FREE !! Click ANY of these links to get what you want. FREE !!

For the very latest in science, click links below:

c.squared.html 11-25-2017

c.squared.pdf 11-25-2017 (Adobe)

c.squared.doc 11-25-2017 (Word)

Shedding a bit of light on the

Elaborate Design of our Universe


1. Gambling

It's better than winning the hundred million to one shot on the lottery.

Our chances of having a nearby supernova explosion early on — giving us the elements we need for life — and then our sun being the right size and having that asteroid hit while the dinosaurs were here and countless other things that all had to happen precisely at the right time to give us this winning lottery ticket that has enabled us to enjoy life on earth today.

The chances that we shouldn't be here today are much more than a hundred million to one.

So say we: Richard Mark Fitzpatrick and Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. (Authors)

We simply had to write this first Gambling Chapter after reading Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. It's a book well worth reading!

There is absolutely no doubt that we have to thank our lucky stars — or whomever else it is you wish to thank — that we are actually alive and living now even though all of us have but a short time here. As Bryson has shown us, with all the things that had to happen precisely when they did, it's a wonder that we have been given this miraculous chance to be here even for this brief period of time.

It will take us a while to finish this book. We are both willing to put in the effort because it's what we believe. So this book is also — like our universe — a gamble!

Here this book will remain, on the internet, for all of you to read, as we write it.

In this book we're going to show you WHY Everything is Happening the way it is.

A recent Fitzpatrick paper ended with this little poem, and with it this book begins:

A bit of Pope & Fitzpatrick here:

"Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:

God said, "Let Newton be!" And all was light.

Huygens said, "But Newton didn't tell us why

We have gravity and all these objects in the sky."

Huygens congratulated Newton on his great mathematical accomplishment giving us his gravitational laws, but Huygens also criticized Newton about not finding the answer as to WHY this was so.

In this book you will get a model that really does finally tell us why.


In this model dependent science world of today, you will be presented with a new quantum theory model — even better than the standard model — that gives you the very first 3D, widescreen, technicolor picture of reality that is far, far superior to that of any models presently being used:

It's the W.A.M. Quantum theory model.

This scalar, standing wave model — a new Wolff, Ampere, Mach Quantum Theory Model — is the only single model that explains this entire universe!


Also please remember these supremely important words of mathematician Stephen Wolfram, "Math can only explain simple things but a simple model can explain a complicated universe."


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "Stephen Wolfram

born Aug. 29, 1959, London, Eng.

English physicist and author best known for his contributions to the field of cellular automata and the development of Mathematica, an algebraic software system.

The son of a novelist and a philosophy professor, Wolfram attended Eton College (1972-76), from which he never graduated, and published his first scientific paper at age 15. He later studied at the University of Oxford (1976-78) and the California Institute of Technology (CalTech), where he earned a doctorate (1979) in theoretical physics at age 20. In 1981 he became the youngest recipient of a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, and later that year he began researching the origins of nature's complexity. He taught at CalTech from 1980 to 1982. Throughout the 1980s Wolfram published a series of celebrated papers on what he dubbed "complex systems research." During this period he taught at the Institute for Advanced Study (1983-86) in Princeton, N.J. In 1986."


Quantum theory originally began with Max Planck who made a speech one evening explaining that energy had to be arriving in small packets or quantum chunks. Einstein gave these chunks of light energy a name, photon, but it was Nobel scientist Niels Bohr who then took over teaching quantum theory and was cranking out future Nobel scientists at the same time as Henry Ford was cranking out his Model T Ford cars.

Richard Feynman — more about Feynman in Chapter 6 — even took quantum theory further greatly improving the standard model but had disdain for the unification of the weak force with the electromagnetic force into an electroweak force. Said Feynman, "You can even see the glue that holds it together."


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "standard model

The standard model has proved a highly successful framework for predicting the interactions of quarks and leptons with great accuracy. Yet it has a number of weaknesses that lead physicists to search for a more complete theory of subatomic particles and their interactions."


Are you ready for a new more complete quantum theory model? 

Why we need this new more complete Wolff, Ampere, Mach Quantum Theory Model:

We need it because it explains not just the microcosm — as the standard model does — but it explains this entire universe!

We also need it because it diminishes or even negates, that sea of infinite probabilities — the gambling — that infests current quantum theory.

