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





Beginning Flight Students can pop in any Microsoft flight CD and get started flying fast like a real pro. This also takes you from Miami airport to Bimini. It's a snap with this easy Lite-Flite Manual that's designed to print out on both sides of only 2 sheets of paper. Lite-Flite Manual

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


Lincoln Barnett, who was a friend of Einstein, wrote the best seller "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" and he wrote numerous articles on relativity for the Britannica. Lincoln Barnett wrote an encouraging letter to Fitzpatrick when Fitzpatrick published his first book in 1967 showing that Ampere essentially laid the cornerstone for an understandable unified field concept. You will find a full page in the Sunday Book Review section of the New York Times devoted to Fitzpatrick's book. This page in the Times has a big picture of a galaxy on it. I forget which Sunday or even which month it was but I know the year was 1967. If someone finds it, please tell me and I'll update this web page.



Since his retirement, Fitzpatrick has put more of the pieces of this great puzzle together and has now probably finally solved the problem. At least I think he has. In fact, I'm certain of it. But it's going to be up to the world to be the final judge of that.



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 Gödel's proof. Many scientists do not even know that Gödel's proof applies to all the science laws. You simply cannot see the "entire truth" from here on earth where you are limited to a single, 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.



Fitzpatrick says, "Einstein gave us the principle of equivalence, which is the association of acceleration with gravity. Einstein also gave us the cosmological constant, which is equal in strength to gravity but the opposite in that it's a repulsive force between all the stars & galaxies and one could say between atoms & molecules as well. If Einstein would have known about this new found acceleration then he undoubtedly would have connected the dots and saw the association of acceleration with this repulsive force as well. Once that's done and one knows about Murray Gell-Mann's idea of the quark then the unified field problem is practically solved."



This universe uses exactly the same principle to build atoms as it does to build galaxies. It seems unbelievable but we've totally missed it until now. Our ancestors and then our scientists just didn't hand us the entire big picture of how "everything" really works. But now here's the answer, right in front of you.



Einstein tried to find this one simple principle.



Anyone who has ever worked with quantum theory knows this is a frequency universe. Even Einstein correctly predicted gravity was a wave. The proof he was right is in these e-books right here at this web site. But this type of a frequency universe presents a problem to those of us here on earth who must view things from only one reference frame. We will be forever condemned to viewing this one single principle---that Einstein tried to find---as various distinct, individual, invisible forces.



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 utilize math 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 be a math expert: 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 Gödel's proof; Ampere's laws; frequencies 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, along with what Harress and Sagnac showed, 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? 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.



The flight crew fully realizes that there is no such thing as one paramount type of airspeed that can be suitably used for all occasions.



Your mind was developed within this single reference frame mode so you can never quite eliminate the way science views things today but you also must be like the flight crew and not let this present science view completely overwhelm the way you know things must be actually happening all throughout this entire universe.



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 Gödel. These new "A" Laws not only show you exactly what gravity is but they also show Saul Perlmutter to be absolutely correct when he claimed that we have Einstein's cosmological constant---a repulsive force---between all the stars and galaxies in this universe.



Fitzpatrick explains exactly how these "A" Laws show you not only why we have gravity but also why we have Einstein's cosmological constant---this repulsive force---between all the atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies and super clusters.



Fitzpatrick 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 something akin to 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 where 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. They 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."



Our math led us more toward Faraday's idea of separate forces for the electron than to Ampere's idea of one force for everything. Math plus Faraday's concepts have certainly given us this wonderful world of science that we enjoy today. But it is most certainly the wrong path to travel for unification. This is one time that our math didn't lead us the right way. Mathematical solutions generally lead to new concepts but not this time. For unification we are going to have to start first with Fitzpatrick's new concept. Then we'll have to develop some new math to fit this new concept.



The present science consensus is that Gödel's proof is absolutely correct. This same scientific consensus is that our present science and math are absolutely correct too. But this is virtually impossible. One of those must be slightly wrong. Fitzpatrick says it's these 20th century science laws that must be bent a bit. And now that I've thought about it all, I have to agree with him.



What Fitzpatrick sees now and what all the universities fail to see now even at this date of 7-17-2002, is that Einstein was originally right and all the repulsive forces exactly equal all the attractive forces in this entire universe. Fitzpatrick published and extensively showed, in 1967, that all the electronic laws could be attributed to the electron having a type of gyroscopic action. What he did not see way back then was that ALL items from electrons to galaxies to super clusters ALL have a similar form of gyroscopic action and ALL of these similar spinning items will, because of this gyro action and the "A" Laws, repel each other. This repulsion is strongest when ALL these items are perfectly free and exactly the same size. You'll have to read the book to see the whys & wherefores.



You can only have an attractive force if things lose their total freedom & get "locked" somewhat. Gravitation comes only as things approach closer, lose their freedom & get "locked". The attractive force of magnetism comes only after normally repulsive electrons lose some of their freedom & get "locked". For instance, our galaxy will repel all other galaxies of the same size but because the Andromeda galaxy is much larger than this Milky Way galaxy, then our galaxy loses some of its freedom & is "locked" to Andromeda and we are therefore attracted to it. Read the book to see exactly why. Fitzpatrick has taken us from a world of alchemy into the world of science.



After reading Fitzpatrick's book, I'm betting that this popular philosophy, preached by that Belgian cleric Lemaître, 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 scientific consensus.



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