Re: The Medium

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Franklin.  

I've followed the conversation somewhat, with much interest.  

You wrote "You would first have a working theory of what the "ether" actually was. 

You can't find something when you don't know what to look for."

I guess I don't agree.  I'd say even though I am skeptical of the existence of the aether, if it exists, a logical question is what composes it?  However, Michelson and Morley's famous experiment was designed to simply detect it.  Since they thought that light travels in a fixed way relative to the aether, they thought they could find out how fast the earth (or possibly the sun?) travels through the aether.  I don't know if they actually speculated as to what actually composes the aether.  

Also, I have a question about your electron-positron dipole aether theory.  If all physical phenomena exist within this "sea", how can they detect electrons and positrons "on their own" which exist within this medium, yet they can't detect what composes the medium, even though they're the same particles?  

On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 12:21 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

1. You would first have a working theory of what the "ether" actually was. 

You can't find something when you don't know what to look for.

2. You would then have to experimentally prove that the ether substance has the properties which have made it so hard to detect historically and that it corresponds to your hypothesis of what the ether was composed of.

3. Such experiments would show beyond a reasonable doubt that your ether substance was real and exists.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 09:56:36 AM PST, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

John-Erik,

How do you prove that "ether" exists?

Roger Munday

On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 06:10, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:

All

The kinetic theory of gases is valid in relation to:

• Molecules
• and atoms
• but not in relation to subatomic ether particles,
• since they exist even in side matter.

Ether is everywhere.
John-Erik

On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 12:32 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

We can't get to absolute zero either, so what?

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that atoms maintain a fixed size after they have entered gaseous phase and the pressure they exert has nothing to do with their size.

-Franklin

On Saturday, November 1, 2025 at 11:44:36 AM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You say - “Experimentally confirmed - settled science”

There is one “little” problem with your collectively assumed “kinetic theory of gases” and this is that it is experimentally absolutely impossible to isolate, to “create”, a “perfect vacuum”.

And accordingly to measure your collectively assumed increases in the hypothetical “average molecular speed” of the assumed “kinetic motions” of atoms in vacua.

Roger Munday

On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 at 16:22, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

No, this is not considered evidence. It is obvious that temperature of the surrounding atmosphere increases the speed of the "same sized" gas molecules. That is what "temperature" actually is. It is just a measure of the average molecule speed for gasses. At room temperature, the molecule speed is something like 1,200 mph. The increased speed leads to increased pressure which allows the mercury level to change. This has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the atoms expanding. The molecular size remains absolutely unchanged in this process.

You thought they just sat there motionless getting bigger????

No, they absolutely don't do that.

Everything I just mentioned has been experimentally confirmed and is settled science.

-Franklin

On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 02:51:11 PM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I posted my 'Continuous Magnetic Paper' earlier which states:-

"In the thermometer case the mass of the liquid in the tube results in the evaporation of some mercury atoms at the top of the tube to the gas state, the levels of which, i.e. the expansions and contractions of which mercury atoms, are dependent on the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere."

Roger Munday

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 08:42, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Still, you have no evidence that atoms increase in size in the gaseous state. It is your burden of proof.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:37:25 AM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

This is not my "description" it is one freely available online.

I am happy that you personally continue to believe in a "vacuous/aetherial interatomic space", 

which could not by any means transmit a force between two material atoms, or between two larger, 

collectively material masses.

Such as the Earth and the Moon.

Carry on believing in such an impossibility.

Roger Munday 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 at 12:55, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

How is that evidence that atoms increase in size in the gaseous state? What you describe doesn't require any change in the gaseous atomic radius. None.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 11:37:50 AM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Evidence

However it is now proven by experiment in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZF88fqrl8, that mercury evaporates rapidly at sea level, and so in the depicted elevation of a glass tube full of the liquid, with the progressive and consequent reduction of pressure at its upper surface in contact with the top of the glass tube, evaporation will also occur. And with further elevation of the tube, past the 760 mm mark, as in diagram above, the volume above the liquid will be composed of mercury in its gaseous state.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 at 05:44, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

No, refer to the what I quoted directly from your paper which is the case of the mercury in a "closed" column.

Once again, you provide no evidence that atoms can expand in their gaseous state. None.

-Franklin

On Sunday, October 26, 2025 at 04:16:40 PM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You say - "the only evidence you provide for expanding atoms is that a column of mercury does not continue to evaporate." I did not say this.

You mix up the evaporation of mercury in a closed thermometer tube with that of the evaporation of mercury liquid exposed to the atmosphere.

In the latter case any exposed mercury will progressively and eventually evaporate completely into the atmosphere.

In the thermometer case the mass of the liquid in the tube results in the evaporation of some mercury atoms at the top of the tube to the gas state, the levels of which, i.e. the expansions and contractions of which mercury atoms, are dependent on the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere.

Roger Munday

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 07:42, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

Reading your paper, the only evidence you provide for expanding atoms is that a column of mercury does not continue to evaporate.

"

in this non-zero, low pressure environment further evaporation should obviously occur and the surface level would eventually subside to that of the surface exposed to atmospheric pressure.
As this clearly does not happen, it is evident that there is a force acting here within the tube to maintain the liquid at this level, and if any volume of vacuum, either inter-atomic or sub-atomic were present, then such vacua, patently, could not generate such a force."

https://chatgpt.com/share/68fbc65c-51d8-8009-8a67-dae9081c22f5

Asking ChatGPT about this reveals that the mercury doesn't not simply continue to evaporate due to the vacuum because there is an equilibrium between evaporation and condensation rates which depends only upon temperature.

So, while it may seem "obvious" to you that mercury should simply continue to evaporate, this is due to a gross misunderstanding for how evaporation occurs and why it has limits. This is an area where you intuition is simply wrong and your intuition is not actually any kind of experimental or scientific argument.

So, after this, your paper provided absolutely no experimental evidence that atoms can take on variable sizes once they reach gas phase.

We only have the evidence I provided that shows that the atomic sizes can be accurately measured by electron scattering and that they take on a consistent and fixed size which is consistent with the atomic diameters commonly listed in the periodic chart of the elements.

-Franklin

On Thursday, October 23, 2025 at 10:44:06 AM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

And I gave you my Continuous Magnetic Atoms paper here :- 

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/continuous-magnetic-atoms/

Roger Munday

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 12:49, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

I gave you links to the papers which you can read for yourself.

But in a nutshell, this is like firing bullets in random directions in a room and seeing what bounces back. A small target will return far fewer bullets than a larger one. By making some calculations, you can estimate the size of the target based on how many bullets hit anything.

But my main point is that I did present "experimental evidence" so I don't see how you could possibly assert that I had no such evidence

Can you explain your strange behavior??? Did you just conveniently "forget" or deliberately ignore?

-Franklin

On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 03:04:12 PM EDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You say:-

Did you forget about all the experimental evidence I presented about electron scattering experiments in gases which show that the atomic radius can be measured and it is a fixed size?

So, in what gaseous medium do "electron particles" scatter? 

What is the structure of this medium?

And what are the compositions of these "particles"?

And how can you measure an atomic radius?

Roger Munday

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 00:53, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

Did you forget about all the experimental evidence I presented about electron scattering experiments in gases which show that the atomic radius can be measured and it is a fixed size?

-Franklin

On Saturday, October 18, 2025 at 01:49:49 PM EDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You say without any experimental evidence that - "atoms do not increase in size once they have reached the gas stage".

It is observed in electromagnetic experiments with “wires” of gold atoms that, with inputs of heat energy to raise the atoms to a higher temperature, the atoms expand and the ‘wire’ is observed to expand longitudinally and laterally as exemplified in these experiments.

In the first posted image two days ago of two wires of gold atoms these are both at the same temperatures.

In the second image posted the atoms are also at the same temperatures as they are physically drawn out.

But then if heat is applied to the wire in this second example, the atoms expand individually and the wire is observed to expand longitudinally and laterally.

This is evident in the continuous electromagnetic images of gold atoms I posted recently.

Roger Munday

On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 16:15, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

There is no question if solids are heated, the space between atoms become larger. What I am saying is that once they reach the gas phase, they no longer can get any larger by measuring the average space between their centers.

Once again, atoms do not increase in size once they have reached gas stage.

-Franklin

On Thursday, October 16, 2025 at 02:43:33 PM EDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

It is observed in electromagnetic experiments with “wires” of gold atoms that, with inputs of heat energy to raise the atoms to a higher temperature, the atoms expand and the ‘wire’ is observed to expand longitudinally and laterally as exemplified in these experiments.

