DIALOGUE
WITH DEWEY B. LARSON,
PART I
Reproduced
below are comments on D. B. Larson’s Nothing But Motion (NBM)
and New Light on Space and Time (NLST) interspersed with responses
by the author. The correspondence from which this dialogue is excerpted
took place c. 1980.
 KVK: p. 156, 13th line
from bottom, NLST: Instead of the words “basic vibrating unit”
it must be “rotational base.”
p. 123, 10th line from bottom, NBM: in “However, the rotational
displacement...,” the word “rotational” should be replaced
by “vibrational.”
DBL: You are right on both of these items. I have expressed the first
one in the correct manner on page 140 NBM.
 KVK: There is a difference
in the notations used for representing the rotations of atoms (e.g.:
2–1–0, p. 236, NLST) and of the subatomic particles (e.g.:
1–0–(1)). In the former the numbers represent double natural
units whereas in the latter they represent single natural units. This
divergence is a source of confusion as no attempt was made to clarify
it, and both modes of notation were used at the same places, as in
p. 236, NLST.
DBL: I gave a brief explanation
on page 231 NLST, but this book is, as I said in the preface, a “bird’s
eye view,” and I could not go into much detail on anything. There
is a more extended explanation on page 140 NBM, including setting
up a new system of notation to avoid the difficulty that you point
out. I do not believe it advisable to try to use the same notation
for both atoms and subatomic particles, as this would lead to complications
in the development of the theory.
 KVK: p. 170, last but
one para, NLST: It is not clear how a proton, M 1–1–(1),
can acquire a positive electric charge (see p. 145, NBM). From what
has been explained in the para cited above and elsewhere, as its electric
rotational displacement is spacelike, the proton can only acquire
a negative electric charge—like the electron.
DBL: An electric
charge is a onedimensional rotational vibration. In order to be stable
and identifiable as a separate entity it must oppose the rotation
with which it is associated, but this does not have to be the rotation
in the electric dimension. The charge can oppose the rotation in one
of the magnetic dimensions. Since the magnetic rotation is always
positive in the material sector, this means that all material elements
can take positive electric charges under appropriate conditions. In
fact, at high temperatures, such as those in the stars, all elements
are positively charged.
 KVK: On p. 1556, NLST,
the apparent reduction in the velocity of light in a material medium
is attributed to the additional space involved due to the rotational
spacelike displacements included in the structure of most atoms of
matter. On this score, the apparent velocity of light in a material
medium with only positive rotational displacements should be greater
than c!
DBL: I am not quite
clear as to the point of your comment. I will say, however, that ordinary
matter is a time structure; that is, one in which n units of time
are associated with each unit of space (as we see the situation in
the context of the conventional fixed system of reference). When the
photon passes through this matter, the total time involved in the
motion is increased by the addition of the time component of this
matter. The photon speed, the ratio of space to time, therefore decreases.
Conversely, in the cosmic sector, where matter is a space structure,
the speed of light is increased in passing through cosmic matter.
 KVK: Speaking of the
progression of the photon in the free dimension it is remarked that
“...the combination of a vibratory motion and a linear motion
perpendicular to the line of vibration results in a path which has
the form of a sine curve.” (p. 51, NBM) In the case of HF radiation,
the space component of the vibration progresses unidirectionally while
it is the time component that oscillates back and forth. As such “the
linear motion perpendicular to the line of vibration” referred
to above cannot be the scalar progression of the space component of
the general spacetime progression. Is the sine curve form, then,
taken to be pertaining to the threedimensional time?
DBL: The frequency
of the radiation is irrelevant. In either case, HF or LF, the progression
of the natural reference system in the dimension of the vibration
is neutralized by the reversals. This permits a progression to take
place in a perpendicular dimension. The scalar motion (progression)
in this second dimension is totally independent of that in the first,
as scalar quantities cannot be combined vectorially.
[KVK: Apparently, my question was not clear here. What I meant was:
a progressing sine wave has two components— (i) the oscillation
in the lateral dimension and (ii) the uniform forward progression.
Now my point is, that both these components must be of the same nature—either
spatial or temporal. Thus, if the oscillation component is in time,
the progression component in the perpendicular dimension to be compounded
with this has to be in time also; and the sine wave must be envisaged
as occurring in threedimensional time and not in threedimensional
space.]
 KVK: Explaining the
effect of adding rotation to the vibrational units of a photon, it
is said that the “remaining vibrational units of the originat
photon continue as a photon of lower displacement” (p. 123, 3rd
para, NBM). But it is not clear how the detachment of one of the vibrational
units (which are anyway discrete) reduce the displacement of the original
photon.
DBL: The units
that I am talking about here are units of displacement—that is,
