Re: Cornelis Verhey tension physics - video references

[Franklin Hu]

Andy, see my comments:

On Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 09:30:55 AM PDT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

The wave model is a viable path of exploration. I see a few different scenarios. Until it’s ruled out, it’s on the table.

-Waves are indeed very important, they are the basis for almost all transmission of the basic forces of electrostatics, magnetism, gravity. However, I would not say that things like electrons are composed of any type of wave phenomena which is mediated by some unknown media which you may be calling a proto-medium.

I’ve made my position clear.

Space, whatever label you prefer (medium, aether, proto-medium, proto-field), exists. “Nothingness” is not a physically real state. Space exists with or without observed energy. It is the framework of dimension because it holds the potential for distance, but distance has no meaning until motion is introduced in a quantifiable form, and energy has no meaning without something moving within it. 

-Certainly we can all agree that what appears to be a "vacuum" contains something which allows it to have properties. Even mainstream agrees the vacuum is filled to the brim with what they are calling virtual particles with very high energy.

When we start with space as the foundation, everything else follows as an emergent property of space. Something cannot come from nothing. It must transform from something that already exists. In that sense, what we call “separate things” are patterns of the same substrate.

-I think if we start with "space" as a foundation, then this would have to start as a geometric void with nothing actually in it. This would be a true "nothingness" which only has the property of 3 dimensions in which a "something" could move around in it. Such as space could not have any properties since "nothing" doesn't have any properties. So the vacuum cannot just be void space. It has to be filled with something.

0 ≠ 1
0 < 1

There is no evidence, within current bounds, that space has granularity. Absent such evidence, it’s best to treat it as continuous rather than assume granularity.

-Well, actually we do have experiments supporting the granularity of space. There was a notable neutron drop experiment which showed that neutrons when dropped and bounced, would only appear to bounce at fixed and quantized intervals which would indicate that space is not infinitely divisible. 

https://physicsworld.com/a/neutrons-reveal-quantum-effects-of-gravity

The main ideas of "quantum" physics indicate that processes are quantized. The spectrum emitted by atoms at only specific frequencies would be an another example of how space may be quantized. We have Planck's constant which is the smallest unit of action, a quantity related to energy and time. 

There are all sorts of problems with running into "infinities" and paradoxes when you assume something can be infinitely divided. So, I think it would be safer and more experimentally confirmed to treat space as being quantized. I would be in the same camp as James where space, time and mass are quantized entities and each come with the smallest amount.

Space as a medium for standing-wave propagation is falsifiable, and I’ve posted a few falsifiable predictions I’m tracking (for example: broadband SGWB “hum,” small same-sign BH ringdown shifts, percent-level Casimir deviations, cavity-chemistry rate shifts).

I cannot logically explain why anything other than space should exist. It’s not even clear how one would falsify an additional substance existing alongside space, especially when that substance cannot be isolated or observed independently of space. In detectors we only see where that alleged “something” was and where other energy transforms to during collisions. There is no inert residue left behind to claim matter ever existed independently of space, just more field excitations. In practice, an “additional substance” would be experimentally indistinguishable from space; you can only infer it by behavior, exactly as we do with space.

-I would agree that void space could exist. However, there must still be something populating that void to have the properties that we observe. There are only 2 possibilities

1. It is filled with some type of matter we know about

2. It is filled with some mysterious substance which we may not be able to detect.

If it is number 2, then it is completely hopeless that we will ever be able to explain how the physical world works or be able to prove it, we might as well give up now.

Therefore, I prefer option 1 which says that it must be filled with matter which we are familiar with. 

In addition to "space", I think we can justify that objects like the chair you are sitting on "exist". We may not know or explain "why" they exist, but we can be pretty sure that they do. When we look deeper into the chair with our best microscopes and instruments, we finally get to the "electron" which exists in every sense of the word as the chair and is in fact the smallest piece of the chair we can detect. So, in addition to "space", I can add "electron" as things that "logically exist".

So since the electron is the only other thing we can justify existing, then I would say that we fill all of void space with a sea of electrons. Dirac suggested such a thing, but this is nonsense since that would create a massive negative field. So, I fix it by adding positrons which neutralize the electrons and produce a nearly invisible and hard to detect field of matter. This would have all the properties you could wish for in the observable vacuum. Neutral charges are almost impossible to detect, they leave no traces in any of our detectors and have virtually no interaction with normal matter. They can be of extremely high density which would support an extremely fast wave which we would observe as light. It would also be a polarizable dipole which would definitely give it real properties of permittivity and permeability and be able to mediate the magnetic field as a dipole. 

