A Theory of Everything. The Invisible Forces

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.



From: http://www.rbduncan.com/InvisibleForces.htm


Chapter 1 --- Ampere's law

Recently (1998) Saul Perlmutter's group---after discovering that this universe expansion was accelerating---made the claim that we may well have another invisible force. They claimed that Einstein was right in 1917 when he said there was a force between all the stars holding them apart. This repelling force, they claim, is also between all the galaxies holding them apart as well. This repelling invisible force is equal to gravity in strength yet the very opposite of gravity in that it is a repelling force: It is known as Einstein's cosmological constant and is represented by the Greek letter lambda.

Science Magazine claimed that this group of Perlmutter's had given us one of the most important developments for the year of 1998. I not only agree with them but I will show you how this discovery leads to the conclusion that not only the four fundamental forces can be unified but all the invisible forces can be unified as well.

Our ancient ancestors knew of the invisible force of gravity and also of magnetism because of natural occurring lodestones. You might also say they saw lightning and therefore knew something of the electrical invisible force.

The first linking of the electrical invisible force with the magnetic invisible force happened in 1820 when Orsted was explaining electricity to a group and he happened to notice his compass needle would always position itself at right angles to a wire carrying an electrical current.

Andre M. Ampere heard of this and immediately investigated it and gave us his laws which are essentially as follows:

Long parallel wires containing electrical currents going in the same direction attract.

Long parallel wires containing electrical currents going in opposite directions repel.

Long wires carrying electrical currents will also have a torque that will tend to make them parallel to each other with the current in both wires traveling in the same direction. This torque will vary as the cosine of the angle of the wires.

Others then quickly added to this law and vastly improved upon it but this law of Ampere's is essentially the foundation of all of our electrical laws. What is interesting about this law is that it uses only motion. Ampere's law uses absolutely nothing in the realm of plus and minus charges or magnetic lines of force to show the linkage of electricity with magnetism and this is extremely important.

Once we see that we can use only motion to show the linkage between magnetism and electricity. We then must ask if we might use only motion to link some of the other invisible forces as well?

Well, Robert H. Dicke answered that question back in the nineteen sixties with a resounding NO. We have Dicke's statement that many attempts to show these linkages via relative motion have been proposed. But they must all be disallowed, said Dicke, because he could find no wave interference pattern, which he felt would be there if the foundation was indeed motion.

Dicke had spent a good bit of his lifetime trying to prove Einstein wrong. He knew both special and general relativity well and had worked to develop early RADAR, so we know he knew quite a bit about the wave world as well.

In retrospect, it seems ironic that Dicke's assumption about relative motion may have prevented him from achieving one of his life-long quests. Even today we cannot possibly detect the entire wave spectrum. Perhaps the principal reason Dicke did not see the wave interference patterns, that he was looking for, was that he did not have any receivers in those frequency ranges where these wave interference patterns would, most probably, be generated.

Einstein said gravity was a wave and Dicke knew this to be true but neither Einstein nor Dicke knew the frequency of that gravity wave. This was a big flaw in Dicke's assumption about the value of relative motion.

Even Einstein may have made an error in estimating the gravity wavelength by claiming that the gravity wave could be polarized.

You will see herein that gravity is a modulation of the inertia wave. You will also see that the inertia wave was at far too high a frequency for Dicke to detect and discover his wave interference pattern and the gravity wave modulation of it was at far too low a frequency for Dicke to even find, let alone get an interference pattern. In fact, we may never be able to either measure or polarize the gravity wave.

Benjamin Franklin gave us the idea of positive and negative battery elements and Michael Faraday gave us those magnetic lines of force. James C. Maxwell provided the math. Heinrich Hertz clarified it all and then the world of radio waves was off and running.

But were Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell and Hertz absolutely correct in adding to Ampere's law?

We would not have had this modern electronic world today if they hadn't added what they did.

But if we want to unify the invisible forces, then we need to go all the way back to Ampere's original law. Remember, it links electricity and magnetism by only using motion. Let's see if it will link all the other invisible forces, as well, simply by using motion. When we try this we see it definitely seems to, providing we modify it a bit and we also change our thinking a bit of how this universe is constructed.

* **



Chapter 2 --- George Berkeley, Ernst Mach and Duncan's law

George Berkeley, Ernst Mach and many others said our inertia came from our surroundings. Even general relativity seems to suggest this.

If this is so, then we would have difficulties with gravity outside of our galaxy wouldn't we? We would, because a universe of galaxies would definitely have a different symmetry of other galaxy surroundings than we would have here inside of only our galaxy.

And we do have difficulties with gravity showing us exactly why galaxies are composed the various ways they are and they seem to rotate far too fast also, so we have invented this hypothetical dark matter to explain this. There is a slight problem with this necessary dark matter though: We've now discovered that not only must it be transparent but it must contain 95% of the mass of the entire universe as well. Wow!

Why not simply believe in Berkeley and Mach? Then you can dispense entirely with the necessity of dark matter.

When an electron on a far away star drops to a lower orbital sending an electron in your eye to a higher orbital then no energy whatsoever was lost in that long distance, Binding energy also does not drop off with distance.

