The whole world seems to be getting onto my patch (Electromagnetic
Theory) and playing a game they don’t understand.
If they were willing to say
that electromagnetic theory was not at the core of their work, so be it.
But otherwise, they should
at least recognise that new insights came out of work on high speed logic
during the last fifty years.
Or they could of course assert that all the work and developments
in high speed computing have no bearing on electromagnetic theory.
Otherwise, their behaviour
is unacceptable. Ivor Catt 4 March 2014
Outside the box
I feel like someone trying to make a new move on the chessboard which is a combination of the knight’s move and the bishop’s. Everyone except me knows that that is not allowed; that my ideas have to be ignored.
I cannot relate to Bill Lucas when he says; “Thus the only theory with a claim to being fundamental is Maxwell's electrodynamics.” This comes under his; “My work does not depend on Poincare's metatheory. It confirms it! ” I cannot relate to any of you because I have published these three articles; http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf .
I feel the truth must be that everyone on this circulation (I am not merely referring to Bill Lucas) must ignore this email of mine, not read those articles. They are outside the box. The box contains Establishment physicists and also Establishment Dissidents. It seems safe to ignore me. Not only has no one commented positively on those articles for 30 years. Nobody has commented negatively either. There must be obvious flaws in them which are so obvious as to not need to be pointed out to me. It looks as though they should not really exist; they can only be an irritant.
Or am I a silly man trying to make a false move in the chess game? The trouble is, I cannot see what is wrong with my articles, and they appear to undermine the dialogue. Or is the Maxwell I analyse a different Maxwell from your Maxwell?
The same goes for MM. Stephen Crothers is the first man to comment (his comment is supportive) on what I said at the Royal Institution centenary meeting celebrating the Michelson-Morley experiment. That was in 1996, and the first comment, positive or negative, is from Stephen 18 years later. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm “both wave and particle have to be assumed at different stages in the experiment to suppress anomalies.”
One possibility is for all of you to go along with Harry Ricker, who I think says all my writings are not new; they are all in 1950s text books on transmission lines. Alternatively support his assertion that my biggest contribution is “bizarre”. I suggest you cannot do both, Ricker 1 and Ricker 2. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3cd.htm . Why pay any attention to someone who says bizarre things? Theory C ; “When a battery is connected to a lamp by two wires and the lamp; lights electric current is not involved.” Obviously one should keep away from him.
I wonder how the men who wanted to get rid of phlogiston or caloric felt?
Ivor Catt 3 March 2014
I am warming to this.
The only reply (although this is early on) was
Roger Anderton, who correctly quibbled about things
like whether wave particle duality predated Maxwell, but ignored my three
articles, which was the point of my email.
I have just noticed that my 1978 article
“Displacement Current” http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm ;
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z001.htm is
number 2 hit on a Google search for “Displacement Current” out of 200,000 hits.
One version is headlined “This is the historic first disclosure.” The editor lengthened the
title to “Displacement Current -
and how to get rid of it” , but you guys don’t know
that “and how to get rid of it” did not come from me.
Forrest Bishop says this
article is the most important in the 20th century.
No member of the Physics
Establishment, and no dissident member of “Natural Philosophy Alliance” http://www.worldnpa.org/site/ except
Forrest, has made any comment, positive or negative, on the article for 36
years, since 1978.
If electromagnetic theory is central to your
physics, and nobody, including all you guys, makes any comment, positive or
negative, then you don’t exist as functioning members of the physics community.
For instance, you cannot talk sensibly about light.
You should stop talking about Maxwell, because
numerous parties have said that his “Displacement Current” was a leap of
genius. If you don’t know, or don’t rubbish, my article, you don’t function as
someone who knows about Maxwell. You have a stark choice.
Hit no. 1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
“This derivation is now generally accepted as a
historical landmark in physics by virtue of uniting electricity, magnetism and
optics into one single unified theory. The displacement current term is now seen
as a crucial addition that completed Maxwell's equations and is necessary to
explain many phenomena, most particularly the existence of electromagnetic
waves.”
