From IC to NC, 14feb00
The role played by the punkah-wallahs is to block scientific advance. For that, they are paid a salary which they think is too low. They take their thirty pieces of silver in the short term, and do not foresee the long term; the place they take in history, like Judas the betrayer. Judas did not enjoy the long term, and neither will they. (Judas thought he ought to have received fifty pieces!) For a precedent, they should look at the role of Preece, Head of Post Office Research, who blocked Oliver Heaviside. Not a pretty story for their grandchildren to read about
It is important to emphasise that they failed, not because they had little grasp of electromagnetic theory. They failed because they did not advise their paymasters that a conference on the Catt Anomaly was needed. They thought they could get away with arrogance and writing a little noddy theory, at the level they could cope with. They failed to grasp the grand picture, and to remember that although they value their salary, the whole pantechnicon including their salaries evolved in order to enable the advance of science. Sadly, they reduced their view to their own salaries and pensions, and to hell with science, to hell with their students, which was what (misguidedly, as we now see,) generated their salaries in the first place. It was ever thus. Read de Santillana on Galileo; "The Crime of Galileo", pub. Ujniv. Of Chicago Press 1955. Of course, if a guilty punkah-wallah would, even at this late stage, tell his superiors, the IEE, Trinity Cambridge, the Cavendish etc. that a conference is needed, he would atone a little for his sins and even do a little good. However, I fear that they are all too thick to grasp what I am talking about. This too will go on my website in a week from now.
[After being incommunicado for four years after his first and only bit of noddy writing, made under instruction from his boss, one of the punkah-wallahs, McSheep, wrote "confidentially" to me a long screed which only missed the assertion that his mother didn't love him, but included everything else - his low pay, his low health, his excellent probity, his lack of time, depredations by the CSA, and the rest. The bare-faced gall of these guys who have slithered up into High Places in academia is astounding. I hereby assure him that almost all the terrible things that he tells me have happened to him have also happened to me, plus many much worse. That has nothing to do with electromagnetic theory, which he was paid to nurture, and instructed by his boss to write to me about. He is not paid to nurture himself, and he had no right to write to me about his health and marital problems. I.C. 18feb00]
I have dealt with the minus sign, as I trust you well know. Velocity is negative, not positive, as is usually thought. When we walk across town, we gain distance (+s) but we lose time (-t). (The PC idea is that we arrive before we left, so time spent is positive, or gained! Today went from 2400 down thru 1600 breakfast time thru 1200 noon (start lunch) thru 1100 (end lunch) thru teatime 0600 to the next midnight, 0001 and then 2359, to start the next day, with another 24 hours for us to waste, or use. Our clock faces are marked backwards. That explains the strange minus signs in Maxwell's Equations. Ivor late 4feb00
I hope it is as useful as your first reaction indicates, a missed detail is integrating both sides of eq. 5 with respect to time to legitimately get the shock result: E/B = -c. This formula in your articles, ratio of E to B is 300,000 km/s, should be used to shock people, or they won't quickly grasp the experiments.
----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt To: nigel cook Cc: email@example.com ; Theocharis Theocharis ; Malcolm Davidson Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:28 PM Subject: Re: The Presentation of Theory C so as to Deliberately Shock People (confidential)
This is perhaps the best thing you have ever written.
Generally, your praise and your strictures are well said, possibly every one of them.
The remark that the contrapuntal model for the charged capacitor may bear on the pairing of electrons in an atom is a new contribution.
Perhaps I should make more comment on what you have written below.
----- Original Message ----- From: nigel cook To: Ivor Catt Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org ; Theocharis Theocharis ; Malcolm Davidson Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 7:19 PM Subject: The Presentation of Theory C so as to Deliberately Shock People (confidential)
From your point of view, being familiar with your own theory, you might overlook aspects which other people, who are not so familiar with it, will stumble over, simply because those points are old hat to you and you do not realise exactly how important it is to use them to shock Establishment-educated persons.
The wire delivers "electromagnetic energy". As you say in WW March 1980 and November 1985, Maxwell's equations at their most basic tell us:
dE/dx = - dB/dt . Hence: dE/dB = - dx/dt. (1)
dH/dx = - dD/dt , where: H = E/Z , and D = E/(cZ). (2)
Hence: d[E/Z]/dx = - d[E/(cZ)]/dt . Thus: dx/dt = - d(E/Z)/d[E/(cZ)] = - c. (3)
Setting (1) equal to (3) gives - dx/dt = - c, hence dx/dt = c. (4)
From (4) we find: dx = c.dt , so from (1): (1/c).dE/dt = - dB/dt. (5)
To me, with conventional GCSE, A-levels, and undergraduate student background, the fact that "E and B are always in the ratio 300,000 km/s" needs bold print. It is shocking, sensational! Everyone in the Establishment thinks that the opposite is the established fact: that "static electricity involves electric field E but no magnetic field B", which is what the text-books say. Equation 5 disproves them.
