Thunderbolts Forum
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology
Skip to content <#start_here>
* Board index <./index.php> *‹* The Future of Science
<./viewforum.php?f=8>
* Change font size <#>
* FAQ <./faq.php>
* Register <./ucp.php?mode=register>
* Login <./ucp.php?mode=login>
Reciprocal System Theory <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=0>
Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed?
Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and
forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The
perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus
good science.
Forum rules
Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1784>
First unread post <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&view=unread#unread> • 36
posts • Page *1* of *3* <#> • *1*, 2
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=15>, 3
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30>
Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes <#p20054>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20054#p20054>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:05 pm
Little known theory solves long standing paradoxes in Physics
Physicists have grown up with the paradoxes following from their
theories. The paradigm is that as long as the mathematics or simulations
give the correct results, the theory must necessarily be correct. Many
theories however deal with paradoxes and enigmas, of which a few well
known are:
* The wave/particle duality: why is a photon both a wave and a particle?
* Where is the anti-matter? Theoretically the amounts of matter and
anti-matter should balance...
* Why do the astronomers need a big bang and invisible dark matter
and energy everywhere?
* What processes create the cosmic rays and cosmic microwave
background radiation?
* Why do only the photon and electron subatomic particles exist
outside the atom?
* Why does the twin paradox of Special Relativity make some
observers more equal than others?
* How can gravity have instantaneous action?
* What are chemical bonds actually?
* Is an electrical current now really a movement of charges,
electrons or EM waves?
Physics is scattered into many different areas that have their different
theories with their unique paradoxes and they were never a practical
problem as long as the formula’s deliver results. It is an unsolvable
problem though for any unification theory of Physics. “The stairs of
Physics are littered with the corpses of Grand Unification Theories" is
the going saying. To become a practicing physicist or participant in a
physics discussion the paradoxes just have to be accepted, repeated and
dogmatized until one is not even aware of them anymore.
Everybody wants the vacuum to do something for them…but silently
A major blow for the Physics Unification Theories that mostly relied on
the concept of an all pervasive Aether with physical properties was
dealt by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The null results for the
expected ‘aether drag’ of light-waves killed the aether concept.
Einstein then filled this gap with the Lorentz formulas and the
paradoxal relativity theories. He did away with the aether by calling it
a vacuum devoid of physical properties.
However, since then the active vacuum has silently and steadily making
its way back into the background of major physics theories.
* First, the Relativists realized they still need the vacuum to
propagate electromagnetic waves that magically stretch their
rubber yardsticks,
* The Quantum Dynamists need an active vacuum that is teeming with
virtual particles, so they can use any particle they dream up in
their formulas,
* The Cosmologists need an invisible vacuum expansion that magically
pushes galaxies apart against the force of gravity, ‘the Big Bang
force’, and that is only the beginning of their invisible dark
forces that they need to counteract the relentless attraction of
gravity,
* Even the Electric Universe proponents see the hand of invisible
currents everywhere, though it has never been proven if and how
electric fields and currents stretch across astronomical scales.
Theory of elementary motion removes paradox of the both active and
inactive vacuum
A rather straightforward theory removes these long standing paradoxes
from physics while giving results that agree with all known observations
and many more explanations. It is not new, since it was already
developed about 50 years ago, before the Internet time of fancy
graphics. It needs no fancy math or graphics though, but a recalibration
of the inquisitive mind into the basic building blocks of our Universe.
It is not matter, ether or an active vacuum. No, according to the theory
it is 'motion'.
Our Universe consists of just elementary motion components which serves
both as an active and an inactive medium. Active in the sense that
everything in the Universe is an expression of motion and never at rest
and inactive in the sense that the unit reference motion is equivalent
to no physical activity (the physical reference system). The unit or
reference motion could best be imagined as the motion you get when you
strip light of its vibration. The DC component of light so to say, which
is an outward scalar motion at light-speed. The reciprocal of motion is
energy, so one could also imagine it as a Universe build of pure energy,
if one realizes that energy is never at rest. Physics phenomena then
follow from compound elementary motions as the theory goes on to prove
by simple deductive steps.
The rest of this introduction was borrowed from K.V.K. Nehru:
GLIMPSES OF A NEW PARADIGM
For centuries mankind has held implicitly the view that we live in a
universe of matter contained in space and time. All scientific theories
hitherto have been built on this paradigm. Dewey B. Larson has
introduced a new paradigm that motion is the basic and sole constituent
of the physical universe, and space-time is the content—not the
container—of the universe.
