-
I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories.
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photinos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.
So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc?
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
Einstein reckoned that the speed of light in vacuum was slowed by the gravitational field near mass. But he reckoned that light had to accord with his principle that the speed of light appeared constant. So he invented spacetime. The time in spacetime is the slowing of ticking near mass. The space in spacetime is the shrinking of distance in the radial direction near mass. Spacetime doesnt affect the speed of light, it is the gravitational field that reduces c to say c' measured tangentially to the mass, & further reduces c' to say c" measured radially to the mass, each-both reductions needing an application of gamma.
But the time in spacetime affects an observer's measurement of the speed of light because Einstein says that time is reduced by gamma, where the V in gamma is the speed of the observer if the observer fell to that location from infinity (ie V is the escape velocity of the observer). And the space in spacetime shrinks the observer's metre-rod by gamma. Einstein reckons that the four gammas offset exactly resulting in an observer being tricked into seeing a constant c (in vacuum), even tho the real c in vacuum varies (due to the nearness of mass).
Thats my summary of what i have read re Einstein's reckoning. He needed spacetime in his general theory to explain the apparent constant speed of light in vacuum in his special theory.
Re the bending of light passing mass, Einstein (or was it someone else) said that light did not bend, light always goes straight – he said it was spacetime that bent (due to the nearness of mass), tricking observers into seeing a bending. I don’t know whether all Einsteinians agree.
I suspect that Einsteinians don’t agree on much of this, & u can expect to read various versions of their silly spacetime theories.
However i think that we can accept that light does indeed slow near mass (eg Shapiro Delay). The slowing is due to photaeno drag (which i explained in another thread).
Re light bending near mass i dont accept that light goes straight & that spacetime bends & that we are tricked into thinking that light bends -- i reckon that spacetime does not exist, it is light that bends -- the bending having two causes, (1) an aetheric cause involving the flow of aether into mass, plus (2) a contribution due to photaeno drag.
The non-constant value of c kmps in vacuum is largely ignored. I think that there is a danger that the modern definitions of metre & kilogram & second etc are flawed -- but praps the trickery of gamma exactly overcomes the real variations & our modern definitions are ok.
Actually, it aint just gamma, photaeno drag is not directly involved in gamma, hencely variations in photaeno drag (tween one location & another) must affect m-kg-sec, hencely we have a problem (our standard standards aint standard).
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........
I havent yet read all of the comments but i mostly agree & here is the way i think about fields & matter & gravity.
Electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at c outwards from the helix, & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).
EMC fields are not made of photons, they are made of parts of photons (the photaeno parts).
Gravitational fields are due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass to replace the aether annihilated in all mass. Gravitational fields are therefore due to the macro bulk flow of aether, whereas all other fields (EMC fields) are due to the micro vibration of aether or due to a vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation). The aether inflow into say Earth might have the same speed as Earth's escape velocity, ie 11.2 kmps. However gravity has a speed of at least 20 billion c (VanFlandern), ie changes in gravity (gravitational pulses) propagate at at least 20 billion c.
The free photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which gives us our elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). All matter (confined photons) has mass, & all free photons have mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no Higgs etc.
A neutrino is not a particle, Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino must produce a pair of photons
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
...............Logical Deduction
If one presumes that light can only traverse a certain amount of space -time substrate in a certain amount of time , then logically , gravitational compression of S.T. would result in longer traverse times for a given distance . The alternative concept is that of ST as a virtual river . This would explain light being unable to overcome a "river" moving "faster" than it can . Alright , time will tell ! P.M.
I think that SR~GR says that light always travels at the same speed in its own frame (ie c kmps) but that in a gravity field the light's frame suffers time dilation which makes that light appear to be slower to observers who are located in a weaker gravity field, plus the light's frame suffers length contraction in a radial direction (two radial directions)(in & out) which to the outside observer further slows the light in thems two radial directions -- hencely the slowing is apparent & relative (at least thats what i think Einsteinians think).
In my aetheric universe the speed of light c is variable, c is only ever fully achieved at a location well away from any mass or other photons or other radiation (ie c is never fully achieved). This is because photons are slowed by photaeno-drag, the photaenos emanating from the main central helical body of a photon are slowed when they fight with other photaenos, all fighting for the use of the aether (a photaeno being a vibration or spin or something of the aether)(& aether does not have an infinite capability in that regard). The slowing or drag of the photaeno feeds back to the main body thusly slowing the main body too.
