HAVING TROUBLE COPYING news articles to groups or e-mail???
SOLUTION: Copy article first to Word or Works---copy prevention code will be lost---then re-copy to groups or e-mail.
For searching, get the Google tool bar. . Click Here
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
For Patty Wagstaff's airplanes. . Click Here
Aviation Top 100. . Click Here
To get Earth & Sky. . Click Here
Metric Converter. . allmath.com
Science conversion calculators. . L-39 Jet
My first choice for FREE animations. (just copy & paste). .
Todd's Web GIFs
Spots with GIFs (animations) you can copy & paste. .
Click on any of the blue 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
In less than a year, more than a Quarter of a Million people have visited this site.
Want to get rid of those annoying pop up ads? These were recommended by Stewart Cheifet on Computer Chronicles. . I use BOTH. . This way the few ad cookies that slip by Naviscope, I manually remove by clicking on the red Ad-Aware icon.
Easy to use Pop up Ad Killer (Ad-aware)
Advanced Ad Killer & more (Naviscope)
Do you want to comment about anything on this site?
post to: Robert B. Duncan
"A New Kind of Science" is the name of the latest & best selling science book written by theoretical physicist Stephen Wolfram. He claims we will find a simple & obvious answer as to how this universe really works. But the present math and science will be of little use in this quest. Stephen Wolfram says we need "a New Kind of Science".
This present science offers no explanation as to why we are forced to use relativity corrections. And since it also offers no answer as to why we have gravity or any of the other invisible forces then what both Stephen Wolfram and Daniel Fitzpatrick point out becomes extremely important.
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 Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. when Fitzpatrick published his first book in 1967 showing that Ampere essentially laid the cornerstone for a simple, 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 give me the date and I'll update this web page.
Since his retirement, Fitzpatrick has put more of the pieces of this great puzzle together and has given us "a New Kind of Science" predicted by Stephen Wolfram.
Now, in this FREE e-book, Fitzpatrick shows you exactly why we have gravity and all the other invisible forces.
"It's so simple. It's so obvious. Why didn't I think of this?" will be the statement of a good number of scientists in many universities as this gets further attention.
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 this "new kind of science" will be needed to obtain controlled nuclear fusion because surroundings must now enter the picture in a far different manner. I also saw the first reasonable explanation for Perlmutter's acceleration. And I saw that scientists failed to realize the supreme importance of Kurt Gödel's proof. A good 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 looking out from this single, subset reference frame.
This book showed me that 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 acceleration that Saul Perlmutter's group found. 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 also gives the quantum world the foundation for GLOBAL gauge invariance where only local gauge invariance has existed. And with magnificent insight, Fitzpatrick extends the quantum wave world to the rest of the universe.
He says, "Future scientists will demand far more accuracy than this present single reference frame view of science can possibly provide. They will perfect this new Aufbau or "A" Law multiple reference frame concept of the universe and this WILL provide them super accuracy with future super computers. This "new kind of science" will also give them a mathematical unification of the forces, which is not available now."
Fitzpatrick says, "Einstein gave us the "principle of equivalence", which is essentially the association of acceleration with gravity. Einstein also initially gave us his "cosmological constant", which is a force exactly 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 all the atoms & molecules as well."
All the universities in the world have completely dismissed this old idea of the cosmological constant put forth by Einstein. . As I write this in the year 2002, few scientists accept this force that Einstein once claimed was equal but opposite to gravity in that it was a repulsive force holding all the stars and galaxies apart. . Now this repulsive force is back in the news again. . Saul Perlmutter says Einstein was right all the time and Einstein did NOT make a big blunder by giving us this opposite force of gravity. . Presently a few scientists have even come forth to challenge present science and say Perlmutter is right.
So if Einstein was right and since we know gravity sometimes shows up as acceleration then might not gravity's equal and opposite force---Einstein's cosmological constant---show up as acceleration too?
If Einstein would have known about this new found acceleration then he undoubtedly would have connected the dots and he would have seen the association of acceleration not only with gravity but also with---gravity's equal and opposite---this repulsive force as well. Once that's done and one knows about Murray Gell-Mann's idea of the quark; Ampere's Laws and Mach's principle then one is well on the road to solving the unified field problem.
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 FREE 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. . Read the FREE e-book to see why.
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 e-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 kind of science" is incredible and like Edison's phonograph, not that complicated. . It is truly one of the greatest discoveries in the entire history of mankind. . This, essentially, is what Einstein was trying to find.
Fitzpatrick---who has many degrees and licenses---claims that his expertise in solving this problem did not stem so much from his university training but rather more from his hands on experience in the technical world, particularly in electronics, flying and in troubleshooting complicated jet airliners.
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 kind of science" 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 ("A") 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. . In opposition, 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 speeds, . 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 speed 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---single reference frame---present science view completely overwhelm the way you know things must be actually happening---in OTHER reference frames---all throughout this entire universe.
The belief that our science laws work the same in every other reference frame is only true providing the surroundings remain essentially the same. . We know the microcosm uses far different laws. And our science laws do not seem to be holding outside of our galaxy because we can see that galaxies are rotating so swiftly that portions of them are moving much faster than their escape velocity. . Since these galaxies are not coming apart then you also know your precious science laws do not seem to be working properly in the larger universe outside of our galaxy. . Hidden, invisible, dark matter that must be 95% of the mass of each galaxy??? . I'm afraid not. . It's different surroundings that, in turn, cause a greater attractive force.
Surroundings must be entering into the picture 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. . The density-dependent relativistic "Hartree approximations" are further proof that these "A" Laws are correct. . 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).
