1966 book showed the
relative motion laws of A. Ampθre unified the forces.
Fitz's first book in 1966
Fitz's 1966 book in Word . . . . . . . . . . . Fitz's 1966 book in PDF
WIMPs in Word . . May 9, 2019 ALL you need to . . WIMPs in PDF
know about Dark Matter particles - (WIMPs).

This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago, Dan Fitz.

A bit of light on an

Expanding Universe

These important papers, by Fitzpatrick, brought to you free by R.M.F. founder of
MAGPUL Industries.


Short Version


In this is a PROOF that Inertia is a connection to ALL the surrounding stars.

Therefore, with an Expanding Universe, Inertia should be decreasing as this universe expands.

"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." Albert Einstein

The present science, authority, can only explain 25% of the mass in this universe.

DARK MATTER mass — 75% of the mass in our universe — comes from something else that our present science authority doesn't seem yet to understand, and you must comprehend that this is a serious, HUGE problem to those of us working in today's science world.

In this, you'll see why field theory, and some especially bad myths, have prevented us from seeing the BIG PICTURE. I'm certain that field theory has a role to play solving problems after the establishment finally sees what's really going on.

But that, I do believe, may take considerable time.

This is because even scientists have a hard time giving up things they firmly believe.

Einstein, unfortunately, used the field concept all his life, to see the BIG PICTURE, but then in 1954, about a year before he died, he said this: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

This PROOF, you will see, is correct, and Einstein turns out to be absolutely right about the rest of modern physics too.

Most scientists do not yet see the basic simple model that builds this universe.

Stephen Wolfram has proven, that we need the basic simple model — that builds this universe — first, even before we start on any math.

You need to see the BIG PICTURE of reality — of what's really going on in our universe.

HERE: read mathematician, Stephen Wolfram's best selling book "A New Kind of Science". It's free: Wolfram'sBook

He proves, that for a complicated universe, you need its basic simple, building model FIRST. You do the math, after you see the correct model. Unfortunately, our present science hasn't yet given us the correct model. Stephen Wolfram has proven, beyond any doubt, that THE MATH HAS TO BE DONE EVEN LATER, AFTER we use the correct basic simple, PHASE building model given to us by that distinguished French scientist Andre M. Ampere, almost 200 years ago.

I've given you that model in darkmtr.htm.

We'd be further advanced in science if the establishment had listened to the warnings of both Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein. I gave you Einstein's warning and the blue words below are what Hubble said.

I recently heard a well known cosmologist on TV saying, "Hubble discovered the expanding universe." That simply isn't so. Edwin Hubble discovered the "Red Shift", yes. But Hubble himself warned us that the Red Shift may NOT indicate an expanding universe with these words: "The possibility that the red shift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of light from the nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected".

Did the establishment listen to Hubble or Einstein?


So keep reading to see how this all fits together.

Quite a few have 'seen' all this over the years but NOT YET most in the establishment, wherein most are not even trying to find a better science vehicle: they are like Henry Ford who for years kept saying — as others built better and better cars — "No one needs anything better than a Model-T."

The American establishment, like Henry Ford in his later years, is still 'Asleep at the Switch'. We cannot use the field concept 100% of the time, in this universe, to represent forces that we don't truly understand! It was 1954 before Einstein saw this, and more than a decade after that before I realized it.


comes the


Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift. The further we look at stars, the more their color is shifted lower in frequency, or as we say, toward the color red which is the lowest visible frequency. Speed, relative motion, and special relativity are all involved here before we can see such a red shift lowering of that distant star light frequency. So here's where you really have to pay attention to what is going on.

Now I'm going to use Stephen Wolfram's simple model approach to explain a bit more about the red shift.

Frequencies respond to relative motion: Ampere showed us that. The electrons in your eyes that give you the sensation of light are spinning in a certain direction but the earth is spinning in another direction and the solar system in another and our galaxy in another and the galactic cluster that we are in is spinning even in a different direction. Even though you are not sensitive to these spins in five different spin axes, the spinning electrons in your eyes most certainly are. While you improperly see yourself as stationary with the sky, the spinning electrons in your eye respond only to all this spin induced relative motion that increases the red shift the further you look out into space.

