Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Structure of the Physical Universe Vol 1 - 3 by DB Larson

The Structure of the Physical Universe Vol 1 - 3 by DB Larson

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,765|Likes:
Published by Jason Verbelli

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Jason Verbelli on Mar 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Nothing But Motion
Volume I of a revised and enlarged edition of THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
Nearly twenty years have passed since the first edition of this work was published. As Ipointed out in the preface of that first edition, my findings indicate the necessity for adrastic change in the accepted concept of the fundamental relationship that underlies thewhole structure of physical theory: the relation between space and time. The physicaluniverse, I find, is not a universe of matter existing in a framework provided by space andtime, as seen by conventional science, but a universe of motion, in which space and timeare simply the two reciprocal aspects of motion, and have no other significance. What I
have done, in brief, is to determine the properties that space and time must necessarilypossess in a universe
composed entirely of motion,
and to express them in the form of aset of postulates. I have then shown that development of the consequences of thesepostulates by logical and mathematical processes, without making any furtherassumptions or introducing anything from experience, defines, in detail, a completetheoretical universe that coincides in all respects with the observed physical universe.Nothing of this nature has ever been developed before. No previous theory has comeanywhere near covering the full range of phenomena accessible to observation withexisting facilities, to say nothing of dealing with the currently inaccessible, and as yetobservationally unknown, phenomena that must also come within the scope of a completetheory of the universe. Conventional scientific theories accept certain features of theobserved physical universe as given, and then make assumptions on which to baseconclusions as to the properties of these observed phenomena: The new theoreticalsystem, on the other hand, has no empirical content. It bases a11 of its conclusions solelyon the postulated properties
of space and time.
The theoretical deductions from thesepostulates provide for the
of the various physical entities and phenomena-matter, radiation, electrical and magnetic phenomena, gravitation, etc.-as well asestablishing the
between these entities. Since all conclusions are derived fromthe same premises, the theoretical system is a completely integrated structure, contrastingsharply with the currently accepted body of physical theory, which, as described by
Richard Feynman, is ―a multitude of different parts and pieces that do not
fit together
very well.‖
 The last twenty years have added a time dimension to this already unique situation. Theacid test of any theory is whether it is still tenable after the empirical knowledge of thesubject is enlarged by new discoveries. As Harlow Shapley once pointed out, facts are theprinciple enemies of theories. Few theories that attempt to cover any more than a severelylimited field are able to survive the relentless march of discovery for very long withoutmajor changes or complete reconstruction. But no substantive changes have been made inthe postulates of this new system of theory in the nearly twenty years since the originalpublication, years in which tremendous strides have been made in the enlargement of empirical knowledge in many physical areas. Because the postulates and whatever can bederived from them by logical and mathematical processes, without introducing anythingfrom observation or other external sources, constitute the
system of theory, thisabsence of substantive change in the postulates means that there has been no changeanywhere in the theoretical structure.It has been necessary, of course,
to extend 
the theory by developing more of the details,in order to account for some of the new discoveries, but in most cases the nature of therequired extension was practically obvious as soon as the new phenomena orrelationships were identified. Indeed, some of the new discoveries, such as the existenceof exploding galaxies and the general nature of the products thereof, were actuallyanticipated in the first published description of the theory, along with many phenomenaand relations that are still awaiting empirical verification. Thus the new theoreticalsystem is
ahead of 
observation and experiment in a number of significant respects.
The scientific community is naturally reluctant to change its views to the degree requiredby my findings, or even to open its journals to discussion of such a departure fromorthodox thought. It has been a slow and difficult task to get a significant count of consideration of the new structure of theory. However, those who do examine this newtheoretical structure carefully can hardly avoid being impressed by the logical andconsistent nature of the theoretical development. As a consequence, many of theindividuals who have made an effort to understand and evaluate the new system have notonly recognized it as a major addition to scientific knowledge, but have developed anactive personal interest in helping to bring it to the attention of others. In order tofacilitate this task an organization was formed some ears ago with the specific objectiveof promoting understanding and eventual acceptance of the new theoretical system, theReciprocal System of physical theory, as we are calling it. Through the efforts of thisorganization, the New Science Advocates, Inc., and its individual members, lectures onthe new theory have been given at colleges and universities throughout the United Statesand Canada. The NSA also publishes a newsletter, and has been instrumental in makingpublication of this present volume possible.At the annual conference of this organization at the University of Mississippi inAugust 1977 I gave an account of the origin and early, development of theReciprocal System of theory. It has been suggested by some of those who heardthis, presentation that certain parts of it ought to be included in this presentvolume in order to bring out the fact that the central idea of the new system of theory, the general reciprocal relation between space and time, is not a product of a fertile imagination, but a conclusion reached as the result of an exhaustive anddetailed analysis of the available empirical data in a number of the most basicphysical fields. The validity of such a relation is determined by its consequences,rather than by its antecedents, but many persons may be more inclined to take thetime to examine those consequences if they are assured that the relation inquestion is the product of a systematic inductive process, rather than somethingextracted out of thin air. The following paragraphs from my conference addressshould serve this purpose.Many of those who come in contact with this system of theory are surprised to
find us talking of ―progress in connection with i
t. Some evidently look upon thetheory as a construction, which should be complete before it is offered forinspection. Others apparently believe that it originated as some kind of arevelation, and that all I had to do was to write it down. Before I undertake todiscuss the progress that has been made in the past twenty years, it is thereforeappropriate to explain just what kind of a thing the theory actually is, and whyprogress is essential. Perhaps the best way of doing this will be to tell yousomething about how it originated.I have always been very much interested in the theoretical aspect of scientificresearch, and quite early in life I developed a habit of spending much of my sparetime on theoretical investigations of one kind or another. Eventually I concludedthat these efforts would be more likely to be productive if I directed most of themtoward some specific goal, and I decided to undertake the task of devising a

Activity (40)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
bearspear liked this
BluePlanetEarth liked this
waltdisne liked this
waltdisne liked this
jcoppala4476 liked this
i590 liked this
Eric Buhs liked this
Eric Buhs liked this