Reciprocal System #382-"How Much Do We Really Know?" D [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

hello everyone and welcome to my channel this channel is for educational purposes and um try to inform our listeners about different subjects that we feel are important mainly theories of everything and all-encompassing theories Magnum opuses from obscure authors and other things that you might not have ever come in contact with but if you did uh they would enrich your life uh by uh giving you a holistic worldview or holistic alternative um and uh present you with um you know different options in your life that you could exercise today is our 300 uh 382nd video on the reciprocal system of theory uh from one Dewey Bernard Larson and uh Mr Larson lived from 1898 until 1990 and uh left behind a lot of books and articles and talks that he gave we're going to be going through one of his articles a little bit later here um Mr lson uh put out his two fundamental postulates in 1959 which were basically an outline of the theory and then he developed a theoretical Universe based on those postulates and so through a process of deduction just logical reasoning he if this then that he took his postulates and turned it into a theoretical universe so if my postulates are correct this is what the universe would look like and then in his books he compared his theoretical Universe with the theoretical the empirical universe that the scientist had uh observed measured and compiled uh documented and compiled over the years uh and particularly in their scientific tables um and uh Larson would uh come up with these same type of uh uh values strictly from Theory and then compare the two and it's pretty uh phenomenal that uh sometimes uh in most cases Larson would be within one tenth of a percent of the same value uh in a lot of the cases um the vast majority uh and then when there were discrepancies Larsson was usually able to explain why the Legacy scientists measurements were wrong so um now the reciprocal system is difficult to grasp uh and uh LaRon did a great job of putting everything together but he's only one person and so he was you know kind of in over his head in terms of uh trying to document everything he just had uh too much on his plate um now there have been a few other people who've come along over the years and have tried to refine the theory and modernize this Theory uh especially since uh Larson died but um you know the theory in general is in um you know it's it could uh Fall by the wayside um and just fall onto this crap peap of History where nobody just not enough people know about it and it's not able to maintain uh through the generations uh for us to figure out that he fin finally figure out that he is right um so that's kind of why I'm putting out a lot of videos on this um not because I'm an expert on the topic um because I'm not and um but it's because I'm hoping that uh you know some people come up uh after me and watch these videos and maybe um get clicks with them and uh they put the word out as well and So eventually we can develop some kind of systematic study of this and I would like to try to put out a textbook on this uh because I I think that Larsson was a good writer but he wasn't really that good of a teacher and so his the information is in there in his books and so on but you have to draw it out you know it's not um it's not it's for a digger and not so much just for a lay audience and um you know he goes into every every subject that he could get his hands on you know he's got books on physics and chemistry and astrophysics and astronomy and but he also has books on economics and he's got uh many chapters um devoted to metaphysical subjects including um psychology philosophy [Music] religion um psychic phenomenon ethics and um they all come from the same Theory so he's just got one Theory and he plugs it into every subject wouldn't that be um you know a good U foundation for a school curriculum or a um you know generalized Universal curriculum if uh it was found that the um that the uh results were commensurate with reality so I think it's worth looking at and uh the basic idea behind the reciprocal system is that we live in a universe made out of motion his first postulate says that the universe is composed entirely of one component motion existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two two reciprocal aspects space and time second postulate is that the Universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is ukian now larsson's second postulate is far more disputed than the first uh the first is where um you know that is the primary uh postulate as far as I'm concerned and um you know basically universe is made out of motion in specifically a type of motion that he called scalar motion that is a motion that has a magnitude but has no specific Direction uh which you can visualize using a balloon with spots on it if you blow up the balloon all the spots uh move away from each other but in no specific Direction and um motion is the relationship between space and time space and time are therefore reciprocals of one another and like all reciprocals they share in identical qualities so whatever quality adheres to one also aderes to the other three dimensionality being one of those and a scalar motion or clock type motion being the other um they both only come in discrete units uh you have to have a full unit before you have anything and if you have one unit of space in one unit of time then you have the speed of light which is what Larson calls unit speed 1 over 1 equals 1 and this is the background rot uh background motion of the universe of motion so in a universe of motion you always have motion it is omnipresent and in particular it is outward at the speed of light in all directions at the speed of light yes and um half the universe is moving faster than the speed of light and half is moving slower he refers to these as the cosmic sector and the material sector respectively and they are reciprocals of one another and um time and space don't have any U real existence they only exist together in motion um they can be abstracted but you have to have both um uh in reality and um then he goes from there um and um we are looking at a paper that he wrote um back in the day I don't know what the date on this is um but uh it's called how much do we really know and uh this is um a paper that Larson that mainly uh History of Science and uh I thought Larson was uh a informative his historian of science uh in his books he usually when he talks about a subject he usually goes over the history of that subject from a history of science standpoint like what um how did uh how did the science the state of current science get to where it was um you know what um what were the players doing and why were they doing it what were the what are the trends involved why do people think in a certain way and um in this paper he's spent some time going over um just the fact that especially theoretical scientists theoretical physicists and astronomers that they uh that that they have um an inflated view of of how much they know uh the the um Rank and file scientists think that these problems have all been solved they think that they actually have knowledge about