A Theory of Everything. The Invisible Forces. Part 3

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

© 2002


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


 Chapter 6 --- Gravity

Gravity is a much, much lower frequency wave than inertia. It is actually a modulation of the inertial quark spin frequency wave by the lower galaxy spin frequency.

This is why it "looks" as if gravity is merely an attractive force between all objects.

The slow spin of the galaxy makes gravity a weak force. The spin of the even slower spinning Virgo super-cluster is also involved.

Dirac knew we had a complicated universe and as I stated previously, Dirac predicted we would find a way to approximate an answer to it. Our predecessors have approximated an answer to gravity that seems to allow us to work out the orbits for things as long as we remain inside our galaxy.

These new "A"Laws, however, give us the input that future super computers will be able to use by taking the surroundings into account and they will be able not only to give you the orbits but even the spins of everything.

Gravity is a complicated force: It is the resultant that is left over after all the space-time creations are subtracted from all the space-time reductions. The gravity that you experience is the net space-time reduction at your particular position in this universe while you are traveling on your particular geodesic in this universe.

This is a complicated universe of space-time creations and space-time reductions all at different spin/orbit frequencies. Present science sees these as various invisible forces but all such invisible forces are really nothing but either space-time creations or space-time reductions.

This essentially is the Holy Grail. This is the unification of all the invisible forces.

Nothing is at rest in this universe. You know your ancestors were wrong when they thought the earth was the only thing at rest and all the other things in this universe were moving. What these scientists of this year 2002 do not yet know is that Galileo was also wrong in assuming that you can have various places of rest. You cannot. Nothing is at rest in this entire universe. Since this Galilean idea of the multiplicity of places of rest is the basis for relativity then theoretically I suppose, that makes relativity wrong as well. This is why I stated that it was ironic that Dicke mistakenly ruled out relative motion when it was the very thing that could prove Einstein wrong. Dicke used to argue with Einstein and if you look at Dicke's work then it is clear he spent a good portion of his life trying to disprove Einstein's theory of general relativity. I would never attempt anything that foolish. General relativity will be with us for a long time yet even though it may get dented in places somewhat by these new "A" Laws.

Surroundings are the key. You must take the surroundings into account when you try to figure the amount of gravitational attraction at a particular spot.

General relativity does that too. In fact, Einstein's infinite but yet unbounded universe can be seen using these "A" Laws:

This is a universe of waves and standing waves (particles) and wave linkages. These linkages occur at specific frequencies and harmonic frequencies. Since there is probably no limit to these frequencies then there is also no limit to this universe in either a smaller or larger direction. But where there is definitely a limit is in "angular lock on". But since this will change as the point of reference changes then this universe must be said to be unbounded as well.

"Angular lock on" must be thought of as the number of linkages these waves make with each other. "Angular lock on" is what we see falling off with the square of the distance and at a certain distance this falls off completely. This makes the apparent universe finite. The strength of each of these wave linkages is the same no matter what the distance. A photon of light, for instance, loses no energy no matter how far the distance.

Waves, in this respect, have to be considered being transverse waves of universal balance. All waves, even longitudinal waves, are waves of balance. Where we now see things as smaller, we should think of them merely as shorter wavelengths.

We are obsessed with accuracy. We have developed various types of mathematics to give us accuracy but in an all wave world you can understand David Hilbert's questioning of geometry: In geometry a point is described as having no real size. But, as Hilbert asked, how do you build a system of geometry on a foundation that doesn't really exist?

You cannot: So in all practicality you do it the same way you do it on paper and you do give this point a minimal size---and so this is the practical method by which we get geometry to actually work. But in a real wave world where wavelengths could get smaller and smaller all the way to infinity, this would present real problems. Hilbert was right about geometry not being quite right.

You come away with the realization that geometry is OK only if you do not change your size.

Which brings to mind Gödel's Proof where Kurt Gödel proved that if you could not see out far enough---such as us here on earth---then you would never know if all your science laws were indeed true laws or not.

I'm afraid that Kurt Gödel has handed us the absolute proof that all our present science laws are nothing but subset rules.

They are the equal of quantum mechanics rules and nothing more. Our ancestors who gave us these rules didn't know that you really must take the surroundings into consideration and they also didn't know that their world was really an all wave world. They didn't know that they were attracted to the earth, approximately, because they were going on a parallel path with it in the same direction more then they were with all the other items in the universe.

