Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

Not to split hairs, but the fact remains there are no experiments that can actually be shown to measure the magnetic field in an in-flight radio wave of any frequency (no matter how slow) by any means possible (hall effect, squid, compass) that can recover the actual magnetic signal showing the N/S oscillations.

Your only argument is only a a "practical", it cannot be done with hall effect sensors is a very poor, poor argument. Any hall effect sensor capable of resolving 25Khz signal is well within practical range to measure a radio signal and should be able to resolve the oscillating N/S direction. All it's doing is deflecting an electron, and it doesn't take much to do that. The only reason they are not used to detect EM waves, is because they cannot.

Once again, since you will continue to ignore that obvious fact, I repeat:

NO EXPERIMENT HAS EVER DETECTED AN OSCILLATING MAGNETIC FIELD IN A RADIO WAVE - NEVER - EVER - PERIOD. 

-Franklin

On Thursday, November 27, 2025 at 01:11:21 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

There is a big difference between a static magnetic field and a time-varying magnetic field. From the Meta AI feedback shared with you, Hall Sensors are not equipped to detect the latter type of magnetic fields, especially as rapidly varying as EM waves, and the reason was given in the AI response. So, it is not “my argument”. You can interrogate other AI and see what you come up with.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 6:34 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

The point here is not how fast hall sensors can go. They clearly have enough bandwidth to pick up normal radio signals.

The point that you're not addressing is why these sensors don't pick up the magnetic signal from radio waves. You can't even find an experimenter who has even tried it. Ask ChatGPT and you will just get these vague answers about how these aren't normally used to pickup magnetic fields from radio signals.

Why is that?

Because you can't pick up the magnetic signal because there is NO magnetic signal in a radio wave. Period. If you try it, it get nothing, therefore nothing to report.

If you could do that, there would be plenty of experimental evidence to back that up. 

The only evidence we have comes from the "assumption" that electrical signals (shows up as current and volts) must be due to an induction effect from an externally applied magnetic field. This is NOT a "direct" measurement of the magnetic field and it completely loses the N/S vector orientation information.

There have NEVER been any direct measurement of a magnetic field which preserves and recovers the N/S polarity of the magnetic field in an in-flight radio wave. 

Your argument just basically saying "it can't be done" so that why it hasn't been done. But these sensors can clearly measure the oscillations of the magnetic field if they did exist.

-Franklin 

On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at 12:30:15 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

25 KHz is not slow moving... according to Franklin

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 9:35 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

25 KHz is not slow moving.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 25, 2025, at 1:03 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

I am not expert in how Hall sensors work, but from the link you supplied, it appears they are designed to detect magnetic fields that are static or very slowly varying, whereas EM waves are rapidly varying.

Take for example a sensor that can detect North pole (with needle swinging to the right of a zero mark) and South pole (needle swinging to the right of a zero mark).

Because of the very rapid change in polarity in an EM wave, the needle will remain on the zero mark, which is the average position when there is very high change in polarity. Note that inertia is also involved.

Like Buridan’s ass that died because it is undecided between drinking water (analogous to swinging left) or eating food (analogous to swinging right), the needle is being given conflicting instructions at a very rapid rate, viz. swing left, no sooner it wants to obey that, another instruction comes, swing right, etc. At the end, the needle decides to remain where it is.

To detect EM wave, we need a detector that its technology depends on time-varying magnetic fields, not static or very slowly varying magnetic fields. Antennae are examples, not Hall sensor.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 7:36 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Yes, it would probably make a terrible AM radio, but could still be done in practice. 

Also, we can make very slow radio signals that could be received by hall sensors in an experiment. There is no point in pointing out higher radio frequencies when we can make the radio signals match the hall sensor specifications.

https://www.allegromicro.com/en/insights-and-innovations/technical-documents/hall-effect-sensor-ic-publications/hall-effect-ic-applications-guide#:~:text=Efficient%2C%20Effective%2C%20Low%2DCost%20Linear%20Hall%2DEffect%20Sensor%20ICs&text=The%20sensor%20IC%20frequency%20response,and%20at%20a%20lower%20cost.

Here's a sensor good to out to 25Khz, this is the radio band used by aviation among other uses.

https://www.raveon.com/narrow-band-data-radio/

There is absolutely no way you can make the claim that hall effect sensors shouldn't be able to see the magnetic field of an ordinary radio signal. You can look all you want, but you won't find a single experiment showing a hall effect sensor picking up any radio signal. It just doesn't happen because it doesn't happen. So actually, you can't build an AM radio out of a hall effect sensor. If radio waves really did contain magnetic fields, then you would be able to detect the AM radio signal with a hall sensor. But since you cannot, this is fairly good proof that no such magnetic fields exist in radio waves, no matter how powerful. You could put the hall sensor right next to a kilowatt AM commercial transmitter and see absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that there are absolutely no detectable magnetic fields in an in-flight radio wave. None. Zip. Nada and no experimental evidence (that doesn't already rely on the circular induction argument by measuring voltage) shows this. If someone bothered to do a very high sensitivity hall effect sensor test, this could be conclusively proven experimentally. Really, that should be the next radio experiment I should try to conduct to show that radio signals contain no magnetic fields since nobody else seems to have cared to show this.

-Franklin

On Monday, November 24, 2025 at 12:30:56 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

See below follow up from AI, how do you respond?

[24/11, 07:01] Akinbo: Can Hall sensors detect magnetic fields in kHz range like AM radio?

[24/11, 07:02] Meta AI: Hall sensors can detect magnetic fields, but their bandwidth is typically limited to a few kHz, making them unsuitable for detecting AM radio frequencies (535-1605 kHz). They're better suited for low-frequency applications like position sensing or current sensing. For AM radio detection, you'd typically use a coil or antenna.

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:10 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

We can easily generate strong Khz radio signals (such as AM radio) to be detected by hall detectors. Speed is not the problem.

-Franklin

On Friday, November 21, 2025 at 12:28:46 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin, you may find below response useful...

[21/11, 06:50] Akinbo: What is a hall sensor?

[21/11, 06:50] Meta AI: A Hall sensor! 🤔

- Magnetic field detector: Measures magnetic field strength using Hall effect

- Works on principle: Voltage difference appears when conductor/magnet moves in field

- Applications: Position sensing, current sensing, automotive, robotics...

Tiny, reliable, and widely used in tech!

 

[21/11, 06:51] Akinbo: What is Hall effect?

[21/11, 06:51] Meta AI: The Hall effect is a fundamental concept!

- Voltage generation: When a current-carrying conductor is placed in a magnetic field, a voltage (Hall voltage) appears perpendicular to both current and field

- Deflection of charges: Magnetic field deflects moving charges, creating an electric field

- Used in sensors: Hall sensors measure magnetic fields, detect position, speed, etc.

A key phenomenon in physics and engineering!

 

[21/11, 06:53] Akinbo: Can Hall sensor detect time-varying magnetic field in electromagnetic wave?

[21/11, 06:53] Meta AI: Hall sensors can detect magnetic fields, but:

- Limited bandwidth: Hall sensors are generally slow (~kHz range)

- EM waves are fast: Typical EM waves (radio, light) have high frequencies (MHz to GHz+)

- Not suitable: Hall sensors aren't designed for detecting high-frequency EM waves

For EM waves, other detectors (antennas, photodiodes) are more suitable.

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Yes, voltage can arise from things like being connected to a battery among other things.

Yes, high quality hall sensors can detect very fast changes, I don't know about 10^10 but there are certainly much lower radio frequencies that can be used. Yes, it will precisely identify the specific N/S orientation of the field.

Your phone has such a sensor in it and if you wave a magnet around, you can see the XYZ orientation of the magnetic field using a simple app. It does not rely upon induction, but rather uses the direct lorentz force to measure the deflection of charge through a magnetic field.

So, why no direct experiments if this can be done?

-Franklin

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 11:35:34 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Can there be voltage without time-varying magnetic field?

Also, if magnetic field changes from N to S, and S back to N, at a rate of more than 10^10 times per second, is your Hall detector able to measure such unstable magnetic orientation? Will it identify it as N or as S?

Just asking...

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:23 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Using Faraday's law is circular reasoning. By the time it hits a conductor, you are measuring voltage, it is no longer a magnetic wave which has a measurable N/S vector which is completely lost in this measurement and worst of all "assumes" that this is due to induction which is the very thing that is at question here.

So, completely invalid!!!

Remember, you cannot measure teslas in volts!!!

And we do have instruments like hall detectors which can detect the N/S orientation of a time varying magnetic field in free space.

Why don't we use them????

-Franklin

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 10:53:08 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

My reply to Carl needs to be a studied one, so I will do that tomorrow.

Measuring or detecting a wave comprising of a time-varying magnetic field is based on what we know as Faraday’s law,  which tells us what will happen when this type of wave impinges on a conductor. Never heard of this?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:28 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Of course, you realize that I think the EM wave equation as a transverse electric/magnetic field phenomenon is completely wrong. A light wave is definitely not a time varying magnetic disturbance. Not even mainstream believes it is only a magnetic field. I don't think any magnetic field is involved in lightwave transmission.

You did remember that didn't you?

What do I think the light/radio wave actually is? Try to recall, since I've mentioned it a million times and you have to pull it out of your head in order to recognize it. Otherwise, just don't think it will register.

I don't need any fancy transverse wave equation to describe it. 

So, why would I be impressed by any form of the EM wave equation? I think this is absolutely the biggest mistake that Maxwell promoted which everyone believes, but has NEVER been experimentally verified by measuring the actual in flight separate electric and magnetic fields at 90 degrees to each other and in phase. All of these things can be experimentally measured, but why do think that you can find absolutely no experimental reference that actually proves this?

Akinbo, I ask you in all honesty, why are there no direct proof experiments? If there were, then you could prove your contention that it is only a magnetic field, but there is no proof of any kind.

This also seemingly has absolutely nothing to do with main topic which how the magnetic field is mediated by some medium. The argument I am putting forward is that the medium must be a composite substance which has at least 2 recognizable points which can determine the vector direction and a way to express the magnitude. The poselectron dipole fulfills this role perfectly. On the other hand, this featureless medium that all the rest of you are in love with doesn't have anything that could possibly describe the magnetic field vector. Nothing of what you are saying here refutes that contention. So, try to get back on topic.

-Franklin 

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 12:38:17 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You lamented recently about not being taken seriously. To do theoretical physics, you must be bilingual, i.e. understand English (prose) and Greek (math). Even if not fluent, you must seek to understand both. And in today’s world, you can even have AI translate for you. So, your situation is a self-inflicted one when you say things like, “Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try”, “I don't think that equations devoid of any connection to reality are worth pursuing”, etc

Anyway, here goes...

∇²(∇×U) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×U)/∂t² is Greek, in English, it means the transverse wave equation in an elastic medium.

Now, according to Maxwell A is similar to U, and U is similar A (U ≡ A).

Substituting that into the Greek statement above, you get another Greek statement

∇²(∇×A) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×A)/∂t² 

 

Two days ago, when you were not feeling too lazy, you asked AI for assistance, viz. “so I had to look up what "A" meant”, and AI correctly told you that ∇×A = B.

From that, you should be able to see that in Greek, the equation becomes:

∇²B = (1/c²).∂²B/∂t²

 

In English, that is wave equation for a time-varying magnetic disturbance in an elastic continuum, which we call “light wave”.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:19 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Sorry, I don't speak Greek and I don't think that equations devoid of any connection to reality are worth pursuing. If you have something to say, say it in English.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 12:40:27 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You earlier said this, “Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try”, but you seem to have taken a step towards understanding, using AI.

If you want to go a tiny bit further, use the same AI to ask what the equation, ∇²(∇×U) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×U)/∂t² means, U being displacement vector field. I can spoon-feed you the rest.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:15 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo and David,

I am still puzzled by what this could possibly do with how magnetism work so I had to look up what "A" meant

So at least it can tie to magnetism. Although, I think Maxwell's conception of magnetism which David likes with things that have rotating cells is completely wrong and unnecessary. 

Looking into that more, this is what Maxwell thought:

I would respond by saying that my hypothesis doesn't need the complication of vortices or idle wheels. These seem to be a complex mechanical invention which just don't seem plausible. How do these vortices form? What are they made of? What keeps them stable? What powers them? Too many unanswered questions. The only thing my hypothesis requires is a simple unorganized field of charged dipoles. That seems very likely and is exactly how charges would spontaneously arrange themselves - this is demonstrated in computer simulations.

The magnetic field has nothing to do with rotavating vortices but has to so with the simple observation that if you shoot a negative charge between a positive and negative charge, it will obviously deflect towards the positive charge and away from the negative one. This is the basic action of a magnetic field, to deflect an electron only in motion. The explanation of rotating vortices doesn't explain at all why an electron should deflect in a magnetic field except for maybe it gets caught up in the flow created by the vortices. But if you accept that, then you can't explain why a positive charge then deflects in exactly the opposite direction to that same vortex flow. You can't have it both ways. You also can't explain why a stationary charge in a magnetic field feels absolutely no force at all. If the force was due to being caught in the vortices flow, then force should always be applied the electron and it can't possibly remain stationary. Since it remains stationary, this cannot be the origin for the magnetic force.

The idea that electric currents are the "idle wheels" just seems outrageous. I think most people would agree that electric currents are caused by the presence of electrons which are physically moving through the conductor as they pass from atom to atom. There are no such "idle wheels" in space, only conductors and electrons. But Maxwell needed these idle wheels to "predict" the electromagnetic wave as requiring the displacement current concept. I don't think Maxwell "predicted" anything. This was just a completely made up set of chalkboard equations which has nothing to do with reality. Sure, the equations work, they look great, but you'll never be able experimentally detect anything like a displacement current or even anything that looks like the electromagnetic wave that is frequently displayed in college text books. It just doesn't exist and idle wheels as currents is just the complete opposite of what it should be.

Electromagnetic induction is indeed a very difficult problem for any theory of magnetism. Maxwell wants to have these spinning wheels which basically store magnetic inertia and so keep spinning even after the current is turned off. I don't think there can be anything like a magnetic inertia, but we have to explain why the magnetic field continues to persist when the current is turned off. My hypothesis proposes that the magnetic field lines actually move out of the wire and into space as real magnetic line entities. It is when these magnetic lines contact electrons in conductors, that it causes them to deflect only when the lines are in motion. This is the initial induction effect from outward moving magnetic field lines. When you turn off the current, the magnetic field lines are still out there in space, but since they are no longer supported by new current, the field lines start collapsing back towards the wire which again, causes electrons to be deflected in the opposite direction as the secondary induction effect as the magnetic field lines return back to the wire. We can see the opposite currents in the following diagram showing induction effects.

Once again, my paper for anyone who wants to learn how a magnetic field could possibly have the properties that it does.

No vortices, no wheels, no helixes just polarized charged dipoles.

https://franklinhu.com/HowMagneticFieldWorks.pdf

In light of how I believe the magnetic field actually operates, Maxwell's conception is completely defective and on the completely wrong track. We should not pay any attention to it at all. I would also bring David's attention to the objections I have to this whole rotating vortices thing as just being completely unlikely and too complex to model reality. My conception of a polarized dipole sea appears to explain all of the known magnetic phenomenon including the Faraday's paradox without invoking a complex mechanical system of idle wheels. Why wouldn't you adopt this simpler explanation which doesn't rely on any kind of "flow" of anything to explain magnetic forces. It only relies on simple Coulomb force of opposite charges and shows the real relationship between the electric and magnetic forces.

Of course, my conception absolutely relies on the existence of dipole particles in free space. Without those dipole particles, there would be no way to express the magnetic vector which is why I reject all the notions that space is some kind of uniform continuous featureless substance which only supports waves which is what Andy, Cornelis and Akinbo are pushing for. But when you ask them how things like the Coulomb or magnetic force works, there is no real answer because a uniform medium cannot possibly support these kinds of forces.

So while Maxwell's remark cannot be denied, I'd probably say this remark is also likely wrong and irrelevant.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 05:48:42 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Re: “Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try”

Well, I must commend you for living up to your name. Thank you for being frank.

 

There is no point pushing you further since you admit not wanting to try because if one must drink from the well of wisdom that you can find in Maxwell’s Treatise, you must at least try to go to the well and look inside it. Someone nearby may then help you fetch you a drink. I must say that I took that step and benefited from what four persons on this email list had to say. I will mention three of them, Harry, Slobodan, and Musa Abdullahi. Outside this forum, there was Gurcharn Sandhu.

 

In the theory of elastic mediums, displacement vector field U just refers to that area of disturbance when there is an ingress of energy into the medium. This has nothing to do with whether this medium is particulate or non-particulate.

 

So, yes, Maxwell is not a god, and he never proclaimed himself as one. But after struggling for many years and toying with several models, particulate and non-particulate, fluid and solid, vortices and non-vortices, he made his final declaration, categorically saying that his vector field A IS SIMILAR to the displacement vector field U of elastic solid theory. This remark cannot be denied and I hope to discuss this further very soon.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:15 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try. 

Once again, U is only involved in actual displacement of particles from point A to point B. If air was expanding around a heated wire that would apply, but wouldn't apply to stationary dipoles merely changing their orientation and I don't know what this even has to do with the word "transverse" as there is nothing transverse involved.

