This was the way the site --below-- looked a while back, Dan Fitz.
This was the way the site --below-- looked a while back, Dan Fitz.
A bit of light on
why a gyroscopeDEFIES GRAVITY
It really does defy gravity even though the present science establishment seems to want to convince us otherwise. I remember when my father brought home a small gyroscope in gimbals: the gyro shaft had a hole for a string that could be put through that hole and wrapped around the shaft, and when pulled, spun the gyro at a fast clip.
My father put a book on the top of a table, with the binding edge of the book on the edge of the table.
The reason for the book, I later saw, was that the lobe on the end of the gimbal ring end would fit right into the groove in the book binding, keeping it a bit more secure.
He spun the gyro, with the spinning shaft horizontal, and placed one end of the gimbal assembly, that stuck out about a quarter of an inch, into that book binding groove.
I was amazed:it defied gravity!It didn't fall. Even though that heavy gyroscope was only held up by a quarter of an inch on its extreme end, the other eight inches or so that contained the heavy spinning wheel part, was totally in the air simply wobbling. It should be falling, but it wasn't!
I had to know exactly why that was happening.
I was in the second grade when my father brought home that gyroscope.
I remember my mother prevailing and getting me into Kindergarten a year earlier than they wanted, so I was six and a half in that second grade. I'm eighty-five and a half now.
Therefore, it must have taken me almost 80 years to figure EXACTLY why that gyrodefied gravity and write this paper explaining everything to all my friends on the internet today.
What really drove me to read everything I could about gyros was my flying through cumulus clouds in Miami. At that time I honestly didn't know that this was illegal. The people at Sunny South Airport, where I parked my plane knew, and turned me in to the F.A.A..
I had to go to the Federal Aviation Administration where they made me buy and read rules 43 and 60 that told me exactly how far from clouds I had to stay. I was 17 years old then, in 1950, and living in Miami entirely on my own.
What I did learn, by flying through clouds, was that the instant one emerges from a cloud, the ground was NEVER level, or at least where I thought it should be.
Because in flying, you move your foot pedals and hand control so you feel you are always pressed down straight into your seat (flying by the seat of your pants). In doing this more forces than gravity are pulling at you.
The resultant force from all this is never straight down. Thus you never really know EXACTLY where level is, when flying inside a cloud.
I flew through clouds in calm days, and when I emerged from the clouds the ground was always a good 5 to 20 degrees off level, sometimes to the left and sometimes to the right, for a second or two before my mind readjusted itself again to reality.
And I was only flying short distances through small clouds!
You have to see it to believe it. But it sure made a believer out of me that flying through clouds could eventually kill me.
The rougher the air, the worse your senses make this deviation.
I soon discovered that gyro instruments allowed you to know exactly where level was when flying, so this was when I really devoured everything I could read, about how gyros worked.
I also took Link training — that I had to pay for myself — so I could make use of those valuable gyro instruments.
It took about half a century after that to put all the pieces together and get the big picture solved. I constantly worked at it, and found that it had to be done the way Dr. Joseph Bell of the University of Edinburgh taught us. "The importance of the infinitely little is incalculable". He taught this to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle M.D. who realized its significance in fighting crime and later wrote about 'not overlooking anything' in his "Sherlock Holmes" stories.
I had to solve it this way: there is no math yet for much ofPhase Symmetry.
Nothing, that humans invent, works perfectly with the first model built. All my life I was lucky to be one of those who was needed in solving the various science and other problems, that had to be solved, to get these brand new things working successfully.
It didn't take me too long to see that our universities were teaching their graduates more of what was needed in the past than what was going to be needed in the future.
As I've said before, in various papers,Phase Symmetry wasn't put together overnight.
It grew slowly like a baby, because I saw early in life, in the 1940s, that what we were learning about magneticfield theory just wasn't right. I've shown, in various papers what Einstein said about it in 1954 (in blue below). "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."
That statement from Einstein will be with me forever! and I continually contemplated on why that gyroscope didn't fall.
Those two things were screaming at me and telling me that"Newton's gravitational field theory, and a lot more, had to be WRONG!"
I BEGAN TO SEE THIS MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY AGO!
It's still hard for me to believe that I might have been the only one — in the entire world — who started to see the correct picture way back then.
Now it's plain to see that Newton's field theory blinded us from seeing the cause of Dark Matter, and all attractive forcesthat are always in-phase, quantum entanglements.
