Before or after the Deluge?
The deluge would be
if and when it becomes accepted that there are fatal flaws in Classical
Electromagnetic Theory (not Catt Theory).
A decade ago, Nigel
Cook concluded that (1) there were such fatal flaws, and also (2) that Catt
theory was the answer. He put in enormous effort, time and money promoting both
points 1 and 2. Unfortunately Catt did not realise that his role was that of
John the Baptist, and the Messiah was properly Nigel Cook. Thus, when Catt
failed to promote Cook theory in equal measure, the Messiah turned on him,
claiming he lied, was paranoid, and was wrong. Fortunately Cook attacked
everyone else at the same time, so the damage to Catt was minimal.
20 contributors were
discussing Catt theory, concentrating on “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm on the internet by email, but Cook and David Tombe hijacked the discussion and buried it in theory of
their own, so the dialogue came to a halt.
Having said that Catt
lied, Nigel Cook was now out of it, but many years later David Tombe confessed to me that he had not until that moment understood
“The Catt Question”. Thus, he had hijacked a discussion which he had not
understood.
It gradually became
clear that Tombe was another Messiah, bent on
promoting his own theories (and not fully understanding classical theory or
Catt theory. He did not need to bother much with other theories, since the
correct theory was his own. He only had to study them enough to find apparent
flaws in them. Jesus probably did not bother to study the teachings of John the
Baptist too much). However, having admitted value in one item by Catt http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, he needed to discredit all other Catt theory in order to make room for his
own. This is of course the current situation in Syria, where reformers fail to
concentrate on replacing Assad, but fight among themselves. In the case of electromagnetic theory, we do
not even know whether newcomers like Franklin Hu (1)
sufficiently understand classical theory, or (2) Catt theory, or (3) understand
or agree that classical theory has fatal flaws. Does Hu even realise that Catt
argues that there are fatal flaws in classical theory, and has he studied these
allegedly fatal flaws? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm This is the same as the Islamists fighting
with the Revolutionaries and ignoring Assad, or even not understanding where
the battle is or what it is about. Is it about Democracy, or about an Islamist
State? Is the battle in electromagnetic theory about the validity of classical
theory, or the validity of Catt theory? I insist they are not the same battle.
If his opponents fail to cooperate, they fail to oust Assad.
The background to
this situation is dire. Thomas S Kuhn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
says that one theory is only discredited at the moment it is replaced by
another. This is generally accepted in today’s highly decadent science. In
contrast, I insist that it should be possible to discuss classical theory in
its own terms http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
without taking into account any new theory by Catt or Tombe,
or we are neither indulging in true science nor in logical discourse.
This situation is not
simple. I think Kuhn’s differentiation between “Normal Science” and
“Revolutionary Science” is important in these very rare cases. The only
precursors to “electricity does not exist” are 200 years ago; “Phlogiston does
not exist” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
, “Caloric does not exist” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory
. Someone like me, who stumbled on such a major paradigm shift in 1976, such as
has not happened for 200 years, is presented with a massive problem, which applies
to anyone with whom he tries to communicate. They just don’t understand what is
going on. It would of course help a great deal if they had read Kuhn, “The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. During the seminar I gave in Newcastle
University, http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html
, I asked who had read Kuhn. Out of the audience of 60, only one said he had.
Better still to have read Polanyi. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x232.pdf
. It is unreasonable to expect the dialogue to function efficiently if such a
situation has not occurred for two centuries.
I would plead that I
be allowed to communicate in the normal way over normal science. Thus, my
suggestion that electric current does not exist, Revolutionary Science, should
not block me from pointing out, in Normal Science, that a capacitor does not
self resonant frequency http://www.ivorcatt.org/ic2603.htm
or that a capacitor is a transmission line http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
. Even though the last is Normal Theory, David Tombe
does not understand it.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Below is a collage of
material from Stanford and Roger Anderton.
i.e. in the 19th Century before
there was empirical evidence for atomism, there were people trying to reject
atomism as not being science, reason being they believed in positivism.
Stanford: Versions of atomism developed
by mechanical philosophers in the seventeenth century shared that
characteristic. By contrast, the knowledge of atoms that is now taken for
granted in modern science is not established by a priori philosophical argument but by appeal to quite specific experimental
results interpreted and guided by a quite specific theory, quantum mechanics.
So what you have there is metaphysics
of atomism now being tied to empirical evidence.
