This was the way the site --below-- looked a while back, Dan Fitz. A bit of light on an important MISTAKE the Britannica has been putting out for many years. In the past five years the correct version was in my own publications, stating it was copied from the Britannica, but I also reversed (exchanged)
I saw their MISTAKE in 2013.
This was the way the site --below-- looked a while back, Dan Fitz.
A bit of light on
an important MISTAKE the Britannica has been putting out for many years.
In the past five years the correct version was in my own publications, stating it was copied from the Britannica, but I also reversed (exchanged)two words.
That makes it correct science, and my new statement is now RIGHT and not WRONG.
This paper, by Fitzpatrick, brought to you free by R.M.F. founder of
The Britannica still has this wrong today, June 12, 2018, as this publication first goes on the internet.
It's time someone spoke out.
How long, after this present article of mine, will it take them to finally correct it?
Here's the mistake: look up"Ampère, Andre-Marie" in the Britannica.
Under"Founding of electromagnetism" you will see the sentence, "Ampère showed that two parallel wires carrying electric currents repel or attract each other, depending on whether the currents flow in the same or opposite directions, respectively."
This is wrong; the words repel and attract need to be reversed, for it to be correct. It should state the following:"Ampère showed that two parallel wires carrying electric currents attract or repel each other, depending on whether the currents flow in the same or opposite directions, respectively."
You can spend years looking through the entire Britannica or the entire internet, for that matter, and never find the supreme importance of Ampère's Laws.
And here is that supreme importance:
So, Ampère's Laws give us the reason for EVERY attractive and repulsive force in this entire universe.
This may be hard to believe, but it's true.
Here's Ampère's simple building block model:
Ampère showed us that when an electrical current was put through two parallel wires in the same direction (in-phase) then those two wires would attract.
Ampère also showed us if electrical currents went through those parallel wires in opposite directions (out-of-phase) then those two wires would repel.
If these laws Ampère gave us are seen asPhase symmetry laws then they explain magnetism, AC & DC electric motors, and the entire microscopic particle world including gluons far, far better than Maxwell's field theory ever could. Phase symmetry even explains, believe it or not, Gravity. And it explains precisely how Quantum Entanglement works as well. Phase symmetry, therefore, not only unifies the forces, but finally also shows us exactly what (spacetime) really is.
Even without computers, by simply using the concept ofPhase symmetry, we can finally see the big picture of what is really going on in our entire universe.We have the computers today that can accurately emulate, mathematically, the functioning of Phase symmetry.
What this means — dear readers — is that if we shift our human and computing resources away from today's science beliefs, and completely toPhase symmetry, then we can solve every attractive or repulsive force between EVERYTHING in both the microcosm and macrocosm throughout this entire universe.
The results from this will also show us,right now, exactly why our predecessors so earnestly believed we had things producing universal forces that we called gravity, magnetism, plus and minus charges, north and south poles, centrifugal force and other type forces and force producers.
The majority of scientists still firmly believe these are universal forces and not subset forces, but that will change once astronomers discover that similar size binary stars are allspin up-spin down, with their closest sides in-phase, exactly like the two electrons in every helium atom.
Allattractions and repulsions, of EVERYTHING, can be accurately and mathematically explained purely via Phase symmetry.
Let's take a good look at what Ampère showed us almost two hundred years ago:I've had the following paragraph on the internet for about five years.
Copied from Encyclopedia Britannica DVD 2013, "... Ampère immediately set to work developing a mathematical and physical theory to understand the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Extending Ørsted's experimental work, Ampère showed that two parallel wires carrying electric currents attract or repel each other, depending on whether the currents flow in the same or opposite directions, respectively. ..." (My bold lettering & science CORRECTION.)
If you look up "Ampère's laws" on the internet today you will get electrical laws quite unknown to Ampère. Yes, Ampère was the first to equate the forces associated with these laws you will find on Google, but Ampère did his calculations with long wires; he didn't even know about electrons. There was no such thing as voltage or amperage back then. Current flow (amperage) is named after Ampère.
