Forrest, Mike Gibson, Electrodynamics.


Forrest, Mike Gibson, Electrodynamics.

Ivor Catt. 23 March 2010


There’s a huge gulf between me and everyone else because I have no clue what any of these things mean:


1)      Electric field – what is it? What does it represent? How can a piece of space have a directional quality anyway, wouldn’t that imply instantaneous knowledge of two things at the same time?


2)      Magnetic field – no clue. Seems unreal since it can be derived from the electric field and em wave direction, and doesn’t exist without motion.


3)      Energy current –is it a “thing”? Heaviside warned against giving pieces of it a “personal identity”. It apparently moves at an unexplained fixed speed and has an unexplained perpendicular directional quality (the electric field). Two energy currents can pass through each other unmolested, apparently independently of intensity. How? Nothing in nature behaves the same way, except for waves in the linear domain of a medium.


My personal view:


a)      All em waves are associated with a “space current”, a compression and motion of the medium containing the wave (i.e. a simultaneous increase in permittivity and permeability of space). For an isolated wave in free space, the em wave speed in this compressed medium plus the medium speed equals the speed of light.


b)      When two oppositely moving em waves intersect, the medium stops moving but remains compressed. The em wave speed in this region slows down due to the compression. At normal field strengths, this slow down is negligible.


c)       At ultra high intensities, intersecting electromagnetic waves interact due to the increased compression. This results in noticeable changes in direction and speed. This is most likely the explanation for the stability of matter. There are no “particles”, e.g. billiard balls, distinct from compressed em waves.


d)      This distinction between electromagnetic waves and the medium may simply be an initial step in eliminating electric and magnetic fields as physical concepts. They may end up as virtual quantities, like heat.


e)      This space medium will have its own mechanical properties, distinct from electromagnetism. Discovering and exploiting those properties will lead to things we can’t even imagine right now. Probably won’t happen until long after I’m dead and buried. I definitely not smart enough to figure it out!


This is all I think about now (when I get time away from running my little company). Nothing else in physics interests me. The key to getting a grip on this is to look at the fringes of electromagnetic theory, where it breaks down.





From: Ivor Catt []
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:38 AM
To: Forrest Bishop;
Cc:; 'Malcolm F Davidson'; 'John Raymond Dore'
Subject: Re: Fw: heaviside


I tend to think that my views are identical with those near to me, but the lack of communication can always cause misunderstanding. Emails by Mike Gibson and Forrest Bishop during the last few days indicate gulfs between me and them. Forrest has instantaneous action at a distance, and Mike Gibson has warped space, both of which are anathema to me. If my paraphrasing of them above is true, then these are fundamental differences in world-view.


I write the above at the level that Dave Walton writes below;


"I quote David Walton in Wireless World, November 1980;


"A moving body continues to move because that is what moving bodies do; an electromagnetic disturbance disturbance or energy current, of whatever distribution, continues to move because this is what energy currents do. In other words "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." - Dave Walton


This is not really novel because Newton's First Law is similar. As Walton said earlier in the same piece, "Aristotelians believed that a force was necessary to keep bodies in motion." Today we don't think so. It follows that the always moving TEM Wave of energy current should not be very strange to us.


 "what the difference is between a slab and “empty” space" - Mike

The answer is that the difference is the presence of energy. When you put things in your suitcase, the suitcase does not have to do anythuing like distorting to accomodate the thing you put in it. Space is the ability to accomodate energy."


I have an approach which includes some things and excludes others as a starting point. I have absolute, rigid 3D space, which Mike indicates now that he does not. I have something like this definition of space; "Space is that which prevents instantaneous action", which it appears Forrest does not.


Recently on the phone to David Walton, wrestling with something (I regrettably forget what) which arose as a result of the developoment , Dave suggested that some item or other perhaps "should be axiomatic". I think that rigid space, and no instantaneous action at a distance, come into this category for me. I suggest that coming down on one side of the other of such "axioms" means that everything which is then said probably has two different meanings for the two parties.


The extreme case3 of such a gulf is between me and Nigel Cook. I don't know which axiomatic set he adheres to. It is not mine, and it is not Establishment Modern Physics, because he thinks he advances beyond this with his own "brilliant" work and insights. The result is that attempts to communicate are futile. I am forced to wonder whether he really knows my axiomatic set; my starting point.


One thing which perhaps isolates me is that I have no particles in my world-view. I only attempt to construct them out of energy currents. I wonder whether Mike Gibson has that same view. I don't know, because of his recent emails.


