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

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

Either that, or everything you just stated was false.

But if you think you are so right, then exactly how can you put together energy to make an electron???

I know for a fact, you can't answer that, there is no answer. No one can answer that.

So how can you be so sure? You can't explain it.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at 09:46:22 PM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin.

Mass is constanty being turned into energy in the sun and stars.

There is no true conservation of mass as all mass is concentrated energy.

The more fundamental and accurate law is the Conservation of Mass-Energy.

Cornelis Verhey

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 11:56 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

The "conclusion" that mass was converted to gamma rays violates both the principle of conservation of mass and conservation of energy.

How does it not "violate" both of these conservation laws which are true every where else? There is only 1 violation and it is unexplained how this illogical violation occurs. Under no other condition is mass allowed to be converted to energy.

No, I still don't particularly support any "lattice", but I can forgive David for that since in practice, it makes little practical difference when it comes to the topic of the electron/positron binding. Let's not split hairs.

And Yes, I would still like to see an honest analysis of my magnetics paper and where David feels it falls short.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 05:50:55 PM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Franklin,

The first is a logical conclusion that is fully in agreement with the conservation laws of physics.

The second is totally illogical and violates the conservation laws of physics.

"As for David's summary of my theory, I have not heard of a more succinct summary and I support his description and David appears to understand the basics of my theory. So thanks to David for showing he understands my theory."

"electron-positron pair annihilation and production are explained in terms of a free electron and positron combining and bonding into this lattice, or being liberated from it by a gamma ray."

So Franklin now you have a lattice instead of a sea of your "posilectrons".

Cornelis Verhey,

By the way David, Franklin would like to have you read his paper on magnetic theory so you can come to an agreement.

"

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

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

https://franklinhu.com/HowMagneticFieldWorks.pdf

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

"

Enjoy

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 4:00 PM Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cornelis,

All the experimental evidence shows that a positron/electron release gamma ray energy and the original charges disappear. 

It is just a reasonable "conclusion" that the positron and electron were converted into gamma rays.

That is a "conclusion", not a "fact". It is a hypothesis, not a fact. If there was a alternate explanation, that would be equally valid.

The hypothesis that the positron/electron formed a neutron and released the kinetic energy of the collission is an equally valid explanation that explains the experimentally observed results.

So we have two equally valid explanations - how would you determine which explanation was the true explanation?

As for David's summary of my theory, I have not heard of a more succinct summary and I support his description and David appears to understand the basics of my theory. So thanks to David for showing he understands my theory.

-Franklin

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 11:35:15 AM PST, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

If annihilation is not the total conversion of the electron and positron mass to radiant photon energy (E = MC^2) and instead are believed to intergrate into a lattice structure then the discussion is a non starter base on experimental evidence.  If you are rejecting the results of the overwhelming evidence of mass energy equivalence just not on its own merit but because it is in textbooks you are a true dissident.

"                 In the meantime, let's just concentrate on the broad principle of Franklin's theory, and not concern ourselves with the finer details.

                 He is broadly proposing that space is densely packed with electron-positron dipoles, and that this sea of dipoles serves as the medium for the propagation of light, and that a magnetic field is a state of polarization in this sea in the vicinity of an electric current, and that electron-positron pair annihilation and production are explained in terms of a free electron and positron combining and bonding into this lattice, or being liberated from it by a gamma ray.

                If that's Franklin's core theory, then I agree."

You need to become familiar with Franklin's core theory.

Cornelis Verhey

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 11:09 AM David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Cornelis,

                  In the meantime, let's just concentrate on the broad principle of Franklin's theory, and not concern ourselves with the finer details.

                 He is broadly proposing that space is densely packed with electron-positron dipoles, and that this sea of dipoles serves as the medium for the propagation of light, and that a magnetic field is a state of polarization in this sea in the vicinity of an electric current, and that electron-positron pair annihilation and production are explained in terms of a free electron and positron combining and bonding into this lattice, or being liberated from it by a gamma ray.

                If that's Franklin's core theory, then I agree.

               Now it's possible I maybe missed it when you were arguing with him about how the state of polarization could account for a magnetic field. All I've seen in recent months has been a pile-on about how he explains the electrostatic force between the electrons and positrons, or about what an electron actually is.

              But I don't want to argue with Franklin about the finer details, because I detect he is under attack from reductionists, whose whole philosophy is that the medium between the electrons and positrons is the singular medium and the medium for the propagation of light. I don't see any of these people acknowledging that they even see his point about the purpose of the electron-positron sea.

              It's like people who would refuse to acknowledge the existence of air in aerodynamic lift unless you could explain the origins of the electrostatic force acting between the individual air molecules. And that's pathetic.

                If I were to argue with Franklin, I would only do so on a thread where everybody already recognized the merits of the electron-positron sea, but were arguing over the finer details such as how the sea bonded together in a stable manner in a way that accounted for Maxwell's equations. I had those battles at length, many years ago, with Guy Grantham and Ian Montgomery, and Franklin would have been relevant in those discussions if we had known about him back then. But he only arrived in 2012, although I did spot him on a blog about 2008 and e-mailed him. I don't think I got a reply then, or alternatively I sent my e-mail to a forum administrator, not knowing Franklin's personal e-mail address.

                           Best Regards

                               David

On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 02:20:56 PM GMT, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

David,

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

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

Cornelis Verhey

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

Hi Franklin,

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

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

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

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

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

                          Best Regards

                               David

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

David,

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

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

Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

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



Franklin,

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

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

                             Best Regards

                                 David

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

David,

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Franklin,

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

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

               Your question was a silly question.

