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

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

The most interesting of these is the idea of wave-wave scattering:

Wave-wave scattering

• Definition: The process where waves interact with other waves, or with other particles or features, causing them to change direction and often causing energy to be redirected.
• How it works: When waves encounter a scattering source (like another wave, a particle, or a change in material properties), they are scattered and radiate energy in new directions.
• Factors influencing scattering: The degree of scattering is influenced by the wave's amplitude, propagation angle, and bandwidth, as well as the properties of the scattering medium. 

So, this would certainly be a case where waves simply do not pass through each other unchanged. While waves do generally pass through each other due to wave superposition, waves are ultimately made of colliding particles and in some rare instances can cause those particles to take different directions and exchange energy.

However, this is still a "scattering" effect which tends to cause the energy to become more diffuse and more randomized. None of the examples you provide would be able to provide a 100% reflection of the wave energy which would be required to represent how two electrons colliding head on with each other would elastically bounce back. This would be absolutely be required in your hypothesis.

So while I would concede that you have provided evidence of waves not just passing through each other, I would augment my challenge for you to find any actual evidence for waves that would actually bounce elastically off each other (like particles) maintain their form and not simply scatter in different directions, or change phases or frequencies.

I would again assert that what you would be "teaching" would simply be a figment of your imagination. That doesn't mean that is wrong, but it should be considered as science fiction and not bearing any relevancy to reality. To get beyond this would require that you have experiments that could be performed which could confirm or deny your hypothesis. You have absolutely no such experiments to propose, so this puts it squarely into the non-scientific realm.

On the other hand, I have a lot of experiments would could be proposed that could conclusively confirm or deny the existence of a pervasive electron/positron sea. The physics around this is well known and would be well within our experimental abilities. There just needs to be the willingness to try. Since such a hypothesis is experimentally testable - this puts it within the realm of legitimate science.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at 08:44:09 PM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Look back on the video.

What are the possible ways tension waves can interact within a  four dimensional continuous non-linear elastic bond field?

This is a highly complex and theoretical physics question that lies at the intersection of continuum mechanics, non-linear dynamics, and higher-dimensional theory. There is no single, well-established answer, as the specific physics are highly dependent on the exact form of the non-linear elastic bond field equations in four dimensions.

However, based on the general principles of wave mechanics and non-linear field theory, the possible ways tension waves (likely representing perturbations or oscillations in the field's stress/strain) could interact in a $4D$ continuous non-linear elastic bond field include:

🤯 Non-Linear Wave Interaction Mechanisms

In any non-linear field theory, waves can interact in ways that are impossible in simple linear systems. In a four-dimensional ($4D$) space, these interactions would occur across the spatial $(x, y, z)$ and the fourth, yet-to-be-defined dimension ($w$ or $\mu$).

1. Non-linear Superposition and Harmonic Generation

• Definition: Due to the non-linear terms in the field equations, the principle of linear superposition ($\psi_{total} = \psi_1 + \psi_2$) does not hold.

• Interaction: When two waves of different frequencies ($\omega_1$, $\omega_2$) interact, their non-linear coupling creates new waves with sum and difference frequencies (e.g., $\omega_1 \pm \omega_2$), and also higher harmonics ($2\omega_1, 3\omega_2$, etc.). This is a core feature of non-linear wave interaction.

2. Wave-Wave Scattering and Energy Transfer

• Definition: Waves can scatter off each other as if they were particles, exchanging energy and momentum (or their $4D$ equivalents, $4$-momentum).

• Interaction: The collision or sustained overlap of two tension wave packets would lead to a change in their amplitudes, phase, and 4-wave vectors ($\mathbf{k}_{4D}$), fundamentally changing the waves' characteristics post-interaction.

3. Soliton/Kink-like Interactions

• Definition: If the non-linearity and dispersion are balanced, the field could support solitons—stable, localized wave packets that retain their shape upon collision.

• Interaction: In $4D$, two colliding solitons would pass through each other, possibly incurring a phase shift but otherwise remaining unchanged. This type of interaction is governed by integrable non-linear equations (like the Korteweg-de Vries equation, which would need to be generalized to $4D$).

---

🔬 Interaction with the Field Itself (Self-Interaction)

The waves can also interact with the field or the medium in which they travel, which is a form of self-interaction.

4. Self-Focusing/Defocusing (The Non-linear Refractive Index)

• Definition: The wave's own intensity can modify the local properties of the medium (the elastic bond field), changing the wave's own propagation speed.

