Re: [npa-relativity] Digest for npa-relativity@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 3 topics

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

What prevents the air from freezing?

There is ambient energy everywhere including the poselectron sea.

On Monday, April 14, 2025 at 08:20:02 PM PDT, <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

npa-rel...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Unsolved problems in physics - 10 Updates
• Ether - 4 Updates
• Blocking of Nobel prize claimant. - 1 Update

Unsolved problems in physics

Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>: Apr 14 09:59AM Franklin,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_air   “Liquid air starts to freeze at approximately 60 K”   Note that cosmic temperature is about 3K.       If you cool air to low enough temperatures, the bond between the molecules gets stronger resulting in liquefaction. You can also change back into gaseous form by heating, which weakens the bonds between the molecules. But as you said, there is no bond in the poselectron sea, so it has no analogy with air.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 12:10 AM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in physics   Akinbo, what prevents air from freezing into a solid? It is the same thing. They exist in the same energetic environment.   Sent from my iPhone   On Apr 13, 2025, at 3:35 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:      Franklin,   Re: “Akinbo, The poselectron sea is a gas, how could it possibly lack the forces observed for all gas/liquid type particulate mediums?”   What is preventing it from freezing into a liquid or solid?   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 12:38 AM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in physics   Akinbo,   The poselectron sea is a gas, how could it possibly lack the forces observed for all gas/liquid type particulate mediums?   -Franklin   On Wednesday, April 9, 2025 at 07:26:49 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:       Franklin,   You ask, “What happens when 2 billiard ball hit each other. Was that due to a "repulsive force"???”   Yes, it is. When two balls (i.e. spherical objects of a particulate nature) hit each other, a number of things can happen   - They can coalesce, e.g. two gas clouds   - They can pass through each other   - They can repel   If the bonds between the particles are weak, the first two will happen. If the bonds are strong, the particles cannot be easily forced apart because of the intermolecular/interparticle forces, as a result repulsion takes place between both balls. It is this same intermolecular/interparticle force that makes sure that such solid objects can carry sound waves. As the energy passes through them, it tries to force the particles apart (rarefaction), this is resisted by the interparticle attraction forces leading to a compression phase. Your poselectron sea lacks such forces and that takes it out of the realm of well understood physics of waves.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 4:41 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in physics   Akinbo,   What happens when 2 billiard ball hit each other. Was that due to a "repulsive force"???   Your conclusion about infinity is wrong. If it is infinite, then the "lack of a boundary" means there is no place for anything to flow. Since nothing can flow, then anything inside must create a pressure. I ask you, where is a gas going to flow if there is no boundary it can cross to goto? Think about it logically. Although, I'd say this is a philosophical unknown. If God create the universe as a bubble, then it could have a boundary and all the particles within would be held at pressure. It really doesn't matter since we have adequate evidence that there is a dense sea of charges (mainstream calls it virtual particles) that we can experimentally measure, so it doesn't matter how it got there, it is already there and cannot be debated.   Once again, you consider a "box as a bond". The boundary of the box prevents the seeking of a higher volume, not any actual "bond." Then how is that different than the bond between tape and a table? Surely that isn't any kind of box or boundary. I personally think this is just silly, but you are welcome to your opinions. It makes no physical difference and no difference with regard to the poselectron sea theory. Think what you want. I prefer to not think of it as bond because that is just a gross misuse of the English language that cannot be separated from real bonds like between tape and a table. So, instead of talking "definitions" - just what consequence is it that there is no kind of attractive force between the elements of the poselectron sea? All one has to do is to experimentally determine it's existence (as the virtual particle sea) and then it is obvious it will carry compression waves.   -Franklin   On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 02:06:38 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:       Franklin,   Re: “When you compress something, it will elastically recoil and push back out. That is how waves work. All that is required for a particulate medium is that there be some amount of geometric distance between the volume”   Why would it “push back out” if there is no repulsive force? And why would it push back in if there is no attraction force?     Re: “But it is absurd to say that there will be no pressure if the sea extends infinitely”   Infinity means there is no physical limit or constraints to the boundary of the system. As a result, there can be no pressure.     