Or if u like u can simply say that the longitudinal progress of the main helical body is likewize slowed for the same reasons as the outwards progress of the photaenos are slowed (no photaeno feedback needed)(simpler really). I suppose that we can give this drag its own name, eg photon drag.
Photaeno drag might be equal to photon drag, or not (i havent thort this throo).
Photaeno drag affects the speed of radiation (eg em fields)(em fields might travel at c)(or i should say at c', ie less than c).
Photon drag affects the speed of light c, c is usually reduced to say c' (which might not be equal to the c' mentioned for the speed of an em field).
The reduced speed c' probly doesnt depend on direction (but praps it does).
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
The luminiferous ether ( to give it the full name) is not that ancient an idea.
It wasn't "needed" until someone proposed the wave nature of light.
I go along with that. Unfortunately we do not have a good model for a photon. But i reckon that a photon is a peculiar kind of particle (having mass), having a main helical body propagating at c, with a photaeno portion (having mass) emanating outwards at c from the helix. The photaeno fields give a wavy effect -- however the photon is not a wave -- hencely paradoxically there is no need for aether.
Anyhow aether is gravitational & luminiferous & chargeous & electric & magnetic all at once at the same time (or can be).
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
Wind waves are generated by the force of the wind.
Tidal waves are generated by "tidal forces."
What force forms the Rossby, Kelvin, and Soliton waves?
I am glad u asked. It made me look at wiki for these, & it appears that all waves are due to a force called mathematics (just jesting).
I reckon that if a wave involves something with mass then the force involves inertia (the truth is that there is no such thing as mass, mass is due to inertia).
Mass can be said to be due to the acceleration of the inflow of aether into mass where the aether is annihilated. Conversely inertia can be said to be due to the acceleration of mass the acceleration being resisted by aether (aether doesnt resist uniform velocity but resists a change of velocity).
Strictly speaking aether having no mass is subquantum & thusly aether cannot provide a resistance force but merely transmits force to-from nearby quantum objects which do have mass, the transmission being a reverberation of pulses with a speed of at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern).
If the waves involve photons or electromagnetics (photaenos) then the waves might or might not involve forces & inertia (this might depend on how u define mass & inertia in a 300,000 kmps environment). Photons & photinos are a micro process of the aether involving micro vibration or micro spin or something, progressing at c.
But progressing at less than c due to photaeno-drag if near mass or if near other photons or if near other em fields. Gravitational fields do not affect c because they do not affect photaeno-drag -- however the nearness of mass does affect photaeno-drag (strictly speaking) -- photaeno-drag being due to photaeno congestion, the photaenos fight for the micro-use of the available aetherons (gravity being a macro-use of aetherons)(ie a bulk flow rather than a vibration etc).
Photons & photaenos have mass & are thusly quantum, ie everything we see & feel has mass, however i dont know whether one can talk of inertia being involved in waves involving processes moving at c (praps sometimes yes).
So, the forces involved in all waves are due to inertia, either macro-inertia involving objects, or micro-inertia involving light (photons), or another kind of micro-inertia involving em radiation (photaenos).
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
The Space/Time fabric, Gravity, was the first fundamental force, it is distinct from EM light and its products, the strong and weak nuclear forces. As gravity was the first force, it's influence and boundaries exist beyond those of EM Light., meaning S/T extends beyond the furthest reaches of EM light. Gravity's force/energy level is thought be less than 10^-39th. EM Light's energy level is the speed of light. Instantaneous action exist when Gravity at it's lowest level
10^-39th and does not interact with EM LIght to create kinetic energy. Light has a spin of 1, Gravity has a spin of 2, when interacting with Light, Gravity is forced to spin twice to intertwine with Light's single spin. This intertwining create a forward kinetic energy. This forward kinetic energy is the speed of Light. Light cannot be measured without a Gravity component, any attempt to do so is restricted by the uncertainty principle. Due to Gravity, either position or velocity can be approximated but not both, the speed of light will always be bound by Gravity, making it true velocity unknownable. S/T on the other hand is is not bound by LIght. Without Light, S/T exist as a very low negative energy field. This field does fluctuate at a tremendous rate, that is capable of popping in and out of existence/time.
A possible "20 billion c" rate, maybe, can be thought of as being so fluid as to make instantaneous action possible at distance.