• Interaction: A strong tension wave could locally increase or decrease the effective stiffness of the bond field. This leads to self-focusing (high-amplitude regions travel slower, creating a stable, high-intensity beam) or self-defocusing (dispersion).

5. Modulational Instability

• Definition: A high-amplitude, monochromatic (single-frequency) wave is unstable to small perturbations in its envelope.

• Interaction: The main wave acts as a pump, transferring energy to two sidebands. This is a crucial mechanism for generating trains of wave packets or solitons from a smooth, continuous wave.

---

⚛️ Interaction with Field Structures

The waves can interact with pre-existing or induced structures within the field.

6. Formation of $4D$ Dispersive Shock Waves

• Definition: In the non-linear regime, a steepening of the wave front due to non-linearity may not form a classical shock wave (like in gas dynamics) but instead a dispersive shock wave (DSW) or undular bore.

• Interaction: A strong, sudden change in the tension field would evolve into a rapidly oscillating, expanding region of wave packets, whose structure would be dictated by the non-linear dispersion relation of the $4D$ field.

7. Interaction with Field Defects

• Definition: A continuous elastic bond field could have structural defects, like dislocations, voids, or grain boundaries (topological defects) in the $4D$ space.

• Interaction: Tension waves would scatter, diffract, reflect, or be absorbed by these $4D$ defects, much like sound waves interact with physical defects in a crystal. The waves could also exert forces on the defects, causing them to move.

---

Summary Table of $4D$ Wave Interactions

Mechanism	Description	Key Result
Non-linear Superposition	Amplitudes non-linearly combine.	Harmonic generation ($\omega_1 \pm \omega_2$, $2\omega_1$).
Wave-Wave Scattering	Waves collide and exchange $4$-momentum.	Changes in $4$-wave vector ($\mathbf{k}_{4D}$), amplitude, and phase.
Soliton Interaction	Localized wave packets collide.	Waves pass through each other with only a phase shift.
Self-Focusing	Wave intensity modifies the local field stiffness.	Stable, high-intensity wave beams.
Field Defect Interaction	Wave encounters $4D$ topological defects.	Scattering, diffraction, and wave-induced defect motion.

Would you like to explore how these interactions change if the $4D$ field were also anisotropic (directional dependence) or if the fourth dimension represented time (leading to wave phenomena in relativity)?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:04 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

OK, show me a real experiment that shows that waves don't just pass through each other. Any actual experiment.

If you can't show that (which I know you cannot), then what are you teaching??? Your false and unsupportable pet theories??? 

Why should anyone listen who teaches things which are obviously false???

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 25, 2025 at 06:25:20 AM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Beginning with the fact that waves don't just pass through each other.

Cornelis Verhey

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 12:05 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

What do you have to "teach"??? Just your own pet theories???

You're a prime example of a dissident who only wants to sell their theory. There is really no point in discussing anything if the only thing you can do is regurgitate your own theory over and over again like Roger M does continuously.

We should be debating and discussing and presenting evidence and altering our thinking to match the best arguments available.

But no, we all think we can "teach". As if we already knew it all. Sheesh!!!

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 05:23:20 PM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin 

"

I find it just incredibly frustrating when I put out my theories and nobody writes, nobody calls, nobody even says their wrong or provides any reasonable arguments, they just nod politely and smile and then completely forget about it.

"

We have no time to teach you if you do not seriously want to learn.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 4:52 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis and David,

Really, I have difficulty in getting anyone to seriously comment on my basics of my poselectron sea. Thanks for Cornelis for remembering that I did make a recent update to my magnetics paper to include the concept of the "M-unit" which is required to explain why the direction of force always reverses with the reversal in direction. This is a very difficult behavior to model. Although nobody has made any comment about that since its introduction. Also, don't let anyone say that I don't alter my theories to account for things that we discuss. 

All the recent discussions have not been about my specific theory, but just about this debate about whether the medium is particulate or not. I just keep pointing out how only particulate mediums can support a wave. There are all the useless unprovable discussions about how any aether would cause frictional losses. Any objections are usually just loosely worded insults such as Cornelis has demonstrated by attempting to mock by theory by saying things like it requires a god computer, but not a shred of actual actionable reasoning as to why it couldn't actually work.  For example, if there were a god computer, then it would actually work, so how is this a valid objection? You're just agreeing with me.

I think I did discuss with David about polarization being a magnetic field with his main objection being around that things like fields around a capacitor would also polarize the field and so should also act like magnets, but they don't. Most of the discussions usually revolve around expressing their own pet theory rather than critiquing another theory. The basic argument is your theory is wrong because I like my theory better. All sellers and no buyers.

