1982-08-12 7th Annual Business Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

You can leave a message using the contact form below to contact the ISUS Secretary.


Saturday, August 14, 1982, at the Towne Building, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The business meeting of the International Society of Unified Science was called to order at 1:43 by Frank Meyer, president. Six members were present.

  1. Treasurer Rainer Huck was not present to give his report. Member Gilroy read the report, stating in summary that the current net balance of ISUS is $693.37. The treasurer's report was approved.
  2. The secretary then read the minutes of the Sixth Annual Convention, held at the North American Rockwell plant in Downey, California. The minutes were approved.
  3. Senior editor of Reciprocity, Jan Sammer, next presented his report. He stated that 1000 copies of issue XIII and 250 of XIII were printed and that each issue cost $1054. Sammer said that typesetting would cost another $3/page. Satz brought up the lack of forms in the past two issues (these forms were voted at the previous convention to be included in each issue of Reciprocity). Gilroy agreed to turn over the final version of the forms to Sammer. President Meyer said that Reciprocity is now being sent only to members, subscribers, and former associates, and that there are now approximately 75 subscribers who are not members of ISUS. The editors report was accepted.
  4. The president then called for Old Business. There was none. The president then asked for New Business.
    1. Based on an earlier discussion in the morning, member Gilroy moved that secretary Satz prepare a magazine ad for ISUS and the Reciprocal System. Halprin seconded the motion, which then carried. It was suggested that the first draft of the ad be completed by mid-October.
    2. Member Halprin moved that we increase membership dues to $20; member Sammer seconded the motion. However, the motion had to be dropped because there were not enough Board members present to approve it.
    3. Next, a number of measures to improve the status of ISUS were approved by the group:
      1. Senior Editor Sammer was authorized to obtain a foundation grant to fund the publishing of Reciprocity.
      2. Local study groups were urged to officially register with the secretary of ISUS.
      3. Members are to work on devising an experiment, observation or test of the Reciprocal System that can be performed on the space shuttle or with the space telescope.
    4. Satz moved that ISUS be empowered to accept loans from members, provided that there are no legal restrictions. Member Halprin seconded the motion, which then carried.
    5. Gilroy moved that ISUS request contributions from members specifically for the advertising campaign. The motion carried.
  5. Next, election of board members was held. Members Anderson, Huck, Meyer, Satz, and Studtmann were up for re-election. All were re-elected by acclamation. Since an insufficient number of Board members were present, no officers could be elected. The elections will have to be carried out by mail after the convention.
  6. Finally, the meeting turned to the question of where to hold next years convention. Member Gilroy moved that the president poll the members of the Board to see whether Vancouver or some other location would be suitable. Member Halprin seconded the motion, which then carried.
  7. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30.

Ronald W. Satz
Secretary, ISUS



Ronald Satz: We can now open up for a discussion. Are there any questions for Dewey, or anything else?

Brad Elkin: I missed the points of two of the numbers—No. 4 and No. 22. I got lost.

Dewey Larson: No. 4 is the admission by the architects of the present-day atomic structure that the structure does not exist physically. And what was the other one?

B.E.: Twenty two.

D.L.:Twenty two? That’s the present-day conclusions regarding the galaxies, the conclusions in general: I didn’t specify what—

B.E.: That galaxies were older than the stars was twenty. Maybe I misplaced twenty then, if twenty two is about the galaxies.

D.L.: Twenty tells you that the particles from which the galaxies originated gathered together by the process—whatever process might exist (they don’t tell us what process it was)—but twenty-one says they kept going outward away from each other. Well, what I am just pointing out was that it’s a little difficult to reconcile the two things—one that they aggregated, and the other that they separated. Both were going on presumably all the time.

Maurice Gilroy: Could you explain the contrafactual assumption, the nature of the energy source?

D.L.: Assumption C—that’s the assumption that the energy of the stars is produced by the transformation of hydrogen into successively higher elements. We don’t agree with that. And, as I have pointed out, it is the conclusions that are absurd.