Einstein likened Bohr's quantum development to gambling. While this Wolff infinite sea of spinning, scalar resonances are all set up to act exactly like they are gambling, the scalar, standing wave setup itself — the house — always wins and remains intact all throughout this sea of infinite probabilities where this gambling — that Albert Einstein hated — takes place.

It was this sea of infinite probabilities that first gave us cells, then higher organisms, then apes, then us.

The fact that we are here is proof itself that God does really gamble!

So it's evident Einstein was wrong to say, "God doesn't gamble!"

God does indeed gamble using spinning, scalar, standing waves. What Einstein failed to see was that the house always remains. This scalar, standing wave setup — the house — is never threatened via the gambling. Only the various separate quantum bindings are the things that are doing all the gambling.

And now we see Niels Bohr was correct to say, "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do."

What both Mach and Ampere do in this quantum scenario is that they allow us to drastically reduce this sea of quantum infinite probabilities.

We can use what both Mach and Ampere showed us to reduce the gambling

Both of us authors now believe — using this new model — that we can actually achieve controlled fusion and perhaps even arrive at controlled cold fusion.

This new Wolff, Ampere, Mach Quantum Theory Model shows you why you have all these infinite number of probabilities that Einstein hated.

This new Wolff, Ampere, Mach Quantum Theory Model shows you how you can eliminate most of these infinite number of probabilities.



2. My involvement

I — Daniel Fitzpatrick — can't remember exactly what year it was that I read about Ampere's laws in Scientific American. But I saw immediately that for easily visualizing things in the radio world — my world — they were far superior to Maxwell's fields.

Later in 1966 at Pan American Airlines, one day as I was trying to resolve a method where the yoke coil in RCA RADAR Indicators could not be installed upside down by mistake, not only did I use Ampere's law of attraction to solve the problem but I distinctly saw Ampere's law of attraction — a relative motion law — was also showing me why I was being attracted to this earth.

I will never forget that day as long as I live.

I saw then essentially how to unify gravity with all the other invisible forces.

This unification of gravity with the other forces was something Einstein tried to solve so I wrote a book about gravity, as well as all the other forces simply being caused by relative motion. Lincoln Barnett wrote me a letter of approval about the book. Scientist Robert Dicke wrote that if gravity was being caused by relative motion then we should see interference fringes which we are now indeed seeing.


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "Robert Henry Dicke

born May 6, 1916, St. Louis, Mo., U.S.

died March 4, 1997, Princeton, N.J.

American physicist noted for his theoretical work in cosmology and investigations centering on the general theory of relativity. He also made a number of significant contributions to radar technology and to the field of atomic physics. . . . By the 1960s Dicke had become actively interested in gravitation."

Yes, Robert Dicke claimed that if gravity was caused via phase or relative motion then we would see interference fringes. He turned out to be right because now with the advent of the Hubble space telescope we are actually seeing Dicke's interference fringes and their cause is being seen as gravitational lensing caused by Einstein's curved space. These interference fringes (gravitational lensing) seem to be giving us more proof of actual gravitational waves.


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "Interference fringe:

a bright or dark band caused by beams of light that are in phase or out of phase with one another. Light waves and similar wave propagation, when superimposed, will add their crests if they meet in the same phase (the waves are both increasing or both decreasing); or the troughs will cancel the crests if they are out of phase; these phenomena are called constructive and destructive interference."


If you want to read that early book of mine — it's a collectors item now — then here is a link for it (below) and in Chapter 6 you will find an additional link, for it, you can click. There were only 10,000 of them printed and their value seems to be going up every year even faster than the stock market. You will get a picture of the blue cover by clicking the link below.

(CLICK this link.)

As I listened to Stephen Wolfram Stephen Wolfram, on the Charlie Rose show many years ago, I was mystified and wondered how he knew that a simple model could explain a complicated universe. I thought only a very few of us who understood Milo Wolff's scalar, standing wave theory and Ernst Mach's inertial theory and Ampere's relative motion concept could see that.

Only later, after I read Wolfram's A New Kind of Science, did I realize that he discovered this important fact via a far different road from the way I found it. Wolfram's 1,000 page "A New Kind of Science"

Half way through high school I was forced to work with standing waves and knew, even before I met Milo Wolff, that electrons had to be some sort of spherical, standing wave but it was Milo who showed me the importance of the scalar, standing wave concept.

I saw that Wheeler and Feynman were pointing out to everyone that we are surrounded by various other space-time realms and we simply cannot measure accurately inside of these other space-time realms.

