wave aspect,
including of all things impedance matching, was in the macrocosm as well. This, to a
veteran of all of these things, was extremely hard to believe.
In the case of Bohr's use of centrifugal force, this told me that something in these
more massive atoms are proving...beyond a shadow of a doubt too...that centrifugal
force is changing with the surroundings which it would do if both Mach and Berkeley
were right. So therefore centrifugal force is merely a subset rule: It is not a global
universal law such as you think it is.
Not only is centrifugal force a subset force but so are your four fundamental forces as
well. In chapter 5 you will see that our new extremely simple "A" Laws completely
replace, not only the four fundamental forces, but all your old subset invisible forces.
Not only that but you end up with the following.
* All the forces have a common origin.
* All the forces have identical properties.
Einstein failed because there is indeed an extremely simple unified principle with
unified "A" laws and special terms for these laws but there is no single, particle type,
unified field. There is a big difference between a unified principle and a unified field
and you will see why we can have one without the other.
In addition to all this, as you probably already know, none of your scientific rules work
in the microcosm. All your scientific rules must be kept out of the microcosm and
above that magic level of Planck's constant.
The only things that work below the level of Planck's constant are the gauge theories
of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the essential tool scientists use to
predict are local gauge invariance which gives the theory a type of symmetry that
governs the math.
You have to ask yourself why our scientific rules cannot be used in the microcosm and
our "A" Laws will show you why.
Both local gauge invariance and therefore this symmetry change drastically with
spin/orbit particle-frequency levels: For instance, you have different gauge
invariance and symmetry in QCD than you have in QED and, of course, a different
symmetry means that you use different math in QCD than you do in QED.
You use QCD to study quarks. You use QED to study the behavior of the electrons that
build up the various atoms.
Later our "A" Laws will make it perfectly obvious to you why this must be this way.
Here's the advantage of the "A" Laws: While quantum theory divides up the study of
quarks and electrons into QCD and QED respectfully, the "A" Laws also divide all
particle levels into something similar to quantum mechanics' local gauge theories
except by using the "A" Laws you use the same laws and same terminology for each
different spin/orbit particle-frequency level.
At this point the reader will question this and say that if you use the same laws and
same terminology then you don't need different levels.
Ah, but you do because each different wave-particle level will be at an entirely
different spin/orbit-frequency and this my good friends is primarily a wave and
frequency universe.
This is another hidden quantum mechanics' road sign all covered over with vines and
leaves.
Not only are surroundings important but it's the matching
spin/orbit-frequencies of these surroundings that are tremendously
important.
Please remember that just as your radio or television can only tune into
one frequency spectrum at a time, your mind also can only tune into one
frequency spectrum at a time. You simply cannot see this entire universe
at once. In this universe deck of cards, you can only see one card at a time
just as you can only get one station at a time on your radio or TV. Your
mind is no different from your radio or TV in this respect.
Superstring and Quantum mechanics are telling you this is really a wave and
frequency universe.
One other extremely important reason that you must have this division into separate
spin/orbit levels is that you must define a place of rest. You can no longer afford
to forget this mandatory place of rest. This place of rest only exists, at one
spot, on a certain geodesic so you must specify which geodesic, therefore you must
specify which spin/orbit-frequency level.
These hidden Quantum mechanics' QED and QCD road signs are pointing out
to you that only one specific place of rest is allowed for each card in this
universe deck of cards. In other words you must have separate cards for
each separate particle-frequency level.
This is why...as in quantum theory...things must be separated into different
spin/orbital particle-frequency levels because the surroundings are different for
every spin/orbit-frequency level. In this theory, surroundings and the frequencies of
these spins and orbits are the key to inertial qualities.
You'll see later exactly how this all works.
Since these wave-particle levels are all subset particle levels then what information
you have for one wave-particle level is worthless in another level: You can't use
information in one and move it to another just the same as information in QED can not
be directly used in QCD in quantum mechanics. From this, you can see the reason QCD
must be different from QED and the reason is simple: It is a difference of spin/orbital
frequency and different surroundings.
Now I may lose some quantum people reading this as I use that above statement.
If you are still onboard after that pronouncement then look at this next one.
The universe you think you have is nothing like the universe you really have.
Here's what you really have: Quantum theory divides up things into local gauge theories
so that QED is for looking at electrons and QCD is for looking at quarks and the strong
force that govern quarks.
But the "A" Laws divide up all spin/orbit levels into distinct spin/orbit-frequency
levels and by doing so gravity can be easily added to the unification scheme. So with
the "A" Laws you now have the electron spin/orbit frequency level and the higher
frequency quark spin/orbit-frequency level, the same as quantum theory but then to
get the gravitational forces, you must add the possible proton-neutron
spin/orbit-frequency level; solar system spin/orbit-frequency level; galaxy
spin/orbit-frequency level; Virgo super-cluster spin/orbit-frequency level and this
may even go on. The gravity wave, I'm afraid, is a modulated long wave (Solar
System?) modulated by waves of a great many diverse extra long and ultra long waves
(Galaxy and Virgo super-cluster?) of even lower frequencies. But the beauty of
these "A" Laws is this: All laws and terminology for each distinct
spin/orbit-frequency level are the same. Even though you are still stuck like quantum
theory with different sections, now you have the same laws and terms for all the
sections so you can readily see how they all join together and this is much harder to
presently do in quantum mechanics that uses different laws and terms for the
different gauge theories. Even without the help of math yet, these pages should be a
big help to you in seeing what's really going on and later with correct utilization of
the proper math, this new theory will give this world big changes in science.
Because now we have to take the surroundings into consideration, we do not have the
computers yet that can fully utilize this new knowledge. But with this new
information we can mathematically now definitely incorporate gravity into quantum
theory. While this essentially is unification in some respects. It is not the best
achievable method of unification that you will eventually have using these "A" Laws
properly together with future super-computers.
Therefore I repeat, in this Theory you will find that using our new "A" Laws:
* All the forces have a common origin.
* All the forces have identical properties.
(We need to work on the required mathematical symmetries.)
I hope with this statement that I haven't lost a lot more readers.
If all this is a bit too much for you then don't worry even one little bit. Just remember
that each permanent wave-particle level will require something similar to an entirely
different gauge theory because each different permanent particle level will have a
different symmetry governing its equations because each spin/orbit-frequency level
will have far different surroundings as governed by our forthcoming "A" Laws.
I use the terms particle-frequency level or spin/orbit-frequency level to be
essentially the "A" Law equivalent of the quantum theory systems requiring local
gauge theory.
We certainly end up with considerably more levels than quantum mechanics but we
come out a bit better than having to use quantum theory's different terminologies
because instead, now we are able to use the same laws and terms in all
spin/orbit-frequency levels and, of course, we can include gravity this way where
quantum theory simply cannot.
And my friends you have just learned...later I'll show you more about this...something
that many scientists might not be fully aware of yet: You will always have
different subset rules...a different local gauge theory...for every different
permanent spin/orbit-frequency level discovered.
Why?
Because of their surroundings according to our "A" Laws. Mach and Berkeley were
correct: Each different particle level has a different frequency border on each side of
it. Each different wave-particle level has an entirely different microcosm and
macrocosm. Yes, I'm afraid these are the things that our "A" Laws will show you
determine a different local gauge invariance. Therefore, there will be a different
symmetry of equations and different inertial qualities for each different spin/orbit
particle-frequency level.
A particle can not even remain a particle unless its surroundings are correct. You'll
see exactly why later when we get into the "A" Laws. While protons seemingly last
forever by themselves, neutrons simply cannot: Neutrons must have protons in their
close proximity to survive. Once a neutron is pulled out of the nucleus, it can only last
about ten minutes before it decays into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino by the
beta decay process. So this is telling you surroundings are important for particle
stability. You will see in chapter 5 and 18 why the neutron needs the proton for
stability.
You will see exactly why surroundings cause inertia when we get into our "A" Laws.
Because our surroundings in the macrocosm are homogeneous and isotropic in the large
(spread out evenly over space and time) then our present high priests of science seem
to be correct when they inform us our surroundings most likely do not cause inertia.
