Papers by Dewey B. Larson

  • After 3000 Years (PDF)

    The most significant feature of this new development is that it is a general physical theory, one in which the basic laws and principles of all physical fields are derived from a single set of fundamental postulates, without making any further assumptions of any kind, and without introducing anything from any outside source. Construction of such a theory has been a major goal of science for three thousand years, and an immense amount of time and effort has been devoted to the task. But until now, all of these efforts have been totally unsuccessful.

  • A New Theory of Gravitation (PDF)

    A discussion of gravity as a 3-dimensional, inward, scalar motion.

  • A Note on Metaphysics

    Some of the readers of my latest book, The Neglected Facts of Science, are apparently interpreting the conclusions of this work as indicating that the Reciprocal System of theory leads to a strict mechanistic view of the universe, in which there is no room for religious or other non-material elements. This is not correct.

  • A Rejoinder to K.V.K. Nehru

    In a letter published in the May 1975 issue of Reciprocity I stated that I preferred not to comment on articles submitted for publication because “I believe that it is very desirable to encourage free and open discussion of the (Reciprocal) theory and its applications, so that we can have the benefit of as many points of view as possible in extending and clarifying the theoretical structure.

  • Around Unexpected Corners (PDF)
    About twenty years ago Dr. James B. Conant, at that time president of Harvard University, gave a talk to a group of chemists and chemical executives in which he expressed serious concern over the effect on scientific progress that was likely to result from the virtual disappearance of what he called the “uncommitted investigators,” a term which he applied to those individuals who carry on scientific research work on their own initiative, without support from or direction by the established research agencies. As Dr. Conant put it, these individuals “could investigate what they pleased when they pleased, or break off research at any point. They were as free as the wind because they had no program except the ever-changing one in their own minds.”
  • Association of Quasars with Other Astronomical Objects (PDF)

    Larson discusses the association of quasars with other astronomical objects, indicating a common origin.

  • A Star is Just a Big Lump of Matter

    (Promotion for The Universe of Motion)

  • Astronomical X-ray Sources (PDF)

    An examination of astronomical x-ray sources which, in the Reciprocal System, are the various stages of white dwarf evolution--not separate entities.

    Of particular interest in this paper, Larson discusses that RF emission occurs when matter is accelerated past the speed of light, and X-rays and gamma rays are emitted when matter drops back below the speed of light. This allows simple identification of what is going on at astronomical distances, simply by the type of emission occurring.

  • Changing Concepts of the Nature of Motion

    When the theory of the universe of motion, the Reciprocal System of theory as we are calling it, was first being introduced to the scientific community in books and lectures, about twenty-five years ago, one of the principal obstacles with which we had to contend was the generally accepted concept of the nature of motion, in which motion is regarded as a continuous change in the position of some “thing” in a three-dimensional space that acts as a background or container. In the Reciprocal System of theory, motion is defined simply as a relation between space and time, which means that “things” do not participate in the simplest types of motion. For those who were not willing to entertain the possibility that their basic concept of the nature of motion might be wrong, this closed the door to any consideration of the new theory, in spite of the outstanding successes of that theory in dealing with the most recalcitrant and long-standing problems of physical science.

  • Comments on Some Issues Raised at the 1978 Conference

    It is not possible in the short time that is available in the conference sessions, to give full consideration to all of the issues that are brought up, and most of the discussions were elaborated to a considerable extent in informal conversations outside the regular sessions. A few comments on some of the more important points may be of interest to those that did not happen to be present when these particular issues were discussed.

    Energy at high speeds:

  • Dimensions in the Universe of Motion

    In my publications I have followed a general policy of not duplicating material that is readily available in the textbooks, in order to conserve space for the new ideas that I am presenting. I therefore do not define terms that are in general use, commenting on the usage only where I have introduced some new concept, or have modified the meaning of a term. There was some confusion about my usage of the term “direction” originally, and I had occasion to discuss this matter in some of my publications. (See, for instance, Nothing But Motion, p.

  • Energies at High Speeds (PDF)

    An explanation of why acceleration decreases, rather than mass increasing, as objects approach the speed of light.

  • Gravitation and the Galaxies (PDF)

    A look at how gravity affects galaxies.

  • Here is the Proof: Association of Quasars with Other Astronomical Objects

    Here in this diagram, reproduced from D. B. Larson’s book Quasars and Pulsars, is the evidence that confirms the reality of Halton Arp’s “associations” of quasars with other astronomical objects, and thereby not only provides a conclusive answer to the hotly debated question as to where the quasars are located, but also opens the door to a solution of the whole “quasar mystery”.

