All downloads are
absolutely free!!

Bush Akbar
The T.O.E. that eluded Einstein . . . Fitzpatrick's Theory of Everything
Down to Earth fiction
to stimulate your imagination
Scientific pursuits
to pass the time
Fitz's Theory of Everything
Cambridge T.O.E.
The Sundial Book


Fitz's Theory of Everything:
a short, concise version

Hi Res Photo
N.Y. WTC Best
photo yet

Flat Sundial
Wall Dial
Sun Table





Here's an animated, talking, Harry Potter type e-book that an outfit in Berlin, Germany is putting together.

Click on any of the above links to get what you want.

More FREE books & software: Theory of Everything

© 2001, RB Duncan Press, All Rights Reserved
Site Design by Page Design Studio






Want to get rid of those annoying pop up ads?
Click Here Pop up Ad killer

post to: Robert Byron Duncan


This universe uses the same exact principle to build atoms as it does to build galaxies. It seems unbelievable but we've totally missed it until now.



I'm only a book publisher who knows a bit about the tensor math of general relativity. But, after reading Fitzpatrick's Theory of Everything, I saw the first reasonable explanation for Perlmutter's acceleration. I also saw that scientists failed to realize the supreme importance of Kurt Godel's proof. Most scientists do not know that Godel's proof applies to all the science laws. You simply cannot see the entire truth from here on earth where you are limited to this subset reference frame. This book showed me Einstein undoubtedly would have given us a credible unified field hypothesis had he known about this acceleration that Perlmutter's group recently discovered. But Einstein didn't know about this newly discovered acceleration. He only knew about the perceived expansion of the universe.



Fitzpatrick simply tells us what Einstein would have told us had he known all the facts. After reading the book, I'm betting that this popular philosophy, preached by that Belgian cleric Lemaitre, will be seen by future historians as even outranking phlogiston in incredulity. Moreover, I'll predict that it will someday be used as the supreme illustration of an extraordinary popular delusion: where a little knowledge became a dangerous ingredient in the formation of our scientific consensus.



Why didn't anyone see this relatively simple answer to the unification of the invisible forces until now?



Why hasn't any scientist given us the actual reason that we have gravity and all these other invisible forces until now?



This book explains more than I ever thought was possible. It really does explain everything. And it must be right. After I read this TOE book by Fitzpatrick, I knew that I had to publicize it. Yes, I thought to myself, no university people even provided the slightest concept of a phonograph before Edison produced one, and none from the university system have even come close to providing anything as brilliant as this astonishingly simple, brand new concept of unification. The math won't be simple though. This new idea is incredible. It is truly one of the greatest discoveries in the entire history of mankind. This, essentially, is what Einstein was trying to find.



Tallyho4477 read the book and wrote, "This science is so interesting. I can't get over the concept. It is as radical as it is elegant! I'm sure my brain will now be preoccupied with this for some time to come. Good show! Does anybody know of more on this? I'd like to see and read more of it. I would like to know how this flies in the community; what they think of it; what they have to say about it."



So would I, tallyho. So would I.



This has to be the final answer to unification because not only does it unify the 4 fundamental forces using an easily understood concept but it unifies ALL the invisible forces including centrifugal force as well. And the most incredible thing about this radically new idea is that you don't need to know any math at all to comprehend it. This makes sense too because the universe doesn't seem to be using any math but the universe does seem to be using one, easy to see, essential principle---throughout---in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. You do need to know a bit of science to understand Fitzpatrick's book but you do not need to know any math whatsoever: That's what makes this book and this new concept so fascinating.



Andre Ampere was a child prodigy who knew all the math of his era by the time he was 12 years old. He later went on to formulate the first electrical laws but he could not produce the math for his own laws so these "A" Laws were eclipsed by Michael Faraday's laws that Maxwell provided the math for and which Heinrich Hertz greatly clarified. Is it possible that our present math is only good in our singular reference frame? Could it be that we have no math yet for a universal law that would encompass everything? Did Ampere give us the one simple universal law that we have not yet developed any math for? This seems to be the answer once you completely understand the full significance of Godel's proof, Ampere's laws, frequency and the surroundings.



Jean Foucault was the first to show us what modern gyroscopes show us and what George Berkeley, Ernst Mach and Maxwell claimed, that our inertia must stem from our surroundings. But this implies an absolute reference frame while the Galileo-Einstein concept indicates that you cannot have an absolute reference frame and this is backed up by the speed of light being a constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer. Any unified field theory, worth its salt, must be able to resolve this disparity. The one you are about to look at does so admirably.



Do we have to visualize both an absolute reference frame and separate, individual reference frames? Perhaps: The crew of modern airliners must visualize even more than that. They have to see their airliners flying at 4 different airspeeds, Indicated airspeed (IAS) for take off & landings; Mach for flying the corridor; True airspeed (TAS); and finally ground speed read out when selecting an Omni station.



