Reciprocal System #395-"The Fundamentals of Science in the 21st Century" D [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

hello everyone welcome to my channel this channel is focused on educational uh upliftment uh by teaching out the public of um different important theories of everything and other all-encompassing theories cosmologies Paradigm shifters um just uh uh things that you wouldn't gener hear about uh things that have been suppressed and neglected uh because of their uh threat to the uh powers that be in whatever field and uh these are usually things that could benefit your life if you knew about them if you only knew so um today is our 395th video on Dewey be Larson and the reciprocal system of theory which is a theory of everything or a system of theory meaning that if you understand how the system works you can plug in the system to any subject and get valuable answers Mr Larsson was an an engineer who lived in the 20th century out west uh Portland area and uh he died back in 1990 uh but not before he put out many many books and a lot of Articles talks uh there was a journal dedicated to his research and uh of those of his um followers and um there's a lot of stuff out there but uh very very few people know about it uh a lot of it is is uh somewhat self-inflicted um Larson uh was a good writer but not such a great teacher um the if you read his books the information is there but sometimes it's a little bit hard to extract it particularly if you're a lay person you know if you're not a scientist LaRon uh I think uh erroneously tried to um speak to scientists uh with his uh new approach uh and he probably would have been better off trying to speak with lay people instead uh because scientists are going to be the last people in the room who get it because they are more invested in the status quo and they don't want to hear that they were making mistakes um you know back then or they don't want to hear that they learn the the models that they learned are now debunked you know they want to remain relevant and they want to remain in control but had they had LaRon attempted to speak with uh more lay audiences I think he would and especially young uh young audiences um I think he might have had more success so um we're going to try to approach it that way um by trying to boil it down for people maybe who don't have the scientific background such as I don't have the scientific background but um you know I can uh I can persevere and kind of figure out you know what what they're talking about and in fact um I was uh in in my personal experience I I poured over larsson's works for a long time and uh then eventually I got my hands on like a college physics textbook a college uh chemistry textbook and I think it was a high school astronomy textbook and I was able to like read through those things very quickly and understand what was going on because I had read Larson not you know because I have an affinity for those subjects but because I had read Larson I was able to understand the concepts in there so you know um and I was able to like kind of read right through the book meaning that I could see when they were bsing me I could see when they were overstating their case where they were trying to cover something up I could see when they were they were um trying to make you think that they really knew what they were talking about when they actually really didn't um so Larson kind of really PR actually prepared me to study um those subjects so I think that the the actual the great audience for larsson's theory is an intelligent 13-year-old who's never taken any any science classes yet now Larson doesn't specifically write only about science he has a couple books on economics which he considers scientific topic um he's also got a book on metaphysics and um you know which includes philosophy and religion and psychology biology um and he says that his you know his system of theory can be applied to any subject but most of his his work is on scientific topics now the basic idea behind Larson's um reciprocal system is that we live uh not in a universe of of matter or a universe of energy but in a universe of motion and in Larson's World motion is the relationship between space and time and uh Larson is really referring to what he calls a scalar motion that motion may be the way that you would normally think of it like a vectorial motion the car is moving 10 m hour Southeast um uh scalar motion is a motion that has a magnitude but has no specific Direction so this is kind of a more generalized non-localized non-directional motion um which you can Envision using a balloon uh with dots on it if you take the balloon with dots on it and you blow up the balloon all of the dots are going to be moving away from each other that is a motion that doesn't have a specific Direction all every dot is moving away from every other Dot and in fact the locations between the dots are also moving away from each other um and the motion doesn't acquire a direction until you uh arbitrarily assign one of the dots as a reference point as the one that is motionless then you can start to see um more of a directional motion so the motion is really related to the reference point not to the um not to the motion itself uh the other parts about this is that you know it sets up a reciprocal relationship between space and time space and time are uh reciprocals of one another uh motion is basically a relationship um motion is basically a fraction uh with space or time as the numerator and time or space as the denominator time and space can both come in multiple Dimensions uh time and space are identical to each other except that they are reciprocals they have the same general qualities except in uh kind of in reverse order they um they don't exist in and of themselves they only exist together in motion if you have one unit of space in one unit of time um you only you have to have a full unit before you have either of those things Larson defines the units uh the unit of space is about uh 4.56 * 10-8 8 m and the unit of time is 1.52 * 10 -6 seconds and um if you have one unit of space in one unit of time you have uh what Larsson calls unit speed which is also known as the speed of light so in LaRon system the speed of light is the minimum I I would say the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe in the Legacy