Now in retrospect
here's what we see.
Einstein was quite right when he wrote thatabove in 1954, about a year before he died.
Einstein's teacher, Hermann Minkowski, had already come up with the correct assessment of spacetime and the spacetime interval.When we look through the Hubble telescope through space, then we are also looking back through time, so it's really spacetime. And IMPORTANT — Einstein saw this spacetime was also a repulsive force.Einstein had seen that Minkowski's spacetime was also related to his (Einstein's) 'Cosmological Constant repulsive force', that Einstein knew, and we now know hold all these 5 BASIC spinning things apart in both microcosm and macrocosm, i.e. quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.
Einstein, saw modern physics was wrong, and should have seen that all he needed was a simple phase law (relative motion law), because that is ALL that really exists in this totally spinning macrocosm.
That's really ALL that exists in this spinning microcosm too. What I didn't know at the time was that many others had put forthrelative motion theories that were all promptly squelched by physicist Robert H. Dicke who claimed gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was, then we would see evidence of gravitational interference fringes in our largest telescopes. Since we do, in fact, NOW see these gravitational interference fringes in the Hubble telescope, then this, more than anything else tells us that relative motion MUST be the cause of all gravitational type attractive forces: the very OPPOSITE of spacetime repulsive forces.
More than half a century ago there was a good article, in Scientific American about Ampère's 1823 Long Wire Law that made me re-think — and suspect even more — everything I had learned in electronics.
In 1823, André M. Ampère took two batteries and connected each to a long wire, with both wires parallel to each other. When the current went thesame direction (in-phase) through both wires, the wires attracted. When Ampère reversed one of the batteries and the current went through the wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase), then the wires repelled each other.
The unit of electrical current, the Amp, was named after Ampère for this simple discovery in 1823 — relating the FORCE directly and SIMPLY to the movement (current) producing it.
This fundamental basic simplicity of Ampère's 1823 Law — using NO plus or minus charges, or north and south magnetic poles — is now totally obscured by the more complicated math and rules of the Faraday-Maxwell field theory,coming half a century after Ampère, that must use imaginary plus and minus charges and north and south poles.
We have electrons all spinning at the same EXACT frequency. They have two choices: They can either spin or move in-phase with each other or spin or move out-of-phase with each other. This is where Ampère lucked out. Ampère didn't know about their spin buthe made an 1823 law about their movements showing PARALLEL MOVEMENTS (FLOWS), of electrons, IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
—and—PARALLEL FLOWS, of electrons. IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS (out-of-phase) REPEL EACH OTHER. Ampère's 1823 Law.
Phase Symmetryattraction is simple:
THINGS in-phase ATTRACT
This LAW replaces modern physics !!!
And (what Ampère didn't know) electrons & every other spinning entity from quarks to galactic superclusters whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE IN THE SAME DIRECTION (in-phase) will ATTRACT each other.
—and—All spinning entities whose CLOSEST SIDES MOVE in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS to each other (out-of-phase) will REPEL each other, also is Ampère's 1823 Law.
The Marie inAndré-Marie came from Ampère's mother's name: At that time in France it was a common practice to denote the mother in the child's name.
Ampère gave us this concept that thingsin phase always attract — entanglement — and things out of phase always repel.
He gave us this concept using relative motion rather than phase but it's the same thing really if you analyze it. Use relative motion in your own spacetime realm or lower frequency realms and use phase in higher frequency spacetime realms.
Simply use whichever method makes it clearer to you.
We've shown, in the prelude, that even Albert Einstein— a year before he died — considered the concept of fields to be a bad concept.
Yet most items on the internet will show magnetic fields being associated with what Ampère discovered. Forget FIELDS: Ampère's 1823 long wire discovery had nothing in it about magnetic fields. Forget his later laws incorporating magnetism in 1827.
Field theory was mainly England's great gift to us. Today's enhanced field concept came from Faraday and Maxwell, and as Einstein shows us, it turned out to be a bad mistake.
Field theory may explain repulsive force space, but it blinds us to the TRUE attractive forcesthat are always in-phase, quantum entanglements. One example is Newton's gravitational field concept that blinds us and prevents us from seeing the TRUE cause of Dark Matter.
Ampère didn't know about electrons but he did know something in his wires were moving so he gave us a system of laws that have nothing to do with MAGNETIC fields.
