DIALOGUE
WITH DEWEY B. LARSON,
PART II
Below
are reproduced further comments on D. B. Larson’s Nothing But
Motion (NBM) and on Quasars & Pulsars (QP), interspersed
with responses by the author. The correspondence from which this dialogue
is excerpted took place c. 1980.
 KVK: Ref. p.46, para
2, QP: If the n massunits of a material aggregate are dispersed in
time, no observer can encounter all of them at the same time. For
example, all of the atoms in an object may not manifest at the same
time because of the differences in their coordinate time, even if
they are at the same stage of the progression.
DBL: Two atoms are in contact when they are within the equilibrium
distance in either space or time, regardless of how far apart
they may be in the other. They have to be at the same stage of the
progression to make contact in space, but this has nothing to do with
time. It is a result of the fact that even though two objects may
be at the same point in the reference system, they are not at the
same location in space unless they are also at the same stage of the
progression.
 KVK: Ref. p. 48, para
2, QP: This example of the two cardboard disks gives rise to two possibilities,
which are polar opposites as far as the mutual direction of the coupled
rotations are concerned. For a given direction of rotation of disk
A, disk B could be posited either as rotating in the clockwise sense
or in the counterclockwise sense. Do these dual possibilities in the
model refer to any analogously distinguishable categories of the double
rotating system of the atoms?
DBL: I have not considered this issue previously, and I do not want
to express any firm conclusions without more extended consideration,
but from my findings in the fields of electricity and magnetism, I
would tentatively conclude that reversal of the direction of rotation
would reverse the scalar direction. The resulting motion would be
incompatible with the atomic structure.
 KVK: Ref. p. 98, line
7, QP: Should not the word ‘active’ be replaced by the word
‘inactive’?
DBL: No. Beyond the unit level (the speed of light) motion takes place
in two scalar dimensions.
 KVK: Ref. p.98, lines
1316, QP: Firstly, it is not clear how ‘only one dimension of
the explosion speed is coincident with the normal recession.’
For instance the recession itself is not limited only to our lineofsight.
Secondly, it is not clear how the excess redshift and the recession
redshift are to be connected, or why the former is proportional to
the square root of the latter.
DBL: These items are also connected with the concept of scalar dimensions.
I am enclosing copies of two pages of the introduction to Volume II
of the new edition of the “Structure”, which should help
to explain what I mean here. Motion at speeds beyond the unit level
involves both a space magnitude and a time magnitude. It is therefore
a twodimensional scalar motion, only one dimension of which can be
parallel to the dimension of the reference system.
 KVK: p.154, line 18,
NBM: Should it not read: “...the ratio of the total magnitude
of motion to the transmitted effect” rather than the converse?
DBL: Yes.
 KVK: p.154, lines 87
from bottom, NBM: The possible vibrational positions for the twodimensional
basic rotation do not seem to me to be nine, in view of the fact that
the respective orientations of the initial vibrating units of both
rotating systems are not independent of each other, after the formation
of the double rotating system. It can be seen that the number of possible
orientations for the vibrational displacement of one of the rotating
systems of the atom is three. However, referring back to the twodisk
analogy (p. 48, QP), the number of possible orientations for the initial
vibration of the second rotating system is only two, because one of
the three dimensions is already occupied by the first and there is
no superimposition. As such, the total number of vibrational possibilities
is six, of which one is occupied. Thus the interregional ratio must
be 128(1 + 1/6) =149.33.
DBL: I cannot agree with your conclusions here: There are nine different
combinations irrespective of geometrical considerations.
 KVK: p.163, NBM: In the
calculation of the unit of electric mass, why is the 1/9 vibrational
factor relevant, since what we are concerned with is the electric
rotation.
DBL: The 1/9 factor applies to the distribution in space. The same
factor applies to both the distribution of the electric rotation and
the distribution of the possible positions of the vibrational units,
but this does not mean that there is any connection between the two.
 KVK: p.6, para 3, Advance
Printing of the first 11 chapters of Volume II: What is orientation?
What is meant by the rotational force acting only during a portion
of unit progression?
DBL: I use the word “orientation” in the sense defined in
the dictionary; that is, position with respect to the environment.
I suggest that you review the discussion of orientation in the references
listed under that heading in the index of NBM, page 291.
 KVK: The basic scalar
reversals that make possible speeds other than unity are fundamental
in the Theory. As such, a thorough understanding of their nature is
important.
The givenness of the 1/1 unidirectional scalar progression
is understandable. However, how the reversal of the scalar
direction of the progression is accomplished in nature is not explained.
In the existing pattern of thinking one posits a cause for a systematic
variation of a state of affairs. Inasmuch as these reversals are systematic
and not random (in order to produce a speed other than unity) it is
not clear what sustains them. Why should the reversals occur at all
since the ‘peace’ of the unidirectional progression has
a greater probability? They stand merely as a logical necessity for
the subsequent development of the theory.
