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=15> 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 *2* of *3* <#> • 1 <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784>, *2*, 3 <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30> Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20850> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20850#p20850>by *Osmosis <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=117>* » Fri May 08, 2009 8:32 pm Well said, Dave. :D Osmosis <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=117> *Posts:* 277 *Joined:* Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm *Location:* San Jose, California * E-mail Osmosis <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=117> Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20854> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20854#p20854>by *sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Fri May 08, 2009 10:03 pm 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. I understand the need for the subject matter rules for the forum, but assume that includes room for discussion pro and con, and for response to specific claims. For the record, Larson wrote extensively about electrical theory. About plasma and electricity in space, EU no doubt has had more to say, but Larson also explicitly characterized plasma as important: "Although gaseous ions are more important in the universe as a whole - most of the gaseous matter in the stars and much of that of interstellar space is ionized - liquid ionization is a familiar feature of our local environment...." He disagreed with standard ideas as to the nature of ionization - as a deficiency of electrons that would otherwise be in orbit around a positively charge "nucleus" - and denied that charges are present at all in non-ionized matter. He also would have disagreed with the talk about "electric currents in space." I think he would have described the phenomenon in question as a movement of charges, categorically distinct from current electricity (confined to a conductor). I think he had some well-informed insights into such questions, very worth considering carefully. And if he was right, that need not entail rejection of EU insights; perhaps only a change in the language with which they are expressed. Larson was also explicit about the failure of gravity-only cosmology, pointing out that another force was needed to explain the abnormally large distances between stars, for example. About the list of "myths," he would have agreed with that characterization of every one of them, except for the rejection of "dark energy." Fundamentally, he did not "seek to explain 'dark energy' instead of refuting it." In the beginning (after a couple of decades of work), what he sought to explain was an expression which he had derived for the interatomic distance in the solid state. That distance (as reflected in the compressibility data compiled by Bridgman and others) could only be explained on the basis of an equilibrium between attractive and repulsive forces, whereas current theory (then and now) has only attractive forces (electrical and gravitational) to work with. He realized that his expression was in integral of a reciprocal relation, which ultimately led to his postulate of a general reciprocal relation between space and time. If that is the case, then space must increase at the same rate as time ("some reason to think..."). The upshot is that he unequivocally predicted that individual objects (galaxy clusters) that are receding from one another will do so at accelerating rates. On the basis of his principles, the universal expectation of the researchers ("gravity-only cosmologists") that gravity would be slowing down the expansion could only have been based on a kind of double-counting of the gravitational force. Larson presumably would have disagreed with the electric model of stars, at least in part. But he belonged to a small club of dissenters from the fusion star hypothesis. His criticisms of the latter, particularly in his telling review of the astronomical evidence on the direction of stellar evolution, add to the list of anomalies presented by Scott, Thornhill, etc. Surely these should be of interest to EU people as well. e.g. for starters, in his classic 1961 essay "Just How Much Do We Really Know?" http://library.rstheory.org/articles/La ... wMuch.html As for the electric comet predictions, the theory proper belongs to Thornhill and Scott. Before them, (as hinted in the above article), Larson predicted that the background ionization level differs at different regions of space. It seems to me that the EU explanation of comet tails as being a function of changes in the ionization environment from a comet's "home" norm is generally quite compatible with Larson's ideas. In light of my comments above with respect to "dark energy" and the origins of Larson's theory, I close with a quotation from a letter he wrote to his former classmate Linus Pauling on July 19, 1952: "Unfortunately … my basic conclusions are in conflict not merely with one but with a number of generally accepted ideas and this complicates my situation to a very considerable degree…. In my opinion it is desirable that I should confine my initial explanations to individual items which can be readily separated from the main body of the work and described without introducing too many of these controversial subjects…. In line with this thought I am not presenting my compressibility equation in ‘full form’ with its underlying theoretical justification at this time, but instead am submitting it as an accurate and useful semi-empirical relationship, in which status it has considerable practical value independent of the legitimacy of its theoretical ancestry…. Such reference as I may make to the theoretical development in the meantime is purely for background information, and I am including it because I believe it is rather significant that this equation which fits the experimental data so well is not the result of a mathematical cut and try operation but of a theoretical relationship derived from consideration of totally different physical phenomena…. The significant fact which emerged from the theoretical analysis is that only one of the forces entering into the equilibrium, the one in the outward direction, has any resemblance to our usual concept of inter-atomic forces. The inward force is a force of constant magnitude." [Emphasis in original] sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544> *Posts:* 16 *Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am * E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544> Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes <#p20855> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20855#p20855>by *sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Fri May 08, 2009 10:29 pm earls: On the contrary, SM has never been subjected to such well-conceived challenges, on so many fronts: see e.g "Just How Much Do We Really Know?" (1961) http://library.rstheory.org/articles/La ... wMuch.html "The Non-existent Universe" (1984) http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/29.html "The Retreat From Reality" (1988) http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/18.html sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544> *Posts:* 16 *Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am * E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544> Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes <#p20857> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20857#p20857>by *StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Sat May 09, 2009 1:26 am Lloyd wrote:* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of cosmic rays. http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=1755 Cosmic rays are not X-rays, but material particles(mostly protons) at speeds close to lightspeed. 