Half a century ago Scientific American published a good account of Ampère's long wire laws. I remember reading it like it was yesterday.Part of it went like the aforementioned Britannica statement or something like the following:
Ampère discovered that whatever was coming out of his batteries, when put thesame direction through two parallel long wires made those wires attract each other.
If this substance (later found to be electrons) was put through these long parallel wires in anopposite direction, in each wire, then these long wires repelled each other.
So basically what Ampère gave us was a simple relative motion law.
But you'd never know that — or even believe that — if you looked up "Ampère's law" in a search engine.Try it. You'll see! And this is the big problem today, getting the right facts, when the Faraday-Maxwell field rules and field math are used to make Ampère's laws so confusing.
They made it so confusing that even the Britannica got it wrong, and evidently because of this confusion, none of the world's science experts noticed Britannica had it wrong for 5 years.
Why complicate something that's so simple?
You must see Ampère's laws as simple "PHASE" laws. If the current through two parallel long wires is moving the same direction or "in-phase" then these wires will attract. If the current through these two parallel long wires is moving in opposite directions or "out-of-phase" then these two wires will repel.
If you see Ampère's laws this way then Ampère gave us the initial concept ofPhase symmetry which is exactly what Einstein looked for his entire life. This simple model called Phase symmetry unifies all the invisible forces.
Mathematician Stephen Wolfram said, "Math can explain simple things, but asimple model can explain a complicated universe."
Phase symmetrygives us the "phase" simple model answer to a Theory of Everything: Ampere's Laws - that apply to SSSWRs
What is absolutely astounding is thatPhase symmetry not only simplifies but clarifies this entire complicated universe in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. It's utterly amazing!
To learn exactly WHY we have all these things, you will have to learn what it's taken me many years to learn: It's all FREE. Click the links at the end of this.
Even though this firm belief in fields have given us some spectacular insights, such as Einstein's General Relativity,Phase symmetry makes it crystal clear that field theory has also prevented us from seeing the big picture of what is really going on.
If we have done what we have with these half baked rules of science that we have now, just think what we will be able to do once computers are fully programmed for these true sciencephase laws.
Phase symmetryends up with the inverse square rule, the same as field theory, but obtains it a different way with impedance matched, resonant quantum bound pairs and the Milo Wolff limit (Hubble limit for the electron).
The Milo Wolff limit is needed with all theseimpedance matched, resonant bonding pairs because these bonds do not lose any of their strength with distance:
This is why your eye receives full quantum packets of energy no matter how far a star is in the distance.
This is a fact that even the establishment believes.
This fact alone should make you wonder about field theory.
Ampère discovered that things movingin-phase attract.
And thesein-phase attractions we now term binding energy.Magnetism & Light are caused via PHASE.
The thousands of people, who read these internet papers of mine, in more than 50 countries every month, know this.
You must know precisely howPHASE causes light, because light comes from distant electrons, small sections of which are in-phase with small sections of electrons in your eyes.The following is why we see COLORS.
Why do colors exist?Colors exist simply because we have long distance RESONANCE STRUCTURE in-phase bonding (binding energy).
Resonance structure bonding is recognized as being correct today, however it needs something added to it.
This paper may be the first to awaken the necessity of having the resonance structure also beingin-phase for attractive bonding (binding energy) to even exist.
I had to solve real science problems all my life, and I needed concepts that worked ALL the time — not sometimes like field theory.
For decades, I've been showing that both sigma and pi bonding must bePHASE bonding, where the CLOSEST SIDES of these spinning entities are always in-phase.
Sigma and pi bonding gets confusing. Instead think ofin-phase resonance structures, because ALL in-phase resonant structures, of protons and/or electrons are BINDING energy!