In the first image posted two days ago of two wires of gold atoms these are both at the same temperatures.

In the second image posted the atoms are also at the same temperatures as they are physically drawn out.

But then if heat is applied to the wire in this second example, the atoms expand individually and the wire is observed to expand longitudinally and laterally as it is drawn out.

Roger Munday

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 16:01, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Roger,

I think this nicely demonstrates how the gold atoms appear to be fixed size and do not increase in diameter as they are drawn out.

This just proves that atoms maintain a "fixed size" even if you try to "draw" them out to make them bigger. They aren't getting longitudinally longer, they are getting drawn in from the ends or just rearranging into a thinner wire.

If the wire eventually broke and left individual atoms, you would see the atoms would still be the same size.

So, Yes, your example proves my point that atoms don't expand if you give them more room to grow. None. Your pictures prove it.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 06:41:16 PM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gold nanowires physically drawn out.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 14:34, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

In numerous electromagnetic images of "wires" of gold atoms, as in this example, with inputs of heat energy to raise their temperatures the wires are observed to expand longitudinally, which is obviously due to the atoms expanding individually.

Roger Munday

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 09:10, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Akinbo,

Yes, the guest particle can have the same size or even less. The electron is probably half the size of the dipole and it still must be able to glide through the gaps in the dipoles. We certainly experimentally observe that an electron doesn't encounter any significant scattering in a vacuum, so it must be so just by definition. You're still thinking of billiard balls which certainly wouldn't pass by, but the poselectron sea has a special place/priority and property of actually being the mechanism behind inertia and so is completely different than what billiard balls encounter as macroscopic objects since there is absolutely no concept of frictional or heat losses at that level. 

We might not even eventually fully understand how something like an electron can pass through a dipole sea with no observed losses. This is why we need to experimentally confirm the existence of the poselectron sea which we can do theoretically. Then it would be like how we see superconductivity works, but our lack of understanding of how that happens doesn't stop it from happening. Nature doesn't care if we don't understand, nor do we have to have an explanation beforehand.

So in some ways, I am agreeing that I don't have answers, just speculations as I have provided or have been provided by similar theories like the EPOLA that the dipoles simply step aside for any guest particle, that is their fundamental job and behavior. Like many things, theories have postulates and we can only provide speculations that make those postulates seem plausible. The only way to prove it would be to simply observe experimentally, that space is filled with poselectron particles and electrons pass with no losses. The fact that you can't conceive of how this is remotely possible would be inconsequential after that.

You also have to take into account the wide range of things that are explained. For example, your negative compressible medium could very well explain why guest particles experience no losses, but can it explain how the magnetic field is mediated? That has nothing to do with compressibility or about particles moving. Your explanation is a one hit wonder but falls grossly short of explaining where things like the speed of light or the other measured properties of vacuum space come from. A dipole sea explains all of these trivially and completely and ties all of these various properties to a single multi-purpose medium. That is why I continue to favor the poselectron sea as my preferred embodiment of the aether. It's not "perfect", but does have the potential to be experimentally proven (the one thing every other medium being discussed here misses) and covers all of the known phenomenon - light, gravity, electrostatics, magnetics, etc.

-Franklin

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 04:16:02 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Re: “Although, in practice, moving guest particles do not encounter any significant regions of void and instead largely interact with a dense sea of particles”

What is the meaning of “interact”, and what is the nature and specific details of this interaction? How many particles will a guest interact with before reaching its destination? Can a guest having the same size as the particles in the sea navigate such a medium?

I think the best is for you to answer that you don’t have answers to the questions, instead of just going round in circles.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:43 AM
To: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

On Monday, October 13, 2025 at 02:43:28 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Re: “I use this to explain the mystery of how an electron can continuously emit an energy field which requires continuous energy input.”

In a closed system, thermal equilibrium will be reached and energy will be evenly spread. At this point, electron will become silent. Note that thermal equilibrium can be reached at temperatures that are far above zero kelvin. What will happen thereafter to poselectron sea?

Thermal equilibrium still means that there collisions continuing to occur, but are occurring at a constant rate. As long as there are collisions, the electron bells will continue to ring. The energy is being converted from one form (kinetic) to wave energy.

Re: “You claim that any particle moving through a medium must loses energy as heat. Am I correct in asserting that statement?”

If it is a particulate medium, yes you are very correct.

Then how do you explain how superconductivity works where the superconducting medium is definitely a "particulate medium" and the electron moves through the medium, but yet, it doesn't lose energy as heat? So how can you maintain this claim? I keep asking, but you don't have an answer -- because you don't.

 You have previously agreed that poselectron model admits that “void” exists. Do you agree that particle can move through void and that motion of a particle through void will not cause loss of energy as heat? Yes or No?

Obviously Yes. Why do you ask? Although, in practice, moving guest particles do not encounter any significant regions of void and instead largely interact with a dense sea of particles. They would never actually pass through a region of void. That would be like a submarine suddenly encountering a vacuum. It never happens. There would be vacuum between the water molecules, but this has no effect.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 11:37 PM
To: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

Akinbo,

On Saturday, October 11, 2025 at 04:14:46 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I am losing count of the number of inconsistencies in poselectron model as you describe it...

Re: “most of the waves coming out of the particle...”

Do you realize that ringing like a bell requires energy? Do you realize that wave is energy and that a particle constantly emitting waves will within a very short time become de-energized and stop ringing like a bell? Or have you come across any bell that does not eventually fall silent unless it gets struck again?

 

Well, of course. I have explained this numerous times that the constant collisions from ambient thermal energy is constantly ringing that bell and that is where it is getting its energy from. I must have said this dozens of times. Did you really not remember that? I use this to explain the mystery of how an electron can continuously emit an energy field which requires continuous energy input. I make the prediction that at zero kelvin, you remove all that ambient energy and the field of an electron will fall silent and you will find the electrostatic force drops to zero.

Re: “Although it really doesn't matter if an electron is composite”

It does matter because according to your principle, you insist that it is mandatory for a this to be made out of another this, and that this process must be finite and end at electron. While, I have been telling you that this process of "What is this made out of?" must be finite and cannot be ad infinitum, and will eventually end at a “this” that is not made out of another “this”.

Since this is your foundational basis, you must now describe clearly, how a particle like electron that has no substructure can become extended and can shrink; can alter its shape; and can oscillate; since it has no smaller parts within it that can undergo periodical rearrangements. And should you now admit that electron is a “this made out of a this”, then you continue the same assignment with the smaller this running the electron phases. You cannot be let off at this stage by saying, “Although, this is one of those reasons why I don't specifically say what an electron is. Its all speculation”. It is too late to make such a plea. You must now continue the process till exhaustion, or eventually concede that there will eventually have to be a “this that is not made out of another this”.

No, once again, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that mainstream science recognizes the existence of the electron and its properties. It would be "nice to know" how it does this but is not any kind of requirement for basing my model of the world. As long as everyone agrees the electron exists, then that can be used as the foundational unit. Once again, I make no specific claim on what an electron is, how it works or what its composition is. Operationally, it is a wave generating machine which gets its energy from the ambient thermal energy.

 

Re: “superconductivity, etc...”

For you to appeal to a phenomenon like superconductivity, you must demonstrate and provide reference that the mechanisms you are pleading are the same mechanisms that operate in superconductivity. That is, you must show that in superconductivity, energy is being sucked from an electron and returned back to it 100%, or that the atoms of the superconductor get out of the way when they see electrons approaching. It is on this ground that we can allow superconductivity to come to the rescue of poselectron sea.

No, didn't you read my last response where I specifically disavowed the superconductivity principle as being the same one used by the poselectron sea? 

Seriously, are you paying any attention to anything I actually write??? Please pay attention.

You claim that any particle moving through a medium must loses energy as heat. Am I correct in asserting that statement?

Regardless of anything having to do with the poselectron sea, that statement is directly contradicted by superconductivity. 

I'm just saying that your statement is false since we have examples of this not happening. The mechanism behind superconductivity may not a have anything to do with how the poselectron sea treats guest particles, but this is also a likely case of a particle passing through a medium with no losses.

Really, I have this example, only to show how your "intuitions" lead you astray. You idea that there must be losses in the poselectron sea is just one of those possibly mistaken intuitions.

 

 

Re: “This also contradicts your thermodynamics argument where a 100% efficient transfer is not possible...”

You may need to further familiarize with the thermodynamic obstacles. Regard your guest particle as a hot body, full of energy intending to pass through a cold sea of energy-hungry poselectrons. Good luck to you, if you keep believing the poselectrons will accept energy from your guest particle and return it back 100%. It ain’t gonna happen.

