Dewey Larson - a universe in motion

[rangerover777]

A few things Dewey have to say about astronomy : http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/um/index.htm

"In the context of the theory of the universe of motion, the formation of single stars, or small
groups of stars, by condensation from galactic dust or gas clouds is not possible. In addition
to all of the other problems that have baffled those who have attempted to devise a mechanism
for this purpose, the new theory discloses that there is a hitherto unrecognized force operating
against such a condensation, the force due to the outward progression of the natural reference
system, which makes condensation still more difficult, No known force other than gravitation is
capable of condensing diffuse material into a star, and gravitation can accomplish this result
only on a wholesale scale, under conditions in which an immense number of stars are formed
jointly from a gas and dust medium of vast proportions."


"Astronomy has many theories, of course, but the products of those theories are quite different
from the results obtained from an instrument, inasmuch as they are determined primarily by what
is already known or is believed to be known, about astronomical phenomena. This existing
knowledge,or presumed knowledge, is the raw material from which the theory is constructed,
and conformity with the data already accumulated, and the prevailing pattern of scientific thought,
is the criterion by which the conclusions derived from the theory are tested. The results obtained
from an instrument, on the other hand, are not influenced by the current state of knowledge or
opinion in the area involved. (The interpretation of these results may be so influenced, but that is
another matter,) If those results conflict with accepted ideas, it is the ideas that must be changed,
not the information that the instrument contributes, The point now being emphasized is that the Reciprocal System, like the instrument and unlike the ordinary theory, is wholly independent of
what is known or believed about the phenomena under consideration,

Stars and galaxies are found in the existing astronomical theories because they are put into these
theories. They are aggregates of matter, they exert gravitational forces, and they emit radiation,
and so on, in the theoretical picture, because this information was put into the theories.
They theoretically generate the energy that is required to maintain the radiation by converting
matter to energy, because this, too, was put into the astronomical theories. They conform to
the basic laws of physics and chemistry; they follow the principles laid down by Faraday,
by Maxwell, by Newton, and by Einstein, because these laws and principles were put into
the theories. To this vast amount of knowledge and pseudo-knowledge drawn from the common
store, the theorist adds a few assumptions of his own that bear directly on the point at issue and,
after subjecting the entire mass of material to his reasoning processes, he arrives at certain
conclusions. Such a theory, therefore, does not see things as they are; it sees them in the
context of existing observational information and existing patterns of thought. We cannot
get a quasar, for instance, out of such a theory until we put a quasar, or something from which,
within the context of existing thought, a quasar can be derived, into the theory".

[Lloyd]

- I like some of Larson's ideas, but others seem implausible now.
- I think a universe of motion is plausible, wherein everything consists of motion, although, like Thornhill, it seems that there needs to be motion of something.
- He said space and time are the two aspects of motion which exist in reciprocal relationship, which is a ratio or proportion of space to time, or s/t.
- His theory also included the claim that both s and t have 3 dimensions: just as s   can be 1, 2 or 3-dimensional, so can t [time]. s^1 is length; s^2 is area; s^3 is volume; t^1 is normal time; t^2 and t^3 are times we don't comprehend so well, except in motion formulae, such as acceleration = s/t^2.
- I don't recall for certain, but he said electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces are 1, 2 and 3-dimensional, probably in that order.
- He thought the universe is expanding and he accepted a lot of other conventional beliefs in astronomy, but he thought white dwarf stars are expanding in time, which to our senses is equivalent to shrinking in space. So I think he said that their density gradient is in reverse of "normal", so the greatest density is at the surface and the least is at the center.
- Overall, I don't think there's much of value in his theory. I have 3 of his main books and I studied them quite a bit back in the 80s. He had one called The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, which might be the most useful.