Because of the spin in these five different spin axes, the further you look, the more your eye electrons detect a faster and faster relative motion or red shift. It's as simple as that really.

All that multiple spin axes spinning exists! Neither you, nor those spinning electrons in your eyes, are stationary with the sky! The red shift is that relative motion detected between electrons in your eyes and the various distant stars!

Hubble got it right, with his warning!

And you will see Hubble got it right if you keep reading.

This next paragraph is of supreme importance. Read it several times.

The relative motion red shift aspect between your eye electrons and the distant stars is the same whether the distant stars actually go around the electrons in your eyes or the electrons in your eyes spin in relation to them: this is an important fact!

The spin is there; therefore the relative motion is there and the further you look out into space, the faster the star's relative motion is around your eye electrons, and the establishment forgot all about this Relative Motion due entirely to SPIN !

And the most important SPIN they disregarded was the spin frequency of the spinning electrons in our eyes!

You will get the red shift two ways: we see it if those distant stars are either going AROUND us or AWAY from us fast enough. The establishment picked AWAY from us, wrong pick, when they should have seen the relative motion AROUND us, including the spin frequency of the electrons in our eyes, compared to the distant stars, was really fast enough where the role of special relativity kicks in!

AWAY from us, the wrong pick, would mean an Expanding universe, but the correct assessment of AROUND us means we live in a Steady-State universe.

Those who believe in WRONG concepts will never arrive at CORRECT answers, even if they are in the vast majority.

And this WRONG pick of the stars going AWAY from us prevented the establishment from seeing that it's this spin that gives us this spacetime, which the establishment failed to recognize as spacetime.

They saw the time involved but missed the space involved so they invented new fictitious expanding universe space.

Once an expanding universe is accepted, by the establishment, then any balanced, steady-state universe concept will be seen as simply radical! And indeed, this is what has happened!

Also, scientists failed to recognize the space involved as space, because viewing it as various spin frequencies makes us see spacetime as time and not space. It's only after we discard the spin frequencies view of all these things that we can view this ENTIRELY as space. This — difference in viewing — is EXACTLY why we see space and time as distinctly different entities even though they are both produced as spacetime via the same out-of-phase forces.

However, we still need to know WHY, in special relativity, is time related mathematically to one side of a right triangle, space to the other side and spacetime to the hypotenuse?

Not only does modern science need re-thinking, as Einstein foresaw, but also with this internet paper, these distinct entities that we think we see, called space and time also need now, to be considered in an entirely different light: those two things are really only one thing — as all relativity mathematicians know — and that is spacetime.

Einstein's special relativity comes into play here because time slows down with a faster speed. The electrons in your eyes not only see this faster relative motion speed, of those stars going around you, but also the time, of those distant stars, in relation to you is slowed down, thus your eye gives you more and more red shift the further out into this universe that you look.

In troubleshooting, never forget that the high spin frequencies of electrons and quarks both respond to relative motion! The establishment knows all that multiple spin relative motion is there but they forgot about it and didn't listen to Edwin Hubble's warning about prematurely giving the wrong answer to the red shift.

Once you know something like this, that the establishment doesn't, then that puts you way ahead of the mob in troubleshooting. So, to stay ahead, in this game, you must not only see what frequencies see but you also must eliminate the "myths" that the other guys still believe in.

Here, I continue with the establishment's myths:

INERTIA stems from an attraction to the surrounding stars. But you will soon see that this is the TRUTH, and not a myth.

Pay attention to this proof that our Inertia stems from an attraction to the surrounding stars:

Proof of this inertial attracting force to the surrounding stars is the fact that gyroscopes, pendulums, vibrating elements and Helium-2 all have the same one complete rotation in one sidereal day, which is 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds. This rate of rotation is termed "Earth rate": this is the exact rate (or time) any stationary (relative to the "fixed stars") observer in space, would see this Earth make one complete rotation.

You can VIEW this "Earth rate" using a gyroscope. Many times I've set the axis of an aircraft vertical gyro up at noon time with its axis pointing straight up at the sun. When I came back to it at 5 PM, its axis was tilted west, still pointing to the sun that was setting in the west. It looked like it was following the sun but its rotation was a bit faster and really following the stars.

