The Wellspring Library

The Wellspring Library Authors Page
J. Harmon Grahn"Post-Civilized" Possibilities


Return to Authors

"Post-Civilized" Possibilities: Context is Everything

J. Harmon Grahn

v5, January 1, 2013

PDF Version of this file
28 pp., 2.8 MB

"Post-Civilized" Possibilities: Context is Everything is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

You are free:

  • to share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
  • Share alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Quotations and derivative works should acknowledge its Author: J. Harmon Grahn; and its source on the Net: The Wellspring Publishing Group.

1The Partiality of Perception
2The Scope of Context
2.1The Size of the Earth
2.2The Significance of Scalar Motion
2.3The Luminance of the Sun
3A Paradigm Shift

1 The Partiality of Perception

"Every thing brought into focus by the directed attention of anybody," it was observed in Item 9 on our Agenda for a "Post-Civilized" Humanity,[1] "occurs within an evidently limitless context consisting of everything else, 'omitting no detail, however slight.' Directed attention has the unavoidable effect of isolating its object by ignoring most of its context, thereby creating within the imagination of the viewer a lopsided and partial perception." And as discussed among The Writing on the Wall series of essays,[2] each of us lives, in effect, within an invisible sphere upon which we project a seamless "virtual reality" created almost entirely in our imaginations — yet this imaginary "virtual reality" is as close as any of us ever get to the "real reality" in which we imagine we are enclosed.

Of course, most of the time, most of us do not think about "reality" in these terms; and assume instead that the differences between "reality" and "unreality" are self-evident and obvious to anyone of sound mind. Most of us like to feel at all times that we have a firm grasp on "reality;" and we place considerable weight, every moment of every day, upon our complacent trust in ourselves, that things really are as we imagine them to be.

However, for the sake of speculative exploration, if you are able to bear the thought, you might consider the easily verified fact that even among the people you know, and with whom you associate on a daily basis, perceptions of "reality" vary widely, and are often to varying degrees contradictory. Is it really so that all those who do not perceive things exactly as you do are "wrong," and that only your perceptions are "right?" Or are you able to allow others a little "wiggle room" for perceptions that differ from your own — and perhaps concede the possibility that in some instances, you may even be mistaken?

It seems that such allowances and concessions are necessary for maintenance of "balanced views" of "reality:" for otherwise, how is it possible for anyone to be "right," all the time, about everything? Or for that matter, to be entirely "wrong," every time, about everything? Anyone making either claim, on his own behalf, or about the views of another, thereby draws into question — or "should" draw into question — his own credibility.

Yet how can it be otherwise that each of us carries within our individual imaginations a richly complex, often shifting and self-adjusting, dynamic image of "how we think things are" in "reality;" created uniquely by each one of us, on the basis of the information we receive from all available sources, and our evaluation of that information, on the basis of all our cumulative experiences, beliefs, and perceptions of this constantly incoming information stream? If we were to dig down deep enough, and with enough self-searching honesty, many of us might be surprised to find even ourselves harboring contradictory beliefs; which we usually keep carefully "compartmentalized," so that their contradictions are not obvious — at least to ourselves. Most of us are more adept — or think we are — at spotting such inconsistencies in the beliefs of others than in our own. Yet each of us really do believe that our perceptions and interpretations are correct and reliable; and each of us acts upon the basis of that belief, in large and small ways, by the choices we make, every moment of every day. If you stop to think about it, isn't this remarkable?

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about it is how "successful" people are, who hold among us such a vast array of mutually contradictory perceptions of "how things really are." People who adamantly disagree with one another about practically everything nevertheless conduct our daily lives, week to week, and year to year, as if "things really are" more or less as we imagine them to be — no matter how we imagine them to be. And those with whom we so strongly disagree "about everything" do the same. How is this even possible?

As an example, one of the most interesting disclosures (to me) of Manchester's voluminous biography of Sir Winston Churchill[3] is noted as an aside in a footnote to the controversy during the 1930s over the disposal of the British Raj in India:

During the early 1950s, [Manchester writes] when this writer was living in Delhi as a foreign correspondent, social scientists began a comprehensive poll of Indian villages to determine how many natives knew British rule had ended in 1947. The survey was aborted when it was discovered that a majority didn't know the British had even arrived. England's East India Company was chartered in 1600.[4]

Naturally, people who harbor various beliefs about "reality" achieve various results from acts and decisions founded upon their beliefs. Some people are considered, by themselves and by (at least some) others, to be more "successful" than others who hold different beliefs, and reap from their beliefs results that differ from those holding contrary beliefs. Yet in general it seems that, for better or worse, most people maintain strong loyalties to our various perceptions of "reality," and are highly resistant to "the facts" marshaled in their favor by those of opposing views. It is notoriously difficult among humans to "help" anybody else mend "the errors of their ways."

Additionally, how one evaluates one's own "success" is included among the many items that make up one's perception of "reality." One's perception of "reality" may lead him to consider himself quite "successful;" whereas someone else with a different perception of "reality" may evaluate the other as an "abject failure." In such instances, who is "right" in his evaluation, and who is "wrong?" The one who is thoroughly satisfied with his own beliefs, and lives accordingly? Or his observer of contrary views, who shudders to behold the way the other sabotages his life in countless different ways, by means of his transparently false perceptions?


2 The Scope of Context

As already mentioned, the context of any thing consists of everything else, "omitting no detail, however slight." So it comes as small surprise that most of the context of everything is routinely overlooked by everybody, in fabricating all of our beliefs, whatever they may be, about how we think "things really are." What else are any of us to do? The context of everything we encounter or perceive stretches far beyond our most distant horizon, and comes to our attention only when it in some way penetrates the narrow envelope of our highly localized sphere of awareness. Being "out of sight," those elements of which we are unaware can hardly be other than "out of mind:" and are consequently ignored as if they had no existence whatsoever.

However, many of us have persuasive reasons to believe that some things actually do exist beyond our horizons; and that some of them may affect our lives beyond our awareness — or may enter our awareness unexpectedly, and affect our lives in ways we may never have imagined. One reason for this belief is that it is not an uncommon human experience; and when it happens, it tends to persuade. One of its consequences is sometimes that our beliefs about how we think "things really are" may undergo radical changes; and we find ourselves holding perceptions we had formerly considered "unbelievable." This too is not an entirely uncommon human experience.

In general, it seems that the magnitude of such radical changes is inversely proportional to their frequency: such that major upheavals in one's world view occur proportionately less frequently than do occasions for correction of minor oversights. However, it appears that at relatively infrequent intervals in the flux of human experience, events sometimes do combine on such a sweeping, cataclysmic scale that all human perceptions of "how things really are," whatever they may have been, are swept aside and obliterated in a cascade that does not adhere to anybody's expectations about anything. There are those who believe — and I incline toward the possibility that this may be so — that Earth-humanity are at this time being swept up in such a "reality-shifting" cascade. If so, it will not be the first time within human memory that something of the kind may have occurred.