units of speed. (See explanation of the use of the term “displacement”
on pages 119121 NBM.) When one unit is detached to join the rotational
motion, the photon continues on its way with one less unit of speed
(a lower frequency).
 KVK: The liquid state
is the result of vanishing of the force of cohesion in one dimension
(and the gaseous state in three dimensions). However, whether the
vanishing of the cohesion in two dimensions results in any specificalty
observable distinction is not made clear. Is it to be equated to the
vapor state?
DBL: Probably. I
had not covered this subject fully twenty years ago when I interrupted
my research work in order to start publication of my results, and
I have not been able to get back to it since. My conclusions in this
area are therefore somewhat tentative.
 KVK: p. 173, top para,
NLST: Not only this—if the hypothesis of the tendency of atoms
to assume a stabler structure like that of inert gases by gaining
an electron is true, should not the atoms, say, of chlorine, tend
to transform to those of argon, if placed in an environment of negative
electrons, by absorbing single electrons?
DBL: It looks that
way to me, too, but I suppose we will have to let the supporters of
conventional theory answer this question.
 KVK.: p. 50, bottom
para, NBM: It is not clear why do the inward/outward scalar reversals
result in vectorial direction reversal in only one dimension? Why
they do not produce a three or twodimensional vibrating unit?
DBL: We are dealing
with a scalar motion, and the only latitude that we have, at this
stage of the stepbystep development, is to change from + to  and
vice versa. This does not necessarily preclude introducing additional
dimensions of motion later in the development, but multidimensional
scalar motion has some unfamiliar features. I intend to discuss this
type of motion at considerable length in Volume II.
 KVK: p. 1956, NLST:
In view of the dimensional differences in the origin of electrical,
magnetic and gravitational forces which are actually motions of the
same general nature, it is shown that the force exerted by an electric
charge on an uncharged mass is only 1/c² as great as the
force on an object with a charge of comparable magnitude. However,
no mention is made of the force exerted by the electric charge on
a magnetic charge, which, though it must be less than the force
of an electric charge on electric charge, must, nonetheless, be greater
than the force exerted by electric charge on uncharged mass. Hence
this must be within the possibillty of detection, like the weak force
exerted by a magnetic charge (referred to in the para cited) on a
(magnetically uncharged) mass unit.
DBL: I have not
arrived at a firm conclusion on this point as yet. It had occurred
to me, and I have given it some consideration. So far, I am inclined
to believe that it will be ruled out by the directional orientation
of the electric and magnetic forces.
 KVK: Within the gravitational
limit of a material aggregate there is net inward scalar motion.
As such, what would happen to a photon emitted from the object, within
the gravitational timit? As the photon has no independent motion but
is only carried away by the general spacetime progression and since
the net motion now is inward , how can we account for the velocity,
c, of the photon and its eventual emergence from the domain of the
gravitational limit?
I think, the argument that the above net inward motion within the
gravitational limit belongs only to the material aggregate and does
affect the photon is not valid. Even if such an argument is proferred,
it raises another difficulty: how to account for the bending of light
rays in a gravitational field gradient.
DBL:
Diagram (a) shows how the
photon motion P and gravitation G, without any modifying influences,
would look relative to the natural reference system. The photon is
motionless, while gravitation has an inward speed 1+x. Diagram (b)
shows the same situation relative to the conventional fixed reference
system. Now the photon has an outward speed 1, while the inward gravitational
speed has been reduced to x. Diagram (c) shows the usual situation
encountered in practice. The gravitational speed x has been modified
slightly by random motion, and now has a magnitude y, still very small
compared to 1. A photon emitted from the gravitating object moves
outward from that object at unit speed.
 KVK: The massless subatomic
particles do not have net timelike displacement in three dimensions
like the atoms. As such why are they not carried away by the general
spacetime progression, since inward gravitational motion is not present
to counteract the outward scalar progression? Doubtless, they differ
from the photons thus carried away by the spacetime progression in
having additionally rotational displacements. But so long as the net
rotational displacement is in less than three dimensions, the spacetime
progression should carry it off in the free dimension. Perhaps this
could be the reason that this class of subatomic particles is not
observed (p.142, NBM).It
is put forward that the uncharged electron, for example, cannot move
through space as its net displacement is spacelike and the relation
of space to space is not motion. However, since the one unit of twodimensional
rotation is balanced by the unit of negative vibration, and the net
spacelike rotation is only in the electric dimension, is there no
dimension effectively free so that the scalar spacetime progression
applies in that dimension?
DBL: These massless
particles undoubtedly move at the speed of light, as you suggest.
Our inability to observe them is not due to their speed, but to the