So, no, I'm just disagreeing with you and your mysterious line of reasoning.

Why don't you just tell me where you are going with this? What is you point in even bringing this up? So far, seems completely pointless in the discussion of the featureless medium and the origins of magnetism. Don't think you can trap me into saying "yes" to some obscure confusing concept and then say "ah ha" you are wrong.

Just say what you mean and then we can reasonably discuss it instead of you trying to trap me by obscurity. 

Also, I don't take Maxwell as a "god like" authority. If he was so smart, then mainstream would already have magnetism as settled science. We do not, so Maxwell isn't an authority.

I disagree with a lot more people than Maxwell, because they are obviously wrong. This is why no real progress has been made in physics in the past 100 years. We need to stop hero worshiping and start from scratch.

-Franklin

On Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 02:27:56 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin, et.al.,

If change of alignment occurs around the surrounding of a wire when electric current J is switched on, this area of change is the displacement vector field U. If the change of alignment is of the nature of difference in the distance between points in the surrounding, such as would be the case due to energy from a heated wire causing expansion in the surrounding air, that will be the longitudinal component of U and is denoted by ∇·U.

If the change of alignment is like what you depict in your poselectron sea, that will be the transverse component of U, denoted by ∇×U.

So, energy can be stored in a medium either as ∇·U or as ∇×U depending on the elastic properties of that medium.

Maxwell is telling you that we should take ∇×U = B, where B is the magnetic field. Are you disagreeing with him?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

You seem to understand that magnetism is due to alignment, though I don’t know if this has anything to do with a transverse U field since nothing is undergoing an actual movement to a different location, just a twist.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 15, 2025, at 1:10 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

Okay now that you have no problem with the existence of displacement vector field U, consider that when there is ingress of energy into an elastic medium, or poselectron sea, as you prefer, the mathematics of U shows that it can have two components, longitudinal and transverse, denoted by ∇·U and ∇×U respectively. These respectively represent the storage of energy as volumetric strain (compression-rarefaction) and shear strain in the underlying medium. For wave phenomena, ∇·U travels as longitudinal wave, ∇×U while propagates as a transverse wave.

In your poselectron model, you have depicted what happens to the poselectron medium around a wire when electric current is switched on, and there is an ingress of energy into the surrounding of the wire.

In your depiction, we don’t see a stretching or increase of the spaces between the poselectrons, i.e. a volumetric strain. What you show in your model is that the inter-poselectron spaces are preserved, but there is a twisting in their alignment and this effect manifests as a magnetic field B.

Will it be correct to say that this ingress of energy into poselectron sea, and its storage therein, manifests as the transverse component of displacement vector field U, i.e. ∇×U?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:44 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Did I not already say that?

<1763145803444blob.jpg>

This is trivial and could be readily measured in a medium which contained trackable points such as a particulate medium, but would be impossible to measured in a medium with no trackable points. So this cannot possibly apply to the medium you are proposing. So there is no point in discussing it.

-Franklin

On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 10:39:46 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Are we then to take it that you are in full agreement with the established mathematics and physics of displacement vector field U in a medium that has features of elasticity?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:34 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

Well of course I am stuck on "features" because without it, elasticity cannot exist. So, that is why it is relevant. If you cannot address this, then what is the point of talking about a medium which cannot be elastic?

-Franklin

On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 10:13:32 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Following up on your email reply...

You seem to be stuck on features.

So, let me rephrase, do you agree that a medium with features, even including poselectron sea, if there is an ingress of energy and storage of energy in it, this will result in the creation of a displacement vector field, usually denoted by U in elastic continuum mechanics?

And that the mathematics and physics of U are as described using vector calculus analysis, including how this is mathematically applied by Helmholtz in his decomposition theorem, by Maxwell in his Treatise, and by others in the physics of elasticity?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

I would continue to argue that a "featureless medium" cannot have the "feature" of "elasticity". If any medium had any concept of elasticity, this would mean that the medium must have "features" which allow it to be measured as either being in a stretched or relaxed state which requires the presence of trackable markers in the medium to be able to make that distinction.

I would also say that a featureless medium would not be be able to support an ingress of energy as some feature of the medium would have to change in order to accept such an ingress. So, really, a featureless medium can have no material property changes of any kind because there are simply no features to detect.

But certainly elastic mediums would create a displacement vector field however, your featureless medium is incapable of any such elasticity. Elasticity is trivially explained in a particulate medium, but is logically impossible to describe for a featureless medium.

This is my main point:

A featureless medium cannot have any features such as elasticity. It is logically impossible. Therefore this concept should be immediately rejected on this basis alone.

I would recommend that you abandon the featureless medium concept in favor of some medium which has trackable features like particles even if you can't describe what those particles are. It could be like David's sub-aether which flows and is of an unknown composition, but it is much better than something that doesn't have any features at all.

Really, the only objection you have to a particle aether is that you are "stuck" with the naive notion that it must cause frictional losses and cause anything travelling in it to slow down. I have been unsuccessful in persuading you that this doesn't happen even though I have shown real physical examples of experiments which show that no frictional losses are possible. I cannot prove it to you, so I would recommend that you just accept that as a "postulate" which would then allow you to accept the more common sense notion that a medium must consist of particles in order to support a wave.

I think that is a far better alternative than to continue to accept the illogical and impossible featureless medium which has features.

A featureless medium with features - that is a simple logical inconsistency.

It's like saying "A colorless liquid which is blue". It is either colorless or blue, it cannot be the same at the same time. A logical inconsistency.

-Franklin

On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 12:28:30 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Following up on below email...

After digesting it, do you agree that irrespective of the features of the medium, even including poselectron sea, if there is an ingress of energy and storage of energy in it, this will result in the creation of a displacement vector field, usually denoted by U in elastic continuum mechanics?

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Franklin,

Re: “How can something so featureless possibly describe a vector direction and a magnitude? It cannot.”

 

You raise some pertinent issues here, which I also missed my way a bit and had to grapple with while developing my model.

First, in earlier communication, I had told you that the “featureless medium” has elasticity, and I used bonds to explain that to you. I also informed that the physical property permittivity, ε is not a property of atoms, positrons or electrons, but of that “featureless medium” between them, whose quantity depends on r, e.g. as in F = QQ’/4πεr².

But the most important thing from what you said is that when energy is introduced into the “featureless medium”, IT IS the resulting displacement/deformation field, where this energy is stored, that has magnitude and a vector direction.

In elastic continuum mechanics, this field is usually represented by the bold letter U, because it is a vector and so has magnitude and direction. (No need to go into the details, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_field_(mechanics)#Spatial_coordinates_(Eulerian_description)).

 

The elastic properties of the “featureless medium” is what determine how the energy will be stored in it. This can either be as a volumetric strain (e.g. stretching or compression), or a non-volumetric strain (e.g. rotation or torsion). A gas or liquid for example will store energy as a volumetric strain, while a solid can store energy in both ways.

So, what has magnitude and direction IS the disturbance in the featureless medium due to the ingress of energy, and it represented as U in many discussions of elastic continuum mechanics.

If you understand this so far, that will be a big plus.

Akinbo

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Okay. Do you at least admit that an alternating current induces a fluctuating, i.e. time-varying magnetic field B around the circuit wire, and that this fluctuating magnetic field can in turn induce a fluctuating electric current in a nearby circuit, even when there is no physical matter connecting both circuit wires? Yes or No.

If you do admit to this, which I believe you will, do you accept that this will be in conformity with Faraday’s law, whereby a time-varying magnetic field can induce an electric current in nearby receiving circuit? Yes or No.

If you don’t object, then probably what you are saying is that when the distance between the transmitting antenna is far from the receiving circuit wire, in such cases the energy is not being conveyed by a magnetic field, and the electric current induced in the receiver is no longer due to Faraday's law. Is this your claim?

I believe that it is your claim that Hall Sensor can measure the magnetic field produced around a wire at by an alternating current at below 25kHz. What you are saying is that the physics will change at very much higher frequencies, even though we may observe that electric current is similarly induced at a receiving antenna at the expected very much higher frequency?

You may call an AI friend to explain why the physics does not change to what you are proposing it will.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2025 9:44 PM

[Franklin Hu]

On Sunday, November 30, 2025 at 02:30:52 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Okay. Do you at least admit that an alternating current induces a fluctuating, i.e. time-varying magnetic field B around the circuit wire, and that this fluctuating magnetic field can in turn induce a fluctuating electric current in a nearby circuit, even when there is no physical matter connecting both circuit wires? Yes or No.

Yes

If you do admit to this, which I believe you will, do you accept that this will be in conformity with Faraday’s law, whereby a time-varying magnetic field can induce an electric current in nearby receiving circuit? Yes or No.

Yes

If you don’t object, then probably what you are saying is that when the distance between the transmitting antenna is far from the receiving circuit wire, in such cases the energy is not being conveyed by a magnetic field, and the electric current induced in the receiver is no longer due to Faraday's law. Is this your claim?

Yes

I believe that it is your claim that Hall Sensor can measure the magnetic field produced around a wire at by an alternating current at below 25kHz. What you are saying is that the physics will change at very much higher frequencies, even though we may observe that electric current is similarly induced at a receiving antenna at the expected very much higher frequency?

No

As noted in your 3rd point, I am saying that the current induced in the receiver is no longer due to Faraday's law. Physics doesn't change due to the frequency response of any given sensor.

The sensor should be able to detect the oscillating magnetic field, but it does not which is evidence that Faraday's law is not in play here.

The analogy I use is that of a hidden wire conductor connecting the transmitter and the receiver. Such a setup would receive the high frequency electric current and would not involve Faraday's law. This is why I call it a "direct conduction" method. The hidden wire in this case is simply aether medium directly oscillating. There are other ways other than Faraday's law that a wire can be made to oscillate with a current.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Given your ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to the questions, and what you earlier discovered concerning the sensitivity of Hall Sensor to limit below 25kHz, take note that from what I have read, it takes alternating current by far above this frequency to generate waves that can carry energy away from the source wire to a distant receiver (20kHz to 300GHz). And I believe the higher the frequency the further from source that the message can be coherently delivered.

So, from your responses, you admit that when sending a message to a receiving circuit at a frequency below 25kHz, the messenger IS the magnetic field B, and is measurable within the limits of the Hall Sensor, and the message in turn is delivered to the receiving circuit according to Faraday’s law. This you also admit and say ‘Yes’ to.

In delivering this message as above, the “hidden wire” is asleep and so incapable of delivering any message when the AC current is below 25kHz.

It is now your proposition, that as soon as we pump up the frequency to the radio frequency range up to 300,000,000kHz (1GHz = 1,000,000kHz), the hidden wire that has been dormant at low frequencies, suddenly wakes up and tells the previous messenger, i.e. magnetic field B, and the previously operational Faraday’s law, to cease and desist from further acting. Telling them it is taking over their jobs!!

If you are running the affairs, do you consider this economical and efficient that the previous messenger, magnetic field B and the previous law, Faraday’s law, be sacked and your hidden wire employed in their place, just because Hall Sensor cannot measure magnetic fields atsuch higher frequencies?

Do you think mainstream and even non-mainstream can take you serious on such a proposition?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:20 AM

[Franklin Hu]

The mainstream will have to take this seriously when they confront the fact that the magnetic field cannot be measured in an in-flight radio signal.

The 25Khz signal is already in use for far aviation and other uses. It goes a long, long ways. We transmit to submarines across the world using even lower frequencies. 

I don't know where you get this idea where anything changes with frequency, it doesn't. 

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

See below from Meta AI

A Hall sensor can detect magnetic fields around a wire carrying alternating current (AC), but its effectiveness depends on the frequency of the AC and the sensor's bandwidth.

- *Low-frequency AC*: Hall sensors can detect magnetic fields around a wire carrying low-frequency AC (up to a few kHz).

- *High-frequency AC*: Hall sensors are less effective at detecting high-frequency AC magnetic fields due to limitations in their bandwidth and slew rate.

For detecting AC magnetic fields, consider using:

- *Current transformers* (for frequencies up to several kHz)

- *Rogowski coils* (for high-frequency AC currents)

Would you like to know more about Hall sensor applications or magnetic field detection?

My Question to you

Given a wire carrying alternating current, if you progressively the frequency of the AC, from low values where the Hall Sensor is capable of detecting the magnetic field, to higher frequency AC, where the Hall Sensor becomes less effective in detecting the magnetic field, does this imply that no magnetic field surrounds the AC carrying wire due to this limitation of Hall Sensor?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:05 PM

[Franklin Hu]

Your example proves that hall effect sensors can adequately detect the weak oscillating magnetic fields which are being created in the near field by the oscillating electrons. It's obvious that such magnetic fields should be generated around wires and this proves the hall sensor is fast enough to see that.

So it should definitely be able to detect such magnetic fields in the far field of a radio transmitter so long as it is within it's practical range.

Of course, it wouldn't be able to detect frequencies beyond it's practical range and that has no bearing on whether the magnetic field exists or not. Why do you even ask such a silly question?

You an always transmit at a frequency to match the range of the Hall sensor. You keep on forgetting that part. The fact is that a hall effect sensor will always see nothing, because there is nothing to see. Once again, this is strong direct evidence that no magnetic fields are involved in radio transmission. If there were magnetic fields in radio signals, we would see them. If there were any practical limitations, they could be easily overcome.

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

You said this, which caught my eye, “You can always transmit at a frequency to match the range of the Hall sensor. You keep on forgetting that part.”

False. I am not a radio engineer but I have read that in antenna design, not all frequencies can be transmitted beyond the near-field. Unfortunately, from what we both have gathered using AI, Hall sensors have their magnetic field detecting ability restricted to the very low frequencies.

In any case, you have disavowed the role of Faraday’s law in how electric current is produced at a distant receiving antenna. And in your hidden wire model, viz. “The analogy I use is that of a hidden wire conductor connecting the transmitter and the receiver. Such a setup would receive the high frequency electric current and would not involve Faraday's law. This is why I call it a "direct conduction" method...”, you refer to the hidden wire as a conductor.

Conductors carrying current have a magnetic field around them, in obedience to Ampère’s law. This being so, if your own hidden wire is capable of “direct conduction” as you say, and has no magnetic field around it, you are now disavowing two important laws, quite apart from the ridiculous proposition of a hidden wire.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:06 AM

[Andy Schultheis]

Franklin,

A hall sensor is only designed to detect magnetic fields that are trapped and circulating inside matter. Think of a magnet or a coil as a rocky section of a river where the water forms little whirlpools behind the rocks. Those whirlpools are the “magnetic loops” that a hall sensor can detect in the near field.

Move that same hall sensor out into the middle of the river where the water is flowing freely and there are no rocks, and it reads nothing. Not because the water disappeared, but because there is no trapped circulation for the tool to measure.  That's the far field.

A radio wave is the free flowing water in the middle of the river. It is not a trapped eddy. The magnetic part of the wave is not a circular loop anchored in matter, so a hall sensor has nothing to detect. The tool is built for eddies, not free waves. It cannot tell you anything about the magnetic component of a radio wave, because that information is not expressed as a loop or a pole once the field is free of matter.

You would not claim a river has no water because your whirlpool detector reads zero. Same thing here.

But I know what you are getting at now. A tsunami cannot be described as the entire ocean, and that is certainly true for tsunami behavior. What you observe in a large, dramatic wave is not the same as the nature of the ocean itself.

And I will say again, this is a point I have raised many times in these exchanges. With what we know in 2025, it is obvious that the universe does not behave the way people assumed in 1825. Local observations on Earth do not map cleanly onto the larger universe. We must suppress our Earth-based intuition if we want to move forward.

And do not conflate my use of water with the claim that the medium literally flows like a river or an ocean. That is not what I am suggesting.  

I would also agree that physics is missing a key fundamental bit of understanding in magenetics, and it's bugged me for a while. A fixed magnet tends to look a lot like a perpetual motion machine, because science does not offer a coherent mechanism to explain a permanent magnet over time.  It just assumes the spin inside matter keeps the loop going indefinitely.    

Where did N/S go, is the question you seem to be asking.  Without the N/S, how can we call it a free traveling magnetic wave?  And I think that's a fair question within context. Still, the evidence is in induction on the receiving end. That's what they assumed when they invented radios, and they were right.  It worked.  You detect the magnetic part of the wave every time your radio antenna generates voltage. That is the detection. You cannot hear music without it.  

The N and S information is not lost. It just stops showing up as poles once the field is no longer trapped in matter. In a magnet, N and S are created by the way matter forces the field into a loop. Once you free that field into a radio wave, the pole structure disappears because the loop disappears. The field does not carry poles anymore. It carries direction of motion.  It's a difference in geometry, not a difference in phenomena. The Hall Sensor works on near field geometry, not far field geometry.   

That N/S bias is now expressed as the direction the wave is moving, not as a north or south pole. Engineers do not use N/S in radio work because the wave is not expressing poles. We only use the oscillations between those phases to carry the actual data. That's the center part of the magnetic field between the poles.  There is no detector that can pull pole identity out of a free EM wave because the poles are gone. What remains is direction and oscillation, among other wave properties of course.