There exist among the recorded memories of human cultures around the world numerous accounts of cataclysmic events so bizarre and out of proportion with normally witnessed phenomena that they have often been summarily dismissed by contemporary scholars as fabrications of primitive and superstitious imaginations. Yet corroboration may be found among such accounts in the traditions of peoples widely dispersed around the planet; and further corroboration emerges from close examination of geological evidence.

One source of extensive correlations among comparative human mythologies and recorded geological observations was the late Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979), author of numerous studies of such correlations. In "mainstream" academic circles, Velikovsky is widely excoriated as a charlatan or a pseudoscientist, heaped with opprobrium,[5] and his work is rarely if ever cited in contemporary discussions, even of matters upon which he focused his main attention. Nevertheless, in the course of his life Velikovsky did accumulate an enormous volume of research, and he cited numerous discoveries, for instance, of undecayed temperate species, including mammoths, mastodons, and rhinoceroses, found frozen in arctic latitudes, often in evidently cataclysmic circumstances of almost unimaginable violence.[6] The same questions apply to all of them: How did they get there? By what agency were they so swiftly frozen that they never decayed over the course of many thousands of subsequent years? How can the unequivocally violent circumstances in which many of them perished be explained?

Leaving aside the controversy over the details of Velikovsky's "vision of reality," which like perhaps many such visions may have been flawed in numerous particulars, one may reliably suppose that Velikovsky could not have possessed the "genius" necessary to have been entirely "wrong" about everything he considered; and that the mythological or legendary accounts he cited in widely dispersed human traditions seem to concur in descriptions of events so extraordinary that the people who witnessed them can hardly be believed to have collaborated in "making them up." Those of earlier times and diverse places who experienced them were evidently not themselves able to comprehend or interpret the nature of the events they described. Velikovsky may thus have erred in attempting to reconstruct "what really happened" in ancient times on the basis of contemporary understandings of "reality" that may be no more equal to the task today than were the understandings of those who actually experienced them long ago. Now as in ages past, as remarked by Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."[7]

In The Writing on the Wall #1 § 3 Myths and Superstitions, I worded the matter in somewhat stronger terms:

One of the most widespread superstitions on Earth, shared alike by "civilized," "pre-civilized," and "uncivilized" people everywhere, is the almost universal belief that anybody's belief about "reality" actually corresponds very closely at all to the real reality of how the universe really is. On the contrary, the real reality is a matter so profoundly shrouded in impenetrable mystery that nobody has ever had more than fleeting, partial glimpses of parts of it; from which humans have fashioned an endless succession of myths and superstitions, sometimes called "the edifice of human knowledge," successively abandoned and replaced by others. At each iteration of this cycle, people have believed that now they really understand reality — only to have the cycle repeated again, and yet again . . . endlessly.

  • It happened when Nicolas Copernicus (1473 to 1543) demonstrated that, contrary to the "infallibly revealed truth" that Earth was the center of the universe, with the Sun and all the known planets revolving around us in complicated, compound paths embedded within crystalline celestial spheres; Earth was after all one among several known planets revolving about the Sun.

  • It happened again, when Sir Isaac Newton (1642 to 1727) demonstrated the principle of universal gravitation which held the Copernican system together; and provided the calculus for, in principle, plotting the past and future course of every particle in a rigidly mechanistic and determinist universe.

  • It happened again, when Charles Darwin (1809 to 1882) demonstrated the principle of biological evolution through natural selection over vast stretches of geological time — at a period when "everybody knew" that the firmament, Earth, and all life, had been created during the course of an unimaginably busy week in the year 4004 BCE.

  • It happened again, when the quantum physicists in the early part of the twentieth century demonstrated that the universe is not rigidly mechanistic and determinist after all, but is seamed and honeycombed with uncertainty and indeterminacy.

  • It happened again, when James Watson (b. 1928) and Francis Crick (b. 1916) demonstrated the helical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, and revealed the molecular basis for biological evolution.

  • And it is happening again, and again, and again, even as we speak, as yet more recent discoveries are made, and insights are hatched, whose implications continue to rattle the rickety structure of "the edifice of human knowledge."[8]

It seems doubtful that this pattern of periodic and often radical revision of "the edifice of human knowledge" should have finally reached its end in our times, as it was repeatedly believed to have done in times past — but hadn't.


2.1 The Size of the Earth

At first glance, nothing could be more self-evidently natural than the assumption that planet Earth has always been the same size and mass throughout its geohistory as we find it under our feet today. Why would it ever have been any different? And if Earth ever was a different size than it is now, by what agency might such a metamorphosis have occurred?

Such questions may be responded to with additional questions. For example: in museums of natural history around the world are reconstructions of the fossil skeletons of enormous animals, generically known as dinosaurs, that once walked the Earth during the Mesozoic Era between 230 million and 63 million years ago. Today, the most massive land animal on Earth is the African elephant, and the tallest is the giraffe; both of which are diminutive in comparison to the largest dinosaurs whose fossilized bones may now be seen in various museums. This is a question that is not often asked: but why are there no animals on Earth today that compare in size with the largest Mesozoic dinosaurs? Could it have anything to do with the possibility that any land animal of the mass of the largest dinosaurs would be immobilized and crushed in the gravitational field of contemporary planet Earth? And if so, does this not imply that Earth may have been less massive during the Mesozoic Era than it is today?

Dr. James Maxlow is an Australian geologist who takes an entirely different approach to these questions.[9] Born in England, he migrated to Australia in 1953; holds a degree in Geology (1971) from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; a Master's degree (geology, 1995); a PhD (geology, 2002), both from Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia; and has been active in his field of Expansion Tectonics since completing his academic studies.

The essential difference between the theories of Plate Tectonics, currently recognized among the "scientifically orthodox," and Expansion Tectonics, is the single assumption underlying the former that the size of the Earth has remained unchanged throughout its geohistory; whereas Expansion Tectonics is of course based upon the assumption that Earth has been expanding throughout its history. Both theories recognize the presence of mid-ocean ridges in the midst of all the Earth's oceans; and that these mid-ocean ridges are sites of upwelling from the underlying molten mantle, and are sources of gradual spreading of all Earth's ocean floors.

Thus, in order for the theory of Plate Tectonics to work on a planet of constant dimensions, it is necessary that sea floor spreading along the mid-ocean ridges is balanced by equivalent subduction of the expanding seabeds where they meet the continental plates. This process is conventionally believed to be driven by convection currents within the mantle, which absorbs and recirculates the material of the ocean floors as they sink beneath the floating continental plates. The theory of Expansion Tectonics requires no such mechanism.

