Reciprocal System #136-Nothing but Motion G [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone welcome to my channel I am Thomas and I do uh educational material uh usually of the Obscure and esoteric variety um but uh very important stuff stuff that I have found that nobody knows anything about but that if they did um at least some of them would find it to be important uh we are looking at I believe this is the 136 video on the reciprocal system of theory which is a theory of everything that was proposed by Dewey B Larson back in the 20th century he died back in 1990 his work has been carried forward by various people since then but uh very few people actually know about the reciprocal system but it does provide a Theory of Everything meaning that you uh can plug it into any subject and understand things and get answers and um the basic idea of the theory it's called the reciprocal system because of the reciprocal relationship between time and space and that relationship is based on his notion of a universe of motion and uh that is in contrast with the Legacy scientists former Universe of matter and universe of energy that uh you know is uh known best from the work of Newton and Einstein and uh but Larson uh really says look at E equals m c squared If energy can be converted into matter and vice versa that means that neither one of those things can be the most fundamental thing what there's something underlying both of them that is more fundamental and that is the c squared part or motion and so Larson goes with that uh the universe is made out of motion and motion is the relationship between space and time space and time therefore have a generalized reciprocal relationship just like a fraction two-thirds its reciprocal is three halves and two-thirds of three halves base both have the same qualities uh three and two but they are inversions of one another so two with space and time space has the quality of coordinate this uh XYZ coordinates three or more dimensions therefore time also has those qualities uh that's called coordinate time and uh time we know to be progressing or always getting later and later the flow of time clock time and therefore there is also what we call clock space clock space is the flow or the progression of space things are always getting farther and farther apart clock space and that is uh seen in the recession of the distant galaxies from the Hubble telescope even almost a century ago and um so that's where you get started from there he takes those basic assumptions along with a few other minor assumptions and he creates an entire theoretical Universe out of that and then he plugs that theoretical Universe uh into the so-called uh observed or scientific universe and see how they compare and they compare very favorably he's says that pretty much 90 percent of his Universe uh Works seamlessly with the uh currently existing scientific Universe there's only the differences on the margins he says in the realm of the very fast the very slow the very small the very large uh same with the relativistic equations basically that's what Einstein was doing when he was uh coming up with his theories of Relativity in the early 20th century is that he was uh pretty much agreeing with everything that Newton is saying uh from two cents two and a half centuries before but except in the the relativistic Realms the Realms of the very fast the very small the very uh slow and the very fast and then Einstein provided or basically stole some equations from other people I won't say stole but plagiarized or just borrowed from other people uh those different uh equations from minkowski and Lawrence uh in order to plug into his theory okay so that's where we are we're right now we are going over his book that's called Nothing But motion and this is uh from uh the first of his three volume were called structure of the physical Universe um Second Edition this book came out in 1979 and we are in chapter one he's just going over the introductory material and just uh he's been taking time to kind of poke holes into the um uh Universe of matter concept um so we're gonna start right here and uh let him take over but just as the agreement with previous experience Criterion breaks down when experimental observation enters new Fields so the agreement with Orthodox Theory Criterion breaks down when it is applied to proposals for revision of the currently accepted accepted theoretical fundamentals when agreement with the existing theoretical structure is set up as the Criterion by which the validity of new ideas is to be judged any new thought that involves a significant modification of previous theory is automatically branded as unacceptable whatever merits it may actually have it is in effect Wrong by definition obviously a strict and undeviating application of this basic agreement Criterion cannot be justified as it would bar all major new ideas a new basic concept cannot be fitted into the existing conceptual framework as that framework is itself constructed of other basic concepts and a conflict is inevitable as in the case of experience it is necessary to recognize that there is an area in which this Criterion is not legitimately applicable in principle therefore practically everyone concedes that a new Theory cannot be expected to agree with the theory that it proposes to replace or with anything derived directly or indirectly from that previous Theory and again Larson is kind of taking a lot of this uh in the context of uh Thomas Coons book called the structure of the scientific revolutions uh a history of science book that goes over uh in particular it goes over the heliocentric uh Theory of um proposed originally by Copernicus and then propounded by Galileo Bruno and Newton and how that the scientific community at that time was not ready to accept these new ideas and so they didn't even though there was a lot of evidence uh in their favor though that evidence wasn't really considered because uh it threatens the scientific Community uh even back at 500 years ago um the people that uh were you know tasked with teaching the site those teachings or would be it would have been humiliated if uh they all of a sudden had to say oh you know what we were teaching you last week uh that that's all wrong we we decided that we're gonna teach this way instead because um our theory was not answering these various questions and this new Theory does so we just abandoned that that's that's not really how it how it's going to work uh the only way that such a thing works is just over long periods of time you know Newton's principia came out in 1687 uh copernicus's uh first uh his book on this was it from 1543 and that was even 35 years after he had originally come up with the theory and told his friends and you know uh colleagues about it his heliocentric theory um because he didn't publish it until he was on his deathbed because he knew that if he did publish it he would probably immediately be on his deathbed so he waited 35 years to really publish it and it came out the year of his death in 1543 and still from there it took almost another 150 years for the theory to be accepted so that's kind of what Larson is is getting at here is that there's this uh there's this uh blockage in the scientific community so that even if your theory is correct and it answers all the questions and it answers all the new questions that are coming up and it makes predictions and everything and it's a theory that you know the scientists claim that they're longing for even if it does all those things it's still not only is it not going to be accepted but it's not even going to get a hearing and that is uh the truth I I find I went and uh maybe 15 20 years ago I went and I uh at the University where I went to graduate school I went to a physicist I was in the history department but I went to a physicist and