Understanding the Reciprocal System

A True and Complete Theory of The Physical Universe
Is Necessary

Lawrence E. Denslow

The world in which we live and with which we interact seems to be a world of matter that has an interactive characteristic referred to as energy. No one has been able to show precisely what energy is, just that it is quantifiable and its form is interchangeable. Everything with which we come in contact moves and is changeable, but always is composed of matter in some form. Thereby, it has become an undeclared assumption that matter is the basic building block of our world and of our universe. All procedures grouped within the fields of science depend on using that assumption along with numerous experimentally observed facts. If predictions concerning the outcome of any given experimental procedure are desired the presence of matter is required to explain the facts derived therefrom. Experimental confirmation of the assumption appears to be 100%, until we try to develop theoretical consequences for the idea. Physical theories for the structure and properties of matter have ranged from spirit through vortices of force, to ultimate fundamental particles interacting to form the observed atoms and sub-atoms of matter. The entire preceding century has been devoted with increasing frustration in the search for a generally applicable theory based upon the idea that matter is the fundamental building block of the physical universe; that space and time are nothing more than the parameters for a container in which matter is to be placed; and that the universe had a beginning in a “big bang” and, therefore, must have an end.

No theoretical system can ever be proven correct, it can only be shown to be consistent with the observed facts or be shown to be inconsistent and, therefore, flawed in some manner. Many inconsistencies of consequence and, therefore, flaws of assumption or development have been noted and ignored or overcome through principles of impotence for the purpose of retaining the matter based concepts for theory construction. For every course of study in each field of science certain assumptions were made and the best guess of the students who later became the professors generated the body of so called “knowledge” in that field. For acceptance into the society formed by those professors unquestioned endorsement of the basic ideas upon which that discipline rests is required of all neophytes. Those who do not so conform are either ostracised or simply ignored. The psychological necessity for acceptance into the society of one’s peers seems to have caused a rigorous search for more consistent ideas to have vanished. In spite of this essential aspect of human nature, there is the occasional person who retains a basic curiosity about the true nature of reality by recognizing failures, inaccuracies, or simple inconsistencies, within popularly available developments of theoretical concepts. These are the ones for whom these topics are being developed and presented.

The first step in any analysis is to define the parameters of the system by which the analysis is to be conducted, one of which must be mathematical. The second step of the analysis requires identifying one or more variables from which other variables and/or specific consequences can be derived. The fundamental definition and properties assigned to that variable are often of greater importance than the system by which analysis is to be conducted since no interpretation of mathematical results is possible without knowing the characteristics of the variable. The simpler the starting variable, of course, the more likely the consequences are to be self-consistent and consistent with the experimental procedures that identified the variable.

Priority of expression is considered to be the means by which something in the present is validated or worthy of continued use. A quotation attributed to Etienne Bonnot de Condillac by Antoine Lavoisier in his Elements of Chemistry [1789] that “languages are true analytical methods. …The art of reasoning is nothing more than a language well arranged.” provides considerable priority of expression for the use of language as a tool for scientific analysis of our world and universe. The third step of an analysis is the interpretive stage. In any new development there must always be a continuing analysis of the mathematics and any statements of meaning developed from an everyday sense interpretation for the words used, as well as for any new concepts or restrictions of definition being introduced.

The following outline is for a course of study for an understanding of the basic concepts and development of the Reciprocal System of Theory.

I. Concepts of Mathematics, as currently used and with logical extensions

II. Postulates of the Theory and Initial Consequences

III. Photons, Sub-atoms, and Atoms of Motion

a. Radiation

b. Sub-atoms

c. Atoms

IV. Basic Chemistry of Atoms of Motion

a. Why do atoms ever get together?

b. What holds atoms together?

c. Atomic Orientation, Requirements for holding atoms together

V. Basic Mechanics and Heat Phenomena

VI. Photon - Atom Interactions

VII. Electric and Magnetic Phenomena

VIII. Fundamental Astronomical Concepts

IX. Other Basic Properties of Matter

X. Beyond Space and Time

Before embarking directly into the development of the course of study it seems reasonable to first examine the logic used in developing all systems of scientific theories. Logical processes, like most everything else in this world, are seen in terms of opposites. The most obvious opposites in logic are induction and deduction. An inductive argument derives its results from specific known pieces of information, that are provable thru experimental procedures, using the technique of back-tracking to a possible generalization. This is sometimes referred to as top-down thinking.

