Physics Help
Reciprocal System of Theory
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, by MultiMedia 
Reciprocal System of Theory
The Reciprocal System of Theory (RST) is held by advocates to be a theoretical framework capable of comprehensively explaining all physical phenomena from subatomic particles to galactic clusters. The framework, based on the work of Dewey B. Larson, an American engineer and author, was originally described in his book The Structure of the Physical Universe in 1959 and has more recently been published in three revised and enlarged volumes. The ideas are promoted by the members of 'The International Society of Unified Science, Inc.' (ISUS) whose only stated objective is to "advance in all ways deemed feasible the Reciprocal System of physical theory as proposed by Dewey B. Larson".
The RST and the work of Larson assumes that the basic constituent of the universe is motion (i.e. space & time), not matter. Thus, it is a unique approach in the science of physics. However, so far, it has remained essentially unknown or ignored in the mainstream physics community, since it is completely at odds with current theories such as relativity, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang and many other modern theories. Although it is generally dismissed by those physicists who are aware of it, proponents claim that it rests on solid philosophical grounds, and that it is the first general theory of physics ever developed. Unlike conventional theory, they point out, the RST has no empirical content, but rather all its conclusions are based solely on its initial assumptions. These initial assumptions are contained in only two brief statements that Larson designated the "Fundamental Postulates" of the system, namely:

1) 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.

2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is Euclidean.
From the first postulate, Larson concludes that while both space and time are three dimensional, or, in other words that it takes three magnitudes to completely specify them, they can have no physical significance other than what they have in the equation of motion. Therefore, it follows that space is not an independent entity that can be affected by matter in any respect. Considered apart from motion, space is only a concept, or mental construct, which can be utilized to devise a convenient system of reference for measurement purposes. Likewise, time is not an independent physical entity that can be considered apart from motion. Space and time only have meaning as reciprocal aspects of motion.
Larson further concludes from the first postulate that, since the postulated threedimensionional motion is assumed to exist in discrete units, the dimensions of motion are therefore independent. This means that independent twodimensional and onedimensional motion are also possible. In fact, in the due course of the theory's development, Larson shows that quantities of onedimensional motion correspond to electric potential, quantities of twodimensional motion correspond to magnetic potential, and quantities of threedimensional motion correspond to gravitational potential. Larson argues that this is the basis for explaining many otherwise unexplainable electrical and magnetic phenomena such as induction (in general, 2D motion (magnetic motion) cancels a portion of 3D motion (matter) leaving a 1D motion residue (electric motion), or, alternately, 1D motion (electric motion) cancels a portion of 3D motion (matter) leaving a 2D motion residue (magnetic motion)).
Of course, this theroetical approach of a universe consisting of nothing but motion (space and time) constitutes a completely new paradigm that departs radically from the current paradigm of a universe consisting of matter contained in space and time. This is most simply illustrated in the difference between Einstein's conclusion, called the Equivalence Principle, that the force of gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, and Larson's conclusion that the force of gravity is an acceleration. Another example is Einstein's conclusion that matter and energy are equivalent. Larson asserts that this leads to a contradiction at high speeds, which is resolved by the conclusion that matter and energy are not equivalent, but interconvertable, meaning matter can be converted to energy and viceversa, but the two are distinct degrees of motion (matter is 3D motion, while energy is 1D motion.) These are just two of the many cases where the concepts of the different paradigms lead to conflicting conclusions; there are many others.
For instance, the RST concludes unequivocally that gravitational radiation, a requirement of general relativity, cannot exist, and that gravity operates without any medium or continuum such as the fourdimensional (4D), curvedspace of relativity, or any process of transmission between gravitating bodies. Although this is in accord with current observations, it is at odds with existing indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation, from binary neutron star measurements. While General relativity (GR) predicts that, due to gravitational radiation, the orbit of such systems will decay at a specific rate, the RST attributes the force of gravity to the inherent 3D inward motion of the mass of gravitating bodies. In this way the same motion that constitutes the mass of a body also produces the force of gravity associated with that mass. No energy transmission process is involved in this phenomenon, and, thus, no orbital decay should result from its operation.
However, an orbital decay is observed in these binary star systems, and the rate of decay is as predicted by general relativity, to an accuracy of 0.5%. On the other hand, it must be conceded that these systems are not well understood, and definite conclusions are premature at this point. For instance, at least one system (PSR B174424A,) is exhibiting an orbital decay of five times the rate attainable through gravitational radiation. Fortunately, new gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO, VIRGO, LISA and others, are soon expected to detect gravitational radiation directly, which promises to settle the matter definitively.
Meanwhile, RST proponents claim that the theory is also consistent with recent observations that the geometry of the universe is flat (from the CMB data), and that the cosmological parameter, Omega, is precisely equal to one. These data are in conflict with traditional Big Bang cosmology, where Euclidean geometry would appear to be highly unlikely. While the theory of cosmic inflation is the method accepted by most physicists for overcoming this apparent contradiction, the fact that such ad hoc theories are necessary at all, is prima facia evidence, say RST proponents, of the problems experienced in current physical theories, which they complain are, as Richard Feynman said, "a multitude of different parts and pieces that do not fit together very well."
The most embarrassing example of this predicament, advocates say, is the recent discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. The observed acceleration is thought to be produced by a gravitylike repulsive force. Some think that this force, dubbed "dark energy," by Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, might be vacuum energy, represented by the "cosmological constant" (λ) in general relativity or possibly something called "Quintessence." While this new positive force is thought to be similar to the negative force of gravity, its existence is in conflict with established theories. However, a similar outward, gravitylike motion has been an integral part of the RST from the beginning, and is a major component in the RST's calculations and explanations of both the largescale structure of the universe and its atomic and molecular scale structure. It plays a fundamental role in the RST's explanation of the recession of galaxies, star formation, galaxy formation and the explosions of stars, without the need for the "Big Bang," or black holes to explain these processes. Of course, the RST is not necessary to explain this outward motionEinstein himself proposed the expedient of inserting a cosmological constant into his equations soon after he proposed the theory of relativity, and, even today, mainstream scientists are exploring new ad hoc theories of expansion to address the problem and explain the observations without the need for the RST, but, the proponents emphasize, theoretical adjustments such as these cannot be made in the RST as everything in it must follow from the consequences of its fundamental postulates. Needless to say, such a claim sets the RST apart as very unusual and extremely unorthodox.
Other examples of unusual and unorthodox theoretical conclusions reached in the RST include the derivation of a nonnuclear model of the atom in Nothing But Motion, which leads directly to the periodic order of the elements. Larson claims that his theory accurately derives the elements in correct order without employing the nuclear concept of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus, and predicts that the maximum number of elements in the periodic table is 117. However, his theory has not yet accounted for the atomic spectra of the elements. In contrast, the extremely accurate results obtained by quantum mechanics and the nuclear model of the atom are well known.
On the other hand, in Basic Properties of Matter, Larson makes theoretical predictions for a large number of properties of a range of chemical species, including atomic mass, interatomic distance, compressibility and heat capacity. It appears that he calculates these values from simple closedform analytic formulas. If accurate, this would be a vast improvement on the complex calculations required to make theoretical predictions under quantum mechanics. For instance, using the RST nonnuclear model of the atom, Larson begins with calculations of interatomic distances of the elements. These distances, which in the RST are a result of an equilibrium reached between two opposing, nonelectronic forces, are calculated by an equation derived from the "specific" motion of the atom's combination of motions in several dimensions. In it's simplest form, applicable to the noble elements, where there are only two such specific motions involved, the equation is:

