NOTHING BUT MOTION

OTHER BOOKS BY DEWEY B. LARSON

Physical Science
The Structure of the Physical Universe
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
Beyond Newton
New Light on Space and Time
Quasars and Pulsars
Economic Science
The Road to Full Employment
 N O TH ING BUT
M O TION

Volume I
of a revised and enlarged edition of
THE STRUCTURE O F THE PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE

By
DEWEY B. LARSON

NORTH PACIFIC PUBLISHERS

P. O. Box 13255
Portland, Oregon 97213
 Copyright 1959, 1965, 1979
By Dewey B. Larson
All rights reserved

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 79-88078

ISBN 0-913138-07-x
 Contents
Preface vii
1 Background 1
2 A Universe of Motion 15
3 Reference Systems 29
4 Radiation 43
5 Gravitation 57
6 The Reciprocal Relation 71
7 High Speed Motion 83
8 Motion in Time 97
9 Rotational Combinations 115
10 Atoms 127
11 Sub-atomic Particles 139
12 Basic Mathematical Relations 147
13 Physical Constants 157
14 Cosmic Elements 173
15 Cosmic Ray Decay 185
16 Cosmic Atom Building 199
17 Some Speculations 211
18 Simple Compounds 219
19 Complex Compounds 235
20 Chain Compounds 249
21 Ring Compounds 269
References 285
Index 289

v
 Preface
Nearly twenty years have passed since the first edition of this work
was published. As I pointed out in the preface of that first edition,
my findings indicate the necessity for a drastic change in the accepted
concept of the fundamental relationship that underlies the whole structure
of physical theory: the relation between space and time. The physical
universe, I find, is not a universe of matter existing in a framework
provided by space and time, as seen by conventional science, but a
universe of motion, in which space and time are simply the two reciprocal
aspects of motion, and have no other significance. What I have done,
in brief, is to determine the properties that space and time must necessarily
possess in a universe composed entirely of motion , and to express them
in the form of a set of postulates. I have then shown that development
of the consequences of these postulates by logical and mathematical
processes, without making any further assumptions or introducing any
thing from experience, defines, in detail, a complete theoretical universe
that coincides in all respects with the observed physical universe.
Nothing of this nature has ever been developed before. No previous
theory has come anywhere near covering the full range of phenomena
accessible to observation with existing facilities, to say nothing of dealing
with the currently inaccessible, and as yet observationally unknown,
phenomena that must also come within the scope of a complete theory
of the universe. Conventional scientific theories accept certain features
of the observed physical universe as given, and then make assumptions
on which to base conclusions as to the properties of these observed
phenomena. The new theoretical system, on the other hand, has no
empirical content. It bases all of its conclusions solely on the postulated
properties of space and time . The theoretical deductions from these
postulates provide for the existence of the various physical entities and
phenomenamatter, radiation, electrical and magnetic phenomena, gra
vitation, etc.as well as establishing the relations between these entities.
Since all conclusions are derived from the same premises, the theoretical
system is a completely integrated structure, contrasting sharply with
the currently accepted body of physical theory, which, as described
by Richard Feynman, is a multitude of different parts and pieces that
do not fit together very well.
The last twenty years have added a time dimension to this already

vii
viii Nothing but Motion

unique situation. The acid test of any theory is whether it is still tenable
after the empirical knowledge of the subject is enlarged by new discover
ies. As Harlow Shapley once pointed out, facts are the principal enemies
of theories. Few theories that attempt to cover any more than a severely
limited field are able to survive the relentless march of discovery for
very long without major changes or complete reconstruction. But no
substantive changes have been made in the postulates of this new system
of theory in the nearly twenty years since the original publication, years
in which tremendous strides have been made in the enlargement of
empirical knowledge in many physical areas. Because the postulates
and whatever can be derived from them by logical and mathematical
processes, without introducing anything from observation or other exter
nal sources, constitute the entire system of theory, this absence of
substantive change in the postulates means that there has been no change
anywhere in the theoretical structure.
It has been necessary, of course, to extend the theory by developing
more of the details, in order to account for some of the new discoveries,
but in most cases the nature of the required extension was practically
obvious as soon as the new phenomena or relationships were identified.
Indeed, some of the new discoveries, such as the existence of exploding
galaxies and the general nature of the products thereof, were actually
anticipated in the first published description of the theory, along with
many phenomena and relations that are still awaiting empirical verifica
tion. Thus the new theoretical system is ahead of observation and
experiment in a number of significant respects.
The scientific community is naturally reluctant to change its basic
views to the degree required by my findings, or even to open its journals
to discussion of such a departure from orthodox thought. It has therefore
been a slow and difficult task to get a significant amount of serious
consideration of the new structure of theory. However, those who do
examine this new theoretical structure carefully can hardly avoid being
impressed by the logical and consistent nature of the theoretical develop
ment. As a consequence, many of the individuals who have made an
effort to understand and evaluate the new system have not only recognized
it as a major addition to scientific knowledge, but have developed an
active personal interest in helping to bring it to the attention of others.
In order to facilitate this task an organization was formed some years
ago with the specific objective of promoting understanding and eventual
acceptance of the new theoretical system, the Reciprocal System of
physical theory, as we are calling it. Through the efforts of this
organization, the New Science Advocates, Inc., and its individual
members, lectures on the new theory have been given at colleges and
universities throughout the United States and Canada. The NSA also
 Preface ix

publishes a newsletter, and has been instrumental in making publication

of this present volume possible.
At the annual conference of this organization at the University of
Mississippi in August 1977 I gave an account of the origin and early
development of the Reciprocal System of theory. It has been suggested
by some of those who heard this presentation that certain parts of it
ought to be included in this present volume in order to bring out the
fact that the central idea of the new system of theory, the general
reciprocal relation between space and time, is not a product of a fertile
imagination, but a conclusion reached as the result of an exhaustive
and detailed analysis of the available empirical data in a number of
the most basic physical fields. The validity of such a relation is determined
by its consequences, rather than by its antecedents, but many persons
may be more inclined to take the time to examine those consequences
if they are assured that the relation in question is the product of a
systematic inductive process, rather than something extracted out of
thin air. The following paragraphs from my conference address should
serve this purpose.

Many of those who come in contact with this system of theory

are surprised to find us talking of progress in connection with
it. Some evidently look upon the theory as a construction, which
should be complete before it is offered for inspection. Others
apparently believe that it originated as some kind of a revelation,
and that all I had to do was to write it down. Before I undertake
to discuss the progress that has been made in the past twenty years,
it is therefore appropriate to explain just what kind of a thing the
theory actually is, and why progress is essential. Perhaps the best
way of doing this will be to tell you something about how it originated.
I have always been very much interested in the theoretical aspect
of scientific research, and quite early in life I developed a habit
of spending much of my spare time on theoretical investigations
of one kind or another. Eventually I concluded that these efforts
would be more likely to be productive if I directed most of them
toward some specific goal, and I decided to undertake the task
of devising a method whereby the magnitudes of certain physical
properties could be calculated from their chemical composition. Many
investigators had tackled this problem previously, but the most that
had ever been accomplished was to devise some mathematical
expressions whereby the effect of temperature and pressure on these
properties can be evaluated if certain arbitrary constants are
assigned to each of the various substances. The goal of a purely
Nothing but Motion

theoretical derivation, one which requires no arbitrary assignment

of numerical constants, has eluded all of these efforts.
It may have been somewhat presumptuous on my part to select
such an objective, but, after all, if anyone wants to try to accomplish
something new, he must aim at something that others have not
done. Furthermore, I did have one significant advantage over my
predecessors, in that I was not a professional physicist or chemist.
Most people would probably consider this a serious disadvantage,
if not a definite disqualification. But those who have studied the
subject in depth are agreed that revolutionary new discoveries in
science seldom come from the professionals in the particular fields
involved. They are almost always the work of individuals who might
be considered amateurs, although they are more accurately described
by Dr. James B. Conant as uncommitted investigators. The
uncommitted investigator, says Dr. Conant, is one who does the
investigation entirely on his own initiative, without any direction
by or responsibility to anyone else, and free from any requirement
that the work must produce results.
Research is, in some respects, like fishing. If you make your living
as a fisherman, you must fish where you know that there are fish,
even though you also know that those fish are only small ones.
No one but the amateur can take the risk of going into completely
unknown areas in search of a big prize. Similarly, the professional
scientist cannot afford to spend twenty or thirty of the productive
years of his life in pursuit of some goal that involves a break with
the accepted thought of his profession. But we uncommitted inves
tigators are primarily interested in the fishing, and while we like
to make a catch, this is merely an extra dividend. It is not something
essential as it is for those who depend on the catch for their livelihood.
We are the only ones who can afford to take the risks of fishing
in unknown waters. As Dr. Conant puts it.
Few will deny that it is relatively easy in science to fill in the details of a new
area, once the frontier has been crossed. The crucial event is turning the unexpected
corner. This is not given to most of us to do. . . . By definition the unexpected
comer cannot be turned by any operation that is planned. . . . If you want
advances in the basic theories of physics and chemistry in the future comparable
to those of the last two centuries, then it would seem essential that there continue
to be people in a position to turn unexpected comers. Such a man I have ventured
to call the uncommitted investigator.
As might be expected, the task that I had undertaken was a long
and difficult one, but after about twenty years I had arrived at
some interesting mathematical expressions in several areas, one of
the most intriguing of which was an expression for the inter-atomic
 Preface xi

distance in the solid state in terms of three variables clearly related

to the properties portrayed by the periodic table of the elements.
But a mathematical expression, however accurate it may be, has
only a limited value in itself. Before we can make full use of the
relationship that it expresses, we must know something as to its
meaning. So my next objective was to find out why the mathematics
took this particular form. I studied these expressions from all angles,
analyzing the different terms, and investigating all of the hypotheses
as to their origin that I could think of. This was a rather discouraging
phase of the project, as for a long time I seemed to be merely
spinning my wheels and getting nowhere. On several occasions I
decided to abandon the entire project, but in each case, after several
months of inactivity I thought of some other possibility that seemed
worth investigating, and I returned to the task. Eventually it occurred
to me that, when expressed in one particular form, the mathematical
relation that I had formulated for the inter-atomic distance would
have a simple and logical explanation if I merely assumed that there
is a general reciprocal relation between space and time.
My first reaction to this thought was the same as that of a great
many others. The idea of the reciprocal of space, I said to myself,
is absurd. One might as well talk of the reciprocal of a pail of
water, or the reciprocal of a fencepost. But on further consideration
I could see that the idea is not so absurd after all. The only relation
between space and time of which we have any actual knowledge
is motion, and in motion space and time do have a reciprocal relation.
If one airplane travels twice as fast as another, it makes no difference
whether we say that it travels twice as far in the same time, or
that it travels the same distance in half the time. This is not necessarily
a general reciprocal relation, but the fact that it is a reciprocal
relation gives the idea of a general relation a considerable degree
of plausibility.
So I took the next step, and started considering what the consequences
of a reciprocal relation of this nature might be. Much to my surprise,
it was immediately obvious that such a relation leads directly to
simple and logical answers to no less than a half dozen problems
of long standing in widely separated physical fields. Those of you
who have never had occasion to study the foundations of physical
theory in depth probably do not realize what an extraordinary result
this actually is. Every theory of present-day physical science has
been formulated to apply specifically to some one physical field,
and not a single one of these theories can provide answers to major
questions in any other field. They may help to provide these answers.
 Nothing but Motion

but in no case can any of them arrive at such an answer unassisted.

Yet here in the reciprocal postulate we find a theory of the relation
between space and time that leads directly, without any assistance
from any other theoretical assumptions or from empirical facts,
to simple and logical answers to many different problems in many
different fields. This is something completely unprecedented. A
theory based on the reciprocal relation accomplishes on a wholesale
scale what no other theory can do at all.
To illustrate what I am talking about, let us consider the recession
of the distant galaxies. As most of you know, astronomical observa
tions indicate that the most distant galaxies are receding from the
earth at speeds which approach the speed of light. No conventional
physical theory can explain this recession. Indeed, even if you put
all of the theories of conventional physics together, you still have
no explanation of this phenomenon. In order to arrive at any such
explanation the astronomers have to make some assumption, or
assumptions, specifically applicable to the recession itself. The
current favorite, the Big Bang theory, assumes a gigantic explosion
at some hypothetical singular point in the past in which the entire
contents of the universe were thrown out into space at their present
high speeds. The rival Steady State theory assumes the continual
creation of new matter, which in some unspecified way creates
a pressure that pushes the galaxies apart at the speeds now observed.
But the reciprocal postulate, an assumption that was made to account
for the magnitudes of the inter-atomic distances in the solid state,
gives us an explanation of the galactic recession without the necessity
of making any assumptions about that recession or about the galaxies
that are receding. It is not even necessary to arrive at any conclusions
as to what a galaxy is. Obviously it must be somethingotherwise
its existence could not be recognizedand as long as it is something,
the reciprocal relation tells us that it must be moving outward away
from our location at the speed of light, because the location which
it occupies is so moving. On the basis of this relation, the spatial
separation between any two physical locations, the elapsed dis
tance, as we may call it, is increasing at the same rate as the
elapsed time.
Of course, any new answer to a major question that is provided
by a new theory leaves some subsidiary questions that require further
consideration, but the road to the resolution of these subsidiary
issues is clear once the primary problem is overcome. The explanation
of the recession, the reason why the most distant galaxies recede
with the speed of light, leaves us with the question as to why the
 Preface xiii

closer galaxies have lower recession speeds, but the answer to this
question is obvious, since we know that gravitation exerts a retarding
effect which is greater at the shorter distances.
Another example of the many major issues of long standing that
are resolved almost automatically by the reciprocal postulate is the
mechanism of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Here,
again, no conventional physical theory is able to give us an explana
tion. As in the case of the galactic recession, it is necessary to
make some assumption about the radiation itself before any kind
of a theory can be formulated, and in this instance conventional
thinking has not even been able to produce an acceptable hypothesis.
Newtons assumption of light corpuscles traveling in the manner
of bullets from a gun, and the rival hypothesis of waves in a
hypothetical ether, were both eventually rejected. There is a rather
general impression that Einstein supplied an explanation, but Einstein
himself makes no such claim. In one of his books he points out
what a difficult problem this actually is, and he concludes with
this statement:
Our only way out . . . seems to be to take for granted the fact that space has
the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic waves, and not to bother
too much about the meaning of this statement.
So, as matters now stand, conventional science has no explanation
at all for this fundamental physical phenomenon. But here, too,
the reciprocal postulate gives us a simple and logical explanation.
It is, in fact, the same explanation that accounts for the recession
of the distant galaxies. Here, again, there is no need to make any
assumption about the photon itself. It is not even necessary to
know what a photon is. As long as it is something, it is carried
outward at the speed of light by the motion of the spatial location
which it occupies.
No more than a minimum amount of consideration was required
in order to see that the answers to a number of other physical
problems of long standing similarly emerged easily and naturally
on application of the reciprocal postulate. This was clearly something
that had to be followed up. No investigator who arrived at this
point could stop without going on to see just how far the consequences
of the reciprocal relation would extend. The results of that further
investigation constitute what we now know as the Reciprocal System
of theory. As I have already said, it is not a construction, and
not a revelation. Now you can see just what it is. It is nothing
more nor less than the total of the consequences that result if there
is a general reciprocal relation between space and time.
 Nothing but Motion
As matters now stand, the details of the new theoretical system,
so far as they have been developed, can be found only in my
publications and those of my associates, but the system of theory
is not coextensive with what has thus far been written about it.
In reality, it consists of any and all of the consequences that follow
when we adopt the hypothesis of a general reciprocal relation between
space and time. A general recognition of this point would go a
long way toward meeting some of our communication problems.
Certainly no one should have any objection to an investigation of
the consequences of such a hypothesis. Indeed, anyone who is
genuinely interested in the advancement of science, and who realizes
the unprecedented scope of these consequences, can hardly avoid
wanting to find out just how far they actually extend. As a German
reviewer expressed it.
Only a careful investigation of all of the authors deliberations can show whether
or not he is right. The official schools of natural philosophy should not shun
this (considerable, to be sure) effort. After all, we are concerned here with questions
of fundamental significance.
Yet, as all of you undoubtedly know, the scientific community,
particularly that segment of the community that we are accustomed
to call the Establishment, is very reluctant to permit general discus
sion of the theory in the journals and in scientific meetings. They
are not contending that the conclusions we have reached are wrong;
they are simply trying to ignore them, and hope that they will
eventually go away. This is, of course, a thoroughly unscientific
attitude, but since it exists we have to deal with it, and for this
purpose it will be helpful to have some idea of the thinking that
underlies the opposition. There are some individuals who simply
do not want their thinking disturbed, and are not open to any kind
of an argument. William James, in one of his books, reports a
conversation that he had with a prominent scientist concerning what
we now call ESP. This man, says James, contended that even if
ESP is a reality, scientists should band together to keep that fact
from becoming known, since the existence of any such thing would
cause havoc in the fundamental thought of science. Some individuals
no doubt feel the same way about the Reciprocal System, and so
far as these persons are concerned there is not much that we can
do. There is no argument that can counter an arbitrary refusal to
consider what we have to offer.
In most cases, however, the opposition is based on a misunder
standing of our position. The issue between the supporters of rival
scientific theories normally is: Which is the better theory? The basic
question involved is which theory agrees more closely with the
 Preface xv

observations and measurements in the physical areas to which the

theories apply, but since all such theories are specifically constructed
to fit the observations, the decision usually has to rest to a large
degree on preferences and prejudices of a philosophical or other
non-scientiflc nature. Most of those who encounter the Reciprocal
System of theory for the first time take it for granted that we
are simply raising another issue, or several issues, of the same
kind. The astronomers, for instance, are under the impression that
we are contending that the outward progression of the natural
reference system is a better explanation of the recession of the
distant galaxies than the Big Bang. But this is not our contention
at all. We have found that we need to postulate a general reciprocal
relation between space and time in order to explain certain funda
mental physical phenomena that cannot be explained by any conven
tional physical theory. But once we have postulated this relationship,
it supplies simple and logical answers for the major problems that
arise in all physical areas. Thus our contention is not that we have
a better assortment of theories to replace the Big Bang and other
specialized theories of limited scope, but that we have a general
theory that applies to all physical fields. These theories of limited
applicability are therefore totally unnecessary.
While this present volume is described as the first unit of a revised
and enlarged edition, the revisions are actually few and far between.
As stated earlier, there have been no substantive changes in the postulates
since they were originally formulated. Inasmuch as the entire structure
of theory has been derived from these postulates by deducing their
logical and mathematical consequences, the development of theory in
this new edition is essentially the same as in the original, the only
significant difference being in a few places where points that were
originally somewhat vague have been clarified, or where more direct
lines of development have been substituted for the earlier derivations.
However, many problems are encountered in getting an unconventional
work of this kind into print, and in order to make the original publication
possible at all it was necessary to limit the scope of the work, both
as to the number of subjects covered and as to the extent to which
the details of each subject were developed. For this reason the purpose
of this new edition is not only to bring the theoretical structure up
to date by incorporating all of the advances that have been made in
the last twenty years, but also to present the portions of the original
resultsapproximately half of the totalthat had to be omitted from
the first edition.
Because of this large increase in the size of the work, the new edition
will be issued in several volumes. This first volume is self-contained.
xvi Nothing but Motion

It develops the basic laws and principles applicable to physical phenomena

in general, and defines the entire chain of deductions leading from the
fundamental postulates to each of the conclusions that are reached in
the various physical areas that are covered. The subsequent volumes
will apply the same basic laws and principles to a variety of other physical
phenomena. It has seemed advisable to change the order of presentation
to some extent, and as a result a substantial amount of the material
omitted from the first edition has been included in this volume, whereas
some subjects, such as electric and magnetic phenomena, that were
discussed rather early in the first edition have been deferred to the
later volumes.
For the benefit of those who do not have access to the first edition
(which is out of print) and wish to examine what the Reciprocal System
of theory has to say about these deferred items before the subsequent
volumes are published, I will say that brief discussions of some of
these subjects are contained in my 1965 publication. New Light on Space
and Time, and some further astronomical information, with particular
reference to the recently discovered compact astronomical objects, can
be found in Quasars and Pulsars, published in 1971.
It will not be feasible to acknowledge all of the many individual
contributions that have been made toward developing the details of the
theoretical system and bringing it to the attention of the scientific
community. However, I will say that I am particularly indebted to the
founders of the New Science Advocates, Dr. Douglas S. Cramer, Dr.
Paul F. deLespinasse, and Dr. George W. Hancock; to Dr. Frank A.
Anderson, the current President of the NSA, who did the copy editing
for this volume, along with his many other contributions; and to the
past and present members of the NSA Executive Board: Steven Berline,
RonaldF. Blackburn, Frances Boldereff, James N. Brown, Jr., Lawrence
Denslow, Donald T. Elkins, Rainer Huck, Todd Kelso, Richard L. Long,
Frank H. Meyer, William J. Mitchell, Harold Norris, Carla Rueckert,
Ronald W. Satz, George Windolph, and Hans F. Wuenscher.

D. B. Larson
 CHAPTER 1

Background
To the man of the Stone Age the world in which he lived was a
world of spirits. Powerful gods hurled shafts of lightning, threw waves
against the shore, and sent winter storms howling down out of the north.
Lesser beings held sway in the forests, among the rocks, and in the
flowing streams. Malevolent demons, often in league with the mighty
rulers of the elements, threatened the human race from all directions,
and only the intervention of an assortment of benevolent, but capricious,
deities made mans continued existence possible at all.
This hypothesis that material phenomena are direct results of the actions
of superhuman beings was the first attempt to define the fundamental
nature of the physical universe: the first general physical concept. It
is currently regarded by the scientific community as a juvenile and rather
ridiculous attempt at an explanation of nature, but actually it was plausible
enough to remain essentially unchallenged for thousands of years. In
fact, it is still accepted, in whole or in part, by a very substantial proportion
of the population of the world. Such widespread acceptance is not as
inexplicable as it may seem to the scientifically trained mind; it has
been achieved only because the spirit concept does have some genuine
strong points. Its structure is logical. If one accepts the premises he
cannot legitimately contest the conclusions. Of course, these premises
are entirely ad hoc, but so are many of the assumptions of modern
science. The individual who accepts the idea of a nuclear force without
demur is hardly in a position to be very critical of those who believe
in the existence of evil spirits.
A special merit of this physical theory based on the spirit concept
is that it is a comprehensive theory; it encounters no difficulties in
assimilating new discoveries, since all that is necessary is to postulate
some new demon or deity. Indeed, it can even deal with discoveries
not yet made, simply by providing a god of the unknown. But even
though a theory may have some good features, or may have led to
some significant accomplishments, this does not necessarily mean that
it is correct, nor that it is adequate to meet current requirements. Some
three or four thousand years ago it began to be realized by the more
advanced thinkers that the spirit concept had some very serious

l
2 Nothing but Motion

weaknesses. The nature of these weaknesses is now well understood,

and no extended discussion of them is necessary. The essential point
to be recognized is that at a particular stage in history the prevailing
concept of the fundamental nature of the universe was subjected to
critical scrutiny, and found to be deficient. It was therefore replaced
by a new general physical concept.
This was no minor undertaking. The spirit concept was well
entrenched in the current pattern of thinking, and it had powerful support
from the Establishment, which is always opposed to major innovations.
In most of the world as it then existed such a break with accepted
thought would have been impossible, but for some reason an atmosphere
favorable to critical thinking prevailed for a time in Greece and neighboring
areas, and this profound alteration of the basic concept of the universe
was accomplished there. The revolution in thought came slowly and
gradually. Anaxagoras, who is sometimes called the first scientist, still
attributed Mind to all objects, inanimate as well as animate. If a rock
fell from a cliff, his explanation was that this action was dictated by
the Mind of the rock. Even Aristotle retained the spirit concept
to some degree. His view of the fall of the rock was that this was
merely one manifestation of a general tendency of objects to seek their
natural place, and he explained the acceleration during the fall as
a result of the fact that the falling body moved more jubilantly every
moment because it found itself nearer home. 1 Ultimately, however,
these vestiges of the spirit concept disappeared, and a new general
concept emerged, one that has been the basis of all scientific work
ever since.
According to this new concept, we live in a universe of matter: one
that consists of material things existing in a setting provided by space
and time. With the benefit of this conceptual foundation, three thousand
years of effort by generation after generation of scientists have produced
an immense systematic body of knowledge about the physical universe,
an achievement which, it is safe to say, is unparalleled elsewhere in
human life.
In view of this spectacular record of success, which has enabled the
matter concept to dominate the organized thinking of mankind ever
since the days of the ancient Greeks, it may seem inconsistent to suggest
that this concept is not adequate to meet present-day needs, but the
ultimate fate of any scientific concept or theory is determined not by
what it has done but by what, if anything, it now fails to do. The
graveyard of science is full of theories that were highly successful in
their day, and contributed materially to the advance of scientific knowl
edge while they enjoyed general acceptance: the caloric theory, the
phlogiston theory, the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy, the billiard ball
 Background 3

theory of the atom, and so on. It is appropriate, therefore, that we

should, from time to time, subject all of our basic scientific ideas to
a searching and critical examination for the purpose of determining
whether or not these ideas, which have served us well in the past,
are still adequate to meet the more exacting demands of the present.
Once we subject the concept of a universe of matter to a critical
scrutiny of this land it is immediately obvious, not only that this concept
is no longer adequate for its purpose, but that modern discoveries have
completely demolished its foundations. If we live in a world of material
things existing in a framework provided by space and time, as
envisioned in the concept of a universe of matter, then matter in some
form is the underlying feature of the universe: that which persists through
the vaiious physical processes. This is the essence of the concept. For
many centuries the atom was accepted as the ultimate unit, but when
particles smaller (or at least less complex) than atoms were discovered,
and it was found that under appropriate conditions atoms would disinte
grate and emit such particles in the process, the sub-atomic particles
took over the role of the ultimate building blocks. But we now find
that these particles are not permanent building blocks either.
For instance, the neutron, one of the constituents from which the
atom is currently supposed to be constructed, spontaneously separates
into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino. Here, then, one of the
elementary particles, the supposedly basic and unchangeable units
of matter, transforms itself into other presumably basic and unchangeable
units. In order to save the concept of a universe of matter, strenuous
efforts are now being made to explain events of this kind by postulating
still smaller elementary particles from which the known sub-atomic
particles could be constructed. At the moment, the theorists are having
a happy time constructing theoretical quarks or other hypothetical
sub-particles, and endowing these products of the imagination with an
assortment of properties such as charm, color, and so on, to enable
them to fit the experimental data.
But this descent to a lower stratum of physical structure could not
be accomplished, even in the realm of pure hypothesis, without taking
another significant step away from reality. At the time the atomic theory
was originally proposed by Democritus and his contemporaries, the atoms
of which they conceived all physical structures to be composed were
entirely hypothetical, but subsequent observations and experiments have
revealed the existence of units of matter that have exactly the properties
that are attributed to the atoms by the atomic theory. As matters now
stand, therefore, this theory can legitimately claim to represent reality.
But there are no observed particles that have all of the properties that
are required in order to qualify as constituents of the observed atoms.
4 Nothing but Motion

The theorists have therefore resorted to the highly questionable expedient

of assuming, entirely ad hoc, that the observed sub-atomic particles
(that is, particles less complex than atoms) are the atomic constituents,
but have different properties when they are in the atoms than those
they are found to have wherever they can be observed independently.
This is a radical departure from the standard scientific practice of
building theories on solid factual foundations, and its legitimacy is
doubtful, to say the least, but the architects of the quark theories
are going a great deal farther, as they are cutting loose from objective
reality altogether, and building entirely on assumptions. Unlike the
hypothetical constituents of the atoms, which are observed sub-atomic
particles with hypothetical sets of properties instead of the observed
properties, the quarks are hypothetical particles with hypothetical proper
ties.
The unreliability of conclusions reached by means of such forced
and artificial constructions should be obvious, but it is not actually
necessary to pass judgment on this basis, because irrespective of how
far the subdividing of matter into smaller and smaller particles is carried,
the theory of elementary particles of matter cannot account for the
observed existence of processes whereby matter is converted into
non-matter, and vice versa. This interconvertibility is positive and direct
proof that the matter concept is wrong; that the physical universe
is not a universe of matter. There clearly must be some entity more
basic than matter, some common denominator underlying both matter
and non-material phenomena.
Such a finding, which makes conventional thinking about physical
fundamentals obsolete, is no more welcome today than the matter
concept was in the world of antiquity. Old habits of thought, like old
shoes, are comfortable, and the automatic reaction to any suggestion
of a major change in basic ideas is resistance, if not outright resentment.
But if scientific progress is to continue, it is essential not only to generate
new ideas to meet new problems, but also to be equally diligent in
discarding old ideas that have outlived their usefulness.
There is no actual need for any additional evidence to confirm the
conclusion that the currently accepted concept of a universe of matter
is erroneous. The observed interconvertibility of matter and non-matter
is in itself a complete and conclusive refutation of the assertion that
matter is basic. But when the inescapable finality of the answer that
we get from this interconvertibility forces recognition of the complete
collapse of the concept of a universe of matter, and we can no longer
accept it as valid, it is easy to see that this concept has many other
shortcomings that should have alerted the scientific community to question
its validity long ago. The most obvious weakness of the concept is
 Background 5

that the theories that are based upon it have not been able to keep
abreast of progress in the experimental and observational fields. Major
new physical discoveries almost invariably come as surprises, unexpect
ed and even unimagined surprises, 2 in the words of Richard Schlegel.
They were not anticipated on theoretical grounds, and cannot be accom
modated to existing theory without some substantial modification of
previous ideas. Indeed, it is doubtful whether any modification of existing
theory will be adequate to deal with some of the more recalcitrant
phenomena now under investigation.
The current situation in particle physics, for instance, is admittedly
chaotic. The outlook might be different if the new information that
is rapidly accumulating in this field were gradually clearing up the
situation, but in fact it merely seems to deepen the existing crisis. If
anything in this area of confusion is clear by this time it is that the
elementary particles are not elementary. But the basic concept of
a universe of matter requires the existence of some kind of an elementary
unit of matter. If the particles that are now known are not elementary
units, as is generally conceded, then, since no experimental confirmation
is available for the hypothesis of sub-particles, the whole theory of
the structure of matter, as it now stands, is left without visible support.
Another prime example of the inability of present-day theories based
on the matter concept to cope with new knowledge of the universe
is provided by some of the recent discoveries in astronomy. Here the
problem is an almost total lack of any theoretical framework to which
the newly observed phenomena can be related. A book published a
few years ago that was designed to present all of the significant information
then available about the astronomical objects known as quasars contains
the following statement, which is still almost as appropriate as when
it was written:
It will be seen from the discussion in the later chapters that there
are so many confl icting ideas concerning theory and interpretation
of the observations that at least 95 percent of them must indeed
be wrong. But at present no one knows which 95 percent.3
After three thousand years of study and investigation on the basis
of theories founded on the matter concept we are entitled to something
more than this. Nature has a habit of confronting us with the unexpected,
and it is not very reasonable to expect the currently prevailing structure
of theory to give us an immediate and full account of all details of
a new area, but we should at least be able to place the new phenomena
in their proper places with respect to the general framework, and to
account for their major aspects without difficulty.
The inability of present-day theories to keep up with experimental
6 Nothing but Motion

and observational progress along the outer boundaries of science is the

most obvious and easily visible sign of their inadequacies, but it is
equally significant that some of the most basic physical phenomena
are still without any plausible explanations. This embarrassing weakness
of the current theoretical structure is widely recognized, and is the subject
of comment from time to time. For instance, a press report of the
annual meeting of the American Physical Society in New York in February
1969 contains this statement:
A number of very distinguished physicists who spoke reminded
us of long-standing mysteries, some of them problems so old that
they are becoming forgottenpockets of resistance left far behind
the advancing frontiers of physics.4
Gravitation is a good example. It is unquestionably fundamental, but
conventional theory cannot explain it. As has been said, it may well
be the most fundamental and least understood of the interactions. 5
When a book or an article on this subject appears, we almost invariably
find the phenomenon characterized, either in the title or in the introductory
paragraphs, as a mystery, an enigma, or a riddle.

But what is gravity, really? What causes it? Where does it come
from? How did it get started? The scientist has no answers . . .
in a fundamental sense, it is still as mysterious and inexplicable
as it ever was, and it seems destined to remain so. (Dean E.
Wooldridge)6

Electromagnetic radiation, another Of the fundamental physical pheno

mena, confronts us with a different, but equally disturbing, problem.
Here there are two conflicting explanations of the phenomenon, each
of which fits the observed facts in certain areas but fails in others:
a paradox which, as James B. Conant observed, once seemed intolera
ble, although scientists have now learned to live with it. 7 This,
too, is a deep mystery, 8 as Richard Feynman calls it, at the very
base of the theoretical structure.
There is a widespread impression that Einstein solved the problem
of the mechanism of the propagation of radiation, and gave a defi nitive
explanation of the phenomenon. It may be helpful, therefore, to note
just what Einstein did have to say on this subject, not only as a matter
of clarifying the present status of the radiation problem itself, but to
illustrate the point made by P. W. Bridgman when he observed that
many of the ideas and opinions to which the ordinary scientist subscribes
have not been thought through carefully but are held in the comfortable
belief . . . that some one must have examined them at some time. 9
 Background 1

In one of his books Einstein points out that the radiation problem is
an extremely difficult one, and he concludes that
Our only way out . . . seems to be to take for granted the fact
that space has the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic
waves, and not to bother too much about the meaning of this
statement.10
Here, in this statement, Einstein reveals (unintentionally) just what
is wrong with the prevailing basic physical theories, and why a revision
of the fundamental concepts of those theories is necessary. Far too
many difficult problems have been evaded by simply assuming an answer
and taking it for granted. This point is all the more significant because
the shortcomings of the matter concept and the theories that it has
generated are by no means confined to the instances where no plausible
explanations of the observed phenomena have been produced. In many
other cases where explanations of one kind or another have actually
been formulated, the validity of these explanations is completely depen
dent on ad hoc assumptions that conflict with observed facts.
The nuclear theory of the atom is typical. Inasmuch as it is now
clear that the atom is not an indivisible unit, the concept of a universe
of matter demands that it be constructed of elementary material units
of some kind. Since the observed sub-atomic particles are the only known
candidates for this role it has been taken for granted, as mentioned
earlier, that the atom is a composite of sub-atomic particles. Consideration
of the various possible combinations has led to the hypothesis that is
now generally accepted: an atom in which there is a nucleus composed
of protons and neutrons, surrounded by some kind of an arrangement
of electrons.
But if we undertake a critical examination of this hypothesis it is
immediately apparent that there are direct conflicts with known physical
facts. Protons are positively charged, and charges of the same sign
repel each other. According to the established laws of physics, therefore,
a nucleus composed wholly or partly of protons would immediately
disintegrate. This is a cold, hard physical fact, and there is not the
slightest evidence that it is subject to abrogation or modification under
any circumstances or conditions. Furthermore, the neutron is observed
to be unstable, with a lifetime of only about 15 minutes, and hence
this particle fails to meet one of the most essential requirements of
a constituent of a stable atom: the requirement of stability. The status
of the electron as an atomic constituent is even more dubious. The
properties which it must have to play such a role are altogether different
from the properties of the observed electron. Indeed, as Herbert Dingle
points out, we can deal with the electron as a constituent of the atom
8 Nothing but Motion

only if we ascribe to it properties not possessed by any imaginable

objects at all. 11
A fundamental tenet of science is that the facts of observation and
experiment are the scientific court of last resort; they pronounce the
final verdict irrespective of whatever weight may be given to other
considerations. As expressed by Richard Feynman:
If it (a proposed new law or theory) disagrees with experiment
it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. . . .
That is all there is to it.12
The situation with respect to the nuclear theory is perfectly clear.
The hypothesis of an atomic nucleus composed of protons and neutrons
is in direct conflict with the observed properties of electric charges
and the observed behavior of the neutron, while the conflicts between
the atomic version of the electron and physical reality are numerous
and very serious. According to the established principles of science,
and following the rule that Feynman laid down in the foregoing quotation,
the nuclear theory should have been discarded summarily years ago.
But here we see the power of the currently accepted fundamental
physical concept. The concept of a universe of matter demands a building
block theory of the atom: a theory in which the atom (since it is
not an indivisible building block itself) is a thing composed of parts
which, in turn, are things of a lower order. In the absence of any
way of reconciling such a theory with existing physical knowledge, either
the basic physical concept or standard scientific procedures and tests
of validity had to be sacrificed. Since abandonment of the existing basic
concept of the nature of the universe is essentially unthinkable in the
ordinary course of theory construction, sound scientific procedure
naturally lost the decision. The conflicts between the nuclear theory
and observation were arbitrarily eliminated by means of a set of ad
hoc assumptions. In order to prevent the break-up of the hypothetical
nucleus by reason of the repulsion between the positive charges of the
individual protons it was simply assumed that there is a nuclear force
of attraction which counterbalances the known force of repulsion. And
in order to build a stable atom out of unstable particles it was assumed
(again purely ad hoc) that the neutron, for some unknown reason, is
stable within the nucleus. The more difficult problem of inventing some
way of justifying the electron as an atomic constituent is currently being
handled by assuming that the atomic electron is an entity that transcends
reality. It is unrelated to anything that has ever been observed, and
is itself not capable of being observed: an abstract thing, no longer
intuitable in terms of the familiar aspects of everyday experience, 13
as Henry Margenau describes it.
 Background 9

What the theorists commitment to the matter concept has done

in this instance is to force them to invent the equivalent of the demons
that their primitive ancestors called upon when similarly faced with
something that they were unable to explain. The mysterious nuclear
force might just as well be called the god of the nucleus. Like
an ancient god, it was designed for one particular purpose; it has no
other functions; and there is no independent confirmation of its existence.
In effect, the assumptions that have been made in an effort to justify
retention of the matter concept have involved a partial return to
the earlier spirit concept of the nature of the universe.
Since it is now clear that the concept of a universe of matter is
not valid, one may well ask: How has it been possible for physical
science to make such a remarkable record of achievement on the basis
of an erroneous fundamental concept? The answer is that only a relatively
small part of current physical theory is actually derived from the general
physical principles based on that fundamental concept. A scientific
theory, explains R. B. Braithwaite, is a deductive system in which
observable consequences logically follow from the conjunction of ob
served facts with the set of the fundamental hypotheses of the system. 14
But modern physical theory is not one deductive system of the kind
described by Braithwaite; it is a composite made up of a great many
such systems. As expressed by Richard Feynman:
Today our theories of physics, the laws of physics, are a multitude
of different parts and pieces that do not fit together very well.
We do not have one structure from which all is deduced.15
One of the principal reasons for this lack of unity is that modern
physical theory is a hybrid structure, derived from two totally different
sources. The small scale theories applicable to individual phenomena,
which constitute the great maj ority of the parts and pieces, are empirical
generalizations derived by inductive reasoning from factual premises.
At one time it was rather confidently believed that the accumulation
of empirically derived knowledge then existing, the inductive science
commonly associated with the name of Newton, would eventually be
expanded to encompass the whole of the universe. But when observation
and experiment began to penetrate what we may call the far-out regions,
the realms of the very small, the very large, and the very fast, Newtonian
science was unable to keep pace. As a consequence, the construction
of basic physical theory fell into the hands of a school of scientists
who contend that inductive methods are incapable of arriving at general
physical principles. The axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot
be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, 16 was
Einsteins dictum.
10 Nothing but Motion

The result of the ascendency of this inventive school of science

has been to split physical science into two separate parts. As matters
now stand, the subsidiary principles, those that govern individual physical
phenomena and the low-level interactions, are products of induction
from factual premises. The general principles, those that apply to large
scale phenomena or to the universe as a whole, are, as Einstein describes
them, pure inventions of the human mind. Where the observations
are accurate, and the generalizations are justified, the inductively derived
laws and theories are correct, at least within certain limits. The fact
that they constitute by far the greater part of the current structure of
physical thought therefore explains why physical science has been so
successful in practice. But where empirical data are inadequate or
unavailable, present-day science relies on deductions from the currently
accepted general principles, the products of pure invention, and this
is where physical theory has gone astray. Nature does not agree with
these free inventions of the human mind.
This disagreement with nature should not come as a surprise. Any
careful consideration of the situation will show that free invention
is inherently incapable of arriving at the correct answers to problems
of long standing. Such problems do not continue to exist because of
a lack of competence on the part of those who are trying to solve
them, or because of a lack of adequate methods of dealing with them.
They exist because some essential piece or pieces of information are
missing. Without this essential information the correct answer cannot
be obtained (except by an extremely unlikely accident). This rules out
inductive methods, which build upon empirical information. Invention
is no more capable of arriving at the correct result without the essential
information than induction, but it is not subject to the same limitations.
It can, and does, arrive at some result.
General acceptance of a theory that is almost certain to be wrong
is, in itself, a serious impediment to scientific progress, but the detrimental
effect is compounded by the ability of these inventive theories to evade
contradictions and inconsistencies by further invention. Because of the
almost unlimited opportunity to escape from difficulties by making further
ad hoc assumptions, it is ordinarily very difficult to disprove an invented
theory. But the definite proof that the physical universe is not a universe
of matter now automatically invalidates all theories, such as the nuclear
theory of the atom, that are dependent on this matter concept. The
essential piece of information that has been missing, we now find, is
the true nature of the basic entity of which the universe is composed.
The issue as to the inadequacy of present-day basic physical theory
does not normally arise in the ordinary course of scientific activity because
that activity is primarily directed toward making the best possible use
 Background ll

of the tools that are available. But when the question is actually raised
there is not much doubt as to how it has to be answered. The answer
that we get from P. A. M. Dirac is this:
The present stage of physical theory is merely a steppingstone toward
the better stages we shall have in the future. One can be quite
sure that there will be better stages simply because of the difficulties
that occur in the physics of today.17
Dirac admits that he and his fellow physicists have no idea as to
the direction from which the change will come. As he says, there
will have to be some new development that is quite unexpected, that
we cannot even make a guess about. He recognizes that this new
development must be one of major significance. It is fairly certain
that there will have to be drastic changes in our fundamental ideas
before these problems can be solved, 17 he concludes. The finding of
this present work is that drastic changes in our fundamental ideas
will indeed be required. We must change our basic physical concept:
our concept of the nature of the universe in which we live.
Unfortunately, however, a new basic concept is never easy to grasp,
regardless of how simple it may be, and how clearly it is presented,
because the human mind refuses to look at such a concept in any simple
and direct manner, and insists on placing it within the context of previously
existing patterns of thought, where anything that is new and different
is incongruous at best, and more often than not is definitely absurd.
As Butterfield states the case:
Of all forms of mental activity, the most difficult to induce even
in the minds of the young, who may be presumed not to have
lost their flexibility, is the art of handling the same bundle of data
as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one
another by giving them a different framework.18
In the process of education and development, each human individual
has put together a conceptual framework which represents the world
as he sees it, and the normal method of assimilating a new experience
is to fit it into its proper place in this general conceptual framework.
If the fit is accomplished without difficulty we are ready to accept
the experience as valid. If a reported experience, or a sensory experience
of our own, is somewhat outside the limits of our complex of beliefs,
but not definitely in conflict, we are inclined to view it skeptically but
tolerantly, pending further clarification. But if a purported experience
flatly contradicts a fundamental belief of long standing, the immediate
reaction is to dismiss it summarily.
Some such semi-automatic system for discriminating between genuine
12 Nothing but Motion

items of information and the many false and misleading items that are
included in the continuous stream of messages coming in through the
various senses is essential in our daily life, even for mere survival.
But this policy of using agreement with past experience as the criterion
of validity has the disadvantage of limiting the human race to a very
narrow and parochial view of the world, and one of the most difficult
tasks of science has been, and to some extent continues to be, overcoming
the errors that are thus introduced into thinking about physical matters.
Only a few of those who give any serious consideration to the subject
still believe that the earth is flat, and the idea that this small planet
of ours is the center of all of the significant activities of the universe
no longer commands any strong support, but it took centuries of effort
by the most advanced thinkers to gain general acceptance of the
present-day view that, in these instances, things are not what our ordinary
experience would lead us to believe.
Some very substantial advances in scientific methods and equipment
in recent years have enabled investigators to penetrate a number of
far-out regions that were previously inaccessible. Here again it has been
demonstrated, as in the question with respect to the shape of the earth,
that experience within the relatively limited range of our day-to-day
activities is not a reliable guide to what exists or is taking place in
distant regions. In application to these far-out phenomena the scientific
community therefore rejects the experience criterion, and opens the
door to a wide variety of hypotheses and concepts that are in direct
conflict with normal experience: such things as events occurring without
specific causes, magnitudes that are inherently incapable of measurement
beyond a certain limiting degree of precision, inapplicability of some
of the established laws of physics to certain unusual phenomena, events
that defy the ordinary rules of logic, quantities whose true magnitudes
are dependent on the location and movement of the observer, and so
on. Many of these departures from common sense thinking, including
almost all of those that are specifically mentioned in this paragraph,
are rather ill-advised in the light of the facts that have been disclosed
by this present work, but this merely emphasizes the extent to which
scientists are now willing to go in postulating deviations from every-day
experience.
Strangely enough, this extreme flexibility in the experience area coexists
with an equally extreme rigidity in the realm of ideas . The general situation
here is the same as in the case of experience. Some kind of semi-automatic
screening of the new ideas that are brought to our attention is necessary
if we are to have any chance to develop a coherent and meaningful
understanding of what is going on in the world about us, rather than
being overwhelmed by a mass of erroneous or irrelevant material. So,
 Background 13

just as purported new experiences are measured against past experience,

the new concepts and theories that are proposed are compared with
the existing structure of scientific thought and judged accordingly.
But just as the agreement with previous experience criterion breaks
down when experiment or observation enters new fields, so the agree
ment with orthodox theory criterion breaks down when it is applied
to proposals for revision of the currently accepted theoretical fundamen
tals. When agreement with the existing theoretical structure is set up
as the criterion by which the validity of new ideas is to be judged,
any new thought that involves a significant modification of previous
theory is automatically branded as unacceptable. Whatever merits it
may actually have, it is, in effect, wrong by definition.
Obviously, a strict and undeviating application of this agreement
criterion cannot be justified, as it would bar all major new ideas. A
new basic concept cannot be fitted into the existing conceptual framework,
as that framework is itself constructed of other basic concepts, and
a conflict is inevitable. As in the case of experience, it is necessary
to recognize that there is an area in which this criterion is not legitimately
applicable. In principle, therefore, practically everyone concedes that
a new theory cannot be expected to agree with the theory that it proposes
to replace, or with anything derived directly or indirectly from that
previous theory.
In spite of the nearly unanimous agreement on this point as a matter
of principle, a new idea seldom gets the benefit of it in actual practice.
In part this is due to the difficulties that are experienced in trying to
determine just what features of current thought are actually affected
by the theory replacement. This is not always clear on first consideration,
and the general tendency is to overestimate the effect that the proposed
change will have on prevailing ideas. In any event, the principal obstacle
that stands in the way of a proposal for changing a scientific theory
or concept is that the human mind is so constituted that it does not
want to change its ideas, particularly if they are ideas of long standing.
This is not so serious in the realm of experience, because the innovation
that is required here generally takes the form of an assertion that things
are different in the particular new area that is under consideration.
Such an assertion does not involve a flat repudiation of previous
experience; it merely contends that there is a hitherto unknown limit
beyond which the usual experience is no longer applicable. This is the
explanation for the almost incredible latitude that the theorists are
currently being allowed in the experience area. The scientist is prepared
to accept the assertion that the rules of the game are different in a
new field that is being investigated, even where the new rules involve
such highly improbable features as events that happen without causes
14 Nothing but Motion

and objects that change their locations discontinuously.

On the other hand, a proposal for modification of an accepted concept
or theory calls for an actual change in thinking, something that the
human mind almost automatically resists, and generally resents. Here
the scientist usually reacts like any layman; he promptly rejects any
intimation that the rules which he has already set up, and which he
has been using with confidence, are wrong. He is horrified at the mere
suggestion that the many difficulties that he is experiencing in dealing
with the parts of the atom, and the absurdities or near absurdities
that he has had to introduce into his theory of atomic structure are
all due to the fact that the atom is not constructed of parts.
Inasmuch as the new theoretical system presented in this volume and
those that are to follow not only requires some drastic reconstruction
of fundamental physical theory, but goes still deeper and replaces the
basic concept of the nature of the universe, upon which all physical
theory is constructed, the conflicts with previous ideas are numerous
and severe. If appraised in the customary manner by comparison with
the existing body of thought many of the conclusions that are reached
herein must necessarily be judged as little short of outrageous. But
there is practically unanimous agreement among those who are in the
front rank of scientific investigators that some drastic change in theoretical
fundamentals is inevitable. As Dirac said in the statement previously
quoted, There will have to be some new development that is quite
unexpected, that we cannot even make a guess about. The need to
abandon a basic concept, the concept of a universe of matter that has
guided physical thinking for three thousand years is an unexpected
development, just the kind of a thing that Dirac predicted. Such a
basic change is a very important step, and it should not be lightly taken,
but nothing less drastic will suffice. Sound theory cannot be built on
an unsound foundation. Logical reasoning and skillful mathematical
manipulation cannot compensate for errors in the premises to which
they are applied. On the contrary, the better the reasoning the more
certain it is to arrive at the wrong results if it starts from the wrong
premises.
 CHAPTER 2

A Univer se of Motion
The thesis of this present work is that the universe in which we
live is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which
the basic reality is motion, and all physical entities and phenomena,
including matter, are merely manifestations of motion. The atom, on
this basis, is simply a combination of motions. Radiation is motion,
gravitation is motion, an electric charge is motion, and so on.
The concept of a universe of motion is by no means a new idea.
As a theoretical proposition it has some very obvious merits that have
commended it to thoughtful investigators from the very beginning of
systematic science. Descartes idea that matter might be merely a series
of vortexes in the ether is probably the best-known speculation of this
nature, but other scientists and philosophers, including such prominent
figures as Eddington and Hobbes, have devoted much time to a study
of similar possibilities, and this activity is still continuing in a limited
way.
But none of the previous attempts to use the concept of a universe
of motion as the basis for physical theory has advanced much, if any,
beyond the speculative stage. The reason why they failed to produce
any significant results has now been disclosed by the findings of the
investigation upon which this present work is based. The inability of
previous investigators to achieve a successful application of the motion
concept, we find, was due to the fact that they did not use this concept
in its pure form. Instead, they invariably employed a hybrid structure
which retained elements of the previously accepted matter concept.
All things have but one universal cause, which is motion, 19 says
Hobbes. But the assertion that all things are caused by motion is something
quite different from saying that they are motions. The simple concept
of a universe of motion, without additions or modificationsthe concept
utilized in this present workis that of a universe which is composed
entirely of motion.
The significant difference between these two viewpoints lies in the
role that they assign to space and time. In a universe of matter it is
necessary to have a background or setting in which the matter exists
and undergoes physical processes, and it is assumed that space and

15
16 Nothing but Motion

time provide the necessary setting for physical action. Many differences
of opinion have arisen with respect to the details, particularly with respect
to spacewhether or not space is absolute and immovable, whether
such a thing as empty space is possible, whether or not space and
time are interconnected, and so onbut throughout all of the development
of thought on the subject the basic concept of space as a setting for
the action of the universe has remained intact. As summarized by J.
D. North:
Most people would accept the following: Space is that in which
material objects are situated and through which they move. It is
a background for objects of which it is independent. Any measure
of the distances between objects within it may be regarded as a
measure of the distances between its corresponding parts.20
Einstein is generally credited with having accomplished a profound
alteration of the scientific viewpoint with respect to space, but what
he actually did was merely to introduce some new ideas as to the kind
of a setting that exists. His space is still a setting, not only for
matter but also for the various fields that he envisions. A field, he
says, is something physically real in the space around it. 21 Physical
events still take place in Einsteins space just as they did in Newtons
space or in Democritus space.
Time has always been more elusive than space, and it has been extremely
difficult to formulate any clear-cut concept of its essential nature. It
has been taken for granted, however, that time, too, is part of the
setting in which physical events take place; that is, physical phenomena
exist in space and in time. On this basis it has been hard to specify
just wherein time differs from space. In fact the distinction between
the two has become increasingly blurred and uncertain in recent years,
and as matters now stand, time is generally regarded as a sort of
quasi-space, the boundary between space and time being indefinite and
dependent upon the circumstances under which it is observed. The modern
physicist has thus added another dimension to the spatial setting, and
instead of visualizing physical phenomena as being located in three-
dimensional space, he places them in a four-dimensional space-time
setting.
In all of this ebb and flow of scientific thought the one unchanging
element has been the concept of the setting. Space and time, as currently
conceived, are the stage on which the drama of the universe unfoldsa
vast world-room, a perfection of emptiness, within which all the world-
show plays itself away forever. 22
This view of the nature of space and time to which all have subscribed,
scientist and layman alike, is pure assumption. No one, so far as the
 A Universe o f Motion 17

history of science reveals, has ever made any systematic examination

of the available evidence to determine whether or not the assumption
is justified. Newton made no attempt to analyze the basic concepts.
He tells us specifically, I do not define time, space, place and motion,
as being well known to all. Later generations of scientists have challenged
some of Newtons conclusions, but they have brushed this question
aside in an equally casual and carefree manner. Richard Tolman, for
example, begins his discussion of relativity with this statement: We
shall assume without examination . . . the unidirectional, one-valued,
one-dimensional character of the time continuum. 23
Such an uncritical acceptance of an unsubstantiated assumption with
out examination is, of course, thoroughly unscientific, but it is quite
understandable as a consequence of the basic concept of a universe
of matter to which science has been committed. Matter, in such a universe,
must have a setting in which to exist. Space and time are obviously
the most logical candidates for this assignment. They cannot be examined
directly. We cannot put time under a microscope, or subject space to
a mathematical analysis by a computer. Nor does the definition of matter
itself give us any clue as to the nature of space and time. The net
effect of accepting the concept of a universe of matter has therefore
been to force science into the position of having to take the appearances
which space and time present to the casual observer as indications of
the true nature of these entities.
In a universe of motion, one in which everything physical is a
manifestation of motion, this uncertainty does not exist, as a specific
definition of space and time is implicit in the definition of motion. It
should be understood in this connection that the term motion, as
used herein, refers to motion as customarily defined for scientific and
engineering purposes; that is, motion is a relation between space and
time, and is measured as speed or velocity. In its simplest form, the
equation of motion, which expresses this definition in mathematical
symbols, is v = s/ t .
The definition as stated, the standard scientific definition, we may
call it, is not the only way in which motion can be defined. But it
is the only definition that has any relevance to the development in this
work. The basic postulate of the work is that the physical universe
is composed entirely of motion as thus defined. What we are undertaking
to do is to describe the consequences that necessarily follow in a universe
composed of this kind of motion. Whether or not one might prefer
to define motion in some other way, and what the consequences of
such a definition might be, has no bearing on the present undertaking.
Obviously, the equation of motion, which defines motion in terms
of space and time, likewise defines space and time in terms of motion.
18 Nothing but Motion

It tells us that in motion space and time are the two reciprocal aspects
of that motion, and nothing else. In a universe of matter, the fact that
space and time have this significance in motion would not preclude
them from having some other significance in a different connection,
but when it is specified that motion is the sole constituent of the physical
universe, space and time cairnot have any significance anywhere in that
universe other than that which they have as aspects of motion. Under
these circumstances, the equation of motion is a complete definition
of the role of space and time in the physical universe. We thus arrive
at the conclusion that space and time are simply the two reciprocal
aspects of motion and have no other significance.
On this basis, space is not the Euclidean container for physical
phenomena that is most commonly visualized by the layman; neither
is it the modified version of this concept which makes it subject to
distortion by various forces and highly dependent on the location and
movement of the observer, as seen by the modern physicist. In fact,
it is not even a physical entity in its own right at all; it is simply and
solely an aspect of motion. Time is not an order of succession, or
a dimension of quasi-space, neither is it a physical entity in its own
right. It, too, is simply and solely an aspect of motion, similar in all
respects to space, except that it is the reciprocal aspect.
The simplest way of defining the status of space and time in a universe
of motion is to say that space is the numerator in the expression s/ t ,
which is the speed or velocity, the measure of motion, and time is
the denominator. If there is no fraction, there is no numerator or
denominator; if there is no motion, there is no space or time. Space
does not exist alone, nor does time exist alone; neither exists at all
except in association with the other as motion. We can, of course,
focus our attention on the space aspect and deal with it as if the time
aspect, the denominator of the fraction, remains constant (or we can
deal with time as if space remains constant). This is the familiar process
known as abstraction, one of the useful tools of scientific inquiry. But
any results obtained in this manner are valid only where the time (or
space) aspect does, in fact, remain constant, or where the proper
adjustment is made for whatever changes in this factor do take place.
The reason for the failure of previous efforts to construct a workable
theory on the basis of the motion concept is now evident. Previous
investigators have not realized that the setting concept is a creature
of the matter concept; that it exists only because that basic concept
envisions material things existing in a space-time setting. In attempting
to construct a theoretical system on the basis of the concept of a universe
of motion while still retaining the setting concept of space and time,
these theorists have tried to combine two incompatible elements, and
 A Universe o f Motion 19

failure was inevitable. When the true situation is recognized it becomes

clear that what is needed is to discard the setting concept of space
and time along with the general concept of a universe of matter, to
which it is intimately related, and to use the concept of space and
time that is in harmony with the idea of a universe of motion.
In the discussion that follows we will postulate that the physical universe
is composed entirely of discrete units of motion, and we will make
certain assumptions as to the characteristics of that motion. We will
then proceed to show that the mere existence of motions with properties
as postulated, without the aid of any supplementary or auxiliary assump
tions, and without bringing in anything from experience, necessarily
leads to a vast number and variety of consequences which, in total,
constitute a complete theoretical universe.
Construction of a fully integrated theory of this nature, one which
derives both the existence and the properties of the various physical
entities from a single set of premises, has long been recognized as the
ultimate goal of theoretical science. The question now being raised is
whether that goal is actually attainable. Some scientists are still optimistic.
Of course, we all try to discover the universal law, says Eugene
P. Wigner, and some of us believe that it will be discovered one day. 24
But there is also an influential school of thought which contends that
a valid, generally applicable, physical theory is impossible, and that
the best we can hope for is a model or series of models that will
represent physical reality approximately and incompletely. Sir James
Jeans expresses this point of view in the following words:
The most we can aspire to is a model or picture which shall explain
and account for some of the observed properties of matter; where
this fails, we must supplement it with some other model or picture,
which will in its turn fail with other properties of matter, and so
on.25
When we inquire into the reasons for this surprisingly pessimistic
view of the potentialities of the theoretical approach to nature, in which
so many present-day theorists concur, we find that it has not resulted
from any new discoveries concerning the limitations of human knowledge,
or any greater philosophical insight into the nature of physical reality;
it is purely a reaction to long years of frustration. The theorists have
been unable to find the kind of an accurate theory of general applicability
for which they have been searching, and so they have finally convinced
themselves that their search was meaningless; that there is no such
theory. But they simply gave up too soon. Our findings now show that
when the basic errors of prevailing thought are corrected the road to
a complete and comprehensive theory is wide open.
20 Nothing but Motion

It is essential to understand that this new theoretical development

deals entirely with the theoretical entities and phenomena, the conse
quences of the basic postulates, not with the aspects of the physical
universe revealed by observation. When we make certain deductions
with respect to the constituents of the universe on the basis of theoretical
assumptions as to the fundamental nature of that universe, the entities
and phenomena thus deduced are wholly theoretical; they are the
constituents of a purely theoretical universe. Later in the presentation
we will show that the theoretical universe thus derived from the postulates
corresponds item by item with the observed physical universe, justifying
the assertion that each theoretical feature is a true and accurate repre
sentation of the corresponding feature of the actual universe in which
we live. In view of this one-to-one correspondence, the names that
we will attach to the theoretical features will be those that apply to
the corresponding physical features, but the development of theory will
be concerned exclusively with the theoretical entities and phenomena.
For example, the matter that enters into the theoretical development
is not physical matter; it is theoretical matter. Of course, the exact
correspondence between the theoretical and observed universes that will
be demonstrated in the course of this development means that the
theoretical matter is a correct representation of the actual physical matter,
but it is important to realize that what we are dealing with in the
development of theory is the theoretical entity, not the physical entity.
The significance of this point is that physical matter, radiation,
and other physical items cannot be defined with precision and certainty,
as there can be no assurance that our observations give us the complete
picture. The matter that enters into Newtons law of gravitation,
for example, is not a theoretically defined entity; it is the matter that
is actually encountered in the physical world: an entity whose real nature
is still a subject of considerable controversy. But we do know exactly
what we are dealing with when we talk about theoretical matter. Here
there is no uncertainty whatever. Theoretical matter is just what the
postulates require it to beno more, no less. The same is true of all
of the other items that enter into the theoretical development.
Although physical observations have not yet given us a definitive
answer to the question as to the structure of the basic unit of physical
matter, the physical atomindeed, there is an almost continuous revision
of the prevailing ideas on the subject, as new facts are revealed by
experimentwe know exactly what the structure of the theoretical atom
is, because both the existence and the properties of that atom are
consequences that we derive by logical processes from our basic postu
lates.
 A Universe o f Motion 21

Inasmuch as the theoretical premises are explicitly defined, and their

consequences are developed by sound logical and mathematical process
es, the conclusions that are reached with respect to matter, its structure
and properties, and all other features of the theoretical universe are
unequivocal. Of course, there is always a possibility that some error
may have been made in the chain of deductions, particularly if the
chain in question is a very long one, but aside from this possibility,
which is at a minimum in the early stages of the development, there is
no doubt as to the true nature and characteristics of any entity or
phenomenon that emerges from that development.
Such certainty is impossible in the case of any theory which contains
empirical elements. Theories of this kind, a category that includes all
existing physical theories, are never permanent; they are always subject
to change by experimental discovery. The currently popular theory of
the structure of the atom, for example, has undergone a long series
of changes since it was first formulated by Rutherford and Bohr, and
there is no assurance that the modifications are at an end. On the con
trary, a general recognition of the weakness of the theory as it now
stands has stimulated an intensive search for ways and means of bringing
it into a closer correspondence with reality, and the current literature
is full of proposals for revision.
When a theory includes an empirical component, as all current physical
theories do, any increase in observational or experimental knowledge
about this component alters the sense of the theory, even if the wording
remains the same. For instance, as pointed out earlier, some of the
recently discovered phenomena in the sub-atomic region, in which matter
is converted to energy, and vice versa, have drastically altered the status
of conventional atomic theory. The basic concept of a universe of material
things, to which physical science has subscribed for thousands of
years, requires the atom to be made up of elementary units of matter.
The present theory of an atom constructed of protons, neutrons, and
electrons is based on the assumption that these are the elementary
particles ; that is, the indivisible and unchangeable basic units of matter.
The experimental finding that these particles are not only interconvertible,
but also subject to creation from non-matter and transformation into
non-matter, has changed what was formerly a plausible (even if somewhat
fanciful) theory into a theory that is internally inconsistent. In the light
of present knowledge, an atom simply cannot be constructed of elemen
tary particles of matter.
Some of the leading theorists have already recognized this fact, and
are casting about for something that can replace the elementary particle
as the basic unit. Heisenberg suggests energy:
22 Nothing but Motion

Energy . . . is the fundamental substance of which the world is

made. Matter originates when the substance energy is converted
into the form of an elementary particle.26
But he admits that he has no idea as to how energy can be thus
converted into matter. This must in some way be determined by a
fundamental law, he says. Heisenbergs hypothesis is a step in the
right direction, in that he abandons the fruitless search for the indivisible
particle, and recognizes that there must be something more basic than
matter. He is quite critical of the continuing attempt to invest the purely
hypothetical quark with a semblance of reality:
I am afraid that the quark hypothesis is not really taken seriously
today by its proponents. Questions dealing with the statistics of
quarks, the forces that keep them together, the reason why the
quarks are never seen as free particles, the creation of pairs of
quarks inside an elementary particle, are all left more or less
undefined.27
But the hypothesis that makes energy the fundamental entity cannot
stand up under critical scrutiny. Its fatal defect is that energy is a scalar
quantity, and simply does not have the flexibility that is required in
order to explain the enormous variety of physical phenomena. By going
one step farther and identifying motion as the basic entity this inadequacy
is overcome, as motion can be vectorial, and the addition of directional
characteristics to the positive and negative magnitudes that are the sole
properties of the scalar quantities opens the door to the great proliferation
of phenomena that characterizes the physical universe.
It should also be recognized that a theory of the composite type,
one that has both theoretical and empirical components, is always subject
to revision or modification; it may be altered essentially at will. The theory
of atomic structure, for instance, is simply a theory of the atomnothing
elseand when it is changed, as it was when the hypothetical constituents
of the hypothetical nucleus were changed from protons and electrons
to protons and neutrons, no other area of physical theory is significantly
affected. Even when it is found expedient to postulate that the atom
or one of its hypothetical constituents does not conform to the established
laws of physical science, it is not usually postulated that these laws
are wrong; merely that they are not applicable in the particular case.
This fact that the revision affects only a very limited area gives the
theory constructors practically a free hand in making alterations, and
they make full use of the latitude thus allowed.
Susceptibility to both voluntary and involuntary changes is unavoidable
as long as the development of theory is still in the stage where complex
 A Universe o f Motion 23

concepts such as matter must be considered unanalyzable, and hence

it has come to be regarded as a characteristic of all theories. The first
point to be emphasized, therefore, in beginning a description of the
new system of theory based on the concept of a universe of motion,
the Reciprocal System, as it is called, is that this is not a composite
theory of the usual type; it is a purely theoretical structure which includes
nothing of an empirical nature.
Because all of the conclusions reached in the theoretical development
are derived entirely from the basic postulates by logical and mathematical
processes the theoretical system is completely inflexible, a point that
should be clearly understood before any attempt is made to follow the
development of the details of the theory in the following pages. It is
not subject to any change or adjustment (other than correction of any
errors that may have been made, and extension of the theory into areas
not previously covered). Once the postulates have been set forth, the
entire character of the resulting theoretical universe has been implicitly
defined, down to the most minute detail. Just because the motion of
which the universe is constructed, according to the postulates, has the
particular properties that have been postulated, matter, radiation, gravita
tion, electrical and magnetic phenomena, and so on, must exist, and
their physical behavior must follow certain specific patterns.
In addition to being an inflexible, purely theoretical product that arrives
at definite and certain conclusions which are in full agreement with
observation, or at least are not inconsistent with any definitely established
facts, the Reciprocal System of theory is one of general applicability.
It is the first thing of its kind ever formulated: the first that derives
the phenomena and relations of all subdivisions of physical activity
from the same basic premises. For the first time in scientific history
there is available a theoretical system that satisfies the criterion laid
down by Richard Schlegel in this statement:
In a significant sense, the ideal of science is a single set of principles,
or perhaps a set of mathematical equations, from which all the
vast process and structure of nature could be deduced.28
No previous theory has covered more than a small fraction of the
total field, and the present-day structure of physical thought is made
up of a host of separate theories, loosely related, and at many points
actually conflicting. Each of these separate theories has its own set
of basic assumptions, from which it seeks to derive relations specifically
applicable to certain kinds of phenomena. Relativity theory has one
set of assumptions, and is applicable to one kind of phenomena. The
kinetic theory has an altogether different set of assumptions which it
applies to a different set of phenomena. The nuclear theory of the atom
24 Nothing but Motion

has still another set of assumptions, and has a field of applicability

all its own, and so on. Again quoting Richard Feynman:
Instead of having the ability to tell you what the law of physics
is, I have to talk about the things that are common to the various
laws; we do not understand the connection between them.15
Furthermore, each of these many theories not only requires the
formulation of a special set of basic assumptions tailored to fit the
particular situation, but also finds it necessary to introduce a number
of observed entities and phenomena into the theoretical structure, taking
their existence for granted, and accepting them as given, so far as
the theory is concerned.
The Reciprocal System now replaces this multitude of separate theories
and subsidiary assumptions with a fully integrated structure of theory
derived in its entirety from a single set of basic premises. The status
of this system as a general physical theory is not a matter of opinion;
it is an objective fact that can easily be verified by an examination
of the theoretical development. Such an examination will disclose that
the development leads to detailed conclusions in all major physical fields,
and that these conclusions are derived deductively from the postulates
of the system, without the aid of any supplementary or subsidiary
assumptions, and without introducing anything from experience. The
new theoretical structure not only covers the field to which the conven
tional physical theories are applicable; it also gives us answers to the
basic physical questions with which the theories based on the matter
concept have been unable to cope, and it extends the scope of physical
theory to the point where it is capable of dealing with those recent
experimental and observational discoveries in the far-out regions of
science that have been so baffling to those who are trying to understand
them in the context of previously existing ideas.
Of course, the theoretical development has not yet been carried to
the point where it accounts for every detail of the physical universe.
That point will not be reached for a long time, if ever. But it has
been carried far enough to make it clear that the probability of being
unable to deal with the remaining items is negligible, and that the
Reciprocal System is, in fact, a general physical theory.
The crucial importance of this status as a general physical theory
lies in the further fact that it is impossible to construct a wrong general
physical theory. At first glance this statement may seem absurd. It may
seem almost self-evident that if validity is not required there should
be no serious obstacle to constructing some kind of a theory of any
subject. But even without any detailed consideration of the factors that
are involved in the case of a general physical theory, a review of experience
 A Universe o f Motion 25

will show that this offhand opinion is incorrect. Construction of a general

physical theory has been a prime goal of science for three thousand
years, and an immense amount of time and effort has been devoted
to the task, with no success whatever. The failure has not been a matter
of arriving at the wrong answers; the theorists have not been able to
formulate any single theory that would give them any answers, right
or wrong, to more than a mere handful of the miUions of questions
that a general physical theory must answer. A long period of failure
to find the correct theory is understandable, since the field that must
be covered by a general theory is so immense and so extremely
complicated, but thousands of years of inability to construct any general
theory are explainable only on the basis that there is a reason why
a wrong theory cannot be constructed.
This reason is easily understood if the essential nature of the task
is carefully examined. Construction of a general physical theory is
analogous to the task of deciphering a very long message in code. If
a coded message is shorta few words or a sentencealternative
interpretations are possible, any or all of which may be wrong, but
if the message is a very long onea whole book in code would be
an appropriate analogy to the subject matter of a general physical
theorythere is only one way to make any kind of sense out of every
paragraph, and that is to find the key to the cipher. If, and when,
the message is finally decoded, and every paragraph is intelligible, it
is evident that the key to the cipher has been discovered. The possibility
that there might be an alternative key, a different set of meanings for
the various symbols utilized, that would give every one of the thousands
of sentences in the message a different significance, intelligible but wrong,
is preposterous. It can therefore be definitely stated that a wrong key
to the cipher is impossible. The correct general theory of the universe
is the key to the code of nature. As in the case of the cipher, a wrong
theory can provide plausible answers in a very limited field, but only
the correct theory can be a general theory; one that is capable of producing
explanations for the existence and characteristics of all of the immense
number of physical phenomena. Thus a wrong general theory, like a
wrong key to a cipher, is impossible.
The verification of the validity of the theoretical structure as a whole
that is provided by the demonstration that it is a general physical theory
does not eliminate the need for checking each of the conclusions of
the theory individually. It is not unlikely that those persons who carry
out the process of development of the details of the theory will make
some mistakes. But the fact that the individual conclusions have been
derived by extension of a correct general structure of theory creates
a strong presumption of their validity, a presumption that cannot be
26 Nothing but Motion

overcome by anything other than definite and conclusive contrary

evidence. Hence, as conclusions are reached in the course of the
development, it is not necessary to supply positive proof that they are
correct, or to argue that the case in favor of their validity is superior
to that of any competitor. All that is required is to show that these
conclusions are not inconsistent with any definitely established facts.
A recognition of this point is essential for a full understanding of
the presentation in the pages that follow. Many persons will no doubt
take the stand that they find the arguments in favor of certain of the
currently accepted ideas more persuasive than those in favor of the
conclusions derived from the Reciprocal System. Indeed, some such
reactions are inevitable, since there will be a strong tendency to view
these conclusions in the context of present-day thought, based on the
no longer tenable concept of a universe of matter. But these opinions
are irrelevant. Where it can be shown that the conclusions are legitimately
derived from the postulates of the system, they participate in the proof
of the validity of the structure of theory as a whole, a proof that has
been established by two independent means: (1) by showing that this
is a general physical theory, and that a wrong general physical theory
is impossible, and (2) by showing that none of the authentic deductions
from the postulates of the theory is inconsistent with any positively
established information from observation or experiment.
This second method of verification is analogous to the manner in
which we would go about verifying the accuracy of an aerial map. The
traditional method of map making involves first a series of explorations,
then a critical evaluation of the reports submitted by the explorers,
and finally the construction of the map on the basis of those reports
that the geographers consider most reliable. Similarly, in the scientific
field, explorations are carried out by experiment and observation, reports
of the findings and conclusions based on these findings are submitted,
these reports are evaluated by the scientific community, and those that
are judged to be authentic are added to the scientific map, the accepted
body of factual and theoretical knowledge.
But this traditional method of map making is not the only way in
which a geographic map can be prepared. We may, for instance, devise
some photographic system whereby we can secure a representation of
an entire area in one operation by a single process. In either case,
whether we are offered a map of the traditional kind or a photographic
map we will want to make some tests to satisfy ourselves that the
map is accurate before we use it for any important purposes, but because
of the difference in the manner in which the maps were produced,
the nature of these tests will be altogether different in the two cases.
In checking a map of the traditional type we have no option but to
 A Universe of Motion 27

verify each significant feature of the map individually, because aside

from a relatively small amount of interrelation, each feature is indepen
dent. Verification of the position shown for a mountain in one part
of the map does not in any way guarantee the accuracy of the position
shown for a river in another part of the map. The only way in which
the position shown for the river can be verified is to compare what
we see on the map with such other information as may be available.
Since these collateral data are often scanty, or even entirely lacking,
particularly along the frontiers of knowledge, the verification of a map
of this kind in either the geographic or the scientific field is primarily
a matter of judgment, and the final conclusion cannot be more than
tentative at best.
In the case of a photographic map, on the other hand, each test
that is made is a test of the validity of the process, and any verification
of an individual feature is merely incidental. If there is even one place
where an item that can definitely be seen on the map is in conflict
with something that is positively known to be a fact, this is enough
to show that the process is not accurate, and it provides sufficient
justification for discarding the map in its entirety. But if no such conflict
is found, the fact that every test is a test of the process means that
each additional test that is made without finding a discrepancy reduces
the mathematical probability that any conflict exists anywhere on the
map. By making a suitably large number and variety of such tests the
remaining uncertainty can be reduced to the point where it is negligible,
thereby definitely establishing the accuracy of the map as a whole.
The entire operation of verifying a map of this kind is a purely objective
process in which features that can definitely be seen on the map are
compared with facts that have been definitely established by other means.
One important precaution must be observed in the verification process:
a great deal of care must be exercised to make certain of the authenticity
of the supposed facts that are utilized for the comparisons. There is
no justification for basing conclusions on anything that falls short of
positive knowledge. In testing the accuracy of an aerial map we realize
that we cannot justify rejecting the map because the location of a lake
indicated on the map conflicts with the location that we think the lake
occupies. In this case it is clear that unless we actually know just where
the lake is, we have no legitimate basis on which to dispute the location
shown on the map. We also realize that there is no need to pay any atten
tion to items of this kind: those about which we are uncertain. There are
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of map features about which we do have
positive knowledge, far more than enough for purposes of comparison,
so that we need not give any consideration to features about which
there is any degree of uncertainty.
28 Nothing but Motion

