Franklin Hu

Recently I saw an interesting fellow mentioned on a video discussing the possibility of gravity being electrostatic in nature. He has some very interesting material reminds me that perhaps things are simpler than we're trying to make them and throws my mind back to thoughts of The Smokey God and UFO sightings that date back to Pliny The Elder in Roman times or pre World War II in the sense of the concept of gravity control has been around for a long, long time and likely is simpler than we want to normally theorize in the sophistication of "modern" society.

Here's his material:

I found his peculiar, but fascinating, "Cubic Atomic Model" particularly engaging:

And the rest of his video menagerie: Video list oldest to most recent

1 Like

@Soretna, thanks for sharing this "cubic atomic model" . What appealed to me most about this video , is that it is such a simple and lucid explanation for chemical properties of elements - brilliantly done !! Even University text books on chemistry , running into hundreds of pages fail to adequately explain these concepts :))

For the first time , I have truly (actually) understood why Neon is an "inert" or non-reactive gas , for the first time I understood the bipolarity of Oxygen , now I know why Carbon can form long chains of carbon compounds - why the no. 4 is significant for Carbon in a crystalline form , why it can form 4 attachments with other atoms to form complex organic compounds - the very building blocks of life !



I agree - this presents a very lucid model; quite a fresh perspective. I always love to find new perspectives such as this in a world with so much in the way of stale information via the SM ("Standard Model").

I also found some recent chatter here interesting: - but perhaps left feeling it is a little stifled.

I'm brought back to Joseph Cater's suggestions regarding the criticality of a model needing to be comprehensible and ultimately "visually" (ie, imaginably) compelling before being mathematically compelling. In the above mailing list they're working on fixing Maxwell's possible mistakes, but we need to recall that Maxwell was a rare person that had a mathematical mind which facilitated mathematics for visualization - MOST HUMANS DON'T DO THIS. I feel this is why work like Franklin Hu's are of a critical nature.

1 Like

Thanks for sharing my model and observing how this make understanding chemistry very intuitive. This is more like the tinker-toy like organic chemistry ball and stick models you may have played with, but it motivates in a mechanical way why atoms stick together. While interesting, the real question is how to get some real traction on this idea to see if it is really true. I have had this hypothesis posted since 2003 and this is one of the first positive reviews I have ever seen.


@franklinhu I'm SO sorry to hear of your experience. One of the biggest problems (curses) generally of society today is a nature of closed mindedness. I don't mean this towards certain ideas of morality, etc. but rather a closed mindedness towards wholesome questioning of things that have been foisted upon us all as fact and law via some concerted mainstream effort (when researched seriously we can readily find out these sources, ping @Ephraimite) when in reality even the most supposedly well defined and "proven" theories are simply only theories that are unable to hold out in the face of countless anomalies. Those dedicated to the pursuit of truth such as the late William Corliss are labeled as provocateurs of some falsified truth. Propositions, models, theories, etc. are always supposed to match the data - not the other way around.

Your simple questions and propositions are so extremely salutary for society and yet here we are - a seeker of truth with solid reasoning is beaten down (some of the comments I've seen here and there about your videos are uncalled for) instead of encouraged and praised for, at the very least, unique and out of the box thinking.

This was called invention and discovery over 130 years ago during an era when such things were still generally welcome. Some of us have eyes to see - or at least want to.

1 Like

@franklinhu , @Soretna , I think this "cubic atomic model" is important for another reason - all of us who come from a science and engineering background were taught chemistry in a very complicated way , whereas this approach makes the concepts a lot clearer :))

This approach makes it so much easier to understand how one element differs from another , in atomic structure - which leads to the variation in their properties and reactiveness with other elements .

Also , this approach uses the simple to understand "building block" concept that ALL atomic nuclei are essentially made up of the exact same stuff i.e. protons and neutrons . From the smallest atomic nuclei i.e. Hydrogen and "fusion" of the same with other Hydrogen nuclei , how larger atoms form i.e. Helium , Boron , Carbon , Oxygen , etc. is so easy to understand . It's like "stepping up a ladder" to the heavier elements .This is exactly what happens inside stars , that are like factories for manufacturing heavier elements from fusion of Hydrogen atoms , Helium atoms and so on...

