Reciprocal System #394-"The Fundamentals of Science in the 21st Century" C [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone and welcome to my channel this is a channel that is trying to educate the public on different aspects of important theories of everything uh that I've studied over the years and um come in contact with fortuitously and um a lot of these things are rather obscure and um us usually pretty esoteric as well um today is our 394th video on the reciprocal system of theory from dwey B Larson and uh this theory is a system of theory meaning that if you understand the system you can potentially um use it yourself to answer any question uh come up with solutions to any problem that you uh see out there um but you really have to know how to use the system and be able to um you know um kind of see through um you know kind of have it mastered to the point where you can see how it applies and uh um Mr Larsson was able to do that and showed how he was able to do that through his uh first his two fundamental postulates that he put out in 1959 and then taking those two fundamental postulates and from them driving a theoretical universe and so that is precisely what Larson did is he uh used his system of theory to derive a theoretical universe and then in his books he compared his theoretical Universe with the empirical universe that had been measured uh compiled into tables uh from the Legacy scientists over the course of the centuries we're talking about you know millions of manh hours and trillions of dollars uh to put together these scientific tables over the centuries and uh Larson is able to recreate them strictly from Theory no Laboratories no um telescopes no Adam Smashers not even a calculator because he was doing a lot of the work with the slide rule so um well probably in these later years he had access to a calculator but uh anyway it's an impressive feat and um he's able to come very very close to the values in these tables uh strictly from Theory so basically what is the theory the theory um stated again in the two fundamental postulates primarily in the first postulate and the first postulate goes that the universe is composed entirely of one component Motion in existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time and uh that is uh kind of just one version of the fir of the first postulate he he changed some of the wording uh from time to time and I believe when he first put out the F uh first P fundamental postulate he instead of using the term motion he used used the term SpaceTime later in his life he um paraphrased it as uh change in three dimensions rather than motion so but uh more or less Larson's universe is a universe of motion the universe is not made out of matter it's not made out of energy it's not made out of force or any um you know of the fundamental forces or anything like that it's made out of motion and in particular it is made out of what Larsson refers to as a scalar motion this is a kind of more generalized and really non-local uh non-directional motion scalar motion is a motion that has a magnitude but it has no specific Direction um and you visualize that using a balloon with dots on it if you blow up the balloon all of the dots are moving away from each other that is what Larson calls an outward scalar motion they are all moving apart moving away from each other but in no specific Direction um each dot is moving away from each other Dot and in fact the locations between the DOT dots are moving away each one of those is moving away from each other location even between the dots it is the uh steady expansion of the surface of the balloon um everything is moving apart and the further apart they are the faster they're moving apart from each other so that is a scalar motion and you can think of this in terms of time also time is always getting later and later and later and later it's not getting later in any specific Direction so we have time getting later and later and later space getting farther and farther and farther apart and uh again in motion uh space and time are the constituents of motion now back three 3,000 years ago for the last 3,000 years uh it's always kind of been thought that space and time are the the uh container of the universe that the the uh universe is a all the world is a stage and the activities of the players on the stage occur in this container of space and time um but in Larson's formulation the space and time are the contents not the container the contents of the universe the universe is made out of space and time uh together in motion space and time do not exist separately uh only through abstraction which is basically kind of like turning off uh the universe and taking a snapshot um you can abstract and you can you can take time and space apart from each other but in doing so you are uh automatically creating a distortion or you're stopping the universe U from its motion and so what you're seeing is not the live universe it's kind of like you have to kill the universe first before you can make that snapshot same thing with the scalar Motion in order to really determine um the direction of a scalar motion you have to say if you go back to the dots on the balloon you have to uh decide arbitrarily that one of the dots is going to be the reference point and it's going to be assigned to be motionless and then once you decide that one of these reference points is motionless then you can determine the directions from the other dots and um that's basically again like killing the univer uh killing the universe in order to measure it uh it's kind of like also um you know dissecting uh biologically dissecting um a frog or something like that well who's to say that what's going on inside the Frog when you dissect it is the same as what it is when it was alive um there's a disconnect there and you have to kind of um decide that okay well uh this disconnect is is not relevant or it's it's minor what's going on inside the frog is fundamentally the same when it's alive as when it is dissected that's an assumption and that's um that's kind of how I think of the uh you know abstracting space and time and uh determining the directions of scalar motion which is not a property of the scalar motion itself it's a property of the reference point that you chose so anyway space and time do not exist in and of themselves they only exist together in motion motion is a fraction with time or space as the numerator and space or time as the denominator all of our basic fundamental um quantities um ma including mass energy and force are simply different kinds of motion in Larson's formulation uh you know speed is space over over time the car is moving 15 mph energy is time over space it took me three hours to move that thing one mile and then we also have uh you know Force being time over space to the second power matter time to the third power over space to the