Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

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

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 6:34 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

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

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

Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

-Franklin 

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

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

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 9:35 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

25 KHz is not slow moving.

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

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



Franklin,

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

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

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

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

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 7:36 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

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

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

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:10 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin, you may find below response useful...

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

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

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

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

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

Tiny, reliable, and widely used in tech!

 

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

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

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

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

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

A key phenomenon in physics and engineering!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

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

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

Can there be voltage without time-varying magnetic field?

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

Just asking...

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:23 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

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

So, completely invalid!!!

Remember, you cannot measure teslas in volts!!!

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

Why don't we use them????

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:28 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

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

You did remember that didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

-Franklin 

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

Franklin,

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

Anyway, here goes...

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

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

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

∇²(∇×A) = (1/c²).∂²(∇×A)/∂t² 

 

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

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

∇²B = (1/c²).∂²B/∂t²

 

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:19 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:15 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo and David,

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

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

Looking into that more, this is what Maxwell thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://franklinhu.com/HowMagneticFieldWorks.pdf

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:15 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: The meaning of U and the magnetic field.

 

Akinbo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin, et.al.,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

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

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

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



Franklin,

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

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

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

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:44 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Did I not already say that?

<1763145803444blob.jpg>

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:34 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

Following up on your email reply...

You seem to be stuck on features.

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

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

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

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

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

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

This is my main point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

Following up on below email...

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

Akinbo

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Franklin,

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Akinbo

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

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

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

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

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

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

Akinbo

---

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

[Franklin Hu]

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

Franklin,

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

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

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akinbo

---

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

[Franklin Hu]

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

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

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

-Franklin