Dear Brian,

I am very grateful for your "reply". However, I was not asking you, so this is a bonus.

The shocking treatment you have been subjected to makes you an inappropriate target for me. You are a special case. You are both on my side, the side of science, and also against me, the defender of what might be called "consensus science", but is also called "Pop Science". A clear case of "Pop Science" was the Master of our college, Lord Rees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2urJ4agYGw , who misbehaved over cattq, betraying science. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/91c.htm . When Pepper wrote rubbish to me about cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , saying that the charge came from the south, whereas you said it came from the west, Lord Rees had to do something about it. As master of Trinity, two of his Fellows were contradicting each other on fundamentals. He said he would have to study the subject first. I replied that I came to him as an administrator only, and he did not have to study. He then did nothing for 30 years. As President of the Royal Society the same Rees had to do something, because two of the Fellows of the Royal Society were contradicting each other on fundamentals over cattq. He did not even reply when I approached him as President of the Royal Society. That was his second dereliction of duty.

The model I am developing is difficult to build. The story is that too much money went into "science", which sucked in people who chose science as a career option. Their idea was that science was the best choice for a lucrative and secure career, with much prestige. They ended up controlling all the commanding heights of "science", including the schools and universities. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8ahcharlton.html . The flaw is that science advances by revolution, destroying careers and reputations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf

So Pop Scientists like Rees defend themselves and their careers, doing everything to block scientific advance, cornering all the funding for silly ideas like gravity waves, black holes and nanotechnology. The taxpayer prefers to fund such glamorous nonsense, and as we have seen with Covid, pop scientists control the politicians..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0l1diFGxIg . No money to do the key experiments to improve the battery, Wakefield 5. (Wakefield 1 thru 4 prove there is no such thing as a stationary electric field. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf )

As the youngest ever Nobel Prize Winner, you do not map onto the issue. Pop scientists and also real scientists have behaved disgracefully by blocking you. It is obvious that someone with the highest accolade from "science", which is you, should be free to publish anything he decides to publish. It is scandalous that you have been blocked. https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html . But that is a totally different matter from the silencing of Catt. The reasons why we are both silenced are the same and at the same time different.

What was "science" is at a low ebb, as shown by the fact that not one professor or other leaped to the defence of the alleged scandal that the equation Hawking asked to have on his grave (next to Newton's, also of Trinity, like you, me and Prince Charles) is obviously wrong. The scandal is not to do with whether it is wrong. The scandal is that no one in the world will (1) come to its defence or (2) agree that it is worng.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Hawking-Catt.html . Worldwide, the academic mafia have brought scholarship to a very low ebb, as will be obvious to everyone in 2045. A Google search for "censorship in science" gives 500,000 hits. "censorship in science" + "ivor catt" gives only 10 hits.

I am not discussing the Rasnick point about science v engineering.

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Re: electromagnetism

Inbox

Prof. A Howie

10:06 (56 minutes ago)

to me, Alex, Tony

Dear Ivor,

Of course I understand that you think that your ideas about the basic
principles of electricity are revolutionary and important but this view
is not shared by me or I believe many others. I long ago gave up the
idea of trying to sort out the basic issue with you and adopted the fall
back position of offering advice on how you might more effectively get
the attention of the scientific or teaching community. My suggestion of
using the Physics Education journal as a vehicle came to nothing. In
this limited spirit I congratulated you when Professor Yakovlev's
article appeared with its "effusive praise of you" although I have not
studied it in detail.

In conveying my view about the caloric, phlogiston, electricity
questionnaire, I did try to point out that what you describe as
"electricity" needed to be clarified but did suggest that it included
the possibility that the lamp could be powered by electric current. I
still strongly adhere to the belief that electrons exist and can move
around in a conductor so constituting a flow of charge that can charge
up a battery or light a lamp.

One manifestation of your ego trip is the tendency to notice only those
parts of a response that appear to support your crusade and ignore
everything else. Thus your clarification of what you meant by
"electricity" was not provided and the tautological nature of your
initial statement had to be mentioned again by others. The actual
substance of your reply was effectively to suggest that I took a further
test now with 7 questions!

