Ivor Catt's papers and experiments on electromagnetic theory

Ivor Catt Updated 131107 10:35 A.M.
131107 10:35 A.M. 140109 5:55P, 140119 9:25A, 140129 7:27A 140828 9:51A 150922A 4:53A
Wakefield Experiment http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
Experiment To Compliment The Wakefield Experiment Suggested By 4 Students at

Newcastle University UK www.k1man.com/Catt131018A.pdf
www.k1man.com/Wakefield.pdf
http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html Ivor Catt university gig
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/600/Ivor,%20Catt
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0d2.htm Catt’s World
Seminar http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3ag.htm Regarding seminar

http://www.ivorcatt.com/n.htm
Maxwell’s equations http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/774c.htm
All of Catt’s papers http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/200.htm
From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>

To: icatt <icatt@btinternet.com>; jlunen1941 <jlunen1941@kpnma.lnl>; Lawrence Sent: Wed, Jan 29,
2014 7:47 am
Subject: Re: The Future of Science
To: Ivor Catt

From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
Date: 29 January 2014
Ivor,
Does the electrical engineering department at the university you spoke at recently think they can explain
the Wakefield experiment? I would like to study any such explanation. Do you feel that you understand it?
If so, I would like to compare the two explanations.
I would love to see what other university electrical engineering departments could do with it.
Glenn
From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

To: icatt <icatt@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 6:00 am
Subject: The Future of Science
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x41t.htm
The Future of Science.

For science to have a future, a certain multi-level
ethical infrastructure is necessary. At the lowest
level, this involves the whole community. In 1993
Michael Pepper was selected by the Master of
Trinity College, Cambridge, my college, and
instructed to write to me in answer to "The Catt
Question" , an elementary question about the
fundamentals of electromagnetic theory. He wrote
this . Since then he has been incommunicado.
Sir Michael Pepper was later “knighted for services

to physics”, and became editor of the top Royal
Society journal.
Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson, also a Fellow

of Trinity, was marginalised when he tried to bring
the paranormal into science. He complained in “New
Scientist” about being censored. Now working on
the fringe of the science community, he wrote 100
emails about “The Catt Question”. His answer, the
same as
Dr. Neil McEwan's , to this elementary question was
diametrically opposed to Pepper’s. Following my
suggestion that he talk to Pepper, he reported to me
by email that Pepper had changed his mind about the
view he gave to me in his 1993 letter, and now
agreed with Josephson.
Now we examine the attitude of the man in the
street, my neighbour three or four (or ten) doors
away. He believes that having been “knighted for
services to physics”, Pepper has no duty whatsoever
to serve physics in future. His duty is limited to
bathing in the glory. Thus, having allegedly said to
Josephson that what he wrote in 1993 is wrong, he
has no duty to write to Catt.
The next stage in the infrastructure which has caused

the end of science is the media. I am convinced that
no member of the media – Editor of New Scientist,
Science Editor of The Daily Telegraph, TV
journalist, will touch this subject. Even without
getting a hint of "Catt the Nutter" , he will know that
the above is nonsense, nothing to do with him. This
in spite of my belief that the above is newsworthy
and would increase circulation or viewing figures.
I believe that, further, no media man will touch

another newsworthy item. This is that no professor
or text book writer in the world will put a comment
in writing on Wakefield , published experimental
results which seem to undermine the classical
electromagnetic theory they teach.
The decline of science is not due to decadence or

laziness in professors or text book writers. They
behave this way because they know they have the
public’s and the media’s full support in so behaving.
Ivor Catt 29 January 2014

On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 6:43 AM, Ivor Catt <ic...@btinternet.com> wrote:

To: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; PAL Asija <PAL@OurPal.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 4:50 am
Subject: Re: Does current flow as a stream of electrons in a wire - fuel cell case
“your idea that current is not a flow of electrons since most people think it is.” – FH
“This is the main difficulty in accepting your idea that current is not a flow of electrons since most
people think it is.” - FH
Nowhere in my writing will you see the assertion that current is not the flow of electrons. Also, I have
never asserted that witches do not travel on broomsticks.
“Mainstream would say that they don't know what charge is, but it is something that is possessed by
electrons and they would clearly say that an electric current is a physical flow of electrons from one
place to another. So in this way, we don't have to be "told" what these things are.” – FH
Interesting sleight of hand.
I will obviously stop communication if you don’t want to

indulge in search for truth, but merely debate.
What happens in the first few ns will get us on the way to

developing a viable theory. Theory about what happens in the
steady state is incomplete and probably faulty.
I attempt to construct an electron out of TEM Waves, and I

am not alone. Take for instance Professor Jennison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clifton_Jennison .
I have recommended experiments, http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm , which are easy to do. I
suspect that nobody in the world will bother to do these simple experiments (for a few decades
from now) to find out what comes out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds. (Whoever did the
experiments would be prevented from publishing his results by Peer Review anyway.) After we
find out what comes out initially, we can begin to develop theory as to why. At present we lack
the primary information.
Chemical reaction in the battery electrolyte replenishes the reciprocating energy current. Chemical
reaction in the battery electrolyte replenishes the reciprocating energy current.
If you study how the mainstream conceives of a battery (fuel cell being the simplest case), you
would find that the chemical reaction in no way replenishes a reciprocating energy current.
Instead you find electrons being removed from one side of the reaction and added to the other
side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc%E2%80%93carbon_battery
This is the more complex description of how an ordinary carbon/zinc battery works. Under
"Chemical reactions", you will see 2 equations. The first describes zinc becoming ions and
release 2 electrons which is shown as 2e-. The second reaction shows manganese dioxide
reacting with the 2e- electrons to form a different type of manganese dioxide. So mainstream
does have a very reasonable explanation for what is going on in the battery, but it absolutely
requires that physical electrons flow through a conductor as a current. This will not work as an
EM wave travelling between the battery terminals and the lamp. There is no chemical reactions
which work on EM waves - only moving electrons.
“Why is what happens during the first few ns important? The answer should be that there is an electron
pressure built up in the battery and when the switch is closed, electrons immediately exit the battery
and into the conductor which generates an increased Voltage wave (which is an increase in electron
pressure) past the switch which then quickly travels through the conductor (must faster than the actual
electrons) to the other end of the battery where it spits out an electron into the battery cell which is
then consumed by the chemical processes. This seems to be perfectly well developed theory.” – FH
What happens in the first few ns will get us on the way to developing a viable theory. Theory about what
happens in the steady state is incomplete and probably faulty. A theory which has nothing to say about
transients is not a proper theory.
“I'm not sure how the results of your theory would weigh one way or the other.” FH [for the battery]
None of my theories make assertion about what comes out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds. In
the same way, I have nothing to say about the permanent magnet. You have introduced the battery,
disguised as the fuel cell, when thinking you are discussing my theories. Moving away form any theory of
mine, the way to start to develop a viable theory about the battery and the fuel cell is to think about,
and do experiments on, what comes out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds. “electron pressure
built up in the battery and when the switch is closed, electrons immediately exit the battery” is not even
a prediction as to what comes out in the first few nsec. Is it half amplitude, as in the Wakefield Expt?
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm . Nobody has bothered to find out, and nobody will, for some
decades into the future. The expts. are easy to do. Tony Wakefield in Australia did very well with “The
Wakefield Experkiment”, and I am encouraging him to do the EEB expts.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm . I am sure you will not be willing to do these experiments.
Ivor Catt
From: Franklin Hu
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:27 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; PAL Asija
Cc: Robert.bennett@rcn.com ; sungenis@aol.com ; OUR PAL ; relativity googlegroups.com ; David

Tombe ; Institute@k1man.com
See comments...

To: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; PAL Asija <PAL@OurPal.com>
Cc: Robert.bennett@rcn.com; sungenis@aol.com; OUR PAL <INFO@OneReality.INFO>; relativity
googlegroups.com <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>; David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:28 AM
Dear Franklin Hu,

You were of opinion that if I had not satisfactory comment on the “Fuel Cell”, my idea that
electric current did not exist is refuted.
I replied that “Theory C” did not say there was no electricity. It is very tightly defined; “If a battery
is connected to a lamp by two wires and the lamp lights, electric current is not involved.”
Theory C is useful in that it resolves the anomaly presented by “The Catt Question”.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm .It also caters for The Second Catt Question
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf .
As to the existence of electric current and electric charge, that is another matter. However, if it is
accepted that the primary role of electric current is to help a battery to light a lamp, then “The
Catt Question” and “Theory C” put it in difficulty. However, as you point out, electricity appears
in other roles, for instance your “fuel cell”. At that point we have to be told what electric charge
and electric current are.
I attempt to construct an electron out of TEM Waves, and I am not alone. Take for instance
Professor Jennison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clifton_Jennison .
Mainstream would say that they don't know what charge is, but it is something that is possessed
by electrons and they would clearly say that an electric current is a physical flow of electrons
from one place to another. So in this way, we don't have to be "told" what these things are.
These are settled in most people's minds in the mainstream. This is the main difficulty in
accepting your idea that current is not a flow of electrons since most people think it is. As soon
as they hear you don't think it is a flow of electrons, they tune you out.
Why do they tune you out? Because you haven't given reasons why current isn't a flow of
electrons in the most common cases.
I now see that your fuel cell is in the class of “battery”. Some decades ago I said we needed to
be told what came out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds after it is switched on. When I
talked to battery men, I found that for them, 1 millisecond was a long time. If we don’t know how
a battery behaves in the first few nanoseconds, we cannot develop theory.
Why is what happens during the first few ns important? The answer should be that there is an
electron pressure built up in the battery and when the switch is closed, electrons immediately
exit the battery and into the conductor which generates an increased Voltage wave (which is an
increase in electron pressure) past the switch which then quickly travels through the conductor
(must faster than the actual electrons) to the other end of the battery where it spits out an
electron into the battery cell which is then consumed by the chemical processes. This seems to
be perfectly well developed theory.
I think that is what the mainstream would have to say on this point and it really does nothing to
refute the argument that electrons are coming out of one side of the battery, going through the
wire as an electron current and delivering physical electrons to the other side. Now it may not be
the exact same electron coming into the battery at any instance is also the one coming into the
battery. The conductor has lots of electrons in it to do the job.
I have recommended experiments, http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm , which are easy to do. I