If the vacuum is this sea of positrons/electrons, then we should theoretically be able to prove this "additional substance existing alongside of space" by breaking it into its component positrons and electrons. So, all we need to do is inject enough energy into the sea and we should be able to see positrons and electrons emerge from the vacuum. So, it would be quite possible to distinguish the "additional substance" which would be distinguishable from "void space" by ejecting the components of the "additional substance" if it is a composite matter substance. So it is not as hopeless as you may make it out to be.

Of course, this is exactly what we see happening with "pair production" where positron/electron pairs seemingly pop out of nowhere from vacuum space. This would be one of the premier evidences that the vacuum is really a very dense sea of positron/electron dipoles. Otherwise it is impossible to explain where these particles come from without invoking the "magic" of conversion of energy to matter.

So, that’s where I am coming from. And I’m OK if it’s all wrong. This is a working hypothesis, not gospel, and not etched in stone tablets. I think Cornelis is on the right path, and it is worth exploring to the end. I think it has the highest probability of success.

-Well of course, we continue to explore, I just add my two cents to try to address some of the issues that you present that are solvable when viewed from a different perspective.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 9:25 AM Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I appreciate you sharing your perspective on how bonding forces are communicated. It's clear that you've put a lot of thought into your theory.

However, I'd like to bring the conversation back to my original point. My goal isn't to debate the merits of your specific hypothesis, but to explore the concept of tension wave behavior as a fundamental, observable phenomenon.

If you are interested in discussing how this constant, underlying dynamic ties everything together, I am happy to continue that conversation. If not, I suggest we respectfully agree to disagree and allow the group to move on to other topics.

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 6:50 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

I would agree that how the bonding forces are communicated needs to be explained.

I have always explained them as arising from a phase difference between the waves being emitted by the positive and negative charges.

https://franklinhu.com/HowElectrostaticFieldWorks.pdf

Such an explanation does not need to invoke any concept of tension or universal bond. It's just a lot simpler to think of waves adding or cancelling rather than saying the tension somehow breaks or does other exotic behavior that we don't observe in existing experiments.

I think your objections in the past have been that this requires every electron and positron to be in exactly the same phase throughout the universe and when the waves meet, they have to always be 100% adding or 100% cancelling - something that we would not normally expect in mediums we are familiar with. However, I have responded by saying that this type of quantization already exists in modern digital computers which run on a universal clock which is the same everywhere in the computer and only 1 and 0 are the only possible states everywhere in the computer. This may be a piece of evidence for the world to actually be based on digital computer hardware. 

The "God" Computer

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0043v1.pdf

If Andy wants to know what an "electron" actually is, then it just might be a figment of the code which controls the universe. It would be like asking what the "bird" character is in the Angry Birds game. What is the bird - is it real, does it have substance? In this case, the electron would truly have no actual "physicality" which could be further investigated and is truly defined by its properties and behaviors. I'm still looking for a better explanation which is in line with my idea that the electron has a resonant frequency and rings like a bell, but still haven't found any adequate explanation. But I'm pretty sure it isn't a knot, a wave, a bundle of energy, a torus or a vortex of any kind.

This phased wave mechanism has also been demonstrated to create real attractive/repelling forces in a water medium in a real and practical experiment, thus adding experimental support for the mechanism. So we don't have to rely upon "thought experiments" which are really not experiments at all.

In terms of being able to perform experiments to validate this hypothesis, we should be able to measure the waves emitted by an electron at around 10^20 hz and be able to observe they are 180 degrees out of phase with those waves emitted by the positron. Any hypothesis needs to make predictions which can be tested experimentally. 

-Franklin

On Monday, August 11, 2025 at 03:48:14 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin and All,

Thank you for your response.

Assuming you meant to say that "Anything which has tension does so through the electrostatic bonding which is an observable phenomenon," I want to clarify a point. The bonding forces have indeed been quantified, but the deeper question has always been how this bonding force is communicated.

That is the very point I was trying to make in those presentations from years ago. My goal then, and now, is not to deny the existence of electrostatic bonds but to propose a deeper, underlying mechanism.

