Reciprocal System #126-Interview I [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone welcome to my channel my name is Thomas and uh this channel is dedicated toward educational matters and uh Today Is video 126 on the reciprocal system of theory which is a obscure pretty unknown Theory from the 20th century that was uh devised by Dewey B Larson he died back in 1990 but not before he published um mostly self-published about 15 books and many many articles on the reciprocal system the reciprocal system is a Theory of Everything meaning that you can it's a system if you understand the system then you can plug it into any subject that you want and you can do it yourself you don't have to rely on somebody else to do it for you um and you can check things yourself it has a lot of implicit checks uh in it meaning that if you understand how it works then you can you can check it and check other theories with the reciprocal system as well now the basic idea is that we live in a universe of motion not a universe of matter not a universe of energy but a universe of motion matter and energy are just actually specific kinds of motion as are all the other different scientific phenomena such as pressure and uh and electric current electric charge magnetic flux acceleration force gravity Mass energy all those things are different kinds of motion and for Larson motion is a is the relationship between space and time so space and time are the two components of motion and they go together in a fraction and that fraction can be one two or three or more dimensions and um time and space are both in discrete units they are not continuous they don't have um micro you know units their their individual units are very small but they basically come in chunks one unit at a time and uh again they both have three or more Dimensions we see that in space as coordinate space x y z dimensions and uh that also occurs in time that's called coordinate time and space is also progressing or flowing uh just like time is time is always getting later and later space two is always getting farther and farther and farther apart and the analogy you would use for that clock time or clock space is a balloon that you put a bunch of dots on with a magic marker you blow up the balloon and all the dots are moving away from each other in no particular direction or in all directions at once and that is called the scalar outward motion and if you suck in the balloon all of the dots are moving toward each other the closer they are together or the further away they are the faster they're moving toward each other and that is called a scalar motion inward scalar motion and um so that's kind of where Larson starts from uh we are um we are getting toward the end of an interview that he did back in 1984 with a guy named John summer and it just goes into the various uh things that were at stake during uh the time when Larson was putting together his theory what he was thinking about what his intentions were where he uh wants the theory to go not uh now he's deceased and so you know we have to uh take over that responsibility uh but he left us in pretty good hands and especially uh some of his successors such as uh the late Bruce Perrette along with kvk nehru and Gopi Krishna have led the theory in very productive ways and um you know it's not uh it's not wrapped up tight but it there's a lot of uh a lot of leads to go on and a lot of uh areas that the theory can be uh LED and again each one of us has the opportunity to take this Theory wherever we want to take it once we understand the system itself okay so I'm going to take over here in this interview with the first question by summer um how are you able to venture into these different fields and zero in on the fundamental flaw in each one do you follow a general method in your approach Larson what I have seen is that the fundamentals of the different fields of thought are rather closely connected and it's been my observation that the great deal of trouble that the different branches of thought are having right now is that they're not taking advantage of advances that have been made in other fields for instance in most branches of thought they recognize what they call the law of diminishing returns which simply says that the rate the ratio of the input into a physical process to an output does not remain constant it decreases and eventually goes to zero well that's a very that's very important in economics and they recognize that but it's just as important in science but they don't recognize it that's the problem we're having now with Einstein saying that nothing can go faster than the speed of light it would be it wouldn't be bothering us if they were to recognize the law of diminishing returns because what he he is doing is taking Newton's Second Law the force is equal to the mass times acceleration and assuming that that carries on into Infinity which it doesn't it's subject to the law of diminishing returns just the same as anything else and if he had recognized that he wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion that nothing can move any faster but then we have a situation on the opposite side in the physical science they lay a great deal of stress on equilibrium and the laws of equilibrium are regarded as very important in science and they're just as important in economics in fact they're the key to a lot of economic problems but they don't recognize it at all and don't pay any attention to them that's the kind of thing I am talking about in the matter of general principles I am interested in the principles