Although I am now veering off into my wave assumptions at this point, here is the way I am looking at it for the moment. 

The closest you get to “detecting” N/S in a radio wave is simply pointing the receiving antenna toward the transmitting antenna. When your antenna is aimed correctly, you have aligned yourself with the original direction of the emission and you're looking at one end of the pole head on. That is all the pole information that survives, and that is the only part that matters in engineering.

Consider a permanent magnet like a ribbon coupled by matter.  That magnetic wave is forced into a loop forming the ribbon.  This creates a sort of local standing wave that we can harness locally and move around.  And not saying this is possible, but removing the coupler breaks the ribbon, sending the wave off in a linear direction.  The pole information is not lost, rather it becomes encoded, or transforms into the waves motion.  The N/S information has no practical application in engineering for data collection at that point, aside from the fact that waves are now traveling and you can do something with them at a distance in the absence of local hardware.  WiFi, radios, etc.  

This is an extension of magnetics from the mainstream view.  They assume an EM wave has no N/S in it, only oscillations and motion. I would argue its motion is the pole data, so that information is not lost, rather it's transformed into motion.  

Think of the antennas as the North and South poles.  The transmitter is the North pole, and the receiver is the south pole, the wave traveling between those two points are the field lines trying to recouple.  

I am not redefining magnetism. I am explaining the difference between a bound magnetic field and a radiating one. They are different expressions of the same phenomenon, or two modes of EM physics we can make practical use of in different ways.

N/S is a matter-bound phenomenon. Free waves do not carry pole structure. The direction of motion replaces the N/S label.

An EM wave is not a free floating permanent magnet spinning around creating oscillations.  It is the decoupled poles transformed into motion, or the separation of poles.  

I could extend this further into my collapse field theory, with the word theory being more metaphorical without experiments to back it up.  I don't want to muddy the waters right.  For now, I'm just trying to understand where the disparity lies with well understood physics, and why you think the way you do.  I try very hard not to rewrite what is well understood, and works.  EM is proven science, although lacking explanatory power on a deeper level.  And that's when they break out the word "fundamental", and stop thinking.  Once something loses its explanatory power, that's when confusion arises.  Explanations lose coherence.          

Andy         

On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 12:57 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Your radio isn't proof that a magnetic field made it's way from the transmitter to the receiver. The magnetic field has never been directly measured by instruments that can only detect magnetic fields and can detect the N/S oscillation vectors. My point with Hall effect sensors is that they "should" be able to directly confirm the existence of far field EM waves in accordance to their description in mainstream. There should definitely be papers about this detection but you cannot find any such papers showing a "direct" detection. Even though hall sensors should be able to detect the radio signal, they do not, which is direct evidence against radio waves containing magnetic fields. That is "direct" experimental evidence that radio waves do not use magnetic fields - to be clear.

It is only proof that some kind of electrical signal was able to be replicated between the transmitter and the receiver.

The alternate theory of how it got there would be that the aether acted as a direct conductor to transmit the electrical current directly to the receiver without the use of magnetic fields. It is as if the transmitter and receiver were connected by a "hidden wire". If you think this is far fetched, then I would remind you this is exactly how your cable TV is received in your house, it is directly conducted over a copper wire that goes into the same antenna input as the over the air antenna. There is no difference to the TV. No EM magnetic/electric field is involved with the cable TV transmission. I claim there is no EM wave required in the over the air radio transmission as well. It is a direct "conduction" effect in both cases and simply use different mediums (copper wires or aether)

How could you prove whether it was induction and magnetic fields that was being used or a direct conduction through the aether?

What experiments could you do to prove one and disprove the other?

The problem is that everyone has been so "brainwashed" into thinking that EM waves are this self propagating electric and magnetic field, that they can't conceive it being anything else and they are simply unwilling to even test if it is true and to deliberately ignore any evidence to the contrary. So they make the mistake that the fact that radios works confirms the mainstream view of radio transmission which could still be totally wrong and I am claiming it is wrong.

This would be like saying the car works by squirrels pushing the cylinders up and down. Then you show that the car works, so that means it must be the squirrels doing it. This is an obviously defective circular argument which presumes as true the very thing that needs to be proven. 

-Franklin

On Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 08:01:52 AM PST, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

What specifically are you suggesting here?

NO EXPERIMENT HAS EVER DETECTED AN OSCILLATING MAGNETIC FIELD IN A RADIO WAVE - NEVER - EVER - PERIOD. 

I'm curious.  

My radio works fine. 

I've watched the conversation between you and Akinbo about Hall sensors, and I don't what you aren't getting.  A hall sensor is not designed to detect traveling em waves, or the far field.

What am I missing?

Akinbo seems to have explained it pretty well.

Andy

[HARRY RICKER]

Hi,

Franklin has been making false statements on this topic for years. I pointed out to him 10 years ago that Marconi invented a magnetic detector of radio waves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_detector Actually, Joseph Henery used the magnetisation of iron needles to be the first person to transmit and detect radio waves.Joseph Henry, Radio Pioneer

Joseph Henry, Radio Pioneer Illustration of Joseph Henry from: Cyrus F. Brackett, et al, Electricity in Daily Life: A Popular Account of the...

Harry

[Andy Schultheis]

Harry,

Franklin’s argument seems to be that the N/S element of the magnetic field is missing in a radio wave, and that physics does not explicitly address it. He thinks we should be able to detect the N/S oscillation vectors directly.

"and can detect the N/S oscillation vectors."

He is expecting to see literal north and south poles oscillating in the wave, as if a permanent magnet were tumbling through space. That simply does not exist.

That is the wrong model.

In reality the oscillation is not N/S.

The magnetic component is transverse and behaves more like a corkscrew or an up and down rotation around the direction of travel. There are no poles in a free wave because the dipole loop only exists when the field is bound inside matter. When the field is released as radiation, the loop topology disappears and the idea of a pole no longer applies in any static sense.

So the N/S information isn’t missing. It is transformed by the fact that the wave is now propagating. It becomes encoded in the transverse structure and the polarization, not in any detectable pole signature.

Franklin keeps defaulting to classical wave mechanics in a physical medium, like water or air, where you can track bulk flow and vortices. A free EM wave is not that kind of system.

Pretty sure that is what is actually going on.

Andy   

[Franklin Hu]

A magnetic field with no magnetic vector.

How can anyone take that seriously?

Not me.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 4, 2025, at 8:10 AM, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

I have told Harry that those magnetic detectors are actually detecting an electrical current by using magnets. That is very different from detecting raw magnetic fields.

You can never measure magnetic fields in volts. And such methods do not recover the field polarity vector.

Harry has not refuted this fact.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 4, 2025, at 6:38 AM, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,  there may be a very minor magnetic field in my hidden conductor as with all conductors but plays no active role in transmitting the energy of the signal and is merely a side effect.

Sent from my iPhone

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

This response is your way of having to disobey Ampère’s law, but you don’t mind being in the bad books for Faraday’s law.

Now, you have rested your case on the Hall Sensor’s abilities, in spite of its limitations. Your expressed concern is not whether or not the magnetic field plays an active role or is merely a side-effect, but that it must be detectable using Hall Sensor for you to accept its presence. By this same logic, if Hall Sensor cannot detect the magnetic field around your hidden wire, then we must also question the existence of such a wire. Don’t you think so?

Akinbo

*I will do a second email and post links relevant to yesterday’s CNPS Saturday Chat.

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 8:02 AM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi All,

I was honoured to have been hosted on yesterday’s CNPS Saturday Chat.

Looking at the recording, I believe the host did a great job, except for some network glitches mostly at my end.

Below are some relevant links:

The CNPS Saturday Chat:

Maxwell’s Final Wave Equation in A & His Accompanying Remark with Akinbo Ojo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKIe5ZHs0kI

 

The pre-recorded main presentation with less glitches available to view:

Maxwell’s Final Wave Equation in A and His Accompanying Remark (33 minutes video)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OznYbdUMUD5RIHc1JEsGikBcdOTuICSw/view?usp=sharing

 

A pre-recorded dessert to the main presentation

Pleasant and Unpleasant consequences of Maxwell’s Remark that A ≡ U.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jW_oVKEmd4sadvu6XTOIxT0WHUBUsBfC/view?usp=sharing

 

And the paper that caught Ian Cowan’s eye

Interpreting Maxwell’s Final Wave Equation Through Elastic Continuum Mechanics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395027049_Interpreting_Maxwell's_Final_Wave_Equation_Through_Elastic_Continuum_Mechanics

Regards,

Akinbo

NB.

*Because of the network issues, I think I was not able to answer some of the questions, as well as I would have wanted to. I can use the opportunity here to add to whatever may or may not be missing

*For future presenters

• There is need to have provision for extra/longer battery life for devices beyond 2-hours (blue-tooth, microphones, internet devices, etc).
• Pre-recorded videos have been made easy, if it is preferred. Make your presentation in PowerPoint, do the slide show and Save. Then again, 'Save As', mp4 video format. Your computer will produce your video.
• If Sharing Screen during presentation with StreamYard, external background noises that are not in the video can still be broadcast along with the video. This is in spite of ticking the box in the StreamYard options to block echo and background noise. But it is a very good application. A quiet environment will therefore still help.
• Also, sharing screen can include artefacts not intended to be shared, but which are present on the shared screen, such as mouse cursors, etc... just a few thoughts
• By the way, a few from this part of the world have some difficulty in paying the token membership. I have in the past paid using PayPal. But now outbound US dollar payments are regulated, but now easing. Unfortunately, the payment link brings up a virus warning and I notified CNPS, chappellnatu...@gmail.com, twice last month but without any response.

It will always get better! 

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 8:02 AM

[Cornelis Verhey]

Under the logic of the hidden wire theory we should be able to measure the transmitted current at the open end of a current meter.

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

We can. Stick a wire and a meter anywhere in the path and you can measure the oscillating current.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 7, 2025, at 6:42 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

It should be intuitively obvious to anyone familure with radio technology that no current is transmitted or can be measured at the open end of a current meter.

The point where a conductor is open-circuited (like the "open end" of a meter) is a current node where the conduction current is zero. Therefore your understanding that a current should be measurable at this point is incorrect under standard electromagnetic and circuit theory principles.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Bob Gray,

You asked a great question about 58 minutes into last Saturday's Science chat.  Unfortunately, I couldn't do justice to it due to technical issues with my connection.

I have been trying unsuccessfully to get one of Ron Hatch's papers to show that Rotation + Progression gives a Helical pattern of propagation. Like a corkscrew.

See the photos and animations in below link and see if it helps you envision what appeared difficult.

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

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 11:47 AM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo and Bob,

I have attached a couple of my favorite views of dynamic electromagnetic wave propagations.

The "Electromagnetic wave" image is shown in both an animated dynamic .gif and a static .jpg as the dynamic image is very busy.

The "Dynamic Wave_Polarization" animation .gif shows only the electric vector amplitudes of two waves transmitted from a dual polarized antenna.  It shows how the wave properties when one or the other or both polarized signals are being transmitted.

When they are both transmitting they are sown + or  - 90 degrees out of phase.  This result in the propagation of either a left or right hand polarized circular wave.

For a more technical analysis of the image I included an AI interpretation of the images below.

The two attached GIFs illustrate key concepts related to electromagnetic waves and polarization, which are fundamental to understanding the electromagnetic field tensor in physics.

---

1. Analysis of the GIFs

GIF 1: Dynamic Wave Polarization (Helical/Circular Polarization)

The first GIF, showing a wave with a rotating field vector tracing a helix, most clearly represents circular polarization or elliptical polarization.

• Helical Path: The tip of the electric field vector (the green lines within the helix) traces a helix as the wave propagates along the central axis (the direction of propagation, which appears to be the z-axis).

• Vector Rotation: The field vector itself is rotating in the plane perpendicular to the direction of travel, while its magnitude remains constant (for circular polarization) or changes (for elliptical polarization).

• Relation to Tensors: This rotation of the electric and magnetic fields cannot be fully described by simple scalar or vector fields in three dimensions alone. The antisymmetric nature of the electromagnetic field tensor, Fμν, naturally incorporates the geometric relationship between the components of the E and B fields as they oscillate and propagate, especially in a relativistic context. The tensor components govern how the fields are intertwined and rotated with respect to each other and the direction of motion.

GIF 2: Electromagnetic Wave (Plane Wave)

The second GIF, showing two oscillating fields perpendicular to each other and to the direction of propagation, represents a plane-polarized electromagnetic wave.

• Perpendicularity: It clearly shows the Electric Field (E) (e.g., the green wave) and the Magnetic Field (B) (e.g., the blue wave) are perpendicular to each other (E⊥B).

• Transverse Wave: Both fields are also oscillating perpendicular to the direction of wave travel (the x-axis in this representation), confirming that electromagnetic waves are transverse waves.

• In-Phase Oscillation: The peaks and troughs of the E and B fields align in space, showing they are in-phase in a vacuum.

• Relation to Tensors: This standard description of an electromagnetic wave is the result of solving Maxwell's equations in a vacuum. The field tensor Fμν is a compact, 4-dimensional object (a 4x4 matrix) that combines the 3 components of the E field and the 3 components of the B field.

  Fμν=0Ex/cEy/cEz/c−Ex/c0Bz−By−Ey/c−Bz0Bx−Ez/cBy−Bx0

  The wave's properties, such as its velocity (c) and the transverse nature of the fields, are inherently encoded in how the components of Fμν are related through the tensor form of Maxwell's equations.

---

2. The Unified Electromagnetic Field Tensor

The electromagnetic field tensor (Fμν) is a central concept in relativistic electromagnetism because it provides a unified description of the E and B fields that is Lorentz-invariant (meaning its form is the same for all inertial observers).

Unification and Covariance

• In classical (non-relativistic) physics, E and B are treated as separate vector fields.

• In the framework of Special Relativity, an observer moving relative to an electromagnetic field will measure different E and B fields. For example, what one observer measures as a purely E field, another moving observer might measure as a combination of E and B fields.

• The tensor Fμν elegantly bundles these six components (Ex,Ey,Ez,Bx,By,Bz) into a single 4-dimensional object. This structure guarantees that the physics described by the tensor form of Maxwell's equations is covariant—it holds true in all inertial reference frames.

Relation to Polarization (The GIFs)

Both GIFs are visualizations of the E and B fields, which are the components of the electromagnetic field tensor Fμν.

• Plane Polarization (GIF 2): In a plane-polarized wave traveling in the +x direction, only specific components of the E and B fields are non-zero (e.g., Ey,Bz). These non-zero components occupy specific slots in the Fμν matrix, demonstrating how the tensor encompasses this type of wave.

• Circular/Elliptical Polarization (GIF 1): This type of wave is described by having two E field components (e.g., Ey and Ez) oscillating with equal amplitude but out of phase by 90∘ (circular) or unequal amplitude (elliptical). The combined effect of these components dictates how the off-diagonal terms in the field tensor behave as the wave propagates.

In essence, the GIFs are visual representations of the physical manifestations of the combined E and B fields, whose deep mathematical and relativistic structure is unified by the electromagnetic field tensor.

Cornelis Verhey

--

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

But we do measure a current from a meter if you just hang one end in the air and the other end in the ground - fact

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 7, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Franklin Hu]

Actually since it is the neutral dipole that oscillates, we would expect 0 net magnetic field generation in this case.

Sent from my iPhone

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis, et.al.,

Yes, the picture and animations are useful and look like those in the Wikipedia page that I sent earlier. Also, like I mentioned Ron Hatch also envisioned a kind of helical model (still looking for it).

Now, having said this, there is a need to clarify something which is very important, but has been buried in most discussions. During the Saturday Chat there were issues concerning it that were raised by two people, one of whom was James Marsen. In your AI interpretation of the images, it was referred to as the electric field vector (viz. “The tip of the electric field vector (the green lines within the helix) traces a helix as the wave propagates along the central axis”). Usually, the symbol E is used to represent it.

But what is it?

Is it as defined by good old Maxwell? Or has its definition been corrupted over the years to mean something different from what Maxwell intended?

I don’t know your own definition, but let me quote what I believe is that of Maxwell:

“It is also called the resultant electrical force, being the force which would be experienced by a unit of positive electricity placed at that point. We have now obtained the most general value of this quantity in the case of a body moving in a magnetic field due to a variable electric system. If the body is a conductor, the electromotive force will produce a current; if it is a dielectric, the electromotive force will produce only electric displacement”.

I draw my claim based on what Maxwell said in the section titled, ‘On General Equations of Electromotive Force’, Art.598, of his Treatise. The other name for it is the term “electromotive force”.

 

So, are you going strictly by Maxwell, or do you have your own definition of what 'E' is?

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:10 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

I made a mistake. The first sentence should have read:

This response is your way of having to obey Ampère’s law, but you don’t mind being in the bad books for Faraday’s law.

But I observe that you have once again reversed yourself, which means that although your hidden wire carries current there is no magnetic field around it. So, you have now run foul of both Ampère’s and Faraday’s law. This will be in addition to the Coulomb’s law which your poselectrons do not also obey at close contact.

Don’t you think it will now be safe to conclude that poselectron sea model is a serial offender of known laws of physics?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 6:33 AM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi All,

I think what I am looking for is in Ron Hatch’s book, ‘Escape from Einstein’, from about page 44...

