A bit of light on
exactly how these
mathematical complexities of
FIELD THEORIEStotally OBSCURE & HIDE
Attractive and Repulsive
This paper, by Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr., brought to you free by
R.M.F. founder of
Welcome to the frequency universe of Dr. Milo Wolff — one of those NASA scientists that helped get us to the moon, and who also gave us hisWave Structure of Matter.
We'll discuss Milo's scalar entities — one of which is the electron — that is a sphere, and only thein-phase binding between spins and/or orbitals, of interacting scalar electrons, produce energy forces: the electron itself remains unchanged and simply stays the same spinning, precessing scalar electron.
We will then look at Ampère's Law that astoundingly — unifies electric and magnetic fields, giving us thesimple truth — that shows us exactly what causes the fundamental forces.
This proves theerror of using field theory to discover the fundamental forces.
Kurt Gödel proved the truth must come before the math.
Using field theory, you are using the math before you even have the slightest bit of truth.
* end of Abstract *
The electron is a scalar entity if we look at the electron from a low enough frequency spacetime realm. From a far, far higher frequency spacetime realm the electron might look somewhat like our galaxy.
But given enough time to precess around as a gyroscope, our galaxy will also appear to be more spherical — in time — in Dr. Milo Wolff's scalar, frequency universe.
Modern science has totally missed the supreme importance of — theprecessing cycle of time — needed to produce a scalar resonance.
Our galaxy, to us in our spacetime realm, seems frozen in time: we totally miss all its precessing.
Yet this precessing —to make one full precessing cycle, to appear more like a sphere — gives the resonance reason for Wolff's scalar resonance, or what we see as nature's preferred size, in both micro and macro spacetime realms, and this is certainly the reason the iron molecule is the preferred scalar molecular resonance after fission or fusion energy: what scalar resonances have in common is that their in-phase binding to the surroundings equals their internal in-phase binding.
The Earth is a scalar resonance in which itsin-phase binding gravitational force is equal to its in-phase binding (to the surrounding stars) inertial force.
Milo Wolff has shown that, at this scalar resonance frequency — energy in has to equal energy out — and I have shown that the particle giving us Earth's gravity and inertia must be spinning at least 20 billion times (2x1010) faster than the electron.
It looks to me like that is the down quark and strong force containment is nearly correct and it is 99.9999% right. It is the .0001% balance of down quarks that are not contained that give us both gravity and inertia. Since that balance here on this Earth remains exactly the same continuously, then this is the reason that Earth's gravitational force exactly equals the Earth's inertial force.
Wolff's scalar resonance approach gives us a more balanced microcosm and macrocosm than the pseudo science religion presently believed by most today.
This is a glimpse of what's coming: we'll get back to Milo Wolff's scalar, frequency universe again shortly.
What began with the one simple gravitational field theory given to us by Newton — gets worse with time as new fields are added with each new discovery.
You must understand that field theories are complicated things with extremely complex math.
Isaac Newton, in fact, had to invent calculus in order to finish his gravitational field theory.
Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and many other theoretical physicists looked for a simple explanation of this complicated universe.
What we have, instead, is a universe requiring various mathematically complex field equations to give the exact amounts of all these new different forces, as new things are discovered — with all their new, abstract field theories added.
Inside this you will find the simple explanation, that these theoretical physicists were seeking.
You will also see why — after Newton's gravitational field theory — things got so complicated: it was because more and more field theories were being constantly added.
And it continues to get even more complicated with new discoveries adding even more field theories.
However, a simplification can start right now with NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff's scalar, spinning, standing wave approach to everything we note as spinning in both micro and macro realms of our entire universe.
Milo used the term scalar to indicate these compact, spinning things (standing waves) — keeping the same mass/energy ratio intact — in both the micro and macro worlds.
More than half a century ago there was a good article, in Scientific American about Ampère's Long Wire Law that made me re-think — and suspect even more — everything I had learned in electronics.
In the 1820s, André M. Ampère took two batteries and connected each to a long wire, with both wires parallel to each other. When the current went thesame direction through both wires, the wires attracted. When Ampère reversed one of the batteries and the current went through the wires in opposite directions, then the wires repelled each other.