Introduction
The objective of this article is to introduce the physical theory being
called The Reciprocal System. Its originator, Dewey Larson, starting
from two Postulates as regarding the nature of the basic constituents of
the physical universe and the mathematics applicable thereto, builds a
cogent theoretical structure that lays claim to being a general theory.
It is impossible to outline the whole theory in the short space of an
article though.
Space, Time and Progression
The first of the two fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System
from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is
“The physical universe is composed entirely of one component,
motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with
two reciprocal aspects, space and time.”
Larson considers speed, which is the relation of space and time, s/t, as
the measure of motion and points out that a unit of speed is the minimum
quantity that can exist in the universe of motion, since fractional
units are not permitted by the Postulate of his theory. Since one unit
of speed is the minimum quantity admissible, both space and time have to
be quantized: unit speed must therefore be the ratio of a unit of space
to a unit of time, each of which is the minimum possible quantity.
Certain corollaries follow.
Corollary (1)
Firstly, we see that space and time are reciprocally related to
speed: that doubling the space with constant time, for example, has
the same effect on speed as halving the time at constant space.
Corollary (2)
At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other
units of space, but a unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time.
Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties of space and
of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of
motion. Thus he concludes that time, like space, is
three-dimensional, and that space, like time, progresses.
Now it is important to recognize that there is absolutely nothing
space-like in the three dimensions of time: they are entirely temporal
parameters. The common belief that time is one-dimensional is an
unwarranted conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our
experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a
scalar quantity in the equations of motion lies in the fact that no
matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do
with directions in space.
The idea that space progresses in the same manner as time might look
more weird than the idea of multi-dimensional time. Our immediate
experience is that of stationary space. But history has repeatedly shown
that our immediate experience of space has always proved to be a bad
guide in understanding the true nature of the universe.
He points out that our experience of space as stationary is valid only
locally (that is, in the context of a gravitationally-bound system). The
true nature of space is to progress, to expand ceaselessly outward.
Wherever gravitation (an inward motion) becomes negligible, weakened by
distance, the inherent progression of space becomes apparent. The
observed recession of the distant galactic systems stems directly from
this space progression, not from any hypothetical ‘big bang.’ In fact,
the observed Hubble’s law is derivable from the postulates of the
Reciprocal System.
Since a universe of motion cannot exist without the existence of motion,
the most primitive condition of the universe is the steady progression
of space coupled with the progression of time: in other words, a motion
at unit speed. Thus unit speed, and not zero speed, turns out to be
nature’s starting point. Larson refers to this background space-time
progression as the ‘natural reference frame,’ and identifies the unit
speed with the speed of light, c.
Emergence of Physical Phenomena
By virtue of the fact that either the space unit or the time unit could
progress inward, rather than outward as they do in the case of the
space-time progression, speeds other than unity become possible. Larson
points out that it is these deviations (or ‘displacements’) from the
unit speed that constitute observable phenomena, namely, radiation,
gravitation, electricity, magnetism and all the rest. These are
autonomous, independent motions in contra-distinction to the
ever-present background progression.
Some astronomical phenomena explained
Our state of knowledge thus far has disposed us to assume tacitly that
motion means motion in space; the possibility of motion in time has
never been imagined, much less investigated. While such motion cannot be
truly represented in the conventional, spatial reference frame, it has
nevertheless some observable features by virtue of the inverse
relationship between space and time. For example, in a supernova
explosion, if sufficient energy is available, Larson points out that
some of the constituent matter of the star gets propelled to
greater-than-unit speeds. The less-than-unit speed component manifests
itself as a cloud expanding in space. On the other hand, the
greater-than-unit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding
in time (since it is a motion in time). In view of the reciprocal
relation between space and time referred to above, this expansion in
time manifests itself to us as contraction in space and we observe this
component as a superdense and compact star. Thus we have the red
giant/white dwarf combination so frequently found as supernova product.
