Reciprocal System #381-"How Much Do We Really Know?" C [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

hello everyone and welcome to my channel this channel is an educational Channel where we look at theories of everything cosmologies uh all-encompassing theories Paradigm shifters and other things that you just uh might not know about because they're esoteric or obscure and uh that uh you could benefit from learning them and uh today is our 381st video on Dewey B Larson and his reciprocal system of theory uh the reciprocal system is a system of theory so it's like if you learn how the system works you can apply it in your own life to um various situations really any situation uh it should be uh universally applicable and um Larson was an American engineer who lived from 1898 until 1990 and about 1930 he started uh getting some inklings about his reciprocal system and he developed his ideas while uh keeping his day job as an engineer over the next 30 Years and eventually put out his two fundamental postulates about uh How the Universe operates in 1959 and um then took those two postulates and through a process of deduction um 165 steps or so uh developed his theoretical universe so this is a universe that comes strictly from his the Theory and then in his books he compared his Universe with the empirical Universe measured and observed and documented by the Legacy scientists now Larson's um postulates the first postulate being the by far more important and the first postulate is that the universe is composed of one component motion existing in three dimensions indiscrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time uh restated by me could say that uh universe is not made out of matter it's not made out of energy it's not made out of force Force universe is made out of motion and it's specifically made out of scalar motion a motion that has a magnitude that has no Direction similar to um the dots on an expanding balloon if you have a balloon with dots on it you blow up the balloon all the dots are moving away from each other but in no specific Direction and um um so the universe is made out of motion in particular a scalar motion and motion is the relationship between space and time uh motion is basically a fraction with time or space as the numerator and space or time as the denominator and um time and space can come in multiple Dimensions so you can can have uh single Dimensions like speed space over time the bicycle is moving 15 mph 15 M of space in one hour of time if you double the speed you can say the bicycle is now moving 30 m hour um or you can say the bicycle is now moving 15 m per half hour that shows you a reciprocal relationship between space and time in motion you can either multiply the speed uh multiply the space or divide the time either one gives you the equivalent result and but you can also have multiple Dimensions such as acceleration I dropped the ball and it fell at uh 9.8 m/s squared 9.8 M of space and 1 second squared of time uh space over time squar and all of our scientific quantities are relationships between space and time like that and uh space and time are as reciprocals of one another are identical they uh have the same qualities but they are just in reverse order just like the uh reciprocal of four is 1/4 4 over 1 and 1 over 4 they are the same but they have uh their order um is different and they multiply to make one like all reciprocals do so Larsson was able to uh observe that the um space was three-dimensional XYZ coordinates we could possibly say three or more dimensions three or four dimensions um but he said three and therefore time also is threedimensional because it has the same qualities as space the thing that we can tell about time is that it is always progressing time is always getting later and later and later and later but in no specific Direction this is the scalar motion that Larson is referring to and therefore space has that same quality just like the dots on expanding balloon space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart this was actually observed by the Legacy scientists with their telescopes and um way back in the 20s 1920s and um they observe that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from each other uh but in no specific Direction and um well that's at least one of the interpretations because they could also use that to interpret the Big Bang like that somehow our galaxy is at the center of this and all of the other galaxies are moving away from us um and um space and time are also quantized meaning that there is a minimum unit of space and a minimum unit of time you have to have a full unit before you have anything and uh if you have one full unit of space in one full unit of time you have the speed of light and the speed of light is what larison calls unit speed 1 over 1 equal 1 and this is the background uh motion of the universe of motion in a universe of motion you always have motion motion is omnipresent there is no place where it isn't and um Larson refers to this as the progression of the natural reference system you know outward an outward Motion in space in all directions and that's occurring at all times if you have a universe of nothingness uh or you You observe nothingness then you still have that un uh that speed outward in all uh directions it's some motion that cannot be detected and um he also it's a it's the state of rest of the universe ierse the background rotation the background Mo motion The Ether the origin the zero point and likewise with uh reciprocal system one or unit speed is the center and so half of the universe is moving faster than the speed of light and half is moving slower the half that's moving faster is called The Cosmic sector and the half that's moving slower is called the material sector the Legacy scientists know nothing about the cosmic sector Einstein said that the speed of light is the maximum speed of the Universe um eliminating the cosmic sector from any type of consideration uh however the uh the cosmic sector is identical to the material sector on a general level