@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf
The hidden message in Maxwell’s
Equations – Ivor Catt, Nov 1985
Page
184;
Did
Maxwell lodge with his bank the answer to his mathematical bluff, Maxwell’s
Equations, with instructions to open and publish a century later? And did the
bank lose the envelope?
Page
188;
Did
Maxwell lodge with his bank manager the answer to his mathematical bluff,
Maxwell’s Equations, with instructions to open and publish a century later?
Should we say to Maxwell now, as he sirs laughing, or perhaps smarting, on
Cloud nine, “Now pull the other leg?” No, I am sure Maxwell was sincere, and
did not knowingly shroud the very heart and soul of science, Electromagnetism,
in confusion and nonsense for over a century.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
30 years later, the plot thickens. 30 more years of
complex obfuscation.
|
4:17 PM (23 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Ivor,
This is what I wrote on December 14 2017
I read the response of Prof Oppo and it
certainly seems to me that he not only completely misunderstood what you are
saying, but he also completely failed to try to understand and instead endeavored to prove his impression that you are a crackpot
and his letter to you clearly indicates that his objective in reading your
articles was to prove that your arguments were fallacious. He obviously assumed
that as his starting point, and having done that proved the rule that
scientists are governed by their prejudices, such that they almost always prove
what they believe is already true, and so always find what they are looking for
having assumed the answer before the search begins.
There are some really important insights that are contained in the first
paper, but it is clear that Prof Otto didn't pay much attention to that paper
as he mostly ignores it except to extract damaging quotations that taken out of
context make you seem pretty silly. I refer to where you say that Maxwell's
equations make EM theory “ludicrous and false”. That must have really galled
Prof Oppo and determined him to prove you are a
crackpot and ought not to be listened to. Unfortunately, it is mostly what Prof
Oppo says that ought not to be listened to since he
merely recites what is already contained in textbooks and demonstrates that he
completely missed the point that you were trying to get across. That is
certainly tragic and most unfortunate.
An ironic aspect of Prof Oppo's response is
that he recites in his claimed refutation, exactly what is criticized as
ludicrous and false in the Catt 1980 paper. He derives the equations of
sinusoidal solutions for the Maxwellian Equations.
Thereby demonstrating that he has no idea what Catt said and blindly commits
the mistake that Catt pointed out as false. Catt's point is that according to
Maxwell's equations as understood by textbook writers and so called experts, that according to them the solutions to Maxwell's
Equations are all sinusoidal. But as we know, EM waves that are not sinusoidal
exist in the case of transmission lines. So either Maxwell's Equations are
false or the experts in EM theory don't understand what they are talking about.
(I think that Catt is arguing for the later conclusion, which Oppo seems to demonstrate magnificently.)
There is however, in Oppo's defense the fact that what is contained in those two papers
is unfortunately rather preliminary and in need of a lot more polish in order
to get the message transmitted to academics, who
simply recite mathematical equations and have no practical understanding of what
they are doing. That is exactly what you were trying to point out, and that
effort has to be acknowledged as a failure. Prof Oppo
doesn't have a basic practical understanding of the fundamentals of
electromagnetic theory and never will. He is certainly not the audience that
you ought to be addressing. He has made up his mind that he knows all that
needs to be known and so his opinion is already confirmed and fixed in concrete
even though it may be completely erroneous.
|
4:19 PM (23 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Here is what I wrote to Spargo waste of
time
Chris,
I am not sure if you want to discuss this but here goes. When I was in college I had been a radio amateur (ham operator) for
5 years since age 13. So I knew how radio worked. When I read the
derivations of the EM waves and heard the lectures in college classes, my
reaction was that EM wave theory doesn't make sense to me. In fact it still
doesn't, after an entire career as an electrical engineer. In the late 1980s
early 1990s I discovered the Ivor Catt articles in Wireless World. Now they
made an impression because Ivor is saying something is wrong with Maxwell's
Equations. I don't claim to say I understood any of what Ivor said in those
papers but it started me to study EM theory with a new viewpoint.
The fact is after another 25 years of study I am as unconvinced as ever
in the Maxwell Equations and the theory of EM waves given in textbooks. That
makes me sympathetic to what Ivor says, although I don't claim to understand
that he is correct or that I understand what he is saying. I simply think that
the questions he is asking do need to be addressed and better answers
given.
The letter response of Prof Oppo was not in
any way an example of a good answer to the questions asked by Ivor. My
conclusion is that that he dismisses what Ivor says out of hand, without trying
to be sympathetic to the issues being raised. He then proceeds to recite the
standard method of proof that EM waves exist as if it ought to make perfect
sense to someone else, who is a bit of a skeptic.
Frankly, his proof was in my opinion, as unconvincing as the usual textbook
proofs that I am familiar with, but it was even more filled with flaws and
obscurities than ever before. Frankly, it was more baffling than the other
proofs. I was left completely baffled and in disbelief that what was said made
any sense at all. In effect Prof Oppo did exactly
what Ivor was complaining about. He presented a lot of baffling mathematics
that made no sense and did not convince me that what he was saying was a valid
demonstration of anything that was physically correct as a mathematical theory
of physics.
Harry
|
2017
|
Jan 12 (1 day ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Horror.
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys401/sp2014/lectures/Pulses%20in%20transmission%20lines4.pdf