Reciprocal System #11-Deductive Development D [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone I'm Thomas and welcome to my channel I do educational videos on uh different obscure esoteric subjects and um we uh kind of did a couple different versions of the Tree of Life and now we're doing the reciprocal system of theory I think this is about the 11th video I've done on that uh the first seven or so were autobiographical or biographical and now we're getting into the um deductive development of the reciprocal system the reciprocal system was uh founded or discovered by Dewey B Larson back in the middle part of the 20th century and uh it is a system where he starts with just a couple different postulates and then he derives an entire universe from those postulates and uh um we are this is the third day I think of of working with these postulates or maybe the fourth and the fourth and we're at number 22. um so if you are kind of lost you probably would need to go back and and start at the beginning start at at a uh the deductive development a uh because this is going to be the deductive development d so uh starting at number 22 there is no inherent relation between the time magnitudes involved in the different dimensions of the photon motion one is the time of the progression of the natural reference system the other is independent of this progression thus the frequency of the radiation the number of cycles per unit of the linear progression can take any value subject only to the capability of the process whereby the radiation is produced number 23 the postulates that the universe is three-dimensional means that three independent magnitudes are required for a complete definition of each of its basic quantities thus three dimensions of scalar motion are passable in order to distinguish these purely mathematical dimensions of motion from the dimensions of space which are geometrical as well as mathematical in the context of the spatial reference system we will refer to them as scalar dimensions okay now he's uh basically saying here that uh space and time are reciprocals of each other and they're the same but from our Vantage Point our spatial reference system we see space as both geometrical and mathematical but we see time only as mathematical there there is no space of time there is no geometry of this time aspect that we are capable of plugging into okay number and so he's making a distinction here between Gaylord dimensions and uh vectorial Dimensions the vectorial dimensions we're familiar with those are the XYZ coordinates and uh but the scalar dimensions are mathematical they refer to a magnitude but no Direction only one okay and this is number 24. only one dimension of motion can be represented in a three-dimensional spatial system of reference each motion shown in such a system is represented by a vector a vector a one-dimensional quantity having both magnitude and direction and any combinations of such motions can be represented by the vector sum which is likewise one-dimensional a scalar motion has magnitude only and no inherent spatial Direction it therefore has to be given a direction in order to be represented in a spatial reference system number 26. to give directions to the members of a system of scalar motions it is necessary to couple one of the moving locations of the station stationary reference system in such a way that it is represented as Motionless the directions imputed to the other motions of the system are then determined by their relation to this assumed motionless reference point so he's saying that if in order to put something into a uh reference system you have to at some point say this is the reference point and this point is motionless and then you can derive all of the other relations from that motionless reference point but that doesn't that's not part of a scalar uh any type of scalar system in the scalar system everything is moving so there is no reference point in order to make these kind of geometrical uh representations you have to first basically assume that they're assume and delineate a reference point and assume that it is stationary okay so I'm just going to read that one again to our to give directions to the members of a stationary of a system of scalar motions it is necessary to couple one of the moving locations to the stationary reference system in such a way that is represented as Motionless the directions imputed to the other motions of the system are then determined by their relation to this assumed motionless reference point for example if we designate our galaxy as a the direction of the motion of distant Galaxy X as we see it is a x but observers in a galaxy B see Galaxy X as moving in a very different direction BX because they use a different reference point this contrasts sharply with the directions of motions of our ordinary experience vectorial motions which are the same regardless of the location from which they are being observed in this vectorial case the direction of is the property of the motion okay so he's really pointing out here the the major differences between a scalar reference system a scalar Dimension and a vectorial dimension and that this scalar system is something that is basically foreign to us okay now this is number 27 from the 25 and 26 the ones that we just did it follows that the factors which determine the direction of a scalar motion are independent of those which determine the magnitude the direction is a result of the nature and location of the coupling of the motion to the reference system it may be a constant direction as in the outward travel of the photons of radiation or it may be a rotationally distributed motion one that is constantly changing okay and then now 28 is from 27 the translational motion of a photon instead of being unidirectional as in number 18 above may be rotationally distributed in the reference system the motion thus distributed which we will call a scalar rotation is a linear motion with a constant magnitude but a continually changing direction now here Mr peret has a footnote and he says Larson bases his work on linear velocity and does not recognize the concept of angular velocity as a primary motion in the reciprocal system to research that paretis involved in or was involved in both are considered primary the yin angular and the Yang linear aspects of motion consider that in a vacuum where no other forces are present you can throw a baseball with linear velocity or spin it in place with an angular velocity both will retain their velocity forever and are therefore primary motions okay now this is uh kind of uh important here so Larson considers rotational motion to be kind of uh subservient or secondary to this linear motion he's he's saying that this linear motion is the primary motion and then this rotational motion uh kind of requires the linear motion before the rotational motion and so that it's it's not primary it's um what does he say he says it is um the motion that's distributed which will be called a scalar rotation is a linear progression with a constant magnitude but a continually changing direction but for paret and the reciprocal system two uh it's a yin yang type of thing and the yin is angular motion motion uh you know around a 360 