PJ 74
CHAPTER 11

REC #1 HATONN

SUN., JULY 25. 1993 9:18 A.M. YEAR 6, DAY 343

SUN., JULY 25, 1993


LET THERE BE LIGHT
In the interest of continuity let us just continue with the printing of articles on the subject of Mr. Walter Russell as appeared in his time, relative to his approach to science subjects, in the New York Times. Since our focused interest is toward Mr. Russell's scientific work, at this time, we shall leave alone his approach to metaphysics or philosophy. Nora is working on a "biographical study" of the Life and Times of said Mr. Russell and the Uni­versity of Science and Philosophy. So, in order to not cause trouble flares with US&P regarding contempt charges against Dharma for writing on the subject, we shall not refer to that at all.

Our only purpose here is to offer public "articles" regarding Russell's subjects as presented. I would, however, ask that these writings of mine AND copies of the copies of the articles themselves be forwarded to Nora for her information. Thank you. For prior articles on this subject please see the writing of July 23, 1993 of which this is simply a continuation.

I have two comments as we enter into this writing which I con­sider so important as to stop and pre-focus your attention. I am asked why I do not "always" refer to Russell as doctor (Dr.)? Because, even though it is that perhaps US&P and Lao Russell desired the designation to give advanced implication and infer­ence of Earth-based "physical" academic achievement-the only doctorate received EVER by Russell--was an honorary one. I have stated before that "I" may well refer to Russell as "doctor" because of my own RESPECT AND HONOR TO THE MAN IN POINT AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SURPASSES ANY SUCH KNOWLEDGE HELD BY THE PROFESSORS OF ACADEMIA.

Next, you will see that I reprint a lot of the prior article in this writing. Why would I do that? BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSONS ANY SCIENTIST OR STUDENT CAN RECEIVE! IN FACT!! So, we keep our Dr. Young so very busy with his Editorial duties and swamped in every kind of "other" task that he has not time to catch up with the information on "Light" that I have provided FOR him. So, there are some facts which are so important to ANY scientist working henceforth WITH ME AND TEAM, THAT HE MUST BRING THEM TO HIS EYES AND EARS AND ATTENTION WITHOUT CHOICE. HE MUST EDIT THIS WRITING FOR THE PAPER--SO HE WILL GET THIS LESSON WITHOUT FURTHER SEARCHING! HE, NEITHER, PRIOR TO ME, HAD SO MUCH AS HEARD OF WALTER RUSSELL--AND YET HE HOLDS PHDs, OR EQUIVALENTS, IN AT LEAST THREE SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS. THIS IS WHY DR. YOUNG IS IN THIS LOCATION WITH "US"--FOR THIS SCIENTIFIC ADVENTURE IS HIS PURPOSE--NOT DAB­BLING IN PRINTED NEWSPAPERS. HE DOES, HOW­EVER, NEED TO MAKE SOME OF THE CONTACTS WHICH SHALL COME FROM THIS PAPER--SO BEAR WITH US, ALL OF YOU AS THE CALL GOES FORTH. THANK YOU.

Dr. Young is a young man who has all the ridiculous eccentrici­ties of "habit" as did Tesla, Edison, Einstein, etc. He stays up communing and tinkering, thinking and working ALL NIGHT--­and is found to be "absent" most of the daylight hours until "awakening" again toward evening. Does this mean that he "sleeps" all day and is unavailable? Yes, it would APPEAR TO BE THAT WAY--but NO indeedy, WE WORK HIM DAY AND NIGHT! The very hub of your cycling is based solely on PHYSICS (not mystical garbage) and he is trained to recognize the truth, assumptions, separate out theories from fact and bring some massive changes upon your place--IN TRUTH. I honor him and ask him to bear with us while we catch-up some of the citizens so that we can move on in that which is absolute and necessary. It means moving through the trash heap of politics and other human physical incantations. But, he is busy and his interests are narrow enough in attention that I have to cause him to monitor EVERYTHING (for the CONTACT) so that he doesn't simply "miss" the important messages. It makes good lessons for ALL OF YOU and allows you to see that you can NEVER learn the facts of your own BEING with the WRONG ASSUMPTIONS! Consider me simply a Cohan (professor/­teacher) and you as chela (student) and the mystical relationship will vanish.