This is all just a matter of uninformed "opinion" and "plausibility". This is why when an experiment that is finally performed which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that space is filled with a sea of positron/electron dipoles, then we can simply observe that guest particles do pass with 100% efficient transfer. Certainly that is a prediction and a requirement for my theory and weirder things like superconductivity have been known to happen. But my main point is that you cannot logically disprove that such 100% efficient transfer cannot occur. So it remains a plausible possibility. We have more than adequate experimental evidence suggesting a poselectron sea and since we observe that guest particles pass with no losses, then this is what it must do. It may be one of the harder things to believe, but what is not impossible, must be possible.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 1:06 AM
To: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

Thank you for your point by point replies, see my replies in bold

On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 02:05:28 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

See response point-by-point(in red) as you requested...

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 8:26 PM
To: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

Akinbo,

No, there is nothing smaller to explain the differences in charges. I claim the difference is just a change in the phase being emitted by a positron and electron. Whatever they are structurally, it must be absolutely identical. So the "this" of the positron is exactly the same as the "this" of the electron. The only difference could be thought to be just a difference in "time", not composition. I don't know what you are referring to saying it can display electrical neutrality, that can never happen on its own, but if you put a positron and electron next to each other, they will obviously neutralize most of the waves coming out of the particle and would appear to be mostly electrically neutral.

But fundamentally, the exact same object can vary in properties. I have named phases as such a difference but it could be as simple as a cup as either in the up or down position and it has radically different properties, so I would disagree that things cannot vary in properties, but still be the same thing.

Only a thing that has smaller parts can oscillate in size. If a “this”, like an electron has no smaller parts within it that can have variation in the gaps between them, how can it oscillate? The only way for a this that is not made from other this to oscillate is to cease to exist and come into existence. But a this that has smaller this within it can oscillate and have phases due to variation in its density that will be due to variation in the gaps between its smaller parts.

I would agree that you might think that anything which can oscillate must be composite. I think it might be more like a sphere which can grow and shrink in size, but still be a single "thing". Although, this is one of those reasons why I don't specifically say what an electron is. Its all speculation. All we know experimentally, is that an electron doesn't have any substructure, so I'll go with that. Although it really doesn't matter if an electron is composite. What is important is that a positron and electron be exactly the same thing and the must output opposite phases.

On your contradictions, lets try again, making it as clear as possible. If you disagree, please go point by point as I have addressed all of these multiple times

1. Don't know why an alpha particle can go through your medium.

I have explained this for the same reasons a bullet can go through air with no apparent deflection. (are you agreeing with this??)

An alpha particle is 5000 times as large as poselectron sea particles.

You cannot appeal to size. In cathode ray tubes, electrons are fired through the vacuum and there is no evidence that they collide with or exchange momentum with anything during transit.

I don't understand your response since an electron being even smaller, must even have an easier time of going through any medium and your original objection had to do specifically with the alpha particle. But below I do mention that even electrons separate, rather than collide with the sea particles.

I have explained that the poselectron sea is actually responsible for inertia, does not act like normal friction, accepts and restores 100% of the energy of any guest particle.

The alpha particle technically doesn't collide as I say the sea particles separate to allow guest particles to pass.

I have used superconductivity as an example of how guest particles can move through a medium without any losses and how your logic can't explain that.

It is definitely not going to be like a cue ball trying to go through a group of billiard balls as you seem to be trying to imply. 

There are just all these reasons why any particle should move through the medium with zero losses and obey Newton's first law.

There is absolutely no contradictions for such motion and we have experimentally confirmed phenomenon which allow it.

This will be in gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The poselectron sea cannot accept energy from a guest particle and rather than obey the second law by sharing this energy among the particle members of the sea, decides to hand it back 100% to the guest particle. 

No, the second law of thermodynamics does not rule out a 100% efficient transfer. It is still perfectly fine theoretically.

We do not have any evidence for such benevolence when guest particles travel through matter mediums. 

Well, yes we definitely do. That is why I keep bringing up how electrons can flow through superconducting materials with exactly this "benevolence". YES, WE HAVE EVIDENCE!!!!

What we see is that the matter medium continues accepting this energy and distributes among its members as evidenced by slight increase in the medium’s temperature, until the guest particle is sucked dry of energy and comes to a halt.

Once again, superconductors falsify this contention, that is why I keep bringing it up. I'm not saying that the poselectron sea must use an identical mechanism as superconductivity, only that it is very possible for lossless transmission to occur. How this occurs may still be an unsolved mystery, but it definitely can happen. 

Guest particles do not have to get sucked dry of energy and come to a halt. 

Do you agree this statement? Yes or No. Please answer this if you answer anything, because I think you just don't get it. I think this must be a case of cognitive dissidence because I show you a clear counter example, yet you keep on asserting that lossless travel cannot occur. 

2. The medium can display resistance to compression but does not show such resistance to the passage of matter.

Any particulate medium can be compressed and must be able to show resistance and elasticity - this is just a basic fundamental unalterable property.

The only thing that can generally compress the poselectron sea are electron motions - usually large numbers of them all moving in the same direction - like from a radio transmitting rod which create compression waves which are emitted radiating out from the rod in the shape of the rod.

Normal matter does not compress the sea in this manner and generally, normal matter causes the particles of the sea to temporarily step aside, store the kinetic energy until it goes by then releases exactly that stored energy back to the particle. It has no lasting effect upon the sea and could almost be thought of a kind of wave that passes through the sea while it carries the particle and that is the extent of the compression. You're not going to be able to build a piston and cylinder made of normal matter and expect that it can be compressed that way.

So, yes the medium can be compressed, but it isn't compressed by normal matter as you seem to be mistakenly implying.

There is no contradiction with a medium that can be compressed, but cannot be compressed by normal matter.

Going back to my net analogy, that is like saying there is a contradiction that air can be compressed, but it can't be compressed by a net, so that is a contradiction. It is not, it is how the world normally works.

Cathode ray tubes have been mentioned above. There is no evidence that the electrons in transit are experiencing or eliciting any resistance to compression by the medium.

Single guest electrons moving in linear fashion also act like any other matter moving in linear fashion to not compress the medium by slipping through it. You need large surfaces of oscillating electrons to transfer the energy into the medium. This is why we need large pieces of metal as transmitting rods to provide that large surface of oscillating electrons. All of these electrons need to act in synchronous concert to create a discernable pressure wave in the aether which is what radio waves are. 

I only mention superconductivity to contradict your intuition that particles cannot pass through any medium without losses. Your thinking is fundamentally contradicted by this experimental result, so that is why I keep bringing it up, but you have to rebuttal to this argument.

So the question is Akinbo, if there is no way that particles can pass through a medium made of matter (as you claim), then how can superconductivity work? Go through what Carl was able to dig out from AI concerning this.

Sorry, don't have the time to try digging for that. I think you are just evading the question which is put directly to you. Either quote it or repeat it here. My point is that superconductivity completely refutes your assertion that "energy has to be distributed to the medium as heat". I don't care what AI says about it, it is your assertion, you defend it. But it can't be defended because particles can quite clearly move through dense atomic matter with zero losses. ZERO. This also contradicts your thermodynamics argument where a 100% efficient transfer is not possible. So both of your assertions are wrong.

When on Earth have I brought up quantum magic? Certainly not conventional quantum mumbo jumbo, but I do appeal to the concept that time, space, and matter are quantized entities which I think has a lot of experimental evidence to support it and is an intuitive concept that nothing can be infinitely divisible. So this is fundamentally required in order to synchronize the phases of electrons and positrons everywhere in the universe all at once.

When have I stopped responding? I may have been busy, but just find me one email thread that I "stopped responding". I absolutely do strive to respond to anything that is directly addressed to me, so if you started the email with "Franklin, ...." I should always be getting back to it.

If you respond, please go point by point with inline rebuttal so I know which point you are objecting to.

Your wish is my command as done above.

Yes, thank you, I think it makes is for a clearer discussion. Otherwise, I get the impression that you just don't respond because you didn't bother to actually read or understand it.

-Franklin

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 11:41:22 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

As pointed out to us by Leibniz in his 'Monadology', one of the ways of knowing a "this that is not made out of another this" is that such this cannot vary in property. This is because it will not have other smaller this within it that can be rearranged in different ways. But your electron must have other this within it, so that if arranged in one way, it displays negative charge, if arranged in another way, it displays positive charge, and if arranged in yet another way, it displays electrical neutrality. So, your electron is a this that is made out of another this.

