Also, Field Theories in Word:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdfFitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
On Nov 13, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Linick, Lawrence wrote:
I just found the webpage of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick jr. (http://www.rbduncan.com). Have all you guys read his inputs? I think I totally agree with everything he is saying. It is another very good and lengthy elaboration on what I believe to be the correct approach. Also, I just skimmed and re-read Roger Penrose's "Emperor's New Mind" -- a great advocacy for WSM. The last chapter on Time is very good and I think helpful to those who may struggle with thinking in the frequency domain. Again, I agree almost entirely with Penrose too -- I think he would be amenable to examining our work. Anyway, Francis Crick is a behaviorist -- great biologist, and I think he is dead wrong about the mind. Searle I think is off base too -- in fact his ideas -- the Chinese room, etc... do not seem to hold any water to me at all -- self-contradictory. Finally, and I may have more to say on this... I would sincerely like to see Gabriel LaFreniere more involved with us as this proceeds. His website is brilliant, as is his octahedral structure of the nucleon. It is a shame that he is so hard-line regarding scientific theories. I think there is a real fear of "crackpot-space-alien" theories, and right-wing religious agenda types. It is no doubt justified. But that same fear should not be allowed to drive us to our own irrational prejudices.
I think the idea of proving that WSM is a more correct theory of sub-atomic particles -- without venturing to explore how, or why, or what un-answered questions it might resolve is pure folly.
As I have said before, we already have a pretty darn good theory of particles that handles most everything we need it to.
I attach a recent article I wrote for an Institute of Technology in India. They are interested in Lawrence's idea , too.
Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:57 pm
milo wolff <milo.wolff@...> milowolff
Regards to all!
From:milo wolff [mailto:milo.wolff@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:38 PM
To: WSM-IU@yahoogroups.com; YAHOO WSM WSM; Linick, Lawrence; Facundo Bromberg; Denys Lépinard; Michael Harney; Mike Weber; Ray Tomes; Konrad Swart
Cc: milo wolff
Subject: Wikipedia resonse
Dear Cosmos group,
I have read all your supporting comments for including the WSM in Wikipedia. They were logical and very true to the concepts of science, in much contrast to the apparently biased views of those who wish to delete the WSM.
I am very proud that our distinguished group on the WSM has joined with Geoff in placing truth into Wikipedia.
P.S. I think that the quote from Max planck below, although true, does not mean that we have to wait for the Wikipedia opponents to die! You have probably killed them now!
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)
"you cannot solve problems with the same level of thinking that was used to create them."