Taking this approach to it's logical conclusion , I believe the ENTIRE Periodic table of elements can be explained - I mean the atomic structure of all elements , starting from the smallest atom , Hydrogen , to the biggest ones , eg. Uranium . Once the atomic structure of elements has been understood , then the properties of individual elements can be DERIVED from their atomic structure itself . So , one can almost predict how a particular element will react/interact with other elements !

**I have not yet seen any other approach in chemistry or physics , by which you can logically derive the atomic behaviour pattern from individual atoms of the elements in the Periodic Table . That's what is most exciting about this "cubic atomic model" . No wonder it has something meaningful to say even about the "electrostatic" origins of gravity !


@sidharthabahadur I agree and perhaps the previous simplest derivational approach of the periodic table I've seen before seeing @franklinhu's work was from Tetryonics (see: & where Kelvin Abraham performs this derivation with equilateral triangular energy fields being the etheric quanta (at Planck size) with tetrahedrons compositions of these fields being the simplest form of "physical" matter.

1 Like

Soretna , I really liked the motto for Tetryonic theory - "While mathematics is the language of the Universe , Geometry is it's Grammar"...what a sublime thought & expression !

Even the ancients used to approach these types of deep questions about nature , from the perspective of Sacred Geometry and they were mostly on the right track :))


1 Like

Hello and welcome @franklinhu
After watching your videos i wonder if you can do the same with cells or chemistry bonding or quantum?

Can i ask to if you have a printed output imagewise or not of your hypothesis. I would like to read it over and sync it with my theories. I would update you on the findings... I think the method makes sense...

The use of cube is a telling sign of discreet coding... .

Many thanks

I keep all of my papers on my personal website:

Specifically, a link to a paper on my atomic model that you can print out is:

All of these papers explain diverse subjects such as gravity, magnetism and charge and unites them as being caused by only collections of positrons and electrons.

I would think that the Cubic atomic model could be used in chemistry and biology to give us a better understanding on how chemical bonding occurs. Currently, we can only use 'rule of thumb' methodologies for determining how atoms can bind. My model may allow you to precisely calculate the bonding due to the direct electrostatic forces created by the specific geometry of the atom.

Thanks for your collaborative support and I look forward to see how it syncs with your own work.


Many thanks @franklinhu

I am sure the cubic model will agree with my theory that quantum nature is digital and can be programmed and encoded.

I look forward to research you have provided..


1 Like

@franklinhu have you had any more presentations or interesting interactions recently that are up on YouTube or elsewhere?

@franklinhu , also please do share your views about the validity of Einstein's theories of relativity , if possible .


I host a weekly 2 hour Saturday morning 7AM PST, 10AM EST science chat for the John Chappell Natural Philosophy organization.

See all the videos at:

During last week's discussion, we talked about experiments that show weight loss due to temperature or spinning.

To view the live discussion, just goto the link at 7AM on Saturday:

If you would like to participate in the discussion, use the URL:

All are welcomed to join and any topic is welcome. We only have a fairly small group right now.


1 Like

The paper I have:

This directly addresses the possibility that the world has a digital basis and things like how the charge field work requires it since it is like a digital square wave where the only difference between positive and negative is the phase. That relies very heavily upon the concept that there can only be 2 binary phases and a universal clock that forces everything to be in sync.

You might also look at the work of James Keene

He has a very specific model and has built a simulator to show particle interactions at a binary level.



I have a somewhat strange view on Einstein in that I think he is absolutely correct, but you have to read what he actually says instead of making up your own completely opposite concept of relativity. The biggest example of this is how Einstein's postulates are interpreted to mean that "the speed of light is constant an all reference frames."

That is how you commonly see it expressed and this leads to all kind things like the twin's paradox, However, Einstein's paper says no such thing. He clearly refers to a "stationary" frame 52 times in his original paper. Everything is relative to that stationary frame which is a special frame. The postulate really says that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the sender and receiver. This is identical to how the speed of sound is independent of the sender and receiver when observed from the "stationary" frame.and it is no mystery.

I personally believe that there exists an aether material made up of ordinary matter which absolutely defines this preferred stationary frame and all velocity calculations can be correctly done against this with no contradiction. This speed of light is constant in this special frame. This appears to be the situation that Einstein sets up in his paper and not this crazy world where every reference frame is the same as every other.