For example, when I used the analogy of the Cheerios on water in the CNPS presentation, the point was that the surface tension of the water—not a direct electrostatic bond between the Cheerios themselves—was the force that caused them to attract one another. I was using this as a model to illustrate my viewpoint that an underlying medium's tension wave behavior is what communicates and creates these forces.

In my view, electrostatic bonds are an emergent property of this more fundamental wave dynamic, not the primary cause itself.

Therefore, my focus is not on abandoning the terminology but on getting to the root of the "how" behind the known phenomena. I believe a discussion on the behavior of tension waves in a nonlinear medium is the best way to do that.

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 3:18 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

Everything you just described is not due to some universal bond, it has been known for a long time that atoms are held together by their electrostatic bonds and molecular chemistry has accurately described that for a long time and is well accepted. Anything which has tension does through through electrostatic bonding which is an observable phenomenon.

If that's what you are talking about, then you should just abandon your "universal bond" terminology. It doesn't exist.

For anyone interested in the references Cornelis keeps referring to: 

I have on this on Glen Baxter's science talks

https://youtu.be/dp_dO2yzL3w

This is audio only.

4/13/19 - Black Hole Image/Cornelius Verhey Tension physics - Science Chat

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

This is where the discussion starts on tension theory in the CNPS presentation

So, the main problem is that this is a very complex way of describing phenomenon which are trivially explained by presuming that solid electron particles just exist. So if you weigh "complexity" as a metric for what is "more likely", then I would say the particle view wins hands down. It really isn't a matter of reviewing and discussing tension wave behavior, but that it is "a bridge too far" as Carl would put it.

I think I have made my position clear and I do not see any adequate refutation of the points I have against a wave tension theory, but that's just my opinion. But I encourage continued discussion.

-Franklin

On Monday, August 11, 2025 at 11:43:43 AM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

I understand that you see the idea of a universal bond as an unsupported concept, and I hear your point that Newtonian mechanics seem sufficient to you.

However, the "bond" I'm referring to isn't magic. It's a way of describing a real physical phenomenon we can observe: tension wave behavior.

Particles and objects are not static points but rather are held together by this constant, underlying dynamic. My viewpoint is that this tension wave behavior, which you can see in everything from a guitar string to the interactions of subatomic particles, is what ties everything together.

If you're willing, I'd like to shift the conversation away from the abstract idea of a "universal bond" and focus on this more concrete, observable phenomenon. I'd be happy to discuss tension wave behavior with you, and you could review the video I mentioned to see what I mean as it relates to tension waves in a nonlinear medium.

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 10:57 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

As I have explained and justified many times to Akinbo and others

There is no universal bond.

I double down on that assertion.

No such bond exists in the description of Newtonian mechanics which is all that should be necessary to explain the physical world. 

If any such bond existed, it would be a complete piece of unexplained "magic" and I try to not use "magic" in my explanations of the world.

So, Cornelis, why do you insist on using "MAGIC"????

-Franklin

On Monday, August 11, 2025 at 06:19:25 AM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin

Correction

From:

You never have that there is a universal bond that ties everything together including particles themselves.

To:

You never have understood or acknowledged that there is a universal bond that ties everything together including particles themselves.

Glen Baxter and many other people over the years have tried to make you aware of this for over a dozen years.

As long as you continue to deny this you have no horse in this race.

If you sincerely what to understand this viewpoint, review the video as I suggested and come back with your questions about tension wave behavior.

Cornelis Verhey

On Sun, Aug 10, 2025, 11:04 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

I don't see any evidence for "an unbreakable bond media". None. Zero, Zip, period.

I do however see a great deal of experimental evidence for the existence of electrons and their properties in exacting detail.

So, I still prefer to base the theoretical foundation for my physical theories upon that firm foundation.

You prefer "magic" and that is your preference. Just don't expect anyone else to believe it.

Do you wonder why nobody pays any attention to your revolutionary theory? That's why, I'm just telling you.

Of course, to be fair, nobody pays any attention to my ideas either, but we all got to have hobbies ....

-Franklin

On Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 07:59:40 PM PDT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You never have that there is a universal bond that ties everything together including particles themselves.  All forces and all existence is defined by tension wave patterns within that unbreakable bond media.  Including the positron and electron.

Cornelis

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025, 1:06 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy,

No, a stretched rubber sheet is clearly made out of distinct "particles". Anything we ascribe "solid" properties to simply mean the particles have some sort of bond so they don't all fly off (as in the case of a gas). 

