LARSONIAN PHYSICS for College Courses
John Mechalas
>
>
> The Theory partially summarized below should be included in ALL college
>and university courses in Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, etc.:
<Tom> Oh, great! He's back!
<Crow> Yeah, and he's speaking in CAPTIAL LETTERS again.
<Joel> Hush, guys! This could really be important!
<Tom> Oh, right! You mean like the LAST ten thousand ones he wrote?
>
> LARSONIAN Physics and Astromomy
>
> Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists
> CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all
> of the forces of the universe
<Joel>
> can be explained with a single
> set of laws or equations. But
<Tom> ...no one really cares
> they have been systematically
> IGNORING
<Crow> How can you "systematically" ignore something?
> or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years!
>
> The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive
> GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
> calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on
<Crow> ...swampland in Florida
> two fundamental
> postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of
> space and time:
>
> (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
> component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions,
<All> Not one! Not two! But THREE dimensions!
> in DISCRETE
> UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME."
<Tom> Space and time are reciprocal?
<Joel> I guess that means that SPACE / TIME = 1
<Tom> heh heh... This is RICH...
>
> (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of
> ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics,
<Crow> As opposed to peculiar commutative mathematics
> its magnitudes are
<Tom> Very large
> ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN."
>
> From these two postulates, Larson developed
<Tom> A recipe for carrot cake, which was later lost after he died
> a COMPLETE
> Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
<Crow> Nuts, berries, twigs, and chewing gum.
> translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
> rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward
> SCALAR MOTIONS,
<Joel> You know, you've GOT to LOVE those "inward and outward" motions.
<Tom> Kinda makes you wonder what subjects he was REALLY studying...
> and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light
> (which Larson called
<Crow> ...on account of darkness.
> "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL
> DATUM").
>
> At each step in the development, Larson was able to
> MATCH objects
<Tom> Proving once and for all that he was capable of basic pattern
recognition.
> in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the
> REAL physical universe,
<Crow> Joel, is there a fake physical Universe?
<Joel> Yes, Crow, there is. It's called "Cleveland".
<Crow> Ah...
> (photons, sub-atomic particles
> [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star
> clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white
> dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET
> DISCOVERED THEN
<Tom> Now, how can you match one object with another object that hasn't been
discovered?
<Crow> Magic
> (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY
> BURSTS).
>
> And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom,
> Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
> atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility
> and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of
> matter.
>
> All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy
<Tom> Literary style
> complex mathematics, in his books.
>
>
>
> BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
<Crow> Shouldn't that be "books BY Dewey Larson"?
<Joel> Well, Crow...maybe all these books were written about Larson
<Tom> I can't imagine anyone would be that bored
>
> The following is a complete list of the late Physicist
> Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL
> UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe. Some of the early
> books are out of print now, but still available through
<Crow> The Black Market
> inter-library loan.
>
> "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959)
>
> "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
<Joel> And in a moment, the results of that trial.
>
> "Beyond Newton" (1964)
<Tom> Beyond reality, pal!
> "New Light on Space and Time" (1965)
>
> "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971)
>
> "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979)
> [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super
> Collider".]
<Joel> I guess this means that you can throw the book really hard, and
it will disintegrate.
<Tom> You mean like this guy's theories?
> [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]
<Crow> It's like this, see....when two atoms love each other very much..
> "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982)
<Crow> Ohhhh! So THAT explains this article.
>
> "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
<Joel> *sings* "The politics of dancing..."
> [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
> mysteries.]
>
> "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)
>
> All but the last of these books were published by North
> Pacific Publishers,
<Tom> Because they were desperate
> P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR 97213, and
> should be available
<Tom> evenings and weekends
> via inter-library loan if your local
> university or public library doesn't have
<Crow> any sense of shame or decency.
> each of them.
>
> Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available
> from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS),
> 1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah 84106. This is the
> organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.
<Crow> Oh, great! A whole *organization* of crack-pots! Bite me, pal!
> They have other related publications,
<Tom> But none of them are very interesting.
> including the quarterly
> journal "RECIPROCITY".
>
>
>
> Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
>
> Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer
> (Chemical or Electrical).
<Tom> Well, which one was he? Chemical or Electrical??
