Based on the up-to-date experience it is understood that axioms of physics and mathematics constitute obvious requests yet unproven.
The following query is expressed:
Is there a privileged principle?
At first there isn't a privileged principle. However we can notice the following:
1. Any theory doesn't have meaning unless it can be expressed through the basic communication system.
2. The basic communication system includes the Aristotelian logic + Sufficient Reason Principle (logic Ë ) as also the "earlier-posterior" Axiom. (for everything we seek the reason of its power, we do not communicate in a simultaneous way but place one word after the other, one phrase after the other, etc.)
3. The basic communication system can be proven to be contradictory and this leads to the aspect that silence is an intellectual coherent attitude. The proof of inconsistency of the basic communication system constitutes the main target for type C case studies. There have been several attempts and one of the basic queries made to the scientific community is if the following Statements I and II are valid.
Statement I: "A system that includes logic Ë and a statement that is not a theorem of Ë leads to contradiction".
Statement II: "A system that includes logic Ë and one synthetic sentence (e.g. the "earlier-posterior" axiom) leads to contradiction"
Statement II states the contradiction of the basic communication system which leads to silence. One can notice basic similarities between Statement II and Rosser's Theorem. However Statement II doesn't require any arbitrary hypothesis; it requires the Sufficient Reason Principle stated as follows:
Sufficient Reason Principle: "No statement is valid if it cannot be proved from other valid statements different from it".
One could notice that this Principle is arbitrary too. However this Principle is a substantial part of our basic communication system out of which no theory can be logically stated.
4. The disengagement of silence based on the knowledge that it leads to contradiction is based on"
"The Claim for Minimum Contradictions"
as already noted in type A case studies.
5. Based on Statements I and II a physics theory is least contradictory when there aren't any principles besides those of the basic communications system. This can be demonstrated in detail in relative case studies.
6. The conclusion is that :
"A physics theory is the least contradictory when it is formulated with "earlier-posterior" states and in extension formulated with space-time terms".
Based on these results we conclude that there is a privileged principle and that is "The claim for minimum contradictions", since it constitutes a necessary condition for any theory to be stated, through the basic communication system, with the maximum use of logic.
Basic consequences of conclusion "6" are proposals identical to the IA and II Á concepts. For the same reasons as in the case studies B, the type C case studies reveal the common origin of relativity and quantum mechanics (e.g. certain simplifications relativity or quantum mechanics are evident). The wave function Ø results without any previous knowledge of quantum mechanics but directly through the Fourier analysis.
Due to the equivalence of result "6" and Principles IA and IIA, all the implications and interpretations of phenomena that are mentioned in type A case studies are valid also for type C case studies.
Type C case studies that are evident only from the claim for minimum contradictions are the following:
C.1 A.A.Nassikas, 2000. A Claim for Minimum Contradictions in Physics. a) Congress 2000, St. Petersburg , Russia. b) Galilean Electrodynamics, Special Issues 1, 2001.
This paper is published here by the permission of Dr C. Whitney editor of "Gallilean Electrodynamics"
In this case study there is an attempt to prove statement I. There are weaknesses due to the fact that there isn't usage of the Sufficient Reason Principle.
The "earlier-posterior" condition is a clause that was used for the first time by Aristotle which was relevant to the concept of time. Prof. Dr Whitney noted that it would be proper for space-time to use the concept "anterior-posterior" that has a relation with countable space and time. Ever since in relevant studies we use the term "anterior-posterior".
C.2 A. A. Nassikas , 2001. The Claim for Minimum Contradictions and its Consequences in Thinking and Physics. Vienna Circle International Symposium.
In this case study for the first time there is an attempt to prove that the laws of physics can result from principles of thought. In this study there is usage of Sufficient Reason Principle but without an explicit metamathematic expression.
C.3 A.A. Nassikas, "The Notion of Aether as a Possible Consequence of the Claim for Minimum Contradictions", Journal of New Energy, Vol. 6, No. 1, EEMF, Inc. (2001).
By this case study the minimum contradictions physics is a physics of aether. Aether is considered the substance from which things exists and are made off. In this study as a result of the "Claim for Minimum Contradictions" are the Kozyrev's Axioms.
C.4 A.A.Nassikas, 2002. More on Minimum Contradictions in Physics. Galilean Electrodynamics - East, Fall 2004 (Vol. 15, Special Issues 2).
This paper is published here by the permission of Dr C. Whitney editor of "Gallilean Electrodynamics"
In this study a clear use of the sufficient reason principle is presented without a metamathematic expression. The proof of Statement I based on this study proposes a core approach without possible comprising of a general formulation.