Larson’s theoretical investigations show that the same concept of motion
in time can explain every other type of superdense astronomical
phenomena, not just the white dwarfs. He shows that as age advances, the
central regions of massive galaxies keep on accumulating motion in time
(since greater than unit speeds do not involve movement in space, this
matter does not leak out). When enough energy accumulates, it results in
a stupendous explosion in which the central part(s) of a galaxy gets
ejected and is found as a superdense star system, which, of course, is
observed as a quasar. All the strange and unconventional characteristics
of quasars—like their high density, large redshift, stupendous
luminosity, jet-structure, peculiar radiation structure, evolution—can
be deduced from the theory.
We have seen that the null condition of the universe of motion is unit
speed and that a ‘displacement’ from this condition takes the form of
either less than unit speed (s/t) or greater than unit speed (the latter
being equivalent to less than unit inverse speed, t/s). Larson
identifies this displaced speed with radiation, and the speed
displacement with its frequency. While the photon gets detached from the
background space-time progression in the dimension of its oscillation,
it does not have any independent motion in the dimension of space
perpendicular to the dimension in which the vibratory motion occurs.
Thus the photon is permanently situated in the space unit of the
space-time progression in which it is created. But from the context of
the stationary spatial reference frame any location of the space-time
progression appears to progress outward (away) at unit speed. Thus,
while actually the photon is stationary in the natural reference frame,
ostensibly it appears to move away at unit speed. Incidentally we might
note that, when in a single process a photon pair happens to be created,
while the individual photons seemingly appear to fly off in space in
opposite directions, they continue to be connected in time. This results
in a correlation between them that is not representable in
three-dimensional space (the EPR paradox).
Once photons are available, the possibility of a compound motion appears
wherein the photon could be subjected to a rotational displacement in
two dimensions (covering all the three dimensions of space). Larson
identifies such units of compound motion with the atoms of matter.
Because of the two facts that the maximum possible speed is unity and
that the background space-time progression is already taking place at
that speed in the outward (away from each other) direction, all
autonomous (independent) motions (speeds) have to take place in the
inward (toward each other) direction only. Thus the units of rotational
displacement start moving in the inward direction, reversing the pattern
of space-time progression. Larson identifies this inward motion with
gravitation. We now see that there is no propagation involved in
gravitation, nor it can be screened off: it is the inherent motion of
each atom toward every other atom—in fact, toward every other location
of the space-time progression, whether or not occupied by an atom. The
non-existence of propagation time and the seeming action-at-a-distance,
both owe their origin to the above fact.
The Regions of the Physical Universe
An interesting fact that needs special mention is that the rotational
displacement that constitutes the atoms could be either of the
less-than-unit-speed type or the greater-than-unit-speed type. In either
case gravitation acts inward (in opposition to the outward progression
of space-time). But in the case of the former type of atoms, since
less-than-unit speeds produce motion in space, gravitation acts inward
in space, resulting in the formation of aggregates in the
three-dimensional spatial reference frame. Larson calls this portion of
the universe the material sector. On the other hand, the atoms
constituted of greater-than-unit speeds manifest motion in time. The
resulting gravitation acts inward in time, and produces aggregates in
the three-dimensional temporal reference frame. Larson refers to this
matter as cosmic matter, their inward motion in time cosmic gravitation,
and this portion of the physical universe the cosmic sector. We
therefore discover another half of the physical universe where all the
phenomena pertaining to our sector are duplicated, but with the roles of
space and time interchanged. Even though cosmic matter occurs as
ubiquitously and abundantly as ordinary matter we do not encounter it
readily. Firstly, the atoms of the cosmic stars and galaxies are
aggregated in three-dimensional time but are randomly distributed in
space, so that we see a cosmic star not as a spatial aggregate, but atom
by atom. Secondly, while the cosmic gravitation moves the cosmic atoms
inward in time, our own matter progresses outward in time. Thus, even
the chance of encounters of atoms with cosmic atoms do not last for more
than one natural unit of time (about one-seventh of a femtosecond).
CMB
A further fact of interest is that while the radiation emitted by the
stars of our sector is at a high temperature, that emitted by the cosmic
stars would be at a high inverse temperature, that is, at a low
temperature. Since radiation moves at unit speed, unit speed being the
border between both the sectors of the universe, it is observable from
both the sectors, in whichever sector it originates. Therefore, the
radiation emitted by the cosmic stars, as it comes from a region not
localized in space, is received in the material sector (that is, the
three-dimensional spatial reference frame) with an absolutely uniform
and isotropic distribution. We observe this as the low-temperature,
cosmic background radiation. In the Reciprocal System, we find no
necessity to reconcile the absolute isotropy of this background
radiation with the clumpiness of the spatial distribution of the
material aggregates.
