RECIPROCAL SYSTEM DATABASE Status Report: An Aperiodic Blog

October 30, 2012

The Bell Inequality Problem for Conventional Theories

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 11:06 am

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm  

“Experiments have already shown that if you want to invoke signals to explain things, the signals would have to be travelling faster than light — more than 10,000 times the speed of light, in fact. To those who know that Einstein’s relativity sets the speed of light as a universal speed limit, the idea of signals travelling 10,000 times as fast as light already sets alarm bells ringing. However, physicists have a getout: such signals might stay as ‘hidden influences’ — useable for nothing, and thus not violating relativity. Only if the signals can be harnessed for faster-than-light communication do they openly contradict relativity.”

Ha Ha Ha.  It never occurs to convential theorists that two particles which are created at the same space-time location and moving away from one another in space are still connected in coordinate time.  Therefore an influence on one can still be an influence on the other–just as the Reciprocal System says.

 

 

Advertisements

October 27, 2012

Globular Clusters –> Galactic Clusters –> into the Milky Way

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 12:33 pm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121025130920.htm   This is what the Reciprocal System has been saying since 1959:  globular clusters –> galactic clusters –> into the Milky Way galaxy.  Therefore, globular clusters aren’t “old”–they’re relatively new structures!

October 24, 2012

A Flare from a “Black Hole” Disproves the Notion of “Black Holes”

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 10:48 am

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121023145224.htm

Conventional physicists use black holes to explain galactic nuclei, quasars, and all manner of other astrophysical phenomena.  But the theory says that nothing can escape from a black hole.  Yet, in all cases we see jets or flares of matter  issuing from alleged black holes.  Hey, fools, this disproves your theory!  Sure there are extreme concentrations of mass in the universe–but what goes in eventually comes out.  The universe is cyclic, just as the Reciprocal System claims.

October 23, 2012

Refutation of RationalWiki.org Talk Page Nonsense about Dewey B. Larson

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 11:53 am

Comments Interspersed by Ronald W. Satz, Ph. D. in square brackets.

You might want to state your case as less of an ad hoc judgement.

[Yes! I agree with this in regard to the main page of the article about Dewey B. Larson in Rationalwiki.org.]

Dewey’s major observation was that even major players in the creation of the current Standard Model (such as Dirac and Feynman) were skeptical of the admitted speculation and “inventions of the human mind” (Einstein’s words) involved with reconciling both high-speed physics and modern astronomical observations with 3000 year-old Western materialism.

His conflation of modern thought with ancient spiritism/deity-worship is a product of careful observation in his work (engineering) as well as understanding the need for a more fundamental constituent of the universe than ever multiplying subdivisions of matter.

“DBL: I was trying to do exactly what the constructors of equations of state are doing. I was trying to find mathematical equations in which numbers could be assigned to these different substances, exactly as the rest of them were doing. The only thing is that I came down to the point where I recognized finally that that wasn’t going to get me what I wanted, because ultimately I am going back to a number that is arbitrary, or a series of numbers that are arbitrary. So I finally decided what I had to do was to get something that is meaningful to start with and work the other way”

-1984 interview

— Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs  04:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

[Excellent.]

Really, you can read this and tell me with a straight face that he doesn’t fit nearly every definition of crank going? Although I’m sure he’s a well-intentioned one, he seems to have little interest in generating hypotheses that actually have predictions and falsifiable parameters – no matter how much he insists in his extensive text that they do. They’re nice thought-experiments, so I agree with Asimov’s review of CANA to a point, but let’s face it, what he said is no different to me saying “magic pixies did it”. d hominem 08:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
[If that were the case, why is that I can construct an entire theoretical database of calculations for the properties of matter?  You, on the other hand, cannot construct such a database using Quantum Mechanics!]

 Instead of incredulously wondering how someone can draw different conclusions than you I welcome you to share with me your line of reasoning from which you conclude that he is a so-called ‘crank’. In other words, despite your graciously providing the link, I have as of yet no proof as to whether you have actually read the text to which it points, pardon me for saying so. 🙂

[Again, excellent.  Dewey B. Larson was a super genius, certainly not a “crank.”]

