For all kinds of E-MAIL CARDS Click Here
Want Microsoft UPDATES for any Windows computer? Click This
Those with Yahoo e-mail should click "Account Info"
It's at the top of the Yahoo Groups page right under the ad.
You will have to re-enter your password. .
Then scroll down and click "Edit your marketing preferences".
You will then see 13 places that you might want to change to NO and two spots under telephone and mail where you may want to check the NO boxes.
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 Genealogy's 100 TOP Surname Search Sites . Click This
For pure searching, get the Google tool bar. . Click Here
To translate something. . SYSTRAN
The three following scientists have made gigantic contributions to science. . Further on in this web page I'll be discussing a bit about each of these scientists and why their work is so important. . What they say supports what Fitzpatrick says in his TOE e-books that I added to this server in June of 2002.
For Milo Wolff's Quantum Science Corner. . Click Here
Saul Perlmutter's Supernova Cosmology Project. . Click Here
Theoretical physicist Stephen Wolfram. . Official Web Page
Fly faster with a Microsoft Flight CD using this handy Lite-Flite Manual that prints out on both sides of 2 sheets of paper. . You also make a Miami to Bimini flight. . 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
Thousands of GIFs (animations) you can copy & paste.
Todd's Web GIFs
41 sites with GIFs
Sites with GIFs
Groups with GIFs
Spots with GIFs
More spots with GIFs
More Sites with GIFs
Other Groups with GIFs
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 there were more than a Quarter of a Million accesses to this site & over 450, 000 by December 26th, 2002.
Click for Web Page Data
Want to get rid of those annoying pop up ads?
These were recommended by Stewart Cheifet on Computer Chronicles. . The red Ad-Aware icon is always on my desktop. . These are good and they update themselves automatically. . Sometimes I use Ad-Aware and Naviscope together. . It depends on who is ahead in this unending war between the spammers and these spam killing software makers. . I know of no problems with Ad-Aware but I do know that I can NOT e-mail to msn groups with Naviscope installed. .
This --new-- "Pop Up Stopper" is the most positive ad stopper because it simply prevents any new windows being opened automatically but once it's installed, you will continually be hitting the CTRL button to get extra windows opened.
So use the ones that conflict the least with the way you work.
Easy to use Pop up Ad Killer (Ad-aware)
Advanced Ad Killer & more (Naviscope)
(--NEW--) Pop Up Stopper
Comments or complaints about anything on this site???
post to: Robert B. Duncan
Bill Gates is working on "Longhorn"
which will greatly simplify computers. . This T.O.E. is the "Longhorn" of science. . It greatly simplifies science.
Michael Faraday, who made the first electric motor
and who gave us our present laws of magnetism, was the first to attempt to unify the invisible fields of gravity and magnetism.
Einstein felt he also could arrive at a unified field theory.
Einstein looked for a simple answer to all these invisible forces.
After I read this T.O.E., I saw Einstein was right: . This universe is built on a concept so simple that the human mind can easily understand it. . But from the point of view handed to us by our ancestors, reality turns out to be even more fantastic then any science fiction tale yet produced.
"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 has been of little use in this quest. Stephen Wolfram says we need "a New Kind of Science ".
Yes, our present science gives us all the math to tell us exactly how much attraction we are going to have with magnetism or with gravity but present science fails to tell us exactly why the spinning electron gives us this invisible force of magnetism or why a preponderance of mass gives this invisible force of gravity.
In the quantum world the standard model
leaves a lot to be desired. . Also this present science offers no explanation as to why we are forced to use relativity corrections (even in GPS).
And since it 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
" Explanation 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.
The premise of this is simple: There are not really 4 fundamental forces but actually only one invisible force. . But our present science, using a single subset reference frame, prevents us from seeing this as one force. . These extremely simple new "A" Laws show us exactly how all this comes about because of a constant creation of space time at different spin/orbit frequencies. . These "A" Laws not only give you the "big picture" of exactly how this occurs but they give humans the very first picture of what space and time really are as well. . These new "A" Laws instantly give you an "approximate big picture" of what is really happening and Dirac
predicted the human mind would eventually comprehend an "approximation" of what was really going on.
