Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Nothing But Motion?

  1. #1 Nothing But Motion? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    1
    Hello all,

    I'm new to this forum, and my purpose for posting here is to introduce a new system of physical theory to forum readers, for what it's worth. It's not that it hasn't been published/discussed previously, and it didn't originate with me, but I have applied it for years to develop an alternative physical theory to the standard model theory of particle physics, and I would like to receive informed feedback to the issues it raises here, if you don't mind.

    As you can imagine, it's a huge and very esoteric topic, not something one's friends and non-professional associates are anxious to engage. Since I am not a professional physicist myself however, I don't really have that many opportunities to share my work with professionals. The originator of the new system passed away about thirty years ago, but managed to self-publish several books on his system during his lifetime, but, while he too was what he liked to call an "amateur investigator," he was a very brilliant engineer.

    His name is Dewey B. Larson, and he called his new system of theory, the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST). You may have heard of him and his work, but so many have regarded it as pseudoscience, including the consensus at Wikipedia, that it is mostly obscure to date. Nevertheless, as it turns out, it produces some startling results that go right to the heart of theoretical physics, which I intend to describe here (It was either do it here or in a peer reviewed journal - Ha!).

    Most readers will no doubt ask, "So what is a SYSTEM of physical theory? Mr. Larson explained it as the second system of physical theory since Sir Isaac Newton's, which is the system of theory that is normally used in today's theoretical research. David Hestenes describes it as a program (system) of research the grand goal for which is to “describe and explain all properties of all physical objects... in terms of a few kinds of interactions among a few kinds of particles." (See his New Foundations for Classical Mechanics.)

    Of course, with the advent of quantum mechanics, Newton's program was modified, but its grand goal has not changed, nor has its focus on finding the fewest interactions among the fewest kinds of particles. As we know, the results of the research are currently found in the standard model of particle physics.

    Using Larson's new system, however, we find many of the same results corresponding to those of the standard model, but with entirely new equations of motion. The trouble is that, while the new equations of motion are spectacularly simple and useful, they are equations of a type of motion not explicitly dealt with in Newton's system of research. The new system postulates the existence of this unrecognized motion as the sole constituent of the physical universe, radically departing from the former system, where the observed particles of the standard model are deemed as elementary entities, existing within a fixed background of space and time.

    This is of special interest, due to the fact that, currently, gravity cannot be theoretically explained, without warping the fixed background required by the standard model theory of Newton's system, making the two theories of the system incompatible with each other. The details require a book-sized treatise to develop them adequately, but suffice it to say that this is the crux of a great scientific controversy, sometimes referred to as "the trouble with physics."

    In the next few posts, I will describe Larson's new system of theory and also the beginning of the new mathematics it invokes, given my application of it. The results of this work will then be presented as prima facie evidence of the validity of the system (i.e. the validity of the RST).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by JustSaying View Post
    Hello all,

    I'm new to this forum, and my purpose for posting here is to introduce a new system of physical theory to forum readers, for what it's worth. It's not that it hasn't been published/discussed previously, and it didn't originate with me, but I have applied it for years to develop an alternative physical theory to the standard model theory of particle physics, and I would like to receive informed feedback to the issues it raises here, if you don't mind.

    As you can imagine, it's a huge and very esoteric topic, not something one's friends and non-professional associates are anxious to engage. Since I am not a professional physicist myself however, I don't really have that many opportunities to share my work with professionals. The originator of the new system passed away about thirty years ago, but managed to self-publish several books on his system during his lifetime, but, while he too was what he liked to call an "amateur investigator," he was a very brilliant engineer.

    His name is Dewey B. Larson, and he called his new system of theory, the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST). You may have heard of him and his work, but so many have regarded it as pseudoscience, including the consensus at Wikipedia, that it is mostly obscure to date. Nevertheless, as it turns out, it produces some startling results that go right to the heart of theoretical physics, which I intend to describe here (It was either do it here or in a peer reviewed journal - Ha!).

    Most readers will no doubt ask, "So what is a SYSTEM of physical theory? Mr. Larson explained it as the second system of physical theory since Sir Isaac Newton's, which is the system of theory that is normally used in today's theoretical research. David Hestenes describes it as a program (system) of research the grand goal for which is to “describe and explain all properties of all physical objects... in terms of a few kinds of interactions among a few kinds of particles." (See his New Foundations for Classical Mechanics.)

    Of course, with the advent of quantum mechanics, Newton's program was modified, but its grand goal has not changed, nor has its focus on finding the fewest interactions among the fewest kinds of particles. As we know, the results of the research are currently found in the standard model of particle physics.

    Using Larson's new system, however, we find many of the same results corresponding to those of the standard model, but with entirely new equations of motion. The trouble is that, while the new equations of motion are spectacularly simple and useful, they are equations of a type of motion not explicitly dealt with in Newton's system of research. The new system postulates the existence of this unrecognized motion as the sole constituent of the physical universe, radically departing from the former system, where the observed particles of the standard model are deemed as elementary entities, existing within a fixed background of space and time.

