CATT

Light current, Thank you! There are some facts with plenty of evidence, falsely dismissed as personal opinion/belief or pet theory. On the topic of being lucid, I try my best to update and improve anything I can, and I answer any questions asked of me. You cannot simultaneously ignore other people's work when presented to you and complain about censorship. The two actions are mutually incompatible, it is sheer hypocrisy.
So I do study a lot of stuff sent to me. Catt does not do this, and this is a major cause of dispute between us. Catt was quite proud to tell me that after 20 or more years of association with Professor Hillman of Surrey University, neither understands each other's work. Catt cites this as an example that you can still get along without bothering to grasp one another. I don't have any sympathy at all. Darwin took great pains writing and editing the evidence in Origin of Species in a lucid way over a twenty-year period.
Obviously this is something worth trying. There is very little quality information available. But as soon as you start writing a lucid textbook on this stuff, you are faced with a lot of difficult decisions requiring time and thought. I don't think Catt put enough into writing Electromagnetism 1 which was ridiculed by Lago in the IEE review. You have to understand that there are many problems. For example, if you have an electron in space, the exchange radiation around it causes the negative "electric field". It is the exchange radiation which indicates to you the presence of the electron, not the electron core itself.
So for two types of electric charge (positive and negative) there are going to be two types of exchange radiation, one positive and one negative? Is this true? If so, what does this say about the nature of the exchange radiation? That it is charged and not uncharged? You can find nothing about the dynamics for quantum field theory forces in textbooks. See, for instance, the up to date and comprehensive 615 page QFT book by Prof. Mark Srednicki. Recently I found an error in 1st edition of the textbook Introduction to Quantum Field Theory on arXiv.org which stated the charge of the electron as shielded by the virtual electron-positron shell around it has a charge relative charge 7% higher at 92 GeV energy of collision than at 0.511 MeV.