And then, to my utter amazement, I saw no one was listening to Wheeler and Feynman about this particular aspect of measuring things.

I was even more amazed, while chatting on the internet with Tom Van Flandern Van Flandern, to find out that all our major astronomical universities agreed with Newton who said gravity acted instantly. No astronomical school agreed with Einstein who said gravity could not act faster than the speed of light.

I saw this truth: You could rely on the high priests of science most of the time but not all the time.

All through my life I saw that if I used my own common sense, I came out better than gambling on the various advice of others. But I knew that I did read and experiment far more than most of the others.

I had many businesses and I never lost money in any business. I started college early in life in the army signal corps but actually finished college later in life and saw that most of these people teaching business, in the universities, could only make money teaching. Few of them could make money in their own business.

I heeded the words of Dwight Eisenhower in his final day of office as our president when he warned of believing everything that we were told by the military industrial complex.

One of Fredrick the Great's generals asked him, "My God, what will our people say when we attack that country?"

Frederick the Great answered, "My universities will explain to the people why we had to attack them."

We can rely on the universities and the high priests of science most of the time but not all the time.

All this need for additional Dark Matter and additional Dark Energy is proof that something is wrong with our present model or present concept that our universities — military industrial complex — use to explain to us how this universe works.

My common sense told me that we had to look at all the concepts available and the concept in which all the forces were unified — regardless of how those in the universities thought — had to be the correct concept.

And if I looked at quantum theory and added what Wolff and Ampere and Mach said then there, right in front of me, was a concept where all the forces were unified.

Not only that but this concept shows exactly what space and time is as well.

This new concept mandates that space-time must also be quantized as well as energy. And quanta of either of these can be but a very tiny fraction of the total mass of the universe: This prevents us from believing this universe was created with pure energy.

So this new concept shows us an all neutron universe must have been here first and a slow leakage of energy — between space-time realms — changed the fine structure enough where the neutron was no longer stable and this earlier all neutron universe went into a sudden beta decay which stopped when exactly half of the original neutrons were safely ensconced inside of atoms.

Knowing this, what we presently see in observing the cosmic microwave background radiation makes far more sense.

Therefore the first part — the first few minutes — of the Big Bang needs changing but after that first part everything else now believed about the Big Bang, of how all the elements were created, is quite correct.

And this new concept agrees with what Wheeler and Feynman said that we cannot measure accurately when we dip into all these other space-time realms all around us.

I agree with this and totally agree with all the quantum theorists who say this is a frequency universe in the microcosm.

But then I have to add this admonition: You cannot install yourself into the center of things saying things smaller than us obey frequency laws but things larger than us obey quite different laws.

Yet this is exactly what is being done now, isn't it?

This new concept changes all that: This is a frequency universe all throughout!

Quantum scientists correctly equate higher frequencies with higher energy. We, perhaps incorrectly, equate higher frequencies with smaller size: we see the spinning electron as tiny and the even higher frequency spinning quark as even smaller than the electron.

We see frequencies as solids only in a narrow frequency band from Planck's constant, the electron orbital frequency to some lower frequency. Lower than this — the galaxy spin frequency — we view things, such as galaxies as variegated solids.

So my involvement in all of this is simply trying to turn everything we think we see into actual real frequency relationships.



3. Dr. Milo Wolff's frequency universe

Dr. Milo Wolff Dr. Milo Wolff has given us a scalar, standing wave frequency universe and we are going to try to change all our present rules and laws into new frequency rules and laws.

I've worked in radio all my life and the hardest part of this book will be to convince you, the reader, how important standing waves are to us.

I was forced to learn about standing waves while trying to tune transmitters to an antenna in my early high school years. If you don't eliminate the standing waves via proper tuning then your transmitter isn't going to work properly.

The reason for this is that standing waves do not radiate useful radio wave energy but they do indeed use up the transmitter's energy output to keep reproducing themselves on the antenna.

What we know from this is: Anything producing energy via frequencies will also be producing standing waves.

My first amateur transmitter had an 807 tube in the final, putting out 40 watts. The second transmitter that I finished building in my second year of high school had two RCA tantalum finned plate 812As in push-pull — they cost me $5.oo each in 1947 — and that transmitter put out over 150 watts. My call letters were W2YDW.

Believe me, those two transmitters taught me about standing waves.