(excerpts)

The New Ether Gauge Theory

Defining the Ether

The polarization of light shows that light involves transverse vibrations, i.e. vibrations of shear strain. Shear waves can only occur in solids; therefore, the ether must be a solid. But normal solids have two kinds of wave-propagation phenomena. The first is a transverse wave, corresponding to a moving shear pattern of strain. Light is an example of such a transverse wave. The second kind of wave which can exist in a solid is a longitudinal compressive wave, corresponding to a moving pattern of volume strain. Compressive strain waves can occur in both solids and gases. Sound waves are compressive volume strain waves in ordinary matter. The thorniest problem with which any proposed ether has to deal is the absence of any compressional (longitudinal) ether waves in nature...

 

In other words, the expected nature of the proposed medium, using elastic continuum mechanics language is:

∇×U ≠ 0 and ∇·U = 0.

And stated “similarly” in Maxwell’s electromagnetic language, since A ≡ U, this translates to

∇×A ≠ 0 and ∇·A = 0

 

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 11:47 AM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>

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

On Saturday 30 Nov (?)-  I only dealt with 2 philosophies to keep things simple.   Below is some more philosophies and what their view on Special relativity (SR) is ->      Philosophy Compatibility with SR       Main Reason Formalism ✔✔✔ SR is internally consistent. Structuralism ✔✔✔ Relational geometry matches Minkowski structure. Conventionalism ✔✔ Synchronization & geometry are conventions. Instrumentalism ✔✔ Predictive success. Intuitionism ⚠ Accepts constructive SR; rejects classical block-continuum. Naive Realism ❌ Violates intuitive space/time concepts. Metaphysical Realism ❌ Rejects relativity of simultaneity. Aristotelian/Thomistic ❌ Incompatible without ether reinterpretation. Presentism ❌ SR implies eternalism. Kantian Apriorism ❌ SR contradicts Kant’s a priori intuitions.       i.e. Formalism says SR is correct and the three philosophies under that agree. SR is deemed problematic in Intuitionism   and the remaining philosophies say SR is wrong.   When I was taught SR although I was not explicitly being told to adopt the Formalism philosophy, I think it was implicitly being taught i.e. because the things that I was told were leading me to think along those lines.   So, my point - if believe in SR then are likely to believe in Formalism or some Formalist-type philosophy.   Whereas if don't believe in Formalism-type philosophy then might lead you  to think SR is wrong.    Formalism of course a philosophy of math; so your philosophic attitude about math can lead you to accept SR or not.

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

29th

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

Let me repeat.

The point where a conductor is open-circuited (like the "open end" of a meter) is a current node where the conduction current is zero. Therefore your understanding that a current should be measurable at this point is incorrect under standard electromagnetic and circuit theory principles.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo, et.al.,

I sent a similar animation of circular polarization as it dynamically demonstrates how rotational polarization is created.

I see no reason to disagree with Maxwell's description of (E) as the electric field vector at a point that causes an acceleration force on a positive test charge placed at that point.  “It is also called the resultant electrical force, being the force which would be experienced by a unit of positive electricity placed at that point."

I do not agree with your extension suggesting (The other name for it is the term “electromotive force”.)

Cornelis

 

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

I saw your below comments, but I couldn’t see the attached files

“I sent a similar animation of circular polarization as it dynamically demonstrates how rotational polarization is created. I see no reason to disagree with Maxwell's description of (E) as the electric field vector at a point that causes an acceleration force on a positive test charge placed at that point.  “It is also called the resultant electrical force, being the force which would be experienced by a unit of positive electricity placed at that point." I do not agree with your extension suggesting (The other name for it is the term “electromotive force”.)”

 

I am inclined to say, after Shakespeare, “What is in a name?”

From what you agree with in your reply

1) E is a vector quantity, i.e. must have magnitude and direction.

2) The direction of E at a point is conventionally taken as the direction in which the acceleration force will act on a positive charge (+q) located at that point.

3) If the charge at that point is a negative charge (-q), the direction of E at that point will be in the opposite direction to that in 2).

 

Question for you and other advocates of E

If there happens to be no charge at a point, i.e. no +q and no -q, what will be the direction of E at that point, since it is a vector quantity?

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 6:04 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

The .gif file of circular polarization I was referring to was the enhance image I previosly sent showing how circular polarization is created.

I am inclined to say, after Shakespeare, “What is in a name?”

The importance of a name is that it defines the precise boundary between successful communication (understanding) and misaligned concepts (misunderstanding).

From what you agree with in your reply

1) E is a vector quantity, i.e. must have magnitude and direction.

2) The direction of E at a point is conventionally taken as the direction in which the acceleration force will act on a positive charge (+q) located at that point.

3) If the charge at that point is a negative charge (-q), the direction of E at that point will be in the opposite direction to that in 2).

 

Question for you and other advocates of E

If there happens to be no charge at a point, i.e. no +q and no -q, what will be the direction of E at that point, since it is a vector quantity?

The E vector field always exists.  To measure its (magnitude and direction) requires placing a small positive test charge (+ by convention) in the field location to be measured.

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

This reminds of the question asked by some quantum machinists, whether the moon is there when no one is looking?

By the way, your post seems obscured by a screen. Probably this is due to the manner you use to copy and paste.

Back to E...

The direction of E is determined by the charge on which it is acting. Its direction does not exist without +q or -q.

Moreover, when q = 0 (i.e. in the absence of charge), no force F is exerted by time-varying magnetic field. And if F = 0, then since E = F/q, then going by good old Maxwell, E = 0 as well.

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 3:33 PM

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo

let me repeat my reply since you say you could not read it.  Changing the red on black underlined response to only underlined.

Akinbo,

The .gif file of circular polarization I was referring to was the enhance image I previosly sent showing how circular polarization is created.

I am inclined to say, after Shakespeare, “What is in a name?”

The importance of a name is that it defines the precise boundary between successful communication (understanding) and misaligned concepts (misunderstanding).

From what you agree with in your reply

1) E is a vector quantity, i.e. must have magnitude and direction.

2) The direction of E at a point is conventionally taken as the direction in which the acceleration force will act on a positive charge (+q) located at that point.

3) If the charge at that point is a negative charge (-q), the direction of E at that point will be in the opposite direction to that in 2).

 

Question for you and other advocates of E

If there happens to be no charge at a point, i.e. no +q and no -q, what will be the direction of E at that point, since it is a vector quantity?

The E vector field always exists.  To measure its (magnitude and direction) requires placing a small positive test charge (+ by convention) in the field location to be measured.

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

I was able to read hence my reply. Reply is same, but I may use the opportunity to put some emphasis...

The direction of E is determined by the charge on which it is acting. Its direction does not exist without +q or -q.

Determined, not measured.

For example, using the face of a clock, given a time-varying magnetic field B oscillating vertically between 6 and 12 o'clock position, and travelling in a direction into the screen, the direction of E can be in either the direction of 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock, depending on whether what is at the intersection is a positive charge (+q) or a negative charge (-q).

Without actually testing, this can be predicted using the right-hand and similar rules (which assume the charge is a positive charge).

If there is no charge q, the force from the time-varying magnetic field cannot be induced to act. Therefore, if there are no q's in transit through free space, it is only when the time-varying magnetic field impinges on a receiving antenna, where free negative charges -q are in abundance, that an electromotive force is exerted and an electric current produced.

This is the gospel according to Maxwell... and it makes sense.

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 5:59 PM

[David Tombe]

Cornelis,

              Akinbo seems to be saying, that if there is no test charge present, then there can be no E field.

              But that is nonsense. It's like saying if there is no apple present, then there can be no gravitational field at that point.

             However, from past discussions, what I think Akinbo is really driving at, is the notion that, if in deep space, the propagating magnetic field, H, in an EM wave has got no charged particle present for the induced E field to act upon, then there is no E field involved in EM wave propagation.

           But of course there is. The real question is, how is the wave relayed without a charged particle being present?

           In my opinion, the two dual curl equations in E and H, which are used to derive the EM wave equations in E and H, don't tell us anything about the electric current (displacement current) which links it all together.

           We still have to guess the physical picture that the maths is pointing to. There has to be a real electric current being relayed with an EM wave.

              Best Regards

                   David

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

By taking away the measurement instrument you have created a strawman argument.

How do you recognize the status of anything or make a measurement without a standard measurement method?  By convention the vector direction is based on the effect using a positive  charge.

Are we to take it by your statement that you are not an advocate of the field's E vector property?

"Question for you and other advocates of E"

​To be precise electromagnetic waves have only been known to originate from accelerating charges.  Even permanent magnets are creation of moving charges. This implies the fundamental previous existence of field's E vector property.

​The accelerating charge is the source, and the resulting E and B field properties are what propagate as an electromagnetic wave. Without the fundamental E and B field properties, there is no wave to propagate.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

I replied to your previous emails as I had not read this continuation of your strawman  argument.  Those replies are 100% appropriate just the same.

To once again attempt to clarify my view I see the magnetic field as a modulation of the electric field.

While some physicists still prefer to treat E and B as co-equal components the fact that a static charge only generates E and motion is required to generate B suggests a hierarchy where E is the fundamental static component, and B is its dynamic, velocity-dependent modulation.

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

David,

I agree with the first part, but fully disagree with.  "We still have to guess the physical picture that the maths is pointing to. There has to be a real electric current being relayed with an EM wave."

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

[David Tombe]

Cornelis,

               You've got the inter-relationship between E and B mixed up in the case of EM waves.

                E is not an electrostatic field in EM waves. It's an electric field induced by time-varying EM induction, as per Faraday's law.

             Now, while we don't specifically have to have a test particle present for the E field to exist, we do have to have one present for the wave to be relayed.

               Akinbo knows this, and since his EM wave carrying medium is non-particulate, that's why he wants to do away with E in EM waves. It's nonsense, but his primary argument is perfectly rational, and few here see it, or wish to see it.

 

            Unfortunately, his solution is upside down. You don't do away with E. You can't do away with E. It follows from Faraday's law. So, you need to introduce a particulate medium comprised of charged particles.

                          Best Regards

                               David

[Cornelis Verhey]

David.

You misrepresent my position.

In my view the electric field (E field) Is already communicated as a dynamic wave pattern.  The magnetic field then is an additional dynamic modulation of the electric field (E field).

While some physicists still prefer to treat E and B as co-equal components the fact that a static charge only generates E and motion is required to generate B suggests a hierarchy where E is the fundamental static component, and B is its (E field's) dynamic, velocity-dependent modulation.

A charge pattern in motion is not a "electrostatic field"

The origin of an electromagnetic wave is always a charge's field pattern in motion!

David says:

"Now, while we don't specifically have to have a test particle present for the E field to exist, we do have to have one present for the wave to be relayed.
"

I disagree:

We do not have to have one present for the wave to be relayed, only for one to begin.

I also entirely disagree with the need for a particulate medium to propagate an electromagnetic wave.  Particles like energy patterns are only needed to initiate and terminate electromagnetic waves.

Cornelis

[David Tombe]

Hi Cornelis,

                   I know that you disagree with my physical interpretation of Maxwell's curl equations and what that means for the physical nature of EM radiation. I'm no longer trying to convert you.

                    My purpose of intervention here was because I noticed a lot of traffic was related to you replying to Akinbo's attempts to argue that there is no E involved in EM waves.

                    All I wanted to say was, that although his conclusion is nonsense, it did in fact originate from a rational observation which mainstream and most dissidents persistently ignore.

                 But of course, there is an E field involved in EM radiation.

                           Best Regards

                               David

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

In some of your replies you use certain words like “generate”, “origin”, “begin”, "initiate", and God bless you also for adding, “relay” and “terminate”.

Viz. “static charge only generates E and motion is required (my addition, i.e. motion of charges) to generate B”, “The origin of an electromagnetic wave is always a charge's field pattern in motion!”, “We do not have to have one present for the wave to be relayed, only for one to begin”, “Particles like energy patterns are only needed to initiate and terminate electromagnetic waves.”

 

The life of a light wave, like most other waves is divided into three phases, (i) generation, (ii) propagation/transit/relay, (iii) termination.

The only points where E is mathematically and physically involved is in (i) and (iii) and even then, free, unbounded charges MUST be present at those two points. The presence of bound charges does not count. For instance, dipoles are bound charges. That is why you cannot generate or terminate a light wave using an antenna made of paper or plastic, even though these materials contain charges.

 

While the operational law in (i) is Ampere’s law, that in (iii) is Faraday’s law.

 

For (ii) to succeed, E is not needed. The ONLY thing required for “relay” is for the continuum to have elastic properties.

I have used this analogy in the past...

A water wave can be generated by dropping a stone in water. At the river bank, the water wave can also exert force and move a stone located there. But during relay/transit, stones are no longer needed. All that is needed is for the water to have elasticity. However, if the water wave encounters a stone in the river during transit, it will exert force on it.

Stone before dropping is static E. During dropping it becomes a dynamic E, (i.e. electric current), and this generates the wave in the elastic continuum (wave is analogous to B wave). On reaching the shore, the wave again encounters static stones (E) upon which it exerts electromotive force converting them to dynamic E (electric current) in the receiving terminal.

This is the uncorrupted gospel according to Maxwell.

 

Akinbo

*In a second email, for those math inclined, I will put some math.

---

From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 12:45 AM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi to those that like math,

Cornelis, you ask, “Are we to take it by your statement that you are not an advocate of the field's E vector property?”

From the gospel according to Maxwell, and his definition of E, in math and in words, E is the force F exerted per unit charge q, i.e. E = F/q.

 

From the equation, sometimes called the Lorentz force equation, i.e.

F = q(v×B -∂A/∂t -∇𝜙)

 

after removing the unnecessary terms (I will not go into that, as I believe those familiar with the math will know), we are left with

F = q(-∂A/∂t)

 

Taking the curl of this, gives us the Maxwell-Faraday law, i.e.

∇×F = -q∂B/∂t

 

because Maxwell tells us to take ∇×A = B.

 

Even if one is not an expert in math, it is clear that where q = 0, there can be no electromotive force, i.e. F = 0. And since E = F/q, if q = 0, i.e. where free unbounded charges DO NOT exist, then E = 0.

The only way for E to be non-zero, i.e. E ≠ 0, IS where there are free, unbounded charges. This scenario only exists at receiving antennas, where there is a preponderance of negative over positive charges.

Therefore, according to Maxwell, even if a medium is particulate, as long as it does not have the same scenario that is present in receiving (and transmission antennas), E is useless and has no role to play.

 

That is why in the section, which formed the subject of my last Saturday Chat presentation that Maxwell’s vector field A is similar to the displacement vector field U of elastic continuum mechanics, he titled this “Propagation of Undulations in a Non-conducting Medium.”

See section 784, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism/Part_IV/Chapter_XX

 

Is it that the meaning of what “non-conducting medium” means still remains unclear? Or is it that people are just hell bent on foisting on us something different from Maxwell’s intention?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 12:45 AM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>

Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

So if you have declared the field's E vector property as a useless  are you also declaring obsolete the permitivity of free space.

In classical electromagnetism, your statement leads to this question.  Without the concept of the electric field E, permittivity would have no value or meaning.

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis, et.al.,

I think a similar question came up during the last Saturday chat at around 1 hour 25 to 45 minutes, so this is an opportunity to shed more light.

The continuum in which the displacement vector fields, represented by U (in continuum mechanics) and by A in electromagnetic theory, has elastic properties, and permittivity can be regarded as related to this.

Like all such properties, it is a property held by the medium, irrespective of whether a static charge is present, or whether the charge is moving, or whether there is a wave propagating or there is no wave propagating. However, when any of these circumstances arise, this property of the medium can help us understand the reaction of the medium to such occurrences.

Long and short, permittivity does not belong to a charged or uncharged particle, or to the propagating wave, and does not depend on whether there is an electric field E or not. It is a property of the underlying medium or continuum or vacuum, whichever name is chosen to refer to it.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2025 3:30 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[David Tombe]

Hi Cornelis,

                  While we're agreed that a test particle is not needed for an E field to exist, we disagree on whether such a particle is needed in deep space for an E field to be relayed in a wave-like manner.

                  So let's then look at the propagation of the changing B field that causes the propagating E field. And let's look at the source of that propagating B field. Are you suggesting, that in a ray of starlight in deep space above the Earth's atmosphere, that the electric current source for the changing B field was millions of light years away, back at the original star itself?

                        Best Regards

                          David

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

E is not the force, but the source of the electric force, and its existence as a physical entity (a condition of the medium/vacuum) is independent of the presence of a test charge.

While you are correct in citing the definition E = F/q it is making a non-standard and inaccurate leap in concluding that the field itself is "useless" during propagation.

The definition E = F/q is most intuitively applied to electrostatics—the electric field produced by stationary charges.

In the context of the wave E is required by Maxwell's equations to sustain the B field and, thus, the wave itself. (there is no B without E)

E is the component responsible for generating the signal (voltage/current) in a receiving antenna (by exerting a force on the stationary electrons in the antenna wires).Therefore, your definition, while technically correct, does not serve as a valid defense for declaring the electric field "obsolete" or "useless."

