Science and Politics
I have only recently come to realise how the assault on the historical record by John Dore can be fully countered. Many decades ago, when I made major contributions to electromagnetic theory, I was aware that Heaviside and others had been suppressed. Also Oliver Lodge said it was partly Heaviside’s fault, and he should be more polite. He should not call Preece, Head of Post Office Research, a “scienticulist”.
I broached “The Catt Question” by getting an administrator to select and instruct his top expert to write to me about "The Catt Question" . To be sure that such charges as John now makes, I did not reply, but caused third parties to write to the “experts” with very brief questions, to which they did not reply, except in one important case;
August 23, 1993 Dear Raeto West, I write with reference to your letter of August 19. Your description of the process is correct; as a TEM wave advances so charge within the conductor is polarised and the disturbance propagates at right angles to the direction of propagation of the wave .... .... Yours sincerely, M Pepper
This was a very important communication, completely establishing that Pepper defied Gauss’s Law. Apart from that case, and the cases of Nobel Prizewinner Professor Brian Josephson and Oxford lecturer John Roche, no one with accreditation or reputation in electromagnetic theory has willingly written anything about "The Catt Question" . Those two have showed bravery, Brian by trying to bring the paranormal into science, John by whistle blowing on Opus Dei. Obviously one factor in the solidarity and protection of the cult of “Modern Physics” is the sheep characteristic of its members. As Thomas Gold said, “Scientists travel in tight formation.” Like a priest in the Middle Ages, one must evade any connection with heresy. Admission that one knows the name of a heretic, or has come across heresy, leads to exclusion from the tribe, as with Dingle. Thirty relevant professors, repeatedly asked to do so, have not commented on my Jan/Feb 2011 article . Such experiments in approaching the Scientific Reception System, for instance editors of refereed journals , are repeatable, and lead to 100% suppression.
John Dore came to work for me in Ferranti in the 1960s and kept in touch, highly praising my work. However, he developed the idea that as alleged over Heaviside, my problems partly derived from my rudeness.
In the end I asked him how he would approach “experts”, and he said he would ask his friendly relevant professor for advice. In the event he did not do so. Then he said a relevant professor would tour Wales visiting castles. How should he approach him? I replied; "The Catt Question" , and pressed John to get written comment. He did not do so. John with all his technique and alleged politeness has never got written comment from any expert in electromagnetism. To date, the only people who have written comment on "The Catt Question" were selected and instructed to do so by their superiors, and refused to comment more when instructed to comment more, for instance Dr. Neal McEwan .
John’s view is that I damage my electromagnetic theory by linking it with the question of censorship, which he says has nothing to do with science.
Now Forrest Bishop has given a lecture entitled "The Science of Censorship" . This should create a problem for someone like John Dore who says science should not be sullied with talk about censorship.
My own view is that by now, with the religion, or cult (not the science) called “Modern Physics”, "The Politics of Knowledge" cannot and should not be kept out of science. Science will not progress if we ignore the elephant in the room.
Ivor Catt 11 August 2012