|
When two switches are
closed linking a battery to two parallel conductors, electric current flows
into (and out of) the two conductors. At the same time, an electromagnetic
field appears between the two conductors. Thus, there is a change from two
conductors with nothing, to (1) two conductors with electric current in
them and electric charge on their surface, and also (2) electromagnetic
field between them. This change travels along between the
conductors at the speed of light. As it advances, more and more negative
electric charge appears on the surface of the bottom conductor, to
terminate the electric field arising between the conductors.
The first problem
appeared in 1982 with "The
Catt Question" . The question was; “Where does the negative charge
appearing on the bottom conductor come from?” Some experts said it came
from the battery, somehow getting to its destination without travelling at
the speed of light. Other experts said that such charge coming from the
battery would have to travel at the speed of light, which was impossible.
They said that the charge needed to terminate the electric field came up
from inside the bottom conductor. Neither is correct.
The next problem for
electricity came 30 years later. Again, it related to a signal travelling
between parallel conductors at the speed of light. It was first published
in "Electronics
World" in January and February 2011. The same problem simplified
was published as "Does
Faraday allow Superposition?" by the "Natural Philosophy
Alliance" later in 2011. NPA caused me to give a Two Hour
Lecture based on that paper.
Whereas in "The Catt Question"
the electric charge could not get into place unless it travelled at the
speed of light, in the new
problem we found two electric currents travelling in opposite
directions along a single conductor.
These problems were
ducked, perhaps from the cover of claiming that the only way to threaten
the ruling paradigm was by experiment. This final redoubt should have been
mastered by the arrival in April 2013 of the results of "The Wakefield
Experiment" , which undermines classical electromagnetism
experimentally.
All three problems are
resolved if we postulate "Theory
C" , which says that when a battery is connected to a lamp via two
conductors and the lamp lights, electric current is not involved. The
conductors, which Heaviside called “obstructors”,
merely guide the electromagnetic energy (TEM Wave) in the space between
them. Since the dielectric constant of copper is infinite, its impedance to
a TEM Wave is zero, so energy cannot enter it. Similarly, rails are
extremely rigid, so a train cannot enter them, but is guided forward by
them in the space between them.
It is not clear what was the dialogue during the removal of caloric or
phlogiston from mainstream science in the 19th century. It is
likely that the trauma of removing electricity will last through the
twenty-first century. There is today much more at stake when paradigm
change is threatened.
Product Control
in the Truth Industry
It might seem that a review process made
porous by the chance effects of inattention, ignorance, bias, and favoritism, would be a poor tool for imposing
orthodoxy. This does not appear to be the case. Editors as well as students
of peer review agree that whatever else they do, referees bring to bear a
strongly stereotyped set of requirements. Among them are: proper grooming
(the right mix of co-authors, the right mix of citations, the best way to
present data); the right sort of conclusion (one that confirms average
expectations); a show of originality strictly confined within current
beliefs (Mahoney 1986; Lyttleton 1979; Armstrong
1982).
Many editors have independently observed
that its effect is to level the average. Their thought was voiced by
medical journal editor David F. Horrobin when he said
that 'the referee system as it is currently constituted is a disaster. What
is most disastrous is its built-in bias against highly innovative work' (Horrobin 1982). Editor estimates are confirmed by the
testimony of many creative scientists. Among them are Thomas Gold (pers.
comm. 1987), who in a recent reflection on his career had this to say:
"I have had to face a large amount
of opposition in virtually every case in which I have produced anything of
novelty. In 1948 when we proposed the steady state theory of cosmology, Bondi, Hoyls and I found all
the official astronomers extremely hostile. My theory of hearing was
totally ignored and now 40 years later, when it has been found to be
correct, the original paper on the subject is mostly forgotten. In the
meantime someone who espoused the opposing and incorrect theory received a
Nobel Prize for it."
|