Cornelis

--

Cornelis Verhey

[David Tombe]

Hi Cornelis,

                     OK, so you know that a changing B at any point in space where a light ray is passing through, means that there must also be an E at that point. But you don’t get the other part of the argument. For there to be a B field at that point, then ∇×B has to equal μJ. And so, the J must be at that point too. It can’t be back at the originating star.

                     You might argue that J = ε∂E/∂t at that point, and so it does. But you still have to then tackle the issues of how J can possibly be equal to ε∂E/∂t in the first place, unless the latter equates in magnitude to a real electric current.

                      And there’s another argument. Have you considered the issue of how a light ray could ever be coherent. and not divergent, unless there are tiny inductances all along its path? I know that transmission lines are a different topic, but they share some features in common with EM waves. Heaviside is credited with demonstrating that placing inductances intermittently along a transmission line helps to keep the signal from diverging into space. Likewise, a light ray that is totally coherent, needs to be relayed through a line of tiny inductors, i.e. rotating electron-positron dipoles.

                                Best Regards

                                      David

[Akinbo Ojo]

 

Cornelis,

My response, detailed and point by point (and a bit more)...

Re: “E is not the force, but the source of the electric force, and its existence as a physical entity (a condition of the medium/vacuum) is independent of the presence of a test charge.”

If you scroll down to about two emails where the Force equation was stated, and putting it in a form that may bring more clarity as

F = q(v×B -∂A/∂t -Q/4πεr²)

The first two terms, i.e. v×B and ∂A/∂t, are forces on charge q of magnetic origin, while the third term, i.e. Q/4πεr² is force on charge q of electric origin from another charge Q. You should find that if you ignore the forces on charge q that are of magnetic origin, you end up with Coulomb’s law, i.e. F = Qq/4πεr²

So, source of force on charge q can either be of magnetic OR of electric origin.

 

Re: “While you are correct in citing the definition E = F/q it is making a non-standard and inaccurate leap in concluding that the field itself is "useless" during propagation.”

Of all the sources of force, only -∂A/∂t is useful during propagation. The others are useless because they do not apply. They apply in circumstances other than propagation such as the force that will be experienced by q if it moves through a static magnetic field B at a velocity v.

 

Re: “The definition E = F/q is most intuitively applied to electrostatics—the electric field produced by stationary charges.”

As you can see from the equation, this is false. E = F/q can be used for any of the forces, but it can be source of mix-up because the E can also be applied to forces that are not electrostatic.

 

Re: “In the context of the wave E is required by Maxwell's equations to sustain the B field and, thus, the wave itself. (there is no B without E)”

False. In another email which I replied to, you had earlier stated correctly, viz. “The origin of an electromagnetic wave is always a charge's field pattern in motion!”, “We do not have to have one present for the wave to be relayed, only for one to begin”.

 

According to Maxwell, A in the equation above is similar to displacement vector field U. It is also a displacement vector field. Therefore, the only thing needed to for an A wave to be sustained, as with all displacement vector fields, is the for the medium or continuum to have elasticity, i.e. its ability to store and release energy.

 

Re: “E is the component responsible for generating the signal (voltage/current) in a receiving antenna (by exerting a force on the stationary electrons in the antenna wires). Therefore, your definition, while technically correct, does not serve as a valid defense for declaring the electric field "obsolete" or "useless."”

As has been pointed out in previous email, the F/q, i.e. the E, responsible for generating the signal in a receiving antenna is that force of magnetic origin, that comes from the ∂A/∂t component. Because A is a displacement vector field, it has longitudinal and transverse components going by Helmholtz theorem. The transverse component of A, i.e. ∇×A is responsible for exerting force on the stationary, free, and unbounded electrons in the antenna wires. As you may know, Maxwell has correctly told us that this component is magnetic field B, i.e. ∇×A = B. So, what exerts force on the charges in the antenna is force of magnetic origin, not force of electric origin.

 

And a little extra..

It is erroneous to put any weight on ∇×B. This is because Maxwell has told us that B is already the transverse component of a displacement vector field. It does not make much sense to have the transverse component of the transverse component of a displacement vector field. But it is correct to put weight on ∇×H, because H is a displacement vector field similar to U. I discussed this a bit in my paper, if you won’t find it too mathematical, even though I made it as simple as I could.

 

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2025 5:52 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Franklin Hu]

I would once again argue that there isn't any E field as well.

Is there any E field required for a radio signal to travel through a coaxial cable?

How do you see radio signals travelling through wires? Is it the same or different. If it is different then how is it different?

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

"

Franklin Hu's statement that there isn't any E field (Electric field) required for a radio signal to travel through a coaxial cable is incorrect in the context of the dominant mode of transmission.

Here is a breakdown of how radio frequency (RF) signals travel through a coaxial cable versus other wires.

⚡ Radio Signals in Coaxial Cables

A radio signal in a coaxial cable is transmitted as an electromagnetic (EM) wave, not just a simple flow of electrons.

 * E field Requirement: An E field is absolutely required. The dominant mode of propagation in a coaxial cable for RF signals is the Transverse ElectroMagnetic (TEM) mode.

   * In the TEM mode, both the Electric field (E) and the Magnetic field (B or H) are perpendicular (transverse) to the direction of wave propagation.

   * The Electric Field lines run radially between the inner and outer conductors.

   * The Magnetic Field lines run in concentric circles around the inner conductor.

   * The two fields, E and B, are coupled and self-sustaining, carrying the energy of the signal along the cable.

 * Confinement: The design of the coaxial cable (inner conductor, dielectric, and outer shield) confines virtually the entire electromagnetic wave to the space (dielectric insulator) between the inner and outer conductors.

 * Energy Flow: The signal power is transmitted by the EM wave in this space, with the conductors serving to guide the wave. This is why the speed of the signal is determined by the properties (permittivity) of the dielectric material, not just the properties of the metal conductors.

📡 Radio Signals in Other Wires (Transmission Lines)

The concept of an EM wave is how any electrical signal, including a radio signal, travels along a transmission line (like a coaxial cable, microstrip, or simple twin-lead wire).

 * Key Difference (Coax vs. Simple Wires): The difference is not in the fundamental physics (it's always an EM wave guided by conductors), but in the confinement of the fields.

   * Simple Wires/Open Lines (e.g., twin lead): The EM fields extend outside the conductors. This means the lines are susceptible to outside interference, and they can also radiate energy, acting as inefficient antennas.

   * Coaxial Cable: The outer conductor (shield) is typically grounded, confining the EM field to the internal dielectric space. This makes the signal highly resistant to external interference (noise) and minimizes radiation loss.

In summary, the wave nature of the signal (electromagnetic wave) requires both an Electric field and a Magnetic field to propagate, even in a guided structure like a coaxial cable. Franklin Hu's claim about the absence of an E field is inconsistent with the fundamental physics of RF signal transmission.

Would you like to explore the concept of Maxwell's Equations which mathematically describe the relationship between the electric and magnetic fields?

"

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

That should tell you that your "standard electromagnetic" theory is wrong. It predicts that there should be zero current.

However, if you actually did the experiment, you would see that the open-circuited conductor (with the other end grounded) does in fact receive an oscillating signal from a radio transmission.

So, obviously, the theory you are attached to must be wrong since there is definitely a measurable conduction current. This is contrary to your theory. Your theory must therefore be wrong.

You might doubt my certainty in this.

However, what you describe as an open-circuited conductor, is exactly what a radio receiver does. You stick a bit of wire out into the air (antenna), ground the other end and it receives an oscillating current which is then amplified. You think that this is due to induction from a theoretical magnetic field in the radio signal. I think it is due to a direct conduction effect.

Since the magnetic field cannot be detected in any actual experiment, I prefer to think that there is an actual conduction current which exists - a conduction current which mainstream theory says should not exist.

So what do you think of that?

What evidence do you present, that the current that is found in the receiving antenna wasn't simply directly conducted to the antenna as if it were attached to the transmitter by a conducting wire? What evidence do you have? There are two possibilities, I claim that since no E or B field can be directly detected in the radio wave (fact), this is evidence against mainstream theory. No E or B field is required for the direct conduction hypothesis, so this observation supports the direct conduction hypothesis.

Do you deny the "fact" that no one has ever done a direct detection of the B field in a radio wave that can extract out the magnitude in Tesla and oscillating N/S vector? The magnetic field is not measured in volts or amps.

I would remind you that you are "presuming" that there is an "induction" happening to induce the current in the antenna and this isn't a direct detection of the B field. It is a completely circular argument to prove the B field exists by assuming that the current was induced by an induction effect. You have to prove that an induction actually happens, not just "assume" it.

Let me make it clear, the fact that a radio antenna receives a current, doesn't prove it came because of a magnetic or electric field. If this were true, then it would be trivial to separately measure these fields and show that they are in phase and 180 degrees in orientation. No experiment has EVER shown this. NONE, PERIOD. If we did, then we wouldn't have arguments about whether the fields are in phase or at 180 degrees (yes, we have argued about that in the past).

I would once again ask you how you think a radio signal travels through a coaxial cable. Does it need E or B fields to travel? Why not? Why does it suddenly completely change when it leaps off the transmitting antenna?

What would happen if the transmitting antenna were immersed in a conducting fluid like mercury, what would you expect at the receiving antenna also immersed in the mercury? Would you still say that the fact that a signal was received as an oscillating current at the receiver proved that it was sent by E and B fields by induction? That would seem ridiculous, wouldn't it? But that is exactly what you are asserting in the transmission through space. Exactly the same.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

The easiest way to deal with the "thorniest problem" is to go back to your basic assumptions and show that they are wrong.

The polarization of light DOES NOT show that light involves transverse vibrations. <---- THIS WAS THE WRONG ASSUMPTION

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

-Sherlock Holmes

The polarization can be explained by the longitudinal waves taking on the the physical geometric shape of the transmitting antenna. So a long tall rod transmits a long tall cylindrical shaped longitudinal wave front which is most easily received by a similarly oriented long tall rod. This is how polarization works with ordinary longitudinal waves in particulate mediums and can be easily shown experimentally.

I have attached an animated GIF that I created with chatGPT to demonstrate what a radio wave actually looks like pulsing out as cylindrical longitudinal polarized waves. You can clearly see the shape of the wave follows the shape of the transmitting antenna at the center. If such a wave hits a similarly oriented receiver, the maximum energy is transferred due to the similar geometry. If the receiver is at 90 degrees, then it misses most of the wave and the minimum energy is transferred. This is what we mean by polarization. It depends upon the orientation of the transmitter and receiver. It doesn't depend upon it being a transverse wave at all. The transverse information is encoded upon the cylindrical shaped wave which extends up/down the length of the transmitting rod and is transverse (up/down) to the outgoing longitudinal wave it is encoded on.

In contrast, a "ball" shaped antenna is completely incapable of transmitting a polarized signal at all. If the signal were truly transverse, there should always be a detectable polarization. This doesn't happen for a ball shaped transmitter, so what is the orientation of the transverse wave in this case? Can anyone draw me a diagram of the E and B waves coming out of a ball shaped transmitter??? It must have a distinct polarization orientation if standard EM wave theory were true.

It ONLY works for antennas with specific non-spherical rod like shapes. The fact that it depends heavily upon the shape and orientation of the transmitter should tell you something about the nature of radio waves. It it truly were a transverse wave in a solid-like medium, then it shouldn't depend at all upon the shape and orientation.

POLARIZATION DOES NOT PROVE THAT TRANSVERSE WAVES (which can only exists in solids) ARE BEING USED.

This is the KEY mistake. Remember, this is just an "assumption" in the theory. It can be wrong when there are other alternative explanations.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, December 10, 2025 at 02:26:27 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

I think what I am looking for is in Ron Hatch’s book, ‘Escape from Einstein’, from about page 44...

(excerpts)

The New Ether Gauge Theory

Defining the Ether

The polarization of light shows that light involves transverse vibrations, i.e. vibrations of shear strain. Shear waves can only occur in solids; therefore, the ether must be a solid. But normal solids have two kinds of wave-propagation phenomena. The first is a transverse wave, corresponding to a moving shear pattern of strain. Light is an example of such a transverse wave. The second kind of wave which can exist in a solid is a longitudinal compressive wave, corresponding to a moving pattern of volume strain. Compressive strain waves can occur in both solids and gases. Sound waves are compressive volume strain waves in ordinary matter. The thorniest problem with which any proposed ether has to deal is the absence of any compressional (longitudinal) ether waves in nature...

 

In other words, the expected nature of the proposed medium, using elastic continuum mechanics language is:

∇×U ≠ 0 and ∇·U = 0.

And stated “similarly” in Maxwell’s electromagnetic language, since A ≡ U, this translates to

∇×A ≠ 0 and ∇·A = 0

 

Regards,

Akinbo

---

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

No, you are wrong again. You are once again, not reading what I said.

A normal conductor only uses electrons and those oscillations would create a net magnetic field.

But the aether conductor of positrons and electrons would oscillate together and would create magnetic fields which would cancel each other out.

(You remember that opposite charges create opposite magnetic fields???)

The electron would create a magnetic field, while the positron would create the opposite magnetic field as they vibrate together.

So, we would fully expect that an oscillating poselectron sea would not generate any net magnetic fields due to the cancelling of the opposite vibrating charges. We fully expect this from Ampere's law. Faraday's law doesn't apply to a direct conduction hypothesis. So, I'm not in the bad books for Faraday's law when it simply doesn't apply.

This fully confirms the poselectron model.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, December 10, 2025 at 01:55:40 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I made a mistake. The first sentence should have read:

This response is your way of having to obey Ampère’s law, but you don’t mind being in the bad books for Faraday’s law.

But I observe that you have once again reversed yourself, which means that although your hidden wire carries current there is no magnetic field around it. So, you have now run foul of both Ampère’s and Faraday’s law. This will be in addition to the Coulomb’s law which your poselectrons do not also obey at close contact.

Don’t you think it will now be safe to conclude that poselectron sea model is a serial offender of known laws of physics?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 6:33 AM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Actually since it is the neutral dipole that oscillates, we would expect 0 net magnetic field generation in this case.

Sent from my iPhone

https://www.raveon.com/narrow-band-data-radio/

There is absolutely no way you can make the claim that hall effect sensors shouldn't be able to see the magnetic field of an ordinary radio signal. You can look all you want, but you won't find a single experiment showing a hall effect sensor picking up any radio signal. It just doesn't happen because it doesn't happen. So actually, you can't build an AM radio out of a hall effect sensor. If radio waves really did contain magnetic fields, then you would be able to detect the AM radio signal with a hall sensor. But since you cannot, this is fairly good proof that no such magnetic fields exist in radio waves, no matter how powerful. You could put the hall sensor right next to a kilowatt AM commercial transmitter and see absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that there are absolutely no detectable magnetic fields in an in-flight radio wave. None. Zip. Nada and no experimental evidence (that doesn't already rely on the circular induction argument by measuring voltage) shows this. If someone bothered to do a very high sensitivity hall effect sensor test, this could be conclusively proven experimentally. Really, that should be the next radio experiment I should try to conduct to show that radio signals contain no magnetic fields since nobody else seems to have cared to show this.

-Franklin

On Monday, November 24, 2025 at 12:30:56 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

See below follow up from AI, how do you respond?

[24/11, 07:01] Akinbo: Can Hall sensors detect magnetic fields in kHz range like AM radio?

[24/11, 07:02] Meta AI: Hall sensors can detect magnetic fields, but their bandwidth is typically limited to a few kHz, making them unsuitable for detecting AM radio frequencies (535-1605 kHz). They're better suited for low-frequency applications like position sensing or current sensing. For AM radio detection, you'd typically use a coil or antenna.

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:10 AM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

We can easily generate strong Khz radio signals (such as AM radio) to be detected by hall detectors. Speed is not the problem.

-Franklin

On Friday, November 21, 2025 at 12:28:46 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin, you may find below response useful...

[21/11, 06:50] Akinbo: What is a hall sensor?

[21/11, 06:50] Meta AI: A Hall sensor! ��

- Magnetic field detector: Measures magnetic field strength using Hall effect

- Works on principle: Voltage difference appears when conductor/magnet moves in field

- Applications: Position sensing, current sensing, automotive, robotics...

Tiny, reliable, and widely used in tech!

 

[21/11, 06:51] Akinbo: What is Hall effect?

[21/11, 06:51] Meta AI: The Hall effect is a fundamental concept!

- Voltage generation: When a current-carrying conductor is placed in a magnetic field, a voltage (Hall voltage) appears perpendicular to both current and field

- Deflection of charges: Magnetic field deflects moving charges, creating an electric field

- Used in sensors: Hall sensors measure magnetic fields, detect position, speed, etc.

A key phenomenon in physics and engineering!

 

[21/11, 06:53] Akinbo: Can Hall sensor detect time-varying magnetic field in electromagnetic wave?

[21/11, 06:53] Meta AI: Hall sensors can detect magnetic fields, but:

- Limited bandwidth: Hall sensors are generally slow (~kHz range)

- EM waves are fast: Typical EM waves (radio, light) have high frequencies (MHz to GHz+)

- Not suitable: Hall sensors aren't designed for detecting high-frequency EM waves

For EM waves, other detectors (antennas, photodiodes) are more suitable.

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:43 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Yes, voltage can arise from things like being connected to a battery among other things.

Yes, high quality hall sensors can detect very fast changes, I don't know about 10^10 but there are certainly much lower radio frequencies that can be used. Yes, it will precisely identify the specific N/S orientation of the field.

Your phone has such a sensor in it and if you wave a magnet around, you can see the XYZ orientation of the magnetic field using a simple app. It does not rely upon induction, but rather uses the direct lorentz force to measure the deflection of charge through a magnetic field.

So, why no direct experiments if this can be done?

-Franklin

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 11:35:34 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Can there be voltage without time-varying magnetic field?

Also, if magnetic field changes from N to S, and S back to N, at a rate of more than 10^10 times per second, is your Hall detector able to measure such unstable magnetic orientation? Will it identify it as N or as S?

Just asking...

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:23 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Using Faraday's law is circular reasoning. By the time it hits a conductor, you are measuring voltage, it is no longer a magnetic wave which has a measurable N/S vector which is completely lost in this measurement and worst of all "assumes" that this is due to induction which is the very thing that is at question here.

So, completely invalid!!!

Remember, you cannot measure teslas in volts!!!

And we do have instruments like hall detectors which can detect the N/S orientation of a time varying magnetic field in free space.

Why don't we use them????

-Franklin

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 10:53:08 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

My reply to Carl needs to be a studied one, so I will do that tomorrow.

Measuring or detecting a wave comprising of a time-varying magnetic field is based on what we know as Faraday’s law,  which tells us what will happen when this type of wave impinges on a conductor. Never heard of this?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:28 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Of course, you realize that I think the EM wave equation as a transverse electric/magnetic field phenomenon is completely wrong. A light wave is definitely not a time varying magnetic disturbance. Not even mainstream believes it is only a magnetic field. I don't think any magnetic field is involved in lightwave transmission.

You did remember that didn't you?

What do I think the light/radio wave actually is? Try to recall, since I've mentioned it a million times and you have to pull it out of your head in order to recognize it. Otherwise, just don't think it will register.

I don't need any fancy transverse wave equation to describe it. 

So, why would I be impressed by any form of the EM wave equation? I think this is absolutely the biggest mistake that Maxwell promoted which everyone believes, but has NEVER been experimentally verified by measuring the actual in flight separate electric and magnetic fields at 90 degrees to each other and in phase. All of these things can be experimentally measured, but why do think that you can find absolutely no experimental reference that actually proves this?

Akinbo, I ask you in all honesty, why are there no direct proof experiments? If there were, then you could prove your contention that it is only a magnetic field, but there is no proof of any kind.

This also seemingly has absolutely nothing to do with main topic which how the magnetic field is mediated by some medium. The argument I am putting forward is that the medium must be a composite substance which has at least 2 recognizable points which can determine the vector direction and a way to express the magnitude. The poselectron dipole fulfills this role perfectly. On the other hand, this featureless medium that all the rest of you are in love with doesn't have anything that could possibly describe the magnetic field vector. Nothing of what you are saying here refutes that contention. So, try to get back on topic.

-Franklin 

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 12:38:17 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You lamented recently about not being taken seriously. To do theoretical physics, you must be bilingual, i.e. understand English (prose) and Greek (math). Even if not fluent, you must seek to understand both. And in today’s world, you can even have AI translate for you. So, your situation is a self-inflicted one when you say things like, “Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try”, “I don't think that equations devoid of any connection to reality are worth pursuing”, etc

Anyway, here goes...

∇²(∇×U) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×U)/∂t² is Greek, in English, it means the transverse wave equation in an elastic medium.

Now, according to Maxwell A is similar to U, and U is similar A (U ≡ A).

Substituting that into the Greek statement above, you get another Greek statement

∇²(∇×A) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×A)/∂t² 

 

Two days ago, when you were not feeling too lazy, you asked AI for assistance, viz. “so I had to look up what "A" meant”, and AI correctly told you that ∇×A = B.

From that, you should be able to see that in Greek, the equation becomes:

∇²B = (1/c²).∂²B/∂t²

 

In English, that is wave equation for a time-varying magnetic disturbance in an elastic continuum, which we call “light wave”.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:19 AM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Sorry, I don't speak Greek and I don't think that equations devoid of any connection to reality are worth pursuing. If you have something to say, say it in English.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 12:40:27 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You earlier said this, “Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try”, but you seem to have taken a step towards understanding, using AI.

If you want to go a tiny bit further, use the same AI to ask what the equation, ∇²(∇×U) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×U)/∂t² means, U being displacement vector field. I can spoon-feed you the rest.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:15 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo and David,

I am still puzzled by what this could possibly do with how magnetism work so I had to look up what "A" meant

So at least it can tie to magnetism. Although, I think Maxwell's conception of magnetism which David likes with things that have rotating cells is completely wrong and unnecessary. 

Looking into that more, this is what Maxwell thought:

I would respond by saying that my hypothesis doesn't need the complication of vortices or idle wheels. These seem to be a complex mechanical invention which just don't seem plausible. How do these vortices form? What are they made of? What keeps them stable? What powers them? Too many unanswered questions. The only thing my hypothesis requires is a simple unorganized field of charged dipoles. That seems very likely and is exactly how charges would spontaneously arrange themselves - this is demonstrated in computer simulations.

The magnetic field has nothing to do with rotavating vortices but has to so with the simple observation that if you shoot a negative charge between a positive and negative charge, it will obviously deflect towards the positive charge and away from the negative one. This is the basic action of a magnetic field, to deflect an electron only in motion. The explanation of rotating vortices doesn't explain at all why an electron should deflect in a magnetic field except for maybe it gets caught up in the flow created by the vortices. But if you accept that, then you can't explain why a positive charge then deflects in exactly the opposite direction to that same vortex flow. You can't have it both ways. You also can't explain why a stationary charge in a magnetic field feels absolutely no force at all. If the force was due to being caught in the vortices flow, then force should always be applied the electron and it can't possibly remain stationary. Since it remains stationary, this cannot be the origin for the magnetic force.

The idea that electric currents are the "idle wheels" just seems outrageous. I think most people would agree that electric currents are caused by the presence of electrons which are physically moving through the conductor as they pass from atom to atom. There are no such "idle wheels" in space, only conductors and electrons. But Maxwell needed these idle wheels to "predict" the electromagnetic wave as requiring the displacement current concept. I don't think Maxwell "predicted" anything. This was just a completely made up set of chalkboard equations which has nothing to do with reality. Sure, the equations work, they look great, but you'll never be able experimentally detect anything like a displacement current or even anything that looks like the electromagnetic wave that is frequently displayed in college text books. It just doesn't exist and idle wheels as currents is just the complete opposite of what it should be.

Electromagnetic induction is indeed a very difficult problem for any theory of magnetism. Maxwell wants to have these spinning wheels which basically store magnetic inertia and so keep spinning even after the current is turned off. I don't think there can be anything like a magnetic inertia, but we have to explain why the magnetic field continues to persist when the current is turned off. My hypothesis proposes that the magnetic field lines actually move out of the wire and into space as real magnetic line entities. It is when these magnetic lines contact electrons in conductors, that it causes them to deflect only when the lines are in motion. This is the initial induction effect from outward moving magnetic field lines. When you turn off the current, the magnetic field lines are still out there in space, but since they are no longer supported by new current, the field lines start collapsing back towards the wire which again, causes electrons to be deflected in the opposite direction as the secondary induction effect as the magnetic field lines return back to the wire. We can see the opposite currents in the following diagram showing induction effects.

Once again, my paper for anyone who wants to learn how a magnetic field could possibly have the properties that it does.

No vortices, no wheels, no helixes just polarized charged dipoles.

https://franklinhu.com/HowMagneticFieldWorks.pdf

In light of how I believe the magnetic field actually operates, Maxwell's conception is completely defective and on the completely wrong track. We should not pay any attention to it at all. I would also bring David's attention to the objections I have to this whole rotating vortices thing as just being completely unlikely and too complex to model reality. My conception of a polarized dipole sea appears to explain all of the known magnetic phenomenon including the Faraday's paradox without invoking a complex mechanical system of idle wheels. Why wouldn't you adopt this simpler explanation which doesn't rely on any kind of "flow" of anything to explain magnetic forces. It only relies on simple Coulomb force of opposite charges and shows the real relationship between the electric and magnetic forces.

Of course, my conception absolutely relies on the existence of dipole particles in free space. Without those dipole particles, there would be no way to express the magnetic vector which is why I reject all the notions that space is some kind of uniform continuous featureless substance which only supports waves which is what Andy, Cornelis and Akinbo are pushing for. But when you ask them how things like the Coulomb or magnetic force works, there is no real answer because a uniform medium cannot possibly support these kinds of forces.

So while Maxwell's remark cannot be denied, I'd probably say this remark is also likely wrong and irrelevant.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 05:48:42 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Re: “Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try”

Well, I must commend you for living up to your name. Thank you for being frank.

 

There is no point pushing you further since you admit not wanting to try because if one must drink from the well of wisdom that you can find in Maxwell’s Treatise, you must at least try to go to the well and look inside it. Someone nearby may then help you fetch you a drink. I must say that I took that step and benefited from what four persons on this email list had to say. I will mention three of them, Harry, Slobodan, and Musa Abdullahi. Outside this forum, there was Gurcharn Sandhu.

 

In the theory of elastic mediums, displacement vector field U just refers to that area of disturbance when there is an ingress of energy into the medium. This has nothing to do with whether this medium is particulate or non-particulate.

 

So, yes, Maxwell is not a god, and he never proclaimed himself as one. But after struggling for many years and toying with several models, particulate and non-particulate, fluid and solid, vortices and non-vortices, he made his final declaration, categorically saying that his vector field A IS SIMILAR to the displacement vector field U of elastic solid theory. This remark cannot be denied and I hope to discuss this further very soon.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:15 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

Quite frankly, I don't understand your meaning and I honestly don't want to even try. 

Once again, U is only involved in actual displacement of particles from point A to point B. If air was expanding around a heated wire that would apply, but wouldn't apply to stationary dipoles merely changing their orientation and I don't know what this even has to do with the word "transverse" as there is nothing transverse involved.

So, no, I'm just disagreeing with you and your mysterious line of reasoning.

Why don't you just tell me where you are going with this? What is you point in even bringing this up? So far, seems completely pointless in the discussion of the featureless medium and the origins of magnetism. Don't think you can trap me into saying "yes" to some obscure confusing concept and then say "ah ha" you are wrong.

Just say what you mean and then we can reasonably discuss it instead of you trying to trap me by obscurity. 

Also, I don't take Maxwell as a "god like" authority. If he was so smart, then mainstream would already have magnetism as settled science. We do not, so Maxwell isn't an authority.

I disagree with a lot more people than Maxwell, because they are obviously wrong. This is why no real progress has been made in physics in the past 100 years. We need to stop hero worshiping and start from scratch.

-Franklin

On Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 02:27:56 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin, et.al.,

If change of alignment occurs around the surrounding of a wire when electric current J is switched on, this area of change is the displacement vector field U. If the change of alignment is of the nature of difference in the distance between points in the surrounding, such as would be the case due to energy from a heated wire causing expansion in the surrounding air, that will be the longitudinal component of U and is denoted by ∇·U.

If the change of alignment is like what you depict in your poselectron sea, that will be the transverse component of U, denoted by ∇×U.

So, energy can be stored in a medium either as ∇·U or as ∇×U depending on the elastic properties of that medium.

Maxwell is telling you that we should take ∇×U = B, where B is the magnetic field. Are you disagreeing with him?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 8:43 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

You seem to understand that magnetism is due to alignment, though I don’t know if this has anything to do with a transverse U field since nothing is undergoing an actual movement to a different location, just a twist.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 15, 2025, at 1:10 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

Okay now that you have no problem with the existence of displacement vector field U, consider that when there is ingress of energy into an elastic medium, or poselectron sea, as you prefer, the mathematics of U shows that it can have two components, longitudinal and transverse, denoted by ∇·U and ∇×U respectively. These respectively represent the storage of energy as volumetric strain (compression-rarefaction) and shear strain in the underlying medium. For wave phenomena, ∇·U travels as longitudinal wave, ∇×U while propagates as a transverse wave.

In your poselectron model, you have depicted what happens to the poselectron medium around a wire when electric current is switched on, and there is an ingress of energy into the surrounding of the wire.

In your depiction, we don’t see a stretching or increase of the spaces between the poselectrons, i.e. a volumetric strain. What you show in your model is that the inter-poselectron spaces are preserved, but there is a twisting in their alignment and this effect manifests as a magnetic field B.

Will it be correct to say that this ingress of energy into poselectron sea, and its storage therein, manifests as the transverse component of displacement vector field U, i.e. ∇×U?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:44 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Did I not already say that?

<1763145803444blob.jpg>

This is trivial and could be readily measured in a medium which contained trackable points such as a particulate medium, but would be impossible to measured in a medium with no trackable points. So this cannot possibly apply to the medium you are proposing. So there is no point in discussing it.

-Franklin

On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 10:39:46 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Are we then to take it that you are in full agreement with the established mathematics and physics of displacement vector field U in a medium that has features of elasticity?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:34 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

Well of course I am stuck on "features" because without it, elasticity cannot exist. So, that is why it is relevant. If you cannot address this, then what is the point of talking about a medium which cannot be elastic?

-Franklin

On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 10:13:32 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Following up on your email reply...

You seem to be stuck on features.

So, let me rephrase, do you agree that a medium with features, even including poselectron sea, if there is an ingress of energy and storage of energy in it, this will result in the creation of a displacement vector field, usually denoted by U in elastic continuum mechanics?

And that the mathematics and physics of U are as described using vector calculus analysis, including how this is mathematically applied by Helmholtz in his decomposition theorem, by Maxwell in his Treatise, and by others in the physics of elasticity?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

I would continue to argue that a "featureless medium" cannot have the "feature" of "elasticity". If any medium had any concept of elasticity, this would mean that the medium must have "features" which allow it to be measured as either being in a stretched or relaxed state which requires the presence of trackable markers in the medium to be able to make that distinction.

I would also say that a featureless medium would not be be able to support an ingress of energy as some feature of the medium would have to change in order to accept such an ingress. So, really, a featureless medium can have no material property changes of any kind because there are simply no features to detect.

But certainly elastic mediums would create a displacement vector field however, your featureless medium is incapable of any such elasticity. Elasticity is trivially explained in a particulate medium, but is logically impossible to describe for a featureless medium.

This is my main point:

A featureless medium cannot have any features such as elasticity. It is logically impossible. Therefore this concept should be immediately rejected on this basis alone.

I would recommend that you abandon the featureless medium concept in favor of some medium which has trackable features like particles even if you can't describe what those particles are. It could be like David's sub-aether which flows and is of an unknown composition, but it is much better than something that doesn't have any features at all.

Really, the only objection you have to a particle aether is that you are "stuck" with the naive notion that it must cause frictional losses and cause anything travelling in it to slow down. I have been unsuccessful in persuading you that this doesn't happen even though I have shown real physical examples of experiments which show that no frictional losses are possible. I cannot prove it to you, so I would recommend that you just accept that as a "postulate" which would then allow you to accept the more common sense notion that a medium must consist of particles in order to support a wave.

I think that is a far better alternative than to continue to accept the illogical and impossible featureless medium which has features.

A featureless medium with features - that is a simple logical inconsistency.

It's like saying "A colorless liquid which is blue". It is either colorless or blue, it cannot be the same at the same time. A logical inconsistency.

-Franklin

On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 12:28:30 AM PST, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Following up on below email...

After digesting it, do you agree that irrespective of the features of the medium, even including poselectron sea, if there is an ingress of energy and storage of energy in it, this will result in the creation of a displacement vector field, usually denoted by U in elastic continuum mechanics?

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Franklin,

Re: “How can something so featureless possibly describe a vector direction and a magnitude? It cannot.”

 

You raise some pertinent issues here, which I also missed my way a bit and had to grapple with while developing my model.

First, in earlier communication, I had told you that the “featureless medium” has elasticity, and I used bonds to explain that to you. I also informed that the physical property permittivity, ε is not a property of atoms, positrons or electrons, but of that “featureless medium” between them, whose quantity depends on r, e.g. as in F = QQ’/4πεr².

But the most important thing from what you said is that when energy is introduced into the “featureless medium”, IT IS the resulting displacement/deformation field, where this energy is stored, that has magnitude and a vector direction.

In elastic continuum mechanics, this field is usually represented by the bold letter U, because it is a vector and so has magnitude and direction. (No need to go into the details, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_field_(mechanics)#Spatial_coordinates_(Eulerian_description)).

 

The elastic properties of the “featureless medium” is what determine how the energy will be stored in it. This can either be as a volumetric strain (e.g. stretching or compression), or a non-volumetric strain (e.g. rotation or torsion). A gas or liquid for example will store energy as a volumetric strain, while a solid can store energy in both ways.

So, what has magnitude and direction IS the disturbance in the featureless medium due to the ingress of energy, and it represented as U in many discussions of elastic continuum mechanics.

If you understand this so far, that will be a big plus.