I fail to touch base
with all of it.
“the
knowledge of atoms that is now taken for granted in modern science”
I have never had any
response for anyone to my equivocation on this matter. I have written
extensively on it, but of course have not published on it. However, NPA members
have been assailed by my remarks, with no response whatsoever.
Briefly, I argue that
“taken for granted in modern science” has not adapted to what I presume
everyone now takes for granted, “no instantaneous
action at a distance”. If the atom is taken for granted, then where is the
discussion of the nature of the atom in a universe where there is no
instantaneous action at a distance? Is it a “point particle” with infinite
density? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle . If so, can two
point particles collide? If however, those who “take
for granted” the “atom” as a Primitive has volume, they should discuss how
something whose various parts exist in different universes, “elsewhere” in Minkowski’s language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone , can make up a
Primitive. Of course, that brings us to the next point about “Modern Physics”;
the lack of discussion of what are the Primitives underlying
“Modern Physics”, which is that to which dissident NPA members have loyalty as
well as do the Establishment. In fact, I don’t know what the word for
Primitives is used by the Establshment or by NPA. Is
it “fundamentals”, or “building blocks”, or what? Or is it not agreed that
anything, for instance the universe, is made up of basic building blocks?
In the gorblimey world of mainstream physics and NPA physics that
I see all around me, I note that the fact that we don’t know that a star
exploded until many years later is grist to the mental mills of these people.
However, in my work I was presented with the fact that when an address arrives
at the side of a memory board that I was designing, the other end of the six
inch board did not know anything about the address until one nanosecond later.
Our memory had to deliver the word within 20 nsec, so
this loss of time mattered. All this was in 1965, and I have had 50 years to
ruminate that “no instantaneous action at a distance” does not only apply to two
stars, but to two sides of an “atom”. Perhaps this experience 50 years ago
followed by 50 years of thought is what separates me from mainstream and NPA
science today. I think this separation is mutual, and there will continue to be
no comment on what I say here yet again.
I know that the basic
building block of a universe where there is no instantaneous action at a
distance resides at one point only. It contains energy density, not energy. We
then build up our view of the nature of the universe. (Or we just start with
what those we admire – Maxwell, Pauli etc. said?) However, before we can start,
we have to absorb the implications of the law, “no instantaneous action at a distance”. Of course, if by
“entanglement” we do introduce instantaneous action at a distance,
that is a totally different science. If only I could have done this 50 years ago, and saved 1 nsec,
I would probably be extremely wealthy by now.
Ivor Catt 12 January 2014
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
“Reading between the lines, it looks as though
it's another example of the confusion which has arisen by virtue of the belief
that EM waves are the same thing as the effect that travels in the space
between the two wires of a transmission line. It's highly doubtful that the
concept of 'impedance' has got any significance whatsoever within the context
of a wireless EM wave, and even in the context of a transmission line pulse,
the meaning is dubious. Best
Regards David Tombe”
From: David Tombe
Sent: Friday, January 10,
2014 9:48 PM
To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. etc
Subject: RE: PERMEABILITY OF FREE
SPACE AND HU AETHER
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Franklin Hu
Sent: Saturday, January
11, 2014 6:34 AM
To: Ivor Catt ; sirius184@hotmail.com ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; relativity
googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Let's settle
this electric current thing.
Ivor,
Look, you're the one
who came up with this idea that electrons do not flow through a wire as electric
current. That is your assertion. It's up to you to prove it to those of us who
doubt you.
I think that if you
spent a little time examining the fuel cell case, either you can explain what
is going on without a flow of electrons in wire (which would be great), or you
would have to come to the sad realization that this case completely disproves
your assertion that electrons do not flow in a wire.
I know you want
people to pay attention to what you have to say and I'd say you were definitely
the expert in TEM waves and how they work in integrated circuitry, but when you
try to extend that to saying that there is no electron flow - well people think
that is "bizzare" and you lose all
credibility. You wonder why no professor takes you seriously? That's why - you
can't explain a simple current generating chemical circuit which so obviously
contradicts what you are asserting about how electrons do not flow in a wire.
That's a real concrete objection you have to be able to deal with.
If you want people to
start taking you seriously, then you need to back up your assertions. This
should be well within your ability to explain if you are so certain that
current isn't a flow of electrons - it is directly applicable. If you
can't answer this most basic of questions based on real experiments like the
fuel cell and you just stick you head in the sand and say I don't have an
explanation, then why should anyone believe you? Should you even believe
yourself?