This below essentially is what Ampère said about long parallel wires in 1823:
1. Long parallel wires having things in them moving the same direction caused the wires to attract.
2. But if things in one wire moved one way and in the other parallel wire they moved the opposite way then this caused the wires to repel.
Then he gave us a bit of math for various angles if the wires— in which these things above were moving — were not exactly parallel.
And this gives us by far our best observance at how those things inside the wires— electrons — are behaving in relation to one another. This tells us essentially the idea of plus and minus charge is wrong because these electrons do not always repel each other. Regularly, like in Ampere's long wires, they attract each other.
In all cases, phase is a better concept to use than charge (positive ions and negative electrons).
Absolutely correct in all cases, Ampère's phase concept also shows you which way the electron spins. When you see the much more highly complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept doesn't, then it's simple to know which concept to use.
Ampere didn't know these things as electrons but now we think we know a bit more about them.
These are essentially Ampère's Relative Motion Laws:Ampere's Laws http://www.rbduncan.com/Ampere
orAufbau Laws http://www.rbduncan.com/aufbaulaws.htm
orRelative Motion Law http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
orGold Universal particle relative motion law http://www.amperefitz.com/plawrm.htm
These are also phase laws with which all the forces can be unified:http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm.
Why only a few of us see this today, is something that I still can't figure out!
I began to see thissimple relative motion law in the early 1940s when my father bought, and let me use his 20,000 ohms per volt, volt-ohmmeter, and this relative motion concept really grew more intense, in my mind, in the mid 1940s when my father and I went halves in buying a war surplus Sherman Tank radio transmitter-receiver, for $79.95 from Gimbals Department Store in New York, and got it working by using two car batteries to give us 12 volts to drive the units' power supply generators. These two batteries we charged with a rectified & filtered 2 amps, using a war surplus 12 volt 'rectifilter', which supplied enough current to recharge the batteries but had not quite enough current capacity to run the transmitter-receivers' power supply generators directly by itself.
I had assembled a pretty good picture of how asimple relative motion law was working in the microcosm by 1965, while working for Pan American Airlines, in the Radio Department, using my U.S. 1st Class Radio License with RADAR Endorsement #P1-7-4087.
This meant reverting back toAmpère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823, and disregarding ALL later laws using fields & charges, which even includes Ampère's later laws.
It wascrystal clear to me then, that there was only ONE simple relative motion rule for ALL these forces in our universe. In fact, I was solving more radio problems using that one rule than using all the garbage beliefs of charge, magnetism and field theory, that I knew by then could not possibly exist. In fact, they obscure us in seeing the actual attractive and repulsive forces.
I wrote a 64 page book about thissimple relative motion law in 1966. Fitzpatrick's First Book (Click Link) There was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.
In my 87th year on this earth, I've managed to convince quite a few people, around the world, that this is what is really happening, butit's hard to change established religious beliefs, and that's exactly what today's modern physics is. Even Einstein saw that in 1954.
While we cannot obtain a Unified Field Theory, we can obtain aworking relative motion law by substituting speed for voltage and mass for current in Ampère's Law. We now have the computing capacity to give ourselves a working relative motion law. This may sound impossible but this actually can be done today. I've done all I could putting many of its foundation stones in place. See http://www.rbduncan.com and also read 4 decades of my papers FREE by clicking
Science will make one huge quantum leap once this is done.
Here's how it's done:
When you are measuring amps,you are really measuring the quantity of electrons passing your measuring point. In the macrocosm you use the same amount of energy, passing your measuring point, with its force falling off at the 'square of the distance' just the same as in Ampère's original 1823 Law.
The problem comes with voltage.We see it as pressure. However, we can't measure pressure in the macrocosm, but I've realized for years that we are not measuring the pressure of electrons. We are measuring the SPEED of those electrons and calling it voltage.
SPEED is something we certainly can measure in the macrocosm.
So, what does this tell you?
It tells you the answer Einstein was trying to find with his Unified Field Theory — and with SIMPLER MATH too.
What we are unifying are ALL the FORCES. We are unifying ALL the attractive and repulsive forces in this universe using Ampère's simple ORIGINAL relative motion law of 1823.What can't be unified are the spacetime realms produced by the different frequency spins of spinning quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and galactic super-clusters: their spins are all at a different frequency. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, the same as radio frequencies (radio stations) are all different.
