Glimpes-of-a-New-Paradigm-by-K-v-K-NEHRU

Lý thuyết Vũ trụ

Free from; http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/index.htm

Reflections and Comments

Glimpses of a New Paradigm How do We Meet the New Age Ushered in by the Reciprocal System? Subversive Reflections on the Practice of Physics

Dialogue with D B Larson: Part I Dialogue with D B Larson: Part II Scientific Correspondence

Particle Physics

Lifetimes of C-Atom Decays Lifetime of C-Argon, the Muon Internal Ionization and Secondary Mass

The Lifetime of the Neutron Relative Abundance of the Elements The Inter-regional Ratio

The Nature of Scalar Motion Electric Ionization

The Law of Conservation of Direction

Is Ferromagnetism a Co-magnetic Phenomenon?

Theoretical Evaluation of Planck‘s Constant Superconductivity: A Time Region Phenomenon

On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation The Photon as Birotation

Birotation and the Doubts of Thomas Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System

―Quantum Mechanics‖ as the Mechanics of the Time Region

‗Non-Locality‘ in the Reciprocal SystemSome Thoughts on Spin

High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System

Astrophysics

Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam in the Reciprocal System New Light on the Gravitational Deflection of Radiation Path Gravitational Redshift according to the Reciprocal System The Gravitational Limit and the Hubble‘s Law

Precession of the Planetary Perihelia due to Co-ordinate TimeGlimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Part I

Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Part II Distribution of the Masses of Protostars in Globular Clusters Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal LimitThe Quasar Paradox?

Radio Component Separation in Quasars Another Look at the Pulsar PhenomemonThe Cosmic Background Radiation: Origin and TemperatureThe Large-scale Structure of the Physical Universe

G LIMPSES OF A N EW P ARADIGM

For centuries mankind has held implicitly the view that we live in a universe of matter contained in space and time All scientific theories hitherto have been built on this paradigm Now Dewey B Larson introduces the new paradigm that motion is the basic and sole constituent of the physical universe, and space-time is the content—not the container—of the universe We review in this article some of the highlights of his theory, the Reciprocal System, which he develops from the new paradigm

Introduction

The objective of this article is to introduce the physical theory being called The Reciprocal System Its originator, Dewey Larson, starting from two Postulates as regarding the nature of the basic constituents of the physical universe and the mathematics applicable thereto, builds a cogent theoretical structure that lays claim to being a general theory As it is impossible to outline the whole theory in the short space

of an article, an attempt has been made to present only those salient features that do not require lengthy explanation and have a broad-enough scope to enable the interested reader to appreciate its potentialities More esoteric features of the theory have been intentionally omitted from this preliminary treatment They are, of course, available in the published works of Larson[1-7]

The Conceptual Roadblock

The view that the physical universe is made up of basic units of matter, embedded in a framework of space and time, has been held by the common man and the scientist/philosopher for over the entire period of recorded history Every new century has brought new and revolutionary ideas about the Universe that shook and changed our earlier views, but the concept of matter contained in a space-time background has remained unquestioned Larson finds that it is this concept—which we shall call the concept of the universe of matter—that stood in the way of development of a truly general physical theory, one that explains all domains of physical facts—from the atomic

to the astronomical—from the same set of fundamental premises He has carried out the needed review of the concepts of space and time and finds that the introduction of the new paradigm, that the fundamental and the sole constituent of the physical universe is motion, leads us to an understanding of all the physical phenomena, and makes possible the construction of the long-sought after general theory

To be sure, there have been earlier thinkers who attempted to build a general theory based

on motion as the fundamental constituent Larson points out that the lack of success in all earlier attempts was due to the fact that these thinkers failed to realize the crucial point that in a universe based on motion (which is a relation of space and time), space and time cannot have independent existence (or definition), that they cannot be regarded as a background (or ‗container‘) for themselves No matter what conceptual reforms these thinkers introduced into physical theory they all alike continued to subscribe to the container view of space and time and as a result blocked themselves from true progress

Space, Time and Progression

The first of the two fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is

―The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.‖

Larson considers speed, which is the relation of space and time, s/t, as the measure of motion and points out that a unit of speed is the minimum quantity that can exist in the universe of motion, since fractional units are not permitted by the Postulate of his theory Since one unit of speed is the minimum quantity admissible, both space and time have to

be quantized: unit speed must therefore be the ratio of a unit of space to a unit of time, each of which is the minimum possible quantity Certain corollaries follow

Corollary (1)

Firstly, we see that space and time are reciprocally related to speed: that doubling the space with constant time, for example, has the same effect on speed as halving the time at constant space As a recognition of the far-reaching significance this reciprocal relation holds for the explanation of all the physical facts, Larson names his theoretical structure The Reciprocal System of theory

Corollary (2)

At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other units of space, but a unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties

of space and of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of motion Thus

he concludes that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that space, like time, progresses

At this juncture it may be pointed out that in order to understand (or evaluate) the new ideas engendered by the new paradigm, namely that the physical universe is a universe composed of units of motion (speed), it is necessary to view them in their new context

On the other hand, the most frequent mistake committed by the novice is to view the new concepts from the habitual viewpoint of the previous paradigm, that the universe is a universe of matter, embedded in a framework of space and time Such an attempt leads one, often, to seemingly absurd, impossible or incredulous conclusions To avoid slipping back involuntarily into the old and inadmissible frame of mind while evaluating the Reciprocal System theory is one of the most difficult tasks that a critic has to constantly accomplish

Now it is important to recognize that there is absolutely nothing space-like in the three dimensions of time: they are entirely temporal parameters The common belief that time

is one-dimensional is an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our experience as a scalar quantity The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity in the equations of motion lies in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space

The idea that space progresses in the same manner as time might look more weird than the idea of multi-dimensional time Our immediate experience is that of stationary space But history has repeatedly shown that our immediate experience of space has always proved to be a bad guide in understanding the true nature of the universe We first thought that the earth is flat Then we made the mistake of thinking our earth to be the center of the universe and ended up in the maze of epicycles Larson draws our attention

to the fact that the increased scope of our scientific observations has brought us to the point where too many epicycles have once again been accumulated in the field of science

in the form of unresolved old questions, fresh new puzzles and ever-increasing complexity of physical theory He questions whether our anthropocentric view of space is not once again the culprit that is barring progress

