Introduction to Sub-photons

[crawler]

Crawler states "There is no need to try to unify gravity & em."

If gravity and electromagnetism are caused by the same particles, it is extremely advantageous to unify the two phenomenon.

Crawler states "Your own efforts (re unification) are a waste of time."

My efforts are absolutely not a waste of time. Scientific theories have historically been many years behind experimental evidence. My theories can advance science many, many years ahead because they can help predict future experimental results. I have (pre) published some of my predictions already.

Gravity is caused by aether, & em is caused by aether.
Gravity is due to the inflow of aether into matter (mass)(particles)(photons). A large scale bulk effect. Gravity effects (pulses) radiate at a speed of at least 20 billion c.
EM is due to the vibration (disturbance) of aether. A small scale effect. EM effects (pulses)(waves) radiate at the speed of light (c).
So, in a sense, gravity & em are unified, in accordance with the above [U1].
Unification duznt need both gravity & em to be a kind of em [U2].
Unification duznt need both gravity & em to be a kind of gravity [U3].
Chasing [U2] or [U3] is a waste of time.

[galaxy12]

Crawler states "Crawler states "There is no need to try to unify gravity & em."

Crawler also states "Gravity is caused by aether, & em is caused by aether."

It sounds like you have unified gravity and electromagnetism. Congratulations! Please start a thread and post images, diagrams and explanations for everyone to see !!! I am eager to see details of your theory.

[crawler]

Crawler states "Crawler states "There is no need to try to unify gravity & em."
Crawler also states "Gravity is caused by aether, & em is caused by aether."
It sounds like you have unified gravity and electromagnetism. Congratulations! Please start a thread and post images, diagrams and explanations for everyone to see !!! I am eager to see details of your theory.

Prof Reg Cahill explains gravity (he has about 40 papers). Conrad Ranzan too.
I know of no explanation of charge or magnetism or radio (ie em radiations). Other than that em radiations (3 kinds) are some kinds of vibrations (disturbances) of the aether.
Wait, no, my own explanation of my photaenos is a good start. Do a search for photaenos. Photaenos are a say half of each photon. Photaenos radiate from the central helical half of each photon. The action(s) of photaenos give us charge magnetism & radio.
But i don’t have a detailed explanation of the kinds of actions. I might have a good think one day.

I mention unification [U1] earlier on this thread. This is a long-range unification. Gravity & em don’t have much in common with each other, only that they both arise from the actions of the aether. Real unification assumes that gravity is due to a subtle mysterious peculiar action of the em (NOPE, NO SUCH THING).

A search for photaeno has 17 hits on this board-3.
And has 34 hits on board-2.
And has 6 hits on google.
All 57 hits are my own wordages i think.

[galaxy12]

Crawler states "But i don’t have a detailed explanation of the kinds of actions. I might have a good think one day."

If you are interested, you might consider learning my theory and putting your efforts into improving it. My theory lays the foundations for gravity, electricity, electromagnetism and electromagnetic waves. I have simplified the theory as much as conceivably possible. I worked years on my theory and researchers might be better putting their efforts into improving my theory rather than "reinventing the wheel." Some scientific effort needs to be applied to describe how sub-photons that travel along their planes of rotation act as electromagnetic waves but change properties into electrons as they travel along their axis of rotation. The question remains as to whether electron behavior is present while electromagnetic waves are traveling along their plane of rotation. The velocity of sub-photon planetary particles needs to be determined experimentally. The interaction between protons, electrons and sub-photons needs to be described more clearly. The way that atoms incorporate sub-photon nuclei needs to be detailed, possibly with experimental evidence. There are many avenues of research that are still needed.

[galaxy12]

The hypothetical particle (sub-photon) in my model is responsible for causing electromagnetic waves, the electric/electrostatic force and the magnetic force.

The "sub-photon" is composed of the nucleus and rotating planetary particles.

We know that the electric/electrostatic force travels at the speed of light. In my model, the speed of light and the electric/electrostatic force is due to the velocity of the sub-photon nuclei.

The sub-photon planetary particles, on the other hand rotate around the sub-photon nuclei at extremely fast speeds and are responsible for the magnetic force. This is why my proposals about faster-than-light communications are based on finding ways to send and receive signals based on the magnetic force rather than light or electricity. Although there have been countless experiments measuring the velocities of light and electricity, I have never seen an experiment that measures the velocity of the magnetic force.

[galaxy12]

This is a proposed model of the atom:



The distance from the proton to the sub-photon nuclei is the atomic radius.
The sub-photon nuclei fill the "electron" shells of the atom.
The sub-photon nuclei travel at the speed of light/electricity and limit the velocities of light and electricity.

The distance from the proton to the sub-photon planetary particles can be very large and their paths form the basis for the magnetic field lines.
The velocity of the sub-photon planetary particles is many times greater than the speed of light.

[crawler]

So, your sub-photons are what u can call but dont call electrons.
Do u have a name for your sub-photons? I suggest "electrons".
Do u have a name for the nuclei of electrons?
Do u have a name for the planetary particles orbiting the nuclei of electrons?

Do u have photons in your theory?
If not then how can u have sub-photons in your theory?