I have to tell you that I do not intent to get caught up in your ratchet
mechanism! Fortunately Brian Josephson has already indicated that he
believes the Yakovlev paper to be free of heresies so I am not going to
pore over it in detail.

Archie.

Brian Josephson

17:43 (2 hours ago)

to me, A, Alex, Steve, Malcolm, John, michael.pepper, Anthony, Anthony, Forrest

On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:32, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote (to Howie):
>
> It would be helpful if you said whether "Electricity lights electric lamps." was true or false, which was the question asked.

Ivor,
As a Cambridge person you ought to be aware that that can’t have a definite answer unless you say precisely what the question means. Different may interpret it in different ways. And it seems a pretty pointless question, if I may say so.

The RS article looks interesting and I am studying it (the official web page is https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2017.0449, by the way). Certainly real capacitors at high frequencies differ in behaviour from that of the usual simplified model, but then again I don’t think anyone would dispute that. And it is always possible that the Heaviside picture may provide useful illumination in some cases.

Brian

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Prof. A Howie

Sun, 7 Jun, 11:45 (20 hours ago)

to me

Dear Ivor,

I am not clear whether you are inviting me to be an Aunt Sally or
possibly just a pawn in the absurd ego trip that you are pursuing. My
answer is indeed the one you expect. Indeed on a strict linguistic
interpretation it would seem hard for anyone to disagree with item 3.
Most people would accept that an electric lamp is one that goes out when
you unplug it from the electricity supply which could be for instance AC
mains or a battery. If you believe that there is some parallel here with
the connection between "caloric" and the more modern concept of "heat"
rather than just the blanket term "electricity" you need maybe "charge
current flow" and "Poynting energy flow" maybe even "photon flow".

Thanks at least for a normal email message rather than one of the many
you sent composed of nothing but links that I will never click on.

Archie.

On 2020-06-05 19:17, Ivor Catt wrote:
> Ivor Catt,
>
> 121 Westfields,
>
> St. Albans AL3 4JR
>
> 5.6.2020
>
> A Howie,
>
> 194 Huntingdon Road,
>
> Cambridge CB3 0LB
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/q3.htm
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/q31oppo.htm
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/oppo.htm
>
> Dear Professor Archie Howie,
>
> I need your comment on the following:
>
> Caloric keeps you warm.
> Burning wood emits phlogiston.
> Electricity lights electric lamps.
>
> I say, these three statements are false.
> Do you agree?
> Or, is one of them true for you?
>
> I thank you in advance
>
> Ivor Catt
>
> [1]
> Virus-free. www.avast.com [1]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Re: electromagnetism

Inbox

Forrest Bishop

7 Jun 2020, 19:10 (17 hours ago)

to me, A, Alex, Steve, Malcolm, John, michael.pepper, Anthony, Anthony, Brian, Forrest

Dear Ivor,

Word has it you are a wee bit older today than your were yesterday. Please permit me to jog your memory.

The statement that "electricity lights lamps" is nearly tautological, nor is it a statement that Ivor Catt has ever called into question before. The important question is "what is electricity?" Is it an electric current, i, running inside of the wires, or is it the electromagnetic fields outside of the wires, moving at c?

Your actual statement is (paraphrased from memory):

"When a battery lights a lamp, electric current is not involved."

That statement does not disavow the existence of electricity, rather it points to the non-utility of electric current, an entity you have called

"not fit for purpose".

****************************

Dear Mr. Archie Howie,

You state that "I came across {Yakovlev's] Phil Trans paper with its fulsome references to the work of you and your colleagues."

Speaking as one of Ivor Catt's colleagues, I find this statement libelous to Yakovlev, to Catt, to myself, and to all of Ivor Catt's colleagues, of which there are many more than you might suspect.

Your oafish behavior, together with your manifest ignorance on the topic of basic electricity (which you appear to be proud of), indicates that you, Mr. Howie, are not fit for purpose.

You will have to issue a retraction (multiple counts), step down and renounce your titles, and repair your ill-gotten gains. Repent.

History will not be kind to you, Mr. Howie.

