Analysis in August 2013
“I was frustrated, disillusioned, and not knowing how to respond to non response.” – MD
My recent work is based on the assumption that there will be no response. This suspicion of mine really goes back to 1966. I was the only person who succeeded in publishing on the extremely important issue of “The Glitch” for more than 15 years because I wisely gave my paper a misleading title. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97sglit5.htm , http://www.async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesitates-is-Lost.pdf
“They did not believe a problem existed, and if it did, they didn’t want to know. Nevertheless, he wrote a short note about it and got it published in an IEEE journal in 1966.”
You resist accepting that “Modern Physics” is religion, not science. Any representative of “Modern Physics” who is seen to get in any way involved with heresy is ousted from the Science Establishment, as were Dingle and Brian Josephson. “not knowing how to respond to non response”, you failed to move to the next stage, where I am, of researching the complex way in which major scientific advance is blocked. You say “I'd call them "subliminal conspiracies"”, but I keep to the phrase “An evolved conspiracy”, title of an article decades ago in New Scientist by McCutcheon.
I want you to move your work to help those who conduct the inquest 30 years from now on how and why science ground to a halt. By then it will be obvious. Like you, I accept that the present period is a dead period as far as scientific advance is concerned.
A major flaw in your view is that you think the professors and text book writers are lazy, only interested in power and career progress. The truth is that they are frightened, and interested in survival. Any success for our theories, or any involvement by an Establishment figure in our theories, will end his career. He has a right to consider the damage that would cause to his wife and family, and to his reputation. Any professor who is in any way associated with the remark “A capacitor is a transmission line”, or “there is no electric current”, or with your article, or with Wakefield http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf , or with the three Catt Questions http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , or with Catt on Maxwell http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf commits professional suicide. That is still not obvious to you. The evidence is overwhelming that nobody in the Science Establishment can be seen to be rigorously examining the fundamentals of his subject, which are obviously threadbare. When they were the enemy, I was employed, as you were, on designing weapons to kill Russians. Like today’s Science Establishment, I was entitled to do so, because I had to maintain a wife and four children. I fully understand their attitude. I was not after career progress, or lazy. I was committed to financial and other survival. A professor who gets involved with us risks being divorced by his wife and losing his home and contact with his children.
“Where are those that desire truth and have the courage to follow where it may lead” – Malcolm Davidson.
This encapsulates the difference between you and me. A representative of the Science Establishment does not need “courage” to pursue truth; he needs a death-wish. There is overwhelming evidence of what happens to a practitioner of “Modern Physics” if he deviates from the Party Line and pursues truth. It is not immoral for him to consider the damage this would do to his wife and children as well as to his reputation. I usually cite Dingle and Brian Josephson. The latter even gained a Nobel Prize, but has been marginalised because he tried to rock the boat of mainstream “science”, that is, “Modern Physics”. In his case, unlike Dingle, we would not approve of his actions, because he tried to bring the paranormal into science. However, Dingle only promoted the Twin Paradox, and so was marginalised. He wrote a book about the experience, “Science at the Crossroads”. You persist in ignoring this evidence, and persist in looking for someone in the Science Establishment (“Modern Physics”) with a death wish. I happened to have found one recently. How soon will he realise he is in danger by consorting with me, and back away in order to make his future safe? Non-response by the Science Establishment .
One aspect of the current crisis which needs to be researched, and which will very much inform those who conduct the inquest in thirty years from now, is the role of dissident scientists, like members of Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), in blocking scientific advance. David Tombe, whom you mention below, hijacked some email exchanges which lasted for years discussing Catt theories, primarily The Catt Question. He buried the emails with ideas of his own. He would regard himself as a dissident. A decade later he confessed that he had not until now understood The Catt Question. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Thus, David continues to absorb a great deal of our time and effort, making us try to understand his peculiar hybrid ideas mixing classical theory with our own. Harry Ricker appeared to be the most expert man in NPA, and looked to become a major supporter of our theories. However, he turned out to be a proponent of “the truth that there are no truths”, which meant that Catt theory was no better than what went before. Catt should have the same respect for the theories he was trying to replace as he had for his own theories, or he was a bigot. You will recollect that you and my other co-author went down to see the man who had seriously damaged his own career when as a government employee he supported a non-Establishment “Catt Spiral” project and got three government funded research projects into “Catt Spiral” at three universities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7JYZviFH54 . They conclude that we are ideologically unsound, and so should not be supported. According to Popper, virtually all of today’s scientific community support the heresy of “the truth that there are no truths”, and I find they support it fanatically, and so oppose Galileo. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf . “the truth that there are no truths”, means attempts at scientific advance are a waste of time. Very convenient for the authors of text books and lecturers with all those lecture notes arduously written. However, this heresy extends even to self-styled science dissidents. Even they have too much to lose from a paradigm shift. It is fascinating to find the inability of self-styled dissidents to understand the simplest exposition, for instance "The Catt Question" or Wakefield . It becomes clear that even a science dissident can only understand an exposition which comes within the established paradigm.
“The political use of “The truth that there are no truths” is extremely damaging and close to home. The man in the UK government who promoted Catt invention, at serious cost to himself in his career in government, (leading to three government funded research projects into Catt invention in British Universities) was approached by me and my co-authors when we could not publish our theories. As a friend of the next to top man in the British Library, we wanted a quarter of an inch of shelf space in the British Library so that our discoveries would survive when we died. He responded by asking us if we believed that our theories were true.When we answered yes, he would not do anything to get the shelf space and ensure their survival. You will see here the strength of commitment that can be held by such as Belarmino and Harry to “the truth that there are no truths”. It is held passionately. ”
The proof that students are conservative, and will resist any querying of the theories they are learning and sitting exams in, is an important advance. It contradicts Pauli’s idea that new ideas have to wait for a new generation to take them up. The new generation will not take them up. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31j.htm
In 1993, Sir Michael Pepper was selected as the top expert and instructed to write to me about “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , which he did. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm . He has since been incommunicado. He was “knighted for services to Physics”, and now edits the top journal of the Royal Society. Nobel Prize Winner Josephson says he now disagrees with what he wrote in 1993. As I increase the pressure on him http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.pdf , he remains persistently incommunicado. This is in spite of the fact that the first three Google hits for “pepper frs” have me lambasting him. He will not come out of his lair to try to take me down. This demonstrates the scale of the avoidance of discussion of the fundamentals of their electromagnetic theory whose reputations and salaries are based on that theory. He obviously cannot face me in a law court where the decision is made by a jury. They will immediately see that his behaviour is grotesque. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18f.htm . I have sent this to Sir Michael Pepper at firstname.lastname@example.org<email@example.com .
"Nutter" , the reaction to Catt, will be invaluable information in 2040.
Please consider the value to those conducting the inquest in 2040 of finding that all the above was written in 2013.
When we had a class system, the lower class was characterised as “Immediate Aims”. The middle class had “Deferred Aims”. This did include aims for their children. One of my children spends far more than half the family salary on education for their children. In our case, the value of our work will come to fruition after we are dead. At that time, the value will be enormous.
Ivor Catt 26 August 2013
From: Malcolm Davidson
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Ivor Catt etc
Subject: RE: Ivor Catt's Theories
you cannot separate the intellect from the emotion. I do not trivialize your work, nor do I underestimate your contributions and endeavors over these past 50 years. I am one of your few allies that has been with you through thick and thin.
Yes, I was quiet for many years, in part because I was frustrated, disillusioned, and not knowing how to respond to non response. You have kept at it and I am now back as part of this collective dialogue. It is challenging and I ask you this;
What do I do now that my paper on Maxwell was published and there has been zero reaction from academia and industry? David Tombe doesn't want to accept the Transmission Line model and continues to regurgitate certain conventional wisdoms such as V = Ldi/dt & I = -CdV/dt.
What will make the scientific community change and accept new insights, new ideas? I am reminded of the following quote;
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, 1788-1860"
What I am attempting is to show the model of a charging Capacitor. I have purchased 2 copper sheets about 18 inches long by 4 inches wide. I have a TDR with a 2 ps rise time pulse and whe I get home will create the experiment. Subsequently there are other experiments to perform. But the question is how many does one hve to do before people begin to accept certain new ideas and theories?
Certainly I have gained much insight into the nature of conspiracies and I'd call them "subliminal conspiracies", in as much as Universities and Companies send the unsaid, unwritten message, "do not fight the status quo" (regardless of what it might be).
Where are those that desire truth and have the courage to follow where it may lead?
Yes, there is a massive emptiness at the center of EM theory where courses are riddled with mathematics confusing the students. No one questions these theories because the message is that "we do not question the experts". A student blithely learns by rote what he/she needs to learn to pass the exams. A cursory glance at blogs on the web show that the majority of students have no understanding of EM theory and blindly try to explain things in a hamfisted manner.
The lumped component model is a poor one for a clear understading of EM. It is time to dump it and move on.
Regards to all,
To: .... ....
Subject: Re: Ivor Catt's
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:44:10 +0100
The scale of what I am unearthing is awesome. It is trivialised when my co-author Malcolm Davidson writes; “I understand your frustration.”
It becomes clear that now that science has been professionalised for long enough, it will never again be possible to have a paradigm shift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
The last two on the present proposed scale wer in around 1825, with Phlogiston and with Caloric.
It is obvious that professional scientists cannot tolerate such a shift, since their livelihood and future rests on the reigning paradigm.
At present, a professor in a major university is “very keen” on pursuing my ideas. Does he realise that when my co-author gives his lectures to the professor’s staff, his staff will turn on him. Also, he will ipso facto cease to be one of the “science establishment”, and will no longer be able to publish? The precedent for this is Dingle, and of course Brian Josephson. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm
There is no conspiracy by professionals to prevent major scientific advance. It is only “an evolved conspiracy”. It is therefore surely not “fool-proof”. It remains for me to find the fatal flaw in the blocking mechanism.
Of course, my work is made much more difficult when Harry Ricker comes in with the red herring, “The truth that there are no truths”, so why should we bother to have a paradigm shift – out of the frying pan into the fire of Catt theories? It is also made much harder when David Tombe confuses my work with classical theory, and creates some sort of hybrid. However, lacking Harry and David, I would have no dialogue at all. No accredited expert in em theory will make any written comment whatsoever on my “Catt Questions” or on Wakefield.
No accredited expert in “The Sociology of Science”, and no journalist at any level, will touch what I am finding.
The idea that my primary response to this will be “frustration” is absurd. Note that in the kind of work I am doing, everyone, including my closest allies, confuse the matter by bringing in personality. Thiuswork I am doing is scientific, and not emotional. I might feign emotion as mart of my work, of course, but that is not emotion.
Appallingly, Dr John Roche says I welcome controversy. An appalling assertion. It science were functioning properly, I would be riding very high indeed. Controversy cannot be my objective.
From: PAL Asija
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Ivor Catt etc
Subject: RE: Ivor Catt's Theories
“They unquestioningly copied each others’ thought processes like a bunch of sheep” Well said Ivor
Unfortunately it is human nature and we are still doing that today even in this thread resulting in factions and cliques.
And when the pendulum swings, we will behave as herd of cats and I am not sure which is worse?
What do you think? Would you be better off as a cat or sheep. With best regards from Your PAL@OurPal.com