In later years, at Pan American Airlines, I used a Bird Wattmeter to check transmitter antenna tuning to see the actual amount of standing waves eliminated (standing wave ratio). But in high school I could not afford this luxury.

Standing waves absorb energy from the transmitter but do not transmit this energy from the antenna therefore they sap the transmitter's power. Designers and radiomen constantly design and fight to get rid of standing waves.

Every transmitter produces unwanted standing waves that must be eliminated.

But our universe evidently builds with them simply because they do not radiate all their energy away provided that they remain in a sea of identical spinning, standing waves of that same frequency.

Dr. Milo Wolff has shown us that the electron is a spinning, scalar, standing wave that constantly gets itself reproduced via its surrounding neighbor electrons.

The electrons inside you, for instance, are receiving and transmitting energy to surrounding electrons as far — but no further — than the Hubble Limit. Dr. Milo Wolff discovered and proved this too!

Each electron takes just enough energy from the group and then adds enough energy to the group so that all the electrons in the group keep on reproducing themselves with their own energy. They will keep doing this too indefinitely until or unless more — too much — energy enters that electron space-time realm or too much energy leaks out of that electron space-time realm.

To remain stable all spinning, scalar, standing wave entities must never emit or absorb too much energy from other higher or lower space-time realms.

This type energy leakage either into or out of the quark space-time realm eventually put an existing all neutron universe — that may have existed for thousands of trillions of years — into a beta decay giving us our Big Bang.

Thus each particle space-time realm has a certain stability at a certain wavelength as long as the same amount of energy remains inside that particular spinning, standing wave entity space-time realm.

It is of paramount importance that you know this.



4. Ernst Mach's important message to us

Ernst Mach reiterated what Bishop Berkeley first stated many years before, that something in our structure (molecules) here are binding with the structure (molecules) of the stars that surround us.

This is what, both Berkeley and Mach said, is causing inertial mass.

Einstein didn't know that Berkeley thought of this first, so Einstein called it Mach's principle Mach's principle.


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "Mach, Ernst

. . . Mach also proposed the physical principle, known as Mach's principle, that inertia (the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest and of a body in motion to continue in motion in the same direction) results from a relationship of that object with all the rest of the matter in the universe. Inertia, Mach argued, applies only as a function of the interaction between one body and other bodies in the universe, even at enormous distances. Mach's inertial theories also were cited by Einstein as one of the inspirations for his theories of relativity."


By using common sense and putting 2 and 2 together, you can see what is going on:

If the electron is viewed as a spinning sphere — as Nobel laureate Niels Bohr viewed it — then all electron to electron bonding or binding — in chemical bonding — is accomplished when the closest sides of both electrons are in phase.

Therefore you get attractive binding or bonding when spin frequencies are in phase.

But the electron spin is conserved: this means we know each and every force produced by the electron spin: yet none of these forces is gravitational in nature.

Quark spin is presently seen as not conserved but quark spin is conserved if we consider down quarks are binding with distant down quarks in the surrounding stars through in phase binding to give us inertia.

So there, above, is the answer as to why we have Mach's principle.

It's as simple as that.



5. Ampère's important message to us


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD "André-Marie Ampère

born Jan. 22, 1775, Lyon, France

died June 10, 1836, Marseille

French physicist who founded and named the science of electrodynamics, now known as electromagnetism. His name endures in everyday life in the ampere, the unit for measuring electric current.

Ampère offered a physical understanding of the electromagnetic relationship, theorizing the existence of an "electrodynamic molecule" (the forerunner of the idea of the electron) that served as the constituent element of electricity and magnetism. Using this physical understanding of electromagnetic motion, Ampère developed a physical account of electromagnetic phenomena that was both empirically demonstrable and mathematically predictive. In 1827 Ampère published his magnum opus, Mémoire sur la théorie mathématique des phénomènes électrodynamiques uniquement déduite de l'experience (Memoir on the Mathematical Theory of Electrodynamic Phenomena, Uniquely Deduced from Experience), the work that coined the name of his new science, electrodynamics, and became known ever after as its founding treatise."


The Marie in André-Marie came from Ampère's mother's name: At that time in France it was a common practice to denote the mother in the child's name.

Ampere gave us this concept that things in phase always attract and things out of phase always repel.

He gave us this concept using relative motion rather than phase but it's the same thing really.

I simply use whichever method makes it clearer to me.

