A bit of light on

an important MISTAKE the Britannica has been putting out for many years.

I saw their MISTAKE in 2013; in the past five years the correct version was in my own publications, stating it was copied from the Britannica, but I also reversed (exchanged) **two words**: it was then correct science, and **my** statement was not WRONG.

This paper, by Fitzpatrick, brought to you ** free** by R.M.F. founder of

MAGPUL Industries.

The Britannica still has this wrong today, June 12, 2018, as this publication first goes on the internet.

It's time someone spoke out.

How long, after this present article of mine, will it take them to finally correct it?

Here's the mistake: look up "Ampère, Andre-Marie" in the Britannica.

Under "Founding of electromagnetism" you will see the sentence, "Ampère showed that two parallel wires carrying electric currents repel or attract each other, depending on whether the currents flow in the same or opposite directions, respectively."

This is wrong; it should state the following:

"Ampère showed that two parallel wires carrying electric currents **attract** or **repel** each other, depending on whether the currents flow in the same or opposite directions, respectively."

**This corrects the 5 year Britannica mistake about Ampère's Laws.**

**Now comes a far worse 200 year mistake made by our entire science establishment about Ampère's Laws:**

You can spend years looking through the entire Britannica or the entire internet, for that matter, and never find the supreme importance of Ampère's Laws.

And **here is **that supreme importance:

These are the attractive and repulsive laws for __all__ spinning electrons.

**But these are also the laws of attraction and repulsion for every spinning item in this entire universe.**

**So, Ampère's Laws give us the reason for EVERY attractive and repulsive force in this entire universe.**

This may be hard to believe but it's true.

**Ampère's Laws give us the**** — true model — the simple model that mathematician Stephen Wolfram said we need to understand our complicated universe.**

And as Stephen Wolfram also pointed out, you need that simple building block model BEFORE you attempt any math.

Here's Ampère's simple building block model:

Ampère showed us that when an electrical current was put through two parallel wires in the same direction (**in-phase**) then those two wires would **attract**.

Ampère also showed us if electrical currents went through those parallel wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase) then those two wires would repel.

If these **laws Ampère gave us** are seen as Phase symmetry laws then they explain magnetism, AC & DC electric motors and the entire microscopic particle world *including gluons* far, far better than Maxwell's field theory ever could. Phase symmetry even explains,

Even without computers, by simply using the concept of Phase symmetry, we can finally __ see__ the

We have the computers **today** that can accurately emulate, mathematically, the functioning of Phase symmetry.

What this means — dear readers — is that if we shift our human and computing resources away from today's science beliefs, and completely to Phase symmetry, then we can solve every attractive or repulsive force between EVERYTHING in both the microcosm and macrocosm throughout this entire universe.

The results from this will also show us,** right now**, exactly __why__ our predecessors so earnestly believed we had things producing forces that we called gravity, magnetism, plus and minus charges, north and south poles, centrifugal force and other type forces and force producers: the majority of scientists still firmly believe in these forces, but that will change once astronomers discover that similar size binary stars are all **spin up-spin down**, with their closest sides **in-phase**, exactly like the two electrons in every helium atom.

**All**
**attractions** and **repulsions**, of EVERYTHING, can be accurately and mathematically explained purely via Phase symmetry.

**Let's take a good look at what Ampère showed us almost two hundred years ago:** I've had this on the internet for about five years.

Copied from Encyclopedia Britannica DVD 2013, "... Ampère immediately set to work developing a mathematical and physical theory to understand the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Extending Ørsted's experimental work, **Ampère showed that two parallel wires carrying electric currents attract or repel each other, depending on whether the currents flow in the same or opposite directions, respectively.** ..." (**My** bold lettering & science CORRECTION.)

If you look up "Ampère's laws" on the internet today you will get electrical laws quite unknown to Ampère. Yes, Ampère was the first to equate the forces associated with these laws you will find on Google, but Ampère did his calculations with long wires; he didn't even know about electrons. There was no such thing as voltage or amperage back then. Current flow (amperage) is named after Ampère.

Just about half a century ago Scientific American published a good account of Ampère's long wire laws. I remember reading it like it was yesterday. Part of it went like the aforementioned Britannica statement or something like the following:

Ampère discovered that whatever was coming out of his batteries when put the same direction through two parallel long wires made those wires attract each other.

If this substance (later found to be electrons) was put through these long parallel wires in an opposite direction, in each wire, then these long wires repelled each other.

So basically what Ampère gave us was a * simple* relative motion law.

But you'd never know that — *or even believe that *— if you looked up "Ampère's law" in a search engine. Try it. You'll see! And this is the big problem, getting the right facts today when EVERYTHING is now all confused with the Faraday-Maxwell field rules and field math.

You could also see Ampère's laws as "PHASE" laws. If the current through two parallel long wires is moving the same direction or "**in-phase**" then these wires will **attract**. If the current through these two parallel long wires is moving in opposite directions or "out-of-phase" then these two wires will repel.

If you see Ampère's laws this way then Ampère gave us the initial concept of Phase symmetry which is exactly what Einstein looked for his entire life. This simple model called Phase symmetry unifies all the invisible forces.

Mathematician Stephen Wolfram said, "Math can explain simple things but a simple model can explain a complicated universe."

Phase symmetry gives us the "phase" simple model answer to a Theory of Everything: *Ampere's Laws - that apply to SSSWRs*

What is absolutely astounding is that Phase symmetry not only simplifies but clarifies this entire complicated universe in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. It's utterly amazing!

To learn exactly **WHY** we have all these things, you will have to learn what it's taken me many years to learn: It's all FREE. Click the links at the end of this.

Even though this firm belief in fields have given us some spectacular insights, such as Einstein's General Relativity, Phase symmetry makes it crystal clear that field theory has prevented us from seeing the big picture of what is really going on.

If we have done what we have with these half baked rules of science that we have now, just think what we will be able to do once computers are fully programmed for these true science phase laws.

Phase symmetry ends up with the inverse square rule, the same as field theory, but obtains it a different way with impedance matched, resonant quantum bound pairs and the Milo Wolff limit *(Hubble limit for the electron)*.

The Milo Wolff limit is needed with __all__ these impedance matched, resonant bonding pairs because these bonds **do not lose any of their strength with distance**:

This is why your eye receives full quantum packets of energy no matter how far a star is in the distance.

This is a **fact** that even the establishment believes.

This fact alone should make you wonder about field theory.

Back to these quantum bonding pairs; these pair bonds of their CLOSEST SIDES can be effected in **TWO** WAYS: the first way is the STRONG force way when both **entire** entities spin in the same direction, in-phase, at the same EXACT frequency on the same EXACT spin axis.

The second way is the WEAK force way where both attracting entities spin in opposite directions giving the strongest of the weak forces when both spin in the same plane. Or they spin in parallel planes, with only their CLOSEST SIDES going in the same direction, in-phase, (light energy transfer method).

However, the ** number** of bonding

And this is because the NUMBER of direct paths or holes where this binding linkage, can take place also falls off *inversely with the square of the distance.*

This is why we were tricked into believing in field theory.

We have also been tricked into believing that this is only a frequency universe in the microcosm. I'm afraid it is a frequency universe all throughout and that's why we need these Phase symmetry "phase" rules instead of field theory.

Too few seem to realize that Dr. Milo Wolff has proven the electron is a scalar, spinning, standing wave: once scientists see that the quark is too, then a brand new look at our macrocosm is needed because elements there indicate it too is obeying these scalar, spinning, standing wave Phase symmetry phase rules exactly as in the microcosm: **and this is truly a revelation.**

What we see as the microcosm, are higher frequencies than we are tuned to. What we see as solid, is the frequency we are tuned to. The macrocosm, that we see as larger, but with enormous space between all these spinning things, is a lower frequency than we are tuned to.

ALL of these spinning entities, quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, etc. obey identical Phase symmetry "phase rules" via their spin frequencies. And the higher the spin frequency the higher the energy. The quark has the strongest force and the fastest spin frequency.