<Joel> I don't think he knows for sure. Either that, or he couldn't remember.
> He was about 91 years old
<Tom> Oh! So THAT'S why he couldn't remember...
> when he
> died in May 1989. He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in
> Engineering Science from Oregon State University. He
<Joel> You know, this really makes me feel sorry for people at the Univeristy
of Oregon.
> developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
> physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE
> chemical properties based only on the elements used.
>
> Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one
> reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him,
<Tom> *sarcasm* It's only a minor detail, after all...
> but it is
> NOT A VALID REASON. Sometimes it takes a relative outsider
<Crow> Or a complete fruitcake
<Joel> You mean like the guy writing this?
> to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.
<Tom> You know, I bet it'd take much more than that to see *through* trees.
<Crow> Yeah, like a very big drill!
> At the same
> time, it is clear
<Tom> as mud
> from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX
> physics
<Joel> As opposed to Catholic or Protestant physics
> and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer,
> well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC
> ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE,
<Joel> Oh, now that's really hitting below the belt, guys. I mean,
he should leave their personal problems out of this.
<Tom> Yeah! It's probably not *their* fault they're impotent.
> IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC..
>
> Larson did NOT have the funds,
<Crow> becuase he spent it all on booze and women.
> etc. to experimentally
> test his Theory. And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.
<Tom> After all, we all know how unimportant testing your theory is
in science.
> He simply compared the various parts of his
<Crow> body?
> Theory
<Crow> Ah..
> with OTHER
> researchers' experimental and observational data. And in
> many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER.
>
> A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX
> physicists and astronomers have! They CLAIM to be looking
> for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been
> IGNORING one for over 30 years now!
>
> "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe
<Joel> But I hear it's great fun at parties.
> so well. Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of
<Tom> Pretty pictures and paint-by-numbers
> quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who
<Crow> have since been committed.
> agree. And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres",
> "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED
> to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG.
<Tom> Just like Larson's theories.
> Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior,
<Tom> Know these names! Remember these people! If you ever happen to
see them, call the police immediately!
> was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or
> still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE
> INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of
> their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY". He moved to
> Minneapolis after retiring.
>
>
>
> "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
<All> BOONDOGGLE, BOONDOGGLE, BOODOGGLE!
<Joel> I'll bet you can't say *that* one three times fast!
<Tom> You know, it just occurred to me how *weird* this guy is...
>
> I am AGAINST construction
<Joel> and I have posted thousands of "End Construction" signs on
road construction sites across the US in protest.
> "Superconducting Super
> Collider", in Texas or anywhere else. It would be a GROSS
<All> Ewwww!!! GROSS!
> WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING
<Tom> to my personal life.
> of "scientific"
> value.
>
> Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the
> comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist
> Dewey B. Larson,
<Crow> they are all dead, like him.
> as described in his books, the strange GOOFY
<Joel> Wow! Walt Disney has their own sub-atomic particle!
<Tom> Cool!
> particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.)
> which they are finding in EXISTING
<Crow> I hear they haven't found any of these particles in *fictitious*
super-colliders.
> colliders (Fermi Lab,
> Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER,
<Tom> This guy ought to write for Star Trek!
> which are
> CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly
> disintegrate like cosmic
<All> BOONDOGGLE!
> rays because they are incompatible
> with their environment.
>
> A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a
> few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not
> seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE
> CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW!
<Tom> You're the one who's confused, pal!
<Crow> For a clue, call 1-800-BITE-ME. It's fun!
> Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
> BILLION cost?!! Don't we have much more important uses for
> this WASTED money?!
>
>
> Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
> location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
> kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
<Tom> "Some kind of fire ants"? Boy, this guy sure is doing his research!
<Crow> Maybe they should stop firing ants?
<Joel> That's what you get for messing with the Unions
> cables. How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
> with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
> the "Supercollider"?!
>
>
> Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
> proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD! If it is built, it should be
> named
<All> BOONDOGGLE!
> after a leading particle PHYSICIST.
>
>
>
> LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
<Joel> You know, I hope this doesn't turn into one of those "Pro-Matter"-
"Anti-Matter" issues.
> In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
> physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of
<Joel> boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy and girl get
married.