Dharma is NOT some "UFO Lady" as referred to her, directly, by a most uninformed "investigative reporter" who announced that Dharma passes out misinformation and other insulting thrusts. Dharma asked this person if she "had read the paper"? The response in loud and emphatic terms: "No, I try never to read such a thing." Dharma then asked her how she could be a worthy researcher of anything in such circumstances as to "know nothing" about her subject. She said she was "going to sue" Dharma, the paper, everyone. E.J. simply told her she would have to "hurry"--at which point she flung down the phone so as to probably break it. Is this not the same as Dr. Jackson? "I refuse to even consider or read your presentations--I have heard you are a disinformation source for nit-wit scientists against our 'sacred' set ideas and do not enlighten me for I am already a "sacred research journalist/scientist." We welcome all suits in the courts of law for even as the LIES are told in court--­the Truth is also THERE and will always, sometime, some­where, someday, "when you least expect it", smile, you are on Candid Truth.

ARTICLES ON WALTER RUSSELL
(from the New York Times)
I shall reprint the "response by Dr. Russell" to Dr. Jackson as we see that the sender of the information was far more exacting than were we. He has sent the "missing" portions in a separate copy and therefore, since we may have left out much in the prior presentment, we shall simply offer the "reply" again.

August 3, 1930

RESPONSE OF RUSSELL TO JACKSON
To the Editor of The New York Times:

Dr. John E. Jackson's letter to you, a copy of which he gra­ciously sent to me, is a perfectly natural letter of resentment for which I do not blame him in the least.

It is true that I have challenged the accuracy or completeness of the Newtonian laws of gravitation and will just as vigorously attack the other "sacred laws" of Kepler, and any others, either ancient or modern, that need modifying or rewriting to fit the needs of a civilization whose onward march is held back by the untruths, or half truths, of those who rely upon the deceptive evidence of what their eyes think they see.

I am sorry that an artist had to do it, but Sir Oliver Lodge said that no scientist could make the supreme discovery of the one thing for which science is looking and hoping. He said that such a discovery would have to be the "supreme inspiration of some poet, painter, philosopher or saint."

SUPPLYING NEEDED IMAGINATION
In other words, science sorely needs the imagination of an artist or poet to synthesize here heterogeneous complexities, and put her on the path of simplicity and truth; for nature is very simple in her causes. She is complex only in her repetitive ef­fects.

I have not said that Newton's laws were wrong, for they are right as far as they go. They are only half-truths, though. Ke­pler's first law is not only a half truth, but the half that is stated is inaccurately stated.

Science should be exact, not approximate or inferential.

Just as Newton left out all consideration of the equal and op­posite reaction to the attraction of gravitation, which is the re­pulsion of radiation, so does Kepler leave the other focus of his ellipses out of his consideration. "The sun is one of the foci of planetary elliptical paths," he says; but how about the other one? My friendly critics will of course admit that there are two foci to any elliptical orbit. If one of these foci is important, why is not the other equally so?

What is the cause of elliptical orbits if not that some doubly acting force, concentrated at two foci, is exerting its opposite in­fluences on both masses, not on one. For this reason also it is inaccurate, because untrue, to say that the sun is at one of its foci. That infers that the sun's centre is one of its foci, which is not true. The true focus, which only happens to be within the sun, because of the sun's huge bulk, is the mutual gravitative centre of both sun and planet, or earth and moon.

LAW MERELY LOCAL
If a planet happened to be a big fellow, the focus referred to would be a long way outside of the sun. For this reason, the law is purely a local one, limited to a solar system, and would not apply to two solar systems or to two bodies of approximately equal mass revolving around each other, as a universal law should apply.

The neglected focus is the mutual centre of repulsion which is the lowest point in the pressure gradient between any two masses. These two oppositely acting foci are the controls which determine the orbits of both masses around each other instead of one mass around the other, which was the apparent limit of Ke­pler's consideration.