DBL: Aristotle and his contemporaries insisted that continuity of
position is the only condition that can be maintained without the
application of some external influence. One of the essential steps
toward a theory of motion was a recognition of the tact that a continuous
uniform change of position is just as fundamental, and just
as permanent, as a continuity of position. The essential. feature
is the continuity. What is needed now is recognition of the
fact that the same considerations apply to direction. A continuous
uniform change of direction is just as fundamental, and just as probable
a condition, as a continuous direction. A motion with a continuous
uniform change of direction is, of course, a simple harmonic
motion. There is no more need for anything to sustain a simple harmonic
motion than a unidirectional motion.
 KVK: What is the nature
of the connection between the scalar reversals and the vectorial directional
reversals associated with them? In the case of a vibration that is
a photon, since the vectorial reversal occurs at the end of each
unit, it is not always in phase with the scalar reversal. Obviously
the two (the scalar and the associated vectorial) directional reversals
are connected: but as this connection is not explained, one wonders
how the vectorial reversal ‘knows’ when to be in phase with
the scalar reversal and when not to be, in order to produce a regular
oscillation pattern.
DBL: The further changes in the pattern of reversals that, as you
say, produce speeds other than unity, are mathematical possibilities.
Each corresponds to a particular displacement magnitude (a particular
number of units of energy in the phenomena of ordinary life). This
displacement (or energy) content is what maintains the constant reversal
pattern. The pattern cannot change unless energy is added or withdrawn.
 KVK: The way the reversals
are explained to be occurring, they can give rise to odd frequencies
in a straightforward manner. However, the even frequencies are pictured
to be accomplished by the systematic compounding of odd frequencies.
Thus, for example, frequency 4 is obtained by the averaging of the
multiple units of 5 and 3 that occur alternately. But if it is so
possible to accomplish frequency 4 by way of compounding of 5 and
3, [(5+3)/2 = 4], why is it not possible to obtain nonintegral frequencies,
such as 4.33 for example, by the compounding of multiple units thus:
(5+5+3)/3 = 4.33 etc.? Do we have to take recourse to an ad hoc constraint
to avoid this?
DBL: In view of the systematic relation between number and probability
(see item No. 13 below), the only place where two numbers are equally
probable is the midpoint between successive numbers. In this situation
(and no other), probability usually dictates an equal distribution
between the two. In a situation such as that we are now considering,
this distribution must be exactly equal in order to produce a regular
pattern.
 KVK: In the notation
abc of the atomic rotations, ‘a’ stands for the principal
magnetic rotation and ‘b’ for the subordinate magnetic
rotation. The principal magnetic rotation is said to be effective
in two dimensions while the subordinate magnetic rotation in one dimension
(p.128, NBM). How is this so? as both of them are twodimensional
rotations, each must be effective in two dimensions.
D B.L.: Two independent rotations of a disk (a onedimensional rotation
of a line) would produce two spheres, but a rotation of two interpenetrated
disks produces a spheroid, either an oblate spheroid with a volume
proportional to a²b, or a prolate spheroid with a volume proportional
to ab² .
 KVK: Ref. p.48, para
3, QP: “...as a general principle low numbers are more probable
than higher numbers...” Why should this be so? To be sure, this
‘general principle’ is not incorporated in the Fundamental
Postulates.
DBL: You can demonstrate this with the standard coin tossing experiment.
You will get two successive heads very often, three much less frequently,
four still less often and so on. The same principle applies throughout
the universe.
 KVK: The electric charge
is a onedimensional rotational vibration, and is normally a modification
of the existing onedimensional rotation in the electric dimension.
But the exception is the proton which is M 11(1). In this case,
if the electric charge is to be a modification of the rotation in
the electric dimension it would be a negative charge, as in the case
of an electron M 00(1), since the rotation in the electric dimension
is negative. As such, it is taken that this electric charge is a modification
of the twodimensional positive rotation (in the magnetic dimension).
Consequently it will be a positive electric charge as we want.
But why does this positive electric charge, which is onedimensional,
take precedence over a magnetic charge, which should more naturally
be the appendage to the basic twodimensional rotation in M 11(1)?
Compare with the case of the neutrino M ½½(1) which
easily acquires a magnetic charge (on its 1 unit twodimensional rotation)
rather than an electric charge.
DBL: A charge opposes the rotation to which it is applied under ordinary
circumstances, and in the particles (single rotating systems) the
units are equal in size. Thus a negative charge added to the proton,
M 11( l ), would increase its net total displacement to 2. As noted
in NBM, it appears that twounit single rotations are unstable, and
tend to decay back to simpler components, unless they are able to
acquire the second rotating system that is required for converting
to mass 1 hydrogen. A second point in this connection is that a magnetic
charge is not acquired easily. On the contrary, the evidence indicates
(although the reason is still unknown) that acquisition of such a
charge by a neutrino is a very rare event. Concentrations of charged
neutrinos are produced only by an enormous number of interactions
with matter over vast periods of time.