For some reason, yet unknown we see these faster spinning things (higher spin frequency) as SMALL, and the slower spinning things (lower spin frequencies) as LARGE.
Even though this is incomprehensible, you will have UNIFICATION now because as you start using Ampère's Law for all this, then you will understand EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES SPACE & TIME (spacetime).
This is something you don't know now.
We have many spacetime realms but 5 BASIC spin frequency spacetime realms: quark, electron, star, galaxy and galactic super-cluster.
The electron is the only one of those above 5 spinning entities that has the same EXACT spin frequency for all electrons, making the same EXACT spacetime realm for all electrons.
Each of the above 5 BASIC spinning entities —spinning in all directions, mostly out-of-phase with each other — are producing — repulsive force, — holding themselves far, far apart, and producing different spacetime realms (different space and time) at different spin frequencies.
These are the only 5 BASIC spinning entities we know about. There may be thousands more larger than galactic super clusters and thousands even smaller than quarks.WE ARE IN A FREQUENCY UNIVERSE. Make no mistake about that! We have limits in our spacetime realm. But does this spin frequency universe have a limit in spin frequencies either higher or lower? Does this universe have a limit of these spinning entities being too small or too large?
WhileAmpère's simple relative motion law of 1823 solves one of our biggest science problems, it most certainly creates an even larger problem of understanding a universe that can exist that possibly extends both larger or smaller in an infinite direction both ways.
1.Now we must ask ourselves an important question: If we are, indeed, in such a frequency universe as this, then could our concepts of large and small be frequency concepts? Faster spinning, higher frequency spinning entities seem to be smaller, and slower spinning, lower frequency spinning entities seem to be larger.
2.Could our two concepts of space and time be erroneous concepts? Relativity scientists see this repulsive force as ONE thing, i. e. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant), or Minkowski's spacetime.
I've been asking myself those two questions (in the above paragraphs1. and 2.) for a good many years now.
I've made considerable progress in answering these two questions in paragraphs1. and 2. in the following links below.
Last, but not least,we solve even more of Niels Bohr's Complementarity Problem, because we see how an electron, from the quark's spacetime realm view, might look somewhat like our galaxy.
Precession, with each revolution — over a long period of time — results in a perfectly round PARTICLE or Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, SCALAR, standing wave.
Therefore, a tremendously longer period of time (spacetime) must exist between quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies & super-clusters of galaxies for this universe to be stable.
Now you have the WHY for the Big Bang.
Electricians and radio people understand the importance of PHASE in regard to FORCE. I guess it was beneath the dignity of all the theoretical physicists, so far, to even consider the PHASE aspect of any unified force theory.
And many sought to unify spacetime realms that simply can't be unified. Einstein was so close! If he had worked in early radio, instead of the Swiss Patent Office, would he have gotten it? It's an incredible story: Einstein completed 99% of what was needed but missed unification by a hair.
I cannot teach anybody anything.
I can only make them think.
(Click aScalar link below for # 1. Answer.
Scalarin htm: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.htm
Also,Scalar in Word: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.doc
AndScalar in Adobe pdf: - http://amperefitz.com/scalar.pdf
Withoutthis new knowledge of Ampère's simple relative motion law of 1823, modern physics has become so dysfunctional that it cannot tell us what causes Dark Matter. Fixing that dysfunction is the challenge at hand. Change begins with understanding, and I wrote WIMPs to provide some. It also partially answers the question in paragraph 2., giving you a good idea of what's really going on.
WIMPsin html: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.html
Also,WIMPs in Word: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.doc
AndWIMPs in Adobe pdf: - http://rbduncan.com/WIMPs.pdf
I didn't put this together all by myself. The ideas from a great many others are contained herein.
Man is not an island. I saw that early in the game. Still you have to remain more or less an island, in certain ways, or others will criticize you for your heretic science beliefs that you are using to solve more problems than they can.
I got ideas from others who were good at solving science problems. And I read all I could about what was going on in the science world especially about gyros.
I've told all about this in various papers, so I'll dwell no longer on that, other than to say I've been looking for a better answer to everything virtually my entire life.
I remember my father saying, "We haven't even scratched the surface of knowledge in science."
Well, now with this paper I can assure my readers thatPhase Symmetry even does a bit more than scratch the surface of science.
And it does far better than present science does.
If you don't comprehend — Ampère's two simple Laws — the basis forPhase Symmetry, then you won't understand why all these electric motors in the world are spinning.