Perhaps Dr. Jackson will explain to me why Kepler and Newton, and all who have followed since then, have shirked this other necessary focus and have given us only the perfectly obvi­ous one.

If Newton had watched that apple compose itself from low potential gases and liquids to high potential solids, saw it fall, and still remained on his job watching it decompose back again into low potential gases and vapors as it arose, we might have had a complete law of gravitation which would have been a great aid in putting a much-needed foundation under the feet of science during these intervening centuries.

FAIR TREATMENT ASKED
I am offering again my contribution to what seems to me the unstable foundation beneath the feet of science. Einstein and others have already been respectfully credited for the same ideas which, when published by me, had formerly brought me ridicule. All I ask is a consideration of my ideas and fair treat­ment.

I have begun by correcting the Eddington idea of a running­-down universe, by supplying the other half of Newton's laws and Kepler's neglected focus, which makes the universe a con­tinuing one. This must be followed up by correcting many other things, such as the structure of the atom, the supposed nature of the electron and kindred fantasies, illusions, cosmogonies and hypotheses, which have succeeded each other for three hundred years, none of which survive the test of five years trial without becoming as ephemeral as Laplace's nebular hypothesis or as old fashioned as a 1927 model of the atom.

If Dr. Jackson thinks academic science is advancing, he is wrong. Industrial science is leaping ahead on restricted lines, but the theorists who draw fantastic conclusions from their ex­periments have "gone cubist". The "jumping electron" atom, and all other atomic models, with the exception of Rutherford's, for which so many Nobel prizes have been given, have no more relation to nature than green cheese has to the moon. And as for the little wire cages studded with marbles, which are supposed to show how the atoms determine crystallization--they are just FUNNY.

WALTER RUSSELL New York, July 28, 1931.







PJ 74
CHAPTER 12

REC #2 HATONN

MON., JULY 26, 1993 12:11 P.M. YEAR 6, DAY 344

MON., JULY 26, 1993

Continuation: Articles regarding Walter Russell, from the NEW YORK TIMES.

EINSTEIN SEEMS TO SAY THAT THE
UNALTERABLE CAN BE ALTERED
August 10, 1930

THEREFORE, ONE HOLDS, VIEWS OF BOTH DR. JACK­SON AND MR. RUSSELL ARE BORNE OUT.

To the Editor of the New York Times:

The letters of Dr. John E, Jackson and Walter Russell in The Times of Aug. 3 contain, respectively, "For nearly 300 years no one, not even a scientist, has had the temerity to question New­ton's laws of gravitation,' and "science needs the imagination of an artist or poet to synthesize her heterogeneous complexities .,," both of which statements seem to be representative of aca­demic static and dynamic thought, for the contributions of sci­ence to art and art to science are relative with respect to the analysis and synthesis of primitive symbolism.

The questioning of Newton's laws and Kepler's extensions is a timely and healthy inquiry directed at contemporary cosmoge­netics. The assimilation of knowledge within an individual ex­perience, therefore, can be regarded rightly as either static or dynamic, can be applied as a simple correlation of established facts, or can be accepted as a means for concentrating on and contributing to progressive thought.

In the latter instance it is clear that a metaphysical perspec­tive upon the collective result of recent scientific research is causing many to refer to earlier basic laws. For the most part this reversion seems to extend as far as Newton and from thence is carried forward again in general, through Faraday and Maxwell, Eddington, Compton, Heisenberg and Einstein. The net result permits a repostulation of the laws of gravitation linked with the electromagnetic theory and tied to the cosmic continuum by means of a conception or reconception of time, space and matter.

THE ARTISTIC "CENTRE"
In supporting Mr. Russell's request for fair treatment, it may be added that the abstractions of science, along with the reality of art, present a fundamental intellectual and physical process to which the effort and production of the individual is irrevocably linked. The binder is found in the symbolism of primitive form. Just as the mathematician frees his mind from the concrete by conceiving modern zero to be infinity, and from it working out or back to his problem by means of symbolic devices in com­mon usage within his field, so the metaphysician accepts the as­sumption of a point as the centre for induction and the scientist regards it as the beginning for all deduction and correlation.