Many of the geological facts that support both tectonic theories have long been known. The Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius was the first to observe in 1596 that the Atlantic coastlines of North and South America, Eurasia, and Africa appear at one time to have been joined, and meanwhile to have become separated by the Atlantic Ocean.[10]

In The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1915, Alfred Wegener proposed the idea of "continental drift," and was the first to assemble significant geological evidence for the union in a prior age of the Americas with Eurasia and Africa. Wegener's concept was mostly dismissed by his contemporaries, however, because they could not imagine a mechanism to account for the "drift" of continental land masses in relation to the greater density of the oceanic crust.[11]

Meanwhile, and since, other investigators began exploring the possibility of planetary expansion as a means of accounting for the gradual spreading of Earth's seabeds. Around the turn of the twentieth century, Roberto Mantovani published a theory of "earth expansion and continental drift;" in which he imagined an earlier, smaller Earth, neatly enclosed by a single continent. Thermal expansion and volcanic activity broke the single continent into smaller continents, which with further expansion drifted away from each other, opening the spaces occupied by contemporary oceans. Details of Earth expansion were further developed by "Lindemann in 1927, Christopher Otto Hilgenberg during the 1930s, Professor Sam Carey during the 1950s to late 1990s, Jan Kozier during the 1980s, and Klaus Vogel during the 1980s and 1990s."[12]

Scientists began systematically mapping the ocean floors during the 1950s, in part using magnetically sensitive instruments developed during World War II for detecting submarines. One of their first discoveries was that the crust underlying the oceans is composed primarily of basalt, whereas the continents are mostly granite. Another early surprise was the presence of what was eventually discovered to be a 60,000 km (37,284 miles) system of mid-ocean ridges marking every ocean basin on Earth.

Basalt is volcanic rock rich in iron, with a large component of magnetite, a magnetically polarized mineral whose presence can distort compass headings. As the ocean floor mapping proceeded, a pattern to the magnetic orientation of the seabeds began to emerge. Magnetic stripes took shape, of alternating magnetic polarity, and running parallel with their associated mid-ocean ridges. This striped pattern turned out to be symmetrical on both sides of the mid-ocean ridge: with the magnetic polarity of the ridge itself always matching the current magnetic polarity of the planet, and alternating symmetrically as the magnetic stripes march away on either side of the ridge.

It was further discovered that the age of the seabed is closely related to the symmetrical pattern of magnetic striping: such that the youngest rock on the ocean floor is invariably found at the crest of the mid-ocean ridge, and each stripe on either side of the ridge is progressively older as its distance from the crest increases. This pattern implies that the polarity of the planetary magnetic field has alternated many times during Earth's geohistory; and made it possible to map the seabeds in terms of their relative age.[13]

Now if Earth's seabeds are all expanding in the course of geologic time, and the interspersed continental land masses are not shrinking in correspondence, as seems to be the case on both sides, then geologists are confronted with a perplexing problem in understanding what is going on with planet Earth. That problem is currently being addressed by "orthodox" geologists with the idea that the expansion of the seabeds is balanced by the process of subduction as their aging margins progressively encounter the continents; whereby Earth sustains unchanging dimensions. However, all the processes operative upon planet Earth occur within a larger, Cosmic context: and so, in order to grasp the nature of Earth geology, it may be necessary to expand our scope, and consider the processes operative within our Solar System, Galaxy, and Cosmos at large.


2.2 The Significance of Scalar Motion

Another investigator who ventured beyond the fences of "scientific orthodoxy" was Dewey B. Larson (1898-1990): "an American engineer and the originator of the Reciprocal System of Theory, a comprehensive theoretical framework capable of explaining all physical phenomena from subatomic particles to galactic clusters. In this general physical theory space and time are simply the two reciprocal aspects of the sole constituent of the universe — motion."[14]

Larson was born in North Dakota, and spent his youth in Idaho. During the First World War he served as a 2ⁿᵈ Lieutenant in the Coast Artillery. He attended collage after the war, graduated from Oregon State University in 1922 with an engineering degree, and was licensed by the State of Oregon as a mechanical engineer.[15] I might add that Larson in some ways challenges my often repeated notion that each of us seems to be "the creator of our own reality." Larson argued that on the basis of observable and verifiable facts it is possible to distinguish reliably between truth and error; but in the absence of relevant facts, no such distinction can be made. In his work The Neglected Facts of Science[16] Larson set out to

[fill] a vacuum in existing science, identifying a number of physical facts that have been overlooked by previous investigators, together with other facts that are known, but are disregarded because they do not fit into the current structure of physical theory. When their consequences are fully developed, these hitherto neglected facts clarify many physical issues and provide the answers for a number of previously unsolved fundamental problems. The work should therefore be of interest to all who are concerned with the foundations of physical science, irrespective of whether or not they are inclined to spend the time and effort that are required to become familiar with a new theoretical development.[17]

To Larson, perhaps the most crucial fact overlooked in existing science is the fact of scalar motion: motion with a magnitude, but without a particular direction. This oversight, he believed, is the source of many chronic errors, misconceptions, and misdirected inquiries into the nature of things.

Motion with a magnitude, but without a particular direction? But isn't that what motion is? Motion with a particular direction? How can there be motion without direction?

Yes, vectored motion is the familiar motion with a magnitude, and a direction: such as the motion of the west-bound Express: a train of a particular mass, moving at a particular velocity, at a particular location, in a particular direction. But that is not the only, or the most important kind of motion, in the universe.

A prototypical example of scalar motion is gravity: the motion of all massive bodies in the three-dimensional universe, with a magnitude proportional, as Newton pointed out, to the sum of their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distances separating them. Scalar motion of this kind can have a scalar direction: inward, or outward, which is different in kind from the vectored direction of the west-bound Express. The scalar direction of gravity is inward. Electrical charge, and magnetism, are two additional examples of scalar motion; in which the scalar direction of like charges, or like magnetic polarity, is outward; and of unlike charges, or unlike magnetic polarity, is inward. The former are observed to "repel" each other; the latter are observed to "attract" each other.

Thus the essential nature of gravity, electric charge, and magnetic polarity is motion: scalar motion, with magnitude, but without direction. According to Larson, scalar motion is also essential to the nature of the universe as a whole; and its scalar direction is outward; which explains far more comprehensively and tidily than the theoretical fabrication of the "Big Bang," why we observe the universe to be expanding.

One reason scalar motion has been so long overlooked is that it does not have an inherent reference frame, or a reference point that is "stationary." Every point involved in scalar motion outward, for example, appears to itself to be "stationary," with every point around it moving away from itself, and from every other point so involved. The analogy has often been used of spots painted on the surface of an expanding balloon, or raisins scattered throughout a rising lump of bread dough. Each object is in outward motion in relation to all the others; yet to itself, each appears to be "stationary," with all others in motion away. But of course, each such object is no less in scalar motion than all the others. All are in motion, yet none are moving in any vectored direction.

This creates the illusion that some kind of "force" — "repulsive," or "attractive" — is involved in scalar motion. If such a "force" is involved, it consists only of the independent scalar, non-vectored motion of each constituent. This obviates the need to account for a "force" that must be imagined to "propagate" at some finite velocity through a "medium," such as space, or an "ether." Objects in scalar motion are in independent motion, with no intervening "medium," nor any "force" propagating through it; and their relative motions are instantaneous.

