RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3380Goal: $3500

Talk:Reciprocal Theory

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Just worth pointing out that this is serious, and apparently ongoing, crankery with little to no coverage elsewhere. Shit, this might require... legwork! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 09:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article fails to mention Dr. Ronald W. Satz's three recent works: 1) The Reciprocal System: Microcosmos Database, 2) The Reciprocal System: Macrocosmos Database, and 3) Existents and Interactions: A Computational Treatise of the Reciprocal System--The True Theory of Everything. These three works embody and contain thousands of equations and thousands of comparisons of the theory with the empirical and observational facts. The Reciprocal System is now verified science.— Unsigned, by: 72.94.235.3 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

to the individual who called Dewey Larson a crank[edit]

You might want to state your case as less of an ad hoc judgement.

Dewey's major observation was that even major players in the creation of the current Standard Model (such as Dirac and Feynman) were skeptical of the admitted speculation and "inventions of the human mind" (Einstein's words) involved with reconciling both high-speed physics and modern astronomical observations with 3000 year-old Western materialism.

His conflation of modern thought with ancient spiritism/deity-worship is a product of careful observation in his work (engineering) as well as understanding the need for a more fundamental constituent of the universe than ever multiplying subdivisions of matter.

"DBL: I was trying to do exactly what the constructors of equations of state are doing. I was trying to find mathematical equations in which numbers could be assigned to these different substances, exactly as the rest of them were doing. The only thing is that I came down to the point where I recognized finally that that wasn't going to get me what I wanted, because ultimately I am going back to a number that is arbitrary, or a series of numbers that are arbitrary. So I finally decided what I had to do was to get something that is meaningful to start with and work the other way"

-1984 interview

— Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs 04:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, you can read this and tell me with a straight face that he doesn't fit nearly every definition of crank going? Although I'm sure he's a well-intentioned one, he seems to have little interest in generating hypotheses that actually have predictions and falsifiable parameters - no matter how much he insists in his extensive text that they do. They're nice thought-experiments, so I agree with Asimov's review of CANA to a point, but let's face it, what he said is no different to me saying "magic pixies did it". Scarlet A.pngd hominem 08:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of incredulously wondering how someone can draw different conclusions than you[edit]

I welcome you to share with me your line of reasoning from which you conclude that he is a so-called 'crank'. In other words, despite your graciously providing the link, I have as of yet no proof as to whether you have actually read the text to which it points, pardon me for saying so. :)

Incidentally, you and Dewey Larson both compare unsatisfactory theories with spiritism. You might wish to read the first chapter of his landmark "Nothing But Motion", or the 1984 Salt Lake City interview to get a better idea of his line of reason which led to his 64000 dollar question: can we build a completely theoretical model which can anticipate modern discoveries as they are observed and published?

I have no problem with a refutation, should you provide this wiki with an actual one, instead of unsubstantiated opinion.

As for Dewey himself, he seems to have a record throughout his work of recognizing and appreciating the lines of reasoning of the vanguards of modern physics. I believe his only concern was that the premise that matter/energy is the most fundamental constituent of the universe has led to certain problems in modern physics (which have only been resolved by going back to the drawing board and postulating that motion itself, and not deeper subdivisions of matter, act as the basic building block).

Because neither Larson himself, nor the wiki, nor myself have made the same absolute statement in regards to his (admittedly non-empirical [nothing more? nothing less!]) motion-based universe, I believe the onus is upon you, my friend, to state your case more diligently.

As for your conjecture that his theory fails to predict modern astronomical phenomena, once again, I say that the ball is indeed in your court.

peace — Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs

Sample refutation[edit]

This gentleman has presented a somewhat more compelling argument, I read it with great interest...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-07/933199433.As.r.html — Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs

Not really, he just says "Yep, Larson's a crackpot" and recognizes him as unmeaningful to the labor of science. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

the reference (which I had lifted from the main page) is merely an example of two instances where prediction seems to not line up with the empirical. Larson himself would probably either come up with a logical line of reasoning to account for the discrepancy, or even quite cheerfully throw out a few pages/years of work in order to incorporate the new evidence into his model. I considered the argument more compelling in that it actually stated cases as opposed to resorting to mere ad-hominem. Rebinator (talk) 3:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)rebinator


You might want to state your case as less of an ad hoc judgement.