except that the relationships between space and time are reversed so in the material sector we have coordinate space three dimensions of space and we have clock time time is always getting later and later and later in the cosmic sector we have coordinate time three dimensions of stationary time and clock space space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart so uh you can see how they're um identical but they uh time and space uh roles are reversed okay now today we are looking uh also then the second postulate of larsson's is that the Universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is ukan we will eventually talk about that second postulate we've talked about it in the past as well um it is not of universal acceptance of uh some of lson larsson's revisers and his followers and revisers uh but now today we're going to move on to the third installment of reading larsson's uh article which is more or less History of Science um called how much do we really know and uh this is kind of a critique of mainstream Legacy um theoretical uh science and uh he talked about how the really good scientists actually recognize that they don't know what they're talking about it's mainly like the FRA the uh Rank and file scientist who really has an inflated notion of exactly what we really do know and so when you read textbooks they say scientists now know um that's usually not really true true scientists the good ones uh now accept this particular Theory as being the best one available right now but they don't know it and they expect it to be replaced uh relatively soon as soon as they find something better U what they really need is an overarching Theory uh to use as a foundation however when such a theory as Larson's appears they reject it out of hand because they uh can't uh understand how all the Innovations uh in science come from outside the field not from inside the field and so uh even though larsson's theory is the answer to their prayers um they uh don't see it that way because they see it more as a threat to their uh their stand ing as uh professors and scientists and they see it as having to admit that they were wrong about their original theories and so there's uh an ego aspect involved uh that is uh you know basically governing science right now uh so anyway uh he in the second uh installment he talked a little bit about um in particular the um uh dynamics of stars and how um was criticized the hydrogen to helium uh star burning hypothesis and I think that's uh where we're going to get started right now some quite definite evolutionary Direction signs are available in the astronomical field itself but rather than take issue with the physicists the astronomers have chosen to ignore these signs and to base their ideas as to direction solely on the hypothetical energy generation process if this process is actually operative then it necessarily follows that the hot massive stars which are radiating enormous amounts of energy must be comparatively young as their of hydrogen could not maintain this tremendous energy output for more than a relatively short time but this raises some very difficult questions as Bart J Bach states it is no small matter to accept as proven the conclusion of some of our most conspicuous super giants like Riel where uh were formed so very recently on the cosmic scale of time measurement and C Cecilia pay gashin tells us that the results of age calculations based on this hydrogen conversion process are staggering however the as astronomers have almost without exception Shrugged off the contradictory evidence from their own observations and have accepted this product of a hair raising extrapolation by the physicists as an incontestable fact explanations of Stellar Evolution almost invariably begin with some such statement as this which introduces pain grin's uh discussion of the subject the problem of the ages of stars and closely interwoven is closely known I think it is is is closely interwoven with the problem of Stellar Nutrition a star can shine only so long as hydrogen is available or this from stru uh our new insight into the age of the Stars stems from our new knowledge of how these bodies produce their energy here is eloquent testimony to the serious consequences or lack of adequate discrimination between factual and non-factual material in present day scientific practice the atomic physicists themselves are not deceived they know that the concept of self sustaining process of conversion of the stable hydrogen isotope to helium is only a hypothesis not a fact and if we read the fine print we will find them admitting that that that is the case for example re marshak in an article entitled the energy of the Stars makes this statement uh quote so we can safely assume that the stars produce energy by the combinations of Light Elements through the collisions of their swiftly moving nuclei and Lis Rau sums up marshak's entire article in these words quote as Robert E marshak explained in the previous article there is excellent reason to believe that the energy source of most stars is rather complicated is a rather complicated uh is rather a complicated chain of nuclear Transformations whose end result is to form one atom of helium out of four atoms of hydrogen but unfortunately this concept of energy generation process is not usually presented in its true light as something we can safely assume or something there is excellent reason to believe because of the overwhelming confidence of the physicists in the validity of their hypothesis a confidence based more on The Prestige of the profession than on the merits of the hypothesis itself there is a general tendency to talk in terms of positive knowledge and by the time this hypothesis reaches the astronomers it has become an Article of Faith against which factual evidence is powerless as EJ opic tells us this knowledge of the conversion of hydrogen to helium is so well founded that it furnishes a reliable basis for the calculation of time rates of Stellar Evolution the highest state to which that's the end quote the highest