Re: What is the proto-matter?

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

You are mistaken because particle interactions primarily occur due to charge interactions. Neutral particle have almost no interaction with normal matter. Neutrons can pass through several feet of concrete. Conversely, concrete would easily pass through a dense sea of neutrons. Neutrinos pass through the entire Earth without interacting.

So, no, an alpha particle would definitely not be bounced back from collisions as the alpha particle would generally not feel any electrostatic forces as it passes through what is effectively a sea of neutrons.

If Carl thinks that the vacuum really is a void, then that is impossible because a void can't have any properties such as there being a recognizable light wave travelling within its volume. This can only occur if there is some material to mediate the existence of the wave and give it properties. I would say that if such a void existed, it would just appear an area where no light could travel or any force like gravity could penetrate.

-Franklin

On Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 03:21:38 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

What you are saying has no bearing to what is being contended here.

In your “vacuum as a sea of positron/electron dipoles”, a particle, such as an alpha particle, will not travel any distance when fired before it gets bounced back from collision.

But in the background type of vacuum that Carl is opting for (viz. “A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three-dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter”), this alpha particle can travel continuously at uniform velocity in a straight line, according to Newton’s first law of motion.

Since he has laid down his choice path, I am only prodding Carl on till we get to hara-kiri or eldorado.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 6:19 PM
To: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Akinbo,

In my model, the bonds are electrostatic and the electrostatic force is due to a phased very high frequency wave which is the same phenomenon as light and radio waves. So, you could say that the bond is composed of light waves. 

I would also tend to agree with #2 because the vacuum as a sea of positron/electron dipoles can never truly be displaced from any volume of space and this sea is required to order to mediate the high frequency light waves which cause bonding forces. 

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 03:34:10 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Carl,

Yes, to some extent one knows those one can disagree with without being disagreeable. And you are one of them.

I don’t think any one should prefer to involve what you call orchestration where a more rational explanation that cannot be reduced to absurdity is available. That is why you are asked to provide one such explanation and we are in the process of seeing what it can be reduced to as I noted in my message.

Let me also say, that I didn’t start from what you refer to as “winking idea”, it was the end of a process and not the beginning. And by pushing you into making your own explanation, I am exploring if you will eventually end up winking as well.

 

Although, you say you have abandoned the concept, if light remains a transverse wave, then it must be propagating in a vacuum (or background as you prefer) which must be a physical medium with the required elastic properties. So, when Carl moves what does his motion do to this medium is a question that arises? I used a liquid poured into a tube and listed 5 options:

1). The vacuum is displaced out of the tube like how air gets displaced.

2). The vacuum gets mixed with the liquid to form a new mixture.

3). Vacuum does not exist and has no physical properties.

4). Vacuum ceases to exist and its place is taken by the liquid.

5). Or what other suggestion?

You said #2 was nearest to what you have in mind but prefer to use “background” instead of vacuum. This is okay. Now using background in place of vacuum, you have not informed whether the inter-atomic bond is part of that background OR something different from it, and then examine the consequence of this choice. Your initial response is that the bond is like light. Is the bond then composed of particles or wave? Let us use light instead of moving to gravity.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 10:59 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

On, "it is central to the argument/discussion about what 'place' and 'motion' are":

It appears we have decidedly different definitions for 'place'.  I don't believe I've encountered anyone else who uses the word the way you do.  As I recall, your notion of motion (not trying to make a rhyme) is that things don't actually move, the distance between them and other things, either perishes or comes into existence.  Years ago, when you first tried to explain it, I thought of portions of space (or whatever) winking into or out of existence.  And, again, I don't believe I've encountered anyone else having the same notion. 

I tend to dislike things (in physics) which I see as requiring orchestration.  The whole 'winking' thing is an example.  A baseball flying through the air is affected by gravity and buffeted by the atmosphere.  Nothing more.  I don't (and frankly can't) fathom the space along its flight path winking out of existence in front of it, and winking into existence behind it.  How does it 'know' to do that?  And especially for the ones which need to wink in.  They can't know, because they don't even exist at the time they would need to know - in order to wink in.  (That is, unless there's orchestration.)

I don't intend the following to be disrespectful.  And, just because we view some things differently, doesn't mean I don't hold you in high regard.  That said, you used the word absurdity, and quoted Newton as saying crazy.  It strikes me that those are appropriate terms for the winking idea.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/13/2025 1:47 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Re: “For me, a 'place' is a coordinate or geometric region.  So, background is in a place.  Matter, too, is in a place.  That is, they are located, or have locations.”

What is in a place is the place. But for now, I will not dwell on it. Maybe later. Carl is a place and the place where Carl is, is Carl. No other thing or other place, either of matter or non-matter is in that place. And when Carl moves he carries ALL THAT place along with him (atoms, their molecular bonds, etc).

 

Re: “I'm not seeing why atomic/molecular bonds wouldn't/couldn't do the same”

On the scenario you are offering to explain bond between atoms, I think we should better examine that and reduce it to being correct or to being an absurdity, because it is central to the argument/discussion about what “place” and “motion” are.

Are you suggesting that what keeps a molecule like H⁺Cl^- together is that they are firing light beams at each other and the region between them is “bathed in light”? Or are you just trying to find a way for how to explain how a region between the two atoms, which is non-matter and should therefore belong to the background (like the S_r that Newton mentioned), can accompany the molecule in its motion? If so, does it logically succeed?

To keep things focused and concise, let me pause here as well...

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7:57 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

You have covered a fair amount of ground here.  Allow me to focus on a few points - else this would get rather lengthy.  We can come back to others as you wish.

You said, "Background is a place. Matter too is a place."  For me, a 'place' is a coordinate or geometric region.  So, background is in a place.  Matter, too, is in a place.  That is, they are located, or have locations.

You said, "If the [atomic] bonds, devoid of physical matter are part of the moving liquid particles, then we have two regions of space, both devoid of any physical matter occupying the same place."  That sentence seems wonky, but if I understand it correctly, I'll offer this: In the scenario I gave of the region bathed in light from two stars, is there any location (coordinate) within it which could be identified as not having light from both stars?  To phrase it differently, assume one star only emits red light, and the other only green.  is the any location (coordinate) within it which could be identified as not being both red and green?

Now, if light isn't doing it for you, then let's use the gravity of both stars.  Is there any location (coordinate) within the region which could be identified as not experiencing gravity related to both stars?

The point I am making is that they overlap - they concurrently occupy the same location(s).  In our physical realm, exclusivity reigns.  In the non-physical realm, I don't think that restriction exists.  I have mentioned that I'm thinking gravity is the background.  It's ubiquitous - and non-exclusionary.  If it is the background, and light (EM radiation) traverses it, all the while maintaining its continuity, I'm not seeing why atomic/molecular bonds wouldn't/couldn't do the same.

This has already gotten longer than I expected, so I'll stop here.

Kind regards,
Carl

--------------

On 8/12/2025 2:31 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

So, lets ponder about your answer. Newton too had previously contemplated this in his paper, De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum, written in Latin (usually referred to for short as De Gravitatione)...

“...The parts of space are motionless. If they did move, we would have to choose between two stories about what was going on. We could say that a part of space ‘moves’ in the sense in which Descartes says that bodies ·strictly and properly· ‘move’, which implies that (i) when a part of space moves, it is translated from the neighbourhood of the parts of space that immediately surround it into the neighbourhood of some other parts of space. Or we could say that (ii) when a part of space moves, it is translated from one place to another. ·But a place is a part of space, so· (ii) implies that the moving part of space is translated out of itself; unless we postulate that there are two ·complete· spaces that everywhere coincide, a moving one S_m and one that is at rest S_r, so that the movement of a part of S_m involves a translation of that item from the corresponding part of S_r to a different part of S_r. ·That is crazy·.”

Your background should correspond with S_r.

Background is a place. Matter too is a place. So, we are being asked to contemplate the idea that two places can coincide in one place, a one at rest and another that can move. I will not call it crazy. We can examine the logicality of it.

You have earlier said, vacuum, now called background, is: “A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three-dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter”

Now, between the molecules or atoms of the referenced liquid, are molecular and atomic bonds which are regions devoid of any physical matter. What are the consequences that arise as a result?

If the bonds, devoid of physical matter are part of the moving liquid particles, then we have two regions of space, both devoid of any physical matter occupying the same place.

If the bonds are part of the background, then with each motion of the fluid, the molecules will have their molecular bonds been broken and mended as the liquid is poured away from its previous background into another. As you say, “the liquid moves away from its previously associated background and over to other (not new) background.  All the way along, it is passing through background - or, rather, the background is passing through the relatively moving liquid”

Are the bonds a part of the background or not? Note that this bond is not restricted to the microscopic level, as gravitational bonds are not technically different. When the solar system moves, is the radius of Earth to Sun part of the background or not?

Do you now see why Newton feels this is crazy? What is your response to the craziness?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 7:41 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

Yes, #2 was pretty close.  I just wasn't liking the word 'mixture' as that implies some of this and some of that in a mutually exclusive fashion.  My view is that it's not a mutually exclusionary thing. 

As for your other question...  If the test tube (and its local environment) is at rest relative to the background, during the process of being poured into the tube, the liquid moves away from its previously associated background and over to other (not new) background.  All the way along, it is passing through background - or, rather, the background is passing through the relatively moving liquid.

Kind regards,
Carl

-----------

On 8/11/2025 11:20 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Will further digest your response, and reply again.

But don't you think you should be going for option 2, replacing "vacuum" with "background"?

And before being poured into the tube, from what you wrote, if I get you right, I take it that the liquid was in a mixture with the background. During its being poured into the tube, does it leave that background behind and assume a new background? Or does it take its background along with it as its molecules move and flow into the tube?

I will respond more later tomorrow as I said.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 6:58 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

Regarding light, I used to be firmly in the wave camp.  Not so much anymore.  I sent out a link to a paper in March which had the following:

Photons and Speed Limiters

 

The speed of light is fastest in a vacuum.  It is considerably slower in various translucent substances, glass for example.  Glass is not a medium for light, at least not in the sense that is necessary for the propagation of light.  Instead, it’s simply a speed limiter.  Similarly, the field is just another speed limiter for light.  Other than limiting the speed of light to c, it plays no other role in the propagation of light.

 

Because photons are massless, the instant they are emitted, they are traveling at whatever speed the limiter imposes.  If in a vacuum, they are instantly traveling at c.  If under water, then they are instantly traveling at approximately three-fourths c.  And, if they pass from one limiter to another, say water to glass to vacuum, they instantly travel at the new limiter’s speed.  There is no time spent accelerating (or decelerating). 

Yes, space has values for permittivity and permeability.  The value for permeability value doesn't really change when light passes through translucent substances like glass or water, but the permittivity value does.  At this point, I am going to shift to the background - which permeates (is through) everything, rather than referring to space specifically.  I am thinking that the reason the background has a permittivity value is because it (whatever it is) affects the speed of light in the same way that translucent substances do.  As such, the permittivity values are additive.  When light passes through glass, it is passing through both the glass and the background, and the sum of each of their permittivity values is what we see.

On your five point question, I am going to replace 'vacuum' with 'background' as above.  My answer would fall under 5.  Consider light from a star, one light-day away.  If we consider a 3D geometric region of the background at that distance, it is flooded with light from the star passing through it.  If we then add another star one light-day away, at a 60 degree angle from the first star, our region is flooded with double the light.  It's not that the light from one extinguishes, displaces or in any way affects the light from the other.  The are equally through each other.  As such, it's not that the liquid poured into the test tube does anything to the background.  It's all still there.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/11/2025 4:01 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Yes, puzzles are meant to be solved.

Re: “A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three-dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter”

I accept your definition (although some claim it is not so and that it is constituted of positrons and electrons (poselectrons).

So, lets conduct thought experiments...

You have a vacuumed test-tube. Light waves travel through it. Unless you take light as particles, that implies that this “three-dimensional region devoid of any physical matter” is capable of vibrating and storing energy while it is in transit. We are also informed, and I don’t know if you disagree, that in spite of being devoid of matter, it has properties like permittivity and permeability. If you don’t disagree then the existence is established, since what does not exist cannot have properties.

 

So, when we pour a liquid into this test-tube, which of the following happens

1). The vacuum is displaced out of the tube like how air gets displaced.

2). The vacuum gets mixed with the liquid to form a new mixture.

3). Vacuum does not exist and has no physical properties.

4). Vacuum ceases to exist and its place is taken by the liquid.

5). Or what other suggestion?

When you indicate your choice, we can examine it further.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 3:48 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

I find your notion of space (vacuum) as existing to be puzzling.  A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter.  It’s not that such a void exists per se.  Therefore, I find the notion of it coming into or going out of existence as flawed.

As for the glass of beer, per the foregoing, the vacuum between the air molecules didn’t “go” anywhere.  And, the air molecules simply got displaced.  The didn’t cease to exist.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/10/2025 3:07 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the compliment.

Is there any concept that Physics (or as it used to be called, Natural Philosophy) should not probe? 

Should the existence or non-existence of Soul be subject to logical examination or is it a question of faith (or an axiom as philosophers may prefer to say)?

I ask because you are making claims concerning existence of soul and its maturity. Others who also believe in soul, may claim that it grows with the individual. And yet others may say nothing like soul exists. I respect your caveat and I am not pressing you on which direction to go and not to go.

On the second point. Take "light" as analogous to "space (vacuum)". Both can be present or absent. Both can come into existence and go out of existence, in part or as a whole. And I believe this is continuously happening as we speak. When you pour a beer into a glass, where has the air and the vacuum between the air molecules gone to? It has ceased to exist. But we know it used to be there because light waves used it to propagate when the glass was empty.

You must have heard that more space that didn't exist is now coming into existence, usually referred to as Hubble expansion. It is not that the galaxies are spreading into pre-existing space. New space is still being created out of nothing.

Let me pause here...

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2025 9:08 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Ah, Akinbo, ever the consummate philosopher.  (Recall that I once said I consider you the purest philosopher amongst us.)

My comment regarding autonomy and freedom of thought was in response to what Cornelis wrote: "What makes you think you are controlling the waves behaviors as you yourself are a composition of them."  (Emphasis added.)  It struck me that whatever the waves do is what we do - we can't do otherwise, as we are not in control.

Now, I didn't intend to go here, but since you pressed the point, my philosophy says that our autonomy and freedom of thought are not derived from anything in our physical composition - electrolytes, et. al.  That's the purview of the soul - which exists beyond the physical realm.

While the soul is mature all throughout mortal life, it takes time for babies and children to gain their faculties.  So, when did I start having freedom of thought?  As I gained my faculties.

To your second point, I agree that someone who is born blind would have no concept of light or dark - other than as words in a discussion.  As for covering one eye, since eyes are a redundant system, either one (or only one) can provide all the input to the brain.  It's not that the covered eye ceases to exist, it simply isn't necessary.  I would tend to agree that the covered eye doesn't "see" darkness, but that's only because the brain is flooded with imagery from the uncovered eye, so darkness isn't perceived by the brain.

However, if you're in a completely darkened room with both eyes uncovered, are you "seeing" darkness/blackness.  Your eyes (and brain) can certainly perceive the lack of light.  What does covering one eye do then?  What does uncovering it do?  Is it popping into existence ex nihilo?

Kind regards,
Carl

--------------

On 8/9/2025 3:18 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Carl,

You said a few things which fall in the category of “belief”, and not “knowledge”.

At what level does your autonomy, freedom of thought, good, evil, right, wrong originate because I know that at the level of electron, proton, and the ions that enable the electrical signals in your brain, there is none of the things you mention. Or do the electrolytes in your own brain differentiate good and bad?

 

On “Shifting to where everything came from, etc”

Unconsciously, because you fall into category of “is”, and have always been an “is”, it is difficult to contemplate what is in the category of “is not”, unless you want to so to speak, think without ceasing as Newton would say. To contemplate the state of “is not” requires thinking at the next level like Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is not easy.

I will give you two examples to worry about...

1) When did Carl become an “is” and started having freedom of thought, know good and evil, etc? By my use of when implies that the “ride” started at sometime in the past and not an infinite past.