Incidentally, you and Dewey Larson both compare unsatisfactory theories with spiritism. You might wish to read the first chapter of his landmark “Nothing But Motion”, or the 1984 Salt Lake City interview to get a better idea of his line of reason which led to his 64000 dollar question: can we build a completely theoretical model which can anticipate modern discoveries as they are observed and published?

[Conventional physicists are mostly subsidized by the government–they have a clique and give each other grants.  If one disagrees with their paradigm, such an individual is kicked out of their clique.  It’s a cult of believers in the bizarre theories of modern physics.  Proponents of the Reciprocal System, on the other hand, are perfectly rational.  We do not want or accept government support (except, possibly, for military projects).]

I have no problem with a refutation, should you provide this wiki with an actual one, instead of unsubstantiated opinion.

As for Dewey himself, he seems to have a record throughout his work of recognizing and appreciating the lines of reasoning of the vanguards of modern physics. I believe his only concern was that the premise that matter/energy is the most fundamental constituent of the universe has led to certain problems in modern physics (which have only been resolved by going back to the drawing board and postulating that motion itself, and not deeper subdivisions of matter, act as the basic building block).

Because neither Larson himself, nor the wiki, nor myself have made the same absolute statement in regards to his (admittedly non-empirical [nothing more? nothing less!]) motion-based universe, I believe the onus is upon you, my friend, to state your case more diligently.

As for your conjecture that his theory fails to predict modern astronomical phenomena, once again, I say that the ball is indeed in your court.

peace — Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs 

[Nice response–no need for me to comment here.]

 Sample refutation

This gentleman has presented a somewhat more compelling argument, I read it with great interest…

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-07/933199433.As.r.html — Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs
Not really, he just says “Yep, Larson’s a crackpot” and recognizes him as unmeaningful to the labor of science. — Seth Peck (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As for Dewey himself, he seems to have a record throughout his work of recognizing and appreciating the lines of reasoning of the vanguards of modern physics. I believe his only concern was that the premise that matter/energy is the most fundamental constituent of the universe has led to certain problems in modern physics (which have only been resolved by going back to the drawing board and postulating that motion itself, and not deeper subdivisions of matter, act as the basic building block). The so-called Standard Model, with increasingly complex mathematics, and a set of sub-atomic entities along with convenient adhoc assumptions to rival in population any prehistoric Greek Pantheon, can be criticized with as much logic and vigor as the Larsonian one.

As far as his perceived phobia of said mathematics, the case could be made that perhaps by eliminating unnecessary assumptions and going back to a very basic set of axioms, the toolbox has been kept to a minimum. Ostensibly elegant.

[I have demonstrated the mathematical power of the Reciprocal System is scores of papers.  Remember:  the physical concepts and units come first, then the mathematics.  In contrast to the Reciprocal System, the conventional theories do not have a complete set of natural units.]

As for your conjecture that his theory fails to predict modern astronomical phenomena, once again, I say that the ball is indeed in your court. The MadSci reference certainly catches two instances (in all fairness, it should be noted that Larson’s predictions are not 100 percent accurate), but such shortfalls can be observed in the current model as well.

Larson’s completely hypothetical universe should be no crankier to a physicist than Tolkien’s Ea should be to a historian.

peace Rebinator (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Rebinator 

 Larson acknowledges his Universe is work of pure mental exercise

[The Reciprocal System is not a “pure mental exercise.”  We claim that it corresponds point by point with the real physical universe.  Larson predicted the existence of exploding galaxies in 1959, way before they were discovered.]

The problem most physicists have with Larson is mistaking it for a hybrid theory/empirical model of the Universe. Larson himself has gone on record that his Universe is an act of pure imagination; one which merely happens to predict a substantial majority of physical constants and deep space phenomena from first principles. Non-empirical? Nothing more, nothing less!

[The Reciprocal System Postulates were derived by induction, not by imagination!!!]

Like I said earlier somewhat differently, the reason his model is not studied is because it requires no funding; no resources, no more powerful hadron colliders to detect particles. I would be the first to agree that it is a work of fiction. However, to accuse him of making up phenomena/entities to suit observation is a criticism that would be far better applied to actual physicicist, whose champions such as Einstein, Dirac, and Feynmann have gone on record to acknowledge the fudge-factors necessary in their line of work.

