NOTHING in present science has prepared us for this **ANSWER****!**

Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.htm*

Also ANSWER in Word: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.doc*

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.pdf*

Fitzpatrick's

view of this universe

"Unfortunately, it is also a dictum of history that the intellectual establishment is the last to accept new ideas."

Dr. Ravi Batra

a Theory of Everything internet paper that gives you a far simpler way to understand this complicated universe.

****

Einstein's search for a Unified Field Theory

It's been over 50 years now since Einstein's search for his Unified Field Concept. . It's been over two centuries since Faraday tried to unify magnetism and gravity. . Magnetism and gravity were the only two fundamental invisible forces known in Faraday's time. . Next came the weak force and evidence of the strong force, which Einstein knew about. . Einstein took it upon himself to try to unify the invisible, fundamental forces but he failed.

About now the reader is going to ask, "Who is this guy writing this and what position is he in to tell us all this and to put out a Theory of Everything."

Well I'm a radioman or at least that's what I set out to be and it's how I think of myself. . This following bit of history is necessary because it shows how I became a firm believer in Ampere's relative motion concept that, I discovered not only gives you a

I lived in Linden, New Jersey in the 1940s and before the 1940s ended and before I graduated from high school, I had, in my pocket, my class B Amateur Radio License W2YDW, my Class A Amateur Radio License, my 2

I graduated from Linden High School and still have the copy of their Cynosure of 1950 and underneath my picture it says, "Science is the key to life" and how right they were.

I learned to fly at Bart's Airport near Budd Lake, N.J. and those hours in the air over northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania were the golden hours of my youth that I will never forget.

After graduating from Linden High, I bought a 1937 Chevy (with an actual 20,000 miles on it) from a little old lady for $300 and drove it to Florida to see the Miami Air Show. . I simply stayed in Florida and never came back to New Jersey winters again. Miami was country back then. . I loved it. . I bought an Aeronca 7-AC Champion aircraft and flew and flew and flew all over South Florida.

But this epic really begins one day in the brand spanking new air-conditioned Pan American Airline complex that Juan Trippe built on 36

But before that happened at Pan Am, one day Jim Ingraham had overhauled an RCA Radar Indicator which was "in sync" at the bottom instead of at the top. . While seeking a remedy to prevent that ever happening again, I looked at the indicator coil. . And I noted that this problem would not happen if the electrons in the top outside wires, in the rotating coil, went in the same direction as the electrons in the cathode ray tube beam, during sync.

I will never forget that RCA Radar Indicator or that day at Pan Am because it has taken me down a far different path in life than I would have gone down without it.

I realized that day: Ampere's relative motion concept was the true universal concept that everyone was looking for. . It was indeed the Holy Grail while the Faraday-Maxwell concept was

Subset laws, Kurt Gödel proved, may have limited worth. . These subset laws are indeed limited to a narrow band of frequencies.

Our science laws, along with their necessary math, are strictly limited
to a narrow frequency range of parameters. . I saw the limits to our
precious science laws that day:

I saw that
those electrons in the cathode ray tube were being attracted to the coil
for the very same reason that I was being attracted to the earth.

We were both **moving** on parallel
geodesics.

Wasn't this *Ampere's Universal
Particle/Motion Law*?

Even
Feynman saw the importance of motion. . Read what he says in his famous *QED*.

You must look at
surroundings (Mach's principle) and parallel paths along with "geodesic
balance paths" and present science totally fails in this
respect.

Isn't this why *Gravity Probe
B* is up there to check "frame dragging" or
"Gravitomagnetism"?

I realized that Ampere had done, in the early 1800s, what Einstein had sought to do and neither Einstein nor anyone else, for that matter, had caught on to it.

I realized, as I held that RCA Indicator, that both gravity and magnetism were nothing more than similar effects of relative motion, which is the fruition of Ampere's concept and at the same time these are also distortions of spacetime, which was Einstein's concept.

I realized that day: Ampere had discovered, in the 1800s, an essential part of what Einstein was looking for a hundred years later.

The year that I held that RCA indicator in my hands was 1966. . I wrote a small 64 page book about what I had discovered and there was a full page about it on page 29 of the June 18, 1967 Sunday, New York Times Book Review section.

From Lincoln Barnett, who wrote the best seller "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", I got a letter of approval and from scientist Robert Dicke I got blasted. . Only years later did I finally see Dicke's error and why I was indeed right and why Dicke was very, very wrong.

