Harry Ricker and “Theory C”.

Normal Science and Revolutionary Science.



I notice you used Kuhn’s term “normal science” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science , but giving it another meaning. (In his 1969 edition Kuhn should have credited the dichotomy normal and revolutionary to M Polanyi, Personal Knowledge. RKP 1958 p151) Koestler came after Polanyi.

I have only recently realised that

Peer review outlaws the suggestion of paradigm change.

Paradigm change contrasts with the leaders of NPA wanting cooperation between its members. Whereas normal science is cumulative (cf what Newton said), revolutionary science (paradigm change) is destructive, destroying what went before.

I suspect the NPA leadership will continue to bang the drum for cooperation regardless of how much they are taught by Kuhn etc. I wish they would come to terms with the idea that science proceeds in two totally different ways – normal science and revolutionary science. They don’t have to accept the idea, but only tell us they are familiar with it, and if they accept it, not apply the precepts of the one kind of science to the other.

How much time and effort should those developing the kinetic theory have spent on the minutiae of the obsolete phlogiston theory? Greg please answer this.




Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:12 PM

To: SvetlanaJ@stjohnpatrick.com ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: problem


What you say here is serious and profound. I can only say that once I started reading your articles in Wireless World my difficulties with the electromagnetic theory were focused. Before they were vague dissatisfaction's or lack of ability to see the theory as a consistent set of ideas.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance, NPA, gave itself the this name because it is not about normal science. The NPA is about the philosophy of nature which is what science is supposed to be but isn't.

Normal science is about predictions from equations. There is no thought regarding the reality of the objects about which predictions are made. Relativity is an example. The equations make predictions about time. Time is said to dilate for observers in relative motion. Experiments are performed and the results show that clocks run a different rates when in motion. So the theory is said to be validated. But the theory predicts things about time that are absurd, that is two clocks both run slow relative to each other. But this prediction is ignored because it refutes the theory as being an impossibility. The response of the scientific community is that relativity is correct, although it makes absurd untestable predictions.

The point is that this kind of science, which is equations and predictions, leads us into the wrong conclusions because it is incomplete. It is incomplete because it doesn't address the questions that natural philosophy tries to address.

The problem of charge and what electromagnetism is as a fundamental aspect of our world is outside the realm of scientific inquiry as understood by normal scientists. So the questions being asked by us are largely outside of their ability to answer. So they do the obvious thing. Rather than admit that they are ignorant of the correct answer, they avoid the problem by ignoring it and denying that it exists as a scientific problem.


--- On Fri, 3/2/12, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
Subject: problem
To: "HARRY RICKER" <kc3mx@yahoo.com>, SvetlanaJ@stjohnpatrick.com, forrestb@ix.netcom.com
Date: Friday, March 2, 2012, 5:14 PM


I worry about this dialogue (or multilogue). The last time this kind of thing happened, (or critics of Catt would say falsely claims now happens) was some 200 years ago, when phlogiston and caloric disappeared. Aristotle’s “earth, air, fire and water” had previously lasted for 2,000 years. Catt’s discovery of “Theory C” has been ignored for a third of a century, http://www.ivorcatt.com/2608.htm , and is likely to be ignored for a further century. Wegener was ignored for a third of a century. Mendel was ignored for a century. One way out for an observer is to dismiss Catt as arrogant, presumptuous, rude, ignorant of electromagnetic theory or of mathematics etc. Such charges are made, and should be expected.

Another point. Never in the history of science has the claim been made that the mathematical derivation of something real (field) is not real (charge, current). e.g. \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac {\rho} {\varepsilon_0}. (Actually, for me even E is not real – only electromagnetic field ExH.) There is not even ever any discussion as to whether the mathematical derivation of something real, field, could create something which is not real. I gave an example with “circularity”, derived from mathematical manipulation of a circle’s circumference, diameter and area. It is in one of my books on Forrest’s website. There was no response.

We are addressing a situation which Catt says is more or less unprecedented. If that is true, then the usual way to address a claimed scientific advance, or a scientific argument, is likely to break down.

I feel the present discussion is like discussing the performance of the Hiroshima Fire Brigade after the bomb dropped. The fire brigade is a metaphor for the way “Theory C” is being treated, using routine principles of how to discuss and debate.

We have to either dismiss Catt out of hand, or accept that this is not just another scientific discussion.



Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 7:37 PM

To: SvetlanaJ@stjohnpatrick.com ; Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: new article proposal


All I am asking for is some kind of specific meaning to the word charge. As I said, Kiehn was critical and offered several so called proofs that charge existed, whatever he meant by that. I didn't understand his arguments since he didn't define what he meant by charge. If you say there is no such thing as an electron then that is a specific claim that he could refute by offering evidence that electrons exist.