How on earth can you guys pretend that Google
hit no. 1 for “Displacement Current” exists, but hit no. 2 doesn’t? http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z001.htm ,
Either you must rubbish hit no. 2, or you must stop
talking knowingly about Maxwell. Anyone who says anything about Maxwell should
at least say that hit no. 2 for “Displacement Current”, http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm ,
is rubbish, if he wants to walk away from it.
Although Harry Ricker will disagree, my article
is very simple and easy to understand. http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm .
What is says is vital.
Getting to no. 2 Google hit means it must
be read a lot. However, nobody who has read it has approached me or commented
on it in writing for 36 years. I shall develop theory as to why this is.
All of you, and that includes all the professors
in the world, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf
, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x344.htm
, have been frightened off electromagnetic theory by the admittedly frightening
and dubious mathematics which has been dumped on my subject, electromagnetic
theory. It is a physical, not a mathematical, subject. Even when I do
use some mathematics on the subject in my book http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm ,
none of my mathematics overlaps onto any of the horrendous maths which
masquerades as electromagnetic theory, which you have been reading and trying
to pass exams in - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations .
You have all been frightened away by such rubbish. However, if you run away,
you cannot usefully contribute to the advance of science.
The nadir was reached by Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x23p.htm
“In this reply, Josephson makes the extraordinary statement;
‘This
is the problem if you work with simplified physics rather than follow the
maths.’”
When the boy said “The Emperor has no clothes”,
those like you who ignored him look ridiculous. At 78, I am admittedly old for
the role. However, it took remarkably long for me to see through the nonsense
in my subject. No professor has been at it for 55 years, as I have. The whole
mess is very plausible. Beware of the Bull
Ivor Catt 3 March 2014
This is a sample of the emails that have been
circulating. It is the kind of thing that triggered my article here.
3. Evidence suggests that electric
current, light, and other electromagnetic radiation employ magnetic and
electric fields.
Light has matter as well as (EM wave-like) distortion-field
components about it. Others are distortion-fields in universal medium.
4. Any valid theory of these three fields
must conform to ALL of the extensive laws describing the effects of these three
fields in the nature of electric force, magnetic force, gravity force, electric
current, light, and all EM radiation. .
As current theories are based on illogical assumptions, laws on fields
need modification. These laws should have logical and conceptual basis.
5. Any theory of these three fields must
be logical, mathematically valid, and consistent with all experiments as we
interpret them.
As and when laws are formed on single logical basis, they will
conform to each other and common sense.
It does not make any sense in the context of my
50 years of work on electromagnetic theory. Those involved must surely come out
clearly and say that my work is of no value, or desist from this kind of thing.
Dear
Helmut,
I
started reading your article http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hansen_The_Dual_Nature_of_t_1.pdf
but fast concluded that I did not have to continue.
I
sent you a hasty reply.
Today,
three months later, I stumbled on it. This led me to a lot of very useful work.
I was surprised that I had not properly set up two major criticisms of
Einstein. Today I have set them up at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x41w.pdf
. The second, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm
, is attached at the end of the first.
The
total failure of all Establishment scientists, all Dissident scientists http://www.worldnpa.org/site/
– in fact everyone – to respond by saying that what I say is correct, or wrong,
leaves me isolated. That also applies to http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
and http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf
.
The
tenor of your article is based on the assumption, or the conviction, that much
of the mainstream is sound. That isolates me from you.
Of
course, I talk of “dissidents” rearranging the deck chairs. I call them
“Establishment Dissidents”.
I
am not totally alone. Theocharis was a lone voice who finally gave up and went back home to Cyprus and became
a school teacher. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2817.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x1cp.pdf
. Although we were closely associated for decades, he never got involved
with my electromagnetic theory. http://www.ivorcatt.com/459.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.com/2817b.htm
etc.
Ivor Catt