Einstein had said, while working on his Unified Field Theory, that looking for this unified field concept was like trying to imagine what a dinosaur looked like after finding only one of its bones.

In my book*Fitzpatrick's
First Book *FREE, . I mentioned
that I had discovered a few more dinosaur bones. . At that time I had not
fully understood the important role frequency was to play in all of this,
nor had I read what Kurt Gödel had said.

Einstein was looking for a simple answer

And the answer is simple too. . Ampere showed us how spacetime essentially works. . But Ampere wasn't thinking about spacetime because he hadn't any idea way back then that space and time were essentially one thing. . It took Minkowsky---one of Einstein's teachers---to realize this after he saw what Einstein had come up with.

I have a high regard for Einstein and especially for his general theory
of relativity. . I hope that the FREE e-books on this web page will show
you approximately how that all works. . I will not go into any of the
tensor math of Einstein's though. . You can get all of it, that you want,
by searching *Google*. .

Here's essentially what I'm trying to put forth: . You __must__ see,
what Yale University teaches its astronomy students, that the speed of
gravity has to be far, far faster than the speed of light for a stable
universe. . Thus the speed of light and gravity are NOT the same.
*Speed of
Gravity is 9x10 ^{16} meters per second.*

This is sending a very important message to you.

It's telling you what's really going on. . It actually shows you WHY we have Einstein's principle of equivalence or

Gravity **IS** an
acceleration because there is no such speed of 9 x 10^{16} meters
per second here in our spacetime realm. . This speed of gravity, stated by
Yale and proven by *Van
Flandern* as being far
faster than the speed of light, can only exist in the spacetime realm of
the quarks. . This is too fast a velocity for a speed in our spacetime
realm so even though it can be noted here, as it has by Yale and Van
Flandern, . it can only be measured directly as an acceleration
here.

From this you can see what's really going on: . The mind
senses different spacetime realms -- different rules & math used -- in
each different frequency spin/orbit system. . We use, for instance, QCD
rules and math for the quark spin/orbit frequency range; QED rules and
math for the electron spin/orbit frequency range and our present science
rules and math for our spacetime realm we sense we are in here. . This is
what is making you THINK there are different forces such as gravity, plus
and minus charges and flux lines of force when there is really only one
force.

And this one force is space creation---just as in the tensor
math of general relativity---but it is different
types of space
creation at different frequencies.

Would you like to know **WHY** we see these four fundamental forces
instead of seeing it as one force, which it supposedly really is?

The reason we see these four different fundamental forces is because our mind senses distinctly different frequency spin/orbit spacetime realms causing them.

I will give you a model of this universe that will show it all as
**one force**.

If we see each different frequency spin/orbit system as having a
different
spacetime realm then each of these also * must have* a
distinctly different

Confused?

Type any unfamiliar terms, like this. into

What is this term

Einstein and Minkowsy found time is tied up with space.

There is a relationship between the two.

Space and time change with a change of velocity or mass.

The relation of time to space is the relation of one side of a right triangle to the other with the hypotenuse being what is called the "spacetime interval".

With the hypotenuse

So knowing the hypotenuse (spacetime interval)

. Quite a few of today's scientists are still not aware of limiting the
spacetime realm frequency range if accuracy is required while quantum
scientists, since Feynman's elucidation, are __very__ aware of
*fixing the
gauge*, thus
limiting the frequency range involved, before they even make an attempt to
quantify.

**Fizpatrick's 11 ^{th} law is: "**The more accuracy you want, the more you
must narrow the range of frequencies involved. . Also, the greater the
frequency range you view, the less accuracy you will have (with present
math).

See

The other part of Heisenberg's uncertainty stems from the fact that momentum is derived from the spacetime realm of the quark while position is derived from the spacetime realm of the electron. . I hope you will see the reasoning involved as you read this.

Quantum theory has taught us this is primarily a frequency-resonance universe.QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) deals with probabilities, yet it is able
to predict with the highest accuracy of any theory. . If you keep reading
then you will see exactly **WHY** that is so.

The way QED accomplishes this is that it uses a novel method called
"squaring the amplitude" to effectively approximate the in phase - out of
phase patterns of electrons that exist along the **"spacetime
interval"** (in the path through both space and time).

I am going to give you a visual model of how I see this universe. . You
may not like this model. . You may not even believe in this model. . Yet
this model does show **why** QED and the other sciences work as well as
they do.

