R. B. Duncan Press
 

 

 
 
Back to page 1.

Page 16. of 21 pages

Back to page 15. - - Page 17.





Continued from page 15.

Here are Fitzpatrick's letters.



The "A" Laws

I realize this concept will seem preposterous to the present generation of scientists but if this universe was built as described herein then we would have all the effects we have today in quantum mechanics and general relativity.

This new concept, that I'm trying to put forth here, is that the various gauge rules used in quantum science are really only common, subset, inertial laws of relative motion, which are incorrectly seen by us. We see these incorrectly because we see things quite differently in our quite different frequency space-time, subset, inertial reference frame.

Einstein taught us that space and time changes with mass and acceleration. Now we are going to have to take one step further and see that space-time also changes in the microcosm as well.

What a good many quantum scientists fail to see is what I discovered and published in 1966:

I showed back then that the electron's magnetism and charge - that we see in our reference frame - are really nothing but laws of relative motion induced by the inertial qualities of the electron in the electron's entirely different frequency space-time inertial system.

This new concept - a continuation of my 1966 book idea - states that all spherical standing wave entities (electrons, stars, etc.) will have spin and other motion induced by inertial qualities that are caused by the relative motion of similar surrounding spherical standing wave entities (electrons, stars, etc.).

Not long after my book was published with a full page write up in the N.Y. Times Book Review section in 1967, Robert H. Dicke explanation wrote that while there were many theories of gravity being caused by relative motion this was not the case because no interference fringes were being observed.

What Dicke failed to realize was that if relative motion was also responsible for the actual production of space-time then, indeed, we would see no interference fringes being produced.

Milo Wolff also informs us that we must take the surroundings into consideration (Mach's Principle) Explanation. This, in essence, implies relative motion





The "A" Laws

"The reason these "A" Laws work is that this universe is built on an extraordinarily simple principle via an endless chain of vector waves that produce lower frequency spherical standing wave, scalar wave resonances that, in turn, produce space-time by spinning, orbiting and precessing.

A minimum of space-time is produced between vector waves that are in phase.

This leads, in turn, to production of vector forces between the closest sides of all such spinning spherical resonances and in the direction of the axis of each spin, orbit or precession.

These vector forces, in turn, combine to produce lower frequency, hence lower energy, scalar resonances, which in turn, spin, precess and orbit thereby producing still lower frequency space-time and its related vector forces and this goes on and on: . Thus is our universe built from the microcosm to the macrocosm." . D. Fitzpatrick





Milo,

Ampere's long wire law states that parallel wires, in which electrons are going the same direction, will attract.

But quantum theory totally disregards the fact that electrons locked either spin up or spin down on orbitals will ATTRACT each other when their closest sides are moving on parallel paths in the same direction.

They do this BOTH in magnetism and in sigma and pi bonding.

How can quantum mechanics totally disregard this?

Fitz





(Was just going to send this to answer your last letter, so this answers BOTH your letters. . . Fitz)



Milo,

I knew how non aligned vector waves were producing space between all these space resonances and that this space was being produced at a minimum where these vector waves could be aligned in phase whenever the closest sides of these resonances were going in phase (in the same direction) - like gears meshing.

I also knew that same frequency surroundings were involved and while no mathematical method was available to calculate this, an adaptation of Ampere's long wire law gave a suitable approximation, provided one completely forgot all present physics and simply saw force as Einstein saw it - a distortion of space-time.

But I did not know how time was produced until you showed me and I will be forever grateful to you for that.

For two entities to be on a Minkowsky light cone the scalar wave frequencies of BOTH must exactly match.

Now for the quantum numbers:

Quantum numbers are important because they represent the energy involved to change a position of something.

The quantum spin number of the neutron is not its actual spin - as we see spin in our world - but it is the energy involved in its change of orientation.

In fact when you see that Helium 2 holds to the fixed stars, that is telling you that the quarks inside each neutron are acting like tiny gyroscopes and holding each neutron to the fixed stars preventing it from actually spinning - in relation to the fixed stars - at all.

