RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

Whittaker-ET: Physicist review (STEP 2)

Reviewer: PhD physicist role. Inputs read: facts.json, claims.md, deep/ (all three deep reads), digests as needed, sites.md "Leads for review", research/ notes (oup-mnras, qeios, google, rexresearch, cambridge-synge, zbmath, followup-Q07 and others), followups.json (A07). I also read the 1903 paper's closing page (PDF p.24 = journal p.355) as a page image myself [read: page image p.24]. Source tags: [read] / [web] / [memory] / [calc].

Source gap carried forward: the 1903 paper is a scan with no text layer; its section 5 parts 2-4 (journal pp. 347-353) rest on the digest alone; the 1910 book is digest only; History Vol. 2, the 1927 and 1928 gravity papers, the 1944 Endeavour article and From Euclid to Eddington were not obtained. Where a conclusion rests on those it is marked [memory] or [web].

Stance: Whittaker is a first-rank mathematical physicist (Whittaker and Watson, A Course of Modern Analysis, is his). The mathematics of 1903-04 is mostly sound and lasting. The physical suggestion about gravity is a separate matter and I judge it separately. Nothing the Investigator found is dropped; each item is placed under the claim it bears on.

Plain-language map of the claims

  1. Whittaker's integral: every solution of Laplace's and the wave equation is a superposition of functions of one combined variable (1903).
  2. Every finite wave-equation solution can be analysed into plane waves in all directions (1903).
  3. Any moving-electron field from two scalar potentials F and G (1904).
  4. Gravity (any inverse-square potential) as a sum of longitudinal waves in the medium of light, steady in total, speed free (1902/1903), and the "longitudinal standing wave" variant put to the review (Q07).
  5. Whittaker's 1951 view that the quantum vacuum is "so rich in physical properties" that "aether" may be kept; his history of aether gravity ideas.

Claim 1. The general solutions (Laplace and wave equation)

a. Mathematics internally consistent? Yes, with stated gaps. I confirm the core identity myself: with s = z + i x cos u + i y sin u, the gradient of s is (i cos u, i sin u, 1), whose "square" is -cos²u - sin²u + 1 = 0, so any f(s,u) solves Laplace's equation. For the wave equation w = x sin u cos v + y sin u sin v + z cos u + t/k has |grad w|² = 1 and (dw/dt)² k² = 1, so they cancel [calc, also done by the deep reader with SymPy]. Coefficient counts (2n+1 and (n+1)²) check out by rank computations [deep read, calc]. The deep reader found proved-versus-asserted points that I accept: the per-degree representation is proved; summing over degrees (convergence), locality near a regular point, and "f periodic without loss of generality" are asserted; the 1/r integral identity on journal p.334 holds only for z > c (it gives -1/r for z < c). Printed misprints are listed in deep/On-the-Patial... section 5. The Mathematician will say more; as physicist I note that none of them touches the plane-wave use made of the result.

b. Consistent with experiment? It is mathematics, not an experimental claim. It has been used, correctly, for a century: "Whittaker's integral" is textbook (Whittaker and Watson) [memory, high]; Bateman 1904 extended it; it is an ancestor of the Penrose transform and twistor theory (Hitchin, Mason; see research/2026-10-07-google.md [web: https://celebratio.org/Atiyah_MF/article/44/; https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/lmason/Penrose1.pdf]). Thompson, Swearngin and Bouwmeester (2014) use the "Whittaker solution" to build exact linearised gravitational radiation [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3806]; in that mainstream use the waves are tensor and there is no medium.

c. Tested / replicated? Mathematical results are proven, not tested. A criticism on record: Munera (2018) calls the generality claim "unacceptable due to the assumption of periodicity" (as reported in Titleman, Qeios, research/2026-10-07-qeios.md [web]). That is a point about rigour of "any solution", not about the validity of the representation for the functions it covers. G. Johnstone Stoney (1903) praised the mathematics as "a singularly elegant proof" and "most welcome addition" [web: research/2026-10-07-oup-mnras.md, MNRAS 63, 424].

d. If true, what would change? Nothing. It is established mathematics.

Verdict: Established (as a local representation theorem; the "general solution of every solution everywhere" strong form is only asserted by Whittaker and is not needed for any use made of it).