Present science tells us we are in an accelerating, expanding universe. . If you want to understand why we have gravity then what is now improperly seen as a red shift type expansion should be correctly viewed as these new "A" Laws show it. . Space time is being constantly created all around us but by a lesser amount between us and the earth thereby attracting us to the earth. . And this is an explanation more in line with what general relativity is telling us.
If you insist on holding to the present science view of the various individual forces then you will be forever in the dark. . But once you accept this new "A" Law concept then the unification of the invisible forces becomes crystal clear and so easy to see that no math at all is needed for your mind to easily comprehend it.
There are not 4 fundamental forces but only one invisible force produced at different spin/orbit frequencies. . General relativity portrays these forces correctly in that these forces are really space time distortions. . The "A" Laws clearly show us that a repelling force is a maximum of space time production and all attractions are really where a minimum of space time is being produced.
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 T.O.E. book showed me that Einstein undoubtedly would have given us a credible unified field hypothesis had he known about the 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.
Explanation 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 Milo Wolff's new innovative frequency math.
They will also perfect this new Aufbau or "A" Law multiple reference frame concept of the universe and thereby completely eliminate Heisenberg's uncertainty.
Explanation Read the free T.O.E. e-book to see why. . 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, Explanation
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 shows up as an accelerating contraction then won't gravity's equal and opposite force---Einstein's cosmological constant---show up as an accelerating expansion?
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
Explanation idea of the quark; Ampere's "A" Laws and Mach's principle
Explanation then one is well on the road to solving the unified field problem.
What present science fails to show us, and what these extremely simple "A" Laws show precisely, is that the electron is a spherical standing wave entity
that behaves, in two ways, identically to the quark, which is also a spherical standing wave entity.
#1. A "locked" in place electron will attract other electrons when the closest sides of each are going in the same direction (magnetism). . The reason the polar attraction is stronger is because the entire portion of both electrons are then moving in the same geodesic path. . The quark behaves the same with other quarks but this quark to quark attraction is much stronger and penetrates much further into the existing universe than any quantum of light because of the higher quark spin frequency.
#2. Both electrons and quarks (and ALL free spherical standing wave entities) have a type of gyroscopic inertia where they precess 90 degrees to any applied force.
This entire universe is built using nothing but those two aforementioned principles and the "A" Laws. . This universe uses none of our subset, present science rules at all.
The electron and the quark, of course, have different symmetries that come about because of their different construction but this construction is mandated by the different surroundings and our present science totally discounts these different surroundings. . We know that the gyroscope, Foucault's pendulum,
vibrating elements and Helium 2 all hold to the "fixed stars"
and our present science totally disregards the action of the surroundings in this as well. . Therefore we KNOW our present science is merely one of many subset theories, each seperate theory being used in a different set of surroundings, such as quantum theory and string theory. . Present science, therefore as a subset theory, becomes subject to Kurt Gödel's proof.
These "A" Laws are NOT subject to Gödel's proof because, unlike present science, they are universal laws that can be used in the microcosm as well as here.
These "A" Laws give you the big picture of what's really going on and they PROVE 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.
Explanation 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 and more of his ideas, which are condensed in the following unquoted paragraphs. . I've quoted his exact words. . He said, "Don't worry about plagiarizing me. Do it any way you can so they get the facts". . This long web page is my endeavor.
Yes, I thought to myself, no university 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.
General relativity uses complicated tensor math.
This new concept greatly simplifies all this and even shows you why the tensor math of general relativity works. . It works because, unlike in special relativity, the SURROUNDINGS are taken into consideration.
Fitzpatrick---who has many degrees and licenses---facetiously claims he solved this problem mainly because he completely shed all the prejudices of his university training and moved quickly to gain 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 set of universal laws 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."
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, preferred reference frame. . In opposition, the Galileo-Einstein concept (incorporated in special relativity) indicates that you cannot have an absolute, preferred 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."
