Reciprocal System #380-"How Much Do We Really Know?" B [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone welcome to my channel uh this is uh a channel that is designed to educate you on uh some great theories of everything that I think uh would help you out in your life uh help you with your Paradigm shifting and uh your holistic worldview um formation and um you know um maybe even help you to create an ingenious device that uh would help Humanity in general and um today is our 380th video on dwey B Larson and his reciprocal system of theory and um Mr Larson was born in 1898 around 1930 he uh was working on he was an engineer and he was working on a kind of a chemistry problem trying to figure out the interatomic distance of uh different elements uh based on the numbers on the periodic table and uh he had a few epiphanies that uh showed him that uh kind of led him to conclusion that were much broader than that and uh so he did a complete study on it and eventually in 1959 put out his two fundamental postulates about the nature of this universe and then from those postulates he uh went through a process of deduction um which I documented in um about 15 videos that I did about a year ago uh if you want to go back to to the outline of the deductive development of the reciprocal system and uh he derived through that deduction process a theoretical Universe about what his Universe would look like if his postulates were true and then he uh set set out in his books to kind of compare his theoretical Universe with that not so theor thetical Universe the empirical universe that the scientists had um arrived at through measurement and observation and uh you know putting down in the scientific tables and so on and all that is very much worth looking at so uh we're trying to look at that um in these videos um larsson's theory is very difficult to understand um mostly because you have to unlearn certain things that you already learned uh also he's just one individual uh doing a Herculean task and um trying to come up with a language uh a new language for things that haven't been described yet and so it's not always going to be smooth sailing um whenever you're the originator of a theory uh you have to you know describe things that other people have not ever ever described before and so there's a lot of resistance to Larson's Theory but I think the fact that he's able to derive a theoretical universe that uh closely resembles the actual Universe so-called the empirical universe and that he's able to make several predictions about um things in the future that hadn't been hadn't been discovered yet such as quazars um that uh his theory deserves a hearing and so we're trying to give it a proper hearing here I can't claim to be any type of expert on this I've read all of larsson's books I believe um but uh I can't say that I've understood them I underst understand bits and pieces and I'm I'm pretty um you know Bulldog is um you know about taking notes and going back and trying to reand it and going back and going back and going back um but you know I'm a um liberal arts person I'm a historian and so sometimes the uh abstractions in the uh complex mathematics most of it isn't really complex mathematics though um but just kind of the abstract thinking sometimes leaves me behind and Larson I believe is a very good writer but he's not a great teacher he doesn't and again it could be a lot of it because he's just trying to do the best he can with the resources that he has and the time that he has and um you know sometimes you have to dig out the Nuggets that are buried Within some paragraph obscure paragraph he he doesn't have the whole thing you know uh on a silver platter for you will say that's where I think I can come in and other people on this channel perhaps that we could uh we could really put this on a silver platter for people uh in the form of like a textbook or something like that where it's right there and it's all organized and it's really easy to grasp I mean it's never going to be easy easy easy but um I think uh a you know a high school chemistry equivalent class could be organized that you know um that you go through this textbook and that you you know work on it 50 minutes a day for five days a week and you can get it in a semester or two um anyway the basic gist uh of larsson's theory is that uh we don't live in a universe of matter we don't live in a universe of energy or a universe of force or anything else but we live in a universe of motion and for Larson motion was the relationship between space and time that sets up a generalized reciprocal relationship between space and time that means means that space and time are identical to each other except that they are reciprocals they are in a different order uh their fractions and uh that uh therefore whatever qualities one has the other also has and that space and time don't exist separately they only exist together in motion um and so one thing he was able to observe about space is that space is threedimensional XYZ coordinates stationary space Larson calls that coordinate space uh and so therefore there is also three-dimensional time coordinate time still in time um and uh coordinates now that doesn't mean that a you know Direction in space is equal to a direction in time um but it means that there are three dimensions of time what those dimensions are uh is you know different question and that um uh what we observe about time time is that time is always getting later and later and later and later and so therefore there's an aspect of space that's always getting later and later and later or the equivalent of that and that is in space space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart Larson refers to this as clock time and clock space and this is more fundamental uh in that it is a scalar motion it's a motion that has a magnitude but it doesn't have a specific Direction the clock isn't moving in a specific Direction other than later and later and later you know you can't say that it's moving south or you know um 90 90° offset from where it was moving before um and and so too with space uh and you can Envision this in space using a balloon with dots on it if you blow up the balloon all of the dots are moving away from each other and the uh every dot is moving away from every other dot the farther away they are the faster they're moving away from each other and but they are not moving in any specific direction that is a scalar Motion in space that's what LaRon calls clock space and that has actually been observed by the Legacy uh scientists through their telescopes