It's important, considering what comes later, that you remember this absolute PROOF that our inertia is a connection to the surrounding stars. So read this PROOF again if you didn't completely understand it.

The next paragraph explains why the stars seen at night, directly above, in winter are not the same stars seen, directly above, in summer nights: the difference between a 24 hour solar day and a sidereal day add up, after 182 days, to give the exact opposite stars overnight in summer as in winter.

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: One sidereal day, also known as "Earth Rate" or 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds, is the rate the stars make one complete rotation, as we see them going around us.

In our industrial system I've talked to men, directly in charge of people working on highly sensitive gyroscopes, who didn't know this nor did they care about electron spin direction. I showed in 1966 that electron spin direction gives us an essential part of the big picture.

You saw that the inertial gyro "Earth rate" precession of 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds is proof that our inertia depends on the stars. If we had an expanding universe, then with the stars moving further and further away, inertia would be getting less and less with time.

But it isn't! It's the same EXACT amount it was a hundred years ago!

Since Inertia isn't getting less and less with time, then an EXPANDING UNIVERSE is a myth!

Not only does "Earth rate" prove it's a myth but so does Phase Symmetry, because in this concept there is an important "CRITICAL BALANCE" with no possible present expansion, but having said that, I fully see, and you should too by now, if you have paid attention to all of this, also see the reason the establishment thinks it is an expanding universe: so in this game you must understand the other person's mistaken religious beliefs! And, in this way, you come out way ahead!

I'm not calling these people liars but I do have a responsibility of pointing out to you, those who don't tell us the truth.

Earlier you saw the absolute PROOF that Inertial "Earth rate" gyroscopic precession shows inertia is a connection to the surrounding stars and since inertia isn't changing (weakening with the expansion), then an Expanding Universe is a myth.

Not everything can be tested this easily.

But, as you saw for yourself, an expanding universe can be tested.

And it failed the test!

You can see from my PROOF that these people telling you about an expanding universe have a mistaken pseudo-scientific religious belief.

Yes, as previously stated, those who believe in WRONG concepts will never arrive at CORRECT answers, even if they are in the vast majority.

Will the establishment look at this proof that we are really in a steady-state universe? Absolutely not! Years from now the idiots on TV will still be proclaiming that "Hubble discovered the Expanding Universe."

It can be proven, mathematically, that we are LIMITED in measuring expansion, to cases where relativistic space doesn't change. You are vastly exceeding that LIMIT when you say this entire universe is expanding, so let's simply say those people telling us about an expanding universe just aren't telling us the truth. And there is an awful lot more about present science where this truth is lacking too, but I don't have room for all that in this.

In selling you an expanding universe, that doesn't exist, fictitious DARK ENERGY is needed. So while DARK MATTER is really here, FICTITIOUS DARK ENERGY, supposedly causing an expanding universe, isn't.

So this DARK ENERGY, causing an expanding universe, is another MYTH !!!

This PAGE DATE: November 23rd 2017 DPFJr

This page in htm: - shortexu.htm

Also this page in Word: - shortexu.doc

And also this page in Adobe pdf: - shortexu.pdf



Here's one on June 12th 2018 telling about a Britannica mistake, but half way through is a most interesting dissertation on how our eyes see COLORS.

Britannica in html:

Britannica in Word:

Britannica in Adobe pdf:


See: Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013


Another better, longer treatise on all this is "A bit of light on Dark Matter"

"Dark Matter" in htm: - darkmtr.htm

Also "Dark Matter" in Word: - darkmtr.doc

And also "Dark Matter" in Adobe pdf: - darkmtr.pdf

To keep this page short I had to leave out many more interesting things, but you will have to click on the following links and spend a lot more time reading to see those.

See: Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013

Phase symmetry makes quantum theory more complete. 12-02-2013 also in Adobe.pdf - phase.symmetry.pdf

For the LATEST Click:

or which was really the very first web page showing us what was actually going on in our universe.

And of course - click this following link:

AND 4 Decades of Fitz's papers:

4 Decades of writings of 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.
November 23, 2017


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

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329

Belmont Village

4310 Bee Cave Road

West Lake Hills, TX 78746


Send me your e-mail.