2) Open both eyes, look around, then cover one. What do you see from the covered one? You don’t see darkness. You don’t see anything. That covered eye ceases to exist. But suddenly if you open the eye it starts to exist again ex nihilo. Many sighted people assume that the for the blind everywhere is dark. Not so! To the blind nothing can be visualized, not even a darkness.

Same with big bang. You ask where everything came from because you are “sighted”. There is no where and there is no when in the sense you are looking at it.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 10:23 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

So, we are just along for the ride?  We have no autonomy, no freedom of thought?  We are all predestined to do or not do whatever throughout the entirety of our individual existences?  If so, there is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong, and nothing whatsoever matters. 

Shifting to where everything came from.  The big bang is ex nihilo.  Doesn't the proto-medium (or your tensionable media) have the same problem?  They were just always there?  They had no beginning?  Even so, what caused the initial disturbance?  It smacks as being just as magic as what AJ decries as, "The entire physics model rests on hundreds, if not thousands of 'just is' axioms."

----------

On 8/8/2025 1:16 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:

Carl 

Waves interact with waves.  Both you and the coffee cup are conglomerations of focused wave patterns.  Andy an I have very much the same view. 

I might ask a philosophical question.  What makes you think you are controlling the waves behaviors as you yourself are a composition of them.

Cornelis Verhey

On Fri, Aug 8, 2025, 11:15 AM Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com> wrote:

This conversation strikes me as:

Person 1) The apple fell because of gravity.

Person 2) But, since we don't know what gravity actually is, the apple didn't fall.

The following are questions for AJ:

If the proto-medium is the basis for everything, and all matter (as we perceive it) is just standing waves or tension gradients (or whatever) in the medium, then why do/should I have any control over it?  For example, if there is a coffee mug's worth of emerged matter on my desk, and I go to grab it with my hand to pick it up, why doesn't it just ignore my hand?  Or, why doesn't my hand just pass through it?

Why should I be able to bend the proto-medium to my will?

If it's the father (all matter was caused, created, emerged via it), how is it also the son (subordinate to my will, my actions)?  [Yes, I employed religious phraseology.]

Curiously,
Carl

-----------

On 8/7/2025 9:21 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:

Franklin

Did you not read the argument against that.

"

Science has for millennia assumed stuff just exists independently of empty distance.  Then they assumed forces, such as gravity, simply exist.  They assume motion just exists.          

The entire physics model rests on hundreds, if not thousands of "just is" axioms across dozens of scientific disciplines.  No explanation.  They just are.  

"

Cornelis Verhey

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025, 10:37 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

Did you not read my reasoning that the existence of the electron is a certainty and therefore there is no need to explain where is came from.

Sent from my iPhone

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

You are severely mistaken.

A more recent reference can be found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerknes_force

That definitely does not sound like the force increases and decreases. It says "proportional to the inverse square of the distance".

I don't know what form of cognitive dissidence you are using to ignore this very simple experimental fact. I don't where you think you are getting the idea that I have "misrepresented" the facts. It looks like you're just making up your own so called facts. I double down on the fact that this experiment directly demonstrates 1/r^2 force generated by phased waves.

You can read the original paper if you like which illustrates how the experiment was done:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4fwwAQAAMAAJ

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 08:42:34 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

The diagram shows what would be the two waves coming from your electron and positron on opposite side in red and blue.  These waves superimpose to resulting in only the dynamic green standing wave pattern being detected between them.  This is the case with your pulsing balloons as well.  You misrepresent this experiment to demonstrate a true 1/r^2 force relationship when you know this is false.  The force in fact increaes and decreases as the ballons get closer and even reverse at half cycle wave lengths and in no way is a smooth 1/r^2 relationship.  So nothing but hand waving cover up.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025, 5:12 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

Thanks for the video, but it is showing two waves which are constantly shifting in phase relative to each other. You can see the peak of the red wave constantly moving.

In my model, that kind of shifting simply cannot happen. Since at every point in space, the positive and negative wave peaks have to maintain their phase. This is just a basic postulate of my model which cannot be easily proven. While this kind of thing may be hard to achieve in real life,  it is exactly the same kind of thing that happens in digital computers, so we do have a reasonable analog to compare it with.

If the phases were not constantly shifting, then it would just be like taking a single snapshot of the video when they were either fully cancelled or fully adding.

This would be a rather boring video since nothing would be changing.

I would reinforce that ANY argument that you could make which says this kind of phase interaction cannot work is CONTRADICTED by existing experimental evidence done with pulsing balloons in water which shows that such forces do develop. So, no hand waving, no thought experiments or complex calculations, this type of phase interaction has been experimentally shown to generate the observed 1/r^2 type forces. This is the only experiment I have encountered in the entire world that can explain how charge interactions actually work and can by physically demonstrated. This is the only thing that can correctly model that similar charges repel and opposites attract. All other solutions like negative charges are sinks or spin one way, predict that similar charges should attract.

So, anything you might say against it which says it fundamentally cannot work is already experimentally denied.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 02:47:20 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You previously misrepresented what I said about one of the flaws in your conjecture of how electrons and positrons attract.  I did not say they had to maintain the same phase relationship throughout the universe.

I said the electron and positron can not remain oscillating at a 180° phase relationships and still maintain a standing wave pattern between them as the distance between their centers  changes.

Also, for each cycle, the total constructive/destructive interference condition as shown in your image is only momentary.  In reality, the pattern would repeatedly vary between the first and second patterns in the image every cycle.

This video shows the reality.

Formation of Standing Waves

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin

In order to maintain the force in a single direction the frequency of oscillation must change as the particles move towards and away from each other.  This means they can not maintain an in phase relationships unles they change phase relationship constantly as they move.  This is the only way to maintain a standing wave pattern between them as they move.  Maintaining a standing wave pattern is the only way a unidurectional force will be maintained!

You may also note that for there to be an attraction they must be in phase which violates your positron electron unique identity theory!

The experiment you are describing, where two pulsing spheres underwater appear to attract each other due to wave interference, is a demonstration of a phenomenon known as acoustic radiation force. This isn't a true 1/r^2 gravitational-like force but an effect caused by the pressure variations of the sound waves.

​Here's a breakdown of the physics involved:

​Pulsing Spheres: The spheres act as sound sources, radiating pressure waves into the water.

​Wave Interference: When the waves from the two spheres overlap, they create an interference pattern with regions of both constructive and destructive interference.  

​Pressure Differences: Due to the nature of wave interference, the average pressure in the regions of constructive interference is higher than the average pressure in the regions of destructive interference.

​Net Force (Acoustic Radiation Force): If the spheres are close enough, the region between them can experience a lower average pressure than the regions on their outer sides. The higher pressure on the outside pushes the spheres towards the region of lower pressure between them, creating a net force that appears as an attraction. The force is not constant and will vary depending on the spheres' distance and the phase of the waves they are emitting.

​Not a 1/r^2 relationship: The force is not a smooth 1/r^2 relationship like gravity or electrostatics. The force depends on the wavelength of the sound waves and the distance between the spheres, leading to the force increasing and decreasing, and even reversing, as the spheres get closer or farther apart.

​The phenomenon you are describing highlights a key difference between fundamental forces and emergent forces resulting from wave interactions. The attractive force is a consequence of the complex pressure field generated by the interfering waves, not a direct, inverse-square relationship.

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Alpha particle is positively charged. It doesn't bounce back, why?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2025 4:24 AM

To: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Carl Reiff]

Hello Nick,

I was listening to this morning's science discussion, and at about one
hour and 18 minutes in you said that time dilation has been disproved
because all clocks would need to run the same (keep the same time), but
they don't.  Regarding this, I have a question of clarification.  When
you say, "all clocks," do you mean all clocks in a given environment -
as in ones which are all moving together (uniformly), or do you mean all
clocks everywhere, regardless of their disparate states of motion or
motionlessness?

Thanks,
Carl

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Carl

   For SR, if it's really "time" dilation, then all processes would need to slow down together by the same factor, namely as a function of relative v with respect to each and every inertial observer, as was pointed out by Prof. Herbert Dingle and many others. However, this requires that clock A be slower than clock B AND clock B be slower than clock A as has been pointed out by Prof. Dingle and over 1,000 others and is the basis for the Clock Paradox & the Twin Paradox. 

   For GR, as I have pointed out repeatedly, the gravitational field equations are non-relativistic, so, as opposed to SR, there is not the same type of paradox for GR's time dilation and, in fact, the empirical evidence from GPS, etc. is in agreement with GR's prediction that atomic clocks do slow with a decrease in gravitational potential, which is absolute and non-relativistic. However, GR time dilation has nothing to do with "time", but instead also deals with atomic process rate. In fact, pendulum clocks and hour glass clocks, etc. increase their rate with a decrease in gravitational potential, so it's definitely NOT "time" itself, as commonly thought of, that slows. (Incidentally, the rest of GR is relativistic as they added some key SR flaws to GR to broaden GR's scope and also made another serious error.)

    As I have noted before, key aspects of the GPS data suggest to me that atomic clock retardation as a function of absolute v and as a function of change in gravitational potential are two sides of the same physics effect, namely, atomic process retardation. As velocity with respect to the local gravitational field would simulate a change in gravitational potential. 

                       Nick  

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

It doesn't bounce back because the positively charged alpha particle doesn't interact with the neutrally charged particle. It basically can't "see" it. Neutral particles don't repel a positively charged alpha particle.

Once again, normally charged matter interacts very little with neutrally charged particles such as neutrons.

How would you explain a neutron going through several feet of concrete? You wouldn't expect that to happen either.

Based on your reply, it doesn't look like you read my original answer. Didn't you read it???

What part of "the alpha particle would generally not feel any electrostatic forces as it passes through" did you not understand and why do I have to repeat myself?

You can question why that statement might be wrong, but why do you just ask the same question again which has already been answered?

It's like you guys don't even bother to read what I am writing and it is very frustrating that you don't get it.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

Did you not read the paragraph I quoted???

I don't see why I have to copy and paste this again since you apparently didn't see the "proportional to the inverse square of the distance" part.

This is apparently a measured experimental result, so it would indeed appear to be a true 1/r^2 gravitational-like force. How can you keep saying it isn't - do you think Bjerknes was lying or did the experiment wrong?

You do correctly describe the "acoustic radiation force". The main thesis of Bjerknes was that hydrodynamic forces are exactly analogous and can be thought of as working the same way as electrostatic forces. So, you don't disagree as to mechanism which causes these forces to arise. What you describe is nearly the same as what I've been saying all along. Although you somehow claim (with no evidence) that this wouldn't be a 1/r^2 force.

Yes, you are correct that you noticed the inconsistency that Bjerknes original experiment showed that similar phases (charges) attracted and dissimilar repelled which is the opposite of what we observe with charge behavior. I addressed this in my paper:

"The results obtained by Bjerknes using an incompressible fluid differed from the expected electrostatic case in that spheres that pulsed in phase were attracted instead of repelled. This work was later extended by A.H. Leahy for spheres in a compressible medium. For this system, the results are reversed, the law being now that of attraction in the case of unlike phases , and of repulsion in the case of like phases. This paper can be found at:  http://franklinhu.com/AHLeahy.pdf "

This provides independent confirmation by another researcher and solved the problem of why the results should be reversed in a compressible medium. So apparently, the poselectron sea is a compressible medium in order to be consistent with charge behavior.

You may wish to review this paper before replying further on this matter:

https://franklinhu.com/HowElectrostaticFieldWorks.pdf

I would declare that there are no "fundamental forces". These forces are all orchestrations of wave interactions which are still only based upon Newtonian collisions (the only force is one particle hitting another) and do not rely upon any inherent attraction forces. Why would you want have some mysterious unexplained "fundamental force" when the behavior can be explained in a mechanical manner?

And the resulting force has clearly been measured as 1/r^2, so I don't see how you could claim that it isn't. It is quite a feat of cognitive dissidence to read "proportional to the square of the distance" as the definite experimental result by Bjerknes and Leahy and then still claim that it isn't. Please explain yourself. 

That reminds me of the Mythbuster quote:

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Thanks for clarifying my mix-up. I thought you assigned charge neutrality to the alpha particle.

So, now the alpha particle has mass and the poselectrons in the sea have mass. The alpha particle should be bigger in size than poselectron.

Tell us how far this alpha particle can travel in a sea of poselectrons before it suffers a non-electrostatic head-on-collision in the sea?

*In your concrete analogy, alpha particle will be stopped after some distance. Either by collision or by repulsion from a nucleus in the concrete material. Note that even xrays that are radiation can be blocked by lead and therefore used for protection.

So how come nobody in your sea of trillions of poselectrons, (which are not even static as in Epola, but are in motion like a gas), will see the alpha particle as it cruises through it?

Explain.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 6:06 AM

[John-Erik Persson]

Nick

• There is no time dilation
• Frequency in atomic clocks depend on the ether wind as
• f'=f(1-v^2/2c^2)
• since the electron moves force and back in 1 dimension of 2 in relation to the ether wind
• this change in ether wind explains how atomic clocks behave when they are put into satellite orbits
• horizontal ether wind changes from <0.46 to 3.9 and vertical from 11.2 to 5.5 km/s

See attachment

John-Erik

[Cornelis Verhey]

It is like a very small bullet moving at near the speed of light.  Penetration should be expected.  A bullet at slow speed however penetrating a field if them is not even a fair fight.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin

Any more derogatory remarks will immediately end any further conversation!

You are cherry picking and not acknowledging or paying attention to the details of the distance between the centers of the pulsing objects.  A difference of 1/2 wavelength will reverse the direction of the force.  This is exactly the argument I have always made as to why your definition of the distinction of the positron and electron being the same object but 180° out of phase is incoherent within itself.

In more detail from Microsoft Copilot:

"

If two bubbles are approaching each other under the influence of secondary Bjerknes forces, and we want to maintain a consistent \( 1/r^2 \) force profile, then the frequency and phase of their oscillations must adapt dynamically. Here's why:

---

Why Frequency Adjustment Is Necessary

if two bubbles are approaching each other under the influence of secondary Bjerknes forces, and we want to maintain a consistent \( 1/r^2 \) force profile, then the frequency and phase of their oscillations must adapt dynamically. Here's why:

---

🎯 Why Frequency Adjustment Is Necessary

1. Resonance Shift Due to Mutual Pressure Fields

- As bubbles get closer, the local pressure field each bubble experiences is no longer just the external acoustic field — it includes the oscillatory field of the other bubble.

- This alters the effective resonance frequency of each bubble.

- To maintain constructive interference (i.e., in-phase oscillation), the bubbles must adjust their oscillation frequency to stay in sync.

2. Wave Superposition and Phase Matching

- The secondary Bjerknes force depends on the cosine of the phase difference between volume oscillations.

- If the bubbles maintain fixed frequencies while their separation changes, the phase relationship drifts, weakening the force.

- To preserve a coherent \( 1/r^2 \) interaction, the bubbles must retune their oscillations to maintain phase alignment.

"

You need to address this issue among many others that make you theory internally incoherent and inconsistent with observed physics.

The topic is What is the proto-matter?

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

John-Erik

      Just a brief conceptual response. We have different physical models and different terminology which may obstacle to clear communication. First, I agree 100% with your statement, "There is no time dilation".

    Lorentz theory held that absolute velocity with respect to the aether (e.g., the aether rest frame) would cause clock retardation. Originally, GPS was built on SR and SR time dilation. But Ron Hatch, THE expert on GPS data, saw that that SR assumption failed and instead that Lorentzian clock retardation as a function of v with respect to a single, preferred frame caused atomic clock retardation. This view was seconded by Tom van Flandern, who among other things, was a GPS consultant - other prominent physicists echoed this view. However, GPS management had good reasons for NOT wanting to anger physics academia, so there has been no official rejection of SR by GPS management and GR predictions about differences in gravitational potential are consistent with GPS data. Anyway, a pure Lorentzian view would be that the ECI frame is the aether rest frame. However, the ECI frame can be viewed as the local (non-rotating) gravitational field rest frame. 

    And GPS data also confirms that clock retardation can also be caused by a change in gravitational potential. Hence, to me, that suggests a commonality (gravitational field effects) between the two types of atomic clock/process retardation.

    Currently, we do NOT have a detailed physics understanding of the physical mechanisms of either the aether or a gravitational field. There are several different contending constructs for each. However, there does seem to be a relationship between the two.   