So, Einstein is correct, if you actually read what he writes. But everyone completely misinterprets what he says and all of that stuff is wrong. Whenever someone says Einstein is wrong, they have just setup an imaginary strawman and knocking him down. I would think Einstein would be rolling over in his grave over how wrongly his papers have been interpreted.

What makes this so strange is that I am the only one who seems to be able to clearly read Einstein's paper to come to this conclusion. Einstein is right, but everyone's common interpretation is wrong. So either the entire world is wrong, or I am wrong. What is it?

When you read the 1905 paper, can you really agree that the speed of light travels the same speed in all reference frames? If so, how you do you justify it?


@franklinhu , thanks a lot for your detailed comments !

I tend to agree with you , to the extent that the "Einstein worshippers" have built an unholy cult around their own interpretation of Einstein's papers . Einstein himself was a brilliant theoretician (though not an experimentalist like Tesla) and quite honest in his approach .

It is also true , that when Einstein wrote down his equations for the theory of relativity and derived his world famous E = MC^2 , he was 100% correct , mathematically speaking .

If I and some others in our group believe Einstein's theory will one day be disproved , it is not because his equations are wrong .

**Einstein developed his theory 100 years ago , when we didn't have the powerful telescopes that are available today , to verify facts about our universe . That was his major handicap .

So , like any other scientist , he had to make some baseline assumptions , to build his theoretical framework . That is where the chink in his armour lies . If Einstein were alive today , he would certainly have corrected the flaws in his theoretical framework , basis of the astronomical data we have today .

Broadly speaking , the 4 baseline assumptions for Einstein's theory are :-

  1. There is no ether , as "proven" by the flawed Michelson Morley experiment - rebutted many times

  2. Universal Gravitational Constant "G" is a constant throughout the Universe , at all times - basis of the highly faulty Cavendish experiment . Rupert Sheldrake has punched holes into the concept of a Universal constant "G"

  3. Laws of thermodynamics , especially the second law - of entropy , that chaos and disorder keep increasing in the universe - several violations have been proven , not just in the formation of stars and planets , but in the existence of all living organisms .

  4. Speed of light is a constant and is the cosmic "speed limit" in our Universe - this statement has been disproved , basis of numerous observations , regardless of the frame of reference . Mainstream science has made immense efforts to suppress and manipulate this fact , but they won't be able to keep the lid on it forever .

So , because all 4 of the baseline assumptions of Einstein's theory are flawed , I believe his theory is flawed , it's at best an incomplete understanding of the Universe .

The Plasma/Electric Universe theory is much more robust in explaining our Universe , without even resorting to extremes such as Black Holes , dark matter and dark energy - the way Einstein's framework describes them .

Anyhow , this is my 2 cents on the subject of Einstein , though I fully respect the opinion of those who support his theory .


Hmm, well @franklinhu I have some exceptions to take here and the first and foremost issue is the attack on Michelson-Morley and the much more robust experimentation of Dayton Miller. There unequivocally was never a null result... The misrepresentation of these results and the later much more clear ones obliterated all confidence on anyone who used these in an anti-ether approach.

See this excellent research: Important Book: The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science

We'll just start the conversation from there vs going down this rabbit hole too far.

@Soretna , I also wish to add - Einstein assumed scalar forces to be zero , because he ignored Maxwell's original equations and preferred to believe Oliver Heaviside's interpretation of Maxwell's work instead .

Unfortunately , not just Einstein , but the whole academic world , ignored Maxwell's original equations and adopted Oliver Heaviside's "simplified & convenient" summary of the same , as follows :-

"From 20 equations in 20 variables, down to four vector equations in two variables. Those four equations , as every physicist now learns, describe the nature of static and moving electric charges and magnetic dipoles, as well as electromagnetic induction."

**The implications and consequences of oversimplification can never be underestimated :))


As I mentioned, I don't want to add too much to the conversation yet after my Michelson-Morley/Moreley-Miller/Miller-only (amazing and meticulous) research remark, but I will say one more thing: I also fear that even if Einstein has been taken out of context and used and manipulated improperly for untoward means it is still possible that the axe must proverbially be taken to this root in order to reset the insanity factor of the Standard Model...