Akinbo

[Franklin Hu]

And once again AI is just spitting out the mainstream "opinion". 

The conductor in the cable can only do "one" thing, which is to move electrons, so ultimately it can only be a simple flow of electrons.

AI is hallucinating again.

If you slow it down enough, like flipping a switch once a second as a 1hz signal, you can definitely see, it is only a simple flow of electrons. At what point does it magically switch over to the E and B fields? 10hz, 100hz? How does it know? It doesn't.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

AI would like to respond to you

"

Dear Franklin,

Thank you for continuing this discussion. Your perspective that the conductor's only job is to move electrons is correct, but it leads us directly to the point: the movement of those electrons creates the fields we are discussing, and at high frequencies, the fields become the most useful model for tracking the energy.

We can illustrate this using the measurable speed of the signal.

The Signal's Speed Proves the Wave Model

If the signal were truly just a simple flow of electrons through a copper wire, its speed would be determined primarily by the metal itself. However, the actual speed of an RF signal in a cable is always slower than the speed of light in a vacuum and is primarily determined by the insulating material, which is the dielectric.

This speed is quantified by the Velocity Factor (VF), which is the fraction of the speed of light ($c$) at which the signal travels.

• Coaxial Cable (Solid Plastic): The signal's speed is typically about 66% of the speed of light (VF = 0.66). The entire electromagnetic wave is confined to the plastic insulation between the conductors. The plastic slows the wave down significantly.

• Simple Twin Lead/Open Wire: Here, the signal fields extend mostly into the surrounding air. Since air is very similar to a vacuum, the signal speed is much faster, often 95% to 99% of the speed of light (VF = 0.95 to 0.99).

If the signal were merely a "flow of electrons" in the copper, why would changing the type of plastic or foam insulation—the part that doesn't conduct current—have such a profound effect on the speed?

The answer is that the energy is being carried by the Electric (E) and Magnetic (B) fields in the space filled by the insulation, not by the copper itself. The insulation (dielectric) interacts with the E and B fields, causing the wave to slow down.

The Transition is Not Magic

To address your question about when it "magically switches" from electron flow to fields: there is no magic switch. It is a matter of scale.

1. Low Frequency (1 Hz): The physical length of the cable is a tiny fraction of the signal's wavelength. The fields are present, but their effects are negligible compared to the simple voltage and current we measure at the ends.

2. High Frequency (RF): The physical length of the cable is comparable to, or longer than, the signal's wavelength. Now, the time it takes the fields to propagate becomes essential. We must abandon the simple current/voltage model and use the electromagnetic wave model, because the energy is demonstrably traveling at a speed determined by the fields and the insulation they travel through.

The fields (E and B) are an inescapable consequence of the moving electrons, and at high frequencies, they become the only accurate way to describe how the signal's energy travels down the wire.

"

--

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

"So what do you think of that?"

What I told you in the first place.

Nothing has changed and you still can not measure a current leaving the end of the coaxial cable and into the surrounding vacuum.  For the simple reason that there is none.  The only energy leaving is due to electromagnetic induction.

"However, what you describe as an open-circuited conductor, is exactly what a radio receiver does. You stick a bit of wire out into the air (antenna), ground the other end and it receives an oscillating current which is then amplified. You think that this is due to induction from a theoretical magnetic field in the radio signal. I think it is due to a direct conduction effect."

Any signal being measured is due to the "bit of wire" behaving like an antenna which can have an alternating current induced in it due to electromagnetic induction.

Let me be perfectly clear, detecting and processing such a transmitted electromagnetic wave is exactly what the geometry of the receiving antenna is designed to do.  You will not detect any radio signal entering the receiver if you disconnect the coaxial cable from the antenna.

I assume your final paragraph was intended to be an insult to the intelligence of the readers. 

"

The final paragraph states: "But that is exactly what you are asserting in the transmission through space. Exactly the same."

This statement is fundamentally flawed because it creates a false equivalence:

1. Transmission Through Space (Vacuum/Air): These are dielectric mediums with extremely low conductivity of approximately 0. They allow the E and B fields to couple and propagate freely as a self-sustaining electromagnetic wave.

2. Transmission Through Mercury: Mercury is a highly conductive medium. It actively destroys the propagating EM wave by converting its energy into heat, as described by the skin effect.

The mechanism of signal transmission through a vacuum is the exact opposite of what would happen in a conductor. A successful transmission through space proves the existence of the propagating E and B fields, while the failure of transmission through mercury would confirm the principles of electromagnetism and the skin effect.

"

Cornelis

--

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

"Any signal being measured is due to the "bit of wire" behaving like an antenna which can have an alternating current induced in it due to electromagnetic induction."

That is the VERY thing which is at question here.

If you can't measure the magnetic field using an independent probe that doesn't rely upon induction, then how do you know it is there?

You have to use a probe which doesn't rely upon "induction" to prove that the magnetic field actually exists independently.

Such probes can use the Lorentz force directly by observing the direct deflection of electrons from a straight path, rather than relying upon induction to determine if a magnetic field exists. 

No such observation of the Lorentz force from an in flight radio wave has ever been observed.

Once again, AI is just spitting out the mainstream explanation which I am arguing is completely wrong.

The observation of current in the receiving antenna is insufficient to prove that the the current was caused by induction since there are other ways the signal could get there.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

That's very interesting about the speed differences, but dueling AI:

The insulation (dielectric) in a coax cable changes transmission speed because its material properties, specifically its dielectric constant (permittivity), affect how fast electromagnetic fields propagate; a higher dielectric constant means more energy is stored in the insulation, slowing the signal down, while lower values (like foam) allow faster speeds, and this dielectric also dictates the cable's impedance, impacting overall performance. 

How Dielectric Properties Affect Speed

1. Energy Storage: The insulation material (dielectric) between the center conductor and the shield stores electrical energy, acting like a capacitor.
2. Permittivity: Different materials have different dielectric constants (permittivity). A material with a higher dielectric constant absorbs more energy, slowing the signal.
3. Velocity Factor (VOP): The actual speed of the signal is a percentage of the speed of light, called the Velocity Factor (VOP).
   • Materials like solid Teflon® (higher dielectric constant) have lower VOPs (e.g., 70%), slowing the signal more.
   • Foam dielectrics (lower dielectric constant) have higher VOPs (e.g., 90%), allowing signals to travel faster. 

-- How I read that is that the permittivity is changing which of course affects wave velocity. There isn't any question about whether a wave is involved, but is it a wave of compressed electron gas or an EM wave of E and B fields. When you have things acting like capacitors, this still implies a movement of electrons, not a changing E and B field. So while I would have to concede that this is an area of additional research, it still doesn't prove that the signal is actually travelling using E and B fields as electromagnetic field theory would suggest. The change in permittivity alone would explain it in both cases. If it really is travelling in this manner, then what polarization would the E and B fields be and how would you measure them? They must exist for EM wave theory to be true. But there are no such E and B fields coming out of a wire, only electrons at oscillating voltages (electron pressure) which is the only thing an oscilloscope can measure coming off the wire. 

Really, if you're going to ask AI about something, then ask it why no one has ever directly measured the magnetic and electric fields as in phase and at 90 degrees to each other as EM wave theory predicts.

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin, et.al.,

In a transmission cable, both a wave in electric field E and in magnetic field B are propagated. This is unlike wireless transmission of energy through chargeless space. Cornelis has tried to explain this to you and he also quoted references from AI, yet you do not budge from your wrong position. I will not repeat what Cornelis and AI have correctly said on the matter, but just to emphasize an important aspect...

 

For energy to be propagated in electric form, the presence of free and unbounded charges is sine qua non (indispensable).

Such condition is present in co-axial transmission cables.

If the cable material is made up entirely of plastic or wood, no energy in the form of electromagnetic wave can be propagated through it because the condition is not fulfilled.

 

MORAL

The moral of this is that, any material devoid of free and unbounded charges, such as poselectron sea; a collection of dipoles as vortices; a dielectric such as Epola lattice; or a vacuum devoid of charge; CANNOT propagate energy in electric form and have a wave in E during transit/relay.

 

In order to have a wave in E in wireless transmission, the medium MUST contain FREE and UNBOUNDED charges. Therefore, if proponents of dielectric mediums, want to have an E wave propagating alongside a B wave, they MUST proceed to populate their medium with FREE and UNBOUNDED charges. The possession of charge in bounded form does not avail them of anything electrical form.

If this condition IS NOT fulfilled, then the time-varying B wave must wait until it gets to a receiving antenna made of material having such free and unbounded charges, where E can then be expressed according to Faraday's law, and energy converted from magnetic to electric form.

 

Maxwell was not a fool when he referred to light as an undulation in a NON-CONDUCTING medium. See heading to section 784  in his Treatise.

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 4:02 AM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Do you accept that seismic S-waves (transverse) can be polarized and P-waves (longitudinal) cannot?

 

You are yet to understand the concept of polarization, hence your saying, “This is what we mean by polarization. It depends upon the orientation of the transmitter and receiver”.

No, it does not depend on the orientation of transmitter and receiver. It depends on the elastic properties of the medium, such that when energy transits through it as a wave, some of the vibrations ARE NOT in the direction of wave propagation and so can be filtered out by a polarizer.

What you even illustrated in your animation cannot be polarized because it has no vibrations/oscillations perpendicular to the direction of propagation, hence it cannot be filtered by a polarizer. A polarizer works by screening out vibrations that are perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation.

Akinbo

*Can you share the instruction you gave to ChatGPT? I want to do an animation on something else.

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 5:04 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field. - Polarization doesn't require transverse waves

 

[David Tombe]

Franklin,

              Your question widens the discussion into two discussions.

               There is no point in getting into the difference between cable signals and wireless signals until such times as everybody is agreed on what each is individually.

            At the moment we are only looking at wireless signals, which involve time-varying EM induction. A DC transmission line pulse, on the other hand, involves no EM induction.

            And I should further add that Ivor Catt confused the issue no end, by insisting that these two distinct phenomena are the same thing.

                 Best Regards

                     David

[David Tombe]

Hi Cornelis,

                  There is no need to cloud the issue by introducing AC into cable transmission. The phenomenon can been seen most clearly in the context of a DC transmission line pulse which moves at constant speed on its own momentum after it has disconnected from the power source. Hence there is no E involved in the propagation mechanism in cable transmission.

                It's only in wireless waves that we have an E driving the propagation. It's the E induced by a time-varying magnetic field. That magnetic field in turn requires a source displacement current at the location. It is not sourced light years away at the originating star, otherwise we would have curl B = 0 and hence no EM wave.

                                  Best Regards

                                         David

[Cornelis Verhey]

David,

"A DC transmission line pulse, on the other hand, involves no EM induction."

You may want to leave out the word pulse.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

David,

Apparently, at least in my view, you have some differences to work out between your view and accepted transmission line behavior.

Cornelis Verhey

[David Tombe]

Hi Cornelis,

                  Yes indeed. But in truth, the textbooks never had a proper theory for transmission lines. Ivor Catt pointed this fact out, although I don't agree with his solution.

                 The textbooks treat these pulses as though they are EM waves. But they aren't. The E field is not driving the pulse. It acts perpendicularly to the pulse and it is not based on time-varying EM induction. And there is still a real electric current in the conducting wire that sources the travelling magnetic field.

              Anyway, you have allowed the discussion to be side-tracked away from wireless radiation and hence avoided the controversial issue of the connection between, (1) the source electric current for the changing magnetic fields in starlight in deep space, and (2) the expression ε∂E/∂t. And that's at the centre of the entire debate.

                                     Best Regards

                                            David

[Cornelis Verhey]

David,

l disagree on both parts.

I have previosly shared that Ivor Catt made something out of nothing by presenting a strawman argument claiming to have discovered something new.

The textbooks treat these pulses as though they are EM waves and they are.  Pulses are accelerating charges and accelerating charges create EM waves which intern accelerate charges.

The accelerating charges create an orthoganal magnetic field which results in the creation of the magnetic field. The growth of the magnetic field results in the creation of an orthoganal back EMF which opposes  the acceleration of the electrons.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

You get different answers, probably determined by how you ask the question. What did you prompt the AI with? If you prompt it with "how do radio signals travel through cables as an EM wave", it's going to give you that answer.

This answer is what I would expect as voltage waves, not EM waves which would I would have thought to be the most common sense response, rather than trying to shoehorn the EM wave explanation onto a copper wire. 

"transmission of radio signals in cables" (generic unbiased prompt)

Radio signals travel through cables as voltage waves or light pulses, not as radiated radio waves, using specialized cables like coaxial cables (RF signals as voltage) or fiber optics (RF signals converted to light). These cables guide electromagnetic energy efficiently, preventing signal loss with components like center conductors, dielectrics, and shielding, essential for applications from Wi-Fi to telecom networks, often using techniques like multiplexing to carry multiple signals. 

How it Works (General Principles)

1. Conversion: An RF signal (like from a transmitter) is an electrical signal (voltage varying over time).
2. Guidance: This electrical signal is sent down a cable, guided by its physical structure (like a coaxial cable's inner conductor and shield) or converted to light for optical fiber.
3. Propagation: The signal travels as an electrical current (voltage waves) or modulated light, not as free-space radio waves.
4. Reception: At the other end, a photodiode (fiber) or receiver circuit converts the light or electrical signal back into a usable electrical form. 

-Franklin

[David Tombe]

Hi Cornelis,

                  Yes, in a transmission line pulse there is an electric field at right angles to the propagation direction. The text books say it's an electrostatic field while I say it's E =vxB pressing inwards on the wire from the magnetic field. But it doesn't matter. In neither event is it the E field of time-varying induction which drives the propagation in wireless EM waves.

               You have to understand both wireless waves and transmission line pulses separately before you can claim that they are one and the same thing.

                 It's the height of stupidity to try to understand the physical nature of these two phenomena by beginning on the assumption that they are both the same thing. They clearly aren't the same thing.

              Meanwhile, you have avoided the question of where the source electric current is for the changing magnetic field in a ray of starlight in deep space. As was always the case with Ivor Catt, you switched the topic to transmission line pulses.

                                   Best Regards

                                          David

                  

[David Tombe]

Franklin,

             Correct. mainstream has been wrong in trying to shoehorn the EM wave theory into cable signals. The blame begins with Kirchhoff.

                                       Best Regards

                                            David

[Franklin Hu]

David,

I think it is relevant because I am trying to argue that transmission in wires and in wireless are actually exactly the same thing. So agreeing on what these are individually (which I don't think we could do anyways), isn't a worthy goal in my opinion since they are the same.

I thought that most would agree how transmission works in wires as a longitudinal AC compression wave and if we were to look at the electrons, we would see them jiggling back and forth and this is what we observe as an oscillating voltage on the transmission line. I think this would have been obvious. Surprisingly Cornelis and is AI references is trying to argue that it is still an EM wave phenomenon, which I disagree with.

But ultimately, if we were able to track the poselectron particles in free space, we'd see them jiggling back and forth in exactly the same manner as the electron gas in the wire. These jiggling particles is what is directly inducing the current in a receiving antenna as if it were directly connected with a wire.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

"

You have to understand both wireless waves and transmission line pulses separately before you can claim that they are one and the same thing.

It's the height of stupidity to try to understand the physical nature of these two phenomena by beginning on the assumption that they are both the same thing. They clearly aren't the same thing.

"

is ther some significant reason why you make such statements 

Cornelis Verhey

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

You said here (which is still covered by a dark screen), “The accelerating charges create an orthogonal magnetic field which results in the creation of the magnetic field. The growth of the magnetic field results in the creation of an orthogonal back EMF which opposes the acceleration of the electrons.” This is correct.

Now, Maxwell says this, which I also consider to be correct, “If the body is a conductor, the electromotive force will produce a current; if it is a dielectric, the electromotive force will produce only electric displacement”

A conductor has a significant quantity of free and unbounded charges.

 

So, I ask you Cornelis, do you consider it possible, that contrary to Maxwell, an electric current can be produced by a time-varying magnetic field in a medium without free and unbounded charges?

 

This is the case with mediums such as poselectron sea, Epola and dipolar vortices. In these, there are NO free and unbounded charges. All the charges therein, are bound up and caged in chains. How then can there be flow of electricity?

Why do we not see flow of electricity in similar materials, e.g. wood and plastic, which also have charges, but which charges are bound and denied of freedom?

What then is the difference between a conductor and a non-conductor, if this basic principle, as stated by Maxwell and other greats in the physics of electricity is being blatantly denied?

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:24 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Just to give you a right of reply.

Conducting materials are known to have free and unbounded negative charges (electrons) in their make-up.

Does poselectron sea contain a significant quantity of free and unbounded charges? Simple, Yes or No is sufficient.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 2:19 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[David Tombe]

Cornelis,

              You're completely avoiding the issue of displacement current. 

              So, it hardly helps the discussion, if when discussing displacement current in starlight, you immediately switch the topic to transmission lines pulses.

                                    Best Regards

                                         David

 

[David Tombe]

Franklin,

              You need to look more closely at the topic of displacement current. You can't just decide that it doesn't exist.

               Look at it in connection with starlight. It's about time varying EM induction.

              Look at in in connection with a two wire DC transmission line pulse. It's something different.