C.5 A.A.Nassikas, "The Relativity Theory and the Quantum Mechanics under the Claim for Minimum Contradictions", PIRT-2002 London Ed. M.C.Duffy; also in Hadronic Journal, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 667-696 (2002).
In this case study for the first time there is use of collectiveness for the production of type C case studies. The proof for Statement I is realized through case study C.2. In this case study the notion of electromagnetic space-time and its co-existence with gravitational space-time are stressed to extrapolate conclusions relative to those of type A case studies. At the same time the meaning of arrow of time is approached, an explanation for the meaning of order in a chaotic system and the epistemological basis for the acceptance of the negative probability meaning are given (The claim for minimum contradictions - accepting the existence of contradictions). Also there is an explanation given for the "non locality effect" and the experiment of A. Aspect.
C.6 A.A. Nassikas, "Minimum Contradictions Physics as a New Paradigm", presented at the NPA Conference, 2003. Journal of New Energy.
In this case study besides the basic elements for minimum contradictions physics there is a first explanation in cold fusion phenomena as also an explanation to the Biefeld-Brown phenomena. In this study the proof of Statement I is realized through study C.4.
C.7 A.A. Nassikas, "On a Minimum Contradictions Physics", presented at the NPA Conference, 2004.
In this case study besides the basic elements of a minimum contradictions physics it is briefly formulated the equations of a minimum contradictory space-time where there is consideration of the co-existence of gravitational with the electromagnetic space-time. There is also an explanation to the propellant force that is developed to the asymmetrical capacitors and generally to gravi-electric systems.
C.8 A.A. Nassikas, "Basic Statements Required for a Minimum Contradictions Physics", presented "in absentia" at the PIRT- Calcutta Conference, 2004.
C.9 A.A. Nassikas, "Basic Statements Required for a Minimum Contradictions Everything", presented "in absentia" at the NPA Conference, 2005.
Case studies C.8 and C.9 practically have the same objective with only difference the semantic characterization of quantum space-time, as aether or everything generally. The main objective of these studies is the integrated attempt to prove Statements I and II, which is the basis of all category C case studies.
As mentioned it is requested of the scientific community to place upon this query if Statements I and II are valid or not.
C.10 A.A. Nassikas, "Basic Statements Required for a Minimum Contradictions Everything-Aether", accepted for presentation at the PIRT-Moscow Conference, 2005.
Case study C.10 has as objective to state all the basic statements required for the foundation of a "Minimum Contradictory Everything-Aether". In these statements are included besides Statements I, II and other empirical statements that express the confirmation possibility due to experience (beyond those that are already tangible through the concepts of general relativity and quantum mechanics). Basically it is proposed to confirm the physics of minimum contradictions through a clear operating "Over Unity Effect".
The experiential verification that is suggested concerns the confirmation of propellant force that is expected to develop in asymmetrical capacitors with solid dielectric and zero potential casing.
There are already strong indications of several references to matters concerning "Zero Point Energy" and the experimental confirmation of propellant force to Frolov asymmetrical capacitors. Of course it is noted that there hasn't been a confirmation that the propellant force that is developed to these capacitors is the "Over Unity Effect".
C.11 A.A. Nassikas, "Physics of Minimum Contradictions Reality",
This case study is a monograph of a physics that is produced on the basis for the request to minimum contradictions and without another previous acknowledgement. Based on this physics a theorist, based on the basic communications system, concludes to results compatible to those of empiricists, meaning persons that base their concepts on experimentation brought about (e.g. Newton 's Laws of Mechanics, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics). Besides the compatibility of these concepts something new can define new phenomena and lead to new technology. In this monograph there is an attempt to extrapolate results without any gaps and without any area confinement that published studies pose in conferences or magazines. This monograph basically comprises a unification of all case study types. Besides these, through this case study it is provided:
A cosmological explanation based on the conservation energy concept as represented by case studies Á.2, C.3, C.5, C.6, C.7, D.1, D.2, D.3.
An answer to Evert Post's query concerning the conjunction of mathematics with the laws of nature.
The reason why minimum contradictions aether has a result a type Dirac aether without the opposite being realized.
An answer to basic questions that Prof. Dr Whitney placed concerning the Arrow of time, the "Electric Clusters Stability" and to the question whether atoms have real state.
This monograph is being prepared to be published.
C.12. A.A.Nassikas Minimum Contradictions Everything - Ether and Forces' Unification. AAAS-SWARM NPA Conference 2006, Oklahoma.