But if our surroundings were not so evenly spread out all around us then we would have
seen long ago that these priests of science were wrong and Mach and Berkeley were
right and our macrocosm was causing this inertia that we feel.
Einstein's special and general relativity are far different creatures from Bohr's
quantum mechanics. I shouldn't really call it Bohr's quantum mechanics because Planck
and Einstein really started it, but Bohr took it over and made it his. Einstein hated it
going in the direction that Bohr took it too, and Einstein did not hesitate to voice his
opinion about that either.
Einstein always wanted exact answers and you can see in both special and general
relativity that you always get exact answers.
Not so in quantum mechanics though, where you sometimes only get a high probability
that something will happen.
To see the big picture you do not have to be an expert in either relativity or quantum
mechanics but you do have to understand basically what gauge invariance and
symmetry are all about. This much of quantum theory is extremely important.
Gauge invariance...also sometimes called "eich" invariance...is the distinctive manner in
which that particular system always reacts to something.
Symmetry is more or less the symmetric way everything is being built at that
particular level and this can...most of the time...best be described mathematically: Say
for instance your child builds an octagon with Tinker Toys. If this octagon is rotated
45 degrees on the table, the transformation ends up with the octagon not being
changed: You could therefore say these items built with Tinker Toys will all have a
certain symmetry of construction. If another child builds a square building out of Lego
blocks, and this is rotated 90 degrees, on the table, it will have the same appearance
after the 90 degree transformation: So these things he builds out of Lego blocks will
all have a certain type symmetry of construction that will have a different description
mathematically from the items that are built out of Tinker Toys.
* Quantum mechanics, together with these "A" Laws, is showing you...beyond any
doubt...that each particle level has its own distinct style of local gauge invariance.
Therefore, each particle level has its own distinctive type of symmetry as well.
Each particle-level will therefore...in this new theory...have its own
distinctive type of inertial qualities.
There is a distinction between our inertia and the other non-quark
particles that will all also display inertial qualities. Chapter 13 covers inertia.
If you use the correct common terms and our new "A" Laws then you can improve upon
the quantum mechanics' system of entirely different rules and terminology for each
distinct spin/orbit-frequency level or local gauge theory.
You can substitute and then use the same "A" Laws and the same terms for each
spin/orbit-frequency level.
If you forget all else about what quantum mechanics is telling you then please
remember this because this is important. This is one of those prevalent road signs
that they all could easily see but somehow couldn't exactly understand.
You could say quantum mechanics started when Max Planck discovered that all
radiation energy waves are given off in individual chunks or quanta. For instance your
eye needs at least 11 of these individual quantum chunks of light coming from a
distant star before your eye can see that star. Some animals can even see things with
less than 11 quanta of light emanating from them. If your eyes were eleven times as
sensitive as they now are then you would actually see each individual quantum of light
and those stars that you now see as relatively steady might then even seem to be
flickering on and off and look like sparkling bubbles in a sky of champagne.
Einstein immediately saw the importance of what Planck discovered, and Einstein dug
the foundation for quantum mechanics by giving us the first quantified particle, the
photon.
The problem with all of these new discoveries was that none of these things were
predicted or even should be happening according to this 19th-century world of science
as this new 20th-century unfolded...and by the way, we are still using all this
15th-century to 19th-century science accumulation, as our science foundation, today.
Einstein proved...using methods all scientists agreed with...that if a man in a super fast
train passed by a man standing near the tracks then when this man standing saw two
simultaneous lightning flashes then the man inside the train would have to see the
lightning flash in front of the train first, before he saw the one in the rear of the
train.
This essentially meant that time for the super fast moving man was not the same as
time for the man standing still.
This was all too much for the majority of the people at that time, and I remember a
World Book encyclopedia that my father bought for us about the time of the Second
World War and it went out of its way to say that this was not a theory that Einstein
was putting forth: It was only a hypothesis which they then emphasized was far less
than a full theory.
Einstein was the first to show us we now have a problem with time as well as space.
The big revelation that Olbers' Paradox showed us was that space was not uniform. If
space was uniform all throughout then we could not possibly have Olbers' Paradox and
all this starlight would indeed blind us. The tensor math of general relativity is
designed to give us a more accurate prediction of gravity in those more massive or
higher speed situations where Newton's laws entirely break down. One simple
explanation of Olbers' Paradox according to general relativity, considering we have a
quasi steady-state universe, would be that space is not uniform: It gets curved more
around massive stars and more space than usual gets super densely packed around all
these massive stars that we see in the night sky. So all that light gets lost in all that
extra densely packed space around those stars before it can even get to us.
This would be one way of answering what is happening but there may be a better
concept of explaining this as well.
While curved space may be the answer given by general relativity, you will see some
additional clarification to this concentrated light loss around the stars and the
concentrated area of charge close to the electron...in this new theory...which will be
given in chapter 15. "Proof of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence using these
"A" Laws" that you will find toward the end of this book.
What you have to realize is that these massive stars...such as our sun...begin to act on
light and begin to act like black holes restricting a certain percentage of their light to
us somewhat before they get so extensively massive that all their light is prevented
from coming to us. You get a certain amount of water vapor evaporation well before
the boiling point of water and you also get a certain amount of light loss well before
the black hole point as well. It does not work like a light switch where, at a
certain black hole density, you snap the switch and 100% of the light
suddenly goes out: It starts diminishing gradually even before this. This can
be seen in the galaxies as well: Far more light comes to us from the less dense outer
portions of the various galaxies than from the far more dense inner central portions.
This theory, you will see later, explains it as wider "angular lock on" along with
general relativity's more curved space: It's essentially the same thing really but adding
a little different twist that seems to me to be a bit more acceptable to the average
human mind.
Another term you will see is the "blitzseit" (defined in chapter 4) which together
with "angular lock on" (defined in chapter 15) can be used along with Einstein's
curved space to give you a much better and fuller picture of how and why this tensor
math of general relativity works as well as it does. Later you will realize, using both
of these terms, that you can plainly see why gravity always increases with
aggregation but light acts reciprocally and diminishes around super massive objects.
Personally, I like to look at it picturing Einstein's curved space as actually causing
"angular lock on" than simply using the curved space concept by itself but I'll mostly
refer to it as curved space herein because this is more or less the generally accepted
terminology.
The electron's charge is tightly and densely concentrated right around the electron in a
very similar manner as this light loss is concentrated around all the stars. You can see
this when you hit something with a hammer. When you hit a piece of steel or a nail
with a hammer, nothing touches really. The atoms in the hammer and the steel or nail
both have a swarm of electrons around them and these electrons never really touch
each other. What you feel, when the hammer hits, is this tightly packed area of charge
concentrated right around every electron.
Remember, no electrons touched, so nothing touched: What you felt was "action at a
distance" or concentrated wave action in the hammer electrons acting against other
concentrated wave action in the steel or nail electrons.
But this is our main problem because we have all been brought up to entirely discount
this "action at a distance" or concentrated wave action and instead we substitute our
subset idea of two distinct particles colliding which we know is essentially not true
because nothing actually touches. Those exterior electrons of both the hammer and the
steel or nail simply do not ever touch each other. Since we know this, then why not
simply attribute this entire colliding action to "action at a distance" and the reaction
to the collision as to the underlying wave action from which it really stems?
If charge was uniform all throughout then when you hit a piece of steel or a nail with a
hammer it would feel as if you were hitting something softer.
Therefore, the way charge gets concentrated around these electrons is similar to the
way general relativity explains that space is curved and concentrated around all these
stars giving us the answer that Olbers never found.
To top all this off Einstein went on to prove it is not space and it is not time but it is
really space-time.
Space changes and time changes but the average overall space-time interval never
changes in each individual spin/orbit-frequency level nor does it change in this system
of ours. (Those underlined, clarifying words are extremely important.)
In relativity, we find the space-time interval is similar to the hypotenuse of a right
triangle with space being one side and time being the other.
