**SEE**, — ** HOW** the complexities of

Oct-29-2018.

Also, **Field Theories** in Word: *http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc*

& **Field Theories** in Adobe pdf: *http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdf*

**Fitzpatrick's **1966 book showed
the **relative motion** laws of **A. Ampère** unified the forces.

*Fitz's first book in 1966*

*Fitz's 1966 book in PDF*

This was
the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.

**Phase Symmetry **

makes quantum theory

more complete.

© December,
02, 2013

"Someday we'll understand the whole thing as
one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and
beautiful that we may say to each other, 'Oh, how could we have been so stupid
for so long? How could it have been otherwise!' " (John A. Wheeler)

"While we show this herein, after the needed additional
frequency rules, math and computers arrive, John Wheeler's abovementioned
statement will be proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. If Gödel's proof
is correct then there is a high probability that all our science rules and math
are merely subset rules and math for this particular subset spacetime realm we
find ourselves living in and cannot, at present, see out of. Why should we
believe the establishment when they haven't even, as yet, found a clue to
deciphering the puzzle?" (Richard Mark Fitzpatrick)

The Top Symmetry ?

It's not supersymmetry

**It's Phase Symmetry**

This is copied from a **Scientific American** *article* Nov. 11, 2013:

"The
most precise measurement yet of the electron’s shape casts doubt on ideas such
as supersymmetry that predict a zoo of undetected particles in the universe. .
. .

Scientists
are unanimous that their current theory of physics is incomplete. Yet every effort
to expose a **deeper theory** has so far disappointed. . . ."

Well, herein is a **deeper theory **that will **not** disappoint
scientists:

While a perfectly spherical electron cannot
be a dipole in supersymmetry, an electron that is a perfect sphere most
certainly can be, *and is*,
a dipole in phase symmetry.

This Scientific American article is **E PLURIBUS UNUM**** - **or - **ONE AMONG MANY** of the nails that are putting together the coffin of
not only supersymmetry but of the present standard model that will in time pass
entirely away like the ancient Egyptian religion of Amun, that was a long time
ago, __also__ believed by many in this world.

We equate a good bit of science belief today,
much like a good bit of religious belief today.

All religions have some of it right: *do
good and avoid evil.* In most of the rest of it, they argue. Today's
standard model is similar in that they have some of it right but in most of the
rest, they argue.

Scientists argue simply because they don't
have the correct model yet of what is really going on in this universe.

A good example of this is the concept that
electrons repel each other because they have a negative charge. This is not a
good concept because only totally free electrons repel each other. Restricted
electrons, causing magnetism and chemical bonding, both attract and repel each
other: we show why that is herein whereas present science can't.

So most likely the best model to use, for the
finest science explanation, is the **phase
symmetry** model that will be used in this paper.

You'll discover herein, that space, time and
everything else you know about are built solely from frequencies and **phase**.

Therefore it's simpler and probably better to
entirely dispense and forget both the magnetic field concept and the electron
charge concept and instead concentrate only on this **phase
**concept.

Present science is based on the
Faraday-Maxwell field concept where engineers can program this field math into
the computers needed today in this industrial society.

You wouldn't have everything you have today
if it wasn't for the Faraday-Maxwell field concept.

Einstein used this field concept all his life
but then in 1954 about a year before he died, he said this, *"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case,
nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [**and of ] the rest of modern physics."*

In 1954 Einstein essentially told the world
he could find no mathematical field solution that would explain how this
universe works: No matter how hard he tried, Einstein could not get any type of
field math to explain this universe.

The reason Einstein failed is because it's
too complex of a field in that half of these forces emanate from the
surroundings because Ernst Mach was right: we do indeed have Mach's principle!

A field results from a myriad number of
single quantum forces, the plural of which is quanta. Trillions upon trillions
of these quanta therefore make up the field in which our universe works. But
this is most certainly a very complex field, even one that Einstein couldn't
figure out.

What we are interested in is why we have each
one of these individual tiny forces. Einstein was most certainly right in
telling us not to waste time on multiple quanta (fields). Try instead to find
out what causes each quantum.

That's what this paper is all about. In this,
you are going to find out ** why** we
have each of these quantum forces.

**Abstract**

Since you
can't judge a book by its cover, we are going to give you an **abstract** of
this right now so you can decide immediately if you want to read this book or
not.

Everyone
entering quantum mechanics sees the disparity between quantum theory and *'common sense'*
classical mechanics. One reason ** why**
we have this incongruity is that the microcosm is a frequency world yet our
larger macrocosm world here, university experts claim, is not.

We answer many
more of these ** whys** in here and
this will aid not only the neophyte but also the quantum experts as well
because we offer some new ideas that the experimentalists can test.

We also show
the ** why** in quantum theory because
we show the relevance of quantum rules to phase and frequencies. This clears up
many quantum mysteries such as

The term *'entanglement'* (a long distance *attraction*)
was first
coined as a derisive term by Erwin Schrödinger *—* *neither Einstein nor Schrödinger believed in it — *much like the term *'Big Bang'* was coined as a derisive term by *—* *steady state believer — *Fred Hoyle. But both terms have reversed
course, so to speak, because now both terms describe things that we have ample
proof of. Much of our book has to do with *'entanglement'*.

The year
before Einstein died, as shown herein, he was completely disparaged about the
field concept. But, we perceived, this field concept *—* *in classical mechanics — *seems to be the end result of trillions of
trillions of quantum type forces. Is this what is causing *—* *not only energy but — *gravity, inertial mass and even our space and
time?

Believe it or
not, *we found **—** **and prove herein — **it is*!

In this book
we finally break, as Arthur Schopenhauer called it, the veil of Maya mentioned
in the Hindu scriptures. *Veil of Maya Vedanta*

Even though
the science veil has been broken, the humanistic portion of the veil remains
fully intact.

**1. Gambling**

It's better than winning the hundred million
to one shot on the lottery.

Our chances of having a nearby supernova
explosion early on *—* *giving
us the elements we need for life — *and
then our sun being the right size and having that asteroid hit while the
dinosaurs were here and countless other things, all had to happen precisely at
the right time to give us this winning lottery ticket that has enabled us to
enjoy life on earth today.

The chances that we shouldn't be here today
are much more than a hundred million to one.

So say we: **Richard Mark Fitzpatrick** CEO and founder
of **Magpul** and **Daniel
P. Fitzpatrick Jr.** (Authors)

We simply had to write this first **Gambling
Chapter** after reading Bill Bryson's *A Short History of Nearly Everything*. It's
a book well worth reading!

There is absolutely no doubt that we have to
thank our lucky stars *—* *or
whomever else it is you wish to thank — *that
we are actually alive and living now even though all of us have but a short
time here. As Bryson has shown us, with all the things that had to happen
precisely when they did, it's a wonder that we have been given this miraculous
chance to be here even for this brief period of time.

In this book we're going to show you __WHY__* Everything is Happening* the way it is.

A recent **Fitzpatrick** paper ended with this little poem, and with it this
book begins:

A bit of Pope *Pope-Britannica* & Fitzpatrick here:

"Nature and
Nature's laws lay hid in night:

God said, "Let
Newton be!" And all was light.

Huygens said,
"But Newton didn't
tell us __why__

We have gravity and
all these objects in the sky."

Huygens *Huygens-Britannica* congratulated
Newton *Newton-Britannica* on his great mathematical accomplishment giving us
his gravitational laws, but Huygens also criticized Newton about not finding
the answer as to **WHY** this was so.

In this book you will get a ** model**
that really does

++++++++++

In this model
dependent science world of today, you will be presented with a * new* quantum theory

It's the **W.A.M.
Quantum theory model**.

This scalar,
standing wave *standing wave-Britannica* __model__*—* *a *__new__* *__W__*olff, *__A__*mpère**, Mach Quantum
Theory Model *

++++++++++

Also please remember these supremely **important**
words of mathematician Stephen Wolfram, "*Math can only explain simple things but a simple model
can explain a complicated universe.*"

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "Stephen
Wolfram

born
Aug. 29, 1959, London, Eng.

English
physicist and author best known for his contributions to the field of cellular
automata and the development of Mathematica, an algebraic software system.

The
son of a novelist and a philosophy professor, **Wolfram** attended Eton
College (1972-76), from which he never graduated, and published his first
scientific paper at age 15. He later studied at the University of Oxford
(1976-78) and the California Institute of Technology (CalTech), where he earned
a doctorate (1979) in theoretical physics at age 20. In 1981 he became the
youngest recipient of a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, and later that year he
began researching the origins of nature's complexity. He taught at CalTech from
1980 to 1982. Throughout the 1980s **Wolfram** published a series of
celebrated papers on what he dubbed "complex systems research."
During this period he taught at the Institute for Advanced Study (1983-86) in
Princeton, N.J. In 1986."

On **Wolfram's** premise *—* *or rather our premise even before we
heard Wolfram state it — *that a simple
model can explain a complicated universe,
we sought out a model that could explain

We found that absolutely nothing in either
classical mechanics or quantum mechanics could explain this until we put four
major entities together: The simple model answer
came combining quantum theory with what Wolff, Ampère, Mach *—*
*and a few other scientists
perhaps — *had been saying.

Please do not think that we see math as not
being consequential. It is very important! But you will see *—*
*later in this book — *where the problem arises with our math and why this simple model shows us it is impossible to unify the fundamental
forces with the math we now have at our disposal.

While our simple model completely explains the complicated activities of the
electron, we now see that our simple model
seems to even explain the mysterious activities of the quarks as we convert
portions of quantum theory into a more simpler model *—* *compared
to QCD — *of *equivalent*
frequencies and phase.

Frequencies and phase, we found, were of
supreme importance to this *entire* universe.

Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was
this new simple model. It's been a
wonderful roller coaster ride over many decades.

Please bear with us while we explain not
only our simple model but also quite a
bit of the roller coaster ride — *including our boring descriptions of some of the scenes we
witnessed during that lengthy up and down ride*.

Quantum theory originally began with Max
Planck *Planck-Britannica* who made a speech one evening explaining that energy
had to be arriving in small packets or quantum chunks. Einstein *Einstein-Britannica* gave these chunks of light energy a name, *photon **photon Britannica*, but it was Nobel scientist Niels Bohr *Bohr-Britannica* who then took over **teaching**
quantum theory and was cranking out future Nobel scientists in Copenhagen.
These same years in America, Henry Ford gathered people around him diligently
cranking out Ford Model T cars. America and Copenhagen, in those years, cranked
out one new miracle after another.

Richard Feynman *—*
*more about Feynman in **Chapter 6** — *even
took quantum theory further, greatly improving the **standard model** but Feynman had disdain for the unification of the
weak force with the electromagnetic force into an electroweak force. Said
Feynman, "*You can even see the glue that holds it together*."

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "**standard
model**

The **standard
model** has proved a highly successful framework for predicting the
interactions of quarks and leptons with great accuracy. Yet it has a number of
weaknesses that lead physicists to search for a **more complete** theory of
subatomic particles and their interactions."

A few quantum experts will now exclaim,
"Good God! Don't the Britannica people know that entanglement
(*ultra long distance attraction*) has
now been proven correct beyond any doubt whatsoever proving Einstein and
Schrödinger wrong therefore quantum theory __is__**complete**."

Well, Einstein was right in saying,
"Quantum theory is not complete."

He was wrong, however, in arguing against
quantum theory fundamentally because fundamentally quantum theory is correct;
it's simply not complete.

Yes, entanglement
(long distance *attraction*) is correct* — Einstein and Schrödinger were wrong
about that — *we show that but we also
show a **more complete** quantum theory than
the one we have now.

Are you ready for a __new__**more
complete** quantum theory ** model**?

** Why** we need this

We need it because it explains not just the
microcosm *—* *as
the standard model does — *but it
explains this **entire universe!**

We ** also** need it because it
diminishes or even negates, that sea of infinite probabilities

Einstein likened Bohr's quantum development
to gambling. While this Wolff infinite **sea of
spinning, scalar resonances **are set up to give us sigma bonds and pi
bonds and other complications such as sigma bonds that must be established
before any pi bonds can exist, and this being only the tip of the iceberg,
makes us feel like all this is indeed gambling. The *scalar,
standing wave setup itself **—** **the house** — ***always wins** and remains
intact all throughout this sea of infinite probabilities of binding and bonding
where all this gambling *—* *that
Albert Einstein hated — *takes place.

It was this sea of infinite probabilities
that first gave us cells, then higher organisms, then apes, then us.

The fact that we are here is proof itself
that God does really gamble!

So it's evident Einstein was wrong to say, "*God doesn't gamble!*" *("**Gott wuerfelt nicht**.") **("God
doesn't throw dice.")*

Einstein, who had discovered many of quantum
theory's famous discoveries, made an abrupt reversal in October of 1927 and
then began his great arguments with Niels Bohr *—*
*lasting until 1954 — *** against**
quantum theory belief saying, "Quantum theory was not complete." He
was correct in saying this but his attacking quantum theory itself was wrong.
Most scientists at that time thought it was incredible that a man of Einstein's
stature doubted the validity of quantum theory. Many have delved into the
mystery of why Einstein did this. We know why Einstein did this: Einstein
believed that the

Einstein's belief *—*
__no__*t his cosmological constant — *was Einstein's biggest blunder. Einstein somehow never
saw that fields were the inevitable result of a myriad of individual quantum
forces. In fact his firm belief in field theory and his deterministic belief kept Einstein from seeing the big picture and
this model that we will presently show you.

A big part of today's science advancement is *'entanglement'* and we show herein that what
science sees now is really only the tip of the *'entanglement'*
(*attraction*)
iceberg.

Keep reading to find that light stems from an
** in phase** attractive
binding

We show, in this book, that a vast multitude
of tiny in phase attractive binding forces are an *'entanglement'*
force that causes both mass and inertia.

If you read this book you will see that not
only is this a frequency universe all throughout but the top symmetry is phase
symmetry. Also you will see this new model shows us that __all__ attractive
forces are caused by entities *in phase* and __all__ repulsive forces
are caused by entities that are *out of phase*.

But that is not all:

*** very important ***

Our space *—* *the very opposite phase of *

*** very important ***

**Therefore**,** one who does not know
exactly what spacetime is, ***frequency
wise ,*

The best sailboats have a keel. Mileva Maric *Mileva Maric-Britannica* may have been
Einstein's keel, because after she left, Einstein's sail seemed to catch every
wind and go every which way.

God does indeed gamble using spinning,
scalar, standing waves*
(that both bind and repel in a myriad of ways)*. What Einstein perhaps failed to see was that the **house
**always** remains**. This scalar, standing wave setup *—*
*the house — *is never threatened via all this bonding-repelling
gambling. Only the various separate repelling forces and quantum bindings are
the things that are doing all the gambling.

Niels Bohr may have suspected what we did, that
this is a frequency universe all throughout, and if so then certain classical
aspects could be brought into the microcosm, which he did and got the Nobel
prize for doing.

The fact that Bohr realized that he could
bring elements of classical physics into the microcosm puts Bohr, in our
estimation, far ahead of Einstein and even today's scientists, in understanding
this universe.

And now we see Niels Bohr *—*
*commenting onEinstein's, "God
doesn't gamble" — *was
correct to say, "

What both Mach and Ampère do in this quantum
scenario is that they allow us to drastically reduce this sea of quantum
infinite probabilities.

We can use what both Mach and Ampère showed
us to reduce the gambling.

Both
of us authors now believe *—* *using this new model — *that we can
actually achieve controlled fusion and perhaps even arrive at controlled ** cold**
fusion.

This new **W**olff, **A**mpère, **M**ach
Quantum Theory Model shows you **why**
you have all these infinite number of probabilities that Einstein hated.

This new **W**olff, **A**mpère, **M**ach
Quantum Theory Model shows you **how**
you can

**2. My involvement**

I *—* *Daniel Fitzpatrick — *can't remember exactly what year it was that I read
about Ampère's laws in Scientific American. But I saw immediately that for
easily visualizing things in the radio world *—* *my world — *they were far superior to the field concept of Faraday
*Faraday-Britannica* and Maxwell *Maxwell-Britannica*.

Later in 1966 at Pan American Airlines, one
day as I was trying to resolve a method where the yoke coil in RCA RADAR
Indicators could not be installed upside down by mistake, not only did I use
Ampère's law of attraction to solve the problem but I distinctly saw Ampère's
law of attraction *—* *a
relative motion law — *was also
showing me why I was being attracted to this earth.

I will never forget that day as long as I
live.

I saw then essentially how to unify gravity
with all the other invisible forces.

This unification of gravity with the other
forces was something Einstein tried to solve so I wrote a book about gravity,
as well as ** all** the other forces simply being caused by

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "Robert
Henry Dicke

born
May 6, 1916, St. Louis, Mo., U.S.

died
March 4, 1997, Princeton, N.J.

American
physicist noted for his theoretical work in cosmology and investigations
centering on the general theory of relativity. He also made a number of
significant contributions to radar technology and to the field of atomic
physics. . . . By the 1960s Dicke had become actively **interested in
gravitation**."

Yes, Robert Dicke
claimed that if gravity was caused via ** relative
motion** then we would see interference fringes. He turned out to be
right because now with the advent of the Hubble space telescope we are actually
seeing Dicke's interference fringes and their cause is being seen as gravitational lensing caused
by Einstein's curved space. These interference fringes (gravitational lensing) seem to be giving us more
proof of actual gravitational waves.

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "Interference
fringe:

a
bright or dark band caused by beams of light that are in phase or out of phase
with one another. Light waves and similar wave propagation, when superimposed,
will add their crests if they meet in the same phase (the waves are both
increasing or both decreasing); or the troughs will cancel the crests if they
are out of phase; these phenomena are called constructive and destructive
interference."

