R B Duncan Press

Scientific Letter
A Forum for Independent Voices
January 16, 2007 Edition

(rbduncan.com homepage)

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. says:

Commenting on mathematical physicist Anthony Bermanseder's post at:
Theory of Everything Group


(Reprinted with permission) Page 5 of 6 pages.


Read page 4.Wnen using the de Broglie wavelength to see what Anthony Bermanseder was commenting about.


Yes Tony, but you are missing the important fact.

The reason that I'm saying all this is because the de Broglie waves have only to do with electrons, nothing else.

Where is there even one actual experiment that connects de Broglie waves to anything else?

There isn't any.

This is the problem, I see, where people are associating them with gravity.

All effects of the electron can be shielded.

Neither gravity nor inertia can be shielded.

This is telling you that gravity is being caused by a far different frequency than anything in the realm of the electron's frequency.

Light does bend slightly via the mass of a star so we know the frequencies building the electron must be some HARMONIC of the main gravitational frequency.

But is the electron at a lower or higher harmonic than the frequency causing gravity?

Once you know the electron is also attracted to the nucleus and the nucleus is built of quarks and they are more massive than the electron then you get the answer to the gravitational frequency.

The electron then must be at a lower frequency than the quark frequency that attracts it to the nucleus because frequency, mass and energy, while not the same, are equivalent.

Since the quark is far more massive than the electron, it must be at a higher frequency than the electron.

So now ask yourself this question: Is there really any difference between the electron's attraction to the nucleus and light being bent by the star?

The answer has to be NO.

Gravity, therefore, is being caused by the quark's spin just the same as magnetism is being caused by the electron's spin.

All I see the de Broglie's wavelength formula does is that it shows us the equivalency of mass, energy and frequency (which is sort of the inverse of wavelength or lambda).

Matter waves?

Specify their frequency.

I believe in scalar standing wave resonances that I can see as keys on a piano even though we, as yet, do not know their exact frequencies.

The spins of these scalar resonances are also scalar from their same frequency surroundings but they are not scalar to each other and herein lies the secret of how this universe is built.

The phase differences of these spin frequencies being either in or out of phase with each other is the keystone of space and the attractive or repulsive forces.

The phase differences of the principal scalar frequencies themselves gives us our concept of time.

Stephen Wolfram, who said this is a simple universe built on simple rules, comes out as the great prophet of science.

This is a frequency universe built on simple phase rules.

When binary stars of the same mass are found to have opposite spins then Milo Wolff, Stephen Wolfram and I will obtain an avalanche of our peers thinking the same way that we presently do.


Next read page 6. Mathematical physicist Anthony Bermanseder's 2nd post..

page 1. "Our universe is a quantum computer.

page 2. It's a simple universe obeying simple rules.

page 3. We are tuned in to this universe like a radio or TV is tuned in to the transmitter.

page 4. Using the de Broglie wavelength.


"Universities Asleep at the Switch" - - 30 Pages FREE


Get "Universities Asleep at the Switch" NOW.



Return to amperefitz homepage

2006 amperefitz
All rights reserved
Comments or complaints about anything on this site???
post to: Daniel P. Fitzpatrick