If the hypotenuse always stays the same length, you can make the time side larger but
then the space side becomes shorter. If you make the space side longer, the time side,
of the triangle. must get shorter.
Einstein showed us this then he moved into another area and showed us that E=MC2.
In the half century since Einstein died no one has been able to figure out what kind of a
universe setup this can possibly be where space can be packed around all these stars
much like charge is packed tightly around all these electrons. On top of that, time and
space changes and energy can be converted into mass. Moreover, topping that off now
with Fitzpatrick's theory you have the surroundings entering into all of this and
complicating things even more.
And this person writing this says he has an extremely simple answer to all of this?
Come on!
3. One more even worse problem
Back to Contents
Gšdel's proof, some feel, is only a mathematical entity that has nothing much
whatsoever to do with our real world.
To those who think that way I will now quote these few words, informing them about
Gšdel's proof, from the 1997 Britannica CD:
"This proof has become a hallmark of 20th-century mathematics, and its repercussions
continue to be felt. . ."
Incidentally, I like the 1997 Britannica CD better than the in-house browser types
that came after it and I like it even better than my new Britannica 2000 DVD because
the 1997 CD uses Netscape Navigator and I can enlarge the font sizes...important to us
old timers...and it can be also used on the Mac and there are many more options with
it as well.
If I could add to that 1997 CD quotation, I would simply say that the preceding
Britannica description is a vast understatement because Gšdel's proof is eventually
going to bring down this complete science system used today. (This is being initially
published in the year 2000.)
Gšdel's proof does have everything to do with our present science set of rules and it
does this because...and I'll continue to show this to you herein...our science is built
upon subset rules and our present rules of science are anything but universal global
laws.
If centrifugal force was a global universal law then Bohr would not have had to modify
it before he took it below the level of Planck's constant, and he would also have been
able to take it to the more massive atoms as well...but he couldn't.
We can't take any of our scientific rules or even very many of our scientific terms
down into the microcosm below that magic level of Planck's constant.
We are forced to use only gauge invariance with the resulting math symmetry in the
microcosm.
So this means what?
This means that since both your scientific terminology and your scientific rules do not
work everywhere at any speed and with any mass, without being corrected, then
they most certainly are subset terms and rules and are both subject to Gšdel's proof.
Gšdel's proof tells you this: If you somehow are trapped entirely within any subset
system then you might never know if all the laws you have built for this system are
really true or not.
So this pertains to all of us here on earth because we are most certainly trapped here
within our subset system. If there is no way we can even peer out far enough into the
microcosm or macrocosm, then we might never be able to see if all our highly prized
scientific rules are absolutely true global universal laws or not.
Once you see that our scientific rules cannot be carried into the microcosm, and on top
of that you have to keep correcting your present science rules with Einstein's
relativity corrections all the time, then this tells you there is a real problem here
indeed with our science being true global universal science.
You know from quantum mechanics that you do have this thing called local gauge
invariance so there is one option open to you. Today's science guild is not going to like
it one bit, but I'm afraid that they will have to buy into it eventually.
You have the option of downgrading all your thousands of years of accumulated
scientific rules and terms.
You can downgrade them from supreme global importance to something similar to local
gauge invariance and merely treat them as rules for this particular proton-neutron
particle level in a similar way to what's presently being done in quantum mechanics.
You would then have:
* QED subset rules for local gauge invariance and symmetry for the electron particle
level.
* QCD subset rules for local gauge invariance and symmetry for the quark particle
level.
* Our old science rules transformed into subset rules for this proton-neutron
particle level, which is the closest microcosm level that begins to enter our science
rules world.
You must treat each one of those above levels as a single card in a group of cards that
you are holding in your hands.
It must be treated similarly to QED and QCD in quantum mechanics.
You therefore cannot move either your rules or even much of your terminology from
card to card.
Our "A" Laws, later, should convince you that this is the correct reasoning.
I can hear the howls about this one.
This statement will lose me even more readers but at least they can't burn me at the
stake like they did Giordano Bruno or do to me what they did to Antoine Lavoisier.
Once upon a time, the great scientists of this world believed in phlogiston, a mystical
substance that sometimes supposedly weighed less than nothing. During this
phlogiston era came Antoine Lavoisier who produced a gas he called oxigine.
Lavoisier was the first person ever who saw that this oxygen in the air is the substance that
allows things to burn when they combine with it and in one fell swoop he, more than anyone
else, ended the phlogiston era. His country...forever thankful to him for this great
discovery...chopped his head off with the guillotine.
And my fellow reader, such is the world we live in.
But "not to worry": You are not a friend of the old French nobility nor are you
expressing any opinions or producing any new gas; you are just reading.
Getting back to our subject again, I have now tried to show you herewith that all your
science is subset science and subject to Gšdel's proof.
I strongly feel there is no doubt about this. All your present scientific rules and
terminology must be downgraded to a form of local gauge invariance and used that
way. Your basic science structure simply cannot be changed all the time with some
mathematical relativity corrections if you are using this same science foundation as
you try to use various mathematical endeavors to see how this entire universe works.
Therefore, it looks like things are so mystifying that I'm off to a really bad start.
Is this the same writer who promised you a simple big picture of this universe?
Why is he making things even more complicated?
Because I have to show you we have some major problems here with our present
science structure.
This science system has to be downgraded simply because it has been misleading you: I
don't mean misleading you in everyday life because it has given you a cheap, efficient,
mathematically 99.9% accurate system that in turn has provided you with better
production of things that you consider you absolutely need here on earth. I'm talking
about misleading you toward a Theory of Everything.
This present science system has given us miracles indeed in new things for us to buy
and new weapons that the military cannot live without. I'm not telling you not to use
your present science system. If you have a car that is running then, certainly, make use
of it but this does not prevent you from looking for a better car.
Yes, this present science system is a mathematically simple and wonderful system
and a very, very efficient system math-wise compared to what you will need if and
when you do shift to this new system that I'm advising. We do not even have computers
yet that are good enough to process the massive amount of information that will
eventually be needed to properly work out problems in this new science that I'm
portraying herein: This is a far, far, far more complicated universe than most
presently suspect. Only the big picture is easier to see. Once you bring in all the
surroundings into the picture then the new math becomes simply tremendous. After
you see these "A" Laws, you'll see why I say this.
Because the math in Fitzpatrick's system will be so extensive, the speed of
computers will have to go up much, much more and the price per computation will have
to come down much, much lower than it is now before this new system will be
economically feasible. When computers do become good enough though then this new
system will allow the people using it to produce close to the strongest metal alloys
that will ever be produced; the lightest and strongest aluminum or whatever alloys
that will ever be produced; the best lubricants that will ever be produced; the best
weapons that will ever be produced and so on and so forth. You will begin a new age
once you change over to this system of science with the forthcoming future faster and
more efficient computers.
This, however, does not mean that you have to wait until that day to see a splendid,
3D, full color, big picture of everything and it doesn't mean the big picture is hard to
see: It isn't. It only means that the math is going to be quite a bit harder.
What these disciplines of relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring are telling
you is that your present science system is only good here on earth at this
proton-neutron particle level and what Gšdel's proof is telling you is that neither you
nor this science guild will even know this unless everyone sticks their heads out of
their present science shells and looks for these hidden road signs.
The human mind developed inside this closed, subset system here on earth where it
felt it was at rest. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for sticking his head out
and saying we were not at rest here on the earth and Galileo...who had far more
powerful friends...barely escaped that same fate but instead was put under house
arrest for the rest of his life after saying the earth moved and then recanted this in
public so he could save his life.
This "idea" you incorrectly have, of being "at rest" when you most certainly are not,
must absolutely be "defined" and pin pointed to a certain spot in this new theory. We
can no longer afford to be as lax in such things, as is sloppily allowed, in your present
science. Isn't this a road sign that quantum theory has put forth but that is now hidden
by all the weeds?
Whether it was the Catholic Church ruling in those days of Bruno and Galileo or
whether it is this "in-crowd" of scientists that rules today, the results for sticking
your head out and publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is the same: Your head gets
chopped off, only it's now done quietly financially instead of on the public square
brutally.
