The **ANSWER** to *how* this __entire__ universe is built — is this one, simple building principle!

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*

Taken from message 17667 in *
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17667*

Mathematical physicist Tony B. stated:

>**And the higher resonances are all spin-related; increased spin
implies higher mass/energy in what are called Regge Poles**.>

>**But by itself, this is not in a different** **timeframe** **with the leptons
(electrons, muons and tauons); because their short-lived existence
engages the leptonic rings as s-quark constituents**.>

Fitz Thanks Tony,

Fitz Subject** **(abovementioned) **TIMEFRAME: **

Let's say a certain quark, such as the green down quark in the proton, has a Wolff scalar frequency the square of the electron.

Let's also consider two complete electron spins, all completed electron orbitals and all completed electron precession cycles to be Wolff scalar frequencies.

Let's consider us having an oscillator in us similar to a superheterodyne detector and we will therefore see only ONE matching spin/orbit frequency as SPACE and one matching scalar frequency as TIME. We will, as in string theory, see all the other harmonics as FOLDED UP.

If our **timeframe**, represented by *h*, (Planck's constant) is the completion of one entire orbital precession cycle of the electron - which I believe it is - then faster scalar frequencies such as the electron itself and the quark would APPEAR to both us and our math as being in the same timeframe.

NOW

Ampere is telling me that our time is being produced at *h* or the complete scalar orbital precession of an electron (using this horrible motion concept I see the electron orbiting many, many times while making one *h* drop to a lower orbital).

It also see an opposite spin, same matching impedance, electron (gaining this energy) doing the exact same thing while going up to a higher orbital.

Their impedances and spins being matched make them a temporary boson, exchanging this energy.

But this is a VECTOR exchange.

Let's look at these vector energy exchanges:

In time they all add up to a scalar entity such as many deBroglie vector wave exchanges ending up with the scalar wave electron or a completed double electron spin or an orbital etc.

These spins and orbitals WHEN LINED UP PROPERLY give us all the vector energy exchanges and what we see as SPACE. But this makes space frequency conscious.

Our superheterodyne oscillator, at the *h* momentum frequency, gives us our spacetime picture.

Now back to **TIMEFRAME**:

As you stated the quark is at a higher energy/higher frequency but will be seen by us, and even a portion of our math, as in the same **timeframe**.

BUT

It has to have a far different spacetime realm than us and a far different spacetime interval as well.

Our spacetime interval can be represented sort of as *c* (with *h* size chunks of momentum).

The spacetime interval in the quark realm, however has to be represented by a higher energy representation. The spacetime interval of the quark is being represented by *c*^{2} and chunks of momentum of an, as yet, unknown constant.

When the closest sides of impedance matching electrons are going the same direction, in the same parallel path, then this gives us not only energy transfer but sigma and pi bonding and magnetic attraction. *Ampere's Laws*

When the closest sides of two spinning quarks are going the same direction, in the same parallel path, then this gives us inertia and gravitational attraction. *Ampere's Laws*

This attraction in either of the above DOES NOT diminish with distance but continues, full strength, right up to the Hubble extent of our universe.

Only the NUMBER of these vector couplings diminishes with the square of the distance.

Tony. if you can put all this into F theory or QR math then you not only win but rightly deserve the Nobel Prize.

*Hey Buddy *

*Click This** for a neat site.*

*--- In **TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com**, "Tony Bermanseder" <**PACIFICAP@h**...> wrote:
>
> --- In *

> <

> >

> > One more question for Tony B.

> >

> > In string Theory there is M Theory and F theory.

> >

> > F theory has 12 D (infinite frequency spectrum?) with two

> dimensions of

> > time.

> >

> > Here's my question:

> >

> > Could one dimension of time be considered that in the electron's

> > dimension and the other time dimension in the quark's dimension?

> >

> >

> > z

>

> Dear zeus!

>

> Think of a approaching a mirror in 3D. What is your image doing?

> Your image approaches you 'from the other side'.

> Eventually your nose would hit your own nose from the outside and

> the inside.

> This is in 3D and everything inside is mirrored as the outside with

> a mirror C-parity exchanging lefthandedness with righthandedness.

>

> F-Theory in 12D allows this twohandedness to become resymmetrised as

> being 'at two places at once'. This is M-duality as mirror duality.

> This is the nonlocality in quantum mechanics and Schroedinger's Cat

> superposed as and AND eigenstate and not an OR eigenstate as cis

> commonly presumed.

>

> Technically, the lightpath x=ct becomes indistinguishable from the

> mirror-world x=(-c)(-t) as the Ryazanov 4worlds of the two-arrowed

> time dimension (as connector dimensions 1,4,7,10,13=1).

>

> Recall that those connector-time dimensions are LineSpace/1 and

> Rotational HyperSpace/4 and Vibrational QuantumSpace/7 and Quantised

> OmniSpace/10.

> But OmniSpace connects to the LineSpace again and the 3D scenario of

> the mirror is applicable to F-Space via rootreduction 12=1+2=3.

>

> So your question answers itself in the negative.

> The s-quark is the resonating d-quark and is unstable because of the

> beta decay of the weak interaction.

>

> There is however this link to your high energy quarks and since

> higher energy implies higher frequency your idea is solid but

> subject to misinterpretation.

>

> What happens is much in what you propose in Ampere's Laws, but ore

> fundamental.

> The basic premise of quarkian wavegeometry is;

> Like Quark geometries repel and unlike quark geometries attract.

> This is where the Coulombic charge laws derive from - the

> underpinning wave quantum geometries.

>

> Now the details are of course the mesonic and leptonic rings being

> in different energy wells than the neutrino kernels and the kernel,

> being closer to the magnetoaxis is attracted as positive charge (for

> matter) to the negative charges of both of the rings.

>

> And the basic quark structure always revolves about the neutrinoic

> kernel as a trisected up-quark template.

>

> So what is the difference between the two rings?

> The leptonic ring oscillates from the mesonic ring to change the d-

> quark into the higher energy s-quark as its own resonance.

>

> This engages the weakons as the gauge bosons of the weak

> interaction, (archetyped by the neutron).

> And it is known, that all the weakons decay into neutrinos (Z) with

> leptonic rings (W's).

>

> So you find the higher quark resonances in the addition of the

> Vortex-PE in the charm-singlet, the beauty-doublet and the truth-

> triplet.

>

> And the higher resonances are all spin-related; increased spin

> implies higher mass/energy in what are called Regge Poles.

>

> But by itself, this is not in a different timeframe with the leptons

> (electrons, muons and tauons); because their short-lived existence

> engages the leptonic rings as s-quark constituents.

>

> You are again jumping the gun zeus; the Standard Model as described

> is not inflationary and you must engage the de Broglie phases to

> work with the zeusian scalerelative cosmos.

> Milo's individual 'clocks' are correct, but this applies to the

> subframes of the holographic nestings of the protoverse.

> The wormhole parameters must become magnified for the de Broglie

> phases to allow the scale relativity within the archetype to begin

> the maniferstaion of this 'nesting'.

>

> You could look at it like the laws of nature becoming finestructured

> within the finestructure of the universe's evolution.

> The 'Children' of the universe carry their 'parents' genetic

> inheritance with additional degrees of freedom in terms of

> development.

> You could say this is a fractal universe akin the Mandelbrot sets,

> the archetypical finestructure being the pentagonal symmetry of QR.

>

> Tony B.