Claim 2. Every finite solution is a sum of plane waves in all directions

a. Consistent. Each term F(n.r + t/k) with n a real unit vector is a travelling wave of fixed shape; Fourier-analysing F over a range where it is finite and continuous gives sinusoids [read: page images pp.15-16 via deep read]. The deep reader notes the wave moves toward negative x along the new axis, a harmless sign point, and that "finite and continuous on a range" is the 1903 level of rigour (full Fourier-integral conditions are stricter) [deep read].

b. Consistent with all of wave physics; it is the Fourier-plane-wave decomposition, now elementary. Whittaker credits Stoney's 1897 physical argument for the same resolution of ether disturbances [read: p.16 via deep read].

c. Standard; used everywhere in optics and acoustics.

d. Nothing changes.

Verdict: Established.

Claim 3. Two scalar potentials for the field of moving electrons (1904)

a. Consistent. The deep reader checked numerically, to 12 digits with 30-digit arithmetic, that the formulas reproduce the Lienard-Wiechert field of an accelerating electron, including radiation terms. I accept this: it is the Hertz-vector/Debye-potential family (a field built from second derivatives of two scalar functions along a fixed axis), which is why F, G are tied to an axis and no symmetric choice exists [read: deep/the-electromagnetic-field...; memory, high for the Hertz/Debye family]. The digest's omission of time derivatives is a digest error already corrected in claims.md.

b. Consistent with Maxwell-Lorentz theory, which is what it reformulates. Each plane-wave term of F or G gives an ordinary transverse electromagnetic wave (deep read). So the paper contains no longitudinal electromagnetic wave and no gravity: confirmed independently by the follow-up investigator's text search (A07: "no mention of gravity, the word 'longitudinal' does not occur" [read]).

c. Used in mainstream work: "scalar Whittaker potentials" in plasmonics (Berthel et al., Phys. Rev. E 92, 033202, 2015 [web: research/2026-10-07-qeios.md]). No test needed.

d. Nothing changes. The later reading that this paper shows "two interfering longitudinal waves" (Bearden, Barrett 1993, Titleman 2023 [web: arXiv:2205.08309, Qeios Y3D1HM]) is the later authors' interpretation, not in Whittaker's text. The correct statement is: F and G are potentials, not waves of a medium, and gauge freedom means different potentials give the same fields. I judge the "longitudinal-wave" reading to conflict with the text of the paper (each term is transverse in d and h), and with the mainstream result that the free electromagnetic field has only two transverse polarisations. Titleman's preprint has four open reviews, mean score 3.25 (Qeios page header, [web]); I have not read it beyond the investigator's notes and the abstract.

Verdict: Established (for the mathematical content). The attached "longitudinal scalar-wave" reading: Not testable as stated for the potentials themselves (they are gauge-dependent constructions) and contradicted by the paper's own transverse plane-wave terms where it is made specific.

Claim 4. Gravity as longitudinal waves in the medium of light (and the "standing wave" question)

This claim has four separable parts and I give each its own verdict.

What Whittaker actually wrote [read]

I read journal p.355 myself. The key lines: the field "can be analysed, by a 'spectrum analysis' as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with the time, yet each of the constituent fields is of an undulatory character"; the constituent potential is "constant along each wave-front, and consequently the gravitational force ... will be perpendicular to the wave-front, i.e. the waves will be longitudinal"; "it seems probable that an identical property of the medium ensures their transmission through space"; the speed "need not be the same as that of light, and may be enormously greater"; and "this investigation does not explain the cause of gravity" [read: page image p.24]. The same sentences appear first in his MNRAS note of 14 July 1902 [web: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/62/9/617/1015465; research/2026-10-07-oup-mnras.md]. Neither text contains the word "standing". That wording enters through Barrett (1993) and Bearden, and is repeated by Titleman [web: research/2026-10-07-qeios.md, -google.md].