Once you **know** your smaller building blocks are spinning, standing waves and you see the larger building blocks — stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters — also spinning then you **know** what your larger building blocks really are. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.)

Stars, galaxies and galactic clusters can not be considered quite as SCALAR as free electrons because their sizes are different and their spin frequencies are too close to each other: this results in more unbalance as well.

Even with that unbalance, indeed, these all are spinning, standing waves: I do believe that my good friend Dr. Milo Wolff got the scalar aspect of it right, even though only electrons can be considered truly scalar.

We sense that we are built of quarks and electrons. This works in a standing wave universe as well, where the higher frequency standing waves build the lower standing wave structure. The reason for this is that higher frequencies have higher energy than the lower frequencies. We can count, at least, six of these spin frequencies going from quark to super cluster but how many more this universe contains, no one knows.

Therefore, this is the SIMPLE MODEL mathematician Stephen Wolfram said we needed to understand our universe and here is its BIG PICTURE:

Our universe is nothing but spinning, standing waves (all attempting to be scalar) at different spin frequencies, producing different spacetime realms at those different spin frequencies; it uses attractive in-phase binding **both** to transmit energy and to help build mass (spacetime) along with out-of-phase repelling forces.

Spacetime (pure vacuum space) can also be built from only out-of-phase repelling forces. It's that simple, really.

Where field theory sweeps the quark strong force under the rug *(strong force containment)*, Phase symmetry doesn't have to because it is this quark spin along with impedance matched, resonant momentary bindings that give us not only gravity but all the inertial forces as well.

The quark obeys the **same** Phase symmetry "phase" rules that electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, etc. use.

We know the maximum star rotation period to be 30 days and our galactic rotation period to be 240 million years: these are several billion cycles apart.

But the separation between the star spin frequency and the electron spin frequency must be more than that or else we could detect the electron's spin frequency: it's above our detecting range.

Thus the spin frequency norm between each of these entities might be more than **many **trillion** cycles**.

All attractions (that we know about) come only via in-phase impedance matched, resonant bonds.

This means, "a __certain__ **in-phase** **mass of the binding pair has to match** at the very instant that the bond is made and energy is exchanged."

Phase symmetry eliminates fields and all the force carrying particles of those fields: the bubble chamber evidence of force carrying particles now have to be seen as evidence of an entirely different spacetime distortion from a particle.

If an electron on a distant star is spinning clockwise in the same exact plane as a counter-clockwise electron in your eye then a tiny portion of their closest sides are **in-phase** and the mass of that tiny portion **in-phase** is the quantum of light energy that comes into your eye, **but** both of those tiny portions must have the exact same mass or there will be no "Quantum Entanglement" bonding or energy being transferred.

That quantum of light energy came, that long distance, to your eye with no energy loss whatsoever; the reason for this is that Einstein was right and **spacetime** is NOT continuous: it is built of quantum chunks. **It has holes** that allow long distance binding with no energy loss.

There are vast distances between all these spinning entities in both the microcosm and macrocosm enabling these lengthy wormholes.

There is no such thing as energy loss when electrons transfer energy (*bind together*) through these **spacetime** holes!

**Once more**: there is no energy loss through spacetime holes!

How can field theory be justified if there is no energy loss through these spacetime holes?

PROOF of the above is that **ALL energy exchanging bonds have the same strength regardless of the distance!** It's only the **number** of bonding pairs that decrease inversely proportional to the distance squared.

There are electrons in your eye that are set up to quickly shift binding between binding with electrons on that star and then shift back to closer binding with other electrons in your eye giving you a quantum of light energy, every shift. At the instant of transfer as the electron on the star transfers this quantum of energy —* the star in the higher energy level instantly replaces it *— and few today realize __all__ energy transfers work exactly this way.

Every time your eye electron binds with an electron in the star, via "Quantum Entanglement", it gains a quantum of inertial mass *(equal to a quantum of energy)*. When it shifts back to closer binding with your senses, you receive this quantum of light energy. There are many of these electrons in your eye first gaining mass by binding with the stars then shifting that energy to your senses by binding back locally with your senses* *—* and doing that over and over again *—* *many thousands of times per second.

