Conference

A point-by-point outline of the development of motion in the Reciprocal System.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.