Just because it doesn't "break" does not mean it isn't made out of distinct particles.

So, I would have to say that your proto-medium would still have to be made of particles, but you continue to deny this and provide examples which require particles and thus an obvious logical contradiction exists in your hypothesis. 

I would say that your hypothesis definitely requires "magic" since there is no known way to sustain waves in a non-particulate medium. No such medium has been experimentally shown to exist, so it is complete "magic" to say that one does exist. 

There is also no way to create an experiment that would show that such a medium exists. If I gave you all the resources of CERN, would you be able to even theoretically suggest an experiment? The answer is obviously "no" because you can't find something when you don't even know what you are looking for. Science is fundamentally about being able to experimentally prove your hypothesis. Hypothesis without evidence is fiction, not science.

On the other hand, it doesn't take magic to say an electron exists. We have countless experiments which show them up as some local, finite, phenomenon which mostly show up the same way a billiard ball behaves. We don't have to "conjure" them up (as you say) because we have more than sufficient evidence to suggest that they do exist. 

So, I would say that we actually don't need to explain where electrons come from or how they are constructed or what they really are as long as we know that they actually exist. This is like how we don't need to know where an apple comes from or how it is constructed or what it really is in order to make a pie out of it. There is no magic involved in saying the electron exists, these are its properties, this is what it does. These are all experimental facts and is about as settled as science can possibly be.

I would say that the fact the electron exists as a much stronger argument than saying there is a magical proto-matter substance which waves travel through which has no particulate basis.

The other bit of magic your hypothesis requires would be to actually explain how the electron is somehow a bundle of waves. We have absolutely zero evidence that I am aware of that any kind of wave phenomenon can replicate what we observe with particles. For example waves superimpose, so any two wave phenomenon colliding should pass through each other as if they weren't there. So your hypothesis should predict that two electrons (as waves) should never collide which clearly contradicts experimental evidence.

My own pet hypothesis is that everything is just made out of electron-like particles. I believe that creates a rock solid ontological bedrock upon which to create a physical description of the world. Just start with something we all acknowledge to exist. No assumptions and no magic.

I would consider your proto-matter to simply be an omnipresent sea of positron/electron dipoles. This serves as the medium for all the forces which are all ultimately composed of waves. Protons and neutrons are also built out of positron/electron and thus all material entities are fundamentally built out of electron particles and not waves. If I had the resources, I could definitely propose experiments to verify this hypothesis since we can definitely detect electrons and positrons in experiments. I'm not trying to detect some proto-matter, circulon, or whatever-on that I made up in my head. Waves are critically important for the transmission of energy, but they are not the basis of what we observe as particles. 

You can consider my ideas in my various papers at: https://franklinhu.com/papers.html

Here I explain why everything is just positrons and electrons, how atoms are actually formed, how the forces of gravity, electrostatics and magnetism work in that context using only Newtonian mechanics in a way that appeals to our common sense understanding of particles/waves/forces.  

So, that is something you may want to consider and I welcome any comments you may have about why my view may be incorrect. I am clearly in the "particle" camp and you are clearly in the "wave" camp and it is worth debating these various views.

-Franklin

On Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 09:56:57 AM PDT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

You’re tripping over the word “unbreakable.”

It means the medium can’t be torn into separate chunks the way a brick breaks, not that every point is forever identical. Think of a stretched rubber sheet: it’s one continuous material, yet you can still send ripples across it because local tension can increase or decrease for a moment. Nothing “breaks” in the sense of snapping apart.

why do you reject the alternative that the world is made out of particles?

A lot fewer assumptions, first off.  My view also doesn't require magic, just a simple understanding that a 0 tension dimensionless medium is naturally unstable, which sort of makes sense.  Structure needs dimensional stability.  So, it shakes, or shutters, or hums, or waves naturally by default.  It cannot sit silent.  And that is falsifiable.

With particles we must explain a whole lot.  First, we must conjure them up from nothing, compel them to move, then sprinkle in some magical fundamental forces, all so we can send a "photo" zipping across the universe at a constant speed.  All because we equate the universe to our Earthy understanding of sound waves in air, or ocean waves in water, and the brick and mortar we experience.  

The particle model is an excellent effective description once a standing-wave packet locks in, but it’s a bookkeeping convenience, not an ontological bedrock.