themselves rather than in the narrow line I'm not talking about equilibria in science I'm talking about them as a general principle okay just a parenthetical uh I didn't mention that you know when you have discrete time and space one unit of time one unit of space in one unit of time is the speed of light so for Larson the speed of light is one and it's basically the origin uh and that makes sense as we he has posited a universe of motion so motion is really the origin the uh groundwork the datum the the zero datum the um um the null point or the neutral point of the universe and then so that there's an entire half of the universe that's moving faster than the speed of light whereas Einstein says that the uh speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe so that's a huge difference in those two different theories and uh you know he's showing how large uh Einstein wouldn't have gotten that wrong had he understood the principle of diminishing returns okay now back to the questioner is that the reason you said earlier that you wouldn't classify yourself as a scientist is that too narrow a definition Larson well if I had to classify myself on the other hand if somebody says well you write this book are you a scientist well I say that's a matter of definition the definition that I would use the definition of a scientist I can say that I'm a scientist but on the basis of the same definition I can say that I'm an economic Economist possibly a philosopher so I say that if it were possible I'd like to describe myself as a Fundamentalist but somebody else has preempted that uh question one of the main difficulties people tend to have in approaching the theory for the first time is the extra Dimensions that cannot be represented in the reference system how would one begin to visualize these extra dimensions Larson those things were difficult for me to grasp in the first place then the question of expressing it to someone else is even worse generally speaking as far as I'm concerned the understanding comes kind of gradually and of course we have a number of such things in uh in fact the portion of the universe that can be represented in a reference system is smaller than the portion that can't be we don't have to worry particularly about the cosmic sector the other half because we have no access to it anyway and we have nothing of it in this way and we have knowledge of it in this way that whenever we learn something in our own material sector we know the same thing holds in the reverse over there okay now uh what he's really saying is like the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe half the universe is moving faster than the speed of light therefore half is moving slower and the half that's moving slower we're familiar with that half that is what he calls the material sector or sector one the half that's moving faster we are not familiar with it or as familiar with it and this is what he calls the cosmic sector or sector two and this is kind of the bridge to the metaphysical but it is definitely uh starting with the control unit and um also life life phenomena come from the cosmic sector and so do uh so does intelligence and so um so he's saying that we don't really have access to the cosmic sector sector two but we what we know about sector one is exactly the same as what's going on in sector two except that you have to invert the roles of time and space so what's going on here is uh is generally a space over time relationship and what's going on over here is exactly the same but it's basically a time over space relationship and that's what he says we know that the same thing holds in Reverse over there but there is this big area between the two half of which contains phenomena that are accessible to us and it is in this area that we have to realize what's going on and get some kind of a mental picture of something we can't put into ref into the reference system then we've got these two scalar Dimensions or mathematical Dimensions that we can't show in the reference system so it's a little problem each time we come against something getting a correct view of it in the second volume I had to get a grasp on matters such as the induction of charges and that's one of the things that is very difficult to explain to somebody who wants to put everything in the reference system we just can't visualize those things in the geometrical framework that we're used to okay now he's kind of talking here about the scalar Dimensions now I mentioned how you could put dots on a balloon and when you blow up the balloon that's a scalar outward motion well that is a one-dimensional scalar motion and there are three scalar Dimensions so it basically takes three coordinate Dimensions XYZ coordinates it takes three coordinate Dimensions to represent a one-dimensional scalar motion so those other two scalar motions those other two dimensions of scalar motions are basically outside of this XYZ coordinate system so they're not in the reference system our reference system is too limited to be able to express those two scalar Dimensions those two other scalar dimensions and Bob he calls the mathematical Dimensions because that's really the only way that we can represent them is as magnitudes um so we and there that's kind of where the inter-regional ratio also comes in we can't see those Dimensions clearly but we can come up with a value a magnitude value for them um by extrapolating more or less and so um that is something that uh is difficult for the people to who are studying the theory to kind of wrap their head around and