The unit of electrical current, the Amp, was named after Ampère for this simple discovery — relating the magnetic field directly and SIMPLY to the movement (current) producing it.
This fundamental basic simplicity of Ampère's Law — using no plus or minus charges or north and south poles — is now totally obscured by the more complicated math and rules of the Faraday-Maxwell field theory,coming half a century after Ampère, that must use imaginary plus and minus charges and north and south poles.
Faraday was hired by the Cavendish Laboratory as a bottle washer and while there built the world's first electric motorized device, and Maxwell, a beer truck driver, figured out the complex math for Faraday's two field concepts — still in use today.
Faraday dangled a piece of copper wire into a pool of mercury in which was a magnet. The wire would either rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on which way the battery was connected, or which pole of the magnet faced up.
This device made headlines in journals all over the world and made Faraday famous.
To explain exactly how this device worked, Faraday needed and used two field theories: an electric field theory using Benjamin Franklin's plus and minus charges and the north and south pole magnetic field theory.
I saw electron spin direction was important, in my first year of high school, and that more magneticattraction simply meant more electron spins were in-phase with each other.
No plus and minus charges or magnetic lines of force needed to see why theattraction!
I knew then thatrelative motion (phase) — itself — played an essential part in giving us these electrical forces.
Ampère didn't know about electron spin, but he certainly saw the same relative motion aspect of it that I saw, but why wasn't any of this common-sense simplification of — why we have force — in modern science?
It isn't there because the Faraday-Maxwell field math and rules — need fictional north and south poles and plus and minus charges — and show only how to maximize and utilize these forces.
Therefore: it's this fictional, fog of field theory that obscures the basic, fundamental forces.
This is why F-M Field theory is no good at getting to the bottom of why we have these forces.
This universe — of spinning entities — is far simpler than anyone has imagined, providing one,forgets all field theory hogwash, and observes only the relative motion (phase) of all these scalar spin frequencies in respect to one another.
Simplicity comes only via Ampère's concept!
Ampère's concept eliminatesfield hogwash!
If this really is, Dr. Milo Wolff's standing wave, frequency universe all throughout, then our old opinions of space, time, plus and minus charges along with north and south poles all have to drastically change. Now we must think only, in terms of scalarrelative motion (phase).
The old ALNICO magnets of my youth, where the electron spins could only be concentrated in one direction were a godsend, because they taught me what Ampère had learned: they taught me exactly, thatrelative motion (phase) itself was causing these forces.
Ampère's simple Law, published in 1825, said: things on parallel paths — later found to be electrons — going in thesame direction, attract each other, and those on parallel paths going in opposite directions, repel each other.
I showed in 1966 that this ONE simplerelative motion (phase) TRUE concept was far better than using TWO complicated FIELD concepts of plus and minus charges and north and south poles, because relative motion (phase) — by itself — shows how electron motion or spin causes magnetic force, thus unifying both electrical and magnetic fields.
Nevertheless, field theory in the hands of people like Charles P. Steinmetz, built this industrial age of electrical wonders.
With the popularity of the Faraday-Maxwell field theory, Ampère's amazing, unifying concept of 1825 lost out to this field theory that Einstein warned us about in 1954.
You will see, herein, exactly why field theory led us astray.
Einstein said in 1954"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Yes, Einstein's Unified Field Theory was a failure because of several reasons — all being the failure of field theory — that I have already pointed out in earlier papers available to all now free.
And you have read (above inblue) Einstein's exact warning words about field theory and modern science — which this paper now proves were correct.
André M. Ampère's long wire law essentially showed us this: electrons moving on parallel paths, in thesame direction attract —— electrons moving on parallel paths, in an opposite direction repel.
How the Britannica could screw up and get this completely backwards for over five years now — without even one scientist telling them — is beyond me.
Yes, mistakes are made by credible sources, and myths are thereby created that last, not only for five years, but for decades like phlogiston: that's a good part of this paper.
A full page (page 29) on 1-18-1967 in the New York Times Sunday Book Review Section is about my publication, back in 1966. In that I showed: Ampère's Law was the reality, and it beat thinking in terms of FIELD Theory's — unreliable and imaginary — plus and minus charges and/or north and south poles.1966.html
Now in 2018 I'm showing that scalarrelative motion (phase) applies — not only to electrons — but to all these spinning entities in both microcosm and macrocosm.
Ampère's Law essentially tells you: entities that arein-phase attract, and entities that are out-of-phase repel each other.
This is not only the rule — engineers use — in the electrical world, but it's the rule betweenall these scalar, spinning entities giving us all the fundamental forces in our entire micro-macro universe.
Thus, we've unified the forces to obtain the fundamental forces; this requires a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) type statement: "Once you unify the forces, to obtain the fundamental forces, then the picture you get of this universe, however improbable it may seem, has to be the truth."
And as Einstein predicted in 1954, modern science — built on field theory — vanishes as truth appears.All forces now have to be seen as being caused directly from that fundamental Ampère's Law PHASE rule (third paragraph above) giving us a simplification of present science — that both Einstein and Hawking looked for their entire lives — but never found.
Science now becomes a whole new ballgame, simplified by Ampère's Law that now shows us, that it's the PHASE betweenall these scalar spin frequencies that gives us all the attractive and repulsive forces that build this entire micro-macro universe.
Astronauts will never be able to venture safely far beyond our solar system unless our science establishment builds a brand-new mathematical model for this new (Dr. Milo Wolff's) frequency universe.
NASA understands the speed of gravity is either Newton's instantly or at least 20 billion times the speed of light (2x1010c).Van Flandern
NASA does not yet know the speed of the gravitational type Dark Matter attraction, and I can assure you it is not anywhere near the speed of gravity: modern science won't help you see the reason for this.
New discoveries, generally open up a Pandora's box of difficulties: this one greatly simplifies much of present science.
The following is going to be hard to believe by many who read it, but it is all absolutely true.
"Science is the key to life"was written under my graduation picture in the 1950 Cynosure of Linden High School in Linden, New Jersey.
Science has, in fact, beenthe key to my entire life.
I can remember the first radio I ever fixed, as if it happened yesterday! It was either 1944 or 1945, and I was in the 6th or 7th grade and up at Lake Hopatcong where it was over a thousand feet above sea level and a lot cooler and far nicer than in Linden, New Jersey in summer. I was at our neighbor's house, and I found their beautiful big radio didn't work. I went back to our house and got my father's volt-ohm meter. At the radio, I put one meter lead to ground and the other to a grid cap on the top of one of the tubes, and as I tuned the dial, I could see the meter fluctuating, so I knew the set was working OK. All the tubes checked out OK this way, so I went to the output transformer that matched the high impedance of the tube circuitry with the low loud-speaker impedance. I had, therefore, traced the sound fluctuations — through the tubes — and then I also saw fluctuating meter readings on both primary and secondary terminals of the output transformer, going right to the loud-speaker — but why was there no sound??? Why didn't the radio work??? I had good eyes back then and spotted a broken loud-speaker coil wire — because sounds from the huge loud-speaker evidently vibrated, flexed and finally broke the loud-speaker coil to transformer wire. So, I went back home and got my soldering iron, came back and soldered the wire back again, possibly giving the radio another ten years of life. That neighbor woman couldn't believe it when the radio played just like it did when it was new — and she gave me two dollars.
That experience was worth its weight in gold because it showed me the path I was going to take for the rest of my life.
I'm retired now in one of the better retirement places just outside of Austin, Texas where I now have the time to write these science papers that are being read by thousands — every month in more than 50 countries — who wish to get a jump ahead of those in the universities, who are always a bit behind what is going on in the science world.
Here's something, the people who read my papers know.
It's really NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff's(Wave Structure of Matter) frequency universe — all throughout micro and macro worlds — in which the forces are produced via the phase between all these spin frequencies.