fact that, except in the case of the neutrino, we have not, thus far,
identified processes in which they take part. Experience with the
neutrino suggests that some of the effects of the other massless particles
may also be detectable if we look in the right places.
 KVK: Instead of a RV¹
displacement being added to an existing rotational displacement as
in the case of atoms, is it possible to have a rotational vibration
(of opposite spacetime character) directly added to the linear vibrating
unit that is a photon? For example, a negative electric charge, RV¹^{},
can be imposed on a photon, LV¹^{+}?
DBL: No. A charge
is a rotational vibration. As such, it can only exist as a modifier
of a rotation. Otherwise there would be nothing to constrain it into
the rotational path, and it would revert to the status of a linear
vibration.
 KVK.: Chapter 13, NLST:
The discussion does not bring out some important aspects of the difference
in the characteristics of electric and magnetic charges compared to
those of gravitation.
Firstly: Like electric charges repel each other and unlike
charges attract. In order to explain this should it be taken that
the scalar effect of the charge is both inward and outward in spacetime
at the same time?
Secondly: The gravitational force, unlike that due to charges, cannot
be screened off (p. 60, line 3, NBM) because gravitational motion
is inward scalar motion with respect to the general structure of spacetime.
Now if, the motion which gives rise to the electric or magnetic forces
is a motion of the same general nature as that of gravitation, being
the motion of the individual atom or particle with respect to the
general structure of spacetime (p. 186, NLST), it is difficult to
see how these forces can be screened off as is possible actually.
As regards the first point
the following line of explanation may be considered. The negative
electric charge, being a timelike RV displacement, must have an attendant
scalar translational motion in space (just like the gravitational
motion of a positive rotation). Like the positive rotation, it may
appear that this RV displacement should therefore involve a scalar
inward motion in space. However, “...because of its vibrational
character each unit of this charge is only half as effective as a
unit of unidirectional rotation.” (p. 190, NLST) Consequently,
this accompanying scalar translational motion is midway between the
general outward spacetime progression and the inward scalar translational
motion of a rotational unit. Thus it appears as a scalar outward
motion in space from the point of view of the gravitationallybound
stationary reference system. This manifests as mutual repulsion
between the negative electric charges.
On the other hand,
the rotational vibration that is a positive electric charge, is a
spacelike RV displacement. Hence it involves a scalar translational
effect similar to that of a unidirectional rotation that is spacelike
(motion in time). But the scalar translational motion of spacelike
rotational displacement units (i.e., rotation in time) is the gravitation
in time. As such the spacelike RV displacement too involves a scalar
inward motion in time. Once again, as in the previous case, because
of the fact that the vibrational rotation is onty half as effective
as a unidirectional rotation, this attendent scalar inward motion
in time of a positive electric charge falls midway between the general
outward spacetime progression and the inward gravitational motion
in time. Now, in order to understand how this appears from the point
of view of the stationary spatial reference system, we must recall
that in the context of such a reference system, the progression of
the time component is the same as that in the natural reference system.
Consequently, the scalar translational motioh of the positive electric
charge is apparent as inward in time. This manifests itself to
us as mutual repulsion of the positive charges, since the inward
scalar motion in time is tantamount to outward scalar motion in space.
Finally, the relationship
of negative to positive electric charges is that of scalar outward
motion in space to scalar inward motion in time and manifests to us
as mutual attraction of the positive and negative electric charges.
Regarding the possibility of screening off the electrical charge effects:
once we see them as basically scalar motions of the individual charges,
screening becomes impossible, like in the case of gravitation. The
following interpretation may be relevant. The screening is a balancing
of the inward (or outward, as the case may be) scalar motion by a
vectorial motion (i.e., “coordinate” as versus “clock”
motion) in the dimension (or dimensions) concerned, by the screening
object. This characteristic of the screen, the generation of motion
oppositely directed to that of the scalar translational effect of
the charge is not unlike the process of acquisition of gravitational
charges due to captured charged neutrinos.
As given, since
“... the natural unit equivalent of a magnetic (2dimensional)
displacement n is 4n² ...,” i.e., (2n)² , the natural
unit equivalent of a magnetic displacement unit of 1 is 2² =
4, and in equivalent electric units is 4/2 = 2 (in view of the double
units we are working with). On the other hand, the natural unit equivalent
of the magnetic displacement unit of Ö1
is (Ö2)²= 2 and in equivalent
electric units is 2/2 = l. Thus, it does not seem to matter,
at unit level, whether we consider the first unit of magnetic displacement
as 1 or Ö1, only the latter is actually
