http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7839341
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7839349
The Phys. Ed. paper ; Beware of
the (irrelevant) Bull “Let us make this concept rigorous”
Conflation.
"Catt's
Anomaly" by Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri, IEEE Antennas
and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 6, December 2012, pp 240 – 241.
The authors conflated "The Catt Question" ,
about classical electromagnetic theory, with Catt’s own theories , with some embroidering
of the latter, for instance saying “in his opinion, charge doesn’t exist!”.
Catt had published extensively in IEEE journals up
to 1967. (The Italians call Catt “an engineer and amateur scientist”. Giuseppe
Pelosi, Associate Editor, says Catt is “moving outside of academia and
structured research”.) Then, apart from two short pieces in ProcIEEE in the
1980s, he was totally rejected for publication by all peer reviewed journals
throughout the world for the next 50 years, both for his own theories and for
his questions about classical theory. For more than ten years, no student in
the world would take up Catt’s published
offer of £500 to the first student who asked his expert lecturer to write
something about “The Catt Question”. During those 50 years he was massively
published in non-peer reviewed journals, for instance every month for ten
years in Wireless World,
circulation then 60,000 – a total of six million issues.
In the 1980s Catt accepted that his new work was
unacceptable to what Bruce Charlton calls "the peer review cartel"
, so he resorted to asking questions about the details of (the cartel’s)
classical theory, in particular “The Catt Question”, which was discovered in
1981. The Italians purport to be writing about it, calling it “Catt’s Anomaly”.
(Two decades ago, “The Catt Question” [
cattq
]
had unfortunately been called “The Catt Anomaly”, the anomaly being that
accredited experts contradicted each other. There was no assertion that there
was anything wrong with classical theory, only that it was not clearly
defined).
The Italians describe Sir Michael Pepper FRS
as “a renowned physicist”, but two paragraphs later (correctly) dismiss his
(southerner) answer to “The
Catt Question” as “incompatible with Gauss’s Law”. In his turn, in his letter
to me, Pepper (correctly) dismisses the Italians’ (westerner) answer to “The
Catt Question”, saying; “As the wave travels at light velocity,
then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at light
velocity as well, which is
clearly impossible.” In contrast, the
Italians write; “Physically, a current follows the field traveling at
the speed c, but this current is due to a great number of slowly moving
electrons.
”.
The Italians and Pepper both contradict each other, and dismiss each others’
answers.
[ Morgenthaler , Fellow of the IEEE], Professor
Secker and Bas Lago of the IEE/IET support Pepper .
In their article in “Physics Education”, entitled
“An apparent paradox: Catt’s Anomaly”, the Italians write; “
.... it is curious and very intriguing, and able to capture the
attention of students .... .... The subject is understandable at the knowledge
level of secondary school students. The most advanced concept involved is
Gauss’s Law.”
It is not understandable at that level.
Professors and the Italians have great difficulty in grasping “The Catt
Question”. This is because it is about the stark reality of the physics of a
single step going down a USB transmission line, not the arcane mathematics of a
sine wave. A professor with a reasonable grasp of Displacement Current might do
better with The Second Catt Question.
References and an animation of “The Catt Question”
are at www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieee.htm
Ivor Catt 30 October 2015
Professor
Pelosi , who edited the defamatory article by his colleagues, will block my reply, which the
Editor, Professor Mahta Moghaddam,
has put him in charge of. The authors Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri
are his colleagues at Florence University.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The butchered version, to be published in 2017?
Reasons for butchery of “Conflation”
Received from
IEEE 18sep16, first read by Catt on return from abroad
on 6 Oct16
Conflation
"Catt's Anomaly" by Massimiliano Pieraccini
and Stefano Selleri, IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 6, December 2012, pp 240 – 241.
The authors conflate “The Catt
Question”, about classical electromagnetic theory, with Catt’s own theories.
They embroider the latter, for instance saying “in his opinion, charge doesn’t
exist!”
In the 1980s Catt started
asking questions about the details of classical theory, in particular “The Catt
Question”, which was discovered in 1981. Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri purport
to be writing about it, referring to it as the “Catt’s Anomaly”. (Two decades
ago, “The Catt Question” had unfortunately been called “The Catt Anomaly”, the
anomaly being that accredited experts contradicted each other. There was no
assertion that there was anything wrong with classical theory, only that it was
not clearly defined).