Many hundreds of years have passed since Bruno and Galileo, yet all your present
science still deals with things at rest or at certain speeds when you know full well
nothing in this universe is at rest and speed gets changed with relativity corrections
and indeed even gets limited, so this is proof there is a problem with speed as well.
When you know, full well, there is something basically wrong with these two terms
"at rest" and "speed" then if both of these present science foundation stones are
flaky, this is also telling you something is basically unsound with your present
science structure isn't it?
Gšdel's proof is telling you that you can design a certain subset science and even
refine the math for it and 100% of the people will be deceived by it just so long as
they never come into contact with something that points out the ineffectiveness of
that certain science.
Quantum theory, along with special and general relativity, is now bringing you into
contact with different science-religions aren't they?
They are: And those science-religions are just as good as yours are now that yours has
been downgraded.
You must therefore keep your science world downgraded to just another local gauge
theory.
It must be held within certain parameters.
It needs a big red warning label on it saying:
WARNING...Use only on earth for measuring things at this proton-neutron
particle level and use only at low speeds and at low mass.
In this next paragraph and throughout this text I use the word "see" in quotes to
indicate how that particular system would actually see it if it had eyes like you
have.
Don't lose hope because now with common terms and our "A" Laws, we can replace all
of the quantum mechanics local gauge theories terms and rules with these same "A"
Laws and their terms. So we can essentially unify all the local gauge theories with
our common terms and "A" Laws.
Our science rules are only 99.9% correct because you will see from our "A" Laws that
this universe is a frequency universe and it is highly dependent on certain frequencies.
You will see that spinning and orbiting particles get "tuned in" to their surroundings
and thus derive their inertial qualities from similar items also "tuned in" to the
same identical spin/orbit-frequency: This will be the spin/orbit frequency
bandwidth at that particle level. We are built out of several types of particles that
have more than one type of surroundings according to our "A" Laws. Our atoms are built
up of two distinct types of particles. Since these two distinct particles will "see"
their own distinct types of macrocosm frequency spin/orbit bandwidths then you will
have to view the inertial qualities of each from that particle's spin/orbit-frequency
bandwidth viewpoint. You will never be able to see all the inertial qualities of a
particle correctly unless you view them from that particles own local gauge system's
(local gauge theory's) frequency spin/orbital bandwidth viewpoint. Don't worry
about the frequency aspect of it now, but I must include it here to make you aware of
what's coming. We happen to be composed of both the heavier proton-neutron type
particles and the much less massive electron. Later I will show you that we "see"
the electron as less massive, but what we are measuring and calling the electron's
mass is only its "lock on" to the proton's subharmonic frequency. This is only a portion
of the electron's true inertial qualities. You will see later using our new "A" Laws that
much of the electron's inertial properties have to come from its sister electrons of
the same exact spin/orbit-frequency in its surroundings, but we see these inertial
qualities of the electron displayed to us...in our lower spin/orbit frequency
level...as either light, velocity, magnetism or charge.
Only after you downgrade all your science to spin/orbit-frequency levels can you
understand why Werner Heisenberg could not get both the electron's velocity and its
momentum at the same time.
Once you downgrade to a type of local gauge invariance then you realize that other
systems' viewpoints have as much weight as yours do because these are all subset
viewpoints now.
Coming up are an extremely simple powerful set of laws...more powerful than
anything science has yet properly utilized...that will show you exactly how this entire
universe is operating "from this universe's point of view".
When you use these new "A" Laws then you will see both our proton-neutron viewpoint
and the electron's viewpoint: They are quite different.
This is the essence of this theory. Your brain knows this subset system best because it
was developed here. Since you know there are other subset systems then try to find
the common denominators in all of these. Use only these common denominators and
then you will better understand each subset system you look at. Yes, you are limited:
Your mind is designed in such a way that you can only look at one subset system at a time but
if your mind is designed so you cannot see the full deck of cards at once then at least this way
you can see one card at a time and after seeing a few cards then you will have a better idea of
what the full deck looks like even though you will never be able to completely see all of it at
once. Later we'll look at this as being a major part of the reason for the
Heisenberg-Bohr idea of complementarity.
When Heisenberg viewed the electron's velocity he had to be viewing it from our
proton-neutron's viewpoint because we see it as having velocity but...like you...the
electron surprisingly "sees" itself at rest. Remember, in this new theory you have
separate frequency cards and a separate place of rest in each of those spin/orbit
frequency cards. (I want to remind you again that I've put the "sees" in quotes because
we really know the electron has no eyes but I'm sure you understand what I mean even though
this would not get by if published by any of the science guild's regular publishers.)
You'll see later that when Heisenberg measured the electron's momentum he was
looking at it more from the electron's viewpoint. From our viewpoint using our place of
rest, the electron's behavior is seen as either velocity, light, magnetism or charge.
Heisenberg could not get the velocity from the electron's viewpoint because an
electron, especially one that is on an orbital geodesic, views itself as having no
velocity and being at rest the same as you think you are at rest all the time as you sit
on this earth as it stays on a geodesic orbit around the sun.
With this next description of the geodesic, you will begin to see how surroundings
enter this picture.
A geodesic is a path where the item in orbit is perfectly balanced between the item or
items it revolves around and its macrocosm.
Nothing is really at rest in this universe but the closest to being at rest in this theory
is traveling on an orbital geodesic and this goes for you or planets or stars or even
electrons. This necessitates a different spin/orbit-frequency level for each
spinning orbiting entity. The "A" Laws will show you there is no way around this: So in
this theory each spinning orbiting entity gets its very own spin/orbit-frequency
level card but they still use the same "A" Laws and terminology as all the other
spin/orbit-frequency systems.
So much for the coming attractions. What you have to understand at this point...as this
chapter closes...is that your wonderful science system along with mostly all of its
terminology must be downgraded to a type of local gauge theory
spin/orbit-frequency card that uses common terms and common "A" Laws. This
way you can see each card and better understand the entire deck of cards.
Don't let all these bad problems worry you though. Just remember if you want a fast,
big picture of what is really going on then you had better keep reading.
This big, 3D picture does not compete with quantum mechanics or relativity. You use it
in conjunction with relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring.
I want to end this chapter with a couple of questions and then a thought and then a
statement.
Is it indeed possible that a well-known scientist could have inadvertently given us the
answer to unification and even this scientist was not aware of how important this
was?
And on top of that another question.
Could that answer have stayed right in front of the noses of all the best scientists in
this world for one hundred and forty-seven years before someone realized it was a
method whereby unification of these invisible fields could be accomplished?
Now, look at Gšdel's proof. It tells you that this is a distinct possibility.
Now I'll tell you something: This did indeed happen.
4. Local gauge invariance
Back to Contents
Quantum scientists have never discovered any type of global quantum mechanics' rules
for all types of particles. They have discovered that only rules for each separate local
particle system are reliable. There are only two things that are of such great
importance in quantum mechanics that you absolutely have to learn about them: They
are gauge invariance and symmetry. I would suggest using all the encyclopedia CDs
that you have and reading everything you can about those two and related subjects.
So far, scientists have only found local gauge invariance to be good: They haven't found
any valid universal global type of gauge invariance.
This is because they are dealing with particles and not waves. This entire universe is
basically all waves. You can be fairly well certain that there is such a thing as global
pure wave invariance because...as you'll see later...this must have given us the "big
bang" using the reasoning of this new theory. In quantum mechanics, pure energy
(waves) can be turned into particles but I'm afraid that the mere construction of
particles...where each different particle has different surroundings...prevents us from
ever having anything but something similar to local gauge invariance as far as
particles are concerned: This is because surroundings determine inertial qualities and
different frequency surroundings cause different inertial qualities. Therefore, you
will never find any genuine global universal type of particle gauge invariance.
But I have discovered something almost as good: What I have found is that you can
translate and reduce your present science terminology to a common language that
every "eich" or local gauge system understands. Then...even though there is no such
thing as a genuine global unified field...you now will have the ability to look at each
subset local gauge system, including our own, and see how each of these subset
systems works using the same terms and principles for each local gauge system. You
will understand all of this as you read on.