    Now you explain gravity in terms of the ether wind. So this is a departure from Lorentz's view. And I flip your view on that around and if we equate the gravitational field rest frame to the aether rest frame, then motion with respect the gravitational field rest frame would create an aether wind with respect to the absolute moving atomic clock.

    So there are conceptual similarities and conceptual differences between our two views, which I've observed can result in most productive communication, as opposed to two people with diametrically opposed views.   

    Because of the GPS data, I think of atomic clock retardation (e.g., atomic frequency slowing) as being affected by motion with respect to the ECI frame, per the GPS data, which would be like the ether rest frame. However, I view the ECI frame as the (non-rotating) earth gravitational field rest frame. Whereas you view the gravitational field being the result of a moving aether. And,  incidentally, Ron Hatch did develop an aether based theory of gravity, but that was based on variations in aether density. Maybe the answer is somewhere between our various different  perspectives. 

                         Nick

[Carl Reiff]

Thanks, Nick.  Alright, so you were speaking in terms of SR.  Fine.  Let's couch it in terms of Lorentz, with a locally preferred frame - like the ECI frame.  With that, we have the Lorentz factor - gamma.  We know, and agree, that with speed, processing falls off according to gamma.  Gravity has a similar/synonymous effect.  And, if modeled as a flow, gamma can be employed the same way - yielding correct results.  No need for GR's equations involving tensors.  Approaching it that way makes it just as relativistic.

You mention pendulums - or pendulum clocks.  Pendulums are arbitrary devices.  Shorten the arm length, and the cycle is increased.  So what?  Put one aboard the ISS.  No matter what thee arm length is, there is no cycle.  Yet, there is definitely gravity there.  It's similar with hour glasses - another arbitrary device.  Aboard the ISS they wouldn't do anything.  Does that mean there's no passage of time?

For process slowing, we need to stick with things which are otherwise invariant.  Cs atoms in atomic clocks are an example.  Their "cycle rate" is extremely consistent.  But, they are affected relativistically - according to gamma.  

This brings me to the topic I want to broach.  However, I don't want this to be a smacking the hornets nest kind of discussion.  So, everyone take a chill pill.  Does process slowing mean that time actually transpires differently - that is, more slowly?  If we were in a space ship hurtling through intergalactic space at v = c * 0.98, all the atoms in our ship (and in our bodies) would be equally affected according to gamma.  As such, all processing would be roughly 20% of what we have on Earth.

Under these conditions, and without any outside contact, would we have any inkling that things weren't perfectly normal?  Sure, one minute to us would be like five minutes to everyone on Earth.  But, we have no communication, so we can't compare.  If you had a 60 beat per minute heart rate, during what seemed like a minute to us on the ship, your heart would beat 60 times.  But, for that duration, your brother back on Earth - who also has a 60 BPM heart rate, his would beat 300 times.  

So, the question is, does/can time actually transpire differently depending on the environment?  And, if not, whose time (meaning the rate of the passage of time) is right?  Each of you will insist that your own is - meaning that you will insist time is transpiring correctly for you, and your brother will insist that time is transpiring correctly for him.

In all sincerity,
Carl

-------------

[Cornelis Verhey]

Nick and John-Erik

In my view time dilation is not only real it is critical to understanding the electrodynamics of moving bodies.  it is the rate of change of electrodynamics that is time dilated as opposed to the mechanic of moving bodies.  They do not change at the same rate as they are the result of different dynamic processes.

Cornelis Verhey

[John-Erik Persson]

Nick

Thanks for mail

Instead of gravity potential we can use the escape velocity. Since a body from deep space with low initial velocity hits our planet with this velocity we can assume that the material ether does the same. Therefore the radial ether wind is 11.2 km/s near Earth and 5.5 km/s in a GPS satellite. And the tangential ether wind is <0.46 km/s near Earth and 3.9 km/s in the satellite.

The ether wind affects the clocks as f'=f(1-v^2/2c^2). These data gives the correct changes of clock speed in the GPS system. This means that we can explain with ONE effect of ether wind instead of TWO effects with SRT and GRT.

See my article___________Instability in atomic clocks.

Ron Hatch also suggested a process, but not exactly the same.

John-Erik

[John-Erik Persson]

Nick

Here is my article

John-Erik

[Franklin Hu]

If you think of time dilation occurring because of the number of aether particles an object has to pass by is increasing with there being a constant smallest amount of time an object can pass from aether particle to aether particle, then we could easily see that an increase in density which would be caused by gravity would cause a time dilation. We could also see that if you increase the velocity of the aether field going past an object would also increase the number of aether particle encountered by an object and this would also slow it down as a time dilation.

So, I put that forth as a hypothesis as to why both gravity and velocity cause time dilation effects.

-Franklin 

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

Well, then, do you at least agree that Bjerknes found a legitimate 1/r^2 force? You didn't specifically address that in your response. You have gone off in a different direction.

Good that you are showing that there are specific physical limitations in a practical experiment and looking at the details using AI to examine the original experiment. What you describe can happen when the distance between the centers can be smoothly changed by something like a 1/2 wavelength.

To explain why this doesn't occur, requires the quantization of both length and time. This is not an unreasonable postulate and has been suggested by others like James Keene and I think it is critical because without it, it often leads to infinities if anything becomes infinitely divisible. There is also plenty of evidence provided by mainstream quantum physics to suggest that everything is quantized at some level. I have mentioned this in previous posts.

Now, I would postulate that the frequency of the waves being emitted by electrons and positrons is the absolute fastest frequency in the universe. Everything can only change at this frequency and could be seen as a global clock for the universe - this is similar to the clock in a digital computer.

Therefore, 1/2 wavelength changes simply cannot happen. That wouldn't be falling on the global clock tick. Everything has to be phase locked either 100% in phase or 100% out of phase in only whole integer wavelengths in all locations in space. This is why I say that every single wave from a positive charge has to be phased locked to every other positive charge across the universe at all times. This is why I said you were originally objecting to this and indeed, this is what you seem to be objecting to - this need to phase lock everything, however, this is a basic postulate of my model. Such a thing could be modeled on a computer to show it is logically consistent and plausible.

So, if you were to imagine trying to change the distance between a positron and electron, it could only jump 1 whole wavelength away at a time. There is no opportunity for a 1/2, 1/4, or any fractional distance apart due to quantization.

I think you would have to agree that if such quantization occurs, your argument doesn't apply. As a practical application for a real experiment, you could also think of the distance between the pulsing spheres as being restricted to only be integer wavelength distances away to simulate the quantization of length/time. Then the phase relationship would be preserved at any "allowed" quantized distance. This then make perfect sense.

As for the topic, I think we have drifted off into a specific embodiment of the "proto-matter" which is a positron/electron sea and how it can specifically mediate the observed properties of charge.

-Franklin

[Frank Fernandes]

Franklin,

So, you have put forth a hypothesis as to why both gravity and velocity cause time dilation effects.

It is not an hypothesis but a fact.

eV = velocity x frequency

V = g = acc due to gravity g  and e inverse is 6.24e18 particles

eg = v/t = ea

The v is the velocity of ether particles.

And inverse of time interval t is frequency.

And frequency is that of an aitheron particle.

FACTS.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

One of the postulates of my poselectron theory is that inertia is actually mediated by the poselectron sea in that as the alpha particle passes through, it separates the particles and stores energy into the poselectron sea like there were little springs that get compressed to store kinetic energy and then are released as the particle goes by. A "collision" technically isn't even possible as it is the duty of the poselectron particles to get out of the way as any ponderable mass particle passes through.

So really, no particle travelling though just the poselectron sea suffers any velocity loss because it is actually responsible for mediating Newton's 1st law of motion. This also explains why the Earth shows no orbital degradation while travelling through the incredibly dense poselectron aether.

This is explained in my paper: The real God particle:

https://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0075v1.pdf

Have you ever wondered where the kinetic energy of a bullet is stored while it is in flight? What is physically different from the bullet just sitting on a shelf? If you take a picture, they look exactly the same. Even if you were to be able to microscopically examine the bullets, you wouldn't find any difference. 

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

I have gone through your article (again), “The Real God Particle” and the various answers to questions. I am wondering how you manage to sleep on this bed of poselectrons given the obvious inconsistencies...

In one breadth you say the positively charged alpha particle and the poelectron sea cannot “see” each other and they don’t interact. In another breadth, you say,  “it is the duty of the poselectron particles to get out of the way as any ponderable mass particle passes through”

Why would there be any need for getting out of the way of something that you cannot see?

If something is imparting kinetic energy on poselectron sea, and collecting it back, do you not  “see” that that means they are interacting?

I don’t know what can be deserving of the appellation of orchestration more than this your proposed solution.

 

In any case, do you agree that alpha particle moving through void will not need to get anything out of the way in order to obey Newton’s first law?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:00 AM

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

We are not going to discuss your concept under the topic heading of proto-matter.  That would only add confusion to its intended meaning as Andy and I have agreed to call it.

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

I can certainly change the topic, but do you believe that Bjerknes found a 1/r^2 force and have I convinced you that quantization makes it possible for the waves to be phased locked?

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo

Thank you for reviewing this and I stand “corrected” in that while neutral particles do have little interaction with normal matter, that is not the fundamental reason why an alpha particle can pass through the aether with no losses.

The main reason which has always been stated in my papers is due to the aether mediating the inertial kinetic energy.

So, the alpha particle does need to move out of the way in order for the particle to pass.

As a side note, it does take energy to do the initial push aside and store that energy into the aether. This is why it takes energy to accelerate any particle.  This is why all particles resist acceleration due to their inertial mass.

If there really was nothing to push aside, then it shouldn’t take any energy to accelerate particles to an arbitrary velocity. We don’t see this behavior and so it speaks loudly against the idea that there is nothing in space as a true void.

For those who claim “they can’t tell me anything” I just admitted that I had misstated my own theory. Hey, even ChatGPT can make mistakes :)

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 18, 2025, at 2:31 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



[John-Erik Persson]

Nick

Einstein had to use two models for what he called time dilation. Instead clock frequency depends on the ether wind, since bound electrons move forth and back in the ether wind. They move in 2 dimensions but ether wind acts in only 1. So, the effect is half the effect in MMX.

We can have 1 model instead of 2. We use escape velocity instead of gravity potential. A body with low inertial speed will hit our planet with the escape velocity, so material ether wind does the same, and radial ether wind is 11.2 km/s near Earth and 5.5 in a satellite.Tangential ether wind is 3.9 km/s. These data give exact predictions.

So, we see that we can have ONE model instead of TWO. The ether wind is better than Einstein's model.

John-Erik

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi John-Erik. 

What is the radial ether wind?  It would seem that the ether wind would continually vary, given that the earth spins and orbits the sun, and the sun is also in motion through the galaxy and universe at large.  

[Jerry Harvey]

Also, accelerations and atmospheric pressure can interfere with the proper working of atomic clocks.  This effect occurs even if the ether wind also has an effect. 

[Jerry Harvey]

My view is that there isn't any reason why two different inertial frames or objects would have a different experience of time.  The Lorentz transformations and Special Relativity were specifically designed to account for the invariance of c.  There was the popular scenario that Lorentz and Einstein considered, where an observer travels with a light wave that the source emanates at a distance.  That as it travels away, the faster it goes, there seemed a discrepancy for which they thought they needed to account, in order to preserve the invariance of c through different frames of reference.  However, what if for some unknown reason, light just happens to propagate and "register" that way whenever measured?  If the velocity of light is indeed invariant, why isn't this simply a phenomenon that is misunderstood and unaccounted for?  Of course, mathematicians have developed complex systems that create these relativistic effects. However, what if the invariance of c is just an anomaly we just don't understand yet?  What if there's some other underlying principle of which we're currently unaware?  

[r.j.anderton@btinternet.com r.j.anderton@btinternet.com]

>>anomaly <<

 

no anomaly, just in the math

------ Original Message ------
From: jerry...@gmail.com
To: joer...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com; nper...@snet.net; cre...@elgenwave.com; andre...@gmail.com; james...@gmail.com; netchit...@gmail.com; aith...@gmail.com; siri...@yahoo.com; alle...@sbcglobal.net; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; kc...@yahoo.com; stepha...@uwi.edu; ianco...@gmail.com; dehi...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; ibys...@comcast.net; jimm...@yahoo.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; cro...@gmail.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; musa...@gmail.com; franklin...@gmail.com; munda...@gmail.com; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; verhey....@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 18th 2025, 00:30
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Time Dilation or Only Process Slowing
 

My view is that there isn't any reason why two different inertial frames or objects would have a different experience of time.  The Lorentz transformations and Special Relativity were specifically designed to account for the invariance of c.  There was the popular scenario that Lorentz and Einstein considered, where an observer travels with a light wave that the source emanates at a distance.  That as it travels away, the faster it goes, there seemed a discrepancy for which they thought they needed to account, in order to preserve the invariance of c through different frames of reference.  However, what if for some unknown reason, light just happens to propagate and "register" that way whenever measured?  If the velocity of light is indeed invariant, why isn't this simply a phenomenon that is misunderstood and unaccounted for?  Of course, mathematicians have developed complex systems that create these relativistic effects. However, what if the invariance of c is just an anomaly we just don't understand yet?  What if there's some other underlying principle of which we're currently unaware?  

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAJahnnqkK0nSUV5xUv_pWPH7Sxp8QbVWYdfHWzoG00v7FBrVEw%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Your response is noted.

From this exchange of energy between the alpha particle and poselectron sea, do we now take it that poselectron sea has elastic properties? That is, it can be stretched and compressed so that when it carries out its duty of getting out of the way, it can be restored (viz. “it is the duty of the poselectron particles to get out of the way as any ponderable mass particle passes through”)?

 

That is starting to make sense. It is only materials that have bonds between the particles that can behave in such a manner. But it seems that you are of the opinion that there are no such bonds in poselectron sea. And the void between the poselectrons cannot serve as the bond according to what I understand of your model. So then, what will serve as bond to store the kinetic energy of alpha particle and return it back after getting out of the way? Why must the energy given to poselectron sea by alpha particle not be frittered away and dispersed within the sea, but is instead returned back to the alpha particle to keep it moving?

 

Re: “If there really was nothing to push aside, then it shouldn’t take any energy to accelerate particles to an arbitrary velocity. We don’t see this behavior and so it speaks loudly against the idea that there is nothing in space as a true void.”

When you say this, it means you may not be familiar with the meaning and importance of Newton’s third law of action and reaction. That law also embodies the conservation of momentum.

A void exists but it has no resistance to being pushed aside, as long as you push in a straight line. But for a particle or body to start moving in void, it must first exchange momentum with another body or agent, and the total momentum of both must be conserved.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:33 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Franklin

     Sorry for the delay getting to your email. You present a different way of looking at what causes changes in process rates. However, regarding you final sentence, your proposed process should NOT be termed "time dilation" or having anything to due with the construct of "time" itself, as that would be most misleading as to what's happening physically in your model. 

    Secondly, even if we use the incorrect construct "time", "time dilation" means "time expansion" which would cause clock retardation/slowing. Hopefully, I'm not confused, but it seems to me that you've described "time contraction" due to increased ether density which would cause clock rates to speed up. Hence, your model is at odds with GPS data because as clocks move toward the earth, and higher aether density in your model, clocks slow down instead of your model's implication that atomic clocks would speed up. Similarly, increased velocity with respect to the aether should caused a simulation of increased density (i.e., an increase in the rate of aether particles encountered) which causes time contraction in your thesis and that would cause clock rate increase in sharp contradiction to GPS and other data sets.

    Further, regarding the gravitational effect, it's a function of change in gravitational potential. And Yes, as gravitational potential decreases, the gravitation field strength increases, but it's NOT a linear relationship between the amount of gravitational potential decreases and gravitation field strength. Hence, while the GPS high precision data on gravitational potential decreases is consistent with atomic clock slowing data, that does not imply a directly related (e.g., constant factor) for gravity field strength increase and atomic clock rate slowing. 

                              Nick    

[Cornelis Verhey]

​Franklin,

It has never been about a 1/r^2 force being the result of wave interactions in a carrier medium. Instead, it has always been and still is about the incomplete or misinterpreted understanding of the physical behavior of waves and their carrier medium, including Bjerknes forces. For a long time now, I have shared my observations of how wave interactions could create and maintain the continuous 1/r^2 property of gravity. I also suggested that this wave was longitudinal in nature and of a single high frequency.

​The wave carrier medium is not quantized, nor is gravity. The absorption and emission of electromagnetic wave energy into or out of a stable matter structure is, however, quantized.  Since there is no need for the jumping of mass from place to place, there is no need to postulate quantized space or a "God computer."

Cornelis Verhey

[Frank Fernandes]

All,

Here is a classic misinterpretation of an observation and empirical calculation and effects such as force and acceleration due to gravity.

Acceleration due to gravity g = velocity squared / R   And not R squared.   R is the length in wavelength 2piRx137.036. And ether wavelength. Empirical.

Force effects = mg =ma and proportional to 1/R squared.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Frank

When you say " Here is a classic misinterpretation of an observation and empirical calculation and effects such as force and acceleration due to gravity. ", do you mean?

What follIws is a classic misinterpretation of an observation and empirical calculation and effects such as force and acceleration due to gravity. "Acceleration due to gravity g = velocity squared / R   And not R squared.   R is the length in wavelength 2piRx137.036. And ether wavelength. Empirical.

Force effects = mg =ma and proportional to 1/R squared."

Cornelis Verhey

[Frank Fernandes]

Yes.  There are over 15 variables involved. Not seen in the empirical equations. I mentioned  only R. That is why most discussions are futile without the measures beyond simple graphs of a wave. When put into experimental funding billions are lost because of simplistic thoughts. I see this everyday. Do you?

[David Tombe]

This was written with the assistance of AI

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/10291

[Cornelis Verhey]

Frank,

You have already answered my question.

I believe persuing your line of reason would only add a confusing distraction. 

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Frank 

You have already answered my question.

I believe pursuing your line of reason would only add a confusing distraction

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 12:52 AM Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Frank Fernandes]

Cornelis,

I am making a statement on what standard Physics states and not my reasoning.

[Frank Fernandes]

David,

Very nice AI generated creative writing.

More than the static and dynamic electricity the article points to AI input human desire to get to truth.

That so-called truth, or as Faraday states - Facts saved me - can be best described as a paradigm backed by empirical equations.

I am more interested in the list of text you keyed in to generate the AI version.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Frank

Where in standard Physics do you find 

" Here is a classic misinterpretation of an observation and empirical calculation and effects such as force and acceleration due to gravity.

Acceleration due to gravity g = velocity squared / R   And not R squared.   R is the length in wavelength 2piRx137.036. And ether wavelength. Empirical.

Force effects = mg =ma and proportional to 1/R squared."

It certainly looks like something based on your reasoning.

This is why I said I believe pursuing your line of reason would only add a confusing distraction.

Cornelis

--

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

If you think forces are due to wave interactions and due to a high frequency longitudinal wave, then I would say we actually have a great deal in common.

Although, I would say that the electrostatic force is also due to wave interactions and some level of quantization is necessary to get the Bjerknes forces to work.

Given the evidence we have from dropping neutrons and quantum physics, I would still favor mass having to jump quantum distances 

-Franklin 

Sent from my iPhone

<1755407518769blob.jpg>

I don't see why I have to copy and paste this again since you apparently didn't see the "proportional to the inverse square of the distance" part.

This is apparently a measured experimental result, so it would indeed appear to be a true 1/r^2 gravitational-like force. How can you keep saying it isn't - do you think Bjerknes was lying or did the experiment wrong?

You do correctly describe the "acoustic radiation force". The main thesis of Bjerknes was that hydrodynamic forces are exactly analogous and can be thought of as working the same way as electrostatic forces. So, you don't disagree as to mechanism which causes these forces to arise. What you describe is nearly the same as what I've been saying all along. Although you somehow claim (with no evidence) that this wouldn't be a 1/r^2 force.

Yes, you are correct that you noticed the inconsistency that Bjerknes original experiment showed that similar phases (charges) attracted and dissimilar repelled which is the opposite of what we observe with charge behavior. I addressed this in my paper:

"The results obtained by Bjerknes using an incompressible fluid differed from the expected electrostatic case in that spheres that pulsed in phase were attracted instead of repelled. This work was later extended by A.H. Leahy for spheres in a compressible medium. For this system, the results are reversed, the law being now that of attraction in the case of unlike phases , and of repulsion in the case of like phases. This paper can be found at:  http://franklinhu.com/AHLeahy.pdf "

This provides independent confirmation by another researcher and solved the problem of why the results should be reversed in a compressible medium. So apparently, the poselectron sea is a compressible medium in order to be consistent with charge behavior.

You may wish to review this paper before replying further on this matter:

https://franklinhu.com/HowElectrostaticFieldWorks.pdf

I would declare that there are no "fundamental forces". These forces are all orchestrations of wave interactions which are still only based upon Newtonian collisions (the only force is one particle hitting another) and do not rely upon any inherent attraction forces. Why would you want have some mysterious unexplained "fundamental force" when the behavior can be explained in a mechanical manner?

And the resulting force has clearly been measured as 1/r^2, so I don't see how you could claim that it isn't. It is quite a feat of cognitive dissidence to read "proportional to the square of the distance" as the definite experimental result by Bjerknes and Leahy and then still claim that it isn't. Please explain yourself. 

That reminds me of the Mythbuster quote:

<1755408690776blob.jpg>

-Franklin

On Friday, August 15, 2025 at 10:08:09 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin

In order to maintain the force in a single direction the frequency of oscillation must change as the particles move towards and away from each other.  This means they can not maintain an in phase relationships unles they change phase relationship constantly as they move.  This is the only way to maintain a standing wave pattern between them as they move.  Maintaining a standing wave pattern is the only way a unidurectional force will be maintained!

You may also note that for there to be an attraction they must be in phase which violates your positron electron unique identity theory!

The experiment you are describing, where two pulsing spheres underwater appear to attract each other due to wave interference, is a demonstration of a phenomenon known as acoustic radiation force. This isn't a true 1/r^2 gravitational-like force but an effect caused by the pressure variations of the sound waves.

​Here's a breakdown of the physics involved:

​Pulsing Spheres: The spheres act as sound sources, radiating pressure waves into the water.

​Wave Interference: When the waves from the two spheres overlap, they create an interference pattern with regions of both constructive and destructive interference.  

​Pressure Differences: Due to the nature of wave interference, the average pressure in the regions of constructive interference is higher than the average pressure in the regions of destructive interference.

​Net Force (Acoustic Radiation Force): If the spheres are close enough, the region between them can experience a lower average pressure than the regions on their outer sides. The higher pressure on the outside pushes the spheres towards the region of lower pressure between them, creating a net force that appears as an attraction. The force is not constant and will vary depending on the spheres' distance and the phase of the waves they are emitting.

​Not a 1/r^2 relationship: The force is not a smooth 1/r^2 relationship like gravity or electrostatics. The force depends on the wavelength of the sound waves and the distance between the spheres, leading to the force increasing and decreasing, and even reversing, as the spheres get closer or farther apart.

​The phenomenon you are describing highlights a key difference between fundamental forces and emergent forces resulting from wave interactions. The attractive force is a consequence of the complex pressure field generated by the interfering waves, not a direct, inverse-square relationship.

Cornelis Verhey

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025, 10:48 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

You are severely mistaken.

A more recent reference can be found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerknes_force

<1755315476953blob.jpg>

That definitely does not sound like the force increases and decreases. It says "proportional to the inverse square of the distance".

I don't know what form of cognitive dissidence you are using to ignore this very simple experimental fact. I don't where you think you are getting the idea that I have "misrepresented" the facts. It looks like you're just making up your own so called facts. I double down on the fact that this experiment directly demonstrates 1/r^2 force generated by phased waves.

You can read the original paper if you like which illustrates how the experiment was done:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4fwwAQAAMAAJ

<1755315687734blob.jpg>

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 08:42:34 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

The diagram shows what would be the two waves coming from your electron and positron on opposite side in red and blue.  These waves superimpose to resulting in only the dynamic green standing wave pattern being detected between them.  This is the case with your pulsing balloons as well.  You misrepresent this experiment to demonstrate a true 1/r^2 force relationship when you know this is false.  The force in fact increaes and decreases as the ballons get closer and even reverse at half cycle wave lengths and in no way is a smooth 1/r^2 relationship.  So nothing but hand waving cover up.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025, 5:12 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

Thanks for the video, but it is showing two waves which are constantly shifting in phase relative to each other. You can see the peak of the red wave constantly moving.

In my model, that kind of shifting simply cannot happen. Since at every point in space, the positive and negative wave peaks have to maintain their phase. This is just a basic postulate of my model which cannot be easily proven. While this kind of thing may be hard to achieve in real life,  it is exactly the same kind of thing that happens in digital computers, so we do have a reasonable analog to compare it with.

If the phases were not constantly shifting, then it would just be like taking a single snapshot of the video when they were either fully cancelled or fully adding.

<1755122192031blob.jpg>

This would be a rather boring video since nothing would be changing.

I would reinforce that ANY argument that you could make which says this kind of phase interaction cannot work is CONTRADICTED by existing experimental evidence done with pulsing balloons in water which shows that such forces do develop. So, no hand waving, no thought experiments or complex calculations, this type of phase interaction has been experimentally shown to generate the observed 1/r^2 type forces. This is the only experiment I have encountered in the entire world that can explain how charge interactions actually work and can by physically demonstrated. This is the only thing that can correctly model that similar charges repel and opposites attract. All other solutions like negative charges are sinks or spin one way, predict that similar charges should attract.

So, anything you might say against it which says it fundamentally cannot work is already experimentally denied.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 02:47:20 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You previously misrepresented what I said about one of the flaws in your conjecture of how electrons and positrons attract.  I did not say they had to maintain the same phase relationship throughout the universe.

I said the electron and positron can not remain oscillating at a 180° phase relationships and still maintain a standing wave pattern between them as the distance between their centers  changes.

Also, for each cycle, the total constructive/destructive interference condition as shown in your image is only momentary.  In reality, the pattern would repeatedly vary between the first and second patterns in the image every cycle.

<Screenshot_20250812_143906_Chrome.jpg>

Cornelis Verhey

<1755315687734blob.jpg>

<1755407518769blob.jpg>

<1755408690776blob.jpg>

<1755315476953blob.jpg>

<1755122192031blob.jpg>

<Screenshot_20250812_143906_Chrome.jpg>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin

"

Cornelis

​If you think forces are due to wave interactions and a high-frequency longitudinal wave, then I'd say we actually have a great deal in common.

"

​This after you for years repeatedly ridiculed my explanation that mass is emergent from the interactions of a single, high-frequency, longitudinal wave pattern with wavelengths that vary from near zero to near infinity.

​All the while, you repeatedly ridiculed it as foolish because waves don't interact but only propagate through each other.

​I also explained that electromagnetic properties are emergent from the interactions of transverse waves in the same carrier medium.

​For you to now say that 'forces are due to wave interactions' and that we have a lot in common is a complete farce.

Cornelis Verhey

[Frank Fernandes]

You will not find the word translation of ode to joy Cornelis. 

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Franklin Hu]

We agree on the origins of forces it appears but do not agree on the origin of matter. Matter itself cannot be the result of any wave interactions but would be fundamentally rooted in the existence of the electron which acts as a wave generating machine of some type.

An electron is not constructed out of any waves or medium or anything. It generates waves, that is the hierarchy.

Perhaps you want to try to simplify it by making everything waves but this is going too far.

There are fundamental particles- I’m still not sure what they are, but they cannot be composed of waves or tension or anything like that.

Sent from my iPhone

[David Tombe]

• https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/10291

  The idea is to deal with two choke points in the history of electromagnetism in that intense period between 1855 and 1862. The two choke points are, 

  (1) The unravelling of the 1855 Weber-Kohlrausch Experiment and the application by Kirchhoff to electric circuit theory, and 

  (2) Maxwell applying Weber's constant to the elasticity in the EM wave-carrying medium.

  
  

  
  

  Neither of these are ever taught properly in the mainstream textbooks. And since all this emerged during the American Civil War, I got AI to translate it into antebellum American English through Mark Twain's character, Colonel Sherburn.

  
  

  FDT

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

So you are now agreeing:  That waves do not just propagate through each other without interaction.  That the entrainment between waves within their non-linear tension bond carrier medium is responsible for the origin of forces.

Yet you say: "There are fundamental particles- I’m still not sure what they are, but they cannot be composed of waves or tension or anything like that."

What is your purpose for these fundamental particles?  What properties do you require of them?

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Roger Munday]

"An electron is not constructed out of any waves or medium or anything"

So, how do you prove that it actually "exists" as a distinct entity??

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

We see the electron in many of our experiments. We can create beams of them, see them hit targets, create electrical circuits and much much more.

It is one of the most scientifically studied particles in all of science, so I think it is settled science that they are proven to “exist” as a distinct entity but this still doesn’t mean we know how it works or how it is composed.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2025, at 2:59 AM, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis

No, not sure where you got that idea. Waves always pass through each other and the only way we can observe them exchanging energy is when it causes suspended particles within the medium to collide. That is a transfer of kinetic energy from the medium to a large particle, not to another wave. 

Transfer of kinetic energy from wave to wave would generally seem impossible. So no interaction would seem possible.

The purpose of the fundamental particle is to provide the rock solid basis for the rest of the physical world. I say that particle is the electron which is well understood and the properties observed are the ones required.

I would emphasize that while we may have no idea what an electron actually is, as long as we are certain that it exists and their properties, that is all that is required to build a fully valid theoretical framework around them. It is certainly much stronger than building it out of some circulon, fp, or whatever-on most other dissident theories rely upon.

I repeat - we DO NOT need to know how an electron works in order to be sure of its existence.

Sent from my iPhone

[Frank Fernandes]

This is excellent creative writing. 

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

"​​If you think forces are due to wave interactions and a high-frequency longitudinal wave, then I'd say we actually have a great deal in common."

Perhaps you can see where I got that idea.

Why else would you now say "we actually have a great deal in common" if you had not come to accept the founding principle that "forces are due to wave interactions" and waves do not just pass through each other?

I had shared no new information?

I have described my theory based on the same fundamental observations, the interactions between high frequency longitudinal waves, from the very beginning.

Our views have very little in common and the more detail you try to describe in yours the more abstract it seems to become.

You do not even accept the fundamental property of all wave.

https://g.co/gemini/share/f8b075dcf88a 

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

Do you still think electrons are made out of wave phenomenon?

Sent from my iPhone

[Franklin Hu]

Nick

Well of course, it is clock dilation as there is no other way to measure it.

I have explained before that density works like molasses in that it is thicker and presents more resistance to any object moving through it versus something thinner like water. That is an analogy, but you should get the point why it should slow a swinging pendulum of a physical clock.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2025, at 10:01 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:



[David Tombe]

Hi All,

          The year 1864 was chosen because that was at the tail end of the intense period of insight that began in 1855. Even though Maxwell's more famous papers of 1865 and 1873, hadn't yet been written, there were no significant new insights in those later papers. In those later papers, he formally listed his equations and derived the EM wave equations, but that was all just mathematical recording of the insights in the 1861 paper.

So, in the fictional speech by Sherburn in July 1864, he was drawing on the insights of Maxwell in 1861 and then projecting them well ahead, saying what Maxwell hadn't seen. 

Since Faraday, it was already known that current could be induced in a secondary wire by a changing magnetic field. That was actually an early example of EM radiation travelling through space between two electric circuits. But it was assumed that this only works if the secondary circuit is in the range of the measurable primary magnetic field. 

Maxwell's insights in the 1861 paper allowed for the prediction that this same process could go on in space, away from laboratory apparatus, because of the sea of tiny vortices. 

However, a magnetic field hems a current into a wire. It took until Hertz in 1887 to show that when the AC frequency is high enough, significant current can escape and propagate through space. It escapes during the turn around when the magnetic field is reversing its direction. It's not that the speed of electric signals in a wire is the speed of light. It's the other way around. The speed of light is the speed of electric current.

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/10291

FDT

[Franklin Hu]

Of course, the poselectron sea is elastic.

No,no, a million times no - elastic medium do not need to be bonded. 

Example - helium gas has absolutely no bonds between the molecules, yet it can transmit sound waves which prove it is an elastic medium. What you say is completely denied by that obvious experimental result.

Like helium gas, the poselectron sea could store energy in a similar manner. It is all just a matter of pressure differentials of non bonded particles randomly colliding with each other. It’s more complicated than that but it works as an analogy.

So I would say your major error is thinking elastic mediums must be bonded There is no logical reason for this. None - period.

Finally, if you were to push a car on a perfectly frictionless surface with your hand moving at 5moh, why does the car not immediately start moving at 5moh as well? After all, you don’t  think there is anything to stop it from taking on the velocity of your hand.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2025, at 6:13 PM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

Your response is noted.

From this exchange of energy between the alpha particle and poselectron sea, do we now take it that poselectron sea has elastic properties? That is, it can be stretched and compressed so that when it carries out its duty of getting out of the way, it can be restored (viz. “it is the duty of the poselectron particles to get out of the way as any ponderable mass particle passes through”)?

 

That is starting to make sense. It is only materials that have bonds between the particles that can behave in such a manner. But it seems that you are of the opinion that there are no such bonds in poselectron sea. And the void between the poselectrons cannot serve as the bond according to what I understand of your model. So then, what will serve as bond to store the kinetic energy of alpha particle and return it back after getting out of the way? Why must the energy given to poselectron sea by alpha particle not be frittered away and dispersed within the sea, but is instead returned back to the alpha particle to keep it moving?

 

Re: “If there really was nothing to push aside, then it shouldn’t take any energy to accelerate particles to an arbitrary velocity. We don’t see this behavior and so it speaks loudly against the idea that there is nothing in space as a true void.”

When you say this, it means you may not be familiar with the meaning and importance of Newton’s third law of action and reaction. That law also embodies the conservation of momentum.

A void exists but it has no resistance to being pushed aside, as long as you push in a straight line. But for a particle or body to start moving in void, it must first exchange momentum with another body or agent, and the total momentum of both must be conserved.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:33 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Akinbo

Thank you for reviewing this and I stand “corrected” in that while neutral particles do have little interaction with normal matter, that is not the fundamental reason why an alpha particle can pass through the aether with no losses.

The main reason which has always been stated in my papers is due to the aether mediating the inertial kinetic energy.

So, the alpha particle does need to move out of the way in order for the particle to pass.

As a side note, it does take energy to do the initial push aside and store that energy into the aether. This is why it takes energy to accelerate any particle.  This is why all particles resist acceleration due to their inertial mass.

If there really was nothing to push aside, then it shouldn’t take any energy to accelerate particles to an arbitrary velocity. We don’t see this behavior and so it speaks loudly against the idea that there is nothing in space as a true void.

For those who claim “they can’t tell me anything” I just admitted that I had misstated my own theory. Hey, even ChatGPT can make mistakes :)

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 18, 2025, at 2:31 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

I have gone through your article (again), “The Real God Particle” and the various answers to questions. I am wondering how you manage to sleep on this bed of poselectrons given the obvious inconsistencies...

In one breadth you say the positively charged alpha particle and the poelectron sea cannot “see” each other and they don’t interact. In another breadth, you say,  “it is the duty of the poselectron particles to get out of the way as any ponderable mass particle passes through”

Why would there be any need for getting out of the way of something that you cannot see?

If something is imparting kinetic energy on poselectron sea, and collecting it back, do you not  “see” that that means they are interacting?

I don’t know what can be deserving of the appellation of orchestration more than this your proposed solution.

 

In any case, do you agree that alpha particle moving through void will not need to get anything out of the way in order to obey Newton’s first law?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:00 AM
To: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Akinbo,

One of the postulates of my poselectron theory is that inertia is actually mediated by the poselectron sea in that as the alpha particle passes through, it separates the particles and stores energy into the poselectron sea like there were little springs that get compressed to store kinetic energy and then are released as the particle goes by. A "collision" technically isn't even possible as it is the duty of the poselectron particles to get out of the way as any ponderable mass particle passes through.

So really, no particle travelling though just the poselectron sea suffers any velocity loss because it is actually responsible for mediating Newton's 1st law of motion. This also explains why the Earth shows no orbital degradation while travelling through the incredibly dense poselectron aether.

This is explained in my paper: The real God particle:

https://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0075v1.pdf

Have you ever wondered where the kinetic energy of a bullet is stored while it is in flight? What is physically different from the bullet just sitting on a shelf? If you take a picture, they look exactly the same. Even if you were to be able to microscopically examine the bullets, you wouldn't find any difference. 

-Franklin

On Sunday, August 17, 2025 at 01:59:17 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Thanks for clarifying my mix-up. I thought you assigned charge neutrality to the alpha particle.

So, now the alpha particle has mass and the poselectrons in the sea have mass. The alpha particle should be bigger in size than poselectron.

Tell us how far this alpha particle can travel in a sea of poselectrons before it suffers a non-electrostatic head-on-collision in the sea?

*In your concrete analogy, alpha particle will be stopped after some distance. Either by collision or by repulsion from a nucleus in the concrete material. Note that even xrays that are radiation can be blocked by lead and therefore used for protection.

So how come nobody in your sea of trillions of poselectrons, (which are not even static as in Epola, but are in motion like a gas), will see the alpha particle as it cruises through it?

Explain.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 6:06 AM
To: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Akinbo,

It doesn't bounce back because the positively charged alpha particle doesn't interact with the neutrally charged particle. It basically can't "see" it. Neutral particles don't repel a positively charged alpha particle.

Once again, normally charged matter interacts very little with neutrally charged particles such as neutrons.

How would you explain a neutron going through several feet of concrete? You wouldn't expect that to happen either.

Based on your reply, it doesn't look like you read my original answer. Didn't you read it???

What part of "the alpha particle would generally not feel any electrostatic forces as it passes through" did you not understand and why do I have to repeat myself?

You can question why that statement might be wrong, but why do you just ask the same question again which has already been answered?

It's like you guys don't even bother to read what I am writing and it is very frustrating that you don't get it.

-Franklin

On Saturday, August 16, 2025 at 09:55:39 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Alpha particle is positively charged. It doesn't bounce back, why?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2025 4:24 AM
To: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Akinbo,

You are mistaken because particle interactions primarily occur due to charge interactions. Neutral particle have almost no interaction with normal matter. Neutrons can pass through several feet of concrete. Conversely, concrete would easily pass through a dense sea of neutrons. Neutrinos pass through the entire Earth without interacting.

So, no, an alpha particle would definitely not be bounced back from collisions as the alpha particle would generally not feel any electrostatic forces as it passes through what is effectively a sea of neutrons.

If Carl thinks that the vacuum really is a void, then that is impossible because a void can't have any properties such as there being a recognizable light wave travelling within its volume. This can only occur if there is some material to mediate the existence of the wave and give it properties. I would say that if such a void existed, it would just appear an area where no light could travel or any force like gravity could penetrate.

-Franklin

On Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 03:21:38 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

What you are saying has no bearing to what is being contended here.

In your “vacuum as a sea of positron/electron dipoles”, a particle, such as an alpha particle, will not travel any distance when fired before it gets bounced back from collision.

But in the background type of vacuum that Carl is opting for (viz. “A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three-dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter”), this alpha particle can travel continuously at uniform velocity in a straight line, according to Newton’s first law of motion.

Since he has laid down his choice path, I am only prodding Carl on till we get to hara-kiri or eldorado.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 6:19 PM
To: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>

Hi Akinbo,

Yes, #2 was pretty close.  I just wasn't liking the word 'mixture' as that implies some of this and some of that in a mutually exclusive fashion.  My view is that it's not a mutually exclusionary thing. 

As for your other question...  If the test tube (and its local environment) is at rest relative to the background, during the process of being poured into the tube, the liquid moves away from its previously associated background and over to other (not new) background.  All the way along, it is passing through background - or, rather, the background is passing through the relatively moving liquid.

Kind regards,
Carl

-----------

On 8/11/2025 11:20 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Will further digest your response, and reply again.

But don't you think you should be going for option 2, replacing "vacuum" with "background"?

And before being poured into the tube, from what you wrote, if I get you right, I take it that the liquid was in a mixture with the background. During its being poured into the tube, does it leave that background behind and assume a new background? Or does it take its background along with it as its molecules move and flow into the tube?

I will respond more later tomorrow as I said.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 6:58 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

Regarding light, I used to be firmly in the wave camp.  Not so much anymore.  I sent out a link to a paper in March which had the following:

Photons and Speed Limiters

 

The speed of light is fastest in a vacuum.  It is considerably slower in various translucent substances, glass for example.  Glass is not a medium for light, at least not in the sense that is necessary for the propagation of light.  Instead, it’s simply a speed limiter.  Similarly, the field is just another speed limiter for light.  Other than limiting the speed of light to c, it plays no other role in the propagation of light.

 

Because photons are massless, the instant they are emitted, they are traveling at whatever speed the limiter imposes.  If in a vacuum, they are instantly traveling at c.  If under water, then they are instantly traveling at approximately three-fourths c.  And, if they pass from one limiter to another, say water to glass to vacuum, they instantly travel at the new limiter’s speed.  There is no time spent accelerating (or decelerating). 

Yes, space has values for permittivity and permeability.  The value for permeability value doesn't really change when light passes through translucent substances like glass or water, but the permittivity value does.  At this point, I am going to shift to the background - which permeates (is through) everything, rather than referring to space specifically.  I am thinking that the reason the background has a permittivity value is because it (whatever it is) affects the speed of light in the same way that translucent substances do.  As such, the permittivity values are additive.  When light passes through glass, it is passing through both the glass and the background, and the sum of each of their permittivity values is what we see.

On your five point question, I am going to replace 'vacuum' with 'background' as above.  My answer would fall under 5.  Consider light from a star, one light-day away.  If we consider a 3D geometric region of the background at that distance, it is flooded with light from the star passing through it.  If we then add another star one light-day away, at a 60 degree angle from the first star, our region is flooded with double the light.  It's not that the light from one extinguishes, displaces or in any way affects the light from the other.  The are equally through each other.  As such, it's not that the liquid poured into the test tube does anything to the background.  It's all still there.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/11/2025 4:01 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Yes, puzzles are meant to be solved.

Re: “A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three-dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter”

I accept your definition (although some claim it is not so and that it is constituted of positrons and electrons (poselectrons).

So, lets conduct thought experiments...

You have a vacuumed test-tube. Light waves travel through it. Unless you take light as particles, that implies that this “three-dimensional region devoid of any physical matter” is capable of vibrating and storing energy while it is in transit. We are also informed, and I don’t know if you disagree, that in spite of being devoid of matter, it has properties like permittivity and permeability. If you don’t disagree then the existence is established, since what does not exist cannot have properties.

 

So, when we pour a liquid into this test-tube, which of the following happens

1). The vacuum is displaced out of the tube like how air gets displaced.

2). The vacuum gets mixed with the liquid to form a new mixture.

3). Vacuum does not exist and has no physical properties.

4). Vacuum ceases to exist and its place is taken by the liquid.

5). Or what other suggestion?

When you indicate your choice, we can examine it further.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 3:48 AM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

I find your notion of space (vacuum) as existing to be puzzling.  A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter.  It’s not that such a void exists per se.  Therefore, I find the notion of it coming into or going out of existence as flawed.

As for the glass of beer, per the foregoing, the vacuum between the air molecules didn’t “go” anywhere.  And, the air molecules simply got displaced.  The didn’t cease to exist.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/10/2025 3:07 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the compliment.

Is there any concept that Physics (or as it used to be called, Natural Philosophy) should not probe? 

Should the existence or non-existence of Soul be subject to logical examination or is it a question of faith (or an axiom as philosophers may prefer to say)?

I ask because you are making claims concerning existence of soul and its maturity. Others who also believe in soul, may claim that it grows with the individual. And yet others may say nothing like soul exists. I respect your caveat and I am not pressing you on which direction to go and not to go.

On the second point. Take "light" as analogous to "space (vacuum)". Both can be present or absent. Both can come into existence and go out of existence, in part or as a whole. And I believe this is continuously happening as we speak. When you pour a beer into a glass, where has the air and the vacuum between the air molecules gone to? It has ceased to exist. But we know it used to be there because light waves used it to propagate when the glass was empty.

You must have heard that more space that didn't exist is now coming into existence, usually referred to as Hubble expansion. It is not that the galaxies are spreading into pre-existing space. New space is still being created out of nothing.

Let me pause here...

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2025 9:08 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Ah, Akinbo, ever the consummate philosopher.  (Recall that I once said I consider you the purest philosopher amongst us.)

My comment regarding autonomy and freedom of thought was in response to what Cornelis wrote: "What makes you think you are controlling the waves behaviors as you yourself are a composition of them."  (Emphasis added.)  It struck me that whatever the waves do is what we do - we can't do otherwise, as we are not in control.

Now, I didn't intend to go here, but since you pressed the point, my philosophy says that our autonomy and freedom of thought are not derived from anything in our physical composition - electrolytes, et. al.  That's the purview of the soul - which exists beyond the physical realm.

While the soul is mature all throughout mortal life, it takes time for babies and children to gain their faculties.  So, when did I start having freedom of thought?  As I gained my faculties.

To your second point, I agree that someone who is born blind would have no concept of light or dark - other than as words in a discussion.  As for covering one eye, since eyes are a redundant system, either one (or only one) can provide all the input to the brain.  It's not that the covered eye ceases to exist, it simply isn't necessary.  I would tend to agree that the covered eye doesn't "see" darkness, but that's only because the brain is flooded with imagery from the uncovered eye, so darkness isn't perceived by the brain.

However, if you're in a completely darkened room with both eyes uncovered, are you "seeing" darkness/blackness.  Your eyes (and brain) can certainly perceive the lack of light.  What does covering one eye do then?  What does uncovering it do?  Is it popping into existence ex nihilo?

Kind regards,
Carl

--------------

On 8/9/2025 3:18 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Carl,

You said a few things which fall in the category of “belief”, and not “knowledge”.

At what level does your autonomy, freedom of thought, good, evil, right, wrong originate because I know that at the level of electron, proton, and the ions that enable the electrical signals in your brain, there is none of the things you mention. Or do the electrolytes in your own brain differentiate good and bad?

 

On “Shifting to where everything came from, etc”

Unconsciously, because you fall into category of “is”, and have always been an “is”, it is difficult to contemplate what is in the category of “is not”, unless you want to so to speak, think without ceasing as Newton would say. To contemplate the state of “is not” requires thinking at the next level like Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is not easy.

I will give you two examples to worry about...

1) When did Carl become an “is” and started having freedom of thought, know good and evil, etc? By my use of when implies that the “ride” started at sometime in the past and not an infinite past.

2) Open both eyes, look around, then cover one. What do you see from the covered one? You don’t see darkness. You don’t see anything. That covered eye ceases to exist. But suddenly if you open the eye it starts to exist again ex nihilo. Many sighted people assume that the for the blind everywhere is dark. Not so! To the blind nothing can be visualized, not even a darkness.

Same with big bang. You ask where everything came from because you are “sighted”. There is no where and there is no when in the sense you are looking at it.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 10:23 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

So, we are just along for the ride?  We have no autonomy, no freedom of thought?  We are all predestined to do or not do whatever throughout the entirety of our individual existences?  If so, there is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong, and nothing whatsoever matters. 

Shifting to where everything came from.  The big bang is ex nihilo.  Doesn't the proto-medium (or your tensionable media) have the same problem?  They were just always there?  They had no beginning?  Even so, what caused the initial disturbance?  It smacks as being just as magic as what AJ decries as, "The entire physics model rests on hundreds, if not thousands of 'just is' axioms."

----------

On 8/8/2025 1:16 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:

Carl 

Waves interact with waves.  Both you and the coffee cup are conglomerations of focused wave patterns.  Andy an I have very much the same view. 

I might ask a philosophical question.  What makes you think you are controlling the waves behaviors as you yourself are a composition of them.

Cornelis Verhey

On Fri, Aug 8, 2025, 11:15 AM Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com> wrote:

This conversation strikes me as:

Person 1) The apple fell because of gravity.

Person 2) But, since we don't know what gravity actually is, the apple didn't fall.

The following are questions for AJ:

If the proto-medium is the basis for everything, and all matter (as we perceive it) is just standing waves or tension gradients (or whatever) in the medium, then why do/should I have any control over it?  For example, if there is a coffee mug's worth of emerged matter on my desk, and I go to grab it with my hand to pick it up, why doesn't it just ignore my hand?  Or, why doesn't my hand just pass through it?

Why should I be able to bend the proto-medium to my will?

If it's the father (all matter was caused, created, emerged via it), how is it also the son (subordinate to my will, my actions)?  [Yes, I employed religious phraseology.]

Curiously,
Carl

-----------

On 8/7/2025 9:21 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:

Franklin

Did you not read the argument against that.

"

Science has for millennia assumed stuff just exists independently of empty distance.  Then they assumed forces, such as gravity, simply exist.  They assume motion just exists.          

The entire physics model rests on hundreds, if not thousands of "just is" axioms across dozens of scientific disciplines.  No explanation.  They just are.  

"

Cornelis Verhey

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025, 10:37 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

Did you not read my reasoning that the existence of the electron is a certainty and therefore there is no need to explain where is came from.

Sent from my iPhone

[John-Erik Persson]

All

If you need waves then you need the ether, but if you have the ether you do not need waves. Instead you need absorption.

• Absorption in A creates a spherical symmetric field around A
• This field is not symmetric around B
• Asymmetry in B creates a force in A directed towards A
• The same in opposite direction
• We have two emergent forces in A and B
• There is no attraction between A and B
• Gravitational attraction is an illusion
• Instead we have emergence caused by absorption

So, we have emergence by absorption, not attraction

John-Erik

[Cornelis Verhey]

I have no problem with leaving it as time dilation.  The behavior is just the same by any other name.

Franklin molasses is a bad analogy because it would cause drag and cause time to stop.  Sometimes we pull the trigger a little to soon.

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Probably you are not very familiar with what bonds are, and there are different types. Without them, a collection of helium gas molecules gets dispersed and cannot carry any sound waves. Sound waves require something to restrain the molecules when they move apart during the rarefaction phase of sound propagation. And even something to repel the molecules when they move towards each other during the compression phase. All these are geared to maintain the bond at an equilibrium length which can be determined by experiment and is not arbitrary.

 

On the other topic, you need to understand Newton’s third law. You are not showing that you do.

When you push a car, the car is pushing you back. The magnitude and direction of motion is based on momentum conservation laws, and the relative masses of hand and car are part of the consideration. In a poselectron sea, considering the column of massive particles in the line of pushing, the car will not even move at all when you push because of the quadrillions of densely packed poselectron particles that need to be gotten out of the way by the pushing effort. Do the math, and tell us how much mass will need to be pushed out of the way every second by a car travelling at 5mph?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 12:12 PM

[Cornelis Verhey]

Well maybe some reason Franklin.

https://g.co/gemini/share/32ffa8b339eb

So you just get a chain reaction like your typical child's ballpit in space.

Cornelis Verhey

Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <allens1

[Cornelis Verhey]

Have you any reason to think differently?

My theory says everything is wave patterns in a unified field.

Cornelis Verhey

[John-Erik Persson]

Cornelis,

no, it is not time dilation

Nick, 

yes, it is clock dilation. However, it must be explained and the explanation is that atomic clocks depend on the ether wind, since bound electrons move forth and back in the ether wind, v, with the speed c. So, frequency changes as     f'=f(1-v^2/2c^2).     The factor 2 depends on the fact that the ether wind affects motion only on 1 dimension of 2 in motion.

John-Erik

[John-Erik Persson]

Cornelis

My theory says everything is wave patterns in a unified field.

No, waves cannot be the base of everything, since waves must be based on something doing the waving, and we normally call it the ether.

In my opinion the ether is based on subatomic particles.

John-Erik

[Carl Reiff]

John-Erik,

How do you "know" how the electrons move?  Regardless, why would only the electrons be affected?  (Note: Isotope half-lives - which are purely nucleonic - are affected.)

~Carl

---------------

[John-Erik Persson]

Carl Reiff

How do you "know" how the electrons move?  

They are assumed to move in circular orbits.

Regardless, why would only the electrons be affected?  (Note: Isotope half-lives - which are purely nucleonic - are affected.)

I have not stated anything about other particles except electrons.

John-Erik

[Carl Reiff]

John-Erik,

Well, if the are in circular orbits, how do you know their planes of inclination relative to the direction of the supposed aether wind?

Secondly, I am aware you only mentioned electrons.  What do they "alone" have to do with the price of tea in China when it comes to process slowing?  Why isn't everything affected equally - not just electrons - during the whole process slowing phenomenon?

~Carl

----------------

[John-Erik Persson]

Carl

Well, if the are in circular orbits, how do you know their planes of inclination relative to the direction of the supposed aether wind?

I do not know their orientations

Secondly, I am aware you only mentioned electrons.  What do they "alone" have to do with the price of tea in China when it comes to process slowing?  

How do you know that electrons are related to tea?

Why isn't everything affected equally - not just electrons - during the whole process slowing phenomenon?

I do not know so you must find out yourself!

John-Erik

[Carl Reiff]

John-Erik,

"What does (something) have to do with the price of tea in China," is an expression in English.  It conveys that something being related to something else is a fallacy, as there is no correlation.  The point I was making is that you saying, "electrons move forth and back in the ether wind," is unfounded and, therefore, a dopey assertion.  

With respect to any supposed planes of electron orbitals, you just said, "I do not know their orientations," so you admit you can't know they are moving back and forth (in the aether wind), rendering your ad nauseamly repeated assertion that, "frequency changes as f'=f(1-v^2/2c^2)," to be total poppycock.

Lastly, you are the one talking only about electrons.  I do not need to find out why everything isn't affected, because everything is affected.  You don't seem to think so, therefore you need to explain it - i.e., how everything isn't equally affected.

~Carl

--------------

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Hi Franklin

     Yes, I do get the point that with your model "it should slow a swinging pendulum of a physical clock". However, while, as I noted explicitly, atomic clocks do slow, however swinging pendulum clocks actually increase in speed with increased gravitational field density.

                  Nick 

[John-Erik Persson]

Carl

"What does (something) have to do with the price of tea in China," is an expression in English.  It conveys that something being related to something else is a fallacy, as there is no correlation.  The point I was making is that you saying, "electrons move forth and back in the ether wind," is unfounded and, therefore, a dopey assertion.  

Electrons move in circular orbits, so they move forth and back in one dimension of two

With respect to any supposed planes of electron orbitals, you just said, "I do not know their orientations," so you admit you can't know they are moving back and forth (in the aether wind), rendering your ad nauseamly repeated assertion that, "frequency changes as f'=f(1-v^2/2c^2)," to be total poppycock.

You are wrong, since this frequency dependency is in agreement with special relativity

Lastly, you are the one talking only about electrons.  I do not need to find out why everything isn't affected, because everything is affected.  You don't seem to think so, therefore you need to explain it - i.e., how everything isn't equally affected.

Wrong again. I talk about electrons, and you talk about everything, so it is you that has a lot to explain, not I

John-Erik

[John-Erik Persson]

However, while, as I noted explicitly, atomic clocks do slow, however swinging pendulum clocks actually increase in speed with increased gravitational field density.

Nick 

Good observation Thank you

John-Erik

[Cornelis Verhey]

John-Erik

Call it what you will.  I have no problem with leaving the behaviors name as time dilation.

The behavior is just the same by any other name.

What about the behavior changes if you call one or both processes a clock?

What about the behavior changes if you provide a hypothetical explanation for the behavior. 

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

John-Erik

Thank you for your response but I see no need in a lecture about waves require a carrier.  I have defined them as wave patterns IN a UNIFIED FIELD.

I could continue to call it ether but there are too many different interpretations of what defines ether, including yours.  So to say we normally call it the ether only invites confusion and distracting side discussions.

My opinion of the properties of the wave carrier medium varies greatly from yours as it is continuous and not particulate.

Cornelis Verhey

[John-Erik Persson]

Cornelis

Call it what you will.  I have no problem with leaving the behaviors name as time dilation.

I have, since it is magic, and time is absolute

The behavior is just the same by any other name.

No, clock dilation is not magic

What about the behavior changes if you call one or both processes a clock?

You cannot change the process by giving it another name

What about the behavior changes if you provide a hypothetical explanation for the behavior. 

You cannot change the process by giving it another explanation

John-Erik

[Cornelis Verhey]

John-Erik,

Since you say it is magic, and time is absolute not relative, what clock is keeping this absolute time?

Cornelis

--

Cornelis Verhey

[James J Keene]

On 8/22/2025 10:55 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:
> what clock is
> keeping this absolute time?

Cornelis asks the right question. Answer: the electron and proton bit
cycles discovered using the principles of binary mechanics:
https://binarymechanics.blogspot.com/2015/04/proton-and-electron-bit-cycles.html
Cheers, Jim

[Cornelis Verhey]

Call it what you will.  I have no problem with leaving the behaviors name as time dilation.

I have, since it is magic, and time is absolute

MAGIC IS JUST A MATTER OF NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW IT HAPPENS.

ABSOLUTE COMARED TO WHICH CLOCK RATE?

The behavior is just the same by any other name.

No, clock dilation is not magic

IT IS NO BETTER EXPLAINED BY CALLING IT CLOCK DILATION.

EACH LOCATION IN SPACE HAS ITS OWN PROPERTIES THAT CONTROL PROCESS RATES.  IF A CLOCK IS THAT PROCESS THEN IT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THAT CORDINATE LOCATIONS PROPERTIES.

What about the behavior changes if you call one or both processes a clock?

You cannot change the process by giving it another name

EXACTLY THE PROCESS REMAINS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE NAME YOU GIVE IT.

What about the behavior changes if you provide a hypothetical explanation for the behavior. 

You cannot change the process by giving it another explanation

EXACTLY THE BEHAVIOR IS THE.BEHAVIOR REGARDLESS OF NAME YOU HAVE GIVEN IT OR THE HYPOTHETICAL MODEL YOU USE TO EXPLAIN IT.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

James,

I do not see how you can identify a single absolute clock.  All you can do is select one to use as your standard to make relative measures to.

Cornelis Verhey

[John-Erik Persson]

Clocks measure only increments of time. The idea of measuring absolute time is absurd.

Time dilation is a cover up for the lack of rational explanation to the shift in frequency when atomic clocks are put into orbits in GPS. It is an illusion.

In reality bound electrons move forth and back in one dimension of two in relation to the ether wind. Therefore the clocks depend on the ether wind half as much as Einstein's light clock.

See attachment

John-Erik

[Cornelis Verhey]

John-Eric,

​A physical property that cannot be defined or measured is, by definition, not a scientific concept.

​You say time is absolute, yet you also claim that "the idea of measuring absolute time is absurd." This is a self-contradiction. If time were truly absolute, it would have to be measurable against some universal standard.

​Whether you call it "clock dilation" or "time dilation" doesn't change the facts. The atomic clocks in GPS satellites behave exactly as predicted by relativity. These effects are real and measurable, not magic or an illusion.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

[NICHOLAS PERCIVAL]

Attached is my view.

                   Nick 

[Frank Fernandes]

Nick, et.al.

THE ATTACHED ESSAY IN THE NICK OF TIME IS EXCELLENT & SHOWS A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS AND DEFINITIONS AND SCIENTIFIC INTUITION.

It encompasses alot and discriminates between standards set by NIST as well as Philosophy of time.

In the ultimate analysis from my empirical equations - which match - Nick's essay - the text can be summarized as INTERVALS.

Intervals of time the inverse being frequency.

At the heart of frequency is a twin mass of a graviton and aitheron.

One can do away with units because a cycle could be any cycle under scrutiny.

We as humans need to define which cycle we are talking about, else confusion compounded. That is where definitions kick in.

It is pointless creating another set of intervals by say for example defining ON & OFF or 0 and 1 with infinity [error of deep proportions] inbetween.

This is a classic representation of a clock as described by Nick that works by human construct.

Then we find ourselves back at the very beginning. Namely. What is less than zero and what is more than 1? In other words we have created another boundary condition and carelessly avoided what is beyond the boundary we have set ourselves.

Eric has put frequency in his equation which is Einstein's brilliant work. Einstein gave us mass change. Einstein did not have the data. NIST provided me the data and thus I fixed the problem.

The problem was solved by me utilizing the genius Bohr model. And so Hatch's work is math with wrong physical interpretation.

It is the gamma factor beautifully arrived at by Lorenz and Einstein which provides the solution. Two Rydberg photons are produced as a consequence of aitheron frequency changes which reflect in measurements of say mass of a proton or electron.

And so Nick is correct in doing away with dimensions. Because the measure of these masses arrive at from aitheron frequency. Which again is an interval.

However if we do not input the units it will create confusion on what we are talking about.

This confusion is very clear in most in this group who are not from a pure science background. Mix up a horse from a donkey and so forth in every email.

It has got to do with a poor education. Which mass is moving within what interval or frequency.

A good education is one that requires hard work and risk taking within the utility of one's telos. Not just rambling. That is for the village idiot.

Yet the village ideot reflects our own defficiencies. And it is this realization that brings forth the need to be saved from our self sufficiency.

There are members who are at the middle school level of understanding in theology, philosophy and science. Others at a high school level. Others technical fitters. And so it is a great mix.

These email exchanges should be studied by government think tanks to enable the world to come out of deep ignorance.

Ignorance is directly proportional to attachment.

Cheers.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

If the theory of the universe as a digital simulation is true, then there would be an obvious master clock at which no process could go faster than.

Personally, I think if you were able to measure the high frequency resonance of an electron (this is the highest possible quantized frequency) which is responsible for the electric field and you were to make a clock out of it, you would find that clock to be immune to dilation effects because it really would be the one standard you could make relative measurements against. This would truly show that time itself does not dilate, but it is only physical clocks dialate.

I think this would be one of the experiments that could prove the digital nature of the universe by showing such a master clock exists.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 24, 2025, at 3:59 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

Yes, absolutely. I have many reasons to think that the election is not made out of wave phenomenon. These have been mentioned to you:

1. Waves always superimpose and pass through each other while electrons reflect off each other and behave more like billiard balls. So since electrons do not pass through each other other, they cannot be made of wave phenomenon.

2. If you claim wave behavior exists then there must be a compressible medium to mediate a change of density to mediate the wave. What is the wave waving in must be answered. That medium can only logically be made of discrete particles that act like particles. Therefore the electron and positron must fulfill that role as the wave medium and cannot itself be composed of waves.

3. All experiments show that an electron has no sub components and no structure of any kind. If an electron were some kind of wave structure, then we would have detected that structure  by now. Since it has no structure, it cannot be a wave phenomenon.

4. Making the electron as the foundational concept allows us to understand how the world works on a common sense manner which aligns with our current notions about particles and waves. You don’t have to make absurd statements like a material which is not made of particles, yet can still represent density changes required by waves. This is just impossible and is a massive hand wave. I prefer much simpler explanations like space is filled with electrons and waves pass through that sea. Much simpler.

Sent from my iPhoe

On Aug 22, 2025, at 11:53 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

I’d say that Gemini is trying to be in its people pleasing mode, but it clearly says that it is the collisions which propagate the waves. Intermolecular interactions are not required to pull back the wave since it is all the collisions which push back all the waves. Clearly there is only a push and never a pull force.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2025, at 11:23 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

The jar surrounding a gas to prevent it from escaping in not an intermolecular bond. 

It is just a barrier who’s is reflecting non bonded helium atoms back in the jar.

So no intermolecular bonds between the helium atoms are needed to clarify that there is still no bond between individual molecules. The jar isn’t a bond.

Akinbo, the question is if you can explain how Newton’s third law works. The explanation you provide is perfect  It shows why the car creates an opposing force. Whether I did the math or not, it wouldn’t matter, the principle is correct. Although I think you should be able to calculate the apparent mass of an electron and proton and be able to account for the differences. I am not at that point but should be theoreticaly possible and add supports for poselectron theory.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2025, at 10:01 PM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

Probably you are not very familiar with what bonds are, and there are different types. Without them, a collection of helium gas molecules gets dispersed and cannot carry any sound waves. Sound waves require something to restrain the molecules when they move apart during the rarefaction phase of sound propagation. And even something to repel the molecules when they move towards each other during the compression phase. All these are geared to maintain the bond at an equilibrium length which can be determined by experiment and is not arbitrary.