There are two contradictory
answers to “The Catt Question.”. Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor
Stefano Selleri describe Sir Michael Pepper
as “a renowned physicist,”, but two paragraphs later, without attributing it to
him, (correctly) dismiss his answer to “The Catt Question” as “incompatible
with Gauss’s Law.”. In his turn, in his letter to me,
Pepper (correctly) dismisses Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and Professor Stefano Selleri’s answer to “The Catt Question”,
saying, “As the wave travels at light velocity, then charge supplied from
outside the system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which
is clearly impossible.” In
contrast, Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and
Professor Stefano Selleri write, “Physically,
a current follows the field traveling at the speed c, but this current is due
to a great number of slowly moving
electrons.”. Thus, Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and
Professor Stefano Selleri contradict Sir
Michael Pepper, and vice versa. Professor Secker and Bas Lago of the
IEEE/IET support Pepper.
In their article in
“Physics Education”, entitled “An apparent paradox: Catt’s Anomaly,”,
the Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini and
Professor Stefano Selleri write, “. .
. it is curious and very intriguing, and able to capture the attention of
students . . . The subject is understandable at the knowledge level of
secondary school students. The most advanced concept involved is Gauss’s Law.”
It is not understandable
at that level. Professors have great difficulty in grasping “The Catt Question”.
This is because it is about the stark reality of the physics of a single step
going down a USB transmission line, not the arcane mathematics of a sine wave.
A professor with a reasonable grasp of Displacement Current might do better
with The Second Catt Question.
References and an animation of
“The Catt Question” are at www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieee.htm
.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Brian
Josephson |
from Brian Josephson [Nobel prize winner]
Mind-Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory
Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
-------------------
On 20 Jun 2016, at 23:52, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once bitten twice shy
Yes. Beware of the Catt, one might put it.
Brian J.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
13
October 2016
Dear
Professor Mahta Moghaddam,
I
am not happy with this mess, which damages me and damages the IEEE.
You
did not answer me when I proposed that you solve the problem by inviting me to
write a paper on electromagnetic theory, to be edited only by you.
I
will further clarify my proposal, but first point out that going through the
submission steeplechase and then through peer review is a waste of time. Peer
review and IEEE and other editors worldwide have almost unanimously blocked me
from publishing for fifty years.
My
proposal is that you invite me to write a paper and send it to you, and it be
only edited by you.
My
paper will not mention the Italians' papers , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59v.pdf , which comprehensively
defamed me and misrepresented my work. My reply, "Conflation", http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm , will also be forgotten.
You
will specify maximum length of my paper, which could be as short as fifty
words, but of course I would prefer more. It will be published as an invited
paper.
I
look forward to your response.
Ivor
Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
7 October 2016
|
2:34 PM (2 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Dr. Catt,
You have done it once
again: you are dragging someone who is in no way party to your old disputes (first
me, and now, Ms. Tang-Bernas, the excellent AP
Magazine Editorial Assistant), into this. You have emailed a confidential set
of correspondences to a group of 40 recipients most of whom are unknown to me
and to Ms. Tang-Bernas, and you have misrepresented
the situation by calling the correctly edited version of your article - which
you yourself have **APPROVED** yesterday- a “butchered” version. I find all of
the above appalling.
Let me repeat that you
have already approved the version that Ms. Tang-Bernas
sent to you on my behalf, and despite all of your distasteful actions and
words, we still plan to publish it in the next available issue of the AP
Magazine (February 2017, since you missed our clearly stated deadline). If you
have changed your mind and do not want the article to be published, just say
the word and I will be happy to hold its publication. In either case, I ask you
once again to stop the abusive hampering, and please do NOT repeat to me what
you have already said numerous times about the 2012 APM article.
Respectfully,
Mahta
Moghaddam
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Oct 10 (4 days ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Ms. Moghaddam,
What is the basis of your claim that "Ms. Tang-Bernas,
the excellent AP Magazine Editorial Assistant"? What do you mean by
"excellent"?
Has Ivor Catt breached a Confidentiality Agreement between himself
and yourself and/or your affiliated Parties? If so, we can certainly prosecute
this breach under US law.
[No “Confidentiality Agreement”. This game is usually played. Note
“Confidential” and “Not confidential” in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf – Ivor Catt]
In what regard has Ivor Catt misrepresented the situation by describing the
edited article as "butchery"? What precisely do you mean by your use
of the phrase "correctly edited"?
Respectfully,
Forrest Bishop
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"we
still plan to publish it in the next available issue of the AP Magazine " - Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Editor.