suspect that nobody in the world will bother to do these simple experiments (for a few decades
from now) to find out what comes out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds. (Whoever did the
experiments would be prevented from publishing his results by Peer Review anyway.) After we
find out what comes out initially, we can begin to develop theory as to why. At present we lack
the primary information.
I'm not sure how the results of your theory would weigh one way or the other. I would imagine
that in your experiments, if electrons are allowed to come out of the wire, that there will be some
electroplating action or chemical battery changes. If there wasn't then that would mean that it
just didn't have enough time to start the process since if you leave the power on, the
electrochemical processes most certainly proceed.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_4.htm
“It is then obvious that the battery plates are a western extension of the transmission line comprising
the two conductors linking battery to switches 1,2. On closure of switches 1,2, it is this eastwards
travelling energy current which rushes forwards, retaining its velocity. There is no change in velocity
when the switches are closed. Ions in the battery liquid are not involved, and in any case they travel in
the wrong direction, towards the south and north. Chemical reaction in the battery electrolyte
replenishes the reciprocating energy current. It is not known whether this energy current is
concentrated in the thin interfaces between battery plate and electrolyte, or is broadly spread
throughout the electrolyte, or some in each region[2].”
If you study how the mainstream conceives of a battery (fuel cell being the simplest case), you
would find that the chemical reaction in no way replenishes a reciprocating energy current.
Instead you find electrons being removed from one side of the reaction and added to the other
side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc%E2%80%93carbon_battery
Now all of this discussion, while interesting, does not do anything to disprove the concept that
current is not a flow of electrons. You have said that electrons might be able to flow through a
wire in situations which are not like "theory C". In which case, I think that is great and comes as
a great relief for those of us who want to continue to think that current is a flow of electrons.
So to directly address the question, "Is electric current, a flow of electrons?", you would say 'yes'
under some circumstances. Is this correct?
Although, I did point out and you have not addressed the fact that the fuel cell arrangement is
exactly a "theory C" situation, but we know that an electron current flow is required to achieve
the chemical reactions.
I think you toy with the idea that when energy travels down a transmission line (towards a lamp),
the electric current and charge in the wires is primary. This leads to the question; do you accept
the mainstream theory, that the amount of power delivered relates to the E and H fields between
the wires?
Not really, when you start talking E and H fields in a conductor, I think that while there may be
such fields present, they contribute nothing to delivery of power and certainly what happens
between the wires contributes nothing as well. What is delivering power is the physical
movement of electrons within the wire - like how I explained how a lamp lights. Those electrons
pull on the atoms and they spring back releasing large amounts of kinetic energy. I actually
don't think the mainstream would agree that the E and H fields have anything to do with power
either.
Question 2 is; “Is the energy travelling down fibre optic cable essentially the same, where
conductors are not involved?”.
Nope, the energy travelling down an optic cable is in the form of a compression EM wave. No
actual movement of "matter" such as an electron in a conductor is involved. It would seem that
the amount of energy you can deliver using only EM waves is quite limited. So while optic cable
is good for delivering phone calls and data, it isn't any good for transmitting power from Hoover
dam to Las Vegas. To be doing that sort of heavy lifting, you need to be moving physical
electrons.
Question 3 is, “Is the energy delivered to you from the sun essentially the same? Why are no
wires involved? Or are you personally wired up to the sun so as to keep warm?”
That's an interesting question and I would say that the energy delivered to you from a wire is
fundamentally different from that from the sun or in an optical cable. Energy delivered to you
from the sun is direct EM wave energy and it just hits upon things and heats them up. It directly
keeps us "warm" but does little else. It is fairly difficult to directly harness this energy to do
mechanical work. On the other hand, energy delivered to you on a wire can take advantage of
all the properties of the magnetic and electric field which we can use to run motors and all
manner of electricity powered devices.
Interesting questions, but I still see all of this being consistent with current as a flow of electrons
than an EM wave which would seem to have a limited ability to deliver large amounts of power.
Ivor Catt
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:59 AM
To: Franklin Hu ; PAL Asija
Cc: Robert.bennett@rcn.com ; sungenis@aol.com ; OUR PAL ; relativity googlegroups.com ; David

Tombe
“Now the question of how a lamp actually lights up is an interesting one. You seem to think that
the battery is somehow delivering its energy through waves traveling back/forth at the speed of
light. Is that right?”
The above is “Theory H”, propounded by Oliver Heaviside and then suppressed.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x41h.pdf . He was sending Morse pulses undersea from Newcastle to
Denmark, and saw that the energy travelled in the dielectric guided by the conductors. He was
suppressed, unmentioned in any text book for more than half a century. My work, 70 years later,
sending high speed digital signals ion a computer, was a return to Heaviside’s situaiton after a
hiatus of wireless theory for half a century.
Thanks for the link, I read through most of it. Now just because you can't figure out how heat is
generated on a current carrying wire does not mean that you have to abandon the idea that
electrons are flowing through the wire. You just have to come up with a way for those moving
electrons to deliver high kinetic energy. I showed how you can do that. In the other link on the
speed of electricity, it has been calculated the speed of electricity.
So I can better see where you get your ideas from, but what is being transmitted between
London and Edenburogh is a stream of electrons. Nothing is happening in the dielectric
between the wire and the Earth which is a huge dielectric to consider. Between two side by side
wires, maybe something significant is going on, but between a pole on a wire and the Earth - I
think not.
It is not disputed (except perhaps by you) that the energy from battery to lamp is ExH in the
dielectric, travelling at the speed of light.
Really???, I think that particular statement would be disputed by mainstream as it is the concept
that current does not flow as a stream of electrons. So yes, it is completely disputed.
It would be helpful if you said whether you disagreed with this statement, which is mainstream
electromagnetic theory.
I would strongly disagree with that statement. I would also strongly disagree that it is
mainstream electromagnetic theory. That is Heavyside electromagnetic theory. Go find me a
reference to that if you think it is so mainstream.
Of course, you wont' find anything from the mainstream that actually explains how a lamp lights
up either - so its not like mainstream has its act together on this either.
Ivor Catt
Why are they silent?

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b6.htm
I am not sure whether Notricker is referring to the Second Catt Question, since he is not
specific. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf . This has nothing to do with whether a capacitor
is a transmission line. For more than 100 years it has not been noticed that when a TEM Wave
travels guided by two conductors, there is a varying electric field (E or D) in the vertical
direction between the two conductors. This is true even for the sine wave, but easier to see
with the step, when there is a massive dD/dt at the front face of the step, in the vertical
direction. Maxwell invented Displacement Current to create magnetic field, which in this case
is in the horizontal plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
Example showing two surfaces S1 and S2 that share the same bounding contour ∂S. However, S1
is pierced by conduction current, while S2 is pierced by displacement current.
So the front face of a TEM step (Transverse Electromagnetic Wave) creates magnetic field in a
horizontal plane, some of it in the forward direction. Thus, a TEM step is not a TEM step,
because it causes magnetic field which is not transverse.
Now do Notricker and David Tombe understand the point I am making? Whether they do or
not, why do they not comment, if they are interested in electromagnetic theory? Their
behaviour is very strange. They both get involved in trivia, like whether I am attacking
Notricker, which is not a scientific matter, or run off to sayikng Theory C is bizarre. “The Second
Catt Question” has nothing to do with Theory C. Perhaps they carry their own ideas that
classical electromagnetism is faulty, and so cannot think and talk within the faulty theory, as I
am capable of doing. Within classical theory, I find logical contradiction. Put more clearly, I see
mistake. In 1980, I wrote; “We must reintroduce the concept of “mistake” into science.
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTvol2p318-9.jpg from
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTVolumeII.htm . It is not true, as Notricker would have it,
that within science there are various “models” each of some relevance in some situations. A “model” or
“theory” which has an obvious “mistake” within it is not in the same class as other models, which are not
obviously wrong.
In classical theory, either we have to exclude the TEM Wave as possible, or we have to accept
that sometimes Displacement Current causes magnetic field and sometimes it does not – a
clear mistake.
Ivor Catt
So the front face of a TEM step (Transverse Electromagnetic Wave) creates magnetic field in a
horizontal plane, some of it in the forward direction. Thus, a TEM step is not a TEM step,
because it causes magnetic field which is not transverse.
Now do Notricker and David Tombe understand the point I am making? Whether they do or
not, why do they not comment, if they are interested in electromagnetic theory? Their
behaviour is very strange. They both get involved in trivia, like whether I am attacking
Notricker, which is not a scientific matter, or run off to saying Theory C is bizarre. “The Second
Catt Question” has nothing to do with Theory C. Perhaps they carry their own ideas that
classical electromagnetism is faulty, and so cannot think and talk within the faulty theory, as I
am capable of doing. Within classical theory, I find logical contradiction. Put more clearly, I see
mistake. In 1980, I wrote; “We must reintroduce the concept of “mistake” into science.
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTvol2p318-9.jpg from
obviously wrong.
In classical theory, either we have to exclude the TEM Wave as possible, or we have to accept
that sometimes Displacement Current causes magnetic field and sometimes it does not – a
clear mistake.
Ivor Catt
Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 2:18 pm