Re: “It is also absurd to think the molecules of a gas which are typically moving at 3000mph at standard temperatures/pressures are in any way being attracted to one another”   According to the laws of thermodynamics, if there are no constraints such as a boundary or restrictive force, the gas molecules must continue seeking higher and higher volumes to occupy in obedience to the second law. Only a constraint like an attraction force can prevent this. That is why we have little or no atmosphere on the moon.   There is so much to reconsider in your poselectron sea model.   Akinbo ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 6:18 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in physics   Good think the universe probably is infinite, so there is no need for a boundary, so the poselectron sea succeeds.   Why would you think my model has no elasticity? This comes more in the form of rarefication and compression. When you compress something, it will elastically recoil and push back out. That is how waves work. All that is required for a particulate medium is that there be some amount of geometric distance between the volume.   Once again, there is no "bond" between the particles in the poselectron sea, the resistance you speak of is due to the collisions of the particles reflecting off of each other, which is the exact opposite of thinking that they are somehow bonded or stuck to each other. They are doing the exactly opposite of being stuck to each other, they are bouncing off of each other and forcing each other around in different directions.   Nothing absurd at all.   But it is absurd to say that there will be no pressure if the sea extends infinitely, by implying that it isn't infinite and must be able to expand into that infinite space. That is completely wrong and absurd.   It is absurd to say that there is elasticity in a medium consisting of particulate matter. If there were no spaces between the particles, then it wouldn't be a particulate matter - it would be a solid. But to conflate a complete solid with a particulate matter is obviously absurd.   It is also absurd to think the molecules of a gas which are typically moving at 3000mph at standard temperatures/pressures are in any way being attracted to one another. If you were to look at it an atomic scale, you would just see individual molecules colliding into each other and bouncing off of each other showing absolutely no signs of being somehow bonding together. They are doing everything they can to get away from each other. It is completely absurd to say that in this situation, that there is a bond in the atmospheric molecules. Simply absurd.   -Franklin   On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 02:17:36 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:       Franklin,   By your new admission, your model depends on infinite extent of poselectron sea, if not it fails.   Such a sea will be devoid of pressure since it has no constraint/boundary to its extent. In your model, like a few others, there is no elasticity, yet you claim your model can propagate waves, in your case through collisions, etc (viz. “the only thing required for wave propagation is Newtonian collisions”). How can collisions organize into wave forms that will show areas of compression alternating with areas of rarefaction?   We also don’t see sound coming out of a gaseous container unless it undergoes compression or expansion, which result in elasticity of the medium coming into play. But when poselectron sea is compressed or expanded there is no resistance to either since there are no bonds between the particles.   Surely, there must be an end to the proposition of absurd mechanisms.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 1:39 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in physics   Easy, the poselxtron sea exists everywhere in the universe and extends infinitely far.   Also, there is no actual attraction between an adjacent position and electron. Due to only the phase difference, they will sel assemble into matched pairs.   Sent from my iPhone   On Apr 4, 2025, at 5:21 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:    Franklin, Below was sent to you earlier. Explain how the outermost poselectrons do not escape from your sea if there is no bond. Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 11:01 AM To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in physics     Franklin,   Re: “If I have a box of ping pong balls, are you claiming there is a bond between the balls, just because there is a box around them preventing them from going elsewhere?”   If there is no box, the balls will go elsewhere. If you see that there is no box, and yet the balls do not go elsewhere, it follows that there is a bond. This is simple logic.       Re: “double down on my claim that the only thing required for wave propagation is Newtonian collisions. It the one particle elastically colliding with another particle (which is totally opposite of a bond)”   Collision alone is not sufficient. There must be pressure. Collision can also not give rise to com pression-rarefaction pattern. For that pattern to be present, there must be forces that resist compression between particles co-existing with forces that resist expansion between particles.       Re: “Even in outer space, there are enough molecules to still propagate a detectible wave”   The presence of molecules is not sufficient to propagate a wave. There must be force of attraction and repulsion between them. That is what gives the collection the property of elasticity.       Re: “Anything that looks like attraction is actually from particles being forced together by being hit on the outside of the particles”, “There is no inherent bond between the particles of the aether that I am conceiving. They are all just bumping into each other.”   Okay, let us apply this to your poselectron sea. While centrally located poselectrons can be hemmed in and hit from the outside, those

Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>: Apr 14 10:04AM Franklin,   Instead of a rod, use a cylinder. Hopefully, you will see that you are not creating a polarized wave, but two different compression waves, one propagating vertically and a separate one propagating horizontally. Both waves are also not going to the same receiver, but to two. One receiver is in the vertical direction and the other is in the horizontal destination.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 12:14 AM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in Maxwell's vector calculus   The ripple tank analogy does receive the energy in a polarized manner. Only a receiving rod in the same orientation as the transmitter will receive maximum energy   Try it   Why does it so that? If you disagree, then why? Sent from my iPhone   On Apr 13, 2025, at 3:31 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:      Franklin,   See my first email today, then look up in the textbooks what “Polarization” means.   In your analogy of dipping a rod vertically in a pool of water, viz. “I'm talking about the difference in the wave front pattern "shape" using a stick which is vertically oriented, versus one which is horizontally oriented because we are discussing how an EM wave can have both a horizontal or vertical polarization”, all what you are doing with your dipping is that you are creating one compression wave propagating vertically due to the dipping, and another compression wave propagating horizontally due to the disturbance you create, since you displace some volume of water horizontally. In summary, you are displacing the medium vertically AND horizontally by your dipping. That is not what is called Polarization.   By polarization, reception of energy from either the horizontally propagated OR the vertically propagated longitudinal waves can be maximized or even blocked completely from further propagation. A longitudinal wave has its oscillation in the same direction as the direction of wave, so aligning a receiver horizontally or vertically makes no difference to signal reception.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 12:42 AM To: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in Maxwell's vector calculus   Akinbo,   No, the wave polarization does not depend upon the elastic properties of the medium. Why would you say that?   Also, why would you say that the wave front pattern isn't a type of polarization? It has a measurable direction and can be detected by a similarly designed receiving antenna.   -Franklin   On Wednesday, April 9, 2025 at 07:16:32 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:       Franklin,   There is a difference between “wave front pattern "shape"” and “wave polarization”. The former depends on the design or shape of the emission source/antenna, while the latter depends on the elastic properties of the medium. This is a basic principle of wave physics, a branch of physics that has been well studied for more than three hundred years. If you want to rewrite the physics so that poselectron sea will fit into it, instead of remodelling poselectron sea to fit into the physics, that is really up to you. I do not see anything that requires any significant change in the theory of waves.   Mainstream do not recognize the existence of a medium, but they believe that Maxwell’s equation is correct. In those equations, we have c2∇2B = ∂2B/∂t2, which is a wave equation. I will say more on this when I respond to Harry.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 4:30 PM To: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in Maxwell's vector calculus   Akinbo,   No, I'm not talking about the difference between how the wave propagates. In water or air, it is obviously a longitudinal compression wave. I'm talking about the difference in the wave front pattern "shape" using a stick which is vertically oriented, versus one which is horizontally oriented because we are discussing how an EM wave can have both a horizontal or vertical polarization. Do you see any difference between the horizontal versus the vertical orientation. You can answer Yes or No.   As a further exercise, imagine there is another vertical rod hanging in the medium. If you shove a vertical rod right in front of another vertical rod, what do you think will happen? What if there was a horizonal rod hanging there instead? Do you think both rods would receive the exact same wave energy at the same time.   If you think they receive the same energy, why is that?   I think it is obvious the vertical receiving rod would receive much more energy since it is oriented to capture the entire moving wavefront at the same time which was also generated by the vertical transmitting rod. The horizontal rod would only be in a position to capture the tiny amount of the wave represented by the rod's small diameter. If you still don't get it, then just push the rods against each other and see how much contact area there is between the horizontal and vertical orientations.   What do you think? Still don't get it huh?   Sheesh! I am amazed how you guys can't even understand such a simple geometric effect. You just absolutely refuse to even start to think about recognizing how wave polarization actually works. STOP THINKING ABOUT ROPES THROUGH PICKET FENCES!!! That is just stupid!!!! Real 3 dimensional pressure waves cannot move like that in any sense. You have been grossly misled.   If you still don't believe me, then if you look at the early polarization experiments, what I just described with the transmitting and receiving rods is exactly what we observe with real radio waves. A vertical transmitting rod can only be received on a vertical receiving rod. A horizontally oriented antenna will receive practically nothing from a vertical transmitting rod. This is the direct demonstration of a vertical polarization of EM waves. This doesn't need any magical self propagating magnetic or electric waves, or transverse waves or a solid medium or induction or even the fake news Maxwell's equations. A simple compression wave works perfectly well to transmit a polarized radio signal.   With regards to this entire discussion, you an just toss Maxwell's equations in the dust bin - they simply are not needed and EM wave mechanics should be described as simple compression waves in fluid dynamics. Period.   -Franklin.   On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 02:15:06 AM PDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:       Franklin,   Re: “I am still waiting for a coherent answer to the question of what kind of wave do you get if you shove a horizontal pole forward versus a vertical position.”       