Once more so you don't forget it:
The disparity is that the gyroscope is showing you that there is an absolute preferred reference frame and special relativity is telling you that there is no preferred reference frame.
"So do we have to visualize BOTH an absolute reference frame and a relative world? . Not only does the new "A" Law concept resolve this but this is done in general relativity as well. . The crew of modern airliners must visualize even more than two different reference frames. 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 true 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 know these galaxies are being held together by a far greater force than the gravitational force that holds you to this earth. . So present gravitational laws do not seem to be working properly as we take in a larger view of the universe including portions outside of our galaxy. . Hidden, invisible, dark matter that must be 95%
of the mass of each galaxy???
I'm afraid not. . Black holes do indeed exist but this popular belief of such a vast, extensive amount of dark matter existence, believed today, is not science. . It's nothing but a preposterous, tall tale of conjecture forced upon all those who wrongly believe that gravity remains a constant strength all throughout this entire universe."
Gravity does not remain a constant strength throughout this entire universe.
"The Hubble, and other space telescopes, will eventually provide evidence that the above is true. . How can there be a dark matter substance,
which must be 95% of the mass of all the galaxies, that we can look right through and not even know that it's there?
This has to be absolute rubbish. . We've been heading entirely in the wrong direction for over three quarters of a century. . Perlmutter's findings are telling us that we must return to Einstein's original concept of a universe obeying Mach's principle.
After the necessary improvements are made to the tensor math of general relativity, giving the proper effect to different type surroundings---as one looks further out---then this popular fictitious religion of dark matter will vanish much like the once highly popular ancient Egyptian religion of Amun."
"Berkeley, Foucault, Mach, Maxwell and many other distinguished scientists have presented ample reasoning that our surroundings are causing our inertia and our gravity. . Even general relativity implies this. . This new idea says---what is perfectly obvious---that mass is nothing more than a steady binding with the distant macrocosm surroundings. . When an electron and a proton both lose mass Explanation
to form a hydrogen atom, the additional binding they gain with each other is binding that was lost to the surroundings far away in the macrocosm. . It's hard to believe that, in this year of 2002, most scientists don't see this simple fact yet. . . Another obvious fact put forth by this new idea is that energy is merely any binding CHANGE with the macrocosm surroundings. . This shows why we can have both fission and fusion energy.
Thus---considering surroundings---you can actually visualize Einstein's mass-energy equivalent and present science fails to acknowledge this.
MASS DEFECT Explanation
is the term scientists use to describe this loss of mass that is associated with both atomic fission and atomic fusion energy. . It's clear to see that this mass defect is merely the end result of a binding LOSS with the macrocosm.
You have to be mentally blind not to see that all those aforementioned scientists are right and present science is wrong for disregarding the important role surroundings play in all of this. . Gravity and inertial mass are produced by the surroundings. . The change of mass Explanation
in atomic energy is proof of this. . Gravity and inertia are both a bell curve of waves whose frequencies actually change with the viewing area and the item being viewed, therefore gravity is NOT a constant force throughout this entire universe. . It's the far different Supercluster Explanation
surroundings outside our galaxy that cause a much greater galactic attractive force and this stronger force is what holds the galaxies together."
"Why does BOTH fission & fusion create energy???"
"Why does a gyro hold to the fixed stars ???"
"Why do we have inertia and gyroscopic inertia ???"
"Why is binding energy equivalent to mass ???"
Present science offers no answers to those questions. . But all those questions can be immediately answered. . You have to be blind as a bat not to see the following reasoning:
"There must be some reason for inertial mass and there must be some reason why mass is equivalent to energy (E = MC2 ). . Tiny packets of strong, invisible, binding linkages to the surroundings are the only possible explanation. . Once you comprehend this inertial mass attractive linkage to the macrocosm then you clearly see a CHANGE of this linkage is energy. . When you finally understand the role surroundings play in giving us both mass and energy then you completely understand Einstein's mass-energy equivalent."