  • Is Relativity Conceptually Valid?

    To the editor of Reciprocity:

    I would like to call the attention of your readers to a series of letters in Nature initiated by a question raised by the prominent British scientist Herbert Dingle with respect to the special theory of relativity, and culminating in a communication from Professor Dingle published in the Aug. 31, 1973 issue of that journal.

  • Just How Much Do We Really Know?
    But it seems to me that our present theories, even the successful ones, are not yet constructed so completely in accord with sound principles, but that in this day and generation criticism is a most necessary and useful enterprise for the physicist.

    —P.W. Bridgman1

    Physical science stands today in a highly anomalous position. On the one hand, no branch of knowledge has ever occupied a higher place in general public esteem. The spectacular way in which the abstract ideas of the theoretical scientist and the discoveries of his colleagues in the laboratories have been applied to the fashioning of ingenious devices that have drastically changed the whole world picture has made a profound impression on the man in the street, and the word “scientific” has acquired an unparalleled prestige. To some degree, at least, these sentiments are shared by the rank and file of the professional scientists, and the confident words “We know…” continually echo and reecho through the halls of learning.

  • Just What Do We Claim?

    The task of presenting the case for a new svstem of thought is a difficult one at best, and in order that it may be successfully accomplished it is essential to confine the discussion to the specific points at issue, and to avoid being drawn into controversies regarding matters which, at least for the present, are irrelevant.

  • Motion (PDF)

    An overview of the concept of "motion," and how scalar motion differs from vectorial motion.

  • Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion (PDF)
    A point-by-point outline of the development of motion in the Reciprocal System.
  • Perhaps You Are Not Interested In Quasars?

    (Promotion for Quasars & Pulsars)

    But as a scientist, or a philosopher, you are vitally concerned with the foundations of science, and the task of providing an explanation of the quasars is the great test that the basic laws and theories of physical science are today being called upon to meet: a test in which they are failing badly. Indeed, they are so helpless in the face of this challenge that prominent astronomers are finding it necessary to call for a “radical revision” of existing ideas. Under these circumstances it is highly significant that there is an available system of physical theory that can meet this crucial test; one which can furnish a comprehensive and consistent explanation of the quasars and associated phenomena—galactic explosions, pulsars, white dwarf stars, the recession of the galaxies, and so on.

  • Quasars--How Big Are They?

    To recipients of the review article QUASARS-THREE YEARS LATER:

  • Quasars--Three Years Later (PDF)

    This paper is a supplement to the book, Quasars and Pulsars, updating information contained therein.

  • Reference Systems

    As reported in the October 1977 issue of Reciprocity, I am now in the process of preparing the first volume of a revised edition of the book in which I introduced the Reciprocal System of theory, The Structure of the Physical Universe, a book which has been out of print for several years. As the successive chapters of the manuscript are completed, I have been circulating them for review and comment by a number of those members of the New Science Advocates with whom I have corresponded on the subject matter.

  • Remodelling the Big Bang (PDF)

    A look at the origins of the Universe.

  • Scalar Motion (PDF)
    Whenever a new physical theory appears, one of the first objectives of the supporters of that theory is to find a crucial experiment, an experiment whose results agree with the new theory, but are definitely in conflict with its predecessors. This is a difficult undertaking, not only because it is hard to find an experiment of the right kind, but also because the results of that experiment, if an experiment is found, can usually be accommodated to existing theory by ad hoc assumptions of one kind or another. And the scientific community prefers to accept a modified theory of that kind, in preference to an entirely new theory, even if the modifications require such wild ideas as black holes or charmed quarks. Nevertheless, a crucial experiment occasionally does make its appearance.
  • Science Without Apologies (PDF)
    In a well-known Gilbert and Sullivan opera a member of the constabulary undergoes some rather trying experiences in the course of carrying out his duties, and finally breaks into song, telling us that “a policeman’s lot is not a happy one.” In many respects the lot of those who undertake to correct existing errors in any field of thought is similar to that of the policeman. There is no problem in the case of someone who simply makes a discovery in a new area. Both the scientific community and the world at large are ready to welcome a genuine addition to knowledge with some degree of enthusiasm, and they are willing to look tolerantly on any speculation that is not specifically in conflict with established thought, even if it involves something that strains credulity to the utmost, a black hole, for example.
  • Some Anniversary Thoughts

    This issue of Reciprocity marks its fourth anniversary, and provides a suitable occasion on which to make some comments with respect to the progress that has been made toward the objective that was defined in the first issue: promotion of understanding of the Reciprocal System of physical theory. The most serious obstacle in the way of a new theory in any field is the prevailing tendency to dismiss it summarily on the ground that the a priori probability of its being correct is too low to justify taking the time to examine it.

