• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 3
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
From; http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/qp/index.htm 
Quasars and Pulsars
DEWEY B. LARSON 
PrefaceI. Introduction II.Design Of The Universe III.Simple Linear Motion IV.Rotational Motion (Matter)  V.Destructive Limits  VI.The Astronomical Scene
 
 VII.The 1959 Predictions  VIII.Quasars: The General Picture IX.Quantitative Verifications X.Some Further Details XI.The Pre-Quasar Situation XII.Supernovae and Pulsars References
 
Preface
Probably no question has come up more frequently in the question and answer sessionsfollowing the presentations of my new physical theory that I have made to collegeaudiences during the past few years than this:
What does your theory say about thequasars?
Of course, as a general physical theory it has a great deal to say about quasars,but unfortunately the observational data on these objects have not heretofore beenadequate to enable setting up the kind of a conclusive comparison of theory withobservation which would show that what the new theory has to say about the quasars is acorrect representation of the facts, and not just another addition to the bumper crop of speculations. Recent developments have improved this situation very materially, and Inow feel that the time is ripe to furnish a detailed answer to the perennial question. Forgood measure, I am throwing in some comments about the pulsars, which are commonly
associated with the quasars as the foremost astronomical “mysteries” at the mo
ment.This should be a particularly appropriate time to demonstrate that there is a physicaltheory now available which can produce a complete and consistent explanation of all of the newly discovered astronomical phenomena, including the quasars and the pulsars,inasmuch as there is a growing realization in astronomical circles that conventionalphysical theory has failed to meet the challenge of the new discoveries. As Fred Hoylerecently painted out in a lecture before the Royal Astronomical Society, the total
inadequacy of conventional theory in these new areas calls for a “radical revision of the
 
laws of physics.” Professor Hoyle‟s suggestion was that his profession should “stick tothe astronomy and force the physics to fit,” but this is easier said th
an done, and it shouldtherefore be of considerable interest to the astronomers to find that there is already aphysical theory in existence that fits the new discoveries without having to be forced.In order that the presentation may be intelligible to those who are not familiar, or notsufficiently familiar, with my previous publications, I am undertaking to trace thedevelopment of thought all the way from the concept of a universe of motion, on whichthe whole theoretical system is based, to the quasar,
and to show that once the “motion”
concept is substituted for the now untenable concept of a universe of matter, the existenceof quasars and pulsars is a necessary consequence a rather distant consequence, to besure, but an inevitable one. The development of thought will be similar to that in BeyondNewton, except that the subject of that volume, gravitation, is one of the basicphenomena of the universe, and the chain of deductions leading from the fundamentalpostulates to the conclusions of the work is short, whereas in the case of the quasars it isvery long.This plan of presentation will, of course, require going over some ground that wascovered in my previous books, particularly the first in the series, 
The Structure of thePhysical Universe
;but in view of the fact that a dozen years have passed since that book was written, another look at the situation is no doubt justified. In the meantime I havecontinued my studies in this area, and I have had the benefit of discussion andcorrespondence with a great many individuals who are interested in my findings. As aresult, I have been able to clarify a number of paints that were previously somewhat hazy,and to devise some further analogies, improvements in terminology, and other aids tounderstanding of the aspects of the theory that have given the most difficulty to thosewho have undertaken to follow the logical development.Very few changes of a substantive nature have been required by reason of the progressmade in the last decade surprisingly few, in view of the fact that the original work openedup a whole new field of thought-but there have been some significant changes of and anentirely new concept of the logical basis of the theoretical system has emerged. Thegeneral reciprocal relation between space and time is, of course, the key element in thenew structure of theory; as I have stressed by calling it the Reciprocal System, and thelogical status of this relationship is therefore a matter of prime importance, even though Ihave established its validity by verifying its consequences rather than relying upon thelegitimacy of its antecedents. The reciprocal relation was originally derived from a studyof a large amount of empirical data which I analyzed during the inductive phase of theinvestigation that ultimately led to the development of the new system of theory, and inmy first publication I described it as a purely empirical result: an extrapolation fromexperience. Subsequent studies indicated that the relation was not wholly empirical; thatit could be deduced from some elementary considerations with respect to the relation of space to time, and in the later books it was portrayed as a semi-empirical conclusion.Now, after much additional consideration, it has become evident that this reciprocalrelation can be derived deductively from the most general kind of premises.All existing physical theory is based on the assumption that the universe in which we liveis a universe of mat
ter, one in which the fundamental entities are “elementary units” of 
 
matter existing in a framework provided by space and time. As brought out in the text,this concept is no longer tenable, because many ways are now known in which matter canbe transformed into non-matter, and obviously that which can be changed into somethingelse is not basic. There clearly must be some common denominator underlying both of these interconvertible entities. This is not the kind of an issue on which there can be alegitimate difference of opinion. If matter is the basic constituent of the universe, ascurrent theory assumes, then it cannot be changed into anything but some other form of matter. Conversely, if matter can be transformed into non-matter, as we now know that itcan, then it is not the basic constituent of the universe, and conventional physical theoryis founded on a false assumption. There is no escape from these cold, hard facts.
The “matter” concept must therefore be replaced, and the only alternative in sigh
t is theconcept of a universe in which the fundamental entities are units of motion rather thanunits of matter. A change to the concept of a universe of motion cannot be avoided; at themost, it can only be delayed. The significance of this point, in the present connection, liesin the fact that the reciprocal relation between space and time, on which my new system
of theory is based, is a necessary consequence of the “motion” concept. Once this concept
of the nature of the universe is accepted, the reciprocal relation follows automatically.The argument in favor of the Reciprocal System that was presented in my previouspublications can be summarized in this manner:1.
 
Existing theory, in the words of a prominent physicist quoted in this volume, is a
“multitude of different parts and pieces that do not fit together very well,” and it
gives the wrong answers, or no answers at all, to many of the important questionsthat arise.2.
 
The Reciprocal System is a fully integrated theoretical structure derived in itsentirety from a single set of basic premises, and it is a true and accuraterepresentation of the physical facts in the areas to which it has thus far beenapplied; hence presumably to all physical areas.3.
 
It would therefore be highly advantageous to substitute this comprehensive new
system of theory for the “multitude of different parts and pieces.”
Very few attempts have been made to meet this argument on its merits, but there has beena widespread tendency to object to giving any consideration at all to the new theoreticalsystem on the ground that the a priori probability that a radically new theory might becorrect is very low, and that the expenditure of the considerable amount of time and effortrequired to understand and evaluate it is therefore not justified. Unfortunately, theindividual scientists do not ordinarily limit themselves to a refusal to spend their owntime on an examination of the new theory, a stand that is hardly open to criticism, at leastwhere there is no official responsibility for the advancement of scientific knowledge; theyvery commonly object to anyone taking an interest in an unorthodox theory. Thisconstitutes a formidable obstacle that is hard to overcame as long as the point at issue isthe relative merit of the two systems of theory.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
Theosophist

All of Dewey's books are NON-FICTION - - - NON-FICTION

reply05 / 31 / 2009
Theosophist

All of Dewey's books are available free at http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/i... Special Thanks & Praise to the folks who set this site up.

reply05 / 27 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...