From: Rudolf Sykora
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:27 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Subject: Re: rudolf
Dear Mr Catt,
in a quick response:
During my visit at your place in Prague I told you that:
1) your understanding of the EM theory and related physics is simply not good enough (this you remember)
2) there is absolutely nothing I see wrong on the contemporary theory, just you do not understand it
3) you should try to learn more and, possibly, *speak* to other physicists (preferably those whose education was in 'theoretical physics') *in person*, not via e-mail. Remember that my position is: It's your lack of knowledge that you do not undestand what's going on in your questions (and thus you see paradoxes). You should not make up totally inadequate and paranoic theories that people do not want to comment on your 'findings' because they risk their position, etc. That's a complete crap and nonsense. They just do not see any problem (neither do I), or they themselves do not undestand it (a rather frequent phenomena these days, though not that much among theorists), or/and do not want to actually *waste* their time by writing long emails to you, keeping also in mind that it seems rather ineffective and futile. *It's that simple*, and not quite dissimilar to cases of other people writing to universities about how Einstein was wrong, etc.
4) I would have absolutely no time to
come back to help you any sooner than in half of a year; at that time I was
finishing my Ph.D. thesis, was looking for a job, had a newly-born baby, had to
find a flat to live in, etc.
By now we have moved to another city, I have a job, and quite a few other things have hapenned. Nonetheless, I have only started the job and many things have to settle. From time to time I skimmed over what you sent around, but could not comment for a lack of time. Even now I am sitting in Ostrava alone, my family left on Friday, and I have not been so far able to join them for the Easter. The last thing I'd now do would be to work on your problem (understand: finding for you the way to explain to you where your misunderstanding is). So for now there is still no way for me to help you.
Anyway, some time ago (2-3 weeks?) you sent around some handwritten notes from somebody. [ Clarendon Anonymous ] . I very quickly skimmed through it and it seemed ok and relevant to me, and also it contained explanations of some of your misunderstandings. Did you read it? Did you understand it? If I ever manage to get back to you, these notes would probably be a good staring point.
To summarize for now: please do not send me any more bullshit about conspiracies in physics (like that people do not want to risk their cariers, have a right to survive, ...). This is purely untrue; the only truth is that there is, as far as I can tell, no interesting (understand: new) physics. I am, however, open to concrete questions regarding physics, though I will only respond very slowly. (This email also cost about 45 minutes and I should have been doing something completely different.)
I guess that over the next weekend or so I will be able to find some time to read your article and tell you what I think about it.
Also, if you ever come to Ostrava, we can meet again and discuss your questions. This time I would be able to find more time, perhaps sufficient to cover all your questions (I guess that 2 days would be sufficient).
Advice for the day: write less think more
On 31 March 2013 21:33, Ivor Catt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Following our discussion today, the case of Rudolf will help to clarify the situation.
Jan Pekas was very much impressed by my work on em theory, and would spend two hours of his very busy time with me each time I was in Prague. Quite naturally, and in all innocence, he thought it would be a good idea to bring along Rudolf, someone from the university that he knew, who was well versed in electromagnetic theory, whose professional reputation partly rested on em theory.
I expected Rudolf to stay for one hour, but surprisingly he stayed for three.
As I was introducing him to “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , he moved on to saying that a TEM Wave between two parallel conductors was impossible. This was because he was beginning to realise that such a TEM step exposed a fatal flaw in his Establishment theory. He also said that I was not competent in electromagnetic theory.
When defending classical theory, a defender will alter the theory to try to evade the flaw. This is not dishonest, because he knows there is no flaw, so the theory must evade flaws.
As I recollect, he said that in the future he would write to me about cattq and also about “The Second Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf . I told Jan Pekas later that he would not in fact write. A few days later I emailed to Rudolf and to Jan the www address of MIT discussing the TEM wave between two conductors, which Rudolf had said was impossible. http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter13/13.1.html
What had actually had happened was that as I brought him nearer to a fundamental flaw in his theory, he had two choices. Either decide that he himself was less competent than he thought, or that there really was a flaw. He chose the former as more likely. Having his professional career at risk, he never communicated with me. It was too risky.
This case study will help you to get more feel for the current situation worldwide. Rudolf’s behaviour will necessarily be repeated by every professor with reputation associated with classical electromagnetism.
cattq and 2cattq are theoretical. Through this email, it will be fun to ask Rudolf to comment on the experimental, the Wakefield Experiment. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf . Again, he will not communicate. It is too dangerous. Bear in mind that if he should say these items, theoretical and now experimental, show a fatal flaw in classical electromagnetism, he will be cut off from his academic community. Why should he?