Dewey's major observation was that even major players in the creation of the current Standard Model (such as Dirac and Feynman) were skeptical of the admitted speculation and "inventions of the human mind" (Einstein's words) involved with reconciling both high-speed physics and modern astronomical observations with 3000 year-old Western materialism.

His conflation of modern thought with ancient spiritism/deity-worship is a product of careful observation in his work (engineering) as well as understanding the need for a more fundamental constituent of the universe than ever multiplying subdivisions of matter.

"DBL: I was trying to do exactly what the constructors of equations of state are doing. I was trying to find mathematical equations in which numbers could be assigned to these different substances, exactly as the rest of them were doing. The only thing is that I came down to the point where I recognized finally that that wasn't going to get me what I wanted, because ultimately I am going back to a number that is arbitrary, or a series of numbers that are arbitrary. So I finally decided what I had to do was to get something that is meaningful to start with and work the other way"

-1984 interview

— Unsigned, by: Rebinator / talk / contribs 04:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, you can read this and tell me with a straight face that he doesn't fit nearly every definition of crank going? Although I'm sure he's a well-intentioned one, he seems to have little interest in generating hypotheses that actually have predictions and falsifiable parameters - no matter how much he insists in his extensive text that they do. They're nice thought-experiments, so I agree with Asimov's review of CANA to a point, but let's face it, what he said is no different to me saying "magic pixies did it". Scarlet A.pngd hominem 08:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of incredulously wondering how someone can draw different conclusions than you (pt 2)[edit]

(reposted after Rebinator first tried post-editing his comment of three days ago to look less silly)

I welcome you to share with me your line of reasoning from which you conclude that he is a so-called 'crank'. Far from being a person who dismisses evidence, his respect for evidence seems to have led to his theorizing. Impervious to facts? Immune to debate? In interview, Larson seems to have been the most willing to discard work which fails to predict (or otherwise shows a logical flaw).

Incidentally, you and Dewey Larson both compare unsatisfactory theories with spiritism. You might wish to read the first chapter of his landmark "Nothing But Motion", or the 1984 Salt Lake City interview to get a better idea of his line of reason which led to his 64000 dollar question: can we build a completely theoretical model which can anticipate modern discoveries as they are observed and published? Don't worry, you won't lose your mind, but you will get a chance to evaluate for yourself his base case. :) You might find yourself in agreement with his reasons for creating his model.

As for Dewey himself, he seems to have a record throughout his work of recognizing and appreciating the lines of reasoning of the vanguards of modern physics. I believe his only concern was that the premise that matter/energy is the most fundamental constituent of the universe has led to certain problems in modern physics (which have only been resolved by going back to the drawing board and postulating that motion itself, and not deeper subdivisions of matter, act as the basic building block). The so-called Standard Model, with increasingly complex mathematics, and a set of sub-atomic entities along with convenient adhoc assumptions to rival in population any prehistoric Greek Pantheon, can be criticized with as much logic and vigor as the Larsonian one.

As far as his perceived phobia of said mathematics, the case could be made that perhaps by eliminating unnecessary assumptions and going back to a very basic set of axioms, the toolbox has been kept to a minimum. Ostensibly elegant.

As for your conjecture that his theory fails to predict modern astronomical phenomena, once again, I say that the ball is indeed in your court. The MadSci reference certainly catches two instances (in all fairness, it should be noted that Larson's predictions are not 100 percent accurate), but such shortfalls can be observed in the current model as well.

Larson's completely hypothetical universe should be no crankier to a physicist than Tolkien's Ea should be to a historian.

peace Rebinator (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Rebinator

Larson acknowledges his Universe is work of pure mental exercise[edit]

The problem most physicists have with Larson is mistaking it for a hybrid theory/empirical model of the Universe. Larson himself has gone on record that his Universe is an act of pure imagination; one which merely happens to predict a substantial majority of physical constants and deep space phenomena from first principles. Non-empirical? Nothing more, nothing less!