4A. The mathematical statement: a static 1/r potential can be written as a superposition of waves whose time dependence cancels

a. Consistent? Yes, but it is nearly a tautology, and I add a calculation the earlier files do not show [calc, by hand using the standard integral of sin(a mu)/mu]. Whittaker's sum is V = (2/pi r) integral from 0 to infinity of sin(mu(Vt - r))/mu d mu = sgn(Vt - r)/r. So V = +1/r only behind the front (r < Vt); outside it is -1/r (the deep reader and A07 both note the -1/r side). Equivalently V = 2 theta(Vt - r)/r - 1/r: twice a switched-on retarded potential, minus a static one. The force is -dV/dr = sgn(Vt-r)/r² + 2 delta(Vt - r)/r. Stoney's "flickering" 1/r component (his eq. 4, which I confirm by differentiating each term: d/dr of sin(mu(Vt-r))/r = -sin/r² - mu cos/r) does not survive the sum. The integral of cos(mu a) d mu over all mu is pi delta(a), so the flickering parts add up to a single thin shell at the wave front, falling as 1/r. Nothing flickers behind the front. But this needs every frequency from 0 to infinity with exactly the weights 2/(pi mu), and it needs the source to have been switched on at t = 0. Stoney's objection (that the cancellation holds only for one special set of amplitudes) is therefore right as a statement and also answered by the calculation: that special set is just the Fourier transform of a step function. What the construction describes physically is the switch-on of a Newtonian potential at a finite speed, with a moving front. That is a respectable and very old idea (retardation), and it is not new content beyond "a static field can be Fourier-analysed". Why speed is free: a static V obeys the wave equation for every k, so the construction cannot fix V (Whittaker says "k is any constant" [read: p.23-24; deep read]). Only a time-dependent source can reveal the speed. Why "longitudinal": the force is minus the gradient of a scalar, so every constituent force points along its own wave vector. Any scalar potential, with any dispersion, gives a "longitudinal" force. That is a property of using a scalar potential, not a discovery about a medium. On "standing": sin(mu(Vt - r)) = sin(mu Vt) cos(mu r) - cos(mu Vt) sin(mu r), so a travelling spherical wave is a sum of two standing patterns in time quadrature. A static field can therefore also be called a superposition of standing waves, as Barrett/Titleman do. This is only a re-expression: the sum is constant in time, so it carries no oscillation, no nodes at fixed places, and no testable consequence beyond what the Newtonian field already has [calc].

b. Experiments? A static field cannot tell you about its constituents. The test is in sources that move. c. Tested? Not as such; there is nothing to test in the static statement. d. If true? Nothing changes. Verdict (4A): Established as mathematics; Not testable as stated as a physical claim that the constituent waves are real.

4B. The physical claim: gravity is carried by longitudinal (scalar) waves, speed possibly much greater than light's

a. Not internally inconsistent, but the "speed may be enormously greater" is empty for static fields (see 4A), and a scalar-potential theory with finite speed needs a field equation for moving sources, which Whittaker did not give. b. Experiments (mostly via the follow-up A07 and my checks). - Speed: GW170817 with GRB 170817A gave -3e-15 <= (v_GW - c)/c <= +7e-16 [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05834; research/2026-10-07-followup-Q07.md]. This rules out "enormously greater" for gravitational waves. (Earlier arguments for near-infinite speed, such as Laplace's and Van Flandern's, were countered by Carlip 2000 [memory, medium; not rechecked].) - Polarisation: LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA found no evidence for non-tensor modes in GWTC-3 [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.06861]. A longitudinal (scalar) mode would be a non-tensor mode. Interferometers respond weakly to a pure breathing mode, so small scalar admixtures remain allowed (Jin and Zheng preprint, Oct 2026, not peer reviewed [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08588]). - Binary pulsar: PSR B1913+16 orbital decay is 0.9983 +/- 0.0016 of the general-relativity quadrupole value [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02744]. - Light bending and time delay: a pure scalar gravity coupled to mass, such as Nordstrom's, gives no light bending and a perihelion shift of the wrong sign and size; the measured bending agrees with general relativity (gamma = 1) [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_theories_of_gravitation, search summary of arXiv:1012.5386, 1208.1433]. The Cassini radio test measured gamma = 1 + (2.1 +/- 2.3)e-5 [web: Bertotti, Iess, Tortora, Nature 425, 374 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1038/NATURE01997]. Whittaker's 1903 idea is not a worked-out field theory, so these tests are applied to the best specific scalar completion; Whittaker himself, from 1927 on, treats gravity inside general relativity (Synge's review: all ten papers are within relativity/electromagnetism [web: research/2026-10-07-cambridge-synge.md]). - Mercury: Stoney's 1903 postscript already records that the Mercury anomaly was raised at the RAS meeting; Whittaker's own 1951 History records that a Weber-type finite-speed law with propagation at c gives 14 arcsec per century against 38 observed (Tisserand) [read: History Vol. 1 pp.206-207 via A07]. [Observed value 43 arcsec/century is the modern figure; 38 is the figure quoted in that period. Memory, high.] - Composition: all materials fall alike to about 1e-15 (MICROSCOPE, eta = [-1.5 +/- 2.3 (stat) +/- 1.5 (syst)] e-15) [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15487]. A waves-in-a-medium gravity that coupled to composition would show up here. c. Tested? Yes, indirectly, by several controlled and observational tests above, none of which was designed against Whittaker's note. They were designed against scalar and finite-speed alternatives to general relativity, and they reject the specific forms such an idea can take. d. If true? General relativity's tensor waves, the equivalence principle at 1e-15, and the pulsar energy budget would all have to be reinterpreted. Verdict (4B): Tested, not supported (for the specific forms: gravitational waves much faster than light; scalar/longitudinal radiation as the gravitational field).