[The Reciprocal System is not a work of fiction; it has worked fine in tens of thousands of cases.  Conventional physical theory is, however, a work of fiction:  it posits singularities, but singularities cannot exist in nature!  Experimental work and observation must, of course, continue, just as the theoretical work must, of course continue.]

The intriguing thing about Larson’s work is that it is a purely logical construct, based upon the premise that combinations of motion (ie space and time) are adequate enough to predict physical phenomena. While a genuine crank might insist that he alone has discovered the secret (ie, ‘Einstein is f****d in the head’), there is no attempt to gainsay the value of the work done by the giants; only an awareness of the potential fallacy in trying to mesh thousands of years of monist materialism with what we now know about the cosmos, especially on the incredibly large/small scale. In short, like I said earlier Larson’s universe is not ours anymore than (here I go again) Tolkien’s map of Middle Earth is that of Europe.

[Huh?  Explain to us exactly where the deductions are wrong, and I will correct them.  Neither Larson nor I have ever claimed infallibility.  And we’ve never discounted, in toto, the work of others–but we do reject the nuclear theory of atoms and the electrical theory of matter.   And, so therefore, we reject the “Standard Model.”]

There is no need, implied by Larson, to throw out the work done by mainstream science, only an awareness on his part that if the premises are false, eventually observations will come to light requiring reexamination of same.

I suggest that critics retain their skepticism, while yet reading the introductions to his ‘Structure of the Physical Universe’ and ‘Nothing But Motion’. Rebinator (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)rebinator 

[That’s fine.]
 Satz on BAUT

Related to the article, Satz recently (end of 2011) showed up on BAUT (the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forums) and rather spectacularly failed at presenting and supporting Reciprocal Theory. In particular, Larson’s assertion that the energy stored in capacitors is proportional to the voltage they are charged to. Innumeracy, illogic, and refusal to understand simple arguments or recognize the internal inconsistencies of Reciprocal Theory or the wild departures of its predictions from reality ensued.

[If capacitance had the dimension of s, space, then the time constant would have to be RC/V.  But I conducted numerous experiments with capacitors and found, indeed, that the time constant is RC.  Therefore capacitance does not have the dimension of s, as both the cgs system of units claimed and previous work on the Reciprocal System.  In due course, I made the change in theory:  capacitance has the dimensions of s^3 / t, and permittivity (dielectric constant) has the dimensions of s^2 / t–it is not non-dimensional as the cgs system of units has claimed.]

The relevant thread: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/126254-Doubts-About-quot-Modern-Physics-quot

I did some actual measurements of capacitor charge/discharge curves toward the end…the sort of thing that Reciprocal Theory’s supporters have supposedly been trying to get for years. The plot generated with mainstream electrical theory is almost lost behind the data, the curves predicted by Reciprocal theory are way off. — Unsigned, by: Cjameshuff / talk / contribs
Fun times. Remind me to write this up for the article when I have time and free mental capacity to deal with Larson’s crankery again. narchist 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[Ha Ha. Once I made the change in capacitance dimensions, all of the major equations in electrical engineering were found to work correctly–as they are empirical anyway.  Compare the dimensions of capacitance in the Reciprocal System, now s^3 /t, versus that of conventional theory in SI:  (s^-2) x (m^-1) x (t^4) x (i^2).  What a joke.  Conventional physics doesn’t understand that all physical phenomena can be reduced to space-time terms only.]

Hope no one minds me copying this post here for reference: While we’re waiting for the end times, it’s probably worth summarizing the plot so far, for future readers happening upon this thread. Transpower/Ronald Satz gave us a specific, easily tested prediction of RST. In short, RST (hereafter called “Wrong Theory”) says that the time constant of a resistor-capacitor circuit depends on charging voltage. Conventional theory (hereafter referred to as “Correct Theory”) says that the time constant is voltage-independent. RST’s prediction was based on the erroneous solving of a non-existent energy conservation paradox stemming from Satz’s ignorance of Correct Theory.

[This mistake–the assumption that the time constant must be RC/V–has been fixed in the Reciprocal System.]

