Shedding a little known light
Shedding a little known light
on well knownmodern physics
Abstract: No object can go or spin faster than the speed of light in OUR spacetime realm. Quarks spin with their exteriors moving at least 2x1010c in their spacetime realm. But Heisenberg's Uncertainty is here even though I show the LOGIC for this. Spins have frequencies, and with frequencies PHASE is important! Spin motion is far different from rectilinear motion in the dynamic way it affects both PHASE and the spacetime interval, giving us what we see as OUR spacetime realm, that we divided into two things, space and time, upon which we built modern physics. Space & time are really spacetime.
Modern physics gives no clue as to what causes Dark Matter. This paper does. Spins of not only quarks and electrons cause force and also give us other spacetime realms — so do the lower spin frequency, slower spins of stars, galaxies & super-clusters.Add these three (3) lower spin frequencies & PHASE to modern physics to see what causes Dark Matter.
If Ampère's Law is seen as a spin/motion (phase) law, then it gives thecause of Dark Matter attraction being the in-phase spin frequencies between stars, between galaxies and between super-clusters of galaxies.
Heisenberg was right! Now, when we talk about space or time, we must specify which spin frequency spacetime realm we mean — quark, electron, star, galaxy or super-cluster. Each of these produces its own spin frequency spacetime realm. Space & time do not simply exist: spacetime is fabricated!
Thus, spacetime realms, that we now know about, are beingproduced at five (5) different spin frequencies. This means Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force, (out-of-phase) space is being created at five (5) different spin frequencies along with 5 attractive (in-phase) gravitational type forces: this produces a SIMPLE unification that Einstein partially saw.
If you Google Einstein's Cosmological Constant, mentioned in the last part of that Abstract, then it will simply say it's a repulsive force type of space existing in our universe. But it's far more than that!
Einstein's Cosmological Constant is therepulsive force same type space existing between all five (5) of NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff's spinning, SCALAR entities.
Same type force betweenall 5 is important if you want to unify the forces like Einstein tried to do, and almost did.
In this paper, you will see how simple this unification becomes once you simply add phase to modern physics and also understand that whenever you square a speed (c2), you get an acceleration, which is also a force (Einstein's Principle of Equivalence). So c2 isEinstein's out-of-phase repulsive force space and the opposite C/c is Fitzpatrick's in-phase zero (0) space, attractive force.
And c2 is more thanEinstein's repulsive force, it is also an important harmonic as well, and that, my friends, does change things a bit in modern physics.
I have to warn you that in this we delve into the world of theoretical physics — minus all its math, of course. But it's all worth the effort if you really want to see how this entire universe works.
I can assure you that you won't find anything on the internet quite like this paper.
My entire life has been one entangled with the latest science developments. I never felt as if I was really working. I felt that I was doing exactly what I wanted to do, and on top of that, I was learning all I could about how this universe worked. I was getting paid to do this too!
I remember, when I was a kid, being at my neighbor's house, and finding out her big radio didn't work. This radio was close to ten years old and built in the 1930s. Its tubes had metal grid caps on the tops of the tubes with each of their metal connectors totally un-insulated. This made it easy to read negative grid voltage on every tube providing you had a sensitive enough meter which most, at that time, were not.
I knew my father's Weston meter, with a sensitive 20,000 ohms per volt movement, was perfect for this. So I got it, and put the positive lead to ground on the radio chassis, and was startled to find a fluctuating negative grid reading on a tube that got stronger as I tuned in with the tuning dial. This proved the radio was OK and receiving a radio broadcast! Then I put the negative lead to the grid cap on each tube, and found they all showed the same fluctuating grid voltage, so they were all working! Then I even found a fluctuating voltage on the secondary of the output transformer to the speaker. That's practically the end of the line! But why wasn't there any sound?
Then I saw the answer: the huge loudspeaker had moved so much, that after years of loud vibrations, a short wire from the output transformer to the speaker coil had flexed back and forth, so many times, that it finally broke loose entirely. I soldered it back again, and that woman gave me two dollars when she heard her big radio play again, just like it did when it was new.I knew then that I should use my brain, to make money in this world of science/physics!
This is not the first paper to explain everything about Dark Matter: this SCALAR paper below, may well have been the very FIRST.
LINKS TO SCALARDATE: April 30, 2019
SCALAR in htm: -
SCALAR in htm: -http://amperefitz.com/scalar.htm
Also, SCALAR in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/scalar.doc
And SCALAR in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/scalar.pdf
You should read SCALAR (Click links above) — after you read this — to get the broad science aspect involved in all of this. It's taken a great many scientists — plus a great deal of time — to figure out exactly what is really going on in this universe of ours.
The concepts contained herein are not all mine, but as Alfred, Lord Tennyson said, "I am a part of all that I have met." And you will find, in my various other pages, that I have given credit to those ideas from others that I have used.
In this next link, you will learn that the early galaxies had little Dark Matter.
Universe’s Early Galaxies Were Less Influenced by Dark ...
Mar 15, 2017 · New VLT observations suggest that such massive star-forming disc galaxies in the early Universe were less influenced by dark matter (shown in red), as it was less concentrated.
You will see — in the next Galaxy link — that Dark Matter in the Andromeda Galaxy is invisible to light. The reason this is so important is that it tells you Dark Matter is not like inertial mass, or what is being called gravitational mass, that bends light and also reflects light.
Newton told us in 1687 that gravitational attraction acts INSTANTLY.
NASA — before the moon shot — checked and found the speed of gravity — was either Newton's instantly or at least 20 billion times the speed of light (2x1010c). Click link. Van Flandern
So let's look for a Dark Matter WIMP particle that has such a slow attractive speed that it could neither bend nor reflect light. The previous Dark Matter link showed us that early galaxies had little Dark Matter. But NOW you must realize a theoretical physics fact, thatspacetime is one thing: when we look through the Hubble telescope into space, then we are also looking back into time.
The next link shows us Dark Matter prevails in the Andromeda Galaxy. It also states that the reason astronomers know this— is that all the stars in the Andromeda Galaxy move at the same rate — whereas in early Galaxies with little Dark Matter, stars on the edges of the Galaxy move slower than inner stars.
Could the inside of an electron look somewhat like our galaxy?
Most would immediately say NO. But it very well could.
See, with each complete spin there is a slight amount of gyroscopic precessing that shifts the entire flat plane of the galaxy a bit. After many millions of these complete spins and their accumulated gyro precession shifts, a galaxy would indeed have produced, in space, a complete spherical SCALAR entity.
So our reasoning tells us that — with a fast enough spinning electron — this may be why our electron appears as a spherical, spinning, SCALAR entity to us.
This also seems to be indicating to us why we have problems measuring in other spacetime realms (Heisenberg's Uncertainty). Exactly what makes time and space so different in different spacetime realms?
In the microcosm, where Heisenberg's Uncertainty exists, spinning entities are smaller, and spin frequencies are definitely much, much faster than in our realm. Can the time we sense be dependent on spin frequencies?
Well, the space we sense in the faster spinning microcosm appears to be much, much smaller than that we are measuring in the slower spinning macrocosm. So, is time going faster — than OUR TIME — in the faster spinning microcosm? Is time going slower — than OUR TIME — in the slower spinning galaxies and super-clusters of the macrocosmin regard to the speed of their attracting forces?
Now look at the concept of NASA's scientist, Dr. Milo Wolff —who helped get us to the moon. Wolff's concept is that this is a frequency universe all throughout, and all of these spinning, SCALAR entities — we see in both microcosm and macrocosm — are spinning, standing waves. Knowing this forces us to an important theoretical physics conclusion.
This is a frequency universe, where, in the electron's realm, time — from our point of view — must be the very antithesis of galactic time, because the space in one — from our point of view — is the antithesis, or very opposite, of space in the other.
Understanding what the spacetime interval tells us, shows us less space in the microcosm, means microcosm time must be going faster than our time. With more space in the macrocosm, this tells us macrocosm time must be going slower than our time. This isn't fantasy.This is the beginning of brand new thinking in theoretical physics!
Keep this thought — about time — in mind because we continue with it in theblue paragraph below.
Another time question would be, Has enough time past, in this universe, for our galaxy to have acted as one of Milo Wolff's spherical, SCALAR, spinning entities, to produce Dark Matter force? And the answer has to be YES.
