The Test

In 1964, a very narrow (perhaps three inches long) pulse was delivered down a coaxial cable to enter between the left-hand (active) conductor and the ground plane. http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp56.htm . As it travelled along, it broke up into two pulses travelling at different velocities. Further along to the right, identical pulses appeared on the right-hand (passive) conductor. http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp57.htm . The fastest (odd mode) were equal and opposite, followed by the slower (even mode) equal pulses.

Also see http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x251.pdf page 5. ( http://www.ivorcatt.org/x111.pdf p21)

In http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.pdf , page 23, figures 8 and 9, the front of the right-hand conductor is shorted, so no voltage was possible there. The result is two superposed positive and negative pulses travelling at different velocities, and separating out further down.

On http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.pdf , page 24, Figure 12, we see an observer watching signals as they pass down the conductors, with the voltage plane acting as a mirror. He uses the laws of classical electrodynamics to prove that the odd mode signals are permissible, and also the even mode signals are permissible. The mathematics is in these papers. However, the initial (left hand) superposition of the two modes is not permissible under classical electromagnetism – Faraday’s Law, the law of conservation of charge, etc. Faraday’s law does not permit the experimental results we see here – two changing magnetic fields into the same surface causing two voltages around the perimeter of the surface, as discussed by Kip. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2671.pdf .

Ivor Catt 3.3.2021

Analysis. 4.3.2021

In 2015 I published an article “The Decline of Science” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x623.pdf . However, it was previously put much more forcefully by Bruce Charlton in 2012 in his book; “Not even trying” (to seek the truth) http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8ahcharlton.html , as follows;

The argument of this book in a single paragraph

Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.

http://www.ivorcatt.uk/Y65BRILL.htm This is not included in Charlton.

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

strategy

Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>

2021 Thu, 25 Feb, 19:56 (12 days ago)

to HARRY, bcc: Malcolm, bcc: Alex

Dear Harry,

I am developing http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/hr.htm

Do I send the following to the parasites, Howie, Davies, Josephson, Palmer, Spargo?

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ricker.htm means you have a key role in my present exercise.

A scientist like me has a duty to come up with every strategy possible, and pursue them all, to try to retrieve science from the parasites who have taken it over. In the inquest in 2045, they will need to know that every stratagem was tried and failed (if they do all fail).

I see no reason why those we regard as parasites should not be told of their role as parasites. In today's terminology, it is "to call them out".

From the particular to the general. It is unfortunate that I cannot study every parasite who is strangling science. Those I have most knowledge of are unfortunate, and it is regrettable that individuals have to be targeted. Anyway, I keep saying that a parasite only has to hedge his bets a little, and show some signs of cooperating just a little in the pursuit of science, rather than self, and all will be forgiven.

Perhaps I should lead the way by confessing that I have no knowledge of the famous "Yellow Bible" of which Archie Howie is one of the five authors. Also, I have no knowledge of the "Josephson Junction". Why should Howie and Josephson have to pretend that they have competence in electromagnetic theory to justify their cooperating in obstructing Catt's work and ridiculing it? The same goes for Davies and Palmer.

Ivor