relevant, since this alone gives us the correct atomic number sequence.
This important point
is not brought out in the discussion and the whole issue is glossed
over with nothing more than one sentence, “At the unit level
dimensional differences have no numerical effect, i.e., 1³ =
1² = 1.” (p. 128, NBM).
Indeed, the role of unity, as a natural datum, is of farreaching
significance. The requirement of the first effective unit of the 2dimensional
displacement being Ö1 instead of 1
can be seen to be arising out of the following. The first unit of
displacement, from the rotational base, has a unique and distinguishing
characteristic in that it marks the emergence of “something physical
compared to the prevenient nothingness.” Inasmuch as this is
so, the difference between the first unit and the rest is not only
one of degree—but something else besides. The addition of the
first displacement unit involves a transit from the region inside
the unit displacement to that outside. Hence the dictum that “...
all of the physical phenomena of the inside region ... are ... second
power expressions of the corresponding quantities of the outside region”
(p. 155, NBM) applies here. Consequently, the 1 unit displacement,
when looked at from the viewpoint of physical manifestation—i.e.,
from the “somethings” side of the unit boundary as against
the “nothings” side—is to be regarded as Ö1.
It must be noted
that the setting up of units and measurement procedures from the standpoint
of the natural reference system, in terms of speed displacements results
in the relation between the algebra of displacements and the algebra
of the conventional speed units being exponential in nature. This
is to say that the addition of displacements is equivalent to the
multiplication of the corresponding speeds.
Suppose we define the speed displacement d, of a speed v, as d = 1g
c  1g v, since it is a deviation from the unit speed, c; all speeds
like 1/n give positive displacements, lg n, while speeds like n give
negative displacements, 1g n, and unit speed c gives zero displacement,
1g 1. Though this definition does not exactly tie in with the treatment
in the book, it nonetheless serves to demonstrate the general exponential
nature of the relationship mentioned above. It also illustrates how
the addition of a motion of (n1) positive displacement units to another
of (n1) negative displacement units produces zero displacement (p.
121, NBM), since in dealing with the corresponding speeds we need
to multiply the speed n (represented by (n1) negative displacement
units) by speed 1/n ((n1) positive displacement units) to obtain
the unit speed (zero displacement).
DBL: Your criticism
of the lack of coverage of electricity and magnetism is valid, but
here again you should bear in mind that a “bird’s eye view”
does not see everything. I will give you a much broader view of these
subjects in Volume II of the new edition.
As brought out in Volume I (particularly in Chapter 18), linear
motion is limited to two full units, from +1 to 1, as seen in our
fixed reference system. In terms of the natural reference system both
+1 and 1 are zero, the + zero and the  zero, we may say, if we look
at the situation from the standpoint of what is happening in the region
between the two. The motion of an electric charge is always outward,
but the motion of a positive charge is outward from the positive zero,
while that of a negative charge is outward from the negative zero.
Two positive charges move away from each other, as shown in the upper
tine of the diagram below. Two negative charges also move outward
away from each other, as shown in the lower line. But a positive charge
and a negative charge move toward each other, as indicated by the
middle line, even though they are both moving outward from their respective
zero points.
Screening is simply a matter
of mathematics. A+B is always greater than A, but AB can take any
value. Since all gravitational motion is in the same direction, the
effect of introducing matter between objects X and Y is to increase
the original gravitational motion A to A+B. But since the motion of
charges can take either direction, the introduction of matter between
charges X and Y may have a resultant AB.
 KVK:
Regarding the lifetimes of the cosmic decay particles (Ch. 15, NBM)
the following points may be considered. The spatial extension of the
cosmic atom is the analog of the lifetime of the atom in the material
sector. As such the lifetimes of the decaying catoms must bear a
relation to their spatial extensions before the decay.
The correlation
of lifetimes with the dimensions shown in p. 192, (NBM), can be arrived
at by tying together some loose ends as below (with appropriate interchange
of the words “space” and “time”):
 The limiting spatial
extension of the incoming atom in each dimension is one natural
unit (i.e., s in conventional units). Thus the extension space
involved in two dimensions becomes s², and in three dimensions,
s³.
 The temporal equivalent
of this spatial extension s is s/c.
 “..If the motion
is onedimensional, all of the effects can be transmitted. If
it is twodimensional, the fraction transmitted ... is 1/c of
the total ... The transmitted fraction is only 1/c² in the
case of threedimensional rotation.” (p. 185, NLST)
 “...The time
region speed, and all quantities derived therefrom, which means
all of the physical phenomena of the inside region ... are ...second
power expressions of the corresponding quantities of the outside
region.” (p. 155, NBM)
The Table below shows the
result of applying these criteria (i) to (iv) above to the various
dimensional motion.
Criterion No.