Milo Wolff saw this as a standing wave universe, all throughout, in which we see these spinning, SCALAR, entities, such as quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and super-clusters of galaxies; each of these being entirely SCALAR, but in which their respective spin frequencies produce force.
This gives us more than modern science gives us, doesn't it?
This gives us, not only the extra forces that produce Dark Matter, but it gives us additional spacetime realms — besides our own that we must also consider.You must realize, that it takes such a tremendous amount of time to produce a stable, galactic, spherical, SCALER, spinning entity. But this, of course, is in the spacetime realms of galaxies and super-clusters — that both have more space than us — but where their time — if time is linked to spin frequencies — progresses slower than our time, (fewer number of complete spins) especially in super-clusters.Not only that, there is good and sufficient evidence showing that the speed of the outer edge of any of Wolff's spinning, SCALAR entities is the speed that its particular spin force travels. For instance, since the surface of the electron travels at the speed of light then all electron produced forces will be at the speed of light.
And since the speed of gravity is at least 20 billion times the speed of light (2x1010c) then, even common sense tells you, gravity must be a quark generated force, by those few quarks escaping strong force containment, whose surfaces are rotating at least 20 billion times faster than the surface of the electron.
All theoretical physicists know, or should know, that spacetime is one entity: humans, however, see it as two things, space and time. Both of these two things (space & time) change with speed or mass. It's been proven that an accelerated clock runs slower than a normal clock.
There is something else you need to know about: it's the spacetime interval — previously mentioned — and it does NOT change like space and time, with speed or mass.
I'm afraid that with all these constantly spinning SCALAR entities in both microcosm and macrocosm, space and time or rather spacetime (the spacetime interval) isn't something that is simply here. The spacetime interval has to be something that is constantly being produced.
NASA's math of at least 20 billion times (2x1010) seems to be telling us that instead of one geological clock, we are witness to five separate clocks (quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and super-clusters) whose spacetime intervals are separated from each other by an astounding number of spin frequencies,even with Heisenberg's Uncertainty.
If you read my papers you will see exactly how in this spinning, SCALAR, standing wave universe of Dr. Milo Wolff, relative motion (PHASE) is the very thing that is producing both our space and our time, or rather spacetime (the spacetime interval). And I've been showing the importance of relative motion (PHASE) since 1966.
In this universe of continual motion, there is one TRUTH: motionsin-phase attract. Motions out-of-phase repel.
The reason that I published that small book in 1966 was that at Pan American Airlines, the overhaul of RCA RADAR indicators was not without problems, one of which was Pan Am would order them in batches, and each batch would have entirely different color coded wires. Many times after overhaul, the indicator would have the synch mark at the bottom, instead of at the top. Then the indicator would have to be pulled all apart again.
I needed to find a way this would never happen even the first time. Here my simple rule came to the rescue: if the assembler made sure, that at synch, the electron flow through the top of the coil was moving in the same direction as the electron beam in the cathode ray tube, of the scope, then the synch mark would always beattracted and PULLED to the top of the scope, because both had the same relative motion (in-phase) attraction.
It was then — for the first time in my life — that I realized I was beingattracted to this Earth because I was traveling the same direction, in relative motion (in-phase) with the Earth, therefore attracted to this Earth.
But this was before quarks were discovered. Years later I found that I had discovered the correct relative motion or PHASE rule, but I didn't go high enough in frequency. My simple rule was right, but with almost instantaneous attraction, gravity had to be at the quark spin frequency.
The words inblue & red, twelve chapters above, give us a clue about relativistic spacetime, in that it's the spin frequency of a SCALAR entity realm — in relation to the spin frequency of your SCALAR entity realm — that determines its spacetime interval, in relation to your spacetime interval! This took many years for me to see. And this paper may be the first paper to state it.
It may be hard for most readers to believe, but after considerable research, I know now that it's true.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Theoretical Physics.
Dark matter took its time to wrap around early galaxies ...
Mar 15, 2017 · Dark matter took its time to wrap around early galaxies. ... the stars at the edges of these early galaxies move more slowly than those closer in. "This tells us that at early stages of galaxy ...
This next link shows you Dark Matter is real, but they seem to want your e-mail, so skip it if you want to.