> opposite charges of the same types of particles. It has more
> to do with
<Tom> Cheddar cheese and animal droppings.
> the rates of vibrations and rotations of the
> photons of which they are made, in relation to the
> vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light,
> which Larson calls
<All> BOONDOGGLE!
> "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum".
>
> In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a
<Crow> A boy-particle
> particle of
> MATTER, NOT anti-matter. When a positron and electron meet,
<Crow> they fall in love.
<Tom> After which the electron becomes pregnant, and the positron
quits its job to support her.
> the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their
> respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each
> other.
>
> In Larson's
<Tom> bizzarre, twisted mind..
> Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical
> universe has THREE dimensions of TIME,
<All> Not ONE! Not TWO! But THREE dimensions!
> and ONLY ONE dimension
> of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our
> MATERIAL half.
>
>
> LARSONIAN Relativity
>
> The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury
> has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the
> rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.
<Tom> AHHHHH! It's still gaining on us!
<Joel> "Inconceivable!"
> 531 seconds of this
> advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational
> perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter,
> etc.). The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to
> help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".
>
> But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results
> CLOSER to the 43 seconds
<Joel> while in a drunken stupor
> than "General Relativity" can, by
> INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity". In one or more of his
> books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH
> ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury.
<Tom> Do NOT attempt this at home!
> Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity"
<Joel> because he couldn't pass the course.
> as another
> MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.
<All> Like this article!
> He also REJECTED most of "Special
> Relativity",
<Crow> Because he couldn't pass this course, either!
> including the parts about "mass increases" near
> the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on
> doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than
> 1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,
> although most of that motion is away from us IN
<All> BOONDOGGLE!
> TIME.).
>
> In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
> physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead
> of only one.
<All> Seen it!
> But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured
> from our material half of the physical universe. The one
> dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time. At low
> relative speeds,
<Joel> You know, my Uncle used to be a pretty fast runner.
<Tom> Uh, Joel...
<Joel> Sorry, Tom.
> the values of the other two dimensions are
> NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and
> the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR.
<Crow> Oh THAT'S REALLY scientific! BITE ME, pal!
<Tom> Yeah..."It won't work, so I'll MAKE it work!"
> [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing
> about this.]
<Joel> Because he couldn't think of a better name.
> In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in
> atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near
> the speed of light. But the formula for acceleration is
> ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m). Orthodox physicists
> are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE. In Larson's Theory,
> mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero. FORCE is
> actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS
> BETWEEN MOTIONS,
<Tom> WELL?? Which one is it?! Sheesh, Joel, this guy's a real NUT!
<Joel> Now, Tom, be nice. It's not his fault he's confused.
> including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.
<Crow> There are those "inward and outward" motions again. This guy's
really obsessed!
<Joel> I think he and Freud have a lot to talk about.
> The expansion of the universe, for example, is
<Jeol> expanding.
> an OUTward
> SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of
> the so-called "Big Bang"
<Tom> After all, explosions aren't REALLY outward motions.. Get real, pal!
> (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL
> FANTASY).
<Crow> Like this article!
<Tom> Like this theory!
<All> Like this author!
>
> THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION
<All> *sings* "The Politics of Dancing!"
> I wish to recommend to EVERYONE
<Tom> to please find me professional help!
<Joel> I heard that even Densa turned down this guy.
> the book "THE UNIVERSE
> OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific
> Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon 97213), 456
> pages, indexed, hardcover.
>
> It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL
> UNIFIED Theory of
<All> BOONDOGGLE!
> the physical universe developed by that
> author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago.
>
> It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical
> mysteries,
<Joel> Except spam
<Tom> "Spam spam spam spam spam and spam"
> including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and
> multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of
<Joel> A Dawrinian theory!
> the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and
<All> BOODOGGLE!
> gamma-
> ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of
<Crow> my underwear.
> quasars, pulsars, white
> dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc..
>
> It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL
> looking for,
<All> Women and booze!
> if they are ready to seriously consider it with
> OPEN MINDS!
>
> The following is an example of his Theory's success:
> In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL
> UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING
> GALAXIES,
<Joel> *Sally Struthers voice* Do you want to predict exploding galaxies?
<All> Sure! We all do!