Number of Dimensions

1

2

3

i

s

s²

s³

ii

s/c

s²/c

s³/c

iii

(s/c)

(s²/c)(1/c)

(s³/c)(1/c²)

iv

(s/c)^{½}

[(s²/c)(1/c)]^{½}

[(s³/c)(1/c²)]^{½}

Result in secs.

1.233148 × 10^{8}

1.520655 ×10^{16}

1.875193 × 10^{24}

On the other hand, if the extension space involved in the two and
threedimensional cases is respectively p/4s²
and p/6s³ (based on statistical circular
and spherical symmetry in coordinate space) instead of s² and
s³, we have the calculated values of the lifetimes in the two
and threedimensional cases as respectively 1.347645×10^{16}
and 1.356892×10^{24} seconds.
DBL: You may have something
here. I do not have time to make a full evaluation of your proposal
now. In fact, I have a general policy of not making a quick decision
on any new idea, whether it is my own or comes from someone
else. But it appears to me that this may be the kind of a thing that
I was looking for (unsuccessfully) at the time I wrote Chapter 15.
I suggest that you prepare a paper on this subject and send it to
Professor Meyer for publication in Reciprocity, so that the
NSA members can take a look at it.

KVK:
The general spacetime progression of our universe is an outward
scalar progression. How is this to be distinguished from one with
both space and time progressing inward? The universe of motion with
both space and time progressing outward is indistinguishable from
that with both space and time progressing inward. In addition, both
these cases are indistinguishable from a third case where for one
unit both space and time progress outward and in the next unit both
of them progress inward, alternately. It is not clear how this indistinguishability
is built into the conceptual framework of the theory. Moreover,
how (or whether) our consciousness has come to regard it as an outward
progression is not evident.
DBL:
The existence of a physical universe is possible only if gravitation
is inward, so that the originally widely dispersed units of matter
move closer together and eventually reach positions in which they
can interact. This means that the arbitrary fixed reference system
that we set up on the basis of such interactions is moving inward
relative to the natural reference system. The apparent progression
of the natural reference system is therefore outward.

KVK:
“...deviations from unit speed ... are accomplished by means
of reversals of the direction of the progression of either space
or time.” (p. 75, NBM) What about the case of conjoint reversals
of both space and time, like: s/+t , +s/t , s/+t.... . etc.?
That is, for one unit space progresses inward while time progresses
outward. In the next unit space progresses outward and time progresses
inward. Such a basic motion has a speed of 1 that is unvarying
and must be both an independent and a stable motion. Can we identify
the above “coupledvibration” with any physical entity?
The above may even result in rotation. At any rate, the motion is
similar to the inward translational aspect of the material gravitation.
DBL:
A speed of unity, 1/1, is no motion at all relative to the natural
system. We cannot distinguish between no motion in space and no
motion in time.
[KVK: But reply does not answer the point I raised here. I was asking
whether this “coupled vibration,” with speed of 1 like
the gravitational motion, could be realized in some physical entity?]