4C. The weak form: gravity and light share one medium (same "property of the medium")

Equal speed does not separate a shared medium from shared spacetime light cones; GW170817 is consistent with both (A07, and my agreement). The polarizable-vacuum model (Dicke 1957, Puthoff 2002) is the clearest concrete version: permittivity and permeability both scaled by K, so light moves at c/sqrt(K). Ibison (2003) finds its radiation power from a binary is 2/3 of GR's, incompatible with PSR B1913+16, and it has no frame dragging [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302273; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizable_vacuum]. The Wikipedia page labels the model "fringe physics"; that is that source's characterization. Whittaker's own 1928 lecture compared gravity's effect on light to a medium with variable permittivity and permeability, adding that the resemblance is "not quite perfect" (Synge's account [web: research/2026-10-07-cambridge-synge.md]). I note this as a pertinent historical precursor of the polarizable-vacuum analogy. The refusal is of one specific scalar model, not of every medium-like description: a tensor-valued medium can mimic GR (as in standard analogue-gravity and "optical metric" work [memory, medium]), so the weak form is not refuted. Verdict (4C): Never properly tested in a form that differs observationally from general relativity (it is dismissed in its scalar form by calculation against the pulsar data; no neutral test of a tensor-medium alternative exists).

4D. A hypothesis put to the review (Q07): a longitudinal standing wave

A literal standing wave (two counter-propagating waves, fixed nodes) would make g oscillate in time or vary periodically in space. Predictions I would hold it to [memory, high unless stated; none are Whittaker's]: - Oscillation of the local gravitational acceleration at the wave frequency: superconducting gravimeters, atom interferometers, torsion balances, pulsar timing arrays. The mainstream analogue is ultralight scalar dark matter whose coherently oscillating field modulates the gravitational potential at twice the field frequency (Khmelnitsky and Rubakov 2014; searches so far give limits, not detections [memory, medium]). - Spatial periodicity: a departure from the inverse-square law at half a wavelength. Short-range torsion balances find none down to about 50 micrometres [memory, high]; planetary ephemerides find none at solar-system scales. - Common modulation of clocks and optical cavities if the same medium governs light (a comparison of atomic clock and gravimeter responses at one frequency) [memory, medium]. - Energy density in the wave gravitates and defines a preferred frame; lunar laser ranging and pulsar tests bound such frames [memory, medium]. Current living literature uses the phrase: Meyl ("How is the impulse passed on, so that a longitudinal standing wave can form?"), Gouveia 2025, a "Theory of the Gravitational Constant. Part IV" item, the CCSE in/out matter-wave paper [web: research/2026-10-07-google.md; these are Google snippets, none opened]. None found cites a measurement separating a standing longitudinal gravity wave from general relativity. Munera (2019) "agrees with Whittaker" and argues that gravity depends on composition [web: https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-6/682bf7cefc4b257fe8a7bf23c4bbfd65]; Darmos (2022) claims composition dependence from Cavendish data, with a published response [web: Google snippet only]. These run into the MICROSCOPE limit above, and I flag that I have not read either in full. Related older work kept in the record: C. F. Brush, kinetic aether-wave (shadow) gravity theory (Nature 86, 130, 1911), admitting longitudinal waves, and his claim that heat-generating silicates fall slower by about 1e-5 in 122 cm; the Bureau of Standards check he mentions is reported without result and has not been located [web: https://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm]. Lodge's 1911 objection is that all Le Sage-type theories face unexplained screening and heating (same page). A silence on the Bureau of Standards result is an anomaly to search for, not a refutation; the later composition limit (1e-15, MICROSCOPE; torsion-balance Eotvos tests [memory, high]) is far tighter than Brush's 1e-5 claim, so as physics the claim has since been tested over a vastly larger sensitivity range, though not by a replication of Brush's design. Verdict (4D): Never properly tested as a specific model (no one has built an oscillating-g or standing-wave-gravity model with numbers and published a null test); Not testable as stated until the wave's frequency, amplitude, coupling and medium properties are given. Not dismissed without testing in the broad sense: generic oscillating-g and short-range searches exist and found nothing.