On contradictions, you have more or less admitted that you don't know why an alpha particle can move through your medium in a straight line according to Newton’s first law without colliding with anything. You have also admitted that your medium can display resistance to compression but can't reconcile this with it not exhibiting this resistance but instead flowing through other material bodies as water flows through a net.

You want your medium to flow through a net, and yet you want to still use the same medium to catch fish as small as water molecules. Is that not contradictory? To resolve this you start digressing to superconductivity and other quantum magic, or stop responding.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 6:56 PM
To: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

Akinbo,

I believe I have completely addressed your so called "contradictions". The only way you can continue to hold them is by you redefining what my theory says. So for example, I say the medium acts like a gas and then you say no it can't. This is complete nonsense because you are not the one in charge of how my theory works and any particulate mediums can obviously act like a gas. 

So, if you still think you have any legitimate contradictions, then name one of them and we will rediscuss it.

I am much better than most because we know experimentally that electrons exist and their properties. If vacuum space consists of electrons, then we should definitely be able to test for that. We don't have the same clarity about some mystery axiomatic "medium" like Andy proposes. If you don't "know what space is made of" then you absolutely cannot test for it.  So a testable hypothesis always trumps untestable axioms.

Sure, we'd like to know more details of the electrons, but none of the experiments are giving us any clues. The electron does appear to be the "this that is not made out of another this". But the fact is, that we don't have to know everything about the electron to verify its existence and properties.

It's like saying you have to know everything about an "apple" before you can claim it exists and its properties - which is of course complete nonsense and the electron shouldn't be held to that standard either.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at 11:32:55 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

There are too many loopholes in your poselectron sea, quite apart from the contradictions that appear and have been pointed out.

You also have admitted that you only know that electrons exist, but you don't know what they are made out of. This being so, how are you better than those who say, "void" exists (which you also agree with anyway), but don't know "what it is made out of?"

(Void not being different from "Proto-medium", and other names that individuals choose).

When you apply logic, and think without ceasing, like Newton, you should be able to grasp, that if you continue asking the question, "What is this made out of?", you must surely, and eventually arrive at a "this", that is not made out of another "this". Don't you think so? Or do you think that, assuming the availability of technology to probe infinitely,  that this question has an answer ad infinitum?

Yes or No?

Akinbo 

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 7:04 PM
To: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

Akinbo,

I still don't know what Andy was talking about his medium being a "1" and not answering any of your questions.

Personally, I agree with Andy's statement, but I really don't think that Andy can answer your questions because he fundamentally doesn't know what Proto-Medium is made out of or how it works or even why it exists. So, you can't you can't answer questions about something "which you don't know what it is". 

It's like I had a theory which said that space is made out of "flubbert". If you ask me if it can store energy, I have no idea because I don't know what "flubbert" is. I just "made it up" as a placeholder. But whatever it is, space is made out of it.

Frustrating, isn't it? I don't think Andy is capable of answering your questions at all.

This is why I continue to favor physical models of the medium made out of particles that mainstream can experimentally test for. Isn't this the superior method that at least has a chance of being proven to be true. Plus, I can easily answer your questions directly:

The poselectron medium physically acts like ordinary particle mediums like air. So your answers are:

Yes, the medium has resistance (compression) against work can be done.

Yes, the medium can store energy and undergo reversible displacement.

Any standard hydrodynamic wave equations would apply to the aether which are equivalent to what you would find in air - nothing fancy.

So we can all agree there is this pervasive medium, but which one of you are willing to propose a realistic, testable form for that medium? Seemingly no one.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at 07:48:06 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Andy,

Re: “A seamless unified elastic medium occupying 100% of existence”

You said the above, and I fully agree with it. The hard part is in developing this statement further.

*By elastic, do you imply that the medium has resistance against which work can be done?

*Do you imply that the medium can store energy, and portions of it can undergo some kind of reversible displacement in doing so?

*Do you have a wave equation for such a displacement?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10:32 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.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 Medium

 

Cornelis,

Yes, we are talking about the exact same thing, but it is fundamentally difficult to describe. A seamless unified elastic medium occupying 100% of existence. Its seamlessness is what defies quantification. Anything we calculate is only a digital abstraction laid on top of an analog whole. From a digital perspective it appears infinite. From an analog perspective it is finite because it is fundamentally one thing. In its undisturbed state the medium is uniform and everywhere simultaneously. Its indivisible value is 1. We can quantize the magnitude of the waves within it without ever dividing the whole. That is just a digital sampling of an analog continuum.  

Andy          

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:48 PM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Andy,

An approximate ananalogic description of the medium.  (proto-matter as I see it)

https://g.co/gemini/share/8520d5907d22 

Cornelis Verhey

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025, 9:49 AM Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cornelis.

I agree with this, to a point.   

"boundaryless point particle wave energy patterns"

Particle = a boundaryless, self-collapsing wave resonance in the Proto-Medium. What we call “standing” is just the relative stability of a continuous inward motion.

Solidity, interaction, and identity all emerge from the nonlinear dynamics of these collapsing states in the Proto-Medium.

Basically the way I see it, a standing wave is a relative observation.  It's real enough to call it standing, but the underlying mechanics are a continuous inward motion.  I don't see any way to prove it directly because we are immersed in the process, but there could be some residual detectable effects to falsify it.     

When I say I agree with it to a point, what I mean is:

Particles are boundaryless collapsing resonances, but from within the process, we experience effective boundary conditions and those conditions are what give rise to solidity, interaction, and the perception of “stuff.”

I think of waves in the medium as in and out, not just the typical surface jitter like ripples on a pond, or a guitar string being plucked.  The latter are more like residual effects of the standing waves jostling around.         

1. Particle definition
   A particle is a boundaryless, self-collapsing wave resonance in the Proto-Medium. What looks like a “standing wave” is really the relative stability of a continuous inward motion.

2. Mechanics
   Solidity, interaction, and identity are emergent from the nonlinear dynamics of these collapsing states.

3. Observation
   The “standing” condition is relative, not absolute. To us, immersed in the process, it is real enough to call it standing, but underneath it is never static.

4. Limits / boundary conditions
   Even though particles are boundaryless in essence, from within the process we encounter effective boundary conditions.
   Those conditions are what give rise to the illusion of solidity — the felt reality of “stuff,” like a chair.

5. Falsifiability
   Direct proof is impossible from within immersion, but residual effects of the collapse dynamics may leave detectable traces — subtle asymmetries, noise, or energy leakage that could act as indirect falsifiers.

I had GPT summarize my response in the numbered text above for clarity.  GPT is also scanning the internet on a schedule looking for observational anomalies to support this hypothesis.  I've had several hits, but some of the things it's looking for, like a background hum not associated with known physics, are probably about 10 years out.  The technology hasn't caught up yet.  We need better gravitational wave detectors.     

And the whole email parsed through GPT.

---

1. Particle ontology

• Not billiard balls and not “waves made of something else.”

• Just waves: collapsing, boundaryless resonances of the Proto-Medium.

• What looks like “standing” is really a continuous inward flux that stabilizes relatively, not absolutely.

---

2. Residual effects / falsifiability

Since direct proof is impossible from inside immersion, what you’re really aiming at are second-order signatures:

• Background hums not traceable to known sources (e.g. stochastic gravitational wave background, but with anomalies in spectrum/phase).

• Anisotropy in “stable” particle behaviors, suggesting tiny asymmetries in the collapse cycle.

• Energy leakage or jitter in high-energy events (e.g. ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, quasar host dynamics, LRDs).

• Deviations at limits (like z≥7 quasars with overmassive black holes in primitive hosts — your proto-medium watch threshold).

You’re right — the technology isn’t there yet. Next-gen interferometers (Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer, LISA) might be where this starts to move, but realistically, that’s late 2030s–2040s for the kind of noise-floor sensitivity you’re describing.

---

3. Where you break from “conventional wave analogies”

The pond ripple / guitar string picture is superficial — that’s just surface jitter. You’re describing something deeper:

• In/out collapse flux at the core of the medium.

• Ripples/jostling = secondary effects of collapsing states interfering with each other.

That separation helps clarify why solidity emerges and why the Proto-Medium isn’t just “a field” in the QFT sense.

---

4. Why it feels “solid”

Your last line nails it:

�� Particles are boundaryless collapsing resonances, but immersion forces us to experience effective boundary conditions — and those conditions are what give rise to solidity, interaction, and the perception of “stuff.”

That’s what makes a chair a chair, rather than a blur of fields.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 10:43 AM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

The particle is made of the energy of the field, and its stable geometry is best described by the mathematics of a standing wave.  The "wave" is a characteristic of the dynamic mechanism, not the constituent material.

