SEE, — HOW the complexities of
FIELD THEORIES HID from us, the fact that relative motion (phase) between all these spinning entities, in the micro & macro universe, gives us all the attractive and repulsive Fundamental Forces.
Oct-29-2018.
Field Theories in html: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.html

Also, Field Theories in Word: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc

& Field Theories in Adobe pdf: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdf

Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
Fitz's first book in 1966

Fitz's 1966 book in PDF


EVERYTHING on these links herein are FREE, & NO pop up ads with these either.


This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.



Interest in String Theory wanes as interest in WSM grows

 

Interest in String Theory wanes as interest in Dr. Milo Wolff's WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) grows.

Waves, unlike strings, are not limited to a certain size. And this may turn out to have many advantages.

I have listened to both Dr. Milo Wolff and his opposition who say his concept is nothing but an echo from the past.

Yes, while this may be true the mathematical proof that Milo Wolff gives for both the electron and its spin being scalar standing waves are both brand new.

Standing waves, unlike strings, are things that constantly reproduce themselves.

This is a universe in which we see everything reproducing itself.

Could this really be a Dr. Milo Wolff type standing wave universe?

Standing waves waste energy by constantly reproducing themselves to the detriment of all radio transmitters and their antenna structures. Engineers have to diligently work out ways to eliminate these standing waves so as to increase the power the radio station puts out.

Could this universe be using similar self reproducing standing waves, in a more or less spherical form, as its building blocks?

And how does this scalar concept come into being?

In essence, Dr. Milo Wolff's mathematical proof is telling us that every electron is constantly being produced via the energy from all the electrons in its surroundings out to the Hubble limit. Since these electrons extend outward in all directions then this makes the electron production a scalar phenomenon.

This wave theory, similar to string theory, seems to be on a roll and from all parts of the globe as well.

The possibilities of this new concept are immense.

Everything now must be harmonically tuned into their surroundings. And this indeed is Mach's principle.

I've looked at all this and given it much thought.

I'm going to bet on Dr. Milo Wolff being right.

5/19/2007 Dr. Milo Wolff states what I've been saying for years now that Energy conservation is an exchange mechanism and that spin arises from a phase relationship (wave rotation).

----------------------------------------------
In addition to what Dr. Milo Wolff says, I'm going to go one step further and state that not only the electron but all these spinning entities from quarks to galaxies are nothing but scalar, standing wave entities.

Also I'm going to add that the spins of all these entities are far, far more important than present science denotes and from these spins do we derive all the various invisible forces that we see.

It's also plain to see that the spins of electrons are all harmonically linked to the spins and orbitals of the quarks.

What this is telling me is that for controllable hydrogen fusion it will take far less pressure if you can properly line up the quark and electron spins and the same goes for more efficient fuel cells if the spins of both quarks and electrons in the hydrogen and oxygen atoms can be more accurately lined up.

There is one more thing that is very important:

In the same way that you cannot discern the force of gravity from an acceleration, so also can you not discern that force out there, holding all the stars and galaxies apart, that Einstein called his cosmological constant, from this recently discovered accelerating, expanding universe.

Therefore instead of an accelerating, expanding universe what we really have is a steady state universe along with Einstein's force out there, that is equal and opposite to gravity, holding all the stars and galaxies apart.

http://www.goodreads.com/message/sent

http://www.goodreads.com/message/sent

Our Dystopian Universe

, here are links to my latest book. It's FREE to you.

Here's the <b>FULL</b> 192 page e-book <b><u>FREE</b></u>.

Click either link <b>below</b>:

http://www.rbduncan.com/unvrasleep.htm (in html so it opens faster.)

http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf

Above link is in Adobe so it takes a while to open.

Cheers
Daniel




Hi, fellow author, here's my latest BUT it's science.

Anyway it's FREE to you if you want it.

Here's the <b>FULL</b> 192 page e-book <b><u>FREE</b></u>.

Click either link <b>below</b>:

http://www.rbduncan.com/unvrasleep.htm (in html so it opens faster.)

http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf

Above link is in Adobe so it takes a while to open.

