Discussion of the role of the article The End of Electric Charge and Electric Current as we know them .

Ivor Catt  30 January 2011.



I am still developing my sociological analysis of the situation.

I should have realised decades ago that

Peer review outlaws paradigm change.

This article demands paradigm change. (see T S Kuhn.)

"Accredited expert" means relevant Professor or text book writer.

Only today I have realised the following. No accredited expert can admit to having read the Jan/Feb (unrefereed) article, or comment on it in any way.

No accredited expert can admit to having read an unrefereed article.

The jan/feb 2011 article establishes the final separation of (1) the professional scientific community from (2) science (represented by major scientific advance, e.g. this article). Thus, it is a historic landmark article.

John Dore has told me the reason why the thirty accredited experts I have asked to comment have not done so is because my way of approach was inappropriate. Following my challenge, he is asking a friend of his, and acceredited expert, to advise how accredited experts should be approached asking for comment. John thinks he will be more successful than me in getting comment on jan/feb from accredited experts. We shall see.

I believe that my behavioural model is nearly, not completely, perfect. Thus, John may well get one or two comments. However, I today realise that should such accident happen, those who comment will by their action become excluded from the professional scientific community. (However, this word "professional" does not mean it is only about money.) To some degree the precedent is Dingle, and also of course Josephson (blighted for embracing the paranormal), who will receive this email. This article is like poison ivy.

Through a copy of this email, I ask Professor Jonathan Post, a supporter of me but also co-author with Feynman (like Josephson, relevant Nobel Laureate,) for advice as to how to approach accredited experts for comment on the jan/feb article. I emphasize to him that such a major article (and he has already described it as such) gives us a rare opportunity to exhaustively examine the Politics of Knowledge (in science). http://www.ivorcatt.com/3600.htm







----- Original Message -----

From: "Jonathan Post" <jvospost3@gmail.com>

To: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>

Cc: <dswalton@plus44.net>; "Lukás Nemec" <nemecuf@gmail.com>; "Krystof Nemec" <krystof.nemec@gmail.com>; "James Bogle" <jslbogle@googlemail.com>; <gordon.moran@tiscalinet.it>; "Forrest Bishop" <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; "Dr Harold Hillman" <harold.hillman@btinternet.com>; "John Foggitt" <foggitt@hotmail.com>; "Malcolm F Davidson" <malcolm_davidson@thewisdomwheel.com>; "John Raymond Dore" <johnrdore@googlemail.com>

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:06 PM

Subject: Re: incommunication


Let me compress my first, second, and third impressions of "The End of
Electric Charge and Electric Current As We Know Them" and reserve my
fourth impression for when part 2 is published in Electronics World.

(1) I am a scientist (co-author of Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, and
others) and engineer (on, for example, Voyager to Uranus, Galileo to
Jupiter, and Space Shuttle).

(2) This is an important paper.

(3) The rhetorical thrust is sociologically interesting; openly
heretical.  It knowingly implies that "electric current" shall some
day be one with Caloric and Phlogiston.

(4) It is then careful with both Math and Experimental Physics.

(5) If there is an obvious error in either the Math or the Physics,
then I admit that it is not obvious to me.

(6) I have caveats and third impressions which I may elaborate later,
mostly in these categories:
(a) the Metaphysical stance on the relationships between Mathematics,
Physics, and Engineering;
(b) assumptions about waves which neglect, for example, plasmons
(including surface plasmons as coherent electron oscillations that
exist at the interface between any two materials where the real part
of the dielectric function changes sign across the interface) and
(c) the nature of the Electron (and the efforts of the Physics
Establishment to hide the fact that a complete and correct Theory of
the Electron has not been produced despite the efforts of the giants
in their field for over a century).

I shall continue to re-read and ponder this paper, and await with
considerable excitement the second part.

-- Jonathan Vos Post
B.S., Mathematics, Caltech, 1973
B.S. English Literature, Caltech, 1973
M.S. Computer & Information Science, U.Massachusetts, 1975
PhD. dissertation "Molecular Cybernetics" 1977, U.Mass.
formerly Adjunct Professor of Astronomy, Cypress College
formerly Adjunct Professor of Mathematics, Woodbury University
C.E.O., Computer Futures, Inc.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I regard the publication of my January 2011 article as historically crucial.
> http://www.ivorcatt.org/x111.pdf . It probes the situation where a relevant
> accredited professional is unable to respond in any way. This leads to the
> thesis that "Modern Physics" cannot make connection with scientific advance.
> This will be particularly true of major scientific advance; paradigm change.
> As you will know, a theoretical model is reinforced if successful prediction
> is made on its basis. That is why I should have asserted to such as this
> circulation that no relevant Professor would be able to comment, positively
> or negatively, on my article http://www.ivorcatt.org/x111.pdf , before they
> were approached (caveat below). Unfortunately I only told Liba, and probably
> John Dore and Dave Walton (I would like to be told whether I did), that
> professors would be unable to reply, before I sent out the email below to 25
> professors. [John Dore says I did tell him in advance.] However, I am telling you all about my prediction very soon
> after the first batch of the email (sample below) went out. So far there has
> been only one reply, by a retired professor asking for £5,000 per day
> consultancy fee. However, the behaviour of a retired professor is not part
> of what I am seeking to (again) establish.
> In particuilar, John Dore, on this circulation, will later assert that I
> approached to professors in the wrong way, so I proved nothing. I must make
> it clear that my theory is that a Professor of Electronics cannot be
> approached in a way which would enable him to reply. Thus, at this point, I
> challenge John to propose a viable way to approach relevant professors.
> I have found out that on the www the email addresses of some professors can
> be found, but their postal addresses are not given on the www. I am
> surprised to find this. {Possibly John will propose a way of finding their
> postal addresses, but they must not be uncertain addresses, or proof of
> delivery will not be available, so the experiment wouldl be flawed.)
> I repeat my recent epigram; "Peer review outlaws paradigm change". I should
> have thought of this many years ago.
> Caveat.
I really propose that only a tiny percentage of professors will be
> able to comment. That means, paradigm change is not within the province of
> "Modern Physics", or perhaps of any branch of today's science. However,
> accidents can happen.
> Ivor Catt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivor Catt
> To: j.z.wang@kent.ac.uk
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 10:19 PM
> Subject: january 2011 article
> Dear Professor J Wang,
> We very much need comment from you on the January article in "Electronics
> World" at.. http://www.ivorcatt.org/x111.pdf
> "The End of Electric Charge and Electric Current as We Know Them."

> Copy to me and copy to the editor, SvetlanaJ@stjohnpatrick.com
> Ivor Catt
> You don't need to wait for the second part, because the first part contains
> the important material.
> Find Part 2, February, later at www.ivorcatt.org/x11x.htm

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3371 - Release Date: 01/10/11 07:34:00