The explanation of everything - DBL physics

It is quite unfortunate that the physics of Dewey B. Larson are unknown to most people around the world. However, that is not strange at all. DBL's physics or Reciprocal System of physical theory is basically an explanation of everything presumably explained and unexplained - all observable phenomena in the universe, the tiny and the huge. If DBL is right, a lot of students and professors will be out of jobs as this physics is quite simple relative to the one we have today (e.g. String theory and Unified Field theory) and can be taught in schools.

Let's start by introducing the theory :
DBL"S PHYSICS

The Reciprocal System of physical theory, a theoretical framework, 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. This theory is not supported by evidence or mainstream science.
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 first of the two Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is:

“The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.”1 The primary implication of the Postulate is that the properties of either space or time are the properties of both space and time, except that space and time are reciprocally related as motion. This means, inter alia, that space is a progression like time is, and that time is three-dimensional. While the space progression is observable as the recession of distance galaxies, the three-dimensionality of time is not so directly apparent.

DBL Physics

Failures of Current Science

We will briefly trace some of the important short-comings of the prevalent world-view of the modern science-which, of course, does not mean to deny the fact of its impressive achievements.

The nuclear atom and the electronic structure of matter. From the fact that in certain atomic reactions, like radioactivity, beta rays (electrons) were found among the products, it is concluded that electrons are constituents of atoms. But the equally probable alternative of the electrons coming into existence during the process is overlooked. For example, in atomic disintegration photons are also found in the products. However, the previous logic is not applied here: the photons are not taken to be parts of the atoms in the manner in which the electrons are supposed to be.

LINK

Space and Time

The author points out that space and time are the most fundamental concepts, the correct understanding of whose nature and characteristics should precede any theoretical development. Basing solely on what is revealed in direct observation—and not on any interpretation—the following can be said of them as being true in the local environment: Space is three-dimensional, homogeneous, and isotropic. Time progresses uniformly and (perhaps only locally) unidirectionally. The scalar relation between space and time is reciprocal (that is, speed = space / time), and this relation constitutes motion. (NL, page 35) He takes pains to clarify the meaning of 'dimension' and that time has no dimension in space. "...time enters into the mathematics of the physical processes... as a scalar quantity. From this the physicists have jumped to the conclusion that time is one-dimensional. The point that the physicists have overlooked is that 'direction' in the context of physical processes which are represented by vectorial equations in present day physics always means 'direction in space'." (NL, page 33) Then he reminds us that, "...no matter how many dimensions it may have, time has no direction in space... There is nothing in the role which time plays in the equations of motion to indicate specifically that time has more than one dimension. But a careful consideration... does not show that the present day assumption that we know time to be one-dimensional is completely unfounded..." (NL, p 35) Then he makes the important assumption that the relation which we find in the region accessible to observation also holds good in the inaccessible region of the universe. The first, and the most important, conclusion that can be drawn now from the extrapolated relation is that ,"...inasmuch as this specifies the existence of a general reciprocal relation between space and time, there must be complete scalar symmetry between these two entities." (NL, page 61) Hence he calls his theory the Reciprocal System. Basing on further observational trends, on the existence of discrete quanta, two postulates are arrived at, from which and which alone the entire theory is developed: First Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time. (Cf. SD, ii, p.260; ML, p341) Second Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is Euclidean (NBM, page 30). The validity of these postulates is established by comparing the logical inferences drawn from them with actual facts observed in nature. The domain of the predictions ranges from the heart of the atom to the farthest reaches of the universe and not one single case of discrepancy with facts seems to be present while there is much light thrown on phenomena that have so far not yielded to the present day science. In view of the symmetry between space and time, it turns out that any property of one of these is also the property of the other. More specifically, this leads us to the conclusions that time is also three-dimensional and that space too progresses like time....