The Grand Cycle of the Universe
We have already mentioned that quasars are the high (greater than unit)
speed explosion products of aged galaxies. When gravitation in space is
attenuated by distance (time) and becomes negligible, the quasar as a
whole shifts from the region of less than unit speed (conventional
spatial reference frame) to the region of greater than unit speed (the
three-dimensional temporal reference frame). Gravitation ceases to act
in space and starts acting in time. This leaves the outward progression
of space-time without check (as there is no inward progression of
gravitation in space) and the constituents of the quasar start flying
out in space at unit speed. Eventually the quasar ceases to exist as a
spatial aggregate and disappears altogether from the material sector. In
other words, the atoms of the erstwhile quasar emerge into the
three-dimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector at
totally random locations (in time).
The corollary is that similar set of events occurs in the cosmic
sector—cosmic atoms aggregate in three-dimensional time forming cosmic
stars and galaxies, parts of which explode on attaining a size limit and
eject cosmic quasars, which eventually exit the cosmic sector and end up
entering the material sector. Since they come from a region not
localized in space, these incoming cosmic atoms would be uniformly and
isotropically distributed throughout the three-dimensional space. Since
the transfer occurs at the unit speed we ought to observe these
particles at unit or near-unit speed. These, of course, are the observed
cosmic ray primaries.
The Reciprocal System traces out in detail how these cosmic atoms, being
greater-than-unit-speed structures in a less-than-unit-speed
environment, promptly decay, ejecting speed (energy) and ‘cosmic mass’
(that is, inverse mass), finally ending up as the most primitive atomic
structures of the material sector, namely, hydrogen. Then the entire
cycle of aggregation in space and eventual ejection begins. In the long
run, as much matter comes from the cosmic sector as it leaves the
material sector. Thus the dual sector universe as a whole is in
equilibrium and steady state, while each sector continues to expand in
space or in time as the case may be. There is no necessity to assume the
singularity of a ‘big bang’ nor to breaking of any conservation laws as
in ‘continual creation.’
No space left for conclusion... Hopefully enough introduction of the
theory is given to start a discussion with a focus on one of the
highlighted phenomena.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20148>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20148#p20148>by *Lloyd
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:26 pm
* Glad to see you got this thread started already.
* The idea that everything is motion, makes some sense, but I never
understood most of it.
* As I recall, Larson said white dwarf stars are left-overs from nova
explosions, I think. The main thing I recall is that he thought they
have reverse density, so the surface is the most dense, while the
interior is the least dense, sort of like reverse gravity.
* I think the EU theory is far better at explaining stars, galaxies etc.
Larson seemed to agree with conventional science about gravity being the
dominant force in the universe. I think that's well refuted by EU theory
and TPODs etc.
* Which paradoxes does EU theory not solve?
Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>
*Posts:* 1181
*Joined:* Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
* E-mail Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=184>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20155>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20155#p20155>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:02 pm
Lloyd wrote:* Glad to see you got this thread started already.
* The idea that everything is motion, makes some sense, but I never
understood most of it.
I'm glad you were waiting for it :)
The basic idea in RST is that the universe is build of scalar motion and
that space and time are aspects of that scalar motion. "Unit" scalar
motion is an expansion of both space and time at a ratio that is now
labeled as "lightspeed". Physics phenomena like radiation, gravity or
particles then follow from compound motion. It can be shown that all
physical constants can be expressed in dimensions of space and time as
Larson and also other people have done.
Lloyd wrote:* As I recall, Larson said white dwarf stars are
left-overs from nova explosions, I think. The main thing I recall is
that he thought they have reverse density, so the surface is the
most dense, while the interior is the least dense, sort of like
reverse gravity.
In Larson's theory, speed is symmetrical around unit speed c. Motions
"above lightspeed" (which in RST is motion in time instead of space),
when seen from our spatial observer perspective, lead to inverse
phenomena like compression in space (which is expansion in time),
inverted density or temperature, etc.
Lloyd wrote:* I think the EU theory is far better at explaining
stars, galaxies etc. Larson seemed to agree with conventional
science about gravity being the dominant force in the universe. I
think that's well refuted by EU theory and TPODs etc.