Degrees uh whereas a Yin a Yang motion is a linear motion so he says that both of those motions are are uh primary and he uses this case of a baseball to demonstrate that and really um you know if you put put a baseball in a vacuum where there are no effects of friction and so if you push the if you push the motion in One Direction it will keep moving in that direction uh forever if it's not stopped by gravity but in the same way if you spin a baseball uh around and around and around it will keep going around and around and around forever as well so to me that argues uh against Larson and for peret the fact that both of those motions will continue on forever um means to me at least or infers that they are of the same um station night one is not primary and one is not secondary they're both they both have the same status uh so both uh rotational motion and linear motion appear to me to have the same status but to Larson they don't the uh this the rotational motion is secondary to um to the uh linear motion okay now number 29 from number 23 scalar rotation can take place coincidentally in three dimensions from number 24 however it can be represented in a spatial reference system only on a one-dimensional basis the magnitudes of the direct of the Motions in the three dimensions are additive and can be represented as a total but the directions of the different distributions cannot be combined the representation in the reference system therefore indicates the correct magnitude or speed of the three-dimensional motion but shows only the directions applicable to the single dimension of the motion that is parallel to the dimension of the reference system okay so now you're you're probably starting to get and see how Larson's writing or even his speaking because this is a transcript of a talk he gave um is just it's so hard to follow uh because he's using I mean he uh I don't even know how many prepositional phrases he uses here you know it can be represented in a spatial reference system only on a one-dimensional basis the magnitudes of the Motions in the three dimensions are additive and can be represented as a total but the directions of the different different distributions cannot be combined uh he's basically just saying that you can't combine scalar motions and vectorial motions you can't add them together uh the the scalar motions are a magnitude um the representation in the reference system therefore indicates the correct magnitude or speed of the three-dimensional motion but shows only the directions applicable to the single dimension of the motion that is parallel to the dimension of the reference system number 30 in the absence of any specific restrictive Factor rotationally distributed scalar motions are distributed distributed over all spatial directions the magnitude of such emotion toward a point in any given direction is therefore inversely proportional to the second power of the intervening distance this is the origin of the inverse Square law of gravity so you know if you have gravity uh gravity follows an inverse Square law uh you know it's it's kind of amazing you know Larson doesn't even refer to the to you know he just says this is the origin of the inverse Square law doesn't say the inverse Square law of gravity or anything you know and like so that's why Larson is so difficult to read and that's why nobody has ever really gotten Larson is because of his you know it's not obfuscation it's just that he uh he's not a teacher he's he writes well but he does not teach he does not kind of it's I've had you know when I took calculus in college I had uh I think it was my second semester and I really did poorly in that class but I had this teacher who was like the world you know the world's expert on this one aspect of calculus but I guess she was just so brilliant in this one aspect that she just assumed that everybody else was like as brilliant as she was and she just couldn't explain anything to the to the class she would sit uh she would stand in front of the the lecture hall and just write proofs on the board you know explaining why this thing proving why this is um true and I'm just sitting there I'm just like look I'll take your word for it that it's true you know please explain to me what it means don't prove it to me you know prove show me what it means before you prove it to me you know she's she's talking on a level that's higher than what I was capable of of grasping and Larson does a lot of that too um and you know my purposes here are to show you kind of the way that Larson thinks in that way he goes about things and then maybe ex you know try to clarify some of his stuff but also to be able to you know show why this is um nobody is really you know picked up on this but also that you know Bruce perrett does a much better job of explaining things not perfect but uh much better I mean you can't really get on Larson for it because he has such a difficult job to do you know it's so difficult to be explaining to this to uh any type of audiences uh you know what he's come up with but anyway he's saying this is the origin of the inverse Square law that's gravitation so like if you've got these two things that are 12 inches apart they exert a force of of one on each other but then if you make them twice as far apart and so now they're 24 inches apart they exert only one-fourth of that force not one half but one-fourth a square it's a square and then so if you move it 36 inches apart the force is not one-third of the original Force it's one-ninth of the original Force so it's it's a square if you then if you move them to only six inches apart half the distance the force is not twice as much but it is four times as much if you move it one-third the distance it's not the force is not three times as much it's nine times as much okay so that's the inverse Square law you have to square the uh coefficient there okay number 31. in as much as the natural reference system progresses outward at unit speed relative to the spatial reference system no further increment of outward speed as possible because of the discrete unit postulates uh the net total magnitude of a rotationally distributed distributed uh linear motion must therefore be inward okay now again remember the discrete unit postulate everything is in units integers um you know you either have zero you have one you have two but you don't have point three eight or something like that okay this will be the last one here if the scalar motion is less than three-dimensional the basic Photon will move outward as radiation in a vacant Dimension and the motion combination will disintegrate in order to be stable the rotationally distributed motion must therefore be three-dimensional okay this rotationally distributed scalar motion he's talking about is gravity and so he's setting up the the uh conditions for Gravity you have to have three dimensions of this inward motion this rotationally distributed motion uh in order to for something to be stable uh like matter so gravity is NE is is what he's using as the vehicle to create matter um but we'll get on with that next time uh that was number 32 we'll probably start with that tomorrow um meanwhile have a great day we hope to see you soon um and stay tuned for future videos