And if you don't understand the concept ofPhase Symmetry then you are never going to understand how this spinning universe works.
Our very building blocks of quarks and electronsall have spin the same as stars, galaxies and super clusters of galaxies.
ALL thisspin in our universe is because of Phase Symmetry, which is also the cause of the spin in ALL electric motors.
Einstein was looking for a simple concept likePhase Symmetry.
WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.
ALL our science rules were designed for movement around STATIONARY objects.
There is nothing STATIONARY in our universe:nothing stands still! EVERYTHING IS SPINNING!
Nevertheless, this STATIONARY way of comprehension is the antiquated way the present establishment is still thinking in terms of our universe.
Sorry, this universe is not working the way they are thinking!
So, why not use Ampère's Laws that give us the reason for EVERY attractive and repulsive force in this entire universe.
It may be hard to believe Ampère's Laws tell us this, but it's true.Ampère's Laws give us — a unification of micro & macro universe forces — via a simple model that mathematician Stephen Wolfram said we need to use if we want to understand our complicated universe.And as Stephen Wolfram also pointed out, you need that true, simple building block model BEFORE you attempt any math.
Here's Ampère's simple building block model:IT WORKS.
Ampère showed us that when an electrical current was put through two parallel wires in the same direction (in-phase) then those two wires would attract.
Ampère also showed us if electrical currents went through those parallel wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase) then those two wires would repel.
If these laws Ampère gave us are seen asPhase symmetry laws then they explain magnetism, AC & DC electric motors, and the entire microscopic particle world including gluons far, far better than Maxwell's field theory ever could. Phase symmetry even explains, believe it or not, Gravity. And it explains precisely how Quantum Entanglement works as well. Phase symmetry, therefore, not only unifies the forces, but finally also shows us exactly what (spacetime) really is.
Now addwhat EARTH RATE tells you. For years now I've been explaining EARTH RATE in numerous papers.
I'm not going to explain all that again here. Look up Earth Rate and you will see this Earth makes one complete turn, in respect to its surroundings, in 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds — not in 24 hours that it turns in respect to the sun: this makes all the difference in the world between belief in present science, and what I have to say now.
Because all inertial objects such as pendulums, gyroscopes, vibrating elements, and helium-2, all have that same 23 hour 56 minute and 4 second similar rotation.
What this essentially means is that inertia is an IN-PHASE attractive force to our surrounding stars.
Berkeley told us, "Inertia is a connection to the surrounding stars", Foucault proved it. This is Mach's Principle!
There can be no doubt about this whatsoever!
Even without computers, by simply using the concept ofPhase symmetry, we can finally see the big picture of what is really going on in our entire universe.We have the computers today that can accurately emulate, mathematically, the functioning of Phase symmetry.
What this means — dear readers — is that if we shift our human and computing resources away from today's science beliefs that are not quite right, and completely toPhase symmetry, then we can solve every attractive or repulsive force between EVERYTHING in both the microcosm and macrocosm throughout this entire universe.Surroundings don't matter as much in present science, whereas they contribute to half the forces in Phase symmetry.
Surrounding forces are swept under the rug, along with the quark strong force, that is swept under the rug via Strong Force Containment, which is something else that they have that is not quite right.
That's what I'll cover below in theGravity and Inertia Chapter.
Now we come to Dark Matter where the establishment is again not quite right.
Light is produced via the spinning electron.Phase symmetry says gravity is produced via the much faster spinning quark, probably the down quark.Phase symmetry unifies the forces telling us, ALL these spinning entities, in both microcosm and macrocosm, produce ALL the invisible forces we know, IN THE SAME MANNER EXACTLY.Phase symmetry shows us DARK MATTER will never be seen by us as particles (WIMPs). DARK MATTER is caused by the spins of all the stars, galaxies and galactic super clusters. All these spinning entities cause binding energy at some in-phase spin frequency. None of these spin frequencies are HIGHER than our spin frequency realm. Therefore, none of this energy can enter our realm in particle (quantum) form.
Field theory totally blinds you not only to this, but also to the simple fact that to obtain this strongest attractive force in magnetism, every strong resonance structure bond MUST BE two electrons spinning the same way EXACTLY on the same spin axis.
Not only doesPhase symmetry demand this, but being a RESONANT bond strongly implies this as well, because if both spins differed by the slightest fraction of not being exactly on the same spin axis then resonance is destroyed.