* **



  Chapter 7 --- A static steady-state universe

This is a universe of piano keys (standing wave particles or agglomerations). The paramount law in this universe is that all these piano keys must stay in tune with all the other surrounding keys. The Big Bang may have simply been the re-tuning of a few keys and thus only a whimper of the available energy in this entire frequency universe. We think what we see is a good portion of this universe but whenever man has placed himself in the center of things, he turns out to be inevitably wrong.

Once we see that the Fine Structure Constant is changing with eons of time then this suggests that at one time the neutron may even have been a stable particle. But over more eons of time as the FSC continued to shift then the neutron itself perhaps became unstable and neutrons broke up into protons and electrons. This could have been the Big Bang. It doesn't really matter precisely what happened though because this is a frequency shift of only a few octaves or only a few piano keys (particle levels). The surroundings (majority of the other standing wave frequencies) would have eventually curtailed any expansion and the end result would have been a static steady-state universe. And this is what we have now regardless of what present science thinks it is.

One proof of this is the recent discovery (1998) that Perlmutter's group made proving to us that we really do have Einstein's cosmological constant out there. It is a repelling force equal but opposite to gravity.

If you have the principle of equivalence with gravity then you will also have it with gravity's equal and opposite force as well. This means you will have the principle of equivalence with Einstein's repelling force---his cosmological constant.

Remember now, this force is around all the stars and galaxies as well, holding everything apart. Also please remember that you are looking through this force.

The significance of the principle of equivalence means that, by observation alone, you will never be able to tell if it's a force out there or if you are in an accelerating, expanding universe.

An expanding universe is one thing but an accelerating, expanding universe is something else that is entirely different. It's something that is absolutely impossible. You merely do a Sherlock Holmes and eliminate that answer. This leaves only the alternative answer. There must only be Einstein's repelling force out there.

Is there anything else telling you that this is an expanding universe? No. Do you have spinning orbiting things and 99.9999% empty space in the microcosm too? Yes. So this must mean we are indeed in a static steady-state universe just the same as the microcosm with the only difference being the symmetry of construction at the macrocosm's lower wavelength.

Einstein showed us a star will slow light down and bend it but I see this differently. I see this cosmological constant repulsive force bending the light because this force is the creation of space-time and with more space-time being added, light will be bent or seem to go slower.

You have this same repulsive force between all the atoms of glass holding them apart as you do between the stars and galaxies holding them apart too. It is this repulsive force that slows light down in glass and bends it and it is this repulsive force between the stars and galaxies that also slows light down and bends it there as well.

This is the final and correct answer not only to Olbers' paradox but to the red shift as well.

Einstein said that gravity was not a force but really a distortion of space and time. Back then he did not know what we know now, that all the invisible forces are also only really distortions of space and time. And these "A"Laws show us approximately how it all works---just as Dirac predicted.

* **



 Chapter 8 --- Magnetism & Electricity

 I had various Federal radio licenses in my pocket before I finished high school and I learned very early in the game to use Ampere's laws in place of the Franklin-Faraday-Maxwell monstrosity. This put me way ahead of all my peers and it kept me way ahead of them all through my avionic career. Go ahead and use lines of force and plus and minus charges if you need to plan something using math. Better forget all about them if you are troubleshooting and need fast answers though. For that you had better stick with Ampere. You then get an instant picture of what's really going on.

It's crazy to use north and south poles and say opposites attract when nothing of the kind is happening.

If you could look inside both the north pole magnet and the south pole magnet when they are attracting you would see that all the electrons in BOTH magnets are spinning in the SAME DIRECTION. This is why you have the attraction.

Why keep using a law that is entirely BACKWARDS. Once you see something is absolutely wrong then quit using it.

Did you know that the north pole of the earth (that pole up above Canada) is really a SOUTH MAGNETIC POLE?

Forget all that 1700's monstrosity and try to see what is actually happening now in 2002 using these "A" Laws.

When you look down at the face of a north pole magnet the electrons causing the magnetism will all be spinning clockwise.

When you look down at the face of a south pole magnet the electrons causing the magnetism will all be spinning counter-clockwise.