Dark Matter is real | Physics Forums
Apr 05, 2019 · On the dark matter hypothesis, this is possible since it just means these galaxies have negligible amounts of dark matter. In other words, the dark matter model has a free parameter that can be used to predict the velocity dispersion of these galaxies as well as the velocity dispersion of all the other galaxies.
Here's a better link that proves the existence of Dark Matter over alternate observations. https://phys.org/news/2019-04-dark-alternate-explanations.htmlAnd the next link shows you that there are galaxies with almost no Dark Matter.
Galaxy Found With Almost No Dark Matter
Mar 28, 2018 · But finding a galaxy that’s more or less devoid of dark matter certainly suggests a few tantalizing things. First, it really challenges ideas about how galaxies form.
The next link shows you Black Holes are NOT Dark Matter: these are two entirely different things. I can assure you of that!
11 wimpy galaxies may rule out black holes as dark matter ...
Aug 18, 2016 · The stars there are choking with dark matter, at least compared to larger galaxies like the Milky Way or Andromeda, but the little galaxies don't seem to show any obvious signs of harboring a flotilla of old black holes. "These galaxies would be less dense and larger than we see," Brandt told Business Insider.
So, you know from all this that the percentage of Dark Matter various considerably in various galaxies: this is why you will see all kinds of approximations of how much Dark Matter ATTRACTION there is in our universe, and why that varies so considerably: it is at least four (4) times that of gravity and perhaps closer to eight or nine times that of gravity.Here is a good version of Dark Matter and WHY it's so strong, in one simple, condensed sentence.
Dark Matter is caused by the SPIN MOTION— in three different spin frequency spacetime realms — of stars, galaxies and super-clusters of galaxies.
Quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies and super-clusters are all NASA scientist Dr. Milo Wolff's SCALAR, spinning entities. The SPINS of not only quarks and electrons — but ALL of them — cause forces.
Stars, galaxies and super-clusters spin far slower than the electron, thus their attractive forces will be far slower than the electron's attractive forces, and therefore this Dark Matter (unlike mass) will neither bend nor reflect light.
Einstein warned us about believing in modern physics in 1954. I've given his exact warning words several times in various pages. I saw the problem well before 1954.
Even before high school, I had accumulated a good variety of radio tubes, and while repairing radios I saw that Benjamin Franklin's plus and minus charges and Faraday's north and south poles were for the birds. It wasn't working that way. I needed one rule that would cover both electrons and magnetism. I was lucky in that ALNICO magnets preceded the magnets we have now. They could only be strongly magnetized in one direction. I studied these old magnets, and they showed me the truth.
I realized, by the time I was in high school, thatrelative motion (PHASE) was not only the key to the rule I wanted for both electrons and magnetism, but it also proved to be a good rule for both free and molecular captured electrons as well. I now had a true science rule that was even more than four times as good as the — rules of modern physics — that all my scientific friends were using.
Here's my simple rule.
Things spinning togetherin-phase attract, and things spinning together out-of-phase repel.
Forget what they taught you in school. Now watch what happens — using this simple rule — to all those items ingreen above.
I saw, using ALNICO magnets, that thestrongest magnetic attraction occurred when most electrons had exactly the same relative motion (most mass spinning in-phase together).
In other words, two magnets had the strongestattraction when the largest number of complete electron IN-PHASE pairings occurred. Meaning entire electrons in one magnet were spinning in the same direction, on the same exact spin axis as entire electrons in the other magnet.
Now use my rule to see why free electrons, or stars, or galaxiesrepel each other.
All same size, SCALAR, spinning entities have identical gyroscopic precession, which is a force 90 degrees ahead of and in the direction of spin rotation.
This means entirely FREE, same size, spinning things, even in the microcosm, mustREPEL, because as soon as their spins begin to line up in-phase and begin to attract each other, the resultant 90 degree precession force — moves both of them equally away — from this attractive orientation.
Now my simple rule shows that captured molecular electrons, that have lost their freedom, can and doattract, because by being captured by the down quark spin harmonic, they are no longer free to precess. And precession is needed to repel.