The fact is, the deeper we've observed into the quantum world, the less physical stuff we've actually found.  Honestly, 0 stuff to date.  Matter pretty much doesn't exist in the physical sense, as far as we know for sure.

We obviously need to be waving in something, though, and that's for certain.  

Even vacuum needs a medium, as near as I can tell.                   

 

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:12 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy, that makes zero physical sense. 

The only way we can recognize a "wave" is by it having different "properties" over time such as density changes (as in sound waves) or height (such as with water waves). We typically see the repeating peaks and valleys of an oscillating wave and that is a basic physical requirement to have a wave.

A medium of "one seamless, unbreakable substrate" would not seem to have any such distinguishable "properties" that would allow any type of wave phenomenon. For example, how could the "density" possibly change if it is "unbreakable" and there isn't anything to physically register a density change if there are no particles to count per unit volume? How would we recognize that a wave is at a peak or valley in something which can only be perfectly uniform and unbreakable?

So, how do you suggest your unbreakable substrate have any properties that allows your waves to have their peaks and valleys?

I find this highly illogical, contradictory and largely unnecessary.

If the world isn't made out of "waves", then the alternative would be that it is made out of "particles". This would trivially answer the question of "what is it waving in" in a common sense manner.

So, my second question is, why do you reject the alternative that the world is made out of particles? You could have just said your proto-medium is some particle and that all waves sit on top of that and there would be no change to your hypothesis. But you reject that - why is that?

-Franklin

On Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 08:56:06 AM PDT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

The “something” that’s waving is the medium itself — what I call the proto-medium.

It’s one seamless, unbreakable substrate. We never see it directly because we are patterned within it. Every measurement we make is of the ripples, not the water. What experiments register as “fields,” “particles,” or “vacuum fluctuations” are just different standing-wave or traveling-wave states of that same underlying fabric. So the answer to “then what is it waving in?” is: the only thing that actually exists at the fundamental level—the substrate itself. 

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 11:45 AM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If "our reality is composed of waves", then what is it waving in?

-Franklin

On Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 07:38:04 AM PDT, Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

It all comes down to what the material world is made of, right?   

If our reality is composed of waves, then I think it's reasonable to deduce there is no theoretical limit to the floor or ceiling.  A wave can be as small or as large (or scale) as is imaginable, and we simply have a min/max range of detection.    

Is reality this?

0<∞<1

Or is it this?

0<1<∞

Science has chosen the latter, and I argue our reality is the former.

It all comes down to one simple question.

Where do we place endlessness?      

Remove all observable "matter" or energy/motion, and the entire universe is 1 thing.  From our perspective, endless distance, but distance itself is quantified from that perspective.  In a singular state of the universe that Earthly quantification process simply does not apply.  U=U, or U/U=1.  The entire universe is the only available unit of measure, and the fact it is endless from our perspective is irrelevant.  Infinity has no meaning until the universe is quantified into countable bits.        

I'll admit, this doesn't mean much to me, but it's what I've been developing through GPT.  This is the entire cosmos (proto-medium) in a total rest state. I consider it a persistent potential state, but not physically possible to achieve.  Existence is naturally untable. In my view.         

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 7:54 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

AJ,

Yes, action is required and takes time. The assumption then is given that the time to do the act is made available, when you reach the scale of 6.7273370 E-16m (as postulated by Binary Mechanics), can the action continue?

There are two types of action we can contemplate, one is cutting a length, the other can be travelling a distance.

Cutting a length requires having a knife with the blade sharpened to the sharpened to the 6.7273370 E-16m level. When it continues dividing its subject into pieces, when it reaches the scale of 6.7273370 E-16m it will not be able to cut further since the length to be cut and the knife edge to do the cutting will be of the same dimension. What happens then? Will that portion be impenetrable and become hard as steel? Note as well, that for cutting to happen at all, the knife edge must land exactly in between the pieces of smallest length if the smallest length is itself indivisible.

 

The second type involves travelling over a distance and Zeno of Elea formulated this into a paradox which I believe you know. Before covering a distance of 10m, you mut first have covered 5m. Before covering 5m, you must first do 2.5m, etc. So, is there a smallest first step that needs to be covered before the journey can further proceed? If there is one at 6.7273370 E-16m, then the journey starts from that point. If there is none, then motion cannot proceed, neither can it end.