  • Some Reflections and Comments

    Since my return from the speaking trip through the East and Midwest that I undertook in April and May I have spent considerable time reviewing and analyzing the questions that were asked in the course of the long question and answer sessions that followed each of the eight talks that I gave to college audiences.

  • Supernova 1987A

    I have received a number of inquiries as to how well the observations of the supernova that has been observed in the Large Magellanic Cloud agree with the theoretical conclusions about supernovae in general that are expressed in The Universe of Motion. I cannot give a definite answer to this question as yet, since the observational data thus far reported are limited, and to some extent conflicting. However, I can give what may be considered a progress report, based on the situation as it stands in the light of the information that has appeared thus far in the publications accessible to the general public.

  • The "Arrow of Time"

    From the mathematical standpoint, the quantity that enters into such relation as the equation of motion can be either positive or negative, and the fact that time is observed to move only in one direction is frequently characterized as an anomaly, a “puzzle.” But there is nothing puzzling about the direction of time if it is viewed in physical terms. Time, as a physical quantity—the time interval between two events, for instance—cannot be less than zero.

  • The Case of the Colliding Photons

    One of the issues that usually comes up at some point during any extended discussion of the fundamentals of the Reciprocal System of theory is what the writers of detective stories would probably call The Case of the Colliding Photons.

  • The Conceptual Foundations of Physical Science

    The frontiers of modern science are in the far-out regions, the realms of the very small, the very large, the very fast, the very dense, and so on. It is there that spectacular discoveries are being made, and the boundaries of physical science are being extended into the hitherto unknown. But some of these achievements that have been headlined in the press and in the scientific journals, have had collateral results of even greater significance that have been overlooked by the scientific community. These particular discoveries have given us factual information about some of the fundamental physical entities that have heretofore been accepted as being beyond the range of physical investigation. When we examine all of the implications of this new knowledge, it becomes clear that the prevailing view of the nature of the basic constituents of the physical universe will have to be drastically modified.

  • The Crab Nebula Pulsar

    Letter to the Editor of Reciprocity:

  • The Density Gradient in White Dwarf Stars (PDF)

    Larson examines the white dwarf stars in light of faster-than-light speeds creating an inverse density structure.

  • The Dimensions of Motion (PDF)

    Some of the most significant consequences are related to the dimensions of this hitherto unrecognized type of motion. The word “dimension” is used in several different senses, but in the sense in which it is applied to space it signifies the number of independent magnitudes that are required for a complete definition of a spatial quantity. It is generally conceded that space is three-dimensional. Thus three independent magnitudes are required for a complete definition of a quantity of space.

  • The Effect of Gravitation on Radiation

    As I pointed out in the article on “Reference Systems” published in the Winter 1977-78 issue of Reciprocity, the representation of the physical universe in a three-dimensional spatial coordinate system is not fully in agreement with reality. This system cannot represent some of the properties that do exist, such as motion in time. whereas it portrays some properties of the universe that actually do not exist, such as the directions of scalar motions.

  • The Fundamentals of Science in the Twenty-First Century (PDF)
    Five thousand years ago, when the invention of writing on clay tablets by the Sumerians first gave the human race an opportunity to leave a permanent record of its thoughts and actions, there was already in existence a rather sophisticated science of astronomy. The priests, who were the scientists of those days, were not only familiar with elementary astronomical facts, such as the apparent movements of the sun, moon and planets, but they had also advanced to the point where they were able to predict eclipses and to calculate the length of the year to within about a half hour of its present accepted value. The premises upon which these calculations and others of the same kind were made were the fundamentals of the science of that day, in the sense in which I am using the term now, that is, they were the most basic of the principles that were used by the science of that day.
  • The Historical Perspective
    THE HISTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

  • The Inter-Regional Ratio

    At the 1984 ISUS conference in Salt Lake City a discussion of the “inter-regional ratio” concluded with an understanding that each of those concerned should write a statement of his ideas on the subject for publication in Reciprocity. What follows is Dewey B. Larson’s contribution.