About 1960, Scientific American had an extensive article about Ampère's long parallel wires, and how Ampère developed his Law. When I read that, I saw Ampère was not only proving my simple relative motion (phase) rule. but he was also showing Faraday was wrong using one field for plus and minus charges and then, a different field for magnetism. Ampère's Law clearly unifies those two fields, making them obsolete.
I was astonished as to how those in our universities could have been so blind to this for almost two centuries.
While Ampère gave us his law in the 1720s, he was never quite the showman as Faraday, who about 1820 gave us the first electric motorized device, a good decade before the first real electric motor. Michael Faraday suspended a copper wire into a pool of mercury in which was a magnet. One side of a battery was connected to the mercury and the other side to the top suspension point of the wire. The lower part of the wire immersed in the mercury, would rotate either clockwise or counter-clockwise — around the magnet — depending which way the battery was hooked up or which pole of the magnet faced up. Needless to say, when England was supreme, scientists listened to Faraday and not Ampère.
There was even more to be learned from my ALNICO magnets. If I now inverted one of those attracting pieces, their poles would strongly repel, but their sides would now attract at about HALF of the polar attraction. WHY?
Nothing in modern science was telling me why. I had to figure that out for myself, and again my PHASE or relative motion rule, not only came to the rescue, but taught me more about what was really going on in our universe than anything in modern science/physics. See, magnetic attractions are made up of two types of in-phase, attractive,resonant bindings.
All bindings areresonant bindings. This includes molecular bonds that are also harmonic bonds, from which can be obtained atomic energy. All that is in my other papers; I want to keep this paper short.
Anyway, there is only ONE quantum of energy strength ever associated with a same spin, same spin axis electron pairing.
But there is another spin-up spin-down electron pairing — with only their Closest Side SECTIONSattractively binding in-phase — by which our eyes see the various colors of light: when the closest sides of two opposite spinning electrons are binding and un-binding in-phase together at the rate of, let's say, 600 trillion cycles a second. Sections must impedance match (have same momentum) to bind.
When electrons do this with electrons in your eye, you see green light. One of those cycles is a quantum of green light. It's alternating current actually, but a lot feebler and a lot faster than 60 cycle AC.
For instance, when you look at a star, electrons in your eye are first binding with an electron on the star, then binding back to a nerve in your eye, then back to the star, then back to a nerve in your eye, at 600 trillion times a second to give you the sensation of green light.
That we can see different colors of light proves that this spin-up spin-down, closest side in-phase binding, gives us quanta of various energy strengths.
They can also bind together — only using their closest sides — magnetically for much longer periods. And as I learned from my ALNICO magnets, ALL of these various strength spin-up to spin-down bonds, available TOGETHER in my magnets, gave about HALF the strength of ALL the same spin, same spin axis bonds.
How can the use of field theory be justified if that large a quantity of these quantum sized forces are altogether DIFFERENT SIZES!
Field theory can only work if each tiny invisible quantum force is EXACTLY the same size!
The reason that Einstein failed in his Unified Field Concept was because field theory failed him!
Now do some thinking: since we see everything larger than Planck's Constant as a solid and everything smaller (microcosm) as waves, this tells us that we humans must be tuned into this frequency universe at the frequency of Planck's Constant. This frequency is lower than the electron's spin frequency space production and higher than the star spin frequency space production. Which of these, or what combination of these, are we measuring?
We have to answer that question before we start venturing much beyond our solar system.
Since early galaxies have little Dark Matter, then it's important to find out how long it takes the average galaxy to become a true SCALAR entity — aFitzpatrick Cycle — and the time it takes super-clusters to do this as well.
My webpage statistics show me there is much world interest now about thisrelative motion/PHASE concept that allowed me to remain ahead of my competition. Some read every page available to them. I wish more scientists would comprehend it. But then again, thinking of the new weaponry that might come of it, perhaps it's better they continue on the same old muddy road they are on now.
I received two copyright notices yesterday from the U. S. government: one stating, "Your application and payment for the workChanges coming to Physics were received by the U.S.Copyright Office on 5/8/2019." And the second notice said my 201 page Adobe pdf file size :1271397 KB was successfully uploaded for service request 1-(and ten more numbers) Date/Time :5/8/2019 5:14:43 PM.I've been copywriting my books and things since 1966, but this is the first time I have ever done it online.
