RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

Qeios: Titleman 2023 (and the arXiv recheck of the same author)

Visit: 2026-10-07, Investigator run (STEP I). Site: https://www.qeios.com/read/Y3D1HM (listed "not reached (stopped early)" in the Q07 run; reached this run).

Open peer review: 4 reviewers, mean score 3.25 (page header). [web]

What it says [web]: - It reads the 1903 paper as uniting "electrostatic and gravitational attraction as both resulting from longitudinal waves in the medium", and the 1904 paper as making EM waves out of "the interference of two such longitudinal waves as scalar potential functions". - The standing-wave wording: "Once these longitudinal waves interfere with each other and an action is set up, the disturbance at any point does not depend on time but only on position; they are standing waves. Therefore, the force potential can be defined in terms of both standing waves ... and by propagating waves" (citing Barrett 1993). Neither the 1902 note nor the 1903 paper uses the word "standing" (2026-10-07-oup-mnras.md; claims.md claim 4). The phrase traces to T. W. Barrett (1993, "Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations") and the Bearden literature, which uses the same sentence (2026-10-07-google.md). - It reports a mathematical criticism by H. A. Múnera (2018): Whittaker's claim of generality is "unacceptable due to the assumption of periodicity". It also cites Trovon de Carvalho and Rodrigues (2001), "The Non Sequitur Mathematics and Physics of the 'New Electrodynamics' Proposed by the AIAS Group", which criticises the AIAS (Evans/Bearden) use of Whittaker. That label is those authors' characterization. - Claimed implications: gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a "hyperspace", and no singularities. It cites Yurth 2007 ("Y-bias") and Laszlo 2003, and Whittaker's 1928 Nature article "The Influence of Gravitation on Electromagnetic Phenomena" (Nature 121, 1022-1024). - It quotes Whittaker's 1951 History (Vol. 1) passage on the F, G duality: "thus an electrostatic field can be described by F alone, and a magnetostatic field by G alone ... the functions F and G correspond respectively to two plane-polarised components". That passage is in the project's 1951 PDF and should be checked against it.

arXiv recheck: arXiv:2205.08309 (positive in the Q07 run)

  • Still v11 (25 Sep 2026); no new version since last checked. The abstract now adds MOND and the Farrah et al. 2023 "cosmologically coupled black holes" (k = 3) to the implications. [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.08309]
  • arXiv search "Whittaker potentials" (newest first) returns only Titleman and Berthel et al. 2015 (Phys. Rev. E 92, 033202, arXiv 1611.10102), a mainstream plasmonics paper that uses "a rigorous modal formalism based on scalar Whittaker potentials". This is the 1904 two-potential method in ordinary optics, with no gravity or aether. [web]
  • arXiv search Whittaker 1903 scalar potentials longitudinal: only Titleman. [web]
  • Google shows a related Titleman item, "Gravitation Due to Scalar Potentials and Black Holes" (ResearchGate, July 2026). Not opened.

Bearing

Titleman is the main living author developing claim 4 as physics. The Q07 "standing wave" wording matches Titleman's and Barrett's, not Whittaker's own. The reviewers should keep the two apart: Whittaker's steady superposition of outgoing waves (1902/1903), and the "standing wave" reading added in the 1990s.