Reciprocal System #2-Autobiographical B [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone all right today we're just gonna get back into the stuff we were talking about yesterday with the reciprocal system and my personal experiences with it um and it just kind of gives you a little bit of background about my motivation why I want to be teaching this and why this is a core part of uh the curriculum that I'm presenting on this channel um now I think we were we were leaving off uh I had uh just uh finished grad school and I was um lecturing in U.S history at this University uh same one that I went to grad school uh just finished my PhD and I was getting ready to go onto the job market and but I was doing some research uh in order to uh turn my dissertation into a book just uh you know so I was working on that and I came across Anthony Braxton one of my saxophone players who uh you know my dissertation is about and he said that uh time has more than one dimension because one dimensional time is just Tempo and uh we're playing polyrhythms we're playing syncopation those are in other dimensions of time so I took that lead and I looked up you know multi-dimensional time I wanted to see if there were any physicists that would back him up on any of that and uh that's how I got to Dewey Larson now what Dewey Larson really says is that time is three-dimensional or at least multi-dimensional it's the same amount of dimensions of time as there are of space because time and space are identical except that they are reciprocals of each other so whatever qualities that space has time also has and vice versa so um time uh we we normally perceive space as being three-dimensional and we normally perceive time as progressing you know it's always getting later and later and later and later in time and so those two qualities are transferred into their uh into their counterpart so we see uh so he's really saying that time is three-dimensional just like space um even though those dimensions are not um you know directly perceivable but time is three-dimensional and space progresses so there is a progression of space in the same way that there's a progression of time and there is a um three-dimensional time that comes into play as well now uh that is ex not exactly the key of this Theory Larson's uh one of his uh books uh his book on astronomy is called Universe of motion and that's really what Larson um the Crux of what Larson is talking about okay like so if you have go back to the ancient Greeks or something where they have the atom um and they say that the atom is the basis of matter um and the universe is made out of matter and then you know 20 early 20th century Einstein comes along and says well you know everything looks like it's made out of matter but ultimately everything is made out of energy um and equals m c squared um and uh so the key thing the fundamental component of the universe is energy and Larson um not too many years later a couple Generations later uh comes along and says well um you know the universe is not made out of matter and it's not made out of energy either um in fact um there's something that underlies both energy and matter um that the universe is made out of and he says that the um you know the fact of E equals m c squared showing that energy can be converted into matter and vice versa demonstrates conclusively that the universe is made out of neither of those things there's something that underlies both of them and that is the c squared part and the C is the speed of light okay so equals mc squared energy equals matter times the speed of light squared the c squared is the uh translation between the energy and the matter and the fact that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa means that there is something else that is composing a universe Larson really says that that is motion or the c squared part the universe is made out of motion and motion is the relationship between time and space time and space are identical to each other and uh they are related in motion and um you know um motion is basically uh a fraction uh between time and space so that's a reciprocal relationship so time over space or space over time are both motion enlarson's system time over space is speed I mean space over time is speed uh you know 20 miles per hour 20 miles of space per one hour of time that's speed now the opposite is time over space 20 um it took me 20 minutes to move that thing five feet um that is energy time divided by space now space and time though both have three dimensions so you can have time over space space over time to the second power that's acceleration you know um nine you know so-called gravity is 9.8 on at sea level is 9.8 meters per second per second meaning that you know it's going 9.8 meters per second but it's speeding up by 9.8 meters per second so every second it speeds up by that amount um and that's acceleration so that's that's the speed uh you would have to use that equation to figure out how fast something was moving if you dropped it from a 50-story building and you know at the start it's it's not moving you know at all and then by but by the time it hits the ground it's it's accelerated according to how many ever seconds that it's that it's taken and there's a formula that you can use to figure out how long it takes something to fall from a certain height um now there are you know are all those permutations of space and time depending on um your uh Dimensions so you can have time over space time over space to the second power uh usually that's um uh uh time time the second power of a space to the second power is like a magnetic flux uh among other things um time over space to the second power would be Force um time to the second power over space is impulse time to the third power over space to the third power is matter and um you know you can plug that into the equation equals m c squared you know so you have energy which is time over space equals matter which is time to the third power over space to the third power times the speed of light squared speed is space over time so you have space to the second power over time to the second power and so the equation works out so that's a beautiful part of Larson's theory is that uh you know you can check uh you can check by the units of space to time uh in your equations you can go back and look at a lot of the old equations from history and see if they check out according to time over space now in in the Legacy science you know they use whatever the MKS system or whatever Mass um time and um I don't even remember what it is MKS system you know it's uh space and and and that matter is one of the fundamental components Larson is just basically saying that there's only two fundamental components there space and time ultimately like say if you're looking at the Tree of Life uh uh space and time are are ultimately illusions that they don't exist if you're if you're going all the way up to the top of the tree and you're talking uh in terms of uh Ultimate Reality space and time don't exist but if you are going to you know drop down into the real world you can use these time over space and time and space um you know um components to map out your universe now that's just a tiny introduction for the uh reciprocal system of theory what I was now he spells that out in that the book the new light on space and time which is the first book that I got you know like I said what I