Surroundings must be entering into the picture too because Niels Bohr was able to bring centrifugal force down below that magic level of Planck's constant and into the microcosm where he matched each orbital drop of an electron to a specific light frequency in the spectrum. But he could only do this with the single electron hydrogen and helium atoms. He couldn't do this with heavier atoms and molecules. Why? Because the surroundings changed too much. So surroundings are extremely important but present science seems to be totally disregarding this even though Einstein initially predicated his theory of general relativity on the surroundings being homogeneous and isotropic (more or less constant and evenly distributed throughout).



So we are pleased to bring you all of the above & more in Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Theory of Everything. The new Aufbau Laws, therein, give you a simple, crystal-clear "big picture" of unification and they rest on a solid foundation set up by Andre Ampere, George Berkeley, Jean Foucault, Ernst Mach, James Clerk Maxwell and Kurt Godel. These new "A" Laws not only show you exactly what gravity is but they also show Saul Perlmutter to be absolutely correct by claiming that we have Einstein's cosmological constant---a repulsive force---between all the stars and galaxies in this universe. Fitzpatrick has been saying this for decades and was the very first scientist to point out the fact that we would also have Einstein's principle of equivalence with this equal and opposite force of gravity and therefore we could never distinguish between a repulsive force type steady state universe and an accelerating, expanding universe. So, says Fitzpatrick, "Perlmutter's discovered acceleration makes perfect sense."



D. P. Fitzpatrick states, "The problem then becomes one of getting an explanation for a Big Bang without us having an existing physically expanding universe today. If surroundings are involved then there will be a certain amount of a type of friction with the surroundings. So the solution to a present repulsive force type of steady state universe was shown to me in the last week of December of 1950 at the Miami Air Show when I saw William T. Piper, who founded the Piper Aircraft Corporation. God knows how many airplanes he built from 1929 'til he died in 1970 but he built over 5,000 of his Piper Cubs just for the Government during World War ll. He was about a week shy of his seventieth birthday when he demonstrated a short field landing at the Miami Air Show with one of his Piper airplanes. I used what I saw that day to save myself once. Piper brought his little Piper airplane in and touched down on the runway. Then as soon as he was down he immediately hit the right brake as hard as he could and I have never seen anything like that in all my life because now here was this Piper airplane that was suddenly transformed into a fast spinning top right in front of my eyes. That airplane went no further down that runway. All that energy now suddenly went into spinning that Piper airplane around like a giant top and it zipped round and round and round: it was the most incredible sight that I have ever seen. It was announced that he was going to demonstrate a short field landing but I had never expected to see anything like that. Piper lived almost another twenty years after that too and died a year short of his 90th birthday. I was ushered in to flying being trained in one of his yellow Piper Cubs and I almost exited this life early because of one of them too".



So did this initial expansion eventually turn into all this particle spinning and a repulsive force steady state universe? Fitzpatrick says, "It must have because an accelerating universe requires a PRESENT force and there is none. A PAST force could cause a big bang but a PAST force could not cause this acceleration that Perlmutter's group found. Others now have added even more proof to Perlmutter's findings. So folks, the only answer to this accelerating expansion is that it is a perceived accelerating expansion caused by Einstein's principle of equivalence. What Saul Perlmutter really discovered was that we have a repulsive force type steady state universe exactly as Einstein originally claimed."



In message #5492 of Yahoo's Theory of Everything Group, Bangstrom stated that, "Time is the fourth spatial dimension MOVING at the speed of light." This is probably the present scientific consensus. But I know that I'm not the same person I was in kindergarten so consequently, I also must not be the very same person I was a microsecond ago either. Thus, I want to remove one word from Bangstrom's statement and change it: I want to say, "Time is the fourth spatial dimension BEING CREATED at the speed of light." Then I want to add to what Berkeley, Foucault, Mach and Maxwell pointed out and say that not only our inertia but our time is being created by our surroundings. Once this is accepted then Ampere's Laws or the Aufbau Laws or the "A" Laws or whatever you want to call them, will show you exactly how space time is being created and then the answer to unifying all the invisible forces becomes crystal clear. Only a few of us see this presently but as time goes on and as more people read Fitzpatrick's e-books then that will most certainly change.---------R.B. Duncan





SCHOOL TEACHERS, please give this sundial software to your students. We will need all the future scientists we can get. If I was teaching Excel then I would begin with this software. It's so easy to use. Open all 4 sundial items in Microsoft Works if need be. This free Sundial Book & software was the same offered by Sundialsoft in Popular Mechanics and sold to countries all over the world for $10 per floppy even before this internet was flourishing. One letter, I am told, came to them from Saudi Arabia with $7 in single bills. A promise to pay the additional $3 was made if the product arrived and was found to be satisfactory. The floppy was shipped. Several months later, from Saudi Arabia, came a letter with 3 more American dollar bills. So this should be positive proof that the Sundial Book & Excel software are well worth downloading.



To whom it may concern: The Arabic language was invented long before verbs were invented. Action is automatic so verbs are not needed in Arabic. The words 'Allah akbar', in Arabic, mean God is great. God was great. God will be great. Where you do NOT want to imply the action of a verb, you put 'el'. Our 'the' is derived from this Arabic 'el' We still use our 'the' because of tradition and nothing else since we now have verbs. So our 'the' is like the appendix in our body: It's no longer of any real use to us.



Page Design Studio