Like I said earlier somewhat differently, the reason his model is not studied is because it requires no funding; no resources, no more powerful hadron colliders to detect particles. I would be the first to agree that it is a work of fiction. However, to accuse him of making up phenomena/entities to suit observation is a criticism that would be far better applied to actual physicicist, whose champions such as Einstein, Dirac, and Feynmann have gone on record to acknowledge the fudge-factors necessary in their line of work.

The intriguing thing about Larson's work is that it is a purely logical construct, based upon the premise that combinations of motion (ie space and time) are adequate enough to predict physical phenomena. While a genuine crank might insist that he alone has discovered the secret (ie, 'Einstein is f****d in the head'), there is no attempt to gainsay the value of the work done by the giants; only an awareness of the potential fallacy in trying to mesh thousands of years of monist materialism with what we now know about the cosmos, especially on the incredibly large/small scale. In short, like I said earlier Larson's universe is not ours anymore than (here I go again) Tolkien's map of Middle Earth is that of Europe.

There is no need, implied by Larson, to throw out the work done by mainstream science, only an awareness on his part that if the premises are false, eventually observations will come to light requiring reexamination of same.

I suggest that critics retain their skepticism, while yet reading the introductions to his 'Structure of the Physical Universe' and 'Nothing But Motion'. Rebinator (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)rebinator

as for the multiple posts[edit]

There were 3 specific version of my response to the Larson gravitational reference: one in which I incorrectly surmised a complete lack of familiarity with the work, a second one (the one which I apparently used to 'make myself seem less silly') in which I acknowledged the references pointed out to me, and a third one, upon finding my revision continually replaced with the first edit.

I find this just as entertaining as you all do, I'm sure. :) To the one who got his guitar back, happy licking. Rebinator (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)rebinator

Sits on BUTT[edit]

Related to the article, Satz recently (end of 2011) showed up on BAUT (the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forums) and rather spectacularly failed at presenting and supporting Reciprocal Theory. In particular, Larson's assertion that the energy stored in capacitors is proportional to the voltage they are charged to. Innumeracy, illogic, and refusal to understand simple arguments or recognize the internal inconsistencies of Reciprocal Theory or the wild departures of its predictions from reality ensued.

The relevant thread: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/126254-Doubts-About-quot-Modern-Physics-quot

I did some actual measurements of capacitor charge/discharge curves toward the end...the sort of thing that Reciprocal Theory's supporters have supposedly been trying to get for years. The plot generated with mainstream electrical theory is almost lost behind the data, the curves predicted by Reciprocal theory are way off. — Unsigned, by: Cjameshuff / talk / contribs

Fun times. Remind me to write this up for the article when I have time and free mental capacity to deal with Larson's crankery again. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hope no one minds me copying this post here for reference:

While we're waiting for the end times, it's probably worth summarizing the plot so far, for future readers happening upon this thread. Transpower/Ronald Satz gave us a specific, easily tested prediction of RST. In short, RST (hereafter called "Wrong Theory") says that the time constant of a resistor-capacitor circuit depends on charging voltage. Conventional theory (hereafter referred to as "Correct Theory") says that the time constant is voltage-independent. RST's prediction was based on the erroneous solving of a non-existent energy conservation paradox stemming from Satz's ignorance of Correct Theory.

Cutting through the haze of word salad, cjameshuff ran a simple, dispositive experiment that falsified RST. He did in a few minutes what Transpower never bothered to do, what RST adherents never did in 30 years of working on Wrong Theory. The effort to carry out the experiment was certainly much, much less than Ronald Satz hiimself expended in writing the paper on capacitors that Papageno somewhat unkindly, but accurately, dismissed.

Simply put, RST is a failed theory. Satz introduced fundamental errors based on a misunderstanding of Correct Theory. Now scientists make mistakes all the time, but Satz absurdly never bothered to test the predictions of his Wrong Theory, despite having worked on RST for approximately three decades. He did not recognize that essentially the entirety of electronic devices would simply not function if he were correct. The able functioning of multiple billions of computers, cellphones, radios, televisions, clocks and the like show us that Satz and RST are not only wrong, but overwhelmingly so. Cjameshuff's experiment puts the exclamation point on that conclusion. Anyone with an open, critically thinking mind must come to the same conclusion.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic 23:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
RW does have an article on BAUT. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Satz made another response to the thread. Apparently, he finally did some actual measurements, and was astonished to find that capacitors actually do act like capacitors, with a time constant of RC, just as predicted by the equations that engineers have been successfully using for over a century to design circuits.
His theory clearly falsified by his own measurements, Satz then..."corrected his deductions", which apparently means deciding that Reciprocal Theory actually agrees with mainstream theory and measurements on the time constant. He's still claiming mainstream theory violates conservation of energy (it doesn't, while such violations have been demonstrated in Reciprocal Theory), that stored energy is linearly proportional to voltage (a claim thoroughly demolished in the previous thread, and the reason it violates conservation of energy), that capacitors somehow store neutral, massless electrons (and that charge is not conserved), and displaying a basic lack of understanding of units (claiming that CGS units are "closer to physical reality than SI"). Cjameshuff (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If you check the blog, he does that all the time. "Reciprocal system predicts X" - measurements are made - "Well, it turns out reciprocal system predicts X only in this case. I you can see from this bit that I've hastily added after the fact, reciprocal system agrees with mainstream theory in this case." Eventually, he'll have re-tested all of physics and electronics and found that reciprocal theory agrees with all theory currently understood by science, but science is still wrong for some silly reason. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 08:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Satz did over 100 runs of the two-capacitor experiment and found that energy conservation, not "charge conservation", holds in all cases; this thoroughly vindicates the Reciprocal System and thoroughly disproves conventional theory!— Unsigned, by: 72.94.234.243 / talk / contribs

I hope you are being sarcastic. Anyway, here's the new thread at BAUT (now Cosmoquest): Exper. Confirm. of Energy Cons., not Charge Cons., in Two-Capacitor Problem The locals are not amused.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Where are Satz's goalposts now? It's hard to keep track since everything in the world no matter what is somehow vindication of Wrong Theory. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup, he made another attempt. Notably, of the two possible arrangements of the capacitors, he picked the one that minimized the difference between RST and mainstream theory (and reality), and refused to try the other way around, which would make measurement error much less significant. He also insisted on using the Fluke in ways it wasn't designed for (yielding an obviously absurd value for the peak current, low by a factor of about 5000 because the discharge was too short for the meter to measure), simply ignored posts pointing out basic problems with his approach, and when he eventually posted measurements, they were a complete joke...again unnecessarily using the Fluke in peak detection mode (despite several problems with doing so having been pointed out), and a similar measurement apparently using the oscilloscope as a similar voltmeter, in some clumsy, poorly-described process where he's trying to make measurements before the voltages decay due to leakage.
He even claimed it was impossible to use the oscilloscope in the way requested and accused me of refusing to "measure the proper voltages", despite my having earlier given screen captures of just such measurements on an identical scope. And then, rather than provide the results of a rather simple measurement, one that was actually simpler than the error-prone process he'd claimed hundreds of repetitions of...he ran off. Cjameshuff (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
At this rate Satz will need his own article to keep track of this. Scarlet A.pngsshole 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Satz's "response"[edit]

http://transpower.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/response-to-rationalwiki-org-article-on-dewey-b-larson/ --ZooGuard (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr as always. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And again[edit]

Transpower has written a "step-by-step refutation".--ZooGuard (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

[“uncanny”? Ha!—if the Postulates are physically correct, then if correct reasoning is applied to them the deductions will be in accord with the facts of reality. Tens of thousands of deductions have been made from the Postulates and have been shown to in harmony with the facts. Of course, once in a while, a mistaken deduction is made, but when found, the mistake is corrected and the work continues.]