He points out that our experience of space as stationary is valid only locally (that is, in the context of a gravitationally-bound system) The true nature of space is to progress, to expand ceaselessly outward Wherever gravitation (an inward motion) becomes negligible, weakened by distance, the inherent progression of space becomes apparent The observed recession of the distant galactic systems stems directly from this space progression, not from any hypothetical ‗big bang.‘ In fact, the observed Hubble‘s law is derivable from the postulates of the Reciprocal System

Since a universe of motion cannot exist without the existence of motion, the most primitive condition of the universe is the steady progression of space coupled with the progression of time: in other words, a motion at unit speed Beginners usually encounter here the difficulty of imagining the existence of motion without it being the motion of anything But a little reflection should show that in a universe of motion the most fundamental constituent is motion, and all ‗things‘ are derivatives of motion Since every space unit is like every other space unit, and every unit of time is like every other unit of time, such a condition appears to our view as a featureless uniformity in which nothing is happening and constitutes the null background Thus unit speed, and not zero speed, turns out to be nature‘s starting point Larson refers to this background space-time progression

as the ‗natural reference frame,‘ and identifies the unit speed with the speed of light, c

Emergence of Physical Phenomena

By virtue of the fact that either the space unit or the time unit could progress inward, rather than outward as they do in the case of the space-time progression, speeds other than unity become possible Larson points out that it is these deviations (or

‗displacements‘) from the unit speed that constitute observable phenomena, namely, radiation, gravitation, electricity, magnetism and all the rest These are autonomous, independent motions in contra-distinction to the ever-present background progression This gives rise to two possibilities Suppose k number of reversals occur in the space component, and suppose the unit speed of space-time progression contains n space units per n time units (n/n = 1) Such a situation produces less than unit speeds, (n-k)/n Since such a motion detaches itself from the space-time progression in its spatial aspect, we find it to be a motion in space The second possibility is that the reversals occur in the time component of the motion This results in greater than unit speeds, n/(n-k) In this second case it is the time component which gets detached from the background

progression and we note that it constitutes what might be termed a motion in time (not

‗time travel‘) This is the reason why unit speed (c, the speed of light) is the upper limit for motion in space It does not mean, as concluded in Relativity, that speeds greater than

c are impossible in the physical universe: it only means that such speeds do not manifest

in our conventional, stationary reference frame of three-dimensional space as displacements in space These greater-than-unit speeds (namely, the motion in time) can

be represented truly only in a ‗stationary‘ reference frame of three-dimensional time Our state of knowledge thus far has disposed us to assume tacitly that motion means motion in space; the possibility of motion in time has never been imagined, much less investigated While such motion cannot be truly represented in the conventional, spatial reference frame, it has nevertheless some observable features by virtue of the inverse relationship between space and time For example, in a supernova explosion, if sufficient energy is available, Larson points out that some of the constituent matter of the star gets propelled to greater-than-unit speeds The less-than-unit speed component manifests itself

as a cloud expanding in space On the other hand, the greater-than-unit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in time (since it is a motion in time) In view of the reciprocal relation between space and time referred to above, this expansion in time manifests itself to us as contraction in space and we observe this component as a superdense and compact star Thus we have the red giant/white dwarf combination so frequently found as supernova product

Larson‘s theoretical investigations show that the same concept of motion in time can explain every other type of superdense astronomical phenomena, not just the white dwarfs He shows that as age advances, the central regions of massive galaxies keep on accumulating motion in time (since greater than unit speeds do not involve movement in space, this matter does not leak out) When enough energy accumulates, it results in a stupendous explosion in which the central part(s) of a galaxy gets ejected and is found as

a superdense star system, which, of course, is observed as a quasar All the strange and unconventional characteristics of quasars—like their high density, large redshift, stupendous luminosity, jet-structure, peculiar radiation structure, evolution—can be deduced from the theory

We have seen that the null condition of the universe of motion is unit speed and that a

‗displacement‘ from this condition takes the form of either less than unit speed (s/t) or greater than unit speed (the latter being equivalent to less than unit inverse speed, t/s) Larson identifies this displaced speed with radiation, and the speed displacement with its frequency While the photon gets detached from the background space-time progression

in the dimension of its oscillation, it does not have any independent motion in the dimension of space perpendicular to the dimension in which the vibratory motion occurs Thus the photon is permanently situated in the space unit of the space-time progression in which it is created But from the context of the stationary spatial reference frame any location of the space-time progression appears to progress outward (away) at unit speed Thus, while actually the photon is stationary in the natural reference frame, ostensibly it appears to move away at unit speed Incidentally we might note that, when in a single process a photon pair happens to be created, while the individual photons seemingly appear to fly off in space in opposite directions, they continue to be connected in time

This results in a correlation between them that is not representable in three-dimensional space (the EPR paradox)

Once photons are available, the possibility of a compound motion appears wherein the photon could be subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (covering all the three dimensions of space) Larson identifies such units of compound motion with the atoms of matter Because of the two facts that the maximum possible speed is unity and that the background space-time progression is already taking place at that speed in the outward (away from each other) direction, all autonomous (independent) motions (speeds) have to take place in the inward (toward each other) direction only Thus the units of rotational displacement start moving in the inward direction, reversing the pattern

of space-time progression Larson identifies this inward motion with gravitation We now see that there is no propagation involved in gravitation, nor it can be screened off: it is the inherent motion of each atom toward every other atom—in fact, toward every other location of the space-time progression, whether or not occupied by an atom The non-existence of propagation time and the seeming action-at-a-distance, both owe their origin

to the above fact

Theoretical analysis reveals that elements with atomic numbers 1 through 117 can all exist in young matter In old matter, however, elements with the higher atomic numbers become subject to radioactive decay, by a process identified by Larson

The Regions of the Physical Universe

An interesting fact that needs special mention is that the rotational displacement that constitutes the atoms could be either of the less-than-unit-speed type or the greater-than-unit-speed type In either case gravitation acts inward (in opposition to the outward progression of space-time) But in the case of the former type of atoms, since less-than-unit speeds produce motion in space, gravitation acts inward in space, resulting in the formation of aggregates in the three-dimensional spatial reference frame Larson calls this portion of the universe the material sector On the other hand, the atoms constituted of greater-than-unit speeds manifest motion in time The resulting gravitation acts inward in time, and produces aggregates in the three-dimensional temporal reference frame Larson refers to this matter as cosmic matter, their inward motion in time cosmic gravitation, and this portion of the physical universe the cosmic sector We therefore discover another half

of the physical universe where all the phenomena pertaining to our sector are duplicated, but with the roles of space and time interchanged Even though cosmic matter occurs as ubiquitously and abundantly as ordinary matter we do not encounter it readily Firstly, the atoms of the cosmic stars and galaxies are aggregated in three-dimensional time but are randomly distributed in space, so that we see a cosmic star not as a spatial aggregate, but atom by atom Secondly, while the cosmic gravitation moves the cosmic atoms inward in time, our own matter progresses outward in time Thus, even the chance of encounters of atoms with cosmic atoms do not last for more than one natural unit of time (about one-seventh of a femtosecond)