certain subjects but if you actually listen to the actual front rank scientists the leaders in the field they all know that uh they just have a hypothesis that is better than maybe what they they had before or that uh and they're they're literally salivating for a general theory that they could uh employ uh across the board instead of just using these peac mail peac meal um theories that they can only apply to one subject at a time and uh but you know they still are not thirsty for uh Larson's Theory even though it is exactly the kind of generalized theory that they're looking for because they recognized that if they um took on larsson's Theory they would have to admit that they were wrong and they would have to adapt um to an unfamiliar system and so all of their uh hard work in mastering the current uh state of science would be for not and um so that's kind of where Larson is going with this and then he looked at looked at a few specific examples the um hydrogen to helium process in Stellar burning and uh showing that that has no no type of uh standing in terms of um in terms of reality but um the uh astronomers go there anyway because the physicists wenten there and um and uh then there was a question of uh stability um of certain elements um uh particularly I think was iron uh 56 but also the neutron uh the neutron is unstable um but nonetheless they make it uh part of the atom and they um say that for some reason the neutron is stable in the atom but when it's not in the atom it's not stable uh you know they just kind of do these things and use uh various u means of um covering up in order to justify what they're doing uh it sounds a lot like the political situation as a matter of fact uh it is basically political and they use a lot of censorship and and obfuscation and other deceitful means to maintain their um Power more or less now uh we went through this paper over the last 3 days so if you want to go back to the start you want to go back 3 days so this will be the fourth installment and we're starting you know uh in the middle of the paper there okay conclusions outside the scope of the observations are not knowledge somewhat analogous to the practice of extrapolation but of a more questionable character is the practice of exaggeration that is claiming more than what the observations or measurements actually substantiate a classic example is Einstein's theory that mass is a function of velocity throughout scientific literature this theory is described as having been quote proved by the result of experiment and by the successful use of the predictions of the theory in the design of the particle accelerators yet at the same time that a host of scientific Authority ities are proclaiming this Theory as firmly established and incontestable experimental fact practically every elementar Elementary physics uh textbook admits that it is actually nothing more than an arbitrary selection from among several possible alternative explanations of The observed facts the experiments simply show that if a particle is subjected to an unchanged uh electric or magnetic force the resulting acceleration decreases at high velocities and approaches a limit of zero at the velocity of light the further conclusion that the decrease in acceleration is due to an increase in mass is a pure assumption that has no fa factual Foundation whatever whatsoever or whatever as one textbook book author explains the situation quote there seems to be no reason to believe that there is any change in the charge and we therefore conclude that the mass increases another says quote this decreas is interpreted as in increase as an increase of mass with Speed Charge being constants end quote obviously an interpret ation of The observed facts is not a fact in itself and it is rather strange that the theorists have been so eager to accept this particular interpretation that they have not even taken the time to examine the full range of possible alternative explanations or interpretations as these quotations from the textbooks indicate it has been taken for granted that either the charge or the mass must must be variable but actually it is the acceleration that has been measured and the acceleration is a relation of force to mass not of charge to mass the accepted interpretations of the observed facts therefore contain the additional assumption that the effective force exerted by a charge is constant irrespective of the velocity of the object to which it is apply the possibility that this assumption is invalid cannot logically be excluded from consideration on the contrary there are some distinct advantages in maintaining both charge and mass as constant magnitudes when we get down to bedrock it is clear that the theory of an increase in mass is not something that has been proved by experiment as is so widely claimed it is a pure assumption that goes beyond the scope of the experiment and is only one of several po possible Alternatives any Theory which leads to the observed decrease in acceleration at high velocities is equally as consistent with the observed facts as Einstein's theory that the mass increases a principle of impedence is not knowledge one of the disturbing features of current scientific practice is the increasing tendency to rationalize failure to solve difficult Problems by setting up postulates that uh solutions to these problems are impossible as Alfred land puts it quote in short if you cannot clarify a problematic situation declare it to be quote fundamental then proclaim a corresponding quote principle Herbert Dingle quotes a physicist who even go so far as to contend that we are at last firmly grounded on the principle of uncertainty and these are no minor matters out of the periphery of physical Theory they are matters of vital importance to the foundations of theoretical structure quoting RB braith weight quote such propositions principles of impedence play a very large part at the present time in the fundamental theories of physics it should hardly be necessary to point out that from their very nature these principles of impedence are incapable of proof and are never entitled to the status of established facts it is very doubtful whether they should even be recognized as legitimate scientific devices to say nothing of being given any authoritative standing some of them should certainly be barred the underlying concept upon which all scientific research is based and without which the application of time and effort to this task would be wholly unjustified if the uh is the conviction that this physical universe is a essentially reasonable and operates according to fixed principles thus far we have never encountered any actual evidence to the contrary as scientific knowledge has expanded one after another of the F phenomena that were inexplicable to our early ancestors has been found to follow fixed and unchanging laws but now there is a growing use of a practice which is not only questionable by nature in that it is an easy way of avoiding the difficult task of solving complex problems but also leads to conclusions which are in direct opposition to the philosophical premise which is our only justification for understanding scientific research in the first place conclusions such as this from Heisenberg