Wow, Ron Satz manages to say less than nothing in three sentences. Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 10:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

He went on for quite a bit more than three sentences. Granted, he did manage to say a little more than nothing...he repeated his complete misunderstanding of the mainstream model of capacitors, for one. (Little hint, Satz: capacitors have two plates.) And called me a "failed experimenter" for getting results that were in excellent agreement with mainstream theory and pointing out the many flaws with his measurement approach. Cjameshuff (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A detailed summary of the "paradox" that has Satz all worked up: http://www.users.on.net/~ithilien/tam/electronics/CapacitorParadox.html
Satz insists that the notion that dissipation of energy by the surge of current through the series resistance and the changing electromagnetic fields is somehow absurd (he's never actually said why), and that the capacitors will end up at a higher voltage, with all of the original stored energy...never mind the fact that you can do work from (take energy from) the discharge process without changing the final equilibrium voltage. Real world measurements (and the successful functioning of most modern electronic equipment) clearly show RST is wrong, and as seen in the BAUT/Cosmoquest discussion, Satz completely failed to address the issues raised with his measurement procedure. He simply refused to make (or at least, to report the results from) more accurate ones, despite having all the required equipment at hand...all he had to do was connect one channel of the oscilloscope to each capacitor and capture both discharge waveforms. (That is, use the oscilloscope for what it was actually designed to do.)
As for the capacitor charge thing, it's been clearly described to him again and again: capacitors store a charge difference. Charged capacitors are neutral overall simply because one plate has a charge equal and opposite to that of the other. Electrolytic capacitors behave no differently, they just use an electrochemically formed dielectric. So much for "Conventional theory has no answer to this."...the reality is that Satz simply outright refuses to learn what "conventional theory" actually is. Cjameshuff (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Pigeon chess. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 18:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
EXPN? - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Amusingly, we don't have a page on pigeon chess, even though it's related to creationism.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, got it - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit odd but the only reference to pigeon chess in main space is in our Leaving and never coming back article. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Writing a short article now. I was actually thinking of the cartoon King me!, which is almost the same joke - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
We have that in our Fun:Andrew_Schlafly article. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 09:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a new term to me, but pigeon chess sounds accurate. He made another similar post a few days after that, in which he again claims I didn't measure the voltages, that he tried all combinations (why not show the results, then?), etc, simply ignoring the problems in his measurement methods pointed out in the CosmoQuest thread: Refutation of RationalWiki.org Talk Page Nonsense about Dewey B. Larson

[CJamesHuff is a failed experimenter. For the two capacitor problem, he didn't set his oscilloscope to find Vmax and peak voltage at the second capacitor. Keep in mind that once the two capacitors are connected in paralle, they have the same voltage, but the voltage quickly drops because the electrons leak out. It is the peak voltage which must be found!]

My plots (now on my user page if someone wants to use them) clearly show the voltage of both capacitors from initial conditions to equilibrium...the voltages he claims I didn't measure are are right there. Maybe this would be a good example for the Confirmation bias page...his desire for RST to be correct has apparently rendered him completely incapable of reading a voltage plot if it doesn't show what he wants. Leakage was only a problem for Satz's screwed-up measurement procedure, with him trying to switch instruments around mid-experiment and using the oscilloscope as a glorified multimeter instead of for what it was designed for...leakage is minimal over the 600 microseconds covered by these plots. And he then repeats this bizarre claim...

[The conventional theorists like CJamesHuff wave their hands and say the energy is "radiated away." What nonsense--no one have ever measured any of this.]

So in the world of Satz, resistive heating and electromagnetic radiation apparently don't exist... --Cjameshuff (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the obvious time and effort (not all efficient time and effort, mind) he's put into this, it would be a considerable loss of face to accept any errors like this. I'm not surprised this has been called Wrong Theory. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Yet more lunacy from Satz[edit]

I'm not sure how much of this is Larson's, Satz may merit his own article at this point. Highlights:

  • Stars are supposedly powered by fission of heavy elements formed by neutrino capture, not fusion.
  • "entropy overall in the universe does not increase or decrease–the universe is cyclic and there is no heat death"
  • "Life forms from a combination of material and cosmic (inverse) atoms, with the cosmic atoms in control. Conventional biology does not explain the demarcation between life and non-life; the Reciprocal System does."
  • "we are supposed to follow the Golden Rule, whereas animals cannot and do not"

