\n<\/span><\/p>\n
this discussion on the phone today was not useless, as I see it. I learned that we agree that in the phenomenon which you call “energy current” there is nothing which actually, as an individual something, changes place in time, from now to then, and in space, from here to there: no electron, no photon, no wave packet, etc. So I would say there is no “current” of anything, using the term “current” in its everyday meaning. What then is your “energy current”? You say, it is “just energy”. But you are not ready to tell me whether or not it is a material substance, say a flow of something material or not material, even though it cannot be such a flowing something according to what we just have agreed on. You are not able to say whether it is “scalar energy” or “vector energy”, even though these are very different things, according to their very different measures. So to say that it is “just energy” makes no sense. While you remain silent about the meaning of “energy current”, I can tell you what it is: It is what science calls “momentum”, symbolized by the letter p. It is true that this letter doesn’t appear in your papers, but it is also true that\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0concept\u00a0<\/i>does indeed appear there, since it can be mathematically identified for instance in your “The Heaviside Signal”, where you call it “energy density”. The fact that it actually is not “energy” and not “energy density” but “momentum” can be demonstrated by dimensional analysis, which is the only means that allows to identify a scientific term independently of its name.<\/span><\/p>\n Please note that by this identification I just want to harmonize your finding with the basic elements and principles of theoretical physics in order to make it a homogeneous element of the mathematical language used in this field. By the way, to speak of an “energy current” that “continues to move because that is what energy currents do” is a tautological unscientific phrase, so long as science consists in indentifying the natural causes of natural effects. Sorry. Also note that to insist on identifying\u00a0<\/span>your “energy current”\u00a0<\/span>as not “energy” but “momentum”<\/span>\u00a0in the context of the principles and concepts, that is, of the language you call the “framework of modern physics”, certainly does not mean to call that framework of language into question. Rather it means to use terms unequivocally, as the indispensable basis of understanding. You are confusing “cause” and “effect”, if you insist on “energy current”, and you are blocking the progress of em science that is at hand so soon as we now understand the true meaning of Poynting’s vector, misleadingly symbolized by the letter E, as via E\/p = c = constant representing the natural law of cause and effect, that is, the law of generation and propagation of momentum, c (scalar!) being not\u00a0 velocity (vector!) of translation from A to B, but the “velocity of generation” here and now. This law is the most basic law of local interaction, in mechanics as well as in electromechanics, in thermodynamics, in special relativity, and in quantum mechanics. And, to reveal this common basis is one reason why I, trying to do what you call “saving science”, have been doing now for nearly 40 years what I am still doing, and quite successfully, as I see things. I’m glad to see that your finding, correctly identified as an effect of some generating cause, perfectly harmonizes with what I have found myself. Best regards,<\/span><\/p>\n Ed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<\/p>\n And this is what I wrote to Ivor:<\/p>\n My summary:<\/em><\/p>\n From my email to Ed last week:<\/em><\/p>\n It (viz.\u00a0Figure from\u00a0The Heaviside Signal) shows the relationship:\u00a0 <\/p>\n This is what Ed Dellian has just written to Ivor Catt: Dear Ivor, this discussion on the phone today was not useless, as I see it. I learned that we agree that in the phenomenon which you call “energy … Continue reading
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/files\/2019\/09\/eqn-catt.png\")
<\/a>that is equivalent (Right?) to your\u00a0definition of c as the constant geometric proportionality coefficient,\u00a0 as long as we agree that dE\/dx (spatial energy density) is equivalent to momentum p\u00a0and dE\/dt is equivalent to your E (temporal energy intensity, aka power).<\/p>\n