quote the idea of an objective real world whose smallest Parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether or not we observe them is impossible or this from Bridgeman quote the world is not intrinsically reasonable or understandable it acquires these Pro properties in ever increasing degree as we ascend from the realm of the very little to the realm of everyday things or this from her ber Bert Dingle quote the real world is not only unknown and unknowable but inconceivable that is to say contradictory or absurd uh these statements are all completely at odds with the underlying philosophy of scientific research if we had some definite and positive evidence that they were true we should have to accept them however unpalatable they may be and accepting them purely on the strength of principles of impotence which means that they have no factual support at all is totally illogical the ball truth is that these statements are simply efforts to avoid admitting failure the theorists have failed in their attempt to discover the exact physical and mathematical property properties of the component parts of the atom and rather than admit that their abilities are unequal to the task as Cen Yang suggested in the interview previously mentioned they prefer to postulate that these properties do not exist and that even the atom itself as Heisenberg says has no immediate and direct properties at all the ironic part of it is that it is now beginning to become evident that the task at which the theorists have fail is not an impossible task as they would like to have us believe it is a meaningless task as will be brought out later in this memorandum a growing mass of evidence indicates that the atomic constituents whose properties have been so difficult to Define simply do not exist at all a possibility that should have been given serious consideration long ago when the most strenuous efforts over a long period of years by the best Minds in the scientific profession failed to clarify the properties of the hypothetical con constituents of the atom and finally lead to the conclusions that these entities have no definite definite properties and do not even exist objectively mere Common Sense certainly calls for a thorough examination of the obvious possibility that they do not exist at all but this natural and logical explanation of the difficulties that have been experienced has been completely ignored while the theorists have gone on an uncontrolled Excursion into a weird land of fantasy completely divorced from physical reality in this instance the Great Prestige of physical science and physics in particular has operated to the detriment by to its detriment by permitting it to transcend the limits of logic and Common Sense unchecked by those restraints which are applied to all less glorified branches of knowledge as um James R Newman very aptly remarks quote in this Century the professional philosopher have let the physicists get away with murder it is a safe bet that no other group of scientists could have passed off and gained acceptance for such an extraordinary principle of complimentary uh or as complimentarily not are complimentarily not nor succeeded in elevating indeterminacy to a universal law since a principle of impotence is inherently incapable of proof it is obvious that claims of proof of such propositions are fallacious ordinarily the fallacy is not difficult to locate for example the first postulate of Relativity the denial of the existence of absolute motion is a principle of impotence it is commonly presented in the guise of positive knowledge not because it is contended that this postulate itself have uh has been proved but because the relativity Theory uh theory is claimed to have been proved and this is part of that theory the fallacy lies in the fact that the relativity theory has not been and cannot be proved as a whole since it includes four independent postulates two of these the the constant velocity of light and the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass are supported by sufficient factual evidence to justify the contention that they have been proved actually these are not theories at all they are experimental facts which most physicists were willing to concede even before they were incorporated into relativity Theory but there is no logical justification for extending the evidence in favor of these two POS Poes to the first postulate which has no necessary connection with the other two beyond the fact that it was wrapped up in the same package by the originator of that theory the first postulate is simply one of the possible ways of getting around the contradiction introduced by the experimental discovery of the constant velocity of light and it has won General acceptance by default because no one has seen fit to develop a case in favor of any of the various Alternatives within the framework of accepted theories of space time and motion the constant velocity of light is definitely incompatible with the concept of absolute velocity and Einstein chose to sacrifice absolute velocity it is equally feasible to retain absolute velocity and to modify present SpaceTime Concepts instead particularly since there are no great demands on this postulate the only purpose that it serves is to evade the contradiction that would otherwise exist it is rather surprising that this possibility has not been explained considering the tremendous amount of time and effort that has been devoted to research in theoretical physics there is no obvious advantage in such a substitution of postulates since it since it would not change any of the essential aspects of Relativity but the mere fact that there is no definite purpose in plain sight does not ordinarily deter basic research exploration of the various Alternatives would at least clarify the status of the so-called paradoxes as these are consequences of the first postulate and replacement of this postulate by one of the Alternatives would either eliminate the paradoxes or substitute a new set for the ones now existing okay we're going to stop there um and uh proceed further with this paper tomorrow uh before I get angry at all the slight of hands and outright fraud that the physicists have been involved in over the years um under the guise of science uh that they've uh one philosopher say that they've been getting away with murder and I believe that to be true and if you look at the history of these clowns um a lot of them have um you know passed uh they've been imported into this into this country and into other Western countries from um places that uh are not reputable we'll just say that and uh they're trying to uh get billions of dollars for their projects uh and are uh you know delivering nothing okay and Larson was paid zero for his project and he's delivering the goods so that's why we're paying attention to this um okay well we will be back tomorrow to uh read the next installment of this article I don't know how much longer how much longer it goes on but um you know uh lson does a good do uh good job of uh slicing and dicing here um and just B basically showing that how much we really know is not really very much um possibly get done tomorrow uh definitely in two days okay uh have a good day and thanks for t