Cutting through the haze of word salad, cjameshuff ran a simple, dispositive experiment that falsified RST. He did in a few minutes what Transpower never bothered to do, what RST adherents never did in 30 years of working on Wrong Theory. The effort to carry out the experiment was certainly much, much less than Ronald Satz hiimself expended in writing the paper on capacitors that Papageno somewhat unkindly, but accurately, dismissed.

[I did the experiments myself to verify the time constant dimensions.  CJamesHuff is a failed experimenter.  For the two capacitor problem, he didn’t set his oscilloscope to find Vmax and peak voltage at the second capacitor.  Keep in mind that once the two capacitors are connected in parallel, they have the same voltage, but the voltage quickly drops because the electrons leak out; a very fast oscilloscope is required, and it is the peak voltage which must be found!]

Simply put, RST is a failed theory. Satz introduced fundamental errors based on a misunderstanding of Correct Theory. Now scientists make mistakes all the time, but Satz absurdly never bothered to test the predictions of his Wrong Theory, despite having worked on RST for approximately three decades. He did not recognize that essentially the entirety of electronic devices would simply not function if he were correct. The able functioning of multiple billions of computers, cellphones, radios, televisions, clocks and the like show us that Satz and RST are not only wrong, but overwhelmingly so. Cjameshuff’s experiment puts the exclamation point on that conclusion. Anyone with an open, critically thinking mind must come to the same conclusion.

[The theory itself is not a “failure”–one deduction was wrong and it has been corrected.  Now, moving on to the two capacitor problem, which CJamesHuff still doesn’t understand.  As I explained in “Theory of the Capacitor” this is a conundrum for conventional theory.  If one assumes charge conservation, as conventional theory does, then there is a violation of energy conservation.  The conventional theorists like CJamesHuff wave their hands and say the energy is “radiated away.”  What nonsense–no one has ever measured any of this.  I made numerous runs of the experiment and discovered that in fact there is energy conservation.  The actual voltage measured at the second capacitor is in agreement with the prediction of the Reciprocal System and not in agreement with the prediction of conventional theory; the voltage is much higher than that predicted by the nuclear theory of the atom and the electrical theory of matter.  And there is energy conservation as there must be!  In the Reciprocal System the electrons in ordinary electric circuits are massless and uncharged–this is why the circuit is electrically neutral.  When the switch is thrown, electrons move from the first to the second capacitor and other massless, chargeless electrons in the connecting circuit also move to the second capacitor!  But:  conventional theory cannot accept this explanation because it would imply that the connecting elements have excess charged electrons, which they do not–because the connecting elements are neutral.  Therefore this one very simple experiment disproves the conventional theory of the nuclear atom and the electrical theory of matter.]

RWS does have an article on BAUT. :)–ZooGuard (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Satz made another response to the thread. Apparently, he finally did some actual measurements, and was astonished to find that capacitors actually do act like capacitors, with a time constant of RC, just as predicted by the equations that engineers have been successfully using for over a century to design circuits.
His theory clearly falsified by his own measurements, Satz then…”corrected his deductions”, which apparently means deciding that Reciprocal Theory actually agrees with mainstream theory and measurements on the time constant. He’s still claiming mainstream theory violates conservation of energy (it doesn’t, while such violations have been demonstrated in Reciprocal Theory), that stored energy is linearly proportional to voltage (a claim thoroughly demolished in the previous thread, and the reason it violates conservation of energy), that capacitors somehow store neutral, massless electrons (and that charge is not conserved), and displaying a basic lack of understanding of units (claiming that CGS units are “closer to physical reality than SI”). Cjameshuff (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If you check the blog, he does that all the time. “Reciprocal system predicts X” – measurements are made – “Well, it turns out reciprocal system predicts X only in this case. I you can see from this bit that I’ve hastily added after the fact, reciprocal system agrees with mainstream theory in this case.” Eventually, he’ll have re-tested all of physics and electronics and found that reciprocal theory agrees with all theory currently understood by science, but science is still wrong for some silly reason. pathetic 08:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Satz did over 100 runs of the two-capacitor experiment and found that energy conservation, not “charge conservation”, holds in all cases; this thoroughly vindicates the Reciprocal System and thoroughly disproves conventional theory!— Unsigned, by: 72.94.234.243 / talk / contribs

[Yes!]

