Reciprocal System #141-Nothing but Motion L [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello welcome to my channel uh this is an educational Channel and uh we usually focus on out of the way subjects that people don't know anything about but that I think they're important they're usually people who spent their whole life working on something and we're called crackpots and cranks and uh you know were ridiculed uh in some cases by The Establishment but they kept at it and they put out their work and nobody ever read it and that doesn't mean that it's not worth reading and uh I've found a lot of these Little Gems or big gems and one of them is the reciprocal system of theory and this was a theory that was devised by Dewey B Larson back in the 20th century he started his work about 1930 and he died in 1990 so we had about 60 years that he put into this um and he seems to be very sober and sane character but uh he's dismissed uh just like all the rest by the cowards in the scientific community uh who you know uh you know attempt to pretend like they care about the truth whereas they only really care about their own uh advancement and their status and you know truth comes after that they care about the truth but not enough to make themselves look foolish or uh you know put their job on the line or anything like that uh I think journalists do about the same thing too um probably politicians as well and probably many other fields uh you know they uh the powers that be set up these firewalls so that uh you know certain things you just can't say or else you'd be uh branded as uh somebody who's out of bounds and then they try to cancel you and they try to you know this is all happening like crazy nowadays but it it happened back in the day as well um so anyway Dewey B Larson uh put together this reciprocal system of theory the general idea is that we live in a universe of motion not a universe of matter not a universe of energy but a universe of motion and motion is the relationship between space and time uh from there uh he uh those that was really his first postulate he has a second postulate that's not as important but he then he derived an entire theoretical Universe from that and then he um compared it to the universe that the scientists had come up with mainly through observation and experiment uh but there's some invention as well within the scientific establishment so um that's a lot of the places where Larson disagreed you really uh said that really 90 of this Legacy scientific Universe fits in seamlessly with his reciprocal system is only the areas of the very small the very fast the very large and the very slow that uh there are problems this is very similar to the theory of relativity where Einstein was you know making changes on the margins the Newtonian theory is correct as far as kind of the um more visible aspects of the universe but when you get into these kind of uh Fringe areas uh the atomic you know realm and the galactic uh Universal realm and high speeds then the then the Newtonian system kind of breaks down and Einstein had one solution for this and Larson had another um okay now we are looking at his one of his books that's called uh nothing but motion this is the first and three volume series that he had um called the structure of the physical universe and this book is primarily on physics and there's a little bit of organic chemistry as well here um but he also has books on uh chemistry astronomy metaphysics including religion philosophy biology dream interpretation economics and other subjects he it's a not a theory as much as it is a system of theory so it is a a general um Theory A system that you can plug into any subject so Larson plugged it into as many subjects as he could but uh he was a one individual living a finite Lifetime and so there are still all of these other areas that it can be applied okay so we're gonna take over here in this uh in the second chapter toward the end of the second chapter uh where he was kind of comparing the uh his uh his theory development to uh making a map okay but this traditional method of map making is not the only way in which a geographical map can be prepared we may for instance devise some photographic system whereby we can secure a representation of an entire area in one operation by a single process in either case whether we are offered a map of the traditional kind or a photographic map we will want to make some tests to satisfy ourselves that the map is accurate before we use it for any important purposes but because of the difference in the manner in which the maps were produced the nature of these tests will be altogether different in the two cases in checking a map of the tradition traditional type we have no option but to verify each significant feature of the map individually because aside from a relatively small amount of interrelation each feature is independent verification of the position shown for a mountain in one part of the map does not in any way guarantee the accuracy of the position shown for a river in another part of the map the only way in which the position shown for the river can be verified is to compare what we see on the map with such other information as may be available since these collateral data are often scanty or even entirely lacking particularly along the frontiers of knowledge the verification of a map of this kind in either the geographical or scientific field is primarily a matter of judgment and the final conclusion cannot be more than tentative at best in the case of a photographic map on the other hand each test that is made is a test of the validity of the process and any verification of an individual feature