Reciprocal System #392-"The Fundamentals of Science in the 21st Century" A [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone and welcome to my channel this is a channel for educational purposes and uh we look at theories of everything primarily um cosmologies all-encompassing theories that um could help you out if you knew about them help about you with your Paradigm shifting or with your overall holistic uh gestal and um today is our 392nd video on dwey B Larson and his reciprocal system of theory and Larson lived in the 20th century in the US and around 1959 he proposed his two fundamental postulates and uh about how the universe operated and then he took those two postulates and through a process of deduction uh kind of if then that then if this then that approach he derived a an entire theoretical Universe about how the um what the universe would look like if in detail if my postulates are correct and it turns out that uh the universe that he recreated or that he created in his own head uh through Theory um remarkably resembles the actual empirical universe that has been measured and um documented by the Legacy scientists so uh because of that uh I think that Mr larsson's work deserves an investigation a hearing and um we've been looking at uh lot of his books his articles some of his followers books and articles and uh today we are reading uh we're going to start reading a paper that Larson gave back in 1978 called um fundamentals of science in the 21st century um before we get started i' just like to give you a quick once over on the reciprocal system uh Larson's two postulates are both very brief um the second postulate is not as important as the first so I'll will just uh lead with that one um second postulate is that the universe conforms to the relationships of ordinary commutative mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is ukian and there has been some dispute about that postulate from within his own ranks his own followers uh have many of them have rejected the concept of ukian geometry in particular but other parts of it as well but the first postulate is where you know more of the maybe the mainstream people uh are um taken aback uh and that is that the universe is composed entirely of one component motion existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time if I were uh rephrasing that I would say the universe is made out of motion um well I would say the universe is not made out of matter it's not made out of energy it's not made out of force is made out of motion and specifically it's made out of a non-directional kind of motion called scalar motion and U motion is the relationship between space and time space and time are reciprocals of one another they have all the general qualities of reciprocals they have the same qualities uh except in uh reverse order they do not exist in and of themselves only uh together in motion motion is basically a fraction with space or time as the numerator and time or space as the denominator um all of our scientific quantities our units so to speak are fractions with space or time as a numerator and time or space as a denominator um scalar motion is a specific kind of motion that has been um curiously uninvestigated by the researchers uh scientists out there even though they know of it its existence it is best modeled uh or maybe not best but it is modeled by um a balloon with dots on it if you blow up the balloon all the dots are moving away from each other but they're not moving in any specific Direction um and so that is scalar motion you can also think about it in terms of time time is always getting later and later and later and later but it's not getting later in any specific Direction so Larson refers to these as clock time and clock space space is always getting later and later and later or time is always getting later and later and later space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart but time and space also have their threedimensional aspects which are somewhat fictitious um coordinate space and coordinate time we see coordinate space all all over the place uh it's part of our reality as is clock's clock time um three dimensions of space XYZ coordinates in a stationary frame but because reciprocals have the same qualities Larson also you know arrives at the conclusion that time has its three-dimensional aspect stationary uh three-dimensional time coordinates maybe not X Y and Z but perhaps I J and K and and uh he refers to that as coordinate time and then um space and time only come in discrete units they are quantized as is motion uh you have to have full units of space and time before you have either of those things and uh if you have exactly one unit of space in one unit of time you have the speed of light the speed of light is what larison calls unit speed 1 over 1 equals 1 and this unit speed is the background motion of the uh Universe of motion of Larson uh if you have a an a nothingness you in in Larson's Universe if you have a nothingness you have motion at the speed of light in all directions outward and so that is the null point or the zero point or the neutral point or the reference point Larson refers to it as the progression of the natural reference system so in Larson system we have a reference uh system that is moving outward at the speed of light in all directions under unlike the Legacy scientists whose reference uh system is stationary and um in a similar way we have um a balance so the uh one is the center of larsson's universe whereas zero is the center of the scientist Universe one is you know balanced on one hand uh on the positive side by 2 3 4 and 5 and on the negative by 1/2 1/3 1/4 and 1 15 unlike the Legacy scientists whose uh Center is zero and balanced by 1 2 3 4 and five on one side and minus one - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 on the other uh just like a reciprocal uh one being at the center and that one is the speed of light in all directions is moving outward and so uh that means that half of the universe is moving faster than the speed of light Which flies in the face of Legacy science including Einstein who said that the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe they didn't know anything about this faster than speed of light sector of the universe that Larson refers to as the cosmic sector uh he refers to our familiar slower than the speed of light sector as the m material sector and the material sector has a reciprocal relation to the cosmic sector as you can see by the fact that in the material sector you have relations that are based on three dimensions of space clock or coordinate space and the clock is always getting later and later and later clock time that's the material sector but in the cosmic sector across that speed of light boundary you have coordinate time three dimensions of stationary time and clock space space is always getting farther and farther and farther