 KVK: While a neutrino
M ½½(1) can easily acquire a magnetic charge, why
does it not happen to a massless neutron M ½½0? (Of
course, if it thus gets magnetically charged, its potential mass becomes
actual.)
DBL: A positive magnetic charge added to either the neutrino or the
massless neutron cancels the positive rotational displacement. The
effective displacement of the charged neutrino is equal to that of
the uncharged electron, and it acts like the electron. The effective
displacement of a charged massless neutron would be that of the rotational
base, zero, and there would be no effects that could be observed.
 KVK: Why is the photon
M 11(1), having net rotational displacement in three dimensions
and a mass of one atomic weight unit, not observed in the uncharged
state, when theory does not preclude this?
DBL: The answer to this question is still in doubt. It may be that
there are too many neutrinos in the environment. As indicated in NBM,
page 215, an uncharged proton and a neutrino can combine to form the
mass one hydrogen isotope. It is possible that the uncharged proton
never gets a chance to stay around long enough to be observed.
 KVK: p. 52, lines 14.15,
QP: “The atomic number of any ... element is equal to its equivalent
electric time displacement less two units.” Take for instance
the case of He: 210. After accounting for one twodimensional unit
counteracting the opposite displacement of the basic photon we are
left with a net displacement of 110. This must naturally yield an
electric equivalent of (2×1²) + (2×1²) = 4 displacement
units. What is the reason for specifying that one of these two (2×1²)
units is not to be counted?
DBL: As you say, the helium atom has net displacements 110. If we
eliminate one magnetic unit, we have the combination 100 (or 110
in the regular atomic notation). This is not an atom because it does
not have enough effective displacement to form a double system. It
is a base for the atomic rotation in the same way that the rotational
base, M 000, is for rotation in general. We might call it an atom
of zero atomic number. Thus there is only one 2×1² group
of elements.
 KVK: Is not the inward
translational effect of the scalar rotation (gravity) proportional
to the number of rotational displacement units? If yes, since the
maximum number of unidirectional threedimensional displacement units
is 8, how to justify the number of units of the inward motion when
it exceeds 8, as is the case of elements with atomic number greater
than 8?
DBL: Gravitation is not a unidirectional motion. It is a rotationally
distributed scalar motion. See the memorandum on scalar motion that
I sent to you.
 K.V..K. Ref. p. 98,
para 2, QP: The ‘units of motion’ referred to here are displacement
units, aren’t they? Why do these 7 units get distributed only
between two dimensions? Why not between the three dimensions? Since
the direction in time taken by the ultrahigh speed unit has no relation
to the direction in space, probability principles require equal distribution
among the three dimensions of space.
DBL: Motion in the region above unit speed takes place in two scalar
dimensions because of the second unit status of this region. All that
this means is that it takes two numerical magnitudes to define the
motion, rather than the one that is sufficient for any motion below
unit speed. It has nothing to do with the dimensions of the spatial
reference system.
 KVK: Then again, the
connection between the recession redshift and the quasar redshift
is not clearly explained. The recession redshift depends on the particular
moment at which the explosion happens to take place. As such it should
not bear a strict logical relation to the explosion redshift, since
the time of occurrence of the explosion is determined by various local
conditions and not strictly by its distance from us.
DBL: The difficulty that you mention with respect to the relation
between the redshifts is merely a matter of the time required to transmit
information. If an explosion occurs at a distance x from our location,
the corresponding distance in the explosion dimension is 3.5 x^{½}.
This is the actual separation between us and the quasar in
this dimension. But we see the explosion at spatial distance x, and
we cannot get the quasar distance information instantaneously; that
is, the quasar cannot appear to jump directly from x to 3.5 x^{½}
What happens is that this information comes to us as fast as it can.
The quasar appears to move at the speed of light in the explosion
dimension until it reaches the 3.5 x^{½} distance,
after which it recedes normally. The time required to make this adjustment
is very short, and it is propable that we have never observed a quasar
in the adjustment period.
 KVK: Ref. p. 1089, QP:
Does the same gravitation oppose normal recession
as well as the explosion? Or is it the portion left after countering
the recession that is available to oppose the explosion? On p.109,
lines 12, what is meant by the dimension of recession and
the dimension of quasar motion? Does it mean that since 1 unit
recession is already present in one dimension of the three dimensions,
the explosion motion takes the remaining two?
DBL: Yes, gravitation opposes each motion independently. In application
to scalar motion, I am using the term “dimension” in the
mathematical sense. An ndimensional scalar motion is one that requires
n separate numbers to define it. The example given in my dictionary
is this: “a²b²c is a term of five dimensions”.
