| Correspondence with Ian Montgomery about Lewin's failure
to reply to my second email. 1 July 2009
Dear Ian Montgomery,
I did not notice that Professor Lewin is on this circulation. I
have appended my second email, to which he did not reply (after
replying to my first), below. This will be the acid test on whether
he replies.
His behaviour is true of all establishment figures, and that is
why the Age of Enightenment is at an end. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/91.htm
. I would have thought you, Ian, would have been well versed in
the present catastrophic situation. Unlike the 19th century, ours
is now a medaeval culture. "Modern Physics" is the new
religion, and is not open to question. This is because, if questioned,
it would collapse, and many reputations and careers with it. Too
many scientific advances have been made, and suppressed, since the
"Council of Nicea" - sorry, the "Council of Solvay-
Brussels", when the doctrine of Modern Physics was codified,
in 1927. High Speed Digital Electronics was developed after 1927,
generating many interesting insights and scientific advances. However,
since it began after 1927, it is not permitted to influence the
doctrine of "Modern Physics". So much time has now passed,
with the continual suppression of key scientific advances, that
it is now impossible to articulate the new insights onto Lewin's
lecture, which can be reached at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/95.htm
. In my article http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm
I say that a body of knowledge, for instance electromagnetic theory,
is defended by administrators who do not need to exercise it and
grasp it in order to defend it. "The central body of knowledge
ossifies, becomes brittle and disintegrates." This is the situation
which has been reached by electromagnetic theory, after more than
half a century of stagnation.
Harold Hillman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hillman , says
that the new code of conduct, which we need, must include the requirement
that establishment figures reply when communicated with by their
peers. He is very familiar with his colleagues refusing to reply
in writing, although they will reply verbally.
Ivor Catt
The trouble is, should Lewin have a change of heart, and decide
to embrace the insights gained from digital electronics during the
last fifty years, he would find himself isolated from the remainder
of the entrenched Establishment. There is no loyaly within the "Knowledge
Mafia", as Ekkehard Friebe describes them. A good example is
Louis Essen FRS, who found himself isolated when he spoke out of
turn. The same happened to Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prizewinner.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9512.htm
- Ivor, 1 July 2009]
@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear
Dear Ivor,
One would hope that what you have described below is not necessarily
true of all establishment figures.
It will be interesting to see if Professor Lewin has the courage
to prove himself not to be one of those robot-like "entrenched
Establishment figures" by responding to your second email.
Best regards,
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: ivor catt [mailto:icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2009 6:03 PM
To: Ian Montgomery; lewin@mit.edu
Cc: NigelCook05@aol.com; Malcolm F Davidson; jonathan post; Jonathan
Post; Stephen Crothers; John Foggitt; John Raymond Dore; forrestb@ix.netcom.com;
David Tombe; Roger Anderton; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jackw97224@yahoo.com;
andrewpost@gmail.com; Monitek@aol.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov;
tom@tomspace.com; mjr36@cam.ac.uk; bdj10@cam.ac.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
ivorcatt@hotmail.com; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; Lukas
Nemec; krystof.nemec@czi.cz
Subject: Re: capacitor
Lewin's is standard practice for entrenched Establishment figures.
I have many, many examples of such behaviour spead over decades,
some of them on my websites - failure to reply to the first six
or seven copies of a letter or email from me. (An example is Lord
Rees, who apologised once in writing, and has since done nothing.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/66.htm ) However, initially
Lewin made a mistake by replying to my first email, and such a mistake
is occasionally made. He correctly identified the relatively trivial,
minor point in my email, about Kirchhoff, and replied only to that.
He should not have replied at all, but he was over-confident, and
did not at first realise the significance of my email, which undermined
the core of his teaching, and meant that his lecture would have
to be removed from the www.
Lewin is now doing what he can to make up for his initial mistake,
of replying to heresy, by ignoring anything more coming from me.
The first duty of an Establishment footsoldier is to not admit to
ever having heard of a heretic. The second is to never have read
any heresy. The third is to falsely claim he has never read heresy.
(Catt is "on the Index".) If an Establishment footsoldier
should get involved with a heretic, he will be disowned by The Eastablishment.
There is no loyalty within the Establishment.
Lewin has reaped great honours for his performance in lecturing
to students. His lectures can be seen on the Internet. He woulde
not knowingly give up such a reputation by getting entangled in
heresy.
Ivor
----- Original Message -----
From: ivor catt
To: lewin@mit.edu
Cc: NigelCook05@aol.com ; Malcolm F Davidson ; jonathan post ; Jonathan
Post ; Stephen Crothers ; John Foggitt ; James Bogle ; Ian Montgomery
; John Raymond Dore ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; David Tombe ; Ian
Montgomery ; Roger Anderton ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; jackw97224@yahoo.com
; andrewpost@gmail.com ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; Monitek@aol.com ; ernest@cooleys.net
; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com ; mjr36@cam.ac.uk
; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; ivorcatt@hotmail.com ;
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk ; Lukas Nemec ; krystof.nemec@czi.cz
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: capacitor
Dear Professor Lewin,
Thank you for your limited reply about Kirchhoff (at bottom of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/95.htm
). I have removed that minor part about Kirchhoff from my questions,
and submit the rest to you now.
Ivor Catt
----- Original Message -----
From: ivor catt
To: lewin@mit.edu
Cc: NigelCook05@aol.com ; Malcolm F Davidson ; jonathan post ; Jonathan
Post ; Stephen Crothers ; John Foggitt ; James Bogle ; Ian Montgomery
; John Raymond Dore ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; David Tombe ; Ian
Montgomery ; Roger Anderton ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; jackw97224@yahoo.com
; andrewpost@gmail.com ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; Monitek@aol.com ; ernest@cooleys.net
; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com ; mjr36@cam.ac.uk
; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; ivorcatt@hotmail.com ;
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk ; Lukas Nemec ; krystof.nemec@czi.cz
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:05 PM
Subject: capacitor
Dear Professor Walter H G Lewin,
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/95.htm
In your MIT lecture 18 at http://videolectures.net/mit802s02_lewin_lec18/
you drew lines showing electric current spreading out over the capacitor
plate. That is, you mentioned that electric current flows across
the capacitor plate, at right angles to the main flow. However,
this was just in passing, and you did not discuss the magnetic field
which must result in the horizontal direction, using Ampere's Law.
This lateral flow of electric current had been overlooked for over
a century, until I pointed it out in 1978 at http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
. Please comment on the implications of this current as discussed
by me in 1978. I also treat it at http://www.ivorcatt.com/411.htm
In your lecture, you drew parallel lines indicating that the electric
field in the capacitor is uniform. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/3615.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.org/icz014.htm . Please comment on my comments
here.
Ivor Catt
|