RADIATION

An important consequence of the progression of space-time is that unit speed, one unit of space per unit of time, is the condition of rest in the physical universe. Thus, unit speed and not zero is the datum level from which all physical manifestation starts. In other words, unity is Nature's zero-point. This, I think, is a most remarkable discovery. Here we should be careful not to fall prey to, what A.N. Whitehead used to call, 'the fallacy of simple location', which is to imagine, as the prevalent world view of science does, that material particles are situated in (or superadded to) a setting of space and time; as though matter is embedded in a receptacle of four-dimensional space-time. Larson points out that space and time "...cannot constitute a setting or background for motion, because motion is not a background for itself. Everywhere in a universe of motion, space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of that motion, and they have no other significance anywhere." (QP, page 11) this is where previous thinkers like Descartes, Eddington and Hobbes, who endeavored to develop a general theory on the basis of the motion concept have failed by not recognizing that in a universe of motion, space and time cannot have independent definitions....

The Conjugate Universe

We have seen that the material atoms and subatomic particles are vibratory time units rotating in space. Now, the symmetry and reciprocity between the properties of space and time postulated in the Reciprocal System thereby also require the existence of matter whose atoms are vibratory space units rotating in time, somewhere in the universe. Larson calls these structures which are exactly like the material atoms except that the roles of space and time are interchanged, the "cosmic atoms" (c-atoms), and cosmic atoms collectively as "Cosmic matter" (c-matter). This answers to what is conventionally referred to as anti-matter by scientists (of course, with a difference: anti-matter, in this view, is not an additive inverse but the multiplicative inverse of matter).

The Grand Cycle of the Universe

Among other things, with the help of this concept of the conjugate sector of the universe, Larson explains how the universe always remains the same though always changing and evolving; a truth, once again, of the occult sciences. Diffuse intergalactic nebulae and matter coalesce under the influence of gravity, form stars; stars aggregate into star clusters and clusters into small galaxies. These galaxies recede from each other due to the outward progression of space-time. The galaxies cannibalize smaller galaxies and become larger ones, which eventually undergo disintegration on reaching the upper stability limit of matter, ejecting part of the matter into the cosmic sector. In the cosmic sector, a similar sequence of events happen (with the roles of space and time interchanged, of course) and eventually the c-matter ejected from the c-galaxies recedes outward in time and enters our material sector at random locations and starts the material half of the evolutionary cycle as diffuse intergalactic nebulae and dust. Thus, on the whole, the universe remains the same, though each half (the material and the cosmic) continually evolves. The material sector, expanding in space, evolves in time. The cosmic sector, on the other hand, expanding in time, evolves in space. Further, the end of evolution in one sector marks the beginning of evolution in the other sector, cyclically, reminding us of the Evolutionary Spiral. It is a "steady-state" universe but without the necessity to break the conservation laws unlike the Hoyle-Narlikar's steady-state model. From another point of view, it is an oscillating universe: but the oscillation is not the banal expansion-contraction in space as envisaged by the cosmologists or the exoteric students of occultism. It is an oscillation between space and time—an oscillation that is non-reversing. The expansion toward infinite space in one sector completely counterbalances the expansion toward infinite time in the other sector (in view of the reciprocal relation between them) and on the grand scale of the dual-sector universe we have the entire physical manifestation on the one hand, and NOTHING on the other, on equal footing!....