Only one of these scalar dimensions of motion can be represented
in the conventional spatial reference system. Any number of motions
of an object that can be represented in the system can be combined
vectorially into a onedimensional resultant, and the magnitude of
the resultant can be expressed by one number. What the reference aystem
does is to subdivide the one dimension of motion into components by
relating it to three dimensions of space. The two dimensions of motion
above unit speed are scalar dimensions, and they are not vector quantities.
 KVK: Ref, p.123, lines
1011, QP: But when the speed is changing should not one take the
integral of v·dt as the distance and not simply v·t?
D.B.L.: I see no advantage in so doing. What we are interested in
is the average speed.
 23. KVK: p.60, para 3,
QP: This phenomenon of positive ionization resulting from high temperature
must be observable experimentally. It would then constitute an element
of validition of the theory.
DBL: This is the ionization that the physiciats and the astronomers
talk about. They attribute it to the loss of successive electrons
from the atomic structure as the temperature increases. My finding
is that units of vibrational motion are added. This is, of
course, a deduction from basic principles, but it is worth noting
that it produces a more logical result. An increase in the energy
content of the environment ought to result in processes that gain
energy from the environment, rather than processes that lose
energy to the environment.
 KVK: Ref. p.66, para
2, QP: Here is another venue for observational verification. During
the past millions of years of the age of our planet, the local level
of magnetic ionization must have increased. Can we devise experiments
to measure this and then to correlate this change with (i) the change
of isotopic proportions in the earth’s crust and (ii) the shift
of the radioactive stability limit of the heavy elements that took
place during this period? Also we may verify this correlation by comparing
with systems of matter under a different ambient magnetic ionization
level, as on distant planets.
DBL: The question as to when the magnetic ionization level on earth
stepped up to the present level , which is almost certainly one unit,
is not definitely indicated by the information now available. There
are reasons to believe, however, that this change antedated the formation
of the Solar System.
 KVK: The halflives of
electron and proton are estimated to be about 2x10^{21}
years and 10^{27} years respectively.
Could the chance encounters with the catoms (moving inward in time)
be the cause for these spontaneous decays of electrons and protons?
DBL: I doubt if these estimates have any real meaning.
 KVK: The process of
the transition of a quasar from our timespace region to the spacetime
region of the cosmic sector looks to me analogous to the process of
the transition of the solid state (of matter) from the time region
to the gaseous state of the timespace region.
It is stated that the overcoming of cohesion in one dimension results
in the liquid state and the vanishing of cohesion in three dimensions
results in the gaseous state. While this is true, there is also an
intermediate case of the vanishing of cohesion in two dimensions.
My suggestion is that this constitutes the vapor state. The
liquid state ends with the overcoming of cohesion in two
dimensions.
Let us take a look at the analogy I was mentioning. Please refer to
the Fig. 4, p.68, QP. For the ‘scalar inversion’ (by which
I mean the transition from the timespace region to the spacetime
region) to happen, what is necessary is not unit speed in all the
three dimensions (Fig.4c), but only unit speed in each of the two
inactive dimensions. Since the conversion of unit speed to zero speed
in time in the inactive dimensions (Fig.4d), is a normal, downhill
process in the cosmic sector, this addition of unit speed in the two
inactive dimensions is sufficient to bring the situation of Fig.4a
eventually to that of Fig.4d, and execute the complete scalar inversion.
(Of course, the subluminal speed represented by T in Fig.4d, in the
active dimension results in a distortion in the stationary threedimensional
temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector, showing up as motion
in ‘equivalent time’).
Now the point I want to make is that, in exactly the same way, in
our analogy, what ends the liquid state is the emancipation from cohesion
in two dimensions only, and not in three. Availability of additional
thermal energy, however, converts the vapor to gas by overcoming cohesion
in the third dimension too.
Further—please see bottom para, p.75, QP: here I am inclined
to consider the structure of a cluster or galaxy of stars to be more
analogous to that of a solid at high temperature, rather than a liquid
as you suggest. The suggestion is perhaps based on the apparent fluid
nature of the structure. But, insofar as the stars occupy equilibrium
positions (under inward gravity and outward progresion) they are analogous
to the solid molecules which too occupy equilibrium positions (under
outward gravity and inward progression), The apparent fluidity in
the galactic instance is due to the different nature of the equilibrium.
Now my sketch below indicates the step by step analogy between the
two processes I was mentioning—one involving transition from
the time region to the timespace region, and the other from the timespace
region to the spacetime region. The numbers in the blocks indicate
the number of dimensions of motion pertaining to that particular region
in which it is shown. The ‘material rays’shown in the csector
are the analogs of the cosmic rays of our sector.
D. B.L.: The idea of the vapor state having cohesion in only one dimension
is an attractive one, and I gave it considerable attention 30 or 40
years ago when I was working on liquid and gas properties, I ran into
quite a few problems in developing the idea, mainly because of the
coexistence of the liquid and vapor states over such a wide range
of temperatures, and I never reached any firm conclusions. I discontinued
work in this area about 1960 when I decided to reduce my research
activities and spend more time on writing about what I had already
found out.
