1. Introduction

The first of the two Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is:

“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.”¹

The primary implication of the Postulate is that the properties of either space or time are the properties of both space and time, except that space and time are reciprocally related as motion. This means, inter alia, that space is a progression like time is, and that time is three-dimensional. While the space progression is observable as the recession of distance galaxies, the three-dimensionality of time is not so directly apparent.

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.

Recent advances in techniques and equipment for x-ray observation of astronomical objects have resulted in the accumulation of enough information to enable checking the general nature of the observational results against the theoretical picture derived from development of the consequences of the postulates of the Reciprocal System of physical theory, the RS theory, we will call it for convenience. X-rays can, of course, be produced in relatively small quantities by a number of different processes, but the RS theoretical development indicates that the source of the very strong radiation in this frequency range that is generated in astronomical objects is radioactivity from matter which has reverted to speeds below unity (the speed of light) after having remained at a higher speed long enough to attain isotopic stability at the ultra-high speed.

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

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.