A thing that spins exerts vector forces along its spin axis.

Things like quarks and electrons, that spin, exert such vector forces not only along their spin axes but also between their closest sides and along their axes of precession. They do this by producing more or less space between them. Space, by the way, is frequency conscious.

You see a certain space because you are resonating at some quark-electron harmonic frequency.

Since the neutron is not really spinning we can plainly see that the quarks inside the neutron are binding with far away quarks on the fixed stars causing this resistance to change, or inertial mass, that we have.

So the neutron, itself is more or less out of the picture as far as vector forces are concerned and we can concentrate simply on both the electron and the quark.

The electron also has a quantum spin number, which in turn denotes the energy necessary to change its orientation from spin up to spin down. So it must also be offering a certain resistance to change or it also must have inertial qualities. But these inertial qualities are not at the quark spin frequency - our mass - but at the electron's spin frequency.

BUT since this is quantum framed world, in which energy can neither be created nor destroyed but transferred in quanta, then the quantum frames from the quark realm - neutron - must exactly correlate and match the quantum frames in the electron's realm.

And they do.

This is the picture I was trying to get across to you.

Fitz



Milo Wolff
milo.wolff@worldnet.att.net
wrote:


On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 06:14 America/Los_Angeles,

Fitz,

What is the meaning of 'real' for a quark?


Milo

> "If at first, you don't succeed and try again, and again, and again.
> You probably don't understand the problem."



Fitz wrote:

I will never breathe a word to Murray Gell Mann that you called his quarks theoretical.
He and I both know they are as real as we are and will, in fact, last longer than we will.

Fitz

 

>>>Milo said, "What you say all seems reasonable. We shall see what happens
next."<<<

But Milo,

If you can see that this seems reasonable then why wait?

Don't you want to know what causes both gravity (attractive force) and the cosmological constant (repulsive force)?

It's simple - look:

If mass is the measure of inertia then why does the electron have all those quantum numbers?

Present science says the electron has LITTLE mass.

Quantum numbers show inertial mass, or at least the energy required to reposition the electron.

So the electron must have considerable inertial qualities - perhaps at a different frequency?

Yes, Milo, charge IS shaumkommen because I found in 1966 that what the electron really has is gyro torque and we were mistaking this for all our electrical laws.

Milo, these are NOT different gauges. These are entirely different space-time realms.

Therefore we will NOT see the electron's spin correctly in our space-time realm because the electron's space-time interval is a bit different from ours.


Ampere got it right in the 1700s. Faraday got it wrong and we've been screwed up since.

It's simple, It's SURROUNDINGS, It's frequency - - - LOOK:

In BOTH magnetism and chemical bonding Electrons attract each other whenever they are locked into an orbital geodesic and their closest sides are going in the same direction (like gears meshing). Milo, your quantum scientist friends have totally disregarded this.

The reason for this is simple: Space-time is frequency conscious and space-time is being produced at various frequencies and it is being produced the least between entities moving on the same geodesic.

This is why electrons attract each other producing magnetism and this is also why you are attracted to the earth.

Space-time is being produced the most - Ampere showed you this too - whenever things move on parallel paths in opposite directions.

Surroundings enter into it because you are being pushed toward the earth and when magnets attract, it is because space-time - at that frequency - push the electrons toward the area of the least space-time production.


But the best is yet to come and this is WHY we have Einstein's cosmological constant.

If you forget your prejudices against the spinning electron and realize that all these FREE spinning entities have gyro torque. Then whenever a FREE spinning entity - either an electron or a star or even a galaxy - lines up with another similar FREE spinning entity, then what happens?

Since each has gyro torque then if their closest sides happen to be lined up to attract each other the gyro torque MUST keep shifting BOTH entities until they are more in a repelling position to each other.

You don't need either charge or the cosmological constant to explain repelling. It's all gyro torque.

And it's all surroundings and itís all spin/orbit frequencies.

Fitz





The "A" Laws




* * * continued on page 17. * * *

Click here for Page 17.

Click above for Page 17.

This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.




*~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~*