Your ideas as to the transition from the material to the cosmic sector
are on the right track, although the situation as I find it is more
complicated. You may be interested in comparing your diagram with
the following one, taken from the manuscript of what will probably
be my next book:
 27. K,V.K.: Why can’t
there be electrical charged neutrons and massless neutrons,
M^{+} ½½(1) , M^{}½½(1)
and M^{+} ½½0?
DBL: I presume it is because the charge, being a rotational vibration—half
of full rotation—must modify a full rotational unit, but it cannot
extend over two dimensions, as a twodimensional unit can, and in
the cases that you mention there is no full unit for it to modify.
 KVK: It is still not
clear what the origin of the secondary mass is: what is meant by ‘the
initial level’ and ‘its motion in the time region’
(NBM, p.161)?
DBL: The primary mass is a measure of motion that is defined as a
relation of units of space to units of time. But since the
equilibrium positions of the atoms of ordinary matter are inside unit
space, some additional effects of their motions take place within
the space units, and a portion of these internal effects is transmitted
to the external region. These are relations of units of equivalent
space to units of time. It seemed to me that the easiest way to
grasp what is happening here would be to regard it as analogous to
firing a gun from a moving vehicle. In order to arrive at the speed
of the projectile, we have to take into account the initial level
of speed, the speed of the vehicle, as well as the speed imparted
by the explosive charge.
 KVK: In view of the
discrete unit postulate, the gravitational speed cannot be greater
than 2 inward units. Now suppose there is an atom with Z = 50: does
its atomic weight 100 give rise to 100 units of inward speed, that
is, gravity? If not, how does the magnitude of the inward translational
effect (gravity) of an element with Z = 50 differ from that of an
atom with, say, Z = 30? How to account for this gravitational speed
greater than 2 net units? .
DBL: the total gravitational speed of each mass unit is always two
units (one net inward unit). The effect of aggregation of the mass
units is to increase the distribution of this total speed toward
the location of the aggregate.
 K,V,K,: The entire heart
of the quasar theory was explained in just one paragraph (QP, p. 98,
top para). The total separation between zero speed in space and zero
speed in (3dimensional) time is taken to be 8 units. But in your
diagram A (Reciprocity, VIII (4), p. 25) you show only a total
of 6 units.
DBL: For this purpose you naed to distinguish between the dimensions
of space (or time) and the dimensions of motion (what I have called
scalar dimensions). As I pointed out in the manuscript of The Neglected
Facts of Science (Chapter 2), only one dimension of motion
can be represented m the conventional spatial reference system. The
magnitude of this one dimension of motion is resolved into three submagnitudes
by the introduction of directions in space. Thus a onedimensional
scalar motion is threedimensional in space.
From zero speed to zero energy in one scalar dimension is two equivalent
units of speed (or energy). The total number of units from the absolute
zero of speed to the absolute zero energy (three scalar dimensions)
as thus six units. But each twounit component of this total (each
dimension) is subject to resolution into three dimensions of space.
This means that there are eight equivalent onedimensional spatial
units when the one scalar dimension of motion is distributed threedimensionally.
Only one of these can be represented in the spatial reference system,
but the magnitudes of the motion in time (equivalent space) can be
deteated by the Doppler shifts. However, all relations in which the
spatial equivalent of time is substituted for actual space are twodimensional
(see NBM, page 155). Consequently, the seven remaining equivalent
space units are divided (usually equally) beween the dimension that
is coincident with the dimension of the reference system and the dimension
in which the Doppler shift is unobservable.
 KVK: Moreover, is this
8unit separation in terms of speed units or in terms of speed
displacement units? (since, if the displacement is n, the speed
is 1/n+1 or n+1/1).
DBL: In these instances we are dealing with speed units. Displacement
applies only to those phenomena, in which the effective quantities
are the increments above unity.
 KVK: See: “.. the
seven units are therefore divided equally between the two spatial
dimensions that are now active.“ (p.98, top para, QP). What is
meant by ‘active’ here? Are you referring to the two spatial
directions (p. 97, second para, QP ) in which there can‘t
be a translational movement since translation is already taking place
in one direction of the 3dimensional space due to the recession.
To be specific, let us imagine the xyz Cartesian system to locate
the quasar. If translation due to the recession happens to be in the
zdirection, the object cannot have a spatial speed in the x and y
directions. If this is so, your words quoted above seem to mean to
me that the 7unit equivalent of the 1unit quasar motion in time
is divided between the x and y directions of space. Is this what you
wanted to convey? But in the next sentence you say “The component
of the explosion speed in the recession dimension is thus 3·50”.