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 <#p20864> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20864#p20864>by *junglelord <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>* » Sat May 09, 2009 8:42 am all charges originate in exactly the same manner that the charge on the electron originates: by addition of a rotational vibration to an existing rotational motion of the opposite space-time direction. I took a look at the link sathearn. It says the same thing as APM. Angular Momentum is not charged. It gains charge via the opposite spin Aether. Same thing. 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: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20874> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20874#p20874>by *StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Sat May 09, 2009 2:09 pm davesmith_au wrote: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. I think the insights from Larson's RST fit pretty well with the second and third sentence. But it is up to the moderators to determine the limits and I will adhere to that. Only then I think we should move the whole thread to the NIAMI board since others are putting their favorite theories forward too. davesmith_au wrote: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. I think RST is the only theory providing an explanation for the physical mechanism of gravity. BTW. RST does not pose the universe is expanding but that space and time are progressing at a ratio of lightspeed. And what else is this forum than one big thought experiment ;) ? davesmith_au wrote: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. Replacing a gravity only dogma with an electricy only dogma is not going to provide the answers. 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 <#p20877> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20877#p20877>by *arc-us <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=54>* » Sat May 09, 2009 3:08 pm Posts above split from here, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1697 , and retitled to a new topic. There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=54> arc-us <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=54> *Posts:* 2410 *Joined:* Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm *Location:* El Paso, Texas, USA * Website Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes <#p20881> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20881#p20881>by *Solar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=75>* » Sat May 09, 2009 4:12 pm junglelord wrote: 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. I'm on theory overload. Too many to keep track of LOL!! Nonetheless, having given this an overview I have to agree that the above "basic idea in RST" is meaningful. There is an obvious nomenclature problem because I see no difference between 'bimodal aether(s)' producing discrete fine structure resonant scalar phase-states via "compound motion" and what you've stated above. You've also qualitatively demonstrated that the correct interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment should have simply been that the Aether, RST's 'compound scalar motions', is not stationary. This, as opposed to the over-reaching Einsteinium assumption that it "killed the aether concept". You're absolutely correct with what then follows regarding the Aetheric-like "active vacuum" by necessity "making it's way back into the background of major physics". The major blow to physics was actually accepting Einstein's erroneous assumption which used the assumptive conclusion derived from the Michelson-Morley experiment as empirical evidence that said Aether(s) do not exist. That has been the major error of physics. The above from RST also says so but seems to want to posit 'motion' without causation. Nothing undergoing ZITTERBEWEGUNG to start the compounding (broken symmetry) upon reaching some critical value. Thats a problem. It's as if speaking of an Aether, without having an Aether, because someone misinterpreted the results of an experiment, but everything else regarding it works fine, so we'll use that part - which leaves 'motion'; with no existent, to actually 'move'. "“Once physicist grabbed hold of electricity all knowledge of it ceased. Electrons have nothing to do with the flow of electricity. Electrons are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. Electrons are the resistance." - Eric Dollard User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=75> Solar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=75> *Posts:* 574 *Joined:* Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20900> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20900#p20900>by *StefanR <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=64>* » Sun May 10, 2009 6:17 am Solar wrote: I'm on theory overload. Too many to keep track of LOL!! Nonetheless, having given this an overview I have to agree that the above "basic idea in RST" is meaningful. There is an obvious nomenclature problem because I see no difference between 'bimodal aether(s)' producing discrete fine structure resonant scalar phase-states via "compound motion" and what you've stated above. You've also qualitatively demonstrated that the correct interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment should have simply been that the Aether, RST's 'compound scalar motions', is not stationary. This, as opposed to the over-reaching Einsteinium assumption that it "killed the aether concept". You're absolutely correct with what then follows regarding the Aetheric-like "active vacuum" by necessity "making it's way back into the background of major physics". The major blow to physics was actually accepting Einstein's erroneous assumption which used the assumptive conclusion derived from the Michelson-Morley experiment as empirical evidence that said Aether(s) do not exist. That has been the major error of physics. I think, maybe, there is a common ground from which these theories arise I will