An electron and a proton have more mass before they bind to form an atom and after combination they have less mass than before as single entities. This tells you they have removed some of their binding with the rest of the universe and switched this to closer binding with each other. Therefore what we see as mass is really binding with the fixed stars just as Berkeley and Mach claimed. Keep reading to find out exactly how this all works.

Here's Duncan's law:

Any particle or aggregation that is spinning and orbiting on a geodesic at a certain spin/orbit frequency derives its inertial qualities solely from similar items in its surroundings that are at a similar spin/orbit frequency. All spinning/orbiting items on geodesics, no matter how large or small, will have some form of gyroscopic inertial reaction when acted upon by an exterior force.

Believe it or not but Ampere has given us the foundation for this providing we add the Duncan frequency aspect to Ampere's laws. Adding frequency to Ampere's laws and realizing that all forces are space-time derivatives, gives us the following "A"Laws:

* The 1st."A" Law

The space-time interval is diminished the most between any two particles or agglomerations of particles, the closest sides of which are spinning or moving on parallel paths in the same direction (like gears meshing, not clashing) at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects will attract each other.


* The 2nd. "A" Law

Both space and time are created the most between any two particles or agglomerations of particles, the closest sides of which are spinning or moving on parallel paths in opposite directions (like gears clashing instead of meshing) at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects will repel each other.


*The "A" Law Corollary

These forces, or space-time intervals, between two objects will vary proportionally with the cosine of the angle of their geodesic orbits or spins. They will also have a torque that will tend to make the geodesics parallel and to become oriented so that the closest sides of both objects will be moving in the same direction (like gears meshing, not clashing).

Or (more like Ampere's original law)

Objects traveling in the same direction on parallel paths at the same frequency will attract and/or space and time, at that frequency, between them diminishes.

Objects traveling in opposite directions on parallel paths at the same frequency will repel and/or space and time between them, at that frequency, increases.


You have the choice, in this world if you so desire, of speaking more than one language. With these "A" Laws, you now have an entirely new science language. But don't ever try to mix these two languages. Use your old science by itself and don't use gravity, charge, distance, etc. with these "A" Laws.

The conservation of energy is really a derivative of the conservation of space-time.

If you want to use math then use your old science but if you want to get to the "approximation of what is really going on" (something Dirac predicted) then use these new "A" Laws. What they are essentially showing you is that space, time, distance, gravity, motion, etc. are all spin/orbit frequency derivations: This is something the scientific world has not even noticed up until now.

 * * *



 Chapter 3 --- Why electrons and galaxies repel each other.

 Since we dare not mix these "A" Laws with our old science rules then we must completely forget the idea of plus and minus charges, which do not exist in this "A" Law science.

Both electrons and galaxies have inertial qualities and this includes gyroscopic inertia, which always provides this force 90 degrees to any external force acting on such a spinning item providing the external force is not exactly at the pole or equator of the spinning item.

The following shows really why electrons, galaxies, etc. repel each other:

The 1st "A" Law tells us that there is a possibility that two free electrons will attract each other if any portion of their closest sides are spinning in the same direction at the same frequency. This means either their sides can be spinning in the same directions or they can be lined up so that both of their poles can be spinning in the same directions: Any such two electrons will attract each other (magnetism).

Then we see that there is more: This attracting force comes in as the cosine of the angle of the attracting poles or sides.

As this force begins to act, it in turn causes this 90-degree gyroscopic torque to twist both of those totally free electrons away from not only this initial attracting alignment but from any attraction alignment.

It is because of this gyro torque that two free electrons can never remain in a full attracting position. Also they will be forced to stay more in a repelling position. Therefore free electrons will always end up repelling each other and this repelling is not explained by using this thing called charge: It is explained only by simply using global inertial qualities and our new global "A" Laws.

You are not going to notice this though at the slow speeds or low mass that we are confronted with normally but electrons have a high speed and galaxies have a tremendous amount of mass.

This will explain not only why electrons repel each other but this also explains why any two perfectlyfree similar spinning objects must repel each other. So now you know why electrons, stars, galaxies, etc. stay well away from each other.

This repelling force is really Einstein's cosmological constant, isn't it?

But all these items must be more or less similarin size and perfectly FREE (such as gyros in gimbals) to have this repelling force between them.

Something somewhere has to be "locked" in place and synchronized in frequency with the electron's spin or a close subharmonic of the spinto get any kind of attracting force:

If the Andromeda galaxy was the same size as our galaxy then it would forever repel our galaxy, but it is not. The Andromeda galaxy is much larger and stronger than our galaxy. So it has more or less locked on to our galaxy. Once it does this then it will not repel our galaxy any longer and will start to attract it. We know this is indeed happening and our galaxy will eventually clash with the Andromeda galaxy and when it does, the two galaxies will be spinning in the same direction much like gears meshing and not clashing.

Such things as positive and negative charges do not exist in this theory: This theory, in fact, explains what charge really is.

Why a proton attracts an electron:

When two up quarks combine with one down quark to form a proton then something in this special type of assemblage is able to synchronize in with the electron's spin frequency and "lock" it thereby preventing the electron from precessing or wobbling excessively: This way it can attract the electron.

This is why aggregations come together (gravity) and larger aggregations come together and accumulate because as these things grow in size there are more things "locked" in place strengthening the attractive force of the 1st "A" Law.