If the laws of gravitation be considered as contributory rather than final, and if the electro-magnetic theory of a "field" be ac­cepted as local rather than inferential, then it is evident that the Russell genero-radiative concept of foci postulates an inert but not a natural centre-the "centre" used by the artist, poet, philosopher and scientist alike as a point for departure for all creative work. This "centre," however, seems to serve an addi­tional purpose, for it defines and subordinates the orbit of New­ton and the ellipses of Kepler--both of which are in elaboration of the Cartesian and Pythagorean theorems and axioms of coor­dinates.

MUST ASSUME FOCI
But in assuming the existence of "centres" (foci) as purely scientific abstractions within the cosmic structure (the recogni­tion of the actuality of coordinate systems of reference in rela­tion to infinite solar and planetary systems), we are able to dif­ferentiate within our mind the idea of force, acceleration, rota­tion and speed (time and distance), and to minimize the zero of the mathematician along with the esthetic and spiritual signifi­cance of the circle. The hypothesis then possible to establish provides a mental perspective on the metrics and geometries of both physical and cosmic space, and we find that Newton's laws contribute rather than define, and space itself resolves and evolves into a measurable unit in terms of physical content and direction. It remains to articulate and delineate our current knowledge from an inert point, which we can place into ab­stract, real or natural movement within our particular field as a true centre--the pure symbolism of which is evident because of the simplicity of the concept. If we do just that, and no more, we find that we must introduce the basic elements that form our individual opinion or experience with the laws of centripetal and centrifugal force. The application of these elements in logical or structural sequence (elements drawn from the contemporary re­search field of pure and applied science) provides a simple "tool" for effecting abstract, physical and social deduction so that we can bring any inert point into continuous movement, the direction of which is horizontal or vertical, with respect to the laws of gravitation, and the delineation of which forms a true and natural centre.

NEWTON'S LAWS OUESTIONED
To aid and abet an escape from academic finality by means of such generalities is admittedly the essence of temerity, but Newton's laws have been repeatedly, consistently and profitably questioned. They are rightly finite in analysis so why not let them provide for the infinite in synthesis?

In The Times of June 29 the pioneer achievement of Frank Lloyd Wright in the field of architectural form, design and the adaptation of materials, was outlined in a comprehensive article illustrating not only the functional relation of the engineer, the architect and the draftsman within the creative accomplishments of an individual, but also including contributions to modern ar­chitectural practice which may be attributed almost entirely to an understanding of Newton's dynamics. The catalogue of the Harvard Society for Contemporary Art states that Buckminster Fuller's dymaxion house is "the first complete attempt in archi­tectural design to acquire a symbolism of the fourth dimension as the designing method is literally from the 'inside out' on a radionic, time space and quantum basis." Mr. Fuller's approach to his problem is through spherical geometry and the application of simple dynamics to the evolution and introduction of new materials in the logical relation to height, bulk and weight re­quirements.

"Roadtown" of Edgar Chambless, a practical conception of continuous structure within which is integrated all ways of communication, and the utilities of service, along with the bal­anced social system, constitutes a recognized application of the laws of centripetal and centrifugal social force (the centraliza­tion and decentralization of population) and is based upon social dynamics.

My adaptation of historical and chronological time (the "inverted" or "coreless" pie-chart outlined in a letter to The Times of June 29 last) delivers a "linear scale," the simple graphics of which postulate the inert foci of Mr. Russell and give natural movement and direction to real and abstract deduc­tion, the dynamics of which is based upon the articulation of multiple correlations carried along at one time in logical, inte­grated and continuous sequence.

Recent correspondence from Geneva published in The Times leads us to believe that Dr. Einstein has the temerity to extend the pure symbolism of his mathematical abstractions to include a world application to child education--an indication which seems to bear out the viewpoint of Dr. Jackson and Mr. Russell that the future is behind us, is common property, and anyone, even a scientist, is privileged to alter the unalterable.

