Reciprocal System #135-Nothing but Motion F [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone welcome to my channel I do educational videos and today is the 135th video on the reciprocal system of theory and this is a pretty obscure and somewhat difficult to understand Theory but it's worth it if you want to put a little bit of time in understand the way that Larson thinks about things and how he put together his reciprocal system then uh it will pay big benefits for you um now uh Larson Dewey B Larson the founder of the reciprocal system came up with it back in about 19 starting back in the 1930s developed the theory over a 20-year period of induction and then once he had his fundamental postulates two fundamental postulates then he started working the other way deductively and uh used kind of if this than that if this then that and he built up an entire theoretical Universe about how the universe operates if my two fundamental postulates are correct and really we're only talking about the first of the two fundamental postulates because the second one has more to do with like geometry and Mathematics the first one uh is basically that we don't live in a universe of matter or a universe of energy but we live in a universe of motion the universe is made out of motion and motion is the relationship between time and space time and space have a generalized reciprocal relationship uh kind of in the same way just like a fraction it's a relationship so three halves and two-thirds are reciprocals of each other same way uh that uh you know space and time are reciprocals they have the same qualities but they are inverses of one another and that really kind of creates creates a situation where you have a universe of motion so the background uh of the universe the the zero point of the universe is not zero it is actually motion uh and in fact it is the speed of light the speed of light is the background or you could call it even The Ether or the uh origin of this universe and half the universe is actually moving faster than the speed of light this is the half of the universe that Einstein didn't know anything about and uh this is the half that uh gives us things such as life and intelligence and then um and Larson calls that the cosmic sector or sector two at the material sector sector one is the universe that Einstein knew about that he said that the Universe you know the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe for this material sector or sector one the half of the universe that move is slower than the speed of light that is true that the speed of light is the maximum but there is an entire other half of the universe that is always moving faster than the speed of light um okay now uh we are currently we went through a number of other of Larson's Works uh so far we've gone through an in you know just a biographical section uh we covered his outline of the deductive development of the reciprocal system which you can watch uh in order to kind of kind of get his step-by-step deductive development if this then that if this then that he has about 165 steps then also we went through his book called um uh beyond space and time which is his book on metaphysics covers things philosophy psychology religion dream interpretation [Music] um a little bit of biology now we're looking at uh the first one of his three the first book of his three volume structure of the physical universe that came out in the 1980s uh he died in 1990. uh this book here nothing but motion came out in 1979 and his three volume work is is pretty much his uh summary of uh all the things that he's done uh we are uh right now in chapter one and he's he's he's uh critiquing the matter concept the concept of a universe of matter and showing how it's pretty much untenable and he's really uh kind of taking the Legacy scientists to task uh in particular for just making stuff up that's what they're doing there's no reality involved once you get around to the relativistic stuff in the quantum mechanics stuff and he quotes Einstein he quotes Bridgeman he quotes some of the greats of uh of um physics and shows that they admit they are admitting that they're just making it up you know where Einstein's saying well we just have to accept this statement and not to not worry too much about the meaning of the statements and um you know that the the the new rules are that um you have to use free invention okay so we'll start here and uh I think it's going to be kind of a little bit more of the same but it's uh very refreshing to me because I know that these scientists are lying about this and if you read Thomas Coon's structure of the physical uh um structure of scientific revolutions uh you know it shows that all throughout history you know this is how scientists have done it they resist with everything in their life any type of new findings uh if it if it's too far out of bounds from where they are in the first place they're not capable of accepting a new Theory um if it Ruffles too many feathers if it's just a little bit on the margins just a slight new inner Innovation then it's okay you know but if it turns over the whole apple cart and says we got to reevaluate this uh then they will start it's getting there getting their Stakes out getting their pitchforks out and starting to burn scientists and banish them to you know um to isolated islands and things like that okay uh we're gonna start Larson right here this disagreement with nature should not come as a surprise any careful consideration the situation will show that free invention is inherently incapable of arriving at the correct answers to problems of long-standing such problems do not continue to exist because of a lack of competence on the part of those who are trying to solve them or because of a lack of adequate methods of dealing with them they exist because some essential peace or pieces of information are missing without this essential information the correct answer cannot be obtained except by accident this rules out inductive methods which build upon empirical information invention is no more capable of arriving at the correct result without the essential information than induction but it is not subject to the same limitations it can and does arrive at some result General acceptance of a theory that is almost certain to be wrong is in itself a serious impediment to Scientific progress but the detrimental effect is compounded by the ability of these inventive theories to evade contradictions and inconsistencies by further invention because of the almost unlimited opportunity to escape from difficulties by making further ad hoc ad hoc assumptions it is ordinarily very difficult to disprove an invented Theory but the definite proof that the physical universe is not a universe of matter now automatically invalidates all theories such as the nuclear theory of the atom uh that are dependent on this matter concept the essential piece of information that has been missing We Now find is the true nature of the basic entity of which the universe is composed and again he uses pretty much simply E equals m c Square to make that assertion energy can be converted into matter and vice versa that it inherently means that the Universe cannot be composed of either matter or energy because there's something that underlies both of those things uh that is more fundamental uh because energy can be converted into matter and vice versa that conversion factor is actually the speed of light the speed of light is what they're looking for um but they have clung to either matter or energy as being the most fundamental thing but it's actually the c-squared part of E equals m c squared okay back to Larson the issue as to the inadequacy of present-day physical Theory does not normally arise in the ordinary course of scientific activity because that activity is primarily directed toward making the best possible use of the tools that are available but when the question is actually raised there is not much doubt as to how it has to be answered the answer it that we get from um