In Larson's theory there is always the basic outward scalar expansion
(progression as he calls it) of space and time at lightspeed, which is
the 'motion of the vacuum' so to say. That speed is offset by gravity,
which is an inward motion of matter. In Larson's universe there is
always interplay between these two 'forces' (motions). Short distance,
gravity wins. Long distance, expansion wins. Distances of one natural
unit of space, which is the minimum, lead to only motion in time, which
reverses gravity and leads e.g. to solid state equilibrium. No need for
big bang, dark matter, dark energy or even electrical binding inside an
atom.
How would EU explain the lifecycle of creation of matter that aggregates
into stars and galaxies? How would EU explain that a binary star system
mostly consists of a red giant and a white dwarf? How does EU explain
cosmic rays, CMBR or GRB?
Lloyd wrote:* Which paradoxes does EU theory not solve?
For instance the ones I mention at the start of the article.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20326>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20326#p20326>by *Lloyd
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:21 pm
* I can try to answer your question real quick about how EU theory
explains cosmic rays, CMBR and GRB.
* I believe it explains cosmic rays as highly energized solar wind ions
from other stars within our galaxy where the electric current is one or
two orders of magnitude greater than that of our Sun.
* It explains CMBR, cosmic microwave background radiation [?], as
radiation also from within the nearby area of our galaxy, rather than an
even amount of radiation over the entire universe.
* It explains GRB, Gamma Ray Bursters, as energetic events, perhaps
similar to supernovae, produced at much closer locations than
conventional astronomy supposes. Because conventional astronomy imagines
that redshift of starlight measures distance and velocity of stars and
galaxies, it supposes that GRBs are at great distances, like billions of
lightyears away, whereas EU Theory finds that redshift merely measures
ionization for the most part. So the GRBs are much closer than supposed.
Therefore, the amount of energy they give off is much less than supposed
as well.
* Here are two TPODs on GRBs.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... 307grb.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... -burst.htm
* Here are a bunch of links on CMB.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3At ... eilKnlXsOA
* Here's something on cosmic rays.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... ayguns.htm
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3At ... eilKnlXsOA
Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>
*Posts:* 1181
*Joined:* Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
* E-mail Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=184>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20328>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20328#p20328>by *junglelord
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>* » Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:54 pm
The basic idea in RST is that the universe is build of scalar motion
and that space and time are aspects of that scalar motion. "Unit"
scalar motion is an expansion of both space and time at a ratio that
is now labeled as "lightspeed". Physics phenomena like radiation,
gravity or particles then follow from compound motion. It can be
shown that all physical constants can be expressed in dimensions of
space and time as Larson and also other people have done.
Indeed the rotating magnetic field of the aether is a scalar. The entire
idea of a unit that moves at light speed is covered via the compton
wavelength and plancks constant.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have
a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot
Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>
junglelord <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>
*Posts:* 3693
*Joined:* Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
*Location:* Canada
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20337>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20337#p20337>by *earls
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=120>* » Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:48 pm
I meant to reply sooner, but I'm almost glad I didn't, as junglelord has
specifically quoted the aspect of the theory that I find most
interesting and profound.
Regardless of the tangents Dewey Larson (DL) takes from his basic tenets
(everything is motion), his core concept (building blocks) are what I
consider the most important.
My only criticism is that perhaps DL doesn't consider and/or quantify
all of the possible elementary variables. Then again, who has or can?
Not doing so will lead to errors as the theory "compounds" as he put it.
In the later stages of his theory, I'll call them "macro" stages... He
seems to desperately want to reconcile with mainstream's standard
model... And understandably so. This is perhaps his gravest mistake, as
we all know how far from the truth the SM currently lays. His attempts
to assimilate are to put succinctly "rotten to the core."
earls <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=120>
*Posts:* 262
*Joined:* Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am
* E-mail earls <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=120>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20368>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20368#p20368>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:32 pm
earls wrote:My only criticism is that perhaps DL(Dewey Larson)
doesn't consider and/or quantify all of the possible elementary
variables. Then again, who has or can? Not doing so will lead to
errors as the theory "compounds" as he put it.
In the later stages of his theory, I'll call them "macro" stages...
