The paper "The end of electric charge and
electric current as we know them."
and Jim Calder, Editor of Proc. IEEE.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Analysis
First note
that Lombardi, Editor of IEEE Transactions on Computers, (when my proffered
paper referred to an error in my previous paper in his journal, see below),
admitted some months later that he had not replied to me. Now Calder, Editor of
Proc. IEEE., fails to write although he said he would. Thus, the “experiment”
is repeatable, which is one of the criteria for a scientific theory being
proved to be correct. However, note that in my book I write;
No scientist is willing to take a
scientific approach to the problem of suppression in science - the allegation
of widespread censorship, to be tested by the usual criteria of repeatability,
corroboration, Popper's falsification and the rest. Try to get a scientist to
remain a scientist when addressing these matters! He will start talking about
Catt's paranoia or egotism, which are not scientific concepts.
It remains to be seen
whether scientists will address in a scientific way the problem I have
demonstrated.
The problem demonstrated by
Calder is that such functionaries superficially know that their role is to
publish significant scientific advance, and particularly to publish major
scientific advance. Calder’s reply on July 16, 2010, was at that superficial
level. However, they subconsciously know that of all things, they must suppress
major scientific advance. An example would be that if an editor of a learned
journal published a paper which said; “A capacitor is a transmission line” that
would be the end of his editorial career, particularly if the article mentioned
Displacement Current. After July 16, Calder’s subconscious knowledge of his
true role came to the fore, and he had to evade all further involvement with
Catt or whatever Catt wrote.
The
paper "The
end of electric charge and electric current as we know them." Is a major
scientific breakthrough. It removes electric charge, the “Jewel in the
Crown” of Electromagnetic Theory. This brings the analysis by Polanyi and Kuhn
into stark focus. It is a rare opportunity to research the validity of the
theories of Polanyi and Kuhn, since the information in the proffered paper is
of such pivotal significance in the advance of science. Thus, the damage to
those that Calder and the like unwittingly serve, the entrenched Knowledge
Brokers, is very severe.
I quote from
M Polanyi, “Personal Knowledge”, pub. RKP 1958/62,
p151;
The two conflicting systems of thought are
separated by a logical gap .... Formal operations
relying on one framework cannot
demonstrate a proposition to persons who rely on another framework. .... Proponents of a new system [are] excluded
for the time being .... from
the community of science. .... The refusal to enter on the opponent’s way of
arguing must be justified by making it appear altogether unreasonable. Such
comprehensive rejection cannot fail to discredit the opponent. He will be made
to appear as thoroughly deluded, which in the heat of the battle will easily
come to imply that he was a fool, a crank or a fraud.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34
PM
Subject: 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/x0620.htm .
Lombardi’s one and only response came three months
later;
Sent:
Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:53 PM
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.
"Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>, Editor
"Transactions on Digital Computers."
Here an author (myself) wrote a short note pointing out an error in his
published paper, and the editor of the journal did not reply!
T S Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, pub. Univ.
Of Chicago Press, 1962/1970, p109;
To the extent, as significant as
it is incomplete, that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem
and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating
the relative merits of their respective paradigms.
Germane to the
present discussion is the review of my 1995 book ; “.... It is
significant that, having introduced his new theory and abolished charge and
current ...., he then proceeds to use these concepts quite unashamedly in the
rest of the book. .... ” because the review ridicules the
idea of removing electric charge and electric current. After all, they
represent the Jewel in the Crown of Established Electromagnetic Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism Electromagnetism is one of
the four fundamental interactions of nature, along
with strong interaction, weak
interaction and gravitation. It is the force that causes the
interaction between electrically charged particles; the areas in which this
happens are called electromagnetic fields, also known as B
fields in physics classes.
Members
of the IEEE are part of the community of Knowledge Brokers.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm
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.
Calder is between a rock and a hard place. If he
accepts the paper for publication, he betrays his members. However, if he
rejects the paper, he is on notice that his role in the History of Science will
be carefully registered – that he rejected for publication by the world’s
leading relevant journal a paper of major significance for the advance of
science. For a precendent, he can do a Google search
for “pepper frs” and “sir michael pepper”. Is his loyalty primarily to the
advance of science, or to his career and salary?
The reader is almost sure to think at this point
that the above analysis is unethical in the way it bears on Calder. This leads
me to something I wrote many years ago;
Anything
done in defence of an entrenched Knowledge Establishment is by definition
ethical. [For instance asserting that Catt is ignorant,
paranoid, or deluded, etc.] Anything done which threatens an entrenched
Knowledge Establishment is by definition unethical. Ethics is one of the
defence mechanisms of The Establishment.
It is of the utmost importance to find out when
someone in Calder’s position has a clear explanation of his role, where his
loyalty lies. We need clarity in this very important matter – The End of The
Enlightenment. The better we understand, the more
chance we have of saving The Enlightenment.
The problem for Calder is to distinguish between
the sage (bringing major scientific advance) who very rarely appears if the
advance is truly major, and the crook, the crank, the paranoid etc. He may of
course avoid the problem by merely blocking the very rare major scientific
advance. He will suffer no sanctions, because all the entrenched knowledge
brokers around him would suffer from its publication, and will applaud its
suppression.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm
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)
Ivor Catt 7 August 2010