Both Dicke and Einstein knew gravity was a
frequency. Einstein even claimed it could be polarized. Well, you will see
later that each quantum of light or gravity is super polarized. The quantum
pair must line up exactly 360 degrees not merely every 180 degrees. The quantum
pair *—* *exchanging
light, gravity or inertia — *must be
perfectly in phase. The entity that exchanges gravity or inertia is spinning at
the square of the frequency of the electron that exchanges light energy. This
is a case where the stronger entity produces the weaker force simply because
there are fewer of these entities free and available.

If you want to read that early book of mine *—*
*it's a collectors item now
— *then here is a link for it (below)
and in **Chapter 6 **you will
find an additional link, for it, you can click. There were only 10,000 of them
printed and their value seems to be going up every year even faster than the
stock market. You'll get the e-book with illustrations plus an original picture
of the book's blue cover by clicking the link
below.

(CLICK
this link.)

FREE **e — BOOK
**

As I listened to Stephen Wolfram *Stephen
Wolfram*, on the Charlie Rose show
many years ago, I was mystified and wondered how Stephen Wolfram knew certain
things, one of which was that **a simple model could explain a complicated
universe**. I thought only a very few of us who understood Milo Wolff's
scalar, standing wave theory and Ernst Mach's inertial theory and Ampère's
relative motion concept could see these things Stephen Wolfram was talking
about.

Only later, after I read Wolfram's *A New Kind of Science*, did I realize that he
discovered this important fact and other significant aspects of what was really
going on in science via a far different road from the way I found it. Here's
Wolfram's book in e-book form free: *Wolfram's 1,000 page "A New Kind of Science"
*

Half way through high school I was forced to
work with standing waves and knew, even before I met Milo Wolff, that electrons
had to be some sort of spherical, standing wave but it was Milo who showed me
the importance of the ** scalar**, standing wave concept and of the
Hubble limit. While we completely understand the concept of electrical standing
waves on wires, Milo tells us, "The only standing wave allowed in free
space is a

While Heisenberg gave us a good * mathematical* description
of our measuring problem, Wheeler

**A different
**spacetime realm from ours

But ** nobody** in these
universities are even heeding

I was also amazed, while chatting on the
internet with Tom Van Flandern *Van Flandern*, to find out that ** all**
our major astronomical universities agreed with Newton who said gravity acted
instantly.

**This
is an extremely serious science disagreement and a flawed inconsistency of
present science beliefs.**

This serious
science disagreement *—* *one among many of them — *proves that science is
still in a transitional period and these transitional periods are always
dysfunctional where even the most widely held beliefs are overturned.

**We
saw this was a serious problem that had to be solved ****and it
was**** by some revolutionary **__new__** science
thinking.**

**We also saw this truth:** You could rely on the high
priests of science most of the time but *not*__all__ the time.

Returning to the inconsistency of the
astronomer's need for gravity to act instantly and Einstein saying it couldn't,
we cover this in Chapter 9 where we show who wins this argument. Yes, one side
wins conclusively.

All through my life I saw that I came out
best if I used my own ** 'common sense'**.
No that's the wrong term.

No, let's call it more ** deductive reasoning** while observing all the
evidence.

Einstein and Swiss mathematician Marcel
Grossmann published a general relativity theory in 1913 but it was erroneous
because they gave field equations that were not invariant.

We, however, give Einstein an A+ for publishing
his 1915 general relativity field equations, which were equations he and
Grossmann had previously wrongly rejected. *general relativity* Einstein also
gets an A+ for writing that letter to Roosevelt on August 2nd 1939 about the
need to build an atomic bomb; he however gets a failing grade from us on his
failure to understand that Mach's principle *—* *that he claimed he used to develop general
relativity — *depends on the very
thing Einstein did __not__ believe in: Mach's principle ** depends** on '

This inconsistency of Einstein's reasoning
allows both of us authors to be convinced that Mach's principle was more of
Mileva Maric's belief than Albert Einstein's.

Mach's principle ** depends** on molecules here somehow binding
with molecules in the surrounding stars

Einstein's 1915 general relativity
gravitational field equations are tops: these equate *—*
*at a certain spot — *the mass-energy with the curvature of spacetime, which
determines the *geodesics* or paths in which things move in that
particular spacetime area.

While this is indeed great, these like
Newton's laws are field equations. Field equations are only good in showing us
the resultant force of trillions of quanta. This is not what we want! We want
to know ** why** these individual tiny
forces are here.

We really want to know ** why** we have each one of these quantum forces
and

During my four score years of life, I came
out far better using ** deductive reasoning**
while looking at the evidence, than merely gambling on the various advice of
others. But I knew that I did read and experiment a good deal more than most of
the others who listened to the experts and used their own so called

I'm not the smartest person and I needed
those four score years, and a good bit of help from my son Richard Mark, to
entirely put together this enigmatic puzzle: Even though I saw it was relative
motion in the 1960s, more than another decade went by before I realized it could
also be seen as * either* relative motion or phase in both macrocosm
or microcosm

I had many businesses and I never lost money
in any business. I started college early in life in the army signal corps but
actually finished college later in life and saw that most of these people
teaching business, in the universities, could only make money teaching. Few of
them could make money in their own business. Later I wondered about the rest of
them that taught other things.

I heeded the words of Dwight Eisenhower in
his final day of office as our president when he warned of believing everything
that we were told by the military industrial complex.

While discussing his plans with his generals,
one of Fredrick the Great's generals asked him, "*My God, what will our
people say when we attack that country?*" *Frederick the Great-Britannica*

Frederick the Great answered, "*My
universities will explain to the people why we had to attack them*."

We can rely on the universities and the high priests of science
most of the time
but *not*__all__ the time.

So don't listen to the high priests; look at
the evidence!

All this need *—*
*just so our present science
model makes sense — *for *additional* Dark Matter *Dark Matter-Britannica* and *additional* Dark Energy *Dark Energy-Britannica* is proof that **something is wrong** with our present model
or present concept that our universities

My ** deductive
reasoning** told me that we had to look at

And if I looked at quantum theory and added
what **W**olff and **A**mpère and **M**ach said then there, right in
front of me was the answer, a concept *—* *a simple model — *in which all the forces were unified.

The
answer was arrived at, similar to the way doctors do it, the way Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle said Sherlock Holmes did it.

I
got a real **shock** when I saw the reason all the
math I had learned, in fact all the math in the world, wasn't going to help.

It
wasn't that I couldn't use my math but I now had limits imposed
and parameters established limiting my math *—* *and not only math but rules as well — *to one
single spin/orbit frequency spacetime level.

I
should have foreseen that because rules and math for the quark spin frequency
spacetime level *— QCD — *are far
different from the rules and math of electron spin frequency spacetime level *—* *QED — *and both of those are far different from our
level, but more about this later.

Not only did this **W**olff, **A**mpère
and **M**ach Quantum concept unify the forces but this new concept shows
exactly what both space and time are as well.

This new concept mandates that spacetime must
also be quantized as well as energy. More about that in chapters 10 to 13. And
in this new simple model, energy quanta
used to create matter can be but a very tiny fraction of the total mass of an
already **existing universe**:

**This prevents us from believing
this universe, we see now, was created with pure energy.**

Once you see that energy is really nothing
more than a binding change with the surroundings *—*
*you'll see this later or
now by clicking links below — *you
will immediately recognize the ** impossibility** of creating

or in Adobe pdf click this link: *http://www.amperefitz.com/energy.pdf*

**Mach's principle tells you that
the surrounding stars are ***—*** ***the only things — ***giving you your inertial mass.**

The ** only way** you can
get energy is to convert

**Energy can only come from
inertial mass. And this loss of mass creating energy, is ***always*** derived ***—*** ***via
Mach's principle — ***from
the inertial mass of the surrounding stars.**

**While this might be
difficult to see right now, it will all become crystal clear to you as you
finish reading this book of ours.**

In chapter 3 we cover Dr. Milo Wolff's
concept of this being a scalar, standing wave universe. Each standing wave
level remains stable providing not too much energy is gained or lost in that
level.

So this new concept shows us conclusively *—*
*an idea George Gamow may
have beaten us on — *that an all
neutron universe must have been here first and a slow leakage of energy *—*
*either into or out of the
quark realm — *changed the neutron
system enough where individual neutrons were no longer stable and this,
previous stable, earlier all neutron universe went into a sudden beta decay *beta decay-Britannica* which stopped
when the original neutrons, that were not converted into protons and electrons
by beta decay, were safely ensconced inside of atoms.

The **basic** smoothness of the CMBR *(cosmic microwave background radiation) *proves **beyond a shadow of a
doubt **that this beta decay of an already existing all neutron
universe is what happened.

**Not only that but there are
other major problems with the standard Big Bang theory:**

In the standard Big Bang theory the universe
is always bigger than the distance *—* *at the speed of light — *this heat must travel, thus this universe *—*
*with the present CMBR
thermal equilibrium — *could not have
begun at **one small place**.

The ** basic** smoothness of the
CMBR shows that the

A major problem with the standard Big Bang
theory is the WMAP satellite observations of a flatness of omega 1.0 that **cannot
be explained **by a universe that began at **one
small place**.** **

Yet this omega 1.0 flatness **can be
explained** easily using an already existing neutron universe that underwent
a beta decay.

The universe must have started out extremely
flat *—* *if
we extrapolate back in time — *to have
an omega flatness of 1.0 now as mapped by the WMAP satellite.

Those above problems are **major problems** for ** anyone** believing
in the standard Big Bang theory.

But they are **not a problem** for anyone
believing in an all neutron universe suddenly undergoing a beta decay.

This sudden beta decay better explains the
initial *"cosmic inflation"* *cosmic inflation-Britannica* which
supposedly was an ultra fast expansion of the universe cosmologists believed
must have happened right after the Big Bang started.

Knowing all this, what we presently see in
observing the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)
makes far, far more sense.

Therefore, the first part *—*
*the first ten thousandth of
a second — *of the Big Bang needs
changing: Most published estimates of the Big Bang timing show us that neutrons
must have been produced in *less than* a
ten thousandth of a second after the Big Bang began. Since we claim neutrons
were already here then only about a ten thousandth of a second of the presently
believed Big Bang really needs to be changed. But after that first part *—*
*the first ten thousandth of
a second — *everything else now
believed about the Big Bang, of how all the hydrogen atoms and helium atoms
were first created, is quite correct.

So all we are asking you to do is change the
Big Bang's first ten thousandth of a second.

And this new concept agrees with what Wheeler
and Feynman said that we cannot measure accurately when we dip into all these **other spacetime realms** all around us.

I agree with this and totally agree with all
the quantum theorists who say this is a frequency universe in the microcosm.

But then I have to add this admonition: **You cannot install yourself into the center of things** saying things smaller than
us obey frequency laws but things larger than us obey quite different laws.

Yet this is exactly what is being
done now *—* *with our present science model — *isn't it?

This new concept changes all that: We
intend to show **this is a frequency universe all
throughout!**

This is a frequency universe both in the
microcosm and the macrocosm and it seems most everyone has overlooked this most
important fact.

We've heard many claim that renormalization
where infinities are swept under the rug and other things in quantum theory
don't even approach *'**common
sense '*. This may be true but if this
is indeed a frequency universe all throughout

So we saw if *'**common
sense '* didn't work in either quantum
theory or classical mechanics using relativity patches then perhaps there might
be another bit of reasoning that did work. We searched for it and found it
visualizing a frequency universe all throughout where

Quantum scientists correctly equate higher frequencies
with higher energy. We, perhaps incorrectly, equate higher frequencies with
smaller size: we see the spinning electron as tiny and the even higher
frequency spinning quark as even smaller than the electron.

We see frequencies as solids only in a narrow
frequency band starting much lower than the electron orbital frequency. Lower
than this frequency band where we view things as solids*, *we
view things, such as our solar system and galaxies and galactic clusters as
variegated solids.

So our involvement in all of this is simply
trying to turn everything *we think we see*
into actual ** real** frequency
relationships or relationships that can be better explained using

We will only
be right in doing this if **this is **indeed** a frequency
universe all throughout!**

And that, dear reader, is not quite what our
universities *(the military
industrial complex)* are explaining to us right now. **They claim the impossible:** that everything
smaller than us obeys frequency laws but everything larger does not.

Evidently the universities *(the military industrial complex)* have completely
captured their audience just like Fredrick the Great did in his time because no
one we know of has written anything about this being **a frequency universe all throughout**. And we know for certain
we can believe the high
priests of science most of the time but *not*__all__ the time.

This cannot be a frequency universe **only in the microcosm**.
It simply

We have all this spin and empty space exactly
like in the microcosm.

We're __certain__ this is **a frequency universe all throughout** so why not
look at what we have to say.

**3. Dr. Milo Wolff's frequency
universe**

Dr. Milo Wolff *Dr. Milo
Wolff* has given us a scalar, standing wave frequency
universe and we are going to try to change all our present rules and laws into
new frequency rules and laws.

I've worked in radio all my life and the
hardest part of this book will be to convince you, the reader, how important
standing waves are to us. But ask those who work in the quantum field and all
of them will tell you that the ** foundation of
quantum theory is a foundation of standing waves **using the Dirac
equation, that essentially adds Einstein's relativity to the Schrödinger
equation, to map out the standing wave layout.

I was forced to learn about standing waves
while trying to tune transmitters to an antenna in my early high school years.
If you don't eliminate the standing waves via proper tuning then your
transmitter isn't going to work properly.

The reason for this is that standing waves do
not radiate useful radio wave energy but they do indeed use up the
transmitter's energy output to keep reproducing themselves on the antenna.

What we know from this is: **Anything producing energy via frequencies will also be
producing standing waves. **

My first amateur transmitter had an 807 tube
in the final, putting out 40 watts. The second transmitter that I finished
building in my second year of high school had two RCA tantalum finned plate
812As in push-pull *—* *they
cost me $5.oo each in 1947 — *and that
transmitter put out over 150 watts. My call letters were W2YDW.

Believe me, those two transmitters taught me
about standing waves.

In later years, at Pan American Airlines, I
used a Bird wattmeter *Bird wattmeter-Wikipedia* to check transmitter antenna tuning to see the actual
amount of standing waves eliminated (standing wave ratio). But in high school I
could not afford this luxury.

Standing waves absorb energy from the
transmitter but do not transmit this energy from the antenna therefore they sap
the transmitter's power. Designers and radiomen constantly design and fight to
get rid of standing waves.

Every transmitter produces unwanted standing
waves that ** must** be eliminated.

But our universe evidently builds with them
simply because they do __not__ radiate their energy away provided that they
remain in a sea of identical spinning, standing waves of that same frequency.

Dr. Milo Wolff has shown us that the electron
is a spinning, scalar, standing wave that constantly gets itself reproduced via
its surrounding neighbor electrons.

The electrons inside you, for instance, are
receiving and transmitting energy to surrounding electrons as far *—*
*but no further — *than the Hubble Limit *Hubble limit-Wikipedia*.
Dr. Milo Wolff discovered and proved this too!

Each electron takes just enough energy from
the group and then adds enough energy to the group so that all the electrons in
the group keep on reproducing themselves with their own energy. They will keep
doing this too indefinitely **until or unless** more *—*
*too much — *energy enters that electron spacetime realm or too
much energy leaks out of that electron spacetime realm.

**To remain stable** all spinning, scalar, standing wave entities must
never emit or absorb **too much energy**
from other higher or lower ** frequency **spacetime
realms.

Thus each particle spacetime realm has a
certain stability at a certain wavelength as long as a **critical amount of energy ***—*** ***not too
much nor too little* — remains inside that particular spinning, standing wave
entity spacetime realm.

**It is of paramount importance
that you know this.**

**A certain type of energy leakage
either ****into**** or ****out of**** the quark spacetime realm eventually put an existing all neutron
universe ***—*** ***that may have existed for thousands of trillions of years — ***into a beta decay giving us our Big Bang.**

Each of these *—*
*entirely different — *spin/orbit frequency realms from highest to lowest
frequency go something like this: quark to electron to solar system to galaxy
to galactic cluster to super cluster etc. Both space and time *—*
*spacetime — *are *entirely* different in each of these
different spin/orbit frequency realms.

We view these realms from higher frequency to
lower frequency as — invisible, to solid, to variegated solid *—*
*or — *from small to large.

So we don't quite see this frequency universe
as it really is. It's all really just frequencies all throughout.

These various frequency spinning, scalar,
standing wave, spacetime realms are exactly like keys on a piano *—*
*all probably certain
resonances of each other — *but spread
far enough apart frequency wise so that a very minimal amount of energy
exchange takes place between each frequency spacetime realm. We do see certain
spin frequency spacetime realm piano keyboard keys of this universe piano: We
can see a quark spin frequency key, an electron spin frequency key, a solar
system spin frequency key, a galaxy spin frequency key, a galactic cluster spin
frequency key, a super cluster spin frequency key but presumably we will never
discover the entire keyboard length of this universe grand piano.

The symmetry of each of these standing wave
spacetime realms is most probably determined by its bordering spacetime realms
but with its higher frequency *—* *higher energy* — neighbor
having the greater influence.

Therefore the concept we have of being built
up from the microcosm is undoubtedly true in a quantum sense as well as a
classical sense. However not all of our classical concepts are as valid
compared to a similar quantum concept. It's really quantum theory versus ** 'our common sense'**. They do not always agree with each other.

While the symmetry in these various spacetime
realms seems to us to differ, It really doesn't once you see ** this is a frequency universe** and the laws
that determine entity size and the distance these entities remain apart are the
same in

**4. Ernst Mach's important
message to us**

Ernst Mach reiterated what Bishop Berkeley
first stated many years before, that something in our structure *(molecules)* here are
binding with the structure *(molecules)* of the stars
that surround us. Thus the concept of *'entanglement'* began.

This *'entanglement'* concept is what, both Berkeley and Mach said, is causing
inertial mass. While this concept is valid for both quarks and electrons, the
word *'entanglement'* is presently used
mostly in regard to electrons.