I would really like David to look at my magnetics paper and provide a serious critique of why it wouldn't actually work. I provide several clear examples and explanations for specific magnetic phenomenon which can be explained and to date, I don't think anyone has made any serious comments against it - or at least I don't remember any. To my knowledge, my explanations work perfectly well.

https://franklinhu.com/HowMagneticFieldWorks.pdf

So instead of arguments that sound like - the helix explanation better explains magnetic fields and accounts for Maxwell's equations - try to explain why the m-unit couldn't exist or why it would not provide the correct deflection observed for induction. You should try to fail the alternate theory rather than just promoting your own theory.

I find it just incredibly frustrating when I put out my theories and nobody writes, nobody calls, nobody even says their wrong or provides any reasonable arguments, they just nod politely and smile and then completely forget about it. And then Roger Munday finally figures out that I don't think space is a void which shows he hasn't been paying attention for years.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 06:20:56 AM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

You are wrong about faults in Franklin's static alignment of dipoles as a magnetic field not having not been discussed.  He even attempted to modify it as the result of the discussion but only made the things more convoluted.

Since you are a supporter of it perhaps you can go through his paper and explain how you see it to make logical sense.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 5:20 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Franklin,

                  I already decided years ago that gravity is simply a weak electrostatic field. But that is extended theory. It's not necessary to go into that when dealing with the basic proposition that an electron-positron sea explains magnetism in terms of the electrostatic force and centrifugal force.

                Have you not noticed that in this ongoing pile-on against you, that nobody has ever discussed your proposition that magnetism arises due to the alignment of the sea in the polarized state, as caused by electric current?

              I've never seen anybody trying to pin you down on your core argument. They always go in deeper. You are being bombarded by reductionists who want to focus all discussions on the deepest level, where their own opinions can't be checked, and where they can use obscure meaningless language.

             The pity is that you seem to think you know the cause of the electrostatic force. They disagree with your idea on that, and that's where the battle endlessly rages and goes nowhere.

           You need to take them all up unto the intermediate level, but you'll find they will resist that religiously. That's why I got ChatGPT to mock reductionists.

                          Best Regards

                               David

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 05:47:02 AM GMT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

David,

Well that is where you could open your mind to the possibility that gravity is an electrostatic force and that the electrostatic force itself can be mediated by waves in the positron electron sea.

That’s how I unify everything under the positron electron sea. It simplifies things considerably.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 18, 2025, at 1:29 PM, David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:



Franklin,

               I don't think the electron-positron sea explains either gravity or electrostatics.

               I think it explains magnetic force, EM induction, EM waves, electron-positron pair production and annihilation, and I also think it explains the inertial forces.

                             Best Regards

                                 David

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 08:19:19 PM GMT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

David,

Well maybe I'm not trying to have you explain it, you think it is a speculative area which is fine.

Perhaps what I'm trying to do is convince you that there is a better way which is to consider that things like gravity and the electrostatic force are mediated by the same thing as light waves, so when you trace Earth's gravitational field lines way out in space, all you have to do is look at it with an optical telescope and if you can see it visually, then you are also seeing and sensing the gravity as well. We can literally see how gravity from a distant object is travelling to us directly.

So since we both believe in a dense sea of positrons and electrons, I am suggesting that it do double duty to also serve as the medium for both things like gravity and light and then you would have to speculate less about how the electrostatic force works and can have deeper and more complete answers for the reductionists.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 11:23:31 AM PST, David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Franklin,

             Maybe it doesn't. Think of it like this. The Earth's gravity acting on you, is affected by Alpha Centauri, but only by a negligible amount. Now consider the escape velocity. This is mathematically a velocity field, whether you believe it represents a real velocity or not. At any point, that velocity will have a magnitude and a direction. That magnitude and direction will be affected by Alpha Centauri, but only negligibly.

               Meanwhile, have you ever traced the Earth's gravitational field lines away on out beyond the solar system to see where they go to?

               Your question was a silly question.

                 You're getting as bad as the reductionists. I told you that my views on the inter-particle force are speculative and that my main electron-positron sea theory does not hinge on those views. But, just like the reductionists, that seems to be all you want to talk about. The deeper level.

                The reductionists always want to reduce the discussions to the deepest and most speculative level where there is nobody to mark the correct answer, while ignoring the intermediate levels that can be judged against known theory.