So S/T that exist beyond the furthest reaches of LIght, and having it's fluctuations not slowed by an intertwining with Light, can have instantaneous actions across the Universe. The path of these instantaneous actions, however, do not cut across the Light populated Universe but circumvent Universe at it's edges where Light as yet to populate Gravity. lol
I suppose there are areas in Universe that are conducive to instantaneous actions but these are the exceptions and must be deviod of Light. lol
The speed of light must i think be associated with a photon's mass -- somehow the propagation speed of a photon's main helical body & the propagation speed of the photaenos emanating from the helix must be associated with the mass of the helix & the mass of the photaeno(s) -- & mass gives gravity -- & saying that the speed of light will always be bound by gravity might be ok'ish.
In addition we know that light is slowed near mass (Shapiro Delay), so here is another affect of gravity (mass). I have explained that this slowing is due to photaeno-drag (due to photaeno congestion)(poor old aetherons find it hard to multi-task).
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).
Then please try to do the required prerequisite research before making the empty claim that thousands physicists and chemists with access to multi-million dollar experimental equipment have gotten the structure of the atom wrong for many decades.
The standard model of the atom is rubbish. Most of thems particles & virtual particles are rubbish. Even electrons & protons & neutrons are suspect. There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims. U must know better than i re the modern shortfalls & holes in quantum stuff -- the models work ok up to a point -- needing virtual particles to fill the holes.
It is well known that one neutrino is always associated with two photons.
It is well know that atomic reactions love to emit alpha particles.
The biggest hole in standard physics that i see is the lack of good ideas re charge fields electro fields & magneto fields. I fix that -- my photaeno idea is the only good idea out there.
Followed by the lack of good ideas re mass & gravity & inertia (gravity field stuff). Cahill & Ranzan fix that.
These 4 fields must impinge on the standard atom model (2 fields actually, electro & magneto fields are secondary effects that follow from the primary field the charge field). I doubt that the strong force field & the weak force field exist (unless being a special case of the 4). But i dont think i have time to follow up on that sort of stuff.
But it all impinges on this thread re neutrinos forming blackholes (its a great question). My answer is that free-neutrinos cannot form a blackhole (but they contribute to dark mass i think) -- but confined neutrinos are the number one main paramount cause of dark matter.
The difference tween dark mass & dark matter is subtle.
Free photons have mass & free neutrinos have dark mass (Ranzan calls this sort of mass mass-equivalence).
I reckon that in a way that mass (moving freely at c) is a different kind of mass compared to the mass of confined photons (matter)(elementary particles)(electrons quarks etc) & confined neutrinos (dark matter)(if they exist).
Free mass (moving at c) & confined mass (stationary) create gravity in a slightly different way (i can explain).
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
Hopefully we can come to an agreement. There is a matter of semantics I wish to first address. It is not true that the photon has no charge. In fact the photon is completely and entirely filled with charge. Just because the sum total quantity is equal to zero does not mean that the photon has no charge which to me implies the absence of charge. The number zero in this case means a balance. We should agree that it just means that the photon is neutral and it does possess charge.
With this in mind your second example using the implication of no charge and neutrality are both negated. The photon is a moving charge that has an associated a magnetic field. The fact that it is neutral does not mean that it has no charge.
In both your examples you mention that the particles are neutral. Therefore, I think that you maybe trying to imply that since the neutron is neutrally charged that it has no charge. I disagree as the neutron is not really a fundamental particle but is in fact composed of 3 quarks. It has 1 up and 2 down quarks. The neutron once again is filled with a balanced amount of charge. Those quarks according to my calculations are moving at about 99% the speed of light. In this case we once again have a moving charge with its associated magnetic field.
You can go through the entire standard model and there is no example that will work as all particles have charge and all particles are moving. In no case that I am aware of does a magnetic field ever manifest itself without and associated moving charge.
Physics now has a bit of a conundrum it has a asymmetry that has not been addressed or explained. Static electrostatic fields exist. They are constant fields, which do not change in intensity or direction over time. Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.
This topic & this posting are extraordinary. I havent digested all of the comments but they appear to be excellent. Well done to all. I have been googling-reading science for 5 years, but i have been shy of electromagnetic stuff.
I agree that the electro-field & magnetic-field are secondary, & that the charge-field is primary.
The design of a photon is one of physic's key questions.
I agree that a photon has charge, lots of it, but zero nett charge at a distance (if measured over time).