The way it all works is similar to the way you hear radio programs on your radio. . The superheterodyne circuitry in your radio mixes together frequencies that you cannot hear. . This gives you frequencies that you can hear.

Since you are built of quarks and electrons then guess what happens when all those spin/orbital/precession frequencies are mixed?

It results in a **"spacetime interval"** phase pattern of
frequencies that you will see as Euclidean space, time and even motion for
everything constructed of quarks and electrons, which includes you. . This
is suggested---but not absolutely proven---by *Young's
experiment*. . This phase pattern provides you with space that will
stay Euclidean as long as you don't get too massive or exceed .01% of your
available speeds.

QED shows you that energy is constructed in quanta. . Now I am going to show you a visual picture of how this electron phase pattern produces space and time that are constructed in quanta as well.

Keeping frequencies in mind, the next paragraph is of vital importance:In both special and general relativity the "spacetime interval" remains
invariant. . But
the parameters that it remains invariant in are** **__not__** **__a__
__greater__ __frequency__ __range__**
**__than__** one spin/orbit frequency system.** . And this, folks, makes it a whole new science ball
game.

The human mind does not need much accuracy so it has a broadened frequency range and instead of sensing a dimension for each frequency it senses a single dimensional spacetime realm for each spin/orbit frequency range or less.

Ampere's relative motion concept shows you the difference in force between magnetism and charge is one of relative motion.

A magnetic force is always derived from the spin of electrons that are "locked" into a certain position on orbitals.

Charge is always derived from "free" electrons or "free" ions.

We'll see this as we look at:

How "frame draging" or "gravitomagnetism", that will be
measured by *Gravity Probe
B*, is best seen using Ampere's concept that merges with general
relativity.

Read the FREE e-books on this web page for more about all this.

You know---at least the intelligent ones know---that weYou have the speed of light being a constant, independent of the velocity of the source and of the observer. . This throws Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics to the winds. We know this is so; therefore we must accept it.

Now we have one more very important ingredient added to the stew and
that is the finding of *Saul
Perlmutter* that this expansion of our universe is
accelerating. . Others have also proven this, so this must indeed be
true.

Ah, but it

*Gravity Probe B* will
show us that we must look at gravity differently. . We will have to add
the spin factor that causes what present science terms "frame dragging" or
"Gravitomagnetism".

But this doesn't complicate things. . It actually simplifies it**
providing** you look at it the way Ampere did using relative
motion.

So the first simplification comes from Einstein's **principle of
equivalence**: . It is telling you, **something that
everyone except ***Saul
Perlmutter* **and ***Dr. Milo
Wolff***
eeem to be missing now**, that you cannot discern the effects of an accelerating,
expansion from Einstein's original cosmological
constant repulsive force.

But which one is it?

Do we have an accelerating, expansion or Einstein's repulsive force between all the stars and galaxies, holding them apart?

You can figure it out by simple deduction.

Yes, the *CMBR*
proves we had a Big Bang but is it still expanding
now?

Maybe but maybe not. . This **WAS** the situation that we were in
for over half a century until Saul Perlmutter's group studied the
supernovas.

Perlmutter's group found this expansion seems to be accelerating and since then this has been proven by others.

Thank God for Perlmutter.

Because now we know which one to choose from.

It's the one Perlmutter himself chose.

He chose Einstein's repulsive force between everything.

Why?

Because even though Saul Perlmutter discovered this acceleration, he also knew it could not be discerned from Einstein's original cosmological constant. . Therefore he knew and published that this repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity---first predicted by Einstein---exists between every star, galaxy and supercluster keeping them apart exactly like things in the microcosm are kept apart.

A Big Bang could leave us with an expansion but there is no possible
way it could leave us with an __accelerating__, expansion. . There
would need to be a **present** force there to continue to accelerate
and the Big Bang force was a **past** force.

So what Perlmutter has shown us is that gravity can no longer be seen as a monopole force.

Gravity must now be seen as a bipolar force exactly like the other bipolar forces

That's why I said "Thank God for Perlmutter." . He put a few drops of science into a barrel full of ignorance.

It will take time for those few drops of science to completely sterilize the barrel of ignorance but it eventually will. . It took the universities of the world about thirty years before they all admitted Newton was right.

