Fitzpatrick's

know about

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

Fitzpatrick comments on "Breakthrough" post and another by Tony Bermanseder

In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/25949

Mathematical physicist Bermanseder said:

**The four fundamental forces are a result of symmetry breaking**

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Do you know WHY we have Symmetry breaking?

I WILL TELL YOU WHY.

Because this is a scalar resonance universe and if you are built of components that are the same frequency as the components around you then you MUST sense these similar frequency scalar, standing wave resonances as particle like.

BUT

You are tuned into these just like a radio or TV.

THEREFORE:

Any rules and math you make for these will only be good at ONE SPIN/ORBIT FREQUENCY band.

Any math and/or rules you make will only be good in one single spin/orbit frequency range.

Just as you can only listen to radio stations with a radio or TV stations with a TV or see with your eyes at the even HIGHER light frequencies.

This is why we have symmetry breaking.

This is why Your rules here are no good whatsoever studying the electron forces in QED or looking at quark forces in QCD.

Can it be simpler than that?

NO

Tony B. said: **There are your 'standing waves' as cosmic strings, yet 2D confined in the superstrings.**

Yes, These scalar, standing wave entities are all far away from each other frequency wise so as to not interfere with each other yet they are linked via harmonics.

This, incidentally, is why light bends slightly when coming by a distant star.

Where string theory is slightly wrong is that there is no smallest string for this entire universe..

Our universe is like a piano keyboard of perhaps infinite length.

BUT

The math of string theory is right because there definitely **is** a smallest length that can affect us here.

The multiverse and multi dimensions of string theory is correct because we have a microcosm where the spacetime interval for the quark is **not** the same as the spacetime interval of the electron and neither of these is our spacetime interval of the time in which the electron makes perhaps millions of precessing orbits to produce one complete orbital sphere. This is the time and the momentum of Planck's constant.

I'm afraid that we do not yet have the future super quantum computers that will give us the most accurate picture so you will have to back track 80 years to the picture Niels Bohr got the Nobel prize for if you want the best real picture today. Note:

http://www.amperefitz.com/deBr.htm

**Mathematical physicist Anthony Bermanseder posted this today:**

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/25959

So I sent the following e-mail to Dr. Milo Wolff:

Milo,

Mathematical physicist Anthony Bermanseder found this:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/25959

And he has added his comments to it:

The two sentences that should interest you are:

The Hubble-Diameter defines a 'Steady State' Universe as asymptotic boundary for the mass parameters in Standing Waves of Oscillation.

Their phase differences indeed lead to the displacement currents and the formulations of spacetime coordinates in modern physics.

Fitz

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

**To paste any of my pages to your desktop in their entirety, FREE, do as follows.**

**1. Right click **__ link__ of page.

**2. Click - send target as.**

**3. Click - save.**

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

Belmont Village

4310 Bee Cave Road

West Lake Hills, TX 78746

Send me your e-mail.