Frank Meyer: This diagram is going to be printed in Volume III, isn’t it?

D.L.: Well, I don’t know about that, if this diagram will be printed in that. Jan may even have it printed by his lady friend in a magazine.

F.M.: I’d like to hear again how you account for the ultra-density of white dwarf stars, and pulsars, and quasars in terms of the reciprocal relation between space and time.

D.L.: Well, there’s nothing strange about that. We know that there are stars that are very diffuse, and we know that there in which the density is, as one man described it, “it’s nothing but a red-hot vacuum.” and stars that have diameters equal to the whole solar system, even though they have a mass no greater than our own sun. They have densities that are in some cases a millionth the density of our own sun.

F.M.: Very low.

D.L.: The sun is a million times as dense as they are. Now, the result of our reciprocal relationship is that there also exist stars—See, those stars are very diffuse because there is a large amount of space between the atoms of the stars. On the reciprocal basis there are also stars in which there is a large amount of time between the atoms. And that has the opposite effect: it causes the density, the apparent density. In either case the matter isn’t changed. Matter is never very far from the density of ordinary materials like iron or other metals. It’s never very far in either direction, but the apparent density of the giant stars is a million times less, and the apparent density of some of these white dwarf stars is a million times more, because it has that much empty space, we may say, between the atoms. That may sound like a ridiculous idea, “empty time,” but it’s a necessary consequence of the reciprocal idea.

F.M.: The ones that have a lot of empty time are very dense?

D.L.: Sure. If you’ve got empty space, that decreases your density. If you’ve got empty time, that increases it. You get the empty time by having speeds greater than that of light, so that the stars move away from each other in time. It’s just the reverse that you have with the star that throws its constituents out into space. You have the interior of the star throwing its constituents out into time. If you stop to think about it, it’s not so strange after all. It’s a logical extension of the reciprocal idea.

David Halprin: Going on from that, have you formulated the equivalent energy-momentum-type equations that are fitting for the Reciprocal System as opposed to the other ones which can’t take this into account.

D.L.: The energy of the star?

D.H.: Well, energy before, energy afterwards, or similar type laws.

D.L.: Well, remember now that this star exists in space. You have a spatial extension, because the only motion of the star that you are extending to speeds greater than that of light is linear motion. The star is still composed of ordinary matter, and it exists in a location in space, so you can see it; and you see it in this restricted size. So you know what energy you get from it, because you get the radiation and if you know the distance of the star—that’s how they know that the temperature is somewhere around 20,000 degrees, all the way from there on up to the hundreds of thousands in some of the very small ones.

D.H.: Well, perhaps I didn’t word this correctly. Normally if one takes an ordinary bomb and knows its mass and explodes it, one can talk about the energy of the explosion as converted into the energy of all the pieces that are scattering, more or less. Now if one extends that into the explosion of something that’s so great that a lot of these speeds go into the faster-than-light speeds, what then happens to these equations?

D.L.: Well, some of your energy is going into the higher speeds.

D.H.: But then we’ve got a certain problem here, haven’t we, because we’ve got speeds in excess of the speed of light.

D.L.: You mean another problem in calculating it?

D.H.: Yes.

D.L.: Yes, but actually the calculations on these astronomical objects are not accurate enough to give us much concern about that at the moment anyway, because we have nothing to check it against. There are a number of calculations that we haven’t gotten around to yet, but that’s something Ron was going to do. I’m going to lay out the framework and he can go ahead and put the figures in. Because he’s getting some software for that purpose. I’m hardware.

B.E.: The implications of increasing the distance in time making things more dense, would it be OK to assume then that there is no upper bound on the density of an object, all you need is for an explosion to separate it far enough in time for the separate atoms, and you can get, well, I won’t say infinitely dense, because that makes no sense to me, but as dense as you want?

D.L.: Well, it’s limited by the size of the explosion.

B.E.: Is there a limit to the size of the explosions, then, that would limit the density?