Because the Reciprocal System of theory is a fully integrated structure

derived entirely by one processdeduction from a single set of prem
isesit is capable of verification in the same manner as an aerial
map. It has already passed such a test; that is, the theoretical deductions
have been compared with the observed facts in thousands of individual
cases distributed over all major fields of physical science without encoun
tering a single definite inconsistency. These deductions disagree with
many currently accepted ideas, to be sure, but in all of these cases
it can be shown that the current views are not positive knowledge.
They are either conclusions based on inadequate data, or they are
assumptions, extrapolations, or interpretations. As in the analogous case
of the aerial map, conflicts with such items, with what scientists think,
are meaningless. The only conflicts that are relevant to the test of the
validity of the theoretical system are conflicts with what scientists know.
Thus, while recognition of human fallibility prevents asserting that
every conclusion purported to be reached by application of this theory
is authentic and therefore correct, it can be asserted that the Reciprocal
System of theory is capable of producing the right answers if it is properly
applied, and to the extent that the development of the consequences
of the postulates of the theory has been correctly carried out, the
theoretical structure thus derived is a true and accurate representation
of the actual physical universe.
 CHAPTER 3

Reference Systems
As indicated in the preceding chapter, the concept of a universe of
motion has to be elaborated to some extent before it is possible to
develop a theoretical structure that will describe that universe in detail.
The additions to the basic concept must take the form of assumptionsor
postulates, a term more commonly applied to the fundamental assumptions
of a theorybecause even though the additional specifications (the
physical specifications, at least) obviously do apply to the particular
universe of motion in which we live, there does not appear to be adequate
justification for contending that they necessarily apply to any possible
universe of motion.
It has already been mentioned that we are postulating a universe
composed of discrete units of motion. But this does not mean that
the motion proceeds in a series ofj umps. This basic motion is a progression
in which the familiar progression of time is accompanied by a similar
progression of space. Completion of one unit of the progression is followed
immediately by initiation of another, without interruption. As an analogy,
we may consider a chain. Although the chain exists only in discrete
units, or links, it is a continuous structure, not a mere juxtaposition
of separate units.
Whether or not the continuity is a matter of logical necessity is a
philosophical question that does not need to concern us at this time.
There are reasons to believe that it is, in fact, a necessity, but if not,
we will introduce it into our definition of motion. In any event, it is
part of the system. The extensive use of the term progression in
application to the basic motions with which we are dealing in the initial
portions of this work is intended to emphasize this characteristic.
Another assumption that will be made is that the universe is three-
dimensional. In this connection, it should be realized that all of the
supplementary assumptions that were added to the basic concept of
a universe of motion in order to define the essential properties of that
universe were no more than tentative at the start of the investigation
that ultimately led to the development of the Reciprocal System of theory.
Some such supplementary assumptions were clearly required, but neither
the number of assumptions that would have to be made, nor the nature

29
30 Nothing but Motion

of the individual assumptions, was clearly indicated by existing knowledge

of the physical universe. The only feasible course of action was to
initiate the investigation on the basis of those assumptions which seemed
to have the greatest probability of being correct. If any wrong assumptions
were made, or if some further assumptions were required, the theoretical
development would, of course, encounter insurmountable difficulties
very quickly, and it would then be necessary to go back and modify
the postulates, and try again. Fortunately, the original postulates passed
this test, and the only change that has been made was to drop some
of the original assumptions that were found to be deducible from the
others and therefore superfluous.
No further physical postulates are required, but it is necessary to
make some assumptions as to the mathematical behavior of the universe.
Here our observations of the existing universe do not give us guidance
of as definite a character as was available in the case of the physical
properties, but there is a set of mathematical principles which, until
very recent times, was generally regarded as almost self-evident. The
main body of scientific opinion is now committed to the belief that
the true mathematical structure of the universe is much more complex,
but the assumption that it conforms to the older set of principles is
the simplest assumption that can be made. Following the rule laid down
by William of Occam, this assumption was therefore made for the purpose
of the initial investigation. No modifications have since been found
necessary. The complete set of assumptions that constitutes the funda
mental postulates of the theory of a universe of motion can be expressed
as follows:
First Fundamental Postulate: 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.
Second Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe conforms to
the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary
magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
Postulates are justified by their consequences, not by their antecedents,
and as long as they are rational and mutually consistent, there is not
much that can be said about them, either favorably or adversely. It
should be of interest, however, to note that the concept of a universe
composed entirely of motion is the only new idea that is involved in
the postulates that define the Reciprocal System. There are other ideas
which, on the basis of current thinking, could be considered unorthodox,
but these are by no means new. For example, the postulates include
the assumption that the geometry of the universe is Euclidean. This
 Reference Systems 31

is in direct conflict with present-day physical theory, which assumes

a non-Euclidean geometry, but it certainly cannot be regarded as an
innovation. On the contrary, the physical validity of Euclidean geometry
was accepted without question for thousands of years, and there is
little doubt but that non-Euclidean geometry would still be nothing but
a mathematical curiosity had it not been for the fact that the development
of physical theory encountered some serious difficulties which the
theorists were unable to surmount within the limitations established by
Euclidean geometry, absolute magnitudes, etc.
Motion is measured as speed (or velocity, in a context that we will
consider later). Inasmuch as the quantity of space involved in one unit
of motion is the minimum quantity that takes part in any physical activity,
because less than one unit of motion does not exist, this is the unit
of space. Similarly, the quantity of time involved in the one unit of
motion is the unit of time. Each unit of motion, then, consists of one
unit of space in association with one unit of time; that is, the basic
motion of the universe is motion at unit speed.
Cosmologists often begin their analyses of large scale physical processes
with a consideration of a hypothetical empty universe, one in which
no matter exists in the postulated space-time setting. But an empty
universe of motion is an impossibility. Without motion there would be
no universe. The most primitive condition, the situation which prevails
when the universe of motion exists, but nothing at all is happening
in that universe, is a condition in which units of motion exist independent
ly, with no interaction. In this condition all speed is unity, one unit
of space per unit of time, and since all units of motion are alikethey
have no property but speed, and that is unity for allthe entire universe
is a featureless uniformity. In order that there may be physical phenomena
that can be observed or measured there must be some deviation from
this one-to-one relation, and since it is the deviation that is observable,
the amount of the deviation is a measure of the magnitude of the
phenomenon. Thus all physical activity, all change that occurs in the
system of motions that constitutes the universe, extends from unity,
not from zero.
The units of space, time, and motion (speed) that form the background
for physical activity are simply scalar magnitudes. As matters now stand,
we have no geometric means of representation that will express all three
magnitudes coincidentally. But if we assume that the time progression
continues at a uniform rate, and we measure this progression by some
independent device (a clock), then we can represent the corresponding
spatial magnitude by a one-dimensional geometric figure: a line. The
length of this line represents the amount of space corresponding to
32 Nothing but Motion

a given time magnitude. Where this time magnitude is unity, the length
of the line also represents the speed, the space per unit time.
In present-day scientific practice, the datum from which all speed
measurements are made, the point identified with the mathematical zero,
is some stationary point in the reference system. But, as has been
explained, the reference datum for physical magnitudes in a universe
o f motion is not zero speed but unit speed. The natural datum is therefore
continually moving outward (in the direction of greater magnitudes) from
the conventional zero datum, and the true speeds that are effective
in the basic physical interactions can be correctly measured only in
terms of deviation upward or downward from unity. From the natural
standpoint a motion at unit speed is no effective motion at all.
Expressing this in another way, we may say that the natural system
of reference, the reference system to which the physical universe actually
conforms, is moving outward at unit speed with respect to any stationary
spatial reference system. Any identifiable portion of such a stationary
reference system is called a location in that system. While less-than-unit
quantities of space do not exist, points within the units can be identified.
A spatial location may therefore be of any size, from a point to the
amount of space occupied by a galaxy, depending on the context in
which the term is used. To distinguish locations in the natural moving
system of reference from locations in the stationary reference systems,
we will use the term absolute location in application to the natural system.
In the context of a fixed reference system an absolute location appears
as a point (or some finite spatial magnitude) moving along a straight
line.
We are so accustomed to referring motion to a stationary reference
system that it seems almost self-evident that an object that has no
independent motion, and is not subject to any external force, must remain
stationary with respect to some spatial coordinate system. Of course,
it is recognized that what seems to be motionless in the context of
our ordinary experience is actually moving in terms of the solar system
as a reference; what seems to be stationary in the solar system is moving
if we use the Galaxy as a reference datum, and so on. Current scientific
theory also contends that motion cannot be specified in any absolute
manner, and can only be stated in relative terms. However, all previous
thought on the subject, irrespective of how it views the details, has
made the assumption that the initial point of a motion is some fixed
spatial location that can be identified as the spatial zero.
But nature is not required to conform to human opinions and beliefs,
and in this case does not do so. As indicated in the preceding paragraphs,
the natural system of reference in a universe of motion is not a stationary
system but a moving system. Inasmuch as each unit of the basic motion
 Reference Systems 33

involves one unit of space and one unit of time, it follows that continuation
of the motion through an interval during which time is progressing in
volves a continued increase, or progression, of both space and time. If
an absolute spatial location X is in coincidence with spatial location x at
time t, then at time t + n this absolute location X will be found at spatial
location x + n. As seen in the context of a stationary spatial system
of reference, each absolute location is moving outward from its point
of reference at a constant unit speed.
Because of this motion of the natural reference system with respect
to the stationary systems, an object that has no independent motion,
and is not subject to any external force, does not remain stationary
in any system of fixed spatial coordinates. It remains at the same absolute
location, and therefore moves outward at unit speed from its initial
location, and from any object that occupies such a location.
Thus far we have been considering the progression of the natural
moving reference system in the context of a one-dimensional stationary
reference system. Since we have postulated that the universe is three-
dimensional, we may also represent the progression in a three-dimensional
stationary reference system. Because the progression is scalar, what
this accomplishes is merely to place the one-dimensional system that
has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs into a certain position
in the three-dimensional coordinate system. The outward movement of
the natural system with respect to the fixed point continues in the same
one-dimensional manner.
The scalar nature of the progression of the natural reference system
is very significant. A unit of the basic motion has no inherent direction;
it is simply a unit of space in association with a unit of time. In quantitative
terms it is a unit scalar magnitude: a unit of speed. Scalar motion plays
only a very minor role in everyday life, and little attention is ordinarily
paid to it. But our finding that the basic motion of the physical universe
is inherently scalar changes this picture drastically. The properties of
scalar motion now become extremely important.
To illustrate the primary difference between scalar motion and the
vectorial motion of our ordinary experience let us consider two cases
which involve a moving object X between two points A and B on the
surface of a balloon. In the first case, let us assume that the size of
the balloon is maintained constant, and that the object X is something
capable of independent motion, a crawling insect, perhaps. The motion
of X is then vectorial. It has a specific direction in the context of
a stationary spatial reference system, and if that direction is BA that
is, X is moving away from B the distance XA decreases and the distance
XB increases. In the second case, we will assume that X is a fixed
spot on the balloon surface, and that its motion is due to expansion
34 Nothing but Motion

of the balloon. Here the motion of X is scalar. It is simply outward

away from all other points on the balloon surface, and has no specific
direction. In this case the motion away from B does not decrease the
distance XA. Both XB and XA increase. The motion of the natural
reference system relative to any fixed spatial system of reference is
motion of this character. It has a positive scalar magnitude, but no
inherent direction.
In order to place the one-dimensional progression of an absolute location
in a three-dimensional coordinate system it is necessary to define a
reference point and a direction. In the subsequent discussion we will
be dealing largely with scalar motions that originate at specific points
in the fixed coordinate system. The reference point for each of these
motions is the point of origin. It follows that the motions can be
represented in the conventional fixed system of reference only by the
use of multiple reference points . This was brought out in the first edition
of this work in the form of a statement that photons (which, as will
be shown later, are objects without independent motion, and therefore
remain in their absolute locations of origin) travel outward in all
directions from various points of emission. However, experience has
indicated that further elaboration of this point is necessary in order
to avoid misunderstandings. The principal stumbling block seems to be
a widespread impression that there must be some kind of a conceptually
identifiable universal reference system to which the motions of photons
and other objects that remain in the same absolute locations can be
related. The expression natural reference system probably contributes
to this impression, but the fact that a natural reference system exists
does not necessarily imply that it must be related in any direct way
to the conventional three-dimensional stationary frame of reference.
It is true that the expanding balloon analogy suggests something of
this kind, but an examination of this analogy will show that it is strictly
applicable only to a situation in which all existing objects are stationary
in the natural system of reference, and are therefore moving outward
at unit speed. In this situation, any location can be taken as the reference
point, and all other locations move outward from that point; that is,
all locations move outward away from all other locations. But just as
soon as moving objects (entities that are stationary, or moving with
low speeds, in the fixed reference system, and are therefore moving
with high speeds relative to the natural system of referenceemitters
of photons, for example) are introduced into the situation, this simple
representation is no longer possible, and multiple reference points become
necessary.
In order to apply the balloon analogy to a gravitationally bound physical
system it is necessary to visualize a large number of expanding balloons,
 Reference Systems 35

centered on the various reference points and interpenetrating each other.

Absolute locations are defined only in a scalar sense (represented
one-dimensionally). They move outward, each from its own reference
point, regardless of where those reference points may be located in
the three-dimensional spatial coordinate system. In the case of the
photons, each emitting object becomes a point of reference, and since
the motions are scalar and have no inherent direction, the direction
of motion of each photon, as seen in the reference system, is determined
entirely by chance. Each of the emitting objects, wherever it may be
in the stationary reference system, and whatever its motions may be
relative to that system, becomes the reference point for the scalar photon
motion; that is, it is the center of an expanding sphere of radiation.
The finding that the natural system of reference in a universe of
motion is a moving system rather than a stationary system, our first
deduction from the postulates that define such a universe, is a very
significant discovery. Heretofore only one so-called universal force,
the force of gravitation, has been known. Later in the discussion it
will be seen that the customary term universal is somewhat too broad
in application to gravitation, but this phenomenon (the nature of which
will be examined later) affects all units and aggregates of matter within
the observational range under all circumstances. While not actually
universal, it can appropriately be called a general force. In a universe
of motion a force is necessarily a motion, or an aspect of motion. Since
we will be working mainly in terms of motion for the present, it will
be desirable at this point to establish the relation between the force
and motion concepts.
For this purpose, let us consider a situation in which an object is
moving in one direction with a certain velocity, and is simultaneously
moving in the opposite direction with an equal velocity. The net change
of position of the object is zero. Instead of looking at the situation
in terms of two opposing motions, we may find it convenient to say
that the object is motionless, and that this condition has resulted from
a conflict of two forces tending to produce motion in opposite directions.
On this basis we define force as that which will produce motion if
not prevented from so doing by other forces. The quantitative aspects
of this relation will be considered later. The limitations to which a derived
concept of this kind are subject will also have consideration in connection
with subjects to be covered in the pages that follow. The essential point
to be noted here is that force is merely a special way of looking
at motion.
It has long been realized that while gravitation has been the only
known general force, there are many physical phenomena that are not
capable of satisfactory explanation on the basis of only one such force.
36 Nothing but Motion

For example. Gold and Hoyle make this comment:

Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the
condensation of galaxies must be very largely contradictory so long
as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if
the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal
expansion against the gravitational field it is adequate to prevent
local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why,
essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little
comment in most systems of cosmology.29
Karl K. Darrow made the same point in a different connection,
emphasizing that gravitation alone is not sufficient in many applications.
There must also be what he called an antagonist, an essential and
powerful force, as he described it.
May we now assume that the ultimate particles of the world act
on each other by gravity alone, with motion as the sole antagonist
to keep the universe from gathering into a single clump? The answer
to this question is a forthright and irrevocable No!30
The globular star clusters provide an example illustrating Darrows
point. Like the formation of galaxies, the problem of accounting for
the existence of these clusters is customarily passed over with little
comment by the astronomers, but a discussion of the subject occasionally
creeps into the astronomical literature. A rather candid article by E.
Finlay-Freundlich which appeared in a publication of the Royal Astro
nomical Society some years ago admitted that the main problem
presented by the globular clusters is their very existence as finite
systems. Many efforts have been made to explain these clusters on
the basis of motions acting in opposition to gravitation, but as this author
concedes, there is no evidence of the existence of motions that would
be adequate to establish an equilibrium, and he asserts that their structure
must be determined solely by the gravitational field set up by the stars
which constitute such a cluster. This being the case, the only answer
he was able to visualize was that the clusters have not yet reached
the final state of equilibrium, a conclusion that is clearly in conflict
with the many observational indications that these clusters are relatively
stable long-lived objects. The following judgment that Finlay-Freundlich
expressed with respect to the results obtained by his predecessors is
equally applicable to the situation as it stands today:

All attempts to explain the existence of isolated globular clusters

in the vicinity of the galaxy have hitherto failed.31
 Reference Systems 37

But now we find that there is a second general force that has
not hitherto been recognized, just the land of an antagonist to
gravitation that is necessary to explain all of these otherwise inexplicable
phenomena. Just as gravitation moves all units and aggregates of matter
inward toward each other, so the progression of the natural reference
system with respect to the stationary reference systems in common
use moves material units and aggregates, as we see them in the context
of a stationary reference system, outward away from each other. The
net movement of each object, as observed, is determined by the relative
magnitudes of the opposing general motions (forces), together with
whatever additional motions may be present.
In each of the three illustrative cases cited, the outward progression
of the natural reference system provides the missing piece in the physical
puzzle. But these cases are not unique; they are only especially dramatic
highlights of a clarification of the entire physical picture that is accom
plished by the introduction of this new concept of a moving natural
reference system. We will find it in the forefront of almost every subject
that is discussed in the pages that follow.
It should be recognized, however, that the outward motions that are
imparted to physical objects by reason of the progression of the natural
reference system are, in a sense, fictitious. They appear to exist only
because the physical objects are referred to a spatial reference system
that is assumed to be stationary, whereas it is, in fact, moving. But in
another sense, these motions are not entirely fictitious, inasmuch as
the attribution of motion to entities that are not actually moving takes
place only at the expense of denying motion to other entities that are,
in fact, moving. These other entities that are stationary relative to the
fixed spatial coordinate system are participating in the motion of that
coordinate system relative to the natural system. The motion therefore
exists, but it is attributed to the wrong entities. One of the first essentials
for an understanding of the system of motions that constitutes the physical
universe is to relate the basic motions to the natural reference system,
and thereby eliminate the confusion that has been introduced by the
use of a fixed reference system.
When this is done it can be seen that the units of motion involved
in the progression of the natural reference system have no actual physical
significance. They are merely units of a reference system in which the
fictitious motion of the absolute locations can be represented. Obviously,
the spatial aspect of these fictitious units of motion is equally fictitious,
and this leads to an answer to the question as to the relation of the
space represented by a stationary three-dimensional reference system,
extension space, as we may call it, to the space of the universe of
38 Nothing but Motion

motion. On the basis of the explanation given in the preceding pages,

if a number of objects without independent motion (such as photons)
originate simultaneously from a source that is stationary with respect
to a fixed reference system, they are carried outward from the location
of origin at unit speed by the motion of the natural reference system
relative to the stationary system. The direction of motion of each of
these objects, as seen in the context of the stationary system of reference,
is determined entirely by chance, and the motions are therefore distributed
over all directions. The location of origin is then the center of an expanding
sphere, the surface of which contains the locations that the moving
objects occupy after a period of time corresponding to the spatial
progression represented by the radius of the sphere.
Any point within this sphere can be defined by the direction of motion
and the duration of the progression; that is, by polar coordinates. The
sphere generated by the motion of the natural reference system relative
to the point of origin has no actual physical significance. It is a fictitious
result of relating the natural reference system to an arbitrary fixed system
of reference. It does, however, define a reference frame that is well
adapted to representing the motions of ordinary human experience. Any
such sphere can be expanded indefinitely, and the reference system
thus defined is therefore coextensive with all other stationary spatial
reference systems. Position in any one such system can be expressed
in terms of any other merely by a change of coordinates.
The volume generated in this manner is identical with the entity that
is called space in previous physical theories. It is the spatial constituent
of a universe of matter. As brought out in the foregoing explanation,
this entity, extension space, as we have called it, is neither a void,
as contended by one of the earlier schools of thought, or an actual
physical entity, as seen by an opposing school. In terms of a universe
of motion it is simply a reference system.
An appropriate analogy is the coordinate system on a sheet of graph
paper. The original lines on this paper, generally lightly printed in color,
have no significance so far as the subject matter of the graph is concerned.
But if we draw some lines on this sheet that are relevant to the subject
matter, then the printed coordinate system facilitates our assessment
of the interrelations between the quantities represented by those lines.
Similarly, extension space, per se, has no physical significance. It is
merely a reference system, like the colored lines on the graph paper,
that facilitates cognition of the relations between the significant entities
and phenomena: the motions and their various aspects.
The true space that enters into physical phenomena is the spatial
aspect of motion. As brought out earlier, it has no independent existence.
Nor does time. Each exists only in association with the other as motion.
 Reference Systems 39

We can, however, isolate the spatial aspect of a particular motion, or

type of motion, and deal with it on a theoretical basis as if it were
independent, providing that the rate of change of time remains constant,
or the appropriate correction is applied for whatever deviation from
a constant rate actually does take place. This ability to abstract the
spatial aspect and treat it independently is the factor that enables us
to relate the spatial aspect of translational motion to the reference systfem
that we recognize as extension space.
It may be of interest to note that this clarification of the nature of
extension space gives us a partial answer to the long-standing question
as to whether this space, which in the context of a universe of matter
is space in general, is finite or infinite. As a reference system it
is potentially infinite, just as number is potentially infinite. But it
does not necessarily follow that the number of units of space participating
in motions that actually have physical significance is infinite. A complete
answer to the question is therefore not available at this stage of the
development. The remaining issue will have further consideration later.
The finding that extension space is merely a reference system also
disposes of the issue with respect to curvature, or other kinds of
distortion, of space, and it rules out any participation of extension space
in physical action. Such concepts as those involved in Einsteins assertion
that space has the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic
waves are wholly incorrect. No reference system can have any physical
effects, nor can any physical action affect a reference system. Such
a system is merely a construct: a device whereby physical actions and
their results can be represented in usable form.
Extension space, the container visualized by most individuals when
they think of space, is capable of representing only translational motion,
and its spatial aspect, not physical space in general. But the spatial
aspect of any motion has the same relation to the physical phenomena
in which it is involved as the spatial aspect of translational motion that
we can follow by means of its representation in the coordinate system.
For example, the space involved in rotation is physical space, but it
can be defined in the conventional reference system only with the aid
of an auxiliary scalar quantity: the number of revolutions. By itself,
that reference system cannot distinguish between one revolution and
n revolutions. Nor is it able to represent vibrational motion. As will
be found later in the development, even its capability of representing
translational motion is subject to some significant limitations.
Regardless of whether motion is translatory, vibratory, or rotational,
its spatial aspect is space from the physical standpoint. And whenever
a physical process involves space in general, rather than merely the
spatial aspect of translational motion, all components of the total space
40 Nothing but Motion

must be taken into account. The full implications of this statement will
not become apparent until we are ready to begin consideration of electrical
phenomena, but it obviously rules out the possibility of a universal
reference system to which all spatial magnitudes can be related. Further
more, every motion, and therefore every physical object (a manifestation
of motion) has a location in three-dimensional time as well as in
three-dimensional space, and no spatial reference system is capable of
representing both locations.
It may be somewhat disconcerting to many readers to be told that
we are dealing with a universe that transcends the stationary three-dimen-
sional spatial reference system in which popular opinion places it: a
universe that involves three-dimensional time, scalar motion, a moving
reference system, and so on. But it should be realized that this complexity
is not peculiar to the Reciprocal System. No physical theory that enjoys
any substantial degree of acceptance today portrays the universe as
capable of being accurately represented in its entirety within any kind
of a spatial reference system. Indeed, the present-day official school
of physical theory says that the basic entities of the universe are not
objectively real at all; they are phantoms which can only be
symbolized by partial differential equations in an abstract multidimen
sional space. 32 (Werner Heisenberg)
Prior to the latter part of the nineteenth century there was no problem
in this area. It was assumed, without question, that space and time
were clearly recognizable entities, that all spatial locations could be
defined in terms of an absolute spatial reference system, and that time
could be defined in terms of a universal uniform flow. But the experimental
demonstration of the constant speed of light by Michelson and Morley
threw this situation into confusion, from which it has never fully emerged.
The prevailing scientific opinion at the moment is that time is not
an independent entity, but is a sort of quasi-space, existing in one
dimension that is joined in some manner to the three dimensions of
space to form a four-dimensional continuum. Inasmuch as this creates
as many problems as it solves, it has been further assumed that this
continuum is distorted by the presence of matter. These assumptions,
which are basic to Einsteins relativity theory, the currently accepted
doctrine, leave the conventional spatial reference system in a very curious
position. Einstein says that his theory requires us to free ourselves
from the idea that co-ordinates must have an immediate metrical
meaning. 33 He defines this expression a metrical meaning as the
existence of a specific relationship between differences of coordinates
and measurable lengths and times. Just what kind of a meaning the
coordinates can have if they do not represent measurable magnitudes
 Reference Systems 4l

is rather difficult to understand. The truth is that the differences in

coordinates, which, according to Einstein, have no metrical meaning,
are the spatial magnitudes that enter into almost all of our physical
calculations. Even in astronomy, where it might be presumed that any
inaccuracy would be very serious, in view of the great magnitudes
involved, we get this report from Hannes Alfven:
The general theory (of relativity) has not been applied to celestial
mechanics on an appreciable scale. The simpler Newtonian theory
is still employed almost exclusively to calculate the motions of
celestial bodies.34
Our theoretical development now demonstrates that the differences
in coordinates do have metrical meaning, and that wherever we are
dealing with vectorial motions, or with scalar motions that can be referred
to identifiable reference points, these coordinate positions accurately
represent the spatial aspects of the translational motions that are involved.
This explains why the hypothesis of an absolute spatial reference system
for the universe as a whole was so successful for such a long time.
The exceptions are exceptional in ordinary practice. The existence of
multiple reference points has had no significant impact except in the
case of gravitation, and the use of the force concept has sidestepped
the gravitational issue. Only in recent years have the observations
penetrated into regions outside the boundaries of the conventional
reference systems.
But we now have to deal with the consequences of this enlargement
of the scope of our observations. In the course of this present work
it has been found that the problems introduced into physical science
by the extension of experimental and observational knowledge are directly
due to the fact that some of the newly discovered phenomena transcend
the reference systems into which current science is trying to place them.
As we will see later, this is particularly true where variations in time
magnitudes are involved, inasmuch as conventional spatial reference
systems assume a fixed and unchanging progression of time. In order
to get the true picture it is necessary to realize that no single reference
system is capable of representing the whole of physical reality.
The universe, as seen in the context of the Reciprocal System of
theory, is much more complex than is generally realized, but the simple
Newtonian universe was abandoned by science long ago, and the
modifications of the Newtonian view that we now find necessary are
actually less drastic than those required by the currently popular physical
theories. Of course, in the final analysis this makes no difference.
Scientific thought will have to conform to the way in which the universe
42 Nothing but Motion

actually behaves, irrespective of personal preferences, but it is significant

that all of the phenomena of a universe of motion, as they emerge
from the development of the Reciprocal System, are rational, clearly
defined, and objectively real.
 CHAPTER 4

Radiation
The basic postulate of the Reciprocal System of theory asserts the
existence of motion. In itself, without qualification, this would permit
the existence of any conceivable kind of motion, but the additional
assumptions included in the postulates act as limitations on the types
of motion that are possible. The net result of the basic postulates plus
the limitations is therefore to assert the existence of any kind of motion
that is not excluded by the limiting assumptions. We may express this
point concisely by saying that in the theoretical universe of motion
anything that can exist does exist. The further fact that these permissible
theoretical phenomena coincide item by item with the observed phenome
na of the actual physical universe is something that will have to be
demonstrated step by step as the development proceeds.
Some objections have been raised to the foregoing conclusion that
what can exist does exist, on the ground that actuality does not necessarily
follow from possibility. But no one is contending that actual existence
is a necessary consequence of possible existence, as a general proposition.
What is contended is that this is true, for special reasons, in the physical
universe. Philosophers explain this as being the result of a principle
of nature. David Hawkins, for instance, tells us that the principle
of plenitude . . . says that all things possible in nature are actualized. 35
What the present development has done is to explain why nature follows
such a principle. Our finding is that the basic physical entities are scalar
motions, and that the existence of different observable entities and
phenomena is due to the fact that these motions necessarily assume
specific directions when they appear in the context of a three-dimensional
frame of reference. Inasmuch as the directions are determined by chance,
there is a finite probability corresponding to every possible direction,
and thus every possibility becomes an actuality. It should be noted
that this is exactly the same principle that was applied in Chapter 3
to explain why an expanding sphere of radiation emanates from each
radiation source (a conclusion that is not challenged by anyone). In
this case, too, scalar motions exist, each of which takes one of certain
permissible directions (limited by the translational character of the
motions), and these motions are distributed over all of the directions.

43
44 Nothing but Motion

Inasmuch as it has been postulated that motion, as defined earlier,

is the sole constituent of the physical universe, we are committed to
the proposition that every physical entity or phenomenon is a manifestation
of motion. The determination of what entities, phenomena, and processes
can exist in the theoretical universe therefore reduces to a matter of
ascertaining what kinds of motion and combinations of motions can
exist in such a universe, and what changes can take place in these
motions. Similarly, in relating the theoretical universe to the observed
physical universe, the question as to what any observed entity or
phenomenon is never arises. We always know what it is. It is a motion,
a combination of motions, or a relation between motions. The only
question that is ever at issue is what kinds of motions are involved.
There has been a sharp difference of opinion among those interested
in the philosophical aspects of science as to whether the process of
enlarging scientific understanding is discovery or invention. This
is related to the question as to the origin of the fundamental principles
of science that was discussed in Chapter 1, but it is a broader issue
that applies to all scientific knowledge, and involves the inherent nature
of that knowledge. The specific point at issue is clearly stated by R. B.
Lindsay in these words:
Application of the term discovery implies that there is an external
world out there wholly independent of the observer and with
built-in regularities and laws waiting to be uncovered and revealed.
They have always been there and presumably always will be; our
task is by diligent search to find out what they are. On the other
hand, the term invention implies that the physicist uses not only
his observations but his imaginative powers to construct points of
view that identify with experience.36
The discovery concept, says Lindsay, implies that the acquisition
of scientific knowledge is cumulative, and that ultimately our understand
ing of the physical world should be essentially complete. On the contrary,
the point of view of invention means that the process of creating
new experience and the construction of new ideas to cope with this
experience go hand in hand. On this basis, the whole activity is
open-ended ; there is no place for the idea of completeness.
The Reciprocal System now provides a definitive answer to this
question. It not only establishes scientific investigation as a process
of discovery, but reduces that discovery to deduction and verification
of the deductions. All of the information that is necessary in order
to arrive at a full description of any theoretically possible entity or
phenomenon is implicit in the postulates. A full development of the
 Radiation 45

consequences of the postulates therefore defines a complete theoretical

universe.
As will be seen in the pages that follow, the physical processes of
the universe include a continuing series of interchanges between vectorial
motions and scalar motions. In all of these interchanges causality is
maintained; no motions of either type occur except as a result of previously
existing motions. The concept of events occurring without cause, which
enters into some of the interpretations of the theories included in the
current structure of physics, is therefore foreign to the Reciprocal System.
But the universe of motion is not deterministic in the strict Laplacian
sense, because the directions of the motions are continually being
redetermined by chance processes. The description of the physical
universe that emerges from development of the consequences of the
postulates of the Reciprocal System therefore identifies the general classes
of entities and phenomena that exist in the universe, and the relations
between them, rather than specifying the exact result of every interaction,
as a similarly complete theory would do if it were deterministic.
In beginning our examination of these physical entities and phenomena,
the first point to be noted is that the postulates require the existence
of real units of motion, units that are similar to the units of motion
involved in the progression of the natural reference system, except that
they actually exist, rather than being fictitious results of relating motion
to an arbitrary reference system. These independent units of motion,
as we will call them, are superimposed on the moving reference back
ground in much the same manner as that in which matter is supposed
to exist in the basic space of previous physical theory. Since they are
units of the same kind, however, these independent units are interrelated
with the units of the background motion, rather than being separate
and distinct from it, in the manner in which matter is presumed to
be distinct from the space-time background in the theories based on
the matter concept. As we will see shortly, some of the independent
motions have components that are coincident with the background motion,
and these components are not effective from the physical standpoint;
that is, their effective physical magnitude is zero.
A point of considerable significance is that while the postulates permit
the existence of these independent motions, and, on the basis of the
principle previously stated, they must therefore exist in the universe
of motion defined by the postulates, those postulates do not provide
any mechanism for originating independent motions. It follows that the
independent motions now existing either originated coincidentally with
the universe itself, or else were originated subsequently by some outside
agency. Likewise, the postulates provide no mechanism for terminating
46 Nothing but Motion

the existence of these independent motions. Consequently, the number

of effective units of such motion now existing can neither be increased
nor diminished by any process within the physical system.
This inability to alter the existing number of effective units of
independent motion is the basis for what we may call the general
conservation law, and the various subsidiary conservation laws applying
to specific physical phenomena. It suggests, but does not necessarily,
require, a limitation of the independent units of motion to a finite number.
The issue as to the finiteness of the universe does not enter into any
of the phenomena that will be examined in this present volume, but
it will come up in connection with some of the subjects that will be
taken up later, and it will be given further consideration then.
The Reciprocal System of theory deals only with the physical universe
as it now exists, and reaches no conclusions as to how that universe
came into being, nor as to its ultimate fate. The theoretical system
is therefore completely neutral on the question of creation. It is compatible
with either the hypothesis of creation by some agency, or the hypothesis
that the universe has always existed. Continuous creation of matter
by action of the physical mechanism itself, as postulated by the Steady
State theory of cosmology is ruled out, and there is nothing in that
mechanism that will allow the universe to arrive at any kind of termination
of its own accord. The question of creation or termination by action
of an outside agency is beyond the scope of the theoretical development.
Turning now to the question as to what kinds of motion are possible
at the basic level, we note that scalar magnitudes may be either positive
(outward, as represented in a spatial reference system), or negative
(inward). But as we observe motion in the context of a fixed reference
system, the outward progression of the natural reference system is always
present, and thus every motion includes a one-unit outward component.
The discrete unit postulate prevents any addition to an effective unit,
and independent outward motion is therefore impossible. All independent
motion must have a net inward, or negative, magnitude. Furthermore,
it must be continuous and uniform at this stage of the development,
because no mechanism is yet available whereby discontinuity or variability
can be produced.
Since the outward progression always exists, independent continuous
negative motion is not possible by itself, but it can exist in combination
with the ever-present outward progression. The result of such a combina
tion of unit negative and unit positive motion is zero motion relative
to a stationary coordinate system. Another possibility is simple harmonic
motion, in which the scalar direction of movement reverses at each
end of a unit of space, or time. In such motion, each unit of space
is associated with a unit of time, as in unidirectional translational motion.
 Radiation 47

but in the context of a stationary three-dimensional spatial reference

system the motion oscillates back and forth over a single unit of space
(or time) for a certain period of time (or space).
At first glance, it might appear that the reversals of scalar direction
at each end of the basic unit are inadmissable in view of the absence
of any mechanism for accomplishing a reversal. However, the changes
of scalar direction in simple harmonic motion are actually continuous
and uniform, as can be seen from the fact that such motion is a projection
of circular motion on a diameter. The net effective speed varies continu
ously and uniformly from + l at the midpoint of the forward movement
to zero at the positive end of the path of motion, and then to - l at
the midpoint of the reverse movement and zero at the negative end
of the path. The continuity and uniformity requirements are met both
by a continuous, uniform change of direction, and by a continuous,
uniform change of magnitude.
As pointed out earlier, the theoretical structure that we are developing
from the fundamental postulates is a description of what can exist in
the theoretical universe of motion defined by those postulates. The
question as to whether a certain feature of this theoretical universe
does or does not correspond to anything in the actual physical universe
is a separate issue that is explored in a subsequent step in the project,
to be started shortly, in which the theoretical universe is compared
item by item with the observed universe. At the moment, therefore,
we are not concerned with whether or not simple harmonic motion does
exist in the actual physical universe, why it exists, if it does, or how
it manifests itself. All that we need to know for present purposes is
that inasmuch as this kind of motion is continuous, and is not excluded
by the postulates, it is one of the kinds of motion that exists in the
theoretical universe of motion, under the most basic conditions.
Under these conditions simple harmonic motion is confined to individual
units. When the motion has progressed for one full unit, the discrete
unit postulate specifies that a boundary exists. There is no discontinuity,
but at this boundary one unit terminates and another begins. Whatever
processes may have been under way in the first unit cannot carry over
into the next. They cannot be divided between two totally independent
units. Consequently, a continuous change from positive to negative can
occur only within one unit of either space or time.
As explained in Chapter 3, motion, as herein defined, is a continuous
processa progressionnot a succession of jumps. There is progression
even within the units, simply because these are units of progression,
or scalar motion. For this reason, specific points within the unitthe
midpoint, for examplecan be identified, even though they do not exist
independently. The same is true of the chain used as an analogy in
48 Nothing but Motion

the preceding discussion. Although the chain exists only in discrete units,
or links, we can distinguish various portions of a link. For instance,
if we utilize the chain as a means of measurement, we can measure
10-1/2 links, even though half of a link would not qualify as part of
the chain. Because of this capability of identifying the different portions
of the unit, we see the vibrating unit as following a definite path.
In defining this path we will need to give some detailed consideration
to the matter of direction . In the first edition the word direction
was used in four different senses. Exception was taken to this practice
by a number of readers, who suggested that it would be helpful if
direction were employed with only one significance, and different
names were attached to the other three concepts. When considered purely
from a technical standpoint, the earlier terminology is not open to
legitimate criticism, as using words in more than one sense is unavoidable
in the English language. However, anything that can be done to facilitate
understanding of the presentation is worth serious consideration. Unfor
tunately, there is no suitable substitute for direction in most of these
applications.
Some of the objections to the previous terminology were based on
the ground that scalar quantities, by definition, have no direction, and
that using the term direction in application to these quantities, as
well as to vectorial quantities, is contradictory and leads to confusion.
There is merit in this objection, to be sure, in any application where
we deal with scalar quantities merely as positive and negative magnitudes.
But as soon as we view the scalar motions in the context of a fixed
spatial reference system, and begin talking about outward and in
ward, as we must do in this work, we are referring not to the scalar
magnitudes themselves, but to the representation of these magnitudes
in a stationary spatial reference system, a representation that is necessarily
directional. The use of directional language in this case therefore appears
to be unavoidable.
There are likewise some compelling reasons for continuing to use
the term direction in time in application to the temporal property
analogous to the spatial property of direction. We could, of course,
coin a new word for this purpose, and there would no doubt be certain
advantages in so doing. But there are also some very definite advantages
to be gained by utilizing the word direction with reference to time
as well as with reference to space. Because of the symmetry of space
and time, the property of time that corresponds to the familiar property
of space that we call direction has exactly the same characteristics
as the spatial property, and by using the term direction in time, or
temporal direction, as a name for this property we convey an immediate
understanding of its nature and characteristics that would otherwise
 Radiation 49

require a great deal of discussion and explanation. All that is then

necessary is to keep in mind that although direction in time is like direction
in space, it is not direction in space.
Actually, it should not be difficult to get away from the habit of
always interpreting direction as meaning direction in space when
we are dealing with motion. We already recognize that there is no spatial
connotation attached to the term when it is used elsewhere. We habitually
use direction and directional terms of one kind or another in speaking
of scalar quantities, or even in connection with items that cannot be
expressed in physical imagery at all. We speak of wages and prices
as moving in the same direction, temperature as going up or down,
a change in the direction of our thinking, and so on. Here we realize
that we are using the word direction without any spatial significance.
There should be no serious obstacle in the way of a similar conception
of the meaning of direction in time.
In this edition the term direction will not be used in referring to
the deviations upward or downward from unit speed. In the other senses
in which the term was originally used it seems essential to continue
utilizing directional language, but as an alternative to the further limitations
on the use of the term direction that have been suggested we will
use qualifying adjectives wherever the meaning of the term is not obvious
from the context.
On this basis vectorial direction is a specific direction that can be
fully represented in a stationary coordinate system. Scalar direction
is simply outward or inward, the spatial representation of positive or
negative scalar magnitudes respectively. Wherever the term direction
is used without qualification it will refer to vectorial direction. If there
is any question as to whether the direction (scalar or vectorial) under
consideration is a direction in space or a direction in time, this information
will also be given.
Vectorial motion is motion with an inherent vectorial direction. Scalar
motion is inward or outward motion that has no inherent vectorial
direction, but is given a direction by the factors involved in its relation
to the reference system. This imputed vectorial direction is independent
of the scalar direction except to the extent that the same factors may,
in some instances, affect both. As an analogy, we may consider a motor
car. The motion of this car has a direction in three-dimensional space,
a vectorial direction, while at the same time it has a scalar direction,
in that it is moving either forward or backward. As a general proposition,
the vectorial direction of this vehicle is independent of its scalar direction.
The car can run forward in any vectorial direction, or backward in
any direction.
If the car is symmetrically constructed so that the front and back
50 Nothing but Motion

are indistinguishable, we cannot tell from direct observation whether

it is moving forward or backward. The same is true in the case of
the simple scalar motions. For example, we will find in the pages that
follow that the scalar direction of a falling object is inward, whereas
the scalar direction of a beam of light is outward. If the two happen
to traverse the same path in the same vectorial direction, as they may
very well do, there is nothing observable that will distinguish between
the inward and outward motion. In the usual situation the scalar direction
of an observed motion must be determined from collateral information
independently of the observed vectorial direction.
The magnitude of a simple harmonic motion, like that of any other
motion, is a speed, the relation between the number of units of space
and the number of units of time participating in the motion. The basic
relation, one unit of space per unit of time, always remains the same,
but by reason of the directional reversals, which result in traversing
the same unit of one component repeatedly, the speed of a simple harmonic
motion, as it appears in a fixed reference system , is l / x (or x/ l ) . This
means that each advance of one unit in space (or time) is followed
by a series of reversals of scalar direction that increase the number
of units of time (or space) to x, before another advance in space (or
time) takes place. At this point the scalar direction remains constant
for one unit, after which another series of reversals takes place.
Ordinarily the vectorial direction reverses in unison with the scalar
direction, but each end of a unit is the reference point for the position
of the next unit in the reference system, and conformity with the scalar
reversals is therefore not mandatory. Consequently, in order to maintain
continuity in the relation of the vectorial motion to the fixed reference
system the vectorial direction continues the regular reversals at the points
where the scalar motion advances to a new unit of space (or time).
The relation between the scalar and vectorial directions is illustrated
in the following tabulation, which represents two sections of a 1/ 3 simple
harmonic motion. The vectorial directions are expressed in terms of
the way the movement would appear from some point not in the line
of motion.
Unit DIRECTION
Number Scalar Vectorial
1 inward right
2 outward left
3 inward right
4 inward left
5 outward right
6 inward left
 Radiation 51

The simple harmonic motion thus remains permanently in a fixed

position in the dimension o f motion, as seen in the context of a stationary
reference system; that is, it is an oscillatory, or vibratory, motion. An
alternative to this pattern of reversals will be discussed in Chapter 8.
Like all other absolute locations, the absolute location occupied by
the vibrating unit, the unit of simple harmonic motion, is carried outward
by the progression of the natural reference system, and since the linear
motion of the vibrating unit has no component in the dimensions
perpendicular to the line of oscillation, the outward progression at unit
speed takes place in one of these free dimensions. Inasmuch as this
outward progression is continuous within the unit as well as from one
unit of the reference frame to the next, the combination of a vibratory
motion and a linear motion perpendicular to the line of vibration results
in a path which has the form of a sine curve.
Because of the dimensional relationship between the oscillation and
the linear progression, there is a corresponding relation between the
vectorial directions of these two components of the total motion, as
seen in the context of a stationary reference system, but this relation
is fixed only between these two components. The position of the plane
of vibration in the stationary spatial system of reference is determined
by chance, or by the characteristics of the originating object.
Although the basic one-to-one space-time ratio is maintained in the
simple harmonic motion, and the only change that takes place is from
positive to negative and vice versa, the net effect, from the standpoint
of a fixed system of reference is to confine one componenteither
space or timeto a single unit, while the other component extends
to n units. The motion can thus be measured in terms of the number
of oscillations per unit of time, a frequency, although it is apparent
from the foregoing explanation that it is actually a speed. The conventional
measurement in terms of frequency is possible only because the magnitude
of the space (or time) term remains constant at unity.
Here, in this oscillating unit, the first manifestation of independent
motion (that is, motion that is separate and distinct from the outward
motion of the natural reference system) that has emerged from the
theoretical development, is the first physical object. In the motion of
this object we also have the first instance of something moving.
Up to this time we have been considering only the basic motions, relations
between space and time that do not involve movement of any thing.
Experience in presenting the theory to college audiences has indicated
that many persons are unable to conceive of the existence of motion
without something moving, and are inclined to argue that this is impossible.
It should be realized, however, that we are definitely committed to this
concept just as soon as we postulate a universe composed entirely of
52 Nothing but Motion

motion. In such a universe, things are combinations of motions, and

motion is thus logically prior to things.
The concept of a universe of motion is generally conceded to be
reasonable and rational. The long list of prominent and not-so-prominent
scientists and philosophers who have essayed to explore the implications
of such a concept is sufficient confirmation of this point. It follows
that unless some definite and positive conflict with reason or experience
is encountered, the necessary consequences of that concept must also
be presumed to be reasonable and rational, even though some of them
may conflict with long-standing beliefs of some land.
There is no mathematical obstacle to this unfamiliar type of motion.
We have defined motion, for purposes of a theory of a universe of
motion, by means of the relation expressed in the equation of motion:
v = s / t . This equation does not require the existence of any moving
object. Even where the motion actually is motion of something, that
something does not enter into any of the terms of the equation,
the mathematical representation of the motion. The only purpose that
it serves is to identify the particular motion under consideration. But
identification is also possible where there is nothing moving. If, for
example, we say that the motion we are talking about is the motion
of atom A, we are identifying a particular motion, and distinguishing
it from all other motions, but if we refer to the motion which constitutes
atom A, we are identifying this motion (or combination of motions)
on an equally definite basis, even though this is not motion of anything.
A careful consideration of the points brought out in the foregoing
discussion will make it clear that the objections that have been raised
to the concept of motion without anything moving are not based on
logical grounds. They stem from the fact that the idea of simple motion
of this kind, merely a relation between space and time, is new and
unfamiliar. None of us likes to discard familiar ideas of long standing,
and replace them with something new and different, but this is part
of the price that we pay for progress.
This will be an appropriate time to emphasize that combinations or
other modifications of existing motions can only be accomplished by
adding or removing units of motion. As stated in Chapter 2, neither
space nor time exists independently. Each exists only in association
with the other as motion. Consequently, a speed 1/a cannot be changed
to a speed 1/6 by adding b-a units of time. Such a change can only
be accomplished by superimposing a new motion on the motion that
is to be altered.
In carrying out the two different operations that were involved in
the investigation from which the results reported herein were derived,
it would have been possible to perform them separately; first developing
 Radiation 53

the theoretical structure as far as circumstances would permit, and then

comparing this structure with the observed features of the physical
universe. In practice, however, it was more convenient to identify the
various theoretical features with the corresponding physical features
as the work progressed, so that the correlations would serve as a running
check on the accuracy of the theoretical conclusions. Furthermore, this
policy eliminated the need for the separate system of terminology that
otherwise would have been required for referring to the various features
of the theoretical universe during the process of the theoretical develop
ment.
Much the same considerations apply to the presentation of the results,
and we will therefore identify each theoretical feature as it emerges
from the development, and will refer to it by the name that is customarily
applied to the corresponding physical feature. It should be emphasized,
however, that this hand in hand method of presentation is purely an
aid to understanding. It does not alter the fact that the theoretical universe
is being developed entirely by deduction from the postulates. No empirical
information is being introduced into the theoretical structure at any point.
All of the theoretical features are purely theoretical, with no empirical
content whatever. The agreement between theory and observation that
we will find as we go along is not a result of basing the theoretical
conclusions on appropriate empirical premises; it comes about because
the theoretical system is a true and accurate representation of the actual
physical situation.
Identification of the theoretical unit of simple harmonic motion that
we have been considering presents no problem. It is obvious that each
of these units is a photon . The process of emission and movement
of the photons is radiation . The space-time ratio of the vibration is
the frequency of the radiation, and the unit speed of the outward
progression is the speed of radiation, more familiarly known as the
speed of light.
When considered merely as vibrating units, there is no distinction
between one photon and another except in the speed of vibration, or
frequency. The unit level, where speed l / n changes to n / l cannot
be identified in any directly observable way. We will find, however,
that there is a significant difference between the manner in which the
photons of vibrational speed \ / n enter into combinations of motions
and the corresponding behavior of photons of vibrational speed greater
than unity. This difference will be examined in detail in the chapters
that follow.
One of the things that we can expect a correct theory of the structure
of the universe to do is to clear up the discrepancies and paradoxes
of previously existing scientific thought. Here, in the explanation of
54 Nothing but Motion

the nature of radiation that emerges from the development of theory,

we fi nd this expectation dramatically fulfilled. In conventional thinking
the concepts of wave and particle are mutually exclusive, and
the empirical discovery that radiation acts in some respects as a wave
phenomenon, and in other respects as an assembly of particles has con
fronted physical science with a very disturbing paradox. Almost at the out
set of our development of the consequences of the postulates that define
a universe of motion we find that in such a universe there is a very
simple explanation. The photon acts as a particle in emission and
absorption because it has the distinctive feature of a particle: it is a
discrete unit. In transmission it behaves as a wave because the combination
of its own inherent vibratory motion with the translatory motion of
the progression of the natural reference system causes it to follow a
wave-like path. In this case the problem that seemed impossible to solve
while radiation was looked upon as a single entity loses all of its difficult
features as soon as it is recognized as a combination of two different
things.
Another difficult problem with respect to radiation has been to explain
how it can be propagated through space without some kind of a medium.
This problem has never been solved other than by what was described
by R. H. Dicke as a semantic trick ; that is, assuming, entirely ad
hoc, that space has the properties of a medium.
One suspects that, with empty space having so many properties,
all that had been accomplished in destroying the ether was a semantic
trick. The ether had been renamed the vacuum.5
Einstein did not challenge this conclusion expressed by Dicke. On
the contrary, he freely admitted, not only that his theory still employed
a medium, but also that this medium is indistinguishable, other than
semantically, from the ether of previous theories. The following
statements from his works are typical:
We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space
is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there
exists an ether.37
We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting
waves, and so omit the use of a word (ether) we have decided
to avoid.38
Thus the relativity theory does not resolve the problem. There is
no evidence to support Einsteins assumption that space has the properties
of a medium, or that it has any physical properties at all. The fact
that no method of propagating radiation through space without a medium
 Radiation 55

has ever been conceived is therefore still unreconciled with the absence
of any evidence of the existence of a medium. In the theoretical universe
of the Reciprocal System the problem does not arise, since the photon
remains in the same absolute location in which it originates, as any
object without independent motion must do. With respect to the natural
reference system it does not move at all, and the movement that is
observed in the context of a stationary reference system is a movement
of the natural reference system relative to the stationary system, not
a movement of the photon itself.
In both the propagation question and the wave-particle issue the
resolution of the problem is accomplished in the same manner. Instead
of explaining why the seemingly complicated phenomena are complex
and perplexing, the Reciprocal System of theory removes the complexity
and reduces the phenomena to simple terms. As other long-standing
problems are examined in the course of the subsequent development
we will find that this conceptual simplicity is a general characteristic
of the new theoretical structure.
 CHAPTER 5

Gravitation
Another type of motion that is permitted by the postulates, and therefore
exists in the theoretical universe, is rotation. Before rotational motion
can take place, however, there must exist some physical object (indepen
dent motion) that can rotate. This is purely a matter of geometry. We
are still in the stage of the development where we are dealing only
with scalar motions, and the directional characteristics of rotation cannot
be produced by a single scalar motion. Like the sine curve of the photon
they require a combination of motions: a compound motion, we may
say. Thus, while motion is possible without anything moving, rotation
is not possible unless some physical object is available to be rotated.
The photon of radiation is such an independent motion, or physical
object, and it is evident, from the limitations that apply to the kinds
of motion that are possible at this stage of the development, that it
is the only primary unit that meets the requirement. Simple rotation
is therefore rotation of the photon.
In our ordinary experience rotation is a vectorial motion, and its
direction (a vectorial direction) is relative to a fixed spatial system of
reference. In the absence of other motion, an object rotating vectorially
remains stationary in the fixed system. However, any motion of a photon
is a scalar motion, inasmuch as the mechanism required for the production
of vectorial motion is not yet available at this stage of the development.
A scalar motion has an inherent scalar direction (inward or outward),
and it is given a vectorial direction by the manner in which the scalar
motion appears in the fixed coordinate system.
As brought out in Chapter 4, the net scalar direction of independent
motion is inward. The significance of the term net in this statement
is that a compound motion may include an outward component providing
that the magnitude of the inward component of that motion is great
enough to give the motion as a whole the inward direction. Since the
vectorial direction that this inward motion assumes in a fixed reference
system is independent of the scalar direction, the motion can take any
vectorial direction that is permitted by the geometry of three-dimensional
space. One such possibility is rotation. The special characteristic of
rotation that distinguishes it from the simple harmonic motion previously

57
58 Nothing but Motion

considered is that in rotation the changes in vectorial direction are

continuous and uniform, so that the motion is always forward, rather
than oscillating back and forth. Consequently, there is no reason for
any change in scalar direction, and the motion continues in the inward
direction irrespective of the vectorial changes. Scalar rotation thus differs
from inherently vectorial rotation in that it involves a translational inward
movement as well as the purely rotational movement. A rolling motion
is a good analogy, although the mechanism is different. The rolling
motion is one motion, not a rotation and a translational motion. It is
the rotation that carries the rolling object forward translationally. Similar
ly, the scalar rotation is only one motion, even though it has a translational
effect that is absent in the case of vectorial rotation.
To illustrate the essential difference between rotation and simple
harmonic motion, let us return to the automobile analogy. If the car
is on a very narrow road, analogous to the one-dimensional path of
vibration of the photon, and it runs forward in moving north, then when
it reverses its vectorial direction and moves south it also reverses its
scalar direction and runs backward. But if the car is on a circular track
and starts moving forward, it continues moving forward regardless of
the changes in vectorial direction that are taking place.
The vectorial direction of the inward translational movement of the
rotating photon, like the vectorial direction of the non-rotating photon,
is a result of viewing the motion in the context of an arbitrary reference
system, rather than an inherent property of the motion itself. It is therefore
determined entirely by chance. However, the non-rotating photon remains
in the same absolute location permanently, unless acted upon by some
outside agency, and the direction determined at the time of emission
is therefore also permanent. The rotating photon, on the other hand,
is continually moving from one absolute location to another as it travels
back along the line of the progression of the natural reference system,
and each time it enters a new absolute location the vectorial direction
is redetermined by the chance process. Inasmuch as all directions are
equally probable, the motion is distributed uniformly among all of them
in the long run. A rotating photon therefore moves inward toward all
space-time locations other than the one that it happens to occupy
momentarily. Coincidentally, it continues to move outward by reason
of the progression of the reference system, but the net motion of the
observable aggregates of rotating photons in our immediate environment
is inward. The determination of the vectorial direction corresponding
to outward automatically determines the vectorial direction of in-
ward in each case, inasmuch as one is the reverse of the other.
Some of the readers of the first edition found the concept of inward
motion rather difficult. This was probably due to looking at the situation
 Gravitation 59

on the basis of a single reference point. Outward from such a point

is easily visualized, whereas inward has no meaning under the
circumstances. But the non-rotating photon does not merely move outward
from the point of emission; it moves outward from all locations in the
manner of a spot on the surface of an expanding balloon. Similarly,
the rotating photon moves inward toward all locations in the manner
of a spot on the surface of a contracting balloon. The outward motion
is simply the spatial representation of an increasing scalar magnitude,
whereas the inward motion is the spatial representation of a decreasing
scalar magnitude. If that decreasing magnitude reaches zero, it continues
as an increasing negative magnitude; that is, if the object which was
moving inward toward a certain location eventually arrives at that location,
it continues in motion beyond that point (providing that nothing inter
venes).
Since space and time locations cannot be identified by observation,
neither inward nor outward motion can be recognized as such. It is*
possible, however, to observe the changes in relations between the moving
objects and other physical structures. The photons of radiation, for
instance, are observed to be moving outward from the emitting objects.
Similarly, each of the rotating photons in the local environment is moving
toward all other rotating photons, by reason of the inward motion in
space in which all participate, and the change of relative position in
space can be observed. This second class of identifiable objects in the
theoretical universe thus manifests itself to observation as a number
of individual units which continually move inward toward each other.
Here, again, the identification of the physical counterparts of the
theoretical phenomena is a simple matter. The inward motion in all
directions of space is gravitation, and the rotating photons are the physical
objects that gravitate; that is, atoms and particles. Collectively, the
atoms and particles constitute matter.
As in the case of radiation, the new theoretical development leads
to a very simple explanation of a hitherto unexplained phenomenon.
Previous investigators in this area have arrived at a reasonably good
understanding of the physical effects of gravitation, but they are com
pletely at sea as to how it originated, and how the apparent gravitational
effect is propagated. Our finding is that these previous investigators
have misunderstood the nature of the gravitational phenomenon.
Except at extreme distances, each unit or aggregate of matter in the
observed physical universe continually moves toward all others, unless
restrained in some way. It has therefore been taken for granted that
each particle of matter is exerting a force of attraction on the others.
However, when we examine the characteristics of that presumed force
we find that it is something of a very peculiar nature, totally unlike
60 Nothing but Motion

the forces of ordinary experience. As nearly as we can determine from

observation, the gravitational force acts instantaneously, without an
intervening medium, and in such a manner that it cannot be screened
off or modified in any way. These observed characteristics are so difficult
to explain theoretically that the theorists have given up the search for
an explanation, and are now taking the stand that the observations must,
for some unknown reason, be wrong.
Even though all practical gravitational calculations, including those
at astronomical distances, are carried out on the basis of instantaneous
action, without introducing any inconsistencies, and even though the
concept of a force which is wholly dependent upon position in space
being propagated through space is self-contradictory, the theorists take
the stand that since they are unable to devise a theory to account for
instantaneous action, the gravitational force must be propagated at a
finite velocity, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And even
though there is not the slightest evidence of the existence of any medium
in space, or the existence of any medium-like properties of space, the
theorists also insist that since they are unable to devise a theory without
a medium or something that has the properties of a medium, such an
entity must exist, in spite of the negative evidence.
There are many places in accepted scientific thought where the necessity
of facing up to clear evidence from observation or experiment is avoided
by the use of one or more of the evasive devices that the modern
theorists have invented for the purpose, but this gravitational situation
is probably the only major instance in which the empirical evidence
is openly and categorically defied. While the total lack of any explanation
of the gravitational phenomenon that is consistent with the observations
has undoubtedly been the primary cause of the flagrantly unscientific
attitude that has been taken here, an erroneous belief concerning the
nature of electromagnetic radiation has been a significant contributing
factor.
The enormous extension of the known range of radiation frequencies
in modern times has been accomplished mainly through the generation
of these additional frequencies by electrical means, and it has come
to be believed that there is a unique connection between radiation and
electrical processes, that radiation is the carrier by means of which
electrical and magnetic effects are propagated. From this it is only a
short step to the conclusion that there must also be gravitational waves,
carriers of gravitational energy. Such (gravitational) waves fesemble
electromagnetic waves, says Joseph Weber, who has been carrying
on an extensive search for these hypothetical waves for many years.
The theoretical development in the preceding pages shows that this
presumed analogy does not represent the reality of the universe of motion.
 Gravitation 61

In that universe radiation and gravitation are phenomena of a totally

different order. But it is worth noting that radical differences between
these two types of phenomena are also apparent in the information
that is available from empirical sources. That information is simply ignored
in current practice because it conflicts with the popular theories of the
moment.
Radiation is a process whereby energy is transferred from a material
aggregate at some particular location in space (or time) to other spatial
(or temporal) locations. Each photon has a definite frequency of vibration
and a corresponding energy content; hence these photons are essentially
traveling units of energy. The emitting agency loses a specific amount
of energy whenever a photon leaves. This energy travels through the
intervening space (or time) until the photon encounters a unit of matter
with which it is able to interact, whereupon the energy is transferred,
wholly or in part, to this matter. At either end of the path the energy
is recognizable as such, and is readily interchangeable with other types
of energy. The radiant energy of the impinging photon may, for instance,
be converted into kinetic energy (heat), or into electrical energy (the
photo-electric effect), or into chemical energy (photo-chemical action).
Similarly, any of these other types of energy which may exist at the
point of emission of the radiation can be converted into radiation by
appropriate processes.
The gravitational situation is entirely different. Gravitational energy
is not interchangeable with other forms of energy. At any specific location
with respect to other masses, a mass unit possesses a definite amount
of gravitational (potential) energy, and it is impossible to increase or
decrease this energy content by conversion from or to other forms of
energy. It is true that a change in location results in a release or absorption
of energy, but the gravitational energy which the mass possesses at
point A cannot be converted to any other type of energy at point A ,
nor can the gravitational energy at A be transferred unchanged to any
other point B (except along equipotential lines). The only energy that
makes its appearance in any other form at point B is that portion of
the gravitational energy which the mass possessed at point A that it
can no longer have at point B: a fixed amount determined entirely by
the difference in location.
Radiant energy remains constant while traveling in space, but can
vary almost without limit at any specific location. The behavior of
gravitation is the exact opposite. The gravitational effect remains constant
at any specific location, but varies if the mass moves from one location
to another, unless the movement is along an equipotential line. Energy
i defined as capability of doing work. Kinetic energy, for example,
qualifies under this definition, and any kind of energy that can be freely
62 Nothing but Motion

converted to kinetic energy likewise qualifies. But gravitational energy

is not capable of doing work as a general proposition. It will do one
thing, and that thing only: it will move masses inward toward each
other. If this motion is permitted to take place, the gravitational energy
decreases, and the decrement makes its appearance as kinetic energy,
which can then be utilized in the normal manner. But unless gravitation
is allowed to do this one thing which it is capable of doing, the gravitational
energy is completely unavailable. It cannot do anything itself, nor can
it be converted to any form of energy that can do something.
The mass itself can theoretically be converted to kinetic energy, but
this internal energy equivalent of the mass is something totally different
from the gravitational energy. It is entirely independent of position with
reference to other masses. Gravitational, or potential, energy, on the
other hand, is purely an energy of position; that is, for any two specific
masses, the mutual potential energy is determined solely by their spatial
separation. But energy of position in space cannot be propagated in
space; the concept of transmitting this energy from one spatial position
to another is totally incompatible with the fact that the magnitude of
the energy is determined by the spatial location. Propagation of gravitation
is therefore inherently impossible. The gravitational action is necessarily
instantaneous as Newtons Law indicates, and as has always been assumed
for purposes of calculation.
It is particularly significant, therefore, that the theoretical charac
teristics of gravitation, as derived from the postulates of the Reciprocal
System, are in full agreement with the empirical observations, strange
as these observations may seem. In the theoretical universe of motion
gravitation is not an action of one aggregate of matter on another, as
it appears to be. It is simply an inward motion of the material units,
an inherent property of the atoms and particles of matter. The same
motion that makes an atom an atom also causes it to gravitate. Each
atom and each aggregate is pursuing its own course independently of
all others, but because each unit is moving inward in space, it is moving
toward all other units, and this gives the appearance of a mutual
interaction. These theoretical inward motions, totally independent of
each other, necessarily have just the kind of characteristics that are
observed in gravitation. The change in the relative position of two objects
due to the independent motions of each occurs instantaneously, and
there is nothing propagated from one to the other through a medium,
or in any other way. Whatever exists, or occurs, in the intervening
space can have no effect on the results of the independent motions.
One of the questions that is frequently asked is how this finding
that the gravitational motion of each aggregate is completely independent
of all others can be reconciled with the observed fact that the direction
 Gravitation 63

of the (apparent) mutual gravitational force between two objects changes

if either object moves. On the face of it, there appears to be a necessity
for some kind of an interaction. The explanation is that the gravitational
motion of an object never changes, either in amount or in direction.
It is always directed from the location of the gravitating unit toward
all other space and time locations. But we cannot observe the motion
of an object inward in space; we can only observe its motion relative
to other objects whose presence we can detect. The motion of each
object therefore appears to be directed toward the other objects, *but,
in fact, it is directed toward all locations in space and time irrespective
of whether or not they happen to be occupied. Whatever changes appear
to take place in the gravitational phenomena by reason of change of
position of any of the gravitating masses are not changes in the gravita
tional motions (or forces) but changes in our ability to detect those
motions.
Let us assume a mass unit X occupying location a , and moving
gravitationally toward locations b and c. If these locations are not
occupied, then we cannot detect this motion at all. If location b is
occupied by mass unit Y, then we see X moving toward Y; that is,
we can now observe the motion of X toward location b , but its motion
toward location c is still unobservable. The observable gravitational
motion of Y is toward X and has the direction ba.
Now if we assume that Y moves to location c, what happens? The
essence of the theory is that the motion of X is not changed at all;
it is entirely independent of the position of object Y, But we are now
able to observe the motion of X toward c because there is a physical
object at that location, whereas we are no longer able to observe the
motion of X toward location b , even though that motion exists just
as definitely as before. The direction of the gravitational motion (or
force) of X thus appears to have changed, but what has actually happened
is that some previously unobservable motion has become observable,
while some previously observable motion has become unobservable.
The same is true of the motion of object Y. It now appears to be
moving in the direction ca rather than in the direction ba , but here
again there has been no actual change, other than the change in the
position of Y. Gravitationally, Y is moving in all directions at all times,
irrespective of whether or not that motion is observable.
The foregoing explanation has been presented in terms of individual
mass units, rather than aggregates, as the basic question with respect
to the effect of variable mass on the gravitational motion has not yet
been considered. The discussion will be extended to the multiple units
in the next chapter.
As emphasized in Chapter 3, the identification of a second general
64 Nothing but Motion

force, or motion, to which all matter is subject, provides the much

needed antagonist to gravitation, and enables explaining many phe
nomena that have never been satisfactorily explained on the basis of
only one general force. It is the interaction of these two general forces
that determines the course of major physical events. The controlling
factor is the distance intervening between the objects that are involved.
Inasmuch as the progression of space and time is merely a manifestation
of the movement of the natural reference system with respect to the
conventional stationary system of reference, the space progression
originates everywhere, and its magnitude is always the same, one unit
of space per unit of time. Gravitation, on the other hand, originates
at the specific locations which the gravitating objects happen to occupy.
Its effects are therefore distributed over a volume of extension space,
the size of which varies with the distance from the material object. In
three-dimensional space, the fraction of the inward motion directed toward
a unit area at distance d from the object is inversely proportional to
the total area at that distance; that is, to the surface of a sphere of
radius d . The effective portion of the total inward motion is thus inversely
proportional to d 2. This is the inverse square law to which gravitation
conforms, according to empirical findings.
The net resultant of these two general motions in each specific case
depends on their relative magnitudes. At the shorter distances gravitation
predominates, and in the realm of ordinary experience all aggregates
of matter are subject to net gravitational motions (or forces). But since
the progression of the natural reference system is constant at unit speed,
while the opposing gravitational motion is attenuated by distance in
accordance with the inverse square law, it follows that at some specific
distance, the gravitational limit of the aggregate of matter under consider
ation, the motions reach equality. Beyond this point the net movement
is outward, increasing toward the speed of light as the gravitational
effect continues to decrease.
As a rough analogy, we may visualize a moving belt traveling outward
from a central location and carrying an assortment of cubes and balls.
The outward travel of the belt represents the progression of the natural
reference system. The cubes are analogous to the photons of radiation.
Having no independent mobility of their own, they must necessarily
remain permanently at whatever locations on the belt they occupy initially,
and they therefore move outward from the point of origin at the full
speed of the belt. The balls, however, can be caused to rotate, and
if the rotation is in the direction opposite to the travel of the belt,
and the rotational speed is high enough, the balls will move inward
instead of outward. These balls represent the atoms of matter, and the
 Gravitation 65

inward motion opposite to the direction of the travel of the belt is

analogous to gravitation.
We could include the distance factor in the analogy by introducing
some means of varying the speed of rotation of the balls with the distance
from the central point. Under this arrangement the closer balls would
still move inward, but at some point farther out there would be an
equilibrium, and beyond this point the balls would move outward.
The analogy is incomplete, particularly in that the mechanism whereby
the rotation of the balls causes them to move inward translationally
is not the same as that which causes the inward motion of the atoms.
Nevertheless, it does show quite clearly that under appropriate conditions
a rotational motion can cause a translational displacement, and it gives
us a good picture of the general relations between the progression of
the natural reference system, gravitational motion, and the travel of
the photons of radiation.
All aggregates of matter smaller than the largest existing units are
under the gravitational control of larger aggregates; that is, they are
within the gravitational limits of those larger units. Consequently, they
are not able to continue the outward movement that would take place
in the absence of the larger bodies. The largest existing aggregates are
not limited in this manner, and on the basis of the principles that have
been stated, any two such aggregates that are outside their mutual
gravitational limits recede from each other at speeds increasing with
the distance.
In the observed physical universe, the largest aggregates of matter
are galaxies. According to the foregoing theoretical findings, the distant
galaxies should be receding from the earth at extremely high speeds
increasing with distance up to the speed of light, which will be reached
where the gravitational effect is reduced to a negligible level. Until
quite recently, this theoretical conclusion would have been received
with extreme skepticism, as it conflicts with what was then the accepted
thinking, and there was no way in which it could be subjected to a
test. But recent astronomical advances have changed this situation.
Present-day instruments are able to reach out to distances so great that
the effect of gravitation is minimal, and the observations with this
improved equipment show that the galaxies are behaving in exactly the
manner predicted by the new theory.
In the meantime, however, the astronomers have been trying to account
for this galactic recession in some manner consistent with present
astronomical views, and they have devised an explanation in which they
assume, entirely ad hoc, that there was an enormous explosion at some
singular point in the past history of the universe which hurled the galaxies
66 Nothing but Motion

out into space at their present fantastically high speeds. If one were
to be called upon to decide which is the better explanationone which
rests upon an ad hoc assumption of an event far out of the range of
known physical phenomena, or one which finds the recession to be
an immediate and direct consequence of the fundamental nature of the
universethere can hardly be any question as to the decision. But,
in reality, this question does not arise, as the case in favor of the theory
of a universe of motion is not based on the contention that it provides
better explanations of physical phenomena, a contention that would have
to depend, in most instances, on conformity with non-scientific criteria,
but on the objective and genuinely scientific contention that it is a fully
integrated system of theory which is not inconsistent with any established
fact in any physical area.
Another significant effect of the existence of a gravitational limit,
within which there is a net inward motion, and outside of which there
is a net outward progression, is that it reconciles the seemingly uniform
distribution of matter in the universe with Newtons Law of Gravitation
and Euclidean geometry. One of the strong arguments that has been
advanced against the existence of a gravitational force of the inverse
square type operating in a Euclidean universe is that on such a basis,
The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean
of space, 39 as Einstein stated the case. Observations indicate that there
is no such concentration. So far as we can tell, the galaxies are distributed
uniformly, or nearly uniformly, throughout the immense region now
accessible to observation, and this is currently taken as a definite
indication that the geometry of the universe is non-Euclidean.
From the points brought out in the preceding pages, it is now clear
that the flaw in this argument is that it rests on the assumption that
there is a net gravitational force effective throughout space. Our findings
are that this assumption is incorrect, and that there is a net gravitational
force only within the gravitational limit of the particular mass under
consideration. On this basis it is only the matter within the gravitational
limit that should agglomerate into a single unit, and this is exactly what
occurs. Each major galaxy is a finite island in the ocean of space
within its gravitational limit. The existing situation is thus entirely
consistent with inverse square gravitation operating in a Euclide an
universe, as the Reciprocal System requires.
The atoms, particles, and larger aggregates of matter within the
gravitational limit of each galaxy constitute a gravitationally bound
system. Each of these constituent units is subject to the same two general
forces as the galaxies, but in addition is subject to the (apparent)
gravitational attraction of neighboring masses, and that of the entire
mass within the gravitational limits acting as a whole. Under the combined
 Gravitation 67

influence of all of these forces, each aggregate assumes an equilibrium

position in the three-dimensional reference system that we are calling
extension space, or a net motion capable of representation in that system.
So far as the bound system is concerned, the coordinate reference system,
extension space, is the equivalent of Newtons absolute space. It can
be generalized to include other gravitationally bound systems by taking
into account the relative motion of the systems.
Any or all of the aggregates or individual units that constitute a
gravitationally bound system may acquire motions relative to the fixed
reference system. Since these motions are relative to the defined spatial
coordinate system, the direction of motion in each instance is an inherent
property of the motion, rather than being merely a matter of chance,
as in the case of the coordinate representation of the scalar motions.
These motions with inherent vectorial directions are vectorial motions:
the motions of our ordinary experience. They are so familiar that it
is customary to generalize their characteristics, and to assume that these
are the characteristics of all motion. Inasmuch as these familiar vectorial
motions have inherent directions, and are always motions of something,
it is taken for granted that these are essential features of motions; that
all motions must necessarily have these same properties. But our
investigation of the fundamental properties of motion reveals that this
assumption is in error. Motion, as it exists in a universe composed
entirely of motion, is merely a relation between space and time, and
in its simpler forms it is not motion of anything, nor does it have an
inherent direction. Vectorial motion is a special kind of motion; a
phenomenon of the gravitationally bound systems.
The net resultant of the scalar motions of any objectthe progression
of the reference system and the various gravitational motionshas a
vectorial direction when viewed in the context of a stationary reference
system, even though that direction is not an inherent property of the
motion. The observed motion of such an object, which is the net resultant
of all of its motions, both scalar and vectorial, thus appears to be simply
a vectorial motion, and is so interpreted in current practice. One of
the prerequisites for a clear understanding of basic physical phenomena
is a recognition of the composite nature of the observed motions. It
is not possible to get a true picture of activity in a gravitationally bound
system unless it is realized that an object such as a photon or a neutrino
which is traveling at the speed of light with respect to the conventional
frame of reference does so because it has no capability of independent
motion at all, and is at rest in its own natural system of reference.
Similarly, the behavior of atoms of matter can be clearly understood
only in the light of a realization that they are motionless, or moving
at low speeds, relative to the conventional reference system because
68 Nothing but Motion

they possess inherent motions at high speed which counterbalance the

motion of the natural reference system that would otherwise carry them
outward at the speed of the photon or the neutrino.
It is also essential to recognize that the scalar motion of the photons
can be accommodated within the spatial reference system only by the
use of multiple reference points. Photons are continually being emitted
from matter by a process that we will not be prepared to discuss until
a later stage of the theoretical development. The motion of the photons
emitted from any material object is outward from .that object, not from
the instantaneous position in some reference system which that object
happens to occupy at the moment of emission. As brought out in Chapter
3, the extension space of our ordinary experience is absolute space
for vectorial motion and for scalar motion viewed from one point of
reference. But every other reference point has its own absolute space
and there is no criterion by which one of these can be singled out
as more basic than another. Thus the location at which a photon originates
cannot be placed in the context of any general reference system for
scalar motion. That location itself is the reference point for the photon
emission, and if we choose to view it in relation to some reference
system with respect to which it is moving, then that relative motion,
whatever it may be, is a component of the motion of the emitted photons.
Looking at the situation from the standpoint of the photon, we may
say that at the moment of emission this photon is participating in all
of the motions of the emitting object, the outward progression of the
natural reference system, the inward motion of gravitation, and all of
the vectorial motions to which the material object is subject. No
mechanism exists whereby the photon can eliminate any of these motions,
and the outward motion of the absolute location of the emission, to
which the photon becomes subject on separation from the material unit,
is superimposed on the previously existing motions. This, again, means
that the reference point for the motion of the photon is defined by
the emitting object. In a gravitationally bound system each aggregate
and individual unit of matter is the center of a sphere of radiation.
This point has been a source of difficulty for some readers of the
first edition, and further consideration by means of a specific example
is probably in order. Let us take some location A as a reference point.
All photons originating from a physical object at A move outward at
unit speed in the manner portrayed by the balloon analogy. Gravitating
objects move inward in opposition to the progression, and can therefore
be represented by positions somewhere along the lines of the outward
movement. Here, then, we have the kind of a situation that most persons
are looking for: something that they can visualize in the context of
the familiar fixed spatial coordinate system. But now let us take a look
 Gravitation 69

at one of these gravitating objects, which we will call B. For convenience,

let us assume that B is moving gravitationally with respect to A at
a rate which is just equal to the outward progression of the natural
reference system, so that B remains stationary with respect to object
A in the fixed reference system. This is the condition that prevails
at the gravitational limit. What happens to the photons emitted from
B?
If the expanding system centered at A is conceived as a universal
system of reference, as so many readers have evidently taken it to
be, then these photons must be detached from B in a manner which
will enable them to be carried along by progression in a direction outward
from A. But the natural reference system moves outward from all
locations; it moves outward from B in exactly the same manner as
it does from A. There is no way in which one can be assigned any
status different from that of the other. The photons originating at B
therefore move outward from B, not from A. This would make no
difference if B were itself moving outward from A at unit speed, as
in that case outward from B would also be outward from A, but where
B is stationary with respect to A in a fixed coordinate system, the
only way in which the motions of the photons can be represented in
that system is by means of two separate reference points. Thus there
is a sphere of radiation centered at A, and another sphere centered
at B. Where the spheres overlap, the photons may make contact, even
though all are moving outward from their respective points of origin.
It has been suggested that the theoretical conclusion that the unit
outward motion of the photon is added to the motion imparted to the
photon by the emitting object conflicts with the empirically established
principle that the speed of radiation is independent of the speed of
the source, but this is not true. The explanation lies in some aspects
of the measurement of speed that have not been recognized. This matter
will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
 CHAPTER 6