Paul Dirac is this uh quote the present stage of physical theory is merely a stepping stone toward the better stages we shall have in the future excuse me one can be quite sure that there will be better stages simply because of the difficulties that occur in the physics of today foreign admits that he and his fellow physicists have no idea as to the direction from which the change will come as he says there will have to be some new development that is quite unexpected that we cannot even make a guess about he recognizes that this new development must be one of major significance quoting him again it is fairly certain that there will have to be drastic changes in our fundamental ideas before these problems can be solved uh the fight back to Larson the finding of this present work is that drastic changes in our fundamental ideas will indeed be required we must change our basic physical concept our concept of the nature of the universe in which we live ultimately however a new basic concept is never easy to grasp regardless of how simple it may be and how clearly it is presented because the human mind refuses to look at such a concept in any simple and direct Manner and insist on placing it within the context of previously existing patterns of thought where anything that is new and different is incongruous at best and more often than not is definitely absurd as Butterfield States the clay the case quote of all forms of mental activity the most difficult to induce even in the minds of the young who may be pressure uh who may be presumed to presumed not to have their flexibility is the art of handling the same bundle of data as before but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework end quote in the process of education and development each human individual has put together a conceptual framework which represents the world as he sees it and the general method of assimilating a new experience is to fit it into its proper place in this General conceptual framework if the fit is accomplished without difficulty we are ready to accept the experience as valid if a reported experience or a sensory experience of our own is somewhat outside the limits of our complex of beliefs but not not definitely in Conflict we are inclined to view it skeptically but tolerantly pending further clarification but if a purported existence flatly contradicts a fundamental belief of long-standing the immediate reaction is to dismiss it summarily some such semi-automatic system for discriminating between genuine items of information and the many false and misleading items that are included in the continuous stream of messages coming in through the various senses is essential in our daily life even for mere survival but this policy of using agreement with past experience and as the Criterion of validity has the disadvantage of limiting the human race to a very narrow and parochial view of the world and one of the most difficult tasks of science has been and to some extent continues to be overcoming the errors that are thus introduced into thinking without uh thinking about physical matters only a few of those who give any serious consideration to the subject still believe that the Earth is flat and the idea that this small planet of ours is the center of all this uh of all of the significant activities of the universe no longer commands any strong support but it took centuries of effort by the most advanced thinkers to gain General acceptance of the present day view that in these instances things are not what our ordinary experience would lead us to believe so I think right there Larson is tapping into a little bit of Mythology uh where he uh didn't really do the research um I'm not a flat earther but I certainly am an agnostic and um you know there's just kind of this mythology out there that the all the Primitive people thought the Earth was flat and as gradually we figured out these things uh even though it appears that the Earth is flat we all now have figured out that it isn't and uh I just have to say that I don't know um but um I do know uh who the uh the uh not a straight answer never a straight answer people are and I know what they're telling us is a lie so um so it's something other than what they're telling us um now that doesn't necessarily mean whether it's flat or round or well it's round either way I would figure that um it's either round like a pancake or it's around like a spheroid but uh it could be much much much bigger than we think it is or it could be uh around kind of looking thing but it's more like a platonic solid and so it's flat in places but it's hinged uh or it could be Hollow um that's quite uh you know more like a Taurus so um I think Larson gives short shrift to this subject and he I don't really think he ever really even thought about it okay um back to his commentary some very substantial Advantage advances in scientific methods and equipment in recent years have enabled investigators to penetrate a number of far out regions that were previously inaccessible here again it has been demonstrated as in the question with respect to the shape of the earth that experience within the relatively limited range of our day-to-day activities is not a reliable guide as to what exists or is taking place in distant regions in application to these far out phenomena the scientific Community therefore rejects The Experience criteria and opens the door to a wide variety of hypotheses and Concepts that are in direct conflict with normal experience such things as events occurring without specific causes magnitudes that are inherently incapable of measurement Beyond a certain limiting degree of precision inapplicity inapplicability of some of the established laws of physics to certain unusual phenomena events that defy the ordinary rules of logic quantities whose true magnitudes are dependent on the location and movement of the Observer and so on many of these departures from Common Sense thinking including almost all of those that are specifically mentioned in this paragraph are rather ill-advised in the light of the facts that have been disclosed by this present work but this merely emphasizes the extent to which scientists are now willing to go in postulating deviations from everyday experience uh he doesn't seem to apply that to the shape of the Earth but uh back to Larson this strangely enough this extreme flexibility in the experience area coexists with an equally extreme rigidity in the realm of ideas the general situation here is the same as in the case of experience some kind of semi-automatic screening of the new ideas that are brought to our attention is necessary if we are to have any chance to develop a coherent and meaningful understanding of what is going on in the world about us rather than being overwhelmed by a mass of erroneous or irrelevant material so just as purported new experiences are measured against past experience the new Concepts and theories that are proposed are compared with the existing structure of uh scientific thought and judged accordingly well uh Larson um kind of hoists himself by his own protard there because he is um kind of the victim of what he's talking about if I'm understanding what he's saying correctly that because there have been several scientists so-called scientists that I've talked to about Larson's Theory and in in a few different cases they have said specifically to me well you know I don't have time to check out everybody's new theory about everything you know uh it's Gotta It's gotta have some kind of stamp of approval before I will even look at it because there are so many crazy theories out there that I can't look at everything I don't have that kind of time so that's that's usually what the scientists use as an excuse to dismiss these things out of hand they just don't have the time to check out everybody's crackpot Theory and so Larson was to go to a great extent a victim of what he's talking about here um okay we'll leave it there and we'll get back to chapter one uh next time have a good day thanks for tuning in