He seems to desperately want to reconcile with mainstream's standard
model... And understandably so. This is perhaps his gravest mistake,
as we all know how far from the truth the SM currently lays. His
attempts to assimilate are to put succinctly "rotten to the core."
Dewey Larson is not reconciling intentionally with mainstream theories
but showing that the known physical phenomena logically follow from his
postulates (a universe consisting of units of scalar motion in three
dimensions). E.g. elementary motions on unit scale form the elementary
particles like the electron and photon. Stable combinations of
multi-dimensional rotation gives the atoms and chemical table of
elements. Electric charge shows up as a motion superimposed on the basic
motion of certain particles. Gravition follows from the inward motion of
atoms. The cosmological cycle of the universe follows from atomic
properties etc...he shows that all physics is compound motion (or
variations of space and time).
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20747>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20747#p20747>by *Lloyd
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Wed May 06, 2009 9:40 pm
Steven, you haven't shown that EU Theory's explanations of cosmic rays,
CMBR and GRBs are inferior to Larson's, which latter is similar to the
Standard Model.
Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>
*Posts:* 1181
*Joined:* Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
* E-mail Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=184>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reciprocal System Theory <#p20780>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20780#p20780>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Thu May 07, 2009 1:47 pm
From the article:
"Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of
gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable
that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics
underlying the force of gravity".
That's an honest self-assesment...
solrey wrote:MOND will be falsified as well. Thornhills EMOND, on
the other hand, will likely prove to be correct.
At least MOND has some formula's coming with it so it does some
quantitative predictions. Both these theories will end up on the same
heap as "dark matter" though.
A good theory of gravitation that solves these riddles is given here
.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20793>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20793#p20793>by *altonhare
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=561>* » Thu May 07, 2009 3:00 pm
One modification of Newton's equation is Amitabha Ghosh's "velocity
dependent inertial induction". It amounts to a 'cosmic drag' in which
all entities' motion is resisted in a certain direction. It is extremely
tiny, it would have been completely unobservable to Newton but the
effect today is observable in various situations (detailed in the book).
It results in an explanation for solar system formation in which the
angular momentum distribution makes sense. It accounts for the shift of
Mercury also. Best of all, there is no dark matter required at all.
Additionally Gaede's thread theory indicates a transition from Newtonian
gravity to non-Newtonian behavior at a distance characteristic of the
diameter of the electromagnetic rope connecting atoms. In this model the
motion of two entities follows inverse-square behavior at close
proximity until the geometry associated with separation requires that
ropes begin to superimpose. Superimposed ropes or parts of ropes do not
contribute to the grav. potential. Thus at large enough distance
gravitational potential actually enters a linear regime (transitions
from inverse square to exponential to linear).
Combining Ghosh's idea of a cosmic drag with Gaede's thread theory is
compelling. We have, here, two behaviors not accounted for by classical
Newtonian mechanics that can account for various anomalies rationally.
One is a cosmic drag by the resistance of Gaede's ropes between an
object and its destination. The other is the transition from inverse
square behavior, through an exponential regime (where the Pioneers are
right now), into a linear regime.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=561>
*Posts:* 1202
*Joined:* Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
*Location:* Baltimore
* E-mail altonhare <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=561>
* Website
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20798>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20798#p20798>by *altonhare
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=561>* » Thu May 07, 2009 3:21 pm
References:
"The Origin of Inertia and Extended Mach's Principle" by Ghosh
"Why God Doesn't Exist" by Bill Gaede. Also his videos and website:
[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM]Light[/url2]
[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE]The Atom[/url2]
[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8&feature=PlayList&p=2C1680B76C66B223&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=44]Magnetism[/url2]
[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE]Gravity 1[/url2]
[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs&feature=related]Gravity
2[/url2]
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=561>
*Posts:* 1202
*Joined:* Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
*Location:* Baltimore
* E-mail altonhare <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=561>
* Website
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20828>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20828#p20828>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Fri May 08, 2009 4:08 pm
Lloyd wrote:Steven, you haven't shown that EU Theory's explanations
of cosmic rays, CMBR and GRBs are inferior to Larson's, which latter
is similar to the Standard Model.
