Censorship. The Smoking Gun.
Ivor Catt. 19 January 2010
Position
Statement. 22 June 1977
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Here we
see my message to Calder to show that our Dialogue
(below) was on the www, and his immediate reply.
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:57
PM
Subject: Re: re Proc.IEEE
To Jim
Calder,
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0113.htm
Ivor
From: j.calder@ieee.org
To: Ivor Catt
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:34
PM
Subject: Re: re Proc.IEEE
Dear Ivor, thanks for your responses. We
plan to take a closer look
at this over the next week or so. Regards....Jim Calder
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: re Proc.IEEE
Dear Mr. Calder,
I look forward to hearing from you about what resulted from your closer
look.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0113.htm
Ivor Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
our
Dialogue
The
background is this.
A few
months ago I suddenly realised that I could carry out a would
prove that the conventional model for a charged capacitor is wrong. This is the
model taught to 14 year olds in schools throughout the world.
Proc.
IEEE is the appropriate journal for such a major advance in electromagnetic
theory. The editor's reply is extraordinary; "It is indeed an interesting
one but it is not exactly in accordance with our current editorial needs."
unless we fully accept my behavioural model for censorship in today's science.
See for instance http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w99anbk6.htm and
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/Y65BRILL.htm .
We see
that the Editor directs me to inappropriate journals. The precedent for this is
the case of "The Catt Question". http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . After having for
forty years rejected for publication all attempts by Catt
to publish in the London IEE (now IET), Dr. Arnold Lynch, a man with a very big
reputation in the IEE, took up the case and suggested a joint Lynch/Catt paper. He was told that the IEE were very anxious to
publish something by Catt, and that if the paper were
rejected, reasons for rejection would be given. In the event, the paper http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm was
then rejected and no reasons given. However, Lynch had helped to found the
"History of Electrical Engineering" group in the IEE, and he
approached its chairman, who was a friend of his. The result was that the
inappropriate section of the IEE published the paper, and it was then ignored.
This
pattern repeats when the Editor of Proc. IEEE tries to fob me off with other,
inappropriate journals within the IEEE. What he knows is that should he as
editor publish major scientific advance, his career as an editor is finished.
For me, his phrase; "not exactly in accordance with our current editorial
needs" is the smoking gun. Major scientific advance has nothing to do with
"current editorial needs".
Another
example. May Chiao, an editor of "Nature
Physics", will not publish me, and will not even reply to my letters and
emails. This is even though Macmillan, who own "Nature Physics",
published a technical book by me http://www.ivorcatt.org/digital-hardware-design.htm .
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/64maychiao.htm .
Thus, the loyalty of these people is not vertical, to much higher management,
but rather to peers. In the case of May Chiao, her
husband is a lecturer in Trinity College, Cambridge, and thus also threatened
by my new material.
In this
context also, of course, see http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/91.htm
"not
exactly in accordance with our current editorial needs" well describes the
issue of whether an editor will survive if he steps out of line, by allowing
scientific advance, and so threatens an entrenched Knowledge Establishment,
whom he serves.
Ivor Catt
19 January 2010
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
-----
Original Message -----
From: j.calder@ieee.org
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: j.sun@ieee.org
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: re Proc.IEEE
Dear Ivor,
Thanks very much for your message and the article idea. It is
indeed an interesting one but it is not exactly in accordance with our current
editorial needs. It does sound however, that it might be appropriate for
one of the more specialized IEEE transactions, such as Circuits and Systems or
alternatively it might be an interesting article for Potentials Magazine.
We greatly appreciate your giving us the opportunity to consider your
suggestion.. Thank you...Jim Calder Managing Editor
***************************************************************
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Jim Calder
Managing Editor
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331
USA
732 562 5478 Fax: 732
562 5456
j.calder@ieee.org or proceedings@ieee.org
IDEAS FOR PAPERS AND SPECIAL ISSUES ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED!
