What
do Maxwell’s Equations say?

"Such a wave of constant amplitude EM energy is
not currently covered by Maxwell's equations or any of the currently accepted
EM theory. That is what Ivor Catt has been saying
since 1981. " - Harry Ricker

I think that by "Maxwell's
Equations" you mean what I called "The Rolling Wave". http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2671.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm

That is, what you
(along with Feynman and Einstein) call Maxwell's Equations is the idea that
changing E causes H and changing H causes E. For 150 years it has been thought
that Maxwell's Equations say that, but they don't.

Heaviside clarified
Maxwell's Equations for us.

Maxwell's Equations
actually say that changing E with time causes, or correlates with, changing H
with distance. They do not say things like dE/dt = H. They say things like dE/dt=dH/dx
or dE/dt= -dH/dx

(Maths
is indifferent to the distinction between "causes, or correlates
with." The minus sign is discussed here. http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV1/EMTvol1p98-99.jpg
)

As I showed in my
articles on Maxwell, this means that they say nothing at all about
electromagnetism except what you could say about two thick short planks moving
forward at constant velocity, as a TEM wave does. (What Heaviside called “a
slab of energy current” http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf

Faraday did not
discover electromagnetic induction. He discovered crosstalk. He did not
discover that a changing field causes the other field. Some
of the TEM energy in his primary crosstalked into his
secondary. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

At every stage in his
famous experiment, he did not have only electricity or only magnetism. He
always had TEM waves, which contained both. His galvanometer at the end could
not measure the magnetic field arriving at it, but only the electric current.
What reached it was a TEM Wave, not electric current.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7877.jpg

Since it took me many
decades to realize all of the above, we cannot expect “accredited experts”,
professors and text book writers, to grasp it all even if they are told the
above by me. You can easily see why peer reviewers unanimously recommend
rejection of my work. The results of 50 years of work is
unfair competition. They have not been at it long enough, and the errors,
misunderstandings and confusions go too deep. I am 79, and have wrestled with
electromagnetic theory since 1959, more than half a century ago. They haven’t.

The failure of all
“experts” to look rigorously at Maxwell’s Equations for a century tells us that
there has not been significant intellectual activity of the necessary high
level for more than a century. Heaviside was on the right track in 1890, saying
“is there such a thing as electric current?”
http://www.gsjournal.net/h/papers_download.php?id=3750
.

but got deflected
into his war with his cousin Miss Wade downstairs and with campaigning for “Heavification” of telegraph lines to make possible long
distance voice telephony. He dare not look too deeply into the mess that was
developing around electromagnetic theory, which would have undermined his
campaign for loading coils in telegraph lines. It is startling that no one
looked carefully into Maxwell’s Equations for more than a century. Everyone got
deflected into “Pop Science”, where the money is – black holes, entanglement,
quantum, uncertainty, wave-particle duality, topped up with impressive looking,
but vacuous, mathematics like dE/dt= -dH/dx and much more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
.

Ivor
Catt 28 September 2015

From Harry Ricker;

1. The current EM theory
does not predict the actual waveforms that are observed in the Wakefield
Experiment and so that theory is falsified by failing to predict the correct
discharge waveform. The predicted exponential waveform is not measured to
occur.

2. The current EM theory
can not account for why when the switch is closed, the voltage that is measured is one half of the
expected voltage which is the voltage to which the transmission line is
charged.

3. The current EM theory
cannot account for why the pulse that emerges from the transmission line is
twice as long as predicted from the length of the line divided by wave velocity
formula.

In
1963 a Tekrornix manual stated (2) and (3) – half size
double length.

http://ivorcatt.co.uk/x212.pdf .

No
explanation was given. - Ivor Catt

“these discrepancies have
existed for many years” - HR

Since the currently
accepted EM theory cannot make the correct predictions with regard to these
three points of discrepancy, that theory is obviously falsified by this
experiment. [Note 1.] Now there is a final point. That is that
these discrepancies have existed for many years at least since before 1940. So any one who argues that the experiment is false or wrong is
wasting his time. The issue is not whether the experiment is wrong, but
why this discrepancy has been allowed to persist without a correct and proper
theory to make the correct predictions. That is what Ivor
Catt is saying and Roger Anderton and others have
failed to understand.

Harry
Ricker 28 Sept. 2015

Note
1. “Since the currently accepted EM theory cannot
make the correct predictions with regard to these three points of discrepancy,
that theory is obviously falsified by this experiment.”

Rather,
as with “The Catt Question”, the “currently accepted EM theory makes no “predictions”.
Classical electromagnetic theory is incomplete. Ignoring Heaviside’s 1890
pulses, it grew out of radio, buttressed by vacuous mathematics. 50 years
later, around 1960, the new digital electronics undermined it, but it was by
then too entrenched, and academics and text book writers ignored and suppressed
digital electronics for the next half century. – Ivor
Catt