science system the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe in LaRon system it is the midpoint meaning that half of the universe is actually moving faster than the speed of light uh which Larson refers to is the cosmic sector and then half the universe is moving slower which is the half that we're familiar with it's called the material sector here you have relationships based on three dimensions of stationary space and always progressing time time is always getting later and later and later but in the cosmic sector once you cross that speed of light boundary you have um three dimensions of stationary time and you have clock space space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart like on the surface of an expanding balloon and so this uh speed of light is an important boundary in the reciprocal system and it's basically the background motion or the origin The Ether the zero point the null point the neutral point in in the Legacy science system that point is zero motion but in Larson system that point is uh motion outward at the speed of light in all directions l and refers to that as the progression of the natural reference system okay so today uh is going to be our uh third um I believe um this is our fourth installment uh of the um on the article here that we're reading called the fundamentals of Science in the 21st century and this is a paper that Larson gave back in 1978 so he was kind of looking into the future uh into our um present and um he's talking about first he talked about kind of the uh History of Science Background you know how the the Greeks uh first we started Ed with the Sumerians and then got to the Greeks and then we went into the Middle Ages and Scientific Revolution and then the um you know the revolution of the 20 uh early 20th century with Einstein and the quantum mechanists and um kind of pointed out the general Evolution and then showed how um how he his theory would fit in here and uh he ended this third uh installment so if you want to watch those you just go back and watch uh the videos from the last 3 days um so I just go back about half a paragraph here our problem now is to bring this development to the attention of the scientific Community his development his theory the reciprocal system here we encounter the same obstacles that always face as innovators those who take a superficial look at the new development see only the fact that it challenges some popular ideas they hold up their hands in horror and say these people disagree with Einstein they must be crazy I have yet to find any law of science that prohibits disagreeing with Einstein but be that as it may since this is such a common reaction let us look at the situation and just see where this disag agement lies Einstein changed the course of Science by developing his two theories of Relativity first the special Theory published in 1905 which applies only to uniform translational motion and more than a decade later the general theory which applies to accelerated motion Peter Bergman makes this comment about the relationship between the two quote it is quite true that the general theory of relativity is not consistent with the special Theory anymore than the special theory is with Newtonian mechanics each of this Theory theories discards in a sense the conceptual framework of its predecessor so it is impossible to agree fully with both the general theory and the special Theory actually few front rank scientists have much confidence in the general theory in spite of the lip service that is paid to it by the scientific community at large Bryce dwit one of the leading investigators in the gravitational field which the general theory is supposed to cover said categorically quote as a fundamental physical Theory general relativity is a failure uh PW Bridgeman predicted that quote arguments which have led up to the theory and the whole state of mind of most physicists with regard to it may someday become one of the puzzles of History end quote thus while we must concede that we disagree with the general theory on many counts this is not much out of line with the most advanced scientific opinion whether or not uh this is a quote uh from Paul fire abin whether or not we disagree with the special theory on the other hand depends on just how this theory is defined Bridgeman um I'm sorry this is not a quote this is Larson Bridgeman comments that there is a tendency quote to define the content of the special theory of relativity as coextensive with the content of the equations Paul Farin a preeminent philosopher of science puts it in this manner quote it must be admitted however that Einstein's original interpretation of the special theory of relativity is hardly ever used by contemporary physics for them the theory of relativity consists of two elements one the Loren Transformations and two mass energy equivalence okay just to uh backtrack just a second um so the Lorent transformation is basically the kind of the time dialation um which led to the you know the clock Paradox or whatever the twin paradox where if you go out in space and you fly around at the speed of light or near the speed of light um the time slows down and lorence has an equation for that um and um L uh Einstein employed that equation in his uh Theory special Theory and then the mass energy equivalent is just the eal mc^2 energy equals mass times the speed of light squared again this speed of light constant uh Larson is saying that that speed of light constant is um the background motion of his Universe on this basis we do not disagree with the uh special Theory at all we are in full agreement with both the Len equations and the mass energy equivalents the conclusions that so many physicists have reached in accepting the mathematical relations and rejecting Einstein's interpretations are the same conclusions that I have previously noted as applying to all inventive theories such theories are all mathematically correct and all conceptually wrong thus if anyone actually examines the situation instead of merely reacting emotionally he will find that we disagree with Einstein's relativity theories only in the same way that General scientific opinion also disagrees with them but we do not accept all of the unsubstantiated inferences that are currently being drawn from these theories because our new development enables us to