You might be able to have a unified field theory if you dealt solely in waves and left
particle theory entirely out of it. This is a wave universe. Unfortunately, your mind
has been developed in a particle world that most scientists do not yet know is only a
subset world. So the human mind is condemned to working in this subset world of
these particle-frequencies that are in this octave or so of particle-frequencies in
which we find ourselves. We are thus limited to frequencies with which we find we
can interact.
So in all practicality you might say there definitely is no global unified field particle
law: The frequency aspect of our "A" Laws, where the particle world mixes with the
wave world, prevents this but there most certainly is one big global frequency and
wave picture.
* What you do have now are these "A" Laws and global terminology. So what you do is
substitute this much simpler global terminology for all your present science
terminology and then using these "A" Laws, 'presto', any spin/orbit-frequency system
fits like the correct puzzle piece beautifully into this entire global universe system
merely because now you are using the same terminology and "A" Laws in place of
different subset local gauge theories.
Later you'll get these wonderful "A" Laws: They will show you how each subset,
spin/orbit-frequency system functions "from the universe's global point of
view". You will then see that all your terminology must be translated into these few
global terms as well before you can work out things using these "A" Laws.
Remember, we have downgraded all our science, and its terminology as well, to a type
of local gauge invariance at this proton-neutron particle level. In addition, there is one
thing more: In 1922, Arthur Holly Compton showed that waves could act like particles.
In this, you will begin to see that all particles can be thought of as nothing more than
standing waves.
This statement will not be surprising to anyone working in the field of quantum
mechanics: They are all aware of this.
What will surprise them are the hidden road signs I've discovered especially in
superstring discipline.
Let's stop and put on our thinking caps: You have this universe now with all these
massive problems and on top of that I've just added another that you didn't even know
you had and I've downgraded all your science as well.
What kind of a universe setup gives us all these effects?
Remember that it has to give us every single thing we are observing in the disciplines
of special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics and superstring. On top of
that, it must also show you the reason why all your mathematical attempts at any
grand unified theory have led to nothing but failure.
The problem with people...scientists are people...is that they jump onto the latest
bandwagon that seems to be moving along fastest at that present time. My old, heavy,
book type 1967 Britannica uses the words, "as if by magic" to describe how the
answers come out of these mystical, mathematical manipulations of quantum
mechanics: Yes, they most certainly did appear magical long ago as people looked into
this frequency world of quantum mechanics. But you must understand that this magical
local gauge bandwagon can go only so far. Your magic, in quantum theory, suddenly runs
out when you shift to another completely different spin/orbit-frequency level as it did
in QED. Then you need to find another mystic set of rules that you can move into to get
your magical answers from that particular local gauge spin/orbit-frequency level such
as when QCD was developed. What the people in quantum mechanics haven't realized
yet is that there are far more levels than merely QED and QCD and when you bring in
these other levels then you bring gravity in as well. And you already know gravity uses
neither the rules of QED or QCD. Why not adopt the "A" Laws and use them for each of
these separate levels?
Since both quantum mechanics and your science rules are local gauge rules, I find it
hard to believe that anyone would try to first tackle a complicated mathematical
unification of these four invisible fundamental forces before they had some
conceptual, general big picture of what was really happening in this universe as a
whole.
This general big picture is here right now so why not look at it. When you see it then
you can compare it to the already unified fields of magnetism and the weak force and
to the standard model to see if it makes sense. Isn't that a fair enough approach?
Look, let's be realistic about this: Mach told you inertia was caused by our
surroundings. Surroundings are important to the electron and Bohr had to modify
centrifugal force a bit before he took it into the microcosm and then while it did work
in the single electron hydrogen atom, it did not work at all in the more massive atoms:
This tells us once more that surroundings are playing an important part in all of this
as well. If this is so then we would expect far different rules for each particle level
mainly because each level would have different surroundings: Now isn't this exactly
what we find we have here? The forthcoming extremely simple "A" Laws will give
you further proof of this.
There is only one possible type of setup that can do this: Superstring theory has put
out another road sign telling you how some of this is done too.
You do not need any such things as charge or magnetism to explain this either. It all
can be explained by simple inertial qualities of everything providing you look at
inertia correctly. You must realize that the all-important things here are the
following spin frequency, motion, orientation and inertial qualities of the
electron. These are common terms to all spin/orbit-frequency levels and these terms
become of paramount importance when explaining how either charge or magnetism
really works. It's positively all inertial qualities and nothing more than that when you
are observing things correctly. You use charge or magnetism most effectively
whenever you are restricted to your particular subset spin/orbit-frequency system but
never if you want to easily see unification.
For those of you who say you cannot look at things two different ways then I'd suggest
these people look at the four entirely different speeds being indicated on the front
panel to the crew of the modern jet airliner: These are airspeed, true airspeed, Mach
and ground speed. If the flight crew hasn't the least problem with these four
different ways of looking at their speed then why should you have problems with only
two different ways of looking at things in this universe? Now on to standing waves.
Erwin Schröedinger showed us that these discrete quanta, in quantum mechanics, could
also be represented by orbitals of discrete standing waves while de Broglie showed us
that particles themselves could be thought of as waves.
Compton also showed us particles act like waves. Quantum theory shows everything as
waves too. So the foundation of everything seems to be waves: The cornerstones of
resonances must be regular waves that are quickly absorbed and the foundations of
permanent particles must therefore be standing waves that remain and are not so
easily absorbed.
Superstring theory shows us that all particles can be seen as one dimensional 10-33
cm. (decimal point plus thirty-three zeros then 1) (Planck length) massless
strings with a different vibration for every different particle. And the way these
strings interact is exactly the way the particles interact as well. This is telling you
that all particles are nothing but waves of various frequencies.
Incidentally, while we are on the subject of superstring theory, you can combine this
new theory of Fitzpatrick's with superstring to explain the masses of the
particles which superstring itself doesn't presently do.
Quantum theory has proven to us that you can take pure energy and create particles
from this energy. While we know this to be absolutely true, our minds have a hard time
understanding such a thing and from this we learn a valuable lesson: Your mind can't
easily comprehend the all wave world in which pure energy can create particles. This
is done all the time in quantum mechanics. Your mind, however, can't easily understand
this because your mind was developed in a subset system. This tells me your mind
might not be able to visualize the entire global wave picture without super-computer
assist. But if you build up a series of subset pictures using the same laws and
same terminology then you can put all these subset pictures together...like you put
together a deck of cards...and get a pretty good global, 3D, color picture of what is
really going on in this entire universe even though your mind is still only a single card
type subset developed mind.
So while this may indeed be a wave universe, our minds, because of the different
local gauge time frames, see these things that the big bang produced...these
spherically encapsulated waves or wave trains...as particles and therefore we are
going to have to make use of some laws that incorporate this particle (or short
spherical wave train) aspect of these waves.
This means our "A" Laws will only fit one subset system at a time but this is all we
really need anyway, isn't it? If you can only see one card at a time, you can still get an
idea of what the entire deck of cards looks like together even though you may never be
able to see either the full deck or more than one card at a time. You will have to see
things as sort of both waves and particles but this will be better than no unification
at all, which is what we presently have.
Now, if a particle is a spinning standing wave entity...which we'll dig into later...then
all particles should be...in some way...similar and they are because they will all have
inertial qualities of some sort. What this means is that however small we can find
particles in this universe they will all show inertial qualities. I didn't say inertia. I
said inertial qualities: There is a difference. We will delve into this.
I intend to show you exactly what inertia is later and that is something no
one else on this earth right now can show you.
Now, if all particles are spinning standing waves and all are, in some sense, similar,
then where does this plus and minus charge come from? You can only have this element
of charge in an unbalanced spin situation: This is why you never see it when all the
spins are balanced such as in the noble gases. Charge is a manifestation of an almost
totally free electron's spin frequency and whether it remains free or becomes "locked".