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

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

                               Best Regards

                                  David

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

David,

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

-Franklin

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

Hi Franklin,

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

                            Best Regards

                                 David

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

David,

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

Andy,

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

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

           Best Regards

             David

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

Akinbo,

You’re welcome.

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

Andy

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

Andy,

Thanks for your display of honesty.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 3:48 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

Akinbo,

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

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

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

Just being honest.

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

Andy

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

Andy,

Re: Your three inevitable metaphysical axioms.

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Andy Schultheis <andre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 2:38 PM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Nicholas percival <nper...@snet.net>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lord Kelvin's Vortex Sponge Theory 1887 - The Link to the Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXIV, Page 342

 

David,

I should have expanded on this statement slightly;

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

Science will eventually land on three inevitable metaphysical axioms.

1. Existence

2. Action

3. Non-Existence leading to inaction

They are unavoidable consequences of the scientific process. 

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

Andy

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

David,

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

And that's really the issue, David.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy

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

Franklin,

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

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

            But the electrostatic force is more fundamental.

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

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

                                  Best Regards

                                      David

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

Andy, David

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

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

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

 https://franklinhu.com/HowElectrostaticFieldWorks.pdf

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

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

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

-Franklin

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

David,

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

Is it discrete, or continuous?

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

Do both manifest wave behavior?

Sinks leading to where?

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

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

What is gravity in your model? 

Andy

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

Andy,

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

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

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

<1762785879046blob.jpg>

                         Best Regards

                              David

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

David,

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

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

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

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

Feels like theory-sprawl to me.  

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

Andy

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

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards

       David

         

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

David,

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

At the foundation there are two axioms, not one:

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

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

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

That is the ontological order that I propose.

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

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

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

Andy   

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

Andy,

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

         There's a big difference.

                        Best Regards

                             David

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

David,

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

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

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

Andy

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

You ask (in your usual condescending pompous ass manner):

"But if you think you are so right, then exactly how can you put together energy to make an electron???

I know for a fact, you can't answer that, there is no answer. No one can answer that.
So how can you be so sure? You can't explain it."

I gave you my answer as to how a charged particle could form as a self contained volumetrically resonant wave energy pattern in a continuous non-linear tension bond field.

Mainstream has also answered your question showing that two high energy gamma rays could merge and create a positron and electron pair in agreement with E = mc²

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

OK, show me the mainstream reference link that "explains" how gamma rays merge and create a positron and electron.

Not just a postulated "statement", but an actual attempt at explaining how the conversion occurs in some physical manner.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin

You ask/demand (in your usual condescending pompous ass manner) what you can easily research yourself.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Y9LUUeawd8Zk1qGTSMBDp 

So Franklin, the mainstream explanation is that gamma rays don’t “merge” in the everyday sense—instead, their energy is converted into matter through pair production, governed by quantum electrodynamics. The Wikipedia article above is the most widely cited reference for this phenomenon. 

Cornelis Verhey

Cornelis Verhey

[Franklin Hu]

Cornelis,

🔬 How Gamma Rays Create Matter

• Pair production is the process where a high-energy photon (gamma ray) transforms into a particle–antiparticle pair, typically an electron and a positron.

• For this to happen, the gamma ray must have energy greater than 1.022 MeV (the combined rest mass energy of an electron and positron).

• The process usually occurs near a nucleus, because the nucleus absorbs some momentum to satisfy conservation laws. Without this, the reaction cannot occur.

• This is essentially the reverse of electron–positron annihilation, where matter converts back into energy (two gamma rays).

This is obviously a "postulated" statement and provides no explanation for "how" this transformation occurs - only that it does.

This is not an explanation. It is an observation.

-Franklin

[Cornelis Verhey]

Franklin,

You have been given the information that shows the conservation of energy/mass ect..

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Y9LUUeawd8Zk1qGTSMBDp 

Franklin your objection—that this is “postulated” without explanation—comes from misunderstanding the difference between descriptive physics and mechanistic visualization. Physics doesn’t describe this as particles “hiding” in the vacuum; instead, it explains it through QED field interactions:
• Energy Threshold: A gamma photon must have at least 1.022 MeV, equal to the combined rest mass of an electron and positron.
• Conservation Laws: Energy and momentum conservation require a third body (usually a nucleus) to absorb recoil. Without this, the photon cannot spontaneously “split.”
• Quantum Fields: In QED, the photon interacts with the electromagnetic field of the nucleus. The mathematics of Feynman diagrams show how the photon’s energy converts into a particle–antiparticle pair.
• Experimental Proof: Pair production has been observed in particle accelerators and cosmic ray interactions. Detectors directly measure the electron and positron tracks emerging from gamma-ray interactions.
So the “how” is explained in terms of field theory and conservation laws, not in terms of hidden particles waiting in the vacuum. The vacuum does have quantum fluctuations, but those are virtual particles, not real electrons and positrons. Pair production is distinct: it creates real, detectable particles from photon energy.

As has been shared before the “hidden particles” idea doesn’t fit.
If electrons and positrons were already “hiding” in the vacuum, we would expect to detect them without gamma rays.  In addition the mass energy conservation values would not come anywhere close to fitting what is measured.   Instead, experiments show that pair production only occurs when the photon energy threshold is met. This is why mainstream physics treats it as matter creation, not matter discovery.

The information that follows in more detail shows the energy and momentum conservation process in action.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/gqd949HoGrhREZ3hWaDts

Cornelis Verhey

--

Cornelis Verhey