try to give it in another thread as this thread is of course for the RST-theory Perhaps it might give a shared point of departure, for it shows the root of the problem, I hope Give a moment :) The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H. User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=64> StefanR <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=64> *Posts:* 1195 *Joined:* Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm *Location:* Amsterdam Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes <#p20918> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20918#p20918>by *StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Sun May 10, 2009 3:12 pm Solar wrote:The above from RST also says so but seems to want to posit 'motion' without causation. Nothing undergoing ZITTERBEWEGUNG to start the compounding (broken symmetry) upon reaching some critical value. Thats a problem. It's as if speaking of an Aether, without having an Aether, because someone misinterpreted the results of an experiment, but everything else regarding it works fine, so we'll use that part - which leaves 'motion'; with no existent, to actually 'move'. The word "causation" has to be used with care here. The RST universe is build from motion only. Space and time are merely two (reciprocal) aspects of motion. A 3D 'static' space reference frame with progressing time as we experience it (the material part of the universe) will arise from compound motions, but the reciprocal emerges as well by conservation of motion(a 3D 'static' time reference frame with progressing space that Larson calls the 'cosmic' part of the universe). The link between the material and cosmic part is only through scalar motions, which are without direction, so acausal. This shows that the quirky features of quantum mechanics really emerge as basic features of the universe. What caused the broken symmetry in uniform motion is another discussion, but only at that event space and time started to emerge. From any practical perspective this can be considered eternal. 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 <#p21040> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21040#p21040>by *Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Tue May 12, 2009 4:17 pm * You wrote: Lloyd wrote:* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of cosmic rays. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1755 Cosmic rays are not X-rays, but material particles(mostly protons) at speeds close to lightspeed. * If you'd looked at the link, you should have seen that it was not saying x-rays are cosmic rays. * Here's what Thornhill said at http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt : The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the Sun's influence (termed the heliopause and considered conventionally to be a purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the ion (proton) current from the Sun will be accelerated through almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the surrounding plasma - estimated by Juergens at around 10 billion volts. Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin of cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out, most are likely the "spent" ions from other stars. Their range of energies gives a measure of the driving potentials suffered by other stars. It also provides a check on the reasonableness of Juergens' estimate for the Sun. Interestingly, there is a gap in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays. The most highly energetic are probably released from the plasma focus activities at the centre of active galaxies. Last edited by Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184> on Tue May 12, 2009 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total. 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: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21041> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21041#p21041>by *Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Tue May 12, 2009 4:25 pm * You said: He disagreed with standard ideas as to the nature of ionization - as a deficiency of electrons that would otherwise be in orbit around a positively charge "nucleus" - and denied that charges are present at all in non-ionized matter. He also would have disagreed with the talk about "electric currents in space." I think he would have described the phenomenon in question as a movement of charges, categorically distinct from current electricity (confined to a conductor). * I don't see how Larson's theory is very compatible with EU. What do you call lightning? Where's its conductor? And what about interplanetary lightning that was seen by the ancients and which obviously formed the surface features of the planets? 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: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21080> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21080#p21080>by *StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Wed May 13, 2009 12:32 pm Lloyd wrote:* You wrote: Lloyd wrote:* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of cosmic rays. http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=1755 Cosmic rays are not X-rays, but material particles(mostly protons) at speeds close to lightspeed. * If you'd looked at the link, you should have seen that it was not saying x-rays are cosmic rays. That's what I did, you referred to it as a "thread suggesting a nearby source of cosmic rays". Lloyd wrote:* Here's what Thornhill said at http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt : The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the Sun's influence (termed the heliopause and considered conventionally to be a purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the ion (proton) current from the Sun will be accelerated through almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the surrounding plasma - estimated by Juergens at around 10 billion volts. Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin of cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out, most are likely the "spent" ions from other stars. Their range of energies gives a measure of the driving potentials suffered by other stars. It also provides a check on the reasonableness of Juergens' estimate for the Sun. Interestingly, there is a gap in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays. The most highly energetic are probably released from the plasma focus activities at the centre of active galaxies. That would mean we should see many more cosmic rays coming from the direction of the sun at a particular energy. But what we see is cosmics rays coming from all directions with a range of energies. 