Larson identifies all the exotic particles that abound in the high-energy environment of the particle accelerators with the ‗cosmic atoms,‘ with some additional features acquired under the artificial environment

A further fact of interest is that while the radiation emitted by the stars of our sector is at

a high temperature, that emitted by the cosmic stars would be at a high inverse temperature, that is, at a low temperature Since radiation moves at unit speed, unit speed being the border between both the sectors of the universe, it is observable from both the sectors, in whichever sector it originates Therefore, the radiation emitted by the cosmic stars, as it comes from a region not localized in space, is received in the material sector (that is, the three-dimensional spatial reference frame) with an absolutely uniform and isotropic distribution We observe this as the low-temperature, cosmic background radiation In the Reciprocal System, we find no necessity to reconcile the absolute isotropy of this background radiation with the clumpiness of the spatial distribution of the material aggregates

The Grand Cycle of the Universe

We have already mentioned that quasars are the high (greater than unit) speed explosion products of aged galaxies When gravitation in space is attenuated by distance (time) and becomes negligible, the quasar as a whole shifts from the region of less than unit speed (conventional spatial reference frame) to the region of greater than unit speed (the three-dimensional temporal reference frame) Gravitation ceases to act in space and starts acting in time This leaves the outward progression of space-time without check (as there

is no inward progression of gravitation in space) and the constituents of the quasar start flying out in space at unit speed Eventually the quasar ceases to exist as a spatial aggregate and disappears altogether from the material sector In other words, the atoms of the erstwhile quasar emerge into the three-dimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector at totally random locations (in time)

The corollary is that similar set of events occurs in the cosmic sector—cosmic atoms aggregate in three-dimensional time forming cosmic stars and galaxies, parts of which explode on attaining a size limit and eject cosmic quasars, which eventually exit the cosmic sector and end up entering the material sector Since they come from a region not localized in space, these incoming cosmic atoms would be uniformly and isotropically distributed throughout the three-dimensional space Since the transfer occurs at the unit speed we ought to observe these particles at unit or near-unit speed These, of course, are the observed cosmic ray primaries

The Reciprocal System traces out in detail how these cosmic atoms, being unit-speed structures in a less-than-unit-speed environment, promptly decay, ejecting speed (energy) and ‗cosmic mass‘ (that is, inverse mass), finally ending up as the most primitive atomic structures of the material sector, namely, hydrogen Then the entire cycle of aggregation in space and eventual ejection begins In the long run, as much matter comes from the cosmic sector as it leaves the material sector Thus the dual sector universe as a whole is in equilibrium and steady state, while each sector continues to expand in space or in time as the case may be There is no necessity to assume the singularity of a ‗big bang‘ nor to breaking of any conservation laws as in ‗continual creation.‘

greater-than-The Solid State

Because of the fact that the minimum space that can occur in physical action is one natural unit of space (the quantum of space), if two atoms are made to approach each other they cannot come any nearer than one unit of space However, by virtue of the reciprocal relation between space and time, these atoms can accomplish the equivalent of moving inward in space by actually moving outward in time This they promptly do until

a force (motion) equilibrium is achieved, giving rise to the solid state of matter Since less than one unit of space does not exist, within the unit of space all motion could be in time only The inside of unit space is therefore referred to as the time region by Larson The space-time progression always acts away from unity In the outside region away from unity is also away from zero (outward) But in the inside region away from unity is towards zero Therefore the space-time progression is inward in the time region Since gravitation always opposes space-time progression, it acts outward in the time region (repulsion) Further, while the space-time progression is constant at unit value, gravitation attenuates with distance The two motions (forces) therefore reach a stable equilibrium at some distance in the time region and produce the configuration of solid state Larson finds that a single theory of cohesion explains all kinds of bonds Basing on purely theoretical computations he is able to accurately calculate the various solid state properties of hundreds of elements and compounds

New Light on Quantum Phenomena

Since in the time region only motion in time can truly exist, the appropriate reference frame that ought to be adopted for the description of the phenomena is the three-dimensional temporal reference frame, and not the conventional, spatial reference frame The origin of the conventional reference frame is at zero speed, whereas the origin of the temporal reference frame is at zero inverse speed, which is tantamount to infinite speed in the context of the conventional spatial frame, and consequently a location pertaining to the temporal reference frame is found not to be localized in the conventional reference frame This is the origin of the nonlocality characteristic so perplexing in quantum theory This reciprocal (inverse) relation between these two types of reference frames also explains why a localizable particle in the context of a temporal reference frame needs to be regarded as an endless repetition, namely, as a wave, in the context of the spatial reference frame Thus the Reciprocal System throws new light on the concepts of quantum theory As the time region is a region of motion in time, it requires the adoption

of a temporal reference frame for the description of particle phenomena But, being irrevocably wedded to the spatial reference frame of the material sector, we are unable to accomplish this However, we are able to accomplish the equivalent of adopting the temporal reference frame by resorting to the expedient of adopting the wave picture in the place of the particle picture

This insight resolves the problem of the wave-particle duality It further clarifies that the question of adopting the wave picture arises only on entering the time region, the region inside the unit of space To associate a wave with every gross object is unwarranted There are yet unforeseen insights brought to light by the Reciprocal System In the outside region, that is, in the context of the three-dimensional spatial reference frame, speed (s/t) is directional (vectorial) However, in the time region, that is, in the context of

three-dimensional temporal reference frame inverse speed (t/s) is the quantity that is