D.L.: You see, you have a limit to the size of the star, and that automatically sets a limit to what you’re talking about.

B.E. A limit to the size of the star?

D.L. Yea. Well, it’s not quite certain whether the top is about sixty or about a hundred times the mass of our own sun, but there are no stars beyond that limit, whatever it is.

B.E.: OK, but that’s mass, that’s not density.

D.L.: Well, but the mass of the star determines the force of the explosion, and that again determines the density. The densest stars are estimated at least somewhere around a million or so times the density of the sun, but those figures are very uncertain, and one of the problems is, a result of this reciprocal relation, the most massive stars are the smallest, as you would expect from this relation. that’s kind of a puzzle to the astronomers.

F.M.: I wonder whether you think I was correct or incorrect this morning—

D.L.: Oh, you were probably correct, Frank.

F.M.: Well, I want you to really think about this. Was I correct or incorrect when I implied that the distances between the parts of a star, even if it is ultra-dense gas, are never as close together as the atoms in a solid. I don’t know whether I made that explicit, but I was thinking that that is so. But now I’m beginning to wonder whether it is.

D.L.: Well, it depends on what you call “close.” If you’re talking about the effective distance, then, of course, you’re off by a million times.

F.M.: Does that mean that the atoms can come within a millionth of an angstrom of one another?

D.L.: Well, that’s why I was—We have to talk the same language. You’re now talking about space, and I said “effective space.” And your effective space depends on how much empty time you’ve got in there.

F.M.: Suppose that we’ve got a lot of empty time; that means there is very little empty space.

D.L.: No, it means there’s empty space.

F.M.: There’s no empty space at all. Now, a star is made up of atoms, isn’t it?

D.L.: Surely.

F.M.: Now, as far as the atoms, let’s say in a pulsar, as a density that Lloyd Motz says—

D.L.: A pulsar is nothing but a white dwarf.

F.M.: Sure, sure.

D.L.: It just happens to have a little more speed than a white dwarf.

F.M.: It is a little more dense than a white dwarf.

D.L.: No, I don’t think so.

F.M.: You don’t think that the pulsar in the Crab Nebula is more dense than the white dwarf companion of Sirius?

D.L.: Now, wait a minute. The white dwarf companion of Sirius is not a very dense white dwarf.

F.M.: No, it’s not.

D.L.: So the pulsar in the white dwarf is dense, but I don’t think it’s any denser than one of those in the planetaries.

F.M.: I think it’s reported to be about fifty thousand times the density of water.

D.L.: Yea, but that’s not very dense for a white dwarf. You’ve got to get up a lot more than that. See, your range of white dwarf densities is just about the same in one direction
as the densities of the giants is in the other direction.

F.M.: True. But now, to come back to the question that is really bothering me now,
how close do you think the atoms get together in the white dwarf companion of Sirius?

D.L.: When you talk about “close,” what’s your definition?

F.M.: We know that in solid matter the atoms are to within 10 to the minus eight centimeters of one another.

D.L.: Well, we don’t really. That’s an effective figure too. You can’t get anything closer to anything else than one unit of space, and the atoms in the solid are in effect closer than that, because of the time situation.

F.M.: OK, the point is though that the evidence that we have that the atoms are really 10 to the minus eight centimeters is that the wavelength of the radiation that they refract is measured to be one millionth of a centimeter.

D.L.: Yea, but it still goes back to the same thing. If you’re talking about that same thing, if you’re talking about something that’s analogous to the 10 to the minus eight, then you got a star that’s shrunk down to a very small—

F.M.: So then I was incorrect than a millionth of a centimeter. The distances are less.

D.L.: If you’re talking on that basis—

F.M.: Even though the star is in the gaseous phase.

D.L.: That’s right. But it’s a time gas. It’s a gas in time.

F.M.: Sure, sure, I see now. That really disrupts my case that I presented this morning.

D.L.: Well, I’m sorry, I have disrupted a lot of cases in my day, Frank, and I’m sorry.

System Administrator