21 November 2015


4:22 PM (1 hour ago)




to me, Forrest, David, Malcolm, Stephen


Ivor and Everyone Else,


Ivor, Before this goes much further, I would like to say a few things. I am not your disciple or a supporter as John Dore labels me. As you well know we disagree on many significant points. It offends me that he says that. My position is this. The experimental evidence supports your position on some very important points which I myself have examined very carefully. Now if I accept that the experimental and the other factual evidence supports your contentions, that does not make me a follower or believer or some such. I also will tell you that if it becomes clear that the evidence does not support your position I will be forthright and let you know that is what I think.


I have said many times and I will repeat it. The Wakefield Experiments, both of them I and II, are fully and completely in accordance with the Catt theory hypothesis which I take to be that there is a circulating wave in the transmission line that creates a voltage standing wave that has the appearance of a static charged capacitor as understood in standard mainstream textbooks. That means that you theory is fully and completely conformed and validated according to the usual rules of science. In addition, the mainstream theory found in the textbooks is completely refuted by the experimental results. So the Catt Theory is accordance with the experiments and the mainstream theory is not. QED


This is my position as long as there does not appear any additional experimental facts that contradict the results as they now are known to me.

Harry Ricker.




If an apparently stationary electric field can be created out of two TEM waves travelling at the speed of light, then under Occam, do we retain the stationary electric field as a concept? Is it redundant?



Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


What is the primary role of the static electric field, if not in a charged capacitor?


Is Occam part of “Modern Physics”? If it is, why is it never mentioned? Can professional Knowledge Brokers (e.g. professors) practicing “Modern Physics” allow Occam to undermine their knowledge base?


In the case of the charged capacitor, the Wakefield experiment replaces the stationary electric field, not with a moving electromagnetic field, but with a TEM wave. Under Occam, we now have also to look at the “stationary magnetic field”. It is unlikely that the stationary electric field does not exist, but the stationary magnetic field still exists, although it could be at least simulated by two TEM waves.

Ivor Catt