> several years BEFORE astronomers started finding
> them. They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's
> comprehensive Theory. And when QUASARS were discovered, he
> had an immediate related explanation for them also.
<Tom> Yeah! It's too bad it wasnt worth anything!
> GAMMA-RAY BURSTS
>
> Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching
> their heads
<Crow> Maybe they have dandruff?
> about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS. They were
> originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the
> disc of our galaxy. But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in
> Earth orbit has been detecting
<All> BOONDOGGLE!
them in all directions
> uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT
> correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of
> directional coincidence).
>
> Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the
> GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by
> the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson. According to page 386 of
> his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the
> gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the
> ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls
> the "Cosmic Sector".
<Tom> You know, at first, I thought this theory was just strange. But
now, it's getting down right silly.
<Crow> Yeah, I heard better scientific theories in _Fire Maidens from
Outer Space_.
<Joel> Come on, guys...let's get out of here.
<Tom> You said it, Joel...
1....2....3....4....5....6....G
[The scene: Tom and Crow are each working hard at the table when Joel
walks in]
<Joel> Hey, guys, what are you up to?
<Crow> We're creating our own Unified Theory of the Physical Universe!
<Tom> Yeah! We figured that, if this Larson guy can make up a crackpot
theory and actually get people to BELIEVE him, then we can do it
too!
<Joel> That's really great, you guys. What have you come up with so far?
<Tom> Well, Joel, it's actually very simple. According to our theory,
the Universe is made of up tiny, invisible particles called
"Boondoggles"
<Crow> That's right! And these "Boondoggles" are the basic uilding blocks
of all matter.
<Joel> Now wait a minute...if these Boondoggles are invisible, and everything
is made out of them, how come we can see them?
<Tom> heh heh...Well, Joel, it's more complicated than that. You see,
there are really three dimensions of visibility. We call the first
one "Normal Vision", which is "sight" as you and I know it. The other
two, which we can't detect are called "Special Visibility" and "Dave".
<Joel> That's an interesting name for a dimension.
<Crow> I thought of it!
<Joel> I'm very proud of you, Crow. Have you two made any important
scientific discoveries from your new theories?
<Crow> Well, we proved that Ghallagher isn't funny.
<Joel> Yes, Crow, but everyone already knew that.
<Tom> Even new theories have to start somewhere, Joel.
<Joel> I suppose so...Oh look, the mads are calling...What do you think, Sirs?
--
John Mechalas \ If you think my opinions are Purdue's, then
mech...@expert.cc.purdue.edu \ you vastly overestimate my importance.
Purdue University Computing Center \ Stamp out and abolish redundancy.
General Consulting \ If you can read this you are too close.
Jason D Corley
>In article <1993Apr26....@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>> a COMPLETE
>> Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
>
><Crow> Nuts, berries, twigs, and chewing gum.
>
>
You forgot the shoestring and the picture of Eve Arden.
A REVIEW WHETHER YOU WANT ONE OR NOT: Less insults, more ripping. But
still hilarious and a great concept! ***1/2 out of 5.
--
******************************************************************************
"The difference between the military and the Boy Scouts of America is the Boy
Scouts are allowed to carry knives and they have adult leadership."--Anon.
Jason D. "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley might have posted this.
Dave Van Domelen
Red Shift meaning faster...than...BWAHAHAHAHAHA...light! Then how do we
*see* the silly things, Mr. Larson?
<falls on floor laughing his ass off>
I gave up my "theory" involving multiple timelike dimensions when I was in
high school, myself.
Dave Van Domelen, had to calculate the perihelion shift of Mercury using
General Relativity counting in the Sun's rotation as a final exam, so don't
tell me it's inaccurate!
John Mechalas
>In article <C640w...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> mech...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (John Mechalas) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr26....@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>
>>> a COMPLETE
>>> Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
>>
>><Crow> Nuts, berries, twigs, and chewing gum.
>
>You forgot the shoestring and the picture of Eve Arden.
hehe :)
>A REVIEW WHETHER YOU WANT ONE OR NOT: Less insults, more ripping. But
>still hilarious and a great concept! ***1/2 out of 5.
Yeah...this one was tough, though. It's hard to attack a "scientific"
(using the term VERY loosely) paper. :)