This frequency aspect of our universe all throughout — that Milo Wolff saw — is not that apparent, so we entirely missed it: this is the reason we missed the supreme importance of phase between all these spin frequencies being the key to what is really going on in this entire universe.I stated in my 1966 publication that André Ampère gave us the relative motion law aspect of it that showed us what was really going on, "Things moving on parallel paths — in the same direction will attract and in opposite directions will repel".
I used the term relative motion and Ampère's law for decades, and even during Milo Wolff's healthier years, before using the term phase, as I put more of the pieces of this science jigsaw puzzle together.
I'm certain that if I would have used the term phase more, during Milo's good years, then he might have published this before me.
Most people have no idea what phase means, so I knew I should be explaining things using terms like Ampère's Law and relative motion, instead of using the term phase, but now when trying to get folks to look at all these spins of everything in the micro & macro universe, I saw phase was the better word to use.
I had considerably slowed down on this puzzle until I heard mathematician Stephen Wolfram explaining to Charlie Rose on TV that mathematics could never help in finding the correct model on which this universe was built. I immediately read Stephen Wolfram's book. It was then that I realized why Bohr and Einstein failed: neither had gotten to the bottom of things — but I did, and I had the correct model — Ampère's law.
Then I started really working harder, on not only putting Phase Symmetry together, but to convince people also.
Now — after getting the message out — it's becoming obvious to a great many that the only thing that spin frequencies have in common, that could cause force, would be phase.Scientists use the word spacetime for a reason: space changes with a change in speed or mass, and so does time. We know when we look through the Hubble telescope through space, then we are also looking back through time. Space changes and time changes but the spacetime interval never changes: look it up!
Most enlightened scientists realize that spacetime is a single entity, therefore we use that word. Einstein, more than anyone else, gave us this realization of spacetime.
Our ancestors, however, didn't know about Einstein or spacetime and have given us two different building blocks of SPACE and TIME for our present science.
This is an exceptionally simple universe — once you understand what is really going on.
But we don't see it for the same reason that we see SPACE and TIME as two different things — when they are only ONE thing — as Einstein proved,the spacetime interval.
Why we discern both space and time is an enigma, but it has to do with the fact that as we look out into space, we forget about all these spin frequencies (time creators) producing it.
This paper may, in fact, be the very beginning of solving that enigma.
It's a universe of Dr. Milo Wolff's scalar, spinning, standing wave entities all throughout microcosm and macrocosm, whose spins all obey Ampère's simple phase law: scalar entities (solids) are created betweenattractive force, in-phase concentric binding of spin frequencies — or harmonics thereof.And then we have the opposite of SCALAR.Spacetime (Einstein's Cosmological Constant type repulsive force or space) which is produced between out-of-phase spin frequencies.
Einstein has to be given credit for being the first to see that all this space also had arepulsive force density to it. However, he missed the spacetime aspect of it all.
In fact, I did myself until recently. People will see that by reading some of my earlier papers.
I don't usually put out a paper unless I have something new to say, and in this paper it's the spacetime aspect of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, repulsive force density in both micro and macro realms: this, I'm trying to convey.
Both ourspace and our time are produced by Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force density caused by all these spinning entities being out-of-phase with each other.
Welcome to Dr. Milo Wolff's frequency universe. Milo and I discussed science for decades. We both were into radio early and saw the rapid changes there. In his 80s, he drove me to John Wayne airport so I could return to Colorado. I do miss Milo Wolff. You are reading what he taught me.
It's a shame the establishment hasn't caught on to the utter simplicity of this entire universe that both Ampère and Dr. Milo Wolff have shown us.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force density exists in both the microcosm and macrocosm, and even Einstein didn't realize its true value as also being spacetime that we somehow mistakenly divide into the two seemingly different concepts of space and time.
What can be divided is the spacetime interval — into two different spacetime realms — the microcosm and the macrocosm, using Ampère's Law in both.
Einstein's repulsive force space can also be seen in the microcosm by enlarging a molecular electron to the size of a pin head: the electron would then be as far from the nucleus as the fortieth floor in a tall building is from the street below.