The Reciprocal Relation

Inasmuch as the fundamental postulates define a universe composed
entirely of units of motion, and define space and time in terms of that
motion, these postulates preclude space and time from having any
significance other than that which they have in motion, and at the same
time require that they always have that significance; that is, throughout
the universe space and time are reciprocally related.
This general reciprocal relation that necessarily exists in a universe
composed entirely of motion has a far-reaching and decisive effect on
physical structures and processes. In recognition of its crucial role, the
name Reciprocal has been applied to the system of theory based
on the motion concept of the nature of the universe. The reason
for calling it a system of theory rather than merely a theory is
that its subdivisions are coextensive with other physical theories. One
of these subdivisions covers the same ground as relativity, another
parallels the nuclear theory of the atom, still another deals with the
same physical area as the kinetic theory, and so on. It is appropriate,
therefore, to call these subdivisions theories and to refer to the entire
new theoretical structure as the Reciprocal System of theory, even though
it is actually a single fully integrated entity.
The reciprocal postulate provides a good example of the manner in
which a change in the basic concept of the nature of the universe alters
the way in which we apprehend specific physical phenomena. In the
context of a universe of matter existing in a space-time framework,
the idea of space as the reciprocal of time is simply preposterous, too
absurd to be given serious consideration. Most of those who encounter
the idea of the reciprocal of space for the first time find it wholly
inconceivable. But these persons are not taking the postulates of the
new theory at their face value, and recognizing that the assertion that
space is an aspect of motion means exactly what it says. They are
accustomed to regarding space as some kind of a container, and they
are interpreting this assertion as if it said that container space is an
aspect of motion, thus inserting their own concept of space into a
statement which rejects all such previous ideas and defines a new and

71
72 Nothing but Motion

different concept. The result of mixing such incongruous and conflicting

concepts cannot be otherwise than meaningless.
When the new ideas are viewed in the proper context, the strangeness
disappears. In a universe in which everything that exists is a form of
motion, and the magnitude of that motion, measured as speed or velocity,
is the only significant physical quantity, the existence of the reciprocal
relation is practically self-evident. Motion is defined as the relation of
space to time. Its mathematical expression is the quotient of the two
quantities. An increase in space therefore has exactly the same effect
on the speed, the mathematical measure of the motion, as a decrease
in time, and vice versa. In comparing one airplane with another, it
makes no difference whether we say that plane A travels twice as far
in the same time, or that it travels a certain distance in half the time.
Inasmuch as the postulates deal with space and time in precisely the
same manner, aside from the reciprocal relation between the two, the
behavior characteristics of the two entities, or properties, as they are
called, are identical. This statement may seem incredible on first sight,
as space and time manifest themselves to our observation in very different
guises. We know time only as a progression, a continual moving forward,
whereas space appears to us as an entity that stays put. But when
we subject the apparent differences to a critical examination, they fail
to stand up under the scrutiny.
The most conspicuous property of space is that it is three-dimensional.
On the other hand, it is generally believed that the observational evidence
shows time to be one-dimensional. We have a subjective impression
of a unidirectional flow of time from the past, to the present, and
on into the future. The mathematical representation of time in the
equations of motion seems to confirm this view, inasmuch as the quantity
t in v = s / t and related equations is scalar, not vectorial, as v and
s are, or can be.
Notwithstanding its general and unquestioning acceptance, this conclu
sion as to the one-dimensionality of time is entirely unjustified. The
point that is being overlooked is that direction, in the context of
the physical processes which are represented by vectorial equations in
present-day physics, always means direction in space. In the equation
v = s / t , for example, the spatial displacement s is a vector quantity
because it has a direction in space. It follows that the velocity v also
has a direction in space, and thus what we have here is a space velocity
equation. In this equation the term t is necessarily scalar because it
has no direction in space.
It is quite true that this result would automatically follow if time
were one-dimensional, but the one-dimensionality is by no means a
necessary condition. Quite the contrary, time is scalar in this space
 The Reciprocal Relation 73

velocity equation (and in all of the other familiar vectorial equations

of modern physics; equations that are vectorial because they involve
direction in space) irrespective of its dimensions, because no matter how
many dimensions it may have, time has no direction in space . If time
is multi-dimensional, as our theoretical development finds it to be, then
it has a property that corresponds to the spatial property that we call
direction. But whatever we call this temporal property, whether we
call it direction in time, as we are doing for reasons previously
explained, or give it some altogether different name, it is a temporal
property, not a spatial property, and it does not give time any direction
in space. Regardless of its dimensions, time cannot be a vector quantity
in any equation such as those of present-day physics, in which the
property which qualifies a quantity as vectorial is that of having a direction
in space.
The existing confusion in this area is no doubt due, at least in part,
to the fact that the terms dimension and dimensional are currently
used with two different meanings. We speak of space as three-dimension-
al, and we also speak of a cube as three-dimensional. In the first of
these expressions we mean that space has a certain property that we
designate as dimensionality, and that the magnitude applying to this
property is three. In other words, our statement means that there are
three dimensions of space. But when we say that a cube is three-dimen-
sional, the significance of the statement is quite different. Here we
do not mean that there are three dimensions of cubism, or whatever
we may call it. We mean that the cube exists in space and extends
into three dimensions of that space.
There is a rather general tendency to interpret any postulate of
multi-dimensional time in this latter significance; that is, to take it as
meaning that time extends into n dimensions of space , or some kind
of a quasi-space. But this is a concept that makes little sense under
any conditions, and it certainly is not the meaning of the term three-
dimensional time as used in this work. When we here speak of time
as three-dimensional we will be employing the term in the same signifi
cance as when we speak of space as three-dimensional; that is, we
mean that time has a property which we call dimensionality, and the
magnitude of that property is three. Here, again, we mean that there
are three dimensions of the property in question: three dimensions
of time.
There is nothing in the role which time plays in the equations of
motion in space to indicate specifically that it has more than one
dimension. But a careful consideration along the lines indicated in the
foregoing paragraphs does show that the present-day assumption that
we know time to be one-dimensional is completely unfounded. Thus
74 Nothing but Motion

there is no empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the assertion

of the Reciprocal System that time is three-dimensional.
Perhaps it might be well to point out that the additional dimensions
of time have no metaphysical significance. The postulates of a universe
of motion define a purely physical universe, and all of the entities and
phenomena of that universe, as determined by a development of the
necessary consequences of the postulates, are purely physical. The three
dimensions of time have the same physical significance as the three
dimensions of space.
As soon as we take into account the effect of gravitation on the
motion of material aggregates, the second of the observed differences,
the progression of time, which contrasts sharply with the apparent
immobility of extension space, is likewise seen to be a consequence
of the conditions of observation, rather than an indication of any actual
dissimilarity. The behavior of those objects that are partially free from
the gravitational attraction of our galaxy, the very distant galaxies, shows
conclusively that the immobility of extension space, as we observe it,
is not a reflection of an inherent property of space in general, but is
a result of the fact that in the region accessible to detailed observation
gravitation moves objects toward each other, offsetting the effects of
the outward progression. The pattern of the recession of the distant
galaxies demonstrates that when the gravitational effect is eliminated
there is a progression of space similar to the observed progression of
time. Just as now continually moves forward relative to any initial
point in the temporal reference system, so here in the absence of
gravitation, continually moves forward relative to any initial point in
the spatial reference system.
Little additional information about either space or time is available
from empirical sources. The only items on which there is general
agreement are that space is homogeneous and isotropic, and that time
progresses uniformly. Other properties that are sometimes attributed
to either time or space are merely assumptions or hypotheses. Infinite
extent or infinite divisibility, for instance, are hypothetical, not the results
of observation. Likewise, the assertions as to spatial and temporal
properties that are made in the relativity theories are, as Einstein says,
free inventions of the human mind, not items that have been derived
from experience.
In testing the validity of the conclusion that all properties of either
space or time are properties of both space and time, such assumptions
and hypotheses must be disregarded, since it is only conflicts with
definitely established facts that are conclusive. The significance of a
conflict with a questionable assertion cannot be other than questionable.
Homogeneous with respect to space is equivalent to uniform with
 The Reciprocal Relation 75

respect to time, and because the observations thus far available tell
us nothing at all about the dimensions of time, there is nothing in these
observations that is inconsistent with the assertion that time, like space,
is isotropic. In spite of the general belief, among scientists and laymen
alike, that there is a great difference between space and time, any critical
examination along the foregoing lines shows that the apparent differences
are not real, and that there is actually no observational evidence that
is inconsistent with the theoretical conclusion that the properties of
space and of time are identical.
As brought out in Chapter 4, deviations from unit speed, the basic
one-to-one space-time ratio, are accomplished by means of reversals
of the direction of the progression of either space or time. As a result
of these reversals, one component traverses the same path in the reference
system repeatedly, while the other component continues progressing
unidirectionally in the normal manner. Thus the deviation from the normal
rate of progression may take place either in space or in time, but not
in both coincidentally. The space-time ratio, or speed, is either \ / n
(less than unity, the speed of light), or n / l (greater than unity). Inasmuch
as everything physical in a universe of motion is a motionthat is,
a relation between space and time, measured as speedand, as we
have just seen, the properties of space and those of time are identical,
aside from the reciprocal relationship, it follows that every physical
entity or phenomenon has a reciprocal. There exists another entity or
phenomenon that is an exact duplicate, except that space and time are
interchanged.
For example, let us consider an object rotating with speed \ / n and
moving translationally with speed \ / n. The reciprocal relation tells us
that there must necessarily exist, somewhere in the universe, an object
identical in all respects, except that its rotational and translational speeds
are both n / \ instead of l/rt. In addition to the complete inversions,
there are also structures of an intermediate type in which one or more
components of a complex combination of motions are inverted, while
the remaining components are unchanged. In the example under consider
ation, the translational speed may become n / l while the rotational speed
remains at l/rt, or vice versa. Once the normal ( l / n) combination has
been identified, it follows that both the completely inverted ( n/ l )
combination and the various intermediate structures exist in the appropri
ate environment. The general nature of that environment in each case
is also indicated, inasmuch as change of position in time cannot be
represented in a spatial reference system, and each of these speed
combinations has some special characteristics when viewed in relation
to the conventional reference systems. The various physical entities
and phenomena that involve motio n of these several inverse types will
76 Nothing but Motion

be examined at appropriate points in the pages that follow. The essential

point that needs to be recognized at this time, because of its relevance
to the subject matter now under consideration, is the existence of inverse
forms of all of the normal (l/w) motions and combinations of motions.
This is a far-reaching discovery of great significance. In fact the new
and more accurate picture of the physical universe that is derived from
the motion concept differs from previous ideas mainly by reason
of the widening of our horizons that results from recognition of the
inverse phenomena. Our direct physical contacts are limited to phenomena
of the same type as those that enter into our own physical makeup:
the direct phenomena, we may call them, although the distinction between
direct and inverse is merely a matter of the way in which we see them,
not anything that is inherent in the phenomena themselves. In recent
years the development of powerful and sophisticated instruments has
enabled us to penetrate areas that are far beyond the range of our
unaided senses, and in these new areas the relatively simple and
understandable relations that govern events within our normal experience
are no longer valid. Newtons laws of motion, which are so dependable
in everyday life, break down in application to motion at speeds approach
ing that of light; events at the atomic level resist all attempts at explanation
by means of established physical principles, and so on.
The scientific reaction to this state of affairs has been to conclude
that the relatively simple and straightforward physical laws that have
been found to apply to events within our ordinary experience are not
universally valid, but are merely approximations to some more complex
relations of general applicability. The simplicity of Newtons laws of
motion, for instance, is explained on the ground that some of the terms
of the more complicated general law are reduced to negligible values
at low velocities, and may therefore be disregarded in application to
the phenomena of everyday life. Development of the consequences of
the postulates of the Reciprocal System arrives at a totally different
answer. We find that the inverse phenomena that necessarily exist in
a universe of motion play no significant role in the events of our everyday
experience, but as we extend our observations into the realms of the
very large, the very small, and the very fast, we move into the range
in which these inverse phenomena replace or modify those which we,
from our particular position in the universe, regard as the direct phenome
na.
On this basis, the difficulties that have been experienced in attempting
to use the established physical laws and relations of the world of ordinary
experience in the far-out regions are very simply explained. These laws
and relations apply specifically to the world of immediate sense percep
tion, phenomena of the direct space-time orientation, and they fail in
 The Reciprocal Relation 77

application to any situation in which the events under consideration

involve phenomena of the inverse type in any significant degree. They
do not fail because they are wrong, or because they are incomplete;
they fail because they are misapplied. No lawphysical or otherwise
can be expected to produce the correct results in an area to which
it has no relevance. The inverse phenomena are governed by laws distinct
from, although related to, those of the direct phenomena, and where
those phenomena exist they can be understood and successfully handled
only by using the laws and relations of the inverse sector.
This explains the ability of the Reciprocal System of theory to deal
successfully with the recently discovered phenomena of the far-out
regions which have been so resistant to previous theoretical treatment.
It is now apparent that the unfamiliar and surprising aspects of these
phenomena are not due to aspects of the normal physical relations that
come into play only under extreme conditions, as previous theorists
have assumed; they are due to the total or partial replacement of the
phenomena of the direct type by the related, but different phenomena
of the inverse type. In order to obtain the correct answers to problems
in these remote areas, the unfamiliar phenomena that are involved must
be viewed in their true light as the inverse of the phenomena of the
directly observable region, not in the customary way as extensions of
those direct phenomena into the regions under consideration. By identify
ing and utilizing this correct treatment the Reciprocal System is not
only able to arrive at the right answers in the far-out areas, but to
accomplish this task without disturbing the previously established laws
and principles that apply to the phenomena of the direct type.
In order to keep the explanation of the basic elements of the theory
as simple and understandable as possible, the previous discussion has
been limited to what we have called the direct view of the universe,
in which space is the more familiar of the two basic entities, and plays
the leading role. At this time it is necessary to recognize that because
of the general nature of the reciprocal relation between space and time
every statement that has been made with respect to space in the preceding
chapters is equally applicable to time in the appropriate context. As
we have seen in the case of space and time individually, however, the
way in which the inverse phenomenon manifests itself to our observation
may be quite different from the way in which we see its direct counterpart.
Locations in time cannot be represented in a spatial reference system,
but, with the same limitations that apply to the representation of spatial
locations, they can be represented in a stationary three-dimensional
temporal reference system analogous to the three-dimensional spatial
reference system that we call extension space. Since neither space nor
time exists independently, every physical entity (a motion or a combination
78 Nothing but Motion

of motions) occupies both a space location and a time location. The

location as a whole, the location in the physical universe, we may say,
can therefore be completely defined only in terms of two reference
systems.
In the context of a stationary spatial reference system the motion
of an absolute location, a location in the natural reference system, as
indicated by observation of an object without independent motion, such
as a photon or a galaxy at the observational limit, is linearly outward.
Similarly, the motion of an absolute location with respect to a stationary
temporal reference system is linearly outward in time. Inasmuch as
the gravitational motion of ordinary matter is effective in space only,
the atoms and particles of this matter, which are stationary with respect
to the spatial reference system, or moving only at low velocities, remain
in the same absolute locations in time indefinitely, unless subjected
to some external force. Their motion in three-dimensional time is therefore
linearly outward at unit speed, and the time location that we observe,
the time registered on a clock, is not the location in any temporal reference
system, but simply the stage of progression . Since the progression of
the natural reference system proceeds at unit speed, always and every
where, clock time, if properly measured, is the same everywhere. As
we will see later in the development, the current hypotheses which
require repudiation of the existence of absolute time and the concept
of simultaneity of distant events are erroneous products of reasoning
from premises in which clock time is incorrectly identified as time in
general.
The best way to get a clear picture of the relation of clock time
to time in general is to consider the analogous situation in space. Let
us assume that a photon A is emitted from some material object X
in the direction Y. This photon then travels at unit speed in a straight
line X Y which can be represented in the conventional fixed spatial
reference system. The line of progression of time has the same relation
to time in general (three-dimensional time) as the line X Y has to space
in general (three-dimensional space). It is a one-dimensional line of travel
in a three-dimensional continuum; not something separate and distinct
from that continuum, but a specific part of it.
Now let us further assume that we have a device whereby we can
measure the rate of increase of the spatial distance XA, and let us
call this device a space clock. Inasmuch as all photons travel at
the same speed, this one space clock will suffice for the measurement
of the distance traversed by any photon, irrespective of its location
or direction of movement, as long as we are interested only in the
scalar magnitude. But this measurement is valid only for objects such
as photons which travel at unit speed. If we introduce an object which
 The Reciprocal Relation 79

travels at some speed other than unity, the measurement that we get
from the space clock will not correctly represent the space traversed
by that object. Nor will the space clock registration be valid for the
relative separation of moving objects, even if they are traveling at unit
speed. In order to arrive at the true amount of space entering into
such motions we must either measure that space individually, or we
must apply an appropriate correction to the measurement by the space
clock.
Because objects at rest in the stationary spatial reference system,
or moving at low velocities with respect to it, are moving at unit speed
relative to any stationary temporal reference system, a clock which
measures the time progression in any one process provides an accurate
measurement of the time elapsed in any low-speed physical process,
just as the space clock in our analogy measured the space traversed
by any photon. Here, again, however, if an object moves at a speed,
or a relative speed, differing from unity, so that its movement in time
is not the same as that of the progression of the natural reference system,
then the clock time does not correctly represent the actual time involved
in the motion under consideration. As in the analogy, the true quantity,
the net total time, must be obtained either by a separate measurement
(which is usually impractical) or by determining the magnitude of the
adjustment that must be applied to the clock time to convert it to total
time.
In application to motion in space, the total time, like the clock
registration, is a scalar quantity. Some readers of the previous edition
have found it difficult to accept the idea that time can be three-dimensional
because this makes time a vector quantity, and presumably leads to
situations in which we are called upon to divide one vector quantity
by another. But such situations are non-existent. If we are dealing with
spatial relations, time is scalar because it has no spatial direction. If
we are dealing with temporal relations, space is scalar because it has
no temporal direction. Either space or time can be vectorial in appropriate
circumstances. However, as explained earlier in this chapter, the deviation
from the normal scalar progression at unit speed may take place either
in space or in time, but not in both coincidentally. Consequently, there
is no physical situation in which both space and time are vectorial.
Similarly, scalar rotation and its gravitational (translational) effect take
place either in space or in time, but not in both. If the speed of the
rotation is less than unity, time continues progressing at the normal
unit rate, but because of the directional changes during rotation space
progresses only one unit while time is progressing n units. Thus the
change in position relative to the natural unit datum, both in the rotation
and in its gravitational effect, takes place in space. Conversely, if the
80 Nothing but Motion

speed of the rotation is greater than unity, the rotation and its gravitational
effect take place in time.
An important result of the fact that rotation at greater-than-unit speeds
produces an inward motion (gravitation) in time is that a rotational motion
or combination of motions with a net speed greater than unity cannot
exist in a spatial reference system for more than one (dimensionally
variable) unit of time. As pointed out in Chapter 3, the spatial systems
of reference, to which the human race is limited because it is subject
to gravitation in space, are not capable of representing deviations from
the normal rate of time progression. In certain special situations, to be
considered later, in which the normal direction of vectorial motion is
reversed, the change of position in time manifests itself as a distortion
of the spatial position. Otherwise, an object moving normally with a
speed greater than unity is coincident with the reference system for
only one unit of time. During the next unit, while the spatial reference
system is moving outward in time at the unit rate of the normal progression,
gravitation is carrying the rotating unit inward in time. It therefore moves
away from the reference system and disappears. This point will be very
significant in our consideration of the high speed rotational systems
in Chapter 15.
Recognition of the fact that each effective unit of rotational motion
(mass) occupies a location in time as well as a location in space now
enables us to determine the effect of mass concentration on the gravita
tional motion. Because of the continuation of the progression of time
while gravitation is moving the atoms of matter inward in space, the
aggregates of matter that are eventually formed in space consist of a
large number of mass units that are contiguous in space, but widely
dispersed in time. One of the results of this situation is that the magnitude
of the gravitational motion (or force) is a function not only of the distance
between objects, but also of the effective number of units of rotational
motion, measured as mass, that each object possesses. This motion
is distributed over all space-time directions, rather than merely over
all space directions, and since an aggregate of n mass units occupies
n time locations, the total number of space-time locations is also n,
even though all mass units of each object are nearly coincident spatially.
The total gravitational motion of any mass unit toward that aggregate
is thus n times that toward a single mass unit at the same distance.
It then follows that the gravitational motion (or force) is proportional
to the product of the (apparently) interacting masses.
It can now be seen that the comments in Chapter 5 with respect
to the apparent change of direction of the gravitational motions (or
forces) when the apparently interacting masses change their relative
positions are applicable to multi-unit aggregates as well as to the individual
 The Reciprocal Relation 8l

mass units considered in the original discussion. The gravitational motion

always takes place toward all space-time locations whether or not those
locations are occupied by objects that enable us to detect the motion.
A point that should be noted in this connection is that two objects
are in effective contact if they occupy adjoining locations in either space
or time, regardless of the extent of their separation in the other aspect
of motion. This statement may seem to conflict with the empirical
observation that contact can be made only if the two objects are in
the same place at the same clock time. However, the inability to make
contact when the objects reach a common spatial location in a fixed
reference system at different clock times is not due to the lack of
coincidence in time, but to the progression of space that takes place
in connection with the progression of time which is registered by the
clock. Because of this space progression, the location that has the same
spatial coordinates in the stationary reference system is not the same
spatial location that it was at an earlier time.
Scientific history shows that physical problems of long standing are
usually the result of errors in the prevailing basic concepts, and that
significant conceptual modifications are a prerequisite for their solution.
We will find, as we proceed with the theoretical development, that the
reciprocal relation between space and time which necessarily exists in
a universe of motion is just the kind of a conceptual alteration that
is needed to clear up the existing physical situation: one which makes
drastic changes where such changes are required, but leaves the empiri
cally determined relations of our everyday experience essentially un
touched.
 CHAPTER 7

High Speed Motion

As brought out in Chapter 3, the space of our ordinary experience,
extension space, as we have called it, is simply a reference system,
and it has no real physical significance. But the relationships that are
represented in this reference system do have physical meaning. For
example, if the distance between object A and object B in extension
space is x, then if A moves a distance x in the direction AB while
B remains stationary with respect to the reference system, the two objects
will come in contact. The contact has observable physical results, and
the fact that it occurs at the coordinate position reached by object A
after a movement defined in terms of the coordinates from a specific
initial position in the coordinate system demonstrates that the relation
represented by the difference between coordinates has a definite physical
meaning.
Einstein calls this a metrical meaning; that is, a connection between
the coordinate differences and measurable lengths and times. To most
of those who have not made any critical study of the logical basis of
so-called modern physics it probably seems obvious that this kind
of a meaning exists, and it is safe to say that comparatively few of
those who now accept Einsteins relativity theory because it is the
orthodox doctrine in its field realize that his theory denies the existence
of such a meaning. But any analysis of the logical structure of the
theory will show that this is true, and Einsteins own statement on
the subject, previously quoted, leaves no doubt on this score.
This is a prime example of a strange feature of the present situation
in science. The members of the scientific community have accepted
the basic theories of modern physics as correct, and are quick to
do battle on their behalf if they are challenged, yet at the same time
the majority are totally unwilling to accept some of the aspects of those
theories that the originators of the theories claim are essential features
of the theoretical structures. How many of the supporters of modern
atomic theory, for example, are willing to accept Heisenbergs assertion
that atoms do not exist objectively in the same sense as stones or
trees exist ?40 Probably about as many as are willing to accept Einsteins
assertion that coordinate differences have no metrical meaning.

83
84 Nothing but Motion

At any rate, the present general acceptance of the relativity theory

as a whole, regardless of the widespread disagreement with some of
its component parts, makes it advisable to point out just where the
conclusions reached in this area by development of the consequences
of the postulates of the Reciprocal System differ from the assertions
of relativity theory. This chapter will therefore be devoted to a consider
ation of the status of the relativity concept, including the extent to
which the new findings are in agreement with it. Chapter 8 will then
present the full explanation of motion at high speeds, as it is derived
from the new theoretical development. It is worth noting in this connection
that Einstein himself was aware of the eternally problematical character
of his concepts, and in undertaking the critical examination of his theory
in this chapter we are following his own recommendation, expressed
in these words:
In the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to
engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that
we may not unconsciously be ruled by them. This becomes evident
especially in those situations involving development of ideas in which
the consistent use of the traditional fundamental concepts leads
us to paradoxes difficult to resolve.41
In spite of all of the confusion and controversy that have surrounded
the subject, the factors that are involved are essentially simple, and
they can be brought out clearly by consideration of a correspondingly
simple situation, which, for convenient reference, we will call the
two-photon case. Let us assume that a photon X originates at location
O in a fixed reference system, and moves linearly in space at unit
velocity, the velocity of light (as all photons do). In one unit of time
it will have reached point x in the coordinate system, one spatial unit
distant from O. This is a simple matter of fact that results entirely
from the behavior of photon X, and is totally independent of what
may be done by or to any other object. Similarly, if another photon
Y leaves point O simultaneously with X, and travels at the same velocity,
but in the opposite direction, this photon will reach point y, one unit
of space distant from O, at the end of one unit of elapsed time. This,
too, is entirely a matter of the behavior of the moving photon Y, and
is independent of what happens to photon X or to any other physical
object. At the end of one unit of time, as currently measured, X and
Y are thus separated by two units of space (distance) in the coordinate
system of reference.
In current practice time is measured by some repetitive physical process.
This process, or the device in which it takes place, is called a clock.
The progression of time thus measured is the standard time magnitude
 High Speed Motion 85

which, on the basis of current understanding, enters into physical

relations. Speed, or velocity, the measure of motion, is defmedas distance
(space) per unit time. In terms of the accepted reference systems, this
means distance between coordinate locations divided by clock registra
tion. In the two-photon case, the increase in coordinate separation during
the one unit of elapsed time is two units of space. The relative velocity
of the two photons, determined in the standard manner, is then two
natural units; that is, twice the velocity of light, the velocity at which
each of the two objects is moving.
In 1887, an experiment by Michelson and Morley compared the velocity
of light traveling over round trip paths in different directions relative
to the direction of the earths motion. The investigators found no
difference in the velocities, although the accuracy of the experiment
was far greater than would be required to reveal the expected difference
had it been present. This experiment, together with others which have
confirmed the original findings, makes it necessary to conclude that
the velocity of light in a vacuum is constant irrespective of the reference
system. The determination of velocity in the standard manner, dividing
distance traveled by elapsed time, therefore arrives at the wrong answer
at high velocities.
As expressed by Capek, the initial impact of this discovery was
shattering. It seemed to undermine the whole structure of theoretical
knowledge that had been erected by centuries of effort. The following
statement by Sir James Jeans, written only a few decades after the
event, shows what a blow it was to the physicists of that day:
For more than two centuries this system of laws (Newtons) was
believed to give a perfectly consistent and exact description of the
processes of nature. Then, as the nineteenth century was approaching
its close, certain experiments, commencing with the famous Michel-
son-Morley experiment, showed that the whole scheme was mean
ingless and self-contradictory.42
After a quarter of a century of confusion, Albert Einstein published
his special theory of relativity, which proposed a theoretical explanation
of the discrepancy. Contradictions and uncertainties have surrounded
this theory from its inception, and there has been continued controversy
over its interpretation in specific applications, and over the nature and
adequacy of the various explanations that have been offered in attempts
to resolve the paradoxes and other inconsistencies. But the mathemat
ical successes of the theory have been impressive, and even though
the mathematics antedated the theory, and are not uniquely connected
with it, these mathematical successes, in conjunction with the absence
of any serious competitor, and the strong desire of the physicists to
86 Nothing but Motion

have something to work with, have been sufficient to secure general

acceptance.
Now that a new theory has appeared, however, the defects in the
relativity theory acquire a new significance, as the arguments which
justify using a theory in spite of contradictions and inconsistencies if
it is the only thing that is available are no longer valid when a new
theory free from such defects makes its appearance. In making the
more rigorous appraisal of the theory that is now required, it should
be recognized at the outset that a theory is not valid unless it is correct
both mathematically and conceptually. Mathematical evidence alone is
not sufficient, as mathematical agreement is no guarantee of conceptual
validity.
What this means is that if we devise a theoretical explanation of
a certain physical phenomenon, and then formulate a mathematical
expression to represent the relations pictured by the theory, or do the
same thing in reverse manner, first formulating the mathematical expres
sion on an empirical basis, and then finding an explanation that fits
it, the mere fact that this mathematical expression yields results that
agree with the corresponding experimental values does not assure us
that the theoretical explanation is correct, even if the agreement is
complete and exact. As a matter of principle, this statement is not even
open to question, yet in a surprisingly large number of instances in
current practice, including the relativity theory, mathematical agreement
is accepted as complete proof.
Most of the defects of the relativity theory as a conceptual scheme
have been explored in depth in the literature. A comprehensive review
of the situation at this time is therefore unnecessary, but it will be
appropriate to examine one of the long-standing paradoxes which
is sufficient in itself to prove that the theory is conceptually incorrect.
Naturally, the adherents of the theory have done their best to resolve
the paradox, and save the theory, and in their desperate efforts they
have managed to muddy the waters to such an extent that the conclusive
nature of the case against the theory is not generally recognized.
The significance of this kind of a discrepancy lies in the fact that
when a theory makes certain assertions of a general nature, if any one
case can be found where these assertions are not valid, this invalidates
the generality of the assertions, and thus invalidates the theory as a
whole. The inconsistency of this nature that we will consider here is
what is known as the clock paradox. It is frequently confused with
the twin paradox in which one of a set of twins stays home while
the other goes on a long journey at a very high speed. According to
the theory, time progresses more slowly for the traveling twin, and
he returns home still a young man, while his brother has reached old
 High Speed Motion 87

age. The clock paradox, which replaces the twins with two identical
clocks, is somewhat simpler, as it evades the question as to the relation
between clock registration and physical processes.
In the usual statement of the paradox, it is assumed that a clock
B is accelerated relative to another identical clock A, and that subse
quently, after a period of time at a constant relative velocity, the
acceleration is reversed, and the clocks return to their original locations.
According to the principles of special relativity, clock B, the moving
clock, has been running more slowly than clock A, the stationary clock,
and hence the time interval registered by B is less than that registered
by A. But the special theory also tells us that we cannot distinguish
between the motion of clock B relative to clock A and the motion
of clock A relative to clock B . Thus it is equally correct to say that
A is the moving clock and B is the stationary clock, in which case
the interval registered by clock A is less than that registered by clock
B. Each clock therefore registers both more and less than the other.
Here we have a situation in which a straightforward application of
the special relativity theory leads to a conclusion that is manifestly
absurd. This paradox, which stands squarely in the way of any claim
that relativity theory is conceptually valid, has never been resolved except
by means which contradict the basic assumptions of the relativity theory
itself. Richard Schlegel brings this fact out very clearly in a discussion
of the paradox in his book Time and the Physical World. Acceptance
of a preferred coordinate system is necessary in order to resolve the
contradiction, he points out, but such an assumption brings a profound
modification to special relativity theory; for the assumption contradicts
the principle that between any two relatively moving systems the effects
of motion are the same, from either system to the other. 43 G. J. Whitrow
summarizes the situation in this way: The crucial argument of those
who support Einstein (in the clock paradox controversy) automatically
undermines Einsteins own position. 44 The theory based primarily on
the postulate that all motion is relative contains an internal contradiction
which cannot be removed except by some argument relying on the
assumption that some motion is not relative.
All of the efforts that have been made by the professional relativists
to explain away this paradox depend, directly or indirectly, on abandoning
the general applicability of the relativity principle, and identifying the
acceleration of clock B as something more than an acceleration relative
to clock A . Moller, for example, tells us that the acceleration of clock
B is relative to the fixed stars. 45 Authors such as Tolman, who speaks
of the lack of symmetry between the treatment given to the clock
A, which was at no time subjected to any force, and that given to
clock B which was subjected to . . . forces . . . when the relative
88 Nothing but Motion

motion of the clocks was changed, 46 are simply saying the same thing
in a more roundabout way. But if motion is purely relative, as the special
theory contends, then a force applied to clock B cannot produce anything
more than a relative motionit cannot produce a kind of motion that
does not existand the effect on clock A must therefore be the same
as that on clock B . Introduction of a preferred coordinate system such
as that defined by the average positions of the fixed stars gets around
this difficulty, but only at the cost of destroying the foundations of
the theory, as the special theory is built on the postulate that no such
preferred coordinate system exists.
The impossibility of resolving the contradiction inherent in the clock
paradox by appeal to acceleration can be demonstrated in yet another
way, as the acceleration can be eliminated without altering the contra
diction that constitutes the paradox. No exhaustive search has been made
to ascertain whether this streamlined version, which we may call the
simplified clock paradox has been given any consideration previously,
but at any rate it does not appear in the most accessible discussions
of the subject. This is quite surprising, as it is a rather obvious way
of tightening the paradox to the point where there is little, if any, room
for an attempt at evasion. In this simplified clock paradox we will merely
assume that the two clocks are in uniform motion relative to each other.
The question as to how this motion originated does not enter into the
situation. Perhaps they have always been in relative motion. Or, if they
were accelerated, they may have been accelerated equally. At any rate,
for purposes of the inquiry, we are dealing only with the clocks in
uniform relative motion. But here again, we encounter the same paradox.
According to the relativity theory, each clock can be regarded either
as stationary, in which case it is the faster, or as moving, in which
case it is the slower. Again each clock registers both more and less
than the other.
There are those who claim that the paradox has been resolved
experimentally. In the published report of one recent experiment bearing
on the subject the flat assertion is made that These results provide
an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock paradox. 47
This claim is, in itself, a good illustration of the lack of precision in
current thinking in this area, as the clock paradox is a logical contradiction.
It refers to a specific situation in which a strict application of the special
theory results in an absurdity. Obviously, a logical inconsistency cannot
be resolved by empirical means. What the investigators have accom
plished in this instance is simply to provide a further verification of
some of the mathematical aspects of the theory, which play no part
in the clock paradox.
 High Speed Motion 89

This one clearly established logical inconsistency is sufficient in itself,

even without the many items of evidence available for corroboration,
to show that the special theory of relativity is incorrect in at least some
significant segment of its conceptual aspects. It may be a useful theory;
it may be a good theory from some viewpoint; it may indeed have
been the best theory available prior to the development of the Reciprocal
System, but this inconsistency demonstrates conclusively that it is not
the correct theory.
The question then arises: In the face of these facts, why are present-day
scientists so thoroughly convinced of the validity of the special theory?
Why do front-rank scientists make categorical assertions such as the
following from Heisenberg?
The theory . . . has meanwhile become an axiomatic foundation
of all modern physics, confirmed by a large number of experiments.
It has become a permanent property of exact science just as has
classical mechanics or the theory of heat.48
The answer to our question can be extracted from this quotation.
The theory, says Heisenberg, has been confirmed by a large number
of experiments. But these experiments have confirmed only the mathe
matical aspects of the theory. They tell us only that special relativity
is mathematically correct, and that it therefore could be valid. The almost
indecent haste to proclaim the validity of theories on the strength of
mathematical confirmation alone is one of the excesses of modern
scientific practice which, like the over-indulgence in ad hoc assumptions,
has covered up the errors introduced by the concept of a universe of
matter, and has prevented recognition of the need for a basic change.
Like any other theory, special relativity cannot be confirmed as a
theory unless its conceptual aspects are validated. Indeed, the conceptual
aspects are the theory itself, as the mathematics, which are embodied
in the Lorentz equations, were in existence before Einstein formulated
the theory. However, establishment of conceptual validity is much more
difficult than confirmation of mathematical validity, and it is virtually
impossible in a limited field such as that covered by relativity because
there is too much opportunity for alternatives that are mathematically
equivalent. It is attainable only where collateral information is available
from many sources so that the alternatives can be excluded.
Furthermore, consideration of the known alternatives is not conclusive.
There is a general tendency to assume that where no satisfactory
alternatives have thus far been found, there is no acceptable alternative.
This gives rise to a great many erroneous assertions that are given credence
because they are modeled after valid mathematical statements, and have
90 Nothing but Motion

a superficial air of authenticity. For example, let us consider the following

two statements:
A. As a mathematical problem there is virtually only one possible
solution (the Lorentz transformation) if the velocity of light is
to be the same for all. (Sir George Thomson)49
B. There was and there is now no understanding of it (the Michelson-
Morley experiment) except through giving up the idea of absolute
time and of absolute length and making the two interdependent
concepts. (R. A. Millikan)50
The logical structure of both of these statements (including the implied
assertions) is the same, and can be expressed as follows:
1. A solution for the problem under consideration has been obtained.
2. Long and intensive study has failed to produce any alternative
solution.
3. The original solution must therefore be correct.
In the case of statement A, this logic is irrefutable. It would, in fact,
be valid even without any such search for alternatives. Since the original
solution yields the correct answers, any other valid solution would
necessarily have to be mathematically equivalent to the first, and from
a mathematical standpoint equivalent statements are merely different
ways of expressing the same thing. As soon as we obtain a mathematically
correct answer to a problem, we have the mathematically correct answer.
Statement B is an application of the same logic to a conceptual rather
than a mathematical solution, but here the logic is completely invalid,
as in this case alternative solutions are different solutions, not merely
different ways of expressing the same solution. Finding an explanation
which fits the observed facts does not, in this case, guarantee that
we have the correct explanation. We must have additional confirmation
from other sources before conceptual validity can be established.
Furthermore, the need for this additional evidence still exists as strongly
as ever even if the theory in question is the best explanation that science
has thus far been able to devise, as it is, or at least should be, obvious
that we can never be sure that we have exhausted the possible alternatives.
The theorists do not like to admit this. When they have devoted long
years to the study and investigation of a problem, and the situation
still remains as described by Millikanthat is, only one explanation
judged to be reasonably acceptable has been foundthere is a strong
temptation to assume that no other possible explanation exists, and to
regard the available theory as necessarily correct, even where, as in
the case of the special theory of relativity, there may be specific evidence
to the contrary. Otherwise, if they do not make such an assumption.
 High Speed Motion 91

they must admit, tacitly if not explicitly, that their abilities have thus
far been unequal to the task of finding the alternatives. Few human
beings, in or out of the scientific field, relish making this kind of an
admission.
Here, then, is the reason why the serious shortcomings of the special
theory are currently looked upon so charitably. Nothing more acceptable
has been available (although there are alternatives to Einsteins inter
pretation of the Lorentz equations that are equally consistent with the
available information), and the physicists are not willing to concede
that they could have overlooked the correct answer. But the facts are
clear. No new valid conceptual information has been added to the
previously existing body of knowledge by the special theory. It is nothing
more than an erroneous hypothesis: a conspicuous addition to the
historical record cited by Jeans:
The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of
mathematical formulae which were right, or very nearly right, with
physical interpretations which were often very badly wrong.51
As an emergency measure, say Toulmin and Goodfield, physicists
have resorted to mathematical fudges of an arbitrary kind. 52 Here
is the truth of the matter. The Lorentz equations are simply fudge factors:
mathematical devices for reconciling discordant results. In the two-photon
case that we are considering, if the speed of light is constant irrespective
of the reference system, as established empirically by the Michelson-
Morley experiment, then the speed of photon X relative to photon Y
is unity. But when this speed is measured in the standard way (assuming
that this might be physically possible), dividing the coordinate distance
xy by the elapsed clock time, the relative speed is two natural units
(2c in the conventional system of units) rather than one unit. Here,
then, is a glaring discrepancy. Two different measurements of what
is apparently the same thing, the relative speed, give us altogether different
results.
Both the nature of the problem, and the nature of the mathematical
answer provided by the Lorentz equations can be brought out clearly
by consideration of a simple analogy. Let us assume a situation in which
the property of direction exists, but is not recognized. Then let us assume
that two independent methods are available for measuring motion, one
of which measures the speed, and the other measures the rate at which
the distance from a specified reference point is changing. In the absence
of any recognition of the existence of direction, it will be presumed
that both methods measure the same quantity, and the difference between
the results will constitute an unexpected and unexplained discrepancy,
similar to that brought to light by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
92 Nothing but Motion

An analogy is not an accurate representation. If it were, it would

not be an analogy. But to the extent that the analogy parallels the
phenomenon under consideration it provides an insight into aspects of
the phenomenon that cannot, in many cases, be directly apprehended.
In the circumstances of the analogy, it is evident that a fudge factor
applicable to the general situation is impossible, but that under some
special conditions, such as uniform linear motion following a course
at a constant angle to the line of reference, the mathematical relation
between the two measurements is constant. A fudge factor embodying
this constant relation, the cosine of the angle of deviation, would therefore
bring the discordant measurements into mathematical coincidence.
It is also evident that we can apply the fudge factor anywhere in
the mathematical relation. We can say that measurement l understates
the true magnitude by this amount, or that measurement 2 overstates
it by the same amount, or we can divide the discrepancy between the
two in some proportion, or we can say that there is some unknown
factor that affects one and not the other. Any of these explanations
is mathematically correct, and if a theory based on any one of them
is proposed, it will be confirmed by experiment in the same manner
that special relativity and many other products of present-day physics
are currently being confirmed. But only the last alternative listed
is conceptually correct. This is the only one that describes the situation
as it actually exists.
When we compare these results of the assumptions made for purposes
of the analogy with the observed physical situation in high speed motion
we find a complete correspondence. Here, too, mathematical coincidence
can be attained by a set of fudge factors, the Lorentz equations, in
a special set of circumstances only. As in the analogy, such fudge factors
are applicable only where the motion is constant both in speed and
in direction. They apply only to uniform translational motion. This close
parallel between the observed physical situation and the analogy strongly
suggests that the underlying cause of the measurement discrepancy is
the same in both cases; that in the physical universe, as well as under
the circumstances assumed for purposes of the analogy, one of the
factors that enters into the measurement of the magnitudes involved
has not been taken into consideration.
This is exactly the answer to the problem that emerges from the
development of the Reciprocal System of theory. We find from this
theory that the conventional stationary three-dimensional spatial frame
of reference correctly represents locations in extension space, and that,
contrary to Einsteins assertion, the distance between coordinates in
this reference system correctly represents the spatial magnitudes entering
into the equations of motion. However, this theoretical development
 High Speed Motion 93

also reveals that time magnitudes in general can only be represented

by a similar three-dimensional frame of reference, and that the time
registered on a clock is merely the one-dimensional path of the time
progression in this three-dimensional reference frame.
Inasmuch as gravitation operates in space in our material sector of
the universe, the progression of time continues unchecked, and the change
of position in time represented by the clock registration is a component
of the time magnitude of any motion. In everday life, no other component
of any consequence is present, and for most purposes the clock registration
can be taken as a measurement of the total time involved in a motion.
But where another significant component is present, we are confronted
with the same kind of a situation that was portrayed by the analogy.
In uniform translational motion the mathematical relation between the
clock time and the total time is a constant function of the speed, and
it is therefore possible to formulate a fudge factor that will take care
of the discrepancy. In the general situation where there is no such constant
relationship, this is not possible, and the Lorentz equations cannot be
extended to motion in general. Correct results in the general situation
can be obtained only if the true scalar magnitude of the time that is
involved is substituted for clock time in the equations of motion.
This explanation should enable a clear understanding of the position
of the Reciprocal System with respect to the validity of the Lorentz
equations. Inasmuch as no method of measuring total time is currently
available, there is a substantial amount of convenience in being able
to arrive at the correct numerical results in certain applications by using
a mathematical fudge factor. In so doing, we are making use of an
incorrect magnitude that we are able to measure in lieu of the correct
magnitude that we cannot measure. The Reciprocal System agrees that
when we need to use fudge factors in this manner, the Lorentz equations
are the correct fudge factors for the purpose. These equations simply
accomplish a mathematical reconciliation of the equations of motion
with the constant speed of light, and since this constant speed, which
was accepted by Lorentz as an empirically established fact, is deduced
from the postulates of the Reciprocal System, the mathematical treatment
is based on the same premises in both cases, and necessarily arrives
at the same results. To this extent, therefore, the new system of theory
is in accord with current thinking.
As P. W. Bridgman once pointed out, many physicists regard the
content of the special theory of relativity as coextensive with the content
of the Lorentz equations. 53 P. K. Feyerabend gives us a similar report:

It must be admitted, however, that Einsteins original interpretation

of the special theory of relativity is hardly ever used by contemporary
94 Nothing but Motion

physicists. For them the theory of relativity consists of two elements:

(l) the Lorentz transformations; and (2) mass-energy equivalence.54
For those who share this view, the results obtained from the Reciprocal
System of theory in this area make no change at all in the existing
physical picture. These individuals should find it easy to accommodate
themselves to the new viewpoint. Those who still take their stand with
Einstein will have to face the fact that the new results show, just as
the clock paradox does, that Einsteins interpretation of the mathematics
of high speed motion is incorrect. Indeed, the mere appearance of a
new and different explanation of a rational character is a crushing blow
to the relativity theory, as the case in its favor is argued very largely
on the basis that there is no such alternative. As Einstein says, if
the velocity of light is the same in all C.S. (coordinate systems), then
moving rods must change their length, moving clocks must change their
rhythm . . . there is no other way. 55 The statement by Millikan quoted
earlier is equally positive on this score.
The status of an assertion of this kind, a contention that there is
no alternative to a given conclusion, is always precarious, because, unlike
most propositions based on other grounds, which can be supported even
in the face of some adverse evidence, this contention that there is no
alternative is immediately and utterly demolished when an alternative
is produced. Furthermore, the use of the no alternative argument
constitutes a tacit admission that there is something dubious about the
explanation that is being offered; something that would preclude its
acceptance if there were any reasonable alternative.
Einsteins contribution, in the form of the special theory, can be
accurately evaluated only if it is realized that this, too, is a fudge,
a conceptual fudge, we might call it. As he explains in the statement
that has been our principal target in this chapter, what he has done
is to eliminate the metrical meaning of spatial coordinates; that is,
he takes care of the discrepancy between the two measurements by
arbitrarily decreeing that one of them shall be disregarded. This may
have served a certain purpose in the past by enabling the scientific
community to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit inability to
find any explanation for the high speed discrepancy, but the time has
now come to look at the situation squarely and to recognize that the
relativity concept is erroneous.
It is not always appreciated that the mathematical fudge accomplished
by the use of the Lorentz equations works in both directions. If the
velocity is not directly determined by the change in coordinate position
during a given time interval, it follows that the change in coordinate
position is not directly determined by the velocity. Recognition of this
 High Speed Motion 95

point will clear up any question as to a possible conflict between the

conclusions of Chapter 5 and the constant speed of light.
In closing this discussion of the high speed problem, it is appropriate
to point out that the identification of the missing factor in the motion
equations, the additional time component that becomes significant at
high speeds, does not merely provide a new and better explanation
of the existing discrepancy. It eliminates that discrepancy, restoring the
metrical meaning of the coordinate distances in a way that makes
them entirely consistent with the constant speed of light.
 CHAPTER 8

Motion in Time
The starting point for an examination of the nature of motion in time
is a recognition of the status of unit speed as the natural datum, the
zero level of physical activity. We are able to deal with speeds measured
from some arbitrary zero in our everyday life because these are not
primary quantities; they are merely speed differences. For example, where
the speed limit is 50 miles per hour, this does not mean that an automobile
is prohibited from moving at any faster rate. It merely means that the
difference between the speed of the vehicle and the speed of the portion
of the earths surface over which the vehicle is traveling must not exceed
50 miles per hour. The car and the earths surface are jointly moving
at higher speeds in several different directions, but these are of no
concern to us for ordinary purposes. We deal only with the differences,
and the datum from which measurement is made has no special signifi
cance.
In current practice we regard a greater rate of change in vehicle location
relative to the local frame of reference as being the result of a greater
speed, that quantity being measured from zero. We could equally well
measure from some arbitrary non-zero level, as we do in the common
systems of temperature measurement, or we could even measure the
inverse of speed from some selected datum level, and attribute the greater
rate of change of position to less inverse speed. In dealing with
the basic phenomena of the universe, however, we are dealing with
absolute speeds, not merely speed differences, and for this purpose
it is necessary to recognize that the datum level of the natural system
of reference is unity, not zero.
Since motion exists only in units, according to the postulates that
define a universe of motion, and each unit of motion consists of one
unit of space in association with one unit of time, all motion takes
place at unit speed, from the standpoint of the individual units. This
speed may, however, be either positive or negative, and by a sequence
of reversals of the progression of either time or space, while the other
component continues progressing unidirectionally, an effective scalar
speed of l / n , or nj 1, is produced. In Chapter 4 we considered the
case in which the vectorial direction of the motion reversed at each

97
98 Nothing but Motion

end of a one-unit path, the result being a vibrational motion. Alternatively,

the vectorial direction may reverse in unison with the scalar direction.
In this case space (or time) progresses one unit in the context of a
fixed reference system while time (or space) progresses n units. Here
the result is a translatory motion at a speed of 1In (or n! 1) units.
The scalar situation is the same in both cases. A regular pattern of
reversals results in a space-time ratio of \ / n or n / l . In the example
shown in the tabulation in Chapter 4, where the space-time ratio is
1/3, there is a one-unit inward motion followed by an outward unit
and a second inward unit. The net inward motion in the three-unit sequence
is one unit. A continuous succession of similar 3-unit sequences then
follows. As indicated in the accompanying tabulation, the scalar direction

DIRECTION
Unit Vibration Translation
Number Scalar Vectorial Scalar Vectorial
1 inward right inward forward
2 outward left outward backward
3 inward right inward forward
4 inward left inward forward
5 outward right outward backward
6 inward left inward forward

of the last unit of each sequence is inward. (A sequence involving an

even number of n alternates n-l and 71+1. For instance, instead of two
four-unit sequences, in which the last unit of each sequence would be
outward, there is a three-unit sequence and a five-unit sequence.) The
scalar direction of the first unit of each new sequence is also inward.
Thus there is no reversal of scalar direction at the point where the new
sequence begins. In the vibrational situation the vectorial direction
continues the regular succession of reversals even at the points where
the scalar direction does not reverse, but in the translational situation
the reversals of vectorial direction conform to those of the scalar direction.
Consequently, the path of vibration remains in a fixed location in the
dimension of the oscillation, whereas the path of translation moves
forward at the scalar space-time ratio l / n (or h/1). This is the pattern
followed by certain scalar motions that will be discussed later, and by
all vectorial motions: motions of material units and aggregates.
When the progression within a unit of motion reaches the end of
the unit it either reverses or does not reverse. There is no intermediate
possibility. It follows that what appears to be a continuous unidirectional
 Motion in Time 99

motion at speed 1/n is, in fact, an intermittent motion in which space

progresses at the normal rate of one unit of space per unit of time
for a fraction l In of the total number of space units involved, and
has a net resultant of zero, in the context of the fixed reference system,
during the remainder of the motion.
If the speed is \ / n one unit of space per n units of timespace
progresses only one unit instead of the n units it would progress
unidirectionally. The result of motion at the \ / n speed is therefore
to cause a change of spatial position relative to the location that would
have been reached at the normal rate of progression. Motion at less
than unit speed, then, is motion in space. This is a well-known fact.
But because of the uncritical acceptance of Einsteins dictum that speeds
in excess of that of light are impossible, and a failure to recognize
the reciprocal relation between space and time, it has not heretofore
been realized that the inverse of this kind of motion is also a physical
reality. Where the speed is n / l, there is a reversal of the time component
that results in a change of position in time relative to that which would
take place at the normal rate of time progression, the elapsed time
registered on a clock. Motion at speeds greater than unity is therefore
motion in time.
The existence of motion in time is one of the most significant
consequences of the status of the physical universe as a universe of
motion. Conventional physical science, which recognizes only motion
in space, has been able to deal reasonably well with those phenomena
that involve spatial motion only. But it has not been able to clarify
the physical fundamentals, a task for which an understanding of the
role of time is essential, and it is encountering a growing number of
problems as observation and experiment are extended into the areas
where motion in time is an important factor. Furthermore, the number
and scope of these problems has been greatly increased by the use
of zero speed, rather than unit speed, as the reference datum for
measurement purposes. While motion at speeds of \ / n (speeds less
than unity) is motion in space only, when viewed relative to the natural
(moving) reference system, it is motion in both space and time relative
to the conventional systems that utilize the zero datum.
It should be understood that the motions we are now discussing are
independent motions (physical phenomena), not the fictitious motion
introduced by the use of a stationary reference system. The term
progression is here being utilized merely to emphasize the continuing
nature of these motions, and their space and time aspects. During the
one unit of motion (progression) at the normal unit speed that occurs
periodically when the average speed is \ / n, the spatial component of
this motion, which is an inherent property of the motion independent
100 Nothing but Motion

of the progression of the natural reference system, is accompanied by

a similar progression of time that is likewise independent of the progression
of the reference system, the time aspect of which is measured by a
clock. Thus, during every unit of clock time, the independent motion
at speed \ / n involves a change of position in three-dimensional time
amounting to 1/ti units.
As brought out in the preliminary discussion of this subject in Chapter
6, the value of n at the speeds of our ordinary experience is so large
that the quantity 1/m is negligible, and the clock time can be taken as
equivalent to the total time involved in motion. At higher speeds, how
ever, the value of l / n becomes significant, and the total time involved
in motion at these high speeds includes this additional component. It
is this heretofore unrecognized time component that is responsible for
the discrepancies that present-day science tries to handle by means of
fudge factors.
In the two-photon case considered in Chapter 7, the value of \ / n
is 1/1 for both photons. A unit of the motion of photon X involves
one unit of space and one unit of time. The time involved in this unit
of motion (the time OX) can be measured by means of the registration
on a clock, which is merely the temporal equivalent of a yardstick.
The same clock can also be used to measure the time magnitude involved
in the motion of photon Y (the time OY), but this use of the same
temporal yardstick does not mean that the time interval O Y through
which Y moves is the same interval through which X moves, the interval
OX, any more than using the same yardstick to measure the space
traversed by Y would make it the same space that is traversed by X.
The truth is that at the end of one unit of the time involved in the
progression of the natural reference system (also measured by a clock),
X and Y are separated by two units of total time (the time OX and
the time O Y ), as well as by two units of space (distance). The relative
speed is the increase in spatial separation, two units, divided by the
increase in temporal separation, two units, or 2 /2 = 1.
If an object with a lower speed v is substituted for one of the photons,
so that the separation in space at the end of one unit of clock time
is 1+v instead of 2, the separation in time is also 1+v and the relative
speed is (1+v)/ (1+v) = 1. Any process that measures the true speed
rather than the space traversed during a given interval of standard clock
time (the time of the progression of the natural reference system) thus
arrives at unity for the speed of light irrespective of the system of
reference.
When the correct time magnitudes are introduced into the equations
of motion there is no longer any need for fudge factors. The measured
coordinate differences and the measured constant speed of light are
 Motion in Time 101

then fully compatible, and there is no need to deprive the spatial

coordinates of their metrical meaning. Unfortunately, however, no
means of measuring total time, except in certain special applications,
are available at present. Perhaps some feasible method of measurement
may be developed in the future, but in the meantime it will be necessary
to continue on the present basis of applying a correction to the clock
registration, in those areas where this is feasible. Under these circum
stances we can consider that we are using correction factors instead
of fudge factors. There is no longer an unexplained discrepancy that
needs to be fudged out of existence. What we now find is that our
calculations involve a time component that we are unable to measure.
In lieu of the measurements that we are unable to make, we find it
possible, in certain special cases, to apply correction factors that
compensate for the difference between clock time and total time.
A full explanation of the derivation of these correction factors, the
Lorentz equations, is available in the scientific literature, and will not
be repeated here. This conforms with a general policy that will be followed
throughout this work. As explained in Chapter 1, most existing physical
theories have been constructed by building up from empirical foundations.
The Reciprocal System of theory is constructed in the opposite manner.
While the empirically based theories start with the observed details and
work toward the general principles, the Reciprocal System starts with
a set of general postulates and works toward the details. At some point
each of the branches of the theoretical development will meet the
corresponding element of empirical theory. Where this occurs in the
course of the present work, and there is agreement, as there is in the
case of the Lorentz equations, the task of this presentation is complete.
No purpose would be served by duplicating material that is already
available in full detail.
Most of the other well-established relationships of physical science
are similarly incorporated into the new system of theory, with or without
minor modifications, as the development of the theoretical structure
proceeds, not because of the weight of observational evidence supporting
these relations, or because anyone happens to approve of them, or because
they have previously been accepted by the scientific world, but because
the conclusions expressed by these relations are the same conclusions
that are reached by development of the new theoretical system. After
such a relation has thus been taken into the system, it is, of course,
part of the system, and can be used in the same manner as any other
part of the theoretical structure.
The existence of speeds greater than unity (the speed of light), the
speeds that result in change of position in time, conflicts with current
scientific opinion, which accepts Einsteins conclusion that the speed
102 Nothing but Motion

of light is an absolute limit that cannot be exceeded. Our development

shows, however, that at one point where Einstein had to make an arbitrary
choice between alternatives, he made the wrong choice, and the speed
limitation was introduced through this error. It does not exist in fact.
Like the special theory of relativity, the theory from which the speed
limitation is derived is an attempt to provide an explanation for an
empirical observation. According to Newtons second law of motion,
which can be expressed as a = F/ m, if a constant force is applied
to the acceleration of a constant mass it should produce an acceleration
that is also constant. But a series of experiments showed that where
a presumably constant electrical force is applied to a light particle, such
as an electron, in such a manner that very high speeds are produced,
the acceleration does not remain constant, but decreases at a rate which
indicates that it would reach zero at the speed of light. The true relation,
according to the experimental results, is not Newtons law, a = F / m ,
but a = Vl (y2/ c ) F/ m. In the system of notation used in this work,
which utilizes natural, rather than arbitrary, units of measurement, the
speed of light, designated as c in current practice, is unity, and the
variable speed (or velocity), v, is expressed in terms of this natural
unit. On this basis the empirically derived equation becomes a = Vl v2
F/ m.
There is nothing in the data derived from experiment to tell us the
meaning of the term V l v2 in this expression; whether the force
decreases at higher speeds, or the mass increases, or whether the velocity
term represents the effect of some factor not related to either force
or mass. Einstein apparently considered only the first two of these
alternatives. While it is difficult to reconstruct the pattern of his thinking,
it appears that he assumed that the effective force would decrease only
if the electric charges that produced the force decreased in magnitude.
Since all electric charges are alike, so far as we know, whereas the
primary mass concentrations seem to be extremely variable, he chose
the mass alternative as being the most likely, and assumed for purposes
of his theory that the mass increases with the velocity at the rate indicated
by the experiments. On this basis, the mass becomes infinite at the
speed of light.
The results obtained from development of the consequences of the
postulates of the Reciprocal System now show that Einstein guessed
wrong. The new information developed theoretically (which will be
discussed in detail later) reveals that an electric charge is inherently
incapable of producing a speed in excess of unity, and that the decrease
in the acceleration at high speeds is actually due to a decrease in the
force exerted by the charges, not to any change in the magnitude of
either the mass or the charge.
 Motion in Time 103