that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from each other um also um time and space only exist in discrete units there has to be a full unit of space and or a full unit of time for you to have have uh space or time motion as well now motion is basically a fraction with space or time as the numerator and time or space as the denominator um all of our scientific quantities have space time um fraction coordinates uh such as speed the car is moving 5 m an hour 5 miles of space in 1 hour of time space over time speed acceleration is space over time to the second power I dropped the ball out of the window and it fell at 32 ft per second per second 32 ft of space and 1 per second 1 second per second of time time space over time squared uh the inverse of the speed is energy energy is time over space it took me 3 hours to push that thing half a mile 3 hours of time and one half hour of space and you can see also the reciprocal relation built into that the car is moving 5 mil an hour you can say well why don't we double the speed if you double the speed you can say then now the car is moving 10 miles per hour 10 miles of space in one hour of time you multiply the space by two but you can equivalently just divide the time by two uh the car is now moving 5 miles per half hour that is the equivalent of 10 mil hour so you can see that reciprocal relation there in Speed that uh relation obtains in all other um you know configurations of space and time as well now what you can uh um now when you use that discrete unit postulate that time and space come in discrete units only if you have one unit of space in one unit of time speed space over time then you have the speed of light so the speed of light is 1 over one equals 1 lson calls that unit speed the speed of light is unit speed and um it is always existing this is the background speed of this universe of motion or it is The Ether or the origin or the zero point the null point the neutral point the reference point the progression of the natural reference system is what uh what that speed of light outward in all directions so this is a scalar motion uh at the speed of light and that is always present when you have nothingness when you have total nothingness that's what you have the speed of light outward in all directions of course that flies in the face of um Legacy scientists who make their measurements from zero speed Larsson makes his measurements from that unit speed and uh that also sets up two sectors of the universe uh one sector is moving slower than the speed of light and one sector is moving faster than the speed of light the faster than light speed sector he calls the cosmic sector the other he calls the material sector um and um again that flies in the face of Legacy scientists like Einstein who says that the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe when actually the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe and H an entire half of the universe is moving faster than the speed of light which the Legacy scientists deny and but they could catch up quickly because what's going on in the material sector is identical to what's going on in the cosmic sector except that the roles of space and time are reversed so in the material sector you have relations based on coordinate space three dimensions of stationary space and clock time the clock is always getting later and later and later so once you you cross that speed of light boundary that unit speed boundary then you move into the cosmic sector and you get relations that are based on coordinate time three dimensions of stationary time and clock space space is always getting farther and farther apart so that shows you a little bit about how the system works now today we are looking at an article that Larson wrote um and uh it's mainly like histor History of Science it's called just what do we really know and uh this is the second installment so the first installment I did yesterday and in that first installment Larson talks a lot about how scientists uh especially the front rank um top scientists in the field especially in the theoretical uh field admit that they really don't know what they're talking about and that they are in desperate need of a generalized Theory to cover everything but they despair that such a thing might not exist but um you know he quotes uh all kinds of the greats Bridgeman and Heisenberg and um schinger and they all you know admit that you know we don't we we don't have that overarch ing theory that is going to glue all of this stuff together and so you know we don't really know what we're talking about so this is the second installment so we're just going to go from here uh in the words of Mr Larson the objective of this memorandum is to bring out that under present conditions the scientific profession cannot afford to rely on this indefinite someone to put its theoretical house in order the situation is too acute for that these pages will emphasize the astounding degree to which general acceptance has been substituted for proof in current scientific practice and the almost incredible number of non-factual items which are masquerading as established facts obviously the new and better Theory which is so greatly desired cannot be erected on any such dubious Foundation but if the debris is to be cleared away it will be necessary for the individual scientist to take a hard or take a hand in the matter and arrive at his own conclusions rather than to assume that someone will do it for him it is not difficult for anyone to see how much of the scientific knowledge of the present day is merely pseudo knowledge once an effort is made to look the situation squarely in the face let us Begin by pointing out that extrapolations from established facts do not constitute knowledge a substantial part of what now passes for knowledge in scientific circles actually consists of extrapolations from observed facts rather than the true factual material as Bridgeman once observed many of these are perfectly hair raising extrapolations a good example is the almost univ ival belief that we now know the nature of the processes which furnish the energy supply for stars even in a day when hair raising extrapolations are somewhat commonplace this one sets some kind of a record in view of the gigantic extrapolation that is required to pass from the relatively insignificant temperatures and pressure obtainable on Earth to the immensely greater magnitudes which we believe also through extrapolation exists in the Stellar Interiors even the thought that the answers might be correct calls for the exercise of no small degree of faith in