Perlmutter proved this is gravity's equal and opposite force out there between everything keeping them apart, so this makes gravity a bipolar force. .Indeed,

Thus gravity MUST NOW BE SEEN CORRECTLY as a bipolar force. . Things are held apart here in our solar system and in the macrocosm for the same reason they are held apart in the microcosm.

As I've been asking the expansionists for four decades now:

"Do we have an expansion here and none in the microcosm just because

See: **Expanding
Universe Religion**

&*Sol Eisenberg
Ph.D*

Einstein's principle of equivalence is telling you that you cannot tell
the difference between an accelerating, expansion and Einstein's original
cosmological constant.

Einstein's original cosmological constant
was a repulsive force between the stars and galaxies keeping everything
apart exactly like it does in the microcosm.

Scientific reasoning
now tells you the accelerating, expansion is only a popular delusion of
present science.

Einstein's repulsive force is what is really
there.

The choice is clear. You must do what Saul Perlmutter did
and pick Einstein's repulsive force between everything.

So welcome back to the 1920s and into a steady-state universe once more.

Getting simpler, isn't it?

Not only is all this---thanks to Saul Perlmutter---greatly simplified
now but the construction principles of this entire universe are also quite
simple: . They are all obeying nothing but *Ampere's
Laws*.

This entire universe cares little for our present science. It
** only** obeys its simple

(German translation "construction laws").

Generally when NONE of the so called experts can come up with an answer to something then the answer is almost always in a far different direction than all of those so called experts are thinking. . It's all relative motion. . This is the vital answer that none of the experts thought of and that Robert Dicke even proclaimed could not possibly be. . Bob Dicke gave an adamant

I got into airplanes straight out of high school. . I received all my college degrees while working for the airlines. . So how did this high school kid excel in troubleshooting these complicated airliner electronic systems when these college-trained engineers were competing with him? . Well, I found out early on in the game that if one used Ampere's laws while troubleshooting and not that complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept then it was easy to solve electronic problems and to find out what was really going on.

You see, you don't need math to troubleshoot avionics. . You need something clear & simple. . You need something fast. . I discovered early on that Ampere's laws were clear, simple and much faster than the Faraday-Maxwell monstrosity that these university graduates were all using and are

If you want exact quantities than you must go the Faraday-Maxwell route in electronics or the other present science routes in the other specializations because they allow you to do the math. . But if you want a simpler picture, in your mind, of how this is all working then absolutely nothing gives you a better model than Ampere's laws, however, there is no math for them yet. . Even Ampere couldn't match the math to all of them and he was a math prodigy. . He knew all the math of his era by the time he was 12.

It was not until after I retired and read Kurt Gödel that I fully understood why I was far better off using Ampere's laws for electronic troubleshooting. . Reading Gödel's Proof will show you why: . Faraday-Maxwell math is subset math and Gödel warns you never to totally believe in subset math laws. . Well, quantum laws are subset laws too. . And low and behold even Newton's laws are subset laws and Einstein's general relativity corrections for them are subset laws as well. Einstein collaborated with Kurt Gödel. . They were both in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton together. . Einstein should have listened to his friend Kurt Gödel a bit better than he did.

It turns out that Ampere may have hit upon the only non subset,

The greater the frequency range you view, the less accuracy you will have (with present math).

Our entire math, that we have here right now, is subset math for subset science rules. . Ampere's laws remain unpopular because we have no math available yet for Ampere's universal laws.

Even so, Ampere's laws give you that top notch

Even though unpopular, Ampere's approximation ALWAYS puts you in the ball park where present science and its math can sometimes lead you far astray.

One more reason for the unpopularity of Ampere's concept is that the surroundings (Mach's principle) must be considered. . Gyroscopes hold to the surrounding stars yet present science discounts the importance of surroundings in their laws. . Ampere's laws show surroundings are vitally important.

Another reason for Ampere's unpopularity is that the spin and orbit/orbital frequencies---that we don't know yet---must ALL be found and taken into consideration, so it is easy for scientists to totally ignore these factors, which they have indeed done using present science.

My hat is off to the quantum theorists for showing us how important these spin/orbit frequencies and spin precession and orbit/orbital precession frequencies really are.

Gravity has no aberration yet light does, showing us that Yale University and *Van
Flandern* are correct telling us gravitational attraction and light
travel at different speeds. . This is sending an
important message to you to do some different type thinking.