Subject: RE: Let's settle this electric current thing.
Ivor,
Your theory has been built around a very specialized case scenario. You consider the case of two parallel
wires that are close together. You consider the advance from the power source of the transverse electric
field between the two wires. Because mainstream can't account for how this happens, you have decided
to conclude that there is no such thing as electric charge or electric current and that what we have up until
now believed to be electric current flowing in a wire is in fact an EM wave guided by two wires that act as
obstructors.
This theory fails on a number of points. First of all, an exposure of 'slick substitution' in the telegrapher's
equations ought to reveal that the advancing step between the two wires is not actually EM radiation at
all, but rather a propagating electrostatic field along with a moving magnetic field.
Next, your theory breaks down when it comes to electrolysis, lightning, steady state DC circuits, and
circuits where the wires are anti-parallel.
Also, you say that an electron-positron sea is of no importance. It would however at least provide a
medium and mechanism for the advancing electrostatic field and magnetic field. It would further explain
why the current does not completely spill out of the wire, in that the ensuing linear polarization provides a
back EMF which arrests the situation in its infancy, hence containing the bulk of the current inside the
wire. Without the surrounding electron-positron sea, the electric current in the wire would leak out in all
directions.
Best Regards
David
From: icatt@btinternet.com
To: franklinhu@yahoo.com; sirius184@hotmail.com; malcolmd3111@hotmail.com; rmlaf@comcast.net;
r.j.anderton@btinternet.com; glennbaxterpe@aol.com; robert.bennett@rcn.com; sungenis@aol.com;
Subject: Re: Let's settle this electric current thing.
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:59:46 +0000
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. ;
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
To: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>; Malcolm Davidson
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 1:51 AM
“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 ; Ivor Catt ; Malcolm Davidson ; RMLAF ; ROGER ANDERTON ; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. ;
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
xxxx
From: Ivor Catt <ic...@btinternet.com>

To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@hotmail.com>;
kc...@yahoo.com; Malcolm Davidson <malcol...@hotmail.com>; Bill Lucas <bill.l...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2013, 18:17

Subject: Re: by the way
I have often written that my predecessor is Oliver Heaviside, 1890. I have always said I have
gained nothing from any work relating to electromagnetic theory during the 20th century. Of
course, like me, Heaviside was suppressed. He did not appear in any text book for more than
half a century. For my first twelve years \I did not know he had many any contribution.
However, his operational calculus was not suppressed.
The major contributor to em theory in the 20th century, O’Rahilley, was also suppressed
Today, his concept of “Energy Current” is unknown to all professors and
text book writers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_O'Rahilly#Science . He does not
appear in any text book. He did a hatchet job on Maxwell, which meant he had to be suppressed.
My work has nothing to do with “Modern Physics”.
Ivor Catt

Sent: Sat, Nov 2, 2013 5:05 am
Subject: Re: electricity
Ivor,
“You have given no physical explanation as to why the propagating electric field in the space
beyond the wire, should cling to the wire.” – DT
What a pity David Tombe calls it “the propagating electric field”. It is not an electric field. It is an
electromagnetic field. It does not “cling to the wire”. If the conductor is imperfect, some of it
enters the conductor. Energy current ExH enters every region it comes across. In the case of a
perfect conductor, where Ɛ is infinite, approaching zero energy enters, and it enters at zero velocity.
Similarly, the amount of water which penetrates the banks of a river depends on the porosity of the
banks. The space between the banks is much easier for the water to flow through.
David Tombe needs to look at my piece on “railons”, the little things which travel along in the
rails and guide the train, which is outside the rails. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2609.htm .
Strangely, people like Tombe believe railons do not exist, and somehow the train travels
without guidance. In the similar case of energy current, he thinks that it needs guidance by
something travelling in/on the guiding wires. I suppose a train “clings to the rails”.
Ivor Catt
From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: double length half size
“By the way, I don't think Catt theory is anything new and you should own up to
that aspect of it and just call it a modification of classical theory based upon the
known empirically established facts of transmission line theory as applied to
high speed digital circuits.
In addition you claim there is no such thing as "current". That makes no sense
at all to most people so I think you need to clarify what you mean by it.
Harry”
This statement is incredible. After all, Notricker also says; “The idea that there is no current is of
course bizarre.”
Theory C states; “When a battery is connected to a lamp and the lamp lights, electric current is
not involved.” Compare that with “you should own up to that aspect of it and just call
it a modification of classical theory”
Spot the bizarre statement.
The nearest Heaviside got to Theory C was; “By the way, is there such a thing as an electric
current?” Nowhere in the; literature is there anything else which approaches Theory C.
Ivor Catt
From: Ivor Catt

Subject: by the way
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0d2.htm
“The Catt Question” (1) http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm and now (2)
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.htm establish that electric charge and electric current fail to
marry with a TEM Wave, which they are supposed to accompany. However, even before these,
Oliver Heaviside had begun the destruction of electricity when he said;
Now in Maxwell’s theory there is the potential
energy of the displacement .... .... by the electric
force, and there is the .... .... magnetic energy .... ....
due to the magnetic field in all parts of the field,
including the conducting parts. They are supposed to
be set up by the current in the wire. We reverse this;
the current in the wire is set up by the energy
transmitted through the medium around it. – Oliver
Heaviside, vol. 1, page 438, 1892.
He also rocked the boat when he said;
By the way, is there such a thing as an electric
current? Not that it is intended to cast any doubt
upon the existence of a phenomenon so called; but is
it a current – that is, something moving through a
wire – Oliver Heaviside, “Electrical Papers”, vol. 1,
page 434, 1892.
From: Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: double length half size
“By the way, I don't think Catt theory is anything new and you should own up to
that aspect of it and just call it a modification of classical theory based upon the
known empirically established facts of transmission line theory as applied to
high speed digital circuits.
In addition you claim there is no such thing as "current". That makes no sense
at all to most people so I think you need to clarify what you mean by it.
Harry”
This statement is incredible. After all, Notricker also says; “The idea that there is no current is of
course bizarre.”
Theory C states; “When a battery is connected to a lamp and the lamp lights, electric current is
not involved.” Compare that with “you should own up to that aspect of it and just call
it a modification of classical theory”
Spot the bizarre statement.

The nearest Heaviside got to Theory C was; “By the way, is there such a thing as an electric
current?” Nowhere in the; literature is there anything else which approaches Theory C.
Ivor Catt
From: ROGER ANDERTON

Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:56 PM
>>>>This is why I think of NPA members as “Establishment Dissidents”. Perhaps
all NPA members would regard too big a scientific advance as “bizarre”.
most of us think what Einstein did was "bizarre", so we are trying to un-do the
"bizarreness" that Einstein introduced.
Einstein introduces time dilation - that some would think bizarre, then more
bizarreness is added such as singularities, black holes, time travel etc etc -- its all the
just the continual adding of more bizareness
the issue with you is - are you trying to build on the bizarreness of Einstein OR are
you trying to throw away all that bizzareness that Establishment builds on and do
something else instead?
Roger A

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:16 AM
>>Nothing I have written to this circulation refers to Einstein or to Relativity. My

subject is electromagnetic theory.
well that's your problem then; Einstein has had a massive influence on how
electromagnetism is to be understood; so you need to address that issue of whether
you agree with Einstein's treatment or not; so then we will know if you are a
relativist in agreement with building on Establishment's work or dissent with it
As regards Michelson-Morley experiment - Michelson disagreed with Einstein's

theory regarding it, but he was ignored, and everything went towards promoting
Einstein; so that's why things are blocked. Establishment promotes wave-particle
duality so your question regarding MMX on that is a null-question as far as they
are concerned. As for dissenters - well they have lots of different opinions, some
accept wave-particle duality and others do not. So either you deal with an
Establishment with its members loyal to Einstein or you deal with people of lots of
different opinions; the choice is yours.
Roger A
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:57 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:
presumably that means you are anti-Einstein. So you should just come out and
admit it; its why you are being ignored by the Establishment they ignore most all
anti-Einsteins.
So if you are in our anti-Einstein club - then face the problem - we can't agree as to
how much of Einstein is wrong; some say all of it is wrong, while others are
selective and want to keep some of it,
Roger A
From: Ivor Catt <ic...@btinternet.com>

To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@hotmail.com>;
kc...@yahoo.com; Malcolm Davidson
I build up electromagnetic theory on the basis of absolute space, which has physical
characteristics permittivity and permeability – or rather, the same thing in other terms, Zo and
c.
Ivor Catt

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:16 AM
>>Nothing I have written to this circulation refers to Einstein or to Relativity. My
subject is electromagnetic theory.
well that's your problem then; Einstein has had a massive influence on how
electromagnetism is to be understood; so you need to address that issue of whether
you agree with Einstein's treatment or not; so then we will know if you are a
relativist in agreement with building on Establishment's work or dissent with it
As regards Michelson-Morley experiment - Michelson disagreed with Einstein's

theory regarding it, but he was ignored, and everything went towards promoting
Einstein; so that's why things are blocked. Establishment promotes wave-particle
duality so your question regarding MMX on that is a null-question as far as they
are concerned. As for dissenters - well they have lots of different opinions, some
accept wave-particle duality and others do not. So either you deal with an
Establishment with its members loyal to Einstein or you deal with people of lots of
different opinions; the choice is yours.
Roger A
Ivor Catt
Nov 5
I suppose, since you think I should not talk about electromagnetic theory if I don’t discuss
Einstein, I could reply by telling you that you should not talk about Einstein since you never
discuss electromagnetic theory. How absurd!

Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Why are they silent?
David,
This is all very well. But today’s “Universe of Discourse” – the framework within which professors and
text book writers communicate on the rare occasions when they do communicate on fundamentals - is
It is
what Heaviside said Maxwell said, not what Maxwell himself said. There is good reason for this.
much easier to understand Heaviside. He certainly said Maxwell

invented Displacement Current to deal with the paradox of the
charging capacitor. I had discussed this for decades before you came along and said Maxwell
never said this. (I had previously believed Heaviside.) However, I continue to deal with the Universe of
Discourse of today’s professors and text book writers, which is Heaviside’s version of history. Please try
to get inside that framework, and let us see whether you understand that there is a fatal flaw, or
contradiction, within that body of knowledge as explained in “The Second Catt Question”.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b6.htm . If you continue to refuse to comment on

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b6.htm , that will be a great shame. It will mean that you are too
preoccupied with finding out that the reason Maxwell invented Displacement Current is not what
everyone thinks it is, to address a fatal flaw in the body of knowledge of the world’s scientific
community
Ivor Catt
From: David Tombe
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:41 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; kc3mx@yahoo.com ; ROGER ANDERTON ; Malcolm Davidson ; Bill Lucas
Subject: RE: Why are they silent?
Ivor,
Your criticism of Maxwell seems to focus on the topic of displacement current, yet it is clear to me that
you do not know what Maxwell himself said about displacement current. It certainly isn't what you often
claim it to be when you are criticizing the concept.
Maxwell introduced displacement current in the preamble of Part III of his 1861 paper. He did so in
connection with Hooke's law as applied to an elastic solid. It was literally a displacement current that he
envisaged. He envisaged an externally applied electromotive force causing an elastic displacement of
the electric particles in the medium that is the wave carrier for light.
The only weakness in Maxwell's argument was that he failed to elaborate on the precise nature of the
displacement. He hinted in the preamble that it might be a rotatory displacement and in my opinion he
would have been right. However, he seems to have played that idea down in his 1864 paper, and in the
wake of Maxwell, displacement current became associated with linear polarization between the plates
of a capacitor.
That was bad enough, because the linear polarization between the plates of a capacitor has got nothing
to do with wireless EM radiation, yet the situation was made exceedingly worse in the wake of the
Einstein revolution due to the fact that the luminiferous aether was abolished altogether. The modern
textbook derivation of displacement current is a pure fraud used in conjunction with the folly of
thinking that a propagating electrostatic field between two
conducting wires constitutes EM radiation.
If you want to read Maxwell's original notes on displacement current, you can find them here. It doesn't
involve very much maths. It's the first couple of pages of Part III of his 1861 paper here,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf
You need to scroll down to about page 39 of the pdf file, just after the diagrams at the end of part II.
Best Regards
David
From: icatt@btinternet.com
Subject: Why are they silent?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:43:31 +0000
Why are they silent?

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b6.htm
I am not sure whether Notricker is referring to the Second Catt Question, since he is not specific.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf . This has nothing to do with whether a capacitor is a transmission
line. For more than 100 years it has not been noticed that when a TEM Wave travels guided by two
conductors, there is a varying electric field (E or D) in the vertical direction between the two conductors.
This is true even for the sine wave, but easier to see with the step, when there is a massive dD/dt at the
front face of the step, in the vertical direction. Maxwell invented Displacement Current to create
magnetic field, which in this case is in the horizontal plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
Example showing two surfaces S1 and S2 that share the same bounding contour ∂S. However, S1 is
pierced by conduction current, while S2 is pierced by displacement current.
So the front face of a TEM step (Transverse Electromagnetic Wave) creates magnetic field in a horizontal
plane, some of it in the forward direction. Thus, a TEM step is not a TEM step, because it causes
magnetic field which is not transverse.
Now do Notricker and David Tombe understand the point I am making? Whether they do or not, why do
they not comment, if they are interested in electromagnetic theory? Their behaviour is very strange.
They both get involved in trivia, like whether I am attacking Notricker, which is not a scientific matter, or
run off to sayikng Theory C is bizarre. “The Second Catt Question” has nothing to do with Theory C.
Perhaps they carry their own ideas that classical electromagnetism is faulty, and so cannot think and talk
within the faulty theory, as I am capable of doing. Within classical theory, I find logical contradiction. Put
more clearly, I see mistake. In 1980, I wrote; “We must reintroduce the concept of “mistake” into
science. http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV2/EMTvol2p318-9.jpg from
obviously wrong.
In classical theory, either we have to exclude the TEM Wave as possible, or we have to accept that
sometimes Displacement Current causes magnetic field and sometimes it does not – a clear mistake.
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:30 PM
To: ROGER ANDERTON ; David Tombe ; Ivor Catt ; Malcolm Davidson ; Bill Lucas
Subject: Re: The Big Carbuncle about Einstein's Work Naturally Following on from Maxwell
Roger and David,
Here you are presuming that Maxwell's theory is correct. I think that is an unwarranted assumption. As
Ivor shows, he has this point correct even if the rest of what he says is garbled, the pulse on a
transmission line does not conform to the Maxwell theory. That deserves further investigation. I would
agree that Ivor's solution is incomprehensible, if not completely wrong. But it needs to be taken into
consideration that the fundamentals may be off base.
Harry

Sent: Fri, Oct 18, 2013 5:06 pm
Subject: Fw: Complement to the Wakefield experiment as suggested by 4 students at last weeks Seminar
presentation by Ivor Catt.
The Wakefield Experiment http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf

Attachment is the Second Wakefield Experiment, or Wakefield 2.
After the one day seminar in Newcastle University to deal with Catt’s electromagnetic theory,
http://www.ivorcatt.com/n.htm , four students suggested a modification of “The Wakefield
Experiment”. This was to see what happened if the capacitor was discharged from both ends at the
same moment.
Catt theory would predict that in the case of a 1 metre cable charged to 8v, a one metre 4v pulse would
come out each end. His prediction was yesterday confirmed.
Nobel Prizewinner Professor Brian Josephsonbdj10@cam.ac.uk , (who has written 100 emails on “The
Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm ,) when he read Catt’s prediction
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9659.jpg of the result of Wakefield 1 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
before the experiment was carried out, said Catt’s prediction correlated with classical theory, which it
did not. Thus we had the unprecedented assertion that if experimental results were predicted using a
revolutionary theory contradicting classical theory, they would later be force-fitted into classical theory,
like the ugly sister’s shoe. Classical electromagnetic theory was much more versatile than we had
imagined. Allk possible results confirmed the classical theory. No possible experimental result could
support a revolutionary theory. Now it is very important for Professor Josephson to comment on the
results of Wakefield 2. Of course, as he has recently said, we are likely to find out that Josephson does
not have any more time for such trivia. Retired, he is too busy on more important matters.
Ivor Catt
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:49 AM
To: icatt@btinternet.com
Subject: Paradigm Shift
Theory N
Theory C http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_4.htm
The answer lies hidden in Heaviside's magnificent, regal statement, "We reverse this." In his
Electrical Papers, vol. 1, 1892, page 438, Heaviside wrote;
Now, in Maxwell's theory there is the potential energy of the displacement

produced in the dielectric parts by the electric force, and there is the kinetic or
magnetic energy of the magnetic force in all parts of the field, including the
conducting parts. They are supposed to be set up by the current in the wire. We
reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the
medium around it….
Theory C. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_4.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311.htm
Ivor Catt
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: Monday Physics Conerence Call
“The theories of science developed under the existential and post modern philosophies of science, this
includes the theory of evolution, Maxwell's electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, special and general
relativity etc. do not have logical consistency. This is because the scientific method for these
philosophies does not believe in truth and therefore does not use a proper logical foundation for
theories. In the past the axiomatic method was used in science to obtain logical consistency, but this has
not been done for the last 150 years. The axiomatic method was used in plane geometry for its logical
foundation. Axioms were proved empirically use a straight edge and compass. Then a logically consistent
theory was derived from those axioms using the logic of the axiomatic proof. Today there is no
requirement that the hypotheses, postulates or assumptions in science be true or even logically
consistent. Just look at a diagram of the scientific method. See attachment. It is not there.” -
bill.lucas001@gmail.com
As my co-author comments, the above is very much in line with the attitude of me and my co-authors.
Please note that Harry Ricker, possibly NPA member and one of this circulation, is against us on this. He
believes “the truth that there are no truths”, which Popper says captured the body scientific in the early
20th century, and repudiated Galileo but didn’t notice. This was the issue between Galileo and the
“church”; whether truth exists. Those of the opposite view have a fanatical commitment to the view
which Galileo refused to accept.
Ivor Catt.
Sent: Sun, Oct 6, 2013 3:18 pm

Subject: Establishment Dissidents
I was glad to get to http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/relativitatstheorie-scherz-oder-schwindel/ via

Harry’s piece below, which mentioned www.twinparadox.net by Louis Essen.
I visited Louis Essen twice in his home, to talk about electromagnetic theory.
As to relativity, he told me that Inst. Phys once rejected his article for publication even after he had
received the proofs. (Inst.Phys also broke their contract with me to publish an article by me.)
Louis Essen told me two men flew round the world in opposite directions and then compared their
clocks. Nature published that this proved ralativity. Louis wrote in to say they had usded the clock he
designed, and it was not accurate enough for the expt. to prove anything. Nature refused to publish his
rebuff.
Essen told me Dingle screwed things up by making a mistake.
I have trouble trying to remember my mission when I went to see him.