Conclusion of the Article

We have attempted to present some of the important contributions of the Reciprocal System to the understanding of the physical universe starting from a new paradigm—the concept of a universe of motion, in place of the current one of a universe of matter embedded in a framework of space and time. The examples cited here are expected to convey a broad-enough scope of the theoretical system and establish that a prima facie case exists for a general theory. It is only fair to record that some of the more esoteric aspects of the Theory, like multi-dimensional motion, the scalar regions of the universe, etc., have entirely to be omitted for pedagogic reasons. Mention must also be made of the fact that Larson finds the basic constituent of the universe according to the new paradigm, namely, to be scalar motion. Even though the existence of this kind of motion has been recognized, it has played a minor and insignificant role in physical theory hitherto. So Larson carries out a full-scale investigation of the properties and possibilities of scalar motion and discovers that this type of motion plays the central role in the drama of physical phenomena. He finds, for example, that some of the unexplained physical facts are really the unfamiliar features of certain types of scalar motion. For instance, all the observed characteristics of the gravitational field—like the instantaneous action, the lack of shielding effect, equality of the inertial and the gravitational mass, etc.—come out logically from the properties of scalar motion of a particular type. There is no need to resort to ad hoc assumptions like the curving of space-time and the finite speed of propagation of the gravitational influence, which have absolutely no observational support. Consequently, the Reciprocal System is free from all singularities—like black holes, cosmic strings, and the like—that plague conventional astronomy theory. Indeed, the occurrence of these singularities indicates a defective theory. Before the advent of the Reciprocal System, there has been no theory that truly depicted the facts about gravitation. Therefore, theories not fitting the facts have been allowed to pass off, and stupendous amount of research has been side-tracked. The real reason for omitting the description of some of the significant features of the Reciprocal system alluded to in the above paragraph from this introductory Article is—as has been hinted at the outset—no matter how simple and logical the new conclusions are from the viewpoint of the new paradigm, since one is habituated to the old paradigm, some of them might look nothing short of preposterous. Having invested one's entire professional career in the existing paradigm, one's mind does not take kindly to the prospect of a basic paradigm change. The first few contacts are the most difficult ones, as Kuhn points out. One would not be inclined even to pay attention to the new conclusions, much less evaluate them on their own merit. It has been found wise to discuss first those features that could be assimilated easily on a first encounter.

Link to the whole article
Link to DBL works

Connection with "The Ra Material"

It is interesting to mention that in the Ra Material or Law of One, when asked, Ra states :

Questioner: Speaking of the rapid change that occurred in the physical vehicle from second to third density: this occurred, you said, in approximately a generation and a half. Body hair was lost and there were structural changes. I am aware of the physics of Dewey B. Larson, who states that all is motion or vibration. Am I correct in assuming that the basic vibration that makes up the physical world changes, thus creating a different set of parameters, shall I say, in this short period of time between density changes allowing for the new type of being? Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Category: Earth History: Second Density Harvest

Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory. Category: Science: Physics

Law of One link


I am not trying to advocate the reality of the Ra Material but one has to ask himself/herself whether it is real - at least the people that are open minded. And i do not know but the scope of the information is staggering.

So i see three possibilities about The Law of One :

1) The Ra material is an elaborate hoax. The hoax is incredibely elaborate, because the sheer mass of detail involved. It was all done with the intent to hoodwink people for whatever purpose.

2)The Ra material came from Carla's unconscious mind. If this is true, Carla's a pretty amazing individual, because the material is very detailed, and touches upon so many different areas.

3)The Ra material is true. There really is a Ra entity and it did channel through Carla and the information conveyed was accurate, subject to our limited understanding.


Whether Law of one is a hoax or not is irrelevant to the reality of DBL's physics. Dewey B. Larson is totally non-mainstream and this fact alone makes his work even more interesting.

I'd like to hear your opinions!!!!

Someone who claims to have solved every major scientific problem but doesn't publish any of his work in journals?

reply to post by john_bmth


Everything is published. There are links in the opening post........ It was published long time ago

Originally posted by Slevinq
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Everything is published. There are links in the opening post........ It was published long time ago

I had a look through your links but couldn't find the publications. Can you post up a direct link to the relevant page or something?

reply to post by john_bmth


The link of the website :LINK

The books and articles are to the left!

reply to post by Slevinq


Great post, OP. It is quite unfortunate that your thread did not attract more attention, but I guess it lacks the extraordinary element of conspiracies..

A couple of points I found interesting in your comments, regarding Ra being a hoax or not.

Regardless of the hoax factor it is useful for a human brain to take into account that we are all capable of high data processing. In other words, all brains are geniuses, but not all humans get even close to that potential, due to education, etc, etc.

So, even a "medium" could potentially postulate laws of the Universe and sound very good at it. We are looking at intuitive science - if we need to label it. Then there is the empirical approach of experimentation and measuring - a little slower of course, but necessary to any solid advancement.

Humans tend to flock to intuitive science because - like a bonfire - burs brighter, faster, and flashier. Beliefs are easily born this way. To be a scientist takes countless hours of study, trial and error, and the ability to doubt and test.

Therefore, not EVERY intuitive science statement is a hoax by default. All of our advancements in knowledge are intuitive-based. The problem appears when empirical methods are abandoned for the sake of intuitive methods, and even worse, when empirical data is corrupted in order to fit a particular trendy intuitive theory (see all the new age theories and waves, and alike).

As per this being a possible unified theory of everything, I would disagree, mostly because most of it is intuitive-based - even though much of it has empirical data to back it up. In my opinion (intuitive) the theory of motion is partially correct, but placing it at the core of all phenomena is incorrect.

Motion is a property of something and it must be taken into account versus a point of origin, as a reference system. The very concept of singularity (which this one borders very closely) is more likely flawed. To disguise the singularity of motion under the space-time tandem is a cap out, because while space is an observable, empirical parameter of the universe, time is not. Time is a purely intuitive parameter, with a grave error built-in. Instead of being an element it is the intuitive and interpretative parameter of motion.

To me, this hides a fallacy.

Things are a lot simpler and a lot more complicated than that

Thanks for the links and the thread. It is a breath of fresh air among the nonsense being discussed nowadays.
✌

Thanks os much for sharing this! I am surprised it doesnt have more S & F, but you'll get on from me for sure! I hope to see more of this guys work in the future, its very interesting to say the least!

I have had a brief look at some of it and looks like a good object based approach to the physics of the world. I would still like to see some more numbers in how the practicality plays out along with a comparison to the SI Units. Some of what I have seen did look interesting and placed quite a different perspective to the structures of life.

Trying to conceptualise 3D time can be a real head banger, but I can see something in it. For example when an astronaut goes into space for a while, they do lose a few minutes compared to the people still on the ground. So where did that time go? We are still a part of the same reality so there is something in it.

A good strength of it is that it acknowledges everything is relative and just deals with what you are looking at in simple, common terms. I am not sure if it is oversimplifying things too much and would be one concern with such a system. It will take a bit more time to go through, checks how it adds up and see if it is comprehensive enough in application. There are are some very interesting perspectives and understandings provided.

It's funny (to me) that in my own ideas, I've often felt that vibrational frequencies are important in what we perceive to be reality.

For example, there are light frequencies we can't see with our eyes, and sound frequencies we can't hear with our ears, etc. Only when we create tools that "translate" unseen or unheard frequencies into some other form we can identify (like seeing waves on a oscilloscope, etc), can we even know they exist.

Likewise, what if there are even more senses than the five we are familiar with, and with their own frequency ranges?

Our experience of "reality" is limited to our interpretation through the five senses. In a way, that's like saying color doesn't exist because a man is blind. The color is still there, just unseen by the blind man. In a similar way, I think that many things in our universe exist that are "unseen" and "unheard" by us, etc., because it can either only be detected through senses we don't have (or haven't developed) and/or they are at frequencies outside our normal range of detection.

The things we call angels, demons, ghosts, or devils may just be different beings or objects operating in different frequency levels that maybe we can occasionally detect with our existing senses (or long dormant ones). I think this is why our physicists always seem to have more questions than answers in each discovery.

I think we're only able to see, hear, identify only a tiny fraction of what is really around us, due to limited senses, and things that don't have frequencies in light, sound, etc. that we are used to detecting...and because of that limitation, it's hard to even judge how much we know or don't know about the true Universe.

reply to post by Danjya

Motion is a property of something and it must be taken into account versus a point of origin, as a reference system. The very concept of singularity (which this one borders very closely) is more likely flawed. To disguise the singularity of motion under the space-time tandem is a cap out, because while space is an observable, empirical parameter of the universe, time is not. Time is a purely intuitive parameter, with a grave error built-in. Instead of being an element it is the intuitive and interpretative parameter of motion. To me, this hides a fallacy.

DBL lost me at motion. What we perceive as time and motion will remain concepts. What exists are singularities as the product of force (clockwise/counter-clockwise rotation). This force is loosely referred to as magnetic fields.

DBL hides a fallacy. Fortunately, intuition pays off for some people.

reply to post by Slevinq


How about this,

The act of observation on matter gives it mass.

So, now forget everything you think you know about the physical universe because you are literally making it real by observing what you want of it.