A deductive argument starts with a premise or proposition and derives all results by progressing toward the phenomenal result in accord with agreed upon step-wise procedures. The usual procedures for a deductive argument require complete consistency of showing that certain results, its conclusions, necessarily follow from the starting premise. This is often referred to as bottom-up thinking and is usually much more difficult to verify. Properly carried out with valid premises, a deductive argument can only lead to valid conclusions.

An inductive argument cannot claim that its premises provide complete truth of its conclusions. An inductive argument can only claim that its premises provide some support for the observed conclusion. Many of the steps within an inductive argument may be deductive in nature, but the tenuous character of the premises for induction cannot guarantee the validity of any conclusion.

Because both logic processes use observation as a guide for verifying a result, many people become confused as to which process is being used in a given procedure. Starting from known facts, experimentally observable quantities, and attempting to derive a general principle therefrom, is induction. It must be remembered that even in the event that the premises for an inductive argument are literally true and correct, absolute truth of its conclusion is not guaranteed, those conclusions are merely more probable than some other conclusion. Deduction starts with a general principle or idea that may not be obviously correct, although it must be literally true and correct. Derivation of specific “facts” which are subsequently shown by correlation with experimental observation to be correct confirms the truth and validity of the argument and, thereby, that the development was indeed deductive.

The rules or procedures of ordinary mathematics are the results of induction; they work in this world in which we carry out our investigations because they were devised in this world, not because we know them to have intrinsic correctness, we can never know that. The question of whether something works and has reasonably close correlation with the observed world is the principal criteria by which scientists make their judgements. “Science” is a human endeavor by which mankind attempts to derive reasonable, if not correct, explanations for the phenomena of the physical universe. “To initiate any fruitful inquiry, three qualities are requisite: One must be familiar with current theories, observant of new facts, and uncomfortable in the presence of any conflict or gap between fact and [existing] theory.” Previous theoretical results from the use of inductive logic indicate that the meanings of each and every word used in an analysis must be carefully considered. The possibility of ambiguity for any word demands clarification of meaning before understanding of combinational meanings can be successfully accomplished whether the argument at hand is inductive or deductive. In either kind of argument, the use of language is the key to success.

Currently available theories are often touted as having been deductively derived. You will have noticed that both deductive and inductive arguments use the same procedures of logical development. The principle difference is in the source and statement of the premises and the necessary conclusions. For the premises to be those of a deductive argument their logical development must lead to full complete and consistently true explanations for all results. If those same proposals lead to inconsistencies or fail to provide complete explanations without subsequent modification of the premises, not only were the original premises incorrect, but they were the premises of an inductive argument. Only a true and correct postulate or premise can lead by deductive development of its necessary consequences to a completely true and correct conclusion with complete confidence in the validity of the premises and its conclusions. The conclusions of a deductive argument are not merely more probable than those of an inductive argument, they are literally true and correct.

In an inductive argument there is usually some bit of observational evidence in the fundamental premises which implies that deductive development of the consequences for that premise may seem to be a totally deductive development as long as no error is found in any of its conclusions. If errors are ever found then that which was previously considered to have been a deductive argument is thrown into the category of inductive arguments because its conclusions were merely more probable than any others until the error was discovered. Therefore, if the necessary consequences of the logical development of any premise ever leads to any inconsistency, the argument can no longer be thought of as having been deductive. As a direct result of the present state of confusion in the consequences derived from the premise of a matter based universe dispersed for observation in a four dimensional continuum, that premise and its development have been inductive arguments rather than deductive. The many additions, modifications, and outright ad hoc nature of those additions and modifications show further the extremely tenuous character of the concept of a matter based universe.