Material arising out of
communication with Greg Volk of "Natural
Philosophy Alliance"
|
|
Analysis |
|
My contribution is less than
Newton’s Laws of Motion. However, I am sure that my contribution is
equivalent to the removal of phlogiston or caloric from the Body Scientific.
It has similarities. It is extraordinary to remove the Jewel in the Crown of
today’s science, electricity. As it must have been with phlogiston or
caloric, the breakthrough, in May 1976, was a great shock. I will always
remember where I stood and that Malcolm Davidson was sitting beside me, and
that we immediately telephoned Dr. David Walton with the news. That was a
third of a century ago. Today, no relevant professor or text book writer
knows that there was a proposal
to remove electricity . If such a one heard the proposal, he would not
hear it. The same must have been true for phlogiston or caloric. If it is
possible that these cases are similar, then it is particularly important to
study the behaviour of the Body Scientific and society in general. It is much
more important that we understand the response of society to the proposal of
major paradigm change than for minor changes. Such a chance for the most
important research is rare. As with Arthur Koestler’s book “The Sleepwalkers”
about Kepler, study of how the advance came about
is important. Research into the minutiae
of The Politics of Knowledge, or the Sociology of Knowledge, is particularly
important when it comes to what happens to the major scientific breakthrough.
The fact that a third of a century later it has not been heard of, for practical
purposes, is very significant A third of a century after the proposal to
remove phlogiston or caloric, had no relevant professor heard of the
proposal? Probably Yes. Certainly “yes”, if we properly interpret the phrase
“heard of”. Returning to today, I am sure no relevant professor or text book
writer will admit to having heard of the proposal to remove electricity
. (In order to survive, a True Believer must not “hear” heresy.) Ivor
Catt. 22 April 2011 The above was in response
to; -----
Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt To: Greg Volk
Cc: John Foggitt
; Malcolm
Davidson ; dswalton@plus44.net ; John Raymond
Dore ; Forrest Bishop Sent: Friday, April 22,
2011 12:17 PM Subject: Re: beck This is my first pass at responding to your beginning to dialogue. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x14m.htm I think the first step is for you to decide whether there is a good chance you are not dealing with a crackpot.
"Thus, the WSD aims to create the Athens that will nurture the Aristotles of our time. Perhaps you are one of them." - Greg Volk, 22 April 2011.
You might be reassured if you receive from those to whom I have sent copies of this email, confirmation that what I, or we together, have is truly major. If they confirm this, then the question arises, What is the proper role of your organisation NPA http://www.worldnpa.org/main/ . Should it only promote alternative science, or should its remit include the study of "The Scientific Reception System" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0611.htm , emphasising cases of the treatment of (perceived) major scientific advance?
Ivor @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ "My interest is to get advances
recorded and accepted not to divert into the history of suppression of
advances." - John Dore, April 23, 2011. This is the point I have raised with
Greg Volk. I have migrated from electromagnetic theory (and other suppressed
work of mine on other subjects) to researching into censorship. Having
generated major suppressed material in a number of fields, I am uniquely
suited to do this study, which I see as more important than, for instance,
electromagnetic theory. John doesn't like this "diversion", which
he thinks taints my important work on electromagnetic theory, and our
(including his) attempts to promote this work. Greg Volk's organisation
NPA needs to state clearly how far they will. from
John's point of view, divert from their important role in science to the
separate subject, censorship in science and elsewhere. For my part, I have
diversified and found cases of sensorship outside
science. Thus, if NPA move in this direction, it may end up moving far. "there are several other independents whose work merits
more attention than it has received. We believe this body of work is
more potent in toto than separately,
and also that many ideas touted by independents converge into certain key
paradigms. It is my personal passion to discover what those common
paradigms really are. The problem is that each scientist sees these
ideas through his own glasses, and often refuses to look through anyone
else's glasses." - Greg Volk, April 23. As an AIDS
Dissident, I join in the unanimous orthodoxy among AIDS dfissidents
- HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV does not exist, and so on. (However, this unanimity
was recently broken. There is now a division between Duesberg
and Perth. IC 2012.) The case of electromagnetism is very different. This is a key point. There was a major, rapid change in electromagnetic theory from analog (sine wave radio) to digital in 1960. Never has
there been such a rapid change in any other field. Surprisingly, none of the insights
gained from the next fifty years of high speed digital electronics have been
pointed out by anyone other than Catt. It is not clear why this is so, but
perusal of his books and articles will prove this. The amount of unrecorded
and untaught material is legion. Thus, the Volk development from the
Newton quote; "If I have seen further it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants. " Isaac Newton, Letter to Robert Hooke,
February 5, 1675 ,
where Greg would have dissidents standing on the shoulders of other
dissidents, does not apply in the case of Catt and electromagnetic theory.