Best Regards

       David

[Cornelis Verhey]

Akinbo,

I noticed I had a redundant phrase in my previous email "which results in the creation of the magnetic field."

At any rate:

My answer is no.

I do not believe an electric current of charges can be produced by a time-varying magnetic field in a medium without free unbound charges.

The remainder of your email reqires the reply of those who postulate the physicality of mediums such as poselectron sea, Epola and dipolar vortices.

Cornelis

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin

You asked "What did you prompt the AI with?"

I simply prompted it with your reply.

Franklin Hu replied:

"

And once again AI is just spitting out the mainstream "opinion". 

The conductor in the cable can only do "one" thing, which is to move electrons, so ultimately it can only be a simple flow of electrons.

AI is hallucinating again.

If you slow it down enough, like flipping a switch once a second as a 1hz signal, you can definitely see, it is only a simple flow of electrons. At what point does it magically switch over to the E and B fields? 10hz, 100hz? How does it know? It doesn't.

-Franklin

"

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025, 6:19 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You get different answers, probably determined by how you ask the question. What did you prompt the AI with? If you  it with "how do radio signals travel through cables as an EM wave", it's going to give you that answer.

[Franklin Hu]

David, I have concluded that the displacement current was just an ad hoc hack to allow the EM wave equation to work.

Therefore, it is better if such a thing is unnecessary.

-Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

[Franklin Hu]

David,

Show me some evidence that wireless waves and waves in wires are different? Certainly they both carry exactly the same waves since all radio transmitters start with waves in the wires of the radio transmitter which then transform them into exactly the same kind of wireless signal. All evidence would suggest they are pretty similar.

You say it is the height of stupidity, but what evidence do you present??

We're also not talking about transmission line pulses, but oscillating wave signals which are used in radio transmission.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

No

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

A polarizer should not be seen as a filter. 

What you see in my illustration shows a cylinder with a perpendicular wall - that is where the polarization information is stored. It defines an up/down vector - that is transverse information.

You can just ask ChatGPT to create an animation of waves being emitted by a rod and it seems to be able to do stuff like this.

Starting with "can you make an animation of a cylindrical wave front emanating from a vibrating long rod"

That didn't work, so I followed up with: I don't see anything moving and I need a 3d rendering showing the waves moving away from the rod 

I made a new animation with the prompt: Produce a clean 3D animation with transparent expanding cylindrical shells

Here, you can clearly see the transverse cylinder shells expanding outwards. If you tilted that 90 degrees, you would get a completely different picture with the cylinders at a completely different angle which would impact any receiving antenna in a very different way.

Even more interesting was that I asked ChatGPT how much energy would be received by a rod which is parallel versus one which is at 90 degress.

Geometry recap

• Rod 1 (source)
  Long rod, radial “breathing” mode → cylindrical waves.

• Rod 2 (receiver)
  Identical rod, same material and radius aaa, length LLL, center–to–center distance ddd.

We compare:

1. Parallel rods (axes parallel)

2. Perpendicular rods (rod 2 rotated 90°)

---

1. Parallel rods (baseline result)

From before, the time-averaged intensity at distance ddd is

I(d)=12ρcω2ξ02adI(d)=\frac{1}{2}\rho c \omega^2 \xi_0^2 \frac{a}{d}I(d)=21​ρcω2ξ02​da​

Rod 2 intercepts energy over an effective area

A∥=2aLA_\parallel = 2aLA∥​=2aL

So power received:

P∥=ρcω2ξ02a2Ld\boxed{ P_\parallel = \rho c \omega^2 \xi_0^2 \frac{a^2 L}{d} }P∥​=ρcω2ξ02​da2L​​

and the fraction of total emitted power is

P∥Pemit=aπd\boxed{ \frac{P_\parallel}{P_{\text{emit}}} = \frac{a}{\pi d} }Pemit​P∥​​=πda​​

---

2. Perpendicular rods (rotated 90°)

Now rod 2’s axis is perpendicular to the wave axis.

Key geometric difference

• The wave intensity is constant along the source rod’s length

• But rod 2 now only samples the wave over a distance comparable to its diameter, not its full length

---

Effective intercepting area

For a perpendicular rod:

• Length exposed to roughly uniform intensity: ∼2a\sim 2a∼2a

• Projected width: ∼2a\sim 2a∼2a

So effective area:

A⊥≈(2a)(2a)=4a2A_\perp \approx (2a)(2a)=4a^2A⊥​≈(2a)(2a)=4a2

---

Power received by perpendicular rod

P⊥=I(d) A⊥P_\perp = I(d)\,A_\perpP⊥​=I(d)A⊥​ P⊥=2ρcω2ξ02a3d\boxed{ P_\perp = 2\rho c \omega^2 \xi_0^2 \frac{a^3}{d} }P⊥​=2ρcω2ξ02​da3​​

---

3. Direct comparison

Take the ratio:

P⊥P∥=2ρcω2ξ02a3dρcω2ξ02a2Ld\frac{P_\perp}{P_\parallel} = \frac{2\rho c \omega^2 \xi_0^2 \frac{a^3}{d}} {\rho c \omega^2 \xi_0^2 \frac{a^2 L}{d}}P∥​P⊥​​=ρcω2ξ02​da2L​2ρcω2ξ02​da3​​ P⊥P∥=2aL\boxed{ \frac{P_\perp}{P_\parallel} = \frac{2a}{L} }P∥​P⊥​​=L2a​​

---

4. Final result (important)

P⊥≪P∥when L≫a\boxed{ P_\perp \ll P_\parallel \quad \text{when } L \gg a }P⊥​≪P∥​when L≫a​

Interpretation

• A parallel rod intercepts energy along its entire length

• A perpendicular rod only “sees” the wave over a length comparable to its diameter

• For realistic rods L≫aL \gg aL≫a, the perpendicular orientation receives orders of magnitude less energy

---

5. Physical intuition (the “aha”)

Cylindrical waves carry energy uniformly along the rod’s axis.

• Parallel rod:
  rides alongside the wave → long interaction time & area

• Perpendicular rod:
  cuts across the wave → brief, localized interaction

This is the same reason:

• Long antennas couple strongly when aligned

• Crossed antennas couple very weakly

This directly confirms the observed phenomenon of polarization that aligned antennas receive large amounts of energy, while crossed antenna receive a very weak signal. This is EXACTLY how polarization is observed in real radio antenna.

I ran out of data analysis, but I can later create an animation showing how the parallel rod receives a very strong signal, while the crossed rod receives very little, while using nothing but longitudinal waves emanating from the transmitter. This is very strong evidence that polarization has absolutely nothing to do with some physical property of the wave (like a transverse E or B field) , but has everything to do with the shape of the transmitting antenna.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

I would say that the transmission through the poselectron sea is not due to E or B fields, but is merely due to a longitudinal compression wave which pass through any particulate medium. It doesn't propagate in electric form and therefore doesn't need any electric form.

I would also say that this is also what happens through the electron gas of conductors. 

I would remind you that "AI" isn't an actual reference. At best, it is a mashup of mainstream doctrine which can be completely wrong and is not to be relied upon.

If you think I am wrong, then try to disprove my hypothesis that a radio signal in a wire is not a compression wave in the electron gas.

People just saying it isn't - this is not an argument. People saying it is an E and B field isn't an argument - especially when no such fields have ever been observed.

-Franklin 

[Franklin Hu]

Here's something fun and new with AI, it can now read your paper and make a comic.

I think this is a fair representation of my cubic atomic model.

So simple, even a child can grasp it. But apparently nobody else can.

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Cornelis,

Your “No” answer tallies with that of Franklin and I believe it to be correct. The implication of that is that a receiving antenna cannot be made exclusively from poselectron sea, Epola lattice, dipolar vortices and such other dielectric materials like wood or plastic. To make these function as receiving antennas they have to be impregnated with material containing free and unbound charges. Therefore, Faraday’s law of induction cannot take place in such dielectrics due to a time-varying magnetic field impinging on such materials. No E, i.e. F/q, can be caused in such materials.

Akinbo

---

From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 6:18 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Your conclusion is correct. The idea for a displacement current requirement to help propagate a magnetic field can only be contemplated if there is no elasticity. As long as this property is a property of the medium, it is all that is mechanically required to propagate waves.

Akinbo  

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 8:33 PM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

You have now agreed that poselectron sea DOES NOT contain a significant quantity of free and unbounded charges. How then does the “hidden wire” you claimed present in it carry energy from transmission to receiving antenna? Your hidden wire may as well be made up of dead wood in this respect, so it is no better. Why do you refer to it as a “hidden wire” instead of a “hidden wood”, since just like wood it does not contain free and unbounded charges that can make it become a conductor?

But you are correct that such materials as yours, cannot have an E induced in them by a time-varying magnetic field.

However, if the material has elasticity, waves can carry energy through it as longitudinal or transverse waves, depending on whether the elasticity is bulk or shear in nature.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 7:23 AM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@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>; 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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Re: “A polarizer should not be seen as a filter”

According to Franklin, but not according to the rest of the theoretical physics world?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 7:11 AM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

I will like to know why the waves in your animation are moving perpendicularly to the length of the rod, instead of in the same line as the rod?

This is because when we blow a flute, the waves come out in the linear direction of the flute and not side ways to it.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 7:11 AM

[David Tombe]

Hi All,

         Prof. AKT Assis asks a very pertinent question in this article. I once asked it myself.

                                                                https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.05997

          

             "How Did Kirchhoff Derive Electromagnetic Propagation at the Speed of Light in 1857 Without Involving Maxwell's Displacement Current?"

         The answer is, that instead of using Maxwell's displacement, J = ε∂E/∂t, Kirchhoff uses I = CdV/dt from capacitor theory, where I is current, C is capacitance, and V is voltage. In the context of a capacitor, these are in effect the same equations, and in both cases, E and V refer to an electrostatic field.

         So what Kirchhoff derived in 1857 is wrong, because he has criss-crossed capacitance and inductance in the derivation, as though they were the same thing.

        Meanwhile, in 1864, Maxwell fixed this by using the E from time-varying EM induction, and his EM wave equations cannot simply be shoe-horned into cable transmission. They are purely for wireless transmission.

         Later, in 1876, Heaviside made the same mistake as Kirchhoff.

Best Regards

      David

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

The poselectron sea carries energy as longitudinal compression waves - like how sound waves work.

The only difference between a wire and space is the type of medium the waves travel through. A wire uses the electron gas, while space uses the poselectron sea gas.

However, the poselectron sea obviously can't conduct a one way current and is an excellent insulator, but it can still wiggle back and forth to transmit oscillation wave energy. This is basically how capacitors work - they can transmit an oscillation through a complete insulator, but cannot pass a straight current.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

This is presuming that there is a pressure filling the entire rod and the entire rod is expanding outwards. This was called "breathing" mode, just like your chest expands outward when you breath in. It doesn't expand up and down, it expands outward. This is what the new video shows as the rod expanding outward and inward.

But what did you think of the analysis that showed that a rod emitting a longitudinal wave as shown in the animation would transmit much more energy to a similar rod placed next to it versus one that was crossed. Doesn't that look like polarization to you?

This is a live demonstration of polarization with radio waves:

https://youtu.be/cU5SH4BGrlQ?si=JkjfKCCrjB8lGuC2&t=147

The polarization is observed by crossing the transmitter and receiving rods. This is exactly what I and ChatGPT has explained without using transverse E or B fields. Instead, this can be done using only longitudinal compression waves and is the result of the geometry of the antenna rods and has nothing to do with how the radio waves are transmitted. Unlike what the video said, radio waves can be generated with no inherent polarization - such as from a spherical transmitter.

-Franklin

[Frank Fernandes]

All,

Both equations represent the same thing.

I = CdV/dt

M x v/e = C x e a /t

M x r/t = C x e^2 a /t

M x r = C x e^2 x a

C = 1/a          g/l = 1/LC      g = a = 1/C      Proved

 

 

J = ε∂E/∂t      I/r squared = 1/4Pic^2  x 1/t  x E field

e/t x 4Pic^2 = 1/t x E x r^2

e x 4Pic^2 = E x r^2

e x 4Pi x r^2/t^2 = I/t x r^2

e x 4Pi = It        It = It     Proved

 

 

F V Fernandes

On. Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. / Linkedin 

Research Work Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Frank,

Re: “Both equations represent the same thing”

Correct. Furthermore, the continuity equation implies ∇∙J = -∂ρ/∂t

Gauss’s law is ∇∙E = ρ/ε, from which ρ = ε∇∙E

Therefore, the continuity equation can be expressed as ∇∙J = - ε∂∇∙E/∂t

Removing the divergences from both sides, ε∂E/∂t is another valid expression for conduction current J.

As you put "it", it = it.

And "it" cannot be "Not it"  PROVED

Akinbo

---

From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 7:47 AM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.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>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Prof. AKT Assis Asks, "How Did Kirchhoff Derive Electromagnetic Propagation at the Speed of Light in 1857 Without Involving Maxwell's Displacement Current?"

 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Okay, and as you correctly and honestly state, poselectron sea or even any other dielectric like Epola, by virtue of not containing free and unbounded charges, CANNOT be used to implement Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction from time-varying magnetic field, since that law requires that what will be the outcome is what you refer to as “a one way current”.

A bird without wings cannot fly.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 5:17 PM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Your animation is good but omits either deliberately or inadvertently a few information...

1) You assume that your cylinder (or breathing tube) is choked at one end and is not a thoroughfare, but did not divulge this information. If it is not blocked at one end, there will be no horizontal expansion.

 

2) If we assume it to be choked at one end, so that horizontal vibration/expansion can take place, take note that in real-life scenario, what is travelling vertically is electric current, while the force this creates is the magnetic force (vibrating horizontally). BOTH are perpendicular to each other.

 

Now, observe that when the “transparent cylindrical wave fronts” in your animation get to a receiving antenna, the greatest force exerted on that receiving antenna should be expected to be in the direction of the horizontally travelling incoming wave fronts. Therefore, we would expect the greatest impact to be on a horizontally oriented receiving antenna, since the wave fronts are colliding with it head-on.

However, what is observed is just as you note. The greatest impact seen in the receiving antenna, is when the incoming waves are not colliding with it head-on but are brushing on the sides of the antenna. This is because the colliding waves exert their maximum effect at right angles to their direction of travel.

It is like a bullet hitting an object, and instead of that object moving in a direction that is same as that of the bullet, the object moves perpendicularly to the direction of the bullet!!

This is what is seen in your animation and in the youtube video.

You can make the receiving antenna to have the same vertical and horizontal dimensions in order for you to correctly picture the direction of maximum impact from the “transparent cylindrical wave fronts”

This is not good evidence for what a longitudinal compression wave will do when it collides head-on on an object. The expectation is for the maximum effect to take place in the same direction as the wave front. But what is observed is that almost no effect is observed in the direction of the longitudinal compression wave. Instead, all the action seems to be at right angles to the force of this wave!!

Perhaps, you may now appreciate the brilliance of Maxwell?

Akinbo  

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 5:34 PM

[Frank Fernandes]

Akinbo,

You are correct.

The meaning of the dimensional homogeneity is as follows - which is not understood in the text books.

Electric Field = I/t = F/e

Magnetic Field = I/r   F = B e v

Dielectric is velocity squared

Permeability is a solid angle

Current density J =  Current I per cross section area

Gauss is one of the top mathematicians for empirical Physics. He has gifted us the field of topology. 

What is missing in all of the above - the masses with associated variables. Hidden variables. These hidden variables I have solved.

[Franklin Hu]

I have attached another iteration of the animation showing a parallel and a crossed receiving rod.

In this animation, it shows the relative power being received with the crossed antenna only receiving .062 the amount the parallel one receives.

You can clearly see that the wavefront hits all of the parallel rod simultaneously - imparting the maximum energy while the crossed one would only receive a tiny hit along the ring of expanding waves which would only correspond to the diameter of the rod in two places at most.

This is how polarization is actually accomplished. It is not accomplished because the wave itself has transverse components in it.

In such a real rod antenna, how would you even visualize the transverse E or B fields????? 

Real radio analysis is done with diagrams and animations that look like what I have created as something which closely follows the shape of the transmitting antenna and shows it moving away from the antenna. Can you confirm this Harry (Mr. radio expert).

-Franklin

[David Tombe]

Frank,

          Isn't that what I just said? J = ε∂E/∂t and I = CdV/dt are the same thing, but only when E is electrostatic!

         And you missed the import bit. You can only derive the EM wave equations when E is based on time-varying EM induction. Did you even read Professor AKT Assis's paper at all?

         You obviously didn't, because you completely missed the point. Professor Assis was saying that Kirchhoff didn't need displacement current. But Kirchhoff made a double mistake. Firstly he criss-crossed the electrostatic capacitor based E with the inductance based E of Faraday's law in the derivation. And secondly, he shoe-horned the ensuing wave equation into cable telegraphy. Maxwell corrected the whole situation in 1864. He used the inductive E field all the way through and he applied the equation to wireless propagation. He didn't apply it to cable propagation.

       You simply didn't grasp any of that at all. You don't know what the discussion is about. You come along here stating the obvious as though you have solved the problem, but you don't even know what the problem is.

Best Regards

      David