Reciprocal System #326-"The Nature of Motion" A [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

hello everyone welcome to my channel this is an educational Channel where we look at um different researchers uh uh in the past who have in my opinion made great contributions but have not been recognized for doing so and uh you know we delve into their their theories and their contributions deeply and uh you know try to figure out how to apply them in our own lives how to benefit from what they've what they've uh taught and uh how to also uh I guess promulgate uh broadcast uh more about what they've done um so that they um so that the whole world can benefit from their theories which in general have been um squashed by uh um the powers that be out there that are uh trying to pump up the um you know the standard paradigms and today is our 326th video that we've done on dwey B Larson and his reciprocal system of theory and Mr Larson uh was born in 1898 uh and in about 1930 he started to have um some inklings about his reciprocal system uh he was a uh I think a mining engineer some kind of engineer living out in uh the Northwest in the Portland area and he was working on kind of the solution to some chemical problems that were uh quite a bit less revolutionary but he stumbled across some things and you know uh basically answered the call of okay this is going to be a diff difficult research you're not going to get recognized for this most likely you might get a lot of grief for it in fact um but uh if you work it out over the course of your life uh you know you're going to leave behind uh some stuff that maybe um will last forever and uh he did it and it took about 30 years to work out his uh theory on an inductive in an inductive manner um to to the point where he was able to articulate two fundamental postulates and uh from those postulates he used a process of deduction in order to um uh come up with a theoretical universe uh from which he wrote his books and so he's got books on chemistry and astronomy and physics and atomic physics and astrophysics and um he's also got some stuff on uh economics and on a met uh various liberal arts subjects as well as uh philosophy psychology religion and um his followers have even gone further a field so he's uh left an imprint uh but not too many people have uh know where to look or know what it is and uh he left his theories in kind of not a shambles but you can't really ask too much of of a person you know he put the information out there the fact that it's not you know widely accessible I mean he had to kind of come up with a whole new language to describe it and he you know he had to overcome the inertia of the standard paradigms and all of the wrong think that we have in our heads you know so the hardest part about learning the reciprocal system is unlearning the other stuff uh to be open to learning Larson stuff so it's uh it's a hard go but I think it's worth it and what we're doing today is we're going to look at an article that he wrote um that is called the nature of motion and uh this should uh this should uh clarify some things I think because larsson's the the essence of Larson's uh fundamental postulates and the reciprocal system is that we live in a universe that is composed entirely of motion now not matter not energy but motion and for Larson motion was the relationship between space and time and that um implies a reciprocal relationship between space and time motion is basically a fraction with time or space as the numerator and space or time as the denominator space and time do not have an independent existence uh independent existences they only exist together in motion and they exist in uh three dimensions each they have the same qualities time and space um not always at the same time but uh they both have three dimensions they both have their aspects that are progressing or uh Larson calls it clock space and clock time the clock is always getting later and later and later space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart and Larson refers to that as a scalar motion because it's a motion that has a magnitude but it has no specific directions um the clock is always getting later and later and later but it's not getting later in any specific Direction you can't say it's getting later uh to the South or it's not getting later this way um but it is just getting later and so so too with space it's always getting farther and farther and farther apart but not any particular direction uh you would uh can Envision this by using a balloon with dots on it and then you blow up the balloon all the dots are moving away from each other but they're all moving away from each other they're not uh so it's really encompassing all the directions not any specific Direction and this was also observed by the Hubble telescope that determined that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from each other so this is a kind this scalar motion is a kind of motion that has um factual uh basis uh you can you can point to uh things that are engaging in scalar motion but it hasn't really been acknowledged by a scientist that this is a different motion uh in kind than the normal vectorial motion that we're accustomed to and Larson really builds his system out of this uh concept of scalar motion so um and then the other aspect of space and time is that they are both quantized meaning that they come in um chunks they come in units you you um they're not infinitesimal you know they're not continuous they come in very small units if you don't have a full unit of space then you don't have space at all if you don't have a full unit of time then you don't have time at all and um that is U more or less uh