                               Best Regards

                                  David

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 06:39:53 PM GMT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

David,

That's not answering the question. We don't need to know the cause, but you seem to support the idea that the electrostatic force is mediated by the flow of your mystery sub-aether substance. So you are proposing a cause for the electrostatic force. It's your burden to make your point. So how can the electric fluid flow from here to Alpha Centuri?

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 04:58:39 AM PST, David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Franklin,

                  This is not a discussion to be having when we are in the midst of reductionists. We don't need to know the cause of the electrostatic force in order to explain how an electron-positron sea explains electromagnetic phenomena. But yes, the electric fluid will be at every point in space where the electrostatic field is.

                            Best Regards

                                 David

On Monday, November 17, 2025 at 11:20:38 PM GMT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

David,

If Coulomb's law is truly due to a fluid flow, then how can that flow extend infinite distances? It is well known that the electrostatic field can extend for infinite distances. So is the electron on Earth really flowing to the electron in Alpha Centuri?? 

That's just not likely. The problem with "fluids" is that actual particles have to physically travel from point A to point B in order for the interaction to occur. It seems highly unlikely that such a particle to make the long trip to infinity and not get lost in collisions all along the way. There needs to be a way to transmit energy that doesn't require that a particle physically move to a far away location. From the physics of hydrodynamics, we know flow effects much be very short ranged. 

This is why I say the Coulomb force has to be able to reside as a wave phenomenon like a light wave where no movement of matter (like a fluid) is required. We can see the light from Alpha Centuri, so the range of electrostatic force would be the same as a light wave. Gravity is also something that has to reside as a wave phenomenon and when we see that pinpoint of visible light from a faraway star, we are also seeing and feeling the effects of its gravity.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 10:28:05 AM PST, David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

         OK, so it's the electrostatic force that you are interested in.

         I believe the velocity field implicit in Coulomb's law represents the radial flow of an aethereal fluid which acts as a connecting tissue between all particles, and that particles are sinks and sources in this fluid. But I have no idea what pushes the fluid out through positive particles or what pulls it down into negative particles.

           Best Regards

             David

On Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 04:25:53 PM GMT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Akinbo,

You’re welcome.

I will say though, you were on the right path with the binary.

Andy

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:23 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Andy,

Thanks for your display of honesty.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 3:48 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@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>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

I could, but I’m not sure I trust your motivation, given your past exchanges with Cornelis and myself.

You seem more interested in “gotcha” debates than in exploring ideas in good faith.

I don’t have the energy to dance around semantics.

Just being honest.

Those foundational axioms are self-evident if you give them a moment of thought, so it’s a little puzzling that you’d even ask.

Andy

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 8:58 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Andy,

Re: Your three inevitable metaphysical axioms.

*Can you further define each axiom and tell us what each means in slightly more detail?

*Are Axioms 1 and 3, static in time, or can be dynamic? That is, what exists stays perpetually existent, and what does not exist, stays perpetually non-existent. Or to put in digital language or binary numbers, 0 always remains 0, 1 eternally remains 1, without any possibility of a 0 changing to a 1, or a 1 becoming a 0.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 2:38 PM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@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>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

David,

I should have expanded on this statement slightly;

My entire theory rests on a single metaphysical foundation. The difference is, I confront that inevitability head on, unlike the other 10,000 theories on the market, that bury it in the fine print and insist you don't read it. 

Science will eventually land on three inevitable metaphysical axioms.

1. Existence

2. Action

3. Non-Existence leading to inaction

They are unavoidable consequences of the scientific process. 

Yes, we're going to have to take an educated guess, and agree to it by consensus.  

Andy

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 8:10 AM Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

"Don't let them side-track you into trying to explain the inter-particle force."

And that's really the issue, David.  

This is not a conspiracy to derail your theory.  You're using unfalsifiable physics to explain an unfalsifiable model that is based on conjecture, not science. 

It's fine to speculate, but it's all it amounts to, respectfully.  

I've asked no less than 20 times if you have some sort of falsifiable prediction your model can make, and you just go into more speculation without answering the question.  I can only assume, no, you don't.

What does your model explain that can't be explained by current models that science actually uses every day? 

And I'm certainly not waving the mainstream flag.  It's a practical question.  Your theory is dead in the water if it can't make novel predictions.  And you have to know that as a physicist.     

If there is no difference, and no benefit to science, then it's just a new story.  

My question to Franklin about his mechanical vision of force was related to conservation laws.  Infinite regress leads to heat death.  Clearly, we're still here.    

But you knew why I was asking the question, because you're a physicist.  To the best of my knowledge, I consider that to be a true statement of fact on all counts.  I would hope so, anyway.    