Ivor Catt


----- Original Message -----

From: Forrest Bishop

To: Ivor Catt ;

Cc: ; 'Malcolm F Davidson' ; 'John Raymond Dore'

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:25 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: heaviside


  If gravity did not act 'instantaneously', or at least at a very high multiple of c, like 10^8c, we would see the planets spiral away from the Sun. This is not a theory, it is a direct observation. See T. Phipps, *The Speed of Gravity*.

some definitions-
Force is F = ma
Energy is E = dF = dma
Action is A = tE = tdma

Instantaneous action, A, is not considered in the below, nor is energy, E, transported at any speed other than c-

  The TEM wave carries energy, E, in the forward direction at c while exerting net force, F, in the transverse directions. The net force, vector (E + H), is zero for a single TEM wave and only appears 'instantaneously' when two TEM waves pass through each other. The non-zero net transverse force, F, is 'instantaneously' felt over the entire transverse distance spanned by the two opposing TEM waves. Therefore net transverse force, F, is transmitted instantaneously, or rather gives that illusion.






I take issue with some of yours below. Two TEM Waves travelling in opposite directions suddenly collide. They then overlap. Macroscopically, we know that when they overlap, there appears a physical force between the two guiding conductors. (Rather, we know that there is a physical force on one conductor and a physical force on the other conductor.) Now consider two areas of the overlap. First, a point in space half way between the two guiding conductors. Between them, the two energy currents create a lateral force which has no means of expressing itself. Now take a region of space right next to the guiding conductor. Between them, the two energy currents create a lateral force which is expressed by a lateral force on the conductor.


If the effect were the same as putting a stretched elastic band between the two conductors, there would be something going on laterally. However, it is not like that. All we know is that if a section of guiding conductor has two overlapping energy currents in the space immediately adjacent to the conductor, the conductor experiences a lateral force. How a force appearing in space half way between the two conductors expresses itself is beside the point.


The conductor which experiences the lateral force does not know anything about the other conductor. All it knows is that it is at the edge of (1) one energy current, in which no force, or (2) at the edge of two overlapping energy currents, in which case force on that conductor - not force between the two conductors. The same thing occurs in the space close to the other conductor. At every point in the space, the overlapping energy currents create a lateral force in their vicinity. The only "force" that we would detect is the force on something at the edge of the energy currents, because we understand a physical force on a piece of metal. As to the "force" which occurs half way between the conductors, we do not understand it, but obviously it is there, because the energy current situation is the same as near the conductor. Forrest is coming up with lateral flow in a much more sophisticated way than poor Nugel Cook does, but all the same he is wrong. We do not fully understand Heaviside's "slab of energy current", but that is no reason for inventing additions which damage the platonic vision.


In a sense, Forrest's "The non-zero net transverse force, F, is 'instantaneously' felt over the entire transverse distance spanned by the two opposing TEM waves." is the problem. Two forces are felt, one on one conductor and one on the other. Nothing is felt in between, and we do not understand exactly what happens when there is a desire by physical rality to express a force where there is no means to express it.


Ivor   23 Marcdh 2010



----- Original Message -----

From: Forrest Bishop

To: Ivor Catt ; mike gibson

Cc: Dave Walton ; Malcolm Davidson; 'John Raymond Dore'

Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:13 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: heaviside


Dear Ivor,

 My contention comes directly from the study of the contrapuntal capacitor and such-

" The TEM wave carries energy, E, in the forward direction at c while exerting net force, F, in the transverse directions. The net force, vector (E + H), is zero for a single TEM wave and only appears 'instantaneously' when two TEM waves pass through each other. The non-zero net transverse force, F, is 'instantaneously' felt over the entire transverse distance spanned by the two opposing TEM waves. Therefore net transverse force, F, is transmitted instantaneously, or rather gives that illusion."

  This appearance of an instantaneous force spanning two wires is illustrated in, for example, . Whne the reflected slab overlaps the incident slab the two magnetic fields cancel and the two electric fields add. The additions and cancellations are occurring over the entire wavefront simultaneously, in the plane perpendicular to the propagation axes.

   Take two identical straight sticks and place them parallel to each other. Then bring them together until they touch. If they are exactly straight and parallel, they will contact each other along their entire lengths at the same instant, regardless of the speed with which they were brought together.




The responses of my close associates John and Mike are below. They are both in the trap I was in for 46 years.