Williamson explains how a confined-photon (eg electron quark etc) shows its positive charge side, or its negative charge side (so too Ranzan). Allow me to paste here some wordage from one of my postings here the other day..........
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle? « Reply #276 on: Today at 01:16:39 » Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22 ..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........
mad aetherist's comment. I havent yet read all of the comments but i mostly agree & here is the way i think about fields & matter & gravity.
Electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at c outwards from the helix, & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).
EMC fields are not made of photons, they are made of parts of photons (the photaeno parts).
Gravitational fields are due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass to replace the aether annihilated in all mass. Gravitational fields are therefore due to the macro bulk flow of aether, whereas all other fields (EMC fields) are due to the micro vibration of aether or due to a vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation). The aether inflow into say Earth might have the same speed as Earth's escape velocity, ie 11.2 kmps. However gravity has a speed of at least 20 billion c (VanFlandern), ie changes in gravity (gravitational pulses) propagate at at least 20 billion c.
The free photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which gives us our elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). All matter (confined photons) has mass, & all free photons have mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no Higgs etc.
A neutrino is not a particle, Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino must produce a pair of photons.
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE THAT I WROTE ON ANOTHER THREAD]
Just an update;...
Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....
There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.
As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......
I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....
I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.
The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This version now has 99 downloads.
Thanks again for being patient.
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
Or the external effects are due to gravity (if gravity travels at much more than c), eg some sort of tidal effect (ie not magnetic).
-
Here are Gasser's conclusions from his paper. http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.html
Conclusion
Propagation speed of a rapidly collapsing electrostatic dipole-field (spark gap between two spherical capacitors) has been measured in longitudinal direction. Almost exclusively superluminal propagation velocities v > c have been found. It may seem astonishing that this experimental result comes only in 2016. Here the main reasons:
o In case of propagation-speed experiments of fields stemming from constant oscillations, superluminal effects in the near-field have been dismissed by hinting at unexplained reflections.
o Evidence of superluminal effects has been discredited under the pretext that no information could be transmitted.
o The Coulomb force decreases according to r^-2. Yet as charge cannot be created or destroyed, we only can increase or decrease dipole fields via charge transfer at v < c. The field of an isolated dipole decreases according r^-3. "Image" charges further reduce the field of a dipole to r^-5 (in longitudinal direction).
o Straight time-measurements in the nanosecond range have become accessible only in the last twenty years.
Experimental evidence of infinite propagation speed preceded the creation of electromagnetic transversal radiation propagating at c (see). Thus, on both the theoretical and the experimental side, we simply go back to the extremely simple, effective and elegant principle of unmediated, instantaneous actions-at-a-distance of classical physics.
As the experiment is simple, transparent and easily repeatable under much better conditions, it becomes difficult to invent ad-hoc-hypotheses in order to dismiss its results.
It is obvious that this experimental result strongly impacts on the very foundations of modern physics.
-
http://www.pandualism.com/d/instantaneous.html
http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.html
Frank Wappler, thank you very much for the translated quotes.
These quotes show that HEINRICH HERTZ has indeed found in his experiments that ELECTROSTATIC effects propagate INSTANTANEOUSLY and NOT at c as generally assumed.
Interference effects between waves in a wire originating from the center of a brass disc and the electrostatic effects of the disc can be measured. If oscillations of 35.7 Megahertz are used by H. Hertz, and the speed of the wire waves is 200 000 km/s, we get a wire wave-length of 5.6 meters. If electrostatic effects propagate instantaneously, after 5.6 m, 11.2 m, 16.8 m, ... the wire must be in phase with the electrostatic effect of the disc.
Frank Wappler:
I'll reproduce the translation [of Heinrich Hertz, Gesammelte Werke, Band 2, Leibzig, 1894] by D. E. Jones from "Electric Waves being Researches on the Propagation of Electric Action with Finite Velocity through Space", Dover, 1962:
Introduction:
p. 8: "Nor was there any greater difficulty in producing interference between the action which had travelled along the wire and that which had travelled through the air, and thus in comparing their phases. Now if both actions were propagated, as I expected, with one and the same finite velocity, they must at all distances interfere with the same phase. ... But when I had carefully set up the apparatus and carried out the experiment, I found that the phase of the interference was obviously different at different distances, and that the alternation was such as would correspond to an infinite rate of propagation in air. Disheartened, I gave up experimenting."