That is my own 2 cents.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: AJ <andre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 12:16 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: James J Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; to: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; 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>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; Franklintayunghu <franklin...@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deriving Physics Constants, Beautifully Simply Physics, Gravitational Waves

 

Akinbo,

*Can a length be infinitely divisible into parts, or is there some limit to its divisibility?

I think the answer is probably right in front of you.

Division of a real thing like distance requires an action, and an action requires a motion, which ultimately takes time.

Whether distance is infinitely divisible depends entirely on one’s understanding of infinity itself.  

If you think of infinity as a destination, then no, distance is probably not infinitely divisible.   On the other hand, if you think of infinity as the journey, then yes, distance probably is infinitely divisible.   

My 2 cents anyway.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2025, at 4:48 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

*Can a length be infinitely divisible into parts, or is there some limit to its divisibility?

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Andy Schultheis]

See below in bold.  

The wave model is a viable path of exploration. I see a few different scenarios. Until it’s ruled out, it’s on the table.

-Waves are indeed very important, they are the basis for almost all transmission of the basic forces of electrostatics, magnetism, gravity. However, I would not say that things like electrons are composed of any type of wave phenomena which is mediated by some unknown media which you may be calling a proto-medium.

I don't know that disagree would be the right wording.  I think it's more likely that an electron is a wave form.  And I don't think I'd say the medium is unknown.  That's where the potential for distance or lengths comes from. We have plenty of room to observe.      

I’ve made my position clear.

Space, whatever label you prefer (medium, aether, proto-medium, proto-field), exists. “Nothingness” is not a physically real state. Space exists with or without observed energy. It is the framework of dimension because it holds the potential for distance, but distance has no meaning until motion is introduced in a quantifiable form, and energy has no meaning without something moving within it. 

-Certainly we can all agree that what appears to be a "vacuum" contains something which allows it to have properties. Even mainstream agrees the vacuum is filled to the brim with what they are calling virtual particles with very high energy.

I'm not sold on space=vacuum.  I don't look at space as "containing" things.  Waves propagate in space, and all we ever observe is waves.  It's really about the motion side of the equation.  No motion, no energy.  Treating space as a container is a category error.  Space exists, and non-existence is all that could potentially replace it.  0 and 1 cannot occupy the same state.  0 has 0 capacity for anything, therefore cannot contain anything.  Distance by itself is never 0.         

Space must exist.  Space as we observe it is emergent.  I have deviated from proto-medium a little, so when i say space, I mean medium here.  

When we start with space as the foundation, everything else follows as an emergent property of space. Something cannot come from nothing. It must transform from something that already exists. In that sense, what we call “separate things” are patterns of the same substrate.

-I think if we start with "space" as a foundation, then this would have to start as a geometric void with nothing actually in it. This would be a true "nothingness" which only has the property of 3 dimensions in which a "something" could move around in it. Such as space could not have any properties since "nothing" doesn't have any properties. So the vacuum cannot just be void space. It has to be filled with something.

In the absence of all motion, or energy, the value of space can be understood as 1 numerically.  1 in geometric terms implies a point like existence as the minimal state of being.  It would have 0 dimensions, not 3.  We borrow active waves as units of measure.  In the absence of all waves, or motion,the concept of dimension collapses into a single point.  It exists everywhere all at once, and the only unit of measure available is a self reference. U=U.  We cannot add ourselves into this point like state.  There are no observers or secondary frames to reference, other than the potential of non-existence.

I think the problem is so incredibly simple that it becomes an unbelievable resolution. 

A universe absent all observable elements and motion, is 1 numerically and mathematically.  There is nothing to calculate.  The universe would resolve.  It is exactly the same at any point in the cosmos, from our perspective. Our perspective being imaginary in that case, or 0.               

0 ≠ 1
0 < 1

There is no evidence, within current bounds, that space has granularity. Absent such evidence, it’s best to treat it as continuous rather than assume granularity. 

-Well, actually we do have experiments supporting the granularity of space. There was a notable neutron drop experiment which showed that neutrons when dropped and bounced, would only appear to bounce at fixed and quantized intervals which would indicate that space is not infinitely divisible. 

As I've suggested for a first principle axiom, existence, or the proto-medium, is unstable. It naturally hums. That creates a unified kinetic wave energy field as the baseline of space.  Space as we observe it is an emergent property of the medium.  It would indeed appear to have a lot of "stuff" in it.  The "vacuum" is the lowest possible tension of the medium, which isn't necessarily 0 tension.  The potential is very real.  