    This is of special interest, due to the fact that, currently, gravity cannot be theoretically explained, without warping the fixed background required by the standard model theory of Newton's system, making the two theories of the system incompatible with each other. The details require a book-sized treatise to develop them adequately, but suffice it to say that this is the crux of a great scientific controversy, sometimes referred to as "the trouble with physics."

    In the next few posts, I will describe Larson's new system of theory and also the beginning of the new mathematics it invokes, given my application of it. The results of this work will then be presented as prima facie evidence of the validity of the system (i.e. the validity of the RST).
    God preserve us from crank engineers pretending to be physicists. I have lost count of the number of cranks on these forums who have proudly announced they are engineers. My heart now sinks every time I read this.

    Here is something about this crackpot theory: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Theory

    You are not Ron Satz by any chance, are you?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    God preserve us from crank engineers pretending to be physicists. I have lost count of the number of cranks on these forums who have proudly announced they are engineers. My heart now sinks every time I read this.
    I know, as an engineer it is embarrassing. I figure they aren't really engineers, but it is not a sure thing. A friend of mine who is an aerospace engineer of all things, said he saw a tv program that said the Apollo program was a hoax and wondered if it really was a hoax. Just because you are fairly smart doesn't mean you can't be incredibly gullible.

    The OP is a cut and paste from other forum sites which means the arguments will be too... sigh..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Origin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    God preserve us from crank engineers pretending to be physicists. I have lost count of the number of cranks on these forums who have proudly announced they are engineers. My heart now sinks every time I read this.
    I know, as an engineer it is embarrassing. I figure they aren't really engineers, but it is not a sure thing. A friend of mine who is an aerospace engineer of all things, said he saw a tv program that said the Apollo program was a hoax and wondered if it really was a hoax. Just because you are fairly smart doesn't mean you can't be incredibly gullible.

    The OP is a cut and paste from other forum sites which means the arguments will be too... sigh..
    So I see.

    Another nutty engineer we have at present is Andrew Ancel Gray. But I don't mean to imply all engineers are nuts of course...........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,848
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    But I don't mean to imply all engineers are nuts of course...........
    I resent the implication.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,887
    Quote Originally Posted by JustSaying View Post
    Hello all,

    I'm new to this forum, and my purpose for posting here is to introduce a new system of physical theory to forum readers, for what it's worth. It's not that it hasn't been published/discussed previously, and it didn't originate with me, but I have applied it for years to develop an alternative physical theory to the standard model theory of particle physics, and I would like to receive informed feedback to the issues it raises here, if you don't mind.

    As you can imagine, it's a huge and very esoteric topic, not something one's friends and non-professional associates are anxious to engage. Since I am not a professional physicist myself however, I don't really have that many opportunities to share my work with professionals. The originator of the new system passed away about thirty years ago, but managed to self-publish several books on his system during his lifetime, but, while he too was what he liked to call an "amateur investigator," he was a very brilliant engineer.

    His name is Dewey B. Larson, and he called his new system of theory, the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST).
    Oh, please stop. It's crap. Total crap. It's been shown to contradict EXPERIMENT -- one that anyone with hobbyist-level workbench can carry out. Go over to Cosmoquest to see the sorry details of one particularly embarrassing (for RST) episode. For those in a hurry, here's the gist: RST predicts that the charging of a capacitor by a battery through a resistance differs from "conventional" (let's call it "correct") theory. Someone over at CQ ran the experiment and the charging behavior was clearly not as predicted by RST. In fact, it charged exactly as conventional theory predicts. Were it not so, pretty much all electronic devices would not function, so it's not as if RST is making a subtle claim.

    So just stop. As exchemist said, we already have one self-confident dolt. There's no more room in this village for another idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Origin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    God preserve us from crank engineers pretending to be physicists. I have lost count of the number of cranks on these forums who have proudly announced they are engineers. My heart now sinks every time I read this.
    I know, as an engineer it is embarrassing. I figure they aren't really engineers, but it is not a sure thing. A friend of mine who is an aerospace engineer of all things, said he saw a tv program that said the Apollo program was a hoax and wondered if it really was a hoax. Just because you are fairly smart doesn't mean you can't be incredibly gullible.
    This is beyond belief - nobody on this thread has friends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 30th, 2014, 01:33 AM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 12th, 2013, 09:22 AM
  3. Translating circular motion to linear motion
    By zollen in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 31st, 2011, 01:55 AM
  4. zero motion?
    By medlakeguy in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: March 20th, 2008, 11:23 AM
  5. ABSOLUTE MOTION VS RELATIVE MOTION
    By MacM in forum Physics
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: August 9th, 2005, 07:12 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •