Why the Obvious must not be Obvious.

An “Establishment” figure stated i=qc

 

"It is interesting to think of the possibility that when reasoning is taking one to see a fallacy in the classical paradigm, common sense ceases to operate, even in me."- Ivor Catt
“I think this is because we are all imprinted (or infected, choose your poison) with certain patterns of thought at a very early age that become such second nature that we don't even realize they are there.” – Forest Bishop.

 

Recently Forrest began to consider the equation i = qc . We relate it to cattq , a TEM step travelling forward at the speed of light guided by two conductors. Even Professor Brian Josephson will agree that the equation is mathematically correct. However, he will not agree that it means that physically, the charge travels at the speed of light. The reason is in the Ivor Catt statement above and Forrest’s reply. At this point, it is not possible for a “Defender of the Faith”, Faith being classical electromagnetism, to use common sense, or reason. This is because within his faith, charge cannot travel at the speed of light. The blindingly obvious cannot be allowed to be obvious. Too much is at stake.

Ivor Catt    19.12.12

We get further insight into George Orwell’s comment;

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225

 

From: Forrest Bishop

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:36 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Cc: John Roche ; Forrest Bishop

Subject: Re: clarendon

Dear Ivor,

"At this moment it appears to me that the very statement i = qc tells us that the TEM Wave guided by two conductors is not viable under classical theory, which now attributes mass to electricity. Do you, Forrest, think that the mere statement i = qc refutes classical theory, showing us that since charge gained mass in around 1900, classical theory was no longer fit for purpose? If it is as simple as that, why did you not launch this equation in the past?"-IC

Yes, i = qc means that q has to be massless because c is the only speed at which this equation can hold if it is not to violate the premises (e.g. the line voltage) that it was set up on. The Clarendon man makes a valiant attempt to save classical theory (i.e. massive electrons) using drift speeds but his argument fails for several reasons. There are even more restrictions on the possible "speed of q" than there are on the speed of the cars, though your argument below is certainly part and parcel of the "q-speed" argument.

I didn't tumble to i = qc until a few years ago, when I was off doing Bishop Cubes. The total significance didn't settle in until a couple years ago. I've mentioned it to you before a few times and it's in my newer paper-
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=2169
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6554&tab=2

It takes years to think this stuff through, even the simplest things, as you well know (2nd Catt Question, Faraday superposition). It only looks dirt simple in retrospect.

"It is interesting to think of the possibility that when reasoning is taking one to see a fallacy in the classical paradigm, common sense ceases to operate, even in me."-IC

I think this is because we are all imprinted (or infected, choose your poison) with certain patterns of thought at a very early age that become such second nature that we don't even realize they are there.
I don't think there was a vast conspiracy to squelch i = qc or the field patterns between two wires, or numerous other things, rather it mostly* happens as a natural progression in the transmission of culture.

*I'm thinking here of higher-ups that do occasionally see the problems but don't talk when there is a duty to speak, such as when reviewing the latest proposed textbook.

Forrest


On 12/18/2012 1:36 PM, Ivor Catt wrote:

Dear Forrest,

You point to the equation having been written by someone in the Establishment. Note that I have never written it, and I do not remember you writing it, but you have been looking out for it.

It is extraordinary that I have trouble progressing to the “obvious” conclusion, that in cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm the charge on the conductor must be travelling at the speed of light.

If we have cars equally spaced at 10m along a road up to a point, with empty road ahead, and after one hour the point between the equally spaced out cars and empty road has moved forward 100km, then the cars must be moving at 100km/h. (Or some cars moving faster than that and some slower.)

Of course, Pepper thinks the extra cars can appear from nowhere – or from the hard shoulder by the road. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm But he is in a small minority. Anyway, he says otherwise the cars would have to travel at 100km/h.

I suggest that when the established paradigm is under threat, Common Sense disappears – even in me. It is interesting to think of the possibility that when reasoning is taking one to see a fallacy in the classical paradigm, common sense ceases to operate, even in me.

At this moment it appears to me that the very statement i = qc tells us that the TEM Wave guided by two conductors is not viable under classical theory, which now attributes mass to electricity. Do you, Forrest, think that the mere statement i = qc refutes classical theory, showing us that since charge gained mass in around 1900, classical theory was no longer fit for purpose? If it is as simple as that, why did you not launch this equation in the past?

Ivor

From: Forrest Bishop

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:21 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Cc: John Roche ; Forrest Bishop

Subject: Re: clarendon

Dear John Roche,

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

One of several interesting aspects of what I've taken to calling The Clarendon Letter is its anonymous publication of what I've taken to calling The Forbidden Equation:

i = qc

where, in MKSA,
i = electric current in coulomb/sec
q = (net??) line charge in coulomb/m
c = speed of light in m/s

This, though it is essentially the defining equation of electric current, is nowhere to be found- by myself anyways- in the standard electromagnetics textbooks. (It falls right out of the usual equations through simple algebraic manipulation.) If you know of any mainstream book in which it, i =qc that is, appears I would be very appreciative of the reference.

Regards,

Forrest