**http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/Oppo_complete.pdf**

**http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/oppo.htm**

Oppo
walks the plank,

or
rather two planks. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/oppo2.htm

I myself published a
great deal on electromagnetic theory in the New York IEEE. **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm**
, but was always blocked by the London IEE/IET. However, when I got too far
ahead of the IEEE peer reviewers, publication was no longer possible.

Later, a three man team
developed – Dr. David Walton, Malcolm Davidson and Ivor Catt. My team published
a great deal on electromagnetic theory in downmarket Wireless World **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j1.htm**
, and Macmillan published our book, **http://www.ivorcatt.org/digital-hardware-design.htm**** ,**
but we were embargoed as far as peer reviewed journals, IEEE and IET, were
concerned. I decided to bite the bullet, and address the revered “Maxwell’s
Equations”, which turned out to be the Heaviside-Maxwell Equations. I knew it
was dangerous to analyse such a sacred cow, so put only my own name on the
articles. Thus, my two colleagues Dave and Malcolm would survive any resulting
shocked furore. (Rather than a furore, I was “disappeared” for more than a third
of a century. No furore – no nothing)

Extraordinarily,
Maxwell says his equations don’t even distinguish between action at a distance
and action by the medium of intervening fields.

“Since, as we have seen, the theory of direct action
at a distance is mathematically identical with that of action by means of a
medium, the actual phenomena may be explained by the one theory as well as by
the other, provided suitable [non-mathematical] hypotheses be
introduced when any difficulty arises.” – “A treatise on
electricity and magnetism”, James Clerk Maxwell, vol. 1, sect. 62, p70,
1891/1998. Obviously, the theory is in the English (non-mathematical
hypotheses), not the maths. Today, in classes on electromagnetic theory,
students have lots of maths dumped on them, and no theory, or “hypotheses”. **http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3287 **;
**http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2809.htm
. **Today, a lecturer can manipulate the maths, and set exam questions in it,
but he doesn’t understand the theory. **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf**

My first 1980 article
was relatively gentle; “Maxwell’s Equations Revisited”**. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf
. **There were 19 replies, now no longer available. On p81 the editor, the
late Tom Ivall, says he had decided to publish a
representative sample (by Gordon Scarrott http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/CCS/res/res12.htm#f
). It begins by discussing the equation which is identical to equation (1) in
the Oppo six pages. The Scarrott
“sample” of p81 seems to say the equation ꝺh/ꝺx.dx/dt=ꝺh/ꝺt is illegal, while Oppo dismisses it (eqn.1 p3) as valid, saying that it
merely means the (valid) truism 1=1.

My
second article; “The Hidden Message in Maxwell’s Equations” **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf**** ** frightened off everyone.
For 30 years, nobody commented. This was in line with the Pieraccini
admonishment thirty years later; **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm**** .
**** «Are you kidding?» “Nobody with an
ounce of common sense would risk their career and scientific reputation to
study the Catt anomaly” Massimo thought, “and even if they were
spending time on this, they wouldn’t be telling people about it”.**”

There the matter rested
for thirty years, until my partner Liba told me
Professor Oppo would be giving a lecture in the
Italian Institute, London, entitled; “The Genius of James Clerk Maxwell, the
man who made equations speak.”

Ten days before his
December 1 2017 lecture, I asked Oppo to read and
comment on my two articles. Apart from threatening legal action, he agreed to
do so after his lecture.

It was so important to
get written comment on the Equations from an “expert” that, very fortunately,
Monica Vandory of Salzburg delivered a stunning
attack on Oppo for threatening legal action against
me. **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x831van.htm
**. That must have been what caused him to bite the bullet, and deliver what
I call six pages rebutting my articles – the first comment on my articles for
thirty years. **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/Oppo_complete.pdf ,** and the first
ever on the second. Comments; **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x81poppo.htm
.**

This was a diversion
from my main operation, “The Catt Question” [cattq] **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm**** **into which
massive effort, trying to elicit copmment, had gone
during the thirty years. Cattq is a much better
stamping ground when trying to get serious discussion of electromagnetic theory
from any “experts” in the world, since it is impossible to confuse it with
mathematical obfuscation. Cattq is dangerous because,
like Newton’s first and third laws, it is impossible to attach mathematics to
it. Note the “no comment” on the Wakefield experiments, by Oppo
or anyone else. **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf** ; **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3a922.pdf**
.

Returning
to the 6pp Oppo.

In
the first half of page 3 Oppo takes my equation and
shows that it is a truism, that something is equal to itself. But that was the
whole purpose of the equation, “from the known to the unknown”. I start with an
obvious identity and in simple stages show that a Maxwell Equation is merely an
identity, and tells us nothing. The subterfuge is, using the fact that E and H
are always in fixed proportion, one side of the Maxwell equation uses D or E,
and the other side uses B or H. Using the same stratagem, in my paper I
produced the ridiculous equation dE/dx=--Z_{0}Ɛ_{0}dE/dt, see page 188 of **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf**** . **Thus,
not only does changing E cause H and changing H cause E, but also changing E
causes E! The truth is, E and H do not cause each
other, as Einstein and Feynman wrongly believe, and everyone else followed them
into error.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x33k.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8cg.htm

The second part of Oppo’s
first page is routine text book material. As always, the sine wave is
infiltrated in it in Figure 1. Oppo says “Figure 1. A transverse electromagnetic wave propagating along the direction x
at a generic time t in agreement with Maxwell’s equations.”

In
my first article **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf** on Maxwell I wrote; “The
result is either

dE/dx = - dB/dt (3)

or

dH/dx = - dD/dt (4)

The text books say
the “solution” to this pair of equations is a sine wave! See references 3 to 7.
(In fact, almost anything is a solution to these equations.)

At this stage, the
whole subject starts to look sophisticated and profound. ”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space Different parts
of a waveform in a transmission line can have no effect on each other, and may
be of any form including a sine wave. Oppo throws in
a red herring when he talks about a particular form of wave in a transmission
line. However, politically it is useful, part of the propaganda to imply that
electromagnetism has something to do with the sine wave, and therefore with a
glut of mathematics.

Ivor Catt, April 2018

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x33k.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8cg.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x813.htm