Cjameshuff (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Move this to "Reciprocal system" and outline each of Larson and Satz' contributions to this marvellous theory? - David Gerard (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. There's apparently a fair bit of crankery out there about Reciprocal Theory beyond Larson and Satz, Larson and Satz are only notable for their support for it, and Larson's long dead. Cjameshuff (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I only really started this on Larson because someone pointed me in the direction of Case Against the Nuclear Atom and it was just so epically terrible I had to. I've learned a considerable amount more about the Satz angle since. Though my affections for these guys have waned since reading Archimedes Plutonium. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 01:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Archie is...something else. I used to read some Usenet groups he frequented. Alright, lets shuffle things around a bit... Cjameshuff (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Still a sore loser[edit]

Heh: The Simplistic, Irrational Nature of “RationalWiki.org”

Just in case someone hasn't noticed: RationalWiki is not an encyclopaedia, nor it claims to be one. Indeed, it explicitly points out that it isn't. If something is not roughly covered by the Mission, we are not interested in it, though a number of popular-science-level, background knowledge articles do exist, such as star, radiation, etc.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is far more real science at Dr. Satz's blog, http://transpower.wordpress.com. Please carefully study his papers there, including "The Case Against Modern Physics."— Unsigned, by: 72.94.237.78 / talk / contribs 16:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC). The formulas in his mathematical papers are beautifully formatted and 100% computational.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, though any physicist would consider this work to be fairly ugly. But hey, what would I know? - Grant (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a shame we don't have articles on electric current, thermal current and capacitors. Satz could use a 9th-grade-level introduction to how those all actually work. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 07:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
+1 - Grant (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You'd need to start at a lower level than that. In the BAUT (now Cosmoquest) thread, he tried to use a hydraulic analogy with vats of liquid to support his claim that the potential energy was proportional to the voltage/level of liquid...and failed repeatedly to comprehend the very basic algebra showing that it is actually proportional to the square. Specifically, he got fixated on the equation U = m*g*h and what it does when you doubled h, without considering that doubling the amount of liquid in a vat would double the mass along with the height, or thinking about what you'd get if you divided the same mass of liquid between two identical vats.Cjameshuff (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The conventional capacitance unit is cm (in cgs) or farad (in SI); there is a conversion factor to go from farad to m or cm. However, the correct dimensions of capacitance are, in the Reciprocal System, s^3/t. This is necessary so that the time constant comes out correctly in capacitor circuits. Dr. Satz fixed this issue for the Reciprocal System; conventional theory still has not.— Unsigned, by: 72.94.243.170 / talk / contribs 13:37, 15 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Last I checked (and it wasn't that long ago), the time constant has the appropriate dimensions and works out just fine in conventional theory. Pray tell what exactly needs fixing? - Grant (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki.org's claim that the Reciprocal System is "pseudoscience" is, of course, defamation. It would not be surprising, if this organization gets sued in the future. — Unsigned, by: 72.94.244.129 / talk / contribs

Rational story, bro - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Funny thing: as it turns out, calling pseudoscience pseudoscience isn't defamation. So no need for worry there. Cjameshuff (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Satz having a mental breakdown?[edit]

Is this normal behavior for him? Is this a troll? Is Satz becoming a menace to others? http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/wednesday-grab-bag-nazis-lovecraft-ufos-and-more#comments "The Reciprocal System is the true theory of the universe, you retarded little humanities major. I have, on the market The Reciprocal System: Microcosmos Database, which applies the Reciprocal System to hundreds of thousands of situations. Obviously, it's way beyond your pathetic IQ level to grasp." --Mephite (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The humanities major, EP, refuses to disclose his real name. Similarly, the RationalWiki.org writer of this article on Dewey Larson is anonymous. One has to wonder: what are his qualifications to judge a scientific theory??? — Unsigned, by: 72.94.244.129 / talk / contribs

A bit hypocritical coming from a nameless IP address. How about addressing the demonstrated failures of the theory? Cjameshuff (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)