The kind of wave you get does not depend on how you shove. It depends on the elastic properties of the medium. If it is a liquid or gas, you get a longitudinal/compression wave. If it is a solid, you get a mixture of longitudinal and compression waves. If it is a perfect solid, without any pores in it that can be reduced or increased in size to cause compression and rarefaction, you get transverse waves only. Vacuum is a perfect solid and has no pores in it. The technical term for that is to say it is "continuous".   Gases and liquids take up the shape of their container unlike solids. Very viscous liquids will be a slight exception. These properties determine the kind of wave they can carry.   Akinbo ________________________________ From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 6:26 PM To: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; musn...@gmail.com <musn...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Unsolved problems in Maxwell's vector calculus   Roger M and others, I am still waiting for a coherent answer to the question of what kind of wave do you get if you shove a horizontal pole forward versus a vertical position.   That is an experiment that you can easily visualize and do for yourself. Maybe it would help if you imagined doing the experiment in a thicker medium such as underwater.   What could possibly be incoherent about that?   Once again, what kind of wave would you get?????   Why can't you answer that very simple question????   Is it because it would break your cognitive dissidence?   So, what kind of wave would you get? Answer me that. I bet you still won't.   Your closed mind simply won't allow you to even consider imagining it. Why is that?   -Franklin   On Sunday, April 6, 2025 at 11:34:09 AM PDT, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:     Franklin Hu You write:- "Dual polarization isn't a characteristic of EM waves ----- ------ Now hold the pole in a horizontal position and shove it forward. What is different???? Incoherent waffle. Roger Munday   On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 17:44, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com<mailto:franklinhu@yahoo.com>> wrote: Dual polarization isn't a characteristic of EM waves, it is a characteristic of a specific type of antenna which can receive two signals at the same time because it has a horizontal and a vertical antenna element. Really, an EM wave can have 360 or infinite number of polarizations and you'd just need to build an antenna with a matching polarization angle for each element.   You can visualize this in wave tanks where the wiggling paddle can create waves that can travel any direction. A dual polarization would be accomplished by having a paddle on both the top and left side of the wave tank and they create waves which share the same wave space and can be received separately. But the paddle could also be diagonal or really any angle.   And what is travelling perpendicular to the wave is the entire wavefront, nothing is moving up/down - there is no transverse motion, but all the medium particles are pushing forward in a perpendicular line to the transmitting rod antenna. This happens in all ordinary compressive mediums.   Take a vertical rod and hold it vertical in your hand. Now suddenly shove it forward to create a single pulse - what kind of wave do you think that creates in 3 dimensional space?   What kind?????   Now hold the pole in a horizontal position and shove it forward. What is different????   -Franklin   On Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:48:19 AM PDT, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com<mailto:kc3mx@yahoo.com>> wrote:     Akinbo,   I dont know if waves in a material medium have any polarization at all. I suggest looking into that issue.   Harry       On Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 11:01:55 AM EDT, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> wrote:       Harry,   Thank you and objection well received. You have raised this objection before. Because you raise it again, I tried to check up on “dual polarization” from below two websites, since I am not an antenna engineer. I think Stefan and Musa (mentioned by Roger A) some days ago may be into antenna design.   https://www.sannytelecom.com/what-is-a-dual-polarization-antenna/   https://www.weather.gov/bmx/radar_dualpol   So, given your objection, viz. “It is a well established fact that EM waves have dual polarization, while waves in aether type material mediums do not,” and assuming its validity, is this to be interpreted as meaning that: waves in aether type material mediums have single polarization? Yes or no?       I will comment more later and probably argue that the objection is more an antenna design problem than a medium problem.   Akinbo   *I try to include Musa's email again and BCC: Slobodan.   ________________________________ From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com<mailto:kc3mx@yahoo.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 2:40 PM To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com<mailto:franklinhu@yahoo.com>>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> Cc: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com<mailto:aither137@gmail.com>>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com<mailto:mundayroger@gmail.com>>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com<mailto:jerry27277@gmail.com>>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca<mailto:jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca>>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com<mailto:creiff@elgenwave.com>>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:virajplf@yahoo.co.uk>>; joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com> <joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com>>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com<mailto:npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com<mailto:sirius184@yahoo.com>>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com<mailto:jimmarsen@yahoo.com>>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com<mailto:crops9@gmail.com>>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu<mailto:stephan.gift@sta.uwi.edu>>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net<mailto:npercival@snet.net>>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net<mailto:fritzius@bellsouth.net>>; Mark CreekWater

Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 06:33AM -0400 All, [image: image.png]   F V Fernandes   *On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc*   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. <https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/>/ Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   *Research Work *   World Science Database <http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186 <http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model <http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>         On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 10:40 PM Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com> wrote:

Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>: Apr 14 10:49AM Frank, et.al.,   You ask, “Akinbo, what is Magnetic Field B? Is it not B = Kg x Omega. And if not why not?”   After this, you went into mathematical ratios and dimensional analysis (where we both came to B = kg/Cs).       I will use an analogy to illustrate B.   If you have a tornado, there are two ways of quantifying its magnitude. One way is by its effect, the other is by its cause.   A tornado that destroys 100 houses has more magnitude than that that destroys one house. From this, we can say the magnitude of a tornado is 10 houses. This does not mean that tornados are made from houses. Likewise, B is not made from kg, Coulomb or seconds.       If we know what causes tornadoes, we can also quantify the magnitude of a tornado even without being told the number of houses destroyed. The greater the magnitude of the cause, the more that of the tornado. This does not mean that tornadoes are made from the causes or must be measured in same units as causes. Likewise, B cannot be measured in same units or dimensions as its cause.       Let us now bring this analogy nearer to Maxwell’s home.   * *What can cause a tornado-like disturbance B is the passage of electric current J through a wire. This gives rise to a tornado around the wire as described by Oersted and Ampere in their works. They even showed that the direction of twisting of the tornado follows a rule, the right-hand-grip rule.   *This tornado-like disturbance B is static around the wire and does not travel away from it.     *If this tornado-like disturbance were able to travel it will cause disturbance to distance houses (charges in its path, e.g. at a distant conductor/receiver). This disturbance is called an induced electric current.     *Experiment by Hertz and others showed that by making the current J to oscillate to and fro in the form of an alternating current, the static B of steady current, becomes time-varying like the oscillating current causing it, and can leap away from the wire and propagate away from it in this time-varying form as ∂B/∂t.     I hope all understand this analogy so far. It should then not be rocket science to appreciate what vector field A is in ∇×A = B. A is that vector field that is thrown into rotation to give rise to B. Just as air can be thrown into rotation to give rise to a tornado.   This should also give some clarification to the wave equation, ∇2B = 1/c2(∂2B/∂t2), which can also be written as ∇2(∇×A) = 1/c2(∂2(∇×A)/∂t2), since ∇×A = B.   This simplifies the curl equations and their meaning, which math discourages many from understanding the beauty of Maxwell's achievement.   Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2025 5:26 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk> Subject: Re: How is Dual Polarization Relevant?   Akinbo, Now we are getting to the root of the problem. Coulomb C is a number like one dozen bananas or 1 mol of substance. One C is 6.24e18 particles. Like 1 dozen is 12. And 1 mol Avogadro's number. So one Coulomb is 6.24e18 x mass of an electron 9.11e-31Kg. Time period or interval of time is inverse of frequency Hz. So the physical description of a magnetic field is 6.24e18 particles [where an electron is one of billions of types of particles] are rotating at w which is angular frequency. This is the magnetic field B. That's it.   Einstein and Biot-Savart and Maxwell knew of B and so many others. Yet the physical reality was elusive.   I HAVE SOLVED IT.   Similarly the NIST frequency of an electron or proton is that of an aitheron. The consequence - The Higgs Theory is a hoax. And the bigger consequence a misleading term of the God particle as if God is an objective reality seen but for a fleeting moment like the billions of USD invested.   F V Fernandes   On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc.<https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/> / Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   Research Work   World Science Database<http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186<http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model<http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>         On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 12:06 PM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> wrote: Frank, From dimensional analysis B will be in kg/Cs. But it goes beyond that to know what B is. B is not made of mass (kg), nor of charge (C), nor of time (s). Like I said I will reply tomorrow and ask you to apply logical analysis and not just mathematical ratios. Akinbo     ________________________________ From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com<mailto:aither137@gmail.com>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2025 4:48 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com<mailto:franklinhu@yahoo.com>>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com<mailto:sirius184@yahoo.com>>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com<mailto:kc3mx@yahoo.com>>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com<mailto:mundayroger@gmail.com>>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com<mailto:jerry27277@gmail.com>>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca<mailto:jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca>>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com<mailto:creiff@elgenwave.com>>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:virajplf@yahoo.co.uk>>; joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com> <joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com>>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com<mailto:npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com<mailto:jimmarsen@yahoo.com>>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com<mailto:crops9@gmail.com>>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu<mailto:stephan.gift@sta.uwi.edu>>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net<mailto:npercival@snet.net>>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net<mailto:fritzius@bellsouth.net>>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com<mailto:mark.creekwater@gmail.com>>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com<mailto:r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com<mailto:tominlaguna@yahoo.com>>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk<mailto:p.rowlands@liverpool.ac.uk>> Subject: Re: How is Dual Polarization Relevant?   Akinbo,   Input the data for an electron for B, one coulomb mass and omega. B = Kg/C x w You can get w from Larmor precession or from the Bohr Magneton. B from experiment. And Kg/C from mass of an electron/ elementary charge.   Maxwell did work in 1861. We are in 2025. There are hundreds of variables he did not consider. I have studied more than 60 variables.   Maxwell was a great human being and deeply spiritual. I have an immense admiration for him as I have for Planck and Pascal. And the Biot-Savart Law. F = Bqc   Mass of a Planet/Star x c^2 = Mass of Ether x v^2 cannot be disproved. If it can be disproved then ether does not exist. I have given more than 20 experiments to prove the existence of Ether.   