That is one of the data points I'm searching for.  A steady background hum with no hooks. We could possibly see that in gravitational waves, but the tech is still 5-10 years out.  If we can't find a hum, then this avenue of exploration may be dead in the water.        

 

https://physicsworld.com/a/neutrons-reveal-quantum-effects-of-gravity

The main ideas of "quantum" physics indicate that processes are quantized. The spectrum emitted by atoms at only specific frequencies would be an another example of how space may be quantized. We have Planck's constant which is the smallest unit of action, a quantity related to energy and time. 

There are all sorts of problems with running into "infinities" and paradoxes when you assume something can be infinitely divided. So, I think it would be safer and more experimentally confirmed to treat space as being quantized. I would be in the same camp as James where space, time and mass are quantized entities and each come with the smallest amount.

Space as a medium for standing-wave propagation is falsifiable, and I’ve posted a few falsifiable predictions I’m tracking (for example: broadband SGWB “hum,” small same-sign BH ringdown shifts, percent-level Casimir deviations, cavity-chemistry rate shifts).

I cannot logically explain why anything other than space should exist. It’s not even clear how one would falsify an additional substance existing alongside space, especially when that substance cannot be isolated or observed independently of space. In detectors we only see where that alleged “something” was and where other energy transforms to during collisions. There is no inert residue left behind to claim matter ever existed independently of space, just more field excitations. In practice, an “additional substance” would be experimentally indistinguishable from space; you can only infer it by behavior, exactly as we do with space.

-I would agree that void space could exist. However, there must still be something populating that void to have the properties that we observe. There are only 2  3 possibilities

1. It is filled with some type of matter we know about

2. It is filled with some mysterious substance which we may not be able to detect.

   

3. The void is the proto-medium, and everything we observe is an emergent property caused by its natural instability.  Not filled with anything.  It is the thing.  The only "thing".  

If it is number 2, then it is completely hopeless that we will ever be able to explain how the physical world works or be able to prove it, we might as well give up now.

Therefore, I prefer option 1 which says that it must be filled with matter which we are familiar with. 

In addition to "space", I think we can justify that objects like the chair you are sitting on "exist". We may not know or explain "why" they exist, but we can be pretty sure that they do. When we look deeper into the chair with our best microscopes and instruments, we finally get to the "electron" which exists in every sense of the word as the chair and is in fact the smallest piece of the chair we can detect. So, in addition to "space", I can add "electron" as things that "logically exist".

So since the electron is the only other thing we can justify existing, then I would say that we fill all of void space with a sea of electrons. Dirac suggested such a thing, but this is nonsense since that would create a massive negative field. So, I fix it by adding positrons which neutralize the electrons and produce a nearly invisible and hard to detect field of matter. This would have all the properties you could wish for in the observable vacuum. Neutral charges are almost impossible to detect, they leave no traces in any of our detectors and have virtually no interaction with normal matter. They can be of extremely high density which would support an extremely fast wave which we would observe as light. It would also be a polarizable dipole which would definitely give it real properties of permittivity and permeability and be able to mediate the magnetic field as a dipole. 

If the vacuum is this sea of positrons/electrons, then we should theoretically be able to prove this "additional substance existing alongside of space" by breaking it into its component positrons and electrons. So, all we need to do is inject enough energy into the sea and we should be able to see positrons and electrons emerge from the vacuum. So, it would be quite possible to distinguish the "additional substance" which would be distinguishable from "void space" by ejecting the components of the "additional substance" if it is a composite matter substance. So it is not as hopeless as you may make it out to be.

Of course, this is exactly what we see happening with "pair production" where positron/electron pairs seemingly pop out of nowhere from vacuum space. This would be one of the premier evidences that the vacuum is really a very dense sea of positron/electron dipoles. Otherwise it is impossible to explain where these particles come from without invoking the "magic" of conversion of energy to matter.

So, that’s where I am coming from. And I’m OK if it’s all wrong. This is a working hypothesis, not gospel, and not etched in stone tablets. I think Cornelis is on the right path, and it is worth exploring to the end. I think it has the highest probability of success.

-Well of course, we continue to explore, I just add my two cents to try to address some of the issues that you present that are solvable when viewed from a different perspective.

Of course.  The biggest problem WE ALL have is money.  If I were a multi-billionaire I know exactly what I would do.  Failure would not matter, but we could at least rule out some possibilities.