Here your words seem to mean that this 3·5 units show up in the zdirection
of space, in which the recession speed is manifesting in the coordinate
system. Further, a few lines below you mention, “...only one
dimension of the explosion speed is coincident with the normal recession...”
Does not the explosion speed belong to a second scalar dimension,
altogether different from the dimension in which the recession is
taking place? How does one dimension of the explosion speed coincide
with the recession? If the explosion speed is a twodimensional scalar
motion, why can’t both these scalar dimensions be other than
the dimension of recession, in which case no dimension of the explosion
speed coincides with the normal recession. That is, suppose a, b,
c are the magnitudes of the scalar motions in the three scalar dimensions
and let a represent the recession. If, then b and c pertain to the
explosion motion, none of the dimensions of the explosion motion coincides
with the recession dimension. How then the squareroot of z_{r}
arises is not clear.
DBL: The recession takes place in all three scalar dimensions. It
follows that one of these three dimensions is coincident with one
of the two dimensions of motion in equivalent space. The total magnitude
of the motion in this effective dimension is the sum of the recession,
z and the effective portion of the motion in equivalent space, 3 · 5
z^{½}.
You should not try to visualize these motions in terms of the spatial
reference system (the xyz Cartesian system to which you refer),
because neither the low speed motion in the second and third scalar
dimenaions, nor any of the high speed (above unity) motions can be
represented in that system. In dealing with these motions we have
to deal entirely with magnitudes. When we talk about dimensions in
connection with them, it is only in the mathematical sense, in which
an ndimensional quantity is one that requires n scalar magnitudes
to define it. These dimensions are not the dimensions of the spatial
reference system. Since the quantities with which we are dealing are
the same in all cases—that is, units of motion—any one magnitude
outside the reference system can be added to the magnitude represented
in that system. We can then say that the dimension of such a magnitude
is coincident with (or parallel to) the dimension of the motion in
the reference system, meaning merely that the quantities are additive.
No more than one magnitude (dimension) of such outside motion can
be coincident in this manner.
 KVK: In the calculation
of the interregional ratio, how does the factor 8 in 4x4x8 = 128 arise?
If we take that the possible number of orientations of the electric
displacement as only 8, how to accomodate the greater than 8 displacements
in the electric dimension of atoms like 339 or 4412 etc.?
DBL: The value 12 in 4412 is not a displacement; it is a specific
rotation. See page 11, Basic Properties of Matter.
 KVK: See Reciprocity,
VIII (4), p.25: in diagram A we have, as I have already remarked,
6 displacement units only—not the 8 units between the positive
and negative zero points. The natural datum is shown 3 displacement
units away from the zero datum. Does ‘zero datum’ mean the
stationary reference frame?
See p.26, top line: “...no effective motion in two of the three
dimensions ..” Do you mean the dimensions of motion or the dimensions
of 3dimensional space? In the next line you mention that gravitational
motion “is an inward motion at unit speed: the kind of a unit
in which line (1) of diagram A is expressed.” But line ( l )
is expressed in speed displacement units. So by the words “gravity
is inward motion at unit speed displacement” we find the
gravitational speed as 1/(1+1)=½ and not 1. (Moreover, is the
gravitational speed of a unit with atomic No. Z equal to 2Z speed
displacement units?)
DBL: The comments in Vol. VIII, No. 4, of Reciprocity were
a report of reflections on an extemporaneous discussion at the Salt
Lake conference of some points that had not been given any extended
consideration previously. The conclusions expressed therein were necessarily
tentative. More mature consideration indicates that they are not complete,
and not as well expressed as they could be. You will find a much better
discussion of the subject in Chapter 6, NFS. Diagram C in this chapter
replaces Diagram A in the Reciprocity article, and Diagram
D shows the general relations of the various speed ranges.
 KVK: See NBM, p.100,
lines 46: Independent motion at speed 1/n involves a change
of position in 3dimensional time amounting to 1/n units. Now see
the third para, same page. The forward motion of a photon with unit
speed is not an independent motion. Only its motion in the dimension
of oscillation is an independent motion. As such, how is it that its
forward motion (which is fictitious, being only the result of viewing
it from our stationary reference system) involves coordinate time,
which is utized to explain the phenomenon of the constancy of the
speed of light?
DBL: I am not sure that I understand your point here, but I think
that it has to do with my use of the term “independent”,
so let me say two things: (1) I am calling any motion other than the
outward progression of the natural reference system independent, and
(2) the only way in which an independent motion can originate is by
means of reversals of scalar direction. Such an oscillating motion
is “independent” in my terminology, even though it has components
that coincide with the normal outward progression.
 KVK: When you talk of
the possibility of the net speed being 1  (1/n) , where n is the
number of energy units, do you mean that they are natural units of
energy? Why is it that energy is taken as space displacement? What
is the significance of the minus sign in line (2) of diagram A (Reciprocity,
op. cit.)? From line (4) we see that energy magnitudes greater than
4/1 are not possible. What does this mean? What is the equivalent,
in ergs, of this 4/1 units of energy?
