Ignoring
cattq.
Oliver Heaviside, 1850-1925.
Oliver Heaviside’s last decade or two were
preoccupied with battling with his cousin Miss Way, who lived downstairs. Earlier,
for instance in 1900, we can see in the then current issue of Encyclopaedia Britannica
that the question of whether an electron had mass was in doubt. Thus, we cannot
blame Heaviside for not noticing the problem indicated in cattq.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
. However, persistence in not appreciating the message in cattq
one hundred years later is inexcusable.
We now see that classical electromagnetism, when “explaining”
how a battery lights a lamp, or how a computer signals down a USB cable telling
a printer to print, crashes now that an electron has mass.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/stoppress.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64f11.pdf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
In 1897, the British
physicist J.
J. Thomson, with his
colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really
were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed
earlier.[5] Thomson made
good estimates of both the charge e and the mass m, finding that cathode ray particles, which he called
"corpuscles," had perhaps one thousandth of the mass of the least
massive ion known: hydrogen.[5] He showed
that their charge-to-mass ratio, e/m, was independent of cathode material. He further showed that
the negatively charged particles produced by radioactive materials, by heated
materials and by illuminated materials were universal.[5][34] The name
electron was again proposed for these particles by the Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney, and the name has since gained universal acceptance.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/electron
Although Thomson was
able to measure the ratio of electric charge of mass (e/m) for an electron, he
did not know how to determine either of these two quantities individually. That
problem puzzled physicists for more than a decade. Finally, the riddle was
solved by American physicist Robert Andrew Millikan (1868–1953) in a series
of experiments conducted between 1907 and 1913. The accompanying figure
outlines the main features of Millikan's famous oil drop experiment.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x391.htm Lynch, sitting on my sofa, told me the discoverer of the electron [Thomson] had told him about his discovery! He explained that this was why he would be giving the keynote speech at the IEE centenary meeting. [He had invited me to the lecture and to the dinner which followed the lecture.] http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
Ivor
Catt 2.4.2019
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Under Theory D, the energy current from battery to
lamp is guided by “conductors”, which Heaviside called “obstructors”.
They obstruct the inflow of energy in a way similar to the way the rails
obstruct the entry of the train (wheels) into the guiding rails.
Copper being imperfect as a guide, some of the
energy enters into it, and the mathematical manipulation of this energy leaking
into the copper has been reified. Thus, “skin effect” energy has been reified
as something other than ExH energy, and called “electricity”.
Mathematical manipulation of ExH
energy is indifferent to whether the result is something else, electricity. If
all the mathematics works out, this does not mean that the result of mathematically
manipulating ExH energy is physically some other kind
of entity, electricity, and not merely the result of mathematically
manipulating ExH energy.
Professor
Howie will be careful to not understand the argument presented here. There is a
lot at stake. http://www.iop.org/about/awards/hon_fellowship/hon_fellows/page_66276.html
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf
Josephson
makes the extraordinary statement; “This is the problem if you work with simplified
physics rather than follow the maths.”