third power and so on like that um l was able to determine these things uh through Theory uh through deduction and um then also um because time and space are reciprocals of one another they have the same qualities um only with the roles of space and time reversed they have um both a three-dimensional aspect we observe a two dimens a threedimensional aspect of space XYZ coordinates in that um you know kind of uh space and time as a setting three-dimensional stationary frame and thereby Larson is able to extrapolate and say that space time also has this three-dimensional aspect which uh Larsson refers to as coordinate space and coordinate time now uh in terms of scalar motion it requires three dimensions of space Andor three dimensions of time just uh to represent one dimension of scalar motion so there are two other dimensions of scalar motion that cannot be properly represented in reference system um and um then space and time also have come in only discrete units they there is a minimum unit of space a minimum unit of time and really a minimum unit of motion that you have to have before you have those things and that is what Larson calls unit speed one unit of space in one unit of time which is also known as the speed of light and so the speed of light in larsson's universe is one and it is the one that is really at the center of a reciprocal system and so in Larson's Universe uh the speed of light is the background speed uh the speed where it always exists it's omnipresent um if you have nothing in larsson's Universe you still have the speed of light moving outward in all directions uh scalar motion at the speed of light that is the zero point of Larson's universe or the neutral point or the null point or the origin or The Ether of this universe Larson refers to it as the progression of the natural reference ref system so that is the reference system now Legacy scientists use zero as a re as their reference uh point you know from from zero motion but Larson does it from unit speed and that means that half of the universe is moving faster than the speed of light which also flies in the face of the Legacy scientists who say that the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe that is true if you only consider the half of the universe that is moving slower than the speed of light which Larson refers to us the material sector but that ignores what Larson calls the cosmic sector the half that's moving faster than the speed of light and those two sectors are reciprocals of one another in the material sector you have three dimensions of space coordinate space and you have clock time the clock is is always getting later and later and later but if you cross that boundary and you move into the cosmic sector then you go into a realm of three-dimensional time coordinate time and clock space the clock is always getting later and later and later so this just shows you uh how to get started with the reciprocal system and then uh if you really kind of Master those uh different Dynamics and relationship ships then you can start applying it to other subjects which is what Larson did um now today we're doing the third installment of uh Larson's paper that is called the fundamentals of uh science in the 21st century and uh if you want to get started at the beginning you want to go back a couple episodes and uh watch those two episodes uh today is the third installment in this paper uh he went over a lot of the history of science stuff in the first um two days and now I think he's going to get into his own Theory and uh how it serves it will serve as the fundamental of science uh in the 21st century although uh at this rate it might we might get to the 22nd Cent Century before before people figure this out okay uh here it goes as often happens in scientific research this theoretical Advance was an unexpected result of a project aimed at a totally different objective so this is Larson talking about the development of his own Theory this project began begun half a century ago and this paper was uh given in 19 78 so half a century before that this project began half a c begun half a century ago attempted to devise a way of calculating physical properties or at least some of them from the theor the chemical composition in some respects this is a rather unfavorable subject for investigation it has had a great deal of attention from previous investigators and the most promising lines of approach have been rather thoroughly combed over on the other hand it is a problem for which an answer certainly exists since the physical properties of different substances are obviously results of their chemical composition I started with the concept embodied in the periodic table of the elements the idea that the principal properties of these elements depend on the two variables represented vertically and horizontally in the tables the first real advance that I made after many false starts was a recognition of the fact that one of these variables um assumed both positive and negative values whereas the other was always positive then after much additional time and effort had been applied it became evident that there were three of these principal variables rather than only two while these efforts to establish the form of the mathematical relations were underway I was also struggling toward an understanding of the meaning of the mathematics a tie in to physical reality was necessary if the results were to be conceptually correct here again my first efforts followed conventional lines of thought the prevailing view was and still is that the differences between the properties of the chemical elements are due to variations in the number and arrangement of the of subatomic particles of which these elements atoms are assumed to be composed my original course of procedure was directed toward accounting for the mathematical relations on this basis continued lack of success forced me to consider other Alternatives one of the possibilities that I eventually visualized was that some of the variability might be due to differences in the Motions of the constituent particles rather than to differences in the atomic composition this approach was likewise unsuccessful but it did produce some indications that I was on the right track these indications became stronger when I placed more emphasis on motions and less on composition eventually the idea that some of the variability might be due to differences in the Motions was discarded and it was substituted by the idea that such differences are responsible for all of the variations this was the first really radical conceptual jump in the development of my thought and it had some significant consequences when the variability was ascribed entirely to differences in the Motions the existence of only three major variables made it quite clear that the Motions must be motions of the atom rather than motions of many Atomic