http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
Added on 25.12.2021
Why the Obvious must not be Obvious.
An “Establishment” figure stated i=qc
"It is interesting
to think of the possibility that when reasoning is taking one to see a fallacy
in the classical paradigm, common sense ceases to operate, even in me."-
Ivor Catt
“I think this is because we are all imprinted (or infected, choose your poison)
with certain patterns of thought at a very early age that become such second
nature that we don't even realize they are there.” – Forest Bishop.
Recently Forrest
began to consider the equation i = qc . We relate
it to cattq
, a TEM step travelling forward at the speed of light guided by two conductors.
Even Professor Brian Josephson will agree that the equation is mathematically correct. However, he will
not agree that it means that physically,
the charge travels at the speed of light. The reason is in the Ivor Catt
statement above and Forrest’s reply. At this point, it is not possible for a
“Defender of the Faith”, Faith being classical electromagnetism, to use common
sense, or reason. This is because within his faith, charge cannot travel at the
speed of light. The blindingly obvious cannot be allowed to be obvious. Too
much is at stake.
Ivor Catt
19.12.12
We get further insight into George Orwell’s comment;
Crimestop means the
faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any
dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing
to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they
are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or
repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
direction. Crimestop,
in short, means protective stupidity.
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn.,
p225
From: Forrest
Bishop
Sent: Tuesday, December
18, 2012 10:36 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: John
Roche ; Forrest Bishop
Subject: Re: clarendon
Dear Ivor,
"At this moment it appears to me that the very statement i = qc tells us that the TEM Wave guided by
two conductors is not viable under classical theory, which now attributes mass
to electricity. Do you, Forrest, think that the mere statement i = qc refutes classical theory, showing us
that since charge gained mass in around 1900, classical theory was no longer
fit for purpose? If it is as simple as that, why did you not launch this
equation in the past?"-IC
Yes, i = qc means that q has to be massless
because c is the only speed at which this equation can hold if it is not to
violate the premises (e.g. the line voltage) that it was set up on. The
Clarendon man makes a valiant attempt to save classical theory (i.e. massive
electrons) using drift speeds but his argument fails for several reasons. There
are even more restrictions on the possible "speed of q" than there
are on the speed of the cars, though your argument below is certainly part and
parcel of the "q-speed" argument.
I didn't tumble to i = qc until a few years
ago, when I was off doing Bishop Cubes. The total significance didn't settle in
until a couple years ago. I've mentioned it to you before a few times and it's
in my newer paper-
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=2169
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6554&tab=2
It takes years to think this stuff through, even the simplest things, as you
well know (2nd Catt Question, Faraday superposition). It only looks dirt simple
in retrospect.
"It
is interesting to think of the possibility that when reasoning is taking one to
see a fallacy in the classical paradigm, common sense ceases to operate, even
in me."-IC
I think this is because we are all imprinted (or infected, choose your poison)
with certain patterns of thought at a very early age that become such second
nature that we don't even realize they are there. I don't think
there was a vast conspiracy to squelch i = qc or the
field patterns between two wires, or numerous other things, rather it mostly*
happens as a natural progression in the transmission of culture.
*I'm thinking here of higher-ups that do occasionally see the problems but
don't talk when there is a duty to speak, such as when reviewing the latest
proposed textbook.
Forrest
On 12/18/2012 1:36 PM, Ivor Catt wrote:
Dear Forrest,
You point to the equation having been written by
someone in the Establishment. Note that I have never written it, and I do not
remember you writing it, but you have been looking out for it.
It is extraordinary that I have trouble progressing
to the “obvious” conclusion, that in cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
the charge on the conductor must be travelling at the speed of light.
If we have cars equally spaced at 10m along a road
up to a point, with empty road ahead, and after one hour the point between the
equally spaced out cars and empty road has moved forward 100km, then the cars
must be moving at 100km/h. (Or some cars moving faster than that and some
slower.)
Of course, Pepper thinks the extra cars can appear
from nowhere – or from the hard shoulder by the road. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm
But he is in a small minority. Anyway, he says otherwise the cars would have to
travel at 100km/h.
I suggest that when the established paradigm is
under threat, Common Sense disappears – even in me. It is interesting to think
of the possibility that when reasoning is taking one to see a fallacy in the
classical paradigm, common sense ceases to operate, even in me.
At this moment it appears to me that the very
statement i = qc tells us that the TEM
Wave guided by two conductors is not viable under classical theory, which now
attributes mass to electricity. Do you, Forrest, think that the mere statement i = qc refutes classical theory, showing us
that since charge gained mass in around 1900, classical theory was no longer
fit for purpose? If it is as simple as that, why did you not launch this
equation in the past?
Ivor
From: Forrest
Bishop
Sent: Tuesday, December
18, 2012 7:21 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: John
Roche ; Forrest Bishop
Subject: Re: clarendon
Dear John Roche,
Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
One of several interesting aspects of what I've taken to calling The Clarendon
Letter http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf
is its anonymous publication [by CWPP of the Clarendon, Oxford. Like
Spargo, he gets lots of prizes] of what I've taken to calling The Forbidden
Equation:
i = qc
where, in MKSA,
i = electric current in coulomb/sec
q = (net??) line charge in coulomb/m
c = speed of light in m/s
This, though it is essentially the defining equation of electric current, is
nowhere to be found- by myself anyways- in the standard electromagnetics
textbooks. (It falls right out of the usual equations through simple algebraic
manipulation.) If you know of any mainstream book in which it, i =qc that is, appears I would be very appreciative of the
reference.
Regards,
Forrest
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ivor Catt 21.7.2019
Excess electrons q are
uniformly distributed along a I metre section of wire. If they all travel at
speed c, then in 1/300,000,000 seconds they will be uniformly distributed in
the next 1 metre section of the wire.
However, if 2q electrons travel at c/2, they will
all get past the point, but not be uniformly distributed along the next 1
metre. They will all be piled up in the next half metre, with an empty half
metre ahead of them.
This is dealt with in a more sophisticated way
here, to which the Italian authors refused to respond.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5as2.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64f11.pdf
The IoP editor refused to publish my riposte.