Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

LARSONIAN PHYSICS for College Courses

66 views
Skip to first unread message

John Mechalas

unread,
Apr 26, 1993, 5:26:45 PM4/26/93
to
In article <1993Apr26....@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>
> 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

unread,
Apr 26, 1993, 6:32:07 PM4/26/93
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 26, 1993, 10:01:18 PM4/26/93
to
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
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

unread,
Apr 26, 1993, 9:43:11 PM4/26/93
to
In article <1993Apr26.2...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> cor...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>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. :)

0 new messages