is the first postulate and the most important postulate of larsson's two postulates but since he is here just speaking about motion let's let Larson um speak uh about uh this topic himself and we can kind of he goes over a I love how Larson is a a good histo historian of Science and kind of goes through you know the basic historical background to this and then how he fits into it okay so a half century ago uh peral Bridgeman one of American amica's foremost scientist pointed out that many of the basic ideas and Concepts to which scientists subscribe quote have not been thought through carefully but but are held in the comfortable belief that someone must have examined them at some time end quote one of the concepts uh to which this comment by Bridgeman is particularly appropriate is that of motion most scientists are apparently willing to go along with Newton's view that motion does not need to be specifically defined because it is quote well known to all but in order to make use of this concept in a scientific concept uh context the rather vague General understanding of its meaning that is well known to all has to be given some more specific significance the objective of the present discussion is to show that the qualifications that have been added to the Layman's definition of motion in the pursuit of Greater specificity are too restrictive and lead to misinterpretation of a number of basic basic physical phenomena the core of the currently accepted definition is the assertion that motion is a change of position relative to some identifiable object for present purposes this statement can be accepted as valid but present day physics goes on to assert that in order to define the motion of object a specifically a frame of reference must be constructed on the reference object B the location of object a is then specified by a position Vector in the reference frame and its rate of motion is specified by a velocity Vector the time rate of change of the position vector any change that can be defined by such a velocity Vector is unquestionably a motion but the point now at issue is whether this definition is comprehensive that is are there motions that cannot be defined in this manner and just to backrack in case you're you know um trying to recall from your high school um physics class or whatever a vector is just a motion in a direction it's like an arrow um a motion in a Direction so are there motions that cannot be defined in this manner for an answer to this question let us look first at the astronomical situation one of the most important astronomical discoveries of modern times is the recession of the distant galaxies according to measurements of the Doppler shift in the radiation received from these objects they are all moving radially radially outward from our galaxy at high speeds meaning like as a radius they are all they're all moving radially outward from our galaxy at High high speeds we cannot measure the motion of our own Galaxy but unless we make the assumption that it is the only stationary object in the universe an assumption that was repudiated by science long ago our galaxy is receding from all of the others that is it is moving outward in all directions okay so in case uh your history of science is also Rusty uh you know this was the whole idea behind the capern revolution uh in 1543 cernus wrote his uh his uh his book and um while he was on his deathbed or he put out his book on his deathbed because he knew he was probably going to be put to death if he uh put it out any time before then but uh his book is basically saying that the Earth is not at the center of the universe and that it was the sun which was at the center at least of the solar system um prior to that you know it was it was considered that the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything was basically rotating around Earth but cernus through uh improved uh telescopy and uh uh improved measurement uh realized that you know uh it made a lot more sense from the observations to um to assume that the sun was at the center and not the Earth and that all all of the heavenly bodies or at least the planetary bodies were rotating around the Sun not rotating around the earth and uh you know the pope uh was totally opposed to that idea and um was willing to put people to death all the popes uh Galileo was banished for propagating the same kind of idea uh Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for doing the same and uh it took really 150 years until Newton came along um in the late 17th century for um kind of the world to around to actually you know what that they're they're right the uh sun is really at the center of of things in the solar system and who knows whether the sun is at the center of the universe or not um probably not and so Larson is really saying here unless we make the assumption that our galaxy is the only stationary galaxy in the universe an assumption that was repudiated by science long ago our galaxy is also receding from all the others just like all the others are receding from each other um ours is receding too even though we can't really measure that and so our galaxy is also moving outward in all directions and since it is conceded that our galaxy is not unique it follows follows that all of the widely separated galaxies are moving radially outward from each other in all directions attempts have been made to explain the origin of this motion the currently favored hypothesis being that it is due to a general expansion of the universe but it does not seem to have been generally realized that the nature of the motion itself is something that also calls for a more comprehensive understanding so far as can be determined from the