Another overlooked or disregarded fact upon which Larson placed considerable weight is that, contrary to Einstein, and "scientific orthodoxy," the speed of light is not the "speed limit" within the three-dimensional universe. Quasars, or quasi-stellar objects, the most massively energetic objects so far observed, exhibit velocities several times the speed of light. These observations have been artificially and mistakenly adjusted to conform with Einstein's theory — instead of correctly adjusting the theory to conform with the observational facts.[18] Because luminary and subluminary velocities are characteristic of an electromagnetic flux (e.g. through a conductor), it is not surprising that transluminary velocities cannot be achieved by electromagnetic means. However, this does not preclude the possibility of transluminary velocities being achieved by other energetic means.

These overlooked or disregarded facts, and their corollaries, have surprisingly far-reaching consequences when considered in combination. In the preceding paragraphs, we have in effect jumped into the midst of them with very little preamble; which may not be the most fruitful approach to comprehension of what Larson was seeking.

At the time I first undertook publication of the results of my investigation of basic physical processes [Larson wrote] it was my belief that those individuals to whom the presentation was primarily addressed, the experts in that field, would have no difficulty in understanding the new theories and concepts developed in my work, and that my major objective should be that of proving the validity of the new theoretical structure. My first book, The Structure of the Physical Universe, therefore outlined the new theories in what I believed was an adequate, although rather brief and highly condensed, manner, and was principally concerned with carrying the development of the theoretical structure into minute detail in a number of areas in order to show that the conclusions derived from the new theories were in agreement with the observed facts to a hitherto unparalleled degree of accuracy and completeness. By this time, however, it has become apparent that existing habits of thought are much more firmly entrenched than I had realized, and that even where an individual has a genuinely receptive attitude toward new ideas it is very difficult for him to accomplish the reorientation of thinking that is necessary for an understanding of the nature and implications of the new concepts upon which my theories are founded. The effectiveness of the proof which I have offered has therefore been lessened to a considerable degree by reason of a widespread inability to understand just what it is that I am proving.[19]

In Beyond Newton,[20] Larson delivered a fairly succinct overview of how his Reciprocal System treats the chronic scientific mystery of gravitation; which illuminates in turn the comprehensive foundation for a coherently integrated and tightly interrelated vision of the entire panoply of "three-dimensional reality," from the sub-atomic to the super-galactic scales: the focus of the large body of (mostly overlooked or disregarded) work Larson left as a legacy for further exploration.

Larson pointed out the failure of both Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, to account for the discrepancy, at both the galactic and atomic scales, between the observed distribution of massive bodies in space, and their expected distribution as predicted by both of these gravitational theories.

If gravity is a universal "force of attraction" between massive bodies in space, proportional to the sum of their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between their centers, then how is it that all the matter in the universe, from atoms to galaxies, does not gravitate together into a single superdense mass, surrounded by an infinite expanse of empty space?

Instead, at the galactic scale, stars, solar systems, and multiple stellar systems consisting of gravitationally entangled components are separated by distances measured in light-years; whereas the gravitationally entangled components of planetary and multiple star systems are separated by distances measured only in light-hours, or light-minutes. Why in the wide universe, consisting of uncounted galactic systems, is there not an observable graduation between the distances separating stellar systems from one another, and the distances separating the components of stellar and planetary systems, such as our Solar System?


One of the most puzzling, yet possibly most numerous of the kinds of stellar agglomerations observed in intergalactic space, are the globular clusters. What is puzzling about the globular clusters is that they consist of large swarms of stars and stellar systems that are presumably drawn together gravitationally; yet even in their densest central regions, the distances separating their stellar components are again measured in light-years. The globular clusters exhibit little or no rotational motion: so the enormous distances among their components cannot be accounted for by the centrifugal forces that balance gravity, giving stability to planetary systems such as ours.[21]

There must be some reason, undisclosed by any "orthodox" theory, that stars and stellar systems are drawn together gravitationally, yet never approach each other more closely than light-years — unless they are components of planetary or multiple star systems in stable orbits, as exemplified by our Solar System. Globular clusters are puzzling, because they seem to have established a highly stable gravitational equilibrium . . . with what? What is it that prevents a globular cluster from swiftly swallowing itself? If only gravity were involved, there should exist no such thing as a globular cluster, anywhere. Come to that, if only gravity were involved, Cosmos itself, in which we live and breathe, should not exist; and neither should we. Yet it does, and we do; and there seem to be a few pieces missing from contemporary theories.

The existence of this immense gap from light hours to light years completely void of stars [Larson wrote] is completely inconsistent with the theories of Newton and Einstein in their existing forms. . . . The fact that stars do not enter this immense region, which should be well populated on the basis of existing gravitational theory, strongly suggests that they can not enter, and that unless stars have a common origin (as those in multiple star systems presumably do) the gravitational pattern is such that they cannot approach each other within a distance of the order of light years. A satisfactory gravitational theory must therefore contain such a pattern, or alternatively, must provide some other plausible explanation of this very peculiar star distribution.[22]

Then at the other end of the scale of human apprehension lies a similar discrepancy between theory and observation:

There is nothing in gravitational theory, as it now stands, [Larson wrote] to indicate that the gravitational force is any less applicable to atoms than to any other masses, but the observed behavior at inter-atomic distances comparable to those existing in the solid state is totally different from that envisioned by existing theory. On the basis of either the Newton or the Einstein version of the theory the atoms should continue to move toward each other under the influence of the gravitational forces until they are in actual contact, after which they should be held together by these same forces. Until rather recently it was assumed that the atoms are actually in contact in the condensed states, but this concept is no longer tenable in the light of present-day knowledge, and as matters now stand it is evident that the inter-atomic distance in the solid state merely represents a point of equilibrium at which the attractive and repulsive forces acting between the atoms are in balance. Furthermore, it is now clear that the gravitational force, if it follows the same mathematical pattern as at greater distances, is far too small to account for the observed cohesion in the solid structure. At this level, then, existing gravitational theory contributes nothing toward an explanation of the observed situation.[23]

In Part Two The Answer, in the same treatise, it is rather thrilling to trace how Larson developed coherent, unambiguous replies in clear language to these conundrums that have baffled scientists for the past three centuries.

In Part Three of this work [Larson wrote] an entirely new theory of gravitation which meets all of the requirements of a complete and comprehensive first order explanation of the gravitational phenomenon outlined in Part One will be developed from some new assumptions as to the basic nature of space and time. These assumptions, however, not only require a rather drastic revision of present-day ideas concerning space-time itself, but also lead to major changes in the theoretical background of almost all branches of physical science. There will, of course, be considerable reluctance to accept any such sweeping revision of current thought, and since the most essential features of the new gravitational theory can be developed from two less general postulates that do not necessarily conflict with the existing theoretical structure of science outside of the gravitational area, it appears advisable to approach the subject from this direction first, leaving the underlying theory for subsequent treatment in Part Three.[24]

I am not going to attempt here to describe in detail Larson's Reciprocal System; but I should mention that his fundamental assumptions, from which is woven the entire fabric of his Reciprocal System of theory, are as follows:

First Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.