  • The Mechanism of the Universe (PDF)

    Principal Address to the First Annual NSA Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 20, 1976

    The human race, in its modern form, has been observing the universe from the surface of this planet for something like 50,000 years, perhaps as much as 100,000. But only within the last three or four thousand years has it had the capacity to analyze these observations and arrive at conclusions as to their significance. Yet on the basis of this extremely limited experience we somehow feel that we are competent to investigate events which, if they happened at all, happened ten or twenty billion years ago, and other events which, if they are ever going to happen, will not happen for an equally long time into the future.

  • The Mythical Universe of Modern Astronomy (PDF)

    Transcript of Mr. Larson’s address to the Seventh Annual Convention of the International Society of Unified Science in Philadelphia, USA, on August 13, 1982.

  • The Nature of Motion
    Abstract: Analysis of the data from observation shows that gravita­tion and the recession of the distant galaxies are negative (inward) and positive (outward) scalar motions respectively, and that some other basic physical phenomena not currently recognized as motions are also motions of this same type. Identification of the scalar nature of these motions enables clarification of a number of long-standing issues in physical science.
  • The Nature of Time

    “To attempt a definite statement as to the meaning of so fundamental and underlying a notion as that of time is a task from which even philosophy may shrink,”1 says Richard Tolman in his classic treatise on Relativity. But the “notion” of time is basic in every field of science.

  • The New Science of the 21st Century (PDF)

    Larson's keynote address for the third Annual ISUS conference at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, August 18, 1978. Also published in Frontiers of Science, Volume III, No. 5, July-August, 1981.

  • Theory of Solids

    The objective of the project being undertaken by Professor Meyer and his associates is to test the validity of the explanation of the cohesion of solids derived from a development of the consequences of the fundamental postulates of the Reciprocal System of physical theory, the basic premise of which is that the physical universe is composed entirely of discrete units of motion.

  • The Physical Nature of Space (PDF)
    Even at best it is a difficult task to convey a clear understanding of a basically new scientific concept. Regardless of how simple the concept itself may be, or how explicitly it may be set forth by its originator, the human mind is so constituted that it refuses to look at the new idea in the simple and direct light in which it is presented, and instead creates wholly unnecessary difficulties by insisting on placing the innovation within the context of previous thought, rather than viewing it in its own setting.
  • The Physics of Motion (PDF)

    An overview of the physics of motion, published in "Frontiers of Science," July-August, 1982.

  • The Properties of Scalar Motion (PDF)

    How to visualize the concept of scalar motion as differentiated from vectorial motion.

  • The Search for the Ultimate

    From the very beginning of the kind of disciplined thinking about the physical world that we now call science, one of the major objectives has been to identify its basic constituent, or constituents; to answer the question, What is the world made of? The earliest theories of which we have detailed knowledge, those developed by the Ionians in the years from about 600 to about 400 B.C., and by the Chinese around the same time, were of two general types. One group of philosophers, reasoning from an assumption as to the unity of nature, argued for a single constituent. Water was the usual choice, although there was some support for air. Another group contended that the great multiplicity of physical forms required the existence of a number of basic constituents. The most popular choice among the early investigators in the West was a four-element universe, constructed of earth, water, air, and fire, an identification that achieved a kind of an official status when it was accepted by Aristotle. The Chinese recognized five basic elements, omitting air and adding metal and wood.

  • Time Is The Essence
    Dewey B. Larson is an anachronism in the modern scientific world. Whatever else may be said of modern science, it is generally true that it has become, and is further becoming, less and less controversial. The great success of science seems to have instilled into ’the man in the street’ and scientist alike, an exaggerated respect, akin to religious reverence. Most scientists, preoccupied as they are with the obscurities of their own narrow field, rarely, if ever, question the underlying assumptions on which science rests. Larson does.
  • Twenty Years' Progress (PDF)
    The Reciprocal System of physical theory was first brought to the attention of the scientific community about twenty years ago in a book entitled The Structure of the Physical Universe. That book is now out of print, and for the last six or eight months I have been working on the first volume of a revised and greatly enlarged edition which, if all goes well, will be ready for publication in the not too distant future. One of the tasks that necessarily had to be undertaken in preparing for the revision was to make a detailed review of the entire subject matter of the original work, including the portions that were omitted for the published text in order to limit the size of the book. This review now offers a good opportunity to assess the amount of progress that has been made in the development of the theory during the twenty-year interval.

International Society of  Unified Science
Reciprocal System Research Society

Salt Lake City, UT 84106
USA

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer