Einstein’s absurdity.


Figure 6. Actual size that of A4 paper. I sent a very narrow pulse into one conductor sandwiched between two voltage planes, with a second parallel conductor alongside, Figure 5 at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x147.pdf .  I then ran (at the speed of light) alongside the conductor with a sampling oscilloscope. (The high speed pulse generator and sampling scope appeared on the market after Einstein’s death.)

The result was Figures 7, 8, the “stationary oscillation in space” (except for epoxy glass losses), which Einstein said was absurd; “ .... there seems to be no such thing .... ”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7b91.pdf  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7b92.pdf   He says this absurdity led him to Relativity. He first thought of this when he was sixteen. Throughout his life, he was not able to use instruments which first appeared after his death, showing that a “stationary oscillation in space” is seen by a fast travelling observer like me.

I myself feel that Einstein and Relativity are absurd, not the figures 7 and 8 that I took, and now look at. The single half-cycle (pulse) is more convincing than a complete sine wave.

Ivor Catt  4 November 2017.


In the Schilpp biography, (not an autobiography) quoted in small print by Michael Polanyi on p10 of his 1958 book “Personal Knowledge”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7b91.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7b92.pdf ,  Einstein says what led him to Relativity was;   “ .... If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell’s Equations. .... ”

If I draw a sine wave across a piece of paper, hold it vertically and take it in a train travelling at 60mph, is it then "a stationary oscillation in space" travelling at 60mph? There seems to be trouble with the meaning of words. This points to the two versions of the TEM wave; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm . My hand oscillated while I drew the sine wave. After I had drawn it, the line did not oscillate, even when in the train.

Something oscillates to generate monochromatic light. The light itself does not oscillate, see “The Heaviside Signal”; “However, elsewhere he seems to stand firmly for the Heaviside signal. For instance (ibid, art. 451, page 4), he says, ‘It carries all its properties with it unchanged,’ [it does not oscillate]



http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/Ideas/einstein.html   Albert Einstein was decidedly underwhelmed by this logic.  Quite aside from the fact that ether theories were compiling an utterly dismal record when it came to predicting anything real, Einstein was bothered by the whole concept of more-or-less tossing out Galilean relativity in favor of some hypothetical ether.  In his writings, Einstein says that he eventually asked himself the question:  What would a light wave look like, if I were traveling with it at the speed of light?” [Using today’s equipment, Ivor Catt did this, keeping up the speed for 234 inches.]

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/einstein-relativity-thought-experiment-train-lightning-genius/  “Einstein had already learned in physics class what a light beam was: a set of oscillating electric and magnetic fields rippling along at 186,000 miles a second, the measured speed of light. If he were to run alongside it at just that speed, Einstein reasoned, he ought to be able to look over and see a set of oscillating electric and magnetic fields hanging right next to him, seemingly stationary in space.



It is extraordinary the way it is generally held that the development of more sophisticated equipment will never lead to an advance in the fundamentals of physics. Nobody is willing to learn from the case of Galileo, who made his major advance because he had a new instrument. Today, only what was learnt with instruments which existed more than a century ago is allowed into the canon of physics. It is funny that this is called “Modern Physics”. It is held that digital electronics (our having forgotten Heaviside), high speed pulse generators and oscilloscopes will teach us nothing fundamental.

Nothing in any of these items has gained access to any university course or text book.





Ivor Catt. 4 November 2017-11-04