Ampere didn't know about electrons but he did know something in his wires were moving so he gave us a system of laws:

1. Things that moved the same direction on parallel paths attract.

2. Things that move opposite directions on parallel paths repel.

Then he gave us a bit of math for various angles if the wires were not exactly parallel.

These are essentially Ampere's Relative Motion Laws: Ampere's Laws or Aufbau Laws or or Ampere's Universal Particle/Motion Law

These are also phase laws with which all the forces can be unified: Click this to see WHY this is a phase universe.

Why it is that only a few of us see this, is something that I still can't figure out!



6. Richard Feynman's important addition of motion to unification


Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD " Richard Phillips Feynman

born May 11, 1918, New York, New York, U.S.

died February 15, 1988, Los Angeles, California

American theoretical physicist who was widely regarded as the most brilliant, influential, and iconoclastic figure in his field in the post-World War II era."

Feynman remade quantum electrodynamics-the theory of the interaction between light and matter-and thus altered the way science understands the nature of waves and particles. He was co-awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965 for this work, which tied together in an experimentally perfect package all the varied phenomena at work in light, radio, electricity, and magnetism."


What Feynman is showing you, in his famous and best selling QED, is that motion is responsible for most of the unification up to now:


A short excerpt from:


quantum electrodynamics

The Strange Theory of Light and Matter


Richard P. Feynman

(Please note the emphasis Feynman puts on motion being the unifying element in all these separate fields)

". . . it was soon discovered, after Sir Isaac explained the laws of motion, that some of these apparently different things were aspects of the same thing. For example, the phenomena of sound could be completely understood in the motion of atoms in the air. So sound was no longer considered something in addition to motion. It was also discovered that heat phenomena was easily understandable from the laws of motion. In this way great globs of physics were synthesized into a simplified theory. The theory of gravitation, on the other hand, was not understandable from the laws of motion, and even today it stands isolated from the other theories. Gravitation is, so far, not understandable in terms of . . . "

. . . motion or relative motion that produces not only gravity but all the forces,

that I explained and published in this 1966 relative motion book below:

FREE e-Book:

(CLICK this link.)

Fitzpatrick's First book in Adobe pdf:

ABSTRACT of the above book:

You do NOT need to visualize four separate fundamental forces when these are really only one force that can easily be viewed by using a frequency modification of Ampere's 1827 laws

This Britannica article tells you about Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who were denied the Nobel Prize in 1925. when they discovered electron spin, because of ignorance of the quantum theorists.

Quantum theorists still adamantly insist that there is no motion in the quantum realm even though we find, as Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck did, all the signs of angular momentum, that motion there would display

Why is this so?

Because all detectors (us too) have an oscillator in them (us) detecting exactly like a superheterodyne detector does.

Only the evidence (of motion) can be transferred out as Wheeler and Feynman showed us.

I am in agreement with the quantum theorists that no motion — as we see it — exists in the electron's realm but I also add the caveat that if you say it doesn't exist there then you must say it also does not exist anywhere in this universe.

And, believe it or not, there is no such thing as motion per se for this entire universe.

Motion (our concept of it) only exists in subset realms of this universe and is restricted to those subset realms. The constant c proves this.


Use Occam's razor and move your mind into each separate spin/orbit frequency realm at a time and view it having our concept of motion and using Ampere's Laws and then you can see it all as one force and not the 4 fundamental forces that present science views it as.


You can't do the math this way though, as Ampere himself found out even though he was one of the math experts of his time.

I'm afraid that math along with our concept of motion is restricted to one single spin/orbit frequency space-time realm system at a time.







More coming — — — eventually — — —







Read "More about Dark Matter and Dark Energy" FREE in html.

Read "More about Dark Matter and Dark Energy." FREE in ADOBE pdf.



Copied from the 2013 Britannica DVD: "gravity wave also called gravitational radiation:

the transmission of variations in the gravitational field as waves. According to general relativity, the curvature of space-time is determined by the distribution of masses, while the motion of masses is determined by the curvature. In consequence, variations of the gravitational field should be transmitted from place to place as waves, just as variations of an electromagnetic field travel as waves. If the masses that are the source of a field change with time, they should radiate energy as waves of curvature of the field."

Evidence for gravity waves was obtained by studying the changing orbital period of a neutron star binary, resulting in the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.




If you copy this page with its links to your computer then you will have some other pages (links - both htm and Adobe pdf) to read because I've only barely scratched the surface of things in this short paper.