G.P. HERSEY,
Ridgefield, Conn., Aug. 6, 1930

* * *
Now, readers, I would think that the last paragraph above repre­sents the intent of "public property" of these GREAT ideas as well as almost any statement found thus far. These men, ALL, recognized they gained knowledge from a source somehow and somewhere "higher" than the presenting "self" AND this pro­jects that these higher bits of information are for mankind--NOT TO HIDE BENEATH A BUSHEL IN SECRET PLACES GARNERED BY ONLY SELECT GROUPS OF ELITE OR FANCIED SELF-APPOINTED "KEEPERS". PLEASE REC­OGNIZE THAT IN HIS DAY G.P. HERSEY WAS PERHAPS FAR BETTER RECOGNIZED THAN EITHER RUSSELL OR JACKSON.

Next comes a repeat of one we have already offered but I ask that Dharma retype it for I want it in her head, please. In the first offering we had "deleted lines" which were actually present but the one who did the copy work had carefully explained and marked the papers and Dharma just didn't see it in time to get the missing parts into that writing. It is important enough to re­peat it with the insertions. Please be patient for by the time we did that prior writing. Dharma had been at the keyboard over seven hours at start and the brain and the fingers get awash.

Further, I had a VERY GOOD REASON for allowing the printing of the information EXACTLY as copied, with the lines missing, BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO NOTICE VERY CAREFULLY--THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE THE WHOLE THING--YOU CANNOT KNOW OF THAT WHICH YOU SPEAK OR HAVE OPINION! YOU MUST HAVE ALL OF THE MISSING INFORMATION TO FORM VALID CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ANYTHING. YOU SCIENTIFIC MINDS WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAD YOUR IMPA­TIENCE WITH ME FOR PRESENTING ONLY THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT, DEAR ONES, IS THE HALF-TRUTH AT BEST, THAT HAS COME TO BE IN YOUR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SERVICES.

MR. RUSSELL FINDS SCIENTISTS TOO READY
TO ACCEPT THEORY
His Attempt at Reformation Not Based on Metaphysics, lie Declares.

The New York Times, Aug. 17, 1930.

To the Editor of The New York Times:

Since the publication in the TIMES of my statement that mod­ern science is without a foundation and needs a major surgical operation to put it in line for a logical cosmogenetic synthesis, I have been bombarded by telephone and by letters questioning this statement and others made in my book The Russell Genera­-Radiative Concept, recently published.

May I tell those people who think I have a superficial, meta­physical concept which I am trying to inject into practical sci­ence for its reformation that I am as thoroughly prepared to carry out my program with dynamic answers, not metaphysical ones, as Copernicus was when he upset an equally obstinate world of thoroughly satisfied Ptolemyites? Also I am as thor­oughly aware of the difficulties of uprooting established ideas as he was.

I am also thoroughly conversant not only with every experi­ment that has given science its present unstable state, but also with the wrongful deductions which have resulted from those experiments.

KNOWS SCIENTISTS' THEORIES
I am as familiar with the experiments and observations of Newton and Kepler as I am of those of Faraday, Cavendish, Rutherford, Bohr or Millikan, and I also am as familiar with the things which these great men did not see in their own experi­ments as those which they did see, and even then misinterpreted.

An observation of an effect of Nature is equal to an experi­ment and a proper deduction from either is more important than either.

Newton, for example, would have solved the other half of the gravitational problem if he had found out how that apple and the tree upon which It grew got up in the air before the ap­ple fell.

I challenge the world of science to correctly and completely answer that question. Let your readers qualify for the right to subject me to their criticism as an impractical visionary by first giving a dynamic answer to this by no means simple question.

Therefore I say to all my critics who wonder why I do not go into the laboratory and "perform experiments" that I do perform experiments in physical laboratories and make profound obser­vations in Nature's vast laboratory that have fitted me to make new and logical deductions from old experiments which have no inconsistencies and no exceptions.

EFFECTS OF MOTION ILLUSIONS
To illustrate: Suppose a man experimented with the moon running behind the trees as he ran, then set down his conclu­sions from the "facts", as he saw them, such as the correspon­dence of acceleration and deceleration to his speed, we could easily point out the error of such a deduction because we are familiar with the illusions of perspective.