I have
pointed out the relevant part of the IEEE Code of Ethics to Professor Pelosi. See
Clause 7. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/
There is
a clear error in the original Pieraccini article,
which calls Pepper "a renowned scientist" but then falsely states
that he is a "Westerner", supporting Pieraccini
[Note 1]. Pieraccini has read the letter Pepper's
wrote to me; Pieraccini writes; "In his own [Catt's] book [4], he cites several personal
communications. One is a 1993 letter by Sir Michael Pepper (born August 10,
1942), a renowned physicist active in semicon ductors." - Pieraccini, In Pepper's letter he clearly states that he is a Southerner.
Pepper says that charge coming from the west would have to travel at the speed
of light, which is impossible. http://www.
Note 1. The
Westerner case; ".... the very high number of electrons in the metal, which can
follow the TEM wave at a speed of c, generating an appropriate current, even if
each single electron moved at a drift velocity much smaller than c" - Pieraccini
There are
other ways in which the IEEE Code of Ethics are
breached by the original Pieraccini article, for
example the repeated use of defamation. These breaches are covered by the
Code's clauses 2 and 9. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cz2.htm
Ivor
Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@
This is no
laughing matter.
In Umberto
Eco’s novel “The Name of the Rose”, the problem was to suppress the fact that
“Jesus laughed”, which was thought to undermine Christianity, and had to be
suppressed.
It would
have been more impressive if in his novel the mere Question,
“Did Jesus laugh?” had to be suppressed.
“The Catt Question”
was not an assertion that there was anything wrong with Received
Electromagnetic Theory, which is called “Classical Electrodynamics”. It was
merely an appeal for clarification of “Classical Electrodynamics”;
It is a
pity that Eco did not think up the idea that the book which had to be destroyed
merely asked whether Jesus laughed.
The Eco book went further, and said
that Jesus laughed.
In the case
of electrodynamics, even requests for clarification of the dogma have to be suppressed,
as was “The Catt Question” for thirty or fifty years. The Italians broke the
rules, and in pursuit of “Publish or Perish” published defamatory ridicule of
“The Catt Question” which misrepresents the Question. Nobody can foresee what
will happen next. Probably nothing.
Jackson “Classical
Electrodynamics”;
Description
A revision of the defining book
covering the physics and classical mathematics necessary to understand
electromagnetic fields in materials and at surfaces and interfaces. The
third edition has been revised to address the changes in emphasis and
applications that have occurred in the past twenty years.
An
editor who publishes an article which contains the statement “A capacitor is a
Transmission Line” thereby ends his editorial career; certainly if the article
mentions Displacement Current.
Will
Mahta Moghaddam please
undertake to publish this statement? It is crucial.
Perhaps
we should merely ask her to take the lesser risk of publishing the Question;
“Is a capacitor a transmission line?” I suggest that even that would lose her her job as editor.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b2.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf
Ivor
Catt
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0113.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/64maychiao.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
1 November 2016
|
10:27
PM (12 hours ago)
|
|
||
Dear Editors, Professors Mahta Moghaddam and Giuseppe Pelosi,
I recall that you said (3) the Pieraccini/Stefano
reply to (2) my answer entitled "Conflation" http://www.
Their "reply" (identified below) to "Conflation"
is idiotic, and I strongly recommend that you two give them the chance to try
again. I note that you have delayed publishing it until next year.
Ivor Catt
(3) We confirm our explanations of “The Catt Question” published
in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 242-244, December 2012) and Physical
Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013). There may be differing or opposing
opinions; .... .... .... as the last five centuries of
scientific achievements have largely demonstrated.
M. Pieraccini and S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence, Italy 20 May 2015
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
December 2016 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6c4.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
For some reason “Response to Dr. Catt” is confidential until
February 2017.
*Response to Dr.
Catt***************
We confirm our explanations of “The
Catt Question” published in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 242-244,
December 2012) and Physical Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013). .... ....
Practice of Science is not based on the principle of authority, but on
plausibility of argumentations, experimental evidence, and on the consensus of
the scientific community expressed by the peer-review process
.... ....
M. Pieraccini and
S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence,
Italy 20 May 2015
This is their reply to the original
(unbutchered) version of “Conflation”, above.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
*Response to Dr. Catt***************
We confirm our explanations
of “The Catt Question” published in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp.
242-244, December 2012) and Physical Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013).
There may be differing or opposing opinions; we do not see a problem if such
differences exist as long as they are backed by scientific justification.
Practice of Science is not based on the principle of authority, