Sorry, this book is Nothing but Motion (first volume) - The Universe of Motion is the third volume... 
I'd like to quote an excerpt from the August 1973 session, chanelled by Don:
(I think that the second superscript in the transcription shouldn't exist - does anyone know if it's correct?)
The explanation given by Oxal is strikingly similar to Larson's Reciprocal System, but it goes further:
This part goes beyond Larson's theory, but the similarities of the first part are remarkable. Would it corroborate the fact that the chaneller must have some training (or at least the vocabulary) in certain subjects in order to channel properly?
Anyway, Don and Carla are quoted as members of the New Science Advocates Executive Board, so maybe the relationship goes way before 1979.

I'd like to quote an excerpt from the August 1973 session, chanelled by Don:
Quote:I am Oxal. I am with this instrument. I have been called for the purpose of speaking to you on the nature and reality of time. Time is a field, like unto your electric field, your magnetic field. But what is a field, my friends? A field is an effect. A field is in your minds. A field has different effects at different distances. So does time. As you have recently stated, time and space are dependent, one upon another. It has also been stated that they are totally independent, and have no relationship.
Both of these statements are true. It simply depends on your point of view. The people of your planet at present do not appreciate the number of dimensions that are available for one to experience the creation. All of these dimensions are made up of a single place and a single time, and, for that matter, a single dimension, which has no dimension. But it is necessary to go from where you are to where you will be. Therefore, we shall speak of time as you know it and try to lead you to that place where you will know it.
Time is a field. It is space-dependent. Space is a field and is time-dependent. For this reason you recognize a reciprocal nature. The relationship between the two is the third power [of] displacement in either. This may be recognized by a simple equation or formula. T3[superscript] divided by 3 is equal to S3[superscript - is this one right?!]. S3[superscript] divided by 3 is equal to T.
There are three dimensions: therefore, the numeral “3” is used, both as a power and as a constant. Permeability of the field is dependent upon the speed of the reciprocal field. Your present constant, that which you call the velocity of light, is the basic speed of the field. The permeability of that which you know as matter is dependent upon this constant. In other words, my friends, the densities of which your world is composed, and the densities of the other planes of existence as you know them, are time-dependent. Their permeability is a function of apparent speed.
(I think that the second superscript in the transcription shouldn't exist - does anyone know if it's correct?)
The explanation given by Oxal is strikingly similar to Larson's Reciprocal System, but it goes further:
Quote:Condensation in dense form results from oscillations between reciprocally related space/time entities and permeability, or the basic density of this material, is a function of the apparent velocity of what you call light. There are six spaces and six times in each density. In your present form and state of awareness you recognize three. The other three you travel in in[sic] the state of sleep. In doing this.[sic] you become, quite often, mismatched with your awareness you possess in your waking state. For this reason you are able to perceive events that will occur in what is to you in the waking state the future. However, the future is an illusion, as is the past, for there is only the present. It is possible to slide, shall we say, along with respect to your awareness of time in the waking state simply by removing through the process of normal sleep the confines of the physical illusion. Space and time are then, as before, reciprocally related.
This part goes beyond Larson's theory, but the similarities of the first part are remarkable. Would it corroborate the fact that the chaneller must have some training (or at least the vocabulary) in certain subjects in order to channel properly?
Anyway, Don and Carla are quoted as members of the New Science Advocates Executive Board, so maybe the relationship goes way before 1979.