As explained earlier, force is merely a concept by which we visualize

the resultant of oppositely directed motions as a conflict of tendencies
to cause motion rather than as a conflict of the motions themselves.
This method of approach facilitates mathematical treatment of the subj ect,
and is unquestionably a convenience, but whenever a physical situation
is represented by some derived concept of this kind there is always
a hazard that the correspondence may not be complete, and that the
conclusions reached through the medium of the derived concept may
therefore be in error. This is what has happened in the case we are
now considering.
If the assumption that a force applied to the acceleration of a mass
remains constant in the absence of any external influences is viewed
only from the standpoint of the force concept, it appears entirely logical.
It seems quite reasonable that a tendency to cause motion would remain
constant unless subjected to some kind of a modifier. But when we
look at the situation in its true light as a combination of motions, rather
than through the medium of an artificial representation by means of
the force concept, it is immediately apparent that there is no such thing
as a constant force. Any force must decrease as the speed of the motion
from which it originates is approached. The progression of the natural
reference system, for instance, is motion at unit speed. It therefore
exerts unit force. If the forcethat is, the effectof the progression
is applied to overcoming a resistance to motion (the inertia of a mass)
it will ultimately bring the mass up to the speed of the progression
itself: unit speed. But a tendency to impart unit speed to an object
that is already moving at high speed is not equivalent to a tendency
to impart unit speed to a body at rest. In the limiting condition, where
an object is already moving at unit speed, the force due to the progression
of the reference system has no effect at all, and its magnitude is zero.
Thus, the full effect of any force is attained only when the force
is exerted on a body at rest, and the effective component in application
to an object in motion is a function of the difference between the speed
of that object and the speed that manifests itself as a force. The specific
form of the mathematical function, V l 2v2 rather than merely l v,
is related to some of the properties of compound motions that will
be discussed later. Ordinary terrestrial speeds are so low that the
corresponding reduction in the effective force is negligible, and at these
speeds forces can be considered constant. As the speed of the moving
object increases, the effective force decreases, approaching a limit of
zero when the object is moving at the speed corresponding to the applied
forceunity in the case of the progression of the natural reference
system. As we will find in a later stage of the development, an electric
charge is inherently a motion at unit speed, like the gravitational motion
104 Nothing but Motion

and the progression of the natural reference system, and it, too, exerts
zero force on an object moving at unit speed.
As an analogy, we may consider the case of a container full of water,
which is started spinning rapidly. The movement of the container walls
exerts a force tending to give the liquid a rotational motion, and under
the influence of this force the water gradually acquires a rotational
speed. But as that speed approaches the speed of the container the
effect of the constant force drops off, and the container speed
constitutes a limit beyond which the water speed cannot be raised by
this means. The force vanishes, we may say. But the fact that we cannot
accelerate the liquid any farther by this means does not bar us from
giving it a higher speed in some other way. The limitation is on the
capability of the process , not on the speed at which the water can rotate.
The mathematics of the equation of motion applicable to the acceleration
phenomenon remain the same in the Reciprocal System as in Einsteins
theory. It makes no difference mathematically whether the mass is
increased by a given amount, or the effective force is decreased by
the same amount. The effect on the observed quantity, the acceleration,
is identical. The wealth of experimental evidence that demonstrates the
validity of these mathematics therefore confirms the results derived from
the Reciprocal System to exactly the same degree that it confirms
Einsteins theory. All that this evidence does in either case is to show
that the theory is mathematically correct.
But mathematical validity is only one of the requirements that a theory
must meet in order to be a correct representation of the physical facts.
It must also be conceptually valid; that is, the meaning attached to
the mathematical terms and relations must be correct. One of the
significant aspects of Einsteins theory of acceleration at high speeds
is that it explains nothing; it merely makes assertions. Einstein gives
us an ex cathedra pronouncement to the effect that the velocity term,
V l v2, represents an increase in the mass, without any attempt at
an explanation as to why the mass increases with the velocity, why
this hypothetical mass increment does not alter the structure of the
moving atom or particle, as any other mass increment does, why the
velocity term has this particular mathematical form, or why there should
be a speed limitation of any kind.
Of course, this lack of a conceptual background is a general charac
teristic of the basic theories of present-day physics, the free inventions
of the human mind, as Einstein described them, and the theory of
mass increase is not unusual in this respect. But the arbitrary character
of the theory contrasts sharply with the full explanation provided by
the Reciprocal System. This new system of theory produces simple
and logical answers for all questions, similar to those enumerated above.
 Motion in Time 105

that arise in connection with the explanation that it supplies. Furthermore,

none of these is, in any respect, ad hoc. All are derived entirely by
deduction from the assumptions as to the nature of space and time
that constitute the basic premises of the new theoretical system.
Both the Reciprocal System and Einsteins theory recognize that there
is a limit of some kind at unit speed. Einstein says that this is a limit
on the magnitude of speed, because on the basis of his theory the mass
reaches infinity at unit speed, and it is impossible to accelerate an infinite
mass. The Reciprocal System, on the other hand, says that the limit
is on the capability of the process. A speed in excess of unity cannot
be produced by electromagnetic means. This does not preclude accelera
tion to higher speeds by other processes, such as the sudden release
of large quantities of energy in explosive events, and according to this
new theoretical viewpoint there is no definite limit to speed magnitudes.
Indeed, the general reciprocal relation between space and time requires
that speeds in excess of unity be just as plentiful, and cover just as
wide a range, in the universe as a whole, as speeds less than unity.
The apparent predominance of low-speed phenomena is merely a result
of observing the universe from a location far over on the low-speed
side of the neutral axis.
One of the reasons why Einsteins assertion as to the existence of
a limiting speed was so readily accepted is an alleged absence of any
observational evidence of speeds in excess of that of light. Our new
theoretical development indicates, however, that there is actually no
lack of evidence. The difficulty is that the scientific community currently
holds a mistaken belief as to the nature of the change of position that
is produced by such a motion. We observe that a motion at a speed
less than that of light causes a change of location in space, the rate
of change varying with the speed (or velocity, if the motion is other
than linear). It is currently taken for granted that a speed in excess
of that of light would result in a still greater rate of change of spatial
location, and the absence of any clearly authenticated evidence of such
higher rates of location change is interpreted as proof of the existence
of a speed limitation. But in a universe of motion an increment of
speed above unity (the speed of light) does not cause a change of location
in space. In such a universe there is complete symmetry between space
and time, and since unit speed is the neutral level, the excess speed
above unity causes a change of location in three-dimensional time rather
than in three-dimensional space.
From this it can be seen that the search for tachyons , hypothetical
particles that move with a spatial velocity greater than unity, will continue
to be fruitless. Speeds above unity cannot be detected by measurements
of the rate of change of coordinate positions in space. We can detect
106 Nothing but Motion

them only by means of a direct speed measurement, or by some collateral

effects. There are many observable effects of the required nature, but
their status as evidence of speeds greater than that of light is denied
by present-day physicists on the ground that it conflicts with Einsteins
assumption of an increase in mass at high speeds. In other words, the
observations are required to conform to the theory, rather than requiring
the theory to meet the standard test of science: conformity with observa
tion and measurement.
The current treatment of the abnormal redshifts of the quasars is
a glaring example of this unscientific distortion of the observations to
fit the theory. We have adequate grounds to conclude that these are
Doppler shifts, and are due to the speeds at which these objects are
receding from the earth. Until very recently there was no problem in
this connection. There was general agreement as to the nature of the
redshifts, and as to the existence of a linear relation between the redshift
and the speed. This happy state of affairs was ended when quasars
were found with redshifts exceeding 1.00. On the basis of the previously
accepted theory, a 1.00 redshift indicates a recession speed equal to
the speed of light. The newly discovered redshifts in the range above
1.00 therefore constitute a direct measurement of quasar motions at
speeds greater than that of light.
But the present-day scientific community is unwilling to challenge
Einstein, even on the basis of direct evidence, so the mathematics of
the special theory of relativity have been invoked as a means of saving
the speed limitation. No consideration seems to have been given to
the fact that the situation to which the mathematical relations of special
relativity apply does not exist in the case of the Doppler shift. As brought
out in Chapter 7, and as Einstein has explained very clearly in his
works, the Lorentz equations, which express those mathematics, are
designed to reconcile the results of direct measurements of speed, as
in the Michelson-Morley experiment, with the measured changes of
coordinate position in a spatial reference system. As everyone, including
Einstein, has recognized, it is the direct speed measurement that arrives
at the correct numerical magnitude. (Indeed, Einstein postulated the
validity of the speed measurement as a basic principle of nature.) Like
the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Doppler shift is
a direct measurement, simply a counting operation, and it is not in
any way connected with a measurement of spatial coordinates. Thus
there is no excuse for applying the relativity mathematics to the redshift
measurements.
Inasmuch as the time dilatation aspect of the Lorentz equations
is being applied to some other phenomena that do not seem to have
any connection with spatial coordinates, it may be desirable to anticipate
 Motion in Time 107

the subsequent development of theory to the extent of stating that the

discussion in Chapter 15 will show that those dilatation phenomena
that appear to involve time only, such as the extended lifetime of
fast-moving unstable particles, are, in fact, consequences of the variation
of the relation between coordinate spatial location (location in the fixed
reference system) and absolute spatial location (location in the natural
moving system) with the speed of the objects occupying these locations.
The Doppler effect, on the other hand, is independent of the spatial
reference system.
The way in which motion in time manifests itself to observation depends
on the nature of the phenomenon in which it is observed. Large redshifts
are confined to high-speed astronomical objects, and a detailed examina
tion of the effect of motion in time on the Doppler shift will be deferred
to Volume II, where it will be relevant to the explanation of the quasars.
At this time we will take a look at another of the observable effects
of motion in time that is not currently recognized as such by the scientific
community: its effect in distorting the scale of the spatial reference
system.
It was emphasized in Chapter 3 that the conventional spatial reference
systems are not capable of representing more than one variablespace
and that because there are two basic variablesspace and timein
the physical universe we are able to use the spatial reference systems
only on the basis of an assumption that the rate of change of time
remains constant. We further saw, earlier in this present chapter, that
at all speeds of unity or less, time does, in fact, progress at a constant
rate, and all variability is in space. It follows that if the correct values
of the total time are used in all applications, the conventional spatial
coordinate systems are capable of accurately representing all motions
at speeds of \ / n. But the scale of the spatial coordinate system is
related to the rate of change of time, and the accuracy of the coordinate
representation depends on the absence of any change in time other
than the continuing progression at the normal rate of registration on
a clock. At speeds in excess of unity, space is the entity that progresses
at the fixed normal rate, and time is variable. Consequently, the excess
speed above unity distorts the spatial coordinate system .
In a spatial reference system the coordinate difference between two
points A and B represents the space traversed by any object moving
from A to B at the reference speed. If that reference speed is changed,
the distance corresponding to the coordinate difference A B is changed
accordingly. This is true irrespective of the nature of the process utilized
for measurement of the distance. It might be assumed, for instance,
that by using something similar to a yardstick, which compares space
directly with space, the measurement of the coordinate distance would
108 Nothing but Motion

be independent of the reference speed. But this is not correct, as the

length of the yardstick, the distance between its two ends, is related
to the reference speed in the same manner as the distance between
any other two points. If the coordinate difference between A and B
is x when the reference speed has the normal unit value, then it becomes
2x if the reference speed is doubled. Thus, if we want to represent
motions at twice the speed of light in one of the standard spatial coordinate
systems that assume time to be progressing normally, all distances
involved in these motions must be reduced by one half. Any other
speed greater than unity requires a corresponding modification of the
distance scale.
The existence of motion at greater-than-unit speeds has no direct
relevance to the familiar phenomena of everyday life, but it is important
in all of the less accessible areas, those that we have called the far-out
regions. Most of the consequences that apply in the realm of the very
large, the astronomical domain, have no significance in relation to the
subjects being discussed at this early stage of the theoretical development,
but the general nature of the effects produced by greater-than-unit speeds
is most clearly illustrated by those astronomical phenomena in which
such speeds can be observed on a major scale. A brief examination
of a typical high-speed astronomical object will therefore help to clarify
the factors involved in the high-speed situation.
In the preceding pages we deduced from theoretical premises that
speeds in excess of the speed of light can be produced by processes
that involve large concentrations of energy, such as explosions. Further
theoretical development (in Volume II) will show that both stars and
galaxies do, in fact, undergo explosions at certain specific stages of
their existence. The explosion of a star is energetic enough to accelerate
some portions of the stellar mass to speeds above unity, while other
portions acquire speeds below this level. The low-speed material is thrown
off into space in the form of an expanding cloud of debris in which
the particles of matter retain their normal dimensions but are separated
by an increasing amount of empty space. The high-speed material is
similarly ejected in the form of an expanding cloud, but because of
the distortion of the scale of the reference system by the greater-than-unit
speeds, the distances between the particles decrease rather than increase.
To emphasize the analogy with the cloud of material expanding into
space, we may say that the particles expanding into time are separated
by an increasing amount of empty time.
The expansion in each case takes place from the situation that existed
at the time of the explosion, not from some arbitrary zero datum. The
star was originally stationary, or moving at low speed, in the conventional
spatial reference system, and was stationary in time in the moving system
 Motion in Time 109

of reference defined by a clock. As a result of the explosion, the matter

ejected at low speeds moves outward in space and remains in the original
condition in time. The matter ejected at high speeds moves outward
in time and remains in its original condition in space. Since we see
only the spatial result of all motions, we see the low-speed material
in its true form as an expanding cloud, whereas we see the high-speed
material as an object remaining stationary in the original spatial location.
Because of the empty space that is introduced between the particles
of the outward-moving explosion product, the diameter of the expanding
cloud is considerably larger than that of the original star. The empty
time introduced between the particles of the inward-moving explosion
product conforms to the general reciprocal relation, and inverts this
result. The observed aggregate, a white dwarf star , is also an expanding
object, but its expansion into time is equivalent to a contraction in
space, and as we see it in its spatial aspect, its diameter is substantially
less than that of the original star. It thus appears to observation as
an object of very high density.
The white dwarf is one member of a class of extremely compact
astronomical objects discovered in recent years that is today challenging
the basic principles of conventional physics. Some of these objects,
such as the quasars are still without any plausible explanation. Others,
including the white dwarfs, have been tied in to current physical theory
by means of ad hoc assumptions, but since the assumptions made to
explain each of these objects are not applicable to the others, the
astronomers are supplied with a whole assortment of theories to explain
the same phenomenon: extremely high densities. It is therefore significant
that the explanation of the high density of the white dwarf stars derived
from the postulates of the Reciprocal System of theory is applicable
to all of the other compact objects. As will be shown in the detailed
discussion, all of these extremely compact astronomical objects are
explosion products, and their high density is in all cases due to the
same cause: motion at speeds in excess of that of light.
This is only a very brief account of a complex phenomenon that
will be examined in full detail later, but it is a striking illustration of
how the inverse phenomena predicted by the reciprocal relation can
always be found somewhere in the universe, even if they involve such
seemingly bizarre concepts as empty time, or high speed motion of
objects stationary in space.
Another place where the inability of the conventional spatial reference
systems to represent changes in temporal location, other than by distortion
of the spatial representation, prevents it from showing the physical
situation in its true light is the region inside unit distance. Here the
motion in time is not due to a speed greater than unity, but to the
l 10 Nothing but Motion

fact that, because of the discrete nature of the natural units, less than
unit space (or time) does not exist. To illustrate just what is involved
here, let us consider an atom A in motion toward another atom B .
According to current ideas, atom A will continue to move in the direction
AB until the atoms, or the force fields surrounding them, if such fields
exist, are in contact. The postulates of the Reciprocal System specify,
however, that space exists only in units. It follows that when atom
A reaches point X one unit of space distant from B , it cannot move
any closer to B in space . But it is free to change its position in time
relative to the time location occupied by atom B , and since further
movement in space is not possible, the momentum of the atom causes
the motion to continue in the only way that is open to it.
The spatial reference system is incapable of representing any deviation
of time from the normal rate of progression, and this added motion
in time therefore distorts the spatial position of the moving atom A
in the same manner as the speeds in excess of unity that we considered
earlier. When the separation in time between the two atoms has increased
to n units, space remaining unchanged (by means of continued reversals
of direction), the equivalent spatial separation, the quantity that is
determined by the conventional methods of measurement, is \ / n units.
Thus, while atom A cannot move to a position less than one unit of
space distant from atom B, it can move to the equivalent of a closer
position by moving outward in time. Because of this capability of motion
in time in the region inside unit distance it is possible for the measured
length, area, or volume of a physical object to be a fraction of a natural
unit, even though the actual one, two, or three-dimensional space cannot
be less than one unit in any case.
It was brought out in Chapter 6 that the atoms of a material aggregate,
which are contiguous in space, are widely separated in time. Now we
are examining a situation in which a change of position in the spatial
coordinate system results from a separation in time, and we will want
to know just where these time separations differ. The explanation is
that the individual atoms of an aggregate such as a gas, in which the
atoms are separated by more than unit distance, are also separated by
various distances in time, but these atoms are all at the same stage
o f the time progression . The motion of these atoms meets the requirement
for accurate representation in the conventional spatial coordinate systems;
that is, it maintains the fixed time progression on which the reference
system is based. On the other hand, the motion in time that takes place
inside unit distance involves a deviation from the normal time progression.
A spatial analogy may be helpful in getting a clear view of this situation.
Let us consider the individual units (stars) of a galaxy. Regardless of
how widely these stars are separated, or how much they move around
 Motion in Time 111

within the galaxy, they maintain their status as constituents of the galaxy
because they are all receding at the same speed (the internal motions
being negligible compared to the recession speed). They are at the same
stage of the galactic recession . But if one of these stars acquires a
spatial motion that modifies its recession speed significantly, it moves
away from the galaxy, either temporarily or permanently. Thereafter,
the position of this star can no longer be represented in a map of the
galaxy, except by some special convention.
The separations in time discussed in Chapter 6 are analogous to the
separations in space within the galaxies. The material aggregates that
we are now discussing retain their identities just as the galaxies do,
because their individual components are progressing in time at the same
rates. But just as individual stars may acquire spatial speeds which
cause them to move away from the galaxies, so the individual atoms
of the material aggregates may acquire motions in time which cause
them to move away from the normal path of the time progression. Inside
unit distance this deviation is temporary and quite limited in extent.
In the white dwarf stars the deviations are more extensive, but still
temporary. In the astronomical discussions in Volume II we will consider
phenomena in which the magnitude of the deviation is sufficient to
carry the aggregates that are involved completely out of the range of
the spatial coordinate systems.
So far as the inter-atomic distance is concerned, it is not material
whether this is an actual spatial separation or merely the equivalent
of such a separation, but the fact that the movement of the atoms
changes from a motion in space to a motion in time at the unit level
has some important consequences from other standpoints. For instance,
the spatial direction AB in which atom A was originally moving no
longer has any significance now that the motion is taking place inside
unit distance, inasmuch as the motion in time which replaces the previous
motion in space has no spatial direction. It does have what we choose
to call a direction in time, but this temporal direction has no relation
at all to the spatial direction of the previous motion. No matter what
the spatial direction of the motion of the atom may have been before
unit distance was reached, the temporal direction of the motion after
it makes the transition to motion in time is determined purely by chance.
Any kind of action originating in the region where all motion is in
time is also subject to significant modifications if it reaches the unit
boundary and enters the region of space motion. For example, the
connection between motion in space and motion in time is scalar, again
because there is no relation between direction in space and direction
in time. Consequently, only one dimension of a two-dimensional or
three-dimensional motion can be transmitted across the boundary. This
112 Nothing but Motion

point has an important bearing on some of the phenomena that will

be discussed later.
Another significant fact is that the effective direction of the basic
scalar motions, gravitation and the progression of the natural reference
system, reverses at the unit level. Outside unit space the progression
of the reference system carries all objects outward in space away from
each other. Inside unit space only time can progress unidirectionally,
and since an increase in time, with space remaining constant, is equivalent
to a decrease in space, the progression of the reference system in this
region, the time region, as we will call it, moves all objects to locations
which, in effect, are closer together. The gravitational motion necessarily
opposes the progression, and hence the direction of this motion also
reverses at the unit boundary. As it is ordinarily observed in the region
outside unit distance, gravitation is an inward motion, moving objects
closer together. In the time region it acts in the outward direction, moving
material objects farther apart.
On first consideration, it may seem illogical for the same force to
act in opposite directions in different regions, but from the natural
standpoint these are not different directions. As emphasized in Chapter
3, the natural datum is unity, not zero, and the progression of the natural
reference system therefore always acts in the same natural direction:
away from unity. In the region outside unit distance away from unity
is also away from zero, but in the time region away from unity is toward
zero. Gravitation likewise has the same natural direction in both regions:
toward unity.
It is this reversal of coordinate direction at the unit level that enables
the atoms to take up equilibrium positions and form solid and liquid
aggregates. No such equilibrium can be established where the progression
of the natural reference system is outward, because in this case the
effect of any change in the distance between atoms resulting from an
im balance of forces is to accentuate the unbalance. If the inward-directed
gravitational motion exceeds the outward-directed progression, a net
inward motion takes place, making the gravitational motion still greater.
Conversely, if the gravitational motion is the smaller, the resulting net
motion is outward, which still further reduces the already inadequate
gravitational motion. Under these conditions there can be no equilibrium.
In the time region, however, the effect of a change in relative position
opposes the unbalanced force which caused the change. If the gravitational
motion (outward in this region) is the greater an outward net motion
takes place, reducing the gravitational motion and ultimately bringing
it into equality with the constant inward progression of the reference
system. Similarly, if the progression is the greater, the net movement
 Motion in Time 113

is inward, and this increases the gravitational motion until an equilbrium

is reached.
The equilibrium that must necessarily be established between the atoms
of matter inside unit distance in a universe of motion obviously corre
sponds to the observed inter-atomic equilibrium that prevails in solids
and, with certain modifications, in liquids. Here, then, is the explanation
of solid and liquid cohesion that we derive from the Reciprocal System
of theory, the first comprehensive and completely self-consistent theory
of this phenomenon that has ever been formulated. The mere fact that
it is far superior in all respects to the currently accepted electrical theory
of matter is not, in itself, very significant, inasmuch as the electrical
hypothesis is definitely one of the less successful segments of present-day
physical theory, but a comparison of the two theories should nevertheless
be of interest from the standpoint of demonstrating how great an advance
the new theoretical system actually accomplishes in this particular field.
A detailed comparison will therefore be presented later, after some further
groundwork has been laid.
 CHAPTER 9

Rotational Combinations
One of the principal difficulties that is encountered in explaining the
Reciprocal System of theory, or portions thereof, is a general tendency
on the part of readers or listeners to assume that the author or speaker,
whoever he may be, does not actually mean what he says. No previous
major theory is purely theoretical; every one takes certain empirical
information as a given element in the premises of the theory. The
conventional theory of matter, for example, takes the existence of matter
as given. It then assumes that this matter is composed of elementary
particles, which it attempts to identify with observed material particles.
On the basis of this assumption, together with the empirical information
introduced into the theory, it then attempts to explain the observed
range of structural characteristics. Inasmuch as all previous theories
of major scope have been constructed on this pattern, there is a general
impression that physical theories must be so constructed, and it is
therefore assumed that when reference is made to the fact that the
Reciprocal System utilizes no empirical data of any kind, this statement
must have some meaning other than its literal significance.
The theoretical development in the preceding chapters should dispose
of this misapprehension so far as the qualitative aspect of the universe
is concerned. While the task is still only in the early stages, enough
of the basic features of the physical universeradiation, matter, gravita
tion, etc.have been derived by deduction from the postulates, without
the aid of further assumptions, or of empirical information, to demonstrate
that a purely theoretical qualitative development is, in fact, feasible.
But a complete account of a theoretical universe must necessarily include
the quantitative aspects of physical phenomena as well as the qualitative
aspects.
Here is another place where the way in which the development of
theory has taken place is mistakenly regarded as the way in which
this development must take place. The theoretical products of the
Newtonian era, the so-called classical physics, were capable of being
expressed in simple mathematical terms. But some deviations from the
classical laws have been encountered in the far-out regions that have
been reached by observation and experiment in recent years, and the

115
116 Nothing but Motion

physicists have not been able to account for these deviations without
employing extremely complex mathematical processes, together with
conceptual artifices of a rather dubious character, such as Einsteins
rubber yardstick, or fudge factor. In the light of the points brought
out in the preceding chapter it is now evident that the difficulties are
due to a misunderstanding of the basic nature of the far-out phenomena,
but since the modem theorists have not realized this, they have concluded
that the true relationships of the universe are extremely complex, and
that they cannot be expressed by anything other than very complex
mathematics.
The general acceptance of this view of the situation has led a large
segment of the scientific community, particularly the theoretical physi
cists, to the further conclusion that any treatment of the subject matter
by means of simple mathematics is necessarily wrong, and can safely
be dismissed without examination. Indeed, many of these individuals
go a step farther, and characterize such a treatment as non-mathemati-
cal. This attitude is, of course, preposterous, and it cannot be defended,
but it is nevertheless so widespread that it constitutes a serious obstacle
in the way of a full appreciation of the merits of any simple mathematical
treatment.
In beginning the quantitative development of the Reciprocal System
of theory it is therefore necessary to emphasize that simplicity is a
virtue, not a defect. It is so recognized, in principle, by scientists in
general, including those who are now contending that the universe is
fundamentally complex, or even, as expressed by P. W. Bridgman, that
it is not intrinsically reasonable or understandable. 56 In its entirety,
the universe is indeed complex, extremely so, but as the initial steps
in the development of the Reciprocal System in the preceding pages
have already begun to demonstrate from a qualitative standpoint, it is
actually a complex aggregate of interrelated simple elements.
The principal advantage of mathematical treatment of physical subject
matter is the precision with which knowledge of a mathematical character
can be developed and expressed. This is offset to a considerable degree,
however, by the fact that mathematical knowledge of physical phenomena
is incomplete, and from the physical standpoint, ambiguous. No mathe
matical statement of a physical relation is complete in itself. As Bridgman
frequently pointed out, it must be accompanied by a text that tells
us what the mathematics mean, and how they are to be applied. There
is no definite and fixed relation between this text and the mathematics;
that is, every mathematical statement of a physical relation is capable
of different interpretations.
The importance of this point in the present connection lies in the
fact that the Reciprocal System makes relatively few changes in the
 Rotational Combinations 117

mathematical aspects of current physical theory. The changes that it

calls for are primarily conceptual They require different interpretations
of the mathematics, changes in the text, as Bridgman would say. Such
changes, modifications of our ideas as to what the mathematics mean,
obviously cannot be represented by alterations in the mathematical
expressions. These expressions will have to stand as they are. Many
readers of the first edition have asked that the new ideas be put in
mathematical form. But what these individuals really mean is that they
want the theory put into some different mathematical form. They are,
in effect, demanding that we change the mathematics and leave the
concepts alone. This, we cannot do. The errors in current physical thought
are primarily conceptual, not mathematical, and the corrections have
to be made where the errors are, not somewhere else.
There is nothing extraordinary about the close correlation between
the mathematical aspects of the Reciprocal System and those of current
theory. The conventional mathematical relations were, for the most part,
derived empirically, and any correct theory of a more general nature
must necessarily arrive at these same mathematics. But there is no
guarantee that the prevailing interpretation of these mathematical results
is correct. On the contrary, as Jeans pointed out in the statement
previously quoted, the physical interpretations of correct mathematical
formulae have often been badly wrong.
Correction of the errors that have been made in the interpretation
of the mathematical expressions often has very significant consequences,
not so much in the particular area to which such an expression is directly
applicable, but in collateral areas. The interpretation is usually tailored
to fit the immediate physical situation reasonably well, but if it is not
correct it becomes an impediment to progress in related areas. If it
does not actually lead to erroneous conclusions such as the limitation
on speed that Einstein derived from a wrong interpretation of the
mathematics of acceleration at high speeds, it at least misses all of
the significant collateral implications of the true explanation.
For example, the mathematical statement of the recession of the distant
galaxies merely tells us that these galaxies are receding at speeds directly
proportional to their distances. The currently popular interpretation of
this mathematical relation assumes that the recession is an ordinary
vectorial motion. The problem in accounting for it then becomes a matter
of identifying (or inventing) a force of sufficient magnitude to produce
the extremely high speeds of the most distant objects. The accepted
hypothesis is that they were produced by a gigantic explosion of the
entire contents of the universe at some unique stage of its history.
The Reciprocal System is in agreement with the mathematical aspects
of current theory. It arrives theoretically at the conclusion that the distant
118 Nothing but Motion

galaxies must recede at speeds proportional to their respective distances:

the same conclusion that present-day astronomy derives empirically.
But the new theoretical system says that this recession is not a vectorial
motion imparted to the galaxies by some powerful force. It is a scalar
outward motion that results from viewing the galaxies in the context
of a stationary spatial frame of reference rather than in the natural
moving system of reference to which all physical objects actually conform.
So far as the recession phenomenon itself is concerned, it makes
little difference, aside from the implications for cosmology, which
interpretation of the mathematical relation between speed and distance
is accepted, but on the basis of the currently popular hypothesis, this
relation has no further significance, whereas on the basis of the explana
tion derived from the postulates of the Reciprocal System, the same
forces that apply to the distant galaxies are applicable to all atoms
and aggregates of matter, producing effects which vary with the relative
magnitudes of the different forces involved. On the basis of this new
information, the mathematical relation which applies to the galaxies is
one of far-reaching importance.
This present chapter will initiate a demonstration that the very complex
mathematical relations that are encountered in many physical areas are
the result of permutations and combinations of simple basic elements,
rather than a reflection of a complex fundamental reality. The process
whereby the compound unit of motion that we call an atom is produced
by applying a rotational motion to a previously existing vibrational motion,
the photon, is typical of the manner in which the complex phenomena
of the universe are built up from simple foundations. We start with
a uniform linear, or translational, motion at unit speed. Then by directional
reversals we produce a simple harmonic motion, or vibration. Next the
vibrating unit is caused to rotate. The addition of this motion of a different
type alters the behavior of the unitgives it different properties, as
we sayand puts it into a new physical category. All of the more
complex physical entities with which we will deal in the subsequent
pages are similarly built up by compounding the simpler motions.
The first phase of this mathematical development is a striking example
of the way in which a few very simple mathematical premises quickly
proliferate into a large number and variety of mathematical consequences.
The development will begin with nothing more than the series of cardinal
numbers and the geometry of three dimensions. By subjecting these
to simple mathematical processes, the applicability of which to the
physical universe of motion is specified in the fundamental postulates,
the combinations of rotational motions that can exist in the theoretical
universe will be ascertained. It will then be shown that these rotational
combinations that theoretically can exist can be individually identified
 Rotational Combinations 119

with the atoms of the chemical elements and the sub-atomic particles
that are observed to exist in the physical universe.
A unique group of numbers representing the different rotational
components will be derived for each of these combinations. The set
of numbers applying to each element or type of particle theoretically
determines the properties of that substance, inasmuch as these properties,
like all other quantitative features of a universe of motion, are functions
of the magnitudes of the motions that constitute the material substances.
It will be shown in this and the following chapter that this theoretical
assertion is valid for some of the simpler properties, including those
which depend upon the position of the element in the periodic table.
The application of these numerical factors to other properties will be
discussed from time to time as consideration of these other properties
is undertaken later in the development.
One preliminary step that will have to be taken is to revise present
measurement procedures and units in order to accommodate them to
the natural moving system of reference. Because of the status of unity
as the natural reference datum, a deviation of n - 1 units downward from
unity to a speed \ / n has the same natural magnitude as a deviation
of n -l units upward to a speed n / \ , even though, when measured from
zero speed in the conventional manner, the changes are wholly dispropor
tionate. When n is 4, for example, the upward change is from 1 to
4, an increase of 3 units, whereas the downward change is from 1 to
1/4, a decrease of only 3 /4 unit.
In order to reflect the fact that these deviations are actually equal
in magnitude from the natural standpoint, the basis on which the
fundamental processes of the universe take place, it is necessary to
set up a new system of speed measurement, in which we express the
magnitude of the speed in terms of the deviation, upward or downward,
from unit speed, instead of measuring from some zero in the conventional
manner. Inasmuch as the units in which speeds are measured on this
basis are not commensurable with those of speed as measured from
zero, it would lead to complete confusion if the units of the new system
were called units of speed. For this reason, when reference is made
to speed in terms o f its natural magnitude in any of the publications
dealing with the Reciprocal System of theory, it is not called speed.
Instead, the term speed displacement is used, the units of this
displacement being natural units of deviation from unity.
In practice, the term speed displacement is usually shortened to
displacement, and this has led to some criticism of the terminology
on the ground that displacement already has other scientific meanings.
But it is highly desirable, as an aid to understanding, that the idea
of a deviation from a norm should be clearly indicated in the language
120 Nothing but Motion

that is used, and there are not many English words that meet the
requirements. Under the circumstances, displacement appears to be
the best choice. The sense in which this term is used will almost always
be indicated by the context in which it appears, and in the few cases
where there might be some question, the possibility of confusion can
be avoided by employing the full name, speed displacement.
Another reason for the use of a distinctive term in designating natural
speed magnitudes is that this is necessary in order to make the addition
of speeds meaningful. Conventional physics claims that it recognizes
speed as a scalar quantity, but in actual practice gives it no more than
a quasi-scalar status. True scalar quantities are additive. If we have
five gallons of gasoline in one container and ten gallons in another,
the total, the quantity in which we are most interested, is fifteen gallons.
The corresponding sum of two speeds of the same objectrotational
and translational, for examplehas no meaning at all in current physical
thought. In the universe of motion described by the Reciprocal System
of theory, however, the scalar total of all of the speeds of an object
is one of the most important properties of that object. Thus, even though
speed has the same basic significance in the Reciprocal System as in
conventional theorythat is, it is a measure of the magnitude of
motionthe manner in which speed enters into physical phenomena
is so different in the two systems that it would be inappropriate to
express it in the same units of measurement in both cases, even if
this were not ruled out for other reasons.
It would, of course, be somewhat simpler if we could say speed
whenever we mean speed, and not have to use two different terms
for the same thing. But the meaning of whatever is said should be
clear in all cases if it is kept in mind that whenever reference is made
to displacement, this means speed, but not speed as ordinarily
measured. It is speed measured in different quantities, and from a different
reference datum.
A decrease in speed from 1/1 to l/n involves a positive displacement
of /i-l units; that is, an addition of n-1 units of motion in which time
is unidirectional while the space direction alternates, thus, in effect,
adding n-\ units of time to the original speed 1/1. Similarly, an increase
in speed from 1/1 to n / l involves a negative displacement, an addition
of n-1 units of motion in which space is unidirectional while the time
direction alternates; thus, in effect, adding n-1 units of space to the
original speed 1/ 1.
In the first edition of this work the displacements here designated
positive and negative were called time displacement and space
displacement respectively, to emphasize the fact that the positive
displacement represents an increased amount of time in association with
 Rotational Combinations 121

one unit of space, while the reverse is true in negative displacement.

Experience has shown, however, that the original terminology tends
to be confusing, particularly in that it is frequently interpreted as indicating
addition of independent quantities of time or space to the phenomena
under consideration, whereas, in fact, it is the speed that is being increased
or decreased. As pointed out in Chapter 2, in a universe of motion
there is no such thing as physical space or time independent of motion.
We can abstract the space aspect of motion mentally, and imagine it
existing independently, as a reference system (extension space) or
otherwise, but we cannot add or subtract space or time in actual practice
except by superimposing a new motion on the motion we wish to alter.
If we were dealing with speed measured from the mathematical zero,
it would be logical to apply the term positive to an addition to the
speed, but where we measure from unity the values increase in both
directions, and there is no reason why one increase should be considered
any more positive than the other. The choice has therefore been
made on a convenience basis, and the positive designation has been
applied to the displacements on the low speed side of the unit speed
datum because these are the displacements of the material system of
phenomena. We will find, as we proceed, that the displacements toward
higher speeds, where they occur at all in the material sector, do so
mainly as negative modifications of the predominantly low speed motion
combinations.
Inasmuch as the units of positive displacement and of negative
displacement are simply units of deviation from the natural speed datum,
they are additive algebraically. Thus, if there exists a motion in time
with a negative speed displacement of n-\ units (equivalent to n units
of speed in conventional terms) we can reduce the speed to zero, relative
to the natural datum, by adding a motion with a positive speed displace
ment of n-\ units. Addition of further positive displacement will result
in a net speed below unity; that is, a motion in space. But there is
no way by which we can alter either the time aspect or the space aspect
of the motion independently. The variable in a universe of motion is
speed, and the variation occurs only in displacement units. The change
in terminology has been made in the hope that it will contribute toward
a full realization that what we are dealing with are units of speed, even
though, for technical reasons, we cannot call it speed.
In the case of radiation, there is no inherent upper limit to the speed
displacement (conventionally measured as frequency), but in actual
practice a limit is imposed by the capabilities of the processes that
produce the radiation, examination of which will be deferred until after
further groundwork has been laid. The range of radiation frequencies
is so wide that, except near l / l , where the steps from n to n 4- l
122 Nothing but Motion

are relatively large, the frequency spectrum is practically continuous.

The rotational situation is very different. In contrast to the almost
unlimited number of possible vibrational frequencies, the maximum
number of units of rotational displacement that can participate in any
one combination of rotations is relatively small, for reasons which will
appear in the course of the discussion. Furthermore, probability consider
ations dictate the distribution of the total number of rotational displace
ment units among the different rotations in each individual case, so
that in general there is only one stable combination among the various
mathematically possible ways of distributing a given total rotational
displacement. This limits the possible rotational combinations that we
identify as material atoms and particles to a relatively small series, the
successive members of which differ initially by one displacement unit,
and at a later stage by two of the single displacement units.
With this understanding of the fundamentals, let us now proceed to
an examination of the general characteristics of the combinations of
rotational motions. The existence of different rotational patterns is clear
from the start, as the rotation can not only take place at different speeds
(displacements), but, in a three-dimensional universe, can also take place
independently in the different dimensions. As we will see in our investiga
tion, however, some restrictions are imposed by geometry.
The photon cannot rotate around the line of vibration as an axis.
Such a rotation would be indistinguishable from no rotation at all. But
it can rotate around either or both of the two axes perpendicular to
the line of vibration and to each other. One such rotation of the
one-dimensional photon generates a two-dimensional figure: a disk.
Rotation of the disk around the second available axis then generates
a three-dimensional figure: a sphere. This exhausts the available dimen
sions, and no further rotation of the same nature can take place. The
basic rotation of the atom or particle is therefore two-dimensional, and,
as brought out in Chapter 5, it is in the inward scalar direction. But
after the two-dimensional rotation is in existence it is possible to give
the entire combination of vibrational and rotational motions a rotation
around the third axis, which is also inward from the scalar standpoint,
but is opposed to the two-dimensional rotation vectorially. This reverse
rotation is optional, as the basic rotation is distributed over all three
dimensions, and nothing further is required for stability. A rotating system
therefore consists of a photon rotating two-dimensionally, with or without
a reverse rotation in the third dimension.
Although the two dimensions of the basic rotation have been treated
separately for descriptive purposes, first generating a disk by one rotation,
and then a sphere by the second, it should be understood that there
are not two one-dimensional rotations; there is one two-dimensional
 Rotational Combinations 123

rotation. This distinction has a significant bearing on the properties of

the rotational combinations. The combined magnitude of two one-dimen-
sional rotations of n displacement units each is In. The magnitude of
a two-dimensional rotation in which the displacement is n in each
dimension is n 2.
It is not essential that all of the rotations be effective in the physical
sense. Unless there is effective rotation in at least one dimension it
is meaningless to speak of rotation, as such motion cannot be distinguished
from translation. But if there is effective rotationthat is, rotation with
a speed differing from unityin at least one dimension, there can be
rotation at unit speed (zero displacement) in the other dimension or
dimensions.
The vibrational speed displacement of the basic photon may be either
negative (greater than unity) or positive (less than unity). Let us consider
the case of a photon with a negative displacement, to which we propose
to add a unit of rotational displacement (rotate the photon). Inasmuch
as the individual units of vibrational displacement are discrete (that is,
they are not tied together in any way), the one applied unit of rotational
motion results in rotation of only one of the vibrational units. Because
of the lack of any connection between the vibrational units there is
no force resisting separation. When the one unit starts moving inward
by reason of the rotation it therefore moves away from the remainder
of the photon, which continues to be carried outward by the progression
of the natural reference system. Irrespective of the number of vibrational
units in the photon to which the rotational displacement was added,
the compound motion produced by this addition thus contains only the
vibrational units that are being rotated. The remaining vibrational units
of the original photon continue as a photon of lower displacement.
When a compound motion of this type, rotation of a vibration, is
formed, the inward motion due to the rotation replaces the outward
motion of the progression of the reference system. Thus the components
of the compound motion are not subject to oppositely directed motions
in the manner of the multi-unit rotating photons,^m^these components
do not separate spontaneously. However, the relational displacement
of the photon now under consideration is negative. If the rotational
displacement applied to this photon is also negative, the displacement
units, being units of the same scalar nature, are additive in the same
manner as the vibrational units of a photon. Like the photon units,
they are easily separated when even a relatively small force is applied,
and the rotational displacement is therefore readily transferred from
the original photon to some other object, under appropriate conditions.
For this reason, combinations of negative vibrational and negative
rotational displacements are inherently unstable. On the other hand,
124 Nothing but Motion

if the applied rotational displacement is positive, equal numbers of the

positive and negative displacement units neutralize each other. In this
case the combination has no net displacement. A motion that does have
a net displacement cannot be extracted from such a combination without
the intervention of some outside agency. It is simple enough to separate
one negative unit from an aggregate of n negative units, but getting
one negative unit out of nothing at all is not so easily accomplished.
A combination of a negative vibration and a positive rotation (or vice
versa) is therefore inherently stable.
All that has been said about additions to a photon with negative
displacement applies with equal force, but in the inverse manner, to
the addition of rotation to a photon with positive displacement. We
therefore arrive at the conclusion that in order to produce stable
combinations photons oscillating in time (negative displacement) must
be rotated in space (positive displacement), whereas photons oscillating
in space must be rotated in time. This alternation of positive and negative
displacements is a general requirement for stability of compound motions,
and it will play an important part in the theoretical development in
the subsequent pages. It should be understood, however, that stability
is dependent on the environment. Any combination will break up if
the environmental conditions are sufficiently unfavorable. Conversely,
there are situations, to be examined later, in which environmental
influences create conditions that confer stability on combinations that
are normally unstable.
The combinations in which the net rotation is in space (positive
displacement) can be identified with the relatively stable atoms and
particles of our local environment, and constitute what we will call
the material system. For the present we will confine the discussion
to the members of this material system, and will leave the inverse type
of combination, the cosmic system, as we will call it, for later consider
ation.
Inasmuch as the oscillating photon is being rotated in two dimensions
(the basic positive rotation), one unit of two-dimensional positive dis
placement is required to neutralize the negative vibrational displacement
of the photon, and reduce the net total displacement to zero. Because
of its lack of any effective deviation from unit speed (the reference
datum) this combination of motions has no observable physical properties,
and for that reason it was somewhat facetiously called the rotational
equivalent of nothing in the first edition. But this understates the
significance of the combination. While it has no effective net total
magnitude, its rotational component does have a direction. The idea
of a motion that has direction but no magnitude sounds something like
a physicists version of the Cheshire cat, but the zero effective magnitude
 Rotational Combinations 125

is a property of the structure as a whole, while the rotational direction

of the two-dimensional motion, which makes the addition of further
positive rotational displacement possible, is a property of one component
of the total structure. Thus, even though this combination of motions
can do nothing itself, it does constitute a base from w hich something
(a material particle) can be constructed that cannot be formed directly
from a linear type of motion. We will therefore call it the rotational
base.
There are actually two of the rotational bases. The one w e have been
discussing is the base of the material system. The structures of the
cosmic system are constructed from a different base; one that is just
the inverse of the material base. In this inverse combination the photon
is oscillating in space (positive displacement) and rotating in time (negative
displacement).
Successive additions of positive displacement to the rotational base
produce the combinations of motions that we identify as the sub-atomic
particles and the atoms of the chemical elements. The next two chapters
will describe the structures of the individual combinations. Before
beginning this description, however, it will be in order to make some
general comments about the implications of the theoretical conclusion
that the atoms and particles of matter are systems of rotational motions.
One of the most significant results of the new concept of the structure
of atoms and particles that has been developed from the postulates
of the Reciprocal System is that it is no longer necessary to invoke
the aid of spirits or demonsor their modern equivalents: mysterious
hypothetical forces of a purely ad hoc natureto explain how the parts
of the atom hold together. There is nothing to explain, because the
atom has no separate parts. It is one integral unit, and the special and
distinctive characteristics of each kind of atom are not due to the way
in which separate parts are put together, but are due to the nature
and magnitude of the several distinct motions of which each atom is
composed.
At the same time, this explanation of the structure of the atom tells
us why such a unit can expel particles, or disintegrate into smaller units,
even though it has no separate parts; how it can act, in some respects,
as if it were an aggregate of sub-atomic units, even though it is actually
a single integral entity. Such a structure can obviously part with some
of its motion, or absorb additional units of motion, without in any way
altering the fact that it is a single entity, not a collection of parts.
When the pitcher throws a curve ball, it is still a single unitit is
a baseballeven though it now has both a translational motion and
a rotational motion which it did not have while still in his hand. We
do not have to worry about what kind of a force holds the rotational
126 Nothing but Motion

part, the translation al part, and the horsehide c overed nucleus

together.
There has b een a general impression that if we can get particles out
of an atom, then there must be particles in atoms; that is, the atom
must be constructed of particles. This conclusion seems so natural and
logical that it has survived what would ordinarily be a fatal blow: the
discovery that the particles which emanate from the atom in the process
of radioactivity and otherwise are not the constituents of the atom;
that is, they do not have the properties which are required of the
constituents. Furthermore, it is now clear that a great variety of particles
that cannot be regarded as constituents of normal atoms can be produced
from these atoms by appropriate processes. The whole situation is now
in a state of confusion. As Heisenberg commented:
Wrong questions and wrong pictures creep automatically into particle
physics and lead to developments that do not fit the real situation
in nature.27
It is now apparent that all of this confusion has resulted from the
wholly gratuitous, but rarely questioned, assumption that the sub-atomic
particles have the characteristics of parts ; that is, they exist as particles
in the structure of the atom, they require something that has the nature
of a force to k eep them in position, and so on. When we substitute
motions for parts, in accordance with the findings of the Reciprocal
System, the entire situation automatically clears up. Atoms are compound
motions, sub-atomic particles are less complex motions of the same
general nature, and photons are simple motions. An atom, even though
it is a single unitary structure without separate parts, can eject some
of its motion, or transfer it to some other structure. If the motion which
separates from the atom is translational it reappears as translational
motion of some other unit; if it is simple linear vibration it reappears
as radiation; if it is a rotational motion of less than atomic complexity
it reappears as a sub-atomic particle; if it is a complex rotational motion
it reappears as a smaller atom. In any of these cases, the status of
the original atom changes according to the nature and magnitude of
the motion that is lost.
The explanation of the observed interconvertibility of the various
physical entities is now obvious. All of these entities are forms of motion
or combinations of different forms, hence any of them can be changed
into some other form or combination of motion by appropriate means.
Motion is the common denominator o f the physical universe.
 CHAPTER 10

Atoms
In some respects, the combination s of motions w ith greater rotational
displacement, those w hich constitute the atoms of the chemical elements,
are less complicated than those with the least displacement, the sub-atomic
particles, and it will therefore be convenient to discuss the structure
of these larger units first.
Geometrical considerations indicate that two photons can rotate around
the same central point without interference if the rotational speeds are
the same, thus forming a double unit. The nature of this combination
can be illustrated by two cardboard disks interpenetrated along a common
diameter C. The diameter A perpendicular to C in disk a represents
one linear oscillation, and the disk a is the f igure generated by a
one-dimensional rotation of this oscillation around an axis B perpendicular
to both A and C. R otation of a second linear oscillation, represented
by the diameter B, around axis A generates the disk b. It is then evident
that disk a may be given a second rotation around axis A, and disk
b may be given a second rotation around axis B without interference
at any point, as long as the rotational speeds are equal.
The validity of the mathematical principles of probability is covered
in the fundamental postulates by specifically including them in the
definition of ordinary commutative mathematics, as that term is used
in the postulates. The most significant of these principles, so far as
the atomic structures are concerned, are that small numbers are more
probable than large numbers, and symmetrical combinations are more
probable than asymmetrical combinations of the same total magnitude.
For a given number of units of net rotational displacement the double
rotating system results in lower individual displacement values, and the
probability principles give them precedence over single units in which
the individual displacements are higher. All rotating combinations with
sufficient net total displacement to enable forming double units therefore
do so.
To facilitate a description of these objects we will utilize a notation
in the form a-b-c, where c is the speed displacement of the one-dimensional
reverse rotation, and a and b are the displacements in the two dimensions
of the basic two-dimensional rotation. Later in the development we

127
128 Nothing but Motion

will find that the one-dimensional rotation is connected with electrical

phenomena, and the two-dimensional rotation is similarly connected with
magnetic phenomena. In dealing with the atomic and particle rotations
it will be convenient to use the terms electric and magnetic instead
of one-dimensional and two-dimensional respectively, except in
those cases where it is desired to lay special emphasis on the number
of dimensions involved. It should be understood, however, that designa
tion of these rotations as electric and magnetic does not indicate the
presence of any electric or magnetic forces in the structures now being
described. This terminology has been adopted because it not only serves
our present purposes, but also sets the stage for the introduction of
electric and magnetic phenomena in a later phase of the development.
Where the displacements in the two magnetic dimensions are unequal,
the rotation is distributed in the form of a spheroid. In such cases
the rotation which is effective in two dimensions of the spheroid will
be called the principal magnetic rotation, and the other the subordinate
magnetic rotation. When it is desired to distinguish between the larger
and the smaller magnetic rotational displacements, the terms primary
and secondary will be used. Where motion in time occurs in the material
structures now being discussed, the negative displacement values of
this motion will be distinguished by placing them in parentheses. All
values not so identified refer to positive displacement (motion in space).
Some questions now arise as to the units in which the displacements
should be expressed. As will quickly be seen when we start to identify
the individual structures, the natural unit of displacement is not a
convenient unit in application to the double rotating systems. The smallest
change that can take place in these systems involves two natural units.
As stated in Chapter 9, probability considerations dictate the distribution
of the total displacement of a combination among the different dimensions
of rotation. The possible rotating combinations therefore constitute a
series, successive members of which differ by two of the natural
one-dimensional units of displacement. Since we will not encounter single
units in these atomic structures, it will simplify our calculations if we
work with double units rather than the single natural units. We will
therefore define the unit of electric displacement in the atomic structures
as the equivalent of two natural one-dimensional displacement units.
On this basis, the position of each element in the series of combinations,
as determined by its net total equivalent electric displacement, is its
atomic number. For reasons that will be brought out later, half of the
unit of atomic number has been taken as the unit of atomic weight.
At the unit level dimensional differences have no numerical effect;
that is, 13= 12= 1. But where the rotation extends to greater displacement
values a two-dimensional displacement n is equivalent to n one-dimen
 Atoms 129

sional units. If we let n represent the number of units of electric

displacement, as defined above, the corresponding number of natural
(single) units is 2n, and the natural unit equivalent of a magnetic
(two-dimensional) displacement n is 4n . Inasmuch as we have defined
the electric displacement unit as two natural units, it then follows that
a magnetic displacement n is equivalent to In2 electric displacement
units.
This means that the unit o f magnetic displacement, the increment
between successive values of the two-dimensional rotational displace
ment, is not a specific magnitude in terms of total displacement. Where
the total displacement is the significant factor, as in the position in
the series of elements, the magnetic displacement value must be converted
to equivalent electric displacement units by means of the 2n2 relation.
For some other purposes, however, the displacement value in terms
of magnetic units does have a significance in its own right, as we will
see in the pages that follow.
In order to qualify as an atoma double rotating systema rotational
combination must have at least one effective magnetic displacement
unit in each system, or, expressing the same requirement in a different
way, it must have at least one effective displacement unit in each of
the magnetic dimensions of the combination structure. One positive
magnetic (double) displacement unit is required to neutralize the two
single negative displacement units of the basic photons; that is, to bring
the total scalar speed of the combination as a whole down to zero
(on the natural basis). This one positive unit is not part of the effective
rotation. Thus, where there is no rotation in the electric dimension,
the smallest combination of motions that can qualify as an atom is
2-1-0. This combination can be identified as the element helium, atomic
number 2 .
Helium is a member of a family of elements known as the inert gases,
a name that has been applied because of their reluctance to enter into
chemical combinations. The structural feature that is responsible for
this chemical behavior is the absence of any effective rotation in the
electric dimension. The next element of this type has one additional
unit of magnetic displacement. Since the probability factors operate to
keep the eccentricity at a minimum, the resulting combination is 2-2-0,
rather than 3-1-0. The succeeding increments of displacement similarly
go alternately to the principal and subordinate rotations.
Helium, 2-1-0, already has one effective displacement unit in each
magnetic dimension, and the increase to 2-2-0 involves a second unit
in one dimension. As previously indicated, the electric equivalent of
n magnetic units is 2n2. Unlike the addition of another electric unit,
the addition of a magnetic unit is not a simple process of going from
130 Nothing but Motion

1 to 2. In the case of the electric displacement there is first a single

unit, then another single unit for a total of two, another bringing the
total to three, and so on. But 2 x l 2 = 2, and 2x2 2 = 8. In order to
increase the total electric equivalent of the magnetic displacement from
2 to 8 it would be necessary to add the equivalent of 6 units of electric
displacement, and there is no such thing as a magnetic equivalent of
6 electric units. The same situation arises in the subsequent additions,
and the increase in magnetic displacement must therefore take place
in full 2n2 equivalents. Thus the succession of inert gas elements is
not 2,10,16,26,36,50,64, as it would be if 2(+l )2 replaces 2n2 in the
same manner that n + 1 replaces n in the electric series, but 2,10,18,36,54,
86,118. For reasons which will be developed later, element 118 is unstable,
and disintegrates if formed. The preceding six members of this series
constitute the inert gas family of elements.
The number of mathematically possible combinations of rotations is
greatly increased when electric displacement is added to these magnetic
combinations, but the combinations that can actually exist as elements
are limited by probability considerations, as noted in Chapter 9. The
magnetic displacement is numerically less than the equivalent electric
displacement, and is more probable for this reason. Its status as the
essential basic rotation also gives it precedence over the electric rotation.
Any increment of displacement consequently adds to the magnetic rotation
if possible, rather than to the rotation in the electric dimension. This
means that the role of the electric displacement is confi ned to filling
in the intervals between the inert gas elements.
On this basis, if all rotational displacement in the material system
were positive, the series of elements would start at the lowest possible
magnetic combination, helium, and the electric displacement would
increase step by step until it reached a total of In2 units, at which
point the relative probabilities would result in a conversion of these
2n2 electric units into one additional unit of magnetic displacement,
whereupon the building up of the electric displacement would be resumed.
This behavior is modified, however, by the fact that electric displacement
in ordinary matter, unlike magnetic displacement, may be negative instead
of positive.
The restrictions on the kinds of motions that can be combined do
not apply to minor components of a system of motions of the same
type, such as rotations. The net effective rotation of a material atom
must be in space in order to give rise to those properties which are
characteristic of ordinary matter. It necessarily follows that the magnetic
displacement, which is the major component of the total, must be positive.
But as long as the larger component is positive, the system as a whole
can meet the requirement that the net rotation be in space (positive
 Atoms 131

displacement) even if the smaller component, the electric displacement,

is negative. It is possible, therefore, to increase the net positive displace
ment a given amount either by direct addition of the required number
of positive electric units, or by adding a magnetic unit and then adjusting
to the desired intermediate level by adding the appropriate number of
negative units.
Which of these alternatives will actually prevail is affected to a
considerable degree by the conditions that exist in the atomic environment,
but in the absence of any bias due to these conditions, the determining
factor is the size of the electric displacement, lower displacement values
being more probable than higher values. In the first half of each group
intermediate between two inert gas elements, the electric displacement
is minimized if the increase in atomic number (equivalent electric
displacement) is accomplished by direct addition of positive displacement.
When n units have been added, the probabilities are nearly equal, and
as the atomic number increases still further, the alternate arrangement
becomes more probable. In the latter half of each group, therefore,
the increase in atomic number is norm ally attained by adding one unit
of magnetic displacement, and then reducing to the required net total
by adding negative electric displacement, eliminating successive units
of the latter to move up the atomic series.
By reason of the availability of negative electric displacement as a
component of the atomic rotation, an element with a net displacement
less than that of helium becomes possible. This element, 2-l-(l), which
we identify as hydrogen, is produced by adding one negative electric
displacement unit to helium, and thereby, in effect, subtracting one
positive electric unit from the equivalent of two units (above the rotational
base) that helium possesses. Hydrogen is the first in the ascending series
of elements, and we may therefore give it the atomic number 1. The
atomic number of any other material element is its net equivalent electric
displacement.
Above helium, 2-1-0, we find lithium, 2-1-1, beryllium, 2-1-2, boron,
2-1-3, and carbon, 2-1-4. Since this is an 8-atom group, the probabilities
are nearly even at this point, and carbon can also exist as 2-2-(4). The
elements that follow move up the atomic series by reducing the negative
displacements: nitrogen, 2-2-(3), oxygen, 2-2-(2), fluorine, 2-2-(l), and
finally the next inert gas, neon, 2-2-0 .
Another similar 8-element group follows, adding a second magnetic
unit in the other magnetic dimension. This carries the series up to another
inert gas element, argon, 3-2-0. Table 1 shows the normal displacements
of the elements to, and including, argon.
At element 18, argon, the magnetic displacement has reached a level
of two units above the rotational base in each of the magnetic dimensions.
132 Nothing but Motion

TABLE 1
THE ELEMENTS OF THE LOWER GROUPS
Atomic Atomic
Displacements Element Number Displacements Element Number
2- l-(l) Hydrogen 1
2- 1-0 Helium 2
2 1-1
- Lithium 3 2- 2-1 Sodium 11
2- 1-2 BeryUium 4 2- 2-2 Magnesium 12
2- 1-3 Boron 5 2-2-3 Aluminum 13
2-1-4 2-2-4
Carbon 6 Silicon 14
2-2-(4) 3-2-(4)
2-2-(3) Nitrogen 7 3-2-(3) Phosphorus 15
2- 2-( 2) Oxygen 8 3-2-(2) Sulfur 16
2-2-(l) Fluorine 9 3-2-(l) Chlorine 17
2- 2-0 Neon 10 3-2-0 Argon 18

TABLE 2
THE INTERMEDIATE ELEMENTS
Atomic Atomic
Displacements Element Number Displacements Element Number
3-2-1 Potassium 19 3-3-1 Rubidium 37
3-2-2 Calcium 20 3-3-2 Strontium 38
3-2-3 Scandium 21 3-3-3 Yttrium 39
3-2-4 Titanium 22 3-3-4 Zirconium 40
3-2-5 Vanadium 23 3-3-5 Niobium 41
3-2-6 Chromium 24 3-3-6 Molybdenum 42
3-2-7 Manganese 25 3-3-7 Technetium 43
3-2-8 Iron 26 3-3-8 Ruthenium 44
3-2-9 3-3-9
Cobalt 27 Rhodium 45
3-3-(9) 4-3-(9)
3-3-(8) Nickel 28 4-3-(8) Palladium 46
3-3-(7) Copper 29 4-3-(7) Silver 47
3-3-(6) Zinc 30 4-3-(6) Cadmium 48
3-3-(5) Gallium 31 4-3-(5) Indium 49
3-3-(4) Germanium 32 4-3-(4) Tin 50
3-3-(3) Arsenic 33 4-3-(3) Antimony 51
3-3-(2) Selenium 34 4-3-(2) Tellurium 52
3-3-(l) Bromine 35 4-3-(l) Iodine 53
3-3-0 Krypton 36 4-3-0 Xenon 54
 Atoms 133

In order to increase the rotation in either dimension by an additional

unit a total of 2x32, or 18, units of electric displacement are required.
This results in a group of 18 elements which reaches the midpoint at
cobalt, 3-2-9, and terminates at krypton, 3-3-0. A second 18-element
group follows, as indicated in Table 2.
The final two groups of elements, Table 3, contain 2x42, or 32, members

TABLE 3
THE ELEMENTS OF THE HIGHER GROUPS
A tomic A tomic
Displacements Element Number Displacements Element Number
4-3-1 Cesium 55 4-4-1 - Francium 87
4-3-2 Barium 56 4-4-2 Radium 88
4-3-3 Lanthanum 57 4-4-3 Actinium 89
4-3-4 Cerium 58 4-4-4 Thorium 90
4-3-5 Praseodymium 59 4-4-5 Protactinium 91
4-3-6 Neodymium 60 4-4-6 Uranium 92
4-3-7 Promethium 61 4-4-7 Neptunium 93
4-3-8 Samarium 62 4-4-8 Plutonium 94
4-3-9 Europium 63 4-4-9 Americum 95
4-3-10 Gadolinium 64 4-4-10 Curium 96
4-3-11 Terbium 65 4-4-11 Berkelium 97
4-3-12 Dysprosium 66 4-4-12 CaHfomium 98
4-3-13 Holmium 67 4-4-13 Einsteinium 99
4-3-14 Erbium 68 4-4-14 Fermium 100
4-3-15 Thulium 69 4-4-15 Mendelevium 101
4-3-16 4-4-16
Ytterbium 70 Nobelium 102
4-4-(16) 5-4-(16)
4-4-(15) Lutecium 71 5-4-05) Lawrencium 103
4-4-(14) Hafnium 72 5-4-(14) Rutherfordium 104
4-4-(13) Tantalum 73 5-4-(13) Hahnium 105
4-4-( 12) Tungsten 74 5-4-(12) 106
4-4-(l1) Rhenium 75 5-4-(l1) 107
4-4-(10) Osmium 76 5-4-00) 108
4-4-(9) Iridium 77 5-4-(9) 109
4-4-(8) Platinum 78 5-4-(8) 110
4-4-(7) Gold 79 5-4-(7) 111
4-4-(6) Mercury 80 5-4-(6) 112
4-4-(5) Thallium 81 5-4-(5) 113
4-4-(4) Lead 82 5-4-(4) 114
4-4-(3) Bismuth 83 5-4-(3) 115
4-4-(2) Polonium 84 5-4-(2) 116
4-4-(l) Astatine 85 5-4-(l) 117
4-4-0 Radon 86
134 Nothing but Motion

each. The heaviest elements of the last group have not yet been observed,
as they are highly radioactive, and consequently unstable in the terrestrial
environment. In fact, uranium, element number 92, is the heaviest that
exists naturally on earth in any substantial quantities. As we will see
later, however, there are other conditions under which the elements
are stable all the way up to number 117.
For convenience in the subsequent discussion these groups of elements
will be identified by the magnetic n value, with the first and second
groups in each pair being designated A and B respectively. Thus the
sodium group, which is the second of the 8-element groups (n=2) will
be called Group 2B.
At this point it will be appropriate to refer back to this statement
that was made in Chapter 9:
The (mathematical) development will begin with nothing more than
the series of cardinal numbers and the geometry of three dimensions.
By subjecting these to simple mathematical processes, the applica
bility of which to the physical universe of motion is specified in
the fundamental postulates, the combinations of rotational motions
that can exist in the theoretical universe will be ascertained, and
it will be shown that these rotational combinations that theoretically
can exist can be individually identified with the atoms of the chemical
elements and the sub-atomic particles that are observed to exist
in the physical universe. A unique group of numbers representing
the different rotational components will be derived for each of these
combinations.
A review of the manner in which the figures presented in Tables
1 to 3 were derived will show that this commitment, so far as it applies
to the elements, has been carried out in full. This is a very significant
accomplishment. Both the existence of a series of theoretical elements
identical with the observed series of chemical elements, and the numerical
values which theoretically characterize each individual element have been
derived from the general properties of mathematics and geometry, without
making any supplementary assumptions or introducing any numerical
values specifically applicable to matter. The possibility that the agreement
between the series of elements thus derived and the known chemical
elements could be accidental is negligible, and this derivation is, in itself,
a conclusive proof that the atoms of matter are combinations of motions,
as asserted by the Reciprocal System of theory. But this is only the
beginning of a vast process of mathematical development. The numerical
values at which we have arrived, the atomic numbers and the three
displacement values for each element, now provide us with the basis
 Atoms 135

from which we can derive the quantitative relations in the areas that
we will examine.
The behavior characteristics, orproperties, of the elements are functions
of their respective displacements. Some are related to the total net
effective displacement (equal to the atomic number in the combinations
thus far discussed), some are related to the electric displacement, others
to the magnetic displacement, while still others follow a more complex
pattern. For instance, valence, or chemical combining power, is deter
mined by either the electric displacement or one of the magnetic
displacements, while the inter-atomic distance is affected by both the
electric and magnetic displacements, but in different ways. The manner
in which the magnitudes of these properties for specific elements and
compounds can be calculated from the displacement values has been
determined for many properties and for many classes of substances.
These subjects will be considered individually in the chapters that follow.
One of the most signifi cant advances toward an understanding of
the relations between the structures of the different chem ical elements
and their properties was the development of the periodic table by
Mendeleeff in 1869. In this diagram the elements are arranged horizontally
in periods and vertically in groups, the order within the period being
that of the atomic number (approximately defined in the original work
by the atomic weights). When the elements are correctly assigned in
the periods, those in the vertical groups are quite similar in their properties.
On comparing the periodic table with the rotational characteristics of
the elements, as tabulated in this chapter, it is evident that the horizontal
periods reflect the magnetic rotational displacement, while the vertical
groups represent the electric rotational displacement. In revising the
table to take advantage of the additional information derived from the
Reciprocal System of theory we may therefore replace the usual group
and period numbering by the more meaningful displacement values.
When this is done it is apparent that a further revision of the tabular
arrangement is required in order to put all of the elements into their
proper positions. Mendeleeff s original table included nine vertical groups,
beginning with the inert gases, Group 0, and ending with a group in
which the three elements iron, cobalt, and nickel, and the corresponding
elements in the higher periods, were all assigned to a single vertical
position. In the more modem versions of the table the number of vertical
groups has been expanded to avoid splitting each of the longer periods
into two sub-periods, as was done by M endeleeff. One of the most
popular of these revised versions utilizes 18 vertical groups, and puts
15 elements of each of the last two periods into one of these 18 positions
in order to accommodate the full number of elements.
136 Nothing but Motion

In the light of the new information now available, it can be seen

that Mendeleeff based his arrangement on the relations existing in the
8-element rotational groups, 2A and 2B in the notation used in this
work, and forced the elements of the larger groups into conformity
with this 8-element pattern. The modem revisers have made a partial
correction by setting up their tables on the basis of the 18-element
rotational groups, 3A and 32?, leaving blank spaces where the 8-element
groups have no counterparts of the 18-element values. But these tables
still retain a part of the original distortion, as they force the members
of the 32-element groups into the 18-element pattern. To construct a
complete and accurate table, it is only necessary to carry the revision
procedure one step farther, and set up the table on the basis of the
largest of the magnetic groups, the 32-element groups 4A and 4B.
For some purposes a simple extension of the current versions of the
table to the full 32 position width necessary to accommodate Groups
4A and 4B is probably all that is needed. On the other hand, the useful
chemical information displayed by the table is confined mainly to the
elements with electric displacements below 10, and separating the central
elements of the two upper groups from the main portion of the table,
as in the conventional arrangements, has considerable merit. The particu
lar elements that are thus separated on the basis of the electric displace
ment are not the same ones that are treated separately in the conventional
tables, but the general effect is much the same.
When the table is thus divided into two sections, it also appears that
there are some advantages to be gained by a vertical, rather than a
horizontal, arrangement, and the revised table, Fig. 1, has been set
up on this basis. The new concept of divisions, which is emphasized
in this table, will be explained in Chapter 18. Inasmuch as carbon and
silicon play both positive and negative roles rather freely, they have
each been assigned to two positions in the table, but hydrogen, which
is usually shown in two positions in the conventional tables, is necessarily
negative on the basis of the principles that have been developed in
this work and is only shown in one position. The aspects of its chemical
behavior that have led to its classification with the electropositive elements
will also be explained in Chapter 18.
In the original construction of the periodic table the known properties
of certain elements were combined with the atomic number sequence
to establish the existence of the relations between the elements of the
various periods and groups, and thereby to predict previously undeter
mined properties, and even the existence of some previously unknown
elements. The table thus added significantly to the chemical knowledge
of the time. In this work, however, the revised table is not being presented
 Atoms 137

Figure 1
The Revised Periodic Table of the Elements
138 Nothing but Motion

as an addition to the information contained in the preceding pages, but

merely as a convenient graphic method of expressing some portions
of that information. Everything that can be learned from the table has
already been set forth in more detailed form, verbally and mathematically,
in this and the earlier chapters. Some of the implications of this
information, such as its application to the property of valence, will
have further consideration later.
 CHAPTER 11

Sub-Atomic Particles
While the series of elements contains no combinations of motions
with net positive displacement less than that of hydrogen, 2-l-(l), this
does not mean that such combinations are non-existent. It merely means
that they do not have sufficient speed displacement to form two complete
rotating systems, and consequently do not have the properties which
distinguish the rotational combinations that we call atoms. These less
complex combinations of motion can be identified as the sub-atomic
particles. As is evident from the foregoing, these particles are not
constituents o f atoms, as seen in current scientific thought. They are
structures of the same general nature as the atoms of the elements,
but their net total displacement is below the minimum necessary to
form the complete atomic structure. They may be characterized as
incomplete atoms.
The term sub-atomic is currently applied to these particles with
the implication that the particles are, or can be, building blocks from
which atoms are constructed. Our new findings make this sense of the
term obsolete, but the name is still appropriate in the sense of a system
of motions of a lower degree of complexity than atoms. It will therefore
be retained in this work, and applied in this modified sense. The term
elementary particle must be discarded. There are no elementary
particles in the sense of basic units from which other structures can
be formed. A particle is smaller and less complex than an atom, but
it is by no means elementary. The elementary unit is the unit of motion.
The theoretical characteristics of the sub-atomic particles, as derived
from the postulates of the Reciprocal System, have been given consider
able additional study since the date of the last previous publication
in which they were discussed, and there has been a significant increase
in the amount of information that is available with respect to these
objects, including the theoretical discovery of some particles that are
more complex than those described in the first edition. Furthermore,
we are now in a position to examine the structure and behavior of
the cosmic sub-atomic particles in greater depth (in the later chapters).
In order to facilitate the presentation of this increased volume of

139
140 Nothing but Motion

information, a new system of representing the dimensional distribution

of the rotation has been adopted.
This means, of course, that we are now using one system of notation
for the rotation of the elements, and a different system to represent
the rotations of the same nature when we are dealing with the particles.
At first glance, this may seem to be introducing an unnecessary complica
tion, but the truth is that as long as we want to take advantage of
the convenience of using the double displacement unit in dealing with
the elements, while we must use the single unit in dealing with the
particles, we are necessarily employing two different systems, whether
they look alike or not. In fact, lack of recognition of this difference
has led to some of the confusion that we now wish to avoid. It appears,
therefore, that as long as two different systems of notation are necessary
for convenient handling of the data, we might as well set up a system
for the particles in a manner that will best serve our purposes, including
being distinctive enough to avoid confusion.
The new notation used in this edition will indicate the displacements
in the different dimensions, as in the first edition, and will express
them in single units, as before, but it will show only effective displace
ments, and will include a letter symbol that will specifically designate
the rotational base of the particle. It is necessary to take the initial
non-effective rotational unit into consideration in dealing with the
elements because of the characteristics of the mathematical processes
that we will utilize. This is not true in the case of the sub-atomic particles,
and as long as the atomic (double) notation cannot be used in any event,
we will show only the effective displacements, and will precede them
with either M or C to indicate whether the rotational base of the
combination is material or cosmic. This will have the added advantage
of clearly indicating that the rotational values in any particular case
are being expressed in the new notation.
This change in the symbolic representation of the rotations, and the
other modifications of terminology that we are making in this edition,
may introduce some difficulties for those who have already become
accustomed to the manner of presentation in the earlier works. It seems
advisable, however, to take advantage of any opportunities for improve
ment in this respect that may be recognized in the present early stage
of the theoretical development, as improvements of this nature will
become progressively less feasible as time goes on and existing practices
become resistant to change.
On the new basis, the material rotational base is M 0-0-0. To this
base may be added a unit of positive electric displacement, producing
the positron, M 0-0-1, or a unit of negative electric displacement, in
which case the result is the electron, M 0-0-(l). The electron is a unique
 Sub-Atomic Particles 141

particle. It is the only structure constructed on a material base, and

therefore stable in the local environment, that has an effective negative
displacement. This is possible because the total rotational displacement
of the electron is the sum of the initial positive magnetic unit required
to neu tralize the negative photon displacement (not shown in the structural
notation) and the negative electric unit. As a two-dimensional motion,
the magnetic unit is the major component of the total rotation, even
though its numerical magnitude is no greater than that of the one-dimen-
sional electric rotation. The electron thus complies with the requirement
that the net total rotation of a material particle must be positive.
As brought out earlier, adding motion with negative displacement has
the effect of adding more space to the existing physical situation, whatever
it may be, and the electron is therefore, in effect, a rotating unit of
space. We will see later that this fact plays an important part in many
physical phenomena. One immediate, and very noticeable, result is that
electrons are plentiful in the material environment, whereas positrons
are extremely rare. On the basis of the same considerations that apply
to the electron, we can regard the positron as essentially a rotating
unit of time. As such, it is readily absorbed into the material system
of combinations, the constituents of which are predominantly time
structures; that is, rotational motions with net positive displacement
(speed = l/t). The opportunities for utilizing the negative displacement
of the electrons in these structures, on the contrary, are very limited.
If the addition to the rotational base is a magnetic unit rather than
an electric unit, the result could be expressed as M 1-0-0. It now appears,
however, that the notation M j-^-0 is preferable. Of course, half units
do not exist, but a unit of two-dimensional rotation obviously occupies
both dimensions. To recognize this fact we will have to credit one half
to each. The 3-5 notation also ties in better with the way in which
this sytem of motions enters into further combinations. We will call
this M ^-y-0 particle the massless neutron, for reasons which will appear
shortly.
At the unit level in a single rotating system, the magnetic and electric
units are numerically equal; that is, l 2 = 1. Addition of a unit of negative
electric displacement to the combination of motions, the massless
neutron, therefore produces a combination with a net total displacement
of zero. This combination, M ^-(1), can be identified as the neutrino.
In the preceding chapter, the property of the atoms of matter known
as atomic weight, or mass, was identified with the net positive three-
dimensional rotational displacement (speed) of the atoms. This property
will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, but at this time
we will note that the same relationship also applies to the sub-atomic
particles; that is, these particles have mass to the extent that they have
142 Nothing but Motion

net positive rotational displacement in three dimensions. N one of the

particles thus far considered meets this requirement. The electron and
the positron have effective rotation in one dimension; the massless neutron
in two. The neutrino has no net displacement at all. The sub-atomic
rotational combinations thus far identified are therefore massless parti-
cles.
By combination with other motions, however, the displacement in
one or two dimensions can attain the status of a component of a
three-dimensional displacement. For instance, a particle may acquire
a charge, which is a motion of a kind that will be examined later in
the development, and when this happens, the entire displacement, both
of the charge and of the original particle, will then manifest itself as
mass. Or a particle may combine with other motions in such a way
that the displacement of the massless particle becomes a component
of the three-dimensional displacement of the combination structure.
Addition of a unit of positive, instead of negative, electric displacement
to the massless neutron would produce M |-^-l, but the net total
displacement of this combination is 2, which is sufficient to form a
complete double rotating system, an atom, and the greater probability
of the double structure precludes the existence of the M ^-^1 combination,
other than momentarily.
The same probability considerations likewise exclude the two-unit
magnetic structure M 1-1-0, and its positive derivative M 1-1-1, which
have net displacements of 2 and 3 respectively. However, the negative
derivative, M l-l-(l), formed in practice by the addition of a neutrino,
M ^-(1 ), to a massless neutron, M ^ 0 , can exist as a particle, as
its net total displacement is only one unit; not enough to make the
double structure mandatory. This particle can be identified as the proton.
Here we have an illustration of the way in which particles that are
individually massless, because they have no three-dimensional rotation,
combine to produce a particle with an effective mass. The massless
neutron rotates only two-dimensionally, while the neutrino has no net
rotation. But by adding the two, a combination with effective rotation
in all three dimensions is produced. The resulting particle, the proton,
M l-l-(l), has one unit of mass.
At the present, rather early, stage of the theoretical development it
is not possible to make a precise evaluation of the probability factors
and other influences that determine whether or not a theoretically feasible
rotational combination will actually be able to exist under a given set
of circumstances. The information now available indicates, however,
that any material type combination with a net displacement less than
2 should be capable of existing as a particle in the local environment.
In actual practice none of the single system combinations identified
 Sub-A tomic Particles l 43

in the preceding paragraphs has been observed, and there is considerable

doubt as to whether there is any way whereby they can be observed,
other than through indirect processes which enable us to infer their
existence. The neutrino, for example, is observed only by means
of the products of certain events in which this particle is presumed
to participate. The electron, the positron, and the proton have been
observed only in the charged state, not in the uncharged condition which
constitutes the basic state of all of the rotational combinations thus
far discussed. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that
all of these uncharged structures do, in fact, exist, and play significant
roles in physical processes. This evidence will be forthcoming as we
continue the theoretical development.
In the previous publications, the M ---0 combination (l-l-0 in the
notation utilized in those works) was identified as the neutron, but it
was noted that in some physical processes, such as cosmic ray decay,
the magnetic displacement that could be expected to be ejected in the
form of neutrons is actually transferred in massless form. Since the
observed neutron is a particle of unit atomic weight, it was at that
time concluded that in these particular instances the neutrons act as
combinations of neutrinos and positrons, both massless particles. On
this basis, the neutron plays a dual role, massless under some conditions,
but possessing unit mass under other circumstances.
Further investigation, centering mainly on the secondary mass of the
sub-atomic particles, which will be discussed in Chapter 13, has now
disclosed that the observed neutron is not the single effective magnetic
rotation with net displacements M but a more complex particle
of the same net displacement, and that the single magnetic displacement
is massless. It is no longer necessary to conclude that the same particle
acts in two different ways. Instead, there are two different particles.
The explanation is that the new findings have revealed the existence
of a type of structure intermediate between the single rotating systems
of the massless particles and the complete double systems of the atoms.
In these intermediate structures there are two rotating systems, as in
the atoms of the elements, but only one of these systems has a net
effective displacement. The rotation in this system is that of the proton,
M l-l-(l). In the second system there is a neutrino type rotation.
The massless rotations of the second system can be either those of
the material neutrino, M ^-*(1), or those of the cosmic neutrino, C
(j)-()-l. With the material neutrino rotation the combined displacements
are M l-l-(2). This combination is the mass one isotope of hydrogen,
a structure identical with that of the normal mass two atom (deuterium),
M 2-2-(2), or 2-l-(l) in the atomic notation, except that it has one less
unit of magnetic rotation, and therefore one less unit of mass. When
144 Nothing but Motion

the cosmic neutrino rotation is added to the proton, the combined

displacements are M---0, the same net total as that of the single magnetic
rotation. This theoretical particle, the compound neutron, as we will
call it, can be identified as the observed neutron.
The identification of the separate rotations of these intermediate type
structures with the rotations of the neutrinos and protons should not
be interpreted as meaning that neutrinos and protons actually exist as
such in the combination structures. What is meant is that one of the
component rotations that constitutes the compound neutron, for instance,
is the same kind of a rotation as that which constitutes a proton when
it exists separately.
Inasmuch as the net total displacement of the compound neutron is
identical with that of the massless neutron, those aspects of the behavior
of the particlesproperties, as they are calledwhich are dependent
on the net total displacement are the same for both. Likewise, those
properties that are dependent on total magnetic displacement, or total
electric displacement, are identical. But there are other properties that
are related to those features of the particle structure in which the two
neutrons differ. The compound neutron has an effective unit of three-
dimensional displacement in the rotating system with the proton type
rotation, and it therefore has one unit of mass. The massless neutron,
on the other hand, has no effective three-dimensional displacement,
and therefore no mass.
The two neutrons also differ in that, although it is (or at least, as
we will see in Chapter 17, may be) a still unobserved particle, the massless
neutron is theoretically stable in the material environment, whereas the
life of the compound neutron is short because of the foreign nature
of the rotation in the second system. After about 15 minutes, on the
average, the compound neutron ejects the second rotating system in
the form of a cosmic neutrino, and the particle reverts to the proton
status.
The structures of the sub-atomic particles of the material system may
now be summarized as follows:
Massless particles
M O-O-O rotational base
M 0-0-1 positron
M O-O-(l) electron
M--0 massless neutron
M --(l) neutrino
 Sub-Atomic Particles
Particles with mass
M + 0-0-1 charged positron
M~ 0-0-(l) charged electron
M l-l-(l) proton
M + l-l-(l) charged proton
M l-l-(l)
compound neutron
cCr)-(i)-iJ
 CHAPTER 12

Basic Mathematical Relations

It was pointed out in the introductory chapters that when we postulate
a universe composed entirely of motion, every entity or phenomenon
that exists in this universe is either a motion, a combination of motions,
or a relation between motions. The discussion thus far has been addressed
mainly to an examination of the primary features of the possible motions,
and certain of the combinations of these motions. At this point it will
be advisable to consider*some of the basic kinds of relations that exist
between motions.
Inasmuch as motion in general is defined as a relation between space
and time, expressed symbolically by s / t , all of the different kinds of
motions, and the relations between motions, can be expressed in space
time terms. Such an analysis into space and time components will be
particularly helpful in putting the various physical relationships into the
proper perspective, and our first objective in the field we are now entering
will therefore be to establish the space-time equivalents of the various
quantities that constitute the so-called mechanical system. Consider
ation of the analogous quantities of the electrical system will be deferred
until we are ready to begin an examination of electrical phenomena.
One set of these mechanical quantities is customarily expressed in
velocity terms, and it presents no problems. One-dimensional velocity
is, by definition, s / t . It follows that two-dimensional and three-dimen-
sional velocity are s 2/ t 2 and s 3/ t 3 respectively. Acceleration, the time
rate of change of one-dimensional velocity, is s / t 2.
In addition to these quantities which express motion as velocities
(or speeds), there is also a set of quantities which are fundamentally
based on resistance to movement, although in some applications this
basic significance is obscured by other factors. The objects which resist
movement are atoms and particles of matter: three-dimensional combina
tions of motions. In a universe of motion, where nothing exists but
motion, the only thing that can resist change of motion is motion. The
particular motion that resists any change in the motion of an atom is
the inherent motion of the atom itself, the motion that makes it an
atom. Furthermore, only a three-dimensional motion, or motion that
is automatically distributed over three dimensions, is able to offer effective

147
148 Nothing but Motion

resistance, as any vacant dimension permits motion to take place without

hindrance.
The magnitude of the resistance can be expressed in terms of the
quantity required to eliminate the effective existing motion; that is, to
reduce this motion to unity in the conventional reference system. This
is the inverse of the motion of the atom, s 3/ t 3, and the resistance to
motion, or inertia , is therefore t 3/ s 3. In more general application, inertia
is known as mass.
Inasmuch as current physical theory recognizes gravitation and inertia
as phenomena of a quite different character, the equivalence of gravita
tional and inertial mass, which has been experimentally demonstrated
to the almost incredible accuracy of less than one part in 1011, is regarded
as very significant, although there is considerable difference of opinion
as to what that significance actually is. As expressed by Clifford M.
Will, the theoretical interpretation of the Eotvos experiment (which
demonstrates the equivalence) has varied. 57 Will asserts that it is now
believed that the results of this experiment rule out all non-metric theories
of gravitation (he defines metric theories as those in which gravitation
can be treated as being synonymous with the curvature of space and
time ). After the theorists have arrived at such a far-reaching conclusion
on the basis of what Will admits is no more than a conjecture, it
comes as something of an anticlimax when the Reciprocal System reveals
that nothing of an esoteric nature is involved. Gravitation is a motion,
but it can manifest itself either directly as motion or inversely as resistance
to another motion.
Multiplying mass, t 3/ s 3, by velocity, s / t , we obtain momentum, t 2/ s 2,
the reciprocal of two-dimensional velocity. Another multiplication by
velocity, s / t , gives us energy, t / s . Energy, then, is the reciprocal of
velocity. When one-dimensional motion is not restrained by opposing
motion (force) it manifests itself as velocity; when it is so restrained
it manifests itself as potential energy. Kinetic energy is merely energy
in transit, so to speak. It is a measure of the energy that has been
used to produce the velocity of a mass ( 1/2 mv 2 1/ 2 t3/ s 3 x s 2/ t 2
= 1/2 t / s ) , and can be extracted for other use by terminating the
motion (velocity).
This explanation of the nature of energy should be of some assistance
to those who are still having some difficulty with the concept of scalar
motion. Both speed and energy are scalar measures of motion. But
on our side of the unit speed boundary, the low-speed side, where all
motion is in space, speed can be represented in our conventional spatial
system of reference because it causes a change of position, inward
or outward, in space, whereas energy cannot be so represented. On
the high-speed side of the boundary, the relations are inverted. There
 Basic Mathematical Relations 149

all motion is in time, and the measure of that motion, the energy, t/s,
the inverse of speed, s / t , can be represented in a stationary temporal
reference system, whereas speed is neither inward nor outward from
the time standpoint, and cannot be represented in the temporal coordinate
system.
Here is the reason for the purely scalar nature of any increment of
speed beyond the unit level, such as those discussed in Chapter 8. The
added speed does have a direction, but it is a direction in time, and
it has no vectorial effect in a spatial system of reference. We will find
this very significant when we undertake an examination of some of
the recently discovered high speed astronomical objects in Volume II.
Force, which is defined as the product of mass and acceleration,
becomes t 3/ s 3 X s / t 2 = t / s 2. Acceleration and force are thus inverse
quantities, in the sense in which that term is generally used in this
work; that is, they are identical except that space and time are inter
changed. They are not inverse in the mathematical sense, as their product
is not equal to unity.
One special type of force that is of particular interest is the gravitational
force, that which the aggregates of matter appear to exert on each other
by reason of their motions inward in space. In this case, the mathematical
expression F = k m m ' / d 2 by which the force is ordinarily calculated
is quite different from the general force equation F = ma. When taken
at their face value, these two expressions are clearly irreconcilable.
If gravitational force is actually a force, even a force of the as i f
variety, it cannot be proportional to the product of two masses (that
is, to m2) when force in general is proportional to the first power of
the mass. There is an obvious contradiction here.
Most of the other common quantities of the mechanical system can
be reduced to space-time terms without any complications. For example:
Impulse, the product of force and time, has the same dimensions
as momentum.
Ft = t / s 2 X t = t2/ s 2
Both work and torque are the products of force and distance, and
have the same dimensions as energy.