Something must be "locked" into position before you can even have this aspect of
opposite charge. We will go into that in detail too later. Charge is a valid entity in
quantum mechanics and I am not questioning its use therein: I am merely going to show
you what it really consists of.
Now, if a "tuned circuit" tunes in to a particular frequency only, will a spinning
particle also tune in to another spinning particle spinning at the same frequency? The
answer is . . .
Before we answer this we have to look at what Max Planck discovered. You have a coil
on your car that gives you a spark for your spark plugs. In school, you learned about
transformer action where the voltage increases as a ratio of the turns on a
transformer's windings. Well, that's only part of the story. Max Planck discovered
there was a bit more to it than that. He found that frequency plays an even greater role
in all of this. It was known that frequency played a role but Max Planck gave us the
correct role. If you connect the primary of you car's coil to a 12-volt train
transformer then the secondary will read somewhat more than a thousand volts. It
takes twenty times this much voltage to fire a spark plug. The same coil-transformer
does provide twenty times this on your car. Where does this gigantic voltage increase
come from? Well, I saw this for the very first time on some of the ignition analyzers
that came out on the late model constellation aircraft...I know the super G model had it.
You could distinctly see the radio frequency jags given off by the coil and capacitor
"tuned circuit" that was placed across the ignition points. Remember, when these
points opened, a spark was created and sparks are in the radio frequency range. (The
very first Morse code radio transmitters were spark transmitters.) The capacitor, along
with the coil windings, creates a "tuned circuit" that keeps these radio waves resonating a
bit longer, more or less like a flywheel effect. Your 60 cycle train transformer switched the
coil on and off sixty times each second and got a bit over a thousand volts on the secondary
but your car "coil-capacitor" circuitry switches the coil on and off several hundred thousand
times a second (radio frequency) and gets twenty thousand volts. So it wasn't
transformer action that gave you all this voltage to fire your spark plugs: It was having the
correct capacitor and coil "tuned circuit" and using the much higher frequency
involvement that Max Planck discovered that made all the difference in getting
twenty times more of spark voltage that fired your spark plugs or sparking plugs to
my more British educated readers.
You can see the light from distant stars. These stars also give out heat like our sun but
you can't feel it. Why? Because, for one thing, light waves are at a much higher
frequency than heat waves and therefore generate a much higher voltage than heat
waves and we understand this because of Max Planck again. Even if we take the light
spectrum itself, we find that because the violet colors are at a higher frequency than
the red colors therefore each quantum of violet light has about twice the voltage
energy of a quantum of red light. Max Planck is behind it once more.
But Max Planck is showing you something far more important if you look for the hidden
road sign: Not only the electron can produce this high frequency feature of Planck's
constant but if you go anywhere in the spin/orbit-frequency spectrum of this entire
universe then from the lower spin/orbit-frequency level point of view it will always
"see" the higher spin/orbit-frequency spectrum...not acting quite like the electron of
course...but yet showing some aspect of not only Planck's approach to a solid as
frequency is increased but something similar to relativity as well.
Yes, you see the voltage increase of Planck's constant in the higher frequency things
and you see much higher frequency things than that as solids because your frequency
is so low now that your low frequency wave is modulating...transforming and
becoming a part of...these much higher frequency waves. But you will no longer see
these higher frequency waves as waves once you cross the threshold where the
spherical polarization change of these waves is faster than your "blitzseit" of time
can effectively note such polarization. These waves at this higher frequency now will
appear as a solid particle to you.
You must understand that as two frequencies get further and further apart, the
subharmonic "tuning" effect between the two gets less and less. What takes over then
is the modulation of the higher frequency wave by the lower frequency wave. Planck's
voltage increase is in the subharmonic tuning range and the solid stage is the final
modulation range. This is why you could say Planck's effect causes you to see things
approaching a solid as frequency keeps increasing. This is really a wave and frequency
universe all throughout and the spectrum is tremendous.
My description of this being a piano key universe should be seen as all these spin
orbit/frequency levels being a bit further apart frequency wise than regular piano
keys: They will be further out of that "tuned" frequency area and more into that
modulating area.
Anyway, you know when you look at a solid (much higher frequency) object, such as a
rock, that it is not really solid inside but it is made up of these molecules that have
all these electrons buzzing around like bees but going much faster and they are doing
all this over and over and over again with an accuracy better than any digital clock we
can build. Now you know this to be a fact, don't you?
If you enlarge one nucleus in one of those rock atoms to the size of a pinhead then the
closest electron would be as far from that pinhead sized nucleus as the top of a forty-story
building is from its base. This is telling you that if all this system of electron motion
inside this rock stops then there is simply no more rock because it's mostly all empty
space. And precisely this spin/orbiting motion stopping is what happens when a
particle and anti-particle collide. Most of your present 15th-century science system
sees a 15th-century rock and not something of 99.9999% empty space. Please
remember this because this is trying to prove to you that the electrons in your eyes
and fingers are tuned to the same bandwidth as the rock electron orbital waves and
this is what is making you see it as solid because it is absolutely not solid. It is
99.9999% empty space and you simply cannot dismiss this.
Spin and motion on orbiting geodesics is seen by much lower spin/orbit-frequency
levels as a solid. You cannot transfer the same motion from one spin/orbit-frequency
system to another.
Now you can understand that motion statement you saw in the beginning of this book.
* Motion is something that is "seen" quite differently by different subset systems.
This is another vine covered road sign that no one saw because this is pointing out to
you that this thing you call motion...that you have used for a foundation block for your
science...simply doesn't exist if viewed from outside your system such as we view the
rock. The rock looks solid to us doesn't it? Yet we know all those electrons are moving
all around inside it yet to us out here all that motion somehow seems to be canceled
out entirely. That's the problem with motion...you can't move it from one subset
spin/orbit-frequency system to another. But you can use it providing that you use it
only within one particular spin/orbit-frequency system at a time and that's the way
we will do it in this new Theory of Everything.
Once you know the speed of light is a constant then this demands investigation...not
patching...because this is a vine covered hidden road sign telling you that all your
motion in your system ends up being totally nullified if looked at from several lower
particle-frequency levels.
Motion is OK if only used inside your subset system.
Inside the rock all these moving electrons must be making these "tuned circuit" type of
"blitzseit", momentary connections with everything within that atom or molecule.
This "blitzseit"...by the way...is the shortest interval of time measurable in any local
gauge theory (spin/orbit-frequency level): It will differ from local gauge theory to local
gauge theory (spin/orbit-frequency level to spin/orbit-frequency level).
You will see this exact "tuned circuit", momentary, "blitzseit" binding method later
when we come to the "A" Laws. The thing you must keep firmly in mind is that all
binding is momentary but repetitious and the same elements will always bind with the
same strength no matter what the distance. You cannot distinguish binding from quanta
in this theory other than the fact that quanta are electron binding elements. In this
theory all things can bind in momentary but repetitious quanta type chunks where each
distinct entity binds with the same distinct energy no matter how far the distance.
Different entities, however, will bind with different strengths. In this theory, quanta
would be a subset of the many types of binding. The fact that light energy comes from
electron quanta binding does not alter the fact that these electron quanta are still a
binding subset: Atomic energy comes from the quark binding energy quanta and you will
see this as you read on.
Our "A" Laws show you why we have particles binding together and why aggregations
of these same particles must remain a certain distance away from each other as we
see in both the microcosm and macrocosm.
If you think of that then think of superstring theory and then you can see that if this
universe has spin...which it has...then if a certain wavelength or better yet a wave train
of a certain wavelength were given a spin then it would not only have spin but
precession as well and it would really describe a spheroid. You have the choice...under
relativity...of either seeing it spinning or the universe as a whole spinning: It makes no
difference. Each wave will still be seen to shift a slight bit before the next wave and
the entire encapsulated wave train will still describe a spheroid. Therefore, you are
seeing that particles are behaving the same as the waves they are built from and this
is essentially what Compton saw. Isn't this what superstring is telling you as well?
For those of you who understand string theory, a plain quantum string is a wave and a
closed looped string is...because of precession...a spherical particle and you don't have
to be a mathematician to see there would be an infinite number of these vibrating,
closed looped strings (string theory) all spaced apart at various periodic frequencies
much like piano keys.
