It is not generally known that the

Titanic was full of mathematicians

E or ExH?

Should we start with E and H?

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j190.pdf

The 1963 Tektronix 109 pulse generator instruction manual discussed a 1-metre-long 50-ohm coaxial cable capacitor charged up to +8v. It was then connected to a 50-ohm cable and discharged. It says that the output was a 2-metre long 4v pulse. In the manual, there was no discussion as to why the pulse emerged contrary to expectations based upon established EM theory. Based on that we would expect an exponentially decreasing output from an initial +8 volts. (The statement; “A Capacitor is a Transmission line” could not be published in any text book or peer reviewed journal until 2018, here , 60 years later.)

The first discussion was 20 years later, in December 1980, p89, in the then high prestige but non-peer reviewed journal “Wireless World”, edited by the late Tom Ivall. This journal was taken by the Cavendish, Cambridge’s physics research lab. See line 3 in the 1983 letter by Howie , the head of the Cavendish; “Wireless World .... is taken by the Cavendish library!”. Further letters; 2 ; 3

(Howie then did nothing constructive for the next 40 years, even though Sir Michael Pepper, who contradicted him on cattq, worked for him and they were both in Trinity College.)

There was a further delay of 30 years, when, possibly on the suggestion of Forrest Bishop in the USA, I asked Tony Wakefield, in Australia, whom I had not met for fifty years, to look inside the 1 metre cable while it was discharging. The results were rejected for publishing by all major peer reviewed journals, but finally published in 2013 in “Wireless World”, now called “Electronics World”.

Looking inside the 1 metre as it was discharging, it looked as though the 8v charged capacitor had not initially had a stationary electric field, but 4v ExH energy , half travelling to the right, and half to the left, at the speed of light. This added up to +8v in electric field, but the equal and opposite magnetic fields cancelled out to zero if attempts were made to measure magnetic field.

Four times the 20 leading professors in status for electromagnetism around the world were asked to comment, but none would make any comment.

Over the next few years, I thought up three more experiments, which Tony Wakefield immediately carried out for me. Each result was as though the original charged capacitor did not have a stationary electric field, but rather ExH energy, half travelling to the right and half to the left.

The experiments were;

Wakefield 2 . Connect to both ends at the same moment. 1 metre 4v pulses come out of each end. Diagram .

Wakefield 3 . Short one end of the 1 metre capacitor. The voltage in the capacitor then alternates between +8v, -8v, 0v. Diagram

Wakefield 4 . Short both ends of the 1 metre. The centre point of the capacitor then alternates between +8v and -8v.

All these results are compatible with the idea that originally, the charged capacitor did not have a stationary electric field.

All these results were rejected for publishing by all peer reviewed journals for many years, until 2018. Then, after a delay of 40 years, some of this work, Wakefield 1, appeared in the peer reviewed Royal Society journal written by Guest Editor Professor Alex Yakovlev of Newcastle University, as follows; “This theory was supported by an experiment, known as Wakefield experiment, which led to the conclusion that there is no such a thing as a static electric field in a capacitor. In other words, a capacitor is a form of TL [transmission line] in which a TEM wave moves with a single fixed velocity, which is the speed of light in the medium. Below we reproduce both the derivation of the TL-based capacitor discharge and the description of the Wakefield experiment….”

The 20 leading professors by status of electromagnetism around the world have again been asked to comment, but do not even reply. Since this involves only Wakefield and Professor Yakovlev, the injunction by the Italian professors, that Catt must be silenced, is not correct. It is the heretical message, the heretical experimental results, not the messenger Catt , who has to be ignored if a professor wants to keep his job. Note that on line 3 of his 1983 letter, Howie talks about “heresy”. No career-oriented professor (which means every professor today) risks being involved with heretical experimental results, but only those results which reinforce, or perhaps merely decorate, the text book canon. Howie says his electromagnetic theory is based on his Trinity College colleague Jackson’s 1962 book “Classical Electrodynamics”, which pre-dates high speed digital electronics. After 1962, work on high-speed digital logic exposed flaws in classical theory unknown to Jackson and Howie. Jackson only has sine waves travelling down transmission lines, and has no grasp of the single step from your computer through your USB cable telling your printer to print. Howie once told me that physical reality was composed of sine waves. No mathematics can be attached to the single step. My work on the subject is here .

The “heresies” (really scientific advances) in the Alex Yakovlev Royal Society journal are here in red. Alex’s Royal Society co-editor Dr. Christopher Spargo refuses to comment on them. On repeated questioning, Nobel Prize-winner Brian Josephson finally conceded that the Alex article should be redacted.

Every text book on electromagnetism begins with a stationary electric field. By sleight of hand, this then moves to the moving electromagnetic field ExH. This move is camouflaged by a deluge of dubious mathematics and obscure discourse . In contrast, Heaviside and Catt recommend that we start with the moving field ExH and advance toward the stationary field E.

Later, Catt moves towards the idea that there is no such thing as a stationary electric field. Two superposed moving fields can give the impression of a stationary field.

Ivor Catt 17.7.2021

Where are they? At this point I will add to this document comments by DHJPP; Professors Davies , Howie , Josephson , Palmer , Pepper , Gian-Luca Oppo. We look forward to receiving their comments. Howieland .

Their comments will be added here …. ….

During the first month, nobody has commented. – Ivor Catt 14.8.2021

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie14.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2av.htm Science attracts careerists instead of curiosity-driven idealists.

https://rethinkingaids.com/#top

13.6.2021

Dear Archie,

I have been working on a Youtube video recently. It is finally completed. Yours and any other comments are welcome. [I hope to add them here – Ivor Catt. …. ….]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_PNNdri8I4

Malcolm Davidson

……………………………………

19.7.2021

Malcolm Davidson

17:33 (4 hours ago)

to me, Steve, HARRY, Anthony, Forrest

Dear Ivor,

My comments regarding why people reject ideas which are at odds with conventional wisdom are as you state;

1. They don't care.

2. They don't understand.

3. They're all scared.

It is important to understand that the first two are predicated upon the third. At a basic, elemental level people are scared, so they cannot afford to care, and they also cannot afford to understand. [See Orwell; http://ivorcatt.co.uk/Y65BRILL.htm ]

A native american phrase comes to mind here; "You cannot waken someone up who pretends to be asleep".

The question is "What are people scared of?"

The answers are numerous and here are a few;

People need to be validated by their peers.

People don't want to be ostracized for having diverse views from the norm. [ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf ]

People need to be connected to a social group, the collective.

Change only occurs when the pain of change is less than that of the status quo.

Social acceptance is more important than truth for the instrumentalist. [ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cktony.htm ]

There are other answers for sure, but at core is the inability to be self-validated without concern for others, emotionally and spiritually. I have this concept of the "Holy Donut"

In each of us is an emptiness that needs filling. We do this by going inward and learning about spirituality, letting go, (of material possessions etc) meditation. Embracing such ideas as self validation, "everything's perfect with room for improvement". As we slowly fill this emptiness we need less from the outside and we can be open to new ideas, diverse thoughts, be less judgemental and so on.

Everyone refuses to answer various questions regarding so called "Stationary Electric Fields", no such thing as Displacement Current, electron flow in the opposite direction to the flow of the ExH signal.

People merely parrot what has been taught before because deep inside they are empty and need validation from the outside.

So, I would be interested to hear back from folks if they think this resonates with them? [DHJPP will be unable to comment in any way. They are empty. – Ivor Catt]

thanks and Best Regards,

Malcolm

From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 5:04 AM
To: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>
Cc: Steve Crothers <sjc7541@gmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Anthony Wakefield <anthony.wakefield@bigpond.com>; Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: silencing

Dear Malcolm,

I am still developing my understanding of the complex mechanism which led to the destruction of science.

Some time ago I realised that the enemies of science - which is the search for truth - were multifarious, only recently described by me as MICE - Mathematicians, Instrumentalists, Careerists, EMC.

Your trilogy - "They're all scared; They don't care; they don't understand" is very important.

The people who are silenced are in a number of categories.

1 Scientists who have made major scientific advances, and so have to be silenced and ostracised.

2 Editors who insisted on publishing alternative narratives, not limiting to the monolithic dogma which ensures the most "research" money. Committees who hand out money want to be sure they are funding "97%" of the experts, not wasting any on the 3%.

3 Established members of Establishment science, for instance Nobel Prize-winner Brian Josephson, who, not understanding the situation, thought they could step outside the dogmatic framework, and so were then silenced. To be continued.

Ivor

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 23:02, Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Harry and Ivor,

This statement is crucial " opinion sanctified by consensus established by the bureaucratic science hierarchy. ". People believe a scientific truth if it is the following;

1. Comfortable for them (within the social group they are connected to, and defined by)

2. easy to accept

3. satisfies their own ego needs

4. makes them feel superior to their fellow scholars

5. is safe, ie been the consensus for years.