In a resonance structurein-phase bond, only two EQUAL sized sections are bonding by resonating in-phase with each other.
With light, these sections are smaller than chemical resonance structures, and with light energy the size of thesesmaller sections varies from more than a quarter of each electron of the electron pair when transmitting ultraviolet light, to a very small wedge section of each electron of the electron pair when transmitting infrared light.
In my first book, in 1966, I showedthis type in-phase bonding was responsible for magnetism too. And I clearly showed why field theory, for magnetism, was wrong.
In fact, in 1954 Einstein said the following about field theory."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."
While sigma and pi bonds are seen as close bonds, what many fail to realize is that the strength of each quantum of binding energy does not diminish with distance: only the NUMBER of these bonds diminishes inversely with the square of the distance.
Light energy is caused by an oscillating spin up electron, bindingin-phase with a spin down electron.
Light energy quanta (from opposite spinning electrons) comes in various sizes of energy, that our brain lets us see as various colors.
Envisage the two electrons on the helium atom. They have opposite spins. We call this spin up and spin down with asmall section of each electron being permanently in-phase with an EQUAL sized small section of the other.We use the term binding energy because energy is shifted from one place to another via electron by merely shifting electron binding from one place to another: therefore energy transfer is not possible without impedance matched binding.
So, both of thesesmall sections of each electron — binding or transferring energy — must be the same EXACT mass.
Impedance matching is why energy cannot be created or destroyed: it can only be transferred to different places, or from energy to mass or vice versa.
I learned about this impedance matching, more than half a century ago, building radio transmitters.
Electronic engineers know that impedance matching is necessary for efficient energy transfer to another circuit. It's the same with your eyes: the mass of eachEQUAL sized small section on an electron in a distant star, and an electron in your eye cones, must match EXACTLY for you to see that quantum of light from that star.
In fact, it will take several quanta before your eye can distinguish the slightest bit of light.
We have both rod and cone cells in our eyes. The cone cells give us the colors that we see. The method that the receptor electrons in these cone cells use to give us these colors must be as follows.Light energy is shifted to your eye when a spin up electron bonds with a spin down electron in your eye, where both keep EQUAL small sections of their CLOSEST SIDES in-phase.
Only these spin up - spin down pair bonds, with their CLOSEST SIDESin-phase, can provide light energy to our eyes.
With magnetic electrons there are these same spin, on same spin axis, resonance structures ofin-phase binding, and great groups of these MAIN, strongest binding quanta are the individual Barkhausen clicks you hear as magnetization takes place.
This brings in nuclear forces that also greatly increase the strength of each quantum force. Since our red, green and blue eye cones only have ONE steady nuclear force, let's only concentrate on the electron weaker forces that do vary, giving us various colors.
Yes, colors can be produced by varying these nuclear forces, that also produce heat and motion. That is not our concern.This paper is only about the simple electron to eye electron in-phase resonance BINDING ENERGY motion that is needed to transfer light to our eye cones.
These eye cones, in turn, transfer this undulating electron binding energy, of colored light, to our brain.
Please entirely concentrate onPHASE: entirely forget fields, north and south poles, plus and minus charges and all those other subset forces that we've now unified via PHASE using RESONANCE in-phase attractive binding STRUCTURES, i.e., a spin up - spin down electron pair.
RESONANCE STRUCTURES are a big improvement over sigma and pi binding, because resonance does exist here, especially in the atomic nucleus, producing all this binding energy, but there is much more.
If you are describing things like electrons that spin the same frequency and that are essentially the same size then resonance alone isn't quite good enough and you have to addPHASE.
I'll show you why.
I learned this early, as a kid, examining some alnico magnets.
Whenever I put the two alnico magnets on top of each other with both north poles up, then far more electrons werein-phase with each other (same direction spin on same spin axis) and those magnets were attracting.