So, dig deep and
answer the question of how the fuel cell works if it isn't a physical flow of
electrons from one side to the other. Look at it, examine it, figure it out. But be prepared to abandon your unsupported
assertions and believe me, you will be better off for it. It is better to
support assertions you can support like your TEM work.
Could Ivor Catt be wrong in some areas? I think that anyone who
thinks they cannot be wrong is not doing science. I am always willing to say
that I can most certainly be wrong, just show me the errors of my way and I will
be glad for it. Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong? I am showing
you the errors of your ways, the fuel cell case absolutely disproves your
assertions that current does not flow as electrons.
Let's settle this
electric current thing.
Come'on - it's not so hard to conceive of electrons flowing through a wire like
water through a pipe.
-Franklin
From: Ivor
Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
To: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>;
David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>; Malcolm
Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>; RMLAF <rmlaf@comcast.net>;
ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>; "Glenn A. Baxter,
P.E." <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; "Robert.bennett@rcn.com"
<robert.bennett@rcn.com>; sungenis@aol.com; don@shoestringscience.com;
bill.lucas001@gmail.com; "PalAsija@GMail.com"
<palasija@gmail.com>; npercival@snet.net; almcd999@earthlink.net;
ian.cowan@nsai.ie; cowani@eircom.net; Forrest Bishop
<forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; odomann@yahoo.com; jarybczyk@verizon.net;
thierrydemees@pandora.be; cole@nevis.columbia.edu; Chan Rasjid
<chanrasjid@gmail.com>; tegmark@mit.edu; "Institute@k1man.com"
<institute@k1man.com>; relativity googlegroups.
com <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Let's settle this electric current thing.
It seems you think I have no right to
develop; and communicate insights into electromagnetic theory if I have never
thought about a fuel cell. So be it.
My insights are numerous, and include
nothing about fuel cells, or about permanent magnets, and many other things,
including lightening. Therefore all my insights should be ignored.
We should ignore all the teachings of
Jesus because he said nothing about marriage. Thus, we should ignore much
greater pundits than me.
There is a massive distinction between
asking about, and pointing to, flaws in classical theory on the one hand http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, and propounding new theory on the other http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2_4.htm
.
Ivor Catt
From: Franklin Hu
Sent: Friday, January 10,
2014 4:10 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; David
Tombe ; Malcolm
Davidson ; RMLAF
; ROGER
ANDERTON ; Glenn A.
Baxter, P.E. ; Robert.bennett@rcn.com ; sungenis@aol.com
; don@shoestringscience.com
; bill.lucas001@gmail.com
; PalAsija@GMail.com ; npercival@snet.net ; almcd999@earthlink.net
; ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; cowani@eircom.net ; Forrest
Bishop ; odomann@yahoo.com
; jarybczyk@verizon.net
; thierrydemees@pandora.be
; cole@nevis.columbia.edu
; Chan
Rasjid ; tegmark@mit.edu
; Institute@k1man.com
; relativity
googlegroups. com
Subject: Re: Let's settle
this electric current thing.
Ivor,
I appreciate your
response, but you didn't answer the question.
Please answer the
question of how a fuel cell works if no electrons flow through a wire.
I have reviewed your
references and find nothing that directly addresses how this works in some
alternate theory. Comparing it to Phlogiston does nothing to explain how a fuel
cell works if electrons are not being physically delivered to other side of the
fuel cell.
So, instead of a set
of long and confusing references, just reply with a concise description of what
is going on in a fuel cell that is compatible with your theory. I am using this
example because it is very simple and you should be able to explain what is
going on.
How does a fuel cell
work?
-thanks
Franklin
From: Ivor
Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
To: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>;
David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>; Malcolm
Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>; RMLAF <rmlaf@comcast.net>;
ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>; "Glenn A. Baxter,
P.E." <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; "Robert.bennett@rcn.com"
<robert.bennett@rcn.com>; sungenis@aol.com; don@shoestringscience.com;
bill.lucas001@gmail.com; "PalAsija@GMail.com" <palasija@gmail.com>;
npercival@snet.net; almcd999@earthlink.net; ian.cowan@nsai.ie;
cowani@eircom.net; Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>;
odomann@yahoo.com; jarybczyk@verizon.net; thierrydemees@pandora.be;
cole@nevis.columbia.edu; Chan Rasjid
<chanrasjid@gmail.com>; tegmark@mit.edu; "Institute@k1man.com"
<institute@k1man.com>; relativity googlegroups.
com <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Let's settle this electric current thing.