Science has never considered the fact that in the universe of motion all effects of motion are illusions. Illusions are not lim­ited to perspective but to every electrical, chemical and as­tronomical relation.

Nature is the supreme deceiver, the champion "poker bluffer", who, with a simple hand, makes you think she has much.

Nature is simple. She has but one force (which she divides into two), one form (which she divides into many), and seven patterns (which she complexes by repeating them in such mar­velous systems of wave periodicities that it needs imagination, rather than eyesight, to coordinate them).

Nature can be beautifully described by that child's toy of hexagonal mirrors which makes the most exquisite and complex patterns in color and form out of a bit of feather, some chips of colored glass, a toothpick and other odds and ends.

Everyone knows how those simple things are not only com­plexed but glorified by such a treatment.

NATURE'S SIMPLE PRINCIPLES
My humble contribution to science is to point out these sim­ple principles of Nature which would, if known, have prevented one untruth to pile up on top of another until, even with the aid of experimentation, a theory which can survive five years is ex­ceptional.

I will warrant that the dinner coat which Sir Oliver Lodge wore in New York when he delivered his lecture on energy and atomic structure is still presentable, but Sir Oliver himself would under no consideration repeat that lecture today.

The entire modern theory of atomic structure is so utterly without parallel or precedent in Nature that fantasy only mildly expresses it. It is to be regretted that the profound thinking of profound men is thus being wasted on conclusions which cannot possibly endure. [H: It might be added that the profound thinking of those profound men are also kept from use and presentation by ones who do not understand the magnitude of the offering in point. It Is most certainly a time of coming together and sharing the gifts as given so that civilization CAN ENDURE.)

Scientists ignore Nature when they choose, or when mathe­matical formulae work out in accordance with preconceived premises. Scientists then become inventors and work out won­ders which Nature never thought of. I can cite hundreds of such inventions born of supposedly observed facts of experiment.

LAPLACE'S MISTAKES
Mathematics are useless if the premises they start with are wrong. La Place, the greatest mathematician of his day, "proved" many things which have since been disproved. He even went so far as to prove that the outer edges of his rings moved faster than their inner surfaces, and his contemporaries accepted that impossibility as Niels Bohr's "jumping electron" was accepted by his contemporaries.

Nature hasn't one separate series of laws for big mass and another series for small mass. She has one law for both, but science unhesitatingly invents a series of laws for little mass that outdoes the reliance of the Arthurian sages upon a credulous public.

The moons of Jupiter and the planets of the sun pursue their courses around their primaries in an orderly periodic fashion in strict obedience to the two forces which command and control them from two foci.

It would be the most astounding claim imaginable to state that this earth could suddenly jump to the orbit of Mars without consuming one-millionth of a second of time, yet that invention is the utterly fantastic and completely un­founded belief of modern science regarding the planets of the atom.

I could write volumes based upon modern electrical experi­mental data to prove that such a happening is not in Nature's scheme.

Science attributes this deduction to a "brilliant young Dane, Niels Bohr", who, working under Rutherford, proved it by ex­periment, backed by Rydburg's constant, Coulomb's law, math­ematics and the evidence of the spectroscope.

Of what use is Bohr's mathematical equation regarding the hydrogen spectrum, for example, if the four admittedly assumed premises upon which it is based are not in accord with Nature's plan of motion?

WRONG BASIC CONCLUSIONS
Of what value also is the spectroscopic evidence if the pre­sumption that band-spectra are caused by molecules and line spectra by atoms is found to be a wrong one? In respect to this I am prepared to offer consistent reasons why band and line spec­tra have another and more logical cause.

I can cite wrong premise after wrong premise which has caused science to form wrong basic conclusions, such as that there are separate negative and positive charges instead of dou­bly charged masses, also that positive and negative "charges" attract each other when the evidence in its favor is the simplest of Nature's illusions and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against such a law. Take only one for example: How does science explain the fact that in all decomposing compounds like charges seek like charges and repel all others? If this law were true the universe which we know could not hold itself to­gether, for all similar substances and atoms of substances would be explosive, and a pound of anyone substance would be im­possible.