Fitzpatrick's website is at


Another older website carrying Fitzpatrick's works FREE is:


Thank you, World Scientist Database — — Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

4 Decades of writings of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

Have a good day & visit my site at goodreads:

Click ANY of these links to get what you want


Read my latest book FREE: (these two links below) (This is the book in Adobe)

or (This book link opens faster if you have dial up.)

While all the links on this page are OK and presently working, unfortunately only about two thirds (2/3) of the links I gave, years ago, as proof (click & see: for statements in this latest book, published in the year MMVl, are now still working BUT your search engine will probably take you to a similar area where you should be able to read similar proof material.


& super popular now:

QED — Feynman's Strange Theory of Light and Matter "Feynman's Strange Theory of Light and Matter" Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Two magnets will show you more than thousands of books. Extra short Theory of Everything. 45 Years of Putting this Jigsaw Puzzle together — of unifying Gravity with all the other forces. "Ampere's Long Wire Law is a fact!" Why we have General Relativity or why mass increases with speed." "Dan Fitzpatrick comments on Theoretical Physicist Mendel Sachs' Beliefs." "While the electron spin causes magnetism, GRAVITY & INERTIA are caused by the QUARK SPIN." "ABSTRACT of scalar, standing wave concept." "It all begins with this all important science law." "All energy is a form of binding energy." (science) e-letter by Fitzpatrick. Why NASA tells us we have 72% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter and 4.6% Atoms. More wave and scalar wave questions answered by Fitzpatrick. ELECTRONS are fermions but not when paired spin up - spin down." "Sigma Bond strengths in the microcosm." "Accelerating, expanding universe." "Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything."

Schrödinger's Universe Schrodinger's Universe "Why we have GRAVITY and why we have Centrifugal Force. "Einstein's Biggest Blunder — Wasn't?" "Electrons normally repel BUT . . . " says Dan Fitzpatrick Jr. "And Hubble warned us this was NOT an expanding universe." Binary Stars act exactly like Electrons. A "Theory of Everything" by Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. Bosons? Newton and Einstein only gave us HALF the story. "A New Science Tool" (science) e-book by Fitzpatrick "Speed of Gravity is 9x1016 meters per second." Phase Coherence and the Inverse Square law. "Why Garrett Lisi's Model is so important." "Little Known Facts about Well known science Terms" (science) e-book by Fitzpatrick.

Mach's principle

Stephen Wolfram

Adobe pdf links below give you more important actual science about what is really going on in our universe.

QUICK version of Ampere's Laws.

Two magnets will show you more than thousands of books.—magnets.pdf

Sigma bond strengths in the microcosm

"An important Quark message no one is heeding!"

45 Years of Putting this Jigsaw Puzzle together — of unifying Gravity with all the other forces."

"Ampere's Long Wire Law is a fact!"

"Affenstall Science Christmas Message"

"Dan Fitzpatrick comments on Theoretical Physicist Mendel Sachs' Beliefs."

"Why we have general relativity or why mass increases with speed."

"Fitz answers some Scalar Wave questions."

"And Hubble warned us this was NOT an expanding universe."

"Ampere really gave us this Relative Motion Law in 1825 for things he knew were moving in the wire (electrons)."

"Fitz talks about some basic problems in physics." — by Fitzpatrick.

"Little Known Facts about Well known science Terms" (science) e-book by Fitzpatrick:

"Lisi's E8 model seems to show us why we get space & time!"

"Why Garrett Lisi's Model is so important."—important.pdf

"What Dr. Milo Wolff says connects with what A. G. Lisi is showing."

A radioman sees us all as radios tuned in to this universe.

WHEN DID YOU PUBLISH "Out-of-phase waves give us space and repulsive force."

But then Caroline - from Cambridge - repudiated what she had discovered: one of the most important scientific discoveries EVER MADE! Incredible! Simply Incredible!

"Why we have GRAVITY."

"Speed of Gravity is 9x1016 meters per second."

"Einstein's Principle of Equivalence or why gravity acts like acceleration."

Is Saul Perlmutter explaining the reason for us having the principle of equivalence?

"It's understanding the Binding Energy Curve" says Dan Fitzpatrick Jr.

"All energy is a form of binding energy." (science) e—letter by Fitzpatrick.

"Shedding light on Energy Quanta."

Saturday - May, 18, 2013 - This can be copied and distributed by anyone as long as it is copied and distributed in its entirety.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.