Second Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.[25]


2.3 The Luminance of the Sun

An example of a reciprocal relationship is that between the numbers 2, and ½. Each is the reciprocal of the other. Then if, as Larson postulates, the universe is composed entirely of motion, which consists of the two reciprocal components of space, and time, their relationship is the same as that between 2, and ½. This deceptively simple postulate, if it is true of "the real universe" in which we live, is the parent of many consequences: which may either be confirmed or denied by means of comparisons with experiments and observations conducted within "the real universe," to the extent that it is accessible to us.

We may readily confirm, for example, that in our three-dimensional universe, motion consists of space, and time; and conversely that without motion, neither space nor time exist. Motion is expressed in terms of space divided by time, s/t, as in "miles per hour:" such as "60 miles per hour," or "a mile a minute," or "1 mile per ¹/₆₀ hour." The most salient feature of space is that it is three-dimensional; and the most salient feature of time is that it progresses: from past, to present, to future. If the relationship between space and time is reciprocal, then it follows that space must also progress; and that time must also be three-dimensional.

If as mentioned above — which follows directly from Larson's First Fundamental Postulate — scalar motion is essential to the nature of the universe, and the scalar direction of the universe is outward; then this explains far more comprehensively and tidily than the ad hoc fabrication of the "Big Bang" why we observe the universe to be expanding.

These observations provide only the most preliminary glimpses into what Larson was talking about when he wrote, as quoted above, that his fundamental assumptions "not only require a rather drastic revision of present-day ideas concerning space-time itself, but also lead to major changes in the theoretical background of almost all branches of physical science."

One such change in the theoretical background of current conventional understanding is the direction of stellar evolution assumed by most contemporary cosmologists and astronomers: as indicated by the commentary, quoted in footnote 21, associated with the illustration above of the globular cluster M80. According to conventional contemporary theory, the globular clusters are among the oldest objects visible in the "known universe;" and accordingly, they are composed of the oldest stars, such as "the bright red giants, which are stars similar to the Sun in mass that are nearing the ends of their lives." The hot blue giants are seen as the youngest stars, freshly condensed from interstellar dust and gas, and just beginning their long evolutionary journey through time and space.

In slightly more detail, a type O blue giant is believed to ignite as a star when it has gathered enough mass from gravitationally attracted interstellar debris to sustain a thermonuclear reaction in its core. Such reactions involve the nuclear fusion of hydrogen, producing helium, the element immediately above hydrogen on the Periodic Table[26] — and an enormous flux of energy. As the process continues, the hot type O giant consolidates into a somewhat smaller, cooler type B star; which evolves in turn into a still smaller, more nearly white type A star; which eventually becomes a more compact, slightly yellowish type F star. The next stage of stellar evolution is believed to produce a more compact yellow type G star, of which our Sun is an example; followed, as the hydrogen fueling the helium fusion reaction becomes increasingly scarce, by a process of cooling and bloating: first into a type K orange giant, and eventually into an aged type M red supergiant near the end of its stellar life. This evolutionary path thus implies the gradual loss of mass during the evolutionary life of a star. Somewhere along my evolutionary path, I have learned that one way astronomers are able to keep this sequence of evolutionary events straight is by remembering the plea, "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me!"

If the Reciprocal System is valid, however, the sequence of stellar evolution runs in exactly the opposite direction from that of accepted theory. The globular clusters are the youngest, not the oldest stellar agglomerations, freshly formed from vast clouds of interstellar dust and gas, and richly populated by type M red supergiants in the early stages of gravitational consolidation into more compact, warmer type K orange giants. Further consolidation, combined with the gravitational accretion of additional interstellar matter, produces the smaller, hotter type G yellow stars, such as our Sun; which, sweeping up additional mass, become the larger, hotter, brighter type F stars; then the hotter, still larger, brighter, more massive type A stars. Gravitational attraction is the single process driving this evolutionary progression, pulling in all interstellar matter that comes under the expanding influence of the growing mass of the evolving star. As the process continues, type A stars become more massive, bluer, hotter type B giants, and eventually the hottest, bluest, oldest, most massive type O giants. This evolutionary sequence, involving the gravitational accumulation of mass throughout a star's evolutionary life, might be kept in mind with the aid of a statement such as, "Most Kind Gentlemen Find Abundant Beneficial Opportunities."

The idea that contemporary scientists may have gotten the sequence of stellar evolution exactly backwards is not as far-fetched as one might reflexively imagine. Stellar evolution, unlike the growth of a tree, is not something that can be observed directly. Betelgeuse and the Pleiades were known (possibly by different names) to the builders of the Pyramids; yet any changes those stars may have experienced meanwhile, including the firmament giving them context, would not have been noticed by the keenest, longest-lived human observer from those times, should any such remain alive today. Cosmic evolution (is believed) to occupy hundreds, or even thousands of millions of Earth-years; and humans have not resided on this planet long enough to have recorded more than a single freeze-frame from an immense journey through space-time. We can observe stars and galaxies in evidently different stages of vast evolutionary processes; but we cannot observe directly how they got that way, or how they are changing. The paths of the stars through time are like the tracks of a roadrunner in the sand, which has two toes pointing forward, and two toes pointing back. Where they came from, and where they are going, is not easily guessed, and must be surmised on the basis of assumptions — which always have the potential of being simply wrong guesses.

The main assumption upon which conventional theories of stellar evolution rest is the (assumed) mechanism that ignites a gravitationally accumulated massive body into an object radiating the vast energy flux that identifies it as a star. Contemporary physicists believe this mechanism is a thermonuclear fusion reaction that consumes hydrogen, and produces helium — and an enormous flux of energy. If this is a possibility, it is not the only possibility; and it occurs within the interior of the massive body, where pressures and temperatures are the most extreme, and the least observable. Even the core of our own planet, 3,960 miles (6,370 km) beneath our feet, is not accessible to our observation, is richly mysterious, and at best is only fragmentarily understood — or may not be understood at all. This applies as well to our understanding of the core of our Sun, the only star near enough to us for detailed surface examination.

In 1963 Larson published a scathing critique of current atomic theory, and its further development in quantum theory:[27] a highly recommended read, especially for those who complacently believe that modern science has got everything about figured out now, with the possible exception of a few minor details. As mentioned above, this view of things has prevailed many times in the past, but has consistently failed to fulfill its promise — with the repeated benefit that human understanding has many times made unanticipated advances beyond what "everybody knew" to be "true." There does not seem to be a strong indication that this pattern has made its final iteration in our time — unless Earth-humanity have now reached our final iteration.

Larson discussed the importance of extrapolation in the process of extending understanding beyond the domain of what is "known," into the domain of the "unknown." This unavoidably involves making one or more assumptions about conditions in the "unknown" domain; and because the domain is "unknown," such speculative assumptions could be anything imaginable.