Einstein didn't know that Berkeley thought of
this inertial *'entanglement'* concept first, so Einstein called it *Mach's principle* *Mach's principle*.

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "Mach,
Ernst

. . .
Mach also proposed the physical principle, known as **Mach's principle**, that inertia
(the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest and of a body in motion to
continue in motion in the same direction) results from a relationship of that
object with all the rest of the matter in the universe. Inertia, Mach argued,
applies only as a function of the interaction between one body and other bodies
in the universe, even at enormous distances. Mach's inertial theories also were
cited by Einstein as one of the inspirations for his theories of
relativity."

By using ** deductive
reasoning** and putting 2 and 2 together, you can see what is
going on:

If the electron is viewed as a spinning
sphere *—* *as
Nobel laureate Niels Bohr viewed it — *then
all electron to electron bonding or binding *—* *in chemical or more distant bonding — *is accomplished when the **closest
sides of both electrons are in phase**. *Shown
to us by Ampere*

And in this we now see what *'entanglement'* (long distance *attraction*)
really is!

Therefore you get attractive *'entanglement'* binding
or bonding when spin frequencies are **in phase**.

But the electron spin is conserved: this
means we know each and every force produced by the electron spin: yet * none* of these forces is gravitational in
nature.

Quark spin is
presently seen as ** not** conserved but quark spin

So there, above, is the answer as to **why** we have Mach's principle.

It's as simple as that.

There is no force tensor in the tensor math
of general relativity so Einstein was obliged to equate force with the tensor
curved *—* *or
extra created — *space. Once you see
the electron spin frequency __also__ creates force then our new concept is
telling us various spin frequencies __also__ *—*
*via Einstein's concept — *create space.

You'll see exactly what both space and time
are as we proceed but keep in mind that space is actually being created by spin
frequencies.

Our space *—* *that we can measure — *seems to be produced mainly by the electron spin
frequency.

But remember, Wheeler and Feynman said we can
** detect** things in other space time realms but we have problems
measuring them:

So you cannot measure *quark spin produced space* being produced by an
entity *—* *a
down quark — *spinning at the __square__ of the electron spin frequency *—*
*a resonance — *of your space; in fact you won't even be able to
measure the space that a quark is producing as space but you most certainly can
** detect** the space that it is producing as

See where this is taking us?

**5. Ampère's important message to
us**

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD
"André-Marie Ampère

born
Jan. 22, 1775, Lyon, France

died
June 10, 1836, Marseille

French
physicist who founded and named the science of electrodynamics, now known as
electromagnetism. His name endures in everyday life in the ampere, the unit for
measuring electric current.

Ampère
offered a physical understanding of the electromagnetic relationship,
theorizing the existence of an "electrodynamic molecule" (the
forerunner of the idea of the electron) that served as the constituent
element of electricity and magnetism. Using this physical understanding of
electromagnetic motion, Ampère developed a physical account of electromagnetic phenomena
that was both empirically demonstrable and mathematically predictive. In 1827
Ampère published his magnum opus, Mémoire sur la théorie mathématique des
phénomènes électrodynamiques uniquement déduite de l'experience (Memoir on the
Mathematical Theory of Electrodynamic Phenomena, Uniquely Deduced from
Experience), the work that coined the name of his new science, electrodynamics,
and became known ever after as its founding treatise."

The Marie in André-Marie came from Ampère's
mother's name: At that time in France it
was a common practice to denote the mother in the child's name.

Ampère gave us this concept that things **in phase** always attract
*—* *entanglement** — *and
things **out of phase** always repel.

He gave us this concept using relative motion
rather than phase but it's the same thing really if you analyze it. Use
relative motion in your own spacetime realm or lower frequency realms and use
phase in higher frequency spacetime realms.

Simply use whichever method makes it clearer
to you.

We've shown, in the prelude and in Chapter 7,
that even Albert Einstein *—* *a
year before he died — *considered the
concept of fields to be a ** bad concept**.

Yet most items on the internet will show
magnetic **fields **being associated with
what Ampère discovered. All of those writings are **not **quite** correct**:
**Ampère wrote nothing about fields!**

The **field
concept** came later from Faraday and Maxwell and as Einstein shows
us, it turned out to be a **bad mistake** because as you will see in chapter
10, **we don't have math and rules for the fields
these forces produce**.

Ampère didn't know about electrons but he did
know something in his wires were moving so he gave us a system of laws that
have ** nothing to do with fields**.

**This below **essentially

1. Long parallel wires having things in them
moving the same direction caused the wires to attract.

2. But if things in one wire moved one way
and in the other parallel wire they moved the opposite
way then this caused the wires to repel.

Then he gave us a bit of math for various
angles if the wires *—* *in
which these things above were moving — *were
not exactly parallel.

And this gives us by far our best observance at how those things inside the
wires *—* *electrons
— *are behaving in relation to one
another. This tells us essentially the idea of a **charge**
**is wrong** because these electrons do not **always repel** each other.
Sometimes they attract each other.

Ampère's concept also shows you which way the
electron spins. When you see the much more complicated Faraday-Maxwell concept
doesn't then it's simple to know which concept to use.

Ampere didn't know these things as electrons
but now we think we know a bit more about them.

These are essentially Ampère's Relative
Motion Laws: *Ampere's Laws*

or *Aufbau
Laws*

or *http://www.rbduncan.com/theALaws.htm*

or *Gold
Universal particle relative motion law*

These are also **phase
laws** with which all the forces can be unified: *Click this to see WHY this is a phase universe.*

Why only a few of us see this, is something
that we still can't figure out!

*6. Richard Feynman's important
addition of motion to unification*

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD " Richard
Phillips Feynman

born
May 11, 1918, New York, New York, U.S.

died
February 15, 1988, Los Angeles, California

American
theoretical physicist who was widely regarded as the most brilliant,
influential, and iconoclastic figure in his field in the post-World War II
era."

Feynman
remade **quantum electrodynamics**-the theory of the interaction between
light and matter-and thus altered the way science understands the nature of
waves and particles. He was co-awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965 for
this work, which tied together in an experimentally perfect package all the
varied phenomena at work in light, radio, electricity, and magnetism."

What Feynman is showing you, in his famous
and best selling QED, is that **motion** is
responsible for most of the unification up to now:

A
short excerpt from:

**QED**

**quantum electrodynamics**

The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

author

Richard
P. Feynman

(Please
note the emphasis Feynman puts on **motion**
being the unifying element in all these separate fields.)

". . . it
was soon discovered, after Sir Isaac explained the laws of **motion**, that some of these apparently different
things were aspects of the same thing. For example, the phenomena of sound
could be completely understood in the **motion**
of atoms in the air. So sound was no longer considered something in addition to
**motion**. It was also discovered that heat
phenomena was easily understandable from the laws of **motion**. In this way great globs of physics were synthesized
into a simplified theory. The theory of gravitation, on the other hand, was not
understandable from the laws of **motion**,
and even today it stands isolated from the other theories. Gravitation is, so
far, not understandable in terms of . . . "

. . . motion
or relative motion that produces not only
gravity but all the forces,

that I explained and published in
this 1966 relative motion book below:

FREE e-Book:

(CLICK
this link.)

FREE **e-BOOK**

**or**

Fitzpatrick's First book in Adobe pdf:

*http://www.rbduncan.com/pge1.pdf*

**ABSTRACT** of the above book:

You do NOT need to visualize four separate
fundamental forces when ** all** these are really only one type of

This Britannica article *http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9074111*
tells you about Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who,
because of ignorance of the quantum theorists, were denied the Nobel Prize in
1925 when they discovered electron spin.

Quantum theorists still adamantly insist that
there is no **motion** in the quantum realm
even though we find, as Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck did, *all the signs* of
angular momentum, that **motion** there would
display. *Just because the **motion** there can not be seen from here, doesn't mean that **motion** isn't really there.*

Both space and time are * different* in different frequency spacetime
realms: this means we will

Simply stated *—*
*in different frequency
spin/orbit spacetime realms — *

Minkowski's *Minkowski-Wikipedia** *spacetime
interval is invariant *—
which means it stays the same — ***only** if you remain in

In other words if
another realm spins at another frequency than your realm, its space and its
time will be different from your space and your time. And its spacetime
interval will be different from yours.

Our solar system is spinning at a different
frequency from our galaxy and our galactic cluster is spinning at a different
frequency from that and our super cluster of galaxies is even spinning at a
different frequency from everything else therefore these
four systems mentioned will have four different systems of both space and time.

This also happens in the microcosm, look:

Once you see that the electron's realm *—*
*Q ED — *uses entirely different math and rules from our realm
and the quark realm

This is of such importance that you must keep
this in mind. We go over the general relativity proof of this in the next
chapter.

**Therefore the measurement
warning from Wheeler and Feynman is correct!**

Why does it work this way?

Because this is a frequency universe and all
detectors (us too) have an oscillator in them detecting exactly like a
superheterodyne detector *superheterodyne detector-Britannica* does. But these
detectors only have a limited frequency range. Less and less is detected as we
get further and further out of our frequency detecting range.

This frequency aspect of it is why we can
only see so far into the microcosm and also only so far into the macrocosm.
It's __not__ really what our ** 'our common sense'**
is telling us that one is too small and the other too large and too far away.

The quantum world is a frequency world and
far removed from our ** 'common sense'**
non frequency classical world that we

Sometimes *—*
*in a different spacetime
realm* — only the __evidence__ (of motion)
can be transferred out as Wheeler and Feynman showed us: this is *exactly*
what is happening as we view the microcosm spacetime realm from our spacetime
realm here.

We can see the *evidence* of energy
transfers in the microcosm but not the actual motion
that caused those energy transfers.

What we are trying to get across to you *—*
*the reader* *—* is that what we **think**
we see

A lot of empty space ** is really there** that we are

So that's proof this frequency universe is
fooling us as to its true nature.

Quantum theorists all know that using ** 'our common sense'** as Einstein did

So for us, at a certain frequency, **all
space vanishes**: but we do * start* seeing things as solids at a
much

We can see motion, and actually build
circuits, down to about a billionth of a meter. But we would have to shrink
things down by a factor of an additional thousand from this *—*
*even more than a nanometer
— *to see the motions of electrons and
this we cannot do.

Thus we are, more or less, in agreement with
the quantum theorists that __our__**motion**
*—* *as
we see it — *does __not__ exist in
the electron's realm.

But, as Niels Bohr got the Nobel prize for
showing, the electron is behaving *—* *producing all the c*

**Motion** *(our
concept of it) *only exists in subset
spacetime realms of this universe and is restricted to those subset, spin/orbit frequency, spacetime realms. The constant *c*
proves this. *http://www.amperefitz.com/principle-of-equivalence.htm*

So, this being a frequency universe all
throughout, there is no such thing as ** one** single type of

THEREFORE:

Use Occam's razor *Occam's Razor-Wikipedia*
and move your mind into each * separate*
spin/orbit frequency realm

The reason we have these *different*
invisible forces is that we have these *different* frequency spacetime
realms.

It's as simple as that!

SORRY

You can't do * all* the math this
way though.

I'm afraid that ** math** along with
our concept of

This is *why*
there is no royal road of math **yet**
to a grand unified theory or a theory of everything!

This is also the main reason that first
Faraday, who worked on it for years, and then Einstein, who also worked on it
for years, failed to unify gravity with the other forces.

What Wheeler and Feynman told us was
absolutely correct: We can discern things outside of our spacetime realm but **we cannot measure accurately outside of our
spacetime realm!**

**And if you have read and
properly digested everything we have put forth herein so far, you now know the
reason ****why**** what Wheeler and Feynman said is
absolutely correct.**

** **

** **

7**.
Schrödinger's Equation**

&

**Heisenberg's Uncertainty**

Also of greatest
importance

**Collapse of the wave function**

In this chapter we solve one of the greatest
unsolved mysteries in quantum theory: "Collapse
of the wave function". *collapse of the wave function*.

In other words how does light, a wave, also
suddenly act like a particle where the wave function entirely vanishes.

No one we know of has ever solved this
quantum mechanics mystery but we do it right here in this chapter, so hang in
there and enjoy this one.

We are certain that our readers will ask the
following question,** "If this is a frequency universe all throughout then
why can't we simply use the Schrödinger
Equation **

Someday we actually will but we cannot do
this today because of several reasons one of which is Heisenberg's uncertainty *Heisenberg's uncertainty Britannica*, which as Niels Bohr showed, while arguing with
Albert Einstein, has to be effective in the macrocosm as well as in the
microcosm.

Heisenberg, Wheeler and Feynman told
about the problems measuring in the microcosm *—* *a different frequency spacetime realm — *but they didn't tell us ** why**
we had these problems.

We will show you ** why**:

***

**The
fact that we have ****these
various spin/orbit spacetime realms is
the real reason why we have Heisenberg's
uncertainty.**

***

QED space *—* *space generated solely by the electron spin
frequency — *is only slightly higher
in frequency from our frequency space that we can begin to measure at a
frequency slightly lower than the electron orbital frequency, so there is only
a very tiny factor of uncertainty when measuring from our realm to the
microcosm. This uncertainty factor is greater than or equal to Planck's
constant (*h*) divided by 2pi. This is
called *h*-bar and is the smallest unit
of electron momentum.

Beware! This Planck's constant over 2pi (*h/2pi*) multiplication factor for uncertainty is **only valid** when we measure **in the microcosm** *—*
*and regardless as to what
many believe — *__nowhere__ __else__.

Once you know ** why**
we have this uncertainty then you also know

**But measuring from our realm to
the macrocosm, the multiplication factor is much, much greater than Planck's
constant over 2 pi! **The
multiplication factor is different because we are measuring to __several__
far, far different spin/orbit frequency spacetime realms, more about that
below.

The multiplication factor is * greater*
than Planck's constant divided by 2pi (

Therefore, Heisenberg's uncertainty *—*
*in our new way of looking
at this frequency universe — *exists **far
more** when one measures outside of ones own spin/orbit frequency
spacetime realm toward the macrocosm than our measuring in the microcosm!

The reason for this is simple: those other
macrocosm spacetime realms will have a **far more** and
far different

When measuring in the microcosm you may
measure momentum but then you won't be able to * instantaneously *measure
position in that other

It is wrong to think we have a *h/2pi* factor for Heisenberg's uncertainty in our
own *spin/orbit frequency *spacetime realm. What determines the factor for
Heisenberg's uncertainty is ** only** a difference in frequency

You will see a quote from the Britannica,
later in this chapter, telling us that *h*
is "the
product of energy multiplied by time, a quantity called action." This *h* multiplied by the frequency gives us
the energy of a complete energy quantum.

However,
this *h* can't be
utilized as well in much of the rest of quantum theory where *h/**2pi* can. This is referred to as *h*-bar.

The
smallest amount of electron momentum is *h*-bar.

Now comes the problem:

This is ** not** the smallest amount
of gravitational or inertial

We are trying to stress throughout this paper
that **this is a frequency universe**.

When you state **momentum**
then you __must__ **give the frequency
of that momentum**.

Only use *h/2pi*
(*h*-bar) in
the microcosm where it pertains to **momentum**
at the electron frequency.

Never use *h/2pi*
(*h*-bar) for measurements in the macrocosm which utilizes the
much, much larger quark produced, unit of **momentum**,
the Higgs boson: This **momentum** is at**
the square of the electron's frequency**.

As frequency goes up, energy goes up. Higher
frequency ** means** and

Therefore, we do ** not**
multiply by the tiny

The factor
that we have to multiply by, to get Heisenberg's uncertainty in measuring, to
the * extremes* of our solar system, is that factor of the, so
called, Higgs boson.

The factor
that we have to multiply by, to get Heisenberg's uncertainty in our solar
system *— in the macrocosm —
*while transferring measurements
inside our solar system *—* *1st
spin/orbit spacetime realm — *to our
galaxy *—* *2nd
spin/orbit spacetime realm — *is not
known but it is the Higgs boson factor plus another extremely large factor. What's more, the second multiplication
uncertainty factor for transferring our solar
system measurements to the realm of galactic clusters *—*
*3rd spin/orbit spacetime
realm — *is far, far greater than that
first multiplication uncertainty factor.
Transferring our measurements to the super cluster realm *—*
*4th spin/orbit spacetime
realm — *requires the greatest
uncertainty factor.

The Hubble telescope shows this __increasing__ *—*** ***2nd
spin/orbit spacetime realm to 4th spin/orbit spacetime realm — *uncertainty factor to
us ** clearly** in no uncertain terms!

**Therefore:** **Heisenberg's uncertainty** factor
**is going to be a far, far greater **factor**
measuring in our macrocosm than measuring in our microcosm.**

Now here's some new information *—*
*perhaps even published here
for the first time — *well worth
knowing:

Black holes ** contribute** but do
not make up

It is

**So we have two distinct
problems: One is the different kind of space problem and the other is that we
can't accurately measure this different kind of space.**

If you think this is wrong then consider what
general relativity is telling us about things that **move
faster or spin faster** compared to their surroundings: in both of
these cases, time slows and they become more
massive while also getting smaller.

A super cluster of galaxies has its own spin
therefore a certain space and time. But each galactic cluster within this super
cluster has **additional** spin therefore, according to general relativity, time in each galactic cluster must be going slower than in the super cluster as a whole.
Not only that but space *—*
*or entities — *in each galactic cluster must be smaller *—* *more compressed or massive — *in each galactic cluster than in the super cluster as
a whole.

Each galaxy has its own spin therefore a
certain space and time. But each galaxy within its galactic cluster has **additional**
spin therefore time in each galaxy must be going slower than in the cluster as a whole. Not
only that but space *—*
*or entities — *in each galaxy must be smaller
*—* *more compressed or massive — *in each galaxy than in the cluster as a whole.

A solar system inside of each galaxy would
have **additional** spin than the galaxy itself, so according to general
relativity its time would be going slower than galactic time. And as we
previously saw, space *—*
*or entities — *in that solar system would also be smaller *—* *more compressed or massive — *than in the larger galaxy.