I hope you are being sarcastic. Anyway, here’s the new thread at BAUT (now Cosmoquest): Exper. Confirm. of Energy Cons., not Charge Cons., in Two-Capacitor Problem The locals are not amused.–ZooGuard (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Where are Satz’s goalposts now? It’s hard to keep track since everything in the world no matter what is somehow vindication of Wrong Theory. pathetic 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup, he made another attempt. Notably, of the two possible arrangements of the capacitors, he picked the one that minimized the difference between RST and mainstream theory (and reality), and refused to try the other way around, which would make measurement error much less significant. He also insisted on using the Fluke in ways it wasn’t designed for (yielding an obviously absurd value for the peak current, low by a factor of about 5000 because the discharge was too short for the meter to measure), simply ignored posts pointing out basic problems with his approach, and when he eventually posted measurements, they were a complete joke…again unnecessarily using the Fluke in peak detection mode (despite several problems with doing so having been pointed out), and a similar measurement apparently using the oscilloscope as a similar voltmeter, in some clumsy, poorly-described process where he’s trying to make measurements before the voltages decay due to leakage.
He even claimed it was impossible to use the oscilloscope in the way requested and accused me of refusing to “measure the proper voltages”, despite my having earlier given screen captures of just such measurements on an identical scope. And then, rather than provide the results of a rather simple measurement, one that was actually simpler than the error-prone process he’d claimed hundreds of repetitions of…he ran off. Cjameshuff (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
At this rate Satz will need his own article to keep track of this. sshole 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

[I tried all possible arrangements and verified the Reciprocal System in each case, and so CJamesHuff’s comment is garbage.  It is CJames Huff who refuses to set the oscilloscope to measure Vmax and the peak voltage!  He is a failed experimenter.]

[Conventional theory has failed once again.  It’s high time that the conventional scientific community give it up!]

Updated 11/17/2012

October 21, 2012

Update: Critical Rejoinder to RationalWiki Article on Dewey B. Larson

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 8:04 pm

Step-by-Step Refutation of the “RationalWiki.org” Nonsense Article About Dewey B. Larson

by

Ronald W. Satz, Ph.D.

10/21/2012

[Comments are in square brackets.]

“Dewey Bernard Larson (1898-1990) was an American engineer best known for developing a Theory of Everything known as the “Reciprocal System.” Most of his writing dates from the 1950s and 60s and predates much of the Standard Model of physics, which effectively nullified many of his claims. However, Larson still maintains a strong and passionate following among a few cranks who think that they’ve stumbled upon some great secret body of knowledge.

[Dewey wrote well into the 1980’s.  Followers of Larson are not cranks; we are scientists and engineers.  The Reciprocal System is a perfectly legitimate theory of physics.  The theory is all over the World Wide Web and so anyone interested in it can have it.]

None of Larson’s work was ever published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.[1] The only evaluations of Larson’s work were performed by known supporters of the Reciprocal System, and have an alarming tendency to use the word “published” when they really mean “uploaded to a WordPress blog.”[2]

[Asimov published an evaluation of Larson’s work.  Many others have.  All work done on the Reciprocal System  is peer-reviewed by the world-wide Reciprocal System community, just as all work done on the various Relativity theories and Quantum Mechanics theories are peer-reviewed by their respective communities.  Any mistake found in a deduction from the Postulates will be corrected!]

Because Larson was nothing more than a lone crank, his Wikipedia page was deleted for the non-notability of the subject.[3] The article in question was entirely a piece of fancruft, based largely on a biography of Larson hosted by his supporters.[4][5]

[Larson was not a lone “crank.”  He was a super-genius.  The mind-numbed robot who wrote the above paragraph is just another clueless dunce on the planet.  Larson has thousands of intelligent supporters.]