Since we are dealing with the unknown, [Larson wrote] anything is possible, theoretically, and there is practically no limitation on the assumptions that we could make, but it is clear that here, as is almost always true, there is one possible assumption that is so far superior to all others, so much more likely to represent the true facts, that we are never justified in considering any other possibility until after we have given this one a thorough examination. This greatly superior hypothesis is, of course, the assumption that the same pattern which we find in the known region also prevails in the unknown region; that is, it is an extrapolation from the known to the unknown.[28]

Such extrapolations, if made with care, extended in small, incremental steps, and verified wherever possible by experiment, observation, and analysis, can with a fair degree of confidence gradually expand the domain of the "known" into domains of the previously "unknown." Because one is dealing with the "unknown," however, the possibility always exists that conditions there could diverge unexpectedly from the familiar patterns that prevail in the "known" region, thereby invalidating the assumptions being made about them. In dealing with the "unknown," caution is always advised, and assumptions should never be summarily confused with facts.

However, Larson's most damning criticism of scientific practice was that assumptions are repeatedly and often confused with facts; are not advanced in cautious, incremental steps, but leap in giant strides to unjustified conclusions; and over the course of time become immovably entrenched within the canon of "scientific orthodoxy," where they are jealously defended against the ventures of more advanced understanding.

If the extrapolation is very short, [Larson wrote] the results which are obtained can usually qualify as facts under the very liberal definition of scientific proof which has been adopted for purposes of this discussion. But many of the extrapolations now being made are far from short. As Bridgman puts it, some of them are "perfectly hair-raising." A good example is the almost universal belief that we now "know" the nature of the processes which furnish the energy supply for the stars. Even in a day when "hair-raising" extrapolations are somewhat commonplace, this one sets some kind of a record. In view of the gigantic extrapolation that is required to pass from the relatively insignificant temperatures and pressures obtainable on earth to the immensely greater magnitudes which we believe (also through extrapolation) exist in the stellar interiors, even the thought that the answers might be correct calls for the exercise of no small degree of faith in the validity of our processes; any contention that the extrapolated results constitute actual knowledge is simply preposterous.[29]

On the basis of the postulate that the single component of which the universe is composed is motion, Larson developed an atomic theory that differs radically from conventional atomic theories based upon combinations of sub-atomic particles; and is based instead upon motions at the atomic scale. Larson's atomic theory is beyond the scope of this discussion, but we may glimpse some of its motions with the aid of a couple of drawings.[30]

Sine Wave
Sine Wave

Rotating Sine Wave
Rotating Sine Wave

Any oscillatory, or vibratory motion, such as a plucked harp string, may be represented graphically as a sine wave. The vibration in the image occurs between limits of amplitude along the vertical axis, and progresses through time along the horizontal axis, leaving a trace of one cycle. A single photon, for instance, or a quantum of light, vibrates at a particular frequency; and according to Larson, having no means of locomotion itself, is carried along by the scalar motion of space-time in an outward direction from its point of origin, at what he called "unit velocity," or the velocity of light.

In addition to the space-time scalar motion outward, or a gravitational scalar motion inward, a vibrating entity may also have a rotational motion, in which the axis of vibration, instead of remaining constantly vertical, rotates about its center — leaving a trace similar that of a rotating sine wave: which in this case traces a vibration of 12 cycles in the course of a single rotation of 360°.

Additionally, a more complex vibrating entity, such as an atom, may have another vibration in a different dimension, such as in a plane perpendicular to that pictured in the illustration of a Rotating Sine Wave; and the atom may be rotating as well in a third dimension perpendicular to both of the other two intersecting planes.[31]

Larson's Reciprocal System describes how everything from individual photons to groups of neighboring galaxies, including every particular element listed in the Periodic Table — without resort to impossible, ad hoc theoretical structures[32] — is composed of richly variable combinations of motions, each one of which consists, as postulated, only of reciprocal relationships between space and time. It is an astonishing proliferation of an exquisite, endlessly filigreed, fractal "space-time-scape," spawned from two fundamental assumptions of seemingly bedrock simplicity. Yet according to Larson, the Reciprocal System is in agreement with — or at worst, is not contradicted by — any detail of "the real universe" in which we live, in any domain where human experiments or observations have been conducted. It only challenges prevailing theories about the nature of "the real universe;" and it does this in abandoned profusion, in virtually every domain of theoretical physics. But then, that is what a new and more penetrating insight, validated at innumerable points by agreement with observation, is supposed to do. Is it not?

Although the central core of massive bodies, such as Earth, and the Sun, is exactly the part of them that is not available for direct human observation or analysis, yet we may reasonably surmise that conditions in stellar and planetary cores are fundamentally unlike the conditions that prevail, for instance, at sea level on planet Earth. Pressures, temperatures, and energy levels in planetary and stellar cores are entirely off the charts of terrestrial conditions; or even, in the case of stars, at the visible surface of the Sun. As quoted above, "any contention that the extrapolated results constitute actual knowledge [of these extreme regions] is simply preposterous." Yet the extrapolated surmise of conditions in stellar cores is the basis for the belief that the source of energy for stellar ignition is a nuclear fusion reaction that produces helium from hydrogen — which is in turn the basis for the prevailing belief about the direction of Cosmic evolution.

The Reciprocal System predicts instead that the energy igniting the stars is produced by fission reactions involving heavy elements swept up gravitationally from the interstellar dust of varying density through which stellar systems pass in their galactic journeys; and that the extreme conditions in stellar cores, constantly growing more extreme under the perpetual accretion of interstellar matter, involve progressively lighter elements in these fission reactions.[33, 34]

Moreover, as noted earlier, contrary to "orthodox belief," the speed of light is not a "speed limit" in the Reciprocal Universe — or in the "real universe" in which we find ourselves. Stellar, and possibly planetary cores, develop pressures, temperatures, and energy levels capable of propelling matter to transluminary velocities — which opens another host of implications that follow directly from Larson's fundamental assumptions.

Not surprisingly, matter propelled to transluminary velocities does not behave like matter at subluminary velocities. In fact, the Reciprocal System predicts that such matter exits the space-time sector of the Reciprocal Universe, or the material sector: and enters its reciprocal, the time-space, or the cosmic sector — in which the reciprocal of the relationship between space and time in the material sector prevails. That is, within the cosmic sector, time occupies the function of space within the material sector; and space within the cosmic sector occupies the function of time within the material sector.

Now here is where Larson's Reciprocal System gets really interesting; and if you wish to explore it further, in addition to reading everything Dewey Larson ever wrote, I suggest you also glance over a couple of more recent papers by K.V.K. Nehru, [35, 36] as well as the paper by Peret cited in footnote 34.

So what does any of this have to do with The Luminance of the Sun, the title of this Subsection? Quite a lot, really. If it is so that the direction of Cosmic evolution is not in the progression, "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me!" but is rather in the opposite direction, indicated by "Most Kind Gentlemen Find Abundant Beneficial Opportunities," then the Sun is not in the advanced process of exhausting its hydrogen fuel for the H → He fusion reaction conventionally believed to be the source of stellar energy.

Instead, like all massive bodies in the material sector (including Earth), our Sun is in the midst of the perpetual process of gravitationally sweeping up interstellar matter that falls within its gravitational influence, and is consequently growing in mass, size, and luminance — now at the stage of graduating from the status of a type G yellow star, toward that of a type F brighter, more massive, hotter star.