I used Faraday's Law and the law of conservation of charge to prove that there were only two (not three) possible patterns for a TEM Wave guided by four symmetrical conductors. See Appendix II at for mathematical "Proof that only two [not three] types of wave-front pattern can be propagated down a system of two wires and ground plane.". In my pictures at the third traces in Figures 28 and 29, from the oscilloscope, show a third pattern. Unlike the other two it is not symmetrical. Thus the pictures show that use of Faraday's Law produces an invalid result, because it makes the third traces illegal. Faraday did not have the concept of two changing magnetic fields at the same point in space at the same instant in time, and neither had anyone else until now. However, the two second traces, and the two first races, do not invalidate Faraday's Law. This is because by now the two fields have separated out, and do not superpose.


Both I and Faraday talk about physical reality, not about maths. Maths is supposed to follow physical reality, not alter our fundamental principles, like the principle that at any point in space we have electric field density and direction, and magnetic field density and direction. If someone has in the past proposed that one point in space can accomodate two fields, please tell me who he is and where he said it. Talking about mathematics is irrelevant.


"Theory C" does not have a problem with this problem, because under Theory C there is no electric current - the starting  point for Faraday's discovery. Heaviside proposed "Energy Current", and did not assert that only one energy current (TEM Wave) can exist at one point in space at one instant in time.

----- Original Message -----

From: John Raymond Dore

To: ivor catt

Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:33 PM

Subject: Faraday vs Ivor


I believe in vector maths
It has served the electrical engineering world well.
There is only one net vector field which is changing.
Faraday holds true
Stick with real problems rather than generating red herrings!


(Also see )


I believe that if you do all the vector math you’ll find that Faraday’s Law will hold under any circumstances, including when two em waves overlap. That’s why vectors are so popular for analyzing physics problems.





From: Ivor Catt []
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:33 PM
To: John Raymond Dore
Cc: mike gibson ; Malcolm F Davidson; dave walton ; oudewaal; Darren
Subject: em


The above are the two key pictures, deriving from and


What is proven is that at one point in space there are two electric field density and directions, and also two magnetic field densities and directions. This is totally revolutionary, and I should have noticed it 46 years ago. Dave Walton on the phone today confirms that he did not notice this either. The two fields are derived using Faraday's Law, and proven mathematically by me in my paper "Crossdstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems, which can be reached at . In that paper I then (wrongly) assume that superposition is permissible, and I show superposition at . But

Faraday's Law does not permit superposition. You cannot have two changing magnetic fluxes in the same surface causing two different voltages around the periphery of the loop. Under conventional theory, you cannot have two electric fields or two magnetic fields at one point in space at the same instant in time.


Then I realised that we already had this many years ago when we sent two pulses from opposite directions down a coax, when they overlap. However, the case from crosstalk, , when both travel in the same directon, is more grotesque (under classical theory). In contrast, Theory C makes no assertions for or against over this.




I put my reply to John and Mike on the www at


I do this because I feel the situation is of historic importance, and part of its historic significance is the responses of Dave Waltion, Mike Gibson and John Dore. It helps to explain why Dave Walton and I did not notice my 1967 error, although Dave is very familiar indeed with the material involved.


The idea of both Mike and John that "Vector maths" or some such is relevant when I point out my error in my 1967 paper is very important, particularly since there are two of them. This indicates a general confusion in the matter, which confusion affected me for 46 years. (My 1967 paper was actually 1964, publication blocked for three years.)


In Appendix II at I began with the law of conservation of charge and Faraday's Law of Induction. I then proved that only two types of wave-front pattern were possible down a symmetrical four wire system. I then made the false assumption that these two legitimate wavefronts could be superposed. But this new "solution" was not one of the permissible solutions.


Note that Mike is a true sceptic; "Electric field – what is it? What does it represent? How can a piece of space have a directional quality anyway, wouldn’t that imply instantaneous knowledge of two things at the same time?". Yet still he has too much faith in mathematics.


The key point about mathematics is that it is a very restricted language with much ambiguity. Properly, every line of mathematics needs to be surrounded by a great deal of text discussing the validity and applicability etc. of the equation. This is not done. The most grotesque example is that in maths we use the = sign and lose causality while chemical equations retain causality with the arrow instead of the = . In electromagnetism we cannot discuss whether charge causes electric field or is co-existent, or field causes charge, because of the ambiguity of the = sign


In one of my books on Forrest Bishop’s website I discuss the limitations of mathematical discourse.


Ivor Catt    29 March 2010