‗directional‘ while speed appears scalar But it must be cautioned that this ‗direction‘ pertains to the realm of three-dimensional time and has nothing to do with direction in space Thus inverse speed, though it could be ‗directional‘ in time, is not a vector In the universe of motion all physical quantities can be reduced to space-time terms Larson, in

a major overhaul of the dimensions of various physical quantities, arrives at the conclusion that the dimensions of energy are those of inverse speed, namely, t/s Consequently, energy needs to be represented by complex numbers in the time region and negative energy states are as natural in the time region as negative speeds (velocities) are

in the spatial reference frame

Conclusion

We have endeavoured to sketch out some of the important contributions of the Reciprocal System to the understanding of the physical universe starting from a new paradigm—the concept of a universe of motion, in place of the current one of a universe of matter embedded in a framework of space and time The examples cited here are expected to convey the broad-enough scope of the theoretical system and establish that a prima facie case exists for a general theory It is only fair to record that some of the more esoteric aspects of the theory, such as multi-dimensional motion, the scalar region of the universe, etc., have had to be omitted entirely for pedagogical reasons and hence interesting questions concerning two large and important fields, namely, of electricity and magnetism, could not be considered in this article Mention must also be made of the fact that Larson finds the basic constituent of the universe according to the new paradigm, namely, motion, to be scalar motion Even though the existence of this kind of motion has been recognized, it has played a very minor and insignificant role in physical theory hitherto So, Larson carries out a full-scale investigation of the properties and possibilities

of scalar motion and discovers that this type of motion plays a central role in the drama of the physical phenomena He finds, for example, that some of the unexplained physical facts are really the unfamiliar features of certain types of scalar motion In this preliminary article we have refrained, for practical reasons, from dwelling on this important contribution of the Reciprocal System

Surely one might question the rationale of omitting some of these important contributions

of the theory when at the same time emphasizing its all out nature The real reason is—as has been hinted at the outset—no matter how simple and logical the new conclusions are from the viewpoint of the new paradigm, since one is habituated to the old paradigm, some of them might look unimaginable or utterly unscientific Having invested one‘s entire professional career in the existing paradigm, one‘s mind does not take kindly to the prospect of a basic paradigm change The first few contacts are the most difficult ones as Kuhn points out One would not be inclined even to pay attention to the new conclusions, much less evaluate them on their own merit

References

1 Larson, D.B., The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1963)

2 Larson, D.B., Beyond Newton, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1964)

3 Larson, D.B., New Light on Space and Time, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland,

OR, USA, 1965)

4 Larson, D.B., Nothing But Motion, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1979)

5 Larson, D.B., Basic Properties of Matter, (ISUS, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1979)

6 Larson, D.B., The Neglected Facts of Science, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland,

OR, USA, 1982)

7 Larson, D.B., The Universe of Motion, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1984)

H OW D O W E M EET THE N EW A GE

The student of the Reciprocal System is often beset with a peculiar difficulty, the nature

of which he does not recognize readily The result is that he does not even suspect that his progress is being blocked by this difficulty I have writen several times referring to this but find that it is by no means easy for the student to realize the point I am endeavoring to show For instance, in a recent communication, circulated by Maurice Gilroy (Re: Message 17 of Conference 01 mailed 8/19/93), we find Robert Tucek asking: ―What observations correspond to a basic rotation of natural units?‖ (Please see the short note on STP at the end ) The context of his questioning was, of course, about the possibility of rotation as a primary motion as against linear translation A little later he emphasizes,

―Rotational motion, by definition, requires an object!‖

The prevailing view in the ISUS seems to be that while linear motion can exist without any object, rotation is not possible without an object We wish to show that this view is not applicable in the context of the universe of motion postulated by the Reciprocal System Larson has repeatedly pointed out to us that the most basic component of the universe of motion is motion, not matter or any other ‗object.‘ On the other hand, the most basic component of the universe of matter is matter: motion being regarded as something added on to these primary units, namely, matter Let us highlight these:

Concept of the Universe of Motion:

Motion or space/time: the content of this universe; primary component

Concept of the Universe of Matter:

Matter: the content of this universe; primary component

Space/time: the background or container

Motion: something that could be acquired by objects, like matter

Therefore, referring to the primary units of motion, in the context of the universe of motion, when we speak of rotational motion, we do not mean the rotational motion of an object, for the simple fact that there is no ‗object‘ logically prior to the primary motion The term ‗primary component‘ implies logical priority In fact, the expression ‗rotation of natural units,‘ used by Tucek, as also by so many other students, is positively misleading:

as though the natural units are first existing and then are given a rotation The truth is that

when we speak of a rotational space unit (as against linear space unit) we do not mean

―the rotation of the space unit;‖ rather, we mean ―the rotation that is the space unit.‖

Our preoccupation with the Cartesian (rectangular) co-ordinate frame has some biasing inf luence Turning, instead, to the polar co-ordinates, r and q, we find that the linear and rotational space are on an equal footing A scalar parameter has only magnitude and no direction in space Examples are wages (dollars/hr) or production (units/min) etc Though speed (cm/sec)—in contrast to velocity—is taken to be scalar, it is not scalar in the absolute sense of the previous examples (in the sense that dollars or numbers have no

relation whatsoever to direction in space) This is because distance between two points,

say, A and B, does have an intrinsic direction, namely, AB or BA (which wage or production does not have) ‗Scalar speed‘ merely means that this intrinsic direction is not

oriented in any direction of the reference system That is to say that there is no specific

relation between this intrinsic direction and the conventional reference frame Thus we use the word ‗scalar‘ either in a strong (or absolute) sense or in a weak sense Wage is an absolute scalar in that it does not have an intrinsic direction, whereas speed has a potential direction in space that could be actualized in the context of a spatial reference frame

In exactly the same manner a scalar speed could be rotational (radians/sec) instead of linear (cm/sec) Rotation also has an intrinsic direction, namely, the axis of rotation Our pre-occupation with rectangular reference frames might make us think that the direction germane to rotation is the ever-changing direction of the radius But this is not correct The intrinsic direction of rotation is that of its axis (adopting the righthand screw convention) The problem is that we are not used to think of rotation without imagining a rotating object Even if we are careful enough not to picture any gross physical object, we cannot help imagining a conceptual object, a sphere or disk of space, and see it rotate

The catch here is that we are still envisioning ‗the rotation of the disk,‘ instead of ‗the rotation that is the disk,‘ and so are back in the trap! But the truth is that in the case of

rotational speed, d /dt, there is no radius, r, involved In the case of translational speed

we can imagine dr/dt without any connection or reference to !