Time will tell if NASA scientist Milo Wolff,who helped get us to the moon, was right in that this is a frequency universe all throughout, but we fail to see it that way and instead see these SCALAR, spinning entities all throughout such as quarks, electrons, stars, galaxies, and super-clusters of galaxies.
Our time-span is not long enough to see galaxies and super-clusters as spherical, SCALAR entities. Galaxies look flat to us, but nevertheless they will precess — like a gyroscope — given enough time, to end up perfectly spherical and SCALAR, clearly showing us this fact:our spacetime and theirs is entirely different.
Einstein, pro field theory and Bohr, pro quantum theory argued their entire lives about which was right, but neither sawthe important fact that spin frequencies, precession and SCALAR entities were in both microcosm and macrocosm. Neither Bohr nor Einstein saw that, with all these spin frequencies, PHASE would be the only logical answer to a Theory that got to the bottom of Everything. If you read SCALAR, you will see how close Einstein actually came to solving the greatest science/physics puzzle of all time.The Earth's speed (star realm) could not be added to the speed of light (electron realm) in the Michaelson—Morely Experiment because one cannot add speeds from two different spacetime realms. The binding, discussed in these 18 pages so far, has no speed. It's instantaneous because no out-of-phase spacetime can exist between in-phase bindings. All SECTION energy transfer is instantaneous! We only notice time produced either by an electron or a quark binding to a distant ENTIRE electron or distant ENTIRE quark. Space is .000000000001% lines of Einstein's Cosmological Constant repulsive force between spinning entities and 99.99999999999% holes.
And this is the reason we see repulsive force space, as empty, isn't it?
You will see — as you read SCALAR — WHY we might never be able to detect even one complete Dark Matter particle (WIMP). It's all there and while I'm alive it's entirely FREE!
However, my copyrights now last 70 years after my death. I'm over 86 now! And I'm sure my heirs won't give everything away free — for 70 years — like I'm able to do and am doing now.DPF Jr.
LINKS TO THIS PAGEDATE: May 9, 2019
THIS PAGE in html: -
THIS PAGE in html: -http://amperefitz.com/WIMPs.html
Also, THIS PAGE in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/WIMPs.doc
And THIS PAGE in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/WIMPs.pdfTo read more about what is really going on in our universe click the following links.
LINKS TO ELECTRON SPIN PRECESSIONDATE: February 10, 2019
SPIN PRECESSION in htm: -
SPIN PRECESSION in htm: -http://amperefitz.com/espinp.htm
Also, SPIN PRECESSION in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/espinp.doc
And SPIN PRECESSION in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/espinp.pdf
SIMPLE in htm: -
SIMPLE in htm: -http://amperefitz.com/simple.htm
Also, SIMPLE in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/simple.doc
And SIMPLE in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/simple.pdf
An Important Matter seen by Crichton in htm: -crichton.htm
Also, Crichton in Word:- crichton.doc
And also, Crichton in Adobe pdf:- crichton.pdf
Field Theory DATE: October 29, 2018..
Field Theory in html: -
Field Theory in html: -http://amperefitz.com/fieldtheory.html
Also, Field Theory in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/fieldtheory.doc
And Field Theory in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/fieldtheory.pdf
Field Theory was taken from the larger 3 Beliefs Paper.
3 Beliefs in htm: - http://amperefitz.com/3beliefs.htm
Also, 3 Beliefs in Word:- http://amperefitz.com/3beliefs.doc
And 3 Beliefs in Adobe pdf:- http://amperefitz.com/3beliefs.pdf
Phase Symmetry. phase symmetry 12-02-2013
Also, in Adobe.pdf - phase symmetry.pdf
also, in Word.doc - phase.symmetry.doc
Ampere's Law of Relative Motion. DPFJr
a unification . . QED . . Ampere.htm Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts:
Order a copy of "Universities Asleep at the Switch" NOW.
Read "Universities Asleep at the Switch" FREE in html.
Read "Universities Asleep at the Switch" FREE in ADOBE (slower to load).
And here's this page duplicated in Adobe.pdf:
Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts:http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.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
4310 Bee Cave Road
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
Send me your e-mail.