If so, this naturally has implications for the conditions experienced by living beings on the surface of planet Earth: in particular, the climate changes that have been gaining increasing attention among Earth-humans during recent years. More generally, these observations throw into high relief the uncertainty and the plasticity of the context in which the human understanding occurs of "how we think things really are." Actually, the context probably does not change significantly. However, our understanding of that context is subject from time to time to radical change — and corresponding resistance to change, on behalf of firmly entrenched prior beliefs.


3 A Paradigm Shift

It may not be out of place to suggest that Larson's Reciprocal System of theory may eventually be recognized as no less an advance upon the theories of Newton, Einstein, the Copenhagen quantum theorists, and even Hugh Everett III, than were the disclosures of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton upon the geocentric Ptolemaic system of cycles and epicycles that preceded and coincided with Copernicus. The Reciprocal System too has been about as graciously received in our time as were the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo in theirs.

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy;" and as long as human curiosity remains sharp, there will be nosy parkers about, like Copernicus, and Larson, poking into the details of settled orthodoxy, and upsetting exquisitely unbalanced and delicately unhinged structures of imaginary design that cannot withstand a gust of penetrating insight.

The "scientific method," as advertised, is supposed to welcome such refreshing gusts of mountain air: as opportunities for advancing beyond the frontiers of prior human understanding. What is supposed to happen, however, in science, or in any human endeavor, at least in the short term, depends to a large extent upon those who do the supposing.

Still, genuine insight into "how things are" has a way, like it or not, of sticking to the wall, and eventually replacing even the most thoroughly entrenched and longstanding misconceptions. This is so, simply because it works better; and those things that work better inexorably replace, sooner or later, those things, whether ideas, systems, designs, or anything else, that do not work as well; no matter how tenaciously the latter may be defended. This seems to be how the universe is hung together: effecting the gradual attrition and replacement of things that don't work very well, by things that work better. Larson's way of looking at "how things are" seems to work better than its predecessors: as the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton worked better than the Ptolemaic epicycles. Similarly, although not widely known today, Larson's Reciprocal Universe may eventually provide a "place to stand" for the next phase of human exploration in Cosmos.

Perhaps the most appealing quality displayed by the Reciprocal System of theory is the way in which its implications seem to fit so snugly together, each one confirming and reinforcing the foundations of others — as opposed to the frequent practice within "scientific orthodoxy" of advancing "solutions" in highly specialized domains that do not fit very well with "solutions" developed in other specialized domains. The Reciprocal System, as Larson has repeatedly emphasized, is not an isolated theory in a specialized domain. It is a comprehensively integrated system of theory applicable to all domains. This seems to be essential for gaining deep understanding of anything: because although specialists focus with penetrating insight upon narrow fields of interest, the "real universe" is an interrelated and integrated whole in which every thing is related to everything "else." The whole cannot be understood only by understanding the parts; and the parts cannot be fully understood without a comprehensive understanding of the whole. This is the direction in which the Reciprocal System seems to be pointing.

The Reciprocal System corroborates the evidence for an expanding Earth discussed above in § 2.1; supplies a source for the additional mass necessary for such expansion; and obviates the need for geological processes in the interest of maintaining the plausibility of a constant mass and size for planet Earth. As a bonus, the conspicuous absence today of land animals the size of the largest Mesozoic dinosaurs adds a positive sidelight to the theory of Expansion Tectonics. Evidence for an expanding Earth in turn corroborates the parallel process of material accretion by the stars, propelling their evolution as well in the direction of increasing, rather than diminishing mass.

The scalar progression of the material sector outward, which follows from the reciprocal relation between time and space, requiring the progression of both, makes considerably better sense (to me) than the ad hoc "Big Bang" — which seems to be seriously compromised by the necessity of having had to occur at some specific space-time intersection. That is, if there ever was such a conflagration as a "Big Bang," it must have occurred somewhere, in preference to all other places; at some time, in preference to all other times. Some locations in the material universe must therefore be nearer than others to that space-time event: and should display differences accordingly.

The expansion of a debris field in the aftermath of an explosion is vectored motion, propelled by the explosion — which is clearly distinguishable from scalar motion outward, without a vectored direction, and without an epicenter, or a "ground zero." If there was a "Big Bang," it should be possible to locate with measurable accuracy its space-time epicenter. Or at least there should be, within the part of the universe accessible to human observation, anisotropic evidence of some kind indicating the direction of the space-time epicenter of the "Big Bang," wherever, whenever it may have occurred.

For example: a violent explosion in a forest with no witnesses may easily be located later by such evidence as scorching on the sides of trees facing the explosion. In the presence of the Reciprocal System, and absent analogous indicators in the observable universe, there may remain no credible evidence for a "Big Bang" — which may now serve only as a no longer needed ad hoc explanation for Cosmic expansion.

Mentioned only briefly above, the reciprocal relationship between the material sector and the cosmic sector of the Reciprocal Universe provides a means whereby the Reciprocal Universe is perpetually able to replenish itself, as the reciprocal evolutionary processes in each sector feed those in the other. This is truly an elegant conception; and it renders moot the issue of "the birth of the universe" addressed by the "Big Bang;" and the corresponding "end of the universe" anticipated eventually by many. In the Reciprocal Universe that follows from Larson's fundamental assumptions, neither "beginning" nor "end" seem to be necessary. It appears that conditions in the imaginary Reciprocal Universe that follow from Larson's assumptions correspond one-to-one — to the extent that it has been possible to make observational and experimental comparisons between the two — with conditions in the "real universe" in which we actually live.

However, although there may be many reasons why adoption of Larson's Reciprocal Universe as a conceptual model for the "real universe" might be quite appealing, and might imaginably lead to a significant acceleration of human understanding of "how things really are;" by itself, it may not be sufficient to "pull our bacon out of the fire," as circumstances stand at present among Earth-humans.

If the "real universe" in which we actually live is in fact populated by massive bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies, that accumulate mass and energy during their evolutionary lives, then as indicated for instance by the magnetic striping discovered to be marking all of Earth's seabeds, Earth-humans may be in for a bit of "heavy weather," sooner or later, in our not necessarily distant future.

The magnetic map of Earth's seabeds indicates a relatively "frequent" cycle of polarity reversals of Earth's magnetic field over an extensive span of geological time. However, we "Jimmy-come-latelies" have not had a long enough presence on this planet — at least during the period in which rigorous historical records have been kept — to have recorded what such magnetic polarity reversals are actually like "on the ground." Nevertheless, as discussed earlier:

There exist among the recorded memories of human cultures around the world numerous accounts of cataclysmic events so bizarre and out of proportion with normally witnessed phenomena that they have often been summarily dismissed by contemporary scholars as fabrications of primitive and superstitious imaginations. Yet corroboration may be found among such accounts in the traditions of peoples widely dispersed around the planet; and further corroboration emerges from close examination of geological evidence.

