|
About classical electrodynamics
The
109 Experiment
The
discerning reader will have noticed a discrepancy. The Editor Lombardi
rejected (or actually failed to reply to) a very short paper offered for
publication by me pointing out that there was a mistake in my 967 paper in his journal.
The reader will wonder why apparently merely pointing out a mistake in my
paper represents a threat to the established paradigm as great as the
publication of new, advanced theory. The answer is that the latter was
buried within the former, for instance by the hyperlink to revolutionary
material within my very short March 2010 piece.
Because
Lombardi will surely refuse to communicate, we will never know whether, or
to what extent, Lolmbardi realised that my short
note led to a major advance in the art, which he knows (at least subconsciously)
he must not publish. A major advance in the art undermines all the
entrenched careers, reputations and salaries (including his
own) benefitting entrenched members of the
Science Establishment (including himself). To survive, they have to freeze
the Body of Knowledge.
See "The Catt
Question" ; “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.”
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivor Catt
> To: Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM
> Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers
>
>
> To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,
> Fabrizio Lombardi
> Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Northeastern University
> Boston, MA 02115 phone: +1 617.373.4159
> Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
>
>
>
> For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.
>
> Even and Odd Modes
> My paper; Ivor Catt;
"Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" ,
pub. IEEE
> Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December
1967, now at
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm
, contained an error. My mathematics,
> which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based on Faraday's Law.
The
> rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes was
permissible.
> However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law. The error is fully
> discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm [now
preferably at
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm
].
> Ivor Catt
>
> Ivor Catt is at
> +44 (0)1727 864257
> 121 Westfields,
> St. Albans AL3 4JR,
> England
> www.ivorcatt.co.uk
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> Early today, see below, I wrote to you, Lombardi; "In the case of
> Lombardi, he does not reply to my approaches by email and letter.
These
> cases give interesting new instances of the procedure of censorship
for
> the student of censorship which go far beyond the traditional, assumed
> procedure." Now, at 6.53pm, below, you give an even more extreme
instance
> of the censorship procedure. If one of your authors, myself, submits a
> very short piece saying he made a mistake in your journal, you do not
> reply. I wonder if you would reply if someone else submitted an
article
> pointing to my error?
>
> In 1996 (see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2817b.htm
) I wrote;
> "Rudeness[1]. A decade ago I said that
Ethics is one of the defences of an
> entrenched Establishment. Anything done in defence of an entrenched
> Establishment is ethical. Anything done which threatens an entrenched
> Establishment is unethical."
>
> You are presenting valuable insight for those studying the mechanism
of
> censorsuip.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> Ivor Catt
6 July 2010
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi"
<lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
> To: "Ivor Catt"
<icatt@btinternet.com>
> Cc: <j.calder@ieee.org>;
"Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> over the past months I have received few emails from you, quite
frankly I
>> am to say the least puzzled by your requests as with time, they
are
>> getting from unusual to just odd.
>>
>> I thought that my silence would be better understood by you;
>> unfortunately
>> it seems that we are going nowhere. So, in plain terms let me
state that
>> this is my only and last reply to you: your concerns/items do not
fall
>> within my duties as EIC of Tc and/or
they are not in compliance with IEEE
>> CS regulations. So please stop sending me emails.
>>
>> fl
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Ivor Catt wrote:
>>
>>> Dear J. Calder, Fabrizio Lombardi,
>>> Editors of Proc. IEEE and Transactions on Digital Computers.
>>>
>>> I refer to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm
, which is a major
>>> disclosure. At present it is a confidential orphan, and so is
available
>>> for you to provisionally accept for publication. However,
should you
>>> accept, I will have to restructure it away from
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm
, which is appropriate when
>>> disclosed on the www, not in a learned journal. Note that the
IEEE
>>> welcomes request from authors for advice on how to best
produce their
>>> writing. In this case, you would say it was acceptable if
restructured
>>> to publish in a journal.
>>>
>>> The reason why I approach you this way is that I have a very
extensive
>>> record over decades of having all papers rejected by learned
journals
>>> worldwide, and have lectured and publshed
on censorship. In the present
>>> case, the significance of the disclosure in
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm
is so major that it is important to
>>> establish that it was rejected for publication by refereed
learned
>>> journals. I think that you will have little difficulty in
rejecting,
>>> just by reading the title of the article. You will know that
neither you
>>> nor your referees would risk advising publication of material
with such
>>> major claims. Polanyi and Kuhn would
say that you could not possibly
>>> accept. Your names will be in the historical record of what
happened to
>>> this major scientific advance.
>>>
>>> My close colleagues agree that it is futile to attempt to get
a
>>> scientific advance of the magnitude of
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm
published in a refereed learned
>>> journal. However, I want to complete the historical record. It
will be
>>> valuable for future researchers to learn about the response of
learned
>>> journal editors.
>>>
>>> Your past records are as follows. Calder rejected an important
paper in
>>> the usual manner. However, he rejected another important paper
which
>>> will disclose the results of a crucial experiment, before the
experiment
>>> has even been conducted. In the case of Lombardi, he does not
reply to
>>> my approaches by email and letter. These cases give
interesting new
>>> instances of the procedure of censorship for the student of
censorship
>>> which go far beyond the traditional, assumed procedure. The
traditional,
>>> assumed procedure is immediate rejection or the sending out of
the paper
>>> to referees, followed by accpetance
or rejection based on the referees'
>>> reports.
>>>
>>> Ivor Catt
6 July 2010
>>> +44 (0)1727 864257
|