To get these two magnets to attract you will have to turn one of them upside down. When you do this then all the electrons in both magnets will be spinning in the same direction. This is why the poles attract.

If you did NOT turn one of those magnets over then the sides of each would attract because the CLOSEST SIDES of the spinning electrons in both are going in the same direction. ("A"Laws)

The reason that the polar attraction is the stronger is because the entire portion of all the electrons are spinning in the same direction and not merely the closest sides, as in the side attraction.

All electrical devices can be explained by these "A" Laws. The electron has inertial qualities. This is not inertia because our inertia is produced at the quark spin frequency. Nevertheless, the electron does have this resultant 90 degree gyroscopic torque when an exterior force is applied to it. In an electric motor, generator or transformer, not only is this 90 degree torque evident but it is going in the correct 90 degree quadrant every time as well.

The transformer is the most interesting of these because the alternating current in the primary is actually moving the electrons in the secondary wires toward the skin of the wire, then toward the core axis on each alternate half cycle. It is this 90-degree gyro torque that drives the secondary electrons up and down the wire. What's interesting here is that these "A" Laws show why we have "skin effect" at radio frequencies. Magnetic lines of force simply do not show us this.

Two magnets attract simply because you are reducing the space-time between them. But you are only reducing the space-time between them that is being produced at that particular electron spin frequency.

* **



Chapter 9 --- A second look at these "A" Laws

Use these new "A" Laws to observe the following relationships in chemical bonding.

All the space between everything in these atoms is being created by the 2nd "A" Law: But this is not quite all of the story. You have already seen why-by using only inertial qualities-electrons repel each other, in chapter 3. This will also show you how both of these laws working together determine the symmetry of the space-time construction of the particle elements in each separate spin/orbit-frequency level.

Quantum theory uses the term "overlap" where these electron orbitals from adjacent atoms overlap and bind in covalent bonding.

In p (pi) bonding the spins of two electrons from two different atoms become momentarily parallel. They will frequently overlap with the "locked" pole of one electron-spin-up-attracting the "locked"pole of the other spin-up electron causing these two different atoms to bond in p (pi) bonding. Remember these electrons do have size and they "see" their closest portions, in this case their poles, are spinning in the same direction(both either spin-up or both either spin-down) at the same frequency. Thus, the "A" Law shows these will attract. These electrons in p (pi) bonding only attract each other and bond during this extremely short interval of pole to pole overlap and not during a good part of the entire orbital. All p (pi) bonds are fleeting but repetitious and the strength of these bonds will depend on the length of time these poles remain parallel to each other while facing each other and spinning in the same direction. Our new 1st "A" Law provide us with the answer to p (pi) bonding.

In d (sigma) bonding, electrons from two different atoms bind these two atoms together far differently from the ones in p (pi) bonding. In this d (sigma) type of bonding these two electron orbitals are not parallel to each other but are merged into one plane yet the overlap is still here but in a far different manner. These two electrons from the two different atoms or molecules remain on opposite ends of these two in line orbitals. These two electrons are also "paired" and "locked" with one spin-up and the other spin-down but these two electrons "lock" with their closest sides going in the same direction (the 1st "A" Law) and not their poles.

This new concept sees ionic bonding merely as the electron using subharmonic bonding with the protons in the nucleus.

Quantum theory gives you a probability that these electrons will be more often found in a certain area. These "A" Laws---using precession---will show you that as well. One more thing: Both of these electrons will be orbiting exactly on the opposite sides of the same orbital as the other electron. This is not what is most relevant here: What is most relevant is that one electron will be spin-up and the other spin-down. And their closest sides will constantly "see" each other exactly in phase and the same mass on the closest sides. Thus, both electrons will attract each other at least a good portion of the entire orbital using their closest sides according to our 1st "A" Law. Remember this is a d (sigma) bond.

Although the closest sides of these two electrons may attract each other with less force than the closest poles, you must remember that in p (pi) bonding these poles only overlap a small fraction of the orbital. Whereas in d (sigma) bonding the sides of these two electrons "see" and attract each other more of the entire orbital so the d (sigma) bond ends up being the stronger of the two.

Any electron that is perfectly free, similar to a gyroscope in gimbals, cannot be locked with another free electron. You have seen, in chapter 3, why all free spinning objects in this universe must repel all other similar sized free spinning objects.