On the finite velocity of propagation of electromagnetic actions:
p. 110: "The total force may be split up into the electrostatic part and the electromagnetic part; there is no doubt that at shorter distances the former, at greater distances the latter, preponderates and settles the direction of the total force."
p. 118: "In the second place, we notice that the retardation of phase proceeds more rapidly in the neighborhood of the origin than at a distance from it. All the rows agree in showing this. An alteration of the speed of propagation is not probable. We can with much better reason attribute this phenomenon to the fact that we are making use of the total force [...] which can be split up into the electrostatic force and the electromagnetic. Now, according to theory, it is probable that the former, which preponderates in the neighborhood of the primary oscillation, is propagated more rapidly than the latter, which is almost the only factor of importance at a distance."
p. 120: "The interference does not change sign every 2.8 m. Therefore the electromagnetic interactions are not propagated with infinite velocity."
p. 121: "Since the interferences undoubtedly change sign after 2.8 m in the neighborhood of the primary oscillation, we might conclude that the electrostatic force which here predominates is propagated with infinite velocity."
I have a few questions on those procedures and results:
Based on which requirements/ measurements did Hertz decide whether or not "the apparatus was set up carefully"?
Apart from the constancy of the primary oscillation and the possibility to compare at different distances the phase of the wire wave with the phase of the action propagating through the air, there is nothing which must be set up carefully.
How did he determine pairwise distance relations such as "2.8 m" or "neighborhood" (if not by employing Einstein's procedures, based on the exchange of light signals)?
A simple tape measure is enough to determine at which distances from the emitter the interference changes sign.
In any case, it would make sense to repeat this crucial experiment.
-
I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
The speed water waves travel isn't dependent on whether they are caused by a duck or a swan.
In the same way, the speed of electromagnetic radiation through space is defined by (and can be calculated from) the properties of a vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
-
I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
The speed water waves travel isn't dependent on whether they are caused by a duck or a swan. In the same way, the speed of electromagnetic radiation through space is defined by (and can be calculated from) the properties of a vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
I find it difficult to understand much of this stuff. Hertz it seems showed that magnetic fields travel at c but that electrostatic fields travel at infinite speed. I might read Hertz's book. https://ia601300.us.archive.org/19/items/b2172457x/b2172457x.pdf
I think that one problem holding back comprehension & progress is the lack of understanding that there is a lack of understanding re the nature of radiation & fields.
A photon is not a field, it is a quasi-particle -- & i suppose can create a radiation field of sorts, but this is a particle field (like rain).
Electromagnetic radiation is thort of as being made up of photons -- no it aint -- it is made of photaenos which emanate from the main helical body of a photon.
I think that charge gives us the primary radiation field (made of photaenos), & this travels at praps c or praps much faster than c (eg up to 5c according to tests).
Electric & magnetic radiation fields might be due to a changing charge field (eg a moving charge), & they can travel at less than c, or at c (& probably not at more than c).
All speeds are primarily relative to a static aether. If the aether is not static (it never is static) then the apparent or measured speed will depend on the aetherwind (V) blowing throo the lab (eg it will be c+V or c-V)(the background aetherwind blowing throo Earth is blowing at 500 kmps south to north at approx 20 deg off the spin-axis).
At a BH the aether is flowing in to replace aether being annihilated in mass, & aetherists say that the inflow can approach c. In fact there is no known reason why the aether inflow should not exceed c (the max possible speed of light in vacuum).
The speed of light is reduced near mass (due to photaeno drag), hencely the speed of light c becomes c' (but this does not diminish the aether inflow which might be as much as c)(or much more than c).
If the BH has an atmosphere of plasma then the speed of light c' in the plasma will be further reduced & to c" (& this might also for different reasons diminish the speed of the aether inflow).
It is not known whether ..............
(1) charge radiation & electric radiation & magnetic radiation & em radiation (photaenos) travel at c or more than c,
(2) photaenos are slowed near mass in the same way as photons,
(3) photaenos are slowed in mass (eg plasma)(atmosphere) in the same way as photons.
Catt knows that the em Heaviside Wave travels along a circuit in vacuum at a speed which depends on Zo in vacuum, which is 377 ohms. And slower where Z depends on the medium surrounding the wires, eg air or plastic or water. But i suspect that the frontal portion of a HW is not square, i reckon that it has an angle depending on the speed of the transverse field (which might have a speed of up to 5c).