Electronics
World
|
Letter to the Editor, Electronics World, February 2004, p46 by Ivor Catt |
Throwing
glasses at stone houses |
|
Has slight alterations to add hyperlinks. [Another
version for printing, more like the original] I feel sad that my adversaries persistently
lead with their chins. However, this one also keeps his eyes tight shut. A
turkey shoot is cruel, and I do not feel proud of myself. In his letter of December 2003, Kevin
Aylward wrote; “…. There are also those that are prone to use such terms as …. intermixed
with various …. technical terms in an effort to mislead or obscure the real
issues, or because they do not actually understand the real significance of
these terms …. …. those with only a passing acquaintance often misunderstand
the finer and more subtle points being presented by individuals who do have
such experience.” In his letter of January 2004, Kevin
continued; “…. the best current and accepted theory of EM is Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED) for which Richard Feynmann [sp?] got the Nobel Prize. The theory explains EM …. ….
Maxwell’s equations are simply wrong. They cannot be used to explain all the
results of EM. This was decisively proved in the early 1900s ….” What a pity Kevin did not avoid this gaffe
by actually reading Feynemann [sp?];
“From a long view of the history of mankind – seen from, say, ten thousand
years from now – there can be little doubt that the most significant event of
the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws
of electrodynamics. The American Civil War will pale into provincial
insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event of the same
decade.” – R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, Feynman Lectures
on Physics, vol. 2, Addison-Wesley, London, 1964, c. 1, p. 11 (but see The
Hidden Message in Maxwell’s Equations ) It gets worse; “The special theory of
relativity owes its origin to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic
field,” - Einstein quoted in ed. Schilpp, P.A.,
“Albert Einstein, Philosopher – Scientist,” Library of Living Philosophers,
1949, p62. (Perhaps Kevin should look for some different people to drool
over.) What a pity Kevin did not read anything
about The Catt Anomaly
either, but again relied on guesswork, guessing that there was a link between
The Catt Anomaly and Maxwell’s Equations, which there is not. “ …. the so-called
‘Catt anomaly’, this whole subject matter is really a bit of a red herring.
Maxwell’s equations are simply wrong. They cannot be used to explain all the
results of EM.” – Kevin, letters, EW January. Here Kevin is in good
company. The only previous attempt to link The Catt Anomaly with Maxwell’s
Equations was by Howie , Head
of the Cavendish. See Howie’s letter
; “’The central
issue as to whether there is anything wrong with Maxwell’s equations is not I believe best resolved by a vote following some kind
of public debate which might degenerate into a kind of Punch and Judy show.’
– Howie. This clearly misrepresents my October 2001 letter …. Also note that
the definitive statement on p3 of the book The Catt Anomaly , which Howie
says he received by recorded delivery, does not mention Maxwell’s Equations.
– (I. Catt, 30th Oct 2001)” As to Nobel Prizewinners,
two so far have made fools of themselves over the Catt Anomaly; Salam in Wireless
World, December 1982, and more recently Huxley, see The Catt Anomaly p67; “Dear Mr. Catt, I
much enjoyed our conversation at dessert in Trinity a week ago …. I confess
that I find it unsatisfactory that you dismiss Pepper’s discussion as “drivel”
(p. 5, bottom) and make no
attempt to explain what you think is wrong with it. An analogous
situation exists in nerve conduction, the field in which I worked for many
years with Alan Hodgkin. The best-understood nerve fibre …. Yours sincerely, Andrew Huxley.” I know from personal experience that old
boy Huxley was not gaga at the time. All the same, extraordinarily, in the
middle of writing (incompetently) about The Catt Anomaly, he drifted off into
discussing how a squid shakes a leg. All other Nobel Prizewinners
have wisely, and frustratingly, held their peace. At the next level, “Pepper
FRS” (worth doing a Google search for) fell disastrously at the Catt Anomaly
fence, as did Howie FRS. However, as Nigel Cook pointed out in the Aug 2003 EW
Editorial, “The Catt Anomaly” is actually a question, and the problem arises
from total contradiction between professors and text book writers when
answering this elementary question. Catt is not involved, except as an
anxious student of these luminaries. As a Drivelmaster,
or in electrical terms a noise generator, I think Kevin could well merge
unnoticed among Nobel Prizewinners. Unfortunately he lacks the dynastic or patronage
background. Trinity High Table is full of them. A Nobel Prize has to be
proposed by an existing Nobel Prizewinner or some
such. For some reason, despite all his social graces, they don’t hand one to
their buddy Ivor. Ivor
Catt, St. Albans,
Hertfordshire, UK “Other Nobel Prizewinners
have wisely, and frustratingly, held their peace.” Copy previously sent to Huxley. Slomail copy sent on 26mar04 to Nobel Prizewinner Prof. Brian Josephson, Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge “ ….
one should examine carefully the alleged grounds
for such opinions and judge how well
these stand up to detailed scrutiny.” - BJ OK, Brian. Now let’s have it! Or do we have another hypocrite here? |
|
|
Nigel Cook’s letter followed; Throwing stones in glass houses II …. Finally, the
Chairman of the Nobel Prize is not God, but more like a sports referee:
prizes are generally awarded for acknowledged races. In the absence of any intelligent
competition, Ivor Catt has no motivation to use QED. Mendel’s genetics were
ignored during his lifetime, whereas Darwin had instant fame (too much for
his linking!) because his work had a ready-made competitor (the Church).
Success of IC’s work after 30 years of being neglected thus relies on an
urgent run-in with today’s science bigots. Nigel Cook, By email Nigel Cook; |
|