So a solar system has a different spacetime
interval than the galaxy it is in and that galaxy has a different spacetime
interval from the cluster of galaxies it is in and that cluster has a different
spacetime interval from the super cluster that it is in.

This is exactly the same in the microcosm
where the quark is smaller *—*
*more compressed or massive
— *than the electron via the same
reasoning. In the micrososm we have the Hartree approximation *Hartree approximation* accomplishing
the same thing there as general relativity accomplishes in the macrocosm.

Deductive reasoning tells us that different
spin frequencies are thus producing different spacetime intervals!

Therefore, this is indeed a frequency
universe all throughout wherein the spacetime interval *—*
*although invariant in one
spacetime realm — *varies from realm
to realm.

Since the spacetime interval does indeed vary
from realm to realm, Wheeler and Feynman were correct to warn us about our
measuring in other *—* *spin/orbit
— *spacetime realms and Niels Bohr was
correct arguing with Einstein that Heisenberg's uncertainty exists outside the
microcosm as well.

Wheeler and Feynman did warn us about this
measurement uncertainty when they told us we could never measure accurately
outside of our own *spin/orbit
*spacetime realm but somehow our
university *—* *military
industrial complex — *experts were
asleep at the switch on this one or maybe this was simply another of those
things they wished to conceal from us, hoping to catch Snowden *E. Snowden-Wikipedia* before he revealed it to us.

*Schrödinger's Equation** — if things move slow enough — *gives a splendid and accurately intricate view of the
complicated standing wave world in the microcosm. It contains the element phi
and what we are actually seeing in our macrocosm spacetime realm is phi
squared.

Future computers will someday give us a perfect
match showing us how the standing wave world of** Schrödinger's Equation
**

In the final chapter of ** Schrödinger's Universe**, Milo Wolff asked,
"

Here is a *quote *from the* Britannica 1997 CD* telling about Einstein's
tensor math which **"***led him to an
essentially unique tensor equation for the law of gravitation, in which
gravitation emerged not as a force but as a manifestation of the
curvature of spacetime.*

If you want to know the answer as to what
space and time really are, then here it is:

As you see in the above ** Britannica** quote, force is a manifestation of
space. Also there is

Saul Perlmutter has shown, as in **GR**, that if repulsive force is __more__ * spacetime*
than

This bi-polar aspect also exists in ** all**
the fundamental forces

In phase symmetry every spinning, scalar,
standing wave — *even if it's a perfect sphere like the
electron* — is a dipole.

Both in the micro and macro worlds in ** all**
of these cases, from quarks to super clusters,

The people who have read *http://www.rbduncan.com/* and *http://www.Ampèrefitz.com* know that you
cannot even begin to understand this universe until you know exactly what space
and time are. Our minds seem to be equating the main scalar
frequency of the electron as a clock that mainly determines what we call time. We sense the spin
frequency mainly determining force and space. (*We see the spin
of the electron causing the magnetic force*.) Also, by
reading, what you see in the above links, you will see what force the spin of
the quark causes to even distant quarks. Also read:

By reading what is in the above links you
will also know what we see is an **average**
time and an

*Each electron repels its nearest neighbor
by a certain amount of force, the same as each star repels its nearest neighbor
by a certain amount of force. *

View these electrons as Niels Bohr did, as
spinning spheres, even though we know they are a complicated **Schrödinger** type resonance.

Think of two energy exchanging electrons,
with opposite spins, as two *gears meshing*.
But these two * entire* electrons are

In other words, even though those two electrons
are not themselves in the same space or the same time, **an ultra tiny sliver ***(a quantum)* **of their closest sides are**.

From the Britannica
2009 DVD **"Minkowski**, Herman: His idea of combining the three dimensions of
physical space with that of time into a four-dimensional "Minkowski
space"-**spacetime**-laid the mathematical foundations for Albert
Einstein's special theory of relativity.**"**

Sigma chemical bonding is a proven fact. It
must always be seen as a **spacetime** ** binding
force** between a

You might say these ** minute portions** see themselves in the same
space and time through a wormhole. But the reason they can do this is that
space is not this vast empty space we visualize. It's built up of trillions of
quantum chunks and if none of them get directly in the way, then these two

One additional thing is * very*
important and this is that

**Now, here's what Niels Bohr taught us:**

From the Britannica
2009 DVD **"**Spectral lines are
produced by transitions of electrons within atoms or ions. As the electrons move
closer to or farther from the nucleus of an atom (or of an ion), energy in the
form of light (or other radiation) is emitted or absorbed.**"**

**For instance:**

If a **quantum **of
**violet** light is given up by a star to
your eye then on that star, in a certain time period, an electron that was
originally far from its nucleus, dropped to one of the closest orbitals of its
nucleus. While in that __same__ time period (*standard model explanation*) an electron in your eye emitted a **quantum** of **violet**
light to your senses.

If a **quantum**
of **red** light is given up by a star to
your eye then on that star, in that __same__ time period, an electron
dropped about ** half** the distance

As the electron on the star dropped, the
electron in your eye emitted a **quantum**
of light energy to your brain. *This is the way it
is being explained in the standard model.*

Again, as the star's electron went down to a
lower orbit level, your eye electron emitted a **quantum**
of light energy to you. (*The standard model view*.)

Thus appears, in **quantum**
theory, the concept of a **boson** with the **photon**
acting as a **boson** **quantum**
exchange particle. A **quantum** of energy
on that star was simply shifted or exchanged with your eye via a **photon** (**boson**).

From the Britannica
2009 DVD **"quantum:** the magnitude of all the **quanta** emitted or absorbed
is the same in both energy and momentum. These particle-like packets of light
are called **photons**, a term also applicable to **quanta** of other
forms of electromagnetic energy such as X rays and gamma rays.**"**

**Photons** are classed as **boson** **quantum** exchange particles. Remember, in these **quantum** exchanges, the __same__ magnitude of
energy emitted is also absorbed.

From the Britannica
2009 DVD **"quantum mechanics:** The probability of a transition between one atomic
stationary state and some other state can be calculated with the aid of the
time-dependent Schrödinger equation. For example, an atom may change
spontaneously from one state to another state with less energy, emitting the
difference in energy as a **photon** with a frequency given by the Bohr
relation.**"**

Let's look at how a **photon** supposedly works in the *standard model*:

If batter **blue**
hits the ball twice as much as batter **red**
*in the same time period* then batter **blue**
will expend twice the energy as batter **red**.

It's the same with light: as **violet** light being almost twice the frequency of **red** light has almost twice the energy in each **quantum** of light.

But the time period with all of these **quantum** exchanges seems to be associated with
Planck's constant (** h**). So if the
batter hits the ball twice as much, this gives twice the energy. Since there
are almost twice the swings back and forth with

However, all of this is well known to **quantum** theory physicists.

Now we come to something not as well known to
all:

You must realize that the sigma type close
bondings — *of your electrons here* — also occur
with distant electrons as far off as the Hubble limit; not only that but these
far distant bondings are at the __same__ __strength__ as close bondings.
They must be the same strength because the quantum of light emitted from the
star was the same strength as your eye received; this is an agreed upon,
quantum theory fact.

The quantum of light from the star to your
eye, called a photon (**boson**) in the *standard
model*, is being caused by this spin binding shift. However, this
particular binding shift is between two distant electrons.

**This universe is forever trying to balance
via in phase spin attractions and out of phase
spin repulsions. **The universe does eventually always balance out
because each of these scalar, spinning, standing waves is a perfect dipole.

Therefore, these attractive forces and
repulsive forces are always equal: thus we *eventually* always arrive at
a, more or less, static, steady state universe.

Where this ** in
phase spin attraction**
happens the

Since this *standard
model* photon has no mass then it has to be considered nothing more
than a simple binding shift or binding exchange between that star and your eye.
A simple binding shift would better account for the recoil effect noted in
Feynman diagrams. And a binding shift causing other binding shifts, or
emanating from other binding shifts, would better account for the various
bubble chamber tracks.

The *in phase*
type **spin** attraction of two Cooper pair *electrons* has a
Fermi-Dirac quantum entanglement element similar
to the *photon *type Bose-Einstein condensate element to it because space
has disappeared (condensed) between the ** in phase portions** of the two

We have, as part of the standard model, **Q**uantum
**E**lectro**D**ynamics:

**QED**
uses what is called the ** square of the amplitude**.
These are

When you have plenty of time, you can better
understand this ** square of the amplitude**
quantum of energy transfer, if you listen to the

It's also __extremely__ **important**
that you read this very short part of Nobel prize winner **Richard P. Feynman's** ** QED**:

**So space, in
this all frequency universe, is simply the * average* of these
repelling

It's as simple as that really.

Since** space **is nothing more than the average or mean ** out of phase **amount,
then it's plain to see that spacetime itself is quantized and photons

Minkowski almost had it. He told us that both
the star's electron and your eye electron had to be on the ** same light
cone** before you could receive light from a star. It's really that a

In other words in equatorial electron
bonding, a spin up electron is binding with a spin down electron, and that *—* *tiny razor blade thin sliver* — portion of
their closest sides are bound together with an ** in
phase** bond. This is what is happening in a sigma chemical bond
and also with Cooper pairs.

**Impedance matching** is an important part of every electron
to electron binding!

There is no binding unless the frequencies
are exactly in phase and both impedances match.

Let's look at what the Britannica tells us
about this enigmatic ** h** (Planck's
constant).

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "**Planck's
constant**

The
dimension of Planck's constant is the product of energy multiplied by time, a
quantity called action."

* * *

As the Britannica stated, ** h** is a certain energy

So ** h**
is giving you the angle

Because those two electron portions can have
the same **velocity** * only* during that ultra tiny angle is
what

Since **E= mc ^{2
}**and energy is equivalent to mass then the mass of those ultra
tiny sliver

(We believe this is the first publication of what Planck's
mysterious ** h **really is.)

* * *

This multiplied by the binding **time**
amounts to the "__action__ at a
distance" or 6.62606957 × 10−34
joule∙second.

Since the **time **involved in ** h** is the same in every quantum, then every
orbital jump must be made in the same

This makes sense as we look at gamma rays
that must be caused by entirely free electrons traveling at the fastest speeds,
spinning in opposite directions in the same spin plane. But there is more to
binding and energy transfer than simply the speed, of both items, being the
same: An ultra tiny portion of both items must
have the same __velocity__ *(**speed and direction)*.
We'll go over this extensively as we proceed.

Present science can't tell you what light
waves are waves of. We, however, can: light is actually only a frequency and
not a wave. It's really nothing but an electron binding operation. You'll see
that as we proceed.

Light, heat and radio *—*
*so called — *waves are being produced at the electron spin
frequency. But that is actually a tad higher in frequency from our spacetime
realm. The highest frequency that we can observe as a solid in our spacetime
realm is somewhat lower than the electron orbital frequency.

Those who still adamantly believe in the
aether *—* *proved
not to exist by the Michelson Morely experiment — *may now say it's these various spacetime realms *—*
*that constitute aether — *and are responsible for light waves. The answer to
that is a sort of ** no** but having said that you have to realize
that even though space is produced by the

We like to view *—*
*a quantum of — *light and all other energy **not
**as** a wave nor a particle** but
as merely a loosening of a binding with the surroundings: In other words, **'energy is merely a
binding change with the surroundings'**.

We should amplify that *—*
*light being neither a wave
nor particle — *by saying this: it is
best to say a quantum of light energy, from a distant star, is transferred to
your eye after an electron in your eye *—** dropping
to a lower orbital **—** *unbinds
with an electron on that distant star and rebinds with an electron in your
brain thus transferring that quantum of energy to your brain.

More about this below:

Massive numbers of Cooper pairs *Cooper pairs Britannica* of bonded
electrons** ***—*** ***whose
closest sides are **in
phase** — *exist at almost absolute zero *absolute zero Britannica*. This is the Bose-Einstein condensate *Bose-Einstein condensate*. But a few Cooper pairs** ***—*** ***in phase** bound pairs — *do exist even at our temperature and some of us know
they can exist as bound pairs even when separated as far apart as the Hubble
limit. Light *—* *while
a frequency — *is not really best seen
as a wave* *but is best seen as the result of a shifting binding
change where, as you look at a star, a Cooper type spin-up spin-down bond
between the electron in your eye, and that distant star electron is lost,
collapsing your eye electron to a lower orbital thus adding that energy
quantum, it lost, to your brain.

Your brain receives that voltage much like
the spark in the spark plug of your car engine receives its voltage ** after**
the battery circuit, to the coil-capacitor, is broken. Not only that but each
quantum in this eye-brain engine, explodes into your brain faster than the
individual explosions in the fastest reciprocating engine.

That's what the light, you see, really is!

The proof of this is what we see happening in
the interferometer *interferometer Britannica*: In fact if you read this then you be one of a few
who knows ** why** the interferometer
works the way it does.

One type of interferometer has beam splitting
mirrors. The current explanation is that if the beam does not go through the
glass but is only reflected from the partially silvered side of the mirror then
each quantum of light in this particular leg ** gets
phase reversed** and can cancel out a quantum of light from its
opposite beam leg. This was discovered by Humphrey Lloyd

Our explanation is essentially the same but
with a slight twist: Our explanation depends on the ** in phase** bonding of Cooper pairs.

Remember, Cooper pairs are spin-up spin-down.
They are thus equatorially bound *—* *their equators lie in the same plane — *with tiny portions of their closest sides ** in phase**. Thus we have an

Now, take something to a mirror and try to
read it. Even though the mirror image is not reversed up to down or left to
right, something else happens: You can plainly see that the image you are
trying to read in the mirror must be read backwards from right to left instead
of from left to right. In other words the ** phase**
gets reversed. However

Why won't an ordinary mirror reflect and
cancel the 180 degree out of phase quantum?

Because going through the glass changes an
electron's spacetime enough where it can no longer match the electron in the
opposite leg in binding frequency!

Each leg on the interferometer must
incorporate an **equal amount of glass** for
the instrument to work!

Our spacetime intermediate
frequency goes through glass slower than it does through air, so each
leg of the interferometer must have equal spacetime consistent legs.

We tell all about intermediate
frequency in Chapter 10.

Remember what we said: ** Space, in
this all frequency universe, is simply the * average* of these
repelling

Our spacetime intermediate
frequency *"sees"* more space in glass than it does in
air because in glass there are more repelling forces. And the higher the
frequency the higher the space that will be *"seen" *by that
frequency: this is why blue light is bent more
than red light by a prism. The higher blue frequency *"sees"* more space in
the prism than the red frequency so the blue frequency bends more.

The reason that we only see one type of space
is because we have only one, electron spin, intermediate
frequency.

If the path of one leg has more glass then
there is **no interferometer **because the excess glass on one side has
changed the spacetime consistency of that leg too much for the electron on that
side to bind with an electron in the opposite leg.

If the spacetime consistency of one
interferometer leg is changed *—* *compared to the other — *then there cannot possibly be any impedance matching
with the quantum in the other 180 degree out of phase leg. *http://www.amperefitz.com/interferometer.htm*

An electron, 180 degrees out of phase *—*
*spin down — *in one leg can completely ** bind with** and
knock out an electron

Now you know more about interferometers than
most scientists do.

What we are telling you *—*
*present science doesn't — *is that light doesn't ** really**
move through the interferometer legs. Instead a Cooper type

**So we are not seeing the
velocity of a beam of light; we are seeing the rate or speed that the electron
spin frequency space is being built.**

Now you know ** why**
an interferometer

And you know a bit more about spacetime. And
there is more to come about space and time.

Now you also know ** why** photons don't really have to move at all.
In fact,

Here comes the **important**
question now: Why is it significant to see that photons do not move?

Because the **important**
thing you now know is that light is not a particle nor a wave. Light is merely
a binding change.

All energy is produced via a quantum binding
change where a binding with the surrounding stars is switched to a close binding.
**This is all energy is!**

__All__** energy ***—*** ***whether
fission, fusion or chemical — ***is binding energy that relates to the surrounding stars!**

**Bindings ***—*** ***binding
force — ***can neither be
created nor destroyed****
but can be switched from surrounding stars to near, creating
energy**

**Bindings ***—*** ***binding
force — ***can neither be
created nor destroyed ****but
can be switched from near to surrounding stars, creating inertial
mass**

This is ** why**
we have

**But this is only a general description
of ***why*** E= mc ^{2}. The more exact
description comes in Chapter 13.**

Please remember what we said **space was**, earlier in this chapter.

**Space, in
this all frequency universe, is simply the * average* of these
repelling

If light is merely a binding change then the
Michelson-Morley experiment *—* *that
had a null in all directions — *makes
perfect __sense__ because light does **not** actually move.

Yes, it looks like light is moving because **Space, the * average*
of these repelling

What is being seen, instead of this photon
speed, is the building of space or speed of change of **the * average*
of these repelling

They certainly do change with time: this is
what gives us our scalar entity of time.

Space also is scalar as it is constantly
being produced thus spacetime is scalar, however, motion is not scalar; it has
a vector or directional quality.

But the essence of all of this is that Milo
Wolff's scalar, standing wave universe must, of necessity, **keep **__both__** space and time scalar to the average or mean **

It has to do this to remain a scalar, standing
wave universe.

Since both space and time are __scalar__*—* *extending
equally in all directions — *then when
you are looking a distance in space you are also looking back in time. Every
astronomer knows this.

Now we ask, **why
does the speed of light remain the same ***— independent of both source and observer —
***in every reference
frame?**

The answer is simple, **the scalar spacetime continuum moves over every Minkowski
point, and any legs adjoining it, at the same speed of light in every reference
frame!**

Albert Einstein most certainly made a
prophetic statement in 1954: because with that November Scientific American
article and this book in 2013, this year indeed marks the beginning of a new
phase symmetry science and as Einstein said, *"nothing
remains of my castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [**and of ] the rest of modern physics."*

This is not, however, the destruction of
quantum theory; this is merely making it more complete. This is, nevertheless, the end of the standard model along with, as
Einstein stated, much else. We are making quantum theory more complete
by stating that not only the photon but all the other force carriers such as
the W+, W-, Z and the Gluons are simply the result of these binding operations
with their respective same frequency surroundings and none of these force
carriers really move. Bosons do not exist: they are merely impedance matched
bindings!