Cheers
Daniel


here are some of my books FREE

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3009.Fitzpatrick_s_First_Book_and_his_other_FREE_e_books_FREE_sundial_making_software_

(Click link above to read.)

Also see: http://www.amperefitz.com

AND see: http://www.magpul.com/

And http://www.rbduncan.com/

"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." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-104985.html

"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead

'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)

'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger) http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Erwin-Schrodinger.htm

My paper lays everything out, the standard model and gravity, as a single connection over a four dimensional base manifold. The differential structures idea could give a natural explanation for the quantization of such a connection.

 

Fitz













Milo,

But we do know exactly what space is, Milo.

Look at General Relativity.

In GR the tensor math has no units for force but the tensor math has units for space and this can be more or less, so space can be curved.

A repulsive force, in GR is said to exist when excess space is developed between two entities.

Attractive force is said to exist in GR when the average amount of space, between these entities, is diminished.

If force is equivalent to space in GR then force must be equivalent to space everywhere.

What if space is frequency concious?

What if space, like energy is quantizable?

I get a yes for both of the above as I look at two spinning electrons and then two spinning binary stars of the same mass.

Gravity only gives half the answers. It doesn't show us why everything spins prograde and not retrograde.

The two spinning stars will have to be spinning prograde with their closest sides going in the same direcftion, If they follow the spin rules we have established for all other spinning enties in this universe of ours.

This is similar to the two electrons isn't it?

Could Milo Wolff's WSM be working here as well?

I suspect so!

It's a balance game both for the electrons and the stars where they both stay in balance by balancing the forces in each direction (or by curving space) by making more or less space in each direction to stay in balance.

BUT

If you look where electrons are not balanced then this shows you exactly what space is and that it is quantizable and frequency concious.

Electrons are not balanced in magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding.

The attractions in both magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding always occur when the two electrons, visualised as spinning spheres, have their closest sides going in the same direction or IN PHASE if we want to see them as scalar WSM entities.

The repulsions occur whenever the closest sides are going in opposite directions or OUT of PHASE.

SPACE therefore is the AVERAGE of all of this.

Every two electrons are producing a quanta of space (force) between themselves.

Space, therefore is made in electron frequency units (quanta).

Since we are built of electrons ourselves then we, like a superheterodyne radio, sense this AVERAGE electron produced frequency as space.

fitz

milo wolff wrote:

On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Zeus wrote:

Milo,

Click this next link:

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htm

Then make the right hand top box also 3.

This will give the two binary stars the same mass.

Do more changing and you can get both orbits to line up exactly.

Now they are on the same orbital just like two electrons.

So binary stars of the same mass act exactly like the two electrons on the same orbital.

Why?

Zeus, you ask difficult questions with long answers.

Yes it is true that two stars, and the WAVE CENTERS of two electrons around one proton, or of an electron and positron alone, behave similarly in their orbital location. But they are not identical. Especially, the electron waves are not particulate; instead they are more like the sound waves inside a drum - they have a 3D shape. In the stable ground state, there is spherical symmetry - no paths.

Examine: The rules for the two stars are well known; they use the Law of gravity and the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The stars follow distinct paths. But they are just 'rules' that use the Natural Laws whose origin was never known before the Wave Structure of Matter.

Old physics: The old RULES of the electron waves provide clear solutions: If the electrons move around around a proton, one electron must have spin UP and the other spin DOWN. However the origin of spin is a complete mystery in the old physics.( But in the WSM, spin origin is obvious.)

The same for an electron + positron alone = 'positronium. There are orbital paths you can calculate but they are unstable; no one knew why before the Wave Structure of Matter.

New Wave Structure: Now, knowing that the origin of the Laws is the WSM, there is only one puzzle left: What is 'space' (quantum space)! It determines the waves and the origins of all the Natural Laws. There is always one puzzle left: Space =??

Your friend, Milo

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)

visit: www.SpaceandMotion.com