Thunderbolts Forum For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology Skip to content * Board index < The Future of Science * Change font size * FAQ * Register * Login Reciprocal System Theory 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. Moderators: arc-us, MGmirkin Forum rules Post a reply First unread post o 36 posts o Page 1 of 3 o 1, 2, 3 Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by StevenO » 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 StevenO Posts: 894 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by Lloyd » 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 Posts: 2774 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by StevenO » 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 StevenO Posts: 894 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by Lloyd » 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 Posts: 2774 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by junglelord » 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 junglelord Posts: 3693 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am Location: Canada Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by earls » 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 Posts: 275 Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by StevenO » 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 StevenO Posts: 894 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by Lloyd » 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 Posts: 2774 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Reciprocal System Theory Unread post by StevenO » 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 StevenO Posts: 894 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Reciprocal System Theory Unread post by altonhare » 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 Posts: 1212 Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am Location: Baltimore + Website Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Reciprocal System Theory Unread post by altonhare » 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=2C 1680B76C66B223&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]Gravi ty 2[/url2] Physicist: This is a pen Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h altonhare Posts: 1212 Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am Location: Baltimore + Website Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by StevenO » 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 StevenO Posts: 894 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Reciprocal System Theory Unread post by StevenO » 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_e nergy.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 StevenO Posts: 894 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Reciprocal System Theory Unread post by davesmith_au » 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 davesmith_au Site Admin Posts: 789 Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz + Website Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes Unread post by Lloyd » 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 Posts: 2774 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Next Display posts from previous: [All posts] Sort by [Post time] [Ascending.] Go _________________________________________________________________ Post a reply 36 posts o Page 1 of 3 o 1, 2, 3 Return to The Future of Science Jump to: [The Future of Science...........................] Go Who is online Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest * Board index * The team o Delete all board cookies o All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group