It is radical: that every single occurence of an electric field is also accompanied by a magnetic field, and that the lack of measurement of magnetic field in the case of "static" charge is due to it cancelling itself out (explained by Ivor Catt in "Waves in Space", Wireless World, March 1983) is revolutionary. It is the revolution you must begin with.
To say again: Ivor, I believe you are talking yourself down by not sufficiently emphasising the revolutionary claim of your theory and your evidence for it! Your theory, confirmed your measured light-speed discharge of "steady state"-charged wires into your oscilloscope when you were building new computer circuits, proves that all electricity, including "static" electricity is composed of light speed electromagnetic energy.
I am astonished as I re-read time and time again your articles on the Theory C experiment [charged capacitor(=transmission line) discharging its "static" energy at the speed of light] and on the solution of Maxwell's equations, that you included other material which everyone critical got immersed in history during the 1980s Wireless World debates. The history of Heaviside comes second, as does the issue of the importance if maths. The Catt discovery comes first.
Maxwell's equations which Heaviside formulated, can be attacked at a later date. I suggest if I may, that you start by positively asserting your evidence, that all electricity, including "static" electricity is light speed electromagnetic energy. If you begin your paper with obscure EM history ... then I only hope that you will be able to wake the audience up when you get to the point of paradigm-shift. You must emphasise that, not try to bury it with history and trivia, in the hope that the audience will be carried over without a shock.
(If they are carried over the point of that paradigm-shift without a shock, it is either because they are still engrossed with thinking about your history of displacement current, or because they are simply asleep.)
As stated near the end of your otherwise history-based "Waves in Space" article in Wireless World (March 1983), the magnetic fields are cancelled out when the energy is static, because magnetic field curls around in one direction for energy going one way, and curls the opposite way for energy going the other way; in a "static" electricity situation, equal energy goes each way, so the two magnetic field curls cancel each other out.
This theory, there in Catt's "Waves in Space" March 1983 Wireless World, also explains the Pauli exclusion principle. Electrons moving in atoms should produce magnetic fields, and they do so. Each time you add another electron to an atom, it pairs up with the last odd electron to form a stable Pauli-paired shell in which the magnetic fields cancel each other out because the spin directions of each electron is opposite to its partner. Hence, Catt's theory explains another central "mystery" of existing quantum mechanics.
I think that there is no one secret to the Catt Theory revolution in science. To win, you must not just do one thing right, unfortunately. It is not enough that you have "just" made the greatest discovery ever in history. You also have to get the popular presentation right to a basically ignorant and easily-bored public.
Possible suggestions from me about electron spin, orbit, Schrodinger chaos waves, and the exclusion principle, should not sound as if I am trying to suggest to you that "quantum mechanics" is correct. I agree with you that there is no real, unified, theoretically-derived "quantum mechanics" today, that name "quantum mechanics" is today a ratbag of mysticism, empirical, semi-empirical, and re-normalised equations, with a few good nuts and bolts foolishly put together in the usual textbook presentation.
Whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not, Absolute Truth exists, and people will apply Theory C to quantum theory to get Absolute Truth, sooner or later. It might as well be sooner, I think. You are right that sooner or later there will be a revolution, but that is no reason to hold back from delving into the few useful bits of quantum mechanics and the proven parts of special relativity, and Unifying science using Theory C. Absolute Truth, which I believe exists and I have heard Catt say Theocharis also believes in, indicates that we can get rid of certain areas of quantum mechanics, which makes it easier to then deal with.
There is no genuine application of Heisenberg's uncertainty hypothesis outside of the imaginary "gamma ray microscope" which he used to derive his formula, including Professor Hawking's theory (based on the uncertainty principle) that virtual particles will pop into existence beyond the event horizon of black holes. Virtual particles + and - fulling the universe would constitute a particulate ether, which would cause drag effects we don't experience (Professor Heisenberg was head of nuclear research in Hitler's Nazi Germany during World War II, but was too incompetent to get very far). As Einstein said in "Ether and Relativity" (5 May 1920 lecture at Leyden University, in Einstein's 1952 book "Sidelights on Relativity", Dover, New York): there is a continuous ether, but not a particulate one.
Waves in space are waves in the ether, helping to explain particle-wave duality, and the ether helps explain the inertia that particles are subjected to as well as the momentum (Aristotle arrow mechanism, continuous ether waves around moving nuclei and electrons, in place of air molecules around the overall arrow, which cause drag). Then again, I believe the ether may explain gravity, even if we have to disagree at this point.