There is only one size quantum of energy in this stronger of electron to electron bonding forces, providing same strength nuclear bonding is involved, but the weaker spin up - spin down bonds vary in strength, in fact, giving us the various colors that we see.
See my other papers about this. They are all FREE & have been since 1991, a bit even before the internet.Phase symmetry tells us that every spinning entity from quarks and electrons in the microcosm, to stars, galaxies and superclusters of galaxies in the macrocosm, produce TWO types of forces.
1. the strongest quantum of binding energy is when both spinning entities have similarin-phase spins exactly on the same axis.
2. Spin up - spin down binding that produces weaker, many size quantum binding forces, when both entities are spinning in the same exact plane, or parallel planes, with theirclosest sides in-phase.
Light uses this type transfer. With ultraviolet light, each quantum of ultraviolet light isbinding in the exact same spin plane, with the electron in your eye. And the weaker colors are binding in parallel spin planes with the electron in your eye. Now we go to gravity and inertiabecause the same quarks cause both forces. This is EXACTLY why a gyro defies gravity.
Gravity was seen by Isaac Newton, and is still seen today as an instantaneous force, far faster than light.
Van Flandern shows us the speed of gravitational attraction is greater than or equal to 2 x 1010c, or to our non-mathematical readers, this means gravity travels at least 20 billion times the speed of light.
ButPhase symmetry shows us it is not quite instantaneous.Phase symmetry shows us that Strong Force Containment is almost right but not quite right.
More than 99% of the quarks are fully contained, but a very small fraction are not, and it is this very small fraction that give us both gravity and inertia.
The reason that thegyroscope defies gravity is that many of the same quarks that were previously used for gravitational attraction are now being attracted — not to the Earth but to quarks in the surroundings — to give us gyroscopic inertia.
Two more things are important.
1. The strength of each quantum of energy does not decrease in energy with distance. Only the NUMBER of quanta decreases inversely proportional to the distance squared.
2. The faster the gyro spins, the faster the matching frequency in the surrounding stars must be to match and bindin-phase with it.
This is the reason centrifugal force increases the faster things spin. Present science doesn't tell us WHY!Phase symmetry TELLS US WHY!
Centrifugal force increases the faster a gyro spins. Because then quarks, in the spinning entity, are matching and binding in-phase with higher and higher matching frequencies, of quarks in the distant stars.
Higher frequency quantum bonds have more BINDING strength than weaker lower frequency quantum bonds.Phase symmetry tells us which type quantum bonds the quarks are using to give us gravity and inertia.
These quarks are bindingin the same or parallel spin planes, spin up - spin down with their closest sides binding in-phase like your eye electron binds with the electron giving it a quantum of light.
This is extremely important — because this means that the quarks giving gravitational attractions must be spinningeither UP or DOWN on an axis parallel to the same axis the gyro is spinning.
This means LESS or NO GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION because to get gravitational attraction the edges of the quarks in the spinning gyro must bein-phase EXACTLY with those of the Earth, and that is not possible any longer because now all are either a bit higher in frequency or a bit lower in frequency because of the added rpm of the spinning gyro.
This one needs a bit of thinking to see, but it's correct.
Even though the difference in frequencies of the CLOSEST SIDES of those distant quark edges isn't much, IT'S THERE and that's what makes the difference!
Ladies and gents, you have just read the real reason, EXACTLY why thegyroscope defies gravity.
It's actually being pulled toward the surrounding stars.
Present science says Centrifugal Force is doing it, but doesn't say how.
Phase symmetry shows you EXACTLY how.
DATE: July 7th 2018.
THIS PAGE in html: -
THIS PAGE in html: -http://amperefitz.com/gyroscope.html
Also THIS PAGE in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/gyroscope.doc
And THIS PAGE in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/gyroscope.pdfAlso see DPFJr
COLORS in html: -colors.html
Also COLORS in Word:- colors.doc
And COLORS in Adobe pdf:- colors.pdf
To keep this paper 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.
See:Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013
Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013 also in Adobe.pdf- phase.symmetry.pdf
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 these following links:http://www.rbduncan.com/toprule1.htm
AND 4 Decades of Fitz's papers:
Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.
To paste any of my pages to your desktop in their entirety, FREE, do as follows.
1. Right clicklink of page.
2. Click - send target as.
3. Click - save.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.