DBL: (a) Yes. See page 118, NFS. ( b) Because it is inverse speed;
that is, n units of space per unit of time, whereas speed, which we
define in terms of the region below the speed of light (unity), is
one unit of space per n units of time. (c) When we express the deviation
from unity in units, we have to distinguish between the direct units
and the inverse units in some way. This is one of the ways in which
it can be done. (d) I did not mean to imply that it is possible to
attain 4 units of energy, I was merely showing the equivalents. Further
study, the results of which are described in Chapter 6, NFS indicates
that neither speed nor energy can exceed 2 net units. (e) I have not
considered this question at length. Just offhand, I would say that
what we are dealing with is one natural unit of energy; that is, unit
mass times the square of unit speed, or 1.49 x 10³ ergs.
 KVK: Suppose in some
case the spatial speed is v cm/sec. (less than light speed, c). What
is its corresponding unit in terms of speed displacement? Since v/c
= 1/(n+1); n, the number of displacement units = (c/v)1? And from
lines (3) and (4) of diagram A, is a speed v/c equivalent to an energy
c/v?
DBL: We can use any appropriate system of measurement, but it is helpful
to adapt the system to the particular situation with which we are
dealing. In the case of the atomic rotational combinations, it is
advantageous to deal with displacements from the natural datum, unity,
so that we can express positive and negative magnitudes in commensurate
units, and there is no conventional usage that stands in the way of
doing this. In dealing with translational motion, on the other hand,
we want to examine the effect of successive additions of speed units
beginning at zero speed. Measuring from zero in this case is not only
convenient for our purpose, but also conforms with the conventional
usage. This is why I have substituted Diagram C, NFS, for Diagram
A in the Reciprocity article. I would recommend that you pay
no attention to displacement (measurement from unity) in dealing with
translational motion, and express everything in terms of speed (measured
from zero speed), or energy (measured from zero energy).
 KVK: What is the distinction
and relation between (a) the positive zero and the negative zero (NBM,
p.153, para 3) on the one hand, and (b) the zero level of the stationary
spatial reference system (QP, p,58, line 6) and the zero motion in
time (QP, p.68, line, 10) on the other?
Also compare QP, p.97, bottom para and NBM, p.154, top para. These
expositions in connection with the possiblity of 8 units, give the
impression as though “positive zero” means the same thing
as “zero speed in space”. But I understand that
“positive zero” is the speed 1/ l, whereas
“zero speed in space” is 0/1.
Further,
“negative zero” is .. .. 1/1
or 1/(1), and
“zero speed in time” is
1/0.
DBL: The positive zero (NBM 153), the zero level of the spatial reference
system (QP 58), and zero motion in space are synonymous. Likewmise
the negative zero, and zero motion in time (QP 68) are synonymous.
The latter would be the zero level of a thredimensional temporal
reference system. As I explain on page 119, NBM, I measure speed
displacement (usually abbreviated as “displacement”)
from unity as a datum level. But I measure speed from the mathematical
zero in the usual manner. Just how many units there are between the
positive (spatial) zero and negative (temporal) zero depends on the
dimensional situation. If we are dealing with the full three scalar
dimensions, there are six units between the absolute zero of space
and the absolute zero of time. If we are dealing with only one scalar
dimension, there are two linear units between the two zeros. But we
can resolve this one scalar dimension into three dimensions of space,
and then there are eight units (of a different kind) between the two
zero points.
 KVK: I could follow that
speeds in the range 1x pertain to the 3dimensional space region,
and the speeds in the range 2x belong to the spacetime region (the
3dimensional temporal reference frame because of the second unit
status. How is it that the speeds of the range 3x belong back to
the timespace region of the 3dimensional spatial reference frame?
DBL: What you need here is an understanding of the circumstances under
which time acts as “equivalent space”. The second unit of
motion, from one unit of speed to two units, is motion in time, as
indicated in Diagram B, NFS. But since there are six units between
the absolute spatial zero and the absolute temporal zero, a twounit
speed is still spatial as a whole. It follows that the motion in time
in the second dimension has to act as a modifier of the spatial motion
rather than as an actual motion in time. This is the same kind of
a situation that we encounter in the atomic rotations. The negative
electric rotation of certain atoms is a motion in time (speed n/1),
but it does not convert the material atom to a cosmic atom, because
the atomic rotation as a whole is still positive. The effect of the
motion in time is therefore to modify the motion in space to the extent
of its spatial equivalent. The motion in the time region, below unit
space, is similar. It is a motion in the spatial equivalent of time,
rather than in actual time. The motion therefore remains within the
spatial reference system, rather than moving away from it and becoming
unobservable, as a motion in actual time would do. Addition of a third
translational unit of speed does not revert back to the same status
as the first unit. The motion in equivalent space continues in the
dimension shown in Diagram B, but a motion in actual space is added
in a second scalar dimension.