is merely incidental if there is even one place where an item can that can be definitely seen on the map is in conflict with something that is positively known to be a fact that is enough to show that the process is not accurate and it provides sufficient justification for discarding the map in its entirety but if no such conflict is found the fact that every test is a test of the process means that each in additional test that is made without finding a discrepancy reduces the mathematical probability that any conflict exists anywhere on the map by making a suitably large number and variety of such tests the remaining uncertainty can be reduced to the point where it is negligible thereby definitely establishing the accuracy of the map as a whole the entire operation of verifying a map of this kind is a purely objective process in which features that can definitely be seen on the map are compared with facts that have been definitely established by other means one important precaution must be observed in the verification process a great deal of care must be exercised to make certain of the authenticity of the supposed facts that are utilized for the comparisons there is no justification for basing conclusions on anything that falls short of positive knowledge in testing the accuracy of an aerial map we realize that we cannot justify rejecting the map because the location of a lake indicated on the map conflicts with the location that we think the lake occupies in this case it is clear that unless we actually know just where the lake is we have no legitimate basis on which to dispute the location shown on the map we also realize that there is no need to pay any attention to items of this kind those about which we are uncertain there are hundreds perhaps thousands of map features about which we do have positive knowledge far more than enough for purposes of comparison so that we need not give any consideration to Features about which there is any degree of uncertainty because of the reciprocal system of theory is a fully integrated structure derived entirely by one process deduction from a single set of premises it is capable of verification in the same manner as an aerial map it has already passed such a test that is the theoretical deductions have been compared with the observed facts in thousands of individual cases distributed over all major fields of physical science without encountering a single definite inconsistency these deductions disagree with many currently accepted ideas to be sure but in all of these cases that can be shown that the current views are not positive knowledge they are either conclusions based on inadequate data or they are assumptions extrapolations or interpretations as in the analogous case of the aerial map conflicts with such items what with what scientists think are are meaningless the only conflicts that are relevant to the test of the validity of the theoretical system are conflicts with what scientists know thus while recognition of human fallibility prevents asserting that every conclusion purported to be reached by a by application of this theory is authentic and therefore correct it can be asserted that the reciprocal system of theory is capable of producing the right answers if it is properly applied and to the extent that the development of the consequences of the postulates of the theory has been correctly carried out the theoretical structure thus derived is a true and accurate representation of the actual physical universe okay that is the end of chapter two okay now we're going to get into chapter three which is called reference systems and so now just a little bit of background now if you have a universe of motion as you know is posited by the reciprocal system with the universe of motion that means that motion is the background that there is always motion okay so um so there is there's really no zero okay most measurements we take from zero uh you know so so if you've got [Music] um you know you got something that you're trying to measure you're going to find the home base or the zero spot and you're going to measure how far away from zero that is you know whether it's a speed or whether it's a distance or whether it's a time you start with time zero and then you say well three hours from now uh you know three hours from now well then that uh you know now is basically your time zero uh or you know 30 feet from here here is your time is your space zero or you know 50 miles an hour 50 miles an hour means 50 miles an hour more than zero but in Larson's System since it's a universe of motion you already have this background motion and so you can't really measure from zero you're measuring from something that's already moving the the thing that's already moving is the de facto zero and you're measuring from there Larson calls that a displacement and so that's kind of what he's going to be getting into in this chapter on reference systems uh we'll start right here as indicated in the preceding chapter the concept of a universe of motion has to be elaborated to some extent before it is possible to develop a theoretical structure that will describe that Universe in detail the additions to the basic concept must take the form of assumptions or postulates a term more commonly applied to the fundamental assumptions of a theory because even though the additional specifications obviously do apply to the particular Universe of motion in which we live there does not appear to be adequate justification for contending that they necessarily apply to uh a possible Universe of motion it has already been mentioned that we are postulating a universe composed of discrete units of motion but this