Correlations between periodic magnetic polarity reversals and "accounts of cataclysmic events so bizarre and out of proportion with normally witnessed phenomena . . ." without sufficient corroborative evidence may be too long a stride, in extrapolating the "known" into the "unknown." However, the coincidence is suggestive, and its implications might be fleshed out — or negated — by means of further deliberate research.

These are not trivial speculations, borne of idle curiosity. As dramatized in my recent short fictional sketch, Suicide Note,[37] contemporary humanity seem to have placed ourselves quite disadvantageously for withstanding "bizarre cataclysmic events" that might imaginably emerge locally out of our world's Cosmic context. This peril is developed factually at greater length in The Writing on the Wall #5 § 4 The End;[38] and in The Writing on the Wall #8 § 3.[39] Yet these gloomy forecasts of things possibly to come are not inevitabilities; and "we're not dead yet." However, they do seem to be significantly more than idle fancies, and like it or not, they have a part in the context within which each of us now lives.

On the other hand, if each of us lives in effect within an invisible sphere upon which we project a seamless "virtual reality" created almost entirely in our imaginations; and if this imaginary "virtual reality" is as close as any of us ever get to the "real reality" in which we imagine we are enclosed, then it is incumbent upon each of us to decided for ourselves what part, if any, such matters have in our lives; and what, if anything, we should "do about it." It remains so that humans ever and always believe an astonishing variety of things to be "true," and live our lives accordingly, even though a great many of these beliefs mutually and irreconcilably contradict one another. Conducting our lives in such a vast and fluid context is, shall we say, fraught with interest. Is it not?

I would like to conclude with a parting thought; which may or may not appear entirely sensible. If the context in which each of us finds ourselves — "All That Is" — may be symbolically represented as ∞, or "infinity;" and if the "real universe" in which we live and breathe may reliably be modeled by Larson's Reciprocal Universe: then each our individual relationship with "All That" is also one of reciprocity; and may be represented symbolically as ⅟∞. Now ⅟∞ may not appear to be a very significant fraction — but it is greater than zero, and that's something. It may reasonably be evaluated as "better than nothing."

However, the Reciprocal Universe does not consist only of the material sector, but also of its reciprocal, the cosmic sector. Without both, neither could exist; and this applies as well to the relationship between ∞ and ⅟∞. As is written elsewhere:

Every Blossom, every Bee,
Every Leaf on every Tree,
Every Snowflake, every Drop in every Sea,
Every Atom, every Planet, Star, and Galaxy
Is a Part, and has a Place
In the Whole that forms the Face
Of Living, Loving Divinity.[40]



2. Particularly, in Grahn, The Writing on the Wall #3 § 3 "Virtual Reality"; The Writing on the Wall #5 § 6 Speculations,; and in The Writing on the Wall #6 § 2 "Virtual Reality" Revisited

3. William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto, 1983.

4. Ibid., p. 856.

5. Immanuel Velikovsky, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

6. See Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1955, for voluminous elaboration.

7. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v.

8. Grahn, The Writing on the Wall #1: "Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong, Everything is Out of Control!", 2010, 2011, pp. 6-7.

9. James Maxlow, EXPANSION TECTONICS: An Overview.

10. Ibid., p. 3.

11. Maxlow, loc. cit.

12. Maxlow, loc. cit.

13. For example, as represented in Maxlow, ibid., Fig. 2, p. 6; and at


15. A Review by Henry A. Hoff.

16. Dewey B. Larson, The Neglected Facts of Science.

17. Ibid., Preface, 1982.

18. Ibid., Chapter 4 Speed Limits.

19. Larson, New Light on Space and Time, Preface, April 1965.

20. Larson, Beyond Newton: An Explanation of Gravitation, North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 1964.

21. In fact, aside from Larson's Reciprocal System, there is no existing theory that can account for the presence of globular clusters anywhere in the observable universe; yet globular clusters may well be the most numerous class of objects populating intergalactic space everywhere.

Pictured is M80, accompanied by the following text:

English: This stellar swarm is M80 (NGC 6093), one of the densest of the 147 known globular star clusters in the Milky Way galaxy. Located about 28,000 light-years from Earth, M80 contains hundreds of thousands of stars, all held together by their mutual gravitational attraction. Globular clusters are particularly useful for studying stellar evolution, since all of the stars in the cluster have the same age (about 15 billion years), but cover a range of stellar masses. Every star visible in this image is either more highly evolved than, or in a few rare cases more massive than, our own Sun. Especially obvious are the bright red giants, which are stars similar to the Sun in mass that are nearing the ends of their lives.

Date: 1 July 1999

Permission: This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA and ESA. NASA Hubble material (and ESA Hubble material prior to 2009) is copyright-free and may be freely used as in the public domain without fee, on the condition that only NASA, STScI, and/or ESA is credited as the source of the material. This license does not apply if ESA material created after 2008 or source material from other organizations is in use.

The material was created for NASA by Space Telescope Science Institute under Contract NAS5-26555, or for ESA by the Hubble European Space Agency Information Centre.

22. Larson, 1964, Part One The Problem, V.

23. Larson, loc. cit.

24. Ibid., Part Two The Answer, VI.

25. Larson, Nothing but Motion: Volume I of a revised and enlarged edition of The Structure of the Physical Universe, North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 1959, 1965, 1979, p. 30. But Motion (Larson, Dewey).pdf


27. Larson, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, North Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon 97213, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-22268, Second Printing, October, 1963.

28. Ibid., Chapter X Facts and Fancies, II.

29. Larson, loc. cit.

30. Drawings by the author.

31. For a detailed discussion, see Larson, Nothing but Motion, 1959, Chapter 10 Atoms, p. 127 ff. But Motion (Larson, Dewey).pdf

32. "Impossible," because a) without an ad hoc "nuclear force" to bind them together, the protons in the nucleus of a conventional atom would violently repel each other; b) neutrons, with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes, are unstable everywhere except (again, ad hoc) within the atomic nucleus; and c) the electrons available for experimental analysis have properties different from those attributed ad hoc to the electrons said to be constituents of atoms. See Larson, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom for elaboration.

33. Larson, The Universe of Motion: Volume III of a revised and enlarged edition of The Structure of the Physical Universe, North Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon 97213 © 1959, 1971, 1984, Ch. 4 The Giant Star Cycle. of Motion (Larson, Dewey B).pdf

34. Bruce Peret, At The Earth's Core: The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution, 1998, 18 pp., 309.6 kB. the Earth's Core--The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution (Peret, Bruce).pdf

35. K.V.K. Nehru, Ph.D., High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System, 9 pp., 355.3 kB. Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System (KVK, Nehru).pdf

36. K.V.K. Nehru, Ph.D., 'Non-Locality' in the Reciprocal System.

37. Grahn, Suicide Note, December 19, 2012.

38. Grahn, The Writing on the Wall #5: "Don't Take Any Wooden Nickels" § 4 The End.

39. Grahn, The Writing on the Wall #8: "The Emergence of 'Post-Civilization'" § 3 A "Post-Civilization" Founded Upon Love.

40. Grahn, The Writing on the Wall #5, 6/1/12, p. 23.

Return to Authors