I wanted a Nobel Prize for either Dingle or Essen, I forget which. I read the rules, and found that a Nobel
Prize Winner could recommend someone for a Nobel Prize, and some other types of people (not
including me). That explained why my college, Trinity Cambridge, has as many Nobel Prize Winners as
France. Buggin’s turn.
I note that the Harry and Essen material supports my idea of “Establishment dissidents.” Neither in
Essen nor in Harry does my point arise, presumably because I am a real dissident, not an Establishment
dissident. My point, repeated for thirty years with no response from anyone, is that in the M-M
experiment photons must be assumed in the first part of the experiment because parallel waves will
affect each other, but waves have to be assumed at the end in order to use fringes to measure time
difference. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wr4lectu.htm . “although Michelson-
Morley pre-date wave/particle dualism, both wave and particle have to be assumed
at different stages in the experiment to suppress anomalies. Central to the most
famous experiment in science, there is an apparent paradox which may not be
discussed [even by Establishment dissidents].”
Thus, no conclusions can be drawn from M-M until this problem is resolved. However, I suppose the
“Establishment” versus “Establishment dissidents” battle can continue while ignoring me for a few more
decades.
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:46 PM
To: Yuri Keilman
Cc: Ivor Catt ; Franklin Hu ; David Tombe ; Jeff Baugher ; Stephen Crothers ; Bill Lucas ; Roger Rydin ;
P.E. Glenn A. Baxter ; Malcolm Davidson ; Forrest Bishop ; Anthony Wakefield ; alfrp@hotmail.com ; Greg
Volk ; David de Hilster ; Rati Ram Sharma ; Florentin Smarandache ; odomann@yahoo.com ;
dgsasso@alice.it ; Patriot293 . ; Al McDowell ; Pal Asija ; Don Mitchell ; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye ;
mailto:ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ; smalik@uri.edu ; Brian Cole ;
pnoble@vermontel.net ; HatchRonald@johndeere.com ; PeterKohut@seznam.cz ; Institute@k1man.com ;
relativity googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: David's claim is brilliant
Yuri,
I am glad you wrote this because you illustrate perfectly "the problem." That is, like the mainstream, you
refuse to accept the scientific facts because of ideology.
All I said was that Einstein improperly identified the so called Ives-Stillwell effect with time dilation. This
is a simple statement, that says in effect that the claim that special relativity is proved by experiment is
false. Fundamentally this claim by physicists is the crux of the debate: Special relativity is proved by
experiments. When one goes over the experiments one finds that the claim that special relativity is
proved by experiments is false and that the fact is that the experiments disprove special relativity,
because the mathematics used in the calculations was done incorrectly.
Proponents of relativity theory and its associated philosophy can not accept this simple fact, because they not not
see science as something that is based upon proof, but instead is based upon ideology. In science the usual
procedure is to establish theories based upon the empirical evidence. In this case there is no empirical factual
evidence that special relativity is empirically proved, however there are a lot of incorrect claims that purport that it
is. Relativity is a metaphysical ideology that is not based upon any factual scientific evidence, but is instead based
upon metaphysical postulates that have no empirical factual basis. Put differently it is not empirical science but
ideological metaphysical philosophy. (The philosophy of time is part of metaphysics.)
An analysis of the mathematics shows two things. In principle it is impossible for the mathematics to predict the
claim that each of two clocks each runs slower than the other, and that it is experimentally impossible for such a
claim to be verified. That is because the claim is a mathematical impossibility. What the mathematics shows is that
if the postulates of special relativity are correct then all clocks run at exactly the same rate as long as they conform
to the concept of a ideal clock. The experiments, here we refer to Hafele-Keating and the GPS system, definitely
show that the clocks run at different rates. So special relativity is disproved.
See www.twinparadox.net for more.
Harry
From: Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>

To: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>
Cc: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>; Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; David Tombe
<sirius184@hotmail.com>; Jeff Baugher <baugher.3@wright.edu>; Stephen Crothers
<thenarmis@gmail.com>; Bill Lucas <bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rarydin@earthlink.net>;
P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>;
Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; Anthony Wakefield <echoshack@gmail.com>;
"alfrp@hotmail.com" <alfrp@hotmail.com>; Greg Volk <the.volks@comcast.net>; David de Hilster
<david@dehilster.com>; Rati Ram Sharma <prof.rr.sharma@gmail.com>; Florentin Smarandache
<fsmarandache@gmail.com>; "odomann@yahoo.com" <odomann@yahoo.com>; "dgsasso@alice.it"
<dgsasso@alice.it>; Patriot293 . <npercival@snet.net>; Al McDowell <almcd999@earthlink.net>; Pal
Asija <palasija@gmail.com>; Don Mitchell <don@shoestringscience.com>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye
<gravity@extinctionshift.com>; "Ian Cowan (Ian.Cowan@nsai.ie)" <ian.cowan@nsai.ie>;
"jarybczyk@verizon.net" <jarybczyk@verizon.net>; "cowani@eircom.net" <cowani@eircom.net>;
"smalik@uri.edu" <smalik@uri.edu>; Brian Cole <cole@nevis.columbia.edu>; "pnoble@vermontel.net"
<pnoble@vermontel.net>; "HatchRonald@johndeere.com" <hatchronald@johndeere.com>;
"PeterKohut@seznam.cz" <peterkohut@seznam.cz>; "Institute@k1man.com" <institute@k1man.com>;
relativity googlegroups.com <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:10 PM
Harry,
You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is
a discussion about different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions and
principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that
the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it asserts that
there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that is independent of the process that is being measured. "
Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It is very important that absolute time and
absolute 3-d space are independent of the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d absolute
space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that is independent of the processes being
measured (or described). GR is spoiled this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured.
This is why GR is wrong.
So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to independent time and 3-d space. In
fact it is in reverse. It is obvious if you would know 4-d geometry.
Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can describe it using only 3-d geometry. You
and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d space is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1]
(by metric space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will have a definite distance along
the straight line connecting these points). The whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also
the metric space and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-
d). It is just easy to see if one knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
professors in mainstream do not know 4-d geometry.............................Yuri
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I strongly urge everyone to read my other
mails where I discuss this.
Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different assumptions and beliefs. The two different
sides believe in different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while
opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to
make his system of mechanics work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical
processes that is independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically an assumption. Its
universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is to be applied to the known universe as a whole,
which is those days was just our solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and
Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach rejected Einstein's relativity
claims.
The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no absolute measure of simultaneity and
that clocks measure time. GPS shows the first claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything
that is based upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two obscuring postulates that are also
both false. But the problem is the claims are not very clearly stated or used in a way that is clear or well
defined. So we end up with a vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear postulates and
assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined predictions. This is great for the theory because it is so
poorly defined and described that anything proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems right
and neither side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice versa.
The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves the theory. That is the spectral
line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then said to be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks
measure time, and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So physicists accept that
this proves relativity. Unfortunately this evidence is false, because Einstein did the math wrong in
making the claims. When the mistake was discovered it was not corrected.
That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim that time dilation is correctly predicted
in moving atomic clocks. But because the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the
claimed experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that relativty is proved by
experiments, when it is definitely disproved by them. That is because when the math is correctly worked
out, the predictions are that the clock rates do not change as a result of motion. So the twins paradox
does disprove relativity, because when the math is done properly there is no difference in ages. What
relativists do to avoid this is invoke general relativity to save admiting that they are wrong. See:
www.twinparadox.net
To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance of experimental proof that special
relativity when the math is done properly is disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to
agree that this is the case. So that is all there is to it. See: www.twinparadox.net for more discussion.
Harry
To: Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>; Jeff Baugher
<baugher.3@wright.edu>; Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>; Bill Lucas
<bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rarydin@earthlink.net>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>; Forrest Bishop
<forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; Anthony Wakefield <echoshack@gmail.com>; alfrp@hotmail.com; Greg
Volk <the.volks@comcast.net>; David de Hilster <david@dehilster.com>; Rati Ram Sharma
<prof.rr.sharma@gmail.com>; Florentin Smarandache <fsmarandache@gmail.com>;
odomann@yahoo.com; dgsasso@alice.it; Patriot293 . <npercival@snet.net>; Al McDowell
<almcd999@earthlink.net>; Pal Asija <palasija@gmail.com>; Don Mitchell
<don@shoestringscience.com>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <gravity@extinctionshift.com>; "Ian
Cowan (Ian.Cowan@nsai.ie)" <ian.cowan@nsai.ie>; jarybczyk@verizon.net; cowani@eircom.net;
smalik@uri.edu; Brian Cole <cole@nevis.columbia.edu>; pnoble@vermontel.net;
"HatchRonald@johndeere.com" <hatchronald@johndeere.com>; "PeterKohut@seznam.cz"
<peterkohut@seznam.cz>; "Institute@k1man.com" <institute@k1man.com>; relativity
googlegroups.com <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 2:18 PM
“The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.” – HR
I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is not absolute or relative time. ” . What
impressed me was that for the first time there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had aged
differently. If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was wrong, then presumably Dingle should not
have written a book about it.
I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there were some simple refutation of the
whole business. I personally have absolute space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference.
Of course, what separates me from more or less the whole of Establ;ishment and also Dissident physics,
is that I concentrate on energy and its conservation, which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
Ivor Catt
From: Yuri Keilman
To: HARRY RICKER
Harry,
I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time should go. The "coordinate time" is not
absolute time. It requires the presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system
without the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a distance between any 2 close
events. The moving physical clocks just show this distance, ........................yuri
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ivor,
You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant, because it is not new, and doesn't resolve
the problem. The argument below shows you don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The
debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did, was say there is an absolute
time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even
allow the mention of it. The point is that David headed straight for the essential point of what the
disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an article of indisputable faith, despite the fact
that their example of twins paradox shows that their system of thought doesn't work without
contradiction. Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any claims that dispute that belief.
Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare the solution proves they are right and then
they ban anyone from expressing a contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for proof that you
are correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal absolute clock time is not anything new or
brilliant. It just illustrates the disagreement vividly.
Harry
PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time, then we can discuss this some
more.

