|
Re: philosophy
|
|
22 Aug 2020, 11:10 (13 days ago)
|
|
|
|
to me, Brian, Alex, Malcolm, Anthony, Tony, David, Ed, Steve, John, Forrest, mike, michael.pepper, Phil, HARRY, John, David, Greg, ekkehard, Giuseppe, Jack, philip, massimiliano.pieraccini
|
|
Dear Ivor,
That photons in free space
travel carrying energy at the speed of light
can I suppose be adopted as a basic fact but to make it the starting
principle of a completely new version of electrodynamics will be far
from simple and may be impossible. Eventually you will have to explain
Oersted and Faraday's experimental results but on the way you have to
unravel the electromagnetic structure of the photon (or light) wavefield
which is after all what Maxwell first discovered together with the
connection between c and the units for measuring E and H.
Some aspects of Maxwell's thinking - particularly the notion of an all
pervading elastic aether, may now be discredited but that does not in my
view distract from his achievement. Similarly
the caloric theory of
heat, which you frequently deride, [I have never derided it -
IC] was the helpful basis on which Carnot
worked to develop his revolutionary theory of heat engines. The
indestructible caloric fluid powering the reversible heat engine just
turned out to be entropy not heat!
On the way from the travelling photon wave
to Oersted you will have to
re-examine the coaxial cable where, as I and more impressive others such
as Jackson believe, careful experiments will reveal signal attenuation
and raise the question about what is happening to your light energy.
With judicious help from a battery this energy can no doubt be
maintained. Otherwise however, in purporting to sustain a permanent
state of stored energy in a capacitor through travelling photon waves,
you are effectively proposing what I think is called a perpetuum mobile
of the first kind.
Archie Howie.
On 2020-08-22 10:24, Ivor Catt wrote:
> "You seem to be ducking my question about deriving the velocity of
> light from fundamental principles. Nice try!" - Brian
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson
>
> Brian,
> Dr. David Walton, my co-author and I have both
derived "the velocity
> of light from fundamental principles."
> It has nothing to do with the Wakefield experimental results. You
> endorse Howie's faulty "explanation" of those results, which
include
> "ohmic losses" and photons. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf .
The
> Royal Society contradicts you. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm "
> which led to the conclusion that there is no such a thing as a static
> electric field in a capacitor. " Please discuss this with
Yakovlev,
> Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk , the
editor and also author. In the
> interest of scientific clarity, tell the Royal Society to redact the
> Yakovlev article, which is contradicted by you and Howie, ex head of
> The Clarendon.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Howie
>
> Decades ago Walton was ignored when he discussed light.
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7171.htm
>
> The early discoveries of Øersted and Faraday,
combined with the
> impression that Maxwell’s Equations (above) imply causality, make
> the lecturer and text book writer unable to envisage the correct
> version of the TEM Wave which I attributed to Heaviside. I called it
> “The Heaviside Signal” _Electronics World_ in July 1979 [1] . This
> was admirably described by Dr. David Walton in
_Electronics World_ in
> November 1979 [2] and November 1980;
>
> I understand that Aristotelians believed that a force was necessary to
> keep bodies in motion and that, in the absence of this force, the
> motion would cease. This theory led them into certain difficulties.
> For instance a spear, once thrown, appeared to continue to move
> without a force being present. The philosophers rose to this challenge
> magnificently with the theory that air, displaced from ahead of the
> spear, rushed to the rear and generated the requisite force - the
> theory was saved. Unfortunately they missed the simple point first
> noted by Newton, that it is in the nature of a moving body to continue
> to move.
>
> In the same way I fear that Maxwell invented a complex explanation for
> a very simple phenomenon, ie that
electromagnetic radiation, or energy
> current [ExH], moves at the speed of light -
and that's all, because
> that is what energy current does. No mechanism invoking E producing H
> and H, in return, producing E is required.
>
> .... a faulty set of primitives can lead to problems in a theory which
> necessitate the introduction of ad hoc causality relations. In a
> similar way I believe that the causality relations alleged to reside
> in Maxwell's equations (i.e. changing magnetic field producing
> electric field and changing electric field producing magnetic field)
> are spurious. A moving body continues to move because that is what
> moving bodies do; an electromagnetic disturbance or energy current, of
> whatever distribution, continues to move because that is what energy
> currents do. In other words the statement
"energy current travels at
> the velocity of light" is a primitive assumption in my theoretical
> framework which requires no further explanation. In my framework the
> moving energy current is the simple situation and 'static' electric
> and magnetic fields are composite.
>
> Heaviside vacillated between the two versions of the TEM Wave (light),
> and came down on the wrong one.
> Einstein, Feynman and you have the wrong one. The right one I called
> "The Heaviside Signal". My article pointing out the two
conflicting
> theories was comprehensively ignored, for instance by you and Howie
> (and of course Davies). http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j51.pdf .
The
> wrong theory breaks down when you send a step, or a pulse, down a
> transmission line. There is no changing E or changing H in the middle
> of a pulse. You control education and text books and Wikipedia, who
> only show the sine wave. http://www.ivorcatt.uk/17136.htm
>
> Please, Brian, give a scientific explanation, preferably mathematical,
> of our Trinity College colleague
Newton's First Law of Motion. See
> his statue in the chapel. Notice that Walton, see above, uses no
> mathematics.
> Dellian, who translated Newton from Latin to
German, says Newton used
> no mathematics when he stated his three laws of motion.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie93.htm
>
> Ivor Catt
>
> [3]
> Virus-free. www.avast.com [3]
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 09:29, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>> On 22 Aug 2020, at 07:25, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> In dismissing the conjecture that "A capacitor does not
have a
>> stationary electric field", Josephson demands explanation of
light!
>>
>> You seem to be ducking my question about deriving the velocity of
>> light from fundamental principles. Nice try!
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> ------
>> Brian D. Josephson
>> Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
>> Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
>> Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
>> WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
>> Tel. +44(0)1223 337260
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf
> [2] http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j51.pdf
> [3]
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
The need for
honesty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0
Howie does not
grasp cattq. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
. He has helped to silence it for 40 years. He was head of the Cavendish,
Cambridge.
|