Contents[hide]

The reciprocal system

Larson is best known – which is still “practically unknown” by most other standards – for his “reciprocal system” as an alternative to everything that every physicist has ever said about the nature of reality. A flyer[6] for the 30th conference of the International Society of Unified Science (the society set up to worship Larson) describes the reciprocal system as follows:

Conventional science considers space and time to be a framework in which the drama of the universe is played out, in manifest form. The thesis of the Reciprocal System, however, is that the universe is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all entities—photons, particles, atoms, fields, forces, and all forms of energy—are merely manifestations of motion.Space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of this motion, and cannot exist independently. They have no significance except to establish a common reference in describing phenomena. Velocity is a relation of space per unit time; with energy being the inverse relation of time per unit space. We observe space as being 3-dimensional, but space does not exist without time, therefore time must be 3-dimensional as well. It is this discovery that opened the door to the quantum world, and the configuration space inside the atom, as a direct result of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory:

  • The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
  • The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.

By developing the natural consequences of these postulates, Larson creates a theoretical universe that bears an uncanny resemblance to the universe we observe around us.

[“uncanny”? Ha!—if the Postulates are physically correct, then if correct reasoning is applied to them the deductions will be in accord with the facts of reality.  Tens of thousands of deductions have been made from the Postulates and have been shown to in harmony with the facts.  Of course, once in a while, a mistaken deduction is made, but when found, the mistake is corrected and the work continues.]

 Mathophobe

One of Ron Satz’s equations. Donald Knuth is rolling in his grave and he isn’t even dead yet.

 

[The equation makes perfect sense in Mathcad.  It shows how the gravitational force is a function of speed, and so there is no need whatsoever for the curved space nonsense of General Relativity.]

One of the most striking features of Larson’s work, and the source of tremendous criticism, is his almost total lack of any mathematics anywhere to be found amongst his books.[5] This is particularly galling to most mainstream scientists who view equations as essential for making the numeric predictions required to match theory with experiment – experiments that tend to punch out numbers, such as transition frequencies, absorption coefficients, energy ratings in particle accelerators and so on. Yet Larson avoids doing any rigorous mathematical analysis at all. It’s not entirely sure if he just sucked at the subject (though his biographies claim that he had a “gift” for mathematics) or genuinely thought it wasn’t needed. Certainly, the lack of it in his main reciprocal system theory causes a lot of scientists to scratch their heads when figuring out exactly what observations he’s saying to expect for the theory to be right.

[Larson was concerned with getting the physical concepts right.  But:  the Reciprocal System is thoroughly quantitative from the beginning, providing the natural units of space, time, mass, and every other physical quantity.  This makes the Reciprocal System different from—and much than—Quantum Mechanics, etc., which do not have natural units.  I have created a database of Reciprocal System calculations–do you think you could do one using Quantum Mechanics?]

 

However, that doesn’t mean the Reciprocal System has been without any mathematics. Ron Satz has extended and computerised Laron’s “System” and even produced equations that might lead to predictions – none of which Satz seems keen to actually use. While Laron’s publications are long text walls, Satz’s work often features pages upon pages of badly formatted equations. This usually renders his work completely unreadable because of the ambiguity in what constants he’s using and how these equations fit together – at worst, some of them fall off the page so can’t be read even if you can somehow translate it all into something recognisable to a mathematician or engineer.

[All of Satz’s papers are available as PDF’s.  Mathcad does not automatically wrap text; it puts text past the right margin  at the bottom of the paper.  This is not Satz’s fault.  Anyone can print the papers and then arrange the pages.  Most of the formatting is perfectly fine.]

Capacitance

In late 2011, Ron Satz (currently Larson’s main torch-bearer for the Reciprocal System) appeared on the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forums (BAUT) to discuss the theory and doubts about modern physics.[7] While initially met with an understandable “not another theory-of-everything crank” response, the discussion settled into what the Reciprocal System would predict in the behaviour of electronic devices. With such a testable statement then satisfied, one enterprising member of the forum actually tested it with easily obtainable equipment – something Satz seemed at a loss to try himself.

[Satz did in fact repeat the experiments himself.  Is there any other “Theory of Everything” which can be used to calculate all of the properties of matter?  I think not!]