s_{o} = 2.914 ln t angstroms
where s_{o} is the centertocenter distance in angstrom units and t is the specific motions of the elements. Where these two specific motions are equal, only 1 of them enters into the calculation. However, if they are unequal, a single value is obtained by squaring the first and taking the cube root of its product with the second:

t = (t^{2} t)^{1/3}
On this basis, the result for Neon, with its two specific rotations of 3 and 3 is exceedingly simple to calculate:

s_{o} = 2.914 * ln t = 2.914 * ln 3 = 2.914 * 1.098612 = 3.201355 angstroms
This value compares with an observed value of 3.17 angstroms for Neon (see webelements.com.) The calculated values of the other noble elements for which data is available are also quite comparable. For instance, the calculation of Argon is 3.76 angstroms, which compares to an observed value of 3.72 angstroms; the value for Krypton is 4.04, compared to 4.04 observed; and 4.38 for Xenon, compared to 4.39 observed.
However, in many cases Larson must modify the equations to be used, changing them from species to species on grounds difficult for noninitiates to easily follow without further study. For example, Larson lists characteristic values for the various species which are specific to the RST, such as "specific electric rotation". Because the basis for the procedure for calculating these values is explained in an earlier volume of the work, it is necessary to devote a great deal of time to the study of the RST to rule out the allegation that they were selected arbitrarily to make the predictions fit the data. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note that Larson's calculations of the values shown above, except for Neon, are closer to the accepted values today than when he published them in the early 1980s.
According to its proponents, the RST can also be used to solve the famous problem of the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. This problem was first solved using Einstein's equations of general relativity, which assumes relative values of spacetime in the equations of motion, as opposed to Newton's assumption that space and time should be treated as absolute concepts in the equations of motion. Larson, in the RST, also assumes absolute values of space and time, but goes beyond Newton in the definition of these crucial concepts. Using these definitions, K.V.K. Nehru produced a paper describing the orbital motion of highspeed planets. The result he found from the RST was precisely the same as that from relativity. Hence, like general relativity, the RST is fully in agreement with accurate measurements of Mercury's orbit.
Physics Help, made by MultiMedia  Free content and software
This guide is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
VEVO Music videos. Gallery shows artist selections, however selected video must be played on youtube (link provided).
Adele
Beatles
Belinda
BonJovi
Cee Lo Green
Earth, Wind & Fire
Eric Clapton
Hiroshima
Joan Osborne
Kanvaz
The New Kanvaz
Kenny G
Lauryn Hill
Miranda Lambert
Maroon5
Nirvana
Obituary
Phil Collins
Primus
Selena Gomez
Simply Red
The Band Perry
Tina
$99.99