distinguish valid from invalid inferences the the existence of speeds greater than that of light is an outstanding example earlier We examined the case of a particle accelerated to a very high speed by a presumably constant electrical force its acceleration decreases at a rate which will reduce it to zero at the speed of light since Newton's relation between force Mass and acceleration FAL ma a is merely a definition of force the decrease in acceleration at high speeds must be due either to an increase in the mass or to a decrease in the force there is no physical evidence to indicate which alternative is correct Einstein simply assumed an increase in the mass our theoretical development now indicates that he made the wrong choice and that the decrease in acceleration is actually due to a decrease in the effective Force at the time Einstein made his choice there was nothing to indicate that it makes any real difference which of these Alternatives is correct either one leads to some kind of a speed limitation a it is not likely therefore that Einstein gave the matter any extended consideration but since our new development now indicates that speeds in excess of that of light definitely do exist a review of the situation is obviously required again that's the cosmic sector um half the universe is moving faster than the speed of light in en largon system if Einstein's Assumption of an increase in Mass were correct the limit at the speed of light would be absolute as the mass would be infinite at that speed but on the basis of our finding that what actually takes place is a decrease in the effective Force the limit is not on the speed but on the capability of the process all that the experiments actually show is that it is impossible to accelerate a physical object to a speed greater than that of Light by electrical means a conclusion that we also reach theoretically but this does not preclude acceleration to higher speeds by other means such as powerful explosions by accepting Einstein's deny denal of the existence of speeds greater than the speed of light as gospel that cannot be challenged modern science has closed the door on the answers to some of the most significant problems in the present day it is this mistake that has caused astronomy to become more fantastic than uh Science Fiction with its neutron stars black holes white holes and all of the other extravagances I have noted recently that Quark stars have now joined this list when the reciprocal system when the reciprocal relation between space and time is recognized the need for all of this fictional science as we may call it is eliminated the phenomena of the far out astronomical regions can be explained on the same matter of fact basis that applies in our everyday World okay that is the end of the paper now I wish you would have gone on a little bit further to more specifically identify um you know what his theory actually does say but uh the main point that he's bringing out is that um his disagreement with uh relativity Theory um is not any different really than the mainstream science and that uh really the only uh disagreement that he has is with this uh speed of light boundary speed of light limit that Einstein assumed uh was related only to to all cases and Larson saying it's only related to cases with electrical means um and that if you have a powerful explosion such as what you might have in a a star or Galaxy that you can then accelerate past the speed of light okay um tomorrow I think we'll be digging into a different paper from lson uh what we're going to try to do is uh Larson's got another maybe half dozen papers that I've selected that are I think uh telling or important or um in some way and uh I think we're going to look at those eventually we're going to get into his uh re the reading of his book uh basic properties of matter which is basically his book on chemistry and uh in that book he more or less uh is able to predict from Theory only from his theory his system of theory he's able to predict um the basic properties of matter uh such as the melting point or the specific heat or the compressibility and he Compares his theoretical results coming directly from his head um with the scientific tables the um empirical results that uh the scientists have built up over the centuries from laboratory research from me actually measuring the melting points of all the elements and compounds or many of the compounds and uh things like that so um we're going to take a look at that book um I don't know that we're going to read the whole thing but uh we will get into at least a chunk of it and then I'd also like to go over uh one of larsson's books on economics now I don't know that we're going to read that one in its entirety either but we're going to go over a big chunk of it um that one is called um got the attractive title of the road to permanent Prosperity so if you're looking for permanent Prosperity uh check it out uh we'll get into that book um down the road this year and uh then we'll be shifting over to some other topics uh we got some uh synergetic geometry from Buckminster Fuller we got some Quantum arithmetic from Ben Iverson we're going to look into a little nutrition um and uh we're probably going to look into some ancient um ancient history uh particularly religion um and um several other uh you know kind of smaller subjects that we're also going to get into this year so um once we we've we've got a couple more months on Larsson though so we're going to stick with Larson we might we might start branching out into other subjects at the same time I've been toying with the idea of doing some kind of live um live presentation as well uh where we can start working in uh some of that tree of life stuff that I covered uh not last year but the year before and um you know if you're interested in the ancient Egyptian tree of life then um you know go back and look at my videos uh I'd like to take uh those videos of my 144 fractal faculties um and kind of update them and um most of them are kind of like rough drafts and I'd like to um you know turn them into second drafts on the road to uh refining them even more so uh you know it's going to be great uh it's going to be a great year uh over time but uh you know tomorrow we're going to be delving into another paper from Mr Lars thanks for tuning in today have a great day