An electron bound to another electron, or the nucleus, loses its freedom and thereby is, in effect, locked into a certain position and thus it can attract other electrons.

These can lock in many ways. They can lock together for part of the time. They can "lock on" for part of an orbital. They can use either their closest sides to lock or they can make a stronger lock with their poles. Two somewhat restricted electrons can lock together or one free electron can "lock on" to some electrons that are already locked.

We know that magnetism is caused by both the electron's spin and the electron's orbital motion. Binding energy is also caused by various spin and other motions of the various particles. Unlike iron, we could expect, in many substances, to get much more than 2% (like in iron) of the total attractive force on some orbitals.

There are various types of "lock ons": This is because the electron wobbles and precesses. All electron to electron attractions are done with moving electrons both of which are being highly disturbed by their surroundings. They simply are not going to be spinning perfectly parallel to each other 100% of the time. But the subharmonic bonding to the nucleus is far different because the proton(s) in the nucleus are not being this much disturbed and can provide a far more steadier "lock on" and therefore a much more powerful "lock on" than the electron to electron "lock on". Thus, this subharmonic "lock on" is much more powerful than the electron to electron same exact frequency "lock on". Normally subharmonic "lock ons" would be less powerful.

Covalent bonds are caused by the electron orbitals of two adjacent atoms simply overlapping and/or the spins attracting each other via the 1st"A" Law. Once you realize this then you can easily see how covalent bonding really works.

A "locked" electron-even while it's on an orbital-is really nothing more than a tiny magnet. These electrons are now "locked" into position and are no longer free to wobble, so now in a sense can become tiny magnets and they stay orbiting with their closest sides or poles in phase with another electron from an adjacent atom. These "locked" electrons can bind like magnets or opposite charges through either most of the entire orbital or a good part of an orbital. Our law tells us if the closest sides of these electrons are spinning in the same direction then this will be a d (sigma) bond and if the orbits overlap so their closest poles face each other and these poles spin in the same direction then this is a p (pi) bond. You can use our "A" Laws to describe this bonding.

You simply could have no covalent bonding without electron pairing because unless an electron is held steady and "locked" either with closest sides or closest poles then the electrons would never attract each other like tiny magnets. Nor would they attract like opposite charges but they would keep twisting, wobbling and precessing, all of which would repel a similar free electron and you will see that our "A" Laws explain all the whys and wherefores of this.

We have the Pauli exclusion principle that says two electrons on the same orbital must have their spins reversed-one spin-up and the other spin-down. The reason for this is simple. Our 1st "A" Law shows us why: Electrons have a dimension. The closest sides, of each of the above, are spinning at the same frequency in the same direction.

Now you have Hund's rule that states that if two orbitals are open then the two electrons that settle in will both be spinning the same direction. On two separate orbitals these electrons would be a distance from each other and whichever way the prevailing magnetic moment would be, it would affect them both so they would both spin the same way. These two electrons will stay well away from each other now because their closest sides will be spinning opposite to each other thus repelling them.

In this universe of these "A" Laws, all spinning objects have this property of attracting and repelling. Remember the spin has to be at the right frequency or a harmonic thereof. And remember Planck who showed us that the faster these things spin then the more the attractive or repelling force as viewed from the lower frequency (bigger) object. Symmetry and such things as an antisymmetric wave function take on a whole new light because now we see exactly what is positively behind it all. Today's scientists will tell you that all of this spin is not real spin anyway. I'll say they are right about many of these because many of their particles are momentary and can not be considered permanent particles in this new theory. So far, in quantum mechanics, there have been about 200 particles discovered and many of these are classed as Fermi-Dirac and therefore have anti-particles as well, so this even increases the number of these pure wave like entities.

The electron, however, is a permanent particle and the electron-as viewed in our subset system-has to be considered having a true honest to goodness spin along with honest to goodness gyroscopic inertia.

* **



Chapter 10 --- Radio waves, Light wave & transmitting energy

Energy is always transmitted via transverse balance waves.

When one steel ball hits another and transmits all its energy to the second steel ball, even that was a wave energy transfer. Every steel atom has only electrons whirling around it and not even one of these electrons, from the first steel ball touches another electron from the second steel ball as those two steel balls collide.

So if nothing touched then even that steel ball collision was a wave exchange of energy.