One useful excercise that might help us overcome this difficulty is first to imagine a rotating disk and then to visualize the disk to be shrinking progressively, such that we are ultimately left with only rotation (radians per sec) Having realized that the intrinsic direction of rotation is its axis, and not the changing direction of the radius, we see that rotation could be as much a scalar quantity as translation is, so long as the intrinsic direction, in either case, is not oriented in any specific direction of the conventional reference frame

Tucek‘s assertion, which is a statement of the difficulty that is common to many other students, that ‗Rotational motion, by definition, requires an object,‘ is true only in the context of the concept of the universe of matter, not in the context of the concept of the universe of motion In the context of the universe of motion, primary motion—whether

translational or rotational—by definition, does not require an object This is the

implication of the expression ‗basic component of the universe.‘ This demonstrates that it

is by no means easy to dislodge our moorings to the concept of the universe of matter We—our generation—are born and bred in the context of this concept So even though

we are repeatedly cautioned we continually keep slipping back into the old view point When I talk of the primacy of motion—either linear or rotational—as when saying:

―Rotation is possible prior to the existence of ‗things‘ or ‗objects,‘ ‖ and if someone finds that either it is

a absurd,

b illogical, or

c impossible,

then it does not establish that I am wrong It only indicates that either one of us is wrong Therefore it becomes necessary to examine whether one has, by dint of inveterate habit, slipped back to the view point of the universe of matter Our thinking is guided by the language, and the present grammatical patterns are thoroughly conditioned by the viewpoint of the universe of matter Great caution must be excercised in using ellipsis, metaphor or other figures of speech in our discourse Tedious repetition of long expressions may have to be resorted to so as to avoid misguiding, or evoking semantic responses incongruous to the new view point

For the conventional scientists of our generation (let us call them Group A) there is no difficulty: they are wedded to the viewpoint of the universe of matter from the beginning

to the end For the scientists of the future generation (Group B) there is no difficulty either: from birth they would be raised in the context of the viewpoint of the universe of motion, and the viewpoint of the universe of matter would only be a matter of historical interest The difficulty is only for those of our generation (Group C) who, while having been bred in the viewoint of the universe of matter, are promoting the study of the Reciprocal System that requires the new viewoint, namely, that of the universe of motion

We keep slipping back to the conventional viewoint And trying to study the universe of motion from the background of the concept of the universe of matter leads to absurd results While persons of Groups A and B might be intelligent, those of Group C have not only to be intelligent in the conventional way, they must be intelligent in a different way too This latter involves an ability to perceive whether, down the line, one has involuntarily reverted to the viewoint of the universe of matter ‗Illogical,‘ ‗absurd,‘

‗non-sensical‘and ‗impossible‘ are some of the watchwords that should alert us to this Surreptitious pride in one‘s intellectual superiority is the first stumbling block An attitude of cocksureness and finality is the second impediment The tendency to take the unfamiliar for the inadmissible is the third Reliance on majority opinion is the fourth

In the chain of deduction from the Fundamental Postulates, far down the line, work is not

so difficult So some of us might have published ‗learned‘ papers or literature on the Reciprocal System The true difficulty is nearer the Fundamental Postulates, most at the first step, in deducing the primary motions This is where the clash between the viewpoint

of the universe of motion that needs to be adopted and the viewpoint of the universe of matter to which we keep slipping back (unconsciously) has the most deleterious effects Advocating censorship has good intentions But implementing it is tricky: we might be unwittingly jeopardizing the very cause which we are professing to promote We, in our eagerness to reject all that is alien to the Reciprocal System, might commit the mistake of rejecting all that is alien

In the recent ISUS Newsletter (ISUS News, V(1), Spring 1993, pp 5-8) I have discussed point by point how the President was misguided in his ruling However, I know that truth

cannot be forced, it must dawn on oneself Only he who has been able to extricate himself

from thinking in terms of the inadmissible viewpoint of the universe of matter and is constantly on vigil to see if he has slipped back to this view point, either in his own study

or in criticizing others‘ work, is the right person to censor The prevailing correspondence clearly shows that not one of us is equal to the task

The Space-Time Progression

The question is often raised that if rotational motion is as primary as linear motion, what

is the observable effect, in the case of rotation, which corresponds to the outward progression of space-time (STP) in the case of linear motion

The natural reference system manifests in the conventional reference frame as a dimensional scalar outward progression Let a length AB grow to ABl in x (natural) units

one-of time, such that BBl = x units of space We make the following observations:

Observation I: Since the STP is scalar, it is independent of (i) any direction and (ii) any reference point of the conventional reference frame

Observation II: The effect of the non-dependence on direction is to distribute the progression into spherical symmetry

Observation III: The effect of the non-dependence on reference point is to distribute the increase in length, namely, the x units of space, uniformly throughout the original length

AB That is, it is not the case that a length BBl is added to the end of the original length

AB at B, but additional linear space emerges between every two adjacent points (locations) on AB Suppose M was the midpoint of AB After x units of time it occupies location Ml such that it is still the midpoint of ABl It is extremely important to distinguish this type of increase of length from an increase that is merely appended to the end of an existing length Both the ubiquity of the STP and the ‗action-at-a-distance‘ of gravitation stem from this non-dependence of scalar motion on reference point

The same state of affairs holds good in the case of rotational motion too, but first we must note the following correspondences between translational and rotational motions:

i Length is measured between two points, one of which is a reference point Angle

is measured between two directions, one of which is a reference direction

ii The scalar speed cm/sec has an intrinsic direction that may be oriented in any direction of the conventional reference frame The scalar speed radians/sec has an intrinsic direction that may be oriented in any direction of the conventional reference frame

Now we are ready to make three observations in the case of rotation as we did in the case

of translation above Let /POQ be an angle f, such that O is the origin, OQ the reference direction and OP another direction In y units of time let f increase by y units of angle Observation I: Since the rotational counterpart of the STP is scalar, it is independent of (i) any rotational direction and (ii) any reference direction of the conventional reference frame

Observation II: The effect of the non-dependence on rotational direction is to distribute the rotation into spherical symmetry

Observation III: The effect of the non-dependence on reference direction is to distribute the increase in angle, namely, the y units of angle, uniformly throughout the original

angle /POQ That is, it is not the case that an angle y is added to the end of the original angle /POQ at OP, but additional angular space emerges between every two adjacent directions in /POQ

It is extremely important to distinguish this type of increase of angle from an increase that is merely appended to the end of an existing angle Now a complication arises that the conventional reference frame cannot accommodate more than 2 radians of angle (or

