21 Jan 2020, 13:55 (2 days ago)

to me, Anthony



I will try to respond to your particular remarks about Ampere's law later. Here I want to make some remarks about my journey that leads to the above conclusions. My father was an electrical engineer who worked for NASA and was responsible for the electrical system on the Mercury spacecraft. When I was in high school, I jointed an amateur radio club and at age 13 got my ham license. I studied electrical engineering and got a BS degree. Later I got an MS degree. I became an electrical engineer not so much because my father was an EE, but because I was a radio amateur or ham. I learned a lot about radio and antennas from that. My point here is that the courses I took were absolutely useless in providing any clear understanding of radio and antennas. In particular I took one class in antenna theory that had absolutely nothing to do with how antennas worked, it was all about calculating the fields produced by currents in an antenna based upon assumptions. 


Basically, I learned that the mathematics of Maxwell's equations said nothing about how antennas worked. That was a major problem for me in my professional work as a radio engineer. To make a long story short, I could never make sense of the textbook theory until I read your articles in Wireless World. That gave me new insights that I did not have before. But I needed the one last insight regarding the nature of antennas, and that fell into place when I realized that the main requirement is that antennas operate at resonance and they produce E and H fields in phase. That fits nicely with the Heaviside energy current concept. 


The rather astounding fact of all this is that no one understands how antennas actually work. There is a mountain of confusion on that topic. What it amounts to is that engineers can design antennas, but have no clue what they are doing physically with electric and magnetic fields. 


Basically, to talk about Ampere's Law means to talk about a number of different things. So you have to be specific and clear about which one of them you mean. My resolution of this problem, was to say that displacement current and conduction current are the same thing, so Ampere;s Law counts them twice. So it is incorrect. To resolve the confusion we have to say whether we are talking about conduction current or displacement current. But that is not really a solution at all. We have to say whether we are talking about a capacitor or not. David says Amperes law applies in deep space, meaning a vacuum. But there is no conduction current there, so he means displacement current. But then we use the curl equation to find that the E field and H field are out of phase, when they ought to be in phase. This is my point. You can not apply Ampere's Law in a vacuum and get the EM wave equation with E and H in time phase. That is incorrect.


The main problem with the Heaviside energy current is that the textbooks say that current is a flow of electrons in a wire. That idea has to be maintained, since as Akinbo says, you can not have electricity without some kind of source or cause for it. He and David assume that causes have to be material ones, which is metaphysics, and so everything gets messed up from there. They require some kind of material aether, and there is no evidence for any such thing. Eventually they are speculating about equations that they don't understand and wind up accomplishing nothing but a waste of time.



(no subject)



15 Oct 2020, 17:27 (20 hours ago)

to me, Malcolm, Steve



We can not leave aside the aether because it is central to the entire problem. The fact is Maxwell's Equations are derived from Maxwell's theory of the aether. Mainstream tries to continue working with Maxwell's aether equations while ignoring the fact that they say there is no aether. The first and foremost issue there is that there is no aether so no displacement current and hence the incompleteness of the Maxwell Equations now only three instead of four. 


So lets get to the main issue. If you study Maxwell's Equations you are told that they lead to the EM wave equation, which proves something like the unification of electricity and magnetism. But there is no aether so that cuts the heart out of the equations, since that there can be no displacement current without aether. That then requires some agile doubletalk to explain why displacement current exists despite the lack of an aether to justify that idea. This is crucially important. So when you said there is no displacement current, they could not focus upon anything other than you have to be suppressed for your heresy. 


The problem is that your claim as to no displacement current is your main crime, and it simply can not be ignored or forgiven. That drives everything. Your proposal to put in place a much simpler and more fruitful set of axioms for the foundations of EM theory was then simply ignored, and you have been banished from the Church of Physics for your heresy. It is that simple. 


But you made things worse when you broke the code that maintains the mystery of the electric charge and current. These are primary pillars in the mystical experience of the teaching of EM theory. It was bad enough that you denied displacement current, but to deny electric charge goes against everything that they sincerely believe and hold to be true. That is another crime that you are guilty of. Frankly, I don't see how you have not been executed for sins against the Church Of Physical Science. 


The main problem is that having tried to establish your own new religion, you simply have to be suppressed. The fact that your new religion is very much better than the old religion makes no difference to them. They are married to that old fashioned religion and simply will not give it up. They must worship the existence of charge, electric current and displacement current because they can not see the benefits of your new canon of belief. But as I have demonstrated, if you lay out for them the facts of the inability of the good old fashioned religion to simply explain things like the Wakefield experiment, it makes no impression at all. They can not comprehend the new physics. That is certainly a strange fact given that it is so totally and completely obvious once having been laid out. The objection that there must be Ohmic losses is a good example of: It can not be true in my opinion because I cling to the old fashioned religion. If Thomas Kuhn is correct, these old men have to die and be buried before any real progress towards enlightenment is possible.


I therefore suggest documenting your ideas as best you can through the CNPS Science Chat discussions with David DeHilster. Perhaps writing some more articles for Wireless World would also be useful.




On Thursday, October 15, 2020, 11:29:24 AM EDT, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:




http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=501&subpage=articles x

You have recently put an enormous amount of work into me and into electromagnetic theory. This means you have a right to influence events, or future strategy.

First let us leave aside the question of the aether. I do not agree or disagree. I just do not understand the argument by either side. 

I suggest you should not bother to try to straighten me out on this. I want us to concentrate on electromagnetic theory and what strategy we should pursue.

I chose three men to represent the "science" Establishment when it comes to electromagnetic theory. 

1 Archie Howie, ex head of the Cavendish. Was on the board of IoP

You (and he) analyse the IoP behaviour over cattq. He has to do something. They rejected your letter.

2 Nobel prize winner Josephson.

3 Tony Davies, ex board of directors of the IEEE.

These three retired men have broken the code of omerta of the academic community, and possibly can be made to communicate further.

One sent me more than 100 emails. another sent me 30 emails 30 lines long. The third sent me 20,000 words of emails. They cannot now say they are too important or too busy to communicate. Just now, I asked all three to comment on your 

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=501&subpage=articles , which is of a very high calibre. Josephson obfuscates.

It can be shown that they have no loyalty to the idea of scientific advance, but only look to their own advance, even though they are retired. They cannot comment positively or negatively on your work, which they know has to be silenced.

I have Bcc'd this to Professor Alex Yakovlev, who may have useful comments. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm ;


Technically, they are frighteningly weak.

A forerunner is Pepper. There is also Palmer. Both wrote nonsense on cattq.