Surroundings, unwittingly, play an extremely important role in all of this... Unless you see this role then you will be forever blind to what mass and energy really are and you will never see the "big picture". . This is the biggest condemnation of present science: . Today's science---in order to simplify the math---entirely discounts the role of surroundings in all of this and thereby blinds you to what is really going on. . This is an infinite frequency universe of spherical standing wave entities. . It continually functions to keep all these entities on geodesics or to balance out what you see as energized motion. . Any motion that you produce has effects---ignored by present science---in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. . For instance, gyroscopic inertia is obtained via an interaction with quarks in the surrounding macrocosm. . It's in the T.O.E. e-book. . Read it. . It's FREE.
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 entirely correct when he recently claimed that we absolutely 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 will also have Einstein's principle of equivalence with this equal and opposite force of gravity and therefore we can 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. . And that's a paradigm shift from the present most popular belief in this year of 2002."
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 our science laws and math seem only to work in singular reference frames with specific types of surroundings. For instance Quantum mechanics works in the microcosm with QED using specific laws and math in specific surroundings of electrons. QCD uses specific laws and specific math with specific surroundings of quarks. The laws and math used with gravity seem only to work well inside our galaxy with our specific surroundings that we have here on earth.
Stephen Wolfram is absolutely correct: Our present science and math is most certainly the wrong path to travel for unification because as Stephen Wolfram points out: presemt science is leading us nowhere. . It gives us different types of science laws for each different type of surroundings. . We need an additional science concept that works the same in all surroungings. . For unification we are going to have to start first with Fitzpatrick's brand "new kind of science". For an instant, crystal-clear concept of "everything" you can use these "A" Laws in ANY type of surroundings. Now, what we'll have to do is develop some new math to fit this new concept. . It's a lucid, crystal-clear concept. . And it's simpler than anyone has ever imagined providing you see this is a wave universe composed of spherical standing wave entities. . You must entirely let go of Newtonian mechanics, which Einstein proved was wrong. . Once you know something is wrong, forget it. . Don't try to add corrections to it. . Find the right answer.
It's been over 100 years now that Michaelson & Morley showed everyone the first really bad problem with Newton's mathematically beautiful system. . Einstein failed to find the correct idea and it's been almost 100 years now since Einstein gave us the math patches for Newtonian mechanics. . We've been patching now for 100 years. . Isn't it about time we tried to find out what is really going on?
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 combination is virtually impossible. Something seems to be wrong. . Fitzpatrick shows us that there is no clash providing we view it using this new 21st. Century science "A" Law multiple reference frame concept. 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 in this July of 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 similar forms 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 FREE e-book to see the whys & wherefores.
You only have an overwhelming attractive force if things lose their total freedom & get "locked" somewhat. Gravitation only overwhelms its opposite repulsive force (Einstein's cosmological constant) after things lose their freedom & get "locked". The attractive force of magnetism comes only after normally repulsive electrons lose some of their freedom & get "locked". Our galaxy, for instance, 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 e-book to see exactly why. . Fitzpatrick has taken us from a world of alchemy into the world of true science.
After reading Fitzpatrick's e-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: I want to say that not only our inertia but our time is also 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.
But the diamond in all of this is the reason WHY these "A" Laws work. They work simply because all entities from quarks to galaxies are nothing more than spherical standing waves. They will therefore have a strong interaction to similar entities of the same frequency in their respective surroundings. They will also have a crucial linking interaction to distant subharmonic entities. But most important is the fact that all entities from quarks to galaxies---and even further in both directions---cannot exist as permanent entities unless they are exactly spaced in the frequency spectrum like piano keys, all perfectly tuned in respect to each other, thus making up a type of grand piano of the universe.
This is why, from quarks to galaxies, you will see 99. 9999% empty space between all of these various spinning entities. . But what you are really seeing is a spherical standing wave frequency system of infinite frequencies in which there are no destructive close harmonics and only far distant linking harmonics. . This makes energy transfer possible but not prevalent thereby providing a basic stability to this universe. . Fitzpatrick's new hypothesis is the epitome of science. .
This is a frequency universe much like Fulbright Scholar Milo Wolff suggests. . In this universe, space time is being generated at an infinite spectrum of frequencies but you are only "tuned to" and aware of a few octaves of these space time frequencies. . Such a universe, from your subset, single reference frame, inertial point of view---as Einstein noted---will appear to be finite yet unbounded.
The extra spatial dimensions of string theory are thus brought in but these are "tuned to" the spin/orbit frequencies of the various entities involved. . Our inertia is a bell curve of frequencies predominating at the quark spin frequency and tapering off at BOTH the higher electron spin frequency and at the lower galaxy spin frequency.
For a more accurate assessment our old concepts must change. . These "A" Laws are only a beginning. . There's a lot more to come. . For instance, the idea of a "certain distance" is an irrational, subset concept of limited use to humans who are only "tuned to" these quark-electron harmonic frequencies. . While distance may seem a valid concept between similar standing wave entities, you move into Heisenberg's realm of uncertainty as you view various frequencies the old 20th century way. . For an entire universe of infinite frequencies, even the idea of distance is meaningless. . You do lose some old concepts but infinity becomes a much more useful tool and Heisenberg's uncertainty totally vanishes using the "A" Law, frequency method. . For supreme mathematical accuracy Milo Wolff's new frequency method will eventually become the best way to have computers view everything.---------R.B. Duncan
Click Here for "A" Laws: Quick Aufbau Laws version