4 steradians of solid angle) Therefore, in the case of the former type of increase, as soon as this limit is reached, no further observable effect manifests Thus the rotational counterpart of the linear STP is seen as no (or zero) rotation On the other hand, since no such limitation exists for accomodating linear space we observe an unlimited outward progression in the linear case

S UBVERSIVE R EFLECTIONS

―The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one is far from a cumulative process Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals.‖

—Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp 84-85

In the article High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System¹ we indicated that high energy physics is a field approaching a crisis, and therefore the Reciprocal System,

originated by Dewey B Larson, has greater chances of getting a hearing since it offers a truly general theoretical framework resolving long-standing problems We believe that the dawning of a new century is particularly propitious for new ideas—as it always has

been—and the Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm of scalar motion as the sole

content of the physical universe, has much to contribute The need of the times is a good

number of interface articles that could bring the knowledge of the Reciprocal System to

the orthodoxy, or at least to the iconoclastic thinkers in its ranks

The title of this article is adopted from that of an article² written by A J Leggett in the

Indian journal of Current Science I shall quote extensively from this article, giving the

page numbers in parentheses Prof Leggett is well known in the field of condensed matter physics He advances in the above article forceful arguments against the reductionist viewpoint in science Reductionism implies that the behavior of macroscopic systems is in principle entirely determined by the behavior of their microscopic constituents Leggett is not alone in drawing attention to the limitations of reductionism Since the pioneering work of the celebrated thermodynamicist and Nobel laureate, Ilya Prigogine, there has been a growing awareness of the limited applicability of the reductionist viewpoint in the fields of physics and life sciences

at the next level below?‖ (p 787)

He then tracks down that ―our experience of ‗understanding how things work‘ starts with mechanical devices made by other human beings, and that the most natural way of achieving such an understanding is precisely to take the device apart into its constituent parts, since these are what the maker started with Does this experience subconsciously color our perception of what constitutes an ‗explanation‘ of natural phenomena as well as

of human artifacts?‖ (p 787)

He questions that would it be really obvious ―that the behavior of complex bodies is entirely determined by that of their constituents‖ (p 792) were it not for this subconscious conditioning about what constitutes ‗explanation.‘ ―Reductionism is probably as deeply ingrained in the thinking of most of us as any single element in the whole of our scientific world view.‖(p 792)

Who Put Reductionism in Nature?

Let us inquire, says Leggett, what most of the contemporary experimentalists and theorists in the field of high energy physics are involved in

―Most high-energy experimentalists are engaged in a single enterprise which, conceptually if not technically, has a very simple structure Namely, they accelerate particle A and particle B so as to hit one another, and watch where they and/or particles

C, D, E emerge, and with what energy and (sometimes) spin In particular, the experiment is designed so that, as nearly as possible, the incoming beams are each described by quantum-mechanical pure states of definite momentum; and while the theory certainly predicts that, in certain cases at least, the outgoing states are not simple classical ‗mixtures‘ of products of plane wave states, but have built into them subtle quantum correlations of the type which are important in Bell‘s theorem, the whole setup

is designed precisely so that such subtleties can be neglected.‖ (p 787)

Now when the particle physicists claim that experiments show that Nature is actually simpler at higher energies, might it not be due, Leggett wonders, at least partly ―to the fact that we have chosen to ask her only questions, which by their very construction allow

no subtlety in the answers?‖ (p 787)

Referring to the theoretical front he says: ―A few years ago, at least, there were high hopes (I am not clear how far those at the forefront of the field now share them) that in the ‗super-string‘ picture the constraints imposed by the need for self-consistency would

be so severe that they would uniquely determine the parameters of the theory, including

as outputs not only the masses and coupling constants of the known elementary particles but even the ‗true‘ dimensionality of space-time.‖ (p 788)

He then raises the genuine epistemological quandary: ―Can mathematics—a subject which is usually taken to be concerned with analytic truth—really put constraints on how Nature can behave?‖ (p 788)

The Whole is the Sum of the Parts—Or is it?

Leggett now surveys the evidence for and against reductionism in science He points out:

―So long as one is dealing with those phenomena, and only those, where we believe that the predictions of quantum mechanics are well approximated by those of classical physics, then the evidence for the reductionist point of view is very strong, and moreover

there is absolutely no a priori, internal reason to challenge it

―For example, in a typical ‗macroscopic quantum effect‘ in the conventional sense, such

as the Josephson effect, what we are actually seeing is the effect of a macroscopically large number of Cooper pairs behaving in identical fashion; the observed supercurrent is

simply the sum of the supercurrents carried by the individual pairs of electrons Similarly,

in laser diffraction, we are simply seeing the coherent sum of the behavior of many individual photons So long as we are dealing with the summed effects—even the summed quantum effects—of a large number of small groups, there seems no reason to doubt a reductionist approach.‖ (p 793)

He continues: ―It is only when we come to intrinsically quantum phenomena that we have

a problem First the positive evidence in favor of reductionism in this regime is much less strong than it looks at first sight and secondly, there are indications, which are intrinsic to the quantum formalism itself, that the reductionistic program not only might, but must eventually fail

―Let us start with the phenomenon usually known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect In this, the current flowing through a region of metal which encloses a hole turns out to be affected by the magnetic flux through the hole, even though the magnetic field vanishes everywhere within the metal itself In other words, the electrons carrying the current are sensitive to the conditions in a region which they never enter, but only enclose with their paths! This already demonstrates that quantum mechanics forces us to give up some of our classical notions about the ‗locality‘ of physical effects.‖ (p 793)

As the next example he considers Bell‘s theorem and the related experiments: ―given that

we make our normal assumptions about local causality in the sense of special relativity theory, and about the statistical properties of ensembles being determined entirely by the initial conditions, then what Bell‘s theorem and the associated experiments show is that even though two regions of the universe may be spatially separated and physically noninteracting, we nevertheless cannot ascribe to each of them individual properties; any

‗realization‘ of properties takes place only at the level of the combined system.‖(p 793) What Bell‘s theorem experiments have shown us is that, in the context of reductionism which implies that ‗the behavior of macroscopic systems is entirely determined by that of their atomic-level constituents,‘ we are not justified in assuming that the concept of

‗constituent‘ is necessarily associated with spatially localized region So Leggett exclaims that ―the Bell's theorem experiments are a death-knell for reductionism.‖ (p 793)