Fs = t / s 2 X s = t / s

Pressure is force per unit area.

F / s2 = t / s 2 X l / s 2 = t / s 4

Density is mass per unit volume.

150 Nothing but Motion

m / s 3 = t3/ s 3 x l / s 3 = t3/ s 6
Viscosity is mass per unit length per unit time.
m x \ / s x l / t = t 3/ s 3 x 1/s x l / t = /2/ j 4
Surface tension is force per unit length.
F/s = t/s2X l/s = t/s3
Power is work per unit time.
JF/t = t / s X 1/f = 1/s

All of the established relations in the field of mechanics have the

same dimensional consistency on the basis of these space-time dimensions
as in the conventional forms, since the mass terms in the equations
are, in all cases, balanced by derivatives of mass on the opposite side
of the equation. The numerical values in these equations likewise retain
the same relationships, as all that we have done, from this standpoint,
is to change the size of the unit in which the quantity of mass is expressed.
What has been accomplished, then, is to express mass in terms of the
components of motion. Since mechanics deals only with space, time,
and mass, it follows that, so far as mechanics is concerned, by reducing
mass to motion we have confirmed the validity of the basic postulate
that the physical universe is composed entirely of motion.
This is a very significant point. The concept of the nature of the
physical universe on which conventional physics is based, the concept
of a universe of matter existing in a framework provided by space and
time, identifies matter as a fundamental quantity. The results of this
present work now show that, in the physical field that is the most
completely developed and understood, the fundamental entity is motion,
not matter. Furthermore, it is now possible to see why the common
denominator of the universe has to be motion; why it could not be
anything else. It has to be something to which all of the mechanical
quantities can be reduced (and all other physical quantities as well,
but for the present we are examining the mechanical relations). The
only entity that meets these requirements is the simple relationship
between space and time that we are defining as motion. Motion is the
common denominator of the field of mechanics.
It still remains to be established that motion is the common denominator
of the entire universe, but the demonstration that all of the quantities
with which mechanics deals, including mass, can be reduced to motion
creates a strong presumption that when the more complex phenomena
in other fields are equally well understood they will also be found to
 Basic Mathematical Relations 151

be reducible to motion. The development of theory in the subsequent

pages of this and the volumes to follow will show that this logical
expectation is realized, and that all physical phenomena and entities
can, in fact, be reduced to motion.
The application of the Reciprocal System of theory to mechanics throws
a significant light on the relation of this theoretical system to conventional
scientific thought. It was asserted in Chapter 6 that the concept of
a universe of motion, on which the new theoretical system is based,
is just the land of a conceptual alteration that is needed to clear up
the existing physical situation: one which makes drastic changes where
such changes are required, but leaves the empirically determined relations
of our everyday experience essentially untouched. Here, in application
to a field in which the entire body of knowledge is a network of
empirically determined relations, the validity of this assertion is
dramatically demonstrated. The only change that is found to be necessary
in mechanics is to recognize the fact that mass is reducible to motion.
Otherwise, the entire structure of mechanical theory is incorporated
into the Reciprocal System just as it stands. As will be shown in the
pages that follow, the same is true in other fields to the extent that
the prevailing ideas in those fields are, like the principles of mechanics,
solidly based on empirically determined facts. But where the prevailing
ideas are based on assumptions free inventions of the human mind,
in Einsteins wordsthe development of the theory of a universe of
motion now shows that most of these invented ideas are erroneous,
in part if not in their entirety. The Reciprocal System diverges from
current scientific thought only in those respects where current theory
has been led astray by erroneous assumptions. As indicated earlier,
the phenomena involved are mainly those not accessible to direct
apprehension, primarily the phenomena of the very small, the very large,
and the very fast.
In all of the space-time expressions of physical quantities that were
derived in the preceding pages of this chapter, the dimensions of the
denominator of the fraction are either equal to or greater than the
dimensions of the numerator. This is another result of the discrete unit
postulate, which prevents any interactions from being carried beyond
the unit level. Addition of speed displacement to motion in space reduces
the speeds; the atomic rotation can take place only in the negative scalar
direction, and so on. The same principle applies to the dimensions of
physical quantities, and the dimensions of the numerator of the space-time
expression of any real physical quantity cannot be greater than those
of the denominator. Purely mathematical relations that violate this
principle can, of course, be constructed, but according to the theoretical
findings they have no real physical significance.
152 Nothing but Motion

For example, the reciprocal of viscosity is known as fluidity, and

in certain applications it is more convenient for purposes of calculation
to work with fluidity values rather than viscosity values. But the
space-time expression for fluidity is s 4/ t 2, and on the basis of the principle
just stated, we must conclude that viscosity is the quantity that has
a real physical existence.
The most notable of the quantities excluded by this dimensional
principle is action. This is the product of energy, t / s , and time t,
and in space-time terms it is t 2/ s. Thus it is not admissable as a real
physical quantity. In view of the prominent place which it occupies
in some physical areas, this conclusion that it has no actual physical
significance may come as quite a surprise, but the explanation can be
seen if we examine the most familiar of the conventional applications
of action: its use in the expression of Plancks constant. The equation
connecting the energy of radiation with the frequency is
E = hv
where h is Plancks constant. In order to be dimensionally consistent
with the other quantities in the equation this constant must be expressed
in terms of action.
It is clear, however, from the explanation of the nature of the photon
of radiation that was developed in Chapter 4, that the so-called fre
quency is actually a speed. It can be expressed as a frequency only
because the space that is involved is always a unit magnitude. In reality,
the space dimension belongs with the frequency, not with the Planck
constant. When it is thus transferred, the remaining dimensions of the
constant are t 2/ s 2, which are the dimensions of momentum, and are
the reversing dimensions that are required to convert speed s / t to energy
t/s. In space-time terms, the equation for.the energy of radiation is
t / s = t2/ s 2 X s / t

Similar situations have developed in other cases where dimensions

have been improperly assigned in current practice. The energy of rotation,
for instance, is commonly expressed as 1/ 2 Iou2, where I is the moment
of inertia, and co is the angular velocity. The moment of inertia is the
product of the mass and the square of the distance:
/ = m s 2 = t 3/ s 3 x s 2 = t 3/ s
This result shows that the moment of inertia is an artificial construct
without physical significance. The important part that it plays in the
expression for rotational energy may seem inconsistent with this conclu
sion, but again the explanation is that the space magnitude has been
 Basic Mathematical Relations 153

improperly assigned. It belongs with the velocity term, not with the
mass term. When it is so transferred, the moment of inertia is eliminated,
and the rotational energy equation reverts to the normal kinetic form
E = l/2rnv2. The equation in its usual form is merely a mathematical
convenience, and does not reflect the actual physical situation.
In addition to the kinds of relations that have been discussed so far
in this chapter, where the relations themselves are familiar, and only
the analysis into space and time components is new, there are other
types of physical relations that are peculiar to the universe of motion.
At this time we will want to examine two of these: the limitations on
unidirectional motion, and the relations between motion in space and
motion in time.
The translational and vibrational speeds with which we have been
mainly concerned thus far are speeds attained by means of directional
reversals, and their magnitudes are not subject to any limits other than
those arising from the finite capabilities of the originating processes.
Rotation, however, is unidirectional from the scalar standpoint, and
unidirectional magnitudes are limited by the discrete unit postulate. On
the basis of this postulate, the maximum possible one-dimensional
unidirectional speed is one net displacement unit. However, the atom
rotates in the inward scalar direction, and inward motion necessarily
takes place in opposition to the omnipresent outward motion of the
natural reference system. Two inward displacement units are therefore
required in order to reach the limit of one net unit. These two units
extend from unity in the positive scalar direction (the positive zero,
in terms of the natural system) to unity in the negative scalar direction
(the negative zero), and they constitute the maximum for any one-dimen
sional unidirectional motion. In three-dimensional space (or time) there
can be two displacement units in each of the three dimensions, and
the maximum three-dimensional unidirectional displacement is therefore
23, or 8, units.
There have been some suggestions that the number of possible directions
(and consequently displacements) in three-dimensional space ought to
be 3 x 2 = 6 rather than 23 = 8. It should therefore be emphasized that
we are not dealing with three individual dimensions of motion, we are
dealing with three-dimensional motion. The possible directions in a
three-dimensional continuum can be visualized by regarding a two-unit
cube as being an assemblage of eight one-unit cubes. The eight possible
directions are then defined by the diagonals from the center of the
assemblage to the opposite corner of each of the cubes.
An important consequence of the fact that there are eight displacement
units between the zero point of the positive motion and the end of
the second unit, which is the zero from the negative standpoint, is that
154 Nothing but Motion

in any physical situation involving rotation, or other three-dimensional

motion, there are eight displacement units between positive and negative
magnitudes. A positive displacement x from the positive datum is
physically equivalent to a negative displacement 8 - x from the negative
datum. This is a principle that will have a wide field of application
in the pages that follow.
The key factor in the relation between motion in space and motion
in time is the previously mentioned fact that in the context of a spatial
reference system all motion in time is scalar, and in the context of
a temporal reference system all motion in space is scalar. The regions
of motion in time and motion in space therefore meet in what is essentially
no more than a point contact. It follows that of all of the possible
directions that a motion in time can take, only one of these time directions
brings the motion in time into contact with the region of motion in
space. Only in this one direction can an effect be transmitted across
the regional boundary. Inasmuch as all possible directions are equally
probable, in the absence of any factors that would establish a preference,
the ratio of the transmitted effect to the total magnitude of the motion
is numerically equal to the total number of possible directions.
As can be seen from the foregoing explanation, the transmission ratio
depends on the nature of the motion, particularly on the number of
dimensions involved. However, the value with which we will be most
concerned is that applicable to the basic properties of matter. This is
the relation that was called the inter-regional ratio in the first edition,
and it appears advisable to retain this name, although the more extensive
information now available shows the relation is not as general as the
name might indicate.
On the basis of the theoretical considerations discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, there are 4 possible orientations of each of the two two-
dimensional rotations of the atoms, and 8 possible orientations of the
one-dimensional rotations, making a total of 4 x 4 x 8 = 128 different
positions that a unit displacement of the scalar translational motion
of the atom (the inward scalar effect of the rotation) can take in
three-dimensional time. In addition, each of the rotating systems of
the atom has an initial unit of vibrational displacement with three possible
orientations, one in each dimension. For the two-dimensional basic
rotation this means nine possible positions, of which two are occupied.
Thus, for each of the 128 possible rotational positions there is an additional
2/9 vibrational position which any given displacement unit may occupy.
The inter-regional ratio is then 128 (1 + 2/9) = 156.44.
It is this inter-regional ratio that accounts for the small size of
atoms when the dimensions of these objects are measured on the
assumption that they are in contact in the solid state. According to
 Basic Mathematical Relations 155

the theory developed in the foregoing pages, there can be no physical

distance less than one natural unit, which, as we will see in the next
chapter, is 4.56 X 10"6 cm. But because the inter-atomic equilibrium
is established in the region inside this unit, the measured inter-atomic
distance is reduced by the inter-regional ratio, and this measured value
is therefore in the neighborhood of 10-8 cm.
The inversion of space and time at the unit level also has an important
effect on the dimensions of inter-regional relations. Inside unit space
no changes in space magnitudes can take place, since less than unit
space does not exist. However, as pointed out earlier, the motion in
time which can take place inside the space unit is equivalent to a motion
in space because of the inverse relation between space and time. An
increase in the time aspect of a motion in this inside region (the time
region, where space remains constant at unity) from 1 to t is equivalent
to a decrease in the space aspect from 1 to \ / t . Where the time is
t, the speed in this region is equivalent space l / t divided by time t9
or l / t 2.
In the region outside unit space, the speed corresponding to one unit
of space and time t is l / t . Now we find that in the time region it
is l / t 2. The time region speed, and all quantities derived therefrom,
which means all of the physical phenomena of the inside region, as
all of these phenomena are manifestations of motion, are therefore second
power expressions of the corresponding quantities of the outside region.
This is an important principle that must be taken into account in any
relation involving both regions. The intra-region relations may be equiva
lent; that is, the expression a = be is the mathematical equivalent of
the expression a 2 = b2c2. But if we measure the quantity a in the outside
region, it is essential that the equation be expressed in the correct regional
form: a = b2c2.
Although the difficulties which the Reciprocal System of theory does
not encounter do not enter into the development of thought in these
pages, and, strictly speaking, have no real place in the discussion, it
may be of interest, while we are considering some of the factors that
enter into the phenomena of very small dimensions, to point out that
the theory of a universe of motion is free from the problem of infinities
that plagues all conventional theories in this physical area. Richard
Feynman gives us a candid assessment of the existing theoretical situation:
We really do not know exactly what it is that we are assuming
that gives us the difficulty producing infinities. A nice problem!
However, it turns out that it is possible to sweep the infinities
under the rug, by a certain crude skill, and temporarily we are
able to keep on calculating. . . . We have all these nice principles
156 Nothing but Motion

and known facts, but we are in some kind of trouble: either we

get the infinities, or we do not get enough of a descriptionwe
are missing some parts.58
The Reciprocal System is free of these problems because it is a fully
quantized system of theory. Every physical phenomenon, this theory
tells us, is a manifestation of motion, and every motion involves at
least one unit of space and one unit of time. For convenience, we
may identify a point within a unit of space or a unit of time, but
such a point has no independent existence. N othing less than one unit
of either space or time exists in the universe of motion.
 CHAPTER 13

Phy sical Constants

Because motion and its components, space and time, exist only in
units, the derivatives of motion, dimensional variations of the basic
relation between space and time, such as acceleration, force, etc., also
exist only in natural units. A natural unit of force, for example, is
a natural unit of time divided by a two-dimensional natural unit of space.
It then follows that where a relation of the kind discussed in Chapter
12 is correctly stated, it is valid as a quantitative relation between units
without any arbitrary constant. The expression F = ma, for example,
tells us that one natural unit of force applied to one natural unit of
mass will produce an acceleration of one natural unit. When all quantities
are expressed in natural units there are no numerical constants in equations
of this kind aside from what we may call structural factors: geometrical
factors such as the number of effective dimensions, numerical factors
such as the second and third powers of the quantities entering into
the relations, and so on.
There has been a great deal of speculation as to the nature and origin
of the fundamental constants of present-day physics. An article in
the Sept. 4, 1976 issue of Science News, for example, contends that
we are confronted with a dilemma, inasmuch as there are only two
ways of looking at these constants, neither of which is really acceptable.
We must either, the article says, swallow them ad hoc without
j ustification for their necessity, their constancy, or their values, or
we must accept the Machian hypothesis that they are, in some unknown
way, determined by the contents of the universe as a whole. The
development of the Reciprocal System of theory has now resolved this
dilemma in the same way that it handled a number of the long-standing
problems considered in the earlier pages; that is, by exposing it as
fictitious. When all quantities are expressed in the proper unitsthe
natural units of which the universe of motion is constructedthe
fundamental constants reduce to unity and vanish.
A preliminary step that has to be taken before we can compare the
mathematical results derived from the new theory with the numerical
values obtained by measurement is to ascertain the conversion ratios
by which the values in the natural system can be converted to the

157
158 Nothing but Motion

conventional system of units in which the measurements are reported.

Inasmuch as the conventional units are arbitrary, there is no way in
which the conversion factors can be calculated theoretically. It is
necessary to utilize a measurement of some specific physical quantity
for each independent conventional unit. Any physical quantity which
involves the item in question, and can be clearly identified, will theoreti
cally serve the purpose, but for maximum accuracy certain basic phenom
ena that are relatively simple, and have been carefully studied observa-
tionally, are clearly preferable.
There is no question as to where we should obtain the value of the
natural unit of speed, or velocity. The speed of radiation, measured
as the speed of light in a vacuum, 2.99793 x l010cm /sec, is an accurately
measured quantity that is definitely identified as the natural unit by
the theoretical development. There are some uncertainties with respect
to the other conversion factors, both as to the accuracy of the experimental
values from which they have to be calculated, and as to whether all
of the minor factors that enter into the theoretical situation have been
fully taken into account. Some improvement has been made in both
respects since the first edition was published, and the principal discrep
ancies that existed in the original findings have been eliminated, or
at least greatly minimized. No significant changes were required in the
values of the basic natural units, but some of the details of the manner
in which these units enter into the determination of the constants
and other physical magnitudes have been clarified in the course of
extending the development of the theoretical structure.
One of the problems in this connection is that of arriving at a decision
as to which of the reported measured values should be used in the
calculations. Ordinarily it would be assumed that the more recent results
are the more accurate, but an examination of these recent values and
the methods by which they have been obtained indicates that this is
not necessarily true. Apparently the consistent values listed in the
up-to-date tabulations involve some adjustments of the raw data to
conform with current theoretical ideas as to the relations that should
exist between the various individual values. For purposes of this present
work the unadjusted data are preferable.
The principal question at this point concerns the experimental values
of Avogadros number, as only three conversion constants are required
for present purposes, and there are no significant differences in the
measurements of the quantities that will be used in calculating two of
these constants. The more recent values reported for Avogadros number
are somewhat lower than those reported earlier, but the correlation with
the gravitational constant, which will be discussed shortly, favors some
of the earlier results. The value adopted for use in evaluating the
 Physical Constants 159

conversion constant for mass, 6.02486 X 1023 g-mol_1, has therefore been
taken from a 1957 tabulation by Cohen, Crowe and DuMond.59
In any event, it should be understood that wherever the results obtained
in this work are expressed in the arbitrary units of a conventional system,
they are accurate only to the degree of accuracy of the experimental
values of the quantities used in determining the conversion constants.
Any future change in these values resulting from improvement of
experimental techniques will involve a corresponding change in the values
calculated from theoretical premises. H owever, this degree of uncertainty
does not apply to any results that are stated in natural units, or in
conventional terms such as units of atomic number that are equivalent
to natural units.
As in the first edition, the natural unit of time has been calculated
from the Rydberg fundamental frequency. A question has arisen here
because this frequency varies with the mass of the emitting atom. The
original calculation was based on the value applicable to hydrogen, but
this has been questioned, as the prevailing opinion regards the value
applicable to infinite mass as the fundamental magnitude. A definitive
answer to this question will not be available until the theory of the
variation in the frequency has been worked out, but in the meantime
a review of the situation indicates that we should stay with the hydrogen
value in the interim. From the theoretical viewpoint it would seem that
the unit value would come from an atom of unit magnitude, rather
than from an infinite number of atoms. Also, even though the difference
is small, the value thus derived seems to be more consistent with the
general pattern of measured magnitudes than the alternative.
From the manner in which the Rydberg frequency appears in the
mathematics of radiation, particularly in such simple relations as the
Balmer series of spectral lines, it is evident that this frequency is another
physical manifestation of a natural unit, similar in this respect to the
speed of light. It is customarily expressed in cycles per second on the
assumption that it is a function of time only. From the explanation
previously given, it is apparent that the frequency of radiation is actually
a velocity. The cycle is an oscillating motion over a spatial or temporal
path, and it is possible to use the cycle as a unit only because that
path is constant. The true unit is one unit of space per unit of time
(or the inverse of this quantity). This is the equivalent of one half-cycle
per unit of time rather than one full cycle, as a full cycle involves
one unit of space in each direction. For present purposes the measured
value of the Rydberg frequency should therefore be expressed as
6.576115 x 1015 half-cycles per second. The natural unit of time is the
reciprocal of this figure, or 1.520655 x 10"16 seconds. Multiplying the
unit of time by the natural unit of speed, we obtain the value of the
160 Nothing but Motion

natural unit of space, 4.558816 x 10-6 centimeters.

By combining these two natural units as required, the natural units
of all of the quantities of the velocity group can be calculated. Those
of the inverse quantities, the energy group, can also be calculated in
the same centimeter-second terms, but this gives us expressions such
as 3.711381 x 10-32 sec3/cm 3, which is the natural unit of mass. This
value has no practical use because the inverse relations between the
quantities of the velocity group and those of the energy group have
not hitherto been recognized. In setting up the conventional system
of units it has been assumed that mass is another fundamental quantity
for which an additional arbitrary unit is necessary. The ratio of the
velocity based unit of mass to this arbitrary unit, the gram, can be
derived from any clearly defined physical relation involving mass that
has been accurately measured in conventional units. As indicated earlier,
the measurement selected for this purpose is that of Avogadros constant.
This constant is the number of molecules per gram molecular weight,
or in application to atoms, the number of atoms per gram atomic weight.
The reported value is 6.02486 x 1023. The reciprocal of this number,
1.65979 X 10-24, in grams, is therefore the mass equivalent of unit atomic
weight, the unit of inertial mass, as we will call it.
With the addition of the value of the natural unit of inertial mass
to the values previously derived for the natural units of space and time,
we now have all of the information required for calculation of the natural
units of the other primary quantities of the mechanical system. The
mechanical units can be summarized as follows:
Space-time Units Conventional Units
s space 4.558816 X 106 cm 4.558816 X 106 cm
t time 1.520655 X 1CT16 sec 1.520655 X 1016 sec
s /t speed 2.997930 X 10' cm/sec 2.997930 X 10 cm/sec
s/t2 acceleration 1.971473 x 10 cm /sec2 1.971473 x 10 cm /sec2
t/s energy 3.335635 x 10"" sec/cm 1.49175 x 10~3 ergs
t/s2 force 7.316889 x 10~6 sec/cm2 3.27223 X 102 dynes
t/s4 pressure 3.520646 X 10s sec/cm4 1.57449 x 10*3 dynes/cm2
t2/ s 2 momentum 1.112646 X 10~21 sec2/cm 2 4.97593 X 10"14 g-cm/sec
t2/ s 3 inertial mass 3.711381 x 10~32 sec3/cm 3 1.65979 x 10"24 g

The values given in the first column of this tabulation are those derived
by applying the natural units of space and time to the space-time
expressions for each physical quantity. In the case of the quantities
of the speed or velocity type, these are also the values applicable in
the conventional systems of measurement. However, mass is regarded
as an independent fundamental variable in the conventional systems,
and a mass term is introduced into each of the quantities of the energy
type. Momentum, for example, is not treated as t2/ s 2, but as the product
 Physical Constants 161

of mass and velocity, which, in space-time terms, is t3/ s 3 x s/t. The

use of an arbitrary unit of mass then introduces a numerical factor.
Thus, in order to arrive at the values of the natural units in terms
of the cgs system of measurement, each of the values given for the
energy group in the first column of the tabulation must be divided by
this factor: 2.236055 X 10"8.
As we saw in Chapter 10, the masses of the atoms of matter can
be expressed in terms of units of equivalent electric displacement. The
minimum quantity of displacement is one atomic weight unit. It is therefore
evident that this displacement unit is some kind of a natural unit of
mass. In the first edition it was identified as the natural unit of mass
in general. The continuing theoretical development has revealed, however,
that this atomic weight unit, the unit of inertial mass, is actually a
composite that includes not only a unit of what we will now call primary
mass, the basic mass quantity, but also a unit of secondary mass.
The concept of secondary mass was introduced in the first edition,
without being developed very far. A considerably more detailed treatment
is now available. The inward motion in space which gives rise to the
primary mass does not take place from an initial level occupying a
fixed location in a stationary frame of reference. Instead, the initial
level itself is in motion in the region inside unit space. Since mass
is an expression of the inward motion that is effective in the context
of a stationary reference system, the primary mass is modified by the
mass equivalent of the motion of the initial level.
While the previous deductions with respect to the essential features
of the secondary mass component have been confirmed in the subsequent
studies, a few of the details take on a somewhat different appearance
when viewed in the light of the more complete information now available.
The recent findings indicate that although the primary mass is a function
of the net total effective positive rotational displacement, the movement
of the initial level that is responsible for the existence of the secondary
mass depends on the magnitudes of the displacements in the different
dimensions separately.
The scalar directions of the motions inside unit distance play an
important part in determining these magnitudes. Outside unit distance,
the scalar direction of the rotational motion is inward because it must
oppose the outward motion of the natural reference system. However,
as we saw in Chapter 10, the magnitude of that inward motion depends
to some extent on whether the displacement in the electric dimension
is positive or negative. Inside unit space there is still more variability,
as the motion in this region is in time, and there is no fixed relation
between direction in time and direction in space. (The rotational motion
of which the material atom or particle is constructed is motion in space,
162 Nothing but Motion

but inside one spatial unit the translational motion o f the atom is in
time.)
Because of this directional freedom in the time region, the secondary
mass may be either positive or negative. Furthermore, the directions
of the individual displacement units are independent of each other, and
the net total secondary mass of a complex atom may be relatively small
because of the presence of nearly equal numbers of positive and negative
secondary mass components. This directional variability introduces a
number of complications into the secondary mass pattern of the elements.
The complete pattern has not yet been identifi ed, but a substantial amount
of information is now available with respect to the values applying to
sub-atomic particles and the elements of low atomic number.
The magnitudes of the natural units applicable to physical quantities
are independent of the sector or region of the universe in which the
phenomena to which they relate are located. As explained in Chapter
12, however, only a fraction of any physical effect can be transmitted
across a regional boundary, and the measured value beyond that boundary
is substantially less than the original unit. This is the principal reason
for the great disparity between the magnitudes of the primary and
secondary mass. A unit of mass in the region inside unit distance is
inherently just as large as a unit of mass in the region outside unit
distance. But when both are measured in terms of their effect in the
outside region, the inside, or secondary, mass is reduced by the inter
regional ratio.
In this chapter we are dealing with some very small quantities, and
for greater accuracy we will extend the previously calculated value of
the inter-regional ratio to two more decimal places, making it 156.4444.
The reciprocal of this ratio, 0.00639205, is the fraction of a time region
unit that is effective outside unit distance. It is therefore the unit of
secondary mass applicable to the basic two-dimensional rotation of the
atom or particle. The unit of inertial mass is one such secondary unit
plus one unit of primary mass, or a total of 1.00639205.
An analysis of the secondary mass relations enables us to compute
the mass of each of the sub-atomic particles, a magnitude that is of
interest not only as one more item of information about the physical
universe, but also because of the light that it throws on the structure
of the individual particle. Here we must take into account not only
the two-dimensional component of the secondary mass, the magnetic
component, as we will call it, following our usual terminology, but also
the other components that may be involved in the secondary mass.
One of these is the component due to the electric rotation, if any.
Inasmuch as this electric rotation, the rotation in the third dimension,
is not an independent motion, but a reverse rotation of the pre-existing
 Physical Constants 163

two-dimensional rotating system, or systems, it adds neither primary

mass nor the magnetic unit that is the principal component of the secondary
mass. It contributes only the mass equivalent of a unit of one-dimensional
rotation. In this case, the 1/9 factor representing the possible positions
of the basic photon applies directly against the basic 1/128 relation.
We then have for the unit of electric mass:
1/9 X 1/128 = 0.00086806

This value applies specifically where the motion around the electric
axis is a rotation of a two-dimensional displacement distributed over
all three dimensions, as in a double rotating system. Where only one
two-dimensional rotation is involved, the electric mass is 2/3 of the
full unit, or 0.00057870. When two of the two-dimensional rotations
(four dimensions in all) are consolidated to form a double rotating system
(three dimensions), the two 0.00057870 mass units become one 0.00086806
unit.
Another secondary mass component that may be present is the mass
due to an electric charge. Like all other phenomena in a universe of
motion, a charge is a motion, an additional motion of the atom or particle.
We are not ready to discuss charges in detail at this stage of the
presentation, so for the present we will merely note that on the basis
of the restrictions on combinations of motions defined in Chapter 9,
the charge, as a motion o f the rotating particle or atom, must have
a displacement opposite to that of the rotation in order to be stable.
This means that the motion that constitutes the charge is on the far
side of another regional boundaryanother unit leveland it is subject
to two successive inter-regional transmission factors.
The relation between the time region and the third region, in which
the motion of the charge takes place, is similar to that between the
time region and the region outside unit space. The inter-regional ratio
is the same, except that because the electric charge is one-dimensional
the factor 1+ 1/9 has to be substituted for the factor 1+2/9 that appears
in the inter-regional ratio previously calculated. This makes the inter
regional ratio applicable to the relation with the third region 128 X
(1 + 1/9) = 142.2222. The mass of unit charge is the reciprocal of the
product of the two inter-regional ratios, 156.4444 and 142.2222, and
amounts to 0.00004494.
The charge applicable to electrons and positrons deviates from this
normal value because these particles have effective rotations in only
one dimension, leaving the other two dimensions open. In some way,
the exact nature of which is not yet clear, the motion of the charge
is able to take place in these two dimensions of the time region instead
164 Nothing but Motion

of in the normal manner. Since this is on the opposite side of the unit
boundary, the direction of the effect is reversed, making the mass
increment due to the charge negative, as well as reducing its magnitude
by one third. The effective mass of a charge applied to an electron
or positron is therefore 2/3 x 0.00004494 = 0.00002996.
We may now apply the calculated values of the several mass compo
nents, as given in the foregoing paragraphs, to a determination of the
masses of the sub-atomic particles described in Chapter 11. For conven
ience, these values will be recapitulated as follows:
p primary mass 1.00000000
m magnetic mass 0.00639205
gravitational mass 1.00639205
E electric mass (3 dim.) 0.00086806
e electric mass (2 dim.) 0.00057870
C mass of normal charge 0.00004494
c mass of electron charge -0.00002996
These are the masses of the various components on the natural scale.
The measured values are reported in terms of a scale based on an arbitrary
assumed mass for some atom or isotope that is taken as a standard.
For a number of years there were two such scales in common use,
the chemical scale, based on the atomic weight of oxygen as 16, and
the physical scale, which assigned the 16 value to the O16 isotope. More
recently, a scale based on an atomic weight of 12 for the C 12 isotope
has found favor, and most of the values given in the current literature
are expressed in terms of the C12 scale. In the light of the findings
of this work the shift away from the O 16 scale is unfortunate, as the
theoretical development indicates that the O 16 isotope has a mass of
exactly 16 on the natural scale, and the physical scale (O16 = 16) is
therefore coincident with the natural scale. It will, of course, be necessary
to use the natural scale for our purposes. The observed values quoted
for comparison with the theoretical masses will therefore be stated in
terms of the equivalent O 16 physical scale.
Here again we face the same issue that was encountered early in
this chapter in connection with the selection of an empirical value of
Avogadros number as a basis for calculating the unit of mass: the
question as to whether we should regard the most recent determinations
as the most accurate. It would appear that the arguments that led to
the acceptance of the 1957 value of Avogadros number are also applicable
to the particle masses, particularly since the agreement between the
calculated and observed masses of the electron and proton is quite
satisfactory on this basis. The empirical values cited in the paragraphs
 Physical Constants 165

that follow have therefore been taken from the 1957 compilation by
Cohen, Crowe and Du Mond.59
Since mass is three-dimensional, an independent one-dimensional or
two-dimensional rotation has no mass. Nevertheless, when such a rotation
becomes a component of a three-dimensional rotation, it contributes
to the mass equivalent of that rotation. This amount that a rotation
which is massless when independent will add to the mass of a particle
or atom when it joins that combination of motions constitutes what
we will call potential mass.
In the case of the particles with no effective two-dimensional rotational
displacement, the electron and the positron, the appropriate unit of electric
mass, 0.00057870, is the entire mass of the particle, and even that mass
is only potential, rather than actual, as long as the particle is in the
basic uncharged condition. When a charge is added, the effect of the
charge is distributed over all three dimensions by the chance process
that governs the directions of the motion of the charge in the time
region. Thus the charged particle has effective motion in all three
dimensions, irrespective of the number of dimensions of rotation. This
not only makes the mass of the charge itself an effective quantity,
but, as indicated in Chapter 11, it also raises the potential mass of
the rotation of the particles to the effective status. The net effective
mass of the electron or the postitron is then the rotational value 0.00057870
less the mass of the charge 0.00002996, or 0.00054874. The observed
value is 0.00054877.
The massless neutron, the M ^-^-0 combination, has no effective rotation
in the third dimension, but no rotation from the natural standpoint is
rotation at unit speed from the standpoint of a fixed reference system.
This rotational combination therefore has an initial unit of electric rotation,
with a potential mass of 0.00057870, in addition to the mass of the
two-dimensional basic rotation 1.00639205, making the total potential
mass of this particle 1.00697075.
In this connection, it should be noted that the electron and positron
also have rotation at unit speed (no rotation, in terms of the natural
system) in the two inactive dimensions, but these rotations involve no
mass, as they are independent, and are not rotating anything. The initial
unit of rotation in the third dimension of the massless neutron, on the
other hand, is a reverse rotation of the two-dimensional structure, and
it therefore adds an electric mass unit.
The neutrino, M j-y-(l), has the same unit positive displacement in
the magnetic dimensions as the massless neutron, but it has neither
primary nor magnetic mass because these are functions of the net total
displacement, and that quantity is zero for the neutrino. But since the
electric mass is independent of the basic rotation, and has its own initial
166 Nothing but Motion

unit, the neutrino has the same potential mass as the uncharged electron
or positron, 0.00057870.
The potential mass of both the massless neutron and the neutrino
is actualized when the rotations of these particles are joined to produce
a three-dimensional rotation. The mass of the resulting particle is then
1.00754945. As indicated in Chapter 11, this particle is the proton. As
it is observed, however, the proton is positively charged, and in this
condition the foregoing figure is increased by the mass of a unit charge,
0.00004494. The resulting mass of the theoretical charged proton is
1.00759439. The mass of the observed proton has been measured as
1.007600.
Consolidation of two protons results in the formation of a double
rotating system. As stated earlier, this substitutes one three-dimensional
electric unit of mass for two of the two-dimensional units, reducing
the combined mass by 0.00028935. The mass of the product, the deuterium
atom (H2), is the sum of two (uncharged) proton masses less this amount,
or 2.014810. The corresponding observed value is 2.014735.
Inasmuch as the proton already has a three-dimensional status, addition
of another neutrino alters only the electric mass. The material neutrino
adds the normal two-dimensional electric unit, 0.00057870, making the
total for the product, the mass one isotope of hydrogen, 1.00812815.
The measured value is reported as 1.008142.
The successive additions of neutrinos to the massless neutron that
eventually produce the mass one isotope of hydrogen should be given
special attention, as the considerations which will be discussed in Chapter
17 indicate that this addition process plays a very significant part in
the overall cyclic mechanism of the universe. The following tabulation
shows how the mass of the hydrogen isotope is built up step by step.

primary mass 1.00000000

magnetic mass .00639205
electric mass .00057870
A fff0 massless neutron 1.00697075*
M \ - \ ( 1) neutrino .00057870*
M l-l-(l) proton 1.00754945
M i-r (i) neutrino .00057870*
M I f I f (2) hydrogen (H1) 1.00812815
*potential mass

Neutrinos are plentiful in the local environment. The requirement for

production of new matter in the form of hydrogen by the addition process
 Physical Constants 167

is therefore a continuing supply of massless neutrons. In Chapter 15

we will find that there is in operation a gigantic process that furnishes
just such a supply.
Addition of a cosmic neutrino, the rotational displacements of which
are on the opposite side of the unit boundary, to the proton, involves
an additional initial electric unit, as both the rotation in time and the
rotation in space must start from unity. Also the spatial effect of the
cosmic neutrino rotation is three-dimensional, since the spatial direction
of motion in time is indeterminate. The total addition of mass to the
proton in the production of the compound neutron is then 0.00144676,
and the resulting mass of the particle is 1.00899621. It has been measured
as 1.008982.
The following is a summary of the particle masses and the mass
components from which these masses are built up. The empirical values
from the 1957 compilation are given for comparison. As noted earlier,
the correlation is quite satisfactory for the electron and the proton,
as it is within the estimated range of experimental error. The divergence
in the case of the heavier particles is not large, but it exceeds the.
estimated error. Whether the source of this discrepancy is in the theoretical
development or in the experimental determinations remains to be ascer
tained.
Mass Mass
Composition Particle Calculated Observed
e c charged electron 0.00054874 0.00054876
e c charged positron 0.00054874 0.00054876
e electron 0.00057870* massless
e positron 0.00057870* massless
e neutrino 0.00057870* massless
p +m +e massless neutron 1.00697075* massless
p + m + 2e proton 1.00754945 unobserved
p 4- nt + 2e + C charged proton 1.00759439 1.007593
p + m + 3e hydrogen (H1) 1.00812815 1.008142
p + m + 3e + E compound neutron 1.00899621 1.008982
*potential mass

In the first edition the relation between the natural unit of mass and
the arbitrary unit in the cgs system was identified in terms of the
gravitational constant. It has recently been pointed out by Todd Kelso
and Steven Berline that the relation thus established cannot be converted
to a different system of units such as the SI (mks) system. This made
it evident that the interpretation of the gravitational phenomenon on
168 Nothing but Motion

which the previous determination was based was, in some way, erroneous.
An analysis of the situation was therefore carried out in order to locate
the point of error.
The invalidation of the interpretation of the gravitational equation
has no effect on any other feature of the theoretical results that have
been obtained from the Reciprocal System, as described in this volume.
Its sole result has been to leave this sytem of theory without any
connection between the gravitational equation and the theoretical struc
ture. Once the situation is viewed in this light, it is immediately apparent
that the lack of connection betwen the equation and physical theory
is not peculiar to the Reciprocal System. Conventional theory does not
identify the connection either. The physics textbooks find it necessary
to admit this fact in statements such as the following: It should be
noted that N ewtons law of universal gravitation is not a defining equation
like Newtons second principle of mechanics and cannot be derived
from defining equations. It represents an observed relation . This is
a theoretical discrepancy that conventional physics has not been able
to resolve. But it is an isolated discrepancy, and it has been swept
under the rug by assigning fictitious dimensions to the gravitational
constant.
It follows from this that the error lies in some interpretation of that
observed relation that has been common to both conventional theory
and the Reciprocal System. Evidently the true nature of the phenomenon
has been misunderstood by the developers of both systems of theory.
Here, again, a recognition of the source of the diffi culty points the
way to the resolution of the problem. As brought out in the earlier
chapters, one mass does not actually exert a force on anothereach
is pursuing its own course independently of all othersbut the results
of the inward motions of two masses are similar to those that would
follow if the masses did attract each other. These results can therefore
be represented in terms of an attractive force, on an as if basis.
But in order to do this we must put the as if forces on the same
footing as real forces.
A force can only be exerted against a resistance. Hence, when we
atttribute a force to the motion of one mass we cannot also attribute
a force to the motion of the other. We must attribute a resistance to
the second mass. Thus, an as if force, a gravitational force, is exerted
against an as if inertial resistance. In the previous discussion we
identified gravitation as three-dimensional motion, s3/ t 3, and inertia as
three-dimensional resistance to motion, t3/ s 3. The product of the gravita
tional motion and the inertial resistance therefore does not have the
dimensions of mass to the second power, as the conventional expression
 Physical Constants 169

of the gravitational equation indicates; it is dimensionless.

This is a situation in which the ability to reduce all physical quantities
to space-time terms is very helpful. It will also be convenient to examine
the dimensional situation independently before taking up the question
of the numerical values. The gravitational equation, as expressed in
current practice, is assigned dimensions as follows:
(dynes cm2 g-2) x g2 x cm-2 = dynes (13-1)
Reducing equation 13-1 to space-time terms in accordance with the
relations established in Chapter 12 (in which dynes, as g-cm/sec2, are
t 3/ s 3 X s X \ / t 2 = t / s 2), we have

( t / s 2 x s 2 x s 6/ t 6) x t 6/ s 6 X \ / s 2 = t / s 2 (13-2)
In the light of the new understanding of the m m ' term as the
dimensionless product of gravitational and inertial mass, it is now evident
that the s6/ t 6 dimensions belong with mm' rather than with the gravita
tional constant. When they are so applied, the resulting dimensions of
mm' cancel out, as the true theoretical dimensions do. We can therefore
replace them with the correct dimensions. As pointed out in the first
edition, there are also two other errors in the customary assignment
of dimensions to this equation. The distance term is actually dimension
less. It is the ratio of l / n 2 to l / l 2. The dimensions that are mistakenly
assigned to this term belong to a term whose existence has not been
recognized because it has unit value, and therefore does not enter into
the numerical calculation. In order to put the as if gravitational
interaction on the same basis as a real interaction, we have to express
it in terms of the action of a fo rce on a resistance, not as the action
of a mass on a resistance. And since the dimensions of the mass term
cancel, so that the gravitational mass enters the equation only as a
dimensionless number, the force of gravitation has to be expressed in
actual force terms; that is, as t / s 2. The correct dimensional form of
the equation is then
Cs3/ t 3 x t 3/ s 3) X t / s 2 = t / s 2 (13-3)
Turning now to the numerical magnitudes, we note that while the
dimensions of the m m ' term cancel out, the magnitudes do not. Every
unit of mass is both a unit of s 3/ t 3 and a unit of t3/ s 3, each in its
proper context. Since the units are independent, the effective magnitude
of the as if action of m units of gravitation against m ' units of inertial
resistance is mm'. However, expressing both of the mass terms in
conventional units introduces a numerical error, as only the inertial mass
170 Nothing but Motion

term is counterbalanced by a conventional mass magnitude on the other

side of the equation. To compensate for this error a corresponding inverse
factor must be introduced into the gravitational constant. There is no
error if the gravitational mass is expressed in natural units, as the value
1 does not require any counterbalancing term. The magnitude of the
necessary correction factor is therefore determined by the relation
between the natural and conventional units.
One gram is 6.02486 x 1023 units of inertial mass (t3/ s 3). The reciprocal
of this number is 1.65979 X 10-24. But only one sixth of the total number
of mass units is effective in the gravitational interaction because this
as if interaction takes place in only one dimension, and in only one
of the two directions in this dimension. The total number of s3/ t 3 units
corresponding to an effective mass of one gram is therefore 9.95874 x
10-24. Expressing this mass as one unit overstates the numerical value,
and a correction of this magnitude must therefore be included as a
component of the gravitational constant.
A small additional correction is required because of the effect of
the secondary mass. Gravitation and inertia are inversely related relative
to the primary mass; that is, the primary mass is p / ( p + s) units of
gravitational mass and also p / ( p + s) units of inertial mass, where p
and s are the primary and secondary masses respectively. The product
of a unit of gravitational mass and a unit of inertial mass is therefore
1/(I + s )2 units of primary mass. Where the result is expressed in terms
of inertial mass, another 1 + s factor is introduced. The total effect
of the secondary mass is then the introduction of a factor of 1.019299.
Applying this factor to the value 9.95874 x 10~~24, we obtain 1.015093 x
10" 23.
Replacing the 1/ s2 distance term by a t / s 2 force term has the effect
of introducing a time dimension, which must be expressed in natural
units to avoid creating a numerical unbalance. The numerical value of
the natural unit of time, 1.520655 x 1016, offsets in part the errors
in the mass term. The net correction to be made is 1.015093 x 1023
divided by the natural unit of time, and amounts to 6.67537 x 108.
This is the gravitational constant in the cgs system of units.
Looking now at the question of conversion to a different system of
units, the issue that initiated the restudy of the situation, we find that
a change from cgs to mks units in the conventional form of the equation
(13-1) results in a change of 106 in the mass term, 104 in the distance
term, and 10-5 in the force term. A change of 103 in the gravitational
constant is then required for a balance. In the theoretical equation (13-3)
the net effect of a change in the system of units is confined to the
relation of the natural and conventional units of mass. As can be seen
from the explanation that has been given, the gravitational constant
 Physical Constants 171

is proportional to the ratio of these units. Changing the conventional

unit from grams to kilograms alters this ratio by 10-3. The gravitational
constant is then changed by the same amount. This agrees with the
result obtained from equation 13-1.
Those who are familiar with the first edition will have noticed that
the values of the natural unit of inertial mass and related quantities,
as given earlier in this chapter, are larger than the values given in the
original publication. At the time of the original investigation it seemed
clear that a factor of 1/3 entered into the mass situation in some way,
and there appeared to be sufficient justification for applying this factor
to the size of the basic unit. As brought out in the preceding paragraphs,
we now find that the 1/3 factor is a result of the one-dimensional nature
of the as if gravitational interaction. This factor has therefore been
eliminated from the mass units. As a result, the natural unit of inertial
mass, as defined in this edition, is three times the value given in the
first edition (with a small adjustment to reflect the results of the continuing
studies of the details of the phenomena involved). The use of these
larger units has no effect on the physical relations involving inertial mass,
as the expressions of these relations are balanced equations in which
the mass terms are in equilibrium with terms representing quantities
derived from mass.
 CHAPTER 14

Cosmic Elements
As pointed out in Chapter 6, the inversion of space and time in physical
phenomena that is possible by reason of the reciprocal relation between
the two entities may apply to only one of the constituent motions of
a complex physical entity or phenomenon, or it may apply to the entire
structure. We have already examined some of the effects of inversion
of single motion components, such as translational motion in time,
negative displacement in the electric dimension of the atomic rotation,
etc. Now we are ready to take a look at the consequences of complete
inversions.
It has already been noted that the rotational combinations which
constitute the atoms and sub-atomic particles of the material system
are photons vibrating in time and rotating in space, and that they are
paralleled by a similar system of combinations in which the photons
are vibrating in space and rotating in time. The point to be emphasized
at this juncture is that the inverse system, the cosmic system of atoms
and sub-atomic particles, is identical with the material system in every
respect, except for the space-time inversion. Corresponding to carbon,
2-1-4, there is cosmic carbon, (2)-(l)-(4). Corresponding to the neutrino,
M -^-(l), there is a cosmic neutrino, C ()-()-l, and so on.
Furthermore, this identity applies with equal force to all of the entities
and phenomena of the physical universe. Since everything that exists
in the material sector of the universe is a manifestation of motion,
every item is exactly duplicated in the cosmic sector with space and
time interchanged. The detailed description of the material sector of
the universe that we are deriving item by item through development
of the consequences of the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System
of theory is therefore equally applicable to the cosmic sector. Thus,
even though the cosmic sector is almost entirely unobservable, we have
just as exact and just as detailed knowledge of that sector (aside from
information about specific individuals of the various classes of objects)
as we do of the material sector.
It should be noted, however, that our knowledge of the material sector
is knowledge of how the phenomena of that sector appear to observation
from a point within that sector; that is, a location in a gravitationally

173
174 Nothing but Motion

bound system. What we know about the cosmic sector through application
of the reciprocal relation is knowledge of the same kind, information
as to how the phenomena of the cosmic sector appear to observation
from a location within that sector; a location in a system that is
gravitationally bound in time. Such knowledge has no direct significance
from our standpoint, as we cannot make observations from such a base,
but it does provide a basis from which we can determine how the
phenomena of the cosmic sector, and the phenomena originating in that
sector, theoretically should appear to our observation.
One of the most perplexing questions of present-day physics is: Where
is the antimatter? Considerations of symmetry applied to the current
theories of the structure of matter indicate that there should be anti
forms of the elements of which ordinary matter is constituted, and that
the antimatter composed of those antielements ought to be equally
as abundant in the universe as a whole as ordinary matter. Antistars
and antigalaxies should theoretically be as plentiful as ordinary stars
and ordinary galaxies. But there is no hard evidence of the existence
of any such objects. It has been suggested, to be sure, that some of
the observed galaxies may be composed of antimatter. Alfven, for
example, says that there is a distinct possibility that antiworlds may
actually be neighbors of ours, astronomically speaking. It cannot be
excluded that the Andromeda nebula, the closest galaxy to ours, or
even stars within our own galaxy, are composed of antimatter. 60 But
this is pure speculation, in the absence of any demonstrated means of
distinguishing the radiation produced by a galaxy of the hypothetical
antimatter from that produced by a galaxy of ordinary matter. So the
question remains, Where is the antimatter?
The Reciprocal System now provides the answer. This new structure
of theory agrees that antimatter (actually reciprocal matter: cosmic matter,
as we are calling it) exists, and that it is equally as abundant in the
physical universe as ordinary matter. But it tells us that the galaxies
of cosmic matter are not localized in space; they are localized in
three-dimensional time. The progression of time to which we are subject
carries us through this three-dimensional time in a manner analogous
to a linear motion through three-dimensional space. Only a very small
fraction of the total number of objects occupying positions in the spatial
reference system would be encountered in the course of a one-dimensional
spatial motion of this kind, and the same is true of the number of
cosmic objects that are encountered in our progression through time,
as compared with the total number of such objects occupying positions
in a three-dimensional temporal reference system.
Furthermore, gravitation in the cosmic sector acts in time, rather than
in space, and the atoms of which a cosmic aggregate is composed are
 Cosmic Elements 175

contiguous in time, but widely dispersed in space. Thus, even the relatively
small number of cosmic aggregates that we do encounter in our movement
through time are not encountered as spatial aggregates; they are encoun
tered as individual atoms widely dispersed in space. We cannot recognize
a cosmic star or galaxy because we observe it only one atom at a time.
Radiation from the cosmic aggregate is similarly dispersed. Such radiation
is continually reaching us, but as we observe it, this radiation originates
from individual, widely scattered, atoms, rather than from localized
aggregates, and it is therefore isotropic from our viewpoint. This radiation
can no doubt be equated with the blackbody radiation currently
attributed to the remnants of the Big Bang.
All of the somewhat sensational suggestions as to the existence of
observable stars and galaxies of antimatter, and the possible consequences
of interaction between these aggregates and bodies composed of ordinary
matter are thus without foundation. The antimatter fueled generators
which supply the energy for space travel in science fiction will have
to remain on the science fiction shelves.
The difference between a cosmic star and a white dwarf star should
be noted particularly. Both are on the time side of the dividing line
so far as the translational speed is concerned; that is, both are composed
of matter that is moving faster than the speed of light. But the white
dwarf is otherwise no different from the ordinary star of the material
sector. The space-time relationship is inverted only in the translational
motion of its components. In the cosmic star, on the contrary, all of
the space-time relations are the inverse of those of the ordinary material
star; not only the translational motion, but also the vibrational and
rotational motions of its constituent atoms, and, what is especially
significant in the present connection, the effect of gravitation. Conse
quently, the white dwarf is an aggregate in space, and we see it as
such, whereas the cosmic star is an aggregate in time, and we cannot
recognize it as an aggregate.
Even those contacts which do take place between matter and the
individual particles of cosmic matter (antimatter) that enter the local
environment do not have the kind of results that are anticipated on
the basis of current theory. In present-day thought the essential difference
between matter and antimatter is conceived as a charge reversal. An
atom is thought to consist of a positively charged nucleus surrounded
by negatively charged electrons. It is then assumed that the antiatom
has the reverse structure: a negatively charged nucleus surrounded by
positively charged electrons (positrons). The further assumption then
follows that an effective contact between any particle and its antiparticle
would result in cancellation of all charges and reduction of both particles
to radiant energy.
176 Nothing but Motion

This is a typical example of the results of the compartmental nature

of present-day physical theory, which permits an assumption to be used
in one field of application, and a direct contradiction of that assumption
to be applied in another field, both under the banner of modern physics.
Where the accepted theory requires that opposite charges neutralize
each other on close approach, it is assumed that they do so. Where
this does not fit the theory, as in the electrical explanation of the structure
of matter, it is cheerfully assumed that the charges accommodate their
behavior to the requirements of the theory, and take up stable relative
positions instead of destroying each other. In the present instance, both
of these contradictory assumptions are employed at the same time. The
stable charges that somehow have no effect on each other are annihilat
ed by other charges, presumably identical in nature. Our findings are
that wherever electric charges actually do exist, opposite charges destroy
each other on contact.
It does not follow, however, that charge neutralization is equivalent
to annihilation. In actual practice, only one of the reactions between
particles and what are presumed to be antiparticles follows the theoretical
scenario of annihilation. The electron and positron do, in fact, annihilate
each other on contact, with the production of oppositely directed photons.
The antiparticle of the proton, in the accepted sense of the terma
particle equivalent to the proton in all observable respects except that
it is negatively chargedhas been detected, but contact of this antiproton
with a proton does not result in annihilation of the particles into radiant
energy. Here the situation is not as straightforward as in the annihilation
of an electron-positron pair, 61 report Boorse and Motz. And indeed
it is not. The interaction of these particles produces an assortment of
transient and stable particles not essentially different from those which
appear in other high energy interactions. As these authors say, different
kinds of mesons are released in the process. In the light of our new
findings it is evident that these are not annihilation reactions; they are
cosmic atom building reactions. We will examine the nature and charac
teristics of such reactions in Chapter 16.
Detection of the antineutron has also been reported, but the evidence
for this is indirect, and it is rather difficult to reconcile the various
ideas as to just what an antineutron would be with the concept of charge
reversal as the essential difference between particle and antiparticle.
On the basis of the charge reversal hypothesis, the neutral particles
should have no anti forms. Indeed, those who contend that every
particle has its antiparticle justify this statement by asserting that each
neutral particle is its own antiparticle. This would rule out the existence
of a distinct antineutron, in the currently accepted sense of the term.
In any event, this problem with respect to the neutral particles is another
 Cosmic Elements 177

item that, like the lack of annihilation in the annihilation reactions,

emphasizes the inadequacy of the conventional theory of atomic structure
in application to the antimatter phenomena.
In a universe of motion the atom is not an electrical structure. As
has been brought out in detail in the earlier pages, it is a combination
of rotational and vibrational motions. In the structures of the material
type the speed of the rotational motions is less than unity (the speed
of light) while the speed of the vibrational motion is greater than unity.
In the structures of the cosmic type these relations are reversed. Here
the speed of the vibrational motion is less than unity and the speed
of the rotational motion is greater than unity. The true antiparticle
of a material particle or atom is a combination of motions in which
the positive rotational displacements and negative vibrational displace
ments of the material structure are replaced by negative rotational
displacements and positive vibrational displacements of equal magnitude.
In one of the reactions currently attributed to mutual annihilation
of antiparticles, the neutralization of displacements is actually accom
plished, and in this case, the combination of electrons and positrons,
the particles are actually annihilated; that is, they are converted to radiant
energy and their existence as particles of the rotational class is terminated.
But there are, in reality, two different processes involved in this reaction.
First, the oppositely directed charges cancel each other, leaving both
particles in the uncharged condition. Subsequently, their rotations, M
0-0-1 and M 0-0-(l) combine to 0-0-0, which is no effective rotation
at all. In the vernacular, we might describe this second process as
straightening out the rotational motion. There is a short interval between
the two processes, and the effects attributed to positronium, a
hypothetical short-lived combination of an electron and a positron,
probably originate during this interval.
The extent to which annihilation can actually take place in contacts
between antiparticles other than the electron and positron is still an
open question. If the observed antiproton is actually the true antiparticle
of the protonthat is, a cosmic protonthe results of the observed
contacts of these particles indicate rather definitely that annihilation
is confined to the one-dimensional particles. If the observed antiproton
is merely a material proton with a negative charge, a possibility that
cannot be ruled out at the present stage of the investigation, the observed
results of the interactions are not relevant to the question, but the situation
is still unfavorable for annihilation, as the obstacles in the way of securing
simultaneous contact between the corresponding motions obviously
increase with the complexity of the rotational combination, and it is
very doubtful if the necessary coincident contacts can be obtained in
different dimensions. It therefore appears that the intriguing possibility
178 Nothing but Motion

of energy production by contact between matter and antimatter is not

only ruled out as a large scale process by the impossibility of concentrating
antimatter in space, as previously indicated, but is also unlikely even
as a single atom process.
Inasmuch as our present objective is to examine those phenomena
of the cosmic sector of the universe that are accessible to our observation,
the observed antiparticles, which are products of high-energy processes
in the material sector, are pertinent only to the extent that they throw
some light on the kind of behavior that can be expected from the cosmic
objects that do enter our field of observation. As indicated earlier, some
of these incoming objects make themselves known as a result of chance
encounters during our progress through three-dimensional time. Addi
tionally, there are processes, to be described later, which result in the
ejection of substantial quantities of matter from each sector into the
other. The portion of the material sector within our observational range
is therefore subject to a continual inflow of cosmic matter. The incoming
particles of this matter can be identified as the cosmic rays.
As they appear to observation, the cosmic rays are particles entering
the local frame of reference from all directions and at extremely high
speeds, together with a variety of secondary particles produced in events
initiated by the primary particles. The secondaries include some common
sub-atomic particles of the material system, such as electrons and
neutrinos, and also a number of transient particles of extremely short
lifetime, from 106 seconds downward, that were unknown prior to
the discovery of the cosmic rays, but have since been produced by
high energy processes in the particle accelerators.
In current thought, the primaries are regarded as ordinary material
atoms. The evidence in favor of this conclusion may be summarized
as follows:
1. Sub-atomic particles are excluded, as they are all incapable, for
one reason or another, of producing the observed effects. This
means that, unless they belong to an otherwise unknown class
of particle, the primary cosmic rays must be atoms.
2. The masses of the atoms that constitute the primaries cannot be
determined at the present stage of instrumentation and techniques,
but it is possible to determine the charges on the individual particles,
and on the assumption that they are fully ionized, this indicates;
the atomic numbers. The distribution of the elements in the incoming
cosmic rays, on this basis, approximates the estimated distribution
in the observed universe as a whole.
In the absence of any known alternative, this amount of evidence
has been sufficient to secure general acceptance of the conclusion that
 Cosmic Elements 179

the primaries are atoms of ordinary material elements. When the issue
as to its validity is raised, however, as it must be when an alternative
appears, it is clear that there are many counterindications in the empirical
data. The most serious items are the following:

1. The speeds and energies of the primaries are too high to be compatible
with production by ordinary physical processes. No known process,
or even a plausible speculative process, based on conventional
physics, is capable of producing energies that extend up to the
vicinity of 102 eV. As expressed in the Encyclopedia Brittanica,
how to explain the acquisition of such energies is a disturbing
physical and cosmological problem.
2. With the exception of some of the relatively low energy rays that
are thought to originate in the sun, most of the primaries have
energies in the range which indicates speeds in the neighborhood
of the speed of light. Inasmuch as some decrease in speed has
undoubtedly taken place before the observations, it is quite probable
on the basis of the observational evidence (that is, disregarding
any purely theoretical limitation) that the rays originally entering
the local environment were traveling at the full speed of light.
This is another indication of an extraordinary origin.
3. While the distribution of elements deduced from the cosmic ray
charges approximates the estimated distribution in the observed
universe as a whole, there are some very significant differences.
For example, the proportion of iron atoms in the cosmic rays is
50 times that in average matter. Lithium has been reported to be
as much as 1000 times as abundant (although some of the lithium
may be a decay product). The cosmic rays therefore cannot be
merely ordinary matter drawn from the common pool and accelerated
to high speeds by some unknown process. They must have originated
from some unusual kind of source. These anomalies in the charge
spectrum of the cosmic rays are given little attention in current
physical thought, probably because they have no known explanation,
but the significance that such deviations from the normal abundance
would have, if confirmed, was clearly recognized at the time when
the first indications of these deviations were observed. For instance,
Hooper and Scharff (1958) made this comment: An excess of
heavy nuclei would suggest the necessity of reconsidering our
fundamental ideas on the origin of the primary radiation. 62
4. All of the major products of the primary rays have extremely short
lifetimes. If they do not undergo collisions before this time has
elapsed, they decay in flight to particles of lower mass and equal
or longer lifetime. There is much available evidence to indicate
180 Nothing but Motion

that this is also true of the primaries. For example, in some of

the observed events a transient particle leaves the scene of the
event in a continuation of the line of travel of the primary, and
carries the bulk of the original energy. The straightforward inter
pretation of such events is that they represent processes in which
the primary decays to the transient particle and continues on its
way. The existence of a substantial number of high energy pions
in the incoming stream of particles is another item of evidence
pointing in the same direction, as similar, but earlier, decays of
primaries will produce pions with very high energies. It has been
estimated that as many as 15 percent of the incoming high energy
particles are pions. The conclusion that can logically be drawn
from the observations is that the primaries are of the same general
nature as the known transient particles, and that the entire cosmic
ray phenomenon is a single process taking place in a succession
of decay eventsa process in which an atom with some strange
and unusual properties is converted first into other similar, but
less massive, particles, and then finally into products that are
compatible with the local environment.