To: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; David Tombe
<thenarmis@gmail.com>; Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>
Cc: Bill Lucas <bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rarydin@earthlink.net>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
“In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one
of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who
remained on Earth has aged more.”
Harry,
You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one member, and the whole bridge
collapses. All that is necessary is to show that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the
stationary brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because the earth went round
the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement throughout the 200 years.
If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an essential part of relativity, then that
will possibly scupper the point raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or dense. I
honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the brightest among NPA – of which
perhaps you are not a member. That would leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This
echoes your behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
To: Franklin Hu ; David Tombe ; Ivor Catt ; Jeff Baugher ; Stephen Crothers ; Yuri Keilman
Cc: Bill Lucas ; Roger Rydin ; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter ; Malcolm Davidson ; Forrest Bishop ; Anthony
Wakefield ; alfrp@hotmail.com ; Greg Volk ; David de Hilster ; Rati Ram Sharma ; Florentin Smarandache
; odomann@yahoo.com ; dgsasso@alice.it ; Patriot293 . ; Al McDowell ; Pal Asija ; Don Mitchell ; Jr.Dr.
Edward Henry Dowdye ; mailto:ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ;
smalik@uri.edu ; Brian Cole ; pnoble@vermontel.net ; HatchRonald@johndeere.com ;
PeterKohut@seznam.cz ; Institute@k1man.com ; relativity googlegroups.com
Franklin,
Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every, repeat every clock, is inaccurate. The
year clock is not that accurate, and that is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will see
the year differently depending on whether they are moving away or towards the earth.
The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or system of clocks synchronized in time. The
particular problem is that the relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having multiple
clocks, which must always contradict each other because they must each run slower than the other clock. In fact
we already have a universal absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this universal absolute
time, works because there is only one absolute system of time. There is no need for a year clock since we already
have the universal time system in the GPS and UTC.
Harry
From: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>

To: Ivor Catt <ivor@ivorcatt.com>; Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Relativity] Fw: Dingle and Lorentz transformation
Ivor
Maybe its crimestop stopping you understanding.

There is nothing other than mathematics as language of nature/physics, so
when you don't offer any then you are not really saying anything just a lot
of hot air and bluster signifying nothing.
It is a tale told by an idiot Full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.

-William Shakespeare, MacBeth
Roger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://worldsci.org/pipermail/relativity_worldsci.org/attachments/20130926/c
2ab37af/attachment-0001.html>
CATT/BAXTER QUESTION IS ANSWERED by Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 27 June 2013
In the Wakefield circuit www.k1man.com/Wakefield.pdf , a zero pulse goes down to the end of the 18
meter coax line (at 236,842,105 meters per second), taking 76 nano seconds, as shown in figure 5,
where an oscilloscope is connected and where the voltage along the 8 volt line drops to 4 volts as the
zero pulse passes. The zero pulse is reflected at the open end of the line and, as the reflected zero
pulse returns, it drops the line from 4 to 0 as it travels until the reflected pulse reaches the switch end
after 150 nanoseconds as shown in figure 1.
This is consistent with the 1946 “PRINCIPLES OF RADAR” text referenced by Harry Ricker, Chapter 6
page 8, figure 4A, where a charged line is hooked up slightly differently, is discharged, and where there
are exactly consistent similar results. See www.k1man.com/Ricker130626A.pdf This text appears to be
correct and appears to rigorously answer the Catt/Baxter question. See
www.k1man.com/CattBaxterQuestion.pdf
These DC pulses are travelling at 0.789 the speed of light and are in no way related to how light
propagates. The pulses are electrostatic pressure waves. Current and related Ampere’s Law
magnetism along the line is not involved.
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.

glennbaxterpe@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
To: David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>; Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>; Forrest
Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; kc3mx <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Roger Rydin
<rarydin@earthlink.net>; 'PAL Asija' <pal@ourpal.com>; 'Pal Asija' <palasija@gmail.com>; Glenn A.
Baxter, P.E. <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; cole <cole@nevis.columbia.edu>; dgsasso <dgsasso@alice.it>;
odomann <odomann@yahoo.com>; pnoble <pnoble@vermontel.net>; the.volks
<the.volks@comcast.net>; david <david@dehilster.com>; npercival <npercival@snet.net>; almcd999
<almcd999@earthlink.net>; don <don@shoestringscience.com>; gravity <gravity@extinctionshift.com>;
ian.cowan <ian.cowan@nsai.ie>; bill.lucas001 <bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; jarybczyk
<jarybczyk@verizon.net>; cowani <cowani@eircom.net>; baugher.3 <baugher.3@wright.edu>; smalik
<smalik@uri.edu>; hatchronald <hatchronald@johndeere.com>; peterkohut <peterkohut@seznam.cz>;
thenarmis <thenarmis@gmail.com>; institute <institute@k1man.com>; npa-relativity <npa-
relativity@googlegroups.com>; echoshack <echoshack@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 8:57 am
Subject: Re: Transmission Lines
David,
It’s a pity you seem to ignore our message in http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm .
Ivor Catt
From: David Tombe
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Ivor Catt ; Malcolm Davidson ; Forrest Bishop
Cc: Franklin Hu ; kc3mx@yahoo.com ; Roger Rydin ; 'PAL Asija' ; 'Pal Asija' ; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. ;
cole@nevis.columbia.edu ; dgsasso@alice.it ; odomann@yahoo.com ; pnoble@vermontel.net ;
the.volks@comcast.net ; david@dehilster.com ; npercival@snet.net ; almcd999@earthlink.net ;
don@shoestringscience.com ; gravity@extinctionshift.com ; ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; bill.lucas001@gmail.com
; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ; baugher.3@wright.edu ; smalik@uri.edu ;
hatchronald@johndeere.com ; peterkohut@seznam.cz ; thenarmis@gmail.com ; institute@k1man.com ;
npa-relativity@googlegroups.com ; echoshack@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Transmission Lines
Ivor,
The displacement current (polarization current) that occurs at the step in a transmission line pulse has
got no connection with the mathematical form of the displacement current which is used to derive the
EM wave equation, but mainstream don't know that.
The problem which nobody here is facing up to is this,
"How do we derive the EM wave equation while at the same time making the two feeder equations
physically compatible?"
The two feeder equations are,
curl E = -dB/dt
and curl B = (mu)(epsilon)dE/dt

Deriving the wave equation is easy. The difficulty comes in devising a physical model which will make
these two equations simultaneously compatible, and at no stage did I ever agree that the latter of these
two equations means that a changing electric field causes a magnetic field. That is something that
mainstream wrongly concluded as a knee jerk reaction in the wake of Maxwell's displacement current.
Best Regards
David