Forrest Bishop, A Colleague Of Ivor Catt

http://forrestbishop.mysite.com/

https://www.scribd.com/document/320890002/The-Forbidden-Equation-i-qc

Maxwell's Equations inextricably rely on i = qc, as I have shown. The decision matrix is thus:

If i = qc = TRUE then Maxwell = FALSE

If i = qc = FALSE then Maxwell = FALSE

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Jun 7, 2020 9:32 AM
To: "Prof. A Howie" , Alex Yakovlev , Steve Crothers , Malcolm Davidson , John Raymond Dore , michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk, Anthony Davies , Anthony Wakefield , Forrest Bishop , Brian Josephson
Subject: Re: electromagnetism

Dear Archie,

It would be helpful if you said whether "Electricity lights electric lamps." was true or false, which was the question asked.

Instead you talk about "when you unplug it from the electricity supply"

The underlying issue is whether Heaviside's "Energy current" ExH guided by the wires lights the lamp http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm , or electrons struggling down the wires light the lamp as Professor Tony Davies says we should tell students, in order to make it easier for electricians to wire up a house. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cktony.htm.

I trust you will not retreat into academic omerta, and not reply. This wiil show us whether the ex head of the Cavendish is more interested in himself and his reputation or in advancing science. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cbwash.htm . The Royal Society, of which you are FRS, now says "energy current" is crucial. Alternatively, you could say that the RoySoc made a mistake when it published http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm .

Ivor Catt

>
> I say, these three statements are false.
> Do you agree?
> Or, is one of them true for you?

The Howie email below has to be contrasted with the today email above. Fulsome praise of Catt in the Royal Society set him on an ego trip. We have to blame Yakovlev.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie.htm

Prof. A Howie

29.3.2019

Fri, Mar 29, 10:08 AM (3 days ago)

to me

Dear Ivor,

Thanks for our message. I admire your tenacity over EM theory which I'm
sure keeps your brain firing away. I have never met Alex Yakovlev and
had not even heard of him until maybe 6 months ago I came across his
Phil Trans paper with its fulsome references to the work of you and your
colleagues. Following our strenuous but unsuccessful efforts many years
ago to resolve the difference between us, I am however not at all
attracted by the idea of revisiting them!

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Prof. A Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 11:45
Subject: Re: electromagnetism
To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>

Dear Ivor,

I am not clear whether you are inviting me to be an Aunt Sally or
possibly just a pawn in the absurd ego trip that you are pursuing. My
answer is indeed the one you expect. Indeed on a strict linguistic
interpretation it would seem hard for anyone to disagree with item 3.
Most people would accept that an electric lamp is one that goes out when
you unplug it from the electricity supply which could be for instance AC
mains or a battery. If you believe that there is some parallel here with
the connection between "caloric" and the more modern concept of "heat"
rather than just the blanket term "electricity" you need maybe "charge
current flow" and "Poynting energy flow" maybe even "photon flow".

Thanks at least for a normal email message rather than one of the many
you sent composed of nothing but links that I will never click on.

Archie.

On 2020-06-05 19:17, Ivor Catt wrote:
> Ivor Catt,
>
> 121 Westfields,
>
> St. Albans AL3 4JR
>
> 5.6.2020
>
> A Howie,
>
> 194 Huntingdon Road,
>
> Cambridge CB3 0LB
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/q3.htm
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/q31oppo.htm
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/oppo.htm
>
> Dear Professor Archie Howie,
>
> I need your comment on the following:
>
> Caloric keeps you warm.
> Burning wood emits phlogiston.
> Electricity lights electric lamps.
>
> I say, these three statements are false.
> Do you agree?
> Or, is one of them true for you?
>
> I thank you in advance
>
> Ivor Catt
>
> [1]
> Virus-free. www.avast.com [1]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Amazing that I have only now noticed that he does not say whether the statement "Electricity lights electric lamps." is true or false.

> I say, these three statements are false. " is true or false.

His statement Most people would accept that an electric lamp is one that goes out when

you unplug it from the electricity supply" has nothing to do with it.

Thomas Sowell; “The road to hell is paved with Ivy League degrees.”