RECIPROCAL SYSTEM DATABASE Status Report: An Aperiodic Blog

December 27, 2011

Response to a Washington State University Faculty Member

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 4:28 am

[Comments interspersed by Dr. Ronald W. Satz.]

From a Washington State University faculty member:
Re: Is Dewey B. Larson for real?
Date: Wed Jul 28 12:12:18 1999
Posted By: Jeff Brown, Faculty, Astronomy, Washington State University
Area of science: Astronomy
ID: 933033011.As

I’d never heard of Dewey Larson before your query. There are places which seem to indicate that the fellow did really exist (though he is now deceased) and published half a dozen books in the 1950’s through 1980’s, all of them based on what I will politely call nonstandard physical theories. I also hadn’t previously heard of “The International Society of Unified Science”, on whose WWW site his works seem to appear. I can’t find anything about either Larson or the Society which is not of their own authorship, except that lists Larson’s books as out of print — which at least means that they did exist at one time.

[Larson’s books are still in print. They are also available to be read on-line for free. Yes, the Reciprocal System is “non-standard”–that’s because it is a new paradigm.]

I wouldn’t go so far as to label them a hoax at this point, but what I read on their sites about astronomy is sadly out of date and incompatible with observations now. What I read also leans heavily on vague double-talk, with a dearth of quantitative predictions concrete enough to be disproven. There are hand-waving comments, but very few predictive numbers, and a careful selection of comments from old scientific literature to convey an inaccurate impression of large-scale ignorance, confusion, and contention among the mainstream scientific community which they purport to settle. These are known, standard tactics for people trying to “sell” a fringe idea which is either questionable or outright wrong.

[The Reciprocal System is completely quantitative, right down to the basic quantities of space and time. Simply read the free papers on and see for yourself.]

I did find a couple of clearly and demonstrably incorrect claims despite the vagueness of most of their presentation. I limited myself to the work on stars, because I know that best. Example 1: in their view of stellar evolution stars begin as red dwarfs (low surface temperature, low luminosity) and as they grow older their density, temperature, and luminosity increase, culminating in an explosion. I’d want to see numerical predictions of the history of the Sun: how old it is, how its luminosity has changed with time, how fast it should be changing now, and so on. We know from the fossil record, however, that the surface temperature of the Earth hasn’t changed very much over the planet’s history, and since this temperature reflects at least partially the energy input from the Sun, the solar luminosity can’t have changed by very much either, maybe a factor of two. That sounds like a lot, but the red dwarfs which are the supposed early stage for the Sun are thousands of times less luminous than the Sun is now. This kind of luminosity is incompatible with the geologic record.

[The Reciprocal System says that stars increase in mass as they move up the Main Sequence. See the Table below–the observational data is in complete accord with the theory.]

Example 2: the prediction is made that hotter and brighter main sequence stars are denser than the cooler and fainter ones; this is directly contradicted by observations of stars. We can estimate masses and diameters of stars in some binary star systems in which the two stars happen to take turns blocking our view of each other — these are called eclipsing binaries. By taking repeated spectroscopic observations of the stars we can work out the the orbits of the stars around each other. This involves using the Doppler effect (see here, among many other places on the web, for something about it) to tell how fast the stars are moving — this same physical effect is used by radar “guns” to measure the speeds of stars, and then using three of Issac Newton’s inventions, calculus and the laws of motion and gravitation, to solve for the orbit. (There’s a nice description of binary star orbits here. Many of the properties of orbits were discovered by Kepler when analyzing observations of the planets; Newton developed the physics and mathematical tools for understanding why those are.) The orbit tells us how fast the stars are moving, so using that and timing how long the eclipses last tells us how big the stars are (that is, their diameters). The orbit also tells us how much mass there is in the system (the more mass, the more gravity, and the faster things move). Once we have both the mass and the diameter of the stars, then we know the density as quickly as we can do the geometry problem of computing the volume of a sphere when given its diameter; density is equal to mass divided by volume. Once you’ve done the measurements, the numbers indicate that among main sequence stars the hottest, most luminous stars have the lowest density, while the cool, low-luminosity dwarfs have the highest density.

[Again, see the Table below. The conventional astronomers have the sequence upside down.]

Example 3: In some of the stuff “worked out” about the structure of the Sun and the nature of sunspots, the implication is clearly made that the oblateness of the Sun (that is, how flattened the Sun’s disk appears to us) should change over the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle, in the sense that it should become more oblate as the cycle progresses and sunspots appear at lower solar latitudes. This also is directly contradicted by observations: the oblateness of the Sun is constant over time within the accuracy of our measurements.

[All that Larson says on this matter is “The origin of these spots is unknown, but no doubt they are initiated in some manner by the energy production process. Hence they may be giving us an indication of the variations in the output of that process that would be expected from the periodic changes.” (Universe of Motion, p. 62).]

There are certainly other problems with their work. I picked out three items that I spotted quickly and could refute in a short amount of time.

[You haven’t refuted anything.]

In my view, rather than merely a hoax, this is more likely to be the product of one or more sincere crackpots. There’s no shortage of these in the world (it’s rare for most astronomy departments to go a month without getting a letter or monograph from one), and it has to be admitted (as one of my favorite editors once observed) that some crackpots have highly methodical cracks in their pots. (There’s a great editorial in the October 1980 issue of Analog magazine about crackpots it you’re interested in seeing other aspects of them.) Sincerity of belief is all that separates the crackpot from the fraud, however, and history is full of examples of people adhering to ideas that turned out to be very wrong.

[No, we are real scientists and engineers. Mainstream science has been taken over by the fruits and nuts who have given us the nuclear theory of the atom, Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang, neutron stars, quarks, black holes, and other assorted irrational nonsense. All of these theories involve singularities–but this contradicts the accepted philosophical principle that there can be no singularities in nature.]