There is no other visible related contributor during the twentieth century.
This may merely mean that Catt was more sophisticated than all the others is
bypassing censorship, but for practical purposes other giants do not exist.
(Catt showed sophistication in publishing on
very important subject of "The Glitch" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97sglit5.htm when nobody else did for decades,
by giving a misleading title to his article.) There has been no
alteration to Mainstream Electromagnetic Theory for half a century. In em, the only predecessor of Catt is Oliver Heaviside,
1850-1925, whose pulse-based theory was erased from the record -
unmentioned in any text book for more than half a century, and not discovered
by Catt for twelve years. Thus, Catt had to rediscover Heaviside's
concept of "Energy Current", which was not identified even by Gossick and Josephson, the main researchers into
Heaviside. (I checked this with them personally when I met them.) "We
believe this body of work is more potent in toto
than separately" - GV. In the case of electromagnetism, there will be
virtually no overlap between "this body of work" (by NPA members)
and Catt's work. "many ideas touted by independents converge into certain
key paradigms. It is my personal passion to discover what those common
paradigms really are." - Greg Volk. Although true
in Climate Change and AIDS and other disputed subjects, I suspect that
"Welcome to Catt's World" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0d2.htm contains paradigm changes and
other material which find no common ground with any other member of Greg's
organisation NPA. I have just gone through the ten or so items in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0d2.htm , and conclude that this must
be true. I make the
point that NPA is welcome to reject such an independent body of work -
Catt's. However, if it does accept, it would be helpful for Greg to
consider whether this work is independent of other NPA work. "Another
major textbook added that 'we understand of course that the energy actually
enters the resistor sideways from the space around it, not through the wire'
(forget the title) in its earlier editions. That paragraph was whittled down
and finally removed from later editions, much as occurs in alleged-Law
dictionaries (another of my fields)." - Forrest. From Kip,
quoted in my writings. I Catt "I would very much like to know the name of this textbook
from the 1930s, the other major textbook, and a description of how a
capacitor is like a transmission line or a model of itself..
And sadly I don’t see anything remarkable about a pulse with half the voltage
and double the duration delivering the same amount of energy. Should
I? The idea of “energy current” was of course examined by Poynting with his S vector, and there was much literature
in the late 1800s and early 1900s surrounding the idea." GV This fact leads to "A
“steady charged capacitor” is not steady at all. It has energy
reciprocating in a direction parallel with the plates. http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm " See the 109 experiment http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm .
I wish John Dore would hurry up and do this very important experiment. -
IC. Also see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/21171.htm "A book from the 1930's has the traveling
energy current model of a transmission line" = FB I don't know of this. IC Also see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ub07mgib.htm .
The recipient of my letter did not reply. Note that the "contrapuntal",
or reciprocal, model for the charged capacitor leads towards the single
velocity universe. "I would very much like to know the name of this textbook
from the 1930s, the other major textbook, and a description of how a
capacitor is like a transmission line or a model of itself..
And sadly I don’t see anything remarkable about a pulse with half the voltage
and double the duration delivering the same amount of energy. Should
I? The idea of “energy current” was of course examined by Poynting with his S vector, and there was much literature
in the late 1800s and early 1900s surrounding the idea." - GV Ploynting Vector
is not a complete description of Energy Current. Poynting
did not know the model. "Energy Current travels at thwe
speed of light, which does not apply to the Heaviside-Poynting
Vector. Energy Current was suppressed, but the Poynting
Vector was not suppressed. " I don’t
necessarily agree that Catt is the ONLY one to have discovered certain ideas,
but rather believe that many scientists are discovering the same thing in
different ways." - GV You will not find echo of any of the ideas in "Welcome to
Catt's World" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0d2.htm in
any other writing. "Heaviside coined the term "energy current" and
asked specifically "Oh by the way, is there such a thing as electric
current?" in his inimitable fashion" - FB this
Heaviside quote is in one of my books on Forrest's website http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/
. The trio Davidson, Walton and Catt worked hard to extablish
that there was no precedent for "Theory C" - "There is no
electric current." The nearest fo a precursor
is the Heaviside quote. "Theory C" was traumatic, arriving out of
nowhere in 1976. A great shock. "a description of how a capacitor
is like a transmission line or a model of itself.. - GV This is original Davidson. "Malcolm Davidson has pointed
out that since a capacitor is a transmission line (Ref.16), the model
models a transmission line in terms of itself, which is absurd[3],
see Figure 27." - http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2_2.htm