state to which the Assumption and belief of the physicist has now risen is all the more remarkable since opic admits on the very next page that this reliable basis is clearly unreliable the energy source of the Giants remains a puzzle he says and hence a more uneasiness may be felt about the application of the theory to the white dwarves AO struve's confidence in the energy generation process as reflected in the statement previously quoted is equally remarkable in that it is apparently undisturbed by the fact that this new insight of which he speaks forces him to characterize factual evidence from his own field as apparent Defiance of the modern theory of Stellar Evolution the damaging effect of these unjustified claims to positive knowledge in basic physics is by no means confined to relatively distant Fields such as astronomy even physics itself is highly compartmental in present day practice and the individual physicists are reluctant to cross boundary lines Lance Rue describes the situation in these words quote a physicist uh Bears the stamp imposed by a rigid and prec and by the rigid and precise demands of his discipline at meetings he rarely comments on anything that lies outside his own welldefined specialty if the findings of each minuscule def uh that's the end of the quote sorry if the findings of each minuscule division of science are to be accepted without question by the rest of the scientific profession this merely underlies the necessity of more accurate definitions more accurate definition of the true nature of the conclusions that are research and some measures that will discourage the tendency to say we know when the expression should be we think perhaps we have reached the point where we need to we need some interdisciplinary agency to restrain the enthusiast ASM with which the various Specialties overstate the case for the current popular theories in their respective fields extrapolations of negative results are not knowledge in addition to the type of extrapolation which has been discussed there are also what we may call extrapolations of the negative here we find through observation that certain things do not happen in regions directly accessible like Earth uh primarily we then generalize this observation by extrapolating it to Regions that are not accessible and we say that such things never happen there is nothing inherently wrong about such an extrapolation or any other type of extrapolation on the contrary reasoning from the known to the unknown is sound practice but it must not be forgotten that an extrapolation of an observed fact is something totally different from the fact itself and conclusions reached by extrapolation cannot be more than tentative until they are confirmed in some way a good example of this type of extrapolation is proved by the question of isotopic stability under terrestrial conditions the isotope um Fe 56 iron 56 is stable in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we assume that stability is an inherent property and that Fe 56 is always stable similarly we assume that the neutron is always with one curious exception unstable because it is unstable in the region where we can observe it these are natural and logical assumptions under the circumstances but they are only assumptions not established facts consequently they cannot be used to refute any Theory which contends that isotopic stability is determined by the environment and that under appropriate conditions the neutron may be stable and hydrogen and uh iron 56 May be unstable if such a theory is to be attacked it must be challenged on other grounds the mere fact that it conflicts with an extrapolation from terrestrial experience is irrelevant since that extrapolation has no factual standing regardless of the unanimity with which is currently accepted conclusions based on extrapolation of the negative are not knowledge here again we find the extrapolation serving as the basis for additional conclusions and again it should be emphasized that such conclusions are not facts and they cannot be used in lie of positive knowledge much of the current thinking about the cosmic rays for instance follows along lines dictated by the belief that those particles which are short-lived in the terrestrial environment are likewise short-lived in interstellar and Intergalactic space the available factual information neither confirms nor denies this assumption certainly the burden of proof rests upon anyone who suggests that isotopic stabilities in free space differ from those which we find in the terrestrial environment but if any evidence can be produced in support of such a suggestion there is nothing in the currently available data from experiment or observation that can refute such evidence the mere fact that practically everyone believes that the stability or lack of stability is inherent does not make this true scientific questions cannot be settled by public opinion polls however numerous its supporters may be there is still nothing more than a conclusion based on an unsupported extrapolation of The observed facts and as such it cannot qualify as knowledge in this connection it is interesting to note that current ideas regarding stability are not consistent the same physicists who reacts violently to the suggestion that stability may be a function of the environment and that his conclusions as to the atom building and similar processes in the Extraterrestrial environments uh May therefore be wide of the mark does not hesitate to advance exactly the same hypothesis when he finds this necessary in order to fit the theory that normally uh unstable Neutron uh is a constituent of stable atoms okay uh we're going to stop it right there and uh move on to the next section tomorrow um uh I don't know how long this article is I think it goes on for a little ways longer but we'll see and um you know he's kind of focusing in on one specific uh uh well two specific real things here um but I think he's going to uh spread it out here uh in the next section so uh thanks for tuning in today and I hope you have a great day