in present science has prepared us for this ANSWER!
Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: -

Also ANSWER in Word: -

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: - Scientific Letter
R B Duncan Press

Scientific Letter
A Forum for Independent Voices
January 17, 2007 Edition

( homepage)

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. says:

Commenting on mathematical physicist Anthony Bermanseder's 2nd post at:
Theory of Everything Group

(Reprinted with permission) Page 6 of 6 pages.

Read page 5.Wnen using the de Broglie wavelength to see A. Bermanseder's 1st post.

A. Bermanseder stated the basic simple rules of present science are:

1. Conservation of Symmetry: Geometric-Numerical-Quantum-Micro/Macro.

2. Conservation of Energy: Statistic-kT/Gravitational-hf/Inertial-mc2.

3. Conservation of Momentum: Quantum/Angular/Linear.

I totally agree with those principles. . But when you say:

The electron's attraction to the nucleus is a charge attraction.

While this is true, using the rules of present science, this is where the trouble begins.

The way I see it, it is all one force.

If your science sees it as four different fundamental forces then your science must be wrong.

I've had the top First Class Radio Licence for many years.

Some who are retired kept theirs by lying and saying they are still working in radio and hand over the license fee for 5 more years but I decided not to lie and let mine lapse.

I always wanted to know what charge really was.

I always wanted to know what gravity really was too.

Then in 1966 I saw they were both the same thing and wrote a book about it.

Fitzpatrick's First Book (FREE)

I must have been on the right track because I still have the letter of approval sent to me by Lincoln Barnett who wrote many general relativity articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. . He also wrote the best seller "The universe and Dr. Einstein".

Tony, I'm certain that Stephen Wolfram is absolutely right when he says this universe is a simple universe using simple rules.

I'm also certain that Dr. Milo Wolff is right in that the electron is a scalar, standing wave resonance because of all the same frequency surroundintgs up to the Hubble limit.

I'm certain that Viv Pope is right in that we should not call these things waves because they are resonances and are not really transverse waves such as water waves.

I'm certain that Van Flandern is right and Yale and the other major universities teaching astronomy are right about the speed of gravity being almost instantaneous as Newton said and not at the slower speed of light that Einstein claimed.

Even Tony Bermanseder's Site is right about the many dimensions of string theory. But since none of these people previously mentioned will take it upon themselves to even talk to each other, I have delegated the responsibility to myself of trying to fit all the respective parts of each into a true Theory of Everything that folks might understand.

I'm certain of the following:

If your science doesn't unify the forces then it is simply religion that will EVENTUALLY pass into oblivion just as the ancient Egyptian religion of Amun.

All that will be left is the name only.


Return to page 1. Our universe is a quantum computer.

page 2. It's a simple universe obeying simple rules.

page 3. We are tuned in to this universe like a radio or TV is tuned in to the transmitter.

page 4. Using the de Broglie wavelength.

page 5. Mathematical physicist Anthony Bermanseder's 1st post..

"Universities Asleep at the Switch" - - 30 Pages FREE

Get "Universities Asleep at the Switch" NOW.

Return to amperefitz homepage

2006 amperefitz
All rights reserved
Comments or complaints about anything on this site???
post to: Daniel P. Fitzpatrick