uh uh was working on turning my dissertation into a book and I heard that Anthony Braxton talked about uh multi-dimensional time I looked it up found Larson's book new light on Space of time brought it home or uh found it on the internet you can find all Larson's books on the internet for free um and or at least almost all of them and uh new light space of time is from 1965 or so and uh you know I got to reading it and it's super tough going you know reading Larson is very hard he assumes that you have the basic knowledge of uh you know um kind of like a maybe a graduate student in science or something like that he assumes that you know all the scientific uh background information and so me being like a liberal arts person um makes it difficult but it also is difficult because uh it doesn't really appeal Larson's Theory doesn't appeal to um uh scientists because they uh if you've ever read Thomas Coons uh 1962 book called the structure of scientific revolutions he goes through um you know in particular the Scientific Revolution of um the heliocentric theory um all the way from Copernicus uh to uh Newton and shows how you know people who are in the scientific field are not interested in changing their paradigms you know they invested a great deal of time and energy into establishing that Paradigm and learning that Paradigm and so when you come up with a whole new Theory like Copernicus did with his heliocentric Universe um you know those are fighting words people are going to resist him at every turn and in fact Copernicus I believe originally came up with his his uh theory in like 1508 or something like that and but he only shared it with like a few close friends and stuff because he knew he was going to be executed or something maybe even worse if he actually tried to publish that and put it out there as a result his his uh book uh didn't come out until 1543 which is the day that the year that he died so he published it on his deathbed when he didn't really have anything to lose um because he knew that he was putting himself in in Jeopardy uh publishing the heliocentric theory now this is not related to The Flat Earth stuff or anything you know I'm not saying that I believe the heliocentric theory or otherwise I might pretty much an agnostic about all of that um but I'm just pointing out uh Thomas Coon's argument that you know science scientists are not objective they have loyalties that they are firmly uh you know um wedded to and that they're not going to change their mind about things I told you the story about me going to see the physics teacher and she basically kicked me out of her office um before she uh after or just before uh she she had said you know of course you know time only has one dimension I've never heard of them before you know that's her argument is I've never heard of him that's not an argument that's not an argument that any mature adult would ever use uh to dismiss a theory but that's exactly what she did openly um you know and then of course you know time only has one dimension no evidence no proof no nothing but that was enough for her uh because that's how she that's the milieu that she's in so anyway I took you know I'm just saying that Larson didn't really set himself up for Success because he he he he he basically addressed his writings to a scientific audience where in reality the scientific audience is the last group of people that he was going to convert uh if he would have uh taken the time and kind of so-called dumb down his approach and written his books for Lay audiences like un on science you know scientific you know intelligent people but people that don't have a background uh heavy background in science he would have been much more successful now Larson was familiar with Thomas kuhn's Theory so I'm not sure why he was so kind of bullheaded in um writing in the way that he did uh inaccessible to your non-scientific audiences and um appealing to the scientific crowd I mean you know this was 50 years ago over 50 years ago so you know you can't really blame him for that but that is really one of the main reasons why I think Larson's theory is that has been dead in the water there are other reasons too he's he made a few mistakes um that we'll talk about later but um the mistakes are not with the theory and Larson admitted that he said uh you know the mistakes that I have made are my own the theory itself is correct now there's a difference between the theory and applying the theory and I might not have applied the theory correctly in all cases and in those cases my mistakes will reveal themselves under scrutiny and he was right you know so other people have kind of come along and tried to make corrections to the theory and so now as a result nowadays you have you know the Orthodox larsonians and then you have the revisionists and you know this is a pattern you know that goes all the way back through not only the history of science but the history of philosophy um you know where you have the original person and then you have people that are you know uh not willing to look at uh other options and so they're Orthodox they they think that the original had it all right and then you have the revisionists who are trying to you know say well you know he got this wrong and you got this wrong this part I can't accept and then um you know as far as Larson goes I'm definitely a revisionist but I'm not a Speculator there are there have been some uh revisionist Larson's theory that have been speculators where they they're just so willing to jettison Larson's Theory even though they don't really even have a full grasp of Larson's Theory I feel like you have to have a full grasp of Larson's Theory before you can even think about trying to um you know to change it up or anything anyway um once I got into Larson's work it took me forever you know but even after the first day of studying it I was convinced that he was on to something very big and so I just pretty much threw aside my um uh you know my academic career uh whatever that meant and just said I'm gonna just figure this out and it's gonna pay dividends whether it pays money or whether it just you know uh you know whatever it's going to lead to it's going to lead to you know a path of Truth and it's going to lead to a path of this is stuff that I wanted to figure out in the first place it's been a much more difficult road than I thought um because uh Larson did make some mistakes in my opinion and that's slowed me down um then again Dr Bruce perrett came along and uh with Dr kvk nehru especially those two but others as well and have uh you know made some revisions that have made a lot of sense but the whole thing is kind of a jumble at this point and I'm trying to uh work my way through it and I feel like uh you know the more people that know about it the better that we can uh we can correct it so I I don't know that I really got too far with anything with this video but um we'll come back very soon and talk more about this either today or tomorrow and get into this a little bit more um I guess more of the autobiographical stuff get eventually we will get to Larson's biography and then we'll get into the um nuts and bolts of it we're going to start with his his final book which is published possibly called beyond space and time which is on metaphysics okay um we'll see you guys later you can donate to me uh buy my books those are all the links are there okay uh have a great day