apart so they are the same uh generally but they are in uh the roles of space and time are reversed okay um we're going to uh get started here with this paper the fundamentals of Science in the 21st Cent and I think here Mr Larson will also um you know clarify a little bit more how the reciprocal system works now this paper is too long to do in one episode uh we'll probably have to spread it out over three four episodes uh but here it goes as you've noticed it took a little while for the CBS crew to set up this evening um um I don't exactly know if that's this this talk took place in Salt Salt Lake City which is kind of where the center of the um uh reciprocal system operation is um and uh this is the third annual NSA conference not the uh not the federal NSA spy uh intelligence organization but the new science advocates and it's also interesting that uh the reciprocal system uh a lot of their stuff is is put on by the ISIS group isus The International Society for a unified science uh but uh so apparently there is a camera crew there from CBS and on that account we're running at least half an hour late so I'm going to omit the first half an hour of what I was going to say it's unfortunate because I will include some of my most Shady jokes uh but I'll try to take up from that half hour period um Frank uh took you back into history quite a little way but just to do him one better I'm going to go still farther back 5,000 years ago when the invention of writing on Clay tablet by the Sumerians first gave the human race an opportunity to leave a permanent record of its thoughts and actions there was already in existence a rather sophisticated science of astronomy the priests who were the scientists of those days were not only familiar with Elementary astronomical facts such as the apparent movements of the sun moon and planets but they had also Advanced to the point where they were able to predict excuse me predict eclipses and to calculate the length of the year to within about a half hour of its present accepted value the premises upon which these calculations and others of the same kind were made were the fundamentals of Science of that day in the sense in which I am using the term now that is they were the most most basic of the principles that were used by the science of that day these principles were originally derived by a simple application of what we now call inductive reasoning that is they were generalizations from experience and that is the most reliable method of arriving at scientific principles fundamental or otherwise but unfortunately it is limited by the amount of empirical information that's available and by the extent to which that information has been analyzed so the result is that an inductive science such as that of the ancient peoples has a tendency to fall behind the progress of empirical Discovery and ultimately it acquires a rather embarrassing accumulation of unsolved problems now that was the situation in Egypt in Babylonia and and in the Far East about 3,000 years ago the time was clearly ripe for some new approach and that was provided by a remarkable group of thinkers who flourished in Greece during the Golden Age of that country's history the source of our a source of order in the universe these men said was mind and the proper way of arriving at general principles was to apply insight and reasoning the result of that change in policy was to concentrate attention on the causes of physical phenomena rather than on the phenomena themselves where the Egyptians saw only the fact that a rock falls if it's released from a height the Greeks looked for the cause of the Fall now they reason that everything must have its natural place so the rock is falling so the Rock in Falling is merely seeking its fixed natural place in this way by providing an explanation for what happened they remedied the chief defect of the previous inductive theories similarly they reasoned as Professor Meyer indicated that while the Earth is obviously imperfect the heavens are perfect and all Heavenly motions must then take the perfect form of that of a circle so the orbits of the planets are undoubtedly circular now observation and experiment were definitely relegated to a secondary uh position by the Greeks but they were not disregarded altogether so when the observation showed that the planetary orbits are not exactly circles it was recognized that there was an awkward discrepancy that we have to do something about but one of the strong points of an inventive science such as that of the Greeks is that it can easily accommodate new discoveries simply by more invention Greek method of deriving scientific principles by pure invention um uh doesn't quite make sense but Greek method of deriving scientific principles by pure invention is that it lends itself readily to the assimilation of new information by means of more invention so they assumed that the planets move in small circles called epicycles and these epicycles then move around the main planetary orbit then when further observational refinement disclosed still more discrepancies those could be taken care of in exactly the same way merely by adding more epicycles this talic theory of planetary orbits is typical of inventive theories in general and since we see it in a historical perspective by by taking a look at this talic Theory we can get an idea of the general characteristics of inventive theories the first point that we need to uh we need to note is that theory was ma the theory that theory was mathematically correct within the existing observational limits the then existing limits that is a general characteristic of all inventive theories because they're invented for that specific purpose they're specifically designed to fit mathematics that are already known the second significant point is that theory is that that theory the talic theory was conceptually wrong the interpretation of the mathematics was wrong that again is a general characteristic that applies to all inventive characteristics of invented theories because of the circumstances under which they're invented as many observers have pointed out longstanding problems in science do not continue to exist because of a lack of competence on the part of those who are trying to solve them nor do they continue to exist because of a lack of methods by which to go about solving them they they continue to exist because some piece or pieces of information that are essential are missing in the case of the toic theory there were two such pieces of information the Greeks did not realize that the planets revolve around the sun rather than around the earth and they did not know that there is a force of gravitation controlling those movements without those two pieces of information neither the toic theory nor any other theory that was invented to explain the mathematics could have been correct now that is a general characteristic of inventive theories and