From NC to IC 14feb00
Here is a list of thoughts on the Catt Anomaly:
1. The basic issue involved is how the speed 300,000 km/s is derived from 1 mm/s electron current.
2. Air molecules have average speeds of 500 m/s, bombarding us on all sides to produce air pressure. When we measure a 10 m/s breeze, we are measuring the asymmetry say 510 m/s air molecules average speed from the north versus 500 m/s average from the south gives 510-500 = 10 m/s windspeed.
3. McEwan gives a false alternative theory, the line of ball bearings in contact. McEwan ignores however that the electrons are spaced apart by an average of 1 atomic diameter (a 4s conduction electron being provided by each copper atom). McEwan & co wrongly assume STATIONARY electrons. These, having mass and thus inertia, as I argued with Dr Lynch and Mike Renardson MSc, must take time to be accelerated from 0 mm/s up to the 1 mm/s drift speed, before they can by virtue of their electric field accelerate the next electron down the line up to 1 mm/s. This process causes a cumulative loss of transmission speed of the logic pulse because the time taken to accelerate each successive electron reduces the 300,000 wave speed.
If you assume that the electric field effect travels at 300,000 km/s, the cumulative delays due to accelerating successive electrons from 0 mm/s up to 1 mm/s will rapidly slow the speed of electric pulses. This is contrary to experimental evidence, so the establishment (McEwan & co) stationary electron theory is wrong. The crucial flaw in McEwan & co (basically including the IEE, IEEE, and the entire world at present) is their assumption, based on an ignorant reading of Einstein, that the electrons do not have speed of light motion.
To be clear, the propagation speed v of an electron cannot indeed ever equal c, but all these idiots are ignoring the well-established fact that the electron also has a spin speed, x, even when "stationary", ie, when the propagation speed v = 0, the electron spin speed x = 300,000 km/s. Hence their error.
They (McEwan & co) do not accept the 300,000 km/s electron standing wave speed because of Einstein's special relativity results, especially the equation M(v)/(M(0) = [1 - (v/c)^2]^(-1/2), which shows that mass increases to infinity as speed approaches c, 300,000 km/s. However, we can keep this equation if we remember that the electron has a spin. The classical (spherical) electron equator would have to spin at a speed of 137 times the speed of light if it was correct. In reality, adopting the string theory, the electron becomes a loop with a radius 137 times the classical electron radius, and its spin speed is 300,000 km/s. To keep this consistent, it moves in the dielectric/ether in a direction perpendicular to its spin, ie, its direction of motion in absolute space is along the axis of spin, which is 90 degrees different to the plane of spin, so the spin speed x and the gross electron motion speed v must be added by Pythagoras, x.x + v.v = c.c. From this formula, as shown in a previous email, we get the Lorentz transformation for time-dilation if x/c (spin speed to light speed) is accepted to be a measure of time flow at speed v, time being dependent on internal motion and electron spin being the most fundamental measure of motion and hence time in the universe. This can be extended to length contraction if c = constant = length/time, and also to mass, as per Einstein.
4. From the above, it appears that the Catt Anomaly will be well served by someone working out the Establishment solution (stationary electrons being accelerated up to 1 mm/s from 0 mm/s successively down the line by a 300,000 km/s speed electric field, which dies off as the inverse square of distance around each individual electron). This may need a computer to solve it, and it would be useful if it could be animated in a video to disprove the Establishment theory by comparing the establishment (McEwan & co) theory consequences to the real constant speed logic pulse.
I would be grateful for your comments on the above,
From NC to IC, 17feb00
From: nigel cook <email@example.com>
To: Ivor Catt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Fw: The Catt Anomaly: Some Thoughts
Date: 17 February 2000 19:51
The gulf between the Establishment and Theory C will be breached, even if it takes a thousand years and is accomplished by the gulf freezing over, in the sense that the vested interest of the Establishment in a fixed set of paradigms disappears. Eventually, they will stop defending their position, and since I know for a fact that Theory C is truth, and truth will always eventually gain more influence than the establishment lies, more evidence will amount behind truth, and more applications.
The goal however is not to wait a thousand years for Theory C to triumph. There are a lot of applications of Theory C: electronics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
The ultimate goal would be to, say, put an advert in New Scientist which is so brief and yet so influential that it would create a mass reaction behind Theory C. Suppose you have 100 words (including equations) to shift the most basic paradigm in science. Which 100 words??? There are probably infinity ways to not convince people, and that would "queer the pitch" for all their readership. Hence it is crucial to get the ad right before rushing into print (in addition to the expense).
It sounds easy to write 100 words to change the world, but of course in journalism there is a lot of effort put into condensing things in an appealing way. I personally think I would fail. Already being pro-Catt, and knowing a certain amount, changes my viewpoint and prevents me from being able to judge the best copy to convince general New Scientist readership.
A horrible solution which might work would be to get together a large sum of money and recruit an advertising agency. They would probably not have a clue about Theory C to start off with, but their job is to familiarise themselves with the key issue and present it effectively and convincingly.