The dogs
are the electric charge. The sheep are the electromagnetic field.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2608.htm

Theory N. The sheep are forced out of the pen [battery] by
the sheep-digs. The dogs then run [in the wires] alongside the sheep. There can
only be a forward flow if sheep-dogs first advance on both sides of the sheep,
which the dogs direct and cause.

Theory H. The sheep rush out of the pen into the great open
spaces. They will go forward regardless, but their direction is actively guided
by the sheep-dogs running alongside, the front of the dogs always keeping level
with the foremost sheep.

Theory C. There are no sheep-dogs. The sheep leave the pen
and flow out into the great open spaces. Some of the space is rougher. (This
rough space was previously thought to be terrain preferred by the dogs.) Here
fewer sheep go, and their rate of advance is slower. Some ground is very
obstructive, nearly impassable for sheep.

Forrest Bishop on the new Electromagnetic
Theory.

This is a magnificent piece of writing.
It encapsulates so much of what I discovered during the previous fifty years. –
Ivor Catt January 2011

Taken from
this www page in 2011 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4554&st=15

**Posted:** Jan 23 2006, 10:52 PM

A portion of an exchange
with Geoff Landis, from October 13, 2005. This
is a far as 'boiled down' as I've gotten so far.

1) Philosophy and Assertions, of Theory N

GL: A lot of your response consists of assertions… Thus: my discussion is
entirely about solving the problem with conventional electromagnetic theory.
This involves solving the math. I snipped your various different words about
"philosophy" and assertions about physics because they do not
contribute to the question at hand: solving the math.

FB: Yes, but. Theory N also has quite a few *assertions built into the math*,
many of which are vacuous, contradictory and unwarranted. Some of these
assertions behind the math of conventional electromagnetic theory are the topic
of the Catt Question, particularly the part about sweeping the mass of the
electron under the rug.

‘Mathematicism’ is a branch of ‘Phenomenologicalism’-
the utilitarian philosophy that if a model yields good results, it is a good
model. I’m not entirely adverse to this, particularly for non-social
engineering applications, except when we discover that the model has flawed
assumptions and untenable conclusions. The Ptolemaic/Copernican revolution is
an iconic example- though ‘Theory Pt’ was quite advanced and useful for
celestial prediction in its day we cannot use the epicycles for reliable
spacecraft navigation.

Theory N, or conventional electromagnetic theory, is an accretion and
amalgamation of several historical accidents. The
electrons-in-wire-is-electric-current idea (EWEC) came from earlier,
phlogiston-like hypotheses of one or two fluids flowing inside the wire. This
is a useful model for things like Ohm-Kirchhoff-Thevenin-style
lumped-element circuit analysis. The math encodes that philosophy and the
assertions (assumptions). These are the things being revised or extended by
Theory C++.

Maxwell’s equations, as Catt emphasizes, are not directly involved in the EWEC,
they came much earlier (ca. 1880’s, depending on how you count), before
electrons (1897), their mass, and charge/mass ratio (1909) were discovered. So
the EWEC was grafted on to Theory N during the 20th Century as a sort of
afterthought, with the massive incongruities buried in the math.

In Theory N, we assert that we can write P = VI, I = Q/t, Ploss
= I^2R, V = IR, “what goes in must come out”, and so on, and get a reliable
model. We assume I = Q/t refers to the moving
electrons, since we can count how many electrons drift past a given plane
cutting through a conductor. The mass of the electron is irrelevant, except
when it isn’t.

We assert that the voltage difference, caused somehow
by the EWEC, between the upper and lower rails, sets up a transverse electric
field, which we can ignore. We assert that static magnetic fields encircle the
conductors, as a result of the EWEC, except sometimes when it is the other way
around. For circuit analysis, we can just ignore the transient conditions.

We assert that c, mu|o (mu-subscript-o) and epsilon|o are the fundamental constants of interest.