6. their truth is the one accepted by the masses

A good example of this is COVID19. Ivor has decided that Fauci is a crook so cherry picks all of the bizarre youtube video castigating him and his ilk.

[Nobellist Kary Mullis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqQIY7J0fQ ]

Why, because it suits his world view. This is exactly what the "MICE" do.

Ivor (and others) cannot have it both ways. You must accept that thorough scientific research be carried out to ascertain the facts. Let's forget about truth for a minute and replace it with the word "facts".

I am fascinated that people aren't more curious about the anomalies in EM theory. The facts - theories relationship is bound up in fear, repression and illusion. It's the Wizard of Oz and his curtain played out daily. People spewing forth ad infinitum the consensus regardless of whether it is reasonable or not.

Have conjecture, gather the facts, analyse the results and suggest a new model. Sadly, people are intellectually lazy, mostly because they are afraid.

Best Regards,

Malcolm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

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

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/manifesto1.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x827mafia.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/CllgCHrjDfpwQfszpMfNrFhQRhNdzBnNlmTHwfcBSWQfFgVRjHFBTxjHWrTvPVfCsXswBmDHDnB?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

Henry Bauer <hhbauer@spamarrest.com>

31 May 2021, 13:36

to me, Archie, Christopher, Brian, Anthony

Does joint whistling in the wind do more than make congenial music?

On Mon, 31 May 2021 06:28:28 -0400, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Henry Bauer.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2av.htm

The x2... indicates that I put Bauer on my website in 2012. x means ten. The Bauer content is 2004.

I completely forgot this until last night.

I am obviously working in parallel with you. If I come up with a "new" idea, having forgotten it is already in Bauer, am I a plagiarist? Yes and no.

I have not read all that Bauer has written and published. So I am very likely to make an "advance" independent of Bauer, which is already in Bauer. (Not having heard of Heaviside, I independently came up with the concept of "energy current", a current of energy, cf electric current. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/c.htm )

My hero is Heaviside, who wrote;

‘If you have got anything new … you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner even though he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do that … . But when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!’ – Oliver Heaviside, 10 March 1893.

The biggest scam of all, CERN, has stolen something important of mine. What they wrote is undated, but they made the mistake of citing a publication dated after my work was first published. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf So they could not suggest that I stole it from them. Anyway, they copy a section word for word from my prior publication, so they obviously plagiarise. They have to, to keep the money flowing to them. A billion per year.

I have just re-read the whole of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2av.htm . It does not contain all of my latest insights.

I have also pinpointed 1960 as the key date.

My idea of the enemies of science being MICE - mathematicians, instrumentalists, careerists, EMC is new. You do however mention careerists.

You do not have cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm - forcing them to clarify their false theory, when they contradict each other.

MICE cannot make any comment on "Should you knowingly lie to students in order to help an electrician to wire up a house?"

Instrumentalists (= every one of today's "science" professors worldwide) assert "there is no truth". Then are there "lies"? They cannot make any comment on that question. They cannot even comment on the sentence; "Science is the search for truth."

I call MICE parasites. I also call them a cancer in science. Which name should we give to them? We should have cleared out the stables long ago. [On 6 August 2021 I realise the correct description for them all is “chancers”. - IC]

My recent work finds that the depth of grasp of their own branch of "science" by the professors is frighteningly low. They know nothing about other branches of science. They do not read around science - sociology of science, philosophy of science, history of science. Only recently I have come to realise that we should not assume the Head of the Cavendish has even heard of Galileo. He did not get to his post by spending time on Galileo.

My co-author Malcolm Davidson says; They are all scared. They don't care. They don't understand.

Your idea of 10% of research funding for dissidents is good; also a Science Court.

Ivor Catt

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

Virus-free. www.avg.com

:-)= ******************************************************* :-)=

Henry H. Bauer

Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

207 Woods Edge Court, Blacksburg VA 24060-4015

(540) 951-2107

cell (540) 250-4084

http://www.henryhbauer.homestead.com

Blogs:
Skepticism about science and medicine: http://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/

HIV/AIDS Skepticism : http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/

:-)= ******************************************************* :-)=
Most recent book (2017): Science Is Not What You Think
https://mcfarlandbooks.com/product/science-is-not-what-you-think/