To: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>; David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>; Forrest
Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; kc3mx <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Roger Rydin
<rarydin@earthlink.net>; 'PAL Asija' <pal@ourpal.com>; 'Pal Asija' <palasija@gmail.com>; Glenn A.
Baxter, P.E. <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; cole <cole@nevis.columbia.edu>; dgsasso <dgsasso@alice.it>;
odomann <odomann@yahoo.com>; pnoble <pnoble@vermontel.net>; the.volks
<the.volks@comcast.net>; david <david@dehilster.com>; npercival <npercival@snet.net>; almcd999
<almcd999@earthlink.net>; don <don@shoestringscience.com>; gravity <gravity@extinctionshift.com>;
ian.cowan <ian.cowan@nsai.ie>; bill.lucas001 <bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; jarybczyk
<jarybczyk@verizon.net>; cowani <cowani@eircom.net>; baugher.3 <baugher.3@wright.edu>; smalik
<smalik@uri.edu>; hatchronald <hatchronald@johndeere.com>; peterkohut <peterkohut@seznam.cz>;
thenarmis <thenarmis@gmail.com>; institute <institute@k1man.com>; npa-relativity <npa-
relativity@googlegroups.com>; echoshack <echoshack@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 4:45 pm
Subject: Re: Transmission Lines
Alex,
An interesting summary by my co-author written today.
To my co-author Malcolm,
Your summary below is excellent.
However, I worry about one item, (4)
“4. Maxwells fourth equation contains the term dE/dt a changing Electric field. This was his "leap of
genius" and is called the Displacement Current. However we can now observe that this is merely the
difference between the TEM energy or, Energy Current as Oliver Heaviside called it, reflecting from both
ends of the component. As we saw with the charging process of the parallel plate Capacitor. A sinusoidal
signal will, by definition, have different energy propagating from left to right as from right to left. Hence
there will be a measurable H or magnetic field noted as electric current.”
This seems to be wrong. Much better the article you helped to write in 1978,
http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm . Forrest Bishop says that is the most important article
of the century. For 150 years nobody noticed that the electric charge/current entering a capacitor plate
first has to spread out across the plate before yearning to cross the gap to the other plate.
Ivor Catt
From: Malcolm Davidson
To: David Tombe ; Ivor Catt ; Forrest Bishop
Cc: Franklin Hu ; kc3mx@yahoo.com ; Roger Rydin ; 'PAL Asija' ; 'Pal Asija' ; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. ;
cole@nevis.columbia.edu ; dgsasso@alice.it ; odomann@yahoo.com ; pnoble@vermontel.net ;
the.volks@comcast.net ; david@dehilster.com ; npercival@snet.net ; almcd999@earthlink.net ;
don@shoestringscience.com ; gravity@extinctionshift.com ; ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; bill.lucas001@gmail.com
; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ; baugher.3@wright.edu ; smalik@uri.edu ;
hatchronald@johndeere.com ; peterkohut@seznam.cz ; thenarmis@gmail.com ; institute@k1man.com ;
npa-relativity@googlegroups.com ; echoshack@gmail.com
Subject: Transmission Lines
Hi All,
As you know Ivor, David Walton and myself recognized many years ago that Capacitors and Inductors
were Transmission Lines. Here is a brief overview of our position. (my perspective) The images attached
show a parallel plate Capacitor which is a low impedance TX line with an O/C, and a Single Turn Inductor
which is a high impedance TX line with a S/C.
1. In the 1860's - 1900's the physicists and engineers of the day did not have the advantage of the test
equipment that we have today. Because all electrical signals tended to be fairly low frequency all
devices such as Capacitors, Inductors and Resistors were treated as lumped components.
2. Maxwell's Equations are based upon the scientific understanding of over 100 years ago. With greater
insight we can see that, although the mathematics may be elegant and complete, it is not an accurate
model of reality as we understand it today.
3. A Capacitor is an Open Circuit Transmission Line with a low Characteristic Impedance and the
Charging up of this distributed device occurs in discrete steps. (Reflections occuring as the step traverses
the Capacitor. A fully charged Capacitor has in fact TEM (Transverse Electromagnetic) energy travelling
in opposite directions with the plates where the E fields have added and the H fields have cancelled
resulting in a Voltage difference across the plates.
4. Maxwells fourth equation contains the term dE/dt a changing Electric field. This was his "leap
of genius" and is called the Displacement Current. However we can now observe that this is
merely the difference between the TEM energy or, Energy Current as Oliver Heaviside called it,
reflecting from both ends of the component. As we saw with the charging process of the
parallel plate Capacitor. A sinusoidal signal will, by definition, have different energy propagating
from left to right as from right to left. Hence there will be a measurable H or magnetic field
noted as electric current.
5. Any signal can be viewed as a sequence of slivers of energy, each sliver travelling at the
speed of light for the medium. In the case of air it is 3 x 10 to the Power 8 meters/sec. This
speed is set because of the values or permitivity and permeability of free space. Also the Zo of
free space is 376 ohms.
6. We know that a Step travels down any transmission line at the speed of light (for the
medium) and does not require a changing field to cause propagation as promulgated in the
travelling wave scenario taught in acedemia. We agreed that each sliver knows nothing about
what is either ahead or behind it because it is travelling at "c". To do so would require a faster
speed than "c". Therefore such statements as;
The displacement current term says that a changing electric field (right hand side of Ampère’s
Law, above) creates a magnetic field (left hand side of Ampère’s Law). Faraday’s Law says a
changing magnetic field creates an electric field (note the symmetry?). So Maxwell wondered
why couldn’t electric fields and magnetic fields, once they are set up correctly, just keep working
back and forth? Each one changes and creates the other in turn, going back and forth like this,
all by themselves with absolutely nothing else to help them along.
The answer, of course, is that is exactly what they do. The result is electromagnetic radiation.
(IEE Global History Discplacement Current)
are not only incorrect but physically impossible.
A changing Electric Field is accompanied by a changing Magnetic field with neither causing the
other. The TEM signal is the primitive.
7. The Energy Current (Energy in the space) is the primary source of E & H fields and any electric
current flowing in the wire is a secondary artifact and hence cannot cause the magnetic field
observed in the dielectric medium. The copper, or any so called conductor can be viewed as an
obstructor, in as much as it guides the energy. If it were a perfect obstructor then we could call
it a Super Conductor, for it would let zero electromagnetic energy in to the medium.
The two photos attached show a parallel plate capacitor charging with the discrete steps and
also a single turn choke having the same pulse injected into it. The Inductor has a Zo of around
1000 ohms and a reflection coefficient of abour 0.9 at the coaxial input end. In the case of the
"L" the signal sees a high impedance so the step nearly doubles. It propagates along the air
cored single turn choke, sees a S/C (short circuit) and reflects back towards the source
connection.
It reaches the end of the coil, sees a low impedance (50 ohms) and inverts and reflects back
continuing until there is no amplitude left. As the Capacitor has TEM energy propagating back
and forth with the H field cancelling, so the Inductor has TEM energy propagating in the space
with the E field cancelling.
The additional photos show my poorly crafted one turn choke. 47 inches long with a separation
of about 4 inches.
Ivor I hope your lecture goes well next week.
Regards to all,
Malcolm

To: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>
<forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; Anthony Wakefield <echoshack@gmail.com>; alfrp <alfrp@hotmail.com>;
Greg Volk <the.volks@comcast.net>; David de Hilster <david@dehilster.com>; Rati Ram Sharma
<prof.rr.sharma@gmail.com>; Florentin Smarandache <fsmarandache@gmail.com>; odomann
<odomann@yahoo.com>; dgsasso <dgsasso@alice.it>; Patriot293 . <npercival@snet.net>; Al McDowell
<don@shoestringscience.com>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <gravity@extinctionshift.com>; Ian Cowan
(Ian.Cowan@nsai.ie) <ian.cowan@nsai.ie>; jarybczyk <jarybczyk@verizon.net>; cowani
<cowani@eircom.net>; smalik <smalik@uri.edu>; Brian Cole <cole@nevis.columbia.edu>; pnoble
<pnoble@vermontel.net>; HatchRonald@johndeere.com <hatchronald@johndeere.com>;
PeterKohut@seznam.cz <peterkohut@seznam.cz>; Institute@k1man.com <institute@k1man.com>;
Sent: Sun, Oct 6, 2013 3:18 pm
Subject: Establishment Dissidents
I was glad to get to http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/relativitatstheorie-scherz-oder-schwindel/ via

Harry’s piece below, which mentioned www.twinparadox.net by Louis Essen.
I visited Louis Essen twice in his home, to talk about electromagnetic theory.
As to relativity, he told me that Inst. Phys once rejected his article for publication even after he had
received the proofs. (Inst.Phys also broke their contract with me to publish an article by me.)
Louis Essen told me two men flew round the world in opposite directions and then compared their
clocks. Nature published that this proved ralativity. Louis wrote in to say they had usded the clock he
designed, and it was not accurate enough for the expt. to prove anything. Nature refused to publish his
rebuff.
Essen told me Dingle screwed things up by making a mistake.
I have trouble trying to remember my mission when I went to see him.
I wanted a Nobel Prize for either Dingle or Essen, I forget which. I read the rules, and found that a Nobel
Prize Winner could recommend someone for a Nobel Prize, and some other types of people (not
including me). That explained why my college, Trinity Cambridge, has as many Nobel Prize Winners as
France. Buggin’s turn.
I note that the Harry and Essen material supports my idea of “Establishment dissidents.” Neither in
Essen nor in Harry does my point arise, presumably because I am a real dissident, not an Establishment
dissident. My point, repeated for thirty years with no response from anyone, is that in the M-M
experiment photons must be assumed in the first part of the experiment because parallel waves will
affect each other, but waves have to be assumed at the end in order to use fringes to measure time
difference. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wr4lectu.htm . “although Michelson-
Morley pre-date wave/particle dualism, both wave and particle have to be assumed
at different stages in the experiment to suppress anomalies. Central to the most
famous experiment in science, there is an apparent paradox which may not be
discussed [even by Establishment dissidents].”
Thus, no conclusions can be drawn from M-M until this problem is resolved. However, I suppose the
“Establishment” versus “Establishment dissidents” battle can continue while ignoring me for a few more
decades.
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
To: Yuri Keilman
Yuri,
I am glad you wrote this because you illustrate perfectly "the problem." That is, like the mainstream, you
refuse to accept the scientific facts because of ideology.
All I said was that Einstein improperly identified the so called Ives-Stillwell effect with time dilation. This
is a simple statement, that says in effect that the claim that special relativity is proved by experiment is
false. Fundamentally this claim by physicists is the crux of the debate: Special relativity is proved by
experiments. When one goes over the experiments one finds that the claim that special relativity is
proved by experiments is false and that the fact is that the experiments disprove special relativity,
because the mathematics used in the calculations was done incorrectly.
Proponents of relativity theory and its associated philosophy can not accept this simple fact, because they not not
see science as something that is based upon proof, but instead is based upon ideology. In science the usual
procedure is to establish theories based upon the empirical evidence. In this case there is no empirical factual
evidence that special relativity is empirically proved, however there are a lot of incorrect claims that purport that it
is. Relativity is a metaphysical ideology that is not based upon any factual scientific evidence, but is instead based
upon metaphysical postulates that have no empirical factual basis. Put differently it is not empirical science but
ideological metaphysical philosophy. (The philosophy of time is part of metaphysics.)
An analysis of the mathematics shows two things. In principle it is impossible for the mathematics to predict the
claim that each of two clocks each runs slower than the other, and that it is experimentally impossible for such a
claim to be verified. That is because the claim is a mathematical impossibility. What the mathematics shows is that
if the postulates of special relativity are correct then all clocks run at exactly the same rate as long as they conform
to the concept of a ideal clock. The experiments, here we refer to Hafele-Keating and the GPS system, definitely
show that the clocks run at different rates. So special relativity is disproved.
See www.twinparadox.net for more.
Harry
From: Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>