[The Reciprocal System says that stars slowly progress up the Main Sequence, not down.]

                                                  Star Spectral Classes for the Main Sequence
Star Type             Color                 Approx. Surface Temperature                      Average Mass (The Sun = 1)
O                            Blue                                    25,000 K                                                                       60
B                             Blue                                    11,000 K                                                                        18
A                            Blue                                      7,500 K                                                                           3.2
F                             Blue to White                      6,000 K                                                                           1.7
G                            White to Yellow                  5,000 K                                                                           1.1
K                            Orange to Red                   3,500 K                                                                              .8
M                           Red                                   <3,500 K                                                                              .3

(Data from

Update:  This professor is currently at Seattle University; he seems to change jobs quite often.  He seems to be sincere in his belief in the conventional paradigm, though misguided.  His list of papers shows that he’s mostly concerned with the chemical composition of stars, and so there’s probably little to find fault there.  On the other hand, he doesn’t realize he’s teaching his students all kinds of irrational, illogical theories and therefore miseducating them.  Pehaps he simply doesn’t have a sufficiently high enough IQ level to understand the Reciprocal System.


December 8, 2011

irwolfie- at Wikipedia–A Rabid Believer in the Bizarre World of the Nuclear Atom

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 9:25 am

With a bit of sleuthing, we found the perpetrator of the deletion of the article on Dewey B. Larson from  This individual, who goes by the name “irwolfie-” (and apparently has the e-mail address is Irish, lives in Ireland, and has just a bachelor’s degree in physics and no publications to speak of.  He/she loves the nuclear theory so much that he/she just cannot handle the competition.  The policy of ISUS is, and has been, to go after any and all individuals who are the mind-numbed robots of conventional physics and who unfairly attack Larson or the Reciprocal System.  The Reciprocal System is perfectly rational; modern conventional physics is not.   We suggest that the Institute of Physics, of which irwolfie- is a member, run our proposed modified Rutherford experiment–then we’ll see who’s correct….

ISUS Project:  Let’s find out the name of this piece of Irish dreck and directly confront him or her.  No, it doesn’t mean doing anything illegal or unethical against him or her, it means “having the Talk” about “the facts of reality.”  This individual has aggressed against members of ISUS by taking down the biographical article on Larson and so we have every moral right to go after him or her.  After all, we do believe in tit for tat or reciprocity.  Our goals here are to get an apology and to get the article restored.

Update (03/14/2013):  We found another individual involved in the deletion of the Wikipedia article on Dewey B. Larson:  William M. Connolley.  This guy is also one of those “global warming and Green Party” kooks.  He is not a physical scientist or engineer; he’s a  nothing.  Even the article about him–on Wikipedia–says that he’s been “accused of trying to remove ‘any point of view which does not match his own.'”


Dewey B. Larson–The Former Wikipedia Article

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 7:38 am

 Dewey Bernard Larson (November 1, 1898(1898-11-01); McCanna, North Dakota – May 25, 1990 (aged 91); Portland, Oregon) was an American engineer and the originator of the Reciprocal System of physical theory (or Reciprocal System for short), a comprehensive theoretical framework, or Theory of Everything, claimed to be capable of explaining all physical phenomena from subatomic particles to galactic clusters. In this general physical theory space and time are simply the two reciprocal aspects of the sole constituent of the universe – motion. Unique aspects of the theory are that both matter and energy are represented mathematically as greater than or less than unity (t/s or s/t), and three dimensions of time, reciprocals of the three dimensions of space. All physical phenomena are reduced to space-time terms. Larson’s works on theoretical physics include The Structure of the Physical Universe (1959), The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (1963), Beyond Newton (1964), New Light on Space and Time (1965), Quasars and Pulsars (1971), Nothing But Motion (1979), The Neglected Facts of Science (1982), The Universe of Motion (1984), and Basic Properties of Matter (1988). All of these are still in print, and available from, except for the 1959 book.

An introduction and summary of the Reciprocal System is given in The Unmysterious Universe (1971), by Dr. Ronald W. Satz. This work is also still in print and available from Dr. Satz is currently working on a comprehensive database of Reciprocal System calculations. The philosopher Samuel Alexander asked the question “How far a science of order could be founded on this bare conception of ordered parts of Space-Time I do not know. …” but Larson was inspired to make it his life’s major work to attempt to find out. Larson’s Reciprocal System is the first truly unified theory and the first general theory.

 From just two general postulates, Larson has derived an all-embracing theoretical universe, answering simply and reasonably such questions as:

What is the fundamental component of the universe?

Why is the universe expanding?

Why does light behave sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave?

 How do electrons and positrons annihilate one another to produce photons?

What holds the “parts” of an atom together?

What is the origin and nature of gravitation?

 What is the origin of supernovae, white dwarfs, red giants, pulsars, and solar systems?

 What is the connection between exploding galaxies and quasars?

 What is the origin of the cosmic rays?

 Is the universe finite or infinite?

 Is the universe in a steady-state, or is it evolving?

 The Reciprocal System is in competition with the “standard particle model” of conventional theoretical physics and also with “string theory.” Larson also wrote on economic policy and theory.

December 6, 2011

William M. Connolley–a Believer in the Nonsense of “Man-Made Global Warming”

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 9:49 am

This is rich.  Connolley, who spearheaded the deletion of the article entitled “Reciprocal System of Theory” in Wikipedia, some years ago, is a pseudo-scientist himself!  He believes in the now discredited theory of man-made global warming.  In contrast, Dr. Satz is one of over 32000 distinguished scientists who signed a petition, some years ago, against this idiotic belief system; go to

Blog at