|
21 Jan 2020, 13:55 (2 days ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Ivor,
I will try to
respond to your particular remarks about Ampere's law later. Here I want to
make some remarks about my journey that leads to the above conclusions. My
father was an electrical engineer who worked for NASA and was responsible for
the electrical system on the Mercury spacecraft. When I was in high school, I jointed
an amateur radio club and at age 13 got my ham license. I studied electrical
engineering and got a BS degree. Later I got an MS degree. I became an
electrical engineer not so much because my father was an EE, but because I was
a radio amateur or ham. I learned a lot about radio and antennas from that. My
point here is that the courses I took were absolutely useless in
providing any clear understanding of radio and antennas. In particular I took
one class in antenna theory that had absolutely nothing to do with how antennas
worked, it was all about calculating the fields produced by currents in an
antenna based upon assumptions.
Basically, I
learned that the mathematics of Maxwell's equations said nothing about how
antennas worked. That was a major problem for me in my professional work as a
radio engineer. To make a long story short, I could never make sense of the
textbook theory until I read your articles in Wireless World. That gave me new
insights that I did not have before. But I needed the one last insight
regarding the nature of antennas, and that fell into place when I realized that
the main requirement is that antennas operate at resonance and they
produce E and H fields in phase. That fits nicely with the Heaviside energy
current concept.
The rather
astounding fact of all this is that no one understands how antennas
actually work. There is a mountain of confusion on that topic. What
it amounts to is that engineers can design antennas, but have no clue
what they are doing physically with electric and magnetic fields.
Basically, to talk
about Ampere's Law means to talk about a number of different things. So you have to be specific and clear about which one of them
you mean. My resolution of this problem, was to say that displacement
current and conduction current are the same thing, so Ampere;s Law counts them twice. So
it is incorrect. To resolve the confusion we
have to say whether we are talking about conduction current or displacement
current. But that is not really a solution at all. We have to say
whether we are talking about a capacitor or not. David says Amperes
law applies in deep space, meaning a vacuum. But there is no
conduction current there, so he means displacement current. But then we use the
curl equation to find that the E field and H field are out of phase, when they
ought to be in phase. This is my point. You can
not apply Ampere's Law in a vacuum and get the EM wave equation with E
and H in time phase. That is incorrect.
The main problem
with the Heaviside energy current is that the textbooks say that
current is a flow of electrons in a wire. That idea has to be
maintained, since as Akinbo says, you can not have electricity without some kind of source or
cause for it. He and David assume that causes have to be material ones, which is metaphysics,
and so everything gets messed up from there. They require some kind of material
aether, and there is no evidence for any such thing. Eventually they
are speculating about equations that they don't understand and wind up
accomplishing nothing but a waste of time.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
(no subject)
Inbox
|
15 Oct 2020, 17:27 (20 hours ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Ivor,
We can not leave aside the aether because it is central to the
entire problem. The fact is Maxwell's Equations are derived from Maxwell's
theory of the aether. Mainstream tries to continue working with Maxwell's
aether equations while ignoring the fact that they say there is no aether. The
first and foremost issue there is that there is no aether so no displacement
current and hence the incompleteness of the Maxwell Equations now only three
instead of four.
So lets get to the main issue. If you study Maxwell's
Equations you are told that they lead to the EM wave equation, which proves
something like the unification of electricity and magnetism. But there is no
aether so that cuts the heart out of the equations, since that there can be no
displacement current without aether. That then requires some agile doubletalk
to explain why displacement current exists despite the lack of an aether to
justify that idea. This is crucially important. So
when you said there is no displacement current, they could not focus upon
anything other than you have to be suppressed for your heresy.
The problem is that
your claim as to no displacement current is your main crime, and it simply can not be ignored or forgiven. That drives everything.
Your proposal to put in place a much simpler and more fruitful set of axioms
for the foundations of EM theory was then simply ignored, and you have been
banished from the Church of Physics for your heresy. It is that simple.
But you made things
worse when you broke the code that maintains the mystery of the electric charge
and current. These are primary pillars in the mystical experience of the
teaching of EM theory. It was bad enough that you denied displacement current,
but to deny electric charge goes against everything that they sincerely believe
and hold to be true. That is another crime that you are guilty of. Frankly, I
don't see how you have not been executed for sins against the Church Of Physical Science.
The main problem is
that having tried to establish your own new religion, you simply have to be
suppressed. The fact that your new religion is very much better than
the old religion makes no difference to them. They are married to that
old fashioned religion and simply will not give it up.
They must worship the existence of charge, electric current and displacement
current because they can not see the benefits of your
new canon of belief. But as I have demonstrated, if you lay out for them the
facts of the inability of the good old fashioned
religion to simply explain things like the Wakefield experiment, it makes no
impression at all. They can not comprehend the new
physics. That is certainly a strange fact given that it is so totally and
completely obvious once having been laid out. The objection that there must be
Ohmic losses is a good example of: It can not be true
in my opinion because I cling to the old fashioned
religion. If Thomas Kuhn is correct, these old men have to die and be buried
before any real progress towards enlightenment is possible.
I therefore suggest
documenting your ideas as best you can through the CNPS Science Chat discussions
with David DeHilster. Perhaps writing some more
articles for Wireless World would also be useful.
Harry
On Thursday,
October 15, 2020, 11:29:24 AM EDT, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
wrote:
Harry,
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=501&subpage=articles x
You have recently
put an enormous amount of work into me and into electromagnetic theory.
This means you have a right to influence events, or future strategy.
First let us leave
aside the question of the aether. I do not agree or disagree. I just do not
understand the argument by either side.
I suggest you
should not bother to try to straighten me out on this. I want us to concentrate
on electromagnetic theory and what strategy we should pursue.
I chose three men
to represent the "science" Establishment when it comes to
electromagnetic theory.
1 Archie Howie, ex
head of the Cavendish. Was on the board of IoP.
You (and he)
analyse the IoP behaviour over cattq.
He has to do something. They rejected your letter.
2 Nobel prize
winner Josephson.
3 Tony Davies, ex
board of directors of the IEEE.
These three retired
men have broken the code of omerta of the academic community, and possibly can
be made to communicate further.
One sent me more
than 100 emails. another sent me 30 emails 30 lines long. The third sent
me 20,000 words of emails. They cannot now say they are too important or too
busy to communicate. Just now, I asked all three to comment on your
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=501&subpage=articles ,
which is of a very high calibre. Josephson obfuscates.
It can be shown
that they have no loyalty to the idea of scientific advance, but only look to
their own advance, even though they are retired. They cannot comment positively
or negatively on your work, which they know has to be silenced.
I have Bcc'd this
to Professor Alex Yakovlev, who may have useful comments. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm ;
http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html
Technically, they
are frighteningly weak.
A forerunner is
Pepper. There is also Palmer. Both wrote nonsense on cattq.
Ivor