Einstein showed you space could be distorted. I'm showing you that space exists because of out-of-phase forces. And it's not simply space; it's spacetime because as we look through the Hubble telescope into space, we also are looking back into time.

Space (spacetime) is not uniform nor is it empty: it's built of quantum chunks similar to energy. Except each space-time quantum chunk is an out-of-phase repelling pair, the exact opposite of an **in-phase** binding energy pair. Electrons and quarks that bind find a "wormhole" through those quantum, repelling pair, chunks of space.

There is a 50% chance these spinning, standing wave entities can be either in-phase or out-of-phase together. This give the *possibility* of the **total energy** of all the IN-PHASE ** attractive force** binding quanta in this universe equaling the

* * *

Here, and especially in my other internet papers, I've given a very good picture — better than anyone has yet — of the structure of **all** these IN-PHASE attractive and binding energy forces, how they work, and why field theory cannot be used to unify them.

I must now add one more **attractive** force to Phase symmetry. It is** ****attractive harmonic capture**: quarks capture molecular electrons this way by spinning at a much higher exact harmonic of the electron's spin frequency. The closest sides play no part whatsoever in this type of **attraction**.

This tells us that there will be far more than 50% **attractive** binding in the molecular world than that 50% chance which exists in our macrocosm.

* * *

I've also shown how all these out-of-phase entities give us spacetime (space), but it is this OUT-OF-PHASE spacetime structure, containing Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, standing waves, that still eludes us in perfectly explaining the cause of what we see as space and time.

Even though we now have the big picture, the exact linkage model of these out-of-phase **repulsive forces**, along with these spinning, standing waves, is somewhat yet an enigma. However, I've shown **WHY** we see this entire spacetime assembly as the individual components of space and time, thereby unwrapping some of this mystery wrapped inside an enigma, but more needs to be done. All scientists should be working on this mystery/enigma now: few are.

Now, thanks to Dr. Milo Wolff — *who taught me much* — and also to Stephen Wolfram, who made me work harder, this is the best model or BIG PICTURE of our universe that anyone has so far published.

You saw, part of the picture, herein that Phase symmetry tells us what General Relativity tells us. But by reading my other books and papers, you'll see even more: Phase symmetry shows us why mass can be converted into energy and why energy can only be delivered in quantum sized amounts. Also Phase symmetry shows us what inertial mass really is and how Ernst Mach was right: surroundings are very much involved. Phase symmetry shows us why we have centrifugal force. It shows us why we have gyroscopic action and it does a much better job of explaining all these things than present science does.

As I write this particular internet paper, I feel like Ada Lovelace (first person to publish a computer program) who tried to convince the English Government of the value of Babbage's Analytical Engine, but to no avail. They saw the value of Babbage's Difference Engine, in producing the Nautical Almanac, but unfortunately **not** his Analytical Engine which, with it's punch card system, was the very foundation of the IBM 360 computer that enabled the beginning of space travel.

This PAGE DATE: June 12th 2018.

Also see *DPFJr*

This page in htm: - *crichton.htm*

Also this page in Word: - *crichton.doc*

And also the page in Adobe pdf: - *crichton.pdf*

P.S.

To keep this page short I had to leave out many more interesting things, but you will have to click on the following links and spend a lot more time reading to see those.

*See: **Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013*

Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013 __also__ in Adobe.pdf - *phase.symmetry.pdf*

**For the LATEST **Click: *http://www.amperefitz.com*

*or **http://www.rbduncan.com** which was really the very first web page showing us what was actually going on in our universe.*

*And of course - click this following link: **http://www.rbduncan.com/toprule1.htm*

AND 4 Decades of Fitz's papers:

*4 Decades of writings of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. *

Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

June 12, 2018

If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 314

Belmont Village

4310 Bee Cave Road

West Lake Hills, TX 78746

Send me your e-mail.