Our answer as to ** why** and how this really happens may even
simplify significant problems yet inherent in the

Once this is known to be a simple binding
operation, then no force carrier particles have mass or charge. So this may
help settle the present *weak force*
argument over those W particles having mass or not.

Those who publish first have the right to
name things. If this book turns out to be the first published account of these
force carriers being a simple binding arrangement and also if we are right
about that then we suggest that this spot where this binding takes place is
called the Minkowski spot. He gave us the light cone because he clearly saw
that we were separated from distant stars in both space and time and for us to
see those stars the light from us to them had to meet in only one place. And it
does.

Since **Space, in this all frequency
universe, is simply the * average* of these repelling

See: spacetime is really quantized!

If Minkowski would have lived then he might
have told us that too. In our estimation, he was one of the great ones.

Please remember Minkowski. And remember that spacetime
is really quantized. It comes in ultra tiny quanta chunks like energy quanta.

And please remember that ** none of these
force carriers move. These are simply distant
electrons or quarks binding. **The Higgs

None of these force carriers (**bosons**)
have a speed!

The speed of light that we *think* we see in this frequency universe is really
the speed of change of **the * average* of these

In other words, the speed of light that we *think* we see in this frequency universe is really
our **I.F.** frequency *(**Intermediate Frequency**)*
in our own physical superheterodyne system in this frequency universe.

God, We hope this doesn't turn out to be a
long, long book because we've got a lot more things to do in life besides just
sitting here writing this thing.

But it ** is** worth sitting here
and putting all this together if we can finally show

This is the question that has been asked *—*
*with no answer until now — *for over a hundred years: Why is the speed of light a
constant?

Why is the speed of light independent of the
velocity of the source and independent of the velocity of the observer?

The answer is, light is merely a binding
change with the surroundings: It has no speed!

Thus we solve one of the greatest unsolved
mysteries in quantum theory, "Collapse of the
wave function".

And dear reader, you have seen this answer
here first!

I hope Maxwell doesn't turn over in his grave
as more people see this answer.

8**. Revival
of Rutherford's Atom**

**and Bohr's electron**

Ernest Rutherford *E. Rutherford-Nobel P*. gave us our first solar system description of the atom
when he discovered that the nucleus of the atom was a small massive entity
around which the electron, discovered by J. J. Thompson *Thompson*
revolved.

Niels Bohr continued on with this orbiting
electron concept and this concept remained, in our science culture for years,
yet today this concept is considered sort of obsolete with the present view
being that the electron is more like a wave in what is termed an orbital
instead of an orbit.

While we agree with the present frequency
view, we also must emphasize that if this universe is a frequency universe all
throughout then all this spinning and orbiting that we see affecting things
here, as Rutherford and Bohr correctly saw, also must be similarly affecting
things in the microcosm.

Is it possible that what we see here is what
the electron "*sees*" there?
Pardon my improper use of "*see*"
for the electron *—* *here
and other places in this book — *but I
believe it paints the best picture.

Let's return to the Rutherford Atom in which
electrons orbited around a nucleus.

Electric motors, stars, galaxies and even
electrons, all spin and behave in relation to the ** same phase rules**
where there is a binding type attraction when
both elements are in phase and more of a repulsion the more out of
phase they are to each other.

In this frequency world of Schrödinger, we
then see ** why** the electron's
spin/orbital frequencies are a separate gauge
from the quark's

From the Britannica
2009 DVD **"Dirac,** P.A.M.: English theoretical physicist
who was one of the founders of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. **Dirac**
is most famous for his 1928 relativistic quantum theory of the electron and his
prediction of the existence of antiparticles. In 1933 he shared the Nobel Prize
for Physics with the Austrian physicist **Erwin Schrödinger**.**"**

We cannot see into the spacetime realm (gauge) of the electron at all; however, we can learn
its gauge rules. Quantum theory is built solely
on our observances of tiny individual pieces of energy (**quanta**) that are
either created or absorbed when mass-energy balances in the electron's
spacetime realm have changed. This is all that realm (gauge)
lets us see of it. From this, we know the electron "*sees*" itself and acts far differently from
what we see is happening in our spacetime realm. The electron appears to "*see*" itself as both a wave type resonance
and a sort of spherical spinning particle. Niels Bohr won the Nobel Prize for
showing us how this **particle**-** orbit** aspect of it caused the
various light colors. Wolfgang Pauli showed us the aspects of electron

From Britannica 2009
DVD **"Gödel's proof** first appeared in an article in the
Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 38 (1931), on formally
indeterminable propositions of the Principia Mathematica of Alfred North
Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.**"**

Kurt **Gödel** ** proved** that those who cannot see the

From the Britannica
2009 DVD — **"Gauge Theory:** class of quantum field theory, a
mathematical theory involving both quantum mechanics and Einstein's special
theory of relativity that is commonly used to describe subatomic particles and
their associated wave fields.**"**

This** **turns out to be a *phase related universe*, in which everything has a
certain *phase relationship* to its surroundings. Future super-computers will someday
express all of our ** NATURAL
LAWS** in the simple terms of nothing but

Yes, this is totally ironic — *to what we
are now being taught* — but yet absolutely true!

We get the right answers by using both this
concept of **motion**, used by **Niels** **Bohr**
and the concept of ** Mach's principle**, regardless of their
diminution among many of my present peers.

The movement away from the way **Bohr** saw it, may seem correct but if you entirely
forget ** relative motion** and the
orbiting, spinning particle that

Quoting the Britannica 2009 DVD **"Phase:** when comparing
the **phases** of two or more periodic motions, such as waves, the motions
are said to be in **phase** when corresponding points reach maximum or
minimum displacements simultaneously. If the crests of two waves pass the same
point or line at the same time, then they are in **phase **for that
position; however, if the crest of one and the trough of the other pass at the
same time, the **phase** angles differ by 180°, or π radians, and the
waves are said to be out of **phase** (by 180° in this case).**"**

We see both space and time in the electron's
realm more highly compressed than our time and space. We see time and space in
the quark's realm (another very different *—* *higher frequency* *—* gauge) even more compressed from the electron's. Events in
the microcosm happen much, much faster than events in our realm here; just as
events in the macrocosm seem to happen slower than they do for us here on
earth. These are **all** __gauge__** theory** road signs we can no
longer ignore!

Niels **Bohr**
won the Nobel Prize for seeing electrons as spinning, spherical particles on
orbits. I know that some have relegated that idea of **Bohr's** to the dim and distant past and **Bohr's** orbits are now being seen by some as a
wave function orbital cloud with **Bohr's** **motion** __missing__. This is a mistake! I'll
agree that the wave function orbital is there but so is **Bohr's motion**.
You had better apply that old **Bohr**
concept again to see how phase enters the
picture. You will then see exactly how all this works.

Having said that, I must also add the caveat:
You must understand exactly what **motion**
is and the spin/orbit frequency parameters inside of which it must remain: You
cannot say the **Rutherford-Bohr** electron **motion** does not exist in the microcosm!

In this Wolff-Schrödinger frequency
universe, all forces are nothing but ** phase**
relationships:

**Here's the real reason
for magnetism **

Please read these paragraphs * below*
several times until you get a clear picture of this

**Chemical bonding** is ** in phase**
bonding exactly like magnetic bonding. However in chemical bonding, these sigma
and pi

This** **Ampère-Bohr
concept is consistent, in all spacetime realms, showing you ** all** the
fundamental invisible forces are caused this same way by

It becomes apparent *—*
*once you know this is a
frequency universe entirely — *that
the elements of classical mechanics, as Niels Bohr showed, can be used in the
microcosm to effectively show much more than quantum theory alone can show. **Bohr took elements of classical mechanics into the
quantum world, showing how various orbital drops caused the various colors and
I've already proven that Bohr's motion must be there**

**You could not have that ****reversal ****of polar bonding strengths****, mentioned in the above paragraph, unless
electrons were actually ****spinning
as tiny spheres and actually revolving around the nucleus in actual orbits ****exactly as Bohr envisaged similarly to the
way it is being done in classical mechanics. **But again,** know
the limits **of inserting classical mechanics into the micro world**.**

One of the **absolute
proofs** that the **Rutherford-Bohr**
orbital **motion** actually exists in the
microcosm is that *—* *as we said — *the
sigma bond is stronger than the pi bond. How can this exist unless there is
real orbital motion there? It has to be that the two spin up, spin down sigma
bound electrons keep spinning in the same plane *—* *producing the sigma bond over a far longer
length of time — *than the polar pi
bond that is only a short but repetitious bond whenever those two electrons,
having the same spin, happen to pass directly over each other.

So the **Rutherford-Bohr**
electron in an orbit **motion** ** must**
be the event that is happening in the microcosm.

The present view of the electron wave orbital
** doesn't** give a reason for the polar bond being the stronger bond
in magnetism while the same polar bond is the weaker bond in chemical bonding.

The **Rutherford-Bohr**
view of an electron in **motion** in an
actual obit ** does** explain these strength

**Therefore:** This is solid proof of the old **Rutherford-Bohr** concept of an electron not only
in orbit but in actual **motion** around the
atomic nucleus.

This is __proof__ that the electron really orbits the nucleus.

**Case closed!**

9**. The
Quark**

We saw that Einstein's general relativity is
formed to equate force with space. But that force is being generated by a quark
spin frequency. We can't see that space. We can only see and measure space just
lower than the electron orbital frequency.

A **spin/orbit
frequency resonance** is creating our space: All of Milo Wolff's
spinning, orbiting electrons *—* *from here to the Hubble limit — *are creating our
space that we see and are able to measure. This is a scalar entity moving over
us at what we term the speed of light or approximately 300,000,000 *(three hundred million)* meters per
second. This can also be denoted as *c* or 3 x 10^{8} meters per
second *(3 with 8 zeros
after it). *("Speed of light is
exactly 299,792,458 metres per second." *copied
directly from the 2013 Britannica DVD*).

Now we shall install *—*
*similar to Max Planck's method **—** *a missing piece of the
puzzle to get a correct answer. We even have far more evidence, for inserting
our missing piece of the puzzle, than Max Planck had.

We are going to give the down quark a spin
frequency the square of the electron's frequency.

Now watch what happens:

The down quark's spin, being the square of
the electron spin frequency, is also a **close
resonance** of the electron spin frequency which will *—* *with in phase bonding — *attract
the electron.

This electron now has an equatorial *—* *in phase — *bond with a down quark that has opposite spin.

This was the missing piece of the puzzle that
gives us many answers:

1. Electrons are not being attracted to the
nucleus but they are attracted to a * certain* down quark in the
nucleus but each electron orbits around its own particular down quark in the
nucleus. Both bond together via an equatorial in phase
bond; the spin of each down quark being inverted to every orbiting electron's
spin.

2. Quarks can attract other quarks using
equatorial *—* *in
phase — *bonds.

3. Quarks that attract quarks in the distant
surrounding stars give us our inertial mass.

4. Quarks that attract quarks not so far away
give us gravitational attraction.

5. The speed of ** both** this
gravitational attraction and the distant attraction to surrounding stars,
giving us our inertial mass, is at the square of the speed of light or

6. The quark spin also produces a space that
we cannot measure as space because this quark space is being produced at the ** square** of the frequency that our space is
being produced at. But as Wheeler and Feynman said we can't measure this space,
and even don't see it as space, but we most certainly can detect it and we do:
We detect this quark spin space as

So the astronomers win this **really important** one and Einstein loses,
probably because Einstein miscopied his relativity from the earlier published
Lorentz relativity that showed gravity *—*
*and still shows gravity* *—* could go faster than the speed of light.

Galileo gave us the first relativity of
space. Lorentz gave us the first relativity of spacetime. Evidently Einstein
made a wrong change to Lorentz relativity when he copied it.

The great prestige of Einstein also suffered
a real loss when physicist John Bell proved conclusively in 1964 that the ** 'common sense'** approach given by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen was wrong about quantum theory because they included a problem with
locality and hidden variables. Einstein, who hated what he termed '

10**. The
Spacetime Continuum**

*"Henceforth
space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
*Hermann
Minkowski

**This will happen.** It would have happened sooner if Minkowski had only
lived, but he died early of appendicitis.

If you read this chapter then you will
understand exactly what this spacetime continuum is.

When Minkowski first showed Einstein the
spacetime concept, Einstein thought it was some sort of *mathematical trick*.
But Einstein later grasped it, however, both Einstein and Minkowski failed to
see some important **quantum** aspects of
this spacetime continuum.

We have a **scalar**,
**quantum** spacetime continuum!

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "**Scalar**:

a
physical quantity that is completely described by its magnitude; examples of
scalars are volume, density, speed, energy, mass, and time. Other quantities,
such as force and velocity, have both magnitude and direction and are called
vectors."

Yes, our spacetime continuum is a myriad
of tiny spinning, standing wave entities existing throughout our surroundings **in all directions**
thus

The foundation of general relativity is that
all these things are spinning and orbiting on *geodesics*.

A *geodesic*,
in general relativity, is the ** shortest** path through this
spacetime continuum.

In addition to this, phase symmetry tells us
something else important about a geodesic:

A *geodesic*,
in phase symmetry, is a path where **repulsive**
forces and **attractive** forces are evenly balanced *(surroundings, where half the forces emanate from, must
be considered)*.

General relativity tells us that if you give
an entity either linear or spin motion then this entity will assume the
shortest path — *a geodesic*
— through the existing spacetime continuum.

Phase symmetry tells us, however, that
wherever an entity is placed in this universe it will end up — *on a geodesic* — with a speed and spin where repulsive
and attracting forces are equalized *(surroundings,
where half the forces emanate from, must be considered)*.

**Therefore, spin and orbit
frequencies take place **only**
to equalize attracting and repelling forces.**

This actually works in the microcosm too if
you realize that you are now in a higher frequency spacetime realm and these
entities are moving on *geodesics* in this
new and different frequency spacetime realm: So phase symmetry tells us a lot
more than general relativity does and it works in the microcosm too.

Milo Wolff's scalar, spinning, standing wave,
spacetime realm ** mandates** that
these spinning, standing wave entities move on

The spin of these entities is also on a
geodesic built by the mean or average of all these surrounding forces. However,
it is __not__
scalar, to various individual other
spinning, standing wave entities: to many of them it's a ** vector**
force. Therefore we have these vector

Even though these forces are equal, the **attracting forces lock on**

Thus this universe both in the microcosm and
macrocosm ends up in massive tiny chunks where most of the attractive forces
have locked on to each other. This leaves all the other repelling forces
available to repel all these massive chunks away from each other.

We won't know exactly how this works until we
know exactly how the tri quarks are set up in the proton and neutron. What we
do know now is that the quarks that are giving us inertial and gravitational attractive force are those being pulled away from the
tri quark center in what is now being mistakenly called **asymptotic freedom.**

The opposite repelling
forces are the reason why there is so much space between everything in both the
micro and macro worlds in this spacetime continuum.

**Another secret foundation of
this universe is** that these spins are
seen to be on geodesics according to the **average** or **mean** of the surrounding masses but ** not**
on geodesics according to various other individual spinning entities. If it
wasn't this way then we wouldn't have magnetism, would we?

Magnetic orbitals also produce magnetism but
they mostly all get cancelled out *—* *via building — *leaving us to view the electron spin as the cause of
magnetism. But in the grand universe view these spins *—*
*via building — *all get cancelled out too.

But it's these orbits and spins *—*
*mostly spins — *that are the real building blocks.

Remember what you have learned so far: Both
sigma chemical bonds and Cooper pairs are spin-up spin-down electrons binding.
They are thus equatorially bound *—* *their equators lie in the same plane — *with tiny portions of their closest sides ** in phase**. Thus we have this

As we saw earlier *—*** ***because of
phase symmetry — *the electron spin
creates equal attracting and repelling magnetic forces. And as we've shown,
force can be construed as space as it is in Einstein's general relativity.

Therefore these *in
phase* forces will attempt to bind these entities into large clumps. But
remember what we said about this binding: **Bindings ***—*** ***binding
force — ***can neither be
created nor destroyed.**

This means *—* *because binding and repelling forces are equal **—** *most binding forces are
now used up binding together these large clumps, this means more repelling
forces are left over to repel other large clumps away: This repelling force *—*
*left over — *is Einstein's cosmological constant!

Each of these individual binding forces,
whether near or far, have the same strength!

So you still don't get the full picture of
things until you realize that each of these binding or repelling forces **do not lose strength with distance**!

**Only the ****number**** of these individual forces falls off with the square of the
distance.**

**Attractive forces**** can only emanate from locked
scalar, spinning, standing waves.**

The keystone of this locking are the tri
quark proton and neutron. Without these, orbiting about each other, already
locked together there would be no attractive forces at all to build with
because totally free spinning, standing wave entities will only repel each
other.

Only after you see this can you
mathematically work out what is really going on.

And this is proof we do have Einstein's
cosmological constant both in micro and macro worlds because with these vector
spins *—* *Rutherford-Bohr
view — *there must be the same number
of *in phase* attractive forces as out of
phase repulsive forces.

Right away you can see *—*
*with these forces not
decreasing with distance — *it's ** not**
a simple field concept.

It took Einstein all his life before he saw
that.

Field strengths vary as the inverse distance
squared; **the strength of these individual forces don't!**

Their full strength distance is, however,
limited. This full strength electron force stops at the Hubble limit, as Dr.
Milo Wolff showed us.

So what you have now all around you are these
thousands of trillions *—* *probably even more than
that **—** *of
these individual **vector** forces all around
you giving you both your space and your time.

Most of these forces are continually
switching their bindings in various ways and this change in your space is what
you see as your time changing because these changing forces *—*
*reach out to you full force to **—** *actually change and age
you.

This is ** why**
when you look out into space, at the stars, you also look back in time.

This is also ** why**
when two far distant entities bind then those tiny

Whether it's our eye lens or other things,
nature produces through time, the very best engineering devices. Since the very
best radio receiver circuit is the superheterodyne, then let's look at it and
see if nature has produced a copy of it.

Lo and behold, we find it has. We can
actually see nature's superheterodyne **IF**
*( Intermediate Frequency) *frequency using Young's double slit experiment:

So last but not least we discover exactly how
this scalar, spacetime continuum flows over us. Young's double slit experiment
shows us this: Today's consensus is that one photon has to go through both
slits to make the interference pattern that Young first saw. In chapter 9 we
saw a photon was an in phase binding switch and **it
could not possibly go through both slits**. **Instead** it is *nature's superheterodyne Intermediate
Frequency *in the spacetime
continuum that is causing that interference pattern in Young's double slit
experiment.

**Space, in
this all frequency universe, is simply the * average* of these
repelling

We have these intermediate frequencies in our
spacetime continuum because of Milo Wolff's scalar, spinning, standing wave
entities. The double slit is showing you the electron *Intermediate Frequency* standing wave pattern *—*
*as it flows over us at the speed of light **—** *that all electrons must
obey.

**Again**, because we can direct various different frequencies into the double
slits, this interference pattern will be different
for each different frequency beamed in.

Everyone knows that you can see depth with
two eyes but not with only one. It's essentially the same with Young's double
slit. It gives us an in depth picture of nature's superheterodyne electron *Intermediate Frequency*.

So let's take a better look at Young's double
slit *—* *interferometer — *experiment.
*Young's Double Slit*

A pin hole camera only gives us one picture
with no knowledge of motion.

A single one of Young's slits will
essentially do what the single pinhole camera does. Light going through only
one slit will not give an interference pattern.

Our two eyes work with our brain to take
multiple pictures slightly separated by space to show us depth in **space**..

Young's double slit gives us two pin hole
cameras slightly separated by space to show us depth in **space
**provided we supply this missing** Intermediate
Frequency as it flows over us at the speed of light.** We get the
picture

In any interferometer, you are looking at the
interference pattern produced by the emitter and a similar scalar, spacetime
continuum ** Intermediate Frequency**,
as it produces our space at

One really **erroneous conclusion** is that the same photon is going through __both__
interferometer slits *at the same time* *—* *believed by many today — *via some miracle given to us perhaps by the ancient
Egyptian religion of Amun. This creed proves to us that many *—*
*in these universities — *totally believe their own BS.

Light energy is definitely * neither* a photon moving at the speed of
light,

Those two things are **not happening**!

One photon going through both slits at the
same time, also **is** **not happening**!

Light is a simple binding energy operation:
It's nothing more than that!

**Why have none in these
universities even contemplated the spacetime continuum **

We consider this, __new__* look*
at what Young first found, to be one of our contributions to knowledge in today's
science world.

If you wish to continue believing in the
ancient Egyptian religion of Amun *—* *what the military industrial complex tells
you — *then go right ahead and not
worry about what you read here.

Thus you have heard our pronouncement while
men of equal insight but less courage and men of equal courage but less insight
remain silent.

*"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of
truth." ***Albert Einstein**

11**.
Gyroscopic action and **

**Translational Motion**

Robert Millikan *Millikan* gave us the
amount of repulsive charge that a single free electron had in 1909. This idea
of charge was something that Benjamin Franklin thought of long before that. How
does this fit in with our new idea of phase?

If it's phase then we see exactly why both
Franklin, Millikan, and indeed many others through the years, would think free electrons really had this thing called
charge.

See, if Franklin, Millikan and others are
right *—* *and
we do have this thing called repulsive charge — *then electrons would ** always** repel other
electrons. Totally free electrons always repel other totally free electrons.

Only our new concept of phase shows us why
electrons both attract and repel each other.

It all has to do with the electron's spin:
it's this spin that gives us **gyroscopic action** and **translational motion**.

Scientists are aware of gyroscopic action and
translational motion in the macrocosm but are blind to these actions in the
micro world. Both of these actions are why quantum theory is a science of an
infinite number of probabilities.

In the macro world we see translational
motion in the need for cyclic pitch in helicopter blades and in Rachel Carson's
statement, "No wooden ship can withstand the **bad
quarter** of a severe hurricane."

The **bad quarter**
of that hurricane is where the rotational speed of the hurricane, as a whole,
must be __added__ to the forward velocity of the storm to get the __true__
*—* *wind
velocity or — *translational motion.

The effective
destructive force of this hurricane translational motion *(energy) *goes up as the square of the wind speed. But in the microcosm this effective force goes up faster, even __approaching__
**infinity**, at the speed of light.

Without microcosm translational motion there
would be no light or even centrifugal force. It will take quite a
few sentences merely to explain that sentence.

To transmit light energy an electron must
impedance match and bind with a distant, opposite spin electron: Portions of
the closest sides *(ultra
tiny sliver portions)* of both
electrons must be *—* *going
the same velocity — *exactly *in phase* compared to the surroundings.

Even though all electrons have the same spin
frequency not all electrons have a similar forward speed *—*
*also remember, they are
Bohr's round spheres — *so this limits
the bindings to those electrons whose closest sides have identical translational
motion.

Translational motion *—*
*like in the hurricane — *depends on spin speed __plus__ forward velocity.

Color depends on the frequency of this
translational motion. Ultra violet will come from bindings with about twice the
frequency *—* *of
translational motion — *than red
light. This is why *—* *energy
being commensurate to frequency — *that
ultra violet has about twice the energy of red light.

OK, that's light but how on earth, the reader
will ask, does translational motion affect centrifugal force?

Well, to do that we have to move from the
electron to the quark. The down quark, you saw in Chapters 4 and 9, has a spin
frequency the square of the electron's spin frequency.

Without a quark binding with an inverted spin
quark, via their translational motion, you wouldn't even be able to ride a
bicycle!

You saw how Rachel Carson said this
translational energy went up in a hurricane. You also saw how it goes up in
energy as red light goes to violet. Well now let's examine how it works with
quarks.

Using the Rutherford Bohr view, quarks are
spinning, spherical entities. They must be spinning pretty fast *—*
*pretty close to the speed
of light — *with a spin frequency the
square of the electron spin frequency. There are plenty of these fast spinning
quarks in your bicycle wheels. Those wheels are now adding this extra
translational motion to half of those quarks and subtracting an **equal**
amount of translational motion from the other half.

The problem is *—*
*changing translational
motion — *that attracting and
repelling forces don't end up equal!

Half of the quarks that now have this added
translational motion are **moving higher up on that speed of
light asymptote curve **where the binding __attractive__ force with
their partner quarks in the surrounding stars is __approaching__ **infinity**.
Quarks in the wheels are now binding with far
more energy to quarks in the surrounding stars.

They have gained this attractive energy *—*
*giving the wheels more
inertial mass — *from you pumping
harder on the bicycle pedals!

So the faster you ride, the faster your cycle
wheels turn and the faster those quarks in your bicycle wheels bind with the
quarks in the surrounding stars *—* *with **more**
and **more** energy — *to better hold you up on your bicycle. It's as simple
as that really.

Cyclic pitch of the helicopter blades, the
bad quarter of the hurricane, light colors and you staying up on your bicycle
all are nothing but the result of translational motion.

That's not all!

Now watch what happens as we add gyroscopic
action:

I hope you have noticed that what we have
done so far, in all these chapters, is to entirely eliminate plus and minus
charges and in fact any forces related to fields and have instead shown how *phase* can be used in place of all those old
forces.

Gyroscopic action is nothing but *phase*: I've shown this *phase*
gyro precession concept in my first book but called it relative motion.

The electron spin is the important thing and
you have seen that two electrons can attract if their closest sides can
impedance match by binding together *in phase*.

So electrons *—*
*that are **restricted** — *really
have a chance of repelling or a chance of attracting if we are right about it
being a phase relationship. But this attracting force is an impedance matched
locking force whereas the repelling force is definitely not.

Then why do two free electrons always have to
repel each other?

Because as soon as their closest sides begin
to attract, their *precession* twists
them away from this initial attracting position. (Remember, we have done away
with charge and substituted simple *gyroscopic
action* and *phase*.)

And, as was shown in that first Fitzpatrick
book in 1966-1967, gyro precession is caused
by *phase*, that can also be seen as relative
motion.

Thus, the only electrons that can attract
other electrons must, in some way, be prevented from precessing.
Being locked, *spin up*, in orbit
around a

A type of locking, such as this, is what is
being done both in chemical bonding and magnetism.

It's as simple as that, really.

Before we finish this chapter, we have to
remind you that by using Ampère's laws *—* *with a torque tending to make & keep
the paths parallel — *there will be **far,
far more torque** precession from two
initial **polar attractions** than from two initial equatorial attractions.
This *—* *more
minimal amount of initial equatorial **precession** — *is the reason for
Cooper pairs and sigma bonds and the reason that there must be sigma bonds
before a pi bond can exist.

In other words the equatorial bond has far
less problems lining up and bonding than the polar bond.

This is why light, radio waves, gravity and
inertia are all equatorial bonds.

12**. It's
Phase**

**and not Fields**

We would not have all the accoutrements we
now have in our lives if we did not have Faraday's fields and Maxwell's math
for them.

Fields and field math allow engineers to
design all these things that we think we need in our everyday lives.

This concept of fields allows engineers to
reduce the thousands of trillions of individual quantum forces into a concept
they can feed into a computer that gives answers.

But as Einstein discovered in 1954, it's the
quantum force and not the field *(numerous quanta) *that
counts if one wants to see how this universe really works.

Scientists know that each quantum binding
force locks on and binds: In fact, this is termed binding energy. They also
agree that all this electron to electron sigma and pi chemical bonding gives us
our molecular compositions. What they have missed is what this chapter is all
about: the phase/relative motion aspect of all
this was clearly implied in Fitzpatrick's 1966-1967 book which is now quoted:

"As
we hold a compass in our hands, let us utilize the Galileo-Einstein gift of
relativity and imagine that the earth along with us, and of course our compass,
is at rest.

The
sun, moon and stars can be considered as rotating around us, rising in the east
and setting in the west.

We
find, if we have a flashlight battery and a loop of wire, that when we connect
it to the loop of wire, this has an effect upon our compass when we place our
compass inside this loop.

We
find that when electrons are moving around the loop (going from — to +) and
therefore around the compass in the same direction that the sun and moon and
stars seem to go around the earth, then we are reinforcing the direction that
the earth's magnetic field would ordinarily move the compass needle.

Here
we ask--what is the difference between the electrons going around the loop of
wire at a close range and very fast or the sun, moon and stars going around the
compass slower but farther away but the mass of these being greater than the
electrons?

In
other words the spinning electrons in the compass needle will tend to line up
the outside of their spinning circumferences in the same plane with the loop of
wire with the electrons in it. This will be in the same plane and in the same
direction as the orbit the sun seems to make around the earth.

Our Law of Relative Motion does not
distinguish between electrons moving around the compass or the sun moving
around the compass as long as the path and direction remains essentially the
same."

Therefore we know what is magnetizing the
earth's iron core: it's this relative motion of its surroundings caused by the
earth's spin. This same exhibition of spin to magnetism exists all throughout
our universe. Everyone seems perfectly aware of this.

But why we ask, has everyone totally missed
the phase/relative motion aspect of all of
this?

Because they **totally** __concentrated__
on the wonderful field aspect of this. Yes, our engineers have accomplished
wonders using this field concept but as Einstein saw in 1954, this field
concept is not the correct concept to use to see how this universe works.

The concept to use *—*
*to see how this universe
works — *is relative motion *—*
*like in that 1966 book — ***and/or** phase. Both relative motion and phase are essentially the same. It's
an **and/or** relationship. You know you can
see better with two eyes so use **both** relative motion *and* phase.
We'll prove using **both** is best in the rest of this chapter. And
remember, it's phase not fields.

**There is no such thing as a
gravitational field or a magnetic field! **So forget __entirely__ about fields. As Einstein finally told us, we
do not yet have a mathematical field concept that works.

What does exist are in phase attractive
forces and out of phase repulsive forces.

Having said that, I must also add the caveat:
You must understand exactly what **motion**
is and the spin/orbit frequency parameters inside of which it must remain.

**Remember, we gave you absolute
proof that electrons are spinning, spherical entities, exactly as
Rutherford and Bohr saw them, orbiting on actual orbits in the microcosm.**

We began this proof by taking two magnets
with their same poles in the same direction and placing one on top of the
other. This polar attraction *—* *where electrons on the same spin axis are
totally in phase — *is the stronger
attraction. When one of these magnets is reversed then the sides of both
magnets will attract, but this *—* *situation where only their closest sides
are in phase — *is a far weaker
attraction.

Thus we see why the polar magnetic attraction
is the stronger attraction.

And why did we say the polar attraction in
chemical bonding is the weaker of the two attractions?

Again, why is the electron to electron
attraction in chemical bonding the reverse of that in magnetism?

*As we said*** the only answer possible is that these
electrons are actual spinning spheres on orbits as Bohr said.**

Also keep in mind that all forces are nothing but ** phase** relationships:

**You won't see this correct
view, of ***phase***, at all, looking from the accepted
present science view. But using this ****motion seen by Bohr**** gives you a better, enhanced view of ***phase*** in this frequency world.**

13**. An
Accelerating**

**Expanding Universe**

**Also why **E= mc^{2}

Since 1998, after NASA and the news media
fully digested the results of Saul Perlmutter's Supernova Cosmology Project and
Brian Schmidt's High-z Supernova Search Team, we've been told that we are
really in an accelerating, expanding universe. Some scientists see this as
Einstein's cosmological constant *(8πG multiplied by the density of the vacuum)*, which was a repulsive force equal but opposite to
gravity that kept all the stars and galaxies apart *(long ago)* when we were supposedly in a static sort of steady
state universe.

This accelerating expansion was discovered by
observing type 1a supernovae extremely distant in space but when you look far
off in space then you also look far off in time. A supernova discovered about
five billion years back in time turned out to be much fainter than it was
supposed to be. To the astronomical world and the news world this meant only
one thing: This, we were told, meant that we were in an accelerating, expanding
universe.

But since then far more interest and money
went in to finding even further distant type 1a supernovae. Then something else
was discovered in later years. Earlier type 1a supernovae, more billions of
years, back in time, were giving us an indication the universe was __not__
expanding as much way back then.

This, our astronomers tell us, is an
indication of an accelerating, expansion that began in earnest about five
billion years ago.

Well, this universe is thought to be about
fourteen billion years old since the Big Bang started it. Our sun has existed a
good portion of that time and will remain and burn many more billions of years
too. Life has existed on this earth almost ten billion years but, unfortunately
for human life, most estimates are that before another half a billion years is
past, our sun *—* *it's
growing bigger & hotter — *will
have gotten hot enough to evaporate all the rivers making human inhabitation,
here on earth, impossible.

Now back to the reason for the presently
believed accelerating expansion of the universe: The Big Bang did __not__
produce all the elements as George Gamow and his assistants Ralph Alpher and
Robert Herman mistakenly told us *—* *they arrived at 10 instead of 2.725 degrees
Kelvin because they included all the heavy elements — *when they first predicted the existence of the CMBR in
the early 1950s. We now know the Big Bang produced only the elements hydrogen,
helium and a slight bit of lithium.

It takes an exploding supernova to produce
the heavier elements.

We don't see any quasars in nearby galaxies
now. They only exist in that earlier universe where stars were almost pure
hydrogen and helium. Exploding supernovae generated all the other heavier
elements and distributed these heavier elements to our universe. We can only
assume this took many billions of years thus removing any possibility of these
earlier hydrogen and helium quasars being built in our present universe today.

We must assume that exploding supernovae had
produced enough of the heavier elements and distributed them throughout the
universe in its first nine billion years to give us stars quite similar to
those we now see in our nearby galaxies.

Why does creating these heavier elements give
us this look of a universe that, since the past five billion years, has this
sudden accelerating expansion?

It has to do with the principle of
equivalence.

We have the principle of equivalence because
we can only sense the acceleration of the quark spin produced space. We can
only measure electron produced space. As Wheeler and Feynman told us, we may
sense things in other spacetime realms but we can't measure them. So we sense
the acceleration of the quark produced space but we do not even see this as our
space.

Now what happens as these exploding
supernovae produce all these heavier elements?

You have far more of this cosmological
constant repelling force because as more and more in phase bindings are locked
up in these more massive internal bindings then you have far more repulsive out
of phase forces, compared to in phase forces, than previously.

Remember, whether it's quark spin or electron
spin, *in phase* attractive force has to equal *out of phase*
repulsive force.

Peak star production was first thought to be
in the first four billion years but now it has been moved up quite a bit
earlier by the experts in that field.

It was the manufacture of these heavier
elements in our universe that produced this more massive *out of phase*
repulsive force that we now view as causing an accelerating, expanding
universe.

Our consensus is that this is only an __apparent__
accelerating, expanding universe just as the acceleration produced by gravity *—*
*principle of equivalence — *is only __apparent__ acceleration in our electron
produced spacetime realm.

In other words, this force *—*
*Einstein's cosmological
constant — *is there just as its
opposite but equal gravitational force is there but we sense it as only an
acceleration with **no real movement** exactly like we sense our earth's
gravity affecting us with **no real movement**.

After the beta decay Big Bang was over, the in phase forces always have to equal the out of phase forces so this universe **must**
remain in balance!

**This is a static, steady state
universe!** We can hear Fred Hoyle
cheering from his grave!

In an elevator we feel the floor pushing
under us as we **move** up. We feel the earth's gravity pushing under us but
we ** don't move** up.