"For instance, an electron and a proton both lose some of their original mass to bind together to form a hydrogen atom. . The mass they lost was nothing more than some binding to the "fixed stars" now transferred as an increased binding with each other."
"Now you also understand why light must be considered both a wave and a particle because it really is !"
"Even though all this is crystal clear, it has never been acknowledged by even one university. . All the universities, in this year of 2002, presently preach the current, highly popular religion that surroundings do NOT enter into the picture at all. . Since 1967 I've been saying and publishing that surroundings DO. . From the response I'm finally getting, I now see that this internet, along with enough people who are not like H. L. Mencken's Homo Boobus and who do think for themselves, will most certainly bring about a drastic change to what is presently being accepted as real science."
"This new concept will eventually be accepted, not because of any mathematical proof, but on the preponderance of the evidence much like Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was accepted. . Kurt Gödel has proven and shown to you that any present math designed for this present subset, affenstall science will not enlighten you to any universal laws at all."
"Three frequencies are of paramount importance: . The fast quark spin frequency that transmits inertial mass. . The electron spin frequency---slower, but yet a harmonic---that transmits magnetism and the electron wobble or oscillation frequency---slower than the electron spin frequency---that transmits light. . In the tri-quark entities (neutron & proton), the quark does not seem to wobble like the electron. . All of these frequencies cause distant tiny individual linkages that are very strong and momentarily attractive. . The energy of each electron has to match perfectly so strict impedance matching can also be observed in each of these quantum transfers just as in electronic theory. . The FREE e-books cover all this in more detail. . It is the harmonic nature of the electron's spin frequency that binds it to the quark nucleus and this is what we measure when we measure the electron's mass."
"Quantum theory is correct in stating that no energy is lost in that vast distance when an electron in a far away star binds with an electron in your eye to send you a quantum of light energy.Explanation
The reason light intensity falls off with the square of the distance is because the number of electrons in the exact position and state to make the transfer at that precise time, falls off with the square of the distance. . This is also true with quarks that cause gravity and inertial mass with distinct, quanta type, strong, individual quark binding linkages. . With light and gyroscopic inertia only a slight percentage of these entities are aligned properly at the exact time to link and cause what we see as an invisible force. . But there are so many electrons and quarks in this universe that there will always be some electron to electron energy transfer giving us light and some quark to quark extra strong linking giving us gyroscopic inertia. . ALL quarks link with the macrocosm to give us inertial mass."
"Each wobble or oscillation of the electron is a single light wave but the quark---in both inertia and gyroscopic inertia---gets pulled from the quark triumvirate like a piston being pulled out against a head of compressed air. . So in any flywheel or gyro this translational motion is added so that certain portions of some quarks are now approaching the speed of light and thus have more mass. . The extra strong linking of these few quarks with similar higher mass quarks in the macrocosm gives us our gyroscopic inertia"
This new "A" Law way of thinking clearly shows you the correct relationship between gravitational mass and inertial mass.
While they both depend on quarks linking with quarks in the surrounding "fixed stars", gravity depends on the additional linkage of quarks with other quarks in close ponderous objects as well.
"Another example that surroundings are entering into the picture is the fact that Niels Bohr
Explanation 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.
Explanation 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 surroundings are entering into it and 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". . Present science disregards any influence from the surroundings. . 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. . We have different type quarks and neutrinos and present science totally ignores the role of unlike surroundings in this . . Once Milo Wolff's frequency math is perfected and computerized then this will be considered an infinite frequency, infinite energy 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 gravity's equal but opposite force, Einstein's cosmological constant---this repulsive force---between all the atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies and superclusters.
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.
He says, "Let's say we do have Einstein's 'cosmological constant', a repulsive force out there between everything. . Then because of Einstein's principle of equivalence, we would definitely see all the acceleration aspects of that force including a red shift. . Today's popular belief is that it's ALL expanding away from us here. . How can that be? . We are not the center of things. . So common sense tells you this is a repulsive force, steady state universe."
