[mad aetherist (OP)]

Today i realized that V V/c c  in the FitzGerald Lorentz equation for gamma for calculating length contraction & ticking dilation might be wrong.  I have for a while realized that the electrostatic & electrodynamic attraction & repulsion in atoms & tween atoms & tween molecules is due to the action of photaenos not photons.
 
Photons travel at c kmps in empty space or at a reduced value c' kmps in space that has photaenos in it.  All of space has photaenos, hencely c (the maximum possible speed of propagation of a photon  throo the aether) is never realized anywhere. 

In that there  V V/c c  it might well be that (1) c is the limiting value for the speed of a particle throo the aether, & (2)  V might never reach  c, &  (3)  V/c might  never reach  1.  But i think that (1)(2)(3) are suspect.  I might come back to that later.

But as i said this whole LC stuff & gamma stuff, being based on the action of photons, must now be seen as very suspect.  It is due to the action of photaenos.

Now, whether the c in V/c  is the speed of propagation of a photon or the speed of propagation of a photaeno might make no difference to gamma & LC if those two speeds have the same value.  But they dont have the same value.  A photon is limited to c or c', & a photaeno is limited to say 5c or praps 5c' (as shown by Gasser). 

Photaenos make em radiation, photaenos are em radiation, & em radiation is photaenos.  Photaenos are emitted by the central helical body of a photon, photaenos are a part of every photon.

Electrons & quarks etc are confined photons, & confined photons emit photaenos in a similar way to free photons.  Except that half of the photaenos from a confined photon are emitted inwards where they annihilate, leaving just the positive halves of the photaeno (or just the negative halves) being emitted, which results in what we call charge (Williamson).  The positive halves & negative halves emitted by free photons cancel, giving zero nett charge (but not zero nett photaenos).  Anyhow, all interactions are em interactions & all em interactions are due to photaenos  (needs work).

So i am thinking  that gamma might need to be based on  V/5c times V/5c.    Or V/5c' times V/5c', based on photaenos (& photons) being slowed due to photaeno congestion (ie due to the presence of other photaenos). 

I suppose that the speed of a particle throo the aether is limited to 1c' not 5c'.

Anyhow this makes gamma & LC & TD more complicated.  Still thinking.

[Bored chemist]

Today i realized that V V/c c  in the FitzGerald Lorentz equation for gamma for calculating length contraction & ticking dilation might be wrong.  I have for a while realized that the electrostatic & electrodynamic attraction & repulsion in atoms & tween atoms & tween molecules is due to the action of photaenos not photons.
 
Photons travel at c kmps in empty space or at a reduced value c' kmps in space that has photaenos in it.  All of space has photaenos, hencely c (the maximum possible speed of propagation of a photon  throo the aether) is never realized anywhere. 

In that there  V V/c c  it might well be that (1) c is the limiting value for the speed of a particle throo the aether, & (2)  V might never reach  c, &  (3)  V/c might  never reach  1.  But i think that (1)(2)(3) are suspect.  I might come back to that later.

But as i said this whole LC stuff & gamma stuff, being based on the action of photons, must now be seen as very suspect.  It is due to the action of photaenos.

Now, whether the c in V/c  is the speed of propagation of a photon or the speed of propagation of a photaeno might make no difference to gamma & LC if those two speeds have the same value.  But they dont have the same value.  A photon is limited to c or c', & a photaeno is limited to say 5c or praps 5c' (as shown by Gasser). 

Photaenos make em radiation, photaenos are em radiation, & em radiation is photaenos.  Photaenos are emitted by the central helical body of a photon, photaenos are a part of every photon.

Electrons & quarks etc are confined photons, & confined photons emit photaenos in a similar way to free photons.  Except that half of the photaenos from a confined photon are emitted inwards where they annihilate, leaving just the positive halves of the photaeno (or just the negative halves) being emitted, which results in what we call charge (Williamson).  The positive halves & negative halves emitted by free photons cancel, giving zero nett charge (but not zero nett photaenos).  Anyhow, all interactions are em interactions & all em interactions are due to photaenos  (needs work).

So i am thinking  that gamma might need to be based on  V/5c times V/5c.    Or V/5c' times V/5c', based on photaenos (& photons) being slowed due to photaeno congestion (ie due to the presence of other photaenos). 

I suppose that the speed of a particle throo the aether is limited to 1c' not 5c'.

Anyhow this makes gamma & LC & TD more complicated.  Still thinking.

Why do you bother making up this nonsense?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Why do you bother making up this nonsense?

My photaeno theory is possibly the only theory out there. Einsteinians have no theory, just some mathland wave geometry. U & Co need to make up some nonsense better than mine. In the meantime i welcome any pointing out of shortcomings in my photaeno theory.

As i said i thort of the gamma implications only yesterday, alltho this involved nothing that i did not already know a month or two ago.

Likewise yesterday i realized that photaenos must escape from otherwise black blackholes (of some kinds)(there are say 8 kinds of blackholes). The stars or whatever are black if light cant escape, but em radiation (photaenos) can propagate at up to say 5c throo the aether & must be able to escape some blackholes (unless say super massive).

So, Xrays & gamma rays might not escape, but em radiation might (there are say 3 kinds).  But that there 5c is problematic, Gasser found that it was 5c in the nearfield (say up to 1 metre) but less at distance. He was measuring radiation from a charge discharge, whatever that radiation might be.   

Antenna experts might be able to help here.  Antennas emit em radiation.  How does em radiation radiate? How fast?

[yor_on]

If I remember right that is a very tricky question Mad. " how does EM radiation radiate."  But it was some time ago, I'll check it up https://www.quora.com/How-do-things-radiate-electromagnetic-radiation?share=1

I also seem to remember that you can discuss it in terms of near fields and far fields.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

If I remember right that is a very tricky question Mad. " how does EM radiation radiate."  But it was some time ago, I'll check it up https://www.quora.com/How-do-things-radiate-electromagnetic-radiation?share=1
I also seem to remember that you can discuss it in terms of near fields and far fields.

Yes i seem to remember that em from an antenna goes faster than c for a small distance (near field) & then later at c (in the far field).
I dont know why or how.  But it seems to support Gasser who measured 5c for the near field speed of an electric field.

[yor_on]

I'll get back to this one Mad, I just wish JP still was here. I think he was the one getting into how that worked.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I'll get back to this one Mad, I just wish JP still was here. I think he was the one getting into how that worked.

One of my distant relatives writes articles for wireless world or somemob & books re wireless & antenna. He spent ages in hospital recently when he was hit by a runaway trailer whilst he was cleaning a roadside.  He might be back in circulation now (but with brain damage).

[yor_on]

Found this Mad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
What you should do is to look into the talk side of it if you're interested in how people think about it.
JP had a very good explanation as I remember, but I can't find it.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Found this Mad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
What you should do is to look into the talk side of it if you're interested in how people think about it.
JP had a very good explanation as I remember, but I can't find it.

I have been reading that stuff but no-one seems to mention the speed of em radiation in the nearfield, ie the 5c stuff found by Gasser (& others).

And the wiki wordage still repeats that krapp re em radiation being made of photons. No, it is made by parts of photons, & i have called these parts photaenos. And photaenos travel at 5c (or 5c/n).  But i daresay that photaenos will not have the same n as the photon proper, they will probly have their own n, probly numerically different to the photon's n.
And photaenos will be slowed by the nearness of mass, but probly in a different way to the slowing near mass of photons proper.  Photons are slowed by photaeno drag, but i cant say that about photaenos, i can hardly say that photaenos are slowed by photaeno drag, that would be ridiculous.