We, Jackson, et al, assert that the various versions of the integral or
differential Maxwell equations, together with the Heaviside-Lorentz relation,
capture all the classical phenomena of interest, which can always be decomposed
into sine waves, spherical harmonics, and the other things of a beautiful,
mathematical, symmetry…

2) Philosophy and Assertions, of Theory C

“Now, in Maxwell’s theory there is the potential energy of the displacement
produced in the dielectric parts by the electric force, and there is the
kinetic or magnetic energy of the magnetic induction due to the magnetic force
in all parts of the field, including the conduction parts. They are supposed to
be set up by the current in the wire. *We reverse this; the current in the wire
is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it*…”- Oliver
Heaviside, 1892 (emphasis on causality added)

We assert that the transverse electromagnetic wave (TEM wave), propagating at
‘Mach 1’ = c, through the constant aethereal
impedance of Zo = ~377 Ohms, is the fundamental
entity that transmits most, if not all, energy and information. The TEM wave is
a shock-wave slab of energy-current, obstructed or otherwise- a half-cycle
square wave in the time domain. This replaces the sinusoidal photon of
occasional properties.

These two fundamental constants, c and Zo, are
‘reciprocal’ to the permittivity and permeability of the aether:
permittivity eps|o = c^-1 * Zo^-1
and permeability mu|o = c^-1 * Zo.
These properties in turn are manifest in the orthogonal transverse axes of the
TEM wave, and back.

We assert that the 19th Century concept of a rail-to-rail TEM wave guided by
the two conductors, as a train is guided by the two rails of a railroad track,
is closer to the truth than is the electron-photon picture. Resistance heats up
the wires, outside to inside, like rolling-resistance to the train’s movement
heats up the train-track rails.

We assert that the flow of electrons in a wire can no more be responsible for
electricity than water on the ground can cause rain.

We muse that the height of a hill, h, points to a fact- an aspect of objective
reality, of matter piled up. The slope of a hill, dh/dx,
points to an opinion- a cognitive state of the modeler,
an idea of which matter is next to what. Each concatenated mathematical
transformation applied to an original, objective fact moves the imaginary model
further toward the rear of Plato’s cave. --partly after Ivor
Catt

We assert that the basement relations for Maxwell’s
equations contain no useful information. dE/dx = -dB/dt
and dB/dx = dE/dt have no causality, and little descriptive power. They
say that the height of a sloped, moving object is proportional to the rate of
change of the other, transverse-axis slope of the same moving object, which is
a trivial observation. E can no more cause B than the length of a brick can
cause its width. These enigmatic equations, once thought to be the crowning
achievement of modern physics, are little more than a cipher, wrapped inside a
void… --after Ivor Catt

from October 22, 2005-

Assertions and Hypotheses of Theory N (con't):

a) The electric and magnetic fields between the wires are static.

The electric field 'lines' or 'tubes' terminate on things in the
wire called "electric charges".

c) A field line from a positive charge terminates on a negative charge, and
vice versa. This collection of discrete “charges” is called a

“surface charge density”, and is in partial conflict with the “electrification”
hypothesis.

d) Charge is conserved.

e) The charges can only move slower than the speed of light.

f) The electron, proton, etc. are points of charge, mass, etc., except sometimes
when they feel like being waves. Other little Epsilon

point-wave gears and levers rattle around inside to help glue a crank theory
together.

(concerning the two-wire transmission line)-

Assertions and Hypotheses of Theory C (con't):

a) The electric and magnetic fields are dynamic cross-components of the TEM
wave. All components of the fields move at the speed of light (or

c/n) at all times. This is
the hypothesis comparable to Copernicus's. The repercussions are across the
board.

The TEM wave is all. A redirection (annihilation/creation) of the
TEM wave creates the illusion of "electric charge" distribution on
the

surface of the wire, which Heaviside calls "electrification".

c) ,d) The electric field (and the magnetic) of the
TEM wave has directionality. One direction is called "positive" and
the other direction is

called "negative". Charge conservation is simply a restatement of the
fact that a line has two endpoints- one on each wire. The more advanced

concept includes the rest of the electric and magnetic field or flux lines
(curve), which close back on themselves. Then 'positive' and

'negative' only refer to the two directions along a curve, not its endpoints.
Then divE = 0 always.

e) "Electrification" (surface-charge density) can appear to move at
any speed, from 0 to <infinity, depending on the angle the TEM wave makes

with the conductor surface. When the grazing angle becomes zero, and the
electric flux is perpendicular to the surface, it is called

"electricity", and moves at “c”- the speed of light in the dielectric
medium between the wires. This appears to be ~lost knowledge.

".... Charge conservation is simply a restatement of the fact that a line
has two endpoints- one on each wire....." - Forrest

"This is an elegant contribution.

Any pencil line has two ends. However, the two ends do not exist. However, it
remains true that a line (which does exist) must have two ends." --Ivor Catt, 10/23/05