I am stressing it at this time because it will be important later on in other connections if the information is available if all the essential information is there then there's no need to invent a theory then we can obtain it by in inductive means if the essential information is not there then any Theory we invent cannot be conceptually right in view of the practically unlimited opportunities for making additional ad hoc assumptions to meet any situation that may arise an inventive science never reaches the kind of a situation that causes the downfall of inductive Sciences at any given time there may be a few items for which plausible explanations have not yet been invented but there is never the large accumulation of unexplained phenomena that characterizes an inductive science that has fallen behind the progress of empirical investigation however the freedom to meet new requirements by adding more and more ad hoc assumptions or epicycles leads to a fate of a different kind the time ultimately comes when such a system of theory simply has too many epicycles in the meantime even though the fundamental theories in current use are invented Ive the accumulation of empirical information and the construction of inductive generalizations of a lower rank continues ultimately a point is reached where the principles derived inductively are sufficiently Broad in their scope to challenge the premises of the prevailing inventive theories the Greek system reached this point about 500 years ago and science then reverted to the inductive status disregarding or discarding inventive Concepts such as the Perfection of the heavens and the natural places of physical entities in favor of principles formulated by such men as Kepler and Newton through inductive reasoning from observed and measured facts with the benefit of all the empirical information accumulated during the approximately 2500 years since the demise of the earlier inductive systems of the ancient civilizations the new inductive science was a vastly improved product and it scored some REM remarkable successes at one time its practitioners were quite confident that a complete understanding of the universe was within their grasp but here again the inherent inability of an inductive system of theory to keep Pace with the progress of empirical Discovery asserted itself eventually Newtonian physics was confronted with a series of discrepancies for which it had no plausible answers another reversal of of policy took place and the inductive science of Newton and his contemporaries was replaced by a science based on invented principles just as the first inductive Sciences were replaced 3,000 years earlier by the inventive system of the Greeks when an idea or system of ideas gains General acceptance and becomes a familiar feature of current thought its Origins recede from View and it is quite likely that many a reader may be reluctant to believe that the basic theories of modern physics the relativity theory for instance be belong in the same category as the toic theory of astronomy but all of them belong in the category of pure in Inventions The Originators of modern theories do not deny this indeed they emphasize it Einstein for example saw the general acceptance of his theories in just the way that I have described a victory of inventive science over inductive science in his opinion pure invention is the only way in which true fundamental principles can be derived Einstein was highly critical of Newton's attempts to derive such principles inductively he said this quote Newton the first creator of a comprehensive workable system of theoretical physics still believed that the basic concepts and laws of his system could be derived from experience the tremendous practical success of his doctrines May well have prevented him and the physicists of the 18th and 19th centuries from recognizing the fictitious character of the formulations of his system end quote Einstein's own View was that the basic concepts and laws of physics what what I am calling the fundamentals are quote in a logical sense free inventions of the human mind end quote he elaborates this view in these statements taken from the book The World As I see it quote since however sense perception only gives information of this external world of physical reality indirectly we can only grasp the latter by speculative means the theoretical scientist is compelled in an increasing degree to be guided by purely mathematical formal considerations in his search for a theory because the physical experience of the experimenter cannot lift him into the regions of highest abstraction the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented there is a rather General tendency to assume that Einstein and the other influence the other architects of modern science um I I guess that was the end of the quote after abstraction so let me go back here the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented okay that's the end of the quote there is a uh rather General tendency to assume that Einstein and the other architects of modern science were not actually as casual about the background of their theories as these words would indicate that their basic principles must have been anchored to something solid at some point but this is not true as Rudolph carap puts it these theories were quote constructed floating in the air so to speak end quote Einstein gives us enough information about some of his Concepts to make it clear that when he talks about free invention he means exactly that for example the propagation of radiation plays a very important part in his theories and his comments about the explanation that he invented to account for the mechanism of propagation and its relation to space are therefore very significant in one of his books he tells the uh tells us that the formulation of a theory to account for this phenomena is a very difficult task and he concludes with this statement the only way out quote the only way out seems to be to take for granted the fact that space has the physical properties of transmitting electromagnetic waves and not to bother too much about the meaning of this statement the point of all this is that the invented theories of present day science have EX actly the same logical standing that the toic theory of astronomy uh the natural place theory of gravitation and the other theories invented by the Greek scientists had in their day they are mathematically correct but conceptually wrong okay um we're going to leave it there H and start up tomorrow from there uh we might just uh reiterate that second that last paragraph before we get started but um I do uh like the way that Larson does his history of science uh and he tends to um kind of uh defeat the U Legacy scientists with their own words uh like he's doing here and um so we will uh we will learn more about this tomorrow as we uh approach and thanks for tuning in today have a great day