What the Investigator found, kept in the review

  • Stoney 1903 (against, contemporary, physical): kept above with my calculation showing what survives.
  • Wangerin's 1903 JFM summary reads the 1903 gravity section as "longitudinal waves ... with very great speed in a medium" (zbMATH JFM 34.0827.01 [web]). It shows contemporaries read it as I do.
  • McCrea 1957 (sympathetic): the result shows "how a static gravitational field can be regarded as resulting from effects that are being propagated through the field. In this way he anticipated some features of general relativity" [web: research/2026-10-07-mactutor.md]. I agree in a narrow sense: finite-speed propagation of a field change is correct, and general relativity indeed has it. I would not say the longitudinal or "medium" content was anticipated; GR's waves are transverse and need no medium.
  • Twistor lineage and Thompson et al. (2014): see claim 1.
  • Navarro 2020 (via Fisher Library letters): "Whittaker was convinced that gravitation and electromagnetism were ultimately connected" [web: research/2026-10-07-sagepub.md; abstract read only]. That is a biographical fact about his later motive; it does not alter the physics.
  • T. J. J. See 1917 wave theory of gravitation; the Fisher Library MS COLL 00219 (letters and autobiography); History Vol. 2 on archive.org: recorded as unexamined records.

Overall verdict for claim 4 (split): - 4A the static field as a superposition of waves: Established (mathematics), with no physical content beyond a Fourier transform and a switch-on front. - 4B longitudinal scalar gravitational waves, speed possibly far above c: Tested, not supported. - 4C shared medium for light and gravity (same speed, same property): Never properly tested in non-scalar form; scalar polarizable-vacuum version Refuted by calculation against the pulsar radiation budget (2/3 of GR; Ibison). - 4D longitudinal standing wave as Q07 phrases it: Never properly tested / Not testable as stated.

Claim 5. The 1951 aether remark and the historical record

a. The remark is a position, not a derivation. The deep read confirms Whittaker's preface: the "vacuum" is "so rich in physical properties" (zero-point oscillations, vacuum fluctuations, polarisation) that the name aether "may fitly be retained" [read: deep/1951...]. In that preface sense there is no equation to check.

b. The physical content is established: Lamb shift, Casimir force, vacuum polarisation and running couplings are measured [memory, high]. What is not established, and what Whittaker's historical aether supposed, is a material medium with a preferred rest frame. Michelson-Morley and its successors, and the Lorentz invariance of QED, find none; the quantum vacuum is Lorentz-invariant [memory, high]. So the word may be kept only in a sense that discards the property for which the word was coined. This is terminology, not a measurable disagreement.