And I don't think you're actually going to respond to this email, but if you do, you're just going to revert back to the circular argument, which is what your speculation always comes back to. 

I'm not side-tracking anyone.  I'm asking questions.  You're using unexplained forces to support an unfalsifiable claim.  That is hand waving by definition.  

Does your model explain "force" or not?   If not, you're using a metaphysical scaffold to support your metaphysical lattice.  And that's fine, if that's what it is. Just say it instead of dodging. 

My entire theory rests on a single metaphysical foundation.  The difference is, I confront that inevitability head on, unlike the other 10,000 theories on the market.        

Andy

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 6:04 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Franklin,

              Don't let them side-track you into trying to explain the inter-particle force. That's a separate enquiry.

             It gets them off the hook from having to examine how the electron-positron sea explains magnetic force, EM induction, and EM radiation.

            But the electrostatic force is more fundamental.

            Electromagnetism is a secondary effect built upon the curl of the more fundamental inter-particle force in a particulate medium. While the curl of Coulomb's law is always zero, Coulomb's law itself is only the irrotational case of a more general aether hydrodynamics, but again, that's going deeper.

           They first need to grasp the simple idea that an EM wave needs a particulate medium to propagate in. If they can't see that, then the situation is hopeless. Often the problem lies with the fact that they think they have found one pure medium that explains everything, even though they generally haven't got a clue what the explanations are.

                                  Best Regards

                                      David

On Monday, November 10, 2025 at 09:48:26 PM GMT, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy, David

I think you correctly pointing out the complications that must occur if David is proposing some mysterious sub-medium which would exist below the particulate positron/electron medium.

This is why I reject such a sub-medium and instead I am able to explain why charges should attract each other by just using the positron/electron medium itself.

I explain this in my paper on how the electrostatic force works as a push force which is created by oppositely phased charges.

 https://franklinhu.com/HowElectrostaticFieldWorks.pdf

In a nod to Occam's razor, the same medium formed by the positron/electron dipoles becomes the same medium which carries the phased waves which create the pressure differentials required to drive particles together or apart and is fueled by the random ambient energy of Newtonian collisions.

So, no sub-medium which continuously flows in/out some mysterious dimension is required. Also this explanation is completely defective since two sinks should obviously attract each other, but instead they have to repel each other. This one thing should immediately render this hypothesis as invalid.

All that is required is the existence of the positron and the electron and that their resonant frequencies are 180 degrees apart. That is all. Can it get any simpler than that?

-Franklin

On Monday, November 10, 2025 at 07:40:29 AM PST, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

Is the aethereal medium for the propagation of the particulate medium, and this aethereal medium behaves like a liquid?

Is it discrete, or continuous?

What does the particulate medium do that the aethereal medium doesn't, or vice versa?

Do both manifest wave behavior?

Sinks leading to where?

I see your picture, but that water flows because of gravitational force, and that's specific to large masses with gravity.     

Why would the electric liquid be compelled to flow anywhere?  Does gravity influence it?

What is gravity in your model? 

Andy

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 9:45 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

         It shouldn't be too hard to visualize a continuous fluid with sinks and sources.

         EM waves are a flow of this fluid from sources to sinks. They are not a propagated vibration through the fluid itself.

I've attached a picture of a single irrotational sink in water.

<1762785879046blob.jpg>

                         Best Regards

                              David

On Monday, November 10, 2025 at 12:52:13 PM GMT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

There is a lot packed into this one statement: "We're not talking about the deeper aethereal medium between particles, that mediates the inter-particle forces."

You seem to have two mediums, EPOLA, and some sort of "aethereal medium", populated with particles, and then "inter particle forces" mediated by the medium(s).

With respect, I don't find that exactly coherent.  Not saying it's right or wrong, but that seems to be a whole lot of hand-wavy creation going on.   

You've created a particulate medium, an aethereal medium, particles, and interparticle forces.  Where did all this stuff come from, and why is it here?  What is it? 

Feels like theory-sprawl to me.  

Really busy at work this week, so I won't be able to comment much.  Gotta eat! 

Andy

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 5:11 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

         We're not talking about the deeper aethereal medium between particles, that mediates the inter-particle forces.

         We were specifically talking about the idea that the EM wave-carrying medium is an electron-positron sea. Did you never notice that when a gamma ray causes the appearance of an electron-positron pair, seemingly out of nowhere, that this process does not happen across a continuous spectrum of particle sizes? The particles are always electrons (and positrons) just like the electrons that orbit atomic nuclei and which are involved in electric current.

          So, if you think this is not proof that they have merely been liberated from an already present electron-positron background medium, why is it that this process only happens for that size of particle? 

          You seem to think the EM radiation mysteriously metamorphoses into to neat particles of a specific size, each with electrostatic fields that extend to infinity. Why then could a lesser energy ray not do the same for even smaller particles, or a higher energy ray not create even larger particles?

         Can you not see that the electrons and positrons were there already, and that their presence is part of the cause of the perturbation that results in electron orbitals around atomic nuclei being quantized and appearing wave-like, and not being like simple Keplerian orbits. 

          I don't agree with your criteria for what constitutes evidence.

Best Regards

       David

         

On Sunday, November 9, 2025 at 09:19:43 PM GMT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

No, I am taking the proto-field that Cornelis coined to be everything detectable, including the EM wave-carrying medium. That proto-field is a manifestation of the proto-medium, which is the only thing that exists physically.

At the foundation there are two axioms, not one:

(1) the existence of the proto-medium, and
(2) its transformation into the proto-field.

Both are irreducible. They define the boundary between metaphysics and physics. We can only falsify against the proto-field, never against the medium itself or the act of transformation. Those remain the last standing assumptions.

Proto-Medium--->Proto-Field--->Observed Reality

That is the ontological order that I propose.

I see it as a scalar field from which 4D spacetime emerges, and most significantly, dimension itself.

The underlying proto-medium is dimensionless, or analog in nature. It is completely inaccessible to our discrete nature and to the mathematical tools we use for explanation.

With respect to your background and skill set, you are working in the opposite direction, trying to reverse engineer reality from known physics. My argument is simple. It cannot be done that way. The lower layer cannot be reached by extrapolating from the upper one, so we end up in circular debates that lead nowhere.

Andy   

On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 3:30 PM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

         Yes. But you are taking it to be the EM wave-carrying medium. I, on the other hand, am saying that it is involved in the EM wave-carrying medium, but is not the EM wave-carrying medium itself.

         There's a big difference.

                        Best Regards

                             David

On Sunday, November 9, 2025 at 07:26:10 PM GMT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

"I don't know how to describe it apart from saying it is compressible and stretchable"

Sounds a whole lot like the non-particulate continuous elastic medium being described by Cornelis and myself.  

We don't know exactly how to describe it either, because it is metaphysical in nature, and not part of our worldview.  

Andy

On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 1:58 PM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

         In the electron-positron sea theory that I am promoting, there is both the known and the unknown, and I discovered the known first.

(1) The known is the electron-positron sea itself. We already knew about electrons and positrons.

(2) The unknown, meanwhile, is the electric fluid (aether) that flows from positrons into electrons.

As regards (2), it is totally unknown. I don't know how to describe it apart from saying it is compressible and stretchable. I don't know where it is coming from or going to, or what regulates the flow.

As regards the known, i.e. (1) - - -The electron-positron sea, we don't need to involve the unknown in order to predict its existence. Simhony's theory pretty well makes an electron-positron sea certain, as does Maxwell's displacement current.

I could have left it at rotating electron-positron dipoles, apart from one subtle issue. I had argued from planetary orbital theory that there will be a centrifugal force pushing neighbouring dipoles apart in their equatorial planes. Meanwhile, the epola brigade who supported Simhony, sneered at that idea. They dug in to Simhony's ad hoc SRR (short range repulsive force).

That's when I looked deeper. I looked at the Coulomb force itself and concluded that there must be a velocity field due to an inflowing or outflowing aethereal fluid, and on that basis, the inevitability of centrifugal repulsion becomes visible. The epola brigade, however sneered at that too, simply because I couldn't explain to them what the fluid was, or where it went or came from inside the sinks and sources.

As regards the aethereal electric fluid, I assume it is continuous, but I don't know. It's certainly not the EM wave-carrying medium. EM waves actually involve a flow of that fluid itself, in my books. The fluid might be a wave-carrying medium, but I have know idea what kind of waves those would be, or how fast they would travel.

Best Regards

       David

On Sunday, November 9, 2025 at 05:16:24 PM GMT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

I have had more textbooks launched at my head than any human on the planet over the past 40 years, so I get it.  Obviously, I'm being comically rhetorical with that claim, but it's not too far off the mark.  You have no idea of the humility and embarrassment I've been forced to endure over the decades, or the risks I take on every piece I've ever written.  And no, I am not looking for sympathy.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  I can live with it.  It does not matter.  This is not my day job, and I have absolutely nothing to lose by imagining the possibilities, and everything to gain in knowledge and understanding, personally.  It is highly unlikely I could ever publish, and that's something I accepted a long time ago.  It's non zero, given the advent of new technologies, but it hasn't truly been on my radar in a very long time.  I do this because I enjoy it, and if I wait for science to answer the REAL questions, I'll be long dead.         

