Also, Field Theories in Word:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdfFitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampčre unified the forces.
This was the way --below-- these 7 pages looked more than 14 years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
Back to Web Page.
Page 7. of seven pages
Back to page 6. - - Web Page
Continued from page 6.
The reason stars, planets, electrons and quarks spin is explained by the law Ampere gave us. . This is Ampere's long wire law. . This is not the present Ampere law honoring him. . Ampere said, " There will be a torque developed between the wires tending to make them parallel and the strength of this torque will be as the cosine of the angle of the wires."
Same frequency surroundings provide Ampere's torque to spin quarks, electrons, planets and stars.
All of the abovementioned items spin because their mass density is higher than the average mass density of their same frequency surroundings and therefore their TIME is SLOWER than the average time of their surroundings.
They are therefore spinning to make up the time difference in respect to their surroundings.
The denser they are, than their surroundings, the faster they will spin.
This may not make sense to my present peer group but it will to future scientists who will finally realize that Milo Wolff was right and it's the surroundings that play the important part in both the construction and spin of all these space resonances or spherical standing wave entities.
We now have an explanation for Ampere's torque.
Fitzpatrick's 2nd Law of Relative motion:
"Spins and orbits are developed because each item will attempt to maximize the in phase relationship between its internal vector waves and those in the surroundings."
Because TIME is SLOWER in each of the abovementioned items than the average in their surroundings, they must therefore spin, tilt their spin axis, orbit and precess to maximize the in phase relationship between their internal wave structure and those of their surroundings.
Ampere didn't know this in the 1700s but it's still basically following his law.
Modern science doesn't give you much in the way of universal laws.
But you can use what Ampere gave you.
Plus when you realize that a form of frequency inertia and gyroscopic inertia (angular momentum) must exist at the level of each different spin/orbit space resonance frequency, then you immediately see how the four fundamental invisible forces can be unified.
The four fundamental forces are merely instances where the space-time interval has changed.
Which gives you:
Fitzpatrick's 3rd Law of Relative motion:
"The four fundamental forces are simply instances where the space-time interval is appreciably changed."
You can now also see this is an extremely simple wave type universe.
Present science has all the evidence and the math but they are deciphering neither correctly.
As Fitzpatrick's said to Milo Wolff,
"Your realization - and proof - that the inverse square law was reversed inside the electron was magnificent.
That hit me like a ton of bricks.
I had worked out and published somewhere about '97 that the de Broglie wavelength formula could not be removed from the microcosm and that it was reversed when used in the macrocosm.
As the macrocosm gets more massive the orbiting frequencies get slower, NOT FASTER.
There is a certain reversal in the entire microcosm.
All our colors come out of the microcosm to us reversed too.
In the macrocosm as something approaches a more massive object then it will be seen to red shift.
As the electron approaches closer to the massive nucleus, however, we see it, out here, as a blue shift.
The microcosm is a whole different space-time realm.
Both string theory and quantum mechanics are wrong in not seeing it as such because it means the info coming out of it must be TRANSLATED first before assumptions are made as to what it really means.
You and I both know how important the surroundings are.
Milo, once you know that present science doesn't even consider the surroundings then you also know present science is absolutely wrong.
It would make the math too complicated to consider surroundings so they took the lazy way out.
They used our ignorant ancestor's beliefs.
I knew, and published, this in 1966 and then started looking for universal laws that I could use in both the microcosm and the macrocosm.
The universal laws, Milo, are few.
Plus, I have the same problem with them that Ampere had. While they do give you a splendid picture of how things work, there is no math yet devised for them.
But these universal laws are what this entire universe uses.
The entire universe uses NONE of our science laws at all.
The reason that none of our science work in the microcosm is that all of our science is merely subset symmetry rules for this particular spin/orbit frequency, space-time realm that we find ourselves in.
It seems no one listened to Kurt Gödel." - - Fitz
Reality---as I stated earlier---is even more fantastic then any science fiction tale yet produced.-------R. B. Duncan
Extra Short Theory of Everything Extra Short T.O.E. version