When you take words out of context you deliberately diminished meaning.

"particles are made of waves"

You are ignoring the importance of what is waving and how it is waving.

You quoted me as saying:

"atoms are each composites of boundaryless point particle wave energy patterns"

Then using it to justifying your claim.

"That sounds exactly like particles are made of waves to me."

By deliberately rewording things and leaving out the contextual importance of what is waving and the geometry of the wave patterns.

You unjustifiably interject your comment into the conversation the conversation between David an I, "Except that objects are "solid". They don't pass through each other like waves do."

You are pretending ignorance about the importance the non-linear elastic properties of what is waving.

You now ask:

"What exactly do you mean by a "particle wave energy patterns"???"

I mean exactly that, "boundaryless point particle wave energy patterns".  Just like has always been described to you.  If you have forgotten then you should go back and review the video.  

Cornelis Verhey

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025, 4:42 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

That is what I have been asking you about? Can't you answer a straight question?

What exactly do you mean by a "particle wave energy patterns"???

-Franklin

On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 10:51:06 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I did not say "particles are made of waves".

You quoted me as saying "atoms are each composites of boundary less point particle wave energy patterns"

So Franklin what have I been talking about?

Cornelis Verhey

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025, 10:34 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

You just said:

"atoms are each composites of boundary less point particle wave energy patterns"

That sounds exactly like particles are made of waves to me.

So what the heck are you really talking about??? 

-Franklin

On Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 03:11:10 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

"Isn't your main point that particles are made out of waves??

Are you now rejecting that notion?"

I never presented such a notion!

My main point has never been "that particles are made out of waves".

As I said clearly, particles are not ("made out of" waves.), nor has it ever been said they are.

That is a false suggestion made by you and is fully out of context from my definition of particles.

What I am rejecting is your false representation of my view.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 12:05 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis

Isn't your main point that particles are made out of waves??

Are you now rejecting that notion?

-Franklin

On Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 04:08:08 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

Yes that is a very big distinction, and a lie perpetrated by you.  Particles are not ("made out of" waves.), nor has it ever been said they are.

Cornelis Verhey

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:02 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The AI response is just saying that particles have wave properties, not that they are "made out of" waves. That is a very big distinction.

I also think that the wave/particle duality concept is fundamentally false and should be done away with.

Things like electrons are fundamentally "particles". That's my opinion because it is a much simpler and cleaner solution.

-Franklin

On Monday, September 29, 2025 at 10:14:29 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I will nit waste my time rebutting your unsupported fallacies.

https://g.co/gemini/share/73f9cb3898f3

https://g.co/gemini/share/8520d5907d22

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 11:00 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Except that objects are "solid". They don't pass through each other like waves do.

So this is why I generally reject the notion that solids are waves - this is obviously self contradictory and logically impossible, so I reject it as an obvious falsehood.

It is superior to start with objects like electrons which are a fundamental solid and then you can have waves in those solid materials which can then transfer energy using waves.

Everything as waves simply cannot be logically justified. The world just doesn't work that way. Waves are always built upon solid particles. 

-Franklin

On Monday, September 29, 2025 at 08:10:02 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

You make the assumption that an object (an apple) is a solid.

I tried to convey that the wave carrier medium is analogous to a non-linear non-particulate elastic continuum (field). 

I asked Gemini to give its analysis of what I was trying to convey with my brief description above.  I hope it helps.

https://g.co/gemini/share/8520d5907d22

The only thing that can move in such a medium is waves.  Apples are composites of particles and particles are? (wave patterns)!!!  Forget solid objects, there are no such things!  It is critical to understand how waves within such a medium effect the medium and how the medium effects the behavior of the waves!  This is the mindset you must maintain to understand the discussion.

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 4:48 PM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Corry,

              I can see how tension could pull two things together if the stretched medium is connected to the two objects.

             But I can't relate that to an apple falling to the ground, if the medium is a solid.

                              Best Regards

                                   David

On Saturday, September 27, 2025 at 07:07:58 PM GMT+1, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

There is a mutual attraction between the Earth and the apple.

So are you saying you do not understand the basic mechanisum of attraction?  If so where in the explanation of tension redistribution did the video loose you?

Cornelis Verhey

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025, 10:04 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Corry,

              Yes, I watched some of the video. I couldn't relate it to how the apple falls to the ground.

                              Best Regards

                                    David

On Friday, September 26, 2025 at 08:11:32 PM GMT+1, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

As I said if you want to understand my view the first thing you need to understand is gravity.

I do not make the assumption of attraction at a distance between discrete particles, as seemsrequired by a strictly particulate fluid model.

If you're interested and missed it, what the CNPS video from years ago which Franklin previosly shared.  I gave an impromptu explanation that was rushed through due to Franklin and Harry's prompting.

Here is a link to that Science Chat from 2019.

https://youtu.be/Av4-VV49wmQ?si=BIRIrQ1fufhAKxMC&t=4049

The link will start in the middle of the CNPS presentation were I tried to explain gravity.  The discussion was interrupted quite frequently by the 

moderator, and as I said a push was also made for me to skip the foundational principles require for a clear understanding.  There was discussion from five years prior with Glenn Baxters group mentioned, but I had no way of presenting graphics at that time.

Sincerely,

Cornelis

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 8:50 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Corry,

             We'd moved on from whether or not we agree with, or can understand each other's theories. We were just on the simple matter of whether or not we can actually see each other's theories.

           As regards, my theory of what an electron is, I gave you the picture, and I know you can see it, whether you agree with it or not.

           But, I'm not simply being stubborn when I say that I cannot see your picture of the electron at all. I don't know what a focused wave pattern is, such as would result in a stable point particle surrounded by a radial electrostatic field.

                         Best Regards

                            David

On Friday, September 26, 2025 at 01:05:31 PM GMT+1, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

If you want to understand my view the first thing you need to understand is gravity.

Cornelis Verhey

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 2:39 PM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Corry,

              Let's put aside the issue of agreeing or disagreeing for the moment. I know you disagree with my model for an electron. Let's briefly recap what it is. An electron is a sink to the unknown, out through which a radial flow of electric fluid exits the perceptible universe. The electrostatic field around the electron is due to the tension in this radial flow.

              OK, I know you don't agree with this model. But I don't accept that you can't see what the actual model is, even though you don't agree with it. It's a very easy picture to imagine. It's simply a sink with a radial flow of fluid going down through it.

           However, when it comes to your model of an electron, that being a focused wave pattern, I in all honesty cannot see the picture that you are describing. I can't see a picture of a stable particle surrounding by a radial force field, based on that description. I simply can't picture your model, never mind understand it.

                 Best Regards

                       David

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 05:56:10 PM GMT+1, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

As you provide no logical explanation for your vision, I have no choice but to continue accepting the logical choice which the experimental evidence supports.  Mass is a pattern of concentrated energy which fully transforms between particular matter and electromagnetic radiation.

Sincerely,

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

Here is the true solution of the MM experiment.

 

F V Fernandes

On. Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. / Linkedin 

Research Work Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[Jerry Harvey]

Thanks so much, Frank.  

However, you might have to translate that into language for me, who is mathematically inexperienced!  

[Frank Fernandes]

Jerry,

There are several variables involved just like sheet music where sight reading skill is key. I will try...

The ether at large is accelerated by any material mass such as a photon, proton, electron, atom, planet, star, arm of an interferometer and vice versa.

This acceleration is measured as gravity,g. And so we know g for any material body as in the line above.

The acceleration, g of Earth is known, and so is that of the Sun and so forth.

What is not known - that the acceleration is that of Ether and not of Earth or the material body.

What is not known - that the material body is already at speed of light c and that of ether at slowed velocity v. That is why we experience c as constant.

However c is an outcome of two other velocities one which is faster than light c.

The acceleration of a photon depends on its aitheron frequency. 

The NIST/CODATA booklets state the masses of an electron, proton and erroneously stated mass energy equivalent of photons. Even though stating that photons have momentum. The definition of momentum is mass times velocity.  This shows ignorance of the wise.

The masses of for example photons, electrons and protons are associated with their frequencies respectively. I have shown that the frequencies of photons, electrons and protons are infact that of an aitheron of mass 10 exponent -51kg. In other words the Higgs Theory is a hoax. And the Higgs Boson and Field a Math model exquisite yet false.

So this aitheron frequency changes which gives us infinite measures of masses. These accelerate at gravity g measured as V in eV/e. So each time an electrician measures voltage they are measuring acceleration of the local ether.