Larson's explanations should defnitely not be regarded as similar to the
mainstream ones, in fact the EU explanations look more like the
mainstream ones. I did assemble a brief unscientific comparison:
Cosmic Rays
Mainstream: particle acceleration in supernova remnant magnetic fields
EU: particle acceleration in (exploding) double layers from nearby stars
Larson: 'cosmic'(=inverted matter aggregated in time) supernova events
return cosmic atoms to material atom status. Since cosmic atoms have no
location in space distribution is isotropic. Find the long explanation
here:Cosmic Ray Decay
Verdict: who's to say? Mainstream and EU both see an electrical source
but would fail to explain the highly energetic particles and why the
origin cannot be located. Larson's source is immaterial from our
perspective, so how to prove it?
CMBR
Mainstream: highly redshifted radiation remaining from the BB
EU: natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in
interstellar plasma local to the Sun
Larson: radiation received from 'cosmic' stars (at 'inverse'
temperature=low temp; not located in space=isotropic)
Verdict: Larson's explanation looks to be in best agreement with
observations, but again the source is immaterial, so it is hard to find
scientific evidence for it.
GRB
Mainstream: extremely far away super-energetic event
EU: closeby plasma mechanism of much lower energy
Larson: decay product from 'cosmic' supernova's at a random location
Verdict: the jury is still out on this one...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20830>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20830#p20830>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Fri May 08, 2009 4:25 pm
The observations of "Dark Energy" seem to match well with Larson's
explanation of the two forces at play on cosmological scale: gravity and
the universal space-time progression. At close distances gravity
dominates, at larger distances the progression dominates.
There is an interesting presentation about the recent discovery of the
accelerating universal expansion here...
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php
HubbleSite wrote:"We do know this: Since space is everywhere, this
dark energy force is everywhere, and its effects increase as space
expands. In contrast, gravity's force is stronger when things are
close together and weaker when they are far apart. Because gravity
is weakening with the expansion of space, dark energy now makes up
over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.
It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes
up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land
on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an
ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know
what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is.
The strangeness of dark energy is thrilling.
It shows scientists that there is a gap in our knowledge that needs
to be filled, beckoning the way toward an unexplored realm of
physics. We have before us the evidence that the cosmos may be
configured vastly differently than we imagine. Dark energy both
signals that we still have a great deal to learn, and shows us that
we stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the
universe."
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20833>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20833#p20833>by *davesmith_au
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=53>* » Fri May 08, 2009 5:42 pm
Steven O.
You can talk about Dewey Larson and his RST as much as you like, down on
the NIAMI board. This part of the forum is to discuss Electric Universe,
not a place for promoting your most favorite theory.
Electric Universe forum intro wrote:Plasma and electricity in space.
Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark
matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other
mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions
and confirmations of the electric comet.
Essentially RST is another gravity-centric theory, seeking to explain
"dark energy" (for example) instead of refuting it. There is no reason
to think that the universe is expanding. Nor is there any evidence of
"dark matter", "black holes" etc etc. Any theory which treats space and
time as some sort of entity which can be warped, bent, expanded,
twisted, sucked in, spat out and stomped on, is essentially based on
thought experiments. That the whole universe consists of motion, and
that space and time are reciprocals of that motion, whatever all that is
supposed to mean, is just as much a thought experiment as other
mainstream explanations.
ANY theory which discounts the role of electricity in space is bound to
failure, treating gravity like it's some sort of uber-powerful force and
the only force which "matters" in the cosmos is VERY short-sighted. That
electricity plays a significant role in life and existance here on
Earth, yet somehow it doesn't have any significance in space, is absurd
in the extreme, IMO.
Again, the Electric Universe forum is a place to discuss Electric
Universe theory.
Dave Smith,
Forum Administrator.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined
within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=53>
davesmith_au <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=53>
Site Admin
*Posts:* 560
*Joined:* Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
*Location:* Adelaide, the great land of Oz
* E-mail davesmith_au <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=53>
* Website
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20841>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20841#p20841>by *Lloyd
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Fri May 08, 2009 6:59 pm
* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of cosmic rays.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1755
Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>
*Posts:* 1181
*Joined:* Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
* E-mail Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=184>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=15> Display posts from previous:
Sort by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1784>
36 posts • Page *1* of *3* <#> • *1*, 2
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=15>, 3
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30>
Return to The Future of Science <./viewforum.php?f=8>
Jump to:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
* Board index <./index.php>
* The team <./memberlist.php?mode=leaders> • Delete all board
cookies <./ucp.php?mode=delete_cookies> • All times are UTC - 8
hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB
Group