The considerations summarized in the foregoing paragraphs indicate

that the current explanation of the nature of the primary cosmic rays
is not correct. They point to the conclusion that these primaries are
not atoms of material elements, as now believed, but atoms of a special
kind which have characteristics similar to those of the transient particles,
and are produced under some unusual conditions that lead to entry
into the local frame of reference at the full speed of light. Since we
now find from the theoretical development that there is a continuing
inflow of cosmic atoms, which are atoms of a special kind that, according
to the theory, enter our environment at the speed of light, and are
subject to rapid decay in the manner of the observed transient particles,
the identity of the theoretical and observed phenomena is almost self-
evident.
An outstanding characteristic of the results obtained from development
of the consequences of the postulates of the Reciprocal System of
theoryone that we have had occasion to mention several times in
the preceding pagesis the way in which they resolve long-standing
and seemingly extremely difficult questions in a surprisingly simple
manner. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the cosmic
rays, where the finding that these incoming particles are atoms from
the high energy sector of the universe clears up the many previously
intractable issues in this area with remarkable ease.
The basic questions: What are the cosmic rays?, and Where do they
 Cosmic Elements 181

come from?, are answered automatically by the theoretical discovery

of a sector of the universe in which objects with the observed properties
of the cosmic rays are indigenous. The particular properties that charac
terize the constituents of the cosmic rays, and distinguish them from
the constituents of aggregates of ordinary matter, are naturally the ones
that are the most difficult to explain on the basis of current theories
which try to fit them into the material system of phenomena, but these
explanations are practically obvious once the existence of the cosmic
(high energy) sector is recognized.
The energy questions are the central problems. As stated by W. F.
G. Swann, no piece of matter can, under ordinary circumstances,
contain, in any form, enough energy to provide cosmic ray energies
for its particles. 63 But this is only one phase of the energy problem.
The total energy involved is also far too large.
If cosmic rays move in straight lines, as does starlight, and have
the same energy density as starlight, then the power supplies to
each will have to be the same. There seems no conceivable way
to find this much energy for cosmic radiation. (Leverett Davis,
Jr.)64
Here again we meet the There is no other way contention that
is being used to justify so many of the otherwise untenable theories
and assertions of present-day science, and again the development of
the Reciprocal System demonstrates that there is a conceivable way.
But because the cosmic ray physicists have been confined within the
limited horizons of conventional basic ideas, they have not been able
to account for the observed energies on any straightforward basis. They
have therefore been forced to invent exotic hypothetical mechanisms
for acceleration of the cosmic rays from the relatively low energies
that are available in the material sector to the high levels that are actually
observed, and equally far-fetched storage processes to avoid the
difficulty cited by Davis.
The existence of another half of the universe, in which the prevailing
speeds are greater than the speed of light, and the energies of the mass
units are correspondingly great, disposes of both aspects of the energy
issue. There are observable explosion processes in the material sector
(which will be examined in detail in Volume II) that result in the
acceleration of large quantities of matter to speeds in excess of the
speed of light. The most energetic portions of these high-speed explosion
products are ejected into the cosmic sector, the sector of motion in
time. From the general reciprocal relation between space and time we
can deduce that these same processes are operative in the cosmic sector,
and that they result in the ejection of large quantities of cosmic matter
182 Nothing but Motion

into the material sector. This is the matter that we observe in the form
of the cosmic rays.
The characteristics of these interchange processes, as they will be
developed in Volume II, explain why the distribution of the elements
in the cosmic rays differs from the estimated average distribution in
the observed physical universe. It will be shown that the proportion
of heavier elements in matter increases with the age of the matter,
and it will be further shown that the matter ejected from one sector
of the universe into the other consists principally of the oldest (or most
advanced) matter in the originating sector. Thus the cosmic rays are
not representative of cosmic matter in general; they are representative
of the cosmic matter that corresponds to the oldest matter in the material
sector. The isotropic distribution of the incoming rays is likewise a
necessary result of entry from the region of motion in time. Both the
spatial location of entry, and the direction of motion of the particle
after entry, are determined by chance, as the contact of the space and
time motions is purely scalar.
The identification of the cosmic rays as atoms of the cosmic elements
was clear from the beginning of the development of the Reciprocal
System. As stated earlier, the available evidence indicates that these
so-called rays must be atoms. On the other hand, their observed
properties are quite different from those of the atoms of ordinary matter.
The natural conclusion from these facts would be that the atoms of
the cosmic rays are atoms of some different kind. Conventional science
cannot accept this answer because it has no place for the kind of an
atom that is indicated. The physicists have therefore been forced to
conclude that the cosmic rays are ordinary atoms that, for some unknown
reason, have unusual properties. In contrast, the basic postulates of
the Reciprocal System require the existence of a type of atom, the
inverse of the material atom, that has just the kind of characteristics,
when observed in the material sector, that are found in the cosmic
rays.
It should be noted in this connection that the concept of antimatter,
the conventional alternative to the reciprocal matter required by the
postulates of the Reciprocal System, cannot be applied to the cosmic
rays, because the interaction of matter and antimatter is theoretically
supposed to result in annihilation of both substances, rather than the
particle production and other phenomena that are actually observed in
the cosmic ray interactions.
Although only a limited amount of time could be allotted to the cosmic
rays in the early stages of the development of the Reciprocal System,
because of the large number of physical areas that had to be given
some study in order to confirm the status of the theory as one of general
 Cosmic Elements 183

application, the first edition did include an account of the nature and
origin of the primary rays, an explanation of the kind of modifications
that these particles must undergo in the material environment, and a
general description of this modification, or decay , process. In the
meantime there has been substantial progress, both experimentally and
theoretically, and it is now possible to expand the previous presentation
very materially.
The extension of theory in the cosmic ray area that has taken place
in the twenty years since the publication of the first edition provides
a good illustration of what is involved in the development of the theoretical
system from the fundamental postulates. The basic factsthe identity
of the cosmic rays, their place of origin, the reason for their enormous
energies, etc.were almost self-evident once the reciprocal relation
between space and time was recognized. But it cannot be expected
that such an understanding of the basic facts will immediately clear
up all of the multitude of questions that arise in the course of developing
the details of the theoretical structure. The answers to these questions
are available. They can be derived from the fundamentals of the system
of theory. But they do not emerge automatically.
Where a theory is developed entirely by deduction from a single set
of premises, as is true of the Reciprocal System, there should not be
many cases in which wrong answers are reached, if the theoretical
foundations are solid, and due care is exercised in the logical development.
Only a very few of the conclusions stated in the first edition of this
work have been invalidated by the twenty years of additional study
that have followed. But it is altogether unrealistic to expect that the
first exploration of a physical field by means of a totally new method
of approach will accurately identify all of the significant features of
the phenomena in that field. It is a virtual certainty that many of the
original conclusions will be incomplete. Here, again, the Reciprocal
System is no exception.
The explanation of cosmic ray decay that will be given in the next
chapter is, in all essential respects, the same explanation that was
presented in the first edition. However, the development of the theoretical
structure in the intervening years has brought to light many necessary
consequences of the postulates of the Reciprocal System that have a
significant bearing on the decay process and contribute to a more complete
understanding of the decay events. These new items of information
include such things as the existence of a transition zone, the two-dimen
sional nature of the motion in that zone, the existence of the massless
form of the neutron, and the nature of the limitation on the lifetimes
of the cosmic particles. With the benefit of all of this additional theoretical
knowledge, and a substantial increase in the amount of available empirical
184 Nothing but Motion

information, it will be possible to define the decay sequence more

accurately. Nevertheless, the presentation in Chapter 15 is not a new
explanation of the phenomenon; it is the same explanation in more
complete form.
 CHAPTER 15

Cosmic Ray Decay

On the basis of the information developed in Chapter 14 we may
describe the cosmic rays in general terms as cosmic atoms and particles
which enter the material environment at the speed of light, at random
spatial locations, and with random directions. Here, then, are the contents
of the cosmic sector of the universe as they appear, very fleetingly,
to our observation. We will now examine what happens to these objects
after they arrive.
In the earliest observed stages the cosmic particles are known as
the primary cosmic rays. As many observers have pointed out, there
is no assurance that these are the original rays, as the decay process
may have already begun before the primary rays are observed. The
theoretical development indicates that this is, indeed, true, as the primaries
contain a considerable percentage of particles that are clearly decay
products rather than normal constituents of the original rays. In the
subsequent discussion we will follow the general practice, and will refer
to the observed incoming particles as the primary rays, but it should
be understood that this does not imply that the observed primaries are
identical with the particles that originally crossed the boundary into
the material sector.
Since the cosmic rays enter the material sector from a region in which
the prevailing speeds are greater than unity, these particles make their
entry at the speed of light. It is the decrease from a speed greater
than unity to a speed less than unity which constitutes entry into the
material sector, but the dividing line between the cosmic sector and
the material sector is unit speed in all three scalar dimensions. The
speed of the primaries therefore remains at or near unity in the observable
dimension even after the speed, in total, has decreased to some extent.
This accounts for the previously noted fact that the observed speeds
of the incoming particles are mainly close to the speed of light.
Inasmuch as these speeds, and the corresponding kinetic energies,
are greatly in excess of the normal speeds and energies of the material
sector, transfer of the excess kinetic energy to the environment begins
immediately on entry. Gravitational and electromagnetic forces, to which
the cosmic atom is subject as soon as it crosses the boundary accomplish

185
186 Nothing but Motion

part of the energy reduction. Contact with material particles is also

an important factor, and a further loss occurs in connection with the
reduction of the internal energy that must also take place.
The cosmic atoms of maximum energy content (kinetic equivalent) are
those of the most abundant cosmic elements: c-hydrogen and c-helium.
The principal constituents of the cosmic rays, the cosmic elements of
low atomic number, are therefore not only entering the material frame
of reference at speeds which are far too high to be compatible with
the material environment, but are also entering in the form of structures
whose internal energy (rotational displacement) content is also much
too great. These elements must lose rotational energy, as well as kinetic
energy, before they can assume forms that will merge with the material
phenomena. The required loss of rotational energy from the atomic
structures is accomplished by ejection of particles of an appropriate
nature. A readjustment of some kind in the atomic motions is required
at very short intervals, and the probability principles insure that the
direction of the rearrangements is toward greater stability. In the material
environment this means a reduction of the excess rotational energy.
At the present stage of the theoretical development it appears that
the limitation of the lifetimes of the cosmic elements to extremely short
intervals is due to the fact that the rotation in the cosmic structure
takes place at a speed greater than unity, and this structure therefore
moves inward in time, rather than in space. Consequently, it can exist
in a stationary spatial frame of reference for only one unit of time.
If it is moving translationally at a speed above unity in all scalar
dimensions, as is true of most of the cosmic atoms encountered by
chance in our passage through time, it moves away from the line of
the time progression of the material sector, and disappears. But this
option is not available to cosmic atoms that have dropped below unit
speed, and instead, they separate into two or more particles, each of
which then has its own appropriate lifetime.
The natural unit of time, in application to macroscopic physical
phenomena, was evaluated in Chapter 13 as 1.521 x 10 16seconds. Some
of the observed particles have lifetimes in this neighborhood, but others
range all the way from about 106 setonds to about 1024 seconds.
As will be brought out later, the magnitude of the deviation from unit
time has been correlated with the dimensions of the spatial motion of
the particles, but the exact nature of the modifying factor has not yet
been identified, and for the present we will treat it as a modifier of
the unit of time, similar to the inter-regional ratio that modifies the
unit of space in application to the time region.
The limiting lifetime to which the foregoing comments apply is the
limit at zero speed. At higher speeds, the lifetime, as measured by
 Cosmic Ray Decay 187

a conventional clock, increases in accordance with the relations expressed

in the Lorentz equations, which, as noted earlier, are equally as applicable
in the Reciprocal System of theory as in conventional physics. The
explanation of this longer life that we deduce from theory is that the
particle can remain intact in the spatial reference system as long as
it remains in the same unit of time. But an object moving at the speed
of light remains in the same unit of time (in the natural system, which
is controlling) permanently, and such an object can exist indefinitely
in any system of reference. The decrease in life at the lower speeds
follows the mathematical pattern derived by Lorentz. From the foregoing
it is evident that the primary cosmic rays, moving at the speed of light,
did not necessarily enter the material sector in our immediate vicinity.
The rays that we observe may have entered anywhere in interstellar,
or even in intergalactic, space.
In general, as pointed out in the first edition, the successive steps
of the decay process which the cosmic atoms undergo after their entry
consist of ejections of rotational displacement in the form of massless
particles, which continue until the residual cosmic element reaches a
status in which it can be transformed into a material structure. Of course,
nothing physical can be transformed into something different. Only in
the world of magic is that possible. A physical entity can be altered
by addition or removal of some constituent, but it can be transformed
only into some other form of the same thing, as the term itself implies.
In the case of the elements the transformation is made possible by
the specific relation between the space and time zero points.
As explained in Chapter 12, the difference between a positive speed
displacement x and the corresponding negative speed displacement Sx
(or 4 x in the case of two-dimensional motion) is simply a matter
of the orientation of the motion with respect to these space and time
zero points. The rotational motions of material atoms and particles are
all oriented on the basis of the spatial (positive) zero, because, as noted
earlier, it is this orientation that enables the rotational combination to
remain in a fixed spatial reference system. Similarly, the cosmic atoms
and particles are oriented on the basis of the temporal (negative) zero,
and are therefore capable of remaining permanently within a fixed
temporal reference system, whereas they have only a transient existence
in a spatial system. The only difference between a motion with a positive
speed displacement x and one with a negative speed displacement Sx
(or 4x) is in this orientation of the scalar direction. Either can therefore
be converted to the other by a directional inversion.
For example, if the negative magnetic displacements of the cosmic
helium atoms, (2)-(l)-0, are replaced by the 4x positive values, this
inverts the scalar directions of the rotations without altering the nature
188 Nothing but Motion

or magnitude of either of the rotational components. The product, an

atom of the material element argon, 2-3-0 (or 3-2-0 in our usual notation)
is therefore the same physical object as the cosmic helium atom. It
is merely moving in a different scalar direction. Conversion of cosmic
helium into argon is nothing more than a change to another form of
the same thing, and thus it is a physical possibility that can be accomplished
under the right conditions and by the appropriate processes.
Every atom of either the cosmic or the material type in which the
speed displacements do not exceed 3 in either of the magnetic dimensions
or 7 in the electric dimension has an equivalent oppositely directed
structure. This is illustrated in the following table of equivalents of
cosmic and material elements of the inert gas series, the elements with
no effective displacement in the electric dimension.
Cosmic System Material System
c-helium (2)-(l)-0 2-3-0 argon
c-neon (2)-(2)-0 2-2-0 neon
c-argon (3)-(2)-0 1-2-0 helium
c-krypton (3)-(3)-0 1-1-0 2 neutrons

It does not follow that a direct conversion of an atom of such an

element to the equivalent inverse structure is always possible. On the
contrary, it is seldom possible. For instance, in order to convert the
cosmic helium atom directly to argon the rotations in the two magnetic
dimensions would have to be inverted simultaneously, and at the same
time the approximately 40 mass units required by the argon atom would
have to be obtained from somewhere. The c-helium atom cannot meet
these requirements, so at the end of the appropriate unit of time when
it must do something, it does what it can do; that is, it ejects a massless
particle. This carries away some positive rotational displacement, and
moves the residual cosmic atom up the series of elements toward a
higher cosmic atomic number, the equivalent of a lower material atomic
number.
This process continues until the residual cosmic atom is c-krypton,
each rotating system of which is equivalent to a neutron. Here the
transformation requirements can be met, as the inversion of each rotation
involves only a single effective unit, and no provision for addition of
mass is necessary, since the product of the conversion is a massless
neutron. The scalar directions of the c-krypton motions therefore invert,
and two massless neutrons take their places in the material system.
The question as to what then happens to these particles will be discussed
in Chapter 17.
 Cosmic Ray Decay 189

The general nature of the cosmic ray decay process, as described

in the foregoing paragraphs, was clear from the start of the investigation
of the role of the cosmic rays in the theoretical universe of the Reciprocal
System. It was therefore evident that the ej ections during this decay
process must consist of positive rotational displacement in order that
the cosmic atoms would be modified in the direction of greater stability
in the material environment and ultimately built up to the level where
conversion is possible. In the first edition these ejections were discussed
in terms of neutrons and neutron equivalents, although it was noted
that, in the terrestrial environment at least, they must be massless.
Transfer of mass in these events is impossible, as the cosmic atoms
have no actual mass. The mass indicated by their behavior in the observed
reactions is merely the mass equivalent of the cosmic (inverse) mass
that these atoms of the cosmic elements actually do possess. What these
atoms must eject is positive magnetic rotational displacement, and this
can only take place through the medium of massless particles. The
conclusion reached in the earlier study was that in these ejection events
the carrier particles must be pairs of neutrinos and positrons (j ointly
equivalent to neutrons rotationally, but massless) rather than neutrons
of the observed type. The more recent finding that the neutron exists
in a massless form now resolves this difficulty, as it is now evident
that the ejected particles are massless neutrons.
The progress that has been made in both the observational and the
theoretical fields has also enabled defining the decay path more accurately
and in more detail than was possible in the first edition. Inasmuch as
all features of the cosmic sector of the universe are identical with the
corresponding features of the material sector, except that space and
time are interchanged, the matter accelerated to high speeds by cosmic
explosions of astonomical magnitude includes all of the components
of cosmic matter: sub-atomic particles and atoms of all of the elements.
But in order to be accelerated all the way to unity in three dimensions,
a particle must offer a full unit of resistance in all three dimensions.
Consequently, the only particles that are able to accelerate up to the
escape speeds are the double rotating systems, the atoms. The unit
particle in the interchange between the cosmic and material sectors is
the atom of unit atomic number, the mass two isotope of hydrogen
(deuterium). The mass one isotope of hydrogen does not qualify as
a full-sized unit, but it lacks only the equivalent of a cosmic massless
neutron, and this can be provided by ejection of a massless neutron
of the material type. When subjected to a powerful explosive acceleration
the H1 atom therefore ejects such a particle and assumes the H2 status.
The sub-atomic particles are not capable of being accelerated to the
190 Nothing but Motion

escape speed. They are all either inherently massless, or easily separated
into massless components, and when they reach their limiting speeds
they take the massless forms and thereby terminate the acceleration.
The total absence of sub-atomic particles in the cosmic rays that results
from this inability to reach the escape speed is not currently recognized
because the singly charged particles are mistakenly identified as protons,
and the cosmic atoms in the decay sequencemesons, in the conventional
terminologyare accorded a somewhat indefinite kind of a sub-atomic
status. But the absence of electrons is a conspicuous and puzzling feature
of the cosmic ray phenomenon, and it imposes some severe constraints
on theories which try to account for the origin of the rays.
An effect so gross as to exclude completely high energy electrons
from the spectrum at the earth should, it would seem, be accounted
for unambiguously by any successful theory for the origin of the
cosmic radiation. (T. M. Donahue)65
The unambiguous explanation is now available. No sub-atomic particles
are present in the original cosmic rays because these particles are not
capable of accelerating to the high inverse speeds necessary for entry
into the material sector.
The cosmic property of inverse mass is observed in the material sector
as a mass of inverse magnitude. Where a material atom has a mass
of Z units on the atomic number scale, the corresponding cosmic atom
has an inverse mass of Z units, which is observed in the material sector
as if it were a mass of 1/Z units. The masses of the particles with
which we are now concerned are conventionally expressed in terms
of million electron volts (MeV). One atomic mass unit (amu) is equivalent
to 931.152 MeV. The atomic number equivalent is twice this amount,
or 1862.30 MeV. The primary rotational mass of an element of atomic
number Z is then 1862.30 Z MeV, and that of a cosmic element of
atomic number Z is 1862.30/Z MeV. Where the atomic mass m is
expressed in terms of atomic weight, this becomes 3724.61 /m MeV.
As matters now stand, neither the theoretical calculations nor the
observations of the masses of the cosmic elements above hydrogen in
the cosmic atomic series are sufficiently accurate to justify taking the
secondary mass into consideration. The theoretical discussion of the
masses of these elements will therefore be confined to the primary mass
only, disregarding the small modification due to the secondary mass
effect. For the same reasons, both the calculated and observed values
in the comparisons that follow will be stated in terms of the nearest
whole number of MeV. An exception has been made in the case of
hydrogen, because the secondary mass of this element under normal
conditions is relatively large, and the probability that it will be altered
 Cosmic Ray Decay 191

by changes in environmental conditions is relatively small. Since the

mass of a material H2 atom is 1.007405 on the atomic number scale,
the mass of a cosmic H2 atom is the reciprocal of this figure, or 0.99265
units. This is equivalent to 1848.61 MeV.
At this point it will be necessary to recognize that the combinations
of motions that constitute the atoms of the elements, both material
and cosmic, are capable of acquiring additional motion components of
a different kind, each unit of which alters the mass of the atom by
one atomic weight unit. It will be convenient to defer the detailed
consideration of this new type of motion, which we will call a gravitational
charge, until we are ready to discuss the entire class of motions to
which it belongs, but for present purposes we need to note that each
material element of atomic number Z exists in a number of different
forms, or isotopes, each of which has atomic weight 2Z+ G, where G
is the number of gravitational charges. The normal mass of the corre
sponding cosmic isotopes is the reciprocal of 2Z+ G, but when the cosmic
atoms enter the material environment they are able to add gravitational
charges of the material (positive) type to the cosmic combinations of
motions (including the gravitational charges of the cosmic (negative)
type, if any). Each such material type charge adds one atomic weight
unit, or 931.15 M eV, to the isotopic mass of the cosmic atom.
In the first edition it was recognized that the incoming cosmic rays
would consist primarily of c-hydrogen, but at that time there were no
observational indications of any cosmic ray particles in the hydrogen
mass range, and the extension of the theoretical development to the
questions of scalar motion in two dimensions and the lifetimes of the
cosmic atoms had not yet been undertaken. The exact theoretical status
of the incoming c-hydrogen atoms was therefore still uncertain. Inasmuch
as the mesons then known were mainly cosmic elements of the inert
gas series, it was concluded that the original c-hydrogen atoms must
be stripped of their one-dimensional rotation and reduced to the two-
dimensional (inert gas) condition almost immediately on crossing the
speed boundary. In the meantime, however, the investigators have been
able to extend their observations to earlier portions of the decay path,
and they have recently discovered a short-lived particle with a mass
that is reported as 3695 MeV.
Identification of this 3695 psi particle as a cosmic deuteron with
two material isotopic charges 66 by Ronald W. Satz was the crucial
theoretical advance that opened the door to a clarification of the status
of cosmic hydrogen. This now enables us to close the gap, and trace
the progress of the cosmic atom from its entry into the material sector
in the form of cosmic hydrogen (c-H2) all the way to its final transformation
into material particles.
192 Nothing but Motion

For reasons which will be explained in Volume II, the cosmic atom
has an effective translational motion in two of the three scalar dimensions
at the neutral point where it enters the material half of the universe.
The terrestrial environment, into which the observable cosmic atoms
enter, is favorable for the acquisition of gravitational charges of the
material type. Each of the two dimensions of motion therefore adds
such a charge. The two charges acquired by the c-H2 atom add 1862.30
MeV to the 1848.61 MeV mass equivalent of the cosmic mass, bringing
the total mass of this, the first of the theoretical cosmic ray particles,
to 3710.91 MeV. The mass of the newly discovered psi particle is reported
as 3695 MeV. In view of the many uncertainties involved in the
observations, this can be regarded as consistent with the theoretical
value.
As mentioned earlier, the particle lifetimes are correlated with the
dimensions of the spatial motions that the particles acquire, the transla
tional motion and the gravitational charges. While the theoretical situation
has not yet been clarified, we find empirically that the life of a particle
with two dimensions of scalar motion in space and no gravitational
charge is about 10 16 seconds, approximately the natural unit of time.
Each dimension of motion modifies the unit of time applicable to the
particle life by approximately 10-8, while each gravitational charge
modifies the unit by about 10-2. On this basis, the following approximate
lifetimes are applicable:
Dimensions Charges Life (sec) Dimensions Charges Life (sec)
3 0 10"24 1 1 10"10
2 2 10~20 1 0 10"8
2 0 10"16
The reported lifetime of the 3695 psi particle is in the neighborhood
of 10_2 seconds, which agrees with the theoretical determ ination of
the dimensions of motion on which the mass calculation is based.
The general decay pattern defined in the preceding pages indicates
that c-H2 should undergo an ejection of positive rotational displacement,
converting it to c-He3. From the expression 3724.61/m, we obtain 1242
MeV as the rotational mass of c-He3, to which we add the mass of
two gravitational charges for a total of 3104 MeV. The observed 3695
particle decays to another psi particle with a reported mass of 3105
MeV, and a life of about 1020 seconds. This second particle can clearly
be identified with the c-He3atom. Thus the observed masses, the lifetimes,
and the decay pattern all confirm the basic identification of the c-hydrogen
particle by Satz.
Another decay of the same kind would produce c-He4, and it is probable
that some particles of this composition are occasionally formed. Indeed,
 Cosmic Ray Decay 193

any cosmic atom between c-hydrogen and c-krypton may appear in the
cosmic ray products. But the probabilities favor certain specific cosmic
elements, and these are the products that constitute the normal decay
sequence we are now examining. The speeds of the cosmic rays and
their decay products decrease rapidly in the material environment, and
by the time the decay of c-He3 is due the additional energy loss in
the decay process is usually sufficient to drop the cosmic residue into
the speed range below unity. The consequent elimination of the motion
in the second scalar dimension results in a double decay which adds
two atomic weight units to the cosmic atom. The product is c-Li5.
Further increases in the inverse mass of the residual cosmic atom
by successive additions of single atomic weight units would be possible,
but the probabilities favor larger steps as the material equivalent of
a cosmic unit increment continues decreasing. The one unit increment
in each of the two steps from c-He3 to c-Li5 is therefore followed by
a series of increments that are uniformly one atomic weight unit larger
in each successive decay, except for the step between c-N14 and c-Ne20,
where the increase over the size of the previous increment is two units.
On this basis, the two 1-unit increments that produce c-Li5 are followed
by a 2-unit increment to c-Be7, a 3-unit increment to c-B10, a 4-unit
increment to c-N14, and a 6-unit increment to c-Ne20. These decay products
are not capable of retaining both of the gravitational charges of their
precursors, but they keep one of the charges, and all of the cosmic
elements identified as members of this section of the decay sequence
have masses which include a 931.15 gravitational increment, as well
as the basic mass equivalent of the cosmic element, 1862.30/Z MeV.
The indicated life of a cosmic atom with one gravitational charge, after
dropping into the range of one-dimensional motion, is about 10 10seconds.
These theoretical masses and lifetimes are in agreement with the observed
properties of the class of transient cosmic ray particles known as hyperons,
as indicated in the following tabulation:

MASS
Element Particle Calculated Observed Lifetime
c-Li5 omega 1676 1673 1.30 X 10
c-B10 xi 1304 1321 1.67 X 10
c-N14 sigma 1197 1197 1.48 X 10
c-Ne20 lambda 1117 1116 2.52 X 10

The masses given are those of the negatively charged particles. Positive
electric charges and other variable factors introduce a fine structure
into the numerical values of the properties of the particles that has
not yet been studied in the context of the Reciprocal System.
194 Nothing but Motion

The observed decay pattern is in agreement with the theory, so far

as its general direction is concerned; that is, all of the members of
the series decay in such a manner that the eventual result is c-neon.
It is still uncertain, however, whether the decay always passes through
all of the stages identified with the normal sequence, or whether this
sequence is subject to modification, either by omission of one or more
of the steps, or by a variation in the size of the ejections of time
displacement. The c-Be7 atom, mass 1463 MeV, for instance, is not
listed in the tabulation, as its identification with an observed particle
of mass 1470 MeV is rather uncertain. This does not preclude its definite
identification as a decay product eventually. It may be noted in this
connection that the omega particle (c-Li5) was found only as a result
of an intensive search stimulated by a theoretical prediction. However,
the fact that the last three members of this hyperon series (which were
the first to be discovered and are still the best known) are separated
by only one decay step, suggests that there is little, if any, deviation
from the normal sequence in those cases where the full range of decay
from c-He to c-Ne is involved.
When we examine the properties of gravitational charges at a later
stage of the theoretical development we will find that the stability of
these charges is a function of the atomic number. The mathematical
expression of this relation which we will derive from theory indicates
that the stability limit for a double gravitational charge in the terrestrial
environment falls between the material equivalents of c-He3 and c-Li5.
This accounts for the previously mentioned fact that c-Li5and the elements
above it in the cosmic series are incapable of retaining two gravitational
charges. But the center of the zone of stability for these elements is
closer to the +1 isotope (one gravitational charge) than to the zero
isotope (the basic rotation), and for this reason they are all singly
(gravitationally) charged, as indicated in the preceding discussion. From
c-Si27 upward in the cosmic series, the center of the zone of stability
is closer to the zero isotope, and these elements carry no gravitational
charges.
Without the gravitational charge, the mass of c-Si27, the decay product
resulting from a 7-unit addition to c-Ne20, is 137.95 MeV, and the low
speed lifetime is about 10-8 seconds. The corresponding observed particle
is the pion, with measured mass 139.57 MeV, and lifetime 2.602 x 10-8
seconds.
Pions are frequently reported as products of observed cosmic ray
events initiated by primaries. As we will see in the next chapter, such
production is quite feasible where there is a violent contact of some
kind, with the release of a large amount of energy, but direct production
of pions in decay is not consistent with the decay pattern as derived
 Cosmic Ray Decay 195

from theory. The apparent direct production is, however, understandable

when the relative lifetimes of the pion and the earlier decay products
are taken into consideration. There is no reason to believe that normal
decay in flight will result in any change of direction. Ejection of massless
particles will take care of the conservation requirements without the
necessity of directional modification. Because the entire decay process
up to the production of the pion occupies only a very short time compared
to the lifetime of the pion itself, it is unlikely that the usual methods
of observation will be able to distinguish between a pion and a cosmic
particle undergoing a complete decay to the pion status in flight.
In the kind of a situation mentioned in Chapter 14, for instance, where
a pion apparently leaves the scene of an event in a continuation of
the direction of motion of the primary, and carries the bulk of the
original energy, leading to the conclusion that the primary decayed directly
to the pion, there is nothing in the observations that is inconsistent
with the theoretical conclusion that during a short interval at the beginning
of the motion attributed to the pion, the cosmic particle was actually
going through the preceding steps in the decay sequence.
The next event in this decay sequence, the decay of the pion, involves
an 8-unit increment to c-Ar35. Again the zero isotope is the stable form.
This leads to a mass of 106.42 MeV and a theoretical life equal to
that of the pion. The observed particle is the muon, with mass 105.66
MeV, formed by decay of the pion, as required by the theory.
Both the decay to c-Si27 (the pion) and the subsequent decay to c-Ar35
(the muon) continue the same pattern of a uniform one unit increase
in the cosmic mass increment in each succeeding event that was followed
in the earlier decay steps. But inasmuch as c-argon is equivalent to
helium, which, from the material standpoint, is only one step away
from the neutron that is the end product of the decay process, the
following ejection of positive displacement carries the cosmic atom to
the final cosmic structure, c-krypton. Each of the two rotating systems
of the c-Kr atom is rotationally equivalent to a neutron, and converts
to that particle. Since c-Kr is massless (that is, its observed mass is
merely the mass equivalent of the inverse mass of the cosmic sector)
the conversion products are massless neutrons, or their equivalents,
pairs of neutrinos and positrons. Some of the aspects of this conversion
process will be given further consideration in Chapter 17.
Unlike the decay events, which involve changes in the atomic structure,
and therefore do not take place until they must, the conversion of the
c-krypton rotations to massless neutrons is merely a change in scalar
direction to conform with the new environment, and it takes place as
soon as it can do so. Consequently, the c-krypton atom, as such, has
a zero lifetime. As soon as the particle ejection from c-argon takes
196 Nothing but Motion

place, the conversion to massless neutrons begins. In view of the

non-appearance of c-krypton, the apparent lifetime of c-argon, the muon,
is the sum of its own proper lifetime and the conversion time. The
value reported from observation is 2.20 x 10"6 seconds. A theoretical
explanation of this value is not yet available, but it is probably significant
that the difference between this and the life of an uncharged particle
moving in one dimension, about 10-8 seconds, is approximately that
associated with a gravitational charge.
The absence of the c-krypton atom from the decay process is not
due to any abnormal instability of this cosmic atom itself, but to the
preference for the alternate scalar direction that prevails in the material
environment. In the reverse process, where the directional preference
favors the c-krypton atom over the neutron alternate, it plays a prominent
part, as we will see in Chapter 16.
In those cases where the incoming cosmic atom is not in the normal
decay sequence it ejects enough positive displacement in one or two
decay events to reach one of the positions in that sequence, after which
it follows the normal path in the same manner as the products of the
decay of cosmic hydrogen. However, these heavier elements are beyond
the stability limit for two gravitational charges, in a low energy environ
ment, and consequently they do not form structures analogous to the
psi particles. This has the effect of increasing the probability that some
of the decay products that normally carry one gravitational charge will
occasionally be found in the uncharged condition. The one allowable
charge would result in an asymmetrical structure during the time that
the speed of these particles is in the two-dimensional range, and if
they are observed at this stage they are likely to be uncharged (gravita-
tionally). The uncharged lifetime for a particle moving two-dimensionally
is approximately one natural unit of time, or about 10"16 seconds. Such
a life is the most definite indication that an observed particle is in this
early stage of the decay process.
For example, the eta particle, with observed mass 549 MeV and a
life of .25 X 10 16 seconds is probably a gravitationally uncharged c-Be7
atom, which theoretically has a mass of 532 MeV. A more questionable
identification equates the rho particle with c-Li5. The theoretical mass
in this case is 745 MeV, and the observed values range from 750 to
770, the more recent measurements being the higher. The rho lifetime
has been reported as about 10-23 seconds, but this is too short to be
a decay time. It is evidently a fragmentation time, a concept which
will be explained in connection with the discussion of particle production
in the accelerators. Both c-Li5and c-Be7are in the normal decay sequence,
a fact which lends some support to the foregoing identifications. The
 Cosmic Ray Decay 197

reported observations of particles that are outside the normal decay

sequence will be given some further consideration in the next chapter.
If the incoming cosmic atom is above c-krypton in the cosmic atomic
series, so that it cannot enter the normal decay sequence in the manner
of the elements of lower atomic number, it must nevertheless separate
into parts at the end of the appropriate unit of time, and since it cannot
eject massless neutrons as the lighter atoms do, it fragments into smaller
units, which then follow the normal decay path.
 C HAPTER 16

Cosmic A tom Building

In essence, the cosmic ray decay is a process whereby high energy
combinations of motions that are unstable at speeds less than that of
light are converted in a series of steps to low energy structures that
are stable at the lower speeds. A requirement that must be met in order
to make the process feasible is the existence of a low energy environment
that can serve as a sink for the energy that must be withdrawn from
the cosmic structures. Where a high energy environment is created,
either fortuitously or deliberately, the decay process is reversed, and
cosmic elements of lower atomic number are produced from cosmic
elements of higher atomic number, or from material particles, kinetic
energy being absorbed from the environment to meet the additional
energy requirements.
The first step in the reverse process is the inverse of the last step
in the decay process: a neutron equivalent is converted into one of
the rotating systems of a cosmic krypton atom by inversion of the
orientation with respect to the space-time zero points. It is convenient,
from a practical standpoint, to work with electrically charge# particles.
The standard technique in the production of transient particles therefore
is to use protons, or hydrogen atoms which fragment to protons, as
the raw material for cosmic atom building. In the m gfr energy
environment that is created in the production apparatus, the particle
accelerators, the proton, M l-l-(l), ejects an electron, M 0-0-(l), and
then separates into two massless neutrons, M ^-^0, each of which
converts to a half c-Kr atom (that is, one of the rotating systems of
that atom) by directional inversion. These half c-Kr atoms cannot add
displacement and become muons because they are unable to dispose
of the proton mass, which persists as a gravitational charge (half of
the normal size, as the proton has only one rotating system). They
remain as particles of a distinct type, each with half of the c-Kr mass
(52 MeV), and half of the 931 MeV mass of a normal gravitational
charge, the total being 492 MeV. They can be identified as K mesons,
or kaons, the observed mass of which is 494 MeV.
As can be seen from the foregoing, the initial production of transient
(cosmic) particles in the accelerators is always accompanied by a copious

199
200 Nothing but Motion

production of kaons. Each of the subsequent steps in the cosmic atom

building process that requires the addition of mass, such as the production
of c-neon (the lambda particle) from c-silicon (the pion) and the production
of the psi-3105 particle from one of the heaviest of the hyperons, is
similar to the initial cosmic particle production, except that the full
proton mass is added to the product as a gravitational charge instead
of forming a kaon. Where kaons appear in connection with the production
of these particles, they are the result of secondary processes.
Furthermore, kaons are not produced in the decay processes, either
in the cosmic rays or in the accelerators, because the decay takes place
on a massless basis. A few kaons appear in the cosmic ray decay events,
but they are not decay products. They are produced in collisions of
cosmic rays with material atoms under conditions such that a temporary
excess of energy is createdin miniature equivalents of the particle
accelerators, we may say.
If the reverse process, the atom building process, is carried beyond
c-hydrogen the final particle vanishes into the cosmic sector. Otherwise,
the cosmic atom building which takes place in the material sector is
eventually succeeded by a decay that follows the normal path back
to the point of reconversion into massless neutrons. Where the excess
kinetic energy in the environment is too great to permit the decay to
proceed to completion, the production and decay processes arrive at
an equilibrium consistent with the existing energy level.
In such a high energy environment, the life of a particle may be
terminated by a fragmentation process before the unit time limitation
takes effect. This is simply a process of breaking the particle into two
or more separate parts. The degree of fragmentation depends on the
energy of the disruptive forces, and at the lower energy levels the products
of fragmentation of any transient particle are mainly pions. At higher
energies kaons appear, and in the fragmentation of hyperons the mass
of the gravitational charges may come off in the form of neutrons or
protons. Corresponding to fragmentation is the inverse process of
consolidation, in which particles of smaller mass join to form particles
of larger mass. Thus a <|> particle, with a mass measured as 1020 MeV,
has been observed to fragment into two kaons. The 36 MeV excess
mass goes into kinetic energy. Under appropriate conditions, the two
kaons may consolidate to form a c|>particle, utilizing 36 MeV of kinetic
energy to supply the necessary addition to the mass of the two smaller
particles.
The essential difference between the two pairs of processesbuilding
and decay on the one hand, and fragmentation and consolidation on
the otheris that building and decay proceed from higher to lower
cosmic atomic number, and vice versa, whereas fragmentation and
 Cosmic Atom Building 201

consolidation proceed from greater to less equivalent mass per particle,

and vice versa. The decay process as a whole is a conversion from
cosmic status to material status, and the atom building in the particle
accelerators is a partial and temporary reversal of this process, but
fragmentation and consolidation are merely changes in the state of the
atomic constituents, a process that is common in both sectors.
The change in cosmic atomic number due to fragmentation may be
either upward or downward, in contrast to the decay process, which
always results in an increase in the cosmic atomic number. This difference
is a consequence of the manner in which the mass of the gravitational
charges enters into the respective processes. For example, the decay
of c-Si, the pion, is in the direction of c-Kr. On the other hand, the
kaon, a gravitationally charged c-Kr atom, cannot decay into any other
cosmic particle, as it is at the end of the line so far as decay is concerned,
but it can fragment into any combination of particles whose combined
mass does not exceed the 492 MeV kaon mass. Fragmentation into
pions reverses the direction of the decay. If the maximum conversion
to pions (mass 138 MeV each) takes place, three pions are produced.
Frequently, a larger part of the total energy goes into the kinetic energy
of the products, and the production of pions decreases to two.
The existence of both 2-pion and 3-pion events has been given a
great deal of attention because of the bearing that they have on various
hypotheses as to the laws that govern particle transformations. The
present study indicates, however, that if the basic requirement, an excess
energy environment, is met, so that conversion of the kaon to the material
status is prevented, there are no restrictions on the fragmentation
reactions, other than those considerations that are applicable to matter
and energy in general in the material sector of the universe.
The study of the transient particles, which had its origin in the
observation of the cosmic rays, is now carried on mainly in the accelera
tors. It is assumed that the same particles and the same processes are
involved, and that the details thereof can be more conveniently ascertained
where the conditions are subject to control. This is true, to a degree,
of course, but the situation in the accelerators is much more complex
than that to which the incoming cosmic rays are subject. The atom
building process does not merely invert the decay process. The actual
inverse of the cosmic ray decay is a situation in which material elements
enter a cosmic (high energy) environment and eject negative displacement
in order to build up into structures that can ultimately convert to the
cosmic status. The cosmic entities initially produced in this process
are sub-atomic particles. The accelerators, however, produce the cosmic
elements that are closest to conversion to the material status (c-Kr,
etc.), and then drive them back up the decay path by creating temporary
202 Nothing but Motion

energy concentrations in the material (low energy) environment. Because

of the uneven character of these concentrations of energy, cosmic atom
building in the accelerators is accompanied by numerous events of the
inverse (decay) character, and by various fragmentation and consolidation
processes that involve neither building nor decay. Many of the phenomena
observed in the accelerator experiments are therefore peculiar to the
kind of environment existing in the accelerators, and are not encountered
in either the cosmic ray decay or in normal cosmic atom building.
It should also be kept in mind that the actual observations of these
events, the raw data, have little meaning in themselves. In order
to acquire any real significance they must be interpreted in the light
of some kind of a theory as to what is happening, and in such areas
as particle physics the final conclusion is often ten percent fact and
ninety percent interpretation. The theoretical findings of this work are
in agreement with the experimental results, and they also agree with
the conclusions of the experimenters in most cases, but it can hardly
be expected that the agreement will be complete where there are so
many uncertainties in the interpretation of the experimental results.
The sequence of events in cosmic atom building in the accelerators
has been observed experimentally in the so-called resonance experi
ments. These involve accelerating two streams of particlesstable or
transientto extremely high speeds and allowing them to collide. The
relation of the amount of interaction, the cross-section, to the energy
involved is not constant, but shows peaks or resonances at certain
farily well-defined values. This result is interpreted as indicating the
production of very short-lived particles (indicated lifetime about 10~23
seconds) at the energies of the resonance peaks. This interpretation
is confirmed in this work by the agreement of the sequences of resonance
particles with the theoretical results of the cosmic atom building process.
Because of the difference in the nature of the processes, the sequence
of elements in cosmic atom building is not the inverse of the decay
sequence, although most of the decay products above c-He are included.
As brought out in Chapter 15, the decay process is essentially a matter
of ejecting positive rotational displacement. There is also a decrease
in equivalent mass, but the mass loss is a secondary effect. The primary
objective of the process is to get rid of the excess rotational energy.
In the atom building process in a high energy environment the necessary
energy is readily available, and the essential task is to provide the required
mass. This is supplied in the form of c-Kr atoms, mass 51.73 each.
The full sequence of cosmic atoms in the building process therefore
consists of a series of elements, the successive members of which differ
by 52 MeV. Aside from the lower end of the series, where two of
the 52 MeV units are required per cosmic atomic weight unit, the only
 Cosmic Atom Building 203

TABLE 4
COSMIC ATOM BUILDING SEQUENCE
Atomic Atomic
Number Element Mass 51.73 n
36 *c-Kr 52 52
18 *c-A 103 103
12 c-Mg 155 155
(10) *c-Ne 186
9 c-F 207 207
(8) c-O 232
7 *c-N 266 259
6 c-C 310 310
5 *c-B10 372 362
4-1/2 c-B9 414
4 c-Be8 466 466
3-1/2 *c-Be7 532 517
569
3 c-Li6 621 621
672
2-1/2 *c-Li5 745 724
decay sequence

signifi cant deviations from this pattern in the experimental results are
that c-B9 is absent, while c-Ne (a member of the decay sequence) and
c-O appear in lieu of, or in addition to, c-F. The complete atom building
sequence is shown in Table 4.
Most of the reported experimental results omit many of the steps
in the full sequence. Whether this means that double or triple j umps
are being made, or whether the intermediate stages have been missed
by the investigators is not yet clear. However, the most complete set
of results, the sigma series, is close enough to the theoretical sequence
to suggest that the build-up does, in fact, proceed step by step as indicated
in Table 4.
Regardless of any deviations from the normal sequence that may take
place earlier, the first phase of the atom building process always terminates
at c-Li5 (the omega particle, mass 1676 MeV) because, as is evident
from the description of the steps in the cosmic ray decay, the motion
must enter a second dimension in order to accomplish any further decrease
in the cosmic atomic number. This requires a relatively large increase
in energy, from 1676 to 3104 MeV. In the decay process there is no
alternative, and the big drop in energy must take place, but in the reverse
204 Nothing but Motion

process the addition of energy in smaller amounts is made possible

by reason of the ability of the cosmic atom to retain additional gravitational
charges in an excess energy environment.
The doubly (gravitationally) charged cosmic element of lowest energy
within the atom building range is c-Kr, the first atom that can be formed
from conversion of material particles. The energy difference between
doubly charged c-Kr and the last singly charged product, c-Li5, is
substantial (238 MeV), and all of the cosmic atom building series
theoretically include doubly charged c-Kr as well as singly charged c-Li5.
There are, in fact, some intermediate stages. All but the last small
increment of the mass required for the second charge is added in the
form of c-Kr atoms (52 MeV each), as in building up the rotational
mass, and this addition is accomplished in four steps. Similar inter-stages
are possible between c-Be7 and c-Li6, also between c-Li6 and c-Li5,
where two c-Kr mass increments are required between the cosmic
elements.
Beyond doubly charged c-Kr, the regular sequence is again followed,
with some omissions or deviations which, as mentioned earlier, may
or may not represent the true course of events. At doubly charged
c-Li5, mass 2607 MeV, the atom building process again reaches the
one-dimensional limit, and a third charge is added in the same manner
as the second, inaugurating a new series of resonances which extends
to the neighborhood of the 3104 MeV required for the production of
the first of the particles that have scalar motion in two dimensions.
Table 5 compares the theoretical and observed values of the masses
of the particles included in the several series of resonances that have
been reported. The agreement is probably about as close as can be
expected in view of the difficulties involved in making the measurements.
In more than a third of the total number of cases the measured mass
is within 10 MeV of the theoretical value. It is also worth noting that
in the only case where enough measurements are available to provide
a good average value for an individual cosmic element, the 11 measure
ments on c-Li5, the agreement between this average and the theoretical
mass is exact.
All of the singly charged transient particles moving in only one
dimension are stable against decay for about 10"10 seconds. However,
they are extremely vulnerable to fragmentation under conditions such
as those that prevail in the accelerators, and only the particles of lowest
mass escape fragmentation long enough to decay. The lifetime of the
heavier particles is limited by fragmentation to the absolute minimum,
which appears to be the unit of time corresponding to three scalar
dimensions of motion, or about 1024 seconds.
In the tabulations of particle data in the current scientific literature,
 Cosmic Atom Building 205
TABLE 5
BARYON RESONANCES
c-Atomic Grav. Inter- Mass
number Element charge stage Theor. Obs.** Obs.***
Sigma Series
7 *c-N 1 1197 1190
4 c-Be8 1 1397 1385
3-1/2 *c-Be7 1 1463 1480
3 c-Li6 1 1552
a 1604 1620
2-1/2 *c-Li5 1 1676 1670
a 1728 1750 1690
b 1779 1765
c 1831 1840
d 1882 1880
36 *c-Kr 2 1914 1915
18 *c-Ar 2 1965 1940
12 c-Mg 2 2017 2000
10 *c-Ne 2 2048 2030
9 c-F 2 2069 2070
8 c-O 2 2095 2080
7 *c-N 2 2128 2100
5 *c-B 2 2234 2250
3 c-Li6 2 2483 2455
2-1/2 *c-Li5 2 2607 2620
10 *c-Ne 3 2979 3000

Lambda Series
10 *c-Ne 1 1117 1115
4 c-Be8 1 1397 1405
3 c-Li6 1 1552 1520
2-1/2 *c-Li5 1 1676 1670 1690
a 1728 1750
b 1779 1815
c 1831 1830
d 1882 1870-1860
12 c-Mg 2 2017 2020-2010
8 c-O 2 2095 2100 2110
4 c-Be8 2 2328 2350
2-1/2 *c-Li5 2 2607 2585
206 Nothing but Motion

TABL E 5 (Continued)
BARYON RESONANCES
c-A tomic Grav. Inter Mass
number Element charge stage Theor. Obs.** Obs.***
Xi Series
5 *C-B 1 1303 1320
3 c-Li6 1 1552 1530
2-1/2 *c-Li5 1 1676 1630
c 1831 1820
36 *c-Kr 2 1914 1940
10 *c-Ne 2 2048 2030
5 *c-B 2 2234 2250
3 c-Li6 2 2483 2500

N Series
3-1/2 *c-Be7 1 1463 1470
3 c-Li6 1 1552 1535 1520
2-1/2 *c-Li5 1 1676 1670 1688
a 1728 1700
b 1779 1780
d 1882 1860
14 *c-Si 2 1995 1990
10 *c-Ne 2 2048 2040
8 c-O 2 2095 2100
6 c-C 2 2172 2190 2175
5 *c-B 2 2234 2220
2-1/2 *c-Li5 2 2607 2650
10 *c-Ne 3 2979 3030

Delta Series
6 c-C 1 1241 1236
2-1/2 *c-Li5 1 1676 1670 1690
d 1882 1890
36 *c-Kr 2 1914 1910
18 *c-Ar 2 1965 1950 1960
6 c-C 2 2172 2160
3-1/2 *c-Be7 2 2394 2420
36 *c-Kr 3 2845 2850
*Decay sequence
Well-established resonances
Less certain resonances
 Cosmic Atom Building 207

the information with respect to the series of resonances thus far discussed
is presented under the heading of Baryon Resonances. A further
classification of Meson Resonances gives similar information concern
ing particles that were observed by a variety of other techniques. These
are, of course, entities of the same naturecosmic elements in the
decay rangeand largely the same elements, but because of the wide
variations in the conditions under which they were produced the meson
list includes a number of additional elements. Indeed, it includes all
of the elements of the regular atom building sequence (with c-Ne and
c-O substituted for c-F, as previously noted), and one additional isotope,
c-C11. The masses derived from the experiments are compared with
the theoretical masses of the cosmic elements in Table 6. The names
currently applied to the observed particles have no significance, and
have been omitted.
In preparing this table, the observed particles were first assigned to
the corresponding cosmic elements, an assignment that could be made
without ambiguity, as the maximum experimental deviations from the
theoretical masses are, in all but a very few instances, considerably
less than the mass differences between the successive elements or
isotopes. On the assumption that the deviations of the reported values
from the true masses of the particles are due to causes whose effects
are randomly related to the true masses, the individual values were
averaged for comparison with the theoretical masses. The close correlation
between the two sets of values not only confirms the status of these
observed particles as cosmic elements, but also validates the assumption
of random deviations, on which the averaging was based. Presumably
these deviations are, in part, due to inaccuracies in obtaining and
processing the experimental data, but they may also include a random
distribution of differences of areal character: more of the fine structure
which, as previously noted, has not yet been studied in the context
of the Reciprocal System.
The averaged values are shown in parentheses. Where only single
measurements are available, the deviations from the theoretical values
are naturally greater, but they are generally within the same range as
those of the individual values that enter into the averages. Longer lived
decay products such as c-Ne and c-N are not usually classified with
the resonances, but they have been included in the table to show the
complete picture. The gaps still remaining in the table will no doubt
be filled as further experimental work is done. Indeed, many of these
gaps, particularly in the upper portion of the mass range, can be filled
immediately, simply by consolidating Tables 5 and 6. The difference
between these two sets of resonances is only in the experimental
procedures by which the reported values were derived. All of the transient
208 Nothing but Motion

TABLE 6
MESON R ESONANCES
c-Atomic Element Grav. Inter Mass
number charge stage Theor. Obs. Individual Values
3 c-Li6 0 621
a 673 700
2-1/2 *c-Li5 0 745 (760) 750,770
a 797 784
d 952 (951) 940,953,958
36 *c-Kr 1 983 (986) 970,990,997
18 *c-Ar 1 1034 (1031) 1020,1033,1040
12 c-Mg 1 1086 (1090) 1080,1100
10 *c-Ne 1 1117 1116
8 c-O 1 1164 (1165) 1150,1170,1175
7 *c-N 1 1197 1197
6 c-C12 1 1241 (1240) 1237,1242
5-1/2 c-CM 1 1270 (1274) 1265,1270,1286
5 *c-B10 1 1303 1310
4-1/2 c-B9 1 1345
4 c-Be8 1 1397
3-1/2 *c-Be7 1 1463 (1455) 1440,1470
a 1515 1516
3 c-Li6 1 1552 1540
a 1604 (1623) 1600,1645
2-1/2 *c-Li5 1 1676 (1674) 1660,1664,1680,1690
b 1779 (1773) 1760,1765,1795
c 1831 (1840) 1830,1850
36 *c-Kr 2 1914 1930
8 c-0 2 2095 2100
5 *c-B10 2 2234 2200
4-1/2 c-B9 2 2276 2275
4 c-Be8 2 2328 2360
3-1/2 *c-Be7 2 2394 2375
36 *c-Kr 3 2845 2800
36 (kaon) 1/2 c-Kr 1-1/2 1423 (1427) 1416,1421,1430,1440
*Decay sequence

particles, irrespective of the category to which they are currently assigned,

are cosmic elements or isotopes, with or without gravitational charges
of the material type.
The absence of singly (gravitationally) charged particles corresponding
to c-B9 from the list of observed resonances is rather conspicuous,
particularly since the similar particle of twice this atomic weight, c-F18
is also missing, as noted earlier. The reason for this anomaly is still
unknown.
The last particle listed in Table 6 is a kaon, one of the two rotating
 Cosmic Atom Building 209

systems of a c-Kr atom, with a full gravitational charge in addition

to the half-sized charge that it normally carries. This particle has the
same relation to the normal kaon that the atoms of the doubly charged
series in Tables 5 and 6 bear to the corresponding singly charged atoms.
In the first edition it was suggested that some of the cosmic ray
particles entering the material sector might be cosmic chemical compounds
rather than single atoms. In the light of the more complete information
now available with respect to the details of the inter-regional transfer
of matter, this possibility must now be excluded, but short-lived associa
tions between cosmic and material particles, and perhaps, in some cases,
between cosmic particles, are feasible, and evidence of some such
associations has been obtained. For example, the lambda meson (c-neon)
is reported to participate in a number of combinations with material
elements, called hyperfragments, which disintegrate after a brief exis
tence. The current view is that the meson, which is assumed to be
a sub-atomic particle, replaces one of the nucleons in the material
atom. However, we find (1) that the material atom is not composed
of particles, (2) that there are no nucleons, and (3) that the mesons
are full-sized atoms, not sub-atomic particles. The hyperfragment there
fore cannot be anything more than a temporary association between
a material atom and a cosmic atom.
The new findings as to the nature of the transient particles, and their
production and decay, do not negate the results of the vast amount
of work that has been done toward determining the behavior charac
teristics of these particles. As stated earlier in this chapter, these
theoretical findings are generally consistent not only with the actual
experimental results, but also with the experimenters ideas as to what
the raw datathe various tracks, electrical measurements, counter
readings, etc.signify with respect to the existence and behavior of
the different transient particles. But what appears to be an immense
amount of experimental data actually contributes very little toward an
explanation of the nature of these particles, and their place in the physical
universe; it merely serves to define the problem. As expressed by V. F.
Weisskopf, in a review of the situation, The present theoretical activities
are attempts to get something from almost nothing.
Much of the information derived from observation is ambiguous, and
some of it is definitely misleading. The experimentally established facts
obviously have a bearing on the problem, but they are too limited in
their scope to warn the investigators that they cannot be fitted into
the pattern to which scientists are accustomed. For instance, in the
world of ordinary matter, a particle mass less than that of the lightest
isotope of hydrogen indicates that the particle belongs to the sub-atomic
class. But when the effective masses of the transient particles, as
determined by experiment, are interpreted according to this familiar
210 Nothing but Motion

pattern, they give a totally false account of the nature of these entities.
Thus, while the determination of the particle masses adds to the total
amount of factual information available, its practical effect is to lead
the investigators away from the truth rather than toward it. The following
statements by Weisskopf in his review indicate that he suspected that
some such misinterpretation of the empirical data is responsible for
the confusion that currently surrounds the subject.
We are exploring unknown modes of behavior of matter under
completely novel conditions. . . . It is questionable whether our
present understanding of high-energy phenomena is commensurate
to the intellectual effort directed at their interpretation.67
Availability of a general physical theory which enables us to deduce
the nature and characteristics of the transient particles in full detail
from theoretical premises, rather than having to depend on physical
observation of a very limited scope, now opens the door to a complete
understanding. The foregoing pages have provided an account of what
the transient particles are, where the particles of natural origin (the
cosmic rays) come from, what happens to them after they arrive, and
how they are related to the transient particles produced in the accelerators.
The aspects of these particles that have been so difficult to explain
on the basis of conventional theorytheir multiplicity, their extremely
short lifetimes, the high speed and great energies of the natural particles,
and so onare automatically accounted for when their origin and general
nature is understood.
Another significant point is that, on the basis of the new theoretical
explanation, the cosmic rays have a definite and essential place in the
mechanism of the universe. One of the serious weaknesses of conventional
physical theory is that it is unable to find roles for a number of the
recently discovered phenomena such as the cosmic rays, the quasars,
the galactic recession, etc., that are commensurate with the magnitude
of the phenomena, and is forced to treat them as products of exceptional
or abnormal circumstances. In view of the wide extent of the phenomena
in question, and their far-reaching consequences, such characterization
is clearly inappropriate. The theoretical finding that these are stages
of the cosmic cycle through which all matter eventually passes now
eliminates this inconsistency, and identifies each of these phenomena
with a significant phase of the normal activity of the universe. The
existence of a hitherto unknown second half of the universe is the key
to an understanding of all of these currently misinterpreted phenomena,
and the most interesting feature of the cosmic rays is that they give
us a fleeting glimpse of the entities of which the physical objects of
that second half, the cosmic sector, are constructed.
 CHAPTER 17

Some Speculations
The Reciprocal System of theory consists of the fundamental postulates,
together with everything that is implicit in the postulates; that is,
everything that can legitimately be derived from those postulates by
logical and mathematical processes without introducing anything from
any other source. It is the theory as thus defined that can claim to
be a true and accurate representation of the observed physical universe,
on the grounds specified in the earlier pages. The conclusions stated
in this and related publications by the present author and others are
the results of the efforts that have thus far been made to develop the
consequences of the postulates in detail. However, the findings that
have emerged from the early phases of this theoretical development
call for some drastic modifications of the prevailing conceptions of the
nature of some of the basic physical entities and phenomena. Such
conceptual changes are not easily made, and the persistence of previous
habits of thought makes it difficult, not only for the readers of these
works, but also for the investigators themselves, to grasp the full
implications of the new ideas when they first make their appearance.
The existence of scalar motion in more than one dimension, which
plays an important part in the subject matter of the two preceding chapters,
is a good example. It is now clear that such motion is a necessary
and unavoidable consequence of the basic postulates, and there is no
inherent obstacle that would stand in the way of a complete and detailed
understanding of its nature and effects if it could be considered in isolation,
without interference from previously existing ideas and beliefs. But this
is not humanly possible. The minds into which this idea enters are
accustomed to thinking along very different lines, and inertia of thought
is similar to inertia of matter, in that it can be fully overcome only
over a period of time.
Even the simple concept of motion that is inherently scalar, and not
merely a vectorial motion whose directional aspects are being disregarded,
involves a conceptual change of no small magnitude, and the first edition
of this work did not go beyond this point, except in specifying that
the increase in the speed of recession of the galaxies is linear beyond
the gravitational limit, a tacit assertion that the increment is scalar.

211
212 Nothing but Motion

Subsequent studies of high energy astronomical phenomena carried the

development of thought on the subject a step farther, as they led to
the conclusion that the quasars are moving in two dimensions. However,
it took additional time to achieve a recognition of the fact that unit
scalar speed in three dimensions constitutes the line of demarcation
between the region of motion in space and the region of motion in
time, and the first publication in which this point was brought out
specifically was Quasars and Pulsars (1971). Now we further find that
the same considerations also apply to the incoming cosmic particles.
At the moment, it appears that the full scope of the subject has been
covered, but past experience does not encourage a positive statement
to that effect.
This experience demonstrates how difficult it is to attain a comprehen
sive understanding of the various aspects of any new item of information
that is derived from the basic postulates, and it explains why identification
of the source from which the correct answers can be obtained does
not automatically give us all of those answers; why the results obtained
by application of the Reciprocal System of theory, like the products
of all other research into previously unknown physical areas, necessarily
differ in the degree of certainty that can be ascribed to them, particularly
in the relatively early stages of an investigation. Many are established
beyond a reasonable doubt; others can best be characterized as work
in progress ; still others are little, if any, more than speculations.
However, because of the extremely critical scrutiny to which a theory
based on a new and radically different fundamental concept is customarily
(and properly) subjected, publication of the results of the theoretical
development described in this work has, in general, been limited to
those items which have been given long and careful examination, and
can be considered as having a very high degree of probability of being
correct. Almost thirty years of study and investigation went into the
project before the first edition of this work was published. The additions
and modifications in this new edition are the result of another twenty
years of review and extension of the original findings by the author
and others.
Inasmuch as the results of this development are conclusions about
one universe derived in their entirety from one set of basic premises,
every advance that is made in the understanding of phenomena in one
physical field throws some light on outstanding questions in other fields.
A review such as that required for the preparation of this new edition
has the benefit of all of the advances that have been made subsequent
to the last previous systematic study of each area, and a considerable
amount of clarification of the subject matter previously examined, and
extension of the development into new subject areas, was accomplished
 Some Speculations 213

almost automatically during the revision of the text. Where it is evident

that the new theoretical conclusions thus derived are firm enough to
meet the criteria that were applied to the original publication they have
been included in this new edition. But in general, any new ideas of
major consequence that have emerged from this rather rapid review
have been held over for further study in order to be sure that they
receive adequate consideration before publication.
In one particular case, however, there seems to be sufficient justifica
tion for making an exception to this general policy. In the preceding
pages, the discussion of the decay of the cosmic elements after entry
into the material environment was carried to the point where the decay
was complete, and it was noted that the ultimate result would necessarily
be conversion of the cosmic elements into forms that would be compatible
with the new environment. Since hydrogen is the predominant constituent
of the material sector of the universe, this element must ultimately be
produced from the decay products, but just how the transition is
accomplished has not been clear theoretically, and empirical information
bearing on the subject is practically non-existent. It would be a significant
advance toward completion of the basic theoretical structure if this gap
could be closed. Consideration of the question during preparation of
the text of the new edition has uncovered some interesting possibilities
in this connection, and a discussion of these ideas in the present work
seems to be warranted, even though it must be admitted that they are
still speculative, or at least no more than work in progress.
The first of these tentative new conclusions is that the muon neutrino
is not a neutrino. As the theoretical development now stands, there
is no place for any neutrinos other than the electron neutrino and its
cosmic analog, the electron antineutrino, as it is currently known. Of
course, the door is not completely closed. Earlier in this volume it
was asserted that sufficient evidence is now available to demonstrate
that the physical universe is, in fact, a universe of motion, and that
a correct development of the consequences of the postulates that define
such a universe will produce an accurate representation of the existing
physical universe. It is not contended, however, that the present author
and his associates are infallible, and that the conclusions which they
have reached by these means are always correct. It is conceivable that
further theoretical clarification may change some aspects of our existing
view of the neutrino situation, but the theory as it now stands has
no place for muon neutrinos.
As brought out in the previous pages, however, the theory does require
the production of a different massless particle in the processes in which
the muon neutrino now appears, and the logical conclusion is that
the particle now called the muon neutrino is the particle required by
214 Nothing but Motion

the theory: the massless neutron. From the observational standpoint

this changes nothing but the name, as these two massless particles cannot
be distinguished by any currently known means. On the theoretical side,
the observed particle fits in very well with the theoretical deductions
as to the behavior of the massless neutron. This particle should theoreti
cally be produced in every decay event, whereas the neutrino should
appear only in the last step, where separation of the residual cosmic
atom into two massless particles, takes place. This is in accord with
observation, as the muon neutrino appears in both the pion decay
and the muon decay, whereas the electron neutrino appears only in
the decay of the muon. Empirical confirmation of the theoretical produc
tion of massless neutrons in the earlier decay events has not yet been
observed, but this is understandable.
The reported products of the decay of a positive muon are also in
agreement with the massless neutron hypothesis. These products are
currently considered to be a positron, which, according to our findings,
is M 0-0-1, an electron neutrino, M ^-(1 ), and a muon antineu
trino, which we now identify as a massless neutron, M f-^-0.
The positron and the electron neutrino are jointly equivalent to a second
massless neutron. Their appearance as two particles rather than one
is probably due to the fact that they are the products of the final conversion
of the residual cosmic atom, in which the electric and magnetic rotations
are oppositely directed, rather than merely discrete particles ejected
from the cosmic atom.
It is claimed that muons also exist with negative charges, and that
these decay into the antiparticles of the decay products of the positive
muon: an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino.
These asserted products are the equivalent of two cosmic massless
neutrons. The production of such particles, or of cosmic particles of
any kind, other than the members of the regular decay sequence, as
the result of a decay process, is rather difficult to reconcile with the
theoretical principles that have been developed. Theoretical consider
ations indicate that there is no such thing as an antimeson, and that
the negatively charged muon is identical with the positively charged
muon, except for the difference in the charge. On this basis, the decay
products should differ only in that an electron replaces the positron.
Inasmuch as two of the decay particles in each case are unobservable,
there appears to be a rather strong probability that their identification
in current physical thought comes from the ninety percent of interpretation
rather than from the ten percent of observation that enters into the
reported results. However, it is the existence of some unresolved
questions of this kind that has made it necessary to characterize the
contents of this chapter as somewhat speculative.
 Some Speculations 215

On the basis of the theoretical decay pattern, the incoming cosmic

atoms are eventually converted into massless neutrons and their equiva
lents. The problem then becomes: What happens to these particles?
There are no experimental or observational guideposts along this route;
we will have to depend entirely on theoretical deductions.
The massless neutron already has a material type structurethat is,
a negative vibration and a positive rotationand no conversion process
is required. Likewise, no decay or fragmentation process is possible
because this particle has only one rotational displacement unit. Progress
toward the hydrogen goal must therefore take place by means of addition
processes. Addition of a massless neutron to a positron, a proton, a
compound neutron, or a second massless neutron, would produce a
particle in which there is a single rotating system of displacement 2
(on the particle scale). As indicated in Chapter ll, it appears that such
a particle, if it exists at all, is unstable, and in the absence of any
means of transferring one of the units of displacement to a second
rotating system, the unstable particle will decay back to particles of
the original types. Such additions will therefore accomplish nothing.
The additions that are actually possible constitute a regular series.
The decay product, the massless neutron, M fj- 0 , can combine with
an electron, M 0-0-(l), to form a neutrino, M ^-|-(1). Another massless
neutron added to the neutrino produces a proton, M l-l-(l). As has
been indicated, addition of a massless neutron to the proton is not feasible,
but a neutrino can be added, and this produces the mass one hydrogen
isotope, M lj-l-(2).
So far as the rotational displacement is concerned, we now have a
clear and consistent picture. By addition of the supply of massless
neutrons resulting from the decay of the cosmic rays to electrons and
neutrinos, particles that are plentiful in the material environment, hydro
gen, the basic element of the material system, is produced. But there
is still one important factor to be accounted for. There is no problem
in the addition of the massless neutron to the electron, but in adding
to the neutrino to produce the proton a unit of mass must be provided.
The question that must be answered before this hypothetical hydrogen
building process can be considered a reality is: Where does the required
mass come from?
It appears, on the basis of the recent extensions of the theory, that
the answer to this question can be found in a hitherto unrecognized
property of particles with two-dimensional rotation. As explained in
Chapter 12, mass is t 3/ s 3, the reciprocal of three-dimensional speed,
whereas energy is t / s , the reciprocal of one-dimensional speed. Obvious
ly, there is an intermediate quantity, the reciprocal of two-dimensional
speed, t2/ s 2. This has been recognized as momentum, or impulse, but
216 Nothing but Motion

it has been regarded as a derivative of mass. Indeed, momentum is

customarily defined as the product of mass and velocity. What has
not been recognized is that the reciprocal of two-dimensional speed
can exist in its own right, independent of mass, and that a two-dimensional
massless particle can have what we may call internal momentum, t2/ s 2,
just as a three-dimensional atom has mass, t3/ s 3.
The internal energy of an atom, the energy equivalent of its mass,
is equal to the product of its mass and the square of unit speed,
t3/ s 3 X s 2/ t 2 = t/ s. This is the relation discovered by Einstein, and
expressed as E = me2. In order to provide the unit mass required in
the addition of a massless neutron to a neutrino to form a proton, a
unit quantity of energy, t / s , must be provided.
The kinetic energy of a particle with internal momentum M is the
product of this momentum and the speed: Mv = t2/ s 2 x s / t = t/s.
Inasmuch as the massless neutron has unit magnetic displacement, and
therefore unit momentum, and being massless it moves with unit speed
(the speed of light), its kinetic energy is unity. Thus the kinetic energy
of the massless neutron is equal to the energy requirement for the
production of a unit of mass, and by coming to rest in the stationary
frame of reference the massless neutron can provide the energy as well
as the rotational displacement necessary to produce the proton by
combination with a neutrino.
Here, then, is what appears, on initial consideration at least, to be
a complete and consistent theoretical explanation of the transition from
decay product to material atom. There is, of course, no observational
confirmation of the hypothetical processes, and such confirmation may
be hard to get. The conclusions that have been reached will therefore
have to rest entirely on their theoretical foundations for the time being.
It is worth noting that, on the basis of these conclusions, the hydrogen
produced from the decay products originates somewhat uniformly
throughout the extension space of the material sector, inasmuch as the
neutrino population must be fairly uniformly distributed. This is in
agreement with other deductions that were discussed in the first edition,
and will be given further consideration in Volume II of this work. The
standing of the conclusions that have just been outlined is considerably
strengthened by the fact that the two lines of theoretical development
meet at this point.
As stated earlier, the inflow of cosmic matter into the material sector
is counterbalanced by an ejection of matter from the material sector
into the cosmic sector in the form of high speed explosion products.
These are the two crucial phases of the great cycle which constitutes
the continuing activity of the universe. But the slow process of growth
and development that the arriving matter undergoes before it is ready
 Some Speculations 217

to participate in the events which will eject it back into the cosmic
sector, and complete the cycle, is an equally important, even though
less spectacular, aspect of the cycle. Consequently, one of the major
tasks involved in developing a theoretical account of the physical universe
from the basic postulates of the Reciprocal System is to trace the
evolutionary path of the new matter, and of the aggregates into which
that matter gathers. Our first concern, however, must be to identify
the participants in physical activity, and to define their principal proper
ties, as these are items of information that will be required before the
events in which these entities participate can be accurately evaluated.
Now that we have arrived, at least tentatively, at the hydrogen stage,
we will defer further consideration of the evolution of matter to Volume
II, and will return to our examination of the individual material units
and their primary combinations.
 CHAPTER 18

Simple Compounds
In the preceding chapters we have determined the specific combinations
of simple rotations that are stable in the material sector of the universe,
and we have identified each of these combinations, within the experi
mental range, with an observed sub-atomic particle or atom of an element.
We have then shown that an exact duplicate of this system of material
rotational combinations, with space and time interchanged, exists in
the cosmic sector, and we have identified all of the observed particles
that do not belong to the material system as atoms or particles of the
cosmic system. To the extent that observational or experimental data
are available, therefore, we have established agreement between the
theoretical and observed structures. So far as these data extend, there
are no loose ends; all of the observed entities have been identified
theoretically, and while not all of the theoretical entities have been
observed, there are adequate theoretical explanations for this.
The number of observed particles is increased substantially by a
commonly accepted convention which regards particles of the same kind,
but with different electric charges, as different particles. No consideration
has been given to the effects of electric charges in this present discussion,
as the existence of such charges has no bearing on the basic structure
of the units. These charges may play a significant part in determining
whether or not certain kinds of reactions take place under certain
circumstances, and may have a major influence on the details of those
reactions, just as the presence or absence of concentrations of kinetic
energy may have a material effect on the course of events. But the
electric charge is not part of the basic structure of the atom or sub-atomic
particle. As will be brought out when we take up consideration of electrical
phenomena, it is a temporary appendage that can be attached or removed
with relative ease. The electrically charged atom or particle is therefore
a modified form of the original rotational combination rather than a
distinctly different type of structure.
Our examination of the basic structures is not yet complete, however,
as there are some associations of specific numbers of specific elements
that are resistant to dissociation, and therefore act in the manner of
single units in processes of low or moderate energy. These associations,

219
220 Nothing but Motion

or molecules, play a very important part in physical activity, and in

order to complete our survey of the units of which material aggregates
are composed we will now develop the theory of the structure of
molecules, and will determine what kinds of molecules are theoretically
possible.
The concept of the molecule originated from a study of the behavior
of gases, and as originally formulated it was essentially empirical. The
molecule, on this basis, is the independent unit in a gas aggregate. But
this definition cannot be applied to a solid, as the independent unit
in a solid is generally the individual atom, or a small group of atoms,
and in this case the molecule has no physical identity. In order to make
the molecule concept more generally applicable, therefore, it has been
redefined on a theoretical rather than an empirical basis, and as now
conceived, a molecule is the smallest unit of a substance which can
(theoretically) exist independently and retain all of the properties of
the substance.
The atoms of a molecule are held together by inter-atomic forces,
the nature and magnitude of which will be examined in detail later.
The strength of these forces determines whether or not the molecule
will break up under whatever disruptive forces it may be subjected
to, and the manner in which certain atoms are joined in a molecule
may have an effect on the magnitude of the inter-atomic forces, but
the determination of what atoms can combine with what other atoms,
and in what proportions, is governed by an entirely different set of
factors.
In current theory, the factors responsible for the inter-atomic force,
or bond, are presumed to have a double function, not only determining
the strength of the cohesive force, but also determining what combinations
can take place. The results of the present investigation indicate, however,
that the force which determines the equilibrium distance between any
two atoms is identical in origin and in general character regardless of
the kind of atoms involved, and regardless of whether or not those
atoms can, or do, take part in the formation of a molecule.
Experience has indicated that it is advisable to lay more emphasis on
the independence of these two aspects of the interrelations between
atoms, and for this purpose the plan of presentation employed in the
first edition will be modified in some respects. As already mentioned,
the information that will be developed with respect to the molecular
structure will be presented before any discussion of inter-atomic forces
is undertaken. Furthermore, present indications are that whatever advan
tages there may be in using the familiar term bond in describing
the various molecular structures are outweighed by the fact that the
term bond almost inevitably implies the notion of a force of some
 Simple Compounds 221

kind. Inasmuch as the different molecular bonds merely reflect

different relative orientations of the rotations of the interacting atoms,
and have no force implications, we will abandon the use of the term
bond in this sense, and will substitute orientation for present
purposes. The term bond will be used in a different sense in a later
chapter where it will actually relate to a force.
The existence of molecules, either combinations of specific numbers
of like atoms, or chemical compounds, which are combinations of unlike
atoms, is due to the limitations on the establishment of inter-atomic
equilibrium that are imposed by the presence of motion in time in the
electric dimension of the atoms of certain elements. Those elements
whose atoms rotate entirely in space (positive displacement in all rotational
dimensions), or which are able to attain the all-positive status by
reorientation on the 8x basis, are not subject to any such limitations.
An atom of an element of this kind can establish an equilibrium with
any other such atoms in any proportions, except to the extent that
the physical properties of the elements involved (such as the melting
points) or conditions in the environment (such as the temperature)
interfere. Material aggregates of this kind are called mixtures. In some
cases, where the mixture is homogeneous and the composition is uniform,
the term alloy is applied.
There is a class of intermetallic compounds, in which these positive
constituents are combined in definite proportions. CuZn and Cu5Zn8
are compounds of this class. But the combinations of copper and zinc
are not limited to specific ratios of this kind in the way in which the
composition of true chemical compounds is restricted. The commercially
important alloys of these two metals extend through the entire range
from a brass with 90 percent copper and 10 percent zinc to a solder
with 50 percent of each constituent, and the possible alloys extend over
a still wider range. The intermetallic compounds are merely those alloys
whose proportions are especially favorable from a geometric standpoint.
A typical comment in a chemistry textbook is that The theory of the
bonding forces involved in these intermetallic compounds is very complex
and is not, as yet, very well understood. The reason is that there
are no bonding forces in these substances in the same sense in which
that term is ordinarily used in application to the true chemical compounds.
As has been stated, negative rotation in the electric dimension of
an atom is admissable because the requirement that the net total rotational
displacement must be positive (in the material sector) can be met as
long as the magnetic rotation is positive. In the time region inside unit
distance, however, the electric and magnetic rotations act independently.
Here the presence of a randomly oriented electric rotation in time makes
it impossible to maintain a fixed inter-atomic equilibrium. Any relation
222 Nothing but Motion

of space to time is motion, and motion destroys the equilibrium. But

an equilibrium can be established in certain cases if both of the interacting
atoms are specifically oriented along the line of interactions in such
a manner that the negative displacement in the electric dimension of
one atom is counterbalanced by an equal positive displacement in one
of the dimensions of the second atom, so that the magnitude of the
resulting relative motion is zero with respect to the natural datum. Or
a multi-atom group equilibrium may be established where the total negative
displacements of the atoms with electric rotation in time are exactly
equal to the total effective positive displacements of the atoms with
which the interaction is taking place.
In these cases there is an equilibrium because the net total of the
positive and negative displacement involved is zero. Alternatively, the
equilibrium may be based on a total of 8 or 16 units, since, as we
have found, there are 8 displacement units between one zero point and
the next. A negative displacement x may be counterbalanced by a positive
displacement 8x, the net total being 8, which is the next zero point,
the equivalent of the original zero.
As an analogy, we may consider a circle, the circumference of which
is marked off into 8 equal divisions. Any point on this circle can be
described in either of two ways: as x units clockwise from zero, or
as 8x units counter-clockwise from 8. A distance of 8 units clockwise
from zero is equivalent to zero. Thus a balance betweem x and i x,
with the midpoint at 8, is equivalent to a balance between x and x,
with the midpoint at zero. The situation in the inter-atomic space-time
equilibrium is similar. As long as the relative displacement of the two
interacting motions, the total of the individual values, amounts to the
equivalent of any one of the zero points, the system is in equilibrium.
Because of the specific requirements for the establishment of equilib
rium, the components of combinations of this kind, molecules of chemical
compounds, exist in definite proportions, each n atoms of one component
being associated with a specific number of atoms of the other component
or components. In addition to the constant proportions of their compo
nents, compounds also differ from mixtures or alloys in that their
properties are not necessarily similar to those of the components, as
is generally true in the all-positive combinations, but may be of an
altogether different nature, as the resultant of a space-time equilibrium
of the required character may differ widely from any of the effective
rotational values of the individual elements.
The rotational displacement in the dimension of interaction determines
the combining power, or valence, of an element. Since the negative
displacement is the foreign component of the material molecule that
has to be counterbalanced by an appropriate positive displacement to
 Simple Compounds 223

make the compound possible, the negative valence of an element is

the number of units of effective negative displacement that an atom
of that element possesses. It follows that, with some possible exceptions
that will be considered later, there is only one value of the negative
valence for any element. The positive valence of an atom in any particular
orientation is the number of units of negative displacement which it
is able to neutralize when oriented in that manner. Each element therefore
has a number of possible positive valences, depending on its rotational
displacements and the various ways in which they can be oriented.
The occurrence of these alternate orientations is largely dependent upon
the position of the element within the rotational group, and in preparation
for the ensuing discussion of this subject it will be advisable, for
convenient reference, to set up a classification according to position.
Within each of the rotational groups the minimum electric displacement
for the elements in the first half of the group is positive, whereas for
those in the latter half of the group it is negative. We will therefore
apply the terms electropositive and electronegative to the respective halves.
It should be understood, however, that this distinction is based on the
principle that the most probable orientation in the electric dimension
considered independently is that which results in the minimum displace
ment. Because of the molecular situation as a whole, an electronegative
element often acts in an electropositive capacityindeed, nearly all
of them take the positive role in chemical compounds under some
conditions, and many do so under all conditionsbut this does not
affect the classification that has been defined.
There are also important differences between the behavior of the
first four members of each series of positive or negative elements and
that of the elements with higher rotational displacements. We will
therefore divide each of these series into a lower division and an upper
division, so that those elements with similar general characteristics can
be treated together. This classification will be based on the magnitude
of the displacement, the lower division in each case including the elements
with displacements from 1to 4 inclusive, and the upper division comprising
those with displacements of 4 or more. The elements with displacement
4 belong to both divisions, as they are capable of acting either as the
highest members of the lower divisions or as the lowest members of
the upper divisions. It should be recognized that in the electronegative
series the members of the lower divisions have the higher net total
positive displacement (higher atomic number).
For convenience, these divisions within each rotational group will
be numbered in the order of increasing atomic number as follows:

