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