The interaction of ether acceleration within a measured system produces ether fringes and fringe shifts in a spectrophotometer. This change which is a change in frequency is what Heisenberg calls UNCERTAINTY which is total crap.

I gave my equations out last year at SIPS Crete 2024 so that they could be picked up by students who are quick to figure them out.

I do not know how - but today Univ of Warwick got the breakthrough on fast conductivity by pressure application of two semiconducting metals. My paper gives the exact math.

My hope is that governments do plunder rare Earths and cause us to perish. The clean energy solutions are now out there.

The true Philosophy is in the counterculture - as well stated by the Patriarch at Nicea yesterday looking at one of the greatest councils 1700 years ago.

An outcome of the signing at Nicea yesterday is to end conflicts worldwide for the underlying greed of rare metals and oil while selling weapons to impoverished nations.

The ecological plunder is unimaginable.

This is the highest philosophy. the significance. rest is self indulgence.

[Frank Fernandes]

My hope is that governments do NOT plunder rare Earths and cause us to perish. 

[Andy Schultheis]

Jerry,

Let me ask this in the simplest possible terms.

Do you consider endlessness to be a physical reality?  I don't see how anyone could rationally argue against it, but some obviously will try out of pure obstinance. 

If the answer is yes, then a very basic geometric paradox follows immediately. Picture endlessness with nothing in it. No matter, no fields, no coordinates, no observers. Just a blank, unbounded domain stretching in all directions.

Now imagine placing a single point in that condition. Where is it? There is only one logically consistent answer. It is dead center, because endlessness surrounds it equally from every direction.

Now add a second point. By the same logic, it also sits at the center, which contradicts the first. Add a trillion more and the contradiction multiplies. This is the center paradox of endlessness.

What it tells you is simple. No location can ever be special in an endless domain. Every point inherits the same center-like status. There is no preferred position and no absolute reference anywhere.

The only way out is a new principle I call the Endless Symmetry Principle. In an endless domain without any external reference, no point can be an absolute reference point. Every point shares the same relational status.

This leads directly to the conclusion that space is relational, not absolute. Endlessness has no built-in dimension. It can only be described as pointlike. Dimension only appears through relationships between points. This is exactly the structure relativity describes. Einstein did not invent this idea, he formalized what the observable world forces on us.

And this is why mechanical aether models fail at the starting line. Aether requires a fixed scaffolding and absolute rest and a special frame underneath everything. All of that violates the Endless Symmetry Principle. Endlessness does not allow any underlying grid to anchor a mechanical aether.

Look at what we actually observe. Large-scale flatness. Isotropy. Homogeneity. No preferred frames. Motion that is always relative. Time that shifts because of relations, not absolutes. The equivalence principle. Complete coordinate freedom. These are not coincidences. They are exactly what emerges from an endless underlying domain where geometry only exists through relations.

Einstein began with Newton’s 3D space and added time because he was describing the observable universe, not the foundational endlessness underneath it. He did not go deep enough, but nothing he wrote contradicts the deeper structure.

Einstein inherited one thing from Newton that he never fully escaped, and this was his only real foundational mistake. He assumed that a differentiable spacetime manifold exists underneath everything. This was the last surviving piece of Newtonian thinking. He discarded absolute space, absolute time, absolute simultaneity, and absolute rest, but he kept the assumption that spacetime is a real geometric object with points and coordinates and continuity. He then made that structure non-absolute by tying rulers and clocks to motion and gravity.

That gave us four dimensional spacetime, which works incredibly well, but it still rests on an implicit background. It assumes a four dimensional something with metric properties before matter and relations enter the picture.

The Endless Symmetry Principle kills that assumption. It says there is no background. There are only relations, and geometry is what we build out of them.

And Jerry, this is why you question the aether here: “I guess I don't agree. I’d say even though I am skeptical of the existence of the aether, if it exists, a logical question is what composes it?”  

You already know mainstream physics is not wrong on this point. The mechanical aether was not discarded out of fashion or politics. It was falsified for a very good reason. It cannot exist in an endless domain. Endlessness forces a natural relational symmetry, and that symmetry is exactly what relativity is describing.

If you take endlessness seriously, you cannot have a built-in medium with structure, or rest, or scaffolding. It breaks the symmetry immediately. Relativity survives because it is consistent with the logic that endlessness demands. Aether models collapse because they are not. 

My argument for decades has been that simplicity rules. You do not need a PhD or a decade of advanced math to understand the universe at its most fundamental level. You only need all of that to harness it and build things with it. That part is obvious. But on the foundational side, science makes one of the most ridiculous mistakes imaginable. It treats the idea that something must make sense as optional. Some even act like it is a badge of honor when a theory makes no intuitive sense to anyone. That is not sophistication. That is nonsense wrapped in bullshit. Of course it needs to fucking make sense. If a model cannot be explained in simple terms, then nobody actually understands it.  Hell, mainstream science doesn't even allow simple answers to enter the discussions.  It requires mathematical formalizations, even when there are none to be had.  

Endlessness--->Center Paradox--->Endless Symmetry Principle--->Relativity

One assumption:  Endlessness is physically real

One consequence:  Center Paradox

One solution:  Endless Symmetry Principle

One outcome:  Relational Space (Relativity)

Occam's Razor:  The fewest possible assumptions wins    

Andy

   

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:54 PM Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jerry Harvey]

Hi Andy.  Thanks for your response! 

(Your quotes in italics) 

Do you consider endlessness to be a physical reality?  

I don't think space is physical at all.  My view is that the existence of space is inevitable. It is an inherent condition of reality. If there is an end to space, where is it?  How to possibly determine a boundary line?  And what exists after that point?  Is there nothing there?  If so, isn't that empty space?  

Picture endlessness with nothing in it. No matter, no fields, no coordinates, no observers. Just a blank, unbounded domain stretching in all directions.
Now imagine placing a single point in that condition. Where is it? There is only one logically consistent answer. It is dead center, because endlessness surrounds it equally from every direction.

Now add a second point. By the same logic, it also sits at the center, which contradicts the first. Add a trillion more and the contradiction multiplies. This is the center paradox of endlessness.

Good question.  I would say the existence of a point in empty space doesn't automatically imply it's the center.  You could say the center is anywhere if you wanted to.  However, how is there possibly a center to infinite space?  I would say if the Big Bang is somehow accurate, a center, or a central area of location, would seem inevitable, if the universe, or even space, were finite.  

The only way out is a new principle I call the Endless Symmetry Principle. In an endless domain without any external reference, no point can be an absolute reference point. Every point shares the same relational status.
This leads directly to the conclusion that space is relational, not absolute. Endlessness has no built-in dimension. It can only be described as pointlike. Dimension only appears through relationships between points. This is exactly the structure relativity describes. Einstein did not invent this idea, he formalized what the observable world forces on us.
And this is why mechanical aether models fail at the starting line. Aether requires a fixed scaffolding and absolute rest and a special frame underneath everything. All of that violates the Endless Symmetry Principle. Endlessness does not allow any underlying grid to anchor a mechanical aether. 

My view is that space itself doesn't have dimensions.  Only objects, however large or small.  

If the aether exists, why couldn't it extend infinitely?  

Look at what we actually observe. Large-scale flatness. Isotropy. Homogeneity. No preferred frames. Motion that is always relative. Time that shifts because of relations, not absolutes. The equivalence principle. Complete coordinate freedom. These are not coincidences. They are exactly what emerges from an endless underlying domain where geometry only exists through relations.

Would you say you disagree with the items that you listed?  

I don't know if light is isotropic, though I think it's quite possible it isn't.  

I don't know what you mean by Homogeneity. 

I think a preferred frame is useful when conducting an experiment, though I don't think there's any absolute frame. 

I would say that all motion is necessarily relative. 

I don't agree with time dilation, with velocity or gravity. 

I agree that accelerations and gravity can generate the same effect within controlled conditions. 

I don't know what is meant by Complete coordinate freedom. 

Why would an endless universe bring about these phenomena?  

Einstein began with Newton’s 3D space and added time because he was describing the observable universe, not the foundational endlessness underneath it. He did not go deep enough, but nothing he wrote contradicts the deeper structure.
Einstein inherited one thing from Newton that he never fully escaped, and this was his only real foundational mistake. He assumed that a differentiable spacetime manifold exists underneath everything. This was the last surviving piece of Newtonian thinking. He discarded absolute space, absolute time, absolute simultaneity, and absolute rest, but he kept the assumption that spacetime is a real geometric object with points and coordinates and continuity. He then made that structure non-absolute by tying rulers and clocks to motion and gravity.