The Quantum Measurement Paradox

There is one more feature of the current quantum mechanics world view to which Leggett draws attention, which gives us reason to doubt the validity of reductionism—the quantum measurement paradox

―Consider an ensemble of systems which can go from some initial to some final state by either of two paths B and C At the microlevel, we believe that despite the fact that

‗measurement‘ of the path followed by any individual system will always show that it followed either B or C, the quantum formalism must nevertheless be interpreted as in some sense saying that if no measurement was made, it simply is not the case that one (unknown) possibility out of B and C was realized; rather, both possibilities are in some sense represented in the correct description as a matter of experimental fact, the

properties of our actual ensemble are not identical to those which we would obtain from a combination of the two ensembles obtained by allowing only B and only C respectively;

i.e., we verify, experimentally, the phenomenon of interference between the two paths So

it seems that the quantum formalism in some sense either ascribes ‗reality‘ to both the possibilities B and C, or ascribes it to neither.‖ (p 794)

"At the macrolevel the formalism of quantum mechanics remains exactly the same; but there is now no direct experimental evidence against the hypothesis that one of the possibilities B or C has been realized in each particular case

―We have here a case in which we have two maps of reality—the quantum-mechanical map which we apply to atomic phenomena, and the ‗'common-sense,‘ classical map which we use for the macroscopic, everyday world The problem is that they claim in

principle to describe the same level of reality—the world of counters, cats etc.—and yet

no one has succeeded in showing that they are compatible.‖ (p 795)

Now, Leggett‘s penetrating insight into this enigma, which first fastened our attention onto his article, was the realization that ―under appropriate circumstances if we

extrapolate [the quantum] formalism up from the microlevel to the macrolevel, there is

no point at which any natural discontinuity occurs.‖ (p 794) [my emphasis]

He is unequivocal in his conclusion: ―My own belief is that the quantum measurement paradox can have no solution within our current reductionist world-view.‖ (p 795) He opines that the quantum field theory is only a half-way house, sure to be supplanted by ―a radically new picture of physical reality whose nature we cannot at present even guess.‖ (p 795) He adds: ―I for one intend to use my best efforts to hasten that day.‖

Enter the Reciprocal System

The Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm that (scalar) motion is the sole constituent

of the physical universe, resolves all the difficulties Larson‘s finding that space and time are discrete in nature and quantized answers the crucial question raised by Leggett above, that ―there is no point at which any natural discontinuity occurs.‖ Such a natural discontinuity does occur at the boundary of the natural unit of space We have explained

in detail in a previous article how at the boundary between the time region (the region

inside unit space) and the familiar³ three-dimensional spatial region a discontinuity occurs, and how the apparent directions of the forces applicable (the gravitation and the

space-time progression) change from outward to inward and vice versa We have shown

that this gives rise to the solid, liquid and the gaseous states

Larson‘s discovery that space and time are reciprocally related had been a crucially

important finding This led to the discovery of the existence of coordinate time analogous

to the familiar coordinate space We have shown³ that the phenomenon of spatial

non-locality arises due to the switching from the spatial reference frame to the temporal

reference frame on entering the time region This makes for the equal possibility of all the alternative paths, at the microlevel At the macrolevel, however, this is not the case since the interaction is no longer in the time region but is in the conventional spatial frame We

have further explained the concept of temporal non-locality which is responsible for

producing the statistical pattern out of the independent microlevel events of an ensemble Larson pointed out the fact that correlated particles—like in the EPR experiment—maintain contiguity either in space (if separated in time) or in time (if separated in space)

We also note that in the Reciprocal System there are two kinds of time: the coordinate

time and the clock time These are respectively the reversible time, t, which occurs in the

equations of classical physics and quantum mechanics, and the irreversible time, T,

which is relevant to living processes and consciousness This distinction arises naturally and logically in the Reciprocal System, whereas in the world view of the current science,

as Prigogine finds, it is to be introduced as an ad hoc necessity Analogous to coordinate time and clock time we also find that there are two kinds of space: the familiar coordinate

space and what Larson terms clock space The latter manifests itself to us as an

irreversible and continual expansion, as is evidenced in the recession of the distant

galaxies In the Reciprocal System there is no need for the purely ad hoc assumption of

the ‗Big Bang‘ to account for the galactic recession!

The Reciprocal System repudiates reductionism at the very outset Larson finds the atom

to be a unit of compound motion and without parts The so-called sub-atomic particles

turn out to be incomplete atoms and without parts In the Reciprocal System there is no need for quarks and gluons, not even for nucleons We can identify the cosmic ray decay particles and the exotic particles generated in the accelerators to be the transient apparitions of the atoms of the conjugate sector of the physical universe, which Larson

refers to as the cosmic sector.¹ The cosmic sector is a complete duplicate of our material

sector with the roles of space and time interchanged

Larson was able to explain the characteristics peculiar to biological systems by the possibility of conjoining the structural units pertaining to the cosmic sector with the material structures Remember that the structural units of the cosmic sector are not aggregates in space Rather, they are aggregates in time, and hence their control on the cells, for example, appears totally nonlocal This makes it possible for the logical

inclusion of self-organization and creativity among other things

All these insights about the quantum phenomena which the Reciprocal System is able to provide acquire even greater significance when we realize that its creator, Dewey Larson, had never explicitly thought out these aspects when he originally developed the theory A perusal of his early correspondence with other students even reveals that he looked upon these quantum-mechanical phenomena, like the tunneling, with hesitation (This, however, does not mean to underestimate his genius: he was so pre-occupied with the overall development of the theory so as to establish its generality, accuracy and cogency that he hardly ever had the time to go into the quantum subtleties He used to do all his typing work himself, and imagine that his typewriter didn't even have the '+' key: he used

to type '-', then backstep and overtype '/'.) Be that as it may, the actual fact is that the logical development of the Reciprocal System of theory comes up to match with the requirements to be satisfied by the ‗new picture of physical reality‘ we are looking for, and whose nature could not even be guessed by the scientists The next question,

therefore, is since such a theory did appear now, whether or not we can see the truth of this!

