
#1
Sep1204, 02:24 AM

P: 171

Electronics World, October 2004, Vol. 110, No. 1822:
Pages 3843 "The Catt Anomaly" by Ian Hickman Page 55 summary of gravity as per http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ Hickman has done a lengthy, nicely written and carefully considered treatment of the Catt Anomaly. Yet he may have missed wood for trees. Hickman rightly and clearly shows how the voltage doubles when the logic step bounces off an open circuit and reflects back into itself, thus making the open circuit transmission line into a charging capacitor. He then says that because the capacitor discharges through a resistor, it's output falls exponentially, whereas the charged transmission line discharged directly gives a square wave pulse. As Catt, Davidson, Walton and Gibson showed indirectly, the discharge of a square wave through a resistor results in partial reflection at the resistor so that the discharge or leakage is dragged out to give the exponential decay as the potential falls due to gradual energy loss. (They actually calculated the reverse situation, of exponential charging of a capacitor, but the same simply happens in reverse for discharging.) The key point Hickman does not focus upon is that the charged object contains reciprocating light speed energy. When you consider isolating an electron from the negative plate of the charged capacitor or charged open circuit transmission line, you find that the electron charge energy is oscillating at light speed. Going towards very small charges, down to an electron, this results in a model of the electron which is based on experimental evidence. D. Di Mario wrote an article in Electronics World, 1993, on a "black hole electron". It is in August 2002 and April 2003 EW proved beyond uncertainty that the electron is composed of self trapped light speed electromagnetic energy, giving it the spin properties and making it contain an energy of mc2 when it is annihilated by combination with a positron. The magnetic moment given by Dirac's equation, modified by Feynman virtual particle selfabsorption  an increase of merely 0.1% [from Schwinger's approximation 1 + 1/(2 pi x 137) = 1.00116...]  is explained by it being trapped light speed energy circling in the vacuum and affecting the virtual particles in the surrounding field. The New Scientist's contribution to the reporting of this has been silence. If you pressurise New Scientist to publicise this, they will refuse to be pressurised; if you don't pressurise them, they will do nothing; if you keep improving the arguments they will keep making paranoid rants about needing peerreviewed stuff and then going silent when HEE/26 (a peerreviewed IEE paper by Catt coauthored with then 83yearold Dr Arnold Lynch, student of J.J. Thomson who discovered the electron) is sent to them. While Ivor dismisses my efforts to apply the CattDavidsonWalton findings to electron and aether/dielectric as unnecessary, my view is that I have not developed the bells and whistles far enough rather than that I have gone into over production. If we take the fabric of space with its fixed 377 ohm impedance, it is in contrast to air where the sound impedance to wave energy transfer is measured in decibels per metre. The photon fired in space suffers no cumulative retardation with distance travelled, and the inverse square law only comes on the scene statistically when you are firing photons in all directions over a diverging spherical area, instead of following the fortunes of a single photon. The reason for this difference between air and space is that air is molecular so energy is dispersed in all directions by numerous random molecular collisions from all directions, whereas there is no molecular basis for space. Hence the photon does not diverge in all directions and lose energy as it propagates. Space is a continuum rather than a particulate gas. If you stand in a room near the wall, you will not be attracted towards the wall by the absence of air pressure from the rigid wall, because the air molecules between you and the wall will have random motions and will be at the same pressure as on the other side. However, for the fabric of space there is no molecular basis to provide such a isotropic fluid dissipation of pressure in all directions. Therefore the planet earth below does provide a shielding which attracts us down. We would expect the result to be 10^40 times weaker than the electrostatic force between the particles given by Coulomb's law. It is pretty obvious to me, as I said in EW, that Eddington's observation (that the square root of the number of particles in the universe about equals the ratio of Coulomb/Gauss law electromagnetic force to gravitational force for electron and proton situations) is explained by Ivor's TEM wave. The TEM wave is trapped in a small loop of black hole radius (easily calculated, it's far smaller than the Planck length), and the resulting electric field sweeps outward in all directions. The EM forces act along the field