 The situation is best summed up by the final post in the thread:

While we’re waiting for the end times, it’s probably worth summarizing the plot so far, for future readers happening upon this thread. Transpower/Ronald Satz gave us a specific, easily tested prediction of RST. In short, RST (hereafter called “Wrong Theory”) says that the time constant of a resistor-capacitor circuit depends on charging voltage. Conventional theory (hereafter referred to as “Correct Theory”) says that the time constant is voltage-independent. RST’s prediction was based on the erroneous solving of a non-existent energy conservation paradox stemming from Satz’s ignorance of Correct Theory.Cutting through the haze of word salad, cjameshuff ran a simple, dispositive experiment that falsified RST. He did in a few minutes what Transpower never bothered to do, what RST adherents never did in 30 years of working on Wrong Theory. The effort to carry out the experiment was certainly much, much less than Ronald Satz hiimself expended in writing the paper on capacitors that Papageno somewhat unkindly, but accurately, dismissed.Simply put, RST is a failed theory. Satz introduced fundamental errors based on a misunderstanding of Correct Theory. Now scientists make mistakes all the time, but Satz absurdly never bothered to test the predictions of his Wrong Theory, despite having worked on RST for approximately three decades. He did not recognize that essentially the entirety of electronic devices would simply not function if he were correct. The able functioning of multiple billions of computers, cellphones, radios, televisions, clocks and the like show us that Satz and RST are not only wrong, but overwhelmingly so. Cjameshuff’s experiment puts the exclamation point on that conclusion. Anyone with an open, critically thinking mind must come to the same conclusion.

 

[Simply put, conventional theory fails and CJamesHuff is a failed experimenter.  In cgs units, capacitance has dimensions of cm and the dielectric constant is considered to be non-dimensional.  As in other theories, the Reciprocal System makes use of cgs units, as well as SI units.  Because of this, it was long thought that capacitance in the Reciprocal System would also have cm as the unit.  But Satz’s experiments showed in fact that the dimensions of capacitance must be s^3/t, not just s, and the dimensions of the dielectric constant or permittivity are s^2 / t.  If R = t^2 / s^3, then RC, the time constant comes out to time, t, as it should.  So:  Satz corrected previous Reciprocal System work in capacitance—but the cgs unit still has not been changed by the conventional physics community!]

 

Not too long after, a BoN appeared on RationalWiki to assert that, because they were electrolytic capacitors, the experiment totally didn’t count.[8] Quite why seems to be curiously absent – such as specification wasn’t cited by Satz and cannot be found in the (like Larson’s work, extremely long) paper proposing how the Reciprocal System would predict capacitors to act[9] but it did magically appear after the BAUT forum tore into Satz’s work.[10] By June 2012, Satz had finally got around to doing some experiments that showed RS theory to be wrong, though despite his mentor Larson constantly insisting throughout his books that you should abandon ideas if they don’t match experiments, Satz didn’t give up on RS theory, and seemed more intent than ever to hammer it into reality in any way possible.[11]

[Electrolytic capacitors have equal and opposite charges, and so it was thought that this would affect the experiments.   But:  capacitors are known to be neutral, so how could charged electrons be stored within a capacitor?  Conventional theory has no answer to this.  Satz’s experiments with electrolytic, vacuum, and ceramic capacitors all verified that capacitance has the dimensions s^3 / t and that energy conservation holds in the well-known two capacitor problem.  Conventional theory maintains charge conservation; the experiments disproved this.  The voltage of capacitor two is always higher than that predicted by conventional theory—there is much less of a voltage drop than predicted.  The Reciprocal System has been vindicated by these experiments, whereas the conventional nuclear theory and electric theory of matter have been disproven.]

 

Flip-flopping and non-falsifiability

While Satz’s rapid goalpost moving over capacitors highlights his attitude, perhaps the most striking involves faster-than-light neutrinos. In 2011, neutrinos were spotted traveling faster than light by the OPERA experiment, which fired the particles between Geneva, Switzerland and San Grasso, Italy. Satz had this to say on the subject, jumping on the story pretty quick:

News Flash (10/01/2011): Dr. Satz’s new paper, “Theory of Faster Than Light Neutrinos,” is now available–this solves the conundrum of the recently-reported CERN[12] experiment which shows that neutrinos can move faster than light. Only the Reciprocal System is capable of providing the solution! (emphasis added)