that's true of a lot of the reciprocal system the main thing about learning it is kind of on having to unlearn other stuff that you learned before about um math and physics and so on and that's why Larson made a mistake when he really appealed his work to the scientific Community rather than maybe an intelligent eighth grader um who hasn't already been indoctrinated by all the scientific uh propaganda out there um if they're able to see it with like a beginner's mind uh they would have a much better chance the people that are already invested in the scientific current scientific Paradigm have very little chance of grasping this Theory because every time they uh run into a sticking point they just reject the theory oh then the theory must be wrong I've I've tried that with you know friends and acquaintances who as soon as there's one thing about the theory that contradicts anything that they know they just reject the whole Theory uh you know all at once oh it doesn't agree with this or you know it's like their their nitpicking to uh you know such a great extent um especially when you're talking about this particular Theory which was derived by one one guy it's like one guy is going up against an entire Army of scientists and you're siding with the scientists and you're saying oh these poor scientists how you know we've gotta you know we've gotta support them we have to have their back you know it's like that Larson is the big bad wolf or something like that and that's strictly only because they are invested in their own scientific education they put too much time into it to just throw it out and so they're ready to throw at anybody else and all they need is the first pretext in order to do so obviously Larson's not going to have all the right answers about everything again he says that the theory itself is correct whether I have applied the theory correctly or not is a different matter and another different matter is whether he has all the right terminology uh for the theory at and whether the Lang language that he's chosen is uh is you know streamlined you know much of the language that he has chosen turns out that it's pretty cumbersome and so that that means that it's more difficult to understand it um especially using the same words that we tend to use in science and so those are all sticking points that are kind of implicit uh inherent in coming up with a whole new theory about things but that we it we have to get over that we have to be able to just kind of suspend our disbelief and just say Okay Larson just show me what you've got show me how this how this works and I will cut you slack you know if I don't understand it that doesn't mean that I'm rejecting it out of hand I'm just going to put it in the back of my mind that okay I've got this issue but we can keep going I'm going to give you a fair hearing on this and that's what I feel about Larson is he's never been given a fair hearing by the scientific Community probably never will until those guys die off and we have a new generation of people that aren't you being you know particularly invested in you know as the Paradigm shows more and more anomalies that don't work out gradually maybe there'll be some kind of chinks in the armor okay now uh back to the next question but you can represent these things mathematically it seems to me that there must be some geometry corresponding to that because there are all sorts of geometries other than euclidean of course you assume euclidean geometry in one of the postulates but if it can't represent the extra dimensions then that postulate is not followed through could you make certain modifications that would not affect the deductions but would enable you to represent those extra Dimensions geometrically now this is a a very key Point again Larson his second he had two fundamental postulates he boiled down his theory into two fundamental postulates and the second one assumes that there is uh that the geometry of the universe is euclidean and this person is pointing out that this that that turns out to be a limitation on your theory because euclidean geometry is not able to get into these second and third scalar Dimensions but there must be some other kind of geometry that does so but Larson's answer here is I think problematic and it caused him to limit this and if he would have expanded his thinking and used a different kind of geometry just like summer is saying he would have been able to kind of I think bypass a lot of the things so we're going to read his his paragraph here and then uh that will be it so um the problem Larson's response the problem is that the ordinary individual is not any better able to visualize multi-dimensional geometry than he is to visualize the kind of thing that I am talking about so we go from one thing to another that's just as bad the problem is that we have three dimensions open to our perception the person who's trying to understand that is trying to put it in his three dimensions of perception and if it's something that won't fit into that he gets the wrong idea so um and the the cap the questioner first his first sentence here is it uh just takes some getting used to I suppose and I think that's what Larson wasn't kind of uh taking into account that people have to get used to these ideas and so he's trying to he's trying to fit it into the way that they used to think but I think he should have been giving them credit that okay maybe they can adapt their thinking into this new geometry okay uh we will leave it there and uh thanks for tuning in have a great day we'll see you next time