And shown the error in the MM experiment.   My goal is not to expose through a video debate that many members of the CNPS group do not know Physics nor Chemistry and yet make comments and mislead the world. My goal is to debate on empirical equations.   I await Akinbo for input of data.   Thanks       F V Fernandes   On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc.<https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/> / Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   Research Work   World Science Database<http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186<http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model<http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>         On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:10 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> wrote: Frank, I will reply tomorrow after due consideration. Akinbo   ________________________________ From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com<mailto:aither137@gmail.com>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2025 3:33 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com<mailto:franklinhu@yahoo.com>>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com<mailto:sirius184@yahoo.com>>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com<mailto:kc3mx@yahoo.com>>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com<mailto:mundayroger@gmail.com>>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com<mailto:jerry27277@gmail.com>>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca<mailto:jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca>>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com<mailto:creiff@elgenwave.com>>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:virajplf@yahoo.co.uk>>; joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com> <joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com>>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com<mailto:npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com<mailto:jimmarsen@yahoo.com>>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com<mailto:crops9@gmail.com>>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu<mailto:stephan.gift@sta.uwi.edu>>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net<mailto:npercival@snet.net>>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net<mailto:fritzius@bellsouth.net>>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com<mailto:mark.creekwater@gmail.com>>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com<mailto:r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com<mailto:tominlaguna@yahoo.com>>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk<mailto:p.rowlands@liverpool.ac.uk>> Subject: Re: How is Dual Polarization Relevant?   Akinbo, It is 2 hours and you have not figured it out. It should not take more than 5 minutes. This is the real problem.   I have solved Magnetic Field B. And presented it several times over 2 decades. B = One Coulomb of particles x Angular Frequency   And yet on and on and on on what is a field.   At Storrs I realized the truth - except for a few - the rest are not able to do ratio and proportion nor know the data associated with Physics and Chemistry.   Mainstream is more open than CNPS. Provided that the empirical Physics is correct.       F V Fernandes   On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc.<https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/> / Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   Research Work   World Science Database<http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186<http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model<http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>         On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 7:47 AM Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com<mailto:aither137@gmail.com>> wrote: Akinbo, While you soul search for the data.. Answer this - Is the frequency as per NIST of an electron an attribute of an electron or an aitheron 10e-51kg? I say - 7.37e-51Kg x NIST f = Mass of an electron [ condition of 1s]   or as the whole world thinks Mass of an electron x NIST freq is true? Well done?   While you soul search on the above answer this - Is speed of light defined or measured? And how is it measured? If you have the answer please tell us?           F V Fernandes   On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc.<https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/> / Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   Research Work   World Science Database<http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186<http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model<http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>         On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 7:33 AM Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com<mailto:aither137@gmail.com>> wrote: Akinbo, You first put the data for Tesla, w and kg/C. They did not have data.   F V Fernandes   On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc.<https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/> / Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   Research Work   World Science Database<http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186<http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model<http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>         On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 7:16 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> wrote: Frank, Give me your dimensional units of B, and that of Omega. According to good old Maxwell, and his faithful disciple obedient servant Heaviside, vector field B IS the rotational/shear strain of vector field A, which strain can travel as a transverse wave. Akinbo *I may pause my further replies for today as I think I have sent quite a few already.   ________________________________ From: Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com<mailto:aither137@gmail.com>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2025 12:10 PM To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com<mailto:taojo@hotmail.com>> Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com<mailto:franklinhu@yahoo.com>>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com<mailto:sirius184@yahoo.com>>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com<mailto:kc3mx@yahoo.com>>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com<mailto:mundayroger@gmail.com>>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com<mailto:jerry27277@gmail.com>>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca<mailto:jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca>>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com<mailto:creiff@elgenwave.com>>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:virajplf@yahoo.co.uk>>; joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com> <joer...@gmail.com<mailto:joerper30@gmail.com>>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com<mailto:npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com<mailto:jimmarsen@yahoo.com>>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com<mailto:crops9@gmail.com>>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu<mailto:stephan.gift@sta.uwi.edu>>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net<mailto:npercival@snet.net>>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net<mailto:fritzius@bellsouth.net>>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com<mailto:mark.creekwater@gmail.com>>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com<mailto:r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com<mailto:tominlaguna@yahoo.com>>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk<mailto:p.rowlands@liverpool.ac.uk>> Subject: Re: How is Dual Polarization

Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 10:24AM -0400 Akinbo.   The *w* is angular velocity and is the vortex. Now we must note that an aitheron frequency produces the measure of mass in this case an electron. Moreover the B field created by one Coulomb measurement of electrons the frequency of aitherons is now creating a pressure wave on the Ether Toroid. The acceleration of the ether toroid is voltage symbol V in eV. This is the reason why the field comes into being when there is an interaction with another particle at a distance. The Radius of this ether toroid sends a pressure wave outward or inward due to rotation of the toroid by 25812.807 m/s and pulsation by 3.481818x10e12 m/s. The outward and inward resultant vector speed of light c is 2pi R x 137.036 or wavelength.   The pressure wave is photonic in nature and gives rise to a volume that is like a tornado snake. That is Roger.s Ether barometer. And GRT. And the Ideal gas equation and quantum aitheron frequency by the wave based on the Hand of God inverse alpha 137.036.   The ether in this case of the toroid can be calculated by the Fernandes ether dogmas. Radius of an electron x 1.3466e27Kg per meter. The same ether distribution for planets and stars.   I have finished the work of gravity and Unification of all theories by experiments and Algebra. MLT. Data.       F V Fernandes   *On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc*   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. <https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/>/ Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   *Research Work *   World Science Database <http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186 <http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model <http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>

Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>: Apr 15 06:44AM +1200 Clearly you all believe in the “existence” of a vacuum/aether, e.g. *“the ether distribution between planets and stars”.*   Again you collectively ignore the fact that it is not experimentally possible to isolate a vacuum and so to prove that you're “ether” and/or your hypothetical “sub-atomic particles exist” within it.   And that it is obviously impossible to transmit a force in such a hypothetically non-interactive “medium”.   Magnetic fields are observed to propagate continuously, e.g. between the Earth and the Moon, and you continue to ignore these *observed* transmissive interactions.   Carry on “up the Khyber”.   Roger Munday

Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>: Apr 15 06:45AM +1200 Clearly you all believe in the “existence” of a vacuum/aether, e.g. *“the ether distribution between planets and stars”.*   Again you collectively ignore the fact that it is not experimentally possible to isolate a vacuum and so to prove that your “ether” and/or your hypothetical “sub-atomic particles exist” within it.   And that it is obviously impossible to transmit a force in such a hypothetically non-interactive “medium”.   Magnetic fields are observed to propagate continuously, e.g. between the Earth and the Moon, and you continue to ignore these *observed* transmissive interactions.   Carry on “up the Khyber”.   Roger Munday

Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>: Apr 15 06:46AM +1200 Clearly you all believe in the “existence” of a vacuum/aether, e.g. *“the ether distribution between planets and stars”.*   Again you collectively ignore the fact that it is not experimentally possible to isolate a vacuum and so to prove that your “ether” and/or your hypothetical “sub-atomic particles exist” within it.   And that it is obviously impossible to transmit a force in such a hypothetically non-interactive “medium”.   Magnetic fields are observed to propagate continuously, e.g. between the Earth and the Moon, and you continue to ignore these *observed* transmissive interactions.   Carry on “up the Khyber”.   Roger Munday

Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 08:58PM -0400 Roger, Here is a nice depiction of scale. When we look at the stars we see tiny dots. Inside atoms we see tiny dots. However the magnitudes are - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length)   We make molecules with light. *Photons. I make nanoparticles by thought. I stitch nucleic acids by thought and process even though I have never seen nucleic acids nor the nanoparticles I make.*   We now know that matter can be frozen light.   You can call magnetism Ether Magnetism. Force measured as acceleration or velocity through a distance is an attribute of mass. 4 x 4 = Blank x 2 The blank has to be 8. *One has to define which mass is associated with magnetism. Just as in a choir the conductor decides the tempo of individuals in the orchestra as a whole with soloists and voices.* *The frequency is that of an AITHERON.*   That is how ether mass exists.   The periodic table was discovered in a similar way. The triads and octaves. Blanks were filled in periods and groups.   The same with music. The notation can be filled in the sheet by only the best. The rest is congregational singing.   American idol brings this out.       F V Fernandes   *On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc*   Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. <https://www.otmbiotech.co/>   Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/on.-target-molecules-biotech-inc?trk=biz-companies-cym> / Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OTMBiotech/>/ Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/o.tmbiotech/>   *Research Work *   World Science Database <http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=245>   Website: Aither 186 <http://aither186.weebly.com/>   Book: The Ether Model <http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-antrobus-and-francis-v-fernandes/the-ether-model-the-hand-of-god/hardcover/product-3547374.html>

Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>: Apr 15 02:52PM +1200 Frank, You say:- *"Inside atoms we see tiny dots."* But we do not *see* atoms, we see *images generated by the reflections* of electromagnetic impulses directed at a sample, and which reflections are transferred to a photographic plate. Roger Munday

Back to top

Ether

John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 11:10PM +0200 Shafiq Khan Yes, you are right. The ether exists, and is needed to explain gravity. However, no attraction exists between two bodies. Instead gravity EMERGES inside matter due to the ether. Abolishing the ether is the reason for the fact that we have not explained gravity. John-Erik

Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 05:23PM -0500 How could ether particles that travel almost c into every direction cause the "force" of gravity though? How could it cause the attraction of objects?   On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 4:10 PM John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:

John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>: Apr 15 01:02AM +0200 Jerry   *How could it cause the attraction of objects? *   I said that there is no attraction between bodies. The ether is everywhere and can deliver momentum to matter. So. gravity can emerge inside matter, when ether particles are absorbed, and ether particles deliver momentum to matter. So, gravity does not move. Ether particles move with the speed c in relation to the ether.   John-Erik

Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 06:22PM -0500 Okay. How does the ether cause the "illusion" of attraction? Particles that travel into everything direction couldn't seem to accomplish that.

Back to top

Blocking of Nobel prize claimant.

aristo dorticos <eggy20...@gmail.com>: Apr 14 12:33PM -0700 They tend to block crackpots. Deal with it.   On Thursday, March 6, 2025 at 4:34:07 AM UTC-8 Shafiq Khan wrote:

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.