So, the reciprocal system explains the observation – so evidence for Larson’s work, and something that would make even quantum mechanics and the standard model tumble to nothing. Shame that, not long after, the results failed to be replicated and after several other ideas it was revealed to be most likely due to faulty wiring providing the timing equipment with a bit more of a delay than expected, hence the results. So, were Satz’s equations and the Reciprocal System suddenly made redundant because of these new observations? Hell no, the only thing traveling faster than light were Satz’s goalposts:

Update: Another experiment has shown no such effect–however, again the Reciprocal System provides the answer – the retest, material neutrinos, rather than cosmic neutrinos, were used, and these cannot go faster than c in the material sector. (emphasis added)

[That’s right; it’s hard to distinguish cosmic and material neutrinos; only cosmic neutrinos would show faster than light speed through matter.  The equations in the paper obviously apply only to cosmic neutrinos.  The theory and the experiment must be describing the same situation for their to be a valid comparison.]

 

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

Larson’s 1963 book (self published, from what anyone can tell of the origins of “North Pacific Publishing, Portland”[13]) entitled The Case Against the Nuclear Atom proposes that the Rutherford model of the atom is wrong, and that the conclusions brought about by the Marsden-Geiger experiment were equally consistent with an atom the size of the atomic nucleus that is surrounded by energetic force-fields. In the book he actually dismisses quantum mechanics as an attempt to change established laws of nature (classical mechanics) to fit with a concept that was unfounded to begin with (the Rutherford model). The short version is that Larson would be absolutely correct if the Marsden-Geiger experiment was all we knew about the atom and subatomic particles, but it isn’t.

While he was writing only a few years before the Standard Model of physics came along to more fully refute his claims, he seems to very casually toss out all the successes of the quantum mechanical electron and what it has done to successfully predict more or less all of chemistry, even by the 1950s and 1960s. The book itself is mostly a tl;dr rant about critical thinking, and in fact doesn’t postulate any experiments, equations, or testable ideas of any kind to back up his own model – he simply asserts that it fits equally with the evidence (except where it doesn’t) and if you “think critically” it should come out as self-evident.

[Satz published the details of a modified Rutherford experiment which would settle this issue.  Fire neutralized alpha particles at the gold foil.  The Reciprocal System predicts that there would be basically the same scattering—because the scattering is not Coulombic.  Quantum Mechanics/nuclear theory predicts no scattering for this case–or at least something very different.]

It briefly got some attention in the 60s in a couple of review columns of engineering news journals. It even came to the attention of Isaac Asimov. Often cited by Larson’s advocates[14] is Asimov’s praise for the book’s ability to act as a critical thinking exercise:

As an iconoclastic work, Larson’s book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field.
—Dr Isaac Asimov, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

Less often quoted, however, is Asimov’s conclusion with the book, and its rebuttal to many of its points regarding the nature of electrons, although a full copy is hosted on reciprocalsystem.com.[15] Asimov concludes:

If no electrons exist within the atom, as Larson suggests, I do not see how the photoelectric effect can be explained. From this I conclude that however stimulating Larson’s book might be as an intellectual exercise, it need not be taken seriously as anything more than that.
—Dr Isaac Asimov, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

[In the Reciprocal System, atoms can harbor electrons—but they are not constituents, per se, of atom.  The whole conventional development of all these pathetic electron shells, their jumping from shell to shell, the so-called “strong nuclear force”, and all the rest of the nonsense has been completely swept away by the Reciprocal System.  It should actually be a relief to the physicists to discard these bizarre theories.]

 

Books

Larson’s works 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).

His fan Ronald W. Satz also summarises Reciprocal Theory in The Unmysterious Universe (1971).

 

[The Unmyterious Universe is still the best introduction to the theory.  :)]

 Last Updated 10/24/2012

New Study of the Evolution of Galaxies Supports Reciprocal System

Filed under: Science — transpower @ 9:23 am

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121019135427.htm.  “Astronomers thought disk galaxies in the nearby universe had settled into their present form by about 8 billion years ago, with little additional development since,” said Susan Kassin, an astronomer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and the study’s lead researcher. “The trend we’ve observed instead shows the opposite, that galaxies were steadily changing over this time period.”  See Figure 17 of Dr. Satz’s The Unmysterious Universe!

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.