 

On the other topic, you need to understand Newton’s third law. You are not showing that you do.

When you push a car, the car is pushing you back. The magnitude and direction of motion is based on momentum conservation laws, and the relative masses of hand and car are part of the consideration. In a poselectron sea, considering the column of massive particles in the line of pushing, the car will not even move at all when you push because of the quadrillions of densely packed poselectron particles that need to be gotten out of the way by the pushing effort. Do the math, and tell us how much mass will need to be pushed out of the way every second by a car travelling at 5mph?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 12:12 PM

Hi Akinbo,

Regarding light, I used to be firmly in the wave camp.  Not so much anymore.  I sent out a link to a paper in March which had the following:

Photons and Speed Limiters

 

The speed of light is fastest in a vacuum.  It is considerably slower in various translucent substances, glass for example.  Glass is not a medium for light, at least not in the sense that is necessary for the propagation of light.  Instead, it’s simply a speed limiter.  Similarly, the field is just another speed limiter for light.  Other than limiting the speed of light to c, it plays no other role in the propagation of light.

 

Because photons are massless, the instant they are emitted, they are traveling at whatever speed the limiter imposes.  If in a vacuum, they are instantly traveling at c.  If under water, then they are instantly traveling at approximately three-fourths c.  And, if they pass from one limiter to another, say water to glass to vacuum, they instantly travel at the new limiter’s speed.  There is no time spent accelerating (or decelerating). 

Yes, space has values for permittivity and permeability.  The value for permeability value doesn't really change when light passes through translucent substances like glass or water, but the permittivity value does.  At this point, I am going to shift to the background - which permeates (is through) everything, rather than referring to space specifically.  I am thinking that the reason the background has a permittivity value is because it (whatever it is) affects the speed of light in the same way that translucent substances do.  As such, the permittivity values are additive.  When light passes through glass, it is passing through both the glass and the background, and the sum of each of their permittivity values is what we see.

On your five point question, I am going to replace 'vacuum' with 'background' as above.  My answer would fall under 5.  Consider light from a star, one light-day away.  If we consider a 3D geometric region of the background at that distance, it is flooded with light from the star passing through it.  If we then add another star one light-day away, at a 60 degree angle from the first star, our region is flooded with double the light.  It's not that the light from one extinguishes, displaces or in any way affects the light from the other.  The are equally through each other.  As such, it's not that the liquid poured into the test tube does anything to the background.  It's all still there.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/11/2025 4:01 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Yes, puzzles are meant to be solved.

Re: “A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three-dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter”

I accept your definition (although some claim it is not so and that it is constituted of positrons and electrons (poselectrons).

So, lets conduct thought experiments...

You have a vacuumed test-tube. Light waves travel through it. Unless you take light as particles, that implies that this “three-dimensional region devoid of any physical matter” is capable of vibrating and storing energy while it is in transit. We are also informed, and I don’t know if you disagree, that in spite of being devoid of matter, it has properties like permittivity and permeability. If you don’t disagree then the existence is established, since what does not exist cannot have properties.

 

So, when we pour a liquid into this test-tube, which of the following happens

1). The vacuum is displaced out of the tube like how air gets displaced.

2). The vacuum gets mixed with the liquid to form a new mixture.

3). Vacuum does not exist and has no physical properties.

4). Vacuum ceases to exist and its place is taken by the liquid.

5). Or what other suggestion?

When you indicate your choice, we can examine it further.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 3:48 AM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Hi Akinbo,

I find your notion of space (vacuum) as existing to be puzzling.  A true vacuum (or void) would simply be a three dimensional geometric region which is devoid of any physical matter.  It’s not that such a void exists per se.  Therefore, I find the notion of it coming into or going out of existence as flawed.

As for the glass of beer, per the foregoing, the vacuum between the air molecules didn’t “go” anywhere.  And, the air molecules simply got displaced.  The didn’t cease to exist.

Kind regards,
Carl

------------

On 8/10/2025 3:07 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the compliment.

Is there any concept that Physics (or as it used to be called, Natural Philosophy) should not probe? 

Should the existence or non-existence of Soul be subject to logical examination or is it a question of faith (or an axiom as philosophers may prefer to say)?

I ask because you are making claims concerning existence of soul and its maturity. Others who also believe in soul, may claim that it grows with the individual. And yet others may say nothing like soul exists. I respect your caveat and I am not pressing you on which direction to go and not to go.

On the second point. Take "light" as analogous to "space (vacuum)". Both can be present or absent. Both can come into existence and go out of existence, in part or as a whole. And I believe this is continuously happening as we speak. When you pour a beer into a glass, where has the air and the vacuum between the air molecules gone to? It has ceased to exist. But we know it used to be there because light waves used it to propagate when the glass was empty.

You must have heard that more space that didn't exist is now coming into existence, usually referred to as Hubble expansion. It is not that the galaxies are spreading into pre-existing space. New space is still being created out of nothing.

Let me pause here...

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2025 9:08 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

Ah, Akinbo, ever the consummate philosopher.  (Recall that I once said I consider you the purest philosopher amongst us.)

My comment regarding autonomy and freedom of thought was in response to what Cornelis wrote: "What makes you think you are controlling the waves behaviors as you yourself are a composition of them."  (Emphasis added.)  It struck me that whatever the waves do is what we do - we can't do otherwise, as we are not in control.

Now, I didn't intend to go here, but since you pressed the point, my philosophy says that our autonomy and freedom of thought are not derived from anything in our physical composition - electrolytes, et. al.  That's the purview of the soul - which exists beyond the physical realm.

While the soul is mature all throughout mortal life, it takes time for babies and children to gain their faculties.  So, when did I start having freedom of thought?  As I gained my faculties.

To your second point, I agree that someone who is born blind would have no concept of light or dark - other than as words in a discussion.  As for covering one eye, since eyes are a redundant system, either one (or only one) can provide all the input to the brain.  It's not that the covered eye ceases to exist, it simply isn't necessary.  I would tend to agree that the covered eye doesn't "see" darkness, but that's only because the brain is flooded with imagery from the uncovered eye, so darkness isn't perceived by the brain.

However, if you're in a completely darkened room with both eyes uncovered, are you "seeing" darkness/blackness.  Your eyes (and brain) can certainly perceive the lack of light.  What does covering one eye do then?  What does uncovering it do?  Is it popping into existence ex nihilo?

Kind regards,
Carl

--------------

On 8/9/2025 3:18 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:

Carl,

You said a few things which fall in the category of “belief”, and not “knowledge”.

At what level does your autonomy, freedom of thought, good, evil, right, wrong originate because I know that at the level of electron, proton, and the ions that enable the electrical signals in your brain, there is none of the things you mention. Or do the electrolytes in your own brain differentiate good and bad?

 

On “Shifting to where everything came from, etc”

Unconsciously, because you fall into category of “is”, and have always been an “is”, it is difficult to contemplate what is in the category of “is not”, unless you want to so to speak, think without ceasing as Newton would say. To contemplate the state of “is not” requires thinking at the next level like Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is not easy.

I will give you two examples to worry about...

1) When did Carl become an “is” and started having freedom of thought, know good and evil, etc? By my use of when implies that the “ride” started at sometime in the past and not an infinite past.

2) Open both eyes, look around, then cover one. What do you see from the covered one? You don’t see darkness. You don’t see anything. That covered eye ceases to exist. But suddenly if you open the eye it starts to exist again ex nihilo. Many sighted people assume that the for the blind everywhere is dark. Not so! To the blind nothing can be visualized, not even a darkness.

Same with big bang. You ask where everything came from because you are “sighted”. There is no where and there is no when in the sense you are looking at it.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 10:23 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: What is the proto-matter?

 

So, we are just along for the ride?  We have no autonomy, no freedom of thought?  We are all predestined to do or not do whatever throughout the entirety of our individual existences?  If so, there is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong, and nothing whatsoever matters. 

Shifting to where everything came from.  The big bang is ex nihilo.  Doesn't the proto-medium (or your tensionable media) have the same problem?  They were just always there?  They had no beginning?  Even so, what caused the initial disturbance?  It smacks as being just as magic as what AJ decries as, "The entire physics model rests on hundreds, if not thousands of 'just is' axioms."

----------

On 8/8/2025 1:16 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:

Carl 

Waves interact with waves.  Both you and the coffee cup are conglomerations of focused wave patterns.  Andy an I have very much the same view. 

I might ask a philosophical question.  What makes you think you are controlling the waves behaviors as you yourself are a composition of them.

Cornelis Verhey

On Fri, Aug 8, 2025, 11:15 AM Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com> wrote:

This conversation strikes me as:

Person 1) The apple fell because of gravity.

Person 2) But, since we don't know what gravity actually is, the apple didn't fall.

The following are questions for AJ:

If the proto-medium is the basis for everything, and all matter (as we perceive it) is just standing waves or tension gradients (or whatever) in the medium, then why do/should I have any control over it?  For example, if there is a coffee mug's worth of emerged matter on my desk, and I go to grab it with my hand to pick it up, why doesn't it just ignore my hand?  Or, why doesn't my hand just pass through it?

Why should I be able to bend the proto-medium to my will?

If it's the father (all matter was caused, created, emerged via it), how is it also the son (subordinate to my will, my actions)?  [Yes, I employed religious phraseology.]

Curiously,
Carl

-----------

On 8/7/2025 9:21 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:

Franklin

Did you not read the argument against that.

"

Science has for millennia assumed stuff just exists independently of empty distance.  Then they assumed forces, such as gravity, simply exist.  They assume motion just exists.          

The entire physics model rests on hundreds, if not thousands of "just is" axioms across dozens of scientific disciplines.  No explanation.  They just are.  

"

Cornelis Verhey

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025, 10:37 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

Did you not read my reasoning that the existence of the electron is a certainty and therefore there is no need to explain where is came from.

Sent from my iPhone

[Franklin Hu]

John-Erik

Sorry, I don’t get it.

Try that explanation again but show why A repels A and B repels B but A/B attract. 

The problem with concepts like absorption, sinks , sources or anything suggesting a one way flow is that while A/B attract,  B/B repel, but invariably A/A must attract very strongly.

So how does your hypothesis get past this problem. It is grossly insufficient to just show that attractive forces can develop. To explain electrostatic forces you must be able to describe what makes positive different from negative.

So this is why you still need waves and can’t rely upon just the aether.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2025, at 7:48 PM, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:



All

If you need waves then you need the ether, but if you have the ether you do not need waves. Instead you need absorption.

• Absorption in A creates a spherical symmetric field around A
• This field is not symmetric around B
• Asymmetry in B creates a force in A directed towards A
• The same in opposite direction
• We have two emergent forces in A and B
• There is no attraction between A and B
• Gravitational attraction is an illusion
• Instead we have emergence caused by absorption

So, we have emergence by absorption, not attraction

John-Erik

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 12:38 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

Do you still think electrons are made out of wave phenomenon?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2025, at 11:24 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

"​​If you think forces are due to wave interactions and a high-frequency longitudinal wave, then I'd say we actually have a great deal in common."

Perhaps you can see where I got that idea.

Why else would you now say "we actually have a great deal in common" if you had not come to accept the founding principle that "forces are due to wave interactions" and waves do not just pass through each other?

I had shared no new information?

I have described my theory based on the same fundamental observations, the interactions between high frequency longitudinal waves, from the very beginning.

Our views have very little in common and the more detail you try to describe in yours the more abstract it seems to become.

You do not even accept the fundamental property of all wave.

https://g.co/gemini/share/f8b075dcf88a 

Cornelis Verhey

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 4:59 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis

No, not sure where you got that idea. Waves always pass through each other and the only way we can observe them exchanging energy is when it causes suspended particles within the medium to collide. That is a transfer of kinetic energy from the medium to a large particle, not to another wave. 

Transfer of kinetic energy from wave to wave would generally seem impossible. So no interaction would seem possible.

The purpose of the fundamental particle is to provide the rock solid basis for the rest of the physical world. I say that particle is the electron which is well understood and the properties observed are the ones required.

I would emphasize that while we may have no idea what an electron actually is, as long as we are certain that it exists and their properties, that is all that is required to build a fully valid theoretical framework around them. It is certainly much stronger than building it out of some circulon, fp, or whatever-on most other dissident theories rely upon.

I repeat - we DO NOT need to know how an electron works in order to be sure of its existence.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2025, at 2:54 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

So you are now agreeing:  That waves do not just propagate through each other without interaction.  That the entrainment between waves within their non-linear tension bond carrier medium is responsible for the origin of forces.

Yet you say: "There are fundamental particles- I’m still not sure what they are, but they cannot be composed of waves or tension or anything like that."

What is your purpose for these fundamental particles?  What properties do you require of them?

Cornelis

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 2:11 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

We agree on the origins of forces it appears but do not agree on the origin of matter. Matter itself cannot be the result of any wave interactions but would be fundamentally rooted in the existence of the electron which acts as a wave generating machine of some type.

An electron is not constructed out of any waves or medium or anything. It generates waves, that is the hierarchy.

Perhaps you want to try to simplify it by making everything waves but this is going too far.

There are fundamental particles- I’m still not sure what they are, but they cannot be composed of waves or tension or anything like that.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 21, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



Franklin

"

Cornelis

​If you think forces are due to wave interactions and a high-frequency longitudinal wave, then I'd say we actually have a great deal in common.

"

​This after you for years repeatedly ridiculed my explanation that mass is emergent from the interactions of a single, high-frequency, longitudinal wave pattern with wavelengths that vary from near zero to near infinity.

​All the while, you repeatedly ridiculed it as foolish because waves don't interact but only propagate through each other.

​I also explained that electromagnetic properties are emergent from the interactions of transverse waves in the same carrier medium.

​For you to now say that 'forces are due to wave interactions' and that we have a lot in common is a complete farce.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 8:46 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

If you think forces are due to wave interactions and due to a high frequency longitudinal wave, then I would say we actually have a great deal in common.

Although, I would say that the electrostatic force is also due to wave interactions and some level of quantization is necessary to get the Bjerknes forces to work.

Given the evidence we have from dropping neutrons and quantum physics, I would still favor mass having to jump quantum distances 

-Franklin 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 20, 2025, at 4:42 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



​Franklin,

It has never been about a 1/r^2 force being the result of wave interactions in a carrier medium. Instead, it has always been and still is about the incomplete or misinterpreted understanding of the physical behavior of waves and their carrier medium, including Bjerknes forces. For a long time now, I have shared my observations of how wave interactions could create and maintain the continuous 1/r^2 property of gravity. I also suggested that this wave was longitudinal in nature and of a single high frequency.

​The wave carrier medium is not quantized, nor is gravity. The absorption and emission of electromagnetic wave energy into or out of a stable matter structure is, however, quantized.  Since there is no need for the jumping of mass from place to place, there is no need to postulate quantized space or a "God computer."

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 10:27 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I can certainly change the topic, but do you believe that Bjerknes found a 1/r^2 force and have I convinced you that quantization makes it possible for the waves to be phased locked?

-Franklin

On Monday, August 18, 2025 at 06:12:51 AM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

We are not going to discuss your concept under the topic heading of proto-matter.  That would only add confusion to its intended meaning as Andy and I have agreed to call it.

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 12:35 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

Well, then, do you at least agree that Bjerknes found a legitimate 1/r^2 force? You didn't specifically address that in your response. You have gone off in a different direction.

Good that you are showing that there are specific physical limitations in a practical experiment and looking at the details using AI to examine the original experiment. What you describe can happen when the distance between the centers can be smoothly changed by something like a 1/2 wavelength.

To explain why this doesn't occur, requires the quantization of both length and time. This is not an unreasonable postulate and has been suggested by others like James Keene and I think it is critical because without it, it often leads to infinities if anything becomes infinitely divisible. There is also plenty of evidence provided by mainstream quantum physics to suggest that everything is quantized at some level. I have mentioned this in previous posts.

Now, I would postulate that the frequency of the waves being emitted by electrons and positrons is the absolute fastest frequency in the universe. Everything can only change at this frequency and could be seen as a global clock for the universe - this is similar to the clock in a digital computer.