Division I Lower electropositive

224 Nothing but Motion

Division II Upper electropositive

Division III Upper electronegative
Division IV Lower electronegative

These are the divisions which were indicated in the revised periodic
table in Chapter 10. As will be seen from the points developed in the
subsequent discussion, the division to which an element belongs has
an important bearing on its chemical behavior. Including this divisional
assignment in the table therefore adds substantially to the amount of
information that is represented.
Where the normal displacement x exceeds 4, the equivalent displace
ment 8x is numerically less than x, and therefore more probable, other
things being equal. One effect of this probability relation is to give
the 8x positive valence preference over the negative valence in Division
III, and thereby to limit the negative components of chemical compounds
to the elements of Division IV, except in one case where a Division
III element acquires the Division IV status for reasons that will be
discussed later.
When the positive component of a compound is an element from
Division I, the normal positive displacement of this element is in
equilibrium with the negative displacement of the Division IV element.
In this case both components are oriented in accordance with their normal
displacements. The same is true if either or both of the components
is double or multiple. We will therefore call this the normal orientation.
The corresponding normal valences are the positive valence (x) and the
negative valence (*).
It is theoretically possible for any Division I element to form a compound
with any Division IV element on the basis of the appropriate normal
valences, and all such compounds should be stable under favorable
conditions, but whether or not any specific compound of this type will
be stable under the normal terrestrial conditions is determined by
probability considerations. An exact evaluation of these probabilities
has not yet been attempted, but it is apparent that one of the most
important factors in the situation is the general principle that a low
displacement is more probable than a high displacement. If we check
the theoretically possible normal valence compounds against the
compounds listed in a chemical handbook, we will find nearly all of
the low positive-low negative combinations in this list of common
compounds. The low positive-high negative, and the high positive-low
negative combinations are much less fully represented, while we will
find the high positive-high negative combinations rather scarce.
The geometrical symmetry of the resulting crystal structure is the
other major determinant. A binary compound of two valence four elements
 Simple Compounds 225

CRA"), for example, is more probable than a compound of a valence

four and a valence three element (R3X4). The effect of both of these
probability factors is accentuated in Division II, where the displacements
corresponding to the normal valence have the relatively high values
of 5 or more. Consequently, this valence is utilized only to a limited
extent in this division, and is generally replaced by one of the alternative
valences.
Inasmuch as the basic requirement for the formation of a chemical
compound is the neutralization of the negative electric displacement,
the alternative positive valences are simply the results of the various
ways in which the atomic rotation can be oriented to attain an effective
positive displacement that will serve the purpose. Since each type of
valence corresponds to a particular orientation, the subsequent discussion
will be carried on in terms of valence, the existence of a corresponding
orientation in each case being understood.
The predominant Division III valence is based on balancing the 8x
displacement (positive because of the zero point reversal) against the
displacement of the negative component. The resulting relative displace
ment is 8, which, as explained earlier, is the equivalent of zero. We
will call this the neutral valence. This valence also plays a prominent
part in the purely Division IV compounds.
The higher Division III members of Groups 4A and 4B are unable
to utilize the 8x neutral valence because for these elements the values
of Sx are less than zero, and therefore meaningless. Instead, these
elements form compounds on the basis of the next higher equivalent
of zero displacement. Between the 8-unit level and this next zero
equivalent there are two effective initial units of motion, as well as
an 8-unit increment. The total effective displacement at this point is
therefore 18, and the secondary neutral valence is 18x. A typical series
of compounds utilizing this valence, the oxides of the Division III elements
of Group 4A, consists of H f02, Ta20 5, W 03, Re20 7, and 0 s 0 4.
Symmetry considerations favor balancing two electric displacements
to arrive at the necessary space-time equilibrium, where conditions permit,
but where the all-electric orientation encounters difficulties, it is possible
for one of the magnetic rotations to take the positive role in the inter-atomic
equilibrium. The magnetic valences, which apply in these magnetic-electric
orientations, are the most common basis of combination in Division
II, where the positive valences are high, and the neutral valences are
excluded because the 8x displacement is negative. They also make
their appearance in the other three divisions where probability consider
ations perm it.
Each element has two magnetic rotations and therefore has two possible
first order magnetic valences. In alternate groups the two rotations are
226 Nothing but Motion

equal, where no environmental influences are operative, and on this

basis the number of magnetic valences should be reduced to one in
half of the groups. As we saw in our original consideration of the atomic
rotation in Chapter 10, however, any element can rotate with an addition
of positive electric rotational displacement to the appropriate magnetic
rotation, or with an addition of negative electric rotational displacement
to the next higher magnetic rotation. Because of this flexibility, the
limitation of the elements of alternate groups to a single magnetic valence
actually applies only to the elements of Division I. Here this restriction
has no real significance, as the elements of this division make little
use of the magnetic valence in any event, because of the high probability
of the low positive valences.
To distinguish between the two magnetic valences, we will call the
larger one the primary magnetic valence, and the smaller one the secondary
magnetic valence. Neither of these valences has any inherent probability
advantage over the other, but the geometrical considerations previously
mentioned do have a significant effect. For instance, where the magnetic
valence can be either two or three, a combination with a valence three
negative element takes the form R3X2 if the magnetic valence is two,
and the form R X if the alternate valence prevails. The latter results
in the more symmetrical, and hence more probable, structure. Conversely,
if the negative element has valence four, the R2X structure developed
on the basis of a magnetic valence of two is more symmetrical than
the R4X3 structure that results if the magnetic valence is three, and
it therefore takes precedence.
Many of the theoretically possible magnetic valence compounds that
are on the borderline of stability, and do not make their appearance
as independent units, are stable when joined with some other valence
combination. For example, there are three theoretically possible first
order valence oxides of carbon: C02 (positive electric valence), CO
(primary magnetic valence), and C20 (secondary magnetic valence). The
first two are common compounds. C20 is not. But there is another
well-known compound, C30 2, which is obviously the combination
C0*C20 . As we will see later, this ability of the less stable combinations
to participate in complex structures plays an important role in compound
formation.
The first order valences of the elements, the valences that have been
discussed thus far, are summarized in Table 7. The great majority of
the true chemical compounds of all classes are formed on the basis
of these valences.
There is also an alternate type of inter-atomic orientation that gives
rise to what we may call second order valences. As has been emphasized
in the previous discussion, an equilibrium between positive and negative
 Simple Compounds 227

TABLE 7
FIRST ORDER VALENCES
Group Division Magnetic Valences Element Electric Valences
Primary Secondary Normal Neutral Negative
(*Sec.)
IB IV 1 1 H 1
IB 0 2 1 He
2A I 2 1 Li 1
Be 2
B 3
C 4
2A IV 2 1 C 4 4
N 5 3
O 2
F 1
2A 0 2 2 Ne
2B I 2 2 Na 1
Mg 2
A1 3
Si 4
2B IV 3 2 Si 4 4
P 5 3
S 6 2
Cl 7 1
2B 0 3 2 Ar
3A I 3 2 K 1
Ca 2
Sc 3
Ti 4
3A II 3 2 v 5
Cr 6
Mn 7
Fe 8
Co
3A III 3 2 Ni
Cu 1
Zn 2
Ga 3
Ge 4
228 Nothing but Motion

TABL E 7 (Continued)
FIRST ORDER VALENCES
Group Division Magnetic Valences Element Electric Valences
Primary Secondary Normal Neutral Negative
(*Sec.)
3A IV 3 2 As 5 3
Se 6 2
Br 7 1
3A 0 3 3 Kr
3B I 3 3 Rb 1
Sr 2
Y 3
Zr 4
3B II 4 3 Nb 5
Mo 6
Tc 7
Ru 8
Rh
3B III 4 3 Pd
Ag 1
Cd 2
In 3
Sn 4
3B IV 4 3 Sb 5 3
Te 6 2
I 7 1
3B 0 4 3 Xe
4A I 4 3 Cs 1
Ba 2
La 3
Ce 4
Pr 5
Nd 6
Pm 7
Sm 8
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
 Simple Compounds 229

TABLE 7 (Continued)
FIR ST ORDER VAL ENCES
Group Division Magnetic Valences Element Electric Valences
Primary Secondary Normal Neutral Negative
(*Sec.)
Tm
Yb
Lu
Hf 4*
Ta 5*
W 6*
Re 7*
Os 8*
Ir
Pt
Au 1
Hg 2
T1 3
Pb 4
4A IV 4 3 Bi 5 3
Po 6 2
At 7 1
4A 0 4 4 Rn
4B I 4 4 Fr 1
Ra 2
Ac 3
Th 4
4B II 5 4 Pa 5
U 6
Np 7
Pu 8
Am
Cm
Bk
Cf
Es
Fm
Md
______________________________ No_____________
4B III 5 4 Lr
Rf 4*
Ha 5*
230 Nothing but Motion

rotational displacements can take place only where the net resultant
is zero, or the equivalent of zero, because any value of the space-time
ratio other than unity (zero displacement) constitutes motion, and makes
fixed equilibrium positions impossible. In the most probable condition,
the initial level from which each rotation extends is the same zero point,
or, where the nature of the orientation requires different zero points,
the closest combination that is possible under the circumstances. This
arrangement, the basis of the first order valences, is clearly the most
probable, but it is not the only possibility.
Inasmuch as the separation between natural zero points (unit speed
levels) is two linear units (or eight three-dimensional units) it is possible
to establish an equilibrium in which the initial level of the positive rotation
(the positive zero) is separated from the initial level of the negative
rotation (the negative zero) by two linear units. The effect of this
separation on the valence is illustrated in Fig. 2. The basis of the first

Figure 2
(a) (b) (c)

V V v 2 V+2 V 2 V-2

order valences is shown in (a). Here the normal positive valence V

balances an equal negative valence V at an equilibrium point represented
by the double line. In (b) the initial level of the positive rotation has
been offset to the next zero point, two units distant from the point
of equilibrium. These two units, being on the positive side of the
equilibrium point, add to the effective positive displacement, and the
positive valence therefore increases to F+2; that is, V+2 negative valence
units are counterbalanced. In (c) it is the initial level of the negative
rotation that has been offset from the point of equilibrium. Here the
two intervening units add to the effective negative displacement, and
the positive valence decreases to V2, as the V units of positive
displacement are now able to balance only V2 negative valence units.
By reason of the availability of the zero point modifications illustrated
in Fig. 2(b), each of the positive first order valences corresponds to
a second order valence, an enhanced valence, as we will call it, that
is two units greater in the case of the direct valences (x+2), and two
units less for the inverse valences: 8(x+2) = 6x. Compounds based
on enhanced normal valences are relatively uncommon, as the normal
 Simple Compounds 231

valence itself has a high degree of probability, and the enhanced valence
is not only inherently less probable, but also has a higher effective
displacement in any specific application, which decreases the relative
probability still further. The probability factors are more favorable for
the enhanced neutral valence, as in this case the effective displacement
is less than that of the corresponding first order valences. The compounds
of this type are therefore more numerous, and they include such
well-known substances as S02 and PC13. An interesting application of
this valence is found in ozone, which is an oxide of oxygen, analogous
to S02.
It should theoretically be possible for valences to be diminished by
orientation in the manner shown in Fig. 2 (c), but it is doubtful if any
stable compounds are actually formed on the basis of diminished electric
valences. The reason for their absence is not yet understood. The magnetic
valences are both enhanced and diminished. Either the primary or the
secondary valence may be modified, but since enhancement is in the
direction of lower probability (higher numerical value) the number of
common compounds based on the enhanced magnetic valences is rela
tively small. Diminishing the valence improves the probability, and the
diminished valence compounds are therefore more plentiful in the
rotational groups in which they are possible (those with primary magnetic
valences above two), although the list is still very modest compared
to the immense number of compounds based on the first order valences.
As indicated earlier, one component of any true chemical compound
must have a negative displacement of four or less, as it is only through
the establishment of an equilibrium between such a negative displacement
and an appropriate positive displacement that the compound comes into
existence. The elements with the required negative displacement are
those which comprise Division IV, and it follows that every compound
must include at least one Division IV element, or an element which
has acquired Division IV status by valence enhancement. If there is
only one such component, the positive-negative orientation is fixed,
as the Division IV element is necessarily the negative component. Where
both components are from Division IV, however, one normally negative
element must reorient itself to act in a positive capacity, and a question
arises as to which retains its negative status.
The answer to this question hinges on the relative negativity of the
elements concerned. Obviously a small displacement is more negative
than a large one, since it is farther away from the neutral point where
positive and negative displacements of equal magnitude are equivalent.
Within any one group the order of negativity is therefore the same
as the displacement sequence. In Group 2B, for instance, the most negative
element is chlorine, followed by sulfur, phosphorus, and silicon, in that
232 Nothing but Motion

order. This means that the negative component in any Division IV

chlorine-sulfur combination is chlorine, and the product is a compound
such as SC12, not CIS or C12S. On the other hand, the compound P2S3
is in order, as phosphorus is normally positive to sulfur.
Where the electric displacements are equal, the element with the smaller
magnetic displacement is the more negative, as the effect of a greater
magnetic displacement is to dilute the negative electric rotation by
distributing it over a larger total displacement. We therefore find C1F3
and IBr3, but not FC13or Brl3. The magnitude of the variation in negativity
due to the difference in magnetic displacement is considerably less then
that resulting from inequality of electric displacement, and the latter
is therefore the controlling factor except where the electric displacements
are the same in both components.
On the foregoing basis, all elements of Divisions I, II, and III are
positive to Division IV elements. The displacement 4 elements on the
borderline between Divisions III and IV belong to the higher division
when combined with elements of lower displacement, and when elements
lower in the negative series acquire valences of 4 or more through
enhancement or reorientation they also assume Division III properties
and become positive to the other Division IV elements. Thus chlorine,
which is negative to oxygen in the purely Division IV compound OCl2,
is the positive component in C120 7. Similarly, the normal relations of
phosphorus and sulfur, as they exist in P2S3, are reversed in S3P4,
where sulfur has the valence 4.
Hydrogen, like the displacement 4 members of the higher groups,
is a borderline element, and because of its position is able to assume
either positive or negative characteristics. It is therefore positive to
all purely negative elements (Division IV below valence 4), but negative
to all strictly positive elements (Divisions I and II), and to the elements
of Division III. Because of its lower magnetic displacement, it is also
negative to the higher borderline elements: carbon, silicon, etc. The
fact that hydrogen is negative to carbon is particularly significant in
view of the importance of the carbon-hydrogen combination in the organic
compounds.
Another point that should be noted here is that when hydrogen acts
in a positive capacity, it does so as a Division III element, not as a
member of Division I. Its +1 valence is therefore magnetic. This is
why hydrogen was assigned only to the negative position in the revised
periodic table, rather than giving it two positions, as has been customary.
The variation in negativity with the size of the magnetic displacement
has the effect of extending the Division III behavior into Division IV
to a limited extent in the higher groups. Lead, for example, has practically
no Division IV characteristics, and bismuth has less than its counterparts
 Simple Compounds 233

in the lower groups. At the lower end of the atomic series this situation
is reversed, and the Division IV characteristics extend into Division
III, as an alternative to the normal positive behavior of some of the
elements of that division. Silicon, for instance, not only forms combina
tions such as MnSi and CoSi3, which, on the basis of the information
currently available, appear to be intermetallic compounds similar to those
of the higher Division III elements, but also combinations such as Mg2Si
and CaSi2, which are probably true compounds analogous to Be2C and
CaC2. Carbon carries this trend still farther and forms carbides with
a wide variety of positive components.
In the 2A group, the Division IV characteristics extend to the fifth
element, boron. This is the only case in which the fifth element of
a series has Division IV properties, and the behavior of boron in compound
formation is correspondingly unique. In its Division I capacity, as the
positive component in compounds such as B20 3, boron is entirely normal.
But its first order negative valence would be 5. Formation of compounds
based on this 5 valence conflicts with the previously stated limitation
of the negative valence to a maximum of four units. Boron therefore
shifts to an enhanced negative valence, adding two positive units to
its first order value of 5, with a resultant of 3. The direct combinations
of boron with positive elements have such structures as FeB and Cu3B2.
However, many of the borides have complex structures in which the
effective valences are not as clearly indicated. This raises a question
as to whether boron may be an exception to the rule limiting the maximum
negative valence to 4, and may utilize both the 5 and 3 valences.
This issue will be considered in the next chapter.
 CHAPTER 19

Complex Compounds
The discussion in the preceding chapter had direct reference only
to compounds of the type RmXn, in which m positive atoms are combined
with n negative atoms, but the principles therein developed are applicable
to all combinations of atoms. Our next objective will be to apply these
principles to an examination of some of the more complex situations.
Any atom in one of the simple compounds may be replaced by another
atom of the same valence number and type. Thus any or all of the
four chlorine atoms in CC14 may be replaced by equivalent negative
atoms, producing a whole family of compounds such as CCl3Br, CC12F2,
CCII3, CF4, etc. Or we may replace n of the valence one chlorine atoms
by one atom of negative valence n, obtaining such compounds as COCl2,
COS, CSTe, and so on. Replacements of the same kind can be made
in the positive component, producing compounds like SnCl4.
Simple replacement by an atom of a different valence type is not
possible. Copper, for instance, has the same numerical valence as sodium,
but the sodium atoms in a compound such as N a ^ are not replaceable
by copper atoms. There is a compound Cu20, but the neutral valence
structure of this compound is very different from the normal valence
structure of N a ^ . Similarly, if we exchange a positive hydrogen
(magnetic valence) atom for one of the sodium (normal valence) atoms
in N a ^ , the process is not one of simple replacement. Instead of NaHO,
we obtain NaOH, a compound of a totally different character.
A factor which plays an important part in the building of complex
molecular structures is the existence of major differences in the magni
tudes of the rotational forces in the various inter-atomic combinations.
Let us consider the compound KCN, for example. Nitrogen is the negative
element in this compound, and the positive-negative combinations are
K-N and C-N. When we compute the inter-atomic distances, by means
of the relations that will be developed later, we find that the values
in natural units are .904 for K-N and .483 for C-N.
As stated in Chapter 18, the term bond is not being used in this
work in any way connected with the subject matter of that chapter:
the combining power or valence. The term valence bond, or any
derivative such as covalent bond, has no place in the theoretical
235
236 Nothing but Motion

structure of the Reciprocal System. However, use of the word bond

is convenient in referring to the cohesion between specific atoms, atomic
groups, or molecules, and in the subsequent discussion it will be employed
in this restricted sense. On this basis we may say that the force of
cohesion, or bond strength, is considerably greater for the C-N bond
than for the K-N bond, as is indicated by the difference in the inter-atomic
distances.
It has usually been assumed that this force of cohesion is an indication
of the strength of the inter-atomic forces, but in reality the relation
is inverse. As explained in Chapter 8, the gravitational forces exerted
by the atoms, the forces due to the atomic rotation, are forces of repulsion
in the time region, and the cohesion is therefore greater when the rotational
forces are weaker. The short C-N distance, and the corresponding strength
of this bond, are the results of inactive force dimensions in this
combination which reduce the effective repulsive force, and require
the atoms to move closer together to establish equilibrium with the
constant force of the progression of the reference system.
Because of its greater strength, the C-N bond remains intact through
many processes which disrupt or modify the K-N bond, and the general
behavior of the compound KCN is that of a K-CN combination rather
than that of a group of independent atoms such as we find in K20.
Groups like CN which have relatively high bond strengths and are
therefore able to maintain their identity while changes are taking place
elsewhere in the compounds in which they exist are called radicals.
Inasmuch as the special properties of these radicals are due to the
differences between their bond strengths and those of the other bonds
within the compounds, the extent to which any particular group acts
as a radical depends on the magnitude of these differences. Where the
inter-atomic forces are very weak, and the bond is correspondingly strong,
as in the C-N combination, the radical is very resistant to separation,
and acts as a single atom in most respects. At the other extreme, where
the differences between the various inter-atomic forces in the molecule
are small, the boundary line between radicals and non-radical atomic
groupings is rather vague.
The stronger radicals are definite structural groups. NH4 is, to a large
degree, structurally interchangeable with the sodium atom, OH can
substitute for I in the Cdl2 crystal without changing the structure, and
so on. The weakest radicals, those with the smallest margins of bond
strength, crystallize in structures in which the radical, as such, plays
no part, and the structural units are the individual atoms. The perovskite
(CaTi03) structure is a familiar example. Here each atom is structurally
independent, and hence this type of arrangement is available for a
compound like KMgF3 in which there definitely are no radicals, as well
 Complex Compounds 237

as for a compound such as KIOa which contains a borderline group.

From a structural standpoint the I 0 3 group in K I0 3 is not a radical,
although it acts as a radical in some other physical phenomena, and
is commonly recognized as one.
From a thermal standpoint, for example, the I 0 3 group is definitely
a radical at low temperatures, the entire group acting as a unit. But
unlike the strong radicals such as OH and CN, which maintain this
single unit status under all ordinary conditions, I 0 3 separates into two
thermal units at higher temperatures. Other radical groups are still less
resistant to the thermal forces. The C r03 group, for example, acts as
a single thermal unit at the lower temperatures, but in the upper part
of the solid temperature range all four atoms are thermally independent.
The thermal behavior of chemical compounds, including the examples
mentioned, will be discussed in a subsequent volume.
In order to take the place of single atoms in the three-dimensional
inorganic structures, the radicals must have three-dimensional force
distributions, and where some of the inter-atomic forces are inherently
two-dimensional, as is true in some of the lower group elements, for
reasons that will be explained later, the three-dimensional distribution
must be achieved by the geometrical arrangement. The typical inorganic
radical therefore consists of a group of satellite atoms clustered three-
dimensionally around one or more central atoms. Inasmuch as the satellite
atoms are between the central atom and the opposite component of
the compound, the effective valence of the radical must have the same
sign as that of the satellite atoms. This limitation on the net valence
means that the great majority of these inorganic radicals are negative,
as hydrogen is the only element that has a two-dimensional force
distribution when acting in a positive capacity. The most important
hydrogen radical of this class is ammonium, NH4, in which hydrogen
has the magnetic valence 1 and nitrogen the negative valence 3 for
a net group valence of +1. The phosphonium radical is similar, but
less common. A variation of NH4 is the tetramethylammonium radical
N(CH3)4, in which the hydrogen atoms are replaced by positive CH3
groups.
The theoretically possible number of negative radicals is very large,
but the effect of probability factors limits the number of those actually
existing to a small fraction of the number that could theoretically be
constructed. Other things being equal, those groups with the smallest
net displacement are the most probable, so we find B 0 2-1 commonly,
and B 03-3 less frequently, but not B045, B 057, or the other higher
members of this series. Geometrical considerations also enter into the
situation, the most probable combinations, where other features are equal,
being those in which the forces can be disposed most symmetrically.
238 Nothing but Motion

The status of the binary radicals such as OH, SH, and CN , is ambiguous
on the basis of the criteria developed thus far, since there is no distinction
between central and satellite atoms in their structures, but these groups
can be included with the inorganic radicals because they are able to
enter into the three-dimensional inorganic geometric arrangements.
Another special class of radicals combines positive and negative
valences of the same element. Thus there is the azide radical N 3, in
which one nitrogen atom with the neutral valence +5 is combined with
two negative nitrogen atoms, valence 3 each, for a group total of
1. Similarly, a carbon atom with the primary magnetic valence +2
joins with a negative carbon atom, valence -4 , to form the carbide
radical, C2, with a net valence of - 2 .
The common boride radicals, the combination boron structures men
tioned in Chapter 18, are B 2, B4, and B6. The best known B4 compounds
are all direct combinations with valence 4 elements of Division I. It
can therefore be concluded that the net valence of the B4 combination
is 4. Similarly, the role of B6 in such compounds as CaB6 and BaB6
indicates that the net valence of the B6 radical is 2. The status of
B2 is not as clearly indicated, but it also appears to have a net valence
of 2; that is, it is simply half of the B4 combination. This net valence
of - 2 could be produced either by a combination of the -3 negative
valence with the secondary magnetic valence, + 1, or by a combination
of the 5 negative valence with the positive valence +3. The same
two alternatives are available for B4. The combination of +1 and -3
valences is also feasible for the radical B6, and on the basis of these
values the valences of all of the boride radicals constitute a consistent
system, as shown by the following tabulation:

Positive Negative Net

B +1 B 3 -2
2 B+l 2 B-3 -4
4 B+1 2B 3 -2
On the other hand, the B6 radical cannot be produced by a combination
of +3 and -5 valences, and in order to utilize the -5 valence it would
be necessary to substitute valence +2 in the positive position. The 3
negative valence thus leads to a more consistent set of combinations,
as well as being consistent with the boron valence in the direct combina
tions of boron with positive elements. At least for the present, therefore,
it will have to be concluded that the weight of the evidence favors
a single negative valence (-3) for boron.
The general principles of compound formation developed for the simpler
combinations apply with equal force to compounds containing radicals
 Complex Compounds 239

of the inorganic class. The basic requirement is that the group valence
of the radical be in equilibrium with an equal and opposite valence.
A negative radical such as S0 4 therefore joins the necessary number
of positive atoms to form a compound on the order of K 2S04. The
positive NH4 radical similarly joins with a negative atom to produce
a compound like NH 4C1. Or both components may be radicals, as in
(NH4)2so4.
One new factor introduced by the grouping is that the relative negativity
of the atoms within the group no longer has any significance. The azide
group, N3, for instance, is negative, and cannot be anything but negative.
In the compound C1N3, then, the chlorine atom is necessarily positive,
even though chlorine is negative to nitrogen in direct Division IV
combinations such as NC13.
In the magnetic valence compounds the negative electric displacement
is in equilibrium with one of the magnetic displacements of the positive
component. This leaves the positive electric displacement free to exert
a directional influence on other molecules or atoms. In its general aspects,
this directional effect is similar to the orienting influence of the space-time
equilibrium that is required in order to enable atoms of negative elements
to join with other atoms in compounds. In both cases there are certain
relative positions of the interacting atoms or molecules that permit a
closer approach, which results in a greater cohesive force. Neither of
these orienting agencies contributes anything to the cohesive forces;
they simply hold the participants in the positions in which the stronger
forces are generated. Without the directional restrictions imposed by
these orienting influences the relative positions would be random, and
the greater cohesive forces would not develop.
Since all magnetic valence compounds have free electric displacements,
they all have strong combining tendencies, forming what we may call
molecular compounds; that is, compounds in which the constituents
are molecules instead of the individual atoms or radicals of the atomic
compounds. Inasmuch as the free electric displacements are all positive,
there is no valence equilibrium involved, and the molecular compounds
can be of almost any character, but geometrical and symmetry consider
ations favor associations with units of the same kind, or with closely
related units. Double molecules of a compound are not readily recognized
in the solid or liquid states, but in spite of the obstacles to recognition
there are many well-known combinations such as Fe0.Fe 20 3, C2O.CO,
etc. Water and ammonia, both magnetic valence compounds, are particu
larly versatile in forming combinations of this type, and join with a
great variety of substances for form hydrates and ammoniates.
There is only one free electric displacement in any binary magnetic
valence combination, and the orienting effect is therefore exerted in
240 Nothing but Motion

only one direction. When the active molecular orientation effects, as

we will call them, of a pair of molecules such as FeO and Fe20 3
are directed toward each other, the system is closed, and the resulting
Fe30 4 association has no further combining tendencies. Even where
several H20 molecules combine with the same base molecule, as is
very common, the association is between the base molecule and each
H20 molecule individually. A different situation develops where a
two-dimensional molecule is formed on the basis of a magnetic valence.
Here the inter-molecular distance may be reduced to the point where
three molecules are within a single natural unit of space, in which case
each molecule exerts an orienting effect not only upon its immediate
neighbor in the active direction, but also upon the next molecule beyond
it.
Limitation of the effective inter-atomic forces to two dimensions in
this class of compounds contributes to the extension of the magnetic
orientation effects in two separate ways. First, it reduces the inter-atomic
distance by one third, since there is no effective rotational force in
the third dimension. In the compound lithium chloride, for example,
the distance between lithium and chlorine atoms on a three-dimensional
basis would be 1.321 natural units. By reason of the two-dimensional
orientation, this drops to .881 units. Then, the distance between molecules
1 and 3 is further reduced by the geometric effect illustrated in Fig.
3. In an aggregate in which the structural units are arranged three-dimen-
sionally, as in (a), molecule 2 interposes its full diameter between
molecules 1 and 3. Where the inter-atomic distance is x, the distance
between the centers of molecules 1 and 3 is then 4x. But if the structural
units are arranged two-dimensionally, as in (b), this distance is reduced
to 2y, where y is the distance between adjacent central atoms.
In the case of lithium chloride, this reduction is not sufficient to
enable any interaction between molecules 1 and 3, as the 2y distance
is 1.398, and no effect is exerted where this distance exceeds unity.
But there are other compounds, particularly those of carbon and nitrogen,
in which the 2y distance is, or can be, less than unity. The C-C distance,
for example, ranges from .406 to .528. With some aid from the geometric

Figure 3
(a) (b)
 Complex Compounds 24 l

arrangement in the case of the greater distances, a large number of carbon

compounds based on the magnetic orientation are within the range where
the orienting effects of the free electric displacement extend to the
third molecule.
These two-dimensional magnetic valence molecules with very short
inter-atomic distances are actually stable structures with their negative
electric rotations fully counterbalanced by appropriate positive magnetic
rotations, and they are therefore capable of independent existence in
the manner of the other molecules that we have considered. Because
of their strong combining tendencies, however, most of them do not
actually lead an independent life more than momentarily if there are
other molecules present with which they can combine, and in recognition
of the fact that they are normally constituents of molecular compounds
rather than molecules in their own right we will hereafter refer to them
as magnetic neutral groups.
While there are many atomic combinations with inter-atomic distances
less than one half natural unit, or so close to this figure that they can
be brought within it by structural modifications, the number of such
combinations that can form magnetic neutral groups is limited by various
factors such as probability, valence, relative negativity, etc. Thus the
combinations CN and OH are excluded because they have active valences;
that is, they are negative radicals, not neutral groups. NH2 is excluded
by a probability situation that will be discussed later; OH2 is excluded
because hydrogen is strongly positive to oxygen, and so on. Furthermore,
the binary valence two combinations are subject to an additional restric
tion. Its exact nature is not yet clear, but its effect is to put CO at
the limit of stability, so that combinations such as NO and CS are
excluded. The practical effect of these several restrictions, together
with the limitations on the inter-atomic distance, is to confine the magnetic
neutral groups, aside from CO, almost entirely to combinations of carbon,
nitrogen, and boron with valence one negative atoms or radicals.
In the subsequent discussion we will find it convenient to use a diagram
which identifies the orientation effects that are exerted by the various
structural units, and thus shows how the different types of molecular
compounds are held in combining positions; that is, positions in which
the inter-group cohesive forces are maximized. In the diagram we will
represent valence effects by double lines, as in CH3=OH, while the
primary molecular orientation effect will be represented by single lines,
as in CH-CH. The secondary molecular effects exerted on the third
group in line will then be shown by connecting lines, with arrows to
indicate the direction of the orienting effect.
242 Nothing but Motion

As this diagram indicates, there is a primary orientation effect between

CH groups 1 and 2, and between groups 3 and 4. Because these effects
are unidirectional, and paired, there is no interaction between groups
2 and 3. If the CH groups were three-dimensional, like the FeO and
Fe20 3 molecules previously mentioned, there would be no combination
between the 1-2 pair and the 3-4 pair, and the result would be two
CH-CH molecules. But because group 3 is within one unit of distance
of group 1, the orienting effect of the free electric displacement of
group 1, which acts at short range against group 2, also acts against
group 3 at longer range, as shown in the diagram. Similarly, the 4-3
effect acts at long range against group 2. Thus the 1-2 and 3-4 pairs
are held in the combining position by the secondary orientation effects
in spite of the lack of any primary effect between groups 2 and 3.
The relation of these orienting influences to the cohesion between
the constituents of the atomic or molecular compound can be compared
to the effect of a reduced temperature on a saturated liquid. The result
of the lower temperature is solidification, and in the solid there is an
additional cohesive force between the atoms that did not exist in the
liquid, but this new force is not supplied by the temperature. What
the change in the temperature actually accomplished was to create the
necessary conditions under which the atoms could assume the relative
positions in which the inter-atomic forces of cohesion are operative.
Sim ilarly, the orienting effects of the valence equilibrium and the free
rotational displacement of the magnetic neutral groups do not provide
the forces that hold the molecules together; they merely create the
conditions which allow the stronger cohesive forces to operate.
When the atoms or neutral groups are subjected to the orienting effects
that permit them to establish equilibrium at one of the shorter inter-atomic
or inter-group distances, it is the point of equilibrium between the
rotational forces and the oppositely directed force due to the progression
of the natural reference system that determines the magnitude of the
cohesive forces. An important consequence is that the cohesive force
between any two specific magnetic neutral groups is the same regardless
of whether the orientation results from the short range primary effect,
or the long range secondary effect, of the free electric displacements.
In the preceding diagram, the magnitude of the cohesive force between
groups 2 and 3 is identical with that of the 1-2 and 3-4 forces. It is
simply the cohesive force between two CH groups. As we will see
later, particularly in Chapter 21, this point is quite significant in connection
with the attempts that are being made to draw conclusions concerning
the molecular structure from the magnitudes of the inter-group forces.
As the diagram indicates by the arrows at the two ends of the four-group
combination, the 2-1 and 3-4 secondary orientation effects are not
 Complex Compounds 243

satisfied, and they are capable of extension to any other atom or group
that comes within range. Such a combination of neutral groups is therefore
open to further combination in both directions. The system is not closed
by the addition of more groups of the same character, since this still
leaves active secondary orientation effects at each end of the combined
structure. The unique combining power that results from this continuation
of the secondary effects gives rise to an extremely large and complex
variety of chemical compounds. There is almost no limit on the number
of groups that can be joined. As long as each end of the molecule
is a magnetic neutral group with an active secondary effect, there are
still two active ends no matter how many groups are added.
The necessary closure to form a compound without further combining
tendencies can be attained in one of two ways. Enough of these magnetic
neutral groups may combine to permit the ends of the chain to swing
around and join, satisfying the unbalanced secondary effects, and creating
a ring compound. Or, alternatively, the end groups may attach themselves
to atoms or radicals which do not have the orienting effects of the
magnetic groups. Such additions close the system and form a chain
compound. Both the chain and ring structures are known as organic
compounds, a name surviving from the early days of chemistry, when
it was believed that natural products were composed of substances of
a nature totally different from that of the constituents of inorganic matter.
As used herein, the term organic will refer to all compounds with
the characteristic two-dimensional magnetic valence structure, rather
than being defined as usual to cover only carbon compounds with certain
exceptions. The excluded carbon compounds are practically the same
under both definitions, and the only significant difference is that in
this work a few additional compounds, such as the hydronitrogens, which
have the same type of structure as the organic carbon compounds are
included in the organic classification.
The valence equilibrium must be maintained in the chain compounds,
and the addition of a positive radical or atom at one end of the chain
must be balanced by the addition of a negative unit with the same
net valence at the other end. This equilibrium question does not arise
in connection with the ring compounds as all of the structural units
in the ring are either magnetic neutral groups or neutral associations
of atoms or groups with active valences. Here the complete valence
balance is achieved within the groups or associations.
In order to join the two-dimensional magnetic group structures any
radicals which are to occupy the end positions must also be two-dimen-
sional. The inherently three-dimensional inorganic radicals such as N 03,
S04, etc., do not qualify. The two-atom and three-atom radicals like
OH, CN, and N 0 2 are arranged three-dimensionally in the inorganic
244 Nothing but Motion

compounds, but they are not necessarily limited to this kind of an

arrangement, and they can be disposed two-dimensionally. These radicals
are therefore available for the two-dimensional compounds.
The two-dimensional structure also reverses the requirement with
respect to the net valence of the radicals. The external contacts of
the two-dimensional groups are made primarily by the central atoms,
and instead of having the same direction as that of the satellite atoms,
the net group valence conforms to the valence of the central atom.
These groups, the organic radicals, are therefore opposite in valence
to their counterparts among the inorganic radicals. Corresponding to
the positive ammonium radical NH4 is the negative amine radical N H2,
the negative radical CN in which carbon has the magnetic valence
2 has an organic analog in the positive radical CN+, in which carbon
has the normal valence 4, and so on. Furthermore, the combinations
of carbon and the valence one negative elements, including hydrogen,
which are inherently two-dimensional, and are therefore precluded from
acting as inorganic radicals, are fully compatible with the two-dimensional
neutral groups. Since there are a large number of such combinations,
the great majority of the organic radicals are structures of this type.
From the foregoing it can be seen that the organic compounds are
subject to exactly the same valence considerations as the inorganic
compounds. They are, in fact, atomic associations of identically the
same general nature. The only difference is that the very short inter-atomic
distances in the magnetic valence compounds of the lower group elements
permit the existence of secondary orientation effects that enable these
compounds to unite into complex structures. This unification of the whole
realm of chemical compounds is an example of the kind of simplification
that results when the true reason for a physical phenomenon is ascertained.
As we saw in Chapter 18, the formation of chemical compounds takes
place because the atoms of the purely electronegative elements (Division
IV) cannot establish a stable relationship with atoms of other elements
except under certain special conditions in which their negative displace
ment (motion in time) is counterbalanced by an appropriate positive
displacement of the elements with which they are interacting. These
requirements are equally as applicable to carbon and the other lower
elements as to the constituents of the inorganic compounds. All chemical
compounds are governed by the same general principles.
The clarification of the nature of the organic compounds will, of course,
require some modification of existing chemical ideas. The concept of
an electronic origin of the cohesive forces must be abandoned. Electrons
are independent physical entities. They are not constituents of atoms,
and they are not available to generate cohesive forces, even if they
were capable of so doing. (It should be noted that the foregoing statement
 Complex Compounds 245

does not assert that there are no electrons in the atoms. That is an
entirely different issue which will be given consideration when we are
ready to begin a discussion of electrical phenomena.) The concepts of
double bonds and triple bonds will also have to be discarded,
along with the curious idea of resonance, in which a system alternating
between two possible states is supposed to acquire an additional energy
component by reason of the alternation.
Some of the theoretical concepts that are untenable in the light of
the new findings, such as the double bonds, have been quite useful
in practice, and for this reason many chemists will no doubt find it
difficult to believe that these ideas are actually wrong. As explained
in the introductory discussion, however, much of the progress that has
been made in the scientific field has been made with the help of theories
that are now known to be wrong, and have been discarded. The reason
for this is that none of these theories was entirely wrong. In order
to gain any substantial degree of acceptance a theory must be correct
in at least some respects, and, as experience has demonstrated in many
cases, these valid features can contribute materially to an understanding
of the phenomena to which they relate, even though other portions
of the theory are totally incorrect.
The necessity of parting with cherished ideas of long standing will
be less distressing if it is realized that the double bonds and associated
concepts that must now be abandoned are not tangible physical entities;
they are merely inventions by which certain empirical relations of a
mathematical nature are clothed in descriptive language for more conven
ient manipulation. Linus Pauling brings this out clearly in the following
statements:
The structural elements that are used in classical structure theory,
the carbon-carbon single bond, the carbon-carbon double bond, the
carbon-hydrogen bond, and so on, also are idealizations, having
no existence in reality. . . . It is true that chemists, after long
experience in the use of classical structure theory, have come to
talk about, and probably to think about, the carbon-carbon double
bond and other structural units of the theory as though they were
real. Reflection leads us to recognize, however, that they are not
real, but are theoretical constructs in the same way as the individual
Kekule structures for benzene.68
When a correct theory appears it must include the valid features of
the previous incorrect theory. But the identity of these features as they
appear in the context of the different theories is often obscured by
the fact that they are expressed in different language. In the case we
are now considering, current chemical theory says that the cohesion
246 Nothing but Motion

in organic compounds is due to electronic forces. Development of the

Reciprocal System of theory now leads to the conclusion that there
are no electrons in the atomic structures, and consequently there are
no electronic forces. At first glance, then, it would appear that the
new findings repudiate the entire previous structure of thought. On closer
examination, however, it can be seen that the electrons, as such, actually
play no part in most of the explanations of physical and chemical
phenomena that are presumably derived from the electronic theory. The
theoretical development actually uses only the numerical values.
For example, the conclusions that are drawn from the positions of
the elements in the periodic table are currently expressed in terms of
the number of electrons. Carbon has a valence of four in its saturated
condition because it has four electrons in its atomic structure, so the
electronic theory says. It is clear from the empirical evidence that there
actually are four units of some kind in the carbon atom, whereas the
sodium atom has only one unit of this kind. But the empirical observations
give us nothing but the numbers 4 and 1; they tell us nothing at all
about the nature of the units to which the numerical values apply. The
conclusion that these units are electrons is pure assumption, and the
identification with electrons plays no part in the application of the theory.
The maximum valence of carbon is four, not four electrons.
Moseleys Law, which relates the frequencies of the characteristic
x-rays of the elements to their atomic numbers, is another example.
It is currently accepted as definite proof of the existence of specific
numbers of electrons in the atoms of these elements. Conclusions of
the same kind are drawn from the optical spectra. In a publication of
the National Bureau of Standards entitled Atomic Energy Levels we
find this positive statement: Each chemical element can emit as many
atomic spectra as it has electrons. But, in fact, the empirical evidence
in both cases contributes nothing but numbers. Here, again, the observa
tions tell us that certain specific numbers of units are involved, but
they give us no indication as to the nature of these units. So far as
we can tell from the empirical information, they can be any kind of
units, without restriction.
Thus, when we discard the electronic theory in application to these
phenomena we are not making any profound change; we are merely
altering the language in which our understanding of the phenomena is
expressed. Instead of saying that there are 11 electrons in sodium, one
of which is in a particular configuration, we say, on the basis of
our theoretical findings, that the total number of effective speed displace
ment units in the rotational motions of the sodium atom is 11, and that
only one of these applies to the electric (one-dimensional) rotation. Carbon
has 6 total displacement units in its rotational motions, with 4 in the
 Complex Compounds 247

electric dimension. It follows that in those properties which are related

to the total effective speed displacement (the net total quantity of motion
in the atom) the number applicable to sodium is 11, and that applicable
to carbon is 6, while in those properties which are determined by the
displacement in the electric dimension individually the respective numbers
are 1 for sodium and 4 for carbon.
It is an equally simple matter to translate the formation of ionic
compounds from the language of the electronic theory to the language
of the Reciprocal System. The electronic theory says that stability is
attained by conforming to the electronic configuration of one of the
inert gas elements, and that potassium and chlorine, for example,
accomplish this by transferring one electron from potassium to chlorine,
thus bringing both to the status of the inert gas element argon. The
Reciprocal System says that chlorine has a negative rotational speed
displacement of one unit (a unit motion in time) in its electric dimension,
and that it can enter into a chemical combination only by means of
a relative orientation in which that negative displacement is balanced
at a zero point by an appropriate positive displacement. Potassium has
a positive displacement of one unit, and the combination of this one
positive unit and the negative unit of chlorine produces the required
net total of zero.
So far as the ionic compounds are concerned, the Reciprocal System
changes practically nothing but the language, as the foregoing example
shows. But when the language change is made, it becomes evident that
the same theory that applies to this one restricted class of compounds
applies to all of the true chemical compounds. On this basis there is
no need for the profusion of subsidiary theories that have been formulated
in order to deal with those classes of compounds to which the basic
ionic explanation is not applicable. Instead of calling upon the multitude
of different bonds the ionic bond, the ion-dipole bond, the covalent
bond, the hydrogen bond, the three-electron bond, and the numerous
hybrid bondsthat are required in order to adapt the electronic theory
to the many types of compounds, the Reciprocal System applies the
same theoretical principles to all compounds.
In these cases that we have considered, the translation from electronic
language to the language of the Reciprocal System leads to a significant
clarification of the mechanism of the processes that are involved. Whatev
er value there may be in the electronic theory is not lost when that
theory is abandoned; it is carried over into the theoretical structure
of the Reciprocal System in different language.
 CHAPTER 20

Chain Compounds
In undertaking a general survey of such an extended field as that
o f the structure o f the organic compounds it is obviously essential to
use some kind o f a classification system to group the compounds of
similar characteristics together, so that we may avoid the necessity of
dealing with so many individual substances. The distinction between
chain and ring compounds has already been mentioned. The chemical
properties o f the chain compounds are determined primarily by the nature
of the positive and negative radicals or atoms, and it will therefore
be convenient to set up two separate classifications for these compounds,
one on the basis o f the positive component, and the other on the basis
o f the negative component. In general, the classifications utilized in
this work will conform to the commonly recognized groupings, but the
defining criteria will not necessarily be the same, and this will result
in some divergence in certain cases.
The first positive classification that we will consider comprises those
compounds whose positive components contain valence four carbon
atoms. These are called paraffins. This name originally referred only
to hydrocarbons, but as used herein it will apply to all chain compounds
with valence four carbon at the positive end of the molecule. The term
saturated compound is commonly used with essentially the same
significance so far as the chain compounds are concerned, but its
application is usually extended to the cyclic compounds as well. To
avoid confusion it will not be used in this work, since the cyclic compounds
cannot be considered saturated on the basis of the criteria that we are
setting up. The paraffin hydrocarbon, or alkane, chain is a linking of
CH2 neutral groups with a CH3 positive radical at one end of the chain,
and a negative hydrogen atom at the other. The cohesion between this
hydrogen atom and the adjacent CH2 group is very strong, and for
most purposes it will be convenient to regard the CH2 H combination
as a negative CH3 radical. On this basis, the paraffin hydrocarbon chain
is CH3 (CH2)n CH3.
If a valence two carbon atom is substituted for the valence four carbon
atom o f the paraffins, the result is an olefin, a chain which is identical
with that o f the paraffins except that it has the primary magnetic valence

249
250 Nothing but Motion

radical CH instead of the normal valence radical CH3 in the positive

position. The general formula for the olefin hydrocarbons, or alkenes,
is CH*(CH2)n*CH3.
In the usual version of this formula one of the CH2 groups is placed
outside of the CH group, but this is obviously incompatible with the
structural principles developed in the preceding pages. On first consider
ation it might appear that the chemical evidence is favorable to the
conventional CH2 CH sequence. When we remove all of the internal
magnetic neutral groups we come down to CH CH3 as the theoretical
structure of ethylene, the first of the olefins, whereas it is generally
agreed that the chemical behavior of this compound is more in harmony
with the structure CH2*CH2. This apparent contradiction is explained
by the nature of the CH3 negative radical. As has been pointed out,
this radical is actually CH2 H. For most purposes the combination may
be treated as a single unit, but if we express the ethylene formula in
full form as CH CH2 H it can be seen that the association between
the CH and H structural units is closer than that between CH2 and
H. It is true that the CH2 group is between CH and H when the ethylene
molecule is intact, but CH and H are partners in a valence equilibrium,
whereas the intervening CH2 group is neutral. Consequently, if the
molecule is sufficiently disturbed by chemical or other means, the CH
and H units join and the compound enters the subsequent reaction as
two methylene (CH2) molecules. This is not an unusual situation. Many
observers have commented that the reacting molecule under such circum
stances is not necessarily the same as the static molecule.
A valence one carbon atom in the positive position produces an
acetylene. Both the olefin and acetylene classifications, as herein defined,
should be understood as including all compounds with the specified
positive components, not merely the hydrocarbons. In the acetylenes,
as in the olefins, the currently accepted molecular formulas must be
revised to put the positive valence component at the end of the chain.
We also find that the valence one orientation of a lone carbon atom
is more stable if it is joined to a neutral group in which carbon has
the same valence, rather than to one in which the carbon valence is
+2. The independent carbon atom that constitutes the positive component
of the acetylenes is therefore followed by a CH neutral group. The
remainder of the acetylene hydrocarbon, or alkyne, molecule is identical
with the corresponding portion of a molecule of either of the other
two hydrocarbon chains, and the general formula is C CH (CH2)nCH3.
Acetylene itself is similar to ethylene in that the true structure is C CH H,
with a valence equilibrium between the single C and H atoms which
causes them to combine if the molecule breaks up. The compound
therefore acts chemically as two CH units.
 Chain Compounds 251

Addition of CH2 neutral groups to the straight chain hydrocarbons

does not necessarily take place in the existing chain. The incoming groups
may instead be inserted between the positive and negative components
of any of the neutral groups, enlarging that group from CH2to CH CH2H,
which we may write as CH CH3, or CHCH3, as previously indicated.
Further additions may then be made in the same manner as they are
made in the principal chain, lengthening the neutral group indefinitely.
Such a lengthened group is known as a branch of the principal chain,
and structures of this kind are called branched chain compounds.
N o branching of the CH3 radical is possible, since addition of a CH2
group results in CH2 CH2 H, or CH2 CH3, which merely extends the
straight chain. A CH2 group may be added to the CH olefin radical,
however, as the product in this case is CCH3, which is not equivalent
to an extension of the chain. This CCH3 group may then be lengthened
in the usual manner to C CH2 CH3, and so on.
Under the accepted systems of nomenclature the branched chain
compounds are named as derivatives of the straight chain compounds,
the chain position being indicated by number, as in 2-methyl butane,
2,3-dimethyl hexane, etc. The added possibility of a modification of
the positive radical in the olefins introduces an extra variation into the
system which is taken into account by setting up several basic classifica
tions: 1-olefins, 2-olefins, 3-olefins, and so on. Branching is handled
in the same manner as in the paraffins, and the compounds have names
such as 2-ethyl-1-hexene, 3,4-dimethyl-2-pentene, etc.
The names applied to the paraffins under this current system are
equally applicable to these compounds on the basis of the structural
relations developed in this work. However, the current ideas as to the
structure of the olefins and acetylenes, and the system of nomenclature
that has been applied to them, are products of the electronic theory
of compound formation. The results of our theoretical development show
that certain modifications of the previously accepted structural arrange
ments are required, as has been noted, and the nature of these modifica
tions is such that changes in the names applied to some of the compounds
would also be appropriate. On this new basis no special system of names
is required for the olefins, as the paraffin system can be applied to
the olefins as well. The only difference between the two is in the branching
of the olefin radical, and this can be handled by utilizing the 1-alkyl
term, available but not used in the paraffin compounds. On this basis
1-pentene, CH (CH2)3CH3, will become simply pentene, while 2-pen-
tene, CCH3(CH2)2CH3, becomes 1-methyl butene, and 3-pentene,
(C CH2 CH3) CH2 CH3, becomes 1-ethyl propene. The paraffin names
are also applicable to the acetylenes in the same manner. 1-pentyne,
C CH (CH2)2 CH3, becomes pentyne; 2-pentyne, C CCH3CH2CH3,
252 Nothing but Motion

becomes 2-methyl butyne, and so on. Such a revision of the nomenclature

is not only desirable from the standpoint of more accurately reflecting
the true structure of the molecules, and for the sake of uniformity,
but also accomplishes a substantial amount of simplification.
The information derived from theory will likewise require some
modification of the conventional methods of representing the molecular
structure of the organic compounds. The so-called extended formulas,
based on concepts such as electrons and double bonds that have no
place in the molecule as we find it, must be discarded. But for most
purposes the exact arrangement of the individual atoms is immaterial.
The structural unit is the group rather than the atom, and the positions
of the groups determine the nature and magnitude of the structure-depen-
dent properties of the compound. The notation that has been used thus
far, the condensed structural formula which shows only the composi
tion and sequence of the groups, is therefore adequate for most normal
applications.
The usual arrangement of these condensed formulas is not entirely
satisfactory, as it does not recognize the existence of positive and negative
valences, and therefore fails to distinguish between groups of the same
composition but opposite valence. The CH3 end groups in the paraffin
molecule, for example, are currently regarded as identical. Since the
opposing valences play a very important part in the molecular structure
it is desirable that the formula should definitely indicate the positive
and negative components of the compound. This can be accomplished
without any serious dislocation of familiar patterns by identifying the
positive and negative components of the compound as a whole with
the left and right ends of the formula respectively, as is common practice
in the inorganic division.
It would be logical to extend this policy to the individual components
of the molecules, and that probably should be done some day as a
matter of consistency, but some compromise with logic and consistency
seems advisable in this present work in order to avoid creating further
complications for the readers, who already have many unavoidable
departures from conventional practice to contend with. The familiar
expressions for such primary units as NH2 and OH will therefore be
retained, together with expansions such as NH CH2CH3, O CH2CH3,
etc., even though this reverses the regular positive to negative order
in most of the negative radicals. Continued use of CH3 rather than
CH2 H to represent the negative methyl radical is also a departure from
consistent practice, but in this case the condensed form is not only
more familiar but also more convenient. The full CH2 H representation
will therefore be used only where, as in the discussion of the structure
of the ethylene molecule, it is necessary to stress the true nature of
 Chain Compounds 253

the radical. In the case of the analogous CH2 negative radical there
is no significant advantage to be gained by use of the condensed
expression, and this radical, which is a combination of a CH neutral
group and a negative hydrogen atom will be shown in its true form
asCHH.
For a correct representation of the molecular structure it is essential
that the neutral groups be clearly identified. Where there are methyl
substitutions, the identification can be accomplished by omitting the
dividing mark between the components of the neutral group; e.g.,
CH3 CHCH3 CH2 CHCH3 CH3, 2,4-dimethyl pentane. Longer neutral
groups can be identified by parentheses, the positive-negative order being
preserved within the group. The formula of 3-propyl pentane on this
basis is CH3CH2(CH CH2CH2CH3) CH2CH3. If further subdivision
within the neutral groups is necessary, the distinction between main
and subgroupings can be indicated by brackets or other suitable symbols.
Where a valence two negative component is involved and the chain
is double, the customary expression such as (CH3CH2)2O is appropriate
if the chains are equal. Unequal chains can be represented by treating
the valence two component and one of the branches as a negative radical
in this manner: CH3 CH2*CH2 (O CH2 CH3), or the two branches can
be shown on separate lines, as

CH3 CH2 CH2\

CH3 CH2/ U
In order to facilitate the presentation of the new principles of molecular
structure that have been developed from the postulates of the Reciprocal
System the revised structural formulas as described in the foregoing
paragraphs will be used throughout this work. In designating positions
in the chain we will number from the positive end, rather than following
the Geneva system, which regards the two ends as interchangeable.
The different numbering is necessary for clarity, in view of the modifica
tions that have been made, not only in the order of the groups but
also, in some cases, in the group composition. However, this revised
numbering will be used only for purposes of the discussion, and the
accepted names of the compounds will be retained, to avoid unnecessary
confusion. A complete overhaul of the organic nomenclature will be
advisable sooner or later.
The somewhat minor modifications of current structural ideas that
are required in the olefins and acetylenes become more significant in
the diolefins, a class of compounds in which a pair of CH neutral groups
with the acetylene carbon valence (one) is inserted into the olefin chain,
a valence two structure. The C5 compounds of this class are known
254 Nothing but Motion

as pentadienes. If the CH groups replace the CH2 groups in the third

and fourth positions of pentene the result is CH*CH2*CH*CHCH3.
Instead of using the same numbering system that is applied to the other
hydrocarbon families, the diolefins are numbered according to the
locations of the hypothetical double bonds, and this compound is
called 1,3-pentadiene. Since the CH3 group at the negative end of the
pentene molecule is actually CH2 H, the CH2 portion is open to replace
ment by CH. The incoming CH groups may therefore occupy the fourth
and fifth positions, producing C H C H 2 CH2 C H C H H , now called
1,4-pentadiene. Another possible structure involves removing the hydro
gen atom from the CH positive radical, and splitting the molecule into
two chains. If the chains are equal, we have C(CH CH3)2, which we
may also represent as
/C H C H 3
\C H C H 3
This is 2,3-pentadiene. A variation of this structure removes the CH2
group from one of the CH3 combinations. This reduces the compound
to a C4 status, but it can be brought back up to a pentadiene by inserting
the CH2 group in the other branch, which produces what is called
1.2-pentadiene:

r /C H H
\ C H C H 2 CH3
One of the most important of the diolefins, from the industrial
standpoint, is isoprene, another C5compound, currently called 2-methyl-
1.3-butadiene. The structure is the same as that of 1,4-pentadiene, except
that the CH2 group next to the first of the CH neutral groups is moved
out of the chain and attached to the CH group as a branch:
C H C H 2 CCH3 C H H .
Nitrogen, which is next to carbon in the atomic series, is also the
next most prolific in the formation of compounds. Some of the carbon
compounds, such as urea, one of the first organic compounds to be
synthesized, actually contain more nitrogen than carbon, but the positive
component in these compounds is carbon, and the lengthening of the
chain takes place primarily by the addition of carbon groups. There
are other compounds, however, in which nitrogen takes the positive
role both in the compound as a whole and in the neutral groups.
Corresponding to the hydrocarbons are the hydronitrogens. The positive
nitrogen radical in these compounds is NH2+, in which nitrogen has
the enhanced neutral valence three. A combination of this radical with
the negative amine group is hydrazine, NH2 NH2. Inserting one NH
 Chain Compounds 255

neutral group we obtain triazane, NH 2NH NH2. Another similar addition

produces tetrazane, NH 2 N H N H N H 2. Just how far this addition
process can be carried is uncertain, as the theoretical limits have not
been established, and the hydronitrogens have not been given the same
exhaustive study as the corresponding carbon compounds. A nitrogen
series corresponding to the acetylenes has a lone nitrogen atom with
the secondary magnetic valence one as the positive component. The
parent compound of this series is diimide, N NH2. One added NH
neutral group results in triazene, N NH *NH2, and by a second addition
we obtain tetrazene, N *NH NH NH2. Here again, the ultimate length
of the chain is uncertain.
All of the neutral groups in these nitrogen compounds have the
composition NH, in which nitrogen has the secondary magnetic valence
one. A neutral group NH 2 based on the primary magnetic valence is
theoretically possible, but this group is identical with the amine radical
except for the rotational orientation, and the orientation is subject to
change in accordance with the relative probabilities. The amine radical
is a more probable structure, and it prevents the existence of the NH2
neutral group.
The NH2+ radical is also a much less probable structure than the
amine radical, in which nitrogen has its normal negative valence, but
this positive radical is not in competition with the amine group. Wherever
a number of NH 2 units exist in close proximity the inter-atomic forces
tend toward combination, and in order that such combination may take
place some groups must be reoriented so that they may act as the positive
components of the compounds. The NH2+ radical has the most probable
of the positive orientations, and it therefore takes over the positive
role in NH2-NH2 and similar combinations, a position that is not open
to the amine radical. The NH 2 neutral group has no such protected
status.
Beyond carbon and nitrogen the ability to form compounds of the
molecular type drops sharply, but the corresponding elements in the
higher groups do participate in a few compounds of this nature. Silicon
forms a series of hydrides analogous to the paraffin hydrocarbons, with
the composition SiH3(SiH2)nH, and also some compounds intermediate
between the silicon and carbon chains. Typical examples of the latter
are SiH3 CH2 SiH2 H, and Si(CH3)3 CH2 SiH2 CH2 SiH2 H. Germa
nium forms a series of hydrides, known as germanes, which are similar
to the silicon hydrides, or silanes, and have the composition
GeH3 (GeH2)n H. Only a few members of this series are known. An
unstable tin hydride, SnH3 SnH2 H, has also been reported. It could
be expected that the higher valence three elements would form a limited
number of compounds similar to the hydronitrogens, but the known
256 Nothing but Motion

compounds of this type are still scarce. Among those that have been
reported are diphosphene, PH2 PH2, and cacodyl, As(CH3)2-As(CH3)2.
Since the minimum magnetic valence of phosphorus and arsenic is two,
these compounds cannot have the hydrazine structure NH2 NH *H, and
are probably P H P H 2 H and AsCH3-As(CH3)2*CH3. As pointed out
in connection with ethylene and acetylene, the chemical behavior of
such compounds is explained by the tendency of the positive and negative
components of the compound as a whole, such as PH and H in
diphosphene, to join when the compound is disturbed during a chemical
reaction.
Another series of compounds of the molecular class, but not related
to either carbon or nitrogen, is based on boron. Because it acts as
a Division IV element in these two-dimensional compounds, boron takes
the valence five, rather than the normal valence three which it has
in a compound such as B20 3, where it acts as an element of Division
I. The valence one radical on the valence five basis would be BH4,
or an equivalent, but such a radical would be three-dimensional, and
not capable of joining a two-dimensional chain. The positive radical
in the boron chain is therefore the valence two combination BH3. As
in the hydrocarbons, the negative component of the molecule as a whole
is hydrogen, and because of the valence of the positive radical two
negative hydrogen atoms are required. Here again, the association
between the hydrogen atoms and the adjacent BH neutral group is close,
as in the hydrocarbons, and the combination could be regarded as a
valence two negative BH3 radical. For present purposes, however, it
appears advisable to show it in its true form as BH H2.
The magnetic neutral groups of the boron compounds can be formed
on the basis of either the primary or the secondary magnetic valence,
which produce BH2and BH respectively. Because it minimizes the number
of hydrogen atoms at the negative end of the molecule, the negative
radical BH H2 takes precedence over BH2H2 even where the interior
groups are BH2 combinations. This presence of a BH neutral group
at the negative end of the compound, together with some other factors
that apparently favor BH over BH2, has the effect of making the BH
structures more stable than those in which the neutral groups are BH2.
The basic hydride of boron is diborane, BH3 BH H2. Addition of
BH neutral groups produces a series of compounds with the composition
BH3 (BH)n H2, the best known of which are hexaborane, in which n
is 5, and decaborane, in which n is 9. Substitution of a pair of BH2
groups for two of the BH groups results in a series which has the
composition BH3*(BH2)2 (BH)n H2. Beyond tetraborane, the first
member of this series (n=l), these compounds, as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, are less stable than the corresponding compounds
 Chain Compounds 257

of the all-BH series. In all of these boron compounds replacement of

hydrogen atoms by other valence one atoms or radicals is possible in
the same manner as in the hydrocarbons, but to a much more limited
extent.
As noted earlier, the extension of Division IV characteristics into
Division III, which gives rise to the two-dimensional combining tendencies
of boron, does not apply to the corresponding elements of the higher
groups to any substantial degree, and they do not duplicate the boron
series of compounds. There is an unstable hydride of aluminum, A12H6,
and a compound Ga2H6called digallane, both of which may be structurally
similar to diborane, but there is little, if any lengthening of these
compounds by means of magnetic neutral groups.
From the overall chemical standpoint, the molecular compounds formed
by positive elements other than carbon are not of much concern, and
they are given little or no attention in any but specialized textbooks.
They are important in the present connection, however, because they
serve to confirm the theoretical conclusions that were reached with
respect to the structure of the carbon compounds. The nitrogen and
boron compounds are not only constructed in accordance with the general
pattern deduced from theory, and followed by the carbon compounds
that is, a chain of magnetic neutral groups with a positive radical at
one end and a negative radical at the otherbut also support the
theoretical conclusions with respect to the structural details, inasmuch
as they are like the carbon compounds in those respects in which the
theory finds these elements to be alike, whereas they differ from the
carbon compounds in those respects in which there are theoretical
differences. For example, all three of these elements form both valence
two (CH2 etc.) and valence one (CH etc.) magnetic neutral groups (with
the exeption of N H2, the absence of which has been explained), because
these magnetic valences are properties of the group of elements (2A)
to which all three belong. On the other hand, the radicals in the end
positions are unlike because the electric valences, which apply to these
radicals, are properties of each of the three elements individually, and
they are all different.
The second system of classification of the organic chain compounds,
that based on the nature of the negative components, is not an alternate
but a parallel system. A compound classified as an alcohol because
of the nature of its negative component also belongs to one of the
categories set up on the basis of the identity of the positive component.
The previous discussion was confined mainly to the hydrocarbons to
simplify the presentation, but all of the statements that were made with
reference to compounds in which the negative component is hydrogen,
alone or in combination with CH2 as a negative CH3 radical, are equally
258 Nothing but Motion

applicable to those in which the hydrogen has been replaced by an

equivalent negative atom or group. Thus we have parafflnic alcohols,
olefinic (unsaturated) alcohols, and so on.
The primary requirement for the one for one substitutions is that
the valence of the substituent must conform to the hydrogen valence
both in magnitude and in sign. This requirement has been obscured
to a large extent by current structural theories which do not recognize
the existence of positive and negative valence in organic compounds,
but some of the hydrogen atoms in these compounds are positive and
others are negative, and this determines what substitutions can take
place. Hydrogen in combination with carbon is negative, and may be
replaced by any of the halogens or by negative radicals. Hydrogen
combined with oxygen is positive, and can therefore be replaced only
by positive elements and radicals. Thus from acetic acid, CH3 CO OH,
we obtain by substitution CH2C1C0 0H, chloroacetic acid, but
CH3*COONa, or N a - ( O C O C H 3), sodium acetate.
A hydrogen atom acting alone may be either positive or negative,
depending on its environment. The hydrogen atom at the end of a
hydrocarbon chain is negative, and may be replaced by a halogen.
CH3*CH2 H, ethane, becomes CH3 CH2 C1, ethyl chloride. The lone
hydrogen atom in formic acid, H-CO-OH, is positive, and a halogen
cannot replace it. The normal valence alkali elements cannot replace
this lone magnetic valence hydrogen atom either, and an incoming positive
atom goes to the OH radical. The hydrogen in N-H combinations is
also resistant to monatomic substitutions, but replacement by radicals
of the proper valence is readily accomplished.
Elements with higher valences substitute quite freely for either carbon
or hydrogen in the positive and negative radicals, but enter into the
magnetic neutral groups mainly as constituents of the common valence
one radicals: OH, NH2, etc. Except in the direct carbon-oxygen combina
tion CO, a single atom of valence two or three in a neutral group is
necessarily a constituent of an extended radical such as (O CH2 CH3).
In beginning a consideration of the principal families of substituted
compounds, we will look first at the alcohols. This alcohol classification
is one of several which result from the addition of oxygen to the
hydrocarbons in different ways. Here an OH radical is directly attached
to a hydrocarbon group, replacing a negative hydrogen atom. It is not
essential, however, that this OH group replace the particular atom that
constitutes the negative component of the compound as a whole. The
chemical behavior of the normal alcohols, in which the OH radical is
at the end of the chain, as in ethyl alcohol, CH3 CH2 OH, is closely
paralleled if OH is substituted for a hydrogen atom in one of the neutral
groups, as in secondary butyl alcohol, CH3CH2CHOH CH3. If the
 Chain Compounds 259

substitution takes place in the positive radical the result is somewhat

different. Such a substitution is more readily made if oxygen is first
introduced at the more favorable negative end of the compound, and
the product of a double OH substitution is a dibasic alcohol, or glycol,
the most familiar compound being ethylene glycol, CH2O H C H 2 OH.
Earlier in this chapter it was noted that the paraffin hydrocarbons
are not actually the symmetrical structures that they appear to be. There
is a combination of one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms at each
end of the molecule, but one end of the chain is necessarily positive,
which means that the CH3 group at this end is a radical in which carbon
has the +4 valence, while the other end is necessarily negative, and
this, as previously explained, means that the CH3 group in this position
is actually a close association of a negative hydrogen atom with a CH2
neutral group in which carbon has its 4-2 valence. Where the true molecular
structure is important, as in understanding the chemical behavior of
ethylene, it is essential to recognize that CH3 in the negative position
is, in fact, CH2*H. As indicated in the formula given for ethylene glycol,
this same asymmetry also exists in the other seemingly symmetrical
compounds. The CH2OH group in the positive position in the glycols
has a +4 carbon valence and a group valence of +1. In the negative
position, the carbon valence is +2, and the true structure is CH2 OH.
The chemistry textbooks contain statements such as this: Theoretically
the simplest glycol should be dihydroxy methane, CH2(OH)2. The
foregoing explanation of the glycol structure shows why this compound
would not be a glycol, and why no such compound has been found.
An oxygen atom added to a hydrocarbon may replace the two hydrogen
atoms of a CH2 neutral group rather than forming an OH radical. The
resulting group CO is very close to the point of not being able to act
as a magnetic neutral group at all, and it is greatly restricted as to
its position in the molecule. Straight chains of CO groups similar to
the CH2 chains are not possible. This explains why carbon monoxide
occurs as a separate compound, whereas methylene does not. In order
to enable the CO group to join an organic combination some assistance
from the geometric arrangement is necessary (a point which will be
discussed further in connection with our examination of the ring
compounds), and in the chain compounds this can be accomplished most
readily at the negative end of the molecule. In the usual arrangement,
therefore, a single CO neutral group is joined directly to the negative
atom or radical.
If the negative component is the radical OH, the resulting compound
contains the combination CO-OH, and is an acid. Acetic acid,
CH3*CO*OH, and acrylic acid, CH CH2 CO OH, are representative
paraffinic and olefinic (unsaturated) acids respectively. Here again, a
260 Nothing but Motion

shift of the carbon valence to +4 produces a positive radical of the

same composition, and enables formation of dibasic acids , such as oxalic
acid, COOH CO OH, maleic acid, COOH CH CH CO OH, etc.
Modification of the acid structure by substituting an alkyl group for
the hydroxyl hydrogen results in another prolific family of compounds,
the esters. Ethyl acetate, CH3 C O ( O C H 2 CH3), and diethyl oxalate,
CO(OCH 2 CH3) C O ( O C H 2 CH3), are typical of the mono and di
esters respectively. A similar substitution in an alcohol produces an
ether. This compound may be considered as a radical of the composition
0-(CH 2)n-CH3 in combination with an alkyl group. If we now substitute
a second radical of the same kind for one of the hydrogen atoms in
the adjacent hydrocarbon group we obtain an acetal. Another such
replacement results in an orthoester. By successive substitutions in ethyl
alcohol, CH3-CH2*0H, for instance, we produce methyl ethyl ether,
CH3 CH2 (0 CH3), dimethyl acetyl, CH3 CH (O CH3)2, and trimethyl
orthoacetate, CH3 C ( 0 - C H 3)3. Elimination of a water molecule from
two acid molecules produces an anhydride, such as acetic anhydride,
(CH3*C0)2 0. N o new structural features are involved in these
compounds.
If the CO neutral group is joined directly to the negative hydrogen
atom at the end of the hydrocarbon chain the compound is an aldehyde.
Acetaldehyde, CH3 CO H, is the most familiar member of this family.
The aldehyde radical is usually expressed as CHO (to avoid confusion
with the OH radical, the textbooks say), but this does not reflect the
true status of the CO combination as a neutral group. It may be worth
noting that the CHO representation also does not explain, as the CO H
formula does, why one of the most prominent features of the aldehydes
is that they are good reducing agents. Like the other organic families
that have been discussed thus far, the aldehydes form dibasic, as well
as monobasic, compounds. The simplest dibasic aldehyde is glyoxal,
COH-CO-H. As in such structures as COOH CO OH, the conversion
of the negative radical to a positive radical involves a valence shift,
but in the acids the change is in the carbon valence, which goes from
+2 in CO-OH to. +4 in COOH, while in the aldehydes the change
is in the hydrogen valence, which goes from -1 in CO H to +1 in
COH.
These are the most basic valence changes in organic reactions, and
their concurrent accomplishment is an essential element in a wide variety
of chemical reactions. For instance, in the addition reactions that convert
olefinic compounds to the paraffm status, such as adding HBr to acrylic
acid, the carbon valence in the positive radical increases two units from
+2 to +4. At the same time, the hydrogen atom that had a +1 valence
 Chain Compounds 261

in HBr decreases that valence by two units to the -1 level in the addition
product CH2B r C H 2 COOH. There are no obstacles in the way of
a change of valence. This is merely a matter of reorientation, a change
of rotational direction, and each atom is free to reorient itself to conform
tc its environment. But the positive-negative balance in the compound
must be maintained, and the change from positive to negative, or vice
versa, in the hydrogen valence is one of the most common ways of
compensating for an increase or decrease in the carbon valence.
Because of the close association between the negative hydrogen atom
of the hydrocarbons and the adjoining CH2 group, the CO neutral group
is able to occupy a position adjoining the CH2 H combination as an
alternate to the aldehyde position next to the hydrogen atom. In this
more remote position it is near the limit of stability, and this makes
association with the positive radical more probable than participation
in the negative combination CO CH2 H. For this reason, the monobasic
compounds in this family, the ketones, have oxygen in the positive radical,
COCH3, rather than in the negative radical as usual. The first member
of the family, dimethyl ketone, or acetone, has the structure
COCH3 CH2 H. The corresponding dibasic compound is dimethyl dike-
tone, COCH3 CO CH2 H.
The monobasic ketone structure can be verified by comparing the
results of simple addition reactions of the ketones with those of the
aldehydes, the isomeric compounds in which the CO group is neutral.
The addition of hydrogen to the aldehydes proceeds in this manner:
CH 3 CH2 C O H + H2 = CH3 CH2 CH2 0H
The final product, propyl alcohol, is a normal chain compound with
a CH3 radical in the positive position, just as in the aldehyde itself.
Only the negative end of the molecule has been altered. If the CO
group in the corresponding ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, or 2-butanone,
had the same status as in the aldehyde (that is, if the compound were
CH3 CH2 C0 CH3), we would expect essentially the same result. We
would expect the CH3 positive radical to remain intact, and the product
to be a primary, or perhaps a secondary, alcohol. But since the CO
group in the ketone is part of a radical in which the carbon valence
is four, and the compound is actually COCH3CH2CH3, both CH3
groups are negative. Addition of a hydrogen atom to the neutral group
CH2 produces a third negative CH3 group. Inasmuch as no positive
CH3 radical is present, hydrogenation results in a tertiary alcohol, in
which the CH3 groups are negative, as in the original ketone:
COCH3 CH2 CH3 + H2 = C(CH3)3 OH
262 Nothing but Motion