lines, so there is momentum being transferred along the E and B field lines. You can't get momentum without energy, so the electron is radiating energy continuously. Initially you'd think that this must be wrong because the spinning electron does not evaporate by releasing energy. However, by analogy to Prevost's 1792 mechanism of thermal equilibrium, it is obvious what is going on. Everything in the universe is radiating energy along E and B field lines, and causing forces by the momentum thus exchanged, and because there is a resulting equilibrium between the rates of emission and reception, the atom is stable. Now because the impedance of space is 377 ohms, and because opposite charges will block energy according to whether it is similar or dissimilar in sign to itself, and because the universe is expanding, you find that like charges repel and unlike attract with equal forces for similar amounts of charge (graphical proof in April 03 EW, which took a lot of trial and error to get right). Because the charges in the universe are scattered randomly everywhere in stars, the addition is mathematically a drunkard's walk, which even for three dimensions comes out simply as a resultant equal to the average step magnitude multiplied by the square root of the number of steps. I have had people say that its crazy to put the number of steps equal to the number of particles in the universe, but they are quite wrong because we have to count every single particle of either charge sign in the universe once and once only in working out the resultant. The zigzag path between all particles will not be confined to merely one part of the universe. Hence, we find that the Coulomb force is similar to the gravity force if the universe contained only 1 particle causing the Coulomb force, but since electric fields add up unlike the space pressure that causes gravity, we have to multiply the gravity force by the square root of the number of negative charges to get Coulomb. It would be useful to try to tie up the loose ends. One thing is that the gravity constant G is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant divided by density of universe. Thus, both G and the electromagnetic force constants (which are given by G multiplied by up the square root of the number of particles) will increase linearly with time as the universe ages. At time zero, G and EM forces were both zero, but they have been rising in direct proportion to the age of the universe since then. In 1948, Teller in Physical Review dismissed Dirac's idea of decreasing G (note that G is increasing, not decreasing, so Dirac guessed the wrong way due to having no mechanism worked out). Teller calculated that if G was stronger in the past, the gravitational compression in the sun would be have been greater so the fusion rate would have been higher and he estimated that the earth's ocean would have been boiling 400 million years ago when the ocean dwelling dinosaurs were bathing. However, Teller assumed falsely first that G decreased with time, and secondly that the Coulomb force did not vary with time. In fact, I estimate no effect of G varying on the sun's output because the identical time variation in the Coulomb force would cancel it out. For example, if gravity is half normal in the sun, then the pressure will be less so you might expect less nuclear fusion. Wrong! Because th Coulomb force is linked to gravity and is similarly only half as strong, the repulsion between protons (preventing them from approaching close enough together for the strong nuclear force to act and fuse them) will be diminished. The reduction of gravity will cause less fusioninducing pressure in the sun, but the reduction in the Coulomb force will cause less resistance to fusion. Hence the one effect will offset the other, so the fusion rate is unaffected. The same goes for all stars. Teller's evidence for unchanging G is based on assumptions which are false. Another loose end is the idea people keep coming up with against us being pushed down: they claim that an umbrella disproves this because it would stop a downward push and eliminate gravity. They do not comprehend that Xrays are possible and that the dielectric of space is a bit like an ocean in electrons are spaced widely apart. Thus, you would need an umbrella with the earth's mass to cancel out gravity. (Naturally such people would be squashed instead of enjoying weightlessness.) The purpose of this long post is to justify some of the points which have been experimentally proved and published in IEE/IEEE and Electronics World magazine over 30 years for readers who remain unfamiliar. Otherwise, it will be dismissed as "theory development" or speculative. In order to prove conformity in a large territory, some space is needed. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
First day of October!  General Discussion  12  
World Opinion on the result of 2004 election  Current Events  54  
Earthquake Prediction for 2004,for the World  General Physics  1 