Let's return to what I said a few paragraphs before: . When NONE of the so called experts can come up with an answer to something then the answer is generally in a far different direction that all of those so called experts are thinking.

The far different thinking for a universe with all those things we know we have that I mentioned previously is this:

What scientists presently see, as the speed of light is something
entirely different. .
It's something no one except *Dr. Milo Wolff
*. has thought of: . It is really **our** spacetime frame rate. . It's a
scalar resonance
rate. . It's the movie picture frame rate that the electrons, that you are
made of, are rebuilding themselves and you.

See *importance of SCALAR
WAVES* .

If you go to the movies then these were actually produced using 16
individual pictures or frames every second for silent films and 24 frames
every second for sound films, which you see one at a time but which your
mind sees as really happening. . I'm afraid it's the same in real life.
You have these spacetime frames here as well. . But here these are
**scalar
**resonance frames. .
You will consider, as solid, anything that has a similar frequency
**scalar** resonance or a harmonic thereof. . The entities in our microcosm have higher
scalar harmonics
thereof and the entities in our macrocosm (galaxies) have lower
scalar harmonics thereof.

You can detect transverse waves like light, radio and water waves that travel mainly in one plane but you cannot detect a scalar wave because it is 3D like the multiple skins of an onion. . Instead of seeing individual scalar waves, you see the complete 3D onion that they make. . Every object you see is a scalar wave entity.

I'm not going to go into all the whys and wherefores but if you want to
build a universe with relativity, quantum mechanics and all those things
previously mentioned then all you have to do is have time being produced
for you by BOTH the quark and the electron. . All you need is for your
electrons to have a scalar resonance frequency that is **exactly** the square root of the
quark scalar resonance
frequency. . You will then see **exactly** *Why E =
mc2*.

You will have to read a bit about *Dr. Milo
Wolff* to understand the importance of the scalar resonance frequency
of the electron.

Ampere's laws---slightly modified for frequency---then give you a good idea of when and where this spacetime interval is produced. So here's what you have then:

It's a pretty simple universe building plan.

These are truly universal laws that work both in the microcosm and macrocosm.

I told you the principle would be simple and these "A" Laws are. . They are relative motion laws depending on the surroundings. . They are also definitely wave-particle laws and therefore laws that our subset developed minds can understand and use.

The French may want to call these the Ampere Laws and the Germans will call them the Aufbau Laws. . I'll simply call them the "A" Laws.

** *The
**1**^{st.}
"**A**" Law

The spacetime interval is *created the LEAST* between any
two objects (scalar wave resonances), the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving
on parallel paths in the

** *The
**2 ^{}**nd.
"

Both space and time (spacetime interval) are created the
* MOST* between any two objects (scalar wave
resonances), the
closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel
paths in

^

^

^

Of great importance, in the two preceding laws, is that these laws are
__frequency__ laws and they work separately for each separate
spin/orbit-__frequency__
level which means these individual wave-particles must *"see"** *themselves doing these things from
their viewpoint in their local gauge environment. . It does not matter how
some other spin/orbit-__frequency__ level views these things because
space and time and indeed the average spacetime interval is entirely
different for each different spin/orbit-__frequency__
level.

These two laws look equal and opposite but they are not: . The 1^{st
}"**A**" law "locks on" while
its opposite 2^{nd} sister law never does. . This is because the
total force is generally centralized and you can feel this 1^{st
}"**A**" law "lock on" when two magnets come
together. . These two laws---along with "angular lock on" that you need to
read about in my book---result in limits of aggregation being established
all throughout this universe. . This is why there are limits to the size
of atoms and limits to the size of stars as well. . It also results in all
these spin/orbital attractive bindings being quantified and their
distances ultimately limited even though these distances may be
extensive.

These **individual** quantum attractions are all full strength right
up to the limit of their distance. . This is the reason that energy can
neither be created nor destroyed. (A quantum of energy comes to your eye
from a distant star full strength. No energy is lost in that vast
distance.) . It is only the **number** of these attractions that falls
off with the square of the distance. . It is the spin binding of the
electron that causes magnetism and the spin binding of the quark with
other nearby quarks that give us gravity. . The quark to quark binding
with those in the stars gives us inertial mass and gyroscopic inertia
(Mach's principle) and none of the **individual** quantum parts of
these attractions are diminished with that vast distance.

CONTINUED on Page
2.Click above for Page 2. (almost forgot) ADULT
xxxSEAN version*~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* *~~~* |