But whenever I put one magnet north pole up and the other north pole down, then the sides of both magnets attracted almost half as much as the polar attraction: the electrons in that magnet, withsections of their CLOSEST SIDES bonding together, were acting no differently than a spin up - spin down bonding pair of electrons (spinning at or close to the same spin plane) that allow your eyes to see in color.
You see, those electrons that give us magnetism and light are not FREE electrons.
They are molecular electrons.
They are all somewhat attached to atomic nuclei via RESONANCE; they wobble (producing light) instead of fully precessing: their nuclear resonance attachment prevents them from fully precessing, thereby not being fully able, anymore, to repel ALL other perfectly FREE electrons.
Wait, wait, wait: explain that last paragraph!
OK, Take a simple child's toy gyroscope that you spin by pulling a string, wound around its axis. Get it spinning and hold ONLY one axis end with your finger tips.
Itdefies gravity. Why?
My second paper, after this, will tell you EXACTLY why!
I've heard people from our universities tell us Inertial force is equal, but opposite to gravitational force.
That's not quite right, because inertial force is an attraction to the surrounding stars that counteracts ANY force that tries to CHANGE that spin motion.
I made my money by knowing what was absolutely right when these universities were not quite right.
Here's basically, what is really going on.
Anyway, the gyro doesn't fall down, but wobbles in your finger tips because an attraction to the surrounding stars, reacts giving a reaction 90 degrees to gravity, and making it wobble instead of falling out of your finger tips to the ground, like we think it should.
Where does this inertial force come from?
In 1851 the French physicist Jean Foucault proved that this inertia — these people tell us equals gravity — comes from the stars that surround us.
Foucault suspended a 62 pound iron ball, using a 220 foot steel wire, from the top inside ceiling of the Panthéon in Paris. He observed its swing as it swung back and forth like a pendulum, and saw that the pendulum swing stayed stationary to the fixed stars in space while the earth turned under it in a bit less than 24 hours each day.
A bit less than 24 hours a day?
Yes, now we know the earth turns once exactly in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. It's called earth rate: look it up. The earth makes one complete turn, in respect only to the sun, in 24 hours.
Yes, this is the real reason perfectly FREE electrons repel each other.
Stars, galaxies and super clusters obeyPhase symmetry "phase" rules the same as FREE electrons do, and they repel each other for the same reason, but FREE electrons are much better at it because same size spinning entities will have identical inertial mass, and as they approach their strongest polar attracting points where both are spinning the same direction on the same axis, then the resulting 90 degree gyro inertial precession force makes each of them keep precessing around themselves forever, so they can NEVER actually bind together.
Stars and galaxies are doing exactly that too, but we're not here long enough to witness that precession.
Sorry, plus and minus charges don't exist. FREE electrons repel each other for the same reason stars, galaxies and super clusters do.
They must repel each other when their closest sides areout-of-phase with each other. This is Einstein's Cosmological Constant.
ALL these invisible forces are caused simply byPHASE.
If you read my other papers, that many are now doing, you'll see even more proof than this, that all these type attractions are resonance structures because they spin at the same frequency and their CLOSEST SIDES attract only when they arein-phase together.
The force transmitting Light to our eyes comes in many sized quanta, each quantum of which is many magnitudes of times weaker than each quantum of magnetic force in iron.
These Light transmitting quanta to our eyes come to us simply via TWO spin up - spin down electrons.
This many sized quanta way, is the resonance force way where the binding of only TWO electrons give us LIGHT. This happens when both attracting electrons spin in opposite directions.
The strongest quantum of light is ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light occurs when two hyperactive electrons — one transmitting, one receiving — spin in the same exact plane with EQUAL sizesections of their CLOSEST SIDES going in the same direction, thereby creating energy by binding in-phase.
Then come weaker and weaker quanta (various other different colors) as electrons create energy via spin in — parallel spin planes — with EQUAL sizesmall wedge shaped sections of their CLOSEST SIDES going in the same direction, and permanently binding in-phase.