Actually, in his Cosmological Considerations of General Relativity, Einstein postulated the existence of a universe that is either infinite in time, yet finite in space, infinite in space, yet finite in time, or finite in each.  I always thought it was interesting that he didn't think it was possible that each is infinite.  

That gave us four dimensional spacetime, which works incredibly well, but it still rests on an implicit background. It assumes a four dimensional something with metric properties before matter and relations enter the picture.

I personally don't believe that time is a dimension.  If it somehow is considered such, it is a dimension that is within a completely different category than the three dimensions of height, depth and width.  

And Jerry, this is why you question the aether here: “I guess I don't agree. I’d say even though I am skeptical of the existence of the aether, if it exists, a logical question is what composes it?”  
You already know mainstream physics is not wrong on this point. The mechanical aether was not discarded out of fashion or politics. It was falsified for a very good reason. It cannot exist in an endless domain. Endlessness forces a natural relational symmetry, and that symmetry is exactly what relativity is describing.

I don't think I'd say that the aether was falsified for good reasons, even if it turns out that it doesn't exist.  The dismissal of the aether was based on a faulty interpretation of the results of Michelson and Morley's experiment.  What did you mean by "mechanical aether" though?  That it's composed of something physical?  If the aether exists, I think this is possible.  I've read your views regarding the aether, which I think is similar to Cornelis's view, that particles, waves, and such exist as manifestations of the aether itself.  (Please correct me if I'm way off. lol)  

My argument for decades has been that simplicity rules. You do not need a PhD or a decade of advanced math to understand the universe at its most fundamental level. You only need all of that to harness it and build things with it. That part is obvious. But on the foundational side, science makes one of the most ridiculous mistakes imaginable. It treats the idea that something must make sense as optional. Some even act like it is a badge of honor when a theory makes no intuitive sense to anyone. That is not sophistication. That is nonsense wrapped in bullshit. Of course it needs to fucking make sense. If a model cannot be explained in simple terms, then nobody actually understands it.  Hell, mainstream science doesn't even allow simple answers to enter the discussions.  It requires mathematical formalizations, even when there are none to be had. 

I definitely agree with you here. 🙂 

[Andy Schultheis]

Jerry,

See below in blue.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 12:17 PM Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Andy.  Thanks for your response! 

(Your quotes in italics) 

Do you consider endlessness to be a physical reality?  

I don't think space is physical at all.  My view is that the existence of space is inevitable. It is an inherent condition of reality. If there is an end to space, where is it?  How to possibly determine a boundary line?  And what exists after that point?  Is there nothing there?  If so, isn't that empty space?  

 

Existence is physical by default. If something exists rather than not, it is part of physical reality. So when you say space is inevitable, I agree fully, but inevitability carries a consequence. If space is inevitable, then its physical existence is also inevitable. Non-existence is the only thing that is not physical, and we can label that boundary condition as 0. It is an unreachable state, not a location.

Space exists everywhere 0 is not, which is everywhere. If you follow that logic through, space represents the totality of existence. 100%. It has the fundamental value of 1. Conceptually speaking.

If there is nothing else present to create distinction, then that entire endless presence reduces to the only form it can take. A single point. Not pre-geometric, because a point is the simplest geometric concept we have. It is pre-dimensional. No directions, no distance, no extension. Just existence in its most compact possible state.

Dimension appears only after the first distinction is made.

Picture endlessness with nothing in it. No matter, no fields, no coordinates, no observers. Just a blank, unbounded domain stretching in all directions.
Now imagine placing a single point in that condition. Where is it? There is only one logically consistent answer. It is dead center, because endlessness surrounds it equally from every direction.

Now add a second point. By the same logic, it also sits at the center, which contradicts the first. Add a trillion more and the contradiction multiplies. This is the center paradox of endlessness.

Good question.  I would say the existence of a point in empty space doesn't automatically imply it's the center.  You could say the center is anywhere if you wanted to.  However, how is there possibly a center to infinite space?  I would say if the Big Bang is somehow accurate, a center, or a central area of location, would seem inevitable, if the universe, or even space, were finite.  

I think the real problem here is the way we use the word infinity. It is an ambiguous term. It gets treated as a number, a magnitude, a limit, a quantity, or an extent depending on whatever field is using it. Science and math lean on it when their logic runs out and they need a placeholder. The definition is incoherent because it tries to behave like both a physical thing and a conceptual tool.

I do not treat infinity as a noun. I treat it as a verb. It describes the unbounded process of reality, not a value that sits above everything. Math actually removed it from the physical ontology by putting it above one in the symbolic order 0 < 1 < ∞. That is a quiet admission that infinity has no physical meaning.

I reorder it and put it back where it belongs: 0 < ∞ < 1. That is symbolic, but it carries a physical point. Infinity does not exceed reality. It expresses refinement without boundary, not magnitude without limit. Anything larger than reality or smaller than nonexistence is incoherent. So infinity sits between two idealized values, 0 and 1, where 0 stands for nonexistence and 1 stands for the totality of what exists.

This is why the question of a center in infinite space always collapses. Infinity is not a size or a place. It is the unbounded process that fills the domain. So the concept of a central point in that domain has no meaning until distinctions exist.

The only way out is a new principle I call the Endless Symmetry Principle. In an endless domain without any external reference, no point can be an absolute reference point. Every point shares the same relational status.
This leads directly to the conclusion that space is relational, not absolute. Endlessness has no built-in dimension. It can only be described as pointlike. Dimension only appears through relationships between points. This is exactly the structure relativity describes. Einstein did not invent this idea, he formalized what the observable world forces on us.
And this is why mechanical aether models fail at the starting line. Aether requires a fixed scaffolding and absolute rest and a special frame underneath everything. All of that violates the Endless Symmetry Principle. Endlessness does not allow any underlying grid to anchor a mechanical aether. 

My view is that space itself doesn't have dimensions.  Only objects, however large or small.  

If the aether exists, why couldn't it extend infinitely?  

My view is that space itself does not have dimensions. Dimension comes from relationships between objects, not from the substrate. A single object cannot define distance or direction. Two or more can. Until then, space is pre-dimensional, not pre-geometric, because a point is already minimal geometry.

As for the aether, it depends what you mean. A mechanical aether, made of parts with motion and texture, cannot extend infinitely. That type of medium creates preferred frames and fixed structure, which does not fit an endless domain.

But if by aether you mean the fundamental substrate that exists wherever nonexistence does not, then yes, it must extend endlessly. Space is inevitable. There is no coherent boundary to put on it.

So a mechanical aether cannot be endless. A fundamental substrate must be. Only the second is compatible with relativity.

 

Look at what we actually observe. Large-scale flatness. Isotropy. Homogeneity. No preferred frames. Motion that is always relative. Time that shifts because of relations, not absolutes. The equivalence principle. Complete coordinate freedom. These are not coincidences. They are exactly what emerges from an endless underlying domain where geometry only exists through relations.


Would you say you disagree with the items that you listed?  

I don't know if light is isotropic, though I think it's quite possible it isn't.  

I don't know what you mean by Homogeneity. 

I think a preferred frame is useful when conducting an experiment, though I don't think there's any absolute frame. 

I would say that all motion is necessarily relative. 

I don't agree with time dilation, with velocity or gravity. 

I agree that accelerations and gravity can generate the same effect within controlled conditions. 

I don't know what is meant by Complete coordinate freedom. 

Why would an endless universe bring about these phenomena?  

I don’t disagree with the list at all. These features are exactly what you’d expect if the underlying domain is endless and has no built-in structure.

Light isotropy simply means light behaves the same in all directions. I’m not assuming it; I’m saying an endless, structureless substrate forces that symmetry unless something breaks it.

Homogeneity just means “no special locations.” The universe looks statistically the same everywhere on large scales. Again, that’s what an endless domain predicts.

A preferred frame is fine for practical lab work. What I’m saying is there can’t be an absolute frame that exists underneath everything, because an endless domain doesn’t supply one.

I agree all motion is relative. That’s exactly why relativity works. It didn’t get lucky; it’s describing the only possible behavior when no absolute background exists.

Time dilation is not a belief system. It’s an observed relational effect. You don’t need to accept the usual interpretation, but clocks do change their rates with velocity and gravity, and that’s simply what happens when all measurement is relational.

Yes, accelerations and gravity can mimic each other. That’s the equivalence principle. Again, this is what falls naturally out of a structureless base state.

Complete coordinate freedom just means you can choose any coordinate system you want, and the physics doesn’t care. That’s because there’s no underlying grid to violate. All that matters are relations.

