755 N.E. Royal Court
Portland, Oregon 97232
June 3, 1988
The following are my comments on the issues raised in your letter of
- I am in full agreement with your contention that we should not reinvent
the wheel. The mathematicians have devised a structure of mathematical
theory which meets their own criteria of validity, and they have applied
this to the physical universe, arriving at results which, in most cases
agree with the results of observation and measurement to a reasonable
degree of accuracy. The objective of the mathematical physicists is
to extend this development to the areas not yet covered, and to improve
the accuracy of the existing applications. If any of our people want
to participate in that activity, thats fine, but it has no bearing
on the development of the Reciprocal System of theory. The already available
mathematics are far more than we need, at least in the present rather
early stage of the development.
As I have tried to emphasize throughout my writings, the conceptual
aspects of physical theory, our understanding of what the mathematics
of physical events mean, is independent of the mathematical relations.
There are usually many possible interpretations of the same mathematics.
Consequently, the true meaning cannot be derived from the mathematics.
As matters now stand, the accepted physical meaning of each mathematical
relation is based on assumptions applicable to that particular case.
Conventional physical theory has a general mathematical structure into
which each individual conclusion is required to fit, but it has no similar
conceptual structure, and it therefore has no way of verifying the conceptual
interpretations of the mathematical relations. Our contribution is to
provide the conceptual structure that is needed. Since the previous
interpretations were based on unconnected assumptions, it was inevitable
that some of them would turn out to be wrong, but this does not necessarily
mean that the mathematical expressions are incorrect. And where we do
find that some modification of the mathematical relations is necessary,
we do not need any new kind of mathematics.
- The photon is a combination of motions, and therefore, cannot be classified
as primary. There is some question as to how we should define primary
in this connection, but I have applied the term only to uniform one-dimensional
translational motion. In the context of a reference system this can
be inward, outward, or continually changing from one to the other (simple
harmonic motion). Each of these can be distributed either linearly or
rotationally in the reference system. Thus there are six different varieties
of primary motion.
- Yes. Time is fundamental.
- A progression is continuous. There is no change in the motion at any
time. A succession of jumps is discontinuous. Nothing happens for a
time, then a jump occurs, and so on.
- The space-time progression is a result of the equivalence of unit
space and unit time. When time has moved forward one unit (as we say,
one unit of time has elapsed), space has also, by reason of the equivalence,
moved forward one unit. So the progression is always continuous.
An independent motion at unit speed is also a progression, but it may
change from one of the possible types of simple motion to another, at
the end of a unit only.
- A motion in space is a change of position in a spatial reference system
during a specified period of time. In a combination of motions, the
different motions originating at the same location take place during
the same period of time. In a succession of motions the different motions
take place during successive periods of time.
- The range of simple speeds in the universe is from one unit of space
per x units of time (which is the limit of motion in space) to x units
of space per unit of time (which is the limit of motion in time). A
zero speed can only be attained by combination. There is no simple zero
and no infinity in nature.
- I regard the first of these statements as meaningless. The second
is wrong. Past events with which we were contemporaneous may have left
traces in our memories, but future events have had no opportunity to
- I agree that time is one of the basic, or primitive, concepts, but
I cannot agree that it is meaningless to speak of the direction of time.
Space and time are symmetrical in the universe. It follows that there
is direction in time as well as in space.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The answers that I have given to the foregoing questions are contained
in or implied by my writings. You are therefore at liberty to quote
me, if you wish, in discussions that you may have in connection with
them, or in material that you may write. The remaining questions concern
matters about which I have not yet published anything. I am answering
them only for your own personal information, and I do not wish to have
my name connected with either the answers or my underlying theories
on which the answers are based, unless and until I do publish them.
Please bear this in mind if you discuss these points with anyone, or
write anything on these subjects.
- Generally speaking, yes, although I would not equate the cosmic control
with the mind. The control applies to all living things, only a few
of which have minds, in the usual sense.
- The physical universe is a universe of space and time. What I have
called Sector 3 is not motionless in the ordinary meaning of the term,
which implies being stationary in space. The concepts of space, time,
and motion simply so not apply to it at all.
- I find it necessary to conclude, from the evidence, that there is
an existence independent of the space and time universe, and that there
is an aspect of human life that is related to this independent existence.
I would not identify it as a spirit, because that word has
acquired implications that go far beyond what I believe can legitimately
be assertedfor instance, it is understood as implying that they
(the spirits) might, in some way, reveal their presence, or have same
other physical effect.