“Ivor, lets settle this issue about electric
current.” – FH
The analogy is
Phlogiston.
Phlogiston probably
played a number of roles, and when it was removed from combustion,
a lot of cleaning up probably had to ensue to deal with its other roles. However,
it is probable that its primary role was seen to be, to be emitted from a log
of wood when it burned.
Although nobody will
confirm or deny this, I suggest that the primary role of electric current is to
help a battery to light a lamp. “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
and the confusion following it means that electricity is not fit for purpose
when a battery lights a lamp. Heaviside’s concept of “Energy Current” enables a
battery to light a lamp without the help of electricity, but he did not realise
this. ”The Second Catt Question” also creates problems for electricity when a
battery tries to light a lamp. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf
This led to my
greatest contribution, “Theory C”, which does not say that electric current or
electric charge do not exist. Thus, your email below
does not bear on “Theory C.”
“Theory C” is
strictly limited to the following;
“When a battery
is connected to a lamp by two wires and the lamp lights, electric current is
not involved.”
As to your email below,
I proposed a number of relevant experiments http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm .
Unfortunately, such experiments will not be conducted for some decades. One
reason is the confusion created by your email below, which confuses “this issue about
electric current”. The conventional story about how things like batteries or
electroplating work is obviously ridiculous, and work needs to be done to
create more sensible theory. At present, iun
electrolysis, the ions move in the wrong direction at the wrong speed. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/441.htm
“Of course, the conventional story, of ions moving in the wrong direction
at the wrong speed, will be a casualty of experimentation. [Note FBB, separate
file]”
I started working on
electromagnetic theory in 1959, 54 years ago. The validity of one part of my
work does not hang on the correctness of another. Thus, it is wrong to think
that the breakthrough in explaining how a battery lights a lamp, Theory C, is
not connected with the question as to whether electric charge and electric
current exist, although it puts the latter at serious risk. I myself attempt to
construct an electron and also a crystal out of TEM waves. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_3.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2_1.htm
. The reason is that I have no comprehension of the “particle”,
whether it be a “point particle” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
, or a particle which has volume, and so conflicts with the very important
principle (for me) of “no instantaneous action at a distance”. One side of the
latter particle is in another universe from the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
. Before I can use such a particle in my work, I need to see some discussion as
to how it functions. How do the messages travel across a particle from one side
to the other?
Ivor Catt
From: Franklin Hu
Sent: Friday, January 10,
2014 5:09 AM
To: David Tombe ; etc
Subject: Let's settle this
electric current thing.
Ivor, lets settle this issue about electric
current.
Explain to me how a
fuel cell works. Here is a description if you are unfamiliar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
What we have is hydrogen
on one side of the cell and oxygen on the other. Between them is a membrane
that only lets the positive hydrogen ion through. The electrons cannot pass
between the barrier. The catalyst on the membrane
breaks up the H2 molecules creating a positive ion which migrates through the
membrane and a free electron.
This free electron
reunites with the hydrogen ion and oxygen on the other side to produce H2O and
the only way the electron can get through the other side is by going THROUGH
the wire.
This is a very simple
physical chemical reaction and there are many others such as the plating of
metals that rely on the delivery of real physical electrons to ion solutions.
To me, this is
incontrovertible proof that an electron travels into one side of a wire and
exits on the other side. That is the only way electrons can be delivered to the
oxygen side of the fuel cell.
So how can you
possibly say that an electric current is not a physical flow of electrons in
the fuel cell case?
-Franklin
This situation is not simple. I think Kuhn’s differentiation between “Normal Science” and “Revolutionary Science” is important in these very rare cases. The only precursors to “electricity does not exist” are 200 years ago; “Phlogiston does not exist” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory , “Caloric does not exist” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory . Someone like me, who stumbled on such a major paradigm shift in 1976, such as has not happened for 200 years, is presented with a massive problem, which app0lies to anyone with whom he tries to communicate. Hey just don’t understand what is going on. It would of course help a great deal if they had read Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. During the seminar I gave in Newcastle University, http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html , I asked who had read Kuhn. Out of the audience of 60, only one said he had. Better still to have read Polanyi. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x232.pdf . It is unreasonable to expect the dialogue to function efficiently is the matter has not recurred for two centuries