does not mean that the motion proceeds in a series of jumps this basic motion is progression in which the familiar progression of time is accompanied by a similar progression of space completion of one unit of the progression is followed immediately by initiation of another without interruption as an analogy we may consider a chain although the chain exists only in discrete units or links it is a continuous structure not a mere juxtapa juxtaposition of separate units whether or not the continuity is a matter of a logical necessity is a philosophical question that does not need to concern us at this time there are reasons to believe that it is in fact a necessity but if not we will introduce it into our definition of motion in any event it is part of the system the extensive use of the term progression in application to the basic motions with which we are dealing in the initial portions of this work is intended to emphasize this characteristic another assumption that will be made is that the universe is three-dimensional in this connection it should be realized that all of the supplementary assumptions that were added to the basic concept of a universe of motion in order to define the essential properties of that Universe we're no more than tentative at the start of the investigation that ultimately led to the development of the reciprocal system of theory some such supplementary assumptions were clearly required but neither the number of assumptions that would have to be made nor the nature of the individual assumptions was clearly indicated by existing knowledge of the physical universe the only feasible course of action was to initiate the investigation on the basis of those assumptions which seemed to have the greatest probability of being correct if any wrong assumptions were made or if some further assumption were required the theorem theoretical development would of course encounter insurmountable difficulties very quickly and it would then be necessary to get back and modify the postulates and try again fortunately the original apostolates passed this test and the only change that has been made was to drop some of the original assumptions that were found to be deducible from the others and therefore superfluous no further physical postulates are required but it is necessary to make some assumptions as to the mathematical behavior of the universe here our observations of the existing Universe do not give us guidance of as definite a character as was available in the case of the physical properties but there is a set of mathematical principles which until very recent times was generally regarded as almost self-evident the main body of scientific opinion is now committed to the belief that the true mathematical structure of the universe is much more complex but the assumption that it can conforms to the older set of principles is the simplest assumption that can be made following the rule laid down by William of Occam this assumption was therefore made for the purpose of the initial investigation no modifications have since been found necessary the complete set of assumptions that constitutes the fundamental postulates of the theory of a universe of motion can be expressed as follows okay now Larson is going to lay down his two fundamental postulates now he mentioned that really for the second postulate um he's saying that you know what he's postulating is the simplest uh you know uh way of going about it uh but that there has been a trend in science to tend towards more complex picture and he just really uses Occam's razor keep it simple as um his justification for arriving at his second fundamental postulate which he basically knows he basically knows that it's limited um but that it's going to do the job for him but eventually uh Dr Bruce Perrette came along and really I believe demolished the second fundamental postulate ah didn't demolish it uh just amended it it's it's limited it doesn't mean that it's wrong it just is limited and uh when you try to extend the reciprocal system in certain areas uh that limitation comes uh comes up Larson didn't really encounter it but peret did and paret felt the need to make that correction okay now the First Fundamental postulate though is is is the key First Fundamental postulate the physical universe is composed entirely of one component motion existing in three dimensions indiscrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time okay so that's it that's that's what Larson bases his whole deductive development of the Universe on the physical universe is composed entirely of one component motion existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time okay the second fundamental postulate which I was talking about that is limited is that the physical Universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is euclidean now the euclidean geometry uh that is you know from uh the you know the Greek mathematician Euclid uh from about the uh 300 BC and uh that is x y z coordinates okay um you know your your graph your three-dimensional graph XYZ coordinates and um three dimensions of that and um paret rejects that it replaces it with projective geometry which is a more Dynamic geometry that is more geared toward motion of which euclidean geometry is just a subset so he's not paret is not rejecting euclidean geometry he's just showing how it's limited okay now um we will leave it right there with the uh two postulates and now uh tomorrow we will get into how Larson uses these postulates and um you know whatever else he has to say about them and how he plugs them into reference systems all right well thank you for tuning in and come back tomorrow um have a great day