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 <#p21098> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21098#p21098>by *nick c <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62>* » Wed May 13, 2009 8:45 pm hi StevenO, StevenO wrote: Lloyd wrote:* Here's what Thornhill said at http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt : The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the Sun's influence (termed the heliopause and considered conventionally to be a purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the ion (proton) current from the Sun will be accelerated through almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the surrounding plasma - estimated by Juergens at around 10 billion volts. Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin of cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out, most are likely the "spent" ions from other stars. Their range of energies gives a measure of the driving potentials suffered by other stars. It also provides a check on the reasonableness of Juergens' estimate for the Sun. Interestingly, there is a gap in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays. The most highly energetic are probably released from the plasma focus activities at the centre of active galaxies. That would mean we should see many more cosmic rays coming from the direction of the sun at a particular energy. But what we see is cosmics rays coming from all directions with a range of energies. No, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion? According to what Thornhill wrote, we should see cosmic rays coming from all directions with a range of energies, which as you point out is what is observed. The idea is that ions originating from our Sun would accelerate and become cosmic rays after leaving the heliopause, we would not be able to detect cosmic rays that originated from our Sun from the Earth, because they would not be cosmic rays at that point. The cosmic rays we detect on Earth "are the spent ions from other stars", that is, they are coming from other stars and sources within our galaxy. That the cosmic rays we detect on Earth don't originate from the Sun is evident by the statement: "Their range of energies gives a measure of the driving potentials suffered by other stars." The ions (protons) from our Sun have to leave the heliopause, beyond the orbit of Pluto, where they would leave our solar system and become cosmic rays. An earthbound observer would not detect cosmic rays from our Sun. This is put forth as a hypothetical surmise, or a logical conclusion from the model: "Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin of cosmic rays." At least that is the way I read that particular Thornhill quote. nick c User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62> nick c <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62> Moderator *Posts:* 839 *Joined:* Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm *Location:* connecticut * E-mail nick c <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=62> Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21099> Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21099#p21099>by *sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Wed May 13, 2009 10:53 pm sathearn wrote: He disagreed with standard ideas as to the nature of ionization - as a deficiency of electrons that would otherwise be in orbit around a positively charge "nucleus" - and denied that charges are present at all in non-ionized matter. He also would have disagreed with the talk about "electric currents in space." I think he would have described the phenomenon in question as a movement of charges, categorically distinct from current electricity (confined to a conductor). Lloyd wrote: I don't see how Larson's theory is very compatible with EU. What do you call lightning? Where's its conductor? And what about interplanetary lightning that was seen by the ancients and which obviously formed the surface features of the planets? Thanks for the opportunity for an attempt at clarification. The point I was trying to make with the quoted words was that these are areas where EU adopts some standard ideas which RS disagrees with. So I agree these are prima facie incompatibilities between the two theories. However, it is possible that they don't have quite as much significance as they would seem to on first sight. I really don't know enough to say for sure. The kind of thing I had in mind is something like what Larson described at one point in his essay, "Just How Much Do We Really Know?": The experimenters who are busily engaged in measuring 'nuclear cross sections', for example, will probably be horrified at the suggestion that there is no such thing as a nucleus. But these investigators are measuring cross-sections, not nuclear cross-sections. The identification with the nucleus is theoretical, not experimental, and if the theory has to be changed this does not affect the experimental results - it simply changes the language in which they are expressed. We just substitute 'atomic' for 'nuclear' and everything else just goes on the same. The difference in terminology in the above quotation is not merely verbal - it expresses an important difference in theoretical concepts. But the genuine empirical results that are expressible in terms of the nuclear theory are, in this example, equally expressible in terms of the new theory in which atoms are integral units that occupy the space of what is now thought of as the 'nucleus.' Now it stands to reason that the most distinctive claims of EU are not the elements that it shares with all standard EM theory. A proposed revision of some of the conceptual foundations of the latter need not necessarily affect those distinctive claims - nor the well-established mathematical relations developed in EM over recent centuries, for that matter. As for your specific questions, what Larson is in effect proposing is a return to a "two substance" view of electricity. What he calls "current electricity" is the kind that is confined to a conductor, and consists, according to him, of uncharged electrons moving through matter itself (not through the space between the atoms, as in the current conception), which is why it is so confined. On the other hand, the plasma phenomena (including lightning) consist of movements of charged particles, NOT confined to a conductor. I don't know about the ancient evidence you refer to, so can't comment, except I don't think it's obvious that interplanetary lightning formed the surface features of the planets. sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544> *Posts:* 16 *Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am * E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544> Top <#wrap> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Previous <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=0>Next <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30> Display posts from previous: Sort by ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1784> 36 posts • Page *2* of *3* <#> • 1 <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784>, *2*, 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