Now on earth here all these radio waves of any wavelength all finally get absorbed but
if there really was a big bang and so many of these waves...of one particular
wavelength...were produced then there would be absolutely nothing at that wavelength
that could possibly absorb all of them if they were processed correctly. And if they
were processed correctly then they could be made so that they could not only stay here
but be given this superstring spin, precession and a spheroid shape as well, couldn't
they? This spheroid encapsulation is so very important in building this entire universe.
Now take a giant step.
I never did like George A. Gamow's particular explanation of the big bang because it
never showed me where all that energy came from in the first place so I have a much
better answer. Gamow modified Lema”tre's big bang: Now I shall slightly modify
Gamow's big bang.
I am not a cosmologist. You should see, before you finish, that cosmology is only valid
if kept within certain parameters. I have no intentions herein of even contemplating
how all this was built. I am only going to describe to you what must, in fact, already
have been here.
OK, let's say we have this universe of spin/orbit-frequency levels where each orbiting
level is very much like a piano key tuned to a certain frequency much like a single
piano key is tuned to all the rest of the piano keys (string theory).
The separation between all these encapsulated spheroid wave train frequencies is
extremely critical: All sister particles of the exact same frequency...for a stable
global universe...must all "see" themselves remaining a certain distance apart
distance wise: Part of this is because of a feature called "angular lock on" which
comes later. This entire group of similar particles must also be separated frequency
wise from the other higher and lower frequency groups exactly like keys on a piano
(string theory).
Remember this is a frequency universe and since all particles are waves, whether
similar or not, they must all be kept far enough apart...both distance wise and
frequency wise...so that there are no close harmonics between any of them that can rob
any particular object or group of an excess amount of energy.
Yet, they must all have some far distant subharmonic frequency of linkage with the
piano key type particle group above and below them in frequency. These linkages can
only be momentary and the particle momentarily linked must be able to regain its
energy equilibrium from its surroundings. A method such as this would be enough to
link each particle with its microsystem and its macrosystem but yet not rob it or give
it an excessive amount of extra energy. When you master our "A" Laws, you will see
that just enough attractive and repelling linkage is there to give us this type of
universe we live in. You will also see exactly how energy is transferred.
This "A" Law world is your real world and your macrocosm is composed of the lower
particle-frequencies and your microsystem is composed of the higher
particle-frequencies. You see the microcosm as smaller but it really isn't: From the "universe's point of
view" the microcosm elements are all merely higher frequency spherical encapsulated waves or wave
trains.
At this point, some are going to say this writer must have it backwards because if higher frequencies are
smaller particles and lower frequencies are larger particles then this is just the reverse of the de Broglie
wavelength.
I can assure you that this is the correct way and later I'll point out everything about the de Broglie wavelength
to you.
Gšdel's proof has pointed out to you something is wrong so, to see the big picture, you must change your idea of
small to higher frequencies and your idea of large to lower frequencies. These are terms this universe will
accept.
Once we have seen that Louis V. de Broglie, Schröedinger and Compton have shown us it is all waves then let's use
a slightly different terminology along with some brand new laws.
Remember, we want to see this big picture from the "universe's point of view". We are not
interested in seeing things any longer using terminology strictly from our
spin/orbit-frequency level's point of view because that view, using the old rules and
that strict old terminology, has been getting us nowhere. Gšdel's proof has been amply
warning you about this for almost seventy years now. That was another road sign
everyone entirely missed: Incredible!
So this universe is just like one big universal piano with God only knows how many
keys. See, we are only aware of the few keys in our particular octave or so: This may
be far, far less than a billionth of a billionth of a billionth and so on of what may in
fact be here. These keys are all the permanent particle groups such as the electron,
quark, proton-neutron and then solar system and galaxy and the Virgo super-cluster
that contains our galaxy and the other galaxies around us, and from there we can even
imagine larger clusters and we can continue on and on: All of these things are
orbiting...vibrating (string theory)...a certain specified frequency apart; even further
apart than piano keys.
Yes, you read correctly. I did add solar system, galaxy and Virgo super-cluster and so
on to the list of the microcosm elements and by doing so we add gravity to the
equation because all of these much lower spin/orbit frequencies make up the well
modulated gravity wave but they all do not contribute equally to it by any means.
Eventually when humans are able to determine, detect and measure these frequencies
of rotation better than is presently being done then they will find all these too will fit
perfectly into those piano key frequency slots just the same as do all the microsystem
particles but the problem for you is that you have no receptors designed yet for the
solar system spin/orbit-frequency level; galaxy spin/orbit-frequency level or the
Virgo super-cluster spin/orbit-frequency level.
The fact that you have to keep changing universal standard time by a second every now
and then tells you gravity is not steady and this is another hidden road sign warning
you that gravity is a long wave modulated by other ultra long and extra long waves.
Your present science rules are derived from your experiences here at rest on earth and
therefore they will come closest to some average of both the proton-neutron and the
solar system spin/orbit frequency levels.
You also have these "blitzseit" momentary "tuned circuit" antenna connections between
everything just as must be happening inside each atom over and over and over again
with an accuracy we can only dream of achieving.
You see all these "blitzseit" momentary "tuned circuit" connections as particles, space
and time. This was the very best your mind could do for you: You must realize, at this
point, that relativity has proven that your mind's idea of one single space and time
setup for everything in this universe is not quite good enough.
You must now stop thinking of space and time per se and think of it like quantum
theory does: Quantum theory has set the pattern with QED and QCD. This is
kindergarten for what's coming: It's all going to be separate spin/orbit-frequency
levels with each one being a separate card in this big universe deck of cards that we
can't see but these individual cards we can see. As I will mention herein many times,
unlike quantum mechanics, we will use a standard set of new laws and new terms
for each different spin/orbit-frequency level...each different card. In other words we
will have different particle levels but we will only have one set of laws and one
set of terms for all of these various spin/orbit-frequency levels from electron to
quark to proton-neutron to solar system to galaxy to Virgo super-cluster.
The big bang was merely the retuning of a few of these spin/orbit-frequency system
keys of this big universe grand piano: The quark built neutron moved from being a
stable particle to an unstable particle. So big bangs are a normal event and this last
big bang was a beta decay big bang in which the very first electrons, protons and
molecules were produced. This explains why the big bang began not simply at one point
but instead "all throughout" the universe. This is a necessary assumption for a big
bang model that you can calculate the history of all the way back to Planck time.
Before Planck time, in this new theory, the tri-quark neutron particle existed as a
stable particle for possibly thousands of billions of years. Electrons and protons were
later manufactured via a beta decay, big bang. Some other type particles and
aggregations with slightly different spin/orbit-frequencies did in fact exist prior to
Planck time. But these previous piano keys though had gotten slightly too far out of
tune for continued existence in this master global grand piano type of universe.
Resonances; all bosons; photons, gluons, etc., could also be seen as particles in this
new concept just like they are in quantum theory but since they do not have that main
qualifier for permanency...this mandatory piano key tuning that is paramount in
this theory...they are excluded from particle status in this new concept. In this new
theory, Bohr is seen as being correct by saying that the photon was merely a wave.
By using this new piano key (string theory) concept of permanent particles, I've been
able to sweep the house a lot cleaner than Bohr has: When you can thus eliminate over
two hundred momentary particles, it clarifies the waters tremendously.
While resonances; all bosons; photons, gluons, etc., are indeed also waves, the only
spherical encapsulated waves that will be able to stay here as permanent particles are
those that are at exactly the correct piano key frequencies spaced at specified
intervals. What must have happened was that somehow, over time, too much energy
was lost or gained by one specific octave or so of keys and this universe indeed has
some type of global wave and frequency gauge invariance making it mandatory that all
these keys stay perfectly in tune with each other. Our big bang was merely an
automatic piano tuning of sorts with all new particle-frequencies arriving "all
throughout" as the quark and these protons and neutrons and electrons and then
eventually us. Although we think of the big bang as something tremendous, I'm sure
that to this entire, global, unseen universe spectrum, it was only a whimper of
available energy. The big bang was simply a normal balancing and piano key tuning that
this universe must from time to time be forced to resort to. This universe, my friends,
is far more than billions of billions of billions of times greater than many of our
present scientists even suspect. It is also a frequency universe that to you may look
solid in spots but yet these supposedly solid objects when placed in the proper motion
will all...much like the electron...display some extremely similar wave like qualities.
