Sam Gray

5 July 2013

"Energy is travelling forward at the speed of light. Therefore it knows nothing of what is ahead of it or behind it." Ivor
This notion is based on signal function. However no one takes this sentient energy in any other than a metaphorical sense. Thus energy may travel faster than light speed, but a signal function that is restricted arbitrarily to light speed would be unable to register such a circumstance. Energy is not a signal function.

What is it, then?

You provide an answer elsewhere along the lines that it is a primitive concept which by definition travels at light speed. This is your theoretical premise, or at any rate the theoretical premise of Catt Theory of electromagnetism. [ Dr. David Walton ]

Your second premise is that space is that which retards the progress of Energy, so that there is no instantaneous transmission of energy. This tardiness is the foundation of the concept of time

Certain other properties or behaviours of energy are introduced, sufficient to derive your formulaic expressions.

It therefore is clear that you say nothing at all about matter. You theorise only with regard to space, energy and velocity. The concepts of matter are left to be defined in terms of the interactions of these 3 primitives.

Introducing E x H as energy is therefore defining Energy. It is justifiable to expect a definition to be based on primitive concepts. So you complicate your primitive Energy by using some empirical primitive structure to define it .

The fact that it is empirical begs the question: have you included all the empirical structural data, or only what " science" has determined so far?

When you claim the Catt theory primitive energy is indeed a primitive, you do not assert it is the only primitive, nor indeed the "source primitive".  Instead you assert it as a pragmatic primitive, a first principle  among a few other first principles, whose relationships and interactions are necessary nd sufficient to explain all electronic function and therefore design parameters..

Because of this rather sparse but clear viewpoint you feel able to apprehend the function of all electronic devices, particularly the capacitor.

From your analysis of transmission line capacitance you discover crosstalk as an inductive process, and finally you see that charge is a fiction, The  dynamic structured energy accounts for all.

The Catt question is devised to provoke that kind of introspection that will lead to this insight.

Where does the charge in the 0 volt rail come from?   A trick question, for the answer is there is no charge either in the top or bottom rails. All there is is energy oscillating between the rails at the speed of light.

Of course no one cared to come to this conclusion, andvsomyou have been beating a lonely drum ever since.

The corollary of their being no charge is that so called charged particles do not exist. Really it is a question of how does matter structure with this oscillating energy concept. The natural conclusion is matter is structured as little to large capacitors, but I do not see that you have got that far. Rather I see you diverted to the social question of how your colleagues are reacting to your provocative material.

Consequently you do not see the flaws or opportunities in your primitives.

It seems natural to consider TEM as telling us something about matter. In fact no electromagnetic theory tells us anything about matter. EM theory deals with an abstract quality called charge, whether electric or magnetic. We apply it to matter to suit.

It is a fine distinction, but whether matter carries charge or is charge makes all the difference in the cosmos.

Sam Gray

I attempt to construct matter out of TEM Waves. – Ivor Catt