Daniel J Fitzpatrick

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
duane
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Daniel J Fitzpatrick

Post by duane » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:45 am

I've been reading some of his writings

found here

http://www.amperefitz.com/

he is big on phase symmetry

I know RS says frequency is derived from s/t units and not the bottom line

similar to Mathis's charge isn't the bottom line

but if we consider writing the universe program in "cobal" instread of 0101010"s or (0,1,0),(0,1,1)etc

then it's just a translation problem

and he might be bringing some new or helping to flesh out RS

i do like his style

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

What if Miles is all wrong

Post by Lou » Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:05 pm

What if Miles is all wrong about his charge field and there is only a gravitational field that IS the magnetic field? This follows the Circles of Apollonius of Perga; same guy from the conic sections.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Dimensional problems

Post by bperet » Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:16 pm

What if Miles is all wrong about his charge field and there is only a gravitational field that IS the magnetic field?
His charge field works, if you are dealing only with spatial relationships. (Same thing with the "electric universe" theory). The problem here is dimensional:
  • Charge = t/s
  • Magnetism = t2/s2
  • Gravity = s3/t3
One cannot be the other (graviational field cannot be a magnetic field) because of the different dimensional structures. (In the RS, gravity is just the reciprocal of mass; see: RS2-107: Mass and Gravity).
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

gravity is just the

Post by Horace » Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:06 pm

gravity is just the reciprocal of mass
...and is not antimatter (c-matter) the reciprocal of matter, too, which would make gravity synonymous with antimatter?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Conjugate mass/gravity

Post by bperet » Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:07 pm

...and is not antimatter (c-matter) the reciprocal of matter, too, which would make gravity synonymous with antimatter?
c-matter is the conjugate of m-matter, not the inverse because m-mass has its location in space and structure in time (time region), whereas c-mass has its location in time and structure in space (space region). When you invert m-mass, to m-gravity, you still have location in space and structure in time; it is just expressed as speed rather than energy.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Yup but this difference is

Post by Horace » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:31 pm

Yup but this difference is not apparent when only units of these phenomena are compared.

Post Reply