Because the foundations of all solid objects are really waves then we will find certain
motions in every level where these supposedly solid objects will all behave the same
and thus we can come up with a standard set of laws and terms.
The reason objects appear solid to you is that, here on earth, your "blitzseit" of time
is too long compared to the "blitzseit" of the electron and you will not be able to
determine the polarization of this electron's orbital wavelength so it's no longer
possible for you to see it as a wave and it has to appear as a solid to you. For you to
see this as a wave, its polarization has to stay relatively the same during your
"blitzseit" of time but since the orbital of the electron is changing its polarization so
quickly compared to your "blitzseit" of time, you simply cannot pick it up as a wave
train and you sense it as a particle instead of the spherical wave train that it really
is. This is why we sense the Planck's constant approach to a solid as frequency keeps
being increased.
I got slightly off the course of the big bang there but going back to the big bang now,
isn't this better than Gamov's (He spelled it this Russian way too.) explanation that
doesn't explain where all the energy for the big bang came from?
Not being a cosmologist, I can't tell you how it all got here but at least I'm glad I can
be of some help to you in clearing up a few loose ends.
The one thing you absolutely must remember is that your present science with all its
rules and terms can never be used and mixed with our forthcoming "A" Laws.
Remember that we've downgraded all our present science to something like local gauge
invariance and these rules and terminology are to be used in one local
spin/orbit-frequency level at a time.
So use your science and your terms here and when looking at it from the global
"universe's point of view", use the "A" Laws and their terminology.
You must never mix these sets or parts of these sets.
Use all of one set or all of the other set.
If you understand all of this...and you've read your encyclopedia CDs...then you
understand as much as you really need to know about properly using and working with
these new types of concepts such as local gauge invariance and symmetry.
5. Fitzpatrick's "A" laws
Back to Contents
Ampere gave us the laws that we should have seen were the ones this universe uses
but it was the ideas that Faraday advanced that we embraced, so Faraday's set of local
gauge theory rules won out over a superb, global, universal set of laws.
Humans adopted these local gauge theory rules, instead of the universal global laws
because these local gauge rules seemed to be so easily proven mathematically.
Einstein proved all that seemed to be was not. But this did not in any way affect this
19th-century science structure nor did it adversely affect any of the high priests of
that scientific religion type of structure: They merely added some special relativity
corrections to the microcosm and some general relativity corrections to the
macrocosm; then they sat back and continued to collect their paychecks. I ask you in
all sincerity now, how do you search for a grand unified theory using a crumbling
science structure that forever is needing many relativity corrections all the time?
You must understand that you are in a frequency world. You can comprehend only some
of it. But this is all you need to understand in order to see the big unification picture.
If your science foundation is only half truths to begin with then when you input your
computers you are simply putting garbage in and you will still keep getting garbage
out, just the same as you have always been getting. But the attitude seems to be, "If
the taxpayer is paying for it then what the hell."
You must realize that you need a brand new science structure: You need a
new, universal, global edifice of some sort.
These coming generations of humans will witness the proof of these new universal
laws using the future super-computers.
This new theory, even minus the necessary math, will give you this big-picture-road-map of everything as seen in each local gauge view...that all the present theories
simply don't...so take it and utilize it. Even with this extremely limited terminology
and without all the math yet in place it still will show you which roads to take in all
of the present fields of relativity, quantum and superstring theories and it will also
show you which paths to avoid. Your present math cannot do this but this new theory
most certainly can.
Again, use this new theory in conjunction with what you now already have.
Superstring theory is correct as it portrays these dimensions being folded up when you
only view from one local gauge viewpoint. From your viewpoint, the electron's
dimension is folded up to point size or zero. You will find out the electron "sees"
itself as definitely having a dimension and it is because of this dimension that you get what
you see as light, velocity, magnetism and charge while from the electron's point of view all
it has are simple inertial qualities.
I'm trying to show you that there are other local views besides yours. They are just as
good as yours are too. You have to translate all your present scientific terminology to
common terms and then you can see both their view and yours. After you do this
translating, you'll see that all local gauge theories...including ours...can use the same
"A" Laws. You then use that new global terminology along with these new "A"
Laws as you look at each separate local gauge view.
This is the only way meaningful unification can ever be achieved.
It will take you a while, as you look around this new place, to see exactly how this
new house is built. You will have to read a few parts of this over and over again until
you fully understand it. It took me over thirty years to get it all down pat but I've got
the keys now and I'm letting you inside this new structure so you shouldn't have
anywhere near the number of problems that I had in figuring it all out.
We will soon have a look at these "A" Laws. But first we need to take notice of a few
more things.
Niels Bohr saw light as a wave and Einstein preferred seeing the photon of light as a
particle. While in this theory it's a wave only, if you have studied science then you
should know why each of them had a valid argument under their old science rules.
Having said all that, you still have to see that this theory is telling you what Compton
told you that waves sometimes act similarly to particles. You simply cannot ignore
this.
The attributes of all particles stem from the attributes of the waves from
which these particles are composed.
When you see two things hit, you attribute this action to the particles themselves but you
fail to attribute it to the correct underlying wave concentration at that point of collision.
Nothing really touches. No electrons ever touch each other. You are
witnessing concentrated wave action from a distance that you call
particle action. Things can and do also repel and attract even though from your or
other standpoints they may be from a further distance or far away.
When you see two billiard balls collide and bounce apart, this action that you see and
understand as "normal particle action" does not actually exist because no atomic
particles in those billiard balls ever even came close to touching each other. Seeing
those billiard balls colliding is about the same as a person who sees how to drive a car
but knows nothing about what makes that car run. It was really the underlying
concentrated "wave action" that we do not fully understand that made those billiard
balls spring apart after they collided. Our minds and our scientists have certainly
simplified it. This simplification was done at a price. Relativity shows us the price
was accuracy.
We also must take into consideration the Niels Bohr-Werner Heisenberg theory of
complementarity that essentially says that the human mind somehow only gets part of
the picture each way that observations are made but all of these separate
observations go together to complement the big picture of what must really be here.
Albert Einstein, Erwin Schröedinger, Louis de Broglie and many other physicists did not
agree with the Bohr-Heisenberg idea of complementarity.
Complementarity presents us with a major problem because if we accept it then we,
like Bohr and Heisenberg, essentially throw in the towel and admit possible defeat
saying the human mind may never be able to completely understand what is behind it
all.
Bohr and Heisenberg have put forward a good point about this one mainly because of
the subset nature of our science which Einstein totally ignored even though Gšdel's
proof was published in Einstein's native German language in 1931 and Kurt Gšdel along
with Einstein were both members of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, N.
J..
The wave foundation to everything is another aspect leading to complementarity and
I've struggled with this for decades and I now see that without future super-computer
assist that we may never know what is behind it all as far as this global universe
wave foundation is concerned, but we can, presently at least, get to the unification
answer providing that we understand the subset nature of our science and we treat
each of these subset systems as a separate card in the universal deck of cards.
Quantum theory has shown us the correct approach. Merely improve upon it.
These thousands of years of retained subset particle knowledge of things must have
given us the Heisenberg-Bohr aspect of complementarity.
For example, we wouldn't see the complete picture by looking at it in the particle
world because this is only a subset world. We are not able to see the big picture of
everything in the wave world simply because we are not trained...nor are most of us
able...to see things as waves. We see things as particles.
This, I now feel, is the reason for the Heisenberg-Bohr aspect of complementarity.
If all things are only waves then all particles have to be thought of as similar from
microcosm to macrocosm in that they all essentially are made up of nothing but big
bang produced spinning, precessing, spheroid encapsula