History in the 1951 volume (accurate as history): Riemann's 1853 aether, Maxwell's 1864 abandonment of a medium explanation of gravity ("I cannot go any further in this direction") for want of a sensible energy distribution, and Kelvin's contested 1896 condensational waves [read: deep read of Chapter VIII]. These are correctly reported and give the intellectual background to Whittaker's 1902 idea; Maxwell's waves are transverse (Whittaker's own history), which is the standard mainstream point against a longitudinal electromagnetic wave in vacuum.

c. The aether-in-1951 stance was not a tested claim. Navarro 2020 attributes Vol. 2's treatment of relativity partly to relativity's low standing in the early 1950s and to Whittaker's commitment to the ether (abstract read only; the antisemitism question is left open by Navarro) [web: research/2026-10-07-sagepub.md]. Vol. 2 (1953), whose relativity chapter credits Poincare and Lorentz, was not read; the Investigator located an apparently open archive.org copy (access flag unchecked) [web: research/2026-10-07-archive-org.md]. The priority question rests on it and I draw no conclusion from [memory] alone. I can say only that that is a historical dispute, not a physics claim.

d. Nothing in physics changes if the word is kept.

Verdict: Not testable as stated (terminology/interpretation of the vacuum); the underlying vacuum physics: Established; the original material-aether form: Historically superseded but instructive.

Summary table

Claim Verdict
1 General solutions of Laplace and wave equation Established (local theorem; generality beyond asserted)
2 Plane-wave decomposition Established
3 Two scalar potentials F, G Established (math); longitudinal-wave reading: Not testable as stated
4A Static 1/r as superposed waves Established (math), no physical content beyond Fourier/switch-on
4B Longitudinal scalar gravity waves, speed >> c Tested, not supported
4C Shared medium (scalar polarizable vacuum) Refuted by calculation (pulsar budget); non-scalar form Never properly tested
4D Longitudinal standing wave (Q07 form) Never properly tested; Not testable as stated
5 Aether name for quantum vacuum Not testable as stated; vacuum physics Established; material aether Historically superseded but instructive

What a learner should keep

Whittaker's gravity note is a fine mathematical observation attached to a physical guess. The observation: a steady field is a sum of waves that cancel in time. The guess: those waves are real, longitudinal, carried by the medium of light. The guess is not needed for the mathematics and has not survived measurement in the forms in which it can be made definite. The "standing wave" language is a later gloss, and the most testable thing about it is that a real standing wave would make g oscillate or vary in space, which can be searched for and, so far, has not been seen.

Corrections to Step 1 (and earlier documents)

  1. claims.md claim 4 and A07: the "identical property of the medium" and "enormously greater" sentences first appear in the 1902 MNRAS note (the Investigator's correction); I confirm the 1903 wording from the page image (journal p.355) and have no quarrel with the Investigator's addition. Claim 4 should cite both papers.
  2. claims.md claim 4 and A07 describe the field as "a steady superposition" and "a field that does not vary with time", and the deep read says it equals 1/r "once Vt > r". That is incomplete: the sum is sgn(Vt - r)/r, so outside the front the potential is -1/r, and the force carries a delta-function shell at the front (my calculation under 4A). The field is steady only inside r < Vt. A07's inferred line "Whittaker's field is steady, not a textbook standing wave" should add that a travelling wave is the sum of two standing waves in quadrature, so the standing/travelling distinction is a matter of presentation, not physics.
  3. A07's inferred line "the scalar version of that medium fails on radiation" overstates: it rests on Ibison's analysis of the specific Dicke-Puthoff model (2/3 of GR's radiated power). It does not show that every shared-medium picture fails; a tensor-valued medium is not excluded.
  4. claims.md claim 2 says "every finite solution of the wave equation can therefore be analysed into plane waves". Whittaker's own words are "general finite solution", conditional on F being finite and continuous on a range, local to a regular point (deep read). Qualify the claim accordingly.
  5. facts.json (1903 entry, mainstream_conflict): "gravitational waves ... travel at c (GW170817)" is correct; it should also note the equal-speed result cannot by itself distinguish a shared medium from GR (A07 already says this).
  6. Stoney's "flickering" objection is recorded by the Investigator as an unanswered critique. My calculation shows it is correct for any finite band of frequencies and that it disappears only for the full set of weights, leaving a front. It belongs in claim 4's record beside Whittaker's text.
  7. No error found in the deep reads' mathematics; their page-by-page misprint list (journal pp.334, 336, 339, 342, 344, 346) stands.

Web checks done (budget about 6)

Files: review/Whittaker-ET/physicist.md