So, I fully appreciate your comment when you say, "cling for grim death to the official textbook explanation..."

As I've alluded to before; the scientific method is ill equipped to define the fundamental universe, because the metaphysical aspects of reality are beyond its scope.  Yet, ironically, metaphysics are exactly what they insert into the problem in the vacuum of knowledge.  Vacuum being an emergent problem, and not physically real, per se.  

I don't see any link to E-mc^2 and Newtonian physics.  That formula is one of the most tested formulas on the planet, to the point where it is a functional fact of extremely high probability.  But, you dispute its relevance, so noted.

I think the issue may be in your approach.  You are a classically trained physicist following the rules of science, but your physical answer transforms into a metaphysical lattice inside a metaphysical container.  I don't see how you reconcile that.  Physics does not cause metaphysics.  Your ontological order is inverted.  The known does not create the unknown.  Or it's all highly improbable, might be a better framing.  

And that is evident here when you claim, " could only be correctly justified if space were to be densely packed with real electrons and positrons".  No, that is NOT the only possibility, and is far more likely to be densely packed waves in a continuous medium, if that rationale is even remotely true.  

--

Cornelis Verhey

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

When proven wrong you take a single line out of context to build a whole new strawman storyline around it, rather than accepting responsibility for your continued despicable behavior, you continue your despicable behavior.

"So while I would concede that you have provided evidence of waves not just passing through each other, I would augment my challenge for you to find any actual evidence for waves that would actually bounce elastically off each other (like particles) maintain their form and not simply scatter in different directions, or change phases or frequencies."

There is much more than this one line you base all you rhetorical remarks on and there is much more to wave interactions that you purposely ignore and dare not to research the truth about.

There is even more about electron electron collisions you speak of:

The collision between two electrons is a fundamental process in particle physics known as Møller scattering (¹$e^-e^- \to e^-e^-$).² It is an essential process for testing the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).

In QED, the interaction between the two electrons is mediated by the exchange of a virtual photon.³

⚛️ Møller Scattering

Møller scattering is the quantum field theory description of electron-electron scattering.⁴

• Interaction: The electric repulsion between the two negatively charged electrons is described by the exchange of a virtual photon (⁵$\gamma$).⁶

• Feynman Diagrams: At the lowest order of approximation (tree-level), the process is represented by two Feynman diagrams that must be added together: .

  • t-channel: The electrons exchange a virtual photon.⁷

  • u-channel: A "crossed" version of the t-channel, required because electrons are identical fermions, which introduces the principle of exchange symmetry (or Pauli Exclusion Principle) into the calculation.

• Cross-Section: Calculating the probability of the scattering (the differential cross-section, $d\sigma/d\Omega$) involves summing the amplitudes corresponding to these two diagrams and their interferences.

---

💥 Elastic vs. Inelastic Collisions

Electron-electron collisions can be classified based on whether the total kinetic energy is conserved.⁸

1. Elastic Scattering

• Definition: The most common scenario, especially at low energies. The total kinetic energy and momentum are conserved.⁹

• Mechanism: The electrons simply repel each other, with kinetic energy momentarily converted to electric potential energy and then back to kinetic energy as they move apart. No new particles are created.

• Example: A head-on collision, as you described, is an example of pure elastic scattering, where the electrons repel and reverse direction without loss of energy.

2. Inelastic Scattering

• Definition: Occurs when a portion of the initial kinetic energy is converted into other forms, meaning the total kinetic energy of the final particles is less than the initial kinetic energy.¹⁰

• Mechanism: At higher energies, there is a probability that the collision will result in the emission of a real photon (or Bremsstrahlung, meaning "braking radiation").

  $$e^- + e^- \to e^- + e^- + \gamma$$

• Consequence: The energy carried away by the real photon makes the collision inelastic because the final kinetic energy of the two electrons is less than their initial kinetic energy. This phenomenon must be accounted for in precise high-energy experiments.

In a particle accelerator experiment, Møller scattering is often used to monitor the luminosity (beam intensity) of electron beams, as its cross-section is well-understood theoretically.