It's more of Einstein's principle of
equivalence really: Not only gravity but gravity's equal but opposite force __also__
**cannot be discerned from an acceleration**.

That repulsive force is out there but *—*
*via the principle of
equivalence — *you can't tell if it's
a force or an acceleration.

The belief of our NASA experts that our
universe is 75% dark energy, 4% normal matter and 21% dark matter was formed
via the first results of the WMAP team in 2003 and the final results of that
team in 2006. They found something that does indeed
exist but their model is a bit wrong: It's the force *—*
*quark spin energy produced
space — *that's out there, not an
actual acceleration type **movement**, in our electron produced space, that
we can measure.

There is *—* *as NASA describes it — *about 75% more space creation (energy) repelling
everything apart and a total of 25% space depletion (mass) attracting
everything. This means *—* *according
to NASA — *the empty space in our
universe is currently expanding while the actual solid entities are not
expanding. While this might be possible according to general relativity, this
is not what is happening.

In fact, **Nothing
could be further from the truth! **Yes, the force *—*
*gravity's opposite
repulsive force — *is there but no **real**
acceleration type **motion **is, thus no **real** expanding universe that
we can measure.

This 75% space creation *—*
*75% dark energy — *is there alright but this is quark spin (energy)
produced space and we can't measure quark space. We can only measure electron
produced space.

**The quark produced space of this
universe ***—*** ***the inertial space that really counts — ***is larger by far than the
electron produced space that we can measure.**

This shows they did get some of it right so
let's look a bit more at what is happening:

It takes light 8 minutes to get to us here on
earth from the sun. So we can only see the sun the way it was 8 minutes ago.
The further things are from us, the longer it takes light to get to us. So the
further out we look in *—* *electron
produced — *space then the further
back we look into *—* *electron
produced — *time.

As we previously said, NASA astronomers
pretty much agree that this universe is about 14 billion years old and it took
more than the first thirtieth of the first billion years *—*
*about 380 thousand years — *after the Big Bang for things to cool down enough that
electrons could combine with protons. This era is important because this was
when the CMBR emerged. There is no possibility we can see light or any other
electromagnetic radiation before that era. But then it took almost one third of
that first billion years for enough stars to form to give us any light that we
might see today. What this essentially means is that as we look out in space *—*
*remember, we are also
looking back in time — *that we can
only look back in time to this first one third of that first billion year era
simply because enough light would not have been produced by stars earlier than
that.

We can almost see back to that time now but
not quite. At least we cannot detect single galaxies back to that era yet. And
the individual galaxies we can detect close to that time are entirely different
from the galaxies we see close to us now.

It's pretty well agreed that our universe is
approximately 14 billion years old but the heavier elements that had to arrive
via supernovae explosions, and began being delivered to the universe about 9
billion years ago, didn't arrive entirely enmasse until about 5 billion years
ago. These heavier elements *—* *for
the past 5 billion years — *have now
locked up about 75% of the *in phase* attractive quark to quark bindings.
Since there are an equal number of attractive to repulsive initial bindings
then that does give us the 75% space creation that NASA sees. But this is quark
spin frequency produced space and not the electron spin frequency space that we
can see and measure.

But now we must ask the question, could this
quark space that we cannot measure be expanding? Well, the answer has to be **no**,
because if it was expanding then we would have noticed a drop in inertia with
time and there is no measurable drop of inertia with time.

An expansion of this quark space would not
affect the strength of each individual inertial binding but the **numbers**
of these binding quanta would **drop** with such an expansion and this we do
not see.

**Therefore the quark space that
we cannot measure and the electron space that we can measure, are both
static, steady-state spaces that are absolutely not expanding with time.**

As Wheeler and Feynman said, we can __detect__ things in these other spacetime realms
where we cannot measure and we __detect__ inertia
not changing which tells us that this quark produced space is not expanding
even though 75% more quark energy producing space * seems* to be
there.

That's the gist of it but you must have
completely understood Chapter 7 and you might even have to read a bit more to
fully comprehend why we are really in a relatively static universe now or
closer to a steady-state universe now regardless of what NASA publications
state.

In Chapter 7 we told you the following.

**This universe is forever trying to balance
via in phase
spin attractions and out
of phase spin repulsions. **The universe does eventually always balance out
because these attractive forces and repulsive forces are always equal.

All energy is produced via a quantum binding
change where a binding with the surrounding stars is switched to a close
binding. **This is all energy is!**

__All__** energy ***—*** ***whether
fission, fusion or chemical — ***is binding energy that relates to the surrounding stars!**

**Bindings ***—*** ***binding
force — ***can neither be
created nor destroyed ****but
can be switched from near to surrounding stars, creating inertial
mass**

**Bindings ***—*** ***binding
force — ***can neither be
created nor destroyed****
but can be switched from surrounding stars to near, creating
energy**

This is ** why**
we have

Yes, but let's give a more exact description:

**Bindings ***—*** ***binding
force — **can be switched*

Remember: **This universe is forever trying to balance via in phase spin attractions and out of
phase spin repulsions. **The
universe does eventually always balance out because these attractive forces and repulsive
forces are always equal.

Iron is perfectly __balanced__: It has
internal quark to quark bindings ** equal to** quark to quark
bindings with the surrounding stars that create its mass.

In fact, the electrons that can be spin
shifted inside iron are at that exact midpoint of that binding equality. This
is why it takes little energy to shift their spins from up to down.

Unfortunately *—*
*like in iron — *this earth is spinning in a similar equal far to near
binding strength situation and its spin can be *—*
*and has been — *easily, like an electron, turned upside down *— *reversed
from north to south. *pole reversals*

All you have to do is look at how various
magnets are created *—* *look
at alnico magnets — *it's obvious that
all the *easily* spin shifted electrons are situated at these various
midpoint strengths of the nickel and cobalt elements which are not themselves
exactly at the peak of the energy curve like iron.

This is why there is fission energy to the
right of iron on the energy curve because the resulting entities produced are *—*
*more balanced — *closer to iron.

This is why there is fusion energy to the
left of iron on the energy curve as well.

I know you are tired of hearing this but **it's all phase and phase balancing**.

We do really live in Dr. Milo Wolff's scalar,
standing wave universe.

The string theorists almost got it but they
didn't do quite as well as Milo Wolff did. What definitely eliminates
superstring is that it does not allow anything to exist smaller than the Planck
length whereas this is definitely a frequency universe where no such small
limit is allowed.

Our electron spin frequency world is simply
like the key on a piano with the quark spin frequency a key higher up in
frequency from us and the solar system a key lower in frequency from us. How
many keys are on the keyboard of this universe grand piano — no one knows.

14**. What
have we**

**learned so far?**

One important thing we've learned *—*
*amongst many other things —
*is that in over a hundred years few
still realize exactly what the Michelson Morely experiment is telling us!

Essentially what this famous experiment did
was *—* *to
try — *to add the speed of the earth
in orbit to the speed of light. Even before 1900 the experiment was performed
over and over again with similar null results.

This told everyone that you could not add the
earth's orbit to the speed of light.

But it told something else more important
that no one seemed to realize!

No one realized that if we were in Dr. Milo
Wolff's scalar, standing wave universe and if this was a frequency universe in
the macrocosm as well as everyone knows it is in the microcosm, then spacetime
would be seen by us as a scalar change at *—* *the speed of light or — *the rate of three hundred million meters per second.

What this null in the Michelson Morely
experiment tells us is that a quantum of light is nothing more than *—*
*a bit of energy produced by
— *a **simple **binding operation:
an* in phase* long distance spin up-spin
down equatorial *—* *Cooper
pair or Sigma type — *bond is being
shifted between a distant star and your mind, by your eye, as that bond from
the star collapses the electron orbital in your eye, sending a quantum of
energy to your brain.

So, for well over 100 years few realized that
light might not be moving at all and light as well as all energy was merely a
binding change with the far distant surroundings as we showed in the previous
chapter.

The null in the Michelson Morely experiment
was showing us our **Intermediate Frequency**
or what we see as our spacetime continuum moving over us at a scalar speed of
light. Now we know light has no speed. It can't: it's merely a binding
operation that transfers energy similar to many bindings that we also know
transfer energy.

As we write this book it seems incredible to
both of us that few saw *—* *for
over a century — *what the Michelson
Morely experiment was really telling us: it essentially
told us that light wasn't moving!

We see that we should have listened more to
what Mach told us instead of giving it mere lip service.

While Ampère gave us the correct ** simple** model to use, we operated instead with
complicated field rules and math which even Einstein finally discovered, lead
to nothing.

We saw in Chapter 10, how the double slit
experiment finally makes sense. The waves we see produced by the double slit is
caused by our **Intermediate Frequency** or
our scalar spacetime continuum __plus__ light and __not__ solely by a
light wave alone.

We've seen that our so called dark matter and
dark energy are mostly *—* *but
not all — *wrong science beliefs.

Earlier we said Einstein was going to name
his second theory, his ** invariant **theory because not only in
special relativity but in general relativity, as well, invariance

That's the reason Einstein was going to name
his second theory, his ** invariant** theory. But he didn't because
the name relativity was too popular by then.

Both Einstein and Bohr came very close to
finding the famous *'entlosung'* or **final
solution** of this great mystery but the simple prejudices that each of them
held *—* *together
with wrong science beliefs — *prevented
each of them from seeing this wonderful big picture of how our universe really
works.

If Minkowski had lived, could he have done
it? That, we will never know.

Many important things were discovered that
should have led to the exact *'entlosung'*
but no one seemed to be able to put all these important discoveries ** together**
to come up with the correct

Why did **none** of the important
scientists see the real reason for the null in the Michelson Morely experiment?

Why did the majority, including Einstein and
Bohr, sweep Mach's principle under the rug and merely give it lip service?

The majority should have given lip service,
instead, to Millikan's electron repulsive charge. It only exists with totally
free electrons. Yes, totally free electrons repel each other, yet once they
become attached to a nucleus then they start attracting other attached
electrons. Yet no one asked ** why**.

Why didn't Einstein *—*
*who gave us the principle
of equivalence — *seek an answer as to
** why** gravity was associated with
acceleration? There has to be a

Why didn't Einstein see what Stephen Wolfram
saw? It's a *simple***model**
that is of the greatest importance, not more complicated **math**.

How could *everyone* entirely miss the
important *simple*** phase** aspect in all of this that Ampère
clearly pointed out?

Ampère gave us the ** simple** model that no one used!

What mystifies us, as we write this, is that
Ampère's ** simple** relative motion
or

How can this majority, even at this late
date, fail to understand that we are in Dr. Milo Wolff's ** simple** scalar, standing wave universe?

"Once you see that the majority are nowhere close to
the answer then you ** know** you must think entirely out of the box
wherein that majority are thinking." (Richard Mark Fitzpatrick)

15**. This
Nov. 11, 2013 **

**Scientific American link**

**gives us the demise of
supersymmetry**

*http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electron-spherical-electric-dipole-moment*

What this article *(above link)* says is that
the electron cannot be considered a dipole under the rules of supersymmetry because
the electron, now, turns out to be a perfect sphere.

In supersymmetry if the electron is a perfect
sphere then it cannot be a dipole.

But the electron **can be** considered a
dipole if this is a universe having **super** **phase symmetry** instead of supersymmetry.

So it's back to where we started:

The top symmetry?

**It's not supersymmetry:**

**It's phase symmetry.**

This is a frequency universe with an
important **super** **phase symmetry** where resonant phase is a
good part of the symmetry but not all of the symmetry.

This **super phase
symmetry** model shows you clearly what's really going on.

The **phase**
model of this universe is similar to the quantum scientist's frequency model of
things — with the added belief that this is a frequency universe in the
macrocosm as well, and that Mach's principle is absolutely correct: in other
words inertia (*inertial mass*) depends on the surrounding stars.

The earth turns once in respect to the sun in
24 hours but in respect to the stars in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds
which is termed a sidereal day. Since vibrating elements, pendulums, liquid
helium 2 and gyroscopes all exhibit this 23 hour, 56 minute and 4 second
rotation rate, we can assume that not only do these things bind with the
surrounding stars but that gyroscopic inertia as well as inertial mass are both
dependent on fixed star binding, proving Ernst Mach correct: our molecules here
are actually binding, in some way, with those molecules in the surrounding
stars.

What we need to look at is the *relative
motion* or **phase symmetry** aspect that
Ampere *Ampere's Laws* showed us: that things moving
(or spinning) in phase attract
and that things moving (*or spinning*) out of
phase repel.

Explaining things this **phase** **symmetry**
way gives us a *far different *and* better theory* as to how
everything works. This

Explaining things this **phase** way furnishes us with a much simpler and
better explanation, in all this, than using magnetic fields or charge.

This may seem redundant but let's go over
some of these things, we have learned, once more:

Place two alnico magnets, on a table, with
their north poles facing up. If you look down at them and could see the
electrons inside them then you would see a vast number of these electrons all
lined up spinning clockwise in both magnets. The reason these magnets attract when one is placed on top of the other is
that, in both magnets, all these electrons are spinning in phase with each other. This is a polar type of binding where the
electrons, in both magnets, attracting each other have their poles lined up on
the same spin axis.

Now remove the top magnet and flip it over
and put it back on the table with its south pole up. Electrons in both magnets
are now spinning in opposite directions but both magnets will still attract
when slid sideways together, however, this will be a weaker attraction. Why?
Because now **these entire electrons are no longer in phase **with each
other yet the closest sides of the electrons, in the north pole up magnet, **are**
now in phase (*like gears meshing*) with
the closest sides of the south pole up magnet thereby attracting
it. This is an equatorial type binding because the electron pairs that are
binding both magnets together this way are __all__ spinning in the same
equatorial spin planes. But this is a weaker attraction than the previous polar
bonding because in the initial instance of polar bonding the __entire__ __electrons__,
in both magnets, were in phase. In this 2^{nd}
weaker attraction, only the closest sides of each of these inverted pairs of
attracting electrons are in phase (*like gears
meshing*).

Turn one of those magnets over, on the table,
and they will repel when slid together sideways
and then put one magnet on top of the other with top poles reversed and they
will repel at a greater strength simply because
now the magnetic electrons, in one magnet, are ** all** spinning
completely out of phase with the magnetic
causing electrons in the other magnet.

Polar binding and equatorial binding are the
only two ways electrons can attract each other. In magnetism the polar bond is
the stronger bond but it is the reverse in chemical bonding because just as
Nobel laureate Niels Bohr surmised, electrons are actually in motion and in
actual orbits. So polar bonds only occur when the poles of one electron —
occasionally during each orbit — line up exactly with the poles of another. The
polar chemical bond is therefore a momentary but repetitious bond while the
equatorial bond is a long term permanent bond, ending up stronger, as long as
both electrons remain spinning in the same spin plane.

Thus, while in magnetism the polar bond is
the stronger bond, in chemical bonding the polar bond ends up, because of its
momentary repetitious nature, as the weaker bond.

This, to the dismay of those wave purists who
see only a wave orbital picture instead of orbits, is **solid proof** the
electron does indeed orbit exactly as Niels Bohr told us over 90 years ago.

A Cooper pair of electrons are two electrons
with reversed spins, binding themselves together in an equatorial bond. A sigma
chemical bond is also an equatorial bond while a pi chemical bond is a polar
bond.

It's a well known fact that there must be
sigma bonds before a pi bond can be established. There's a good reason for this:
Each electron is an actual gyroscope having gyroscopic torque. The reason that
two free electrons can never attract each other is that whenever the poles of
each try to attract, the resultant 90 degree gyroscopic torque reaction of each
pulls them apart. There is far less of this 90 degree gyroscopic torque
reaction *after* these electrons lose their freedom and become attached to
orbits, yet there is still enough of this 90 degree torque reaction left and it
diminishes polar binding far more than equatorial binding: thus there must be
sigma bonds stabilizing things before a polar type pi chemical bonding can be
established.

Therefore all quantum energy exchanges — *which
involve totally separate pairs — *must be initiated via a spin up-spin down
bond because this type of equatorial bond can be more easily established
without causing the excessive, disrupting gyro torque caused by an attempted
polar binding.

Not only that but quarks too have gyro torque
so all quark strong force bonds and distant quark bonds giving us gravity and
inertial mass must also be equatorial quark spin up-spin down bonds where only
the closest sides of these spinning quarks are in phase.

All binding energy, including this binding
with the surrounding stars, is a similar spin up-spin down in phase (*like gears meshing*) attraction with **impedance
matched, **resonant * spin* frequency

This force of attraction does not diminish at
all with distance for both the quark binding and electron binding.

Scientists have known for quite a while now
that light and heat each come in a discrete packet of energy called an energy ** quantum**.
Einstein named the light energy quantum packet a

Einstein's *photon* is always emitted
and received via the binding of **a single pair of **spin
up-spin down** electrons** no matter the
distance between them as long as that distance does not exceed the Hubble
limit. In a binding energy exchange the orbit size decrease by the emitting
electron must exactly equal the increased orbit size of the electron absorbing
this energy quantum; in other words the orbit of the sender goes down while the
orbit of the receiver goes up the same amount.

With light, *and other energy transfers*,
initially it was thought the strength varied as the inverse square of the
distance but **it does not!** It's not the strength but the ** number**
of these binding quantum pairs that falls off with the square of the distance.
The strength of each quantum pair bond remains the same no matter the distance.
This is why a quantum of light from a distant star comes to your eye full
strength. Knowing this is extremely important. In fact this

This energy transfer is accomplished via **impedance matched resonant frequency binding**.
This is where the closest sides of a scalar, spinning, standing wave entity are
in phase (*like the closest sides of gears
meshing*). These entities must be not only moving
and spinning at the same speed but an **ultra
tiny sliver ***(a
quantum)* of both of their closest sides must not only
have the same speed **but the same velocity** (speed

Einstein knew and constantly published accounts
of the importance of symmetry. CERN was built on a symmetry even greater — *they
thought* — than Einstein's symmetry: it was a belief in a new supersymmetry
that has now been proven wrong. Einstein was right: there is an important top
symmetry but it's a **phase** **symmetry**. And the scientists at CERN
missed it entirely!