All new Regular Paper Manuscripts Should be Submitted to Manuscript Central at
URL:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pieee
********************************************************************
|
From: |
"Ivor Catt"
<ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk> |
|
To: |
<j.calder@ieee.org> |
|
Date: |
01/17/2010
05:55 PM |
|
Subject: |
re Proc.IEEE |
Dear Jim
Calder,
Twenty-five
years ago I got two publications accepted for Proc.IEEE,.
admittedly only as "letters", although I saw them as very important.
http://www.ivorcatt.org/x01101.jpg
http://www.ivorcatt.org/x01102.jpg
http://www.ivorcatt.org/x0111.jpg
http://www.ivorcatt.org/x01112.jpg
Now, 25
years later, I have a forthcoming experiment with important outcome. I have
looked at today's Proc. IEEE and all other IEEE publications, and am at a loss
to find the appropriate journal, including Proc. IEEE. However, the nearest is
today's Proc. IEEE.
The
photographs resulting from the experiment are expected to prove that the
conventional model for a steady charged capacito is
incorrect. It will prove that an ExH TEM Wave,
Pointing Vector, is permanently travelling to and fro between the capacitor
plates at the speed of light (for the dielectric).
The
experiment is discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm .
I note
your ciomment below; "IDEAS FOR PAPERS AND
SPECIAL ISSUES ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED!"
I look
forward to your advice as to whether Proc.IEEE
remains the appropriate journal.
Ivor Catt
----- Original Message -----
From: j.calder@ieee.org
To: ivor catt
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:05 PM
Subject: PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE Re: Fw: Cause
and Effect in Mathematics
Dear Author:
I am sorry for the delay in responding to your messages.
Several months agio, I had several members of the
Editorial Board take a look at your submission.
The consensus is that it is not appropriate for our journal.
I offer my sincere apologies for the extensive delay in responding to your
message.
(I thought that I had responded to your email several moths ago, but I do not
have a records of my earlier message to you.)
Again. I am sorry for these delays.
Regards,
Jim Calder
Managing Editor
***************************************************************
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Jim Calder
Managing Editor
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331
USA
732 562 5478 Fax: 732
562 5456
j.calder@ieee.org or proceedings@ieee.org
IDEAS FOR PAPERS AND SPECIAL ISSUES ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED!
All new Regular Paper Manuscripts Should be Submitted to Manuscript Central at
URL:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pieee
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From "The Catt
Anomaly"
As the decades drifted by, I continued to fulfil my
duty of attempting to get my work published. I also delved deeper into the
theory of the Politics of Knowledge, or the Sociology of Science. Basil Bernstein,
of the Institute of Education, London, gave me the first clue, which can be
paraphrased as follows;
Knowledge is Property, with its own
market value and trading relationships, to be protected by those who trade in
that body of knowledge.
It was many more years before I realised that
He who brings
new knowledge
is a vandal, much as the Nazis who burned the books were vandals.
The reason is that the intrusion of new knowledge results in the rejection of the
old books. New knowledge has to be
defined.
Knowledge is new if its acceptance
would lead to a change in an A level syllabus. It is also new if it would lead to
the change of a first degree syllabus. It is not new if it would merely
lead to the addition of an extra section in a first degree syllabus, leaving
the text books untarnished. This last is merely new (written without italics).
One has to consider the knowledge broker, or
lecturer, with his slabs of lecture notes. Each slab of notes represents
capital which brings in sixty pounds of income each year from two hours of
lecturing. The professional is unwilling to tear up those notes, or to give up
the royalties on his text book. His text book probably gained his promotion.
The professionalisation
of teaching in around 1850, and the merging of research with teaching, set the
stage for the inevitable ossification of science a century later. The
professional cannot afford to allow knowledge to advance.
Any attempt to push forward the bounds
of knowledge by paying professionals to do so must fail. Even when employed
specifically to advance knowledge, the professional will freeze it.
The existing
knowledge base is the professional's identity, his security, and his income. New knowledge threatens all of these.
It took further years for me to realize that the
role of the professional institution was similar to that of the educational
establishment. In the 1970's, when the IEE was obstructing our efforts to
publish and to initiate discussion of fundamentals, we naively assumed that if
only we could get past the 'decadent' officials to the 'vibrant' membership,
all would be well. I am now convinced that this was a delusion, for the
following reasons.
Those students who studied, learned, and passed
exams in the IEE's static knowledge base developed subject
loyalty and also a vested interest in its maintenance and defence against new knowledge. Some had even passed the IEE's own exams. They now paid their subscriptions to the
IEE, not to encourage it to advance knowledge, but so that it would defend the
knowledge base which was now their identity and their security.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm
“ .... there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, .... “
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