[crawler]

Although there have been countless experiments measuring the velocities of light and electricity, I have never seen an experiment that measures the velocity of the magnetic force.

Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation
Superluminal information transfer confirmed by simple experiment
Wolfgang G. Gasser (May, 2016)

[galaxy12]

Crawler states: "So, your sub-photons are what u can call but dont call electrons."

"Electrons" in a conductor are composed of sub-photon nuclei within the conducting wire and sub-photon planetary particles outside the wire.



Crawler states "Do u have a name for your sub-photons? I suggest "electrons"."

When sub-photons travel parallel to their PLANE of rotation, they create electromagnetic waves.
When sub-photon nuclei travel along their AXIS of rotation, such as in a wire or other conductor, they create an electrostatic field and are therefore the same as electric current.
When sub-photon planetary particles rotate around their sub-photon nuclei, they create magnetic field lines.

Crawler states: "Do u have a name for the nuclei of electrons?"

I consider "electron" as simply a concept to describe the behavior and forces created by sub-photon nuclei and planetary particles as they travel parallel to their AXIS of rotation.

Crawler states: "Do u have photons in your theory?"

No. My model shows that the concept of a "photon" is unnecessary. The behavior of sub-photons creates an electromagnetic wave.

Crawler states : "If not then how can u have sub-photons in your theory"

Good question. Maybe I should have thought of another name. Photons do not exist in my model.

[galaxy12]

Crawler states "Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation
Superluminal information transfer confirmed by simple experiment"

The study states "A simple experiment has been performed in order to measure propagation speed of the electric field."

I was interested in finding the propagation velocity of the MAGNETIC field. The study states "ELECTRIC" field.
That is a very interesting study though since it found faster-than-light propagation.
In my model, for transmission to be faster-than-light, it would need to use the magnetic field. I might have to look into how the study was conducted.

[crawler]

Crawler states "Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation
Superluminal information transfer confirmed by simple experiment"

The study states "A simple experiment has been performed in order to measure propagation speed of the electric field."

I was interested in finding the propagation velocity of the MAGNETIC field. The study states "ELECTRIC" field.
That is a very interesting study though since it found faster-than-light propagation.
In my model, for transmission to be faster-than-light, it would need to use the magnetic field. I might have to look into how the study was conducted.

The way i look at Gasser is that his signal is due to charges (suddenly) mooving.

[crawler]

Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally
Propagating Electromagnetic Fields
William D. Walker
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH-Visby
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cram rgatan 3, S-621 57 Visby, Sweden
bill@visby.kth.se
1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields
propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source.
A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a

[crawler]

Instantaneous Actions at a Distance Defended

Wolfgang G. Gasser

Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments – 1999-02-23

Electrostatic effects are instantaneous actions at a distance. There is a very simple experiment which can refute the whole scientific world view. This view is based on the validity of the equations of Maxwell and on the premise that all electromagnetic effects propagate at the speed of light.

It is quite possible that this experiment has been executed without publishing the results. It is not even necessary to carry it out. One must only read carefully the works of Heinrich Hertz, who was the first to prove the existence of electromagnetic transversal radiation. Hertz was an honest person and did not keep quiet about all the results which were in contradiction with his own beliefs (as unfortunately most scientists do).

Hertz clearly found by means of interference effects that electrostatic effects propagate at infinite speed. But he was so convinced about the inexistence of actions at a distance that he did not believe in these effects (see below). Hertz also found in experiments, which he carried out several times very carefully, that the speed of electric waves in wires is around 200000 km/s (which is correct). This result was against the theory. So, when other researchers claimed to have confirmed that this speed was exactly the speed of light, Hertz explained his own results by unexplainable systematic errors!

It is generally admitted that the situation nearby an emitting dipole antenna does not agree with the normal explanation and the drawings of waves peeling off, which can be found in any textbook. So if we take seriously logic we must conclude that this explanation is in principle wrong.

[crawler]

Ionel Dinu has a few papers, here is one.

Radio Waves – Part II
Ionel DINU, M.Sc.
Physicist, Teacher of Physics
Member of Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA)
http://www.worldsci.org/people/Ionel_Dinu
e-mail: dynuionel@yahoo.com
(Dated: May 28, 2013; modified: June 12, 2013)
Abstract
In Part I of this series on Radio Waves, I have tried to show that Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic
waves is untenable because electric fields cannot exist in vacuum where there are no electric charges to
produce them and because experiments have yet to prove that electric fields can be produced in
vacuum by changing magnetic fields. My aim was to show that a new theory of radio waves is needed
since that based on Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves claiming that a radio wave travelling in
vacuum consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields mutually inducing one another is not
supported by experiments, being based on assumptions and mathematical manipulations. Comments
received from interested readers prompted me to offer further arguments against Maxwell’s theory and
this led to an extended version of the same paper titled “Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic
Theory: Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?”.
In this article I return to my original aim when I began this series on Radio Waves and I will try to
show what I think radio waves really are and how are they produced in an antenna.

[crawler]

There are lots of theories re planetary atoms & sub-atoms & sub-sub-atoms.
I think that some of them must have sub-names & sub-sub-names etc.