References

1 Nehru, K V K., ―High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Volume XXVI, No 2, Summer, 1997

2 Leggett, A J., ―As a Martian might see us: Subversive reflections on the practice

of physics,‖ Current Science, Volume 67, No 11, 10 December 1994, pp

785-795

3 Nehru, K V K.,―‗Non-locality‘ in the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Volume

XXVI, No 1, Spring 1997, pp 7-14

D IALOGUE WITH D EWEY B L ARSON, P ART 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

1 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

2 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 sub-atomic 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 sub-atomic particles, as this would lead to complications in the development of the theory

3 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 space-like, the proton can only acquire a negative electric charge—like the electron

DBL: An electric charge is a one-dimensional 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

4 KVK: On p 155-6, NLST, the apparent reduction in the velocity of light in a material medium is attributed to the additional space involved due to the

rotational space-like 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

5 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 space-time progression Is the sine curve form, then, taken to be pertaining to the three-dimensional 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 three-dimensional time and not

in three-dimensional space.]

6 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 119-121 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)

7 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

8 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

9 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 two-dimensional vibrating unit?

DBL: We are dealing with a scalar motion, and the only latitude that we have, at this stage of the step-by-step development, is to change from + to - and vice versa This does not necessarily preclude introducing additional dimensions of motion later in the development, but multi-dimensional scalar motion has some unfamiliar features I intend to discuss this type of motion at considerable length

in Volume II

10 KVK: p 195-6, 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

11 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 space-time 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

12 KVK: The massless sub-atomic particles do not have net time-like displacement

in three dimensions like the atoms As such why are they not carried away by the

general space-time 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 space-time progression in having additionally rotational displacements But so long as the net rotational displacement is in less than three dimensions, the space-time progression should carry it off in the free dimension Perhaps this could be the reason that this class of sub-atomic 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 space-like and the relation of space to space is not motion However, since the one unit of two-dimensional rotation is balanced by the unit of negative vibration, and the net space-like rotation is only in the electric dimension, is there no dimension

effectively free so that the scalar space-time 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

13 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 space-time 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

14 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 space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time (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 time-like 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 space-time 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 gravitationally-bound 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 space-like RV displacement Hence it involves a scalar translational effect similar

to that of a unidirectional rotation that is space-like (motion in time) But the scalar translational motion of space-like rotational displacement units (i.e., rotation in time) is the gravitation in time As such the space-like 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 space-time 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., ―co-ordinate‖ 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 (2-dimensional) 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 1 is ( 2)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 1, 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 far-reaching significance The requirement of the first effective unit of the 2-dimensional displacement being 1 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 1

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 (n-1) positive displacement units to another of (n-1) 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 (n-1) negative displacement units) by speed 1/n ((n-1) 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 A-B 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 A-B

15 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 c-atoms 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‖):

i 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

ii The temporal equivalent of this spatial extension s is s/c

iii ― If the motion is one-dimensional, all of the effects can be transmitted If

it is two-dimensional, the fraction transmitted is 1/c of the total The transmitted fraction is only 1/c² in the case of three-dimensional rotation.‖ (p 185, NLST)

iv ― 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

three-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

16 KVK: The general space-time 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

17 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 ―coupled-vibration‖ 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?]

18 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:

a the inter-regional ratio (p 154, NBM)

b secondary mass (p 161, NBM)

c electric mass and mass of electric charge (p 163, NBM)

d 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)

19 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 last-but-one para), we arrive at the true relative v speed of the two objects as (v1+v2)/(v1+v2) = 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 v1 and v2 (in natural units) is given by (v1+v2)/(1+v1+v2) since the total time involved would be (1+v1+v2)?]

20 KVK.: 128-9, 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 ½-½-0, for example

Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to see that halving the displacement unit amounts to taking the square-root of the corresponding speed and does not involve any half unit of speed (i.e., if d = 1g n, then ½d = ½1g n = 1g n) For particles below the unit level, as in the case of sub-atomic particles, this gives rise

to the unique possibility of positing ½ unit displacement (141, NBM) because of the idempotent nature of unity (i.e., 1= 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

to zero on the natural basis.) Since this non-effective 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

22 KVK: p 154, NBM: The inter-regional 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 sub-atomic particies, which are single rotating systems, only one, and not two, of the possible nine vibrational positions are occupied Thus the inter-regional 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

D IALOGUE WITH D EWEY B L ARSON, P ART 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

1 KVK: Ref p.46, para 2, QP: If the n mass-units 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

2 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

3 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

4 KVK: Ref p.98, lines 13-16, 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 line-of-sight 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 two-dimensional scalar motion, only one dimension of which can be parallel to the dimension of the reference system

5 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

6 KVK: p.154, lines 8-7 from bottom, NBM: The possible vibrational positions for the two-dimensional 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 two-disk 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 inter-regional ratio must be 128(1 + 1/6)

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

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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

non-integral 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

12 KVK: In the notation a-b-c of the atomic rotations, ‗a‘ stands for the principal magnetic rotation and ‗b‘ for the sub-ordinate 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 two-dimensional rotations, each must be effective in two dimensions

D B.L.: Two independent rotations of a disk (a one-dimensional rotation of a line) would produce two spheres, but a rotation of two inter-penetrated disks produces

a spheroid, either an oblate spheroid with a volume proportional to a²b, or a prolate spheroid with a volume proportional to ab²

13 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

14 KVK: The electric charge is a one-dimensional rotational vibration, and is normally a modification of the existing one-dimensional rotation in the electric dimension But the exception is the proton which is M 1-1-(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 0-0-(1), since the rotation in the electric dimension is negative As such, it is taken that this electric charge is a modification of the two-dimensional 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 one-dimensional, take precedence over a magnetic charge, which should more naturally be the

appendage to the basic two-dimensional rotation in M 1-1-(1)? Compare with the case of the neutrino M ½-½-(1) which easily acquires a magnetic charge (on its 1 unit two-dimensional 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 1-1-( l ), would increase its net total displacement to 2 As noted in NBM, it appears that two-unit 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

15 KVK: While a neutrino M ½-½-(1) can easily acquire a magnetic charge, why does it not happen to a massless neutron M ½-½-0? (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

16 KVK: Why is the photon M 1-1-(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

17 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: 2-1-0 After accounting for one two-dimensional unit counteracting the opposite displacement of the basic photon we are left with a net displacement

of 1-1-0 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 1-1-0 If we eliminate one magnetic unit, we have the combination 1-0-0 (or 1-1-0 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 0-0-0, 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

18 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 three-dimensional 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

19 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

20 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 x½ 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 x½ 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 x½ 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

21 KVK: Ref p 108-9, 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 1-2, 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,