Many of today's quantum scientists make
another bad mistake by seeing the electron *only* as a standing wave. Yet
a spinning, * scalar*, standing wave can

Keep in mind the aforementioned fact that all
binding energy, including this binding with the surrounding stars, is **impedance matched, resonant frequency binding**
in which these spinning entities will attract
when their closest sides are spinning (*like gears meshing*) in phase** **and repel
when their closest sides are spinning out of phase.

If you look close enough at all the invisible
forces, seeing quarks and electrons as scalar, spinning, standing wave
entities, then you will clearly see that in phase
attraction and out of phase repulsion,
caused by spin frequencies, are the cause of every force in this entire
universe.

Not only that but you can also see that
things position themselves in geodesics (*mostly* *orbits*) where out of phase repulsion balances in phase attraction.

The smaller spinning quarks and electrons
must behave exactly like larger planets, solar systems and galaxies as they too
spin in their balanced in phase out of phase geodesics.

The closest sides of two inverted quarks *—*
*one here and one on a star
— *spinning together in phase (*like gears meshing*) give us inertial
mass while an electron in our eye spinning in phase
with an inverted electron on a distant star is the beginning of a quantum of
light energy delivered to our brain. Out of phase spin frequencies with others
in the surrounding stars give us, an average or mean out
of phase force or, what we see as space.

Geodesics of most things in this universe are
caused by the surrounding stars providing the out of
phase repulsion and closer entities providing most of the in phase attraction. In MAGLEV however, __both__
the attraction and repulsion
are caused by the closer entities.

A free magnet, in a super cooled, super
conducting MAGLEV type environment, will nonetheless levitate and spin in its
balanced in phase out
of phase geodesic exactly as all spinning entities, in this entire
universe, will spin in their balanced in phase out of phase geodesics.

General relativity also becomes much easier
to visualize using a quark spin frequency **impedance
matched, resonant frequency binding** concept.

For instance, the fact that an increase in
speed creates an increase in mass in general relativity stems from the fact
that the translational motion of these higher energy quarks in the accelerated
item — *now higher up on the speed of light asymptote curve — *must
impedance match with similar, higher energy, accelerated quarks in the
surrounding stars thus creating this additional inertial mass via **E= mc ^{2}**.

This, as stated previously, is why we have
centrifugal force. The resistance that you feel as you spin something faster is
really nothing more than faster moving quarks, in the thing you are spinning,
now rebinding with more and more massive quarks in the surrounding stars as you
speed up the rotation rate.

Where distant electron binding and repulsion
give us the magnetic forces, it's quark to distant quark binding that gives us
not only gravity but this inertial force that we refer to as inertial mass.

And one thing more about **E= mc ^{2}**, when quark to quark local
binding is switched to surrounding star binding then energy has been turned
into mass but when a local quark switches its binding from the surrounding
stars to local quark binding then mass has turned into energy.

See how this **phase
symmetry** model shows you exactly how **E=
mc ^{2 }**works!

And if you think that's amazing then look at
what's next:

This **super **concept
of** phase
symmetry** shows you not only what both space and time are but why you
are able to see stars that are far from you in both space and time.

A major theme through all of this has been: **'**Out of phase spin frequencies with others in the
surrounding stars give us, an average or mean out of
phase force or, what we see as space.**'**

So more out of phase
forces between you and a distant star do not merely distant you from that star
in space; they also distant you from it in time (spacetime).

This **phase
symmetry** model now is the only symmetry model, so far, that shows
you why you can see that star far from you in time:

Since there is absolutely nothing (no
particle) between the electron in your eye and the inverted electron on that
star and they both have opposite spins (like gears meshing) then an ultra thin
sliver of both are __exactly__ **in phase**,
therefore this tiny sliver portion of both the electron on that star and your
eye must be **both in the same spacetime**.
This is the reason that tiny sliver, a quantum, of mass/energy can be
transferred through space and time to your eye.

This **phase
symmetry** model, therefore, is the only symmetry model that shows you
exactly what both space and time **really are**!

I'm afraid this
paper adds to the demise of supersymmetry because if Einstein's photon is only
a binding operation then there are no such full integer spin particles as
bosons needed. All of them are merely binding operations of different things at
different frequencies.

This **phase symmetry** model shows the reason for the
outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment because light has no speed. What is
being seen as the speed of light is merely the out of
phase rate that spacetime is being changed at this particular electron
frequency.

16**.
Particles,**

**Black Holes**

**&**

**superheterodyne **

**intermediate frequency**

** **

What if both of us authors are right and this
is a frequency universe all throughout, then you must ask the question *'What is a particle'*?

From what we've seen so far, everything must
be expressed in frequency terms and this includes particles.

If someone says 'particle'
then you must ask, "What frequency?"

A spinning particle containing atoms will
have a certain gyroscopic torque imposed by quarks in the surrounding stars; a
spinning electron, however, will have a gyroscopic torque as well but this will
be imposed by surrounding electrons out to the Hubble limit: This electron
Hubble limit extends much, much further out than the *(amperefitz limit)* surrounding
star limit of surrounding quarks that give us our inertia and our gyro torque.

Scientists should be searching for this limit
right now but none are.

You can see how violet light is bent much
more than red in a prism and the blue frequency is not quite double the red
frequency; consider how much more space would be bent if one frequency was the
square of the other, as the quark spin is from the electron spin.

Most of the stars we see with the Hubble
space telescope have no effect on our inertia whatsoever. Only the innermost
stars give us inertia and cause what we wrongly term centrifugal force.

If you do use the term centrifugal force then
you must state the frequency:

Is it centrifugal force that we sense here on
earth or is it the centrifugal force existing inside galaxies or is it the
centrifugal force existing inside super clusters of galaxies because these are
different forces at different frequencies. Not knowing this, our scientists
have invented dark matter and dark energy.

The word gravity is also not an accurate term
unless the frequency is stated. Is the person talking about gravity here or gravity
inside a galaxy or the gravitational attraction inside a super cluster?

All these scientific terms much either be
eliminated or made more accurate by stating the frequency.

The concept of a particle
must also either be eliminated or given in terms of frequency; we can see
particles composed of electrons and quarks *(molecules)*. But
we can't see electrons.

We must express a particle
in frequency terms!

At this stage of the game neither of us knows
exactly how this new frequency order of things will eventually be all arranged
but we do know that it will be in some form of a spinning, scalar, standing
wave entity set up.

We also know something else of importance: we
know momentary aspects of these particles
are also appearing in these Large Hadron Colliders (LHC}.

From this we can only come to one conclusion:
impedance matched binding must also be quantified via our scalar, standing
wave, frequency universe and this is really one supremely important conclusion.

When you have impedance matched bindings if
the matter in your surroundings increases then your inertia will also increase.

Thus the larger a galaxy is, then the more
inertia or inertial mass the center of that galaxy will have because there will
be more mass in the surroundings and therefore more impedance matched binding
with those immediate surroundings.

Galaxies of a certain size then will always
have a center of such immense inertial mass that even light cannot escape,
therefore it becomes a Black Hole.

The larger (more massive) the galaxy then the
larger the Black Hole in its center.

It's as simple as that.

Last but not least:

All through this paper we mentioned the **IF** (**intermediate frequency**).

Here's a bit more about that:

Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "Superheterodyne
reception:

the
commonest technique for recovering the information (sound or picture) from
carrier waves of a range of frequencies, transmitted by different broadcasting
stations. The circuitry, devised by Edwin H. Armstrong during World War I,
combines the high-frequency current produced by the incoming wave with a
low-frequency current produced in the receiver, giving a beat (or heterodyne)
frequency that is the difference between the original combining frequencies.
This different frequency, called the **intermediate frequency** (**IF**), is beyond
the audible range (hence the original term, **supersonic heterodyne** reception);
it can be amplified with higher gain and selectivity than can the initial
higher frequency. The **IF** signal, retaining modulation to the same degree as the original
carrier, enters a detector from which the desired audio or other output signal
is obtained.

The
receiver is tuned to different broadcast frequencies by adjusting the frequency
of the current used to combine with the carrier waves. This arrangement is
employed in most radio, television, and radar receivers."

We're pretty certain that our human circuitry
is this superheterodyne circuitry and our **IF**
(**intermediate frequency**) is the electron's spin frequency.

Please read, from above, the partial green sentence: This different frequency, called the **intermediate
frequency** (**IF**), is __beyond__ __the__ audible range meaning a __higher__ frequency range than the
audible range.* (We wish
these Brits would be more concise when they write these things.) *The spin frequency of the electron would also be a ** higher**
frequency (

Milo Wolff believes that SU (2) symmetry is
telling us that the electron spins twice each time it orbits. This would put
the electron spin at a ** higher** frequency (

Armstrong designed a * lower*
frequency

Thus everything fits perfectly in place for
nature to perfect this superheterodyne circuitry in each of us.

Nature that perfected the eye lens long
before scientists understood how it worked also perfected the superheterodyne
circuitry long before Armstrong designed the very best receiver circuitry yet
discovered.

We showed you that __all__ **totally free**
spinning, scalar, standing wave entities, such as the electron can never
attract: No matter how many are forced onto the plate of a capacitor, they will
always repel each other. It is the motion of these three quarks, in orbit
around each other in protons, that form a base for all these attractive forces.
We are presently in a race with Tony Bermanseder and others to show you exactly
how this quark motion is responsible for this sense of a gravitational field
that varies as the inverse distance squared.

So we are both still working hard on all this
science and other things that can make a bit of money for us as two copies of
this and our $65 goes to the Library of Congress.

Earlier versions of this were on the internet
since 5/21/2013. Titled *"Elaborate Design of our
Universe" *which was completely revamped after that Scientific American
article on 11/11/2013.

This was finished © December, 02, 2013.

**Richard Mark Fitzpatrick**
CEO and founder of **Magpul** and **Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.** (Authors)

** **

* *

*"Pontem perpetui mansuram
in saecula mundi." *

*Lacer*

RMF

&

If you copy this book with its * links* to your
computer then you will have some other pages (

Fitzpatrick's website is at *http://www.amperefitz.com*

Another older website carrying Fitzpatrick's
works FREE is: *http://www.rbduncan.com*

Thank you, *World Scientist Database — - Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.*

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

**Daniel P.** **Fitzpatrick** **Jr.**

Have a good day & visit my site at good**reads**:

*http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/276352*

**Click ANY of these **links**
to get what you want**

****

Read my **latest** book FREE: (these two * links*
below)

http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf (This is the book in Adobe)

or

http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm (This book link opens
faster if you have dial up.)

While all the links on this page are OK and
presently working, unfortunately only about two thirds (*2/3*) of the links I gave, years ago, as proof (click &
see: http://www.amperefitz.com/presskit.html) for statements in this latest book, published in the
year **MMVl**, are now still
working **BUT** your search engine will
probably take you to a similar area where you should be able to read similar
proof material.

****

**& super popular now:**

*QED
— Feynman's Strange Theory of Light and Matter* "Feynman's Strange Theory of Light and
Matter"

*http://amperefitz.com/einsteins.cos.c.htm** *Einstein's
Cosmological Constant.

*http://www.amperefitz.com/two.magnets.htm** *Two magnets
will show you more than thousands of books.

http://amperefitz.com/exexshorttoe.html Extra short Theory of Everything.

*http://www.amperefitz.com/45years.htm** *45 Years of
Putting this Jigsaw Puzzle together — of unifying Gravity with all the other
forces.

*http://www.amperefitz.com/question.htm* "Ampere's Long Wire Law is a fact!"

*http://www.amperefitz.com/why.general.relativity.htm** *Why we have
General Relativity or why mass increases with speed."

*http://amperefitz.com/answers.to.mendel.htm** *"Dan
Fitzpatrick comments on Theoretical Physicist Mendel Sachs' Beliefs."

*http://amperefitz.com/quarkmspin.htm** *"While
the electron spin causes magnetism, GRAVITY & INERTIA are caused by the
QUARK SPIN."

*http://amperefitz.com/abstract.htm** *"ABSTRACT
of scalar, standing wave concept."

*http://amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm** *"It
all begins with this all important science law."

*http://amperefitz.com/energy.htm** *"All
energy is a form of binding energy." (science) e-letter by Fitzpatrick.

*http://amperefitz.com/dark.m.e** *Why NASA
tells us we have 72% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter and 4.6% Atoms.

*http://amperefitz.com/gold1.html** *More wave
and scalar wave questions answered by Fitzpatrick.

*http://amperefitz.com/fermbos.htm* ELECTRONS are fermions but not when paired spin up —
spin down."

*http://amperefitz.com/bond.strengths.htm** *"Sigma
Bond strengths in the microcosm."

*http://www.amperefitz.com/acceleratingexpandinguniverse.htm** *"Accelerating,
expanding universe."

*http://amperefitz.com/not.quite.everything.for.a.theory.of.everything.htm* "Not Quite Everything for a Theory of
Everything."

*Schrödinger's
Universe* Schrodinger's
Universe

*http://rbduncan.com/why.we.have.gravity.htm** *"Why
we have GRAVITY and why we have Centrifugal Force.

*http://amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm** *"Einstein's
Biggest Blunder — Wasn't?"

*http://amperefitz.com/plawrm.htm** *"Electrons
normally repel BUT . . . " says Dan Fitzpatrick Jr.

*http://www.rbduncan.com/letter_june2004.htm** *"And
Hubble warned us this was NOT an expanding universe."

*http://www.rbduncan.com/binary.htm** *Binary
Stars act exactly like Electrons.

*http://rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm** *A
"Theory of Everything" by Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

*http://rbduncan.com/boson+.htm** *Bosons?

*http://www.rbduncan.com/letter_june2004.htm** *Newton and
Einstein only gave us HALF the story.

*http://www.rbduncan.com/mybook.htm** *"A New
Science Tool" (science) e-book by Fitzpatrick

*http://rbduncan.com/Gspeed.htm** *"Speed of Gravity is
9x10^{16} meters per second."

*http://rbduncan.com/phase.coherence.htm** *Phase
Coherence and the Inverse Square law.

*http://amperefitz.com/lisiimp.htm** *"Why
Garrett Lisi's Model is so important."

*http://amperefitz.com/ffacts.htm** *"Little
Known Facts about Well known science Terms" (science) e-book by
Fitzpatrick.

**Adobe pdf **

QUICK version of Ampere's Laws.

*http://amperefitz.com/qamp.pdf** *

Two magnets will show you more than thousands
of books.

*http://amperefitz.com/two-magnets.pdf** *

Sigma bond strengths in the microcosm

*http://www.amperefitz.com/bond.strengths.pdf** *

"An important Quark message no one is
heeding!"

*http://amperefitz.com/quarkmspin.pdf** *

45 Years of Putting this Jigsaw Puzzle
together — of unifying Gravity with all the other forces."

*http://www.amperefitz.com/45years.pdf** *

"Ampere's Long Wire Law is a fact!"

*http://amperefitz.com/question.pdf** *

"Affenstall Science Christmas
Message"

*http://amperefitz.com/affenstall.pdf** *

"Dan Fitzpatrick comments on Theoretical
Physicist Mendel Sachs' Beliefs."

*http://amperefitz.com/answers.to.mendel.pdf** *

"Why we have general relativity or why
mass increases with speed."

*http://amperefitz.com/why.general.relativity.pdf** *

"Fitz answers some Scalar Wave
questions."

*http://amperefitz.com/26nov2006.pdf** *

"And Hubble warned us this was NOT an
expanding universe."

*http://amperefitz.com/lj2004.pdf** *

"Ampere really gave us this Relative
Motion Law in 1825 for things he knew were moving in the wire
(electrons)."

*http://amperefitz.com/relMlaw.pdf** *

"Fitz talks about some basic problems in
physics." — by Fitzpatrick.

*http://amperefitz.com/3dec2006.pdf** *

"Little Known Facts about Well known
science Terms" (science) e-book by Fitzpatrick:

*http://amperefitz.com/ffacts.pdf** *

"Lisi's E8 model seems to show us why we
get space & time!"

"Why Garrett Lisi's Model is so
important."

*http://amperefitz.com/lisi-important.pdf** *

"What Dr. Milo Wolff says connects with
what A. G. Lisi is showing."

*http://amperefitz.com/a.g.lisi.pdf** *

A radioman sees us all as radios tuned in to
this universe.

*http://amperefitz.com/noaether.pdf** *

WHEN DID YOU PUBLISH "Out-of-phase waves
give us space and repulsive force."

*http://amperefitz.com/4apr04caroline.pdf** *

But then Caroline — from Cambridge —
repudiated what she had discovered: one of the most important scientific
discoveries EVER MADE! Incredible! Simply Incredible!

*http://amperefitz.com/Carolines.pdf** *

"Why we have GRAVITY."

*http://amperefitz.com/why.we.have.gravity.pdf** *

"Speed of Gravity is 9x10^{16}
meters per second."

*http://amperefitz.com/Gspeed.pdf** *

"Einstein's Principle of Equivalence or
why gravity acts like acceleration."

*http://amperefitz.com/principle.of.equivalence.pdf*

Is Saul Perlmutter explaining the reason for
us having the principle of equivalence?

*http://amperefitz.com/saultony.pdf** *

"It's understanding the Binding Energy
Curve" says Dan Fitzpatrick Jr.

*http://amperefitz.com/b.e.curve.pdf** *

"All energy is a form of binding
energy." (science) e-letter by Fitzpatrick.

*http://amperefitz.com/energy.pdf** *

"Shedding light on Energy Quanta."

*http://amperefitz.com/letter_july2003.pdf** *

** **