Dewey B. Larson
755 N.E. Royal Court
Portland, Oregon 97232
July 10, 1985
One of the things that I want to discuss with the members of the ISUS board when they meet next month is a change in strategy. So far, we have been trying to sell our product as a package, and we have had some success with those who are not happy with present-day physics. But those who go along with the Establishment don’t want to make that much of a change in their pattern of thought. Now that we have enough in print to show that we do have an alternate to the conventional view, I think we might make more headway by hammering away at some point where we have the Establishment at a disadvantage.
It appears to me that a good place to start is with the nature of gravitation. The current view, as stated by Einstein, is that it is “equivalent to a motion,” meaning a vectorial motion, the only kind of motion that is recognized. We can show (1) that is is a motion, (2) that it is the same kind of a motion as the recession of the galaxies, and (3) that neither of these is a vectorial motion. The physicists are not much inclined to pursue this kind of an issue for what it is worth in itself, but I think we can put them in a position where they will have to respond, since this is a key item in our system of theory.
I have written three versions of the argument. The one enclosed is appropriate, I believe, for use in connection with individual contacts, such as those that you have been making. (I will supply additional copies if you can use them) A second version, using a somewhat different approach, ought to be acceptable to some scientific journal, and I am going to see what I can do about getting it published. Finally, an abbreviated version will be combined with the “After 3000 years” mailing piece for use in the advertising campaign.
Have you any suggestions? The enclosed article can be changed if any alteration seems advisable. Also, are you coming to Portland for the meeting? I can furnish airport pickup service if I have the flight time.