But this microcosm spacetime is different from ours and uses a different spacetime interval.
The establishment understands that we have all this neutron Binding Energy in mass. Really it is quark harmonic binding of electrons, making them molecular electrons.
Nevertheless, when these numerous quark-electron bindings are severed — via either fission or fusion energy — then these many, severed items fly off, cork screwing through their realm producing vast amounts of out-of-phase forces or space as we see it, ending up with an element or elements closer to iron.
The iron molecule seems to be at some scalar, harmonic balance point caused by — the Fitzpatrick Cycle of Stability — where one full precessing cycle gives the more spherical scalar effect: there also seems to be a preferred scalar size/mass harmonic resonance — andmajor harmonic spacetime realm — a bit more than every twenty billion (2x1010) spin frequency orders of magnitude apart.
This gives us — presently, in Dr. Milo Wolff's frequency universe — a steady-state universe, in which the probability of a big bang correction, somewhere in the system, always will exist.
The vast out-of-phase forces — when this stability is disrupted — are what give us every atomic explosion, which ceases after creating the new element/elements, thereby removing all those temporary out-of-phase forces.This is also what caused the Big Bang and also the present, more balanced universe we have now.
The microcosm — we all know — is a fairly well-balanced realm, where the in-phase forces are balanced well enough against the out-of-phase forces for perfect stability.
It's a shame the establishment hasn't caught on to this either, because the macrocosm has all these identical spins too. Why does the establishment see it differently?
There is an energy TRANSFER method that does not affect this in-phase to out-of-phase balance, but in that type of energy creation and transfer method, impedance matching is necessary.
In fact, this necessary impedance matching — where each mass binding had to match an equal mass un-binding — gave us the concept that "energy could neither be created nor destroyed", this was, of course, before the atomic energy era that began with Einstein's proof that E=mc2.
An example of this — impedance matching TRANSFER — is the light that comes to your eyes from a star.
If you can remember, in that first radio I fixed, there was an impedance matching transformer that matched the high impedance tubes with the low impedance speaker coil. Well, the universe doesn't have that, but stars have electrons of various impedances ready to emit light and your eyes have red, green and blue receptors to receive the various colored light — providingamong other things — their impedance exactly matches the impedance of those light emitting star electrons. Also, both star electron transmitting light and eye receptor electron must be a spin-up spin-down pair — with their closest sides binding in-phase — and their spin axes parallel or somewhat parallel.And this, my friends — with those other things — is the answer to Olbers' Paradox.
Here's how light from a distant star acts somewhat like alternating current but at a much, much, much higher frequency.
If you look at energy transfer this way, then you will see the relationship between binding with the surroundings (stars) and internal binding; the production of a quantum of energy is gained after anin-phase binding first with the surroundings (a star) and then that same electron switches a bond FROM the surroundings (star) to an internal in-phase bond in your eye: an example is green light from a star, at 5,000 Angstroms in wavelength (color mid-range), where electrons in our eye cones are cycling bonds between electrons on that star, and us, at the rate of 600 trillion times a second (600 THz).
Only ONE of those cyclinginfinitesimally short period bonds is a quantum of green light.
It takes only about eight or nine of these quanta cycling bonds before you can sense the slightest bit ofgreen light.
This is the way it really works, but if you want to believe in photons go right ahead. However, I do believe that much of quantum theory — along with photons — is going down the drain once an all frequency universe is accepted. We know enough about frequency behavior now to replace much of quantum theory with the frequency aspect of what's really going on, as I've just shown you with starlight andin-phase binding.
Some features of quantum theory will remain because spacetime is not continuous — like field theory — as Einstein warned us. Spacetime comes in chunks and has holes.
Niels Bohr never realized that it wasout-of-phase spacetime — not in-phase particles — that were coming from Planck's energy quanta.
Bohr had a 50 - 50 chance in getting it right, and he got it wrong!
Georges Lemaître a Belgian Catholic priest had the same odds in guessing between two words AWAY and AROUND, and he guessed wrong too on that one — even convincing Einstein — and gave us a myth that's believed just as strongly as quantum theory today.
