Articles:

Part 1

(Reprinted from the Theosophy-Science Group Bulletin, Volume XX, Number 3, June, 1981.)

The last years of Einstein were spent in pursuing his cherished dream of evolving a general theory of the universe. He never succeeded. Nor anyone else did, so far. The body of knowledge which we call physical science is at present only a loose collection of numerous different theories, each constructed to explain a particular domain of facts and not applicable to another set of facts. There has not been a general theory covering all physical phenomena, from the microscopic to the macroscopic.

A typical description of the “expanding universe” of modern astronomy reads as follows:

The common analogy likens the galaxies to spots on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. As the rubber stretches, all the spots move away from each other.

But this description is immediately followed with an explanation of the origin of the motion, the so-called “Big Bang”, that is totally incompatible with the motion as described. According to the Big Bang hypothesis, the galaxies are moving outward from a common point of origin, and the apparent recession in all directions when viewed from a particular location is due to velocity differentials. But the spots on the surface of an expanding balloon are, in actual fact, moving outward from each other, not from a common point. Thus, if the motions of the galaxies originated from a Big Bang they are not similar to the motions of spots on an expanding balloon, whereas if the galactic motions do have this character they could not have originated from a Big Bang. At the moment there may not be any available means of deciding between these alternatives, but the fact that the analogy is so widely used without recognition of the inconsistency that is involved shows that there is a definite need for a better understanding of the nature of the type of motion that takes place when a balloon expands.

Articles:

From the very beginning of the kind of disciplined thinking about the physical world that we now call science, one of the major objectives has been to identify its basic constituent, or constituents; to answer the question, What is the world made of? The earliest theories of which we have detailed knowledge, those developed by the Ionians in the years from about 600 to about 400 B.C., and by the Chinese around the same time, were of two general types. One group of philosophers, reasoning from an assumption as to the unity of nature, argued for a single constituent. Water was the usual choice, although there was some support for air. Another group contended that the great multiplicity of physical forms required the existence of a number of basic constituents. The most popular choice among the early investigators in the West was a four-element universe, constructed of earth, water, air, and fire, an identification that achieved a kind of an official status when it was accepted by Aristotle. The Chinese recognized five basic elements, omitting air and adding metal and wood.

Published in: FRONTIERS of SCIENCE, Vol III, No. 5, July-August, 1981

Principal Address to the Third Annual NSA Conference University of Utah, Salt Lake City, August 18, 1978

Video: As you’ve noticed, it took quite a little while for the CBS crew to set up this evening, and on that account we’re running at least a half an hour late. So I’m going to omit the first half hour of what I was going to say… It’s unfortunate, because that will include some of my most shady jokes. But I’ll try to take up from that half hour period. Frank took you back into history quite a little way, but just to do him one better, I’m going to go still farther back.

At last year’s ISUS convention, a number of individuals expressed difficulty in comprehending the difference between clock space and coordinate space and the difference between clock time and coordinate time. This note will review these concepts to aid the understanding of these individuals.

Though quantum theory is phenomenologically successful, it fails to throw any light on the nature of the underlying physical reality. The Reciprocal System, true to its claim of a unified and general theory, not only covers the ground of the quantum theory, but also provides insight into the reality, basing on the new paradigm of motion as the sole constituent of the physical universe. Its most important finding is the existence of different domains of physical action, in which the rules of the game apparently differ. Larson resolves all the difficulties the conventional theory is facing, by the knowledge of the characteristics of these domains.