This is a very interesting article by Thomas Kirk. He evinces good understanding of the nature of scalar motion. The article would have been excellent but for few points needing further clarification. Presuming that the article had been reviewed, one feels that the reviewer ought to have raised these points.

(Denoting page no. by ’p’, left and right columns by ’lc’ and ’rc’, para no. by ’pr’ and line no. by 'l')

- p 3, lc, pr 1, 2 : Kirk talks of the displacement giving rise to the speed 1/2 as space displacement, while in fact it should be referred to as time displacement.
- p 3, lc, pr 2 : "The inward unit motion which is the photon cannot continue over a second unit of time, because that would require an additional unit of energy."

But there is no bar for the motion to continue over another unit of*time*, so long as the*speed*is the same. (1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 etc.) Additional unit(s) of energy are required only if the*speed extends to another speed unit*. - p 3, lc, pr 2 bottom & pr 3 : "... the inward motion inevitably lapses and is replaced by the natural progression for one unit of time at the end of which it can assume its form of a unit displacement again ... due to its energy conservation."

Since energy is a derivative of speed, and during the one unit of time in which the inward motion is replaced by natural progression how (or where) is the energy conserved? Conservation means that this unit of inward speed exists in some other (or potential) form during this time unit of natural progression. But no such alternative is apparent from Kirk’s explanation. In fact, the mechanism suggested by Kirk actually breaks the law of conservation of energy on the level of individual time units. - p3, re, pr 1 : Kirk refers to the explanation in p. 209 of The Universe of Motion. At this juncture it must be borne in mind, that while Larson was speaking of speeds in the reference cited, Kirk is dealing with
*speed displacements*(see p 3, lc, pr 1 & 2), and since these two are very different ways of talking about the speed magnitudes, comparison would be misleading. - p 3, rc, pr 1 bottom : "... when the two motions are added vectorially."

But these two motions he talks of are scalar motions (see the cited para). Adding two scalar motions vectorially is self-contradictory. Here ’vectorially’ must be replaced by ’algebraically.’ - p 3, rc, pr 4 : "This creates a packet of zero motion of unit size..."

What does the author mean here by zero motion? Is it zero speed? And since the author has been talking in terms of speed displacements, one would ask what displacement will produce zero speed or zero motion. His implication that unit displacement produces this (p 3, rc, pr 4, l 3-7) is patently wrong: it produces a speed of 1/2 or 2. But the inconsistency is the*zero*motion being*unit size*. The motion size could be either zero or unit. - p 3, rc, pr 4 bottom : "... this packet of ... motion ... acts similarly to a pulse ..."

Pulse of what? - p 3, rc, pr 5 : He represents "... wavelength by the expression n+1, where n is the pulse duration, or unit of energy ... The frequency is of course forward unit speed divided by the wavelength ... This frequency is therefore 1/n+1"

If n is the number of units of energy and 1/n+1 the frequency of the photon they are inversely related. Then how is it reconciled with the*fact*that photon energy is h (Planck’s constant) times the frequency ?

There is another important point that must be realized. Kirk’s treatment (see p 3, lc, pr 1 & 2) envisages that a frequency with zero displacement from the natural progression, that is unit speed, is tantamount to zero energy. But the fact is that photons of all frequencies other than zero (that is, the LF or low frequency type or 1/n, the HF type or n/1, and also the unit frequency or 1/1) do possess non-zero energies. In other words, the zero point for photon speeds (frequencies) is not unity as Kirk assumes, but the mathematical zero. Larson himself is clear about this and identifies the unit frequency as being in the infra-red range (ref.*The Universe of Motion*, p 202 and p 246) - p 4, lc, pr 2 : "... the photon motion is distributed and centered on the line of travel about one wavelength in total width. This is opposed to conventional theory which puts the wavelength along the line of travel ..."

Firstly, if the wavelength is not posited to be along the line of travel then how does the author take the frequency as "forward unit speed divided by the wavelength "? (p 3, rc, pr 5, 1 11-12)

Secondly, how does he take that the motion is distributed about one wavelength in total width ? Why can’t it be an integral multiple of it? - p 5, rc, pr 2 : "This one unit speed displacement occupies one unit of space. It is essentially a disk of distributed scalar motion in the 3-dimensional reference system"

Compare this with: "The motion 1/n which is the photon itself could not be represented in extension space ..." (p 3, rc, pr 1, 1 2-4). Once we recognize that the 3-dimensional reference system is the same thing as the extension space, these two statements can be seen to be mutually contradictory.

Kirk asserts that the photon motion is linear translation in a second scalar dimension (p 4, lc, pr 1, 1 2-5). So far it is correct. But his conjucture that it is rotationally distributed----a ’disk’ he says------in the three-dimensional reference system is not correct. The translatory motion in the second scalar dimension takes on a constant direction, in the geometric representation, for one unit of time. This direction may change to a new direction (which is constant) in the next unit of time. But the point is that at any instant of time the representation takes a fixed direction, and only this is relevant in any interaction of the photon with matter. If the representation is to be a disk, the motion has to be rotational, not translatory.

In this context, it is important to distinguish between rotational motion and rotationally distributed translational motion. The inward translational effect of gravitation, for example, is a rotationally distributed motion. In the three-dimensional reference system, it has a fixed direction for one natural unit of time. As it enters a new time unit the vectorial direction is redetermined by the chance process. (See Nothing But Motion, p 58, pr 3) - Further Kirk’s account, like Larson’s, does not explain polarization and the related phenomena.