There is more to this message, but at a later time.

reply to post by Americanist


I can see where you are coming from, some of it is still a bit wordy as he is still working and developing the theory. Coming from a background in object orientated programming I can see what he is trying to do with encapsulating and simplifying the relationships between forces. A better example of how time and space can be used to explain physical relationships is at the bottom of this page library.rstheory.org... with a translation to some of the SI units.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Americanist

 

I can see where you are coming from, some of it is still a bit wordy as he is still working and developing the theory. Coming from a background in object orientated programming I can see what he is trying to do with encapsulating and simplifying the relationships between forces. A better example of how time and space can be used to explain physical relationships is at the bottom of this page library.rstheory.org... with a translation to some of the SI units.

Wordy when it really doesn't have to be... A convergent mod 9 number system. 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 pathways. 3,6,9 shell of binding energy tracing said pathways to complete our illusion of 3 dimensions. What we experience as life is spun density. True to form... Energy takes on mass as both radiation and resistance to myriad points.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Slevinq

 

How about this,

The act of observation on matter gives it mass.

So, now forget everything you think you know about the physical universe because you are literally making it real by observing what you want of it.

There is more to this message, but at a later time.

edit on 20-4-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Tell that to a galaxy the next time you bump into one.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Slevinq

 

How about this,
The act of observation on matter gives it mass.

So, now forget everything you think you know about the physical universe because you are literally making it real by observing what you want of it.

There is more to this message, but at a later time.

edit on 20-4-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Well, try this simple experiment:

Go into a room with a friend or family member. You BOTH are there due to the fact that both of you observe each other. Now have them leave the room. Since there is no one to observe you, you should have no mass at all. OF COURSE, QP (quantum physics) will tell us that if WE observe OURSELVES it's quite enough to give ourselves mass and existence in this reality.

Therefore, when a person loses consciousness (due to any kind of event) they should be losing their physical form, mass, etc... UNLESS, of course, once again, we go back and use QP and say...well, Consciousness is not the observer. At wish point the observer would have to be outside of yourself, therefore I can conclude that we can create reality by our act of observing, EXCEPT OURSELVES. We would have to be observed by someone else in order to exist and be able to observe and create the reality we're observing

That's what I like about quack science and popular QP - it's so much fun to debunk.

Of course, all observations to self can be applied not only to a galaxy for when you're going to bump into one, but to a wall, a car, etc. Just stay safe when trying to walk to walls.

reply to post by Danjya


How could you not exist in your world?

If someone stops observing themselves, does not mean i stop observing themselves.

Obviously the world is experienced through the mind as a brain synopsis.

reply to post by onequestion


There was a little bit of sarcasm over there in my previous post...

The very simply statement of those who believe that the reality is as it is because we make it so, it's a very easy to debunk fallacy. But again, a "believer" would not admit to it. Not ever, and definitely not as long as he/she can continue to observe the Universe, therefore making it be the Universe...

Oh, brother...

I to am an avid DBL fan, I have also read the law of one (all 5 books) and I am now reading them again, I have some kind of personal affinity with the RA material and DBL's work, cant explain it but it all seems very familiar to me and was like a missing link in my train of thought.

Here is a better link to DBL and his associates work.................. www.reciprocalsystem.com...

Cheers

I've actually mentioned reciprocity a few times here on ATS, as it is something I've studied for a while. I find it extremely elegant in its simplicity, and I think it is a viable option for a ToE. It's actually one of those ideas that you realize is so obvious that it should have been thought of long ago...And it was, but physics has been going on a tangent for quite some time now, and they have to fight tooth and nail for every discovery that is made, and have to invent completely bizarre explanations to explain some physical phenomena. To my knowledge there have been very few physicists that have looked into these ideas, and even fewer who have published papers regarding them. I personally can find no fault with this theory, although I have had a few scares, and some of the mathematical implications are astounding, and make so much sense.

I'm new here but noticed this thanks to the recent post. I'll read more closely when school is out for the summer and try to discuss a little after I process my thoughts on it.
From an initial scanning and the most recent post, reciprocity would lend itself to Newton's third law, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction but more in the multiplicative sense than in the additive inverse sense.
Should be fun to research and learn more about.