However, these EQUAL sizedin-phase sections will be getting less and less massive, as both electrons deviate from that ultraviolet identical spin plane: this will mean less and less binding attraction, the greater the deviation.
The electron — along with every spinning thing — has inertia, and exhibits a form of wobble (inertial spin precession) as a force is applied to the spinning electron as it drops to a lower orbital.Each quantum of light gets weaker as the angle of each of these parallel spins — in parallel spin planes — deviates from the (same exact plane) ultraviolet position, and as these sections get smaller and smaller, the frequency of each of these light quanta decreases because the weaker and weaker binding pull from these smaller and smaller sections gives less and less electron inertial spin precession (wobble).
The more that angle deviates more and more from the ultraviolet (both on same exact spin plane) then there will be less and less inertial spin precession (wobble), resulting in various lower and lower frequency COLORS being produced.
The color with the slowest inertial spin precession (lowest frequency and lowest energy quantum) is infrared.
There are electrons in your eye that are set up to quickly shift binding between binding with electrons on that star and then shift back to closer binding with other electrons in your eye giving you a quantum of light energy, every shift. At the instant of transfer as the electron on the star transfers this quantum of energy — the star in the higher energy level instantly replaces it — and few today realize all energy transfers work exactly this way.
Every time your eye electron binds with an electron in the star, via "Quantum Entanglement", it gains a quantum of inertial mass (equal to a quantum of energy). When it shifts back to closer binding with your senses, you receive this quantum of light energy. There are many of these electrons in your eye first gaining mass by binding with the stars then shifting that energy to your senses by binding back locally with your senses — and doing that over and over again — many thousand, billion times per second (American billion not English billion).
Yes, the mid range green eye cone in your eye is receiving green light at 5,000 Angstroms in wavelength and this green frequency is cycling at 600 trillion times a second (600 THz).
How does that compare with what us humans have done?
The first radio stations were in kilocycles, or thousands of cycles per second. Your cell phone transmits in the megacycle or millions of cycles per second range: that's slow, slow, slow compared to how your eyes view color!
And your eyes receive color frequencies far further than any cell phone will ever receive any information, and the eye circuits are smaller than any integrated circuit ever will be.
I hope I've opened your eyes up to a portion of this world of color.
There is exactly this same type stronger and weaker force behavior with quarks, stars, galaxies and super clusters as you have with electrons. But our lifetime isn't long enough to see all this macrocosm spin and orbital precession.
See, it's so complex that Einstein was right in 1954 when he said you couldn't use field theory to explain it.
I find it best to rid my mind completely of all of field theory's math and rules before piecing together the complexities of thesePhase symmetry forces.
Remember, only the number of bonding pairsdrops off inversely with the square of the distance: thus, Phase symmetry ends up with the inverse square rule the same as fields do.
And this is because the NUMBER of direct paths or holes where this binding linkage, can take place also falls off inversely with the square of the distance.
This is why we were tricked into believing in field theory.
We have also been tricked into believing that this is only a frequency universe in the microcosm. I'm afraid it is a frequency universe all throughout, and that's why we need thesePhase symmetry "phase" rules instead of field theory.
Too few seem to realize that NASA scientist, Dr. Milo Wolff has proven the electron is a scalar, spinning, standing wave: once scientists see that the quark is too, then a brand new look at our macrocosm is needed because elements there indicate it too is obeying these scalar, spinning, standing wavePhase symmetry phase rules exactly as in the microcosm: and this is truly a revelation.
What we see as the microcosm, are higher frequencies than we are tuned to.What we see as solid, is the frequency we are tuned to. The macrocosm, that we see as larger, but with enormous space between all these spinning things, is a lower frequency than we are tuned to.
And the higher the spin frequency the higher the energy. The quark has the strongest force via its fastest spin frequency.