In the organic chain compounds thus far discussed, lengthening of

the chain is accomplished mainly by the addition of CH2 neutral groups
and, in some cases, CH CH pairs. Introduction of oxygen produces
a neutral group CHOH, and substitution of this group for CH2 originates
additional families of compounds. These include such important sub
stances as the hydroxy acids , the polyhydroxy alcohols, and the sac
charides. Th6 hydroxy acids may be either monobasic, like lactic acid,
CH3 CHOH-COOH, or dibasic, similar to tartaric acid, COOH-
(CHOH)2*COOH. In both cases the chains can be extended by
adding more CHOH groups, although addition of CH2 is also possible,
as in malic acid, COOH CHOH CH2CO OH. The polyhydroxy alcohols
are extensions of the glycol chain with CHOH neutral groups. The general
formula is CH2OH (CHOH)nCH2OH. The saccharides result from
conversion of the CH3 radicals in the aldehydes and ketones to CH2OH
and addition of CHOH neutral groups. The products derived from the
aldehydes are aldoses , the general formula for which is CH2OH-
(CHOH)n*COH. Those derived from the ketones are ketoses, and
have the structure (COCH2 OH)(CHOH)n CH2 OH.
When nitrogen is introduced into an aldehyde or ketone, replacing
the carbon-oxygen combination with a triple combination of nitrogen,
hydrogen, and oxygen in the form of the valence two oxime radical
NH O, the nature of the addition products again shows the same relation
to the structures of the two oxo derivatives that we noted in the case
of hydrogen addition. Adding NH to the aldehyde alters only the negative
radical, which expands from CO H to CH NH O. Propionaldehyde,
CH3 CH2 CO H, for example, becomes propionaldehyde oxime,
CH3CH2(CH *NH O). On the other hand, addition of NH to the ketones
requires a molecular rearrangement to bring both CH3 groups, which
are negative, into combination with positive carbon in the positive radical.
Adding NH to acetone, COCH3CH3 produces dimethyl ketoxime,
C(CH3)2NH O. As indicated in these formulas, it is necessary to change
the expression for the oxime radical from the conventional NOH to
NH O to show the true composition.
Another way in which nitrogen may be introduced into the hydrocarbons
is by substituting the NH 2 amine group for negative hydrogen. Further
substitutions are then possible for the positive hydrogen atoms in NH2,
giving rise to a great variety of structures. The compounds in which
the NH 2 radical remains intact are primary amines, those with NH and
one positive substitution are secondary amines, and those in which both
hydrogen atoms have been replaced, leaving only the lone nitrogen atom
from the original amine group, are tertiary amines. Since the amine
replacements are positive, these compounds may have more than one
olefinic branch, as in diallyamine, (CHCH 2 CH2)2*NH, a type of
 Chain Compounds 263

structure not found in the hydrocarbons, where all hydrogen atoms are
negative, and can be replaced only by negative substituents. Diamines
have the usual double structure, with CH2NH2 in the positive position
and the normal amine combination CH2 NH 2 at the negative end of
the molecule.
Like the hydroxyl group OH which attaches to CH to form the neutral
group CHOH, the amine group joins with CH to form a neutral group
CHNH2. This group is more restricted as to its position in the chains
than CHOH, which substitutes quite freely for CH2, but it has a special
importance in that it is an essential component of the amino acids ,
which, in turn, are the principal building blocks of the proteins, the
basic constituents of living matter. In the monoacids the CHNH2 group
in effect extends the acid radical from CO OH to CHNH2 COOH.
Further lengthening of the chain takes place by addition of hydrocar
bon neutral groups, or CHOH, rather than CHNH2. Thus d-alanine,
CH3CHNH2CO OH lengthens to 1-leucine, CH3CHCH3CH2
CHNH2 COOH.
These two compounds are members of one sub-group of the amino
acids in which the positive radical is CH3. A second sub-group utilizes
the carboxyl radical COOH in the positive position. The simplest
compound of this type is d-aspartic acid, COOH CH2CHNH2CO OH.
The third of the sub-groups, the diamino acids, has am ine radicals in
both the positive and negative positions, as in d-lysine, CH2NH2
(CH2)3CHNH2CO OH.
Another combination containing nitrogen is the cyanide, or nitrile,
radical. In the normal radical CN nitrogen has the negative valence
three and carbon has the primary magnetic valence two, the net group
valence being 1. The positive and negative roles are reversed in the
radical NC, in which nitrogen has the enhanced neutral valence three.
In this orientation nitrogen has Division III properties, and is positive
to carbon rather than negative as usual. Since the negative valence of
carbon is four, the net valence of the radical NC is -1 , identical with
the valence of CN. The NC compounds, the isocyanides, therefore have
the same composition as the cyanides, but different properties.
The CN+ radical makes its appearance in such compounds as cyan-
oacetic acid, C N C H 2 CO*OH. Here nitrogen is negative, as in the
CN- radical, but carbon has the normal positive valence four, and the
net group valence is therefore +1. Cyanogen, CN CN, is a combination
of the +1 and 1 radicals. Compounds with the CO CN combination
in the negative position are not generally regarded as constituting a
separate family, and are named as members of the normal cyanides.
Introduction of the CO neutral group in conjunction with NH 2 produces
an amide , a structure which is open to an unusually wide variety of
264 Nothing but Motion

additions and substitutions. If we start with acetamide, CH3 CO N H 2,

we may add CH2 groups in the normal manner to form propionamide,
CH3 CH2 C O N H 2, and the higher homologs, or we may substitute
positive radicals for the amine hydrogen, obtaining compounds like
N-ethyl acetamide, CH3 CO-(NHCH 2 CH3). The NH combination,
which has a net valence of 2, can take the place of oxygen in the
CO group of the amide, forming a CNH neutral group which has similar
properties. Such a replacement in acetamide gives us acetamidine,
CH3 CNH*NH2. If the neutral CO group in acetamide is replaced by
the positive CO radical we obtain aminoacetone, COCH3 CH2*NH2.
Further replacement of carbon by nitrogen then changes the radical
COCH3to CONH2, and produces a whole new series: urea, CONH2NH2,
and its derivatives. Another CO group changes the monobasic carbamide,
urea, to a dibasic compound, oxamide, CONH2CO NH2.
A negative combination of oxygen and nitrogen that can be substituted
for hydrogen is the nitro group, N 02. This results in a family known
as the nitroparaffins. 1-nitropropane, CH3 (CH2)2 N 02, is typical. The
N 0 2 group in these nitroparaffins is a combination of positive nitrogen
(valence +3) with negative oxygen (2 each). An isomeric family of
compounds, the alkyl nitrites, substitutes a group ONO, in which one
oxygen atom with the enhanced neutral valence +4 and a nitrogen atom
with its normal 3 valence form a valence one positive radical ON.
A further combination with negative oxygen then produces a valence
one negative radical ONO. The C0 N 0 2 combination, like CO CO,
is outside the magnetic neutral limits under ordinary conditions, and
there is no C0 *N02 series of compounds corresponding to those based
on CO NH2.
In the quaternary ammonium compounds nitrogen has its neutral
valence five, as in the inorganic nitrates, and joins with the equivalent
of five valence one negative atoms or radicals to form compounds ranging
from simple combinations such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide,
N(CH3)4-OH, to some very complex, and biologically important,
compounds such as lecithin. The quaternary ammonium portion of the
lecithin molecule also exists separately as choline, N(CH3)3OH-
CH2 CH2 OH.
Addition of oxygen to the cyanide and isocyanide radicals produces
the radicals OCN and ONC, which form the basis of the cyanates and
isocyanates. A comparison of the cyanides and cyanates provides a
good illustration of the way in which the various pertinent factors enter
into the construction of chemical compounds. Bach element has several
possible rotational orientations which it can assume to form chemical
combinations, and in each of these orientations it has an effective speed
displacement, or valence, which determines the status that the element
 Chain Compounds 265

can assume in a compound, and the ratio in which it combines with

the other components. Some orientations are inherently more probable
than others, but the type of combination that will be the most stable
cannot be determined solely on the basis of this probability, since other
factors also enter into the situation. The limitation imposed on direct
combinations by the relative negativity of the constituents is one such
factor. The greater relative probability of low net group valences in
the radicals is another. Replacement capacity is likewise a significant
factor. A valence one radical is not only an inherently more probable
structure than one of higher valence; it also has an ability to replace
hydrogen atoms quite freely, while radicals of higher valence can
accomplish such replacements only with some difficulty. In an environ
ment favorable to these replacements the valence one radical therefore
takes precedence, if such a radical can be formed.
In any particular instance where there are two or more possible ways
of constructing a valence one radical, the combined influence of all
effective factors determines which of the possible combinations has
the greatest over-all probability, and consequently the greatest stability.
Where the margin of one structure over another is small, both may
exist under appropriate conditions; where it is large, only the more
stable compound can exist. In the cyanides the net total of all factors
affecting the combination of carbon and nitrogen favors carbon valence
+2 and nitrogen valence 3. An alternate with carbon 4 and nitrogen
+3 is close enough to be stable. W hen oxygen, with valence -2 , is
added to either of these radicals the positive valence must increase
by two units if the addition product is to be a valence one substitute
for negative hydrogen. This is possible in both cases, as both carbon
and nitrogen have the required higher valences. Carbon steps up from
the primary magnetic valence +2 in CN to the normal valence +4 in
OCN. Nitrogen goes from the enhanced neutral valence +3 in NC to
the neutral valence +5 in ONC. The negative valences are unchanged:
nitrogen has 3 in both CN and OCN, carbon has 4 in NC and ONC.
The participation of elements of the higher rotational groups in chemical
compounds involves no new structural features. Because of factors such
as the higher magnetic valences, the greater inter-atomic distances, and
the prevalence of three-dimensional force distributions, in the higher
rotational groups, these elements are excluded from many of the types
of combinations and structures in which the elements of Group 2A
participate. But to the extent to which these elements can occupy positions
in such combinations and structures, they do so on the same basis as
the analogous Group 2A elements. The descriptions of the various types
of combinations and structures in the preceding pages therefore apply
to the compounds of these higher group elements as well as to those
266 Nothing but Motion

of the elements that were specifically mentioned.

Sulfur comes the nearest to duplicating the lower group structures.
The corresponding Group 2A element, oxygen, uses its negative valence
almost exclusively, and to the extent that its somewhat greater inter-atomic
distances will permit, sulfur, which has the same 2 valence, duplicates
the oxygen compounds. Corresponding to the alcohols, acids, ethers,
amides, etc. which have been discussed in the preceding pages, there
are thioalcohols, thioacids, thioethers, thioamides, etc., that are identical
except that sulfur substitutes for oxygen.
The inter-atomic distance C-S is greater than the C-O distance, and
this makes the sulfur compounds somewhat less stable than their oxygen
analogs, limiting the total number of these compounds rather severely.
One significant point is that the C-S distance will not permit the formation
of CS neutral groups, and replacement of neutral CO by CS. This
eliminates the possibility of families of sulfur compounds similar to
the oxygen families whose negative radicals are CO OH, CO NH2,
CO OCH3, and so on. There are thioacids, but the radical is not CS OH,
or CS-SH; it is CO-SH. Where the formula of a compound, as written
in accordance with current practice, appears to indicate the presence
of a CS group in a neutral position, this is actually a valence two
combination that forms part of the positive radical. Thus thioacetamide
and thiourea, commonly represented as CH3CS N H2and NH2CS NH2,
are actually CSCH3 N H2 and CSNH2 NH2. Neither CSOH nor CSSH
is barred from acting as a valence one positive radical, a position in
which the inter-atomic distance is not a controlling factor, but both
are limited in their stability. CSOH tends to rearrange to the more probable
form COSH, while CSSH is vulnerable to loss of a CS2 molecule. For
example, xanthic acid, CSS H (O C H 2 CH3) spontaneously separates
into CS2 and ethyl alcohol.
Oxidation of the sulfides provides another example of the displacement
of the valences by addition of a strongly negative element. In methyl
sulfide, (CH3)2S, sulfur has its normal negative valence, 2. Because
it is positive to oxygen, oxidation forces it into the positive position
in the compound, with a +4 valence, and the CH3 groups, which can
take either +1 or -1 , shift to the negative. The product is methyl sulfoxide,
SO(CH2*H)2. An additional oxygen atom is accommodated by a further
shift in the sulfur valence to its maximum value +6 (the neutral valence).
The new compound that is formed is methyl sulfone, S0 2(CH2*H)2.
The single element radicals, such as N 3 (N+5-N_3-N3) and C2
(C+2-C4) conform to the same pattern of behavior as the other radicals.
These particular combinations form azides and carbides respectively.
The latter, since they contain no element other than carbon and hydrogen,
have been named as a hydrocarbon family, although from a structural
 Chain Compounds 267

standpoint the introduction of the C2 radical into a normal hydrocarbon

is the equivalent of the substitution of any other radical, and the resulting
compounds should logically be called carbides. The carbide structure
is quite evident in such compounds as (CH CH2)2C2, which is divinyla-
cetylene, or 1,5 hexadien-3-yne. The valence balance here is the same
as in the binary carbides: CaC2, etc. As indicated earlier, however,
probability considerations favor valence one radicals, where such radicals
are possible, and in the hydrocarbons the C2 combination generally joins
with a positive hydrogen atom to form the valence one radical C2H,
structurally analogous to OH. The compounds utilizing this radical may
be either oleflnic (example: vinylacetylene, CH CH2 C2H) or acetylenic
(example: butadiyne, C CH C2H). Magnetic neutral groups can be added
in the usual manner, forming compounds such as 1,5 hexadiyne,
C C H C H 2 CH2*C2H. This compound, also known as dipropargyl, is
isomeric with benzene, and attracted a great deal of attention in the
early days of structural chemistry when the benzene problem was
the center of attention.
A simple carbide, H C2H, is the initial product of the action of water
on calcium carbide, but since hydrogen is negative to carbon a direct
combination of this kind between carbon and positive hydrogen is
unstable, and the hydrogen carbide promptly changes to acetylene, in
which the hydrogen atoms are negative. The valence changes in this
series of reactions are interesting. In the original calcium carbide the
valences are Ca+2, C+2, C4. The reaction with water substitutes two
+1 hydrogen atoms for the calcium. The relative negativity of carbon
and hydrogen then forces hydrogen into the negative position, and since
the total negative valence on this basis is only two units, carbon has
to take its +1 valence to reach an equilibrium.
Although the three-dimensional inorganic radicals of the S0 4 type
are not able to substitute freely for hydrogen in organic compounds
in the manner of the organic radicals, it is possible for organic chains
to replace the atoms that are joined to these three-dimensional radicals
in the inorganic compounds. In other words, there is no room for a
three-dimensional component in a two-dimensional structure, but a
two-dimensional combination can occupy a position in a three-dimensional
structure. Typical compounds are ethyl sulfate, (CH3 CH2)2*S04, and
methyl phosphate, (CH3)3 P04.
Compounds of the metals with organic radicals are usually grouped
in a separate category as metal-organic, or organometallic, but they
are classified as organic in this work, inasmuch as they have the regular
organic structure. A compound such as ethyl sodium, Na*CH2 CH3,
has exactly the same structure as the corresponding paraffin hydrocarbon,
propane, CH3CH2CH3. A compound such as diphenyl tin has exactly
268 Nothing but Motion

the same structure as diphenyl methane, one of the aromatic ring

compounds that we will examine in Chapter 21. No separate consideration
needs to be given, therefore, to either the organometallic compounds,
or those compounds which have both organic and inorganic components,
in this discussion of molecular structure.
The number and diversity of the chain compounds can be increased
enormously by additional branching, by combinations of the various
substituents that have been discussed, and by the use of some less
common substituents, but all such compounds follow the same structural
principles that have been outlined for the most common organic chain
families. There are some additional ways in which structural variations
can occur, and to complete the molecular picture a few comments on
these items are advisable, but since they are equally applicable to the
ring compounds it will be appropriate to defer this discussion until after
we have examined the ring structures.
 CHAPTER 21

R ing Compounds
The second major classification of the organic compounds is that
of the ring compounds. These ring structures are again divided into
three sub-classes. In two of these, the positive components of the magnetic
neutral groups of the rings are carbon atoms: the cyclic , or alicyclic,
compounds in which the predominant carbon valence is two, and the
aromatic compounds in which this valence is one. In the third class,
the heterocyclic compounds, one or more of the carbon atoms in the
ring is replaced by an atom of some other element. All of these classes
are further subdivided into mononuclear and polynuclear divisions, the
basic structure of the latter being formed by a condensation or fusion
of two or more rings. It should be understood that the classifications
are not mutually exclusive. A compound may consist of a ring joined
to one or more chains; a chain compound may have one paraffinic
and one olefinic branch; a cyclic ring may be joined to an aromatic
ring; and so on.
As in the chain compounds, a parallel classification divides the ring
compounds into families characterized by the nature of the negative
components: hydrocarbons, alcohols, amines, etc. The normal cyclic
hydrocarbon, a cyclane , or cycloparaffin, is a simple ring of CH2 neutral
groups. The general formula can be expressed as -(CH2)n-. Beginning
with cyclopropane ( N = 3) normal cyclanes have been prepared with all
values of n up to more than 30. The neutral groups in these rings are
identical with the CH2 neutral groups in the chain compounds, and they
may be expanded in the same manner by CH2 additions. Corresponding
to the branched chain compounds we therefore have branched rings
such as ethylcyclohexane, -(CH2)5 (CHCH 2 CH3)-, and l-methyl-2-
ethyl cyclopentane, -CHCH3- (CHCH 2 CH3)(C H 2)3-.
In the notation used herein, the neutral groups will be clearly identified
by parentheses or other means, and the positive-negative order will be
preserved within these groups as in the neutral groups of the chain
compounds. To identify the substance as a ring compound and to show
that the end positions in the straight line formula have no such special
significance as they do in the chain compounds, dashes will be used
at each end of the ring formula as in the examples given. If two or
more rings are present, or if a portion of the compound is outside the

269
270 Nothing but Motion

ring, the positions of the dashes will so indicate. While any group could
be taken as the starting point in expressing the formula of a single
ring, the order of the usual numbering system will be followed as far
as possible, to minimize the deviations from familiar practice. The branch
names such as l-methyl-2-ethyl are then clearly indicated by the formula.
Replacement of all of the valence two groups in the cyclic ring by
valence one groups, where such replacement is possible, converts the
cyclic compound into an aromatic. In general, however, the distinctive
aromatic characteristics do not appear unless the replacement is complete,
and the intermediate structures in which CH or its equivalent has been
substituted for CH2 in only part of the ring positions will be included
in the cyclic classification. Since the presence of the remaining CH2
groups is the principal determinant of the molecular properties, the
predominant carbon valence, in the sense in which that term is used
in defining the classes of ring compounds, is two, even where there
are more CH than CH2 groups in the molecule.
As mentioned earlier, the probabilities favor association of like forces
in the molecular compounds. The CH2 groups have sufficient latitude
in their geometric arrangement to be able to compensate for substantial
variations, and single CH2 groups can therefore fit into the molecular
structure without difficulty, but the CH groups have very little geometric
leeway, and for that reason they nearly always exist in pairs. This does
not mean that the individual group is positively barred from existing
separately, and in some of the more complex structures single CH groups
can be found, but in the simple rings the pairs are so much more probable
than the odd numbers of groups that the latter are excluded.
The first two-group substitution in the cyclanes produces the cyclenes,
or cycloolefins. A typical compound is cyclohexene, -(CH2)4 (CH)2-.
The designations cycloparaffin and cycloolefin are not appropriate, in
view of the findings of this work, as the cycloparaffins contain no carbon
atoms with the characteristic paraffin valence, and it is the substitution
of two acetylene valence groups into the CH2 rings that forms the
cycloolefins. The names cyclane and cyclene are therefore preferable.
Substitution of two more CH groups into the ring produces the
cyclodienes. The existence of two CH-CH pairs in these compounds
introduces a new factor in that the positions of the pairs within the
ring may vary. No question of this kind arises in connection with
cyclopentadiene, -(CH)4*CH2-, the first compound in this series, but
in cyclohexadiene two different arrangements are possible: -(CH)4-
(CH2)2- which is known as 1,3-cyclohexadiene, and -(CH)2CH2
(CH)2CH2- which is 1,4-cyclohexadiene.
Negative hydrogen atoms in the cyclic compounds may be replaced
by equivalent atoms or groups in the same manner as those in the magnetic
 Ring Compounds 271

neutral groups of the chain compounds. The resulting products, such

as cyclohexyl chloride, -(CH2)5 CHCl-, cyclohexanol, -(CH2)5 CHOH-,
cyclohexylamine, -(CH2)5CHNH2-, etc., have properties quite similar
to those of the equivalent chain compounds: chlorides, alcohols, amines,
and so on.
There are no atomic groups in the normal cyclic rings which have
an amount of freedom of geometric arrangement comparable to that
of the radicals at the two ends of the aliphatic chains, and the substituents
which are limited to the radicals in the chains do not appear at all
in the cyclic compounds unless a branch becomes long enough to put
the end group beyond the range of the forces originating in the ring.
In this case the structure is in effect a combination chain and ring
compound. Because of this geometric restriction the range of substituents
in the normal types of cyclic compounds is considerably narrower than
in the chains. In addition to those already mentioned. Cl, OH, and
NH2, the primary list includes the remaining halogens, oxygen, CN,
and CO OH.
The compounds formed by direct substitution of oxygen for the two
hydrogen atoms of the CH2 group are named as ketones, but they do
not have the ketone structure, as the resulting CO group is part of
the ring and is a magnetic neutral group. One substitution produces
cyclohexanone, -(CH2)5 CO-. A second results in a compound such as
l,3-cyclohexanedione, -CO CH2 CO (CH2)3-. The CO substitution can
extend all the way to cyclohexane hexone, -(CO)6-, in which no hydrogen
remains. It is also possible to make the oxygen substitution by means
of a valence one combination instead of the full valence two replacement,
in which case we obtain a compound such as cyclohexyl methyl ether,
-(CH2)5(CH OCH3)-.
Additional families of compounds are produced both by secondary
substitutions, which result in structures on the order of cyclohexyl acetate,
-(CH2)5*CH(O CO CH3)-, and by parallel substitutions in two or more
neutral groups. An example of the type of structure that is produced
by the multiple substitutions is l,2,3-cyclopropanetricarboxylic acid,
-(CH CO*OH)3-. The naturally occurring compounds of this cyclic class
are highly branched rings beginning with such substances as menthol,
-CHCH3CH2 CHOH (CH CHCH3 CH3) (CH2)2-, and extending to
very complex structures, but they follow the same general structural
patterns as the simpler cyclic compounds, and will not require additional
discussion in the present connection.
As mentioned earlier, the CH2 groups have a considerable degree
of structural latitude because of their three-atom composition. The angle
between the effective lines of force varies from about 120 degrees in
cyclopropane to less than 15 degrees in the largest cyclic rings thus
272 Nothing but Motion

far studied. The two-atom groups such as CH do not have this structural
freedom, and are restricted to a narrow range in the vicinity of 60
degrees. The theoretically exact limits have not yet been determined,
but the difficulties involved in the preparation of derivatives of cyclooc-
tatetraene, -(CH)8-, indicate that this compound is at the extreme limit
of stability. This would suggest a maximum deviation of about 15 degrees
from the 60 degree angle of the six-member ring. The atoms of which
the molecular compounds are composed have a limited range in which
they can assume positions above or below the central plane of the
molecule. The actual angles between the effective lines of force will
therefore deviate slightly from the figures given above, which are based
on positions in the central plane, but this does not affect the point
which is being made, which is that the cyclic ring is very flexible, whereas
the aromatic ring is practically rigid.
As long as there is even one CH2 group in the ring it has the cyclic
flexibility. Cyclopentadiene can exist in spite of the rigidity of the portion
of the ring occupied by the four CH groups because the CH2 group
that completes the structure is able to accommodate itself to the position
necessary for closing the ring. But when all of the three-atom groups
have been replaced by two-atom groups or single atoms the ring assumes
the aromatic rigidity. Cyclobutadiene, for example, would consist of
four CH groups only, and the maximum deviation of the CH lines of
force, somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 degrees, is far short of
the 90 degrees that would be required for closure of the cyclobutadiene
ring. All attempts to produce such a compound have therefore failed.
The properties of the various ring compounds are dependent to a
considerable degree on this question as to whether the members of
the rings are restricted to certain definite positions, or have a substantial
range of variability within which they can adjust to the requirements
for combination. In view of this natural line of demarcation, the aromatic
classification, as used in this work, is limited to the rigid structures,
specifically to those compounds composed entirely of valence one CH
groups or their monovalent substitution products, except for such
connecting carbon atoms as may be present.
Because of the limitations on the atom ic positions, the aromatic
compounds, with the exception of cyclooctatetraene, are confined to
the six-member rings, the valence one equivalents of cyclohexane and
its derivatives, and there are no aromatic analogs of cyclobutane,
cycloheptane, etc. The structural rigidity therefore limits the compound-
forming versatility of the aromatic rings to a substantial degree, but
this is more than offset by other effects of the same factor. The locations
in the chain compounds which are open to the greatest variety of
combinations are the ends of the chain and its longer branches, if any.
 Ring Compounds 273

In the aromatic rings every ring location has, to some degree, the properties
of an end. Also, because of the rigidity of the ring, the maximum intergroup
distance 1-3 in the ring is about ten percent less than the distance between
the equivalent groups in the aliphatic chain, after making an allowance
for the small amount of flexibility that does exist. This brings some
additional combinations of elements within the limit of effectiveness
of the free electric displacements, and in these rings we find not only
groups such as COH, CC1, CN H2, etc., which are the valence one
equivalents of the combinations that make up the cyclic rings and the
interior portions of the chain compounds, but also other combinations
such as CN 0 2 and CSH which are just beyond the magnetic neutral
limits in the non-aromatic structures. The number of available combina
tions in which the neutral group CO accompanies the negative radical
is similarly increased.
Secondary substitutions extend the length and diversity of the magnetic
neutral groups of the ring, and produce a wide variety of single branch
compounds on the order of isobutyl benzene, -(CH)5*(CCH2-
CHCH3CH3)- and N-ethyl aniline, -(CH)5(C NH CH2CH3)-,
but the principal field for variability in the mononuclear aromatics lies
in their capability of multiple branching. The aromatic rings not only
have a greater variety of available substituents than any other type
of molecular compound, but also a larger number of locations where
these substituents may be introduced. This versatility is compounded
by the fact that in the rings, as in the chains, the order of sequence
of the groups has a definite effect on the properties of the compound.
The behavior of 1,2-dichlorobenzene, -(CC1)2 (CH)4-, for instance, is
in many respects quite different from that of 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
-CC1(CH)2 CC1(CH)2-.
A significant feature of the aromatic rings is their ability to utilize
larger numbers of the less versatile substituents. For example, the
limitation of such groups as N 0 2 to the negative radical in the chains
means that only one such group can exist in any chain compound, unless
a branch becomes so long that the compound is in effect a union of
two chains. In the aromatic ring this limitation is removed, and compounds
with three or four of the highly reactive nitro groups in the six-member
ring are common. The list includes such well-known substances as picric
acid (2,4,6-trinitrophenol), -COH CNOzCH CN OzCH CN02-, and
TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene), -CH3 CN0 2 CH CN0 2 CH CN02-.
Since there is only one hydrogen atom in the CH group, the direct
substitutions in the aromatic rings are limited to valence one negative
components. In order to establish a valence equilibrium with a bivalent
atom or radical two of the aromatic rings are required. These bivalent
atoms or groups therefore constitute a means whereby two rings can
274 Nothing but Motion

be joined. Diphenyl ether, for example, has the structure -(CH)5 C-0-
C (CH)5-, in which the oxygen atom is not a member of either ring
but participates in the valence equilibrium. The bivalent negative radical
NH similarly produces diphenylamine, -(CH)5 C-NH-C (CH)5-.
Each of these rings is a very stable structure with a minimum of eleven
constituent atoms, and a possibility of considerable enlargement by
substitution. This method of joining rings is therefore a readily available
process whereby stable molecules of large size may be constructed.
Further additions and substitutions may be made not only in the rings
and their branches, but in the connecting link as well. Thus the addition
of two CH2 groups to diphenyl ether produces dibenzyl ether, -(CH)5C-
CH2 O C H 2-C(CH)5-.
According to the definition of an aromatic compound, these multiple
ring structures are not purely aromatic, as the connecting links do not
qualify. This is a situation which we will encounter regardless of the
manner in which the various organic classifications are set up, as the
more complex compounds are primarily combinations of the different
basic types of structure. Ordinarily a compound is classified as a ring
structure if it contains a ring of any kind, even though the ring may
be only a minor appendage on a long chain, and it is considered as
an aromatic if there is at least one aromatic ring present.
In the multiple ring compounds the combination (CH)5 C, which is
a benzene ring less one hydrogen atom, acts as a monovalent positive
radical, the phenyl radical, and the simple substituted compounds can
be named either as derivatives of benzene or as phenyl compounds;
i.e., chlorobenzene or phenyl chloride. The net positive valence one
is the valence condition in which the ring is left when a hydrogen atom
is removed, but this net valence is due entirely to the +1 valence of
the lone carbon atom from which the hydrogen atom was detached,
all other groups being neutral, and it does not necessarily follow that
the carbon valence will remain at +1. As emphasized earlier, valence
is simply a matter of rotational orientation, and when acting alone any
atom can assume any one of its possible valences, providing that there
are no specific obstacles in the environment. The lone carbon atom
is therefore free to accommodate itself to different environments by
reorientation on the basis of any of its alternate valences: +2, +4,
or 4.
If two phenyl radicals are brought together, the inter-atomic forces
will tend to establish an equilibrium. A valence balance is a prerequisite
for a force equilibrium, and the carbon atoms will therefore reorient
themselves to balance the valences. There are two possible ways of
accomplishing this result. Since carbon has only one negative valence,
4, one carbon atom takes this valence, and a second must assume
 Ring Compounds 275

the +4 valence in order to arrive at an equilibrium. In a direct combination

of two phenyl groups these valence changes can be made in the two
independent carbon atoms, without modifying the neutral groups in any
way, and this is therefore the most probable structure in such compounds
as biphenyl, -(CH)5 C-C(CH )5-. A similar balanced pair of positive and
negative valence 3 nitrogen atoms may be introduced, in combination
with the valence 4 carbon atoms, to form azobenzene, -(CH)5 CN-
N C (C H )5-.
The alternative is to make both valence changes in the same phenyl
group, giving the lone carbon atom the - 4 valence and increasing the
valence of the carbon atom in an adjacent neutral group from + l to
+4. The product is a ring in which there are four CH neutral groups,
a CH group with a net valence of 4*3, and a single carbon atom with
the 4 valence. By this means the phenyl group is changed from a
univalent positive radical, C (CH)5, to a univalent negative radical,
(CH)4 CH C. Like the methyl group, which can act either as a positive
radical CH3 with valence + l , or as a negative radical CH2H with valence
l, the phenyl group is able to combine with substances of either valence
type, taking the negative valence in combination with a positive compo
nent, and the positive valence when combining with a negative atom
or group. It is negative in all of the phenyl compounds of the metal-organic
class, and not only forms compounds such as phenyl copper, Cu-C (CH)5-,
and diphenyl zinc, Zn(-C (CH)5-)2, but also combination phenyl-halide
structures like phenyl tin trichloride, SnCl3-C (C H )5-.
In combination with the CH3 radical the phenyl group is positive.
Either radical can take either valence, but the methyl group probabilities
are nearly equal, while the positive valence is more probable in the
phenyl group, since it involves no change in the benzene ring other
than the removal of a hydrogen atom. The combination -(CH)5CCH3-
is therefore toluene, with positive phenyl and negative methyl (carbon
valence two), rather than phenyl methane, which would have negative
phenyl and positive methyl (carbon valence four).
This option is not available in combination with other hydrocarbon
radicals, or with carbon itself, and in such compounds the phenyl radical
replaces hydrogen, and is negative. An additional phenyl substitution
in toluene, for example, reduces the CH3 radical to CH2. This group
cannot have the 2 net valence that would be necessary for combination
with positive phenyl radicals, and both of the phenyl groups assume
the negative status in the resulting compound, diphenyl methane. The
oleflnic and acetylenic benzenes likewise have this type of structure
in which the phenyl radical is negative. Styrene, for instance, is not
vinyl benzene, -(CH)5 C-CH2 CH, as that combination would contain
two positive components and no negative. It is phenyl ethylene.
276 Nothing but Motion

C H C H 2 -C(CH)5-, in which CH is positive and the phenyl group is

negative.
An interesting phenyl compound is phenyl acetylene, the conventional
formula for which is C6H5 C CH. On the basis of our finding that
hydrogen is negative to carbon, the hydrogen atom in the acetylene
CH would have to be negative. But this is not true, as it can be replaced
by sodium. It seems evident, then, that this is phenyl carbide, -(CH)5C-
C2H, a compound similar to butadiyne, which we have already identified
as a carbide, C CH C2H. As noted previously, the relative negativity
of carbon and hydrogen has no meaning with reference to the carbide
radical, which has a net negative valence, and cannot be other than
negative regardless of what element or group it combines with. According
to the textbooks, the phenyl compound is identified as an acetylene
because it undergoes the typical acetylene reactions. But so does
any other carbide. The acetylene lamp was a carbide lamp to the
cyclists of an earlier day.
Like the phenyl radical, the cyclic radicals can accommodate themselves
to either the positive or negative position in the molecule. These radicals,
too, are positive in the monosubstituted compounds. A methyl substitution
produces hexahydro toluene, not cyclohexyl methane. But if there are
two cyclic substitutions in a methyl group they are both negative, and
dicyclohexyl methane is a reality.
At this point it will be desirable to examine the effects of the various
modifications of the ring structure on the cohesion of the molecule.
We may take the benzene ring as the basic aromatic structure. Textbooks
and monographs on the aromatic compounds typically contain a chapter,
or at least a lengthy section, on the benzene problem.69 The problem,
in essence, is that all of the evidence derived from observation and
experiment indicates that the interatomic forces and distances between
any two of the six CH groups in the ring are identical, but no theory
of the chemical bond has been able to account for the structure
of the benzene molecule without utilizing two or more different kinds
of bonds. The currently favored solution of the problem is to sweep
it under the rug by postulating that the structure alternates, or reson
ates, between the different bond arrangements.
The development of the Reciprocal System of theory now shows that
the forces between the groups in the benzene ring are, in fact, identical.
As has been emphasized throughout the preceding discussion, however,
the existence and nature of chemical compounds is not determined by
the cohesive forces between the atoms of the different elements, but
by the directional relationships which the atomic rotations must assume
in order to permit elements with electric rotation in time to establish
stable force equilibria in space. The findings of this theoretical develop
 Ring Compounds 277

ment agree that the orienting effects which enable CH groups to combine
into the benzene ring are of two different types, a short range effect
and a long range effect, but they also reveal that the nature of the
orienting influences has no bearing on the magnitude of the interatomic
forces, and this explains why no difference in these forces can be detected
experimentally. The forces between any two of the CH neutral groups
in the ring are identical.
Inasmuch as the orienting factors cause the atoms to align their rotations
in certain specific relative directions, they are, in a sense, forces, but
in order to distinguish them from the actual cohesive forces that hold
the atoms, groups, and molecules together in the positions determined
by these orienting factors we are using the term effects rather than
forces in application to the orientation, even though this introduces
an element of awkwardness into the presentation. The nature of these
effects, as they apply to the benzene ring, can be illustrated by an
orientation diagram of the kind previously introduced.
1 2 3 4 5 6
I- - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - 1 I- - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - 1 I *
CH - CH CH - (^H CH - CH

The pairs of CH groups, 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6, in the diagram, are held
in the combining positions by the orienting effects of a directional
character that are exerted by all magnetic groups or compounds. Alternate
groups, 1-3, 2-4, etc., are within unit distance, and therefore within
the effective range of these orienting effects. The primary effect of
group 1, for instance, is directed toward group 2, but group 3 is also
within unit distance, and consequently there is a long range 1-3 secondary
effect as well as a short range 1-2 primary effect. Because of the directional
nature of these orienting effects there is no 2-3 primary effect, but
the pairs 1-2 and 3-4 are held in position by the 1-3 and 4-2 secondary
effects.
If we replace one of the hydrogen atoms with some negative substituent,
the orientation situation is unchanged. The new neutral group, or that
portion of it which is within the range of the ring forces if the group
is a long one, takes over the functions of the CH group without alteration.
However, removal of a hydrogen atom and conversion of the benzene
molecule into a positive phenyl radical changes the orientation pattern
to
1 2 3 4 5 6
I * 1 I
CH - CH C - CH CH CH
278 Nothing but Motion

The secondary effect 3-5 has now been eliminated, as the lone carbon
atom does not have the free electric rotation characteristic of the magnetic
groups or compounds, but the remaining orientation effects are still
adequate to hold the structure together. The further valence change
that is necessary if the phenyl radical is to assume a negative valence
similarly eliminates the 4-2 secondary effect, as group 4 is no longer
magnetic. However, the two carbon atoms and one hydrogen atom
combine into a radical CCH, with a net valence of 1. This radical
has no orienting effect on its neighbors, but the adjoining magnetic
neutral groups do exert their effect on it. The orientation pattern is
now
1 2 3 4 5 6

C = CH CH - CH

As previously explained, the carbon atoms in the CCH combination

have valences +4 and 4. If we remove the hydrogen atom from this
group we obtain a ring in which four CH neutral groups are combined
with two individual carbon atoms. This structure is neutral and is capable
of existing as an independent compound, but, like the methylene molecule,
it does not actually do so, because it has a strong tendency to form
a double ring. The four CH groups which are attached to the C-C
combination can be duplicated on the opposite side of the C-C line
of action, forming another similar ring which utilizes the same pair of
carbon atoms as part of its ring structure. The fact that the effects
originating from the free electric rotations are exerted on the carbon
atoms by the CH groups on one side does not in any way interfere
with the existence of similar effects on the other side. The orientation
relations in the second ring are identical with those of the first. Neither
ring can now recapture a hydrogen atom and become a phenyl radical
because the presence of the other ring prevents the approach of the
free hydrogen atoms. The double ring compound therefore has a high
degree of stability.
This compound is naphthalene, -(CH)4C=C (CH)4-, a condensed ring
aromatic hydrocarbon. When used in the formula of a compound in
this work, the double mark between two carbon atoms is a symbol
indicating the condensed ring type of structure in which the rings are
joined at two positions rather than at a single position as in compounds
such as biphenyl. It has no implications of the kind associated with
the double bonds of the electronic theory.
A third ring added in the same manner produces anthracene. Further
 Ring Compounds 279

similar additions in line result in a series of compounds: naphthacene,

pentacene, and so on. But it is not necessary that the additions be
made in line, and each of these compounds is accompanied by others
which have the same composition, but different structures. For instance,
the four ring compounds of the naphthacene composition, CI8H 12, include
chrysene, naphthanthracene, 3,4-benzophenanthrene, and triphenylene.
Pyrene has the same four rings, but a more compact structure, and
a composition C16H 10.
The structural behavior of the condensed rings is essentially the same
as that of the single benzene rings. They join to form compounds such
as binaphthyl and bianthryl; they act as radicals (naphthyl, anthryl,
phenanthryl, etc.); they attach more rings by substitution for hydrogen
to produce compounds such as triphenyl anthracene; and they form
a great variety of compounds by utilizing the other negative substituents
available to the aromatic rings. Many interesting and important compounds
are included in this category, but no new structural features are involved,
and they are therefore outside the scope of the present discussion.
The two CH groups of the middle ring of the anthracene structure
are not necessary for stability, and they can be eliminated. The resulting
compound is biphenylene, -(CH)4-CC=CC (CH)4-. A structure with only
one CH group in the middle ring, intermediate between anthracene and
biphenylene, is ruled out by the low probability of the continued existence
of a single CH group, but a similar compound can be formed by putting
a CH2 group in the intermediate position, as the CH2 groups are not
restricted to pairs. The new compound is fluorene. Another CH2 group
in the opposite position restores the anthracene structure with a cyclic
middle ring. This compound is dihydroanthracene.
As previously mentioned, a ring with even one CH2 group deviates
substantially from the typical aromatic behavior, and any such ring is
classified with the cyclic structures, but this effect is confined to the
specific ring, and any adjacent aromatic rings retain their aromatic
character. Such compounds as fluorene and dihydroanthracene should
therefore be regarded as combination cyclic-aromatic structures. These
compounds occur in large numbers and in great variety, but the principles
of combination are the same as in the purely aromatic compounds, and
do not need to be repeated. Since the cyclic compounds are less stable
than the corresponding aromatics, the combination structures do not
cover as large a field as the aromatic compounds, but a very stable
structure such as that of naphthalene does extend through the entire
substitution range. Beginning with the purely aromatic compound, suc
cessive pairs of hydrogen atoms can be added all the way to the purely
cyclic compound, decahydronaphthalene.
The reduction in the variety of combination structures due to the
280 Nothing but Motion

fact that the cohesive force in the cyclic ring is weaker than that in
the aromatic ring is offset to some extent by the ability of the CH2
groups to form rings of various sizes. 1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene,
for instance, can drop one of its CH2 groups, form ing indane,
-(CH)4C=C (CH2)3-. Because of the CH2 flexibility, the cyclic ring in
this compound is still able to close even if two of the remaining CH2
groups are replaced by CH. This produces indene, -(CH)4
C=C(CH) 2 CH2-.
Polynuclear cyclic compounds are formed in the same manner as the
polynuclear aromatic and combination structures, but not in as great
a number or variety. Corresponding to biphenyl and its substitution
products are dicyclopentyl, dicyclohexyl, etc., and their derivatives;
triphenyl methane has a cyclic equivalent in tricyclohexyl methane; the
cyclic analog of naphthalene is bicyclodecane, and so on.
The last major division of the ring compounds is the heterocyclic
class, in which are placed all compounds in which any of the carbon
atoms in the cyclic or aromatic rings are replaced by other elements.
The principal reason for setting up a special classification for these
compounds is that most of the substitutions of other elements for carbon
require valence changes of one kind or another, unlike the substitutions
for hydrogen, which normally involve no valence modifications, except
in those cases where two valence one hydrogen atoms are replaced
by one valence two substituent.
Some of the heterocyclic substitutions are of this two for one character,
and in those cases the normal cyclic or aromatic structure is not altered.
For example, if we begin with quinone, -(CH)2 CO(CH) 2 CO-, an
aromatic carbon compound, and replace two of the CH groups with
NH neutral groups we obtain uracil, -NH CO NH CH CH CO-. One
more similar pair replacement removes the last of the hydrocarbon groups
and results in urazine, - N H C O N H N H C O N H - . In the compound
cyclohexane hexone previously mentioned all of the hydrogen has been
replaced, and in borazole, - B H N H B H N H B H N H - , all carbon is
eliminated. All of these heterocyclic compounds are composed entirely
of two-member magnetic neutral groups, and therefore have the benzene
structure: six groups arranged in a rigid aromatic ring.
More commonly, however, the heterocyclic substituent is a single
atom or a radical, and such a substitution requires a valence change
in some other part of the ring to maintain the valence equilibrium.
Substitutions therefore often take place in balanced pairs. In pyrone,
-(CH)2CO (CH)2O-, for example, the CO combination is not a neutral
group, but a radical with valence +2 which balances the - 2 valence
of the oxygen atom. The CH2 radical, in which carbon also has its
normal valence +4, has the same function in pyran, -(CH)2-
 Ring Compounds 281

CH2 (CH)20 . Substitution of two nitrogen atoms with the bal

anced valences of +3 and - 3 in the aromatic ring produces a diazine.
If the nitrogen atoms are in the 1,2 positions the compound is pyridazine,
-N*N*(CH)4-. The properties of the 1,3 and 1,4 compounds are enough
different from those of pyridazine that they have been given distinctive
names, pyrimidine and pyrazine, respectively.
Since the positive and negative radicals in a ring have no fixed positions
similar to the two ends of the chains, it is not possible to indicate
their status by their positions as we do in the formulas we are using
for the chain compounds. Some appropriate method of identification
probably should be devised in order to make the formula as representative
of the actual structure as possible, but this is not necessary for the
purposes of the present work, and can be left for later consideration.
The following orientation diagrams for pyrone and pyridazine are typical
of those for heterocyclic compounds with single atom or radical substitu
tions:
1 2 3 4 5 6

- CH CO c A - CH O pyrone

I I I------------- '
CH - CH N = N CH - CH pyridazine

If the valence equilibrium is not achieved in this manner by means

of a pair of substitutions, a valence change in one of the neutral groups
is necessary. A single nitrogen atom substituted into the ring requires
a +3 valence elsewhere in the structure to counterbalance the negative
nitrogen valence. This is readily accomplished by a shift of one of the
carbon valences to +4. The reconstructed ring then consists of a nitrogen
atom, valence 3, a CH radical, valence +3, and four CH neutral groups.
This compound is pyridine, -(CH)5 N-. Hydrogenation can be carried
out by steps through intermediate compounds all the way to the corre
sponding cyclic structure, piperidine, -(CH2)5 NH-.
When oxygen, or another valence two negative component, is intro
duced into the aromatic ring the necessary valence balance may be
attained by a simultaneous replacement of one of the CH neutral groups
by a CH2 radical, as already noted in the case of pyran. Or the required
balance can be achieved without introduction of additional hydrogen
if the carbon valences in two of the CH groups are stepped up to the
+2 level (the primary magnetic valence), forming two CH radicals, each
with valence + l. This leaves an unstable odd number of CH neutral
282 Nothing but Motion

groups in the six-member ring, but there is sufficient flexibility in the

structure to enable a ring closure on a five-member basis, and stability
is restored by ejecting a neutral group. The resulting compound is furan,
-(CH)4 0-, a five-member ring with one oxygen atom, two CH neutral
groups, and two CH valence one positive radicals. Substituting sulfur
instead of oxygen produces thiophene, -(CH)4 S-, while inserting the
negative radical NH into the same position produces pyrrole, -(CH)4NH-.
Each of these furan type compounds also exists in the cyclic dihydro
and tetrahydro forms. The furan orientation pattern is
1 2 3 4 5
I----- *-----1
CH - CH CH = O = CH
<_______ I

The essential feature of all of these five-member rings of the furan

class is a valence equilibrium in which three of the five components
participate, the two remaining components being the neutral groups that
furnish the ring-forming capability. In furan the equilibrium combination
is CH+-0 2-CH'l\ Formation of a similar combination with nitrogen in
the negative position requires that some element or radical positive to
nitrogen take the positive position, and in the heterocyclic division
nitrogen itself commonly accepts this role. The most probable valence
under these conditions is 4-3, as in hydrazine. The two nitrogen valences,
+3 and 3, are then in equilibrium, and in this case the fifth component
of the five-member ring must be a neutral group. Since it is a single
group, it is the cyclic group CH2, and the neutral trio is N+3-N3-CH2.
The compound is isopyrazole, -N CH CH CH2N-. An alternate group
arrangement produces isoimidazole, -N CH2N CH CH-. A variation
of this structure moves a hydrogen atom from the CH2 group to the
positive nitrogen, which changes the neutral combination to NH+2-N_3-
CH+1. The compounds formed on this basis are pyrazole, -N (CH)3NH-,
and imidazole, -N CH NH CH CH-.
From these basic heterocyclic types a great variety of condensed
systems such as coumarone (benzofuran), indole (benzopyrrole), quino-
line (benzopyridine), etc., can be formed by combination with other
rings. Both the single rings and the condensed systems are then open
to further enlargement by all of the processes of addition and substitution
previously discussed, and a very substantial proportion of the known
organic compounds belong to this class. From a structural standpoint,
however, the basic principles involved in the formation of all of these
compounds are those that have been covered in the preceding discussion.
In the foregoing pages we have encountered several kinds of isomerism,
the existence of different compounds with the same composition. Some,
 Ring Compounds 283

such as the cyanides and isocyanides, differ only in valence; some,

such as the straight chain and branched paraffins, differ in the position
of the neutral groups; and some, such as the aldehydes and the ketones,
differ in the assignment of the atoms of the constituent elements to
the structural groups. Most of these isomers that we have examined
thus far are distinct stable compounds. There are also some isomeric
systems in which the two forms of a substance convert so readily from
one to the other that they establish an equilibrium which varies in
accordance with the conditions to which the compound is subject. This
form of isomerism is known as tautomerism.
One of the familiar examples of tautomerism is that between the
keto and enol forms of certain substances. Ethyl acetoacetate,
COCH3 CH2 CO (O CH2 CH3), is the keto form of a compound that
also exists in the enol form as the ethyl ester of hydroxycrotonic acid,
COHCHCH 3 C O ( O C H 2 CH3). The compound freely changes from
one form to the other to meet changing physical and chemical conditions.
This is another example of counterbalancing carbon and hydrogen valence
changes, and it is an indication of the ease with which such changes
can be made. In the radical COCH3 the carbon valence is +4, and
all hydrogen is negative. The transition to the enol form involves a
drop in the carbon valence to + 2, and one hydrogen atom shifts from
-1 to +1 to maintain the balance. The CH2 group in the radical is
then superfluous, and it moves to the adj acent neutral group. The
remainder of the molecule is unchanged.
The development of the Reciprocal System of theory has not yet
been extended to a study of tautomerism. Nor has it been applied to
those kinds of isomerism which depend on the geometrical arrangement
of the component parts of the molecules, such as optical isomerism.
These aspects of the general subject of molecular structure will therefore
have to be left for later treatment.
This chapter is the last of the four that have been devoted to an
examination of the structure of chemical compounds. In closing the
discussion it will be appropriate to point out just how the presentation
in these chapters fits into the general plan of the work, as defined
in Chapter 2. The usual discussion of molecular structure, as we find
it in the textbooks, starts with the empirical observation that certain
chemical compoundssodium chloride, benzene, water, ethyl alcohol,
etc.exist, and have certain properties, including different molecular
structures. The theoretical treatment then attempts to devise plausible
explanations for the existence of these observed compounds, their
structures, and other properties. This present work, on the other hand,
is entirely deductive. By developing the necessary consequences of the
fundamental postulates of the Reciprocal System we find that in a universe
of motion matter must exist; it must exist in the form of a series of
284 Nothing but Motion

elements; and those elements must have the capability of combining

in certain specific ways to form chemical compounds. In this and the
preceding chapters, the most important of the possible types of molecular
structures have been derived from theory, and specific compounds have
been characterized by composition and structure.
The second objective of the work is to identify these theoretical
combinations with the observed chemical compounds. For example, we
deduce purely from theory that there must exist a compound in the
form of a chain of three groups of atoms, in which the first group
contains three atoms of element number one and one atom of element
number six, and has a net group combining power, or valence, of + 1.
The second group has two atoms of element number one and one of
number six, and is neutral; that is, its net valence is zero. The third
group has one atom of element number one and one of element number
eight, and a valence of 1. This theoretical composition and structure
are in full agreement with the composition of the observed compound
known as ethyl alcohol, and with the structure of that compound as
deduced from physical and chemical observation and measurement. We
are thus entitled to conclude that ethyl alcohol is the chemical compound
existing in the physical universe that corresponds to the compound which
must exist in the theoretical universe of the Reciprocal System. In other
words, we have identified the theoretical compound as ethyl alcohol.
The great majority of the identifications cited in the preceding pages
are unequivocalalmost self-evident, we may sayand this agreement
establishes the validity of both the theoretical development and the
empirical determination of the molecular structures. Where there are
discrepancies, some of them, such as the one involved in the structure
of ethylene, are quite easily explained. However, as the size and
complexity of the molecules increases, the number and variety of the
possible modifications of the theoretical structure also increases, in even
greater proportion, and the observable differences between the various
modifications decrease. The validity of the identifications is therefore
less certain than in the case of the smaller and simpler molecules, but
this does not mean that there is any additional uncertainty with respect
to the existence of the more complex theoretical compounds. It merely
means that the available empirical information is not adequate to permit
a definite decision as to which of the observed compounds corresponds
to a particular theoretical structure. It can be expected, therefore, that
further investigation will clear up most of these questions.
The discussion of chemical compounds in this and the preceding three
chapters completes the description of the primary physical entities, the
actors in the drama of the physical universe. In the next volume we
will begin applying the theoretical findings to an examination of the
drama itself: the action in which these entities are involved.
 R eferences
1. Butterfield, Herbert, The Origins of Modern Science, Revised Edition, The Free Press,
New York, 1965, page 18.
2. Schlegel, Richard, Completeness in Science, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1967,
page 152.
3. Burbidge and Burbidge, Quasi-Stellar Objects, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco,
1967, page vii.
4. New Scientist, Feb. 13, 1969.
5. Dicke, R. H., American Scientist, March 1959.
6. Wooldridge, Dean E., The Machinery of Life, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
1966, page 4.
7. Conant, James B., Modern Science and Modern Man, Columbia University Press,
1952, page 47.
8. Feynman, Richard, The Character of Physical Law, The M.I.T. Press, 1967, page
145.
9. Bridgman, P. W., The Nature of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, 1936,
page 134.
10. Einstein and Inf eld, The Evolution o f Physics, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1938,
page 159.
11. Dingle, Herbert, A Century of Science, Hutchinsons Publications, London, 1951,
page 315.
12. Feynman, Richard, op. cit., page 156.
13. Margenau, Henry, Quantum Theory, Vol. I, edited by D. R. Bates, Academic Press,
New York, 1961, page 6.
14. Braithwaite, R. B., Scientific Explanation, Cambridge University Press, 1953, page
22.
15. Feynman, Richard, op. cit., page 30.
16. Einstein, Albert, The Structure of Scientific Thought, E. H. Madden, editor, Houghton
Mifflin Co., Boston, 1960, page 82.
17. Dirac, P. A. M., Scientific American, May 1963.
18. Butterfield, Herbert, op. cit., page 13.
19. Hobbes, Thomas, The Metaphysical System of Hobbes, M. W. Calkins, editor, The
Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, 111., 1948, page 22.
20. North, J. D., The Measure o f the Universe, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965,
page 367.
21. Einstein, Albert, Relativity, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1921, page 74.
22. Hocking, William E., Preface to Philosophy, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1946,
page 425.
23. Tolman, Richard C., The Theory o f the Relativity of Motion, University of California
Press, 1917, page 27.
24. Wigner, Eugene P., Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press, 1967, page
30.
25. Jeans, Sir James, The Universe Around Us, Cambridge University Press, 1947, page
113.
26. Heisenberg, Werner, On Modern Physics, Clarkson N. Potter, New York, 1961, page
16.
285
286 Nothing but Motion

27. Heisenberg, Werner, Physics Today, March 1976.

28. Schlegel, Richard, op. cit ., page 18.
29. Gold and Hoyle, Paris Symposium on Radio Astronomy , paper 104, Stanford University
Press, 1959.
30. Darrow, Karl K., Scientific Monthly, March 1942.
31. Finlay-Freundlich, E., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 105-237.
32. Heisenberg, Werner, Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science, Pantheon Books, New
York, 1952, page 38.
33. Einstein, Albert, Albert Einstein: Philosoph er-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, editor, the Library
of Living Philosophers, Evanston, 111., 1949, page 67.
34. Alfven, Hannes, Worlds-Antiworlds, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1966,
page 92.
35. Hawkins, David, The Language o f Nature, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco,
1964, page 183.
36. Lindsay, R. B., Physics Today, Dec. 1967.
37. Einstein, Albert, Sidelights on Relativity, E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1922,
page 23.
38. Einstein and Infeld, op. cit., page 185.
39. Einstein, Albert, Relativity , op. cit., page 126.
40. Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, Harper & Bros., New York, 1958,
page 129.
41. Einstein, Albert, Foreword to Concepts o f Space , by Max Jammer, Harvard University
Press, 1954.
42. Jeans, Sir James, op. cit., page 78.
43. Schlegel, Richard, Time and the Physical World, Michigan State University Press,
1961, page 160.
44. Whitrow, G. J., The Natural Philosophy o f Time, Thomas Nelson & Sons, London,
1961, page 218.
45. Moller, C., The Theory o f Relativity , The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, page 49.
46. Tolman, Richard C., Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, The Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1934, page 195.
47. Science, July 14, 1972.
48. Heisenberg, Werner, Philosophic Problems o f Nuclear Science, op. cit., page 12.
49. Thomson, Sir George, The Inspiration o f Science, Oxford University Press, London,
1961, page 66.
50. Millikan, Robert A., Time and Its Mysteries, Collier Books, New York, 1962, page
24.
51. Jeans, Sir James, Physics and Philosophy, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1945,
page 190.
52. Toulmin and Goodfield, The Architecture o f Matter , Harper & Row, New York,
1962, page 298.
53. Bridgman, P. W., A Sophisticate*s Primer o f Relativity , Wesleyan University Press,
1962, page 10.
54. Feyerabend, P. K., Philosophy o f Science, The Delaware Seminar, Vol. 2 (1962-1963),
Bernard Baumrin, editor, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1963, page 17.
55. Einstein and Infeld, op. cit ., page 195.
56. Bridgman, P. W., Reflections o f a Physicist, Philosophical Library, New York, 1955,
page 186.
57. Will, Clifford M., Scientific American, Nov. 1974.
58. Feynman, Richard, op. cit., pages 156, 166.
59. Cohen, Crowe and Du Mond, The Fundamental Constants o f Physics, Interscience
 References 287

Publishers, New York, 1957.

60. Alfven, Hannes, Scientific American, Apr. 1967.
61. Boorse and Motz, The World of the Atom, Vol. 2, Basic Books, New York, 1966,
page 1457.
62. Hooper and Scharff, The Cosmic Radiation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1958,
page 57.
63. Swann, W. F. G., Journal of the Franklin Institute, May 1962.
64. Davis, Leverett, Jr., Nuovo Cimento Suppl., 10th Ser., Vol. 13, No. 1, (1959).
65. Donahue, T. M., Physical Review, 2nd Ser., Vol. 84, No. 5, (1951), page 972.
66. Satz, Ronald W ., Reciprocity, May 1975.
67. Weisskopf, V. F., Comments on Nuclear and Particle Physics, Jan.-Feb. 1969.
68. Pauling, Linus, The Nature o f the Chemical Bond, Cornell University Press, 1960,
page 217.
69. See, for instance, Badger, G. M., The Structures and Reactions o f the Aromatic
Compounds, Cambridge University Press, 1954, Chapter 1.
70. Weisskopf, V. F., Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. Ill, Britten, J. Downs, and
B. Downs, editors, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1961, page 80.
 Index
Accelerators, particle, 201 acids, 259, 260
Action, 152 alcohols, 258, 271
Alfven, Hannes, 41, 174 aldehydes, 260
Annihilation, 176, 177 amides, 263, 264
Antimatter, 174-178, 182 amines, 262, 271
Atomic number, 128-131 carbides, 267, 276
Atomic weight, 128 cyanates, 264
Atoms, 59, 67, 83, 127ff. cyanides, 263
cosmic, 173ff. cyclanes, 269
nature of, 125, 126 cyclenes, 270
nuclear theory of, 7, 8, 23 cyclodienes, 270
size of, 154 diolefins, 253, 254
structure of, 3, 7, 14, 20, 21, 118 esters, 260
Automobile analogy, 49, 50, 58 glycols, 259
Avogadros number, 158, 160, 164 hydronitrogens, 254, 255
Balloon analogy, 33-35 ketones, 261, 271
Benzene problem, 276 nitroparaffins, 264
Berline, Steven, 167 olefins, 249
Bohr, Niels, 21 organic sulfur compounds, 266
Bond, Inter-atomic, 220, 236, 276 organometallic compounds, 267, 268
double , 245 paraffins, 249
nature of, 221 quaternary ammonium compounds, 264
strength of, 220 heterocyclic, 269, 280-282
Boorse and Motz, 176 identification of, 284
Braithwaite, R. B., 9 inter-metallic, 221
Bridgman, P. W., 6, 93, 116, 117 ionic, 247
Butterfield, Herbert, 11 molecular, 239-257
Capek, M., 85 multiple ring, 273, 274
Causality, 45 nature of, 221, 222, 225, 245-247
Chain analogy, 29, 47, 48 nomenclature of, 251-254, 269, 270
Charge organic, 243ff.
electric, 175, 176, 219 ring, 243, 269ff.
gravitational, 191-196 saturated, 249
Cipher analogy, 25 substituted, 235, 258, 270, 271, 280
Clock, 31, 78, 84, 85 two-dimensional, 241
Cohesion, 113, 236, 242 valence changes in, 260, 261
Compounds, chemical Conant, James B., 6
aromatic, 269, 270, 272-280 Conservation laws, 46
branched, 251, 269, 271-273 Constants, physical, 157ff.
chain, 243, 249ff. Cosmic rays, 173ff.
condensed ring, 278, 279 composition of, 178-180
cyclic, 269-272, 279-282 decay of, 185ff.
families of energies, of, 179-181, 185, 186
acetylenes, 250 lifetime of, 178, 179, 186, 187, 192-196

289
290 Nothing but Motion

original, 185 Galaxies, 36, 110, 111

origin of, 181, 182 distribution of, 66
primary, 178-180, 185 recession of, 65, 66, 117
speed of, 185 Geometry, Euclidean, 30, 31, 66
Cosmology, 118 Gold and Hoyle, 36
Big Bang, 66, 175 Gravitation, 36, 37, 57ff., 80, 148, 236
Steady State, 46 direction of, 112
Creation, 46 energy of, 60-62
Darrow, Karl K., 36 in time, 174
Davis, Leverett, Jr., 181 nature of, 6, 61, 168
Determinism, 45 Gravitational constant, 167-171
Dicke, R. H., 54 Gravitational limit, 64, 66
Dingle, Herbert, 7 Gravitational waves, 6b
Dirac, P. A. M ., 11, 14 Hawkins, David, 43
Direction Heisenberg, Werner, 21, 22, 40, 83, 89, 126
definition of, 48, 72 Hobbes, Thomas, 15
in time, 48, 49 Hooper and Scharff, 179
natural, 112 Hyperfragments, 209
reversals of, 50, 75 Inertia, 148
scalar, 48-50, 57, 58, 98, 161 moment of, 152
vectorial, 49, 50, 57, 58, 67, 98 Inter-atomic distance, 110, 155, 235, 236
Donahue, T. M., 190 Inter-regional ratio, 154, 162
Eddington, Sir Arthur, 15 Inverse phenomena, 75, 76, 173
Einstein, Albert, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 39-41, 54, Inverse square law, 64
66, 83, 84, 87, 89, 92-94, 101-106,
Isomerism, 282, 283
117, 151, 216 Isotopes, 191
Electrons, 3, 7, 21, 140, 141, 165-167, 175- Jeans, Sir James, 19, 85, 91, 117
177, 199, 215 Kelso, Todd, 167
high energy, 190 Kinetic theory, 23
in compounds, 244-246 Lindsay, R. B., 44
unique nature of, 141 Location
Elements, chemical absolute, 32-35, 78
divisions of, 136, 223, 224 in space, 32, 33, 59, 78
periodic table of, 135-138, 224 in time, 59, 78
properties of, 135, 136 Lorentz equations, 90-94, 101, 106, 187
structure of, 129-138 as fudge factors, 91-93
Energy, 62, 148 Magnetic neutral groups, 24Iff.
as fundamental, 22 Margenau, Henry, 8
natural unit of, 160 Mass, 80
Ether, 54 energy equivalent of, 216
Feyerabend, P. K., 93 gravitational, 148
Feynman, Richard, 6, 8, 9, 24, 155 inertial, 148, 160
Finlay-Freundlich, E., 36 inverse, 189-196
Force, 149 natural unit of, 160
general, 35-37, 63, 64 of particles, 141-145, 162-167
gravitational, 35, 36, 59-64, 66, 80, 149 potential, 142, 165-167
inter-atomic, 220 secondary, 161-167
natural unit of, 160 Matter, 17, 59
nature of, 35, 103-105 conversion of, to non-matter, 4
nuclear , 8, 9, 126 production of 215, 216
Fragmentation, 196, 200, 201, 204 structure of, 5, 22
 Index 291

theoretical, 20 as building blocks, 3, 4, 139

Mechanics, 147-153 cosmic, 173
Mendeleeff, D., 135, 136 elementary , 3, 21, 139
Mesons, 176, 190, 207, 208, 214 massless, 142-144
hyperons, 193, 200 nature of, 125, 126, 139
kaons, 199-201, 208 Pauling, Linus, 245
muons, 195, 199, 214 Phenomena, theoretical, 53
pions, 180, 194, 195, 200, 201 Photons, 34, 38, 53-55
Michelson-Morley experiment, 40, 85, 91, motion of, 38, 57, 67-69, 78
106 rotation of, 57, 58, 122-128
Millikan, R. A., 90, 94 two-photon case, 84, 85, 100
Molecules, 220ff. Planck constant, 152
definition of, 220 Positrons, 140, 141, 165-167, 175-177, 214
Moller, C., 87 Protons, 3, 7, 8, 21, 142, 166, 167, 199, 215
Momentum, 148 Quantities, physical, 147ff.
internal, 216 dimensions of, 151-153
Moseleys Law, 246 space-time components of, 147-152
Motion Quarks, 3, 4, 22
definition of, 17 Quasars, 5, 106, 109, 212
directions of, 46, 57 Radiation, 43ff.
equation of, 17, 52, 72, 100 frequency of, 51, 53, 121, 122
existence of, 37, 43 nature of, 61
independent, 45 propagation of, 6, 7, 54, 60
in time, 46, 97ff., 154 wave-particle problem, 6, 54
inward, 46, 58, 59, 80, 122, 153 Radicals
measurement of, 97 aromatic, 274-276, 279
scalar, 31, 33, 34, 43, 48, 49, 57, 67, 68, inorganic, 237-239
98, 120, 154, 192, 193, 211, 212 organic, 243, 244
simple harmonic, 46, 47, 50, 51 Reciprocal relation, 7Iff.
vectorial, 33, 34, 49, 57, 67 Reciprocal system of theory
Motions generality of, 23-25
combinations of, 115ff. inflexibility of, 23
equilibrium of, 222 mathematics of, 115-118
inversion of, 153, 154, 187, 188 postulates of, 19, 29-31, 43-45, 71, 76
space-time components of, 147-152 verification of, 25-28
Moving belt analogy, 64 Redshifts, 106, 107
Negativity, 231-233 Reference points, 34, 68, 69
Neutrinos, 3, 7, 21, 67, 141-144, 165-167, Reference systems, 48, 50, 83
213-215 distortion of, 107, 108
muon type, 213, 214 limitations of, 40, 41, 107
Neutrons, 3, 7, 8, 141-145, 176 natural, 29, 32-38, 99, 100
compound, 143-145, 167 spatial, 31, 32, 92, 107, 110
massless, 141-144, 165-167, 188-190, 199, temporal, 77-79, 93
200, 214-216 Relativity theory, 23, 40, 54, 83ff.
Newton, Isaac, 9, 16, 17 alternatives to, 89, 94
Newtons laws of motion, 41, 76, 85, 102 mathematics of, 85-91, 94, 106
North, J. D., 16 paradoxes of, 85-88
Orientation Resonance experiments, 202-209
atomic, 221 Rotation, 39, 57, 115ff.
molecular, 240-242, 277-282 electric, 128
Particles, 59, 139ff. magnetic, 128
292 Nothing but Motion

n-dimensional, 123-125, 128, 140, 215 definition of, 18

Rotational base, 124, 125, 140 dilatation of, 106, 107
Rutherford, Sir Ernest, 21 dimensions of, 72-74
Rydberg frequency, 159 empty, 108, 109
Satz, Ronald W., 191 motion in, 97ff.
Schlegel, Richard, 23, 87 natural unit of, 159
Space, 30, 31, 52, 79 nature of, 40, 71
concepts of, 15-17 progression of, 29, 74
definition of, 18 properties of, 72-75
dimensions of, 72-74 total, 78, 79, 100, 101
extension, 38, 39, 67, 92 Time region, 110-113, 154, 155
nature of, 40, 71, 83 Tolman, Richard, 17, 87
physical, 38, 39 Toulmin and Goodfield, 91
progression of, 29, 74 Universe, physical
properties of, 72-75 concepts of
Space clock, 78-79 matter , 2, 3, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 24,
Speed, 31 71
above unity, 99-101, 106-108 motion , 15, 17-19, 29, 44, 52, 71,
limits on, 102-106, 117, 153 72, 76
measurement of, 31, 119 spirit , 1, 2
natural datum of, 32, 79, 97 dimensions of, 29
natural unit of, 158 geometry of, 30, 31
Speed displacement, 119-121, 128-131 nature of, 41, 42, 116, 150
definition of, 119 Valence
Stars changes, 260, 261
clusters of, 36 diminished, 231
cosmic, 175 enhanced, 230
explosions of, 108, 109 equilibrium, 243
white dwarf, 109, 111, 175 first order, 226-231
Swann, W . F. G., 181 in chain compounds, 243-265
Tachyons, 105 in ring compounds, 269, 270
Tautomerism, 283 magnetic, 225, 226
Theories, scientific, 19, 21 negative, 223, 224
inductive, 9, 10, 44 neutral, 225
intelligibility of, 11, 12 normal, 224
interpretation of, 116, 117 positive, 223, 224
inventive, 9, 10, 44 secondary neutral, 225
nature of, 9-12, 116, 117 second order, 230, 231
review of, 2, 84 table, 227-229
verification of, 12-14, 26, 27 Vibration, 39, 51
Theory, conventional physical Weber, Joseph, 60
inadequacy of, 5-7 Weisskopf, V. F., 209, 210
revision of, 11, 14, 22 Whitrow, G. J., 87
Thomson, Sir George, 90 Wigner, Eugene P., 19
Time, 30, 31, 38, 41, 52, 79 WiU, Clifford M., 148
clock, 78, 79, 81, 100, 101 Wooldridge, Dean E., 6
concepts of, 15-17