Ever since the dawn of science, the ultimate objective of the theoreticians in the scientific field has been to devise a general physical theory: one in which all physical phenomena are derived from a single set of premises. As expressed by Richard Schlegel of Michigan State University:
Up to the present time, all of the many efforts along this line have been fruitless. It has not even been possible to derive the relations in one major physical field from general premises; that is, without making assumptions specifically applicable to that particular field and to that field only. But, the development of the Reciprocal System of theory has now produced just the kind of a thing that Dr. Schlegel describes: a set of basic postulates whose necessary consequences are sufficient in themselves to describe a complete, theoretical universe.
More than 90% of the conclusions derived from these postulates are in agreement with concurrent scientific thought, and are not contested. Thus, the Reciprocal is not only a general physical theory; it is a general physical theory that, on the basis of present knowledge, is at least 90% correct. It therefore constitutes a significant advance in scientific understanding, irrespective of the judgment that may ultimately be passed upon the remaining 10% of the conclusions derived from the theory.
Under the circumstances, many individuals are interested in making a critical examination of the development of thought from the fundamental postulates to the various conclusions in order to satisfy themselves that this development is, in fact, purely deductive. This present work has been designed to facilitate such an examination. In the previous publications which introduced the new theoretical system it was, of course, necessary to devote much of the text to explanation and argument, and even though these works have emphasized the fact that all of the conclusions reached in the theoretical development are derived solely from a determination of the consequences of the postulates, many readers have been unable to follow all of the logical development of the various lines of thought. It is probably that this is due, at least in large part, to a tendency to expect something of a more esoteric nature--some magic formula or all-embracing mathematical expression--rather than the simple "if this, then that" type of deductive developmenet by which the theoretical structure has been constructed. In any event, it has seemed advisable to supplement these previous publications with a presentation which will cover the basic portions of the new system of theory without explanation or argument, and will concentrate entirely on a step-by-step derivation of the pertinent points.
This presentation as it now stands (subject to possible extension later) is essentially no more than a sample; it carries the development of theory forward only a few steps. But even this very modest start toward a determination of the consequences of the postulates already brings us to the point where some of the most important features of the physical universe have been duplicated by the theoretical features that have emerged. Already, in this very early stage of the theoretical development, we find that the universe defined by the theory is expanding (as the observed universe does). It contains radiation, consisting of individual particles (photons) which travel outward at unit speed (the speed of light) in all directions from various points of emission, followed a wave-like path (in full agreement with the properties of radiation as observed.) The speed of light, and of radiation in general, in this universe is constant, irrespective of the reference system (as it is in the observed universe).
The theoretical universe contains matter, consisting of individual atoms (as the observed universe does). This matter is subject to gravitation, which acts instantaneously, without an intervening medium, and in such a manner that it cannot be screened off or modified in any way (just as gravitation does in the observed universe, although most theorists close their eyes to these facts because they cannot account for them). In this theoretical universe, there are a specific number of different kinds of atoms with different properties; the chemical elements (as in the observed universe). These elements constitute a series, each member of which differs from its predecessor by one unit of a particular kind, and the series is divided into groups and sub-groups with certain group characteristics (all of which is in full agreement with observation). There are additional types of units similar to, but less complex than, the atoms, which have some, but not all, of the properties of the atoms (also in agreement with the observed properties that are currently assumed to exist).
In the light of this demonstration of how the major features of a theoretical counterpart of the observed physical universe--radiation, matter, gravitation, the galactic recession, atomic structure, etc.--can be derived by a relatively simple logical development of the conclusions that are implicit in the postulates of the theory, it should not be difficult to understand how the theoetical universe can be extended into great detail by further application of the same process of following out the logical implications of the postulates and the conclusions previously derived. Furthermore, it is clear, even at this very early stage of the investigation, that this development is capable of resolving some of the most serious issues facing current science.
The manner in which the development of the theoretical structure leads to a unique set of numerical values for each chemical element--a series number, and three rotational displacement values--also shows how the mathematical character of the theoretical universe emerges side by side with the qualitative relationships. Obviously, these sets of numbers are the means by which the elements enter into the mathematical aspects of the many physical relations that appear later in the development, and the simple manner in which they are deduced from the basic premises should serve as an explanation as to why nothing of a more complex mathematical nature than simple arithmetic is needed in the early stages of the inquiry.
The fundamental postulates, together with some comments concerning the interpretation of the language in which they are expressed, are stated in Section A. The statements that follow are sequential; that is, each is a necessary consequence of the statements that have preceded it, either in the postulates themselves, or in previous deductions from the postulates. The justification for asserting that each specific conclusion is a necessary consequence of something that preceded this may not always be obvious, but the objective of the present work is to identify the specific items entering into the system of deductions leading from the postulates to the various theoretical conclusions, and to show how each fits into the deductive pattern. Everything which might tend to divert attention from this objective, such as explanation or argument, has therefore been omitted. In any case where the continuity of thought may not be clear reference should be made to previous publications describing the theory.