ANSWER Einstein looked for Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: -

Also ANSWER in Word: -

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: -


Expanding Universe Religion


cosimoblue stated:

>>Personally, I never thought Dr. Hubble did Dr. Einstein any favours.>>

Hubble DID discover the red shift but NEVER associated it with an
expanding universe.

Quite the contrary, he WARNED against doing so.

It was
Lemaitre who, year after year kept after Einstein pushing it.

Einstein kept telling him he was wrong until during one of the
Lemaitre lectures, Einstein recognized a factor that Lemaitre presented that seemed to destroy Einstein's cosmological argument and Einstein turned on a dime and applauded Lemaitre .

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.

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
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.


web page

Fitzpatrick's First Book (FREE)

Fitzpatrick's view


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

--- In, "cosimoblue"
<cosimoblue@y...> wrote:
> > There is just one other possibility, and that is if the the
> has
> > a finite size which has shrunk by 42 orders of magnitude since
> > creation. This implies some link twixt the size of the electron
and the
> > 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
independently of
> > 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.

Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.

To paste any of my pages to your desktop in their entirety, FREE, do as follows.

1. Right click link of page.

2. Click - send target as.

3. Click - save.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 314

Belmont Village

4310 Bee Cave Road

West Lake Hills, TX 78746

Send me your e-mail.