To: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>
Cc: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>; Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; David Tombe
<thenarmis@gmail.com>; Bill Lucas <bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rarydin@earthlink.net>;
P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>; Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>;
Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; Anthony Wakefield <echoshack@gmail.com>;
"alfrp@hotmail.com" <alfrp@hotmail.com>; Greg Volk <the.volks@comcast.net>; David de Hilster
<david@dehilster.com>; Rati Ram Sharma <prof.rr.sharma@gmail.com>; Florentin Smarandache
<fsmarandache@gmail.com>; "odomann@yahoo.com" <odomann@yahoo.com>; "dgsasso@alice.it"
<dgsasso@alice.it>; Patriot293 . <npercival@snet.net>; Al McDowell <almcd999@earthlink.net>; Pal
Asija <palasija@gmail.com>; Don Mitchell <don@shoestringscience.com>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye
<gravity@extinctionshift.com>; "Ian Cowan (Ian.Cowan@nsai.ie)" <ian.cowan@nsai.ie>;
"jarybczyk@verizon.net" <jarybczyk@verizon.net>; "cowani@eircom.net" <cowani@eircom.net>;
"smalik@uri.edu" <smalik@uri.edu>; Brian Cole <cole@nevis.columbia.edu>; "pnoble@vermontel.net"
<pnoble@vermontel.net>; "HatchRonald@johndeere.com" <hatchronald@johndeere.com>;
"PeterKohut@seznam.cz" <peterkohut@seznam.cz>; "Institute@k1man.com" <institute@k1man.com>;
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:10 PM
Harry,
You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is
a discussion about different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions and
principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that
the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it asserts that
there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that is independent of the process that is being measured. "
Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It is very important that absolute time and
absolute 3-d space are independent of the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d absolute
space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that is independent of the processes being
measured (or described). GR is spoiled this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured.
This is why GR is wrong.
So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to independent time and 3-d space. In
fact it is in reverse. It is obvious if you would know 4-d geometry.
Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can describe it using only 3-d geometry. You
and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d space is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1]
(by metric space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will have a definite distance along
the straight line connecting these points). The whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also
the metric space and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-
d). It is just easy to see if one knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
professors in mainstream do not know 4-d geometry.............................Yuri
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I strongly urge everyone to read my other
mails where I discuss this.
Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different assumptions and beliefs. The two different
sides believe in different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while
opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to
make his system of mechanics work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical
processes that is independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically an assumption. Its
universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is to be applied to the known universe as a whole,
which is those days was just our solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and
Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach rejected Einstein's relativity
claims.
The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no absolute measure of simultaneity and
that clocks measure time. GPS shows the first claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything
that is based upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two obscuring postulates that are also
both false. But the problem is the claims are not very clearly stated or used in a way that is clear or well
defined. So we end up with a vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear postulates and
assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined predictions. This is great for the theory because it is so
poorly defined and described that anything proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems right
and neither side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice versa.
The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves the theory. That is the spectral
line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then said to be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks
measure time, and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So physicists accept that
this proves relativity. Unfortunately this evidence is false, because Einstein did the math wrong in
making the claims. When the mistake was discovered it was not corrected.
That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim that time dilation is correctly predicted
in moving atomic clocks. But because the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the
claimed experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that relativty is proved by
experiments, when it is definitely disproved by them. That is because when the math is correctly worked
out, the predictions are that the clock rates do not change as a result of motion. So the twins paradox
does disprove relativity, because when the math is done properly there is no difference in ages. What
relativists do to avoid this is invoke general relativity to save admiting that they are wrong. See:
www.twinparadox.net
To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance of experimental proof that special
relativity when the math is done properly is disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to
agree that this is the case. So that is all there is to it. See: www.twinparadox.net for more discussion.
Harry

To: Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>
“The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.” – HR
I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is not absolute or relative time. ” . What
impressed me was that for the first time there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had aged
differently. If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was wrong, then presumably Dingle should not
have written a book about it.
I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there were some simple refutation of the
whole business. I personally have absolute space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference.
Of course, what separates me from more or less the whole of Establ;ishment and also Dissident physics,
is that I concentrate on energy and its conservation, which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
Ivor Catt
From: Yuri Keilman
To: HARRY RICKER
Harry,
I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time should go. The "coordinate time" is not
absolute time. It requires the presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system
without the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a distance between any 2 close
events. The moving physical clocks just show this distance, ........................yuri
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ivor,
You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant, because it is not new, and doesn't resolve
the problem. The argument below shows you don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The
debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did, was say there is an absolute
time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even
allow the mention of it. The point is that David headed straight for the essential point of what the
disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an article of indisputable faith, despite the fact
that their example of twins paradox shows that their system of thought doesn't work without
contradiction. Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any claims that dispute that belief.
Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare the solution proves they are right and then
they ban anyone from expressing a contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for proof that you
are correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal absolute clock time is not anything new or
brilliant. It just illustrates the disagreement vividly.
Harry
PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time, then we can discuss this some
more.

To: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <franklinhu@yahoo.com>; David Tombe
<thenarmis@gmail.com>; Yuri Keilman <altsci1@gmail.com>
Cc: Bill Lucas <bill.lucas001@gmail.com>; Roger Rydin <rarydin@earthlink.net>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
“In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one
of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who
remained on Earth has aged more.”
Harry,
You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one member, and the whole bridge
collapses. All that is necessary is to show that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the
stationary brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because the earth went round
the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement throughout the 200 years.
If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an essential part of relativity, then that
will possibly scupper the point raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or dense. I
honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the brightest among NPA – of which
perhaps you are not a member. That would leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This
echoes your behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
To: Franklin Hu ; David Tombe ; Ivor Catt ; Jeff Baugher ; Stephen Crothers ; Yuri Keilman
Cc: Bill Lucas ; Roger Rydin ; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter ; Malcolm Davidson ; Forrest Bishop ; Anthony
Wakefield ; alfrp@hotmail.com ; Greg Volk ; David de Hilster ; Rati Ram Sharma ; Florentin Smarandache
; odomann@yahoo.com ; dgsasso@alice.it ; Patriot293 . ; Al McDowell ; Pal Asija ; Don Mitchell ; Jr.Dr.
Edward Henry Dowdye ; mailto:ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ;
smalik@uri.edu ; Brian Cole ; pnoble@vermontel.net ; HatchRonald@johndeere.com ;
PeterKohut@seznam.cz ; Institute@k1man.com ; relativity googlegroups.com
Franklin,
Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every, repeat every clock, is inaccurate. The
year clock is not that accurate, and that is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will see
the year differently depending on whether they are moving away or towards the earth.
The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or system of clocks synchronized in time. The
particular problem is that the relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having multiple
clocks, which must always contradict each other because they must each run slower than the other clock. In fact
we already have a universal absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this universal absolute
time, works because there is only one absolute system of time. There is no need for a year clock since we already
have the universal time system in the GPS and UTC.
Harry

Ivor Catt's papers and experiments on electromagnetic theory

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ivor Catt's papers and experiments on electromagnetic theory

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ivor Catt Updated 131107 10:35 A.M.

Wakefield Experiment http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf

Experiment To Compliment The Wakefield Experiment Suggested By 4 Students at

http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html Ivor Catt university gig

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0d2.htm Catt’s World

Seminar http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3ag.htm Regarding seminar

From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>

To: Ivor Catt

Date: 29 January 2014

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

The Future of Science.

Sir Michael Pepper was later “knighted for services

Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson, also a Fellow

The next stage in the infrastructure which has caused

I believe that, further, no media man will touch

The decline of science is not due to decadence or

Ivor Catt 29 January 2014

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

Interesting sleight of hand.

I will obviously stop communication if you don’t want to

What happens in the first few ns will get us on the way to

I attempt to construct an electron out of TEM Waves, and I

Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:27 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; PAL Asija

Cc: Robert.bennett@rcn.com ; sungenis@aol.com ; OUR PAL ; relativity googlegroups.com ; David

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

Dear Franklin Hu,

I have recommended experiments, http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm , which are easy to do. I

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:59 AM

To: Franklin Hu ; PAL Asija

Cc: Robert.bennett@rcn.com ; sungenis@aol.com ; OUR PAL ; relativity googlegroups.com ; David

Why are they silent?

Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 2:18 pm

I appreciate your response, but you didn't answer the question.

“Ivor, lets settle this issue about electric current.” – FH

The analogy is Phlogiston.

As to your email below, I proposed a number of relevant experiments

Ivor, lets settle this issue about electric current.

From: Ivor Catt <ic...@btinternet.com>

Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2013, 18:17

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

From: Ivor Catt

Spot the bizarre statement.

From: Ivor Catt

From: Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: double length half size

Spot the bizarre statement.

From: ROGER ANDERTON

From: ROGER ANDERTON

>>Nothing I have written to this circulation refers to Einstein or to Relativity. My

As regards Michelson-Morley experiment - Michelson disagreed with Einstein's

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:57 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: Ivor Catt <ic...@btinternet.com>

From: ROGER ANDERTON

As regards Michelson-Morley experiment - Michelson disagreed with Einstein's

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

much easier to understand Heaviside. He certainly said Maxwell

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b6.htm . If you continue to refuse to comment on

From: David Tombe

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:41 PM

Subject: RE: Why are they silent?