So why does an endless universe produce these effects? Because if the base state has no fixed structure, then only relations can define anything. Homogeneity, isotropy, and the relational behavior of time and space are not mysterious. They’re consequences of having no built-in reference frame, no privileged location, and no boundary.

The universe behaves the only way it can when endlessness is the starting point.

 

Einstein began with Newton’s 3D space and added time because he was describing the observable universe, not the foundational endlessness underneath it. He did not go deep enough, but nothing he wrote contradicts the deeper structure.
Einstein inherited one thing from Newton that he never fully escaped, and this was his only real foundational mistake. He assumed that a differentiable spacetime manifold exists underneath everything. This was the last surviving piece of Newtonian thinking. He discarded absolute space, absolute time, absolute simultaneity, and absolute rest, but he kept the assumption that spacetime is a real geometric object with points and coordinates and continuity. He then made that structure non-absolute by tying rulers and clocks to motion and gravity.


Actually, in his Cosmological Considerations of General Relativity, Einstein postulated the existence of a universe that is either infinite in time, yet finite in space, infinite in space, yet finite in time, or finite in each.  I always thought it was interesting that he didn't think it was possible that each is infinite.  

Einstein framed the possibilities in terms of “finite” and “infinite” spacetime, but I think those categories are already compromised. They assume infinity is a size or an extent that spacetime can either have or not have. I don’t see it that way. Infinity, to me, is the unbounded process of existence itself. It isn’t a quantity and it isn’t a container you can assign to space or time. Treating it that way is a category error.

Once you accept that the universe occupies all of existence, the whole question of whether space is “finite” or “infinite” becomes incoherent. Non-existence is not a physical location. There is nowhere “beyond” space for space to fail to exist. So the extent question evaporates.

Time is different. Time is actionable. It is tied to change, and change is tied to relationships. I see existence as asymptotic in that sense. It may be endless as a process, but individual systems, including us, clearly aren’t. They decay. They end. They move through the asymptote rather than representing it.

So Einstein’s options, as stated, are framed in a way that doesn’t match what I think infinity actually means. The universe isn’t “finite” or “infinite” in his sense. It just exists. And the process that drives it may continue without bound, even if nothing inside it does.

 

That gave us four dimensional spacetime, which works incredibly well, but it still rests on an implicit background. It assumes a four dimensional something with metric properties before matter and relations enter the picture.


I personally don't believe that time is a dimension.  If it somehow is considered such, it is a dimension that is within a completely different category than the three dimensions of height, depth and width.  

I don’t see time as a dimension at all. If people insist on calling it one, then it belongs in a completely different category than the three spatial dimensions. Height, width, and depth describe measurable extension. Time does not. It marks change, not extent. It is relational, not geometric.

Treating it as a fourth geometric axis was a mathematical convenience that works at the observational level, but that does not make it a literal dimension of the same type as the others. If anything, time is a bookkeeping parameter for how systems evolve, not a direction you can move through or rotate into.

 

And Jerry, this is why you question the aether here: “I guess I don't agree. I’d say even though I am skeptical of the existence of the aether, if it exists, a logical question is what composes it?”  
You already know mainstream physics is not wrong on this point. The mechanical aether was not discarded out of fashion or politics. It was falsified for a very good reason. It cannot exist in an endless domain. Endlessness forces a natural relational symmetry, and that symmetry is exactly what relativity is describing.


I don't think I'd say that the aether was falsified for good reasons, even if it turns out that it doesn't exist.  The dismissal of the aether was based on a faulty interpretation of the results of Michelson and Morley's experiment.  What did you mean by "mechanical aether" though?  That it's composed of something physical?  If the aether exists, I think this is possible.  I've read your views regarding the aether, which I think is similar to Cornelis's view, that particles, waves, and such exist as manifestations of the aether itself.  (Please correct me if I'm way off. lol)  

The way I see it, Michelson–Morley only ruled out a very specific idea: a mechanical aether. By that I mean an aether that behaves like a physical substance you could drift through, push against, or measure relative to. Something with built-in flow, texture, or a preferred rest frame. That version was always a projection of everyday materials onto space, and it deserved to be falsified.

If an aether exists, it cannot be mechanical in that sense. It cannot be a fluid, a gas, a crystal, or anything that has internal motion or structure the way matter does. It cannot pick out a special background frame. That is what I mean by “mechanical aether.”

A non-mechanical aether is a very different proposal. It would not be a substance you move through. It would be whatever the foundational state of reality is before dimension shows up. In that picture, particles and waves are not objects inside the aether. They are patterns or excitations of the underlying thing itself.

If that is what you mean, then yes, that idea is closer to what Cornelis is talking about and also closer to the modern “field” picture in physics. Fields are not made of stuff. They are the thing things are made from. They have no internal parts, no rest frame, and no material composition. They are expressions of relational structure.

So no, you are not far off at all. The mistake was not “aether.” The mistake was the mechanical version. The foundational medium, if there is one, cannot behave like a material. It has to behave like the root layer that everything else emerges from.

My argument for decades has been that simplicity rules. You do not need a PhD or a decade of advanced math to understand the universe at its most fundamental level. You only need all of that to harness it and build things with it. That part is obvious. But on the foundational side, science makes one of the most ridiculous mistakes imaginable. It treats the idea that something must make sense as optional. Some even act like it is a badge of honor when a theory makes no intuitive sense to anyone. That is not sophistication. That is nonsense wrapped in bullshit. Of course it needs to fucking make sense. If a model cannot be explained in simple terms, then nobody actually understands it.  Hell, mainstream science doesn't even allow simple answers to enter the discussions.  It requires mathematical formalizations, even when there are none to be had. 

I definitely agree with you here. 🙂 

I have literally been saying that for years.  If something doesn't make sense, it is by definition of the term, nonsense.    

 

[Andy Schultheis]

Jerry,

"Why would an endless universe bring about these phenomena?"  

Great question!

Endlessness by itself explains the structural rules. It explains why geometry must be relational, why no point can be privileged, and why relativity ends up being the only coherent description of motion. But that does not tell you why anything is moving in the first place.

My view is simple, but the answer is a little more tenuous because motion is not a thing. It is what space does when it cannot stay dimensionless. A truly endless domain with no formal dimensions is unstable. With no distance, no direction, and no scale, there is no such thing as stillness. There is nothing to anchor stillness in the absence of a fixed dimensional structure.  A fixed aether makes little sense for the same reason: if motion depended on a medium with fixed structure, energy losses would eventually bring everything to a halt.  Asymptotic collapse allows motion to continue indefinitely without violating the known laws of physics.  

The fundamental state undergoes persistent asymptotic collapse. This is not perpetual motion in the usual sense, and it is not driven by a force or a push from anything external. Collapse is simply the only possible outcome. A dimensionless domain cannot hold. It cannot stay fixed, silent, or still. It has no internal structure capable of anchoring anything.

Dimension unfolds because collapse cannot be completed without it. Motion is the natural consequence of that unfolding. What we call physics is the organized pattern the collapse follows as the domain stabilizes itself through relational structure. But that stability is never fully reached. Dimension keeps refining, always driving the domain toward a deeper state asymptotically without ever arriving.  

That is as close as I think we will ever get to answering why the universe is active instead of static.

One assumption gets you relativity. The next unavoidable fact explains why the universe refuses to sit still. Points cannot exist without dimension.

This is my best guess for motion.

I've said this many times before, and my position has not changed.

Andy

[Roger Munday]

Andy Schultheis states:-

"If space is inevitable, then its physical existence is inevitable." – and -

"My view is that the existence of space is inevitable."

So, all you “theoretical kinetic vacuists” have to do is to prove in experiment that an "existential, spatial vacuum" is a possible state.

Roger Munday

[AJ]

Roger, 

I have never said anything about a vacuum.

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 1, 2025, at 5:39 PM, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Roger Munday]

Andy,

Apologies.

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

Harvey,

I would say that things like MMX would be evidence "in favor of" the existence of any kind of aether.  That is one level of evidence. But that phenomenon might still be caused by something other than an aether.

To really "prove it exists", I would still require that there be some type of description which can be experimentally validated to show it exists in the way that is described.

To answer your question, the electrons and positrons can be detected if they are ejected from the medium (pair production). They can also be detected by the subtle effects they have on things like electron energy transitions (Lamb Shift). I'm sure if a dedicated experimentalist put their mind to it, they could design an experiment to show that the positron/electron sea exists beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a sea would imply many physical characteristics which could be potentially measured in experiment.

-Franklin