Talk:Ivor Catt/Archive 13

message: Kevin: electrons do not touch, and electric field lines do not exist in the concept of quantum field theory for electromagnetism where all forces are due to the exchange of light speed energy (vector bosons).  Doubtless quantum field theory as widely accepted now is not the full story and its maths are a fiddle as conventionally treated by the abstract spinor field theory of Lie algebra and renormalisation (see , and also ), but the numerical results and at least the very basic physical concepts (energy exchanges causing force fields) behind it have plenty of evidence. First consider what electricity is. If you charge up a x metre long transmission line to v volts, energy enters at the speed of light. When you discharge it, you (contrary to what you may expect) get a light speed pulse out of v/2 volts with a duration of 2x/c seconds, which of course implies a pulse 2x metres long. Nobody has ever proposed a mechanism where by energy travelling at light speed can magically stop when a transmission line charges up, and magically restart when it is allowed to discharge. Static electrons are therefore to be viewed as trapped electromagnetic field energy. Because there is no variation in voltage in a static charged conductor, there is no electric drift current, and no resistance or net magnetic field from current, yet energy is still going at light speed. Because it is in an equilibrium, equal amounts go in every direction possible, "reflecting" back from edges. So if you discharge from any place, you get a pulse first due to energy which already happens to be headed towards the exit point, followed by energy which is initially going the opposite way, and has to reflect before going to the exit. Because we know a lot about the electron, namely its electric charge in interactions at different energy, its spin, its magnetic dipole, we can use Heaviside's model of energy current to obtain a model for an electron: it's just a Heaviside-Poynting energy trapped in a loop by the only force that will do that, gravity. I discussed this in ten pages of articles in Electronics World, August 2002 and April 2003, which are both now cited on Google Scholar (despite the abuse from string theorists). This tells us the loop size is black-hole sized, predicting LeSage gravity right .
The example of the charged capacitor containing trapped light speed electricity corresponding to the amount of stored "static charge" pumped in shows that electron drift current (and hence electric current) is not vital for electric energy current. Yes, electrons drift where a magnetic field from another conductor makes them by magnetic induction, or where the electric field established in a circuit varies. Short circuit a v volt battery with a 1 metre piece of wire, and you get an electric field of v volts/metre in the wire, which causes an electric drift current. In the transmission line where you just send out a probing logic pulse, it's potential is constant after the rise portion at the front  so electric current there is caused by the magnetic field from the opposite conductor.  Nigel 172.209.241.27 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigel does the above post follow on from an existing argument? If so which one is it? Try to use hdgs if youre changing the subject, or use existing hdgs if youre not. Thanks--Light current 16:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, Nigel is running off at a tangent from Catt's theories into Nigel's own theories of the nature of the electron, which are based on Catt's idea of the electron as a "trapped" Heaviside current. -- Kevin Brunt 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Lets try to keep focused on Catt. THis is already the longest talk page on WP. Lets not try to make in any longer than necessary!--Light current 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK Kevin. Give people time to answer these points before firing off any more posts! 8 points at a time is a bit difficult to deal with - could you keep the number of points on any one day down a bit? THanks!--Light current 22:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved my text over to my own page User talk:Kevin Brunt Abstract: Catt's Theories N, H and C do not comprise the complete list. He has missed "Theory D", which is the Drude Model. This is the theory underlying the (over-)simplified "touching electrons" model. The empty conductor within which the charge of Theory N and the energy of Theory H flow is replaced in Theory D with a conductor filled with electrons, so that the conductor holds both the charge on the electrons and the energy required to bring the electrons together against their mutual repulsion. Theory D does not require that charge and/or energy traverse the conductor at the velocity of propagation; both are distributed throughout the conductor. Theory D explains everything that Theory C does, with a good deal less handwaving. I also postulate "Theory Q" in which the Drude Model is superceded by a full Quantum Mechanical treatment. -- Kevin Brunt 23:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK THank you!--Light current 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum field theory is synonymous with Theory C, and not a "pet theory" 

message: :Since these post and pages are now becoming so large, it may be necessary to apply immediate  refactoring to reduce the volume. I would ask all contriburors to keep their posts short and sweet if possible (ie edit your own posts down to the min) to avoid enforced refactoring.--Light current 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring this page 

message: LC, if you've not visited Nigel's Feynman Gravity page, do so; search for 3.14159, and consider the following paragraph where he asserts for an expanding sphere in cartesian co-ordinates, dx=dy=dz=dr (presumably these are dx/dt, etc and r is the radius) and that therefore the rate of change in the volume is 3 times dr/dt. I will not discuss this further, but merely put it forward as a sufficient proof that Nigel and I are not going to agree at any time in the foreseeable future. -- Kevin Brunt 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I dispute the fact that the article is pro Catt- especially as I wrote most of it. I have tried to present the Catt arguments in as flat and unbiased a way as possible. Which bits do you think are biassed?--Light current 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Dis)agreement? 

message: Nigel, I invite you to strike out your last para with the personal attacks on Kevin.--Light current 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the strong wording.  Nigel 172.201.115.187 09:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigel, I did "Maths for Chemists" as a mandatory half-unit of the 1st year of BSc Chemistry, which included partial differentials. I will not pretend to remember very much of it, since I've not used any of it anger in 30 years, but I do know that  "delta x", "d x" and "curly-d x" are distinct. Have a look at partial_differential_equations -- Kevin Brunt 19:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maxwell's Equations and the Telegrapher's Equations are partial differential equations. Catt, Walton & Davidson's rejection of the Laplace transform is a denial of the partial differential equations on which the theory of electricity is built. The "lumped capacitor" which Catt so frequently decries is merely a massive simplification so that engineers can do simple electrical circuits without having to know calculus... -- Kevin Brunt 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admonishment 

message: Kevin and LC: the distinction of curly and straight d's is important mathematically, but less so physically in most situations.  I can't think of any situation where the accuracy is so good in physics than there is a difference.  In most of quantum mechanics, you can't get exact results anyway to the differential equations, so you solve numerically.  Even if I had used wrong symbols in this case, it wouldn't affect the physics, only the maths.  Kevin is also making a vacuous claim that the details are of concern to referees, when it is not possible to get anything outside the mainstream paradigm read at all due to string theory .  This is exactly the issue Ivor Catt came up against.  People don't read his papers carefully and find mathematical errors and use that to censor him.  He has been very open in publishing the reasons why he has been censored: the physical interpretation. Simplifications of the facts are by definition wrong in detail, so it's significant that Kevin is defending the simplification used in lumped capacitance by the mainstream as being justified, while trying to erroneously attack innovation for using a more accurate model!  Nigel 172.201.115.187 10:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further explanation by Nigel on difference between straight and curly d's