constituents then since inherent motion of the atom is almost certainly rotation the number three naturally suggested rotations around the three perpendicular axes the magnitudes of the three major variables could then be identified with the speeds of the three rotations on this basis The Entity of which atoms of matter are composed according to the uh conclusions reached earlier is motion and the atom is simply a combination of motions the concept of an atom composed of subatomic particles now had to be discarded with this understanding of the general nature of the atomic structure the stage was set for the final inductive step of the original project among the mathematical Expressions that I had derived during the 20 years or more that I had already been working on the project were some interesting Expressions relating certain physical properties of the elements directly to their atomic numbers what I now had to do was to put these expressions in terms of motions this was another long and often frustrating task but after several more years in which I examined every possibility that I could think of plausible or implausible it finally dawned on me that one of the most intriguing of the mathematic matical Expressions that I had formulated one that related the interatomic distances of the elements in the solid state to their atomic numbers could be very easily explained if there were a general reciprocal relation between space and time if anyone who Encounters this idea for the first time finds it rather weird I can understand their reaction it struck me that way too my first impression was that the idea of the reciprocal of space was conceptually absurd but when I took a closer look at the concept I could see that it was not an un uh it was not so unreasonable after all the only relation between space and time of which we have any definite knowledge is motion and in motion space and time are reciprocally related so I examined further the consequences of such a relation I found much to my surprise that it led directly to simple and logical solutions for at least half a dozen long-standing problems of physical science anyone who has ever done research work will understand that this kind of a breakthrough that we visualize in our most Rosy dreams and of course it called for the initiation of a fullscale investigation to see just how far this clarification of the physical picture would extend by the time of my first publication in 1959 I had been able to formulate a set of postulates incorporating the reciprocal concept I could show that the principal features of the major subdivisions of physical science could be obtained by pure deduction from these postulates without the aid of any supplementary assumptions or any information from experience in the years since the initial publication scientists in all parts of the world have joined in the effort the scope of the deductive system has been increased to the point where we can predict that it will ultimately achieve the objective that Newtonian science once envisioned it will Encompass the entire physical Universe for those who shudder at the thought of having to subject their scientific beliefs to a complete overhaul I want to say that even though the new theoretical system rests on a different foundation in most instances it arrives at the same conclusions as conventional Theory I would estimate that 90% of what now passes for scientific knowledge in is incorporated into the new system either just as it stands or with nothing more drastic than a change in the language in which it is expressed another 5% or so retains the mathematics in the existing form but Alters the interpretation not more than 5% of conventional scientific thought has to undergo any significant change and these major reconstructions are confined to the far out regions the Realms of the very small the very large and the very fast the same regions in which conventional science is encountering its most serious problems on first consideration it may seem strange that totally different basic premises would lead to much the same results in so many cases there is however a very simple explanation the 90% of present day science that is incorporated into the new deductive system without significant change is not derived from the general principles invented by Einstein and other modern physicists it is derived empirically the theory iies included in the 90% are the inductive theories of lower rank than the fundamental principles I have than the fundamental principles I have been discussing what the new system of theory does in these areas is to provide a general theoretical basis for the empirically derived relations something that has never been available before as I pointed out in the discussion of the toic theory the construction of an inductive theory is impossible if some essential piece of information is missing when observation and measurement were extended into what I have called the far out regions Newtonian science lost the battle to Einstein and his inventions became the essential piece of information that would have enabled understanding the situation in these far out regions was not available we have now identified it the piece of information that has been missing until now is the reciprocal relation between space and time by applying this relation we have been able to construct a new inductive science on a specific and definite basis our problem now is to bring this development to the attention of the scientific Community here we encounter the same obstacle that always faces innovators those who take a superficial look at the new development see only the fact that it challenges some popular ideas they hold up their hands in horror and say these people disagree with Einstein they must be crazy I have yet to find any law of science that prohibits disagreeing with Einstein but be that as it may since this is such a common reaction let us look at the situation and see just what this uh just where this agreement lies okay I think that's a good place to stop uh that's a really uh I thought uh good 15 minutes of uh Larson explaining where he's coming from and uh hopefully in the next installment he will explain it further um and um you know if you follow that along uh I hope hope you got something out of it if not just keep persevering um this is not easy but it's worthwhile and um you know it never is easy to kind of learn new paradigms but it always enriches your world um and so I just encourage you not to um reject anything out of hand just like what LaRon is saying there is no um scientific prohibition with disagreeing with Einstein or with disagreeing with any of the clowns that are out there today talking about science like uh um you know that little diesel that does the uh the um you know the uh and um other people like that so uh anyway have a great day thanks for tuning in and we'll see you