 KVK: What happens to
the inverse thermal motion of a cosmic atom during ‘scalar inversion’
(that is, entry from the cosmic sector into the material sector).
Since thermal motion in our sector is a linear vibratory space displacement,
the inverse thermal motion of the sector should be a linear vibratory
time displacement. As such, how does this linear vibratory time displacement
dissipate or show up in our environment?
DBL: Radiation frequency is a speed; that is, cycles per second 1/t,
is actualy units of space per second, s/t.The effective unit of wavelength
is about 10³cm. Radiation at shorter wavelengths is motion at
speeds above unity (displacement in space). This includes the near
infrared, the optical region, and the ultraviolet—that is, the
bulk of the thermal radiation—as well as xrays and gamma rays.
The inverse thermal radiation occupies a similar range on the long
wavelength side of 10³ cm: the far infrared and the radio range.
These are speeds below unity (displacement in time). Astronomical
radio emitters are usually also strong sources of infrared radiation
(inverse thermal).
 KVK: The frequency of
the H.F. radiation is greater than one, say, n/1. This means that
there are n space units associated with 1 time unit. This means that
it is the time component that is alternating between inward and outward
directions. Now if it is the space unit that is so alternating (as
in the L.F. radiation), this appears as an oscillation in space from
the point of view of the stationary 3dimensional reference frame.
But if the alternating unit is time unit, how do we (from the
stationary reference frame) see it, still as a vibration in space,
or as a vibration in time? Please note that I am not asking about
the forward movement of the photon in the perpendicular dimension
at all. I am asking about the motion in the dimension of oscillation.
DBL: In all cases we see one space unit in the reference system, and
we have to measure the time on a clock, There is no way in which we
can distinguish observationally between a spacetime ratio of 1/n
and one of n/l. If we want to know the frequency corresponding to
unit speed, we have to calculate it.
 KVK: Have the following
been worked out in the context of the RS: (a) The relative cosmic
abundances of the elements; (b) nuclear isomerism—origin and
explanation; (c) radiation emitted due to the electron spin changing
direction, for example, the 21 cm. radiation from hydrogen. How does
‘spin’ fit in our theory? (d) explanation of the origin
and the characteristics of the cosmic background radiation (NBM, p,175).
DBL: (a) This has not been studied, so far as I know. (b) I do not
know of any studies made on these items either, (c) The electron does
“spin”; that is, it rotates, but I doubt if the accepted
explanation of the origin of the radiation is correct. (d) This is
undoubtedly the radiation from the cosmic sector. We have the explanation
for the origin and for the principal characteristic—the isotropy
and the intensity (which we can explain approximately). I do not believe
that it is worth while trying to go any farther at this stage of the
theoretical development.
 KVK: Gravitation is a
rotationally distributed motion, its direction being redetermined
after the end of each (natural) unit of time, since it is inward.
In the long run, this results in its being distributed in all directions
of 3dimensional space, by probability. But suppose there is the intervention
of an external element, which introduces a preferred direction—such
as by rapid spinning—does the gravitational motion get directed
in the direction of the spin axis in space more often than in the
other directions, producing in the long run, ‘directed gravity’?
Does the spinning of an object produce space displacement?
DBL: According to my findings, gravitation is a continous, uniform,
rotationally distributed scalar motion at unit net inward speed, and
cannot be anything different. An external force cannot change the
inherent characteristics of this motion. It simply imparts a vectorial
motion to the gravitational combination of motions.
 KVK: What is the difference
between the inner and the outer gravitational limits (QP, p.166)?
At the outer gravitational limit, the gravitational motion due to
the entire mass aggregate becomes unity and beyond it becomes zero
as fractional units do not exist. But what happens at the inner gravitational
limit, where the inward motion due to gravity equals the outward motion
of the progression? Here too, since the outward motion due to the
pregression is unity, is not the inward motion due to the gravitation
also one unit, if both these are to be equal?
DBL: At the gravitational limit the inward motion of an agregate of
m units of mass is m units. The outward motion is likewise m units,
and the net speed is zero. Beyond this limit the gravitational motion
decreases with the distance, and has the value mx. When mx = 1,
any further increase in the distance drops the gravitational motion
to zero, as there are no fractional units. As can be seen from the
foregoing, the outward motion at speeds less than unity, such as the
galactic recession, is purely a phenomenon of aggregates. In
the case of a single isolated unit of mass, the gravitational motion
would drop to zero at the gravitational limit; that is, the two limits
would coincide.
 KVK: If gravitational
effect decreases as 1/d², how does one obtain the linear relation
of Hubble‘s distance vs. speed?
DBL: The inverse square relation applies where the distribution is
threedimensional. Beyond the gravitational limit (unit gravitational
speed) the distribution is twodimensional.
