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
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
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
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.
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.
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