Dewey B. Larson755 N.E. Royal CourtPortland, Oregon 97232 |

June 3, 1988

Dear Frank:

The following are my comments on the issues raised in your letter of May 24.

- I am in full agreement with your contention that we should not reinvent the wheel. The mathematicians have devised a structure of mathematical theory which meets their own criteria of validity, and they have applied this to the physical universe, arriving at results which, in most cases agree with the results of observation and measurement to a reasonable degree of accuracy. The objective of the mathematical physicists is to extend this development to the areas not yet covered, and to improve the accuracy of the existing applications. If any of our people want to participate in that activity, that’s fine, but it has no bearing on the development of the Reciprocal System of theory. The already available mathematics are far more than we need, at least in the present rather early stage of the development.

As I have tried to emphasize throughout my writings, the conceptual aspects of physical theory, our understanding of what the mathematics of physical events mean, is independent of the mathematical relations. There are usually many possible interpretations of the same mathematics. Consequently, the true meaning cannot be derived from the mathematics. As matters now stand, the accepted physical meaning of each mathematical relation is based on assumptions applicable to that particular case. Conventional physical theory has a general mathematical structure into which each individual conclusion is required to fit, but it has no similar conceptual structure, and it therefore has no way of verifying the conceptual interpretations of the mathematical relations. Our contribution is to provide the conceptual structure that is needed. Since the previous interpretations were based on unconnected assumptions, it was inevitable that some of them would turn out to be wrong, but this does not necessarily mean that the mathematical expressions are incorrect. And where we do find that some modification of the mathematical relations is necessary, we do not need any new kind of mathematics.

- The photon is a combination of motions, and therefore, cannot be classified as primary. There is some question as to how we should define “primary” in this connection, but I have applied the term only to uniform one-dimensional translational motion. In the context of a reference system this can be inward, outward, or continually changing from one to the other (simple harmonic motion). Each of these can be distributed either linearly or rotationally in the reference system. Thus there are six different varieties of primary motion.

- Yes.

- Yes. Time is fundamental.

- A progression is continuous. There is no change in the motion at any time. A succession of jumps is discontinuous. Nothing happens for a time, then a jump occurs, and so on.

- The space-time progression is a result of the equivalence of unit space and unit time. When time has moved forward one unit (as we say, one unit of time has elapsed), space has also, by reason of the equivalence, moved forward one unit. So the progression is always continuous.

An independent motion at unit speed is also a progression, but it*may*change from one of the possible types of simple motion to another,*at the end of a unit only.*

- A motion in space is a change of position in a spatial reference system during a specified period of time. In a combination of motions, the different motions originating at the same location take place during the same period of time. In a succession of motions the different motions take place during successive periods of time.

- The range of simple speeds in the universe is from one unit of space per x units of time (which is the limit of motion in space) to x units of space per unit of time (which is the limit of motion in time). A zero speed can only be attained by combination. There is no simple zero and no infinity in nature.

- Yes

- I regard the first of these statements as meaningless. The second is wrong. Past events with which we were contemporaneous may have left traces in our memories, but future events have had no opportunity to do so.

- I agree that time is one of the basic, or primitive, concepts, but I cannot agree that it is meaningless to speak of the direction of time. Space and time are symmetrical in the universe. It follows that there is direction in time as well as in space.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The answers that I have given to the foregoing questions are contained in or implied by my writings. You are therefore at liberty to quote me, if you wish, in discussions that you may have in connection with them, or in material that you may write. The remaining questions concern matters about which I have not yet published anything. I am answering them only for your own personal information, and I do not wish to have my name connected with either the answers or my underlying theories on which the answers are based, unless and until I do publish them. Please bear this in mind if you discuss these points with anyone, or write anything on these subjects.

- Generally speaking, yes, although I would not equate the cosmic control with the mind. The control applies to all living things, only a few of which have minds, in the usual sense.

- The physical universe is a universe of space and time. What I have called Sector 3 is not motionless in the ordinary meaning of the term, which implies being stationary in space. The concepts of space, time, and motion simply so not apply to it at all.

- I find it necessary to conclude, from the evidence, that there is an existence independent of the space and time universe, and that there is an aspect of human life that is related to this independent existence. I would not identify it as a “spirit,” because that word has acquired implications that go far beyond what I believe can legitimately be asserted—for instance, it is understood as implying that they (the spirits) might, in some way, reveal their presence, or have same other physical effect.