the validity of um of our processes any contention that the extrapolated results constitute actual knowledge is simply ridiculous to make matters worse this is not merely an extrapolation it also involves the assumption that the isotope of hydrogen which is stable under terrestrial conditions will become unstable under Stellar conditions an assumption that has no factual support it is popularly believed that the hypothetical hydrogen to helium conversion process attributed to stars is simply another atomic bomb type of reaction we often hear the statement that in using Atomic power we are drawing on energy from the same Source utilized by the Stars the truth is however that all of our known atomic energy producing processes depend depend on the existence of unstable isotopes that will ultimately disintegrate of their own accord with the production of just as much energy if we let them follow their own course all that we actually accomplish is to increase the rate of disintegration the hypothetical conversion of the H1 isotope to helium is not another process C of the same kind it is a process that does not take place spontaneously on Earth or anywhere else that we know of many atomic reactions which do not occur naturally including this hydrogen to helium reaction can be forced to take place under appropriate conditions smallscale experiments in the Laboratories have indicated that some of these reactions are exothermic or perhaps we should say exoergic to be more General from this the conclusion has been drawn that if the temperature is raised high enough the kinetic energy of the atoms themselves will be sufficient to ignite a fusion reaction that will be self-sustaining this sounds very plausible to be sure especially since we are accustomed to thinking of atomic reactions in terms of anal of an analogy with combustion but if we [Music] examine the conclusion carefully it is apparent that it involves the assumption that an exothermic process is a naturally occurring process and we know that this is not always true if it were we would not need Atomic power we could um um we could meet says beat but we could meet our power requirements by um desalting seawater the currently popular theory of Stellar energy generation is therefore not only a hair raising extrapolation it is also based on a very questionable assumption so far as the objective of this present memorandum is concerned it is it is sufficient to show that the accepted ideas as to the nature of the Stellar energy process are not necessarily true and that treating them as established facts is totally unjustified it may be mentioned in passing however that there are actually several items of evidence which indicate that these areas are not only open to question but are completely erroneous for instance it is a general rule in the laboratory experiments involving high energy impacts that the degree of fragmentation becomes greater as the incident energy increases if this rule holds good at Stellar temperatures and pressures and we have no reason to think otherwise it favors the existence of hydrogen atoms rather than helium atoms even the combustion analogy s suggests the same conclusion extremely high temperatures do not favor exothermic chemical combinations on the contrary they dissociate the combinations that already exist furthermore the hypothesis of a self-sustaining hydrogen reaction ignited by high temperature in a body consisting primarily of hydrogen introduces a problem of control for which there seems to be no answer the steady and relatively slow generation of energy which we actually observe in most stars require some kind of a definite limitation on the energy Supply or on the process itself which is wholly incompatible with current Concepts other lines of reasoning based on such evidence as the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the cosmic rays and many observed facts from the astronomical field lead to similar conclusions conclusions based on extrapolations are not knowledge if a physical theory that has been generally accept accepted on the strength of faulty or inadequate evidence is actually valid in spite of these deficiencies as we can expect will frequently be true no harm has been done on the other hand if such a theory is not valid the bad effects are are not necessarily confined to the area directly affected they may be multiplied manifold by the use of the original erroneous conclusion as a basee for the erection of additional theories a mistaken idea as to the source of the energy of the stars is not too serious in itself but as it happens the whole structure of Stellar um energy generation process um the whole structure of Stellar evolutionary theory has been based on this assumption as to the nature of the Stellar energy generation process and the net result has been a serious Distortion of the entire astronomical picture the astronomer does his work under rather severe handicaps he cannot experiment all that he can do is to observe furthermore the range of conditions within his field of observation is so much greater than the range existing on Earth that much of what he observes can be related to familiar phenomena only by long extrapolations and these as has been brought out are always subject to serious question as to their validity then also the astronomer is for the most part limited to what is essentially an instantaneous picture even though it encompasses a wide expanse of time as well as space he sees astronomical objects in what are apparently various stages of evolution but he cannot determine the direction of evolution from direct observation he must draw his conclusions on this point from collateral evidence of some kind in addition to these inherent and unavoidable handicaps of his profession the astronomer has voluntarily accepted another another a blind and unquestioning faith in the conclusions of the physic this with respect to the Stellar energy process okay uh we're going to stop it right there and um uh move on to the next uh section tomorrow uh when we meet again and um I don't know how long this article is I believe it goes it will go on for a few days here and um but that was uh you know second installment of Dy Larson's how much do we really know and uh he tackling the astronomical situation uh the uh generation of energy and stars primarily and um a lot of that comes from his book Universe of motion um so if you want to take a look at that one it's uh part of his three volume structure of the physical Universe Edition two and uh anyway but we will get back into that tomorrow thanks for tuning in today have a great day