WALTER RUSSELL
New York, Aug. 12, 1930

* * *

SCIENTISTS SHOULD EXPLAIN

The New York Times, Aug. 24, 1930.

Written: GENEVA VIOLA WOLCOTT, New York, Aug. 18, 1930.

To the Editor of the New York Times:

Owing to the fact that the world and his wife are becoming astro-minded, the letter from Walter Russell that appeared in the Aug. 17 issue of the Times impels me to air my views de­spite the fact that the press's attitude is decidedly against the "female of the species" going scientific.

Mr. Russell's arraignment of scientists who work by rod and plumbline, so to speak, and in many instance reckon without their host--Nature--stresses a striking example: From era to era scientists have explained the orbital ellipse, postulating the fact that in the solar system (by way of concrete example) the sun (Sol) forms one of the two foci of an ellipse, let us say, of the orbit of Earth. This, as every schoolboy knows, is inevitable.

Granted, but no one seems to have given a thought to the other focus. Kepler devised the radius vector in order to pro­vide for the sweep over equal areas in equal time as Earth per­formed its trajectory from perihelion to aphelion, then on again to perihelion. This device has been demonstrated by means of delineation, oral and written description until every student knows it as he knows his alphabet. So far, so good; but what of the other focus without which no ellipse is possible?

Now along comes Mr. Russell to demonstrate, first of all, a forcible axiom that appeared recently in the Times: "The only thing stronger than armies is an idea whose time has come."

Accounting for the other focus demonstrates Mr. Russell's idea (concept, rather) that the twin focus is a vacuous force functioning just as effectually as its mate, the sun. Thanks to everyday utilities, this function is within the grasp of the lay mind. Now, if the professionals decline to accept this view, why should they "hold out on us", to drop into the vernacular, by failing to account for the second focus without which no el­lipse is complete? [H: This is the same question I raise when disallowed from utilizing, with full recognition, Dr. Russell's work in the PLEIADES CONNECTION series of JOUR­NALS. Why do these people wish to keep this information under singular lock and key? We have no wish nor intent to validate nor pull down the thrust of such as US&P--but in checking most carefully in full detail, we found that even though some copyrights may well have been ASSUMED shifted off to said "University"--the proper corporate records do not present such. The line of appropriate pa­perwork would have to explicitly shift each and every title and manuscript in every detail. They do not! Further, if the material is such that it is "joint" but only one facet of in­formation is utilized--it is "literally" not in question if an­other UTILIZES THE MATERIAL ISSUED AS FACT TO FURTHER FACT OR DRAW OPPOSING CON­CLUSIONS. We who offered the CONNECTIONS series only wished honor and attention in a most wondrous way--to Walter Russell. We do not share the same appraisal of the work of Lao nor to her intentions or actions. Lao was an avowed humanist and although her so-called metaphysical conceptions were "new age" and even "spiritual" on the sur­face of it--she was humanistic in every recognized aspect.]

Surely they are not afraid of losing their laurels! Perish the thought! If so, they differ from the sportsmen who are always scouting about to enlist amateurs into the professional ranks. Let us hear from the acknowledged scientists why the second focus has been ignored; also if there is any law in celestial me­chanics against adopting new discoveries--inventions, if you will. GENEVA VIOLA WOLCOTT

* * *
These articles bring forth a lot of information and a lot of ques­tions, don't they? From "why not recognize women's input" to "wise reasoning" is visible from the above article--from, by the way, a very prominent personage of the day!

I think I shall ask for a break here so that we have the approxi­mate amount of material for the next chapter without interrupt­ing it.

I hope you are finding the information interesting and thought provoking for I find the puzzle fascinating--most especially since you find yourselves in something similar to a confrontation on the magnitude of a "Darwin" Scopes trial. The great difference here is that no "trial" IS EVEN ALLOWED AND THE WRITER, DHARMA, IS CONVICTED, CHARGED AND PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR NOT ONLY WRITING--BUT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BY SIMPLY BEING ALIVE. YES, INDEED, INTERESTING!