Further
discussion
Dear Harry,
Last night I
discussed the current impasse with my friend John Foggitt.
Below, you wrote; “2.
The existence of the so called non-steady electric field in a capacitor is
counter-intuitive, since it can not be directly
observed”
Your position is
generally one of irritation because I criticise you while you believe you are
doing all you can to support my work.
This morning I
started reading my 1995 book http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm ,
and found a development of the state of a charged capacitor from first
principles all of which you will agree with. The reasoning culminates with
Figures 7 and 8, where we have rationally developed from fundamentals all of
which you will agree with to “so called non-steady electric field in a
capacitor”.
[This is slightly
inaccurate. The non-steady charged capacitor does not have an electric field.
It has electromagnetic fields.]
Your repeated
assertion that the reciprocating model for a charged capacitor “is
metaphysics”, and “can not be directly observed” is
based on the reigning idea that science is about ”scientific method” –
hypothesis, experiment, results, conclusions, or some such. Malcolm Davidson
has fallen into the trap of going along with the 20th century idea that that is
the sum total of proper scientific activity.
20 years ago, using
rational monologue deriving from “facts” all of which you will agree with, I
developed the truth about a “steady charged capacitor”. There was
no experiment, merely development of scientific theory, or fact, based on
logical reasoning beginning with facts all of which you will agree with.
The clear, rational
conclusion that in this case a charged capacitor did not have a stationary
electric field should lead you to conclude that no charged capacitor has a
stationary electric field. That is, you will not go along with David Tolmbe’s recent idiotic view that some charged capacitors
have stationary field and others do not – that a capacitor remembers
exactly how it was charged.
I fear that, having
taken umbrage at my not thinking of you as a full blooded supporter of my work,
you will not respond in any way to this email, or at least not in the manner
that reason says is necessary. However, to continue.
You write that a
“non-steady .... field in a capacitor .... can not be directly observed.”
Somewhere in my books
on Forrest’s website, http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/ ,
I have complained that the ideas of “mistake” and also of “nonsense” have been
excised from the scientific community. I have asked for their reintroduction.
For instance, it is a “mistake” for text books to say that the field inside a
capacitor is uniform. http://www.ivorcatt.com/3613.htm .
The obvious mistake in this statement is demonstrated by rational reasoning,
not by experiment. What Malcolm Davidson did not appreciate enough recently is
that the demand for “scientific method” and for experimental results has very
much a political purpose, to block the very important role in true science of
rational thought and dialogue.
Now in my development
of the true model for a charged capacitor twenty years ago I used
only rational thought and reasoning. This was ignored, so 20 years later I came
up with an experiment which proved the same, directed at those, the majority,
who have restricted science to “scientific method”. You, Harry Ricker,
concentrated on the experiment. However, the
experiment was only necessary because of the current vogue of excluding reason
and dialogue from science. Such as Harry should not be trapped in this fashion,
and should admit the value of logical reasoning.
However, at this
point we come upon a dilemma. The reasoning leading inexorably to a “non-steady
field in a capacitor” is at the start of one of my many books on the www. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm
Harry cannot be expected to have read all my work, even that part of it which
is on the www.
In an attempt to
encourage people to finally study my massive work over 50 years, I have
resorted to dropping my work and concentrating on questions about classical
theory, which those whose reputations and salaries are based on electromagnetic
theory refuse to comment on. That was the purpose of Wakefield http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf .
It should not have been necessary for a “supporter” of my work like Harry.
However, if my work is too voluminous and far reaching, so that Harry cannot be
expected to read all of it, there is a fundamental dilemma.
It is noticeable that
my questions, for in stance “The Catt Question”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm ,
about classical theory are very often thought to be presentations of my theory,
which they are not. Similarly, Wakefield is not about my theory, but about
classical theory.
Ivor Catt 24 Jujne
2013