Also, Field Theories in Word:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdfFitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
Expanding Universe Religion
>>Personally, I never thought Dr. Hubble did Dr. Einstein any favours.>>
It made the headlines "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" and ushered in the era of the expanding universe.
George Gamow took what we subsequently learned about the atom and destroyed Lemaitre's math and replaced it with his own and George Gamow then took over as head expansionist actually predicting the CMBR.
Bob Dicke looked for the CMBR and found some Bell scientists had
already discovered it but did not understand the importance of what
they had found. Dicke, who knew, then arranged for ALL of them to
publish together telling what ALL of them had found and Dicke
took part credit for discovering the CMBR and then---hard to believe---said he never even knew about any CMBR prediction of George Gamow.
During all this Fred Hoyle stood steady as a rock---like his British
compatriot Wellington at Waterloo. Fred Hoyle never wavered with his steady state universe but now made it oscillate so as to incorporate some of the popular elements of what the expansionists were expounding.
Fitzpatrick's First Book (FREE)
Theory of Everything Group
Limits to Logic
a NEW Science Tool
Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts
Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "cosimoblue"
> > There is just one other possibility, and that is if the the
> > a finite size which has shrunk by 42 orders of magnitude since
> > creation. This implies some link twixt the size of the electron
> > expansion of the universe in some unknown inverse relation. (See
> > Bermanseder's QR hypothesis, and maybe it's not so unknown after
> > This is the view I personally favour as it can happen
> > known quantum processes and does not affect known empirical
> Folks are so hung up on expansion that they ignore the inverse.
> Or over emphasize one of its aspects (such the CERN
> ... but if what you say is true, when the photons were created, the
> electrons were smaller, and it took a larger distance to radiate
> same frequency of energy... or we would see the frequency as
> elongating... either way this leads you down the slippery slope of
> questioning some of Hubble's assumptions.
> Personally, I never thought Dr. Hubble did Dr. Einstein any
World Scientist Database - - Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.