You have plenty of resources to work with Franklin. It is too bad with your ability to do research that you spend all your time defending what you know is not defensible.

Sincerely

Cornelis Verhey

--

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

Well, that is certainly how it is observed that electrons interact and collide. I believe that the electrons primarily interact with each other through the waves they generate which is the basis of the electrostatic force. However, I don't say that the electron is somehow a wave phenomenon itself or is somehow a bundle of energy. I'm not even sure what you think an electron is since you seemed to have denied that it is "made out of waves". My hypothesis continues to be that an electron is a "particle" which generates waves by acting as a resonator. That is how I "solve" the problem of what a "particle" is and how an electron transmits energy to other particles.

I would still assert that you cannot explain this behavior using any available analogies to wave phenomenon (or whatever your view of the electron is) and the biggest problem remains that you cannot propose any kind of experiment that would confirm or deny your views.

If you can't support your hypothesis by experiment, then it simply isn't science.

There are plenty of experiments that support the existence of the electron as a "fundamental" particle, so I don't have to prove or justify its existence or what properties it has. It should be treated as such and should not be pigeonholed into being some kind of wave/tension entity in some sub-aether substance.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin

Once again you ignore the entire rest of article on wave behavior as if there was nothing else in the entire response.  There was much more there than the simple proof that your repeated pontification that waves only pass through each other was based on your choice to remain ignorant.

You claim you are not even sure what I think an electron is since I seemed to have denied that it is "made out of waves".  You have supplied deception before by falsely claiming I said electrons where "made out of waves".  I did denie this strawman argument as it was a purposefully taken out of context on your part.  I said all that exists is made out of wave patterns in a continuous non-linear elastic bond field (unified field).  There is a great deal of evidence in modern physics that particles are wave patterns within fields.

The goal of a complete Unified Field Theory (UFT) is precisely to demonstrate that all of existence—matter, energy, and the fundamental forces—is a manifestation of unique, localized wave patterns within a single, coherent, all-encompassing fundamental field.

This singular field would be the ultimate reality, and everything we observe would emerge from its excitations.

🌌 Implications of a Unified Field Theory

The concept of a UFT is a cornerstone of theoretical physics, aiming to unify two of the most successful, yet incompatible, theories:

 * General Relativity (describing gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe).

 * Quantum Field Theory (QFT, describing the other three fundamental forces and elementary particles).

1. Unifying Forces as Field Manifestations

A UFT would show that the four fundamental forces are not distinct entities but different aspects of the dynamics of the single unified field:

| Gravitational | 

General Relativity 

Metric Tensor Field (spacetime geometry)

Long-range, low-energy curvature/wave of the UFT.

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

| Electromagnetic |

Electromagnetic Field 

A specific, medium-range pattern/quantized wave of the UFT (photons).

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

| Strong/Weak Nuclear |

Gauge Fields 

Short-range, high-energy patterns/quantized waves of the UFT.

2. Particles as Unique Wave Patterns

In the current framework of Quantum Field Theory, every fundamental particle (like an electron or a quark) is already understood as a quantized excitation or a stable standing wave of its own respective field (e.g., the electron field).

A complete UFT takes this idea to its logical conclusion:

 * The single unified field would replace the multiplicity of different fields (electron field, photon field, quark fields, etc.).

 * Each type of particle would correspond to a specific, stable, resonating standing wave or loop within the unified field .

 * Different particle properties, such as mass, charge, and spin, would emerge naturally from the geometry, frequency, and orientation of these unique wave patterns. For instance, some theoretical approaches propose that mass is a result of the wave forming a persistent, folded loop or resonance within the unified field.

3. A "Theory of Everything" (ToE)

A successful UFT is often referred to as a Theory of Everything (ToE) because it would provide a single, elegant mathematical framework to explain the behavior of all matter, energy, space, and time at the most fundamental level, demonstrating that all existence is fundamentally a single, dynamic quantum reality.

The pursuit of a Unified Field Theory, and the understanding of particles as unified wave patterns, continues to be one of the most significant open problems in modern physics.

Pilot-wave theory (part 3): unifying waves and particles discusses an early attempt by Louis de Broglie to unify waves and particles, which laid the conceptual groundwork for viewing particles as wave structures.

I am comfortable working in this direction and staying within the boundaries of tested physics.

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

I would still assert that you cannot explain this behavior using any available analogies to wave phenomenon (or whatever your view of the electron is) and the biggest problem remains that you cannot propose any kind of experiment that would confirm or deny your views.

If you can't support your hypothesis by experiment, then it simply isn't science.

-Franklin