. This has been ignored for 15 years, and is an example of
how even minor advances in electromagnetic theory are
ignored/suppressed. I am sure the LC model for a transmission line is still
taught, and will continue to be for 20 more years. Electromagnetic Theory is
completely frozen. (Of course, the transmission line is hardly mentuioned in today's dreadful £50, 600pp text books.) "many scientists are discovering
the same thing in different ways." - GV There is no overlap between what Catt discovered in em during the last 50 years and others' discoveries. It
is extraordinary that all those working with high speed digital electronics
have been unable to publish. Ivor Catt April 2011 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ "technically he must know the
material of everyone else." - GV There's the rub. I find it extremely difficult to "know the
material of everyone else". I try to take the shortcut of asking for
evidence of discussion of what for me are key factors which must underly anything that could be useful - for instance any
discussion of whether in the Michelson-Morley experiment light is wave or
particle. Lacking any evidence of interest among Establishment or dissidents
in that, I can see no point in anything they write. Either I have missed the
point, or all of them have. What is the point of my mastering what they say,
if what they say seems to me to be fatally flawed at the start? If
you never think and talk about the nature of the brick, why should
anyone study your housebuilding? This applies to
everyone in science in the 20th century. They evade the core of their
subject, like what is meant by "particle". They build houses on
shifting sands. How much time should I spend studying their architecture? 50%
of my time? Drop my own work for that time? I have much to do. Beck is most
insulted that I spent only half an hour on his work, and said so. On another aspect. Your "template" is Brill. Let us
look into Brill. I have no knowledge of Schrodinger. I have never heard of Rydberg. I don't know Merzbacher.
Or Kreyszig. I don't know what is
"square-normalised wave function". I don't know what is "bound-state energy levels". Never heard of Frobenius. Weak on "eigenvalues".
I am not impressed by Equation 9, and have only produced such long equations
for political reasons, to show that I can do so and nobody can fault my long
equations. See http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.htm .
This is because one of the games is to say that someone who doesn't produce
such clutter is incapable of doing so. No reader works through such
equations. Should I "know" the material of Brill? "My failure to “see the light” regarding the uniqueness of
your work versus others is mainly a failure to find adequate time right now
for study." - GV. You don't have to "see the light", as you put it. What
would be the value of your "seeing the light"? You merely join a
coterie including Davidson, Walton, Bishop etc. This
coterie is not growing, in spite of the heavy exposure in Wirelss
World and the www. Catt stuff is kept out of Wikipedia, although it is near
the top of Google for "maxwell's
equations", "displacement current", "self resonant
frequency", "displacement current", "tem
wave". Being quickly removed from Wikipedia (except in the case of
"self resonant frequency", which is of minor importance) is
symptomatic of the general resistance to Catt material. When Catt gave a
lecture on "The Catt Question" to Cambridge University Engineering
Society", the lecture was boycotted by students as well as by lecturers.
Catt's only duty is to try to get his material recorded safely in case there
is a revival of The Enlightenment 50 or 100 years from now. He also has to
put reasonable time into trying to communicate when opportunities arise, for
instance NPA. However, all of this has progressed and developed for too long,
and so is too big, for you to address it easily. Academia got caught by
blocking the rapidly advancing digital computer, and ignored/suppressed it for
too long - 50 years. Electromagnetic Theory has been frozen for more than 50
years, and makes no concessions to the digital experience. This is probably a
deeper crisis than in any other subject, particularly since it is generally
agreed that electromagnetic theory is
the core subject. The resulting problem, for you as well as for
me, is very great. Please note that if you "get the message", other
NPA members will not. Why should they? Why should they spend much more time
on Catt stuff than on any other NPA member? Since my last email, I have realised that the reason why it is
important for you speaking for NPA to say how far NPA's remit extends to
"The Politics of Knlwledge", since there
we have common ground. Your founder wrote much about censorship. However,
when it comes to science, Catt is the cuccoo's egg.
It just doesn't fit in nicely and quietly, as you have found. It is not surprising that high speed logic led to major
scientific breakthrough. Similarly, Oersted leaving
a compass near an electric current led to breakthrough. However, note that
within the Body Sxcientific, including the
Dissidents, none of the insights has made any headway. Why should NPA members
study Catt? Why should Catt study the other NPA members? What is the
connection between them? Why is Catt incapable of reading Brill? Why did Beck
insult him? How many months should an NPA member spend studying Catt? Buried in Catt is the link between electromagnetism and gravity,
by the way. However, "only the unattainable is worth striving for."
Do we really want to resolve that problem? Surely anyone who claims to have
done so is just one of the many cranks who make the claim. The probablility is near to 100%. Ivor April 2011 |
|
|
|
|