I'm glad I am writing this after Stephen Hawking died: much of his work relied on quantum theory, portions of which now have to be seriously looked into.
Even though the electron on a distant star giving you light, is separated from the one receiving that light in your eye — there is no spacetime whatsoever between their closest sidesbinding in-phase.
There is no spacetime — between those sides — becausespacetime itself is only created by the closest sides of entities spinning out-of-phase.
Our thinking of a continuous spacetime has to entirely change to pieces of spacetime.
Bohr and Einstein were both original thinkers, nevertheless, neither got to the bottom of what caused theseattractive and repulsive forces in this universe.
Now we know!
Allattractive forces are caused by things that are in-phase.
Allrepulsive forces — along with spacetime — are caused by things that are spinning out-of-phase with each other.
I've given you the correct building block model of how this universe is built.
That is my contribution — along with a lot of help from others that I learned from.
Mathematician Stephen Wolfram proved — in his A New Kind of Science — that all the math in the world isn't going to show how this universe works until you have the correct building block model.
And how true that has been!
This paper gives the correct building block model foundation — of this entire universe.
It's a foundation that scientists can finally build on to give all of us a better understanding of our universe and hopefully, a better world.
I believe I have given you a glimpse of what the future has in store for us.
I passed the tests for the B and then the A amateur radio licenses and then the 2nd Class Commercial Radio License while in high school; from this I learned the importance ofstanding waves and impedance matching in energy transfers. I also had my pilot's license #1195823 too, before I graduated high school.
I got my 1st Class Radio license #P1-7-13647 after this.
In 1946 I could see, using alnico magnets, that arelative motion or phase concept of the electron spin gave correct answers for magnetism 100% of the time while the north and south pole concept didn't.
By 1947 I saw the same error margin using Benjamin Franklin's plus and minus charges that were worse at predicting, than the 100% correctrelative motion or phase concept.
As I said, I published a book in 1966, about seeing this easy"unification of forces" and also seeing this amazing simplification of "what the establishment believed" was science. The New York Times had a full page about that 1966 book of mine in the Book Review Section, on Sunday June 18th 1967.
But then it took me several decades more — while eliminatingstanding waves and working on the latest things our scientists were able to construct — to gradually put more and more of the pieces of this complicated science jigsaw puzzle together and then to realize how simple this entire universe, of spinning entities, really was.
Usingphase along with my good friend NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff's standing wave concept — I found all attractive and repulsive forces are merely a "simple phase relationship" between all these spinning entities in both microcosm and macrocosm.
What was hard for me to believe, was how hard it was to convince others — who did not have the knowledge ofstanding waves and energy's impedance matching — to believe in this new way to see what was really going on called Phase Symmetry. phase symmetry
Also, in Adobe.pdf - phase symmetry.pdf
Phase symmetry. 12-02-2013 also, in Word.doc - phase.symmetry.doc
This PAGE DATE: October 29, 2018..
THIS PAGE in html: -
THIS PAGE in html: -http://amperefitz.com/fieldtheory.html
Also, THIS PAGE in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/fieldtheory.doc
And THIS PAGE in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/fieldtheory.pdf
This paper taken from the larger 3 Beliefs Paper.
3 Beliefs in htm: - http://amperefitz.com/3beliefs.htm
Also, 3 Beliefs in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/3beliefs.doc
And 3 Beliefs in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/3beliefs.pdf
Also, see DPFJr
An Important Matter seen by Crichton in htm: -crichton.htm
Also, Crichton in Word:- crichton.doc
And also, Crichton in Adobe pdf:- crichton.pdf
To keep this page short, I had to leave out many more interesting things, but you will have to click on the following links and spend a lot more time reading to see those.
For the LATESTClick: http://www.amperefitz.com
orhttp://www.rbduncan.com which was really the very first web page showing us what was actually going on in our universe.
And of course - click this following link:http://www.rbduncan.com/toprule1.htm
AND 4 Decades of Fitz's papers:
4 Decades of writings of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
October 29, 2018
If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 314
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.