I I talked to them about um Larson's Theory and um the response was after about five minutes of me you know kind of explaining what Larson's theory is about and everything she said um I've never heard of him and of course you know that time only has one dimension now get out of my office and you're lucky that you chose to talk with me because I'm being a lot nicer than the chair of the department uh who would have um you know she didn't say this but who would have you know torn you a new one uh had you come talk to him so she's basically saying I'm the good cop here uh I'm the good person and that's why I'm only kicking you out of his off out of my office on the basis of the fact that I've never heard of him and of the assumption that of course you know that time only has one dimension now that goes against Larson's coordinate time that time has three or more Dimensions so anyway in other words she did not give me the time of day and she did not give the theory the time of day it's beneath her to do so and so that is pretty much the way that the scientific Community goes about it in my in my experience okay back to Larson and in Larson's experience too because he experienced this as the author of the theory you know a thousand times for more than what I experienced of just a person who's studied the theory and is trying to you know let people know about it okay in spite of the nearly unanimous agreement on this Point as a matter of principle a new idea seldom gets the benefit of it in actual practice in part this is due to the difficulties that are experienced in trying to determine just what features of current thought are actually affected by the theory replacement this is not always clear on first consideration and the general tendency is to overestimate the effect that the proposed change will have on prevailing ideas in any events the principal obstacle that stands in the way of a proposal for changing a scientific theory or concept is that the human mind is so constituted that it does not want to change its ideas particularly if there are ideas of long-standing this is not so serious in the realm of experience because the Innovation that is required here generally takes the form of an assertion that things are different in the particular new area that is under consideration such as an assertion uh such an assertion does not involve a repudiation of previous experience it merely contends that there is a hitherto unknown limit Beyond which the usual experience is no longer applicable this is the explanation for the almost incredible latitude that the theorists are currently being allowed in the experience area the scientist is prepared to accept the assertion that the rules of the game are different in a new field that is being investigated even where the new rules involve such highly improbable features as events that happen without causes and objects that change their locations discontinuously now what is uh in my opinion what he's saying right here is that first of all um in in the case of Larson's Theory um the reason his uh the objections to Larson's Theory are a lot of times because of the fear of the scientists that they would have to adjust to make too many adjustments to accommodate this new Theory which is a backward way of thinking in the first place but in the second place it's also a problem because it's wrong like I said Larson's Theory it takes about nine tenths of Science and accepts it uh you know whole cloth so the only changes that really need to be made are on the margins but the they're still fundamental and important but they really are only on the margins of the very fast the very small and so on uh but scientists tend to overestimate that and think oh well if this theory was accepted it would be over for me my whole way of thinking about this would be um you know thrown out the window where that is really not exactly true it it would just adjust a few different things and then second of all what he's saying is that um when you get to a point uh with science they're they're very uh flexible and and amenable to people coming up with new ideas and new theories that kind of are only Innovations or that just build on the current theory so it just focuses on this pigeonhole on this small area and it it goes for changes within that area but doesn't affect the whole General structure if you're doing work like that then you get as Larson says incredible latitude um and so they're saying oh well there's all these new areas that we're investigating um in particular you know having in this case having to do with quarks and other Atomic constituents to in order to kind of Salvage the universe of matter concept but if you want to overthrow the whole cart and say the universe of matter concept is it that is what is causing the problems that we're having that is what is in it making it that we can't answer these questions that there are so many other questions coming up and that there is so much anomalous evidence out there now uh it's not because we don't understand the matter concept well enough it's that the matter concept is wrong in it of itself and we can't solve the question by uh the same level of thinking that we uh that got us into the problem in the first place that's Einstein's that's Einstein's quote in the first place so Einstein is really just kind of um sabotaging himself when he says that because that's not the way that he really went about that um he's he let Einstein himself was using the well I won't even say it with Einstein but with the quantum mechanists and and uh the rest of 20th century science that they have been attempting to kind of put a Band-Aid on a gaping wound of what the matter concept is and doing bending over backwards to defend this concept and adjust it instead of just uh you know using Larson and and dismantling it I'm not a Chaos Agent I'm not in favor of dismantling something for no reason and I'm not even in favor of dismantling something even if you do have a reason if you don't have a replacement but Larson is providing a replacement and that is the that's the main difference is that he is rejecting what is is currently available but he's simultaneously up supplying a replacement okay uh sorry to talk uh so much commentary on this but uh this is the kind of key material because it's the history of Science and so it's providing the context for where we are where we're at here and where Larson found himself as he you know started to arrive at his theories on the other hand a proposal for modification of an accepted concept of theory calls for an actual change in thinking something that the human mind uh almost automatically resists and generally resents here are the scientists usually reacts like any Layman he properly rejects any information that the rules which he has already set up and which he has been using with confidence are wrong he is horrified at the mere suggestion that the many difficulties that he is experiencing in dealing with the parts of the atom and the absurdities or near absurdities that he has had to introduce into his theory of atomic structure are all due to the fact that the atom is not constructed of parts okay um so yeah so that is uh where we're gonna end here I just wanted to just comment that you know that uh is exactly what I've found in my experience and I'm sure Larson went through this experience way more than I've ever gone through it because he was the author of the theory but you know when you get right down to it scientists even though they pretend that that they're um you know impartial and that they just follow the facts and that they're doing science ultimately they're still humans and they act in human ways and they as Larson says they resist and resent uh having to make changes uh regardless of the truth okay thanks a lot uh we'll tune in tomorrow with more have a great day