KVK: I find that the
following concepts are not explained adequately, with the result
the reader (who is being exposed the first time) is left with many
nagging why and hows:
 the interregional
ratio (p 154, NBM)
 secondary mass (p.
161, NBM)
 electric mass and
mass of electric charge (p. 163, NBM)
 secondary neutral
valence
DBL: I am not sure just
what you have in mind here. Are you merely suggesting that I should
explain these points more fully in later publications? (in which case,
I thank you for the suggestion), or do you have some questions that
you want answered? (in which case I would like to have something more
specific).
 KVK: p. 100, NBM: Continuing
the line of argument (in the text), if we substitute an object with
a speed less than c for each of the photons, instead of for only one
(as suggested in the lastbutone para), we arrive at the true relative
v speed of the two objects as (v_{1}+v_{2})/(v_{1}+v_{2})
= 1 always. Thus the true relative speed always turns out to be unity
for any objects—not necessarily only for photons.
DBL: The time component
of speed always includes the time of the progression (clock time),
regardless of whether the moving objects are, like the photons, moving
at the unit speed of the progression, or at some different rate. Thus
the denominator is always 1 ± v, never v alone.
[KVK: Does the answer here mean that the relative speed of two objects
with speeds v_{1} and v_{2}
(in natural units) is given by (v_{1}+v_{2})/(1+v_{1}+v_{2})
since the total time involved would be (1+v_{1}+v_{2})?]
 KVK.: 1289, NBM: It
is not clear why the relation that “...a magnetic displacement
n is equivalent to 2n² electric displacement units” does
not hold good for n=1. For n=1, the equivalent electric disptacement
works out to be 2, by this formula. However, in the development of
the series of elements, the magnetic displacement 1 is counted as
an equivalent electric displacement of 1 unit and not 2. There is
definitely a hiatus in the reasoning here, an examination of which
may lead to some important insight and clarify, among others, the
case of half units represented in M ½½0, for example.
Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to see that halving
the displacement unit amounts to taking the squareroot of the corresponding
speed and does not involve any half unit of speed (i.e., if d = 1g
n, then ½d = ½1g n = 1g Ön).
For particles below the unit level, as in the case of subatomic particles,
this gives rise to the unique possibility of positing ½ unit
displacement (141, NBM) because of the idempotent nature of unity
(i.e., Ö1= 1), without involving anything
less than unit speed.
DBL: I don’t believe that I get the point of your argument on
this item. So far as I can see, we are applying the same relation
all the way through the series of elements. The sequence of magnetic
additions is this:

Rotation

Net speed

Electric Equiv.



Rotational base (2)

100

000

0



Effective zero (unity)

110

100

0

} 
n=1 
Helium

210

110

2

Neon

220

210

10

} 
n=2 
Argon

320

220

18

We start with a rotational
base for each of the two rotating systems of the atom, with net
speed zero in all dimensions. Then we add one magnetic rotational
unit to bring the effective speed to unity, the natural zero level.
(The language that I used in the book may have been somewhat misleading,
although I did say specifically that the purpose of this first magnetic
unit is to bring the scalar speed to zero on the natural basis.)
Since this noneffective unit uses up one of the n = 1 spots, there
is only 2x 1² group of elements, and a 2 x 2² group follows,
as shown in the tabulation.

KVK:
p. 154, NBM: The interregional ratio is calculated on the basis
that “for each of the 128 possible rotational positions there
is an additional 2/9 vibrational position...” The ratio is
thus found to be 128(1+2/9) = 156.44. However, in the case of subatomic
particies, which are single rotating systems, only one, and not
two, of the possible nine vibrational positions are occupied. Thus
the interregional ratio must be 128(1+1/9) = 142.22 and not 156.44.
DBL: You are correct.
The 142.22 ratio must be substituted for 156.44 in the appropriate
applications. I said this on page 163 NBM.
This completes
the items that I received from Professor Meyer. I have tried to
be responsive to the questions that you have asked, but it cannot
be expected that all of my answers will be satisfactory. So I want
to assure you that I will be glad to discuss any of them at more
length if there are issues that you want to raise. It is apparent
from your comments that you have gained a good deal of insight into
the structure of the theory already, and I would like to help clear
away any obstacles that still remain in the way of a full understanding.
It has become quite clear since publication of Nothing But
Motion that the scientific community in general has very little
comprehension of the scalar type of motion that plays such a large
part in my theoretical development, although scalar motion is
not something that is peculiar to my theoretical system. It is
something that exists as one of the phenomena of the physical
universe, and any physical theory should be prepared to deal with
it. Since it is a very important factor in my theoretical structure,
and so generally neglected in current practice, I am planning
on including an extended discussion of this type of motion in
Volume II. I put a part of this discussion into a memorandum that
I used at the recent NSA conference at Huntsville, Alabama. I
believe that this should be of some interest to you, and I am
therefore enclosing a copy.