"It is difficult---especially for those with insufficient knowledge---to distinguish between a repulsive force type steady state universe and an accelerating, expanding universe."
"Yes, Perlmutter's acceleration clashes with present theory but it works beautifully with Einstein's original concept of a repulsive force, steady state universe."
So, says Fitzpatrick,
" Once you know that this is a repulsive force, steady state universe then 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."
"The 2. 73 degree Kelvin, Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence of the last Big Bang. . Hubble's red shift is definitely not giving any evidence whatsoever of any Big Bang. . That belief is simply another big blunder of our present scientists. . What the red shift is showing you is that more space time is being constantly created all around you by the macrocosm than is being constantly created in this geodesic path that you are traveling with the earth. . This is also what general relativity is showing you."
"The big mistake was conforming present science to fit the most simplistic math methods. . The building principle is indeed simple yet this leads to a mathematical complexity of different symmetries of construction. . Each spin/orbital standing wave family of spherical entities must, therefore, exhibit a different symmetry of construction."
"Two steel balls bounce apart but two galaxies can pass right through each other. . This is because of the different symmetries of construction. . . And Stephen Wolfram is correct: Computers, someday, will show us exactly why we have these different symmetries."
"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 band of frequency surroundings. . This is an infinite frequency, infinite energy universe and as you enlarge your viewing area---such as viewing galaxies---then you also are bringing in more lower frequency entities into this wave picture."
"You must view the macrocosm more as lower frequency entities rather than larger. . You must view the microcosm more as higher frequency entities rather than smaller. . You must view all the entities in both as merely spherical standing wave entities."
Stephen Wolfram is absolutely correct: Our present science and math are most certainly both the wrong paths to travel for unification. . Stephen Wolfram points out that future super computers will show us the errors of our ancestors. . These super computers must be entirely programmed with new frequency math methods similar to Milo Wolff's so that they work in ALL types of surroundings. . The fault of present science is that it specifies a different set of science laws for use in each different set of surroundings. . So what we need is this additional Aufbau FREQUENCY science concept that works the same in all surroundings. . 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 Milo Wolff's 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. . To see the "big picture" of unification, you must entirely let go of Newtonian mechanics, which Einstein proved was not the right answer because it's not a true law. . Once you know something is a subset law, forget it. . Don't try to add corrections to it. . Look for the true law and the right answer.
"Niels Bohr tried to bring Newtonian mechanics into the quantum world. . Right approach but wrong direction. . For unification we must do the exact opposite and replace Newtonian mechanics with the frequency aspect of the quantum world. . The microcosm has a higher frequency and a different symmetry than the macrocosm but it uses the same basic construction laws that Ampere gave us."
"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?"
Why keep patching this old Model-T that the universities are letting you drive when someone is handing you the keys to a Lexus?
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 superclusters 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 can only have an attractive force between things that get "locked" on similar geodesics. . Gravitation appears and gets stronger along with its opposite repulsive force, the cosmological constant, after things lose their total freedom & get "locked" into similar geodesics. . The attractive force of magnetism comes only after normally repulsive electrons lose some of their freedom & get "locked" by spinning in the same geodesics as other electrons. . 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
Explanation 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 some respects, we've progressed little in the past three quarters of a century: . If one could buy all these universities for what they are worth and sell them for what they are portraying they are worth then one would be rich indeed.
In message #5492 of Yahoo's Theory of Everything Group, Bangstrom (Bob Angstrom) 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 causing these spherical standing waves.
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 no matter what their size. . So you are not seeing actual solid entities. . .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 an infinite spectrum spherical standing wave universe obeying the frequency math of Fulbright Scholar Milo Wolff. . 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 this infinite range of 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. . Read the e-book to see why."
"But in such an infinite frequency, infinite energy universe there will be a certain, extremely slow, accumulative energy leakage between different frequency "piano keys". . Thus every so often this universe grand piano must be re-tuned and this generates a spectacular Big Bang. . This tells you the Big Bang that we know about was E PLURIBUS UNUM."
This also tells you our Big Bang did not start the way George Gamow