Therefore, 1/2 wavelength changes simply cannot happen. That wouldn't be falling on the global clock tick. Everything has to be phase locked either 100% in phase or 100% out of phase in only whole integer wavelengths in all locations in space. This is why I say that every single wave from a positive charge has to be phased locked to every other positive charge across the universe at all times. This is why I said you were originally objecting to this and indeed, this is what you seem to be objecting to - this need to phase lock everything, however, this is a basic postulate of my model. Such a thing could be modeled on a computer to show it is logically consistent and plausible.

So, if you were to imagine trying to change the distance between a positron and electron, it could only jump 1 whole wavelength away at a time. There is no opportunity for a 1/2, 1/4, or any fractional distance apart due to quantization.

I think you would have to agree that if such quantization occurs, your argument doesn't apply. As a practical application for a real experiment, you could also think of the distance between the pulsing spheres as being restricted to only be integer wavelength distances away to simulate the quantization of length/time. Then the phase relationship would be preserved at any "allowed" quantized distance. This then make perfect sense.

As for the topic, I think we have drifted off into a specific embodiment of the "proto-matter" which is a positron/electron sea and how it can specifically mediate the observed properties of charge.

-Franklin

Cornelis Verhey

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025, 10:48 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

You are severely mistaken.

A more recent reference can be found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerknes_force

<1755315476953blob.jpg>

That definitely does not sound like the force increases and decreases. It says "proportional to the inverse square of the distance".

I don't know what form of cognitive dissidence you are using to ignore this very simple experimental fact. I don't where you think you are getting the idea that I have "misrepresented" the facts. It looks like you're just making up your own so called facts. I double down on the fact that this experiment directly demonstrates 1/r^2 force generated by phased waves.

You can read the original paper if you like which illustrates how the experiment was done:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4fwwAQAAMAAJ

<1755315687734blob.jpg>

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 08:42:34 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

The diagram shows what would be the two waves coming from your electron and positron on opposite side in red and blue.  These waves superimpose to resulting in only the dynamic green standing wave pattern being detected between them.  This is the case with your pulsing balloons as well.  You misrepresent this experiment to demonstrate a true 1/r^2 force relationship when you know this is false.  The force in fact increaes and decreases as the ballons get closer and even reverse at half cycle wave lengths and in no way is a smooth 1/r^2 relationship.  So nothing but hand waving cover up.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025, 5:12 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

Thanks for the video, but it is showing two waves which are constantly shifting in phase relative to each other. You can see the peak of the red wave constantly moving.

In my model, that kind of shifting simply cannot happen. Since at every point in space, the positive and negative wave peaks have to maintain their phase. This is just a basic postulate of my model which cannot be easily proven. While this kind of thing may be hard to achieve in real life,  it is exactly the same kind of thing that happens in digital computers, so we do have a reasonable analog to compare it with.

If the phases were not constantly shifting, then it would just be like taking a single snapshot of the video when they were either fully cancelled or fully adding.

<1755122192031blob.jpg>

This would be a rather boring video since nothing would be changing.

I would reinforce that ANY argument that you could make which says this kind of phase interaction cannot work is CONTRADICTED by existing experimental evidence done with pulsing balloons in water which shows that such forces do develop. So, no hand waving, no thought experiments or complex calculations, this type of phase interaction has been experimentally shown to generate the observed 1/r^2 type forces. This is the only experiment I have encountered in the entire world that can explain how charge interactions actually work and can by physically demonstrated. This is the only thing that can correctly model that similar charges repel and opposites attract. All other solutions like negative charges are sinks or spin one way, predict that similar charges should attract.

So, anything you might say against it which says it fundamentally cannot work is already experimentally denied.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 02:47:20 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You previously misrepresented what I said about one of the flaws in your conjecture of how electrons and positrons attract.  I did not say they had to maintain the same phase relationship throughout the universe.

I said the electron and positron can not remain oscillating at a 180° phase relationships and still maintain a standing wave pattern between them as the distance between their centers  changes.

Also, for each cycle, the total constructive/destructive interference condition as shown in your image is only momentary.  In reality, the pattern would repeatedly vary between the first and second patterns in the image every cycle.

<Screenshot_20250812_143906_Chrome.jpg>

This video shows the reality.

Formation of Standing Waves

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Nick 

Thank you for providing your document for our consideration. It presents a deeply insightful and thought-provoking perspective on the nature of time.

​I would like to suggest an interpretation of your work that I believe can serve as a powerful bridge to the accepted concepts of physics, particularly in explaining the reason for a fourth dimension. Your central argument that clocks are controlled by their environment, not the other way around, is a brilliant and fundamental insight.

​My interpretation is this: The conditions of the local environment, which you so effectively demonstrate as controlling process rates at various locations, are precisely why the fourth dimension of time exists in the first place.

​Instead of time being a simple dimension that events unfold within, we can propose that the fourth dimension is a manifold that maps the varying conditions of the local environment. When we speak of motion through spacetime, we are not simply moving through a static, uniform time axis. We are moving through a field where each location is defined by a unique set of physical conditions—like gravitational potential and velocity—that dictate the rate of all local processes.

​Therefore, the fourth dimension of time is the formal, mathematical representation of this field of varying conditions. It is the "reason" why a process rate on Earth differs from a process rate on a GPS satellite. The clocks are not simply "slowing down" or "speeding up" due to an abstract dimension; rather, their physical process rates are a direct function of their specific location within this 4D landscape of conditions.

​Your work provides a compelling, empirical reason for the existence of this fourth dimension by tying it directly to the physical reality of process rates being controlled by local conditions and motion. It elegantly reframes the conventional view from time controlling processes to processes revealing the nature of time.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

The right way to recognize the 4th dimension in physics.

All 

I enlisted the help of Gemini to clarify why I think so many people are having difficulty in understanding 4 dimensional space.

In programming and mathematics, the concept of a dimension can be more intuitive than in physics, and this alternate meaning can make the idea of four dimensions easier to grasp.

​In this context, a dimension can be thought of as a variable or an attribute that provides a new, independent set of values to describe something. It’s a way to organize and access a dataset.

​A Familiar Example

​Think of a spreadsheet or a table.

​A simple table with rows and columns for "Employee Name" and "Salary" has two dimensions.

​If you add a column for "Department," you've added a third dimension. You can now access a specific employee's salary by knowing their name and their department.

​Adding a fourth column for "Start Date" gives you a four-dimensional set of data. Each employee's information is uniquely identified by four independent variables: their name, salary, department, and start date.

​This is the essence of a dimension in a data-driven context.

​Applying this to Spacetime

​This concept makes the four dimensions of spacetime more intuitive. Instead of visualizing four separate, intersecting lines, you can think of them as four independent variables needed to pinpoint an event.

​The three spatial dimensions (x, y, and z) are like the "Employee Name," "Department," and "Location" columns. They tell you where something is.

​The fourth dimension, time (t), is like the "Start Date" column. It tells you when something happened.

​Just as a single employee's data entry needs all four columns to be complete, a physical event needs all four coordinates to be fully described. An event at a specific location at a specific time is a single point in this four-dimensional dataset. This viewpoint removes the difficult-to-visualize concept of a "spatial-like" time dimension and replaces it with the more familiar idea of a variable or attribute required to precisely define a state.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

Review the videos you have kept track of the links to.

I have no problem with a fundamental frequency in fact I promote it.

I do however take exception to your entire implementation.

If there were a God Computer...

Your entire response is one big hypothetical IF.

Cornelis Verhey

[James J Keene]

On 8/23/2025 2:59 PM, Cornelis Verhey wrote:
> I do not see how you can identify a single absolute clock. All you can do
> is select one to use as your standard to make relative measures to.

How? By discovery of the proton and electron bit cycles. And that is a
"done deal". That is, thoroughly documented and yielding the first-ever
derivation of Planck's constant h from first principles alone. There is
no re-do, no re-match, no viable competitor in sight. This makes the
discovery an unchallenged winner, perhaps one of the top-most events in
physics in the last century. If this is "all you can do", per your
comment, I'll gladly take that deal.
Thanks for your comments, sir.
Cheers, Jim

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin 

You are not answering my question I asked about your question.  

You asked:

Do you still think electrons are made out of wave phenomenon?

it made no sense to me why you would ask me such a question.

So I asked:

Have you any reason to think differently?

My theory says everything is wave patterns in a unified field.

I was asking if you had any reason to I had changed my view on the wave structure of the electron.

I was not asking you to repeat your false, inacurate and misleading claims that are based on lack of a more complete knowledge of wave behavior and its xarrier medium.  You also repeat them now knowing they have dealt with in previous conversations in these emails and in the videos.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Thanks sir but not the answer to the question.

Planck's constant does not imply the existence of a clock keeping absolute time. In fact, the very idea of absolute time, as proposed by Isaac Newton, was overturned by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which demonstrated that time is relative to the observer's motion and gravity.

Cornelis Verhey

[Carl Reiff]

John-Erik,

Wow, you really don't understand this.  For a circular electron orbit with the plane of the orbit oriented orthogonal (y-z plane) to the direction of nucleus travel (x-axis) relative to the aether, the path of the electron is shown by the red line.  It's a corkscrew path.  It's not back and forth.  I will characterize this as the zero degree orientation:



And, if you looked at it from the side, it would look like this:


Now, you might think of it as back and forth, but that's not what it's actually doing.  It is corkscrewing, as in the first graph.

Now, if the orbital plane is in the x-z plane, the path the electron traces out would be like this:



This could be described as sort of a tumbling path.  Again, not back and forth.

Here it is in 3D, which I'll characterize this as the 90 degree orientation:



Between these zero and 90 degree orbital plane orientations, there are an infinity of other orientations - none of which result in the electrons moving back and forth.

Here is a 3D plot of a 75 degree orientation:



Since you admittedly don't know the orientation of the electron orbital planes, and since most atoms have multiple electrons whose orbital planes all differ from each other, all your yammering about electrons moving forth and back in one dimension of two is just gibberish.

On your final point, I reiterate, nuclear decay is affected - which doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with electrons, and which certainly leans in the direction of everything being affected.  That fact is staring you square in the face.  So, if you somehow think only electrons are affected, then you have some splainin' to do, Lucy.

~Carl

-------------

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

There is no jar surrounding clouds, why are the gas molecules not escaping?

Likewise, if you look at a whiff of smoke you find that it keeps its structure for a while before it gets dispersed by air molecules. During that interval that it keeps its structure what binds them together? Again, if a vapour of helium gas is emitted in a vacuum container, it keeps its shape for a while before spreading throughout the container, what was holding the atoms together in that early phase?

 

On Newton’s third law, the point is that the poselectron wall is so massive that you cannot open a car door because of the momentum the door will have to exchange to get opened. You must have heard that car doors can virtually not be opened under water. This is because of the amount of mass that will need to be pushed aside in order to do so.

You will need to dig deeper for a solution on how to get poselectron sea out of the way in order that Newton’s first law remains valid. One option which you may dislike is getting rid of the positrons and electrons in the sea and turn it into a void with properties (permittivity, permeability, elasticity, etc). With vacuum as void the law is valid.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 4:58 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

The below represents yet another headache for your poselectron sea.

Akinbo

---

From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 11:38 PM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; ta...@hotmail.com <ta...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Time Dilation or Only Process Slowing

 

Hi Franklin

     Yes, I do get the point that with your model "it should slow a swinging pendulum of a physical clock". However, while, as I noted explicitly, atomic clocks do slow, however swinging pendulum clocks actually increase in speed with increased gravitational field density.

                  Nick 

On Friday, August 22, 2025 at 06:53:40 AM EDT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Nick

Well of course, it is clock dilation as there is no other way to measure it.

I have explained before that density works like molasses in that it is thicker and presents more resistance to any object moving through it versus something thinner like water. That is an analogy, but you should get the point why it should slow a swinging pendulum of a physical clock.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2025, at 10:01 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net> wrote:



Franklin

     Sorry for the delay getting to your email. You present a different way of looking at what causes changes in process rates. However, regarding you final sentence, your proposed process should NOT be termed "time dilation" or having anything to due with the construct of "time" itself, as that would be most misleading as to what's happening physically in your model. 

    Secondly, even if we use the incorrect construct "time", "time dilation" means "time expansion" which would cause clock retardation/slowing. Hopefully, I'm not confused, but it seems to me that you've described "time contraction" due to increased ether density which would cause clock rates to speed up. Hence, your model is at odds with GPS data because as clocks move toward the earth, and higher aether density in your model, clocks slow down instead of your model's implication that atomic clocks would speed up. Similarly, increased velocity with respect to the aether should caused a simulation of increased density (i.e., an increase in the rate of aether particles encountered) which causes time contraction in your thesis and that would cause clock rate increase in sharp contradiction to GPS and other data sets.

    Further, regarding the gravitational effect, it's a function of change in gravitational potential. And Yes, as gravitational potential decreases, the gravitation field strength increases, but it's NOT a linear relationship between the amount of gravitational potential decreases and gravitation field strength. Hence, while the GPS high precision data on gravitational potential decreases is consistent with atomic clock slowing data, that does not imply a directly related (e.g., constant factor) for gravity field strength increase and atomic clock rate slowing. 

                              Nick    

On Monday, August 18, 2025 at 12:57:15 AM EDT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you think of time dilation occurring because of the number of aether particles an object has to pass by is increasing with there being a constant smallest amount of time an object can pass from aether particle to aether particle, then we could easily see that an increase in density which would be caused by gravity would cause a time dilation. We could also see that if you increase the velocity of the aether field going past an object would also increase the number of aether particle encountered by an object and this would also slow it down as a time dilation.

So, I put that forth as a hypothesis as to why both gravity and velocity cause time dilation effects.

-Franklin 

[John-Erik Persson]

Cornelis

Yes, a scientific concept must be measurable

No, time dilation and clock dilation are different things:

• Time behaviour
• Clock behaviour

John-Erik

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

Well no, this is a silly objection. Pendulum clocks also get slower with temperature and is a function of their mechanics and not due to any inherent problem with my contention that a more dense aether would cause a general slowing of all mechanical processes. Yes, Nick has found one exception due to the greater influence of the gravitational potential than the resistance of the pendulum through the medium. To say this is a headache is a completely silly nit pick and a lousy argument. The exception does not make the rule.

As for atomic clocks, the heart is a quartz crystal tuning fork which is actually counting out the ticks. That would generally be immune to the types of gravity effects that a large pendulum in a clock would experience. The atomic portion only keeps the crystal vibration a constant through a feedback mechanism. It is very wrong to think an atomic clock is counting the electron transition time. So John-Eric should do some research before thinking the time dilation effects have anything to do with the slowing of the electrons in any manner. I suspect there is no influence at all to the atomic mechanism since this should be running at the universal clock speed and is just used to keep the crystal from drifting in frequency but doesn’t necessarily stop it from slowing due to increased aether density. It just keeps the crystal frequency a constant once it reaches equilibrium.

Also , this is an analogy, not an exact description, so finding an exception to the analogy doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

The exact mechanism is due to the fixed and quantized amount of trime it takes for particle A to influence particle B and the more particles you have over a fixed distance, the longer it will take to propagate across that distance. If you have a legitimate objection, then object to that.

It’s a lot easier to use the molasses analogy. Ditto to Cornelis saying it would create drag. That is only a problem for the analogy. 

Don’t you guys know how analogies are supposed to work or are we or are you just grabbing at straws to come up with silly objections to the analogy which is not meant to be taken literally!

Oh Please..,,

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 24, 2025, at 6:39 PM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

None of the examples you present have anything to do with any kind of inter atomic bond.  That is what I am talking about period.

No inter atomic bond. Did you get that? I don’t think so. I repeat , no attraction between molecule A to molecule B. Every example you give is due to external environmental factors and nothing due to any inherent attraction between ( I repeat -between) molecules. None Zip Nada.

If you think that the poselectron sea would put up so much resistance, then that is just a thought experiment in your head with no basis in reality. I can easily do the same thing and in my head it only puts up the resistance that is actually observed. There is no way you can say with any certainty what kind of resistance should be expected. I would add that neutral particles such as the poselectron can be expected to interact very little with normal matter which may account for why your door doesn’t get stuck when shoving all that dense aether out of the way.

Thanks for your replies,

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone