|
Dewey B. Larson
755 N.E. Royal Court Portland, Oregon 97232 |
Nov. 17, 1983
Dear Jan:
Hoff’s review is quite well done, and ought to stir up some interest. Just in case someone might, in conversation with you, bring up the one issue on which Hoff is somewhat critical—the two unobservable scalar dimensions, which he suggests are introduced ad hoc—I want to call your attention to the answer to this point. On the basis of my postulates, the fundamental motion in the uni verse is scalar, simply a relation between a space magnitude and a time magnitude. In a three-dimensional universe there are obviously three dimensions of this scalar motion. That is what the three-dimensional postulate means. Thus the existence of these three dimensions of motion is not ad hoc; it is implicit in the postulates that define the universe of motion.
Hoff's problem in this case is the same as that of many others. They all take it for granted that they know what the word “dimension” means, and they don’t pay any,attention to what I am saying . But they are thinking of geometric dimensions, and the dimensions of scalar motion are necessarily mathematical, not geometric. The whole point of my discussion in Chapter 2 of NFS is that only one of the three scalar (mathematical) dimensions can be represented in the three spatial (geometric) dimensions of the conventional reference system. The other two scalar dimensions of motion are unobservable.
I will leave the question as to whether or not to advertise in Kronos to your judgment. Of course, we don’t want to spend the money unless we will get some good out of it, but if you decide to go ahead I will get the funds from the NPP.
Since you are working on Schadewald to produce a review, you might also point out to him that sooner or later some science writer is going to cash in on a full-length article about the ISUS and its activities, particularly since the opening gun of an attack on the fictional aspects of modern science has now been fired in School Science and Mathematics. He should be interested in the fact that we are now charging the scientific Establishment with doing exactly the same thing that they are criticizing so strongly in the case of the “creationists” and other dissenting groups; that is, they are basing their theories on pure assumptions rather than on observed and measured facts. This should certainly be newsworthy if it is properly written up. It has the “man bites dog” flavor that the news people relish.
I found another mistake. On page 447, line 16, change 20 to 21.