ALL of these spinning entities, quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, etc. obey identicalPhase symmetry "phase rules" solely via their spin and orbital frequencies. This is why Milo Wolff saw each of these spinning entities as scalar, and this indicates Kurt Gödel is correct: we mistakenly see gravity as a universal force because we exist totally in a subset, spacetime realm.
Once you know your smaller building blocks are spinning, standing waves, and you see the larger building blocks — stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters — also spinning then you know what your larger building blocks really are. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.)
Stars, galaxies and galactic clusters can not be considered quite as SCALAR as free electrons because their sizes are different and their spin frequencies are too close to each other: this results in more unbalance as well.
Even with that unbalance, indeed, these all are spinning, standing waves: I do believe that my good friend Dr. Milo Wolff got thescalar aspect of it right, with his "minimum amplitude principle", even though only electrons can be considered truly scalar.
We sense that we are built of quarks and electrons. This works in a standing wave universe as well, where the higher frequency standing waves build the lower standing wave structure. The reason for this is that higher frequencies have higher energy than the lower frequencies. We can count, at least, six of these spin frequencies going from quark to super cluster but how many more this universe contains, no one knows.
Therefore, this is the SIMPLE MODEL mathematician Stephen Wolfram said we needed to understand our universe, and here is its BIG PICTURE:
Our universe is nothing butspinning, standing waves (all attempting to be scalar) at different spin frequencies, producing different spacetime realms at those different spin frequencies; it uses attractive in-phase binding both to transmit energy and to help build mass (spacetime) along with out-of-phase repelling forces.
Spacetime (pure vacuum space) can also be built from only out-of-phase repelling forces.It's that simple, really.
Where field theory sweeps the quark strong force under the rug (strong force containment),Phase symmetry doesn't have to because it is this quark spin along with impedance matched, resonant momentary bindings that give us not only gravity but all the inertial forces as well.
The quark obeys the samePhase symmetry "phase" rules that electrons, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, etc. use.
We know the maximum star rotation period to be 30 days and our galactic rotation period to be 240 million years: these are several billion cycles apart.
But the separation between the star spin frequency and the electron spin frequency must be more than that or else we could detect the electron's spin frequency: it's above our detecting range.
Thus the spin frequencynorm between each of these entities might be more than many trillion cycles.
All attractions(that we know about) come only via in-phase impedance matched, resonant bonds.
This means, "a certainin-phase mass of the binding pair has to match at the very instant that the bond is made and energy is exchanged."
Phase symmetryeliminates fields and all the force carrying particles of those fields: the bubble chamber evidence of force carrying particles now have to be seen as evidence of an entirely different spacetime distortion from a particle.
If an electron on a distant star is spinning clockwise in the same exact plane as a counter-clockwise electron in your eye then a small portion of their closest sides arein-phase and the mass of that small portion in-phase is the quantum of light energy that comes into your eye, but both of those small portions must have the exact same mass or there will be no "Quantum Entanglement" bonding or energy being transferred.
That quantum of light energy came, that long distance, to your eye with no energy loss whatsoever;the reason for this is that Einstein was right and spacetime is NOT continuous: it is built of quantum chunks. It has holes that allow long distance binding with no energy loss.
There are vast distances between all these spinning entities in both the microcosm and macrocosm enabling these lengthy wormholes.
There is no such thing as energy loss when electrons transfer energy (bind together) through these spacetime holes!
Once more: there is no energy loss through spacetime holes!
How can field theory be justified if there is no energy loss through these spacetime holes?
PROOF of the above is that ALL energy exchanging bonds have the same strength regardless of the distance! It's only thenumber of bonding pairs that decrease inversely proportional to the distance squared.
Einstein showed you space could be distorted. I'm showing you that space exists because of out-of-phase forces. And it's not simply space; it's spacetime because as we look through the Hubble telescope into space, we also are looking back into time.
Space (spacetime) is not uniform nor is it empty: it's built of quantum chunks similar to energy. Except each space-time quantum chunk is anout-of-phase repelling pair, the exact opposite of an in-phase binding energy pair. Electrons and quarks that bind find a "wormhole" through those quantum, repelling pair, chunks of space.
In the macrocosm there is a 50% chance that these scalar, spinning, standing wave entities can be either in-phase or out-of-phase. This give the possibility of the total energy of all theIN-PHASE attractive force binding quanta in this macro universe equaling the total energy of all this OUT-OF-PHASE, repulsive force, spacetime structure of this macro universe.
* * *
Here, and especially in my other internet papers, I've given a very good picture —better than anyone has yet — of the structure of all these IN-PHASE attractive and binding energy forces, how they work, and why field theory cannot be used to unify them.
I must now add one moreattractive force to Phase symmetry. It is attractive harmonic capture: quarks capture molecular electrons this way by spinning at a much higher exact harmonic of the electron's spin frequency. The closest sides play no part whatsoever in this type of attraction.
This tells us that there will be far more than 50%attractive binding in the molecular world than that 50% chance which exists in our macrocosm.
* * *
I've also shown how all these out-of-phase entities give us spacetime (space), but it is this OUT-OF-PHASE spacetime structure, containing Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, standing waves, that still eludes us in perfectly explaining the cause of what we see as space and time.
Even though we now have the big picture, the exact linkage model of these out-of-phase repulsive forces, along with these spinning, standing waves, is somewhat yet an enigma.However, in other papers, I've shown WHY we see this entire spacetime assembly as the individual components of space and time, thereby unwrapping some of this mystery wrapped inside an enigma, but more needs to be done. All scientists should be working on this mystery/enigma now: few are.
Now, thanks to Dr. Milo Wolff — who taught me much — and also to Stephen Wolfram, who made me work harder, this is the best model or BIG PICTURE of our universe that anyone has so far published.
You saw, part of the picture, herein thatPhase symmetry tells us what General Relativity tells us. But by reading my other books and papers, you'll see even more: Phase symmetry shows us why mass can be converted into energy and why energy can only be delivered in quantum sized amounts. Also Phase symmetry shows us what inertial mass really is and how Ernst Mach was right: surroundings are very much involved. Phase symmetry shows us why we have centrifugal force. It shows us why we have gyroscopic action and it does a much better job of explaining all these things than present science does.
Many will read this saying it's pure hyperbole. I honestly believe that years from now, if it's still around, it will be seen — just the opposite — as an understatement.
People are not prone to quickly change their religion. Today's science beliefs will not be exchanged forPhase symmetry as fast as I would like. I know that! This paper is an attempt at it anyway.
As I write this particular internet paper, I feel much like Ada Lovelace(first person to publish a computer program) must have felt when she tried to convince the English Government of the value of Babbage's Analytical Engine, but to no avail. They saw the value of Babbage's Difference Engine, in producing the Nautical Almanac, but unfortunately not his Analytical Engine which, with it's punch card system, was the very foundation of the IBM 360 computer that enabled the beginning of space travel.
Nevertheless, knowing more about what was really going on in the science world, in respect to what the ones in the universities knew, has given me a superb life — beyond my wildest dreams.
DATE: June 12th 2018.
Also see in htm: -crichton.htm
Also see in Word:- crichton.doc
And also see in Adobe pdf:- crichton.pdf
To keep this paper short, I had to leave out many more interesting things, but you will have to click on the following links and spend a lot more time reading to see those.
See:Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013
Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013 also in Adobe.pdf- phase.symmetry.pdf
For the LATESTClick: http://www.amperefitz.com
orhttp://www.rbduncan.com which was really the very first web page showing us what was actually going on in our universe.
And of course - click this following link:http://www.rbduncan.com/toprule1.htm
AND 4 Decades of Fitz's papers:
Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.
This page in html:
This page in Adobe pdf:http://amperefitz.com/britannica.pdf
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 314
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.