scientific literature the characteristics of the Motions of these distant galaxies have not been subjected to any critical investigation apparently because it has been assumed that the galactic situation is a special case having no relevance to physical activity as a whole the error in this assumption is evident when we note that gravitation is clearly the same kind of motion this is not readily readily recognizable under all circumstances but since the basic nature of a physical phenomenon does not change we can establish the basic nature of gravitation by consideration of an example in in which the extraneous factors that tend to con um tend to confuse the situation are at a minimum let us consider a number of galaxies relatively close together as they are in a cluster and approximately the same size we know that since these galaxies are free to move they will move inward in all directions toward each other at speeds that can form to a uniform pattern this motion is identical with that of the distant galaxies except that it is negative that is it reduces the separation between the moving objects whereas the Motions of the distant galaxies are positive increasing the distance motion that takes place uniformly in all directions coincidentally have no specific inherent Direction it is completely defined by a magnitude positive or negative that is it is a scalar motion a small scale example of scalar motion can be seen in the Motions of spots on the surface of an expanding balloon often used as an illustration by those who undertake to explain the nature of the galactic Motion in this case the motion can be reversed spots on the surface of an ex of a Contracting balloon have a negative scalar motion analogous to that of gravitating objects whenever a new view of a familiar phenomenon is introduced there is a general tendency to assume that it is a product of a new Theory or hypothesis and the question as to the validity of that Innovation becomes an important issue it should therefore be emphasized that the existence of scalar motion is a matter of direct observation and is independent of any Theory it is one of those observed facts with which all theories must agree in order to be valid the previous failure to recognize the existence of this type of motion was not due to any lack of empirical evidence or to any question as to the validity of that evidence it was purely an oversight due mainly to the manner in which knowledge in the two physical areas is most directly involved has developed understanding of gravitation has been developed in terms of force without a clear recognition of that of the fact that Force by definition is a property of motion a point that will be examined later in this disc this this discussion meanwhile the concept of motion as inherently vectorial had remained unchallenged for so long that the Deviant characteristic of the galactic motion uh motions were not recognized in their true light when discovered there has been a general realization that the motion of spots on the surface of an expanding balloon is in some way different from the Motions of our ordinary experience it is this realization that has made the use of the balloon for explanatory purposes feasible but expanding balloons play no significant role in physical activity and no one has heretofor been sufficiently interested in the physics of these objects to undertake a systematic investigation of the characteristics of their motion once it is recognize that gravitation and the recession of the distant galaxies are motions of the same kind this investigation can no longer be neglected this finding makes it clear that scalar motion is not something minor and incidental it is one of the basic features of the physical Universe the characteristics of vectorial motion are defined by Newton's laws of motion and are accurately represented in the conventional reference system the first law of Newton which is accepted as a postulate in the in mechanics states that an object which is not acted upon by any Force moves at a constant speed in a straight line in the reference system such a victorial motion has a specific Direction and if that direction is defined with respect to one location in the reference system it is thereby defined with respect to all locations in the system thus if object a is moving in the direction AB when observed from point x it is also moving in the direction AB when observed from another point Y providing that the observations are accurate in both cases coincident vectorial motion at uniform speed in all directions would result in no net movement and no change of position in the reference system scalar motion does not conform to these relations in the example cited the Motions take place coinci acally in all inward or outward directions contrary to Newton's first law and result in changes of position in all of these directions such motion has no property other than a magnitude it is simply an increase or decrease in the separation between identifiable points or objects thus it has no inherent relation to the reference system in order to represent scalar Motion in a reference system of the conventional type a coupling to the reference system independent of the motion must be supplied the direction of the motion as seen in the reference system is a property of the coupling not a property of the motion itself okay I think we're going to stop there um this article is probably going to take three or 4 days to get through um so we're going to find a find a stopping point right there and we will start up tomorrow um looking at this uh concept of scalar motion and um how it relates to reference systems okay thank you for tuning in um and have a great night