RECIPROCAL SYSTEM DATABASE Status Report: An Aperiodic Blog

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

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. I drop a leave a response when I appreciate a post
    on a website or if I have something to add to the discussion.

    It’s caused by the passion displayed in the article I browsed. And after this article Refutation of RationalWiki.org Talk Page Nonsense about Dewey B. Larson | RECIPROCAL SYSTEM DATABASE Status Report: An Aperiodic Blog. I was moved enough to leave a thought 🙂 I do have a couple of questions for you if you do not mind. Could it be simply me or does it look like some of the comments look like they are left by brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are writing on additional online social sites, I’d like to keep up with anything new you have to post.

    Would you make a list every one of your shared sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

    Comment by jocuri mario y8 — July 27, 2013 @ 7:53 am

  2. Thanks. This Web site, https://transpower.wordpress.com, is the only one devoted to serious, ongoing research into the Reciprocal System of theory. Please read and reread all of Dr. Satz’s papers posted and all of Dewey B. Larson’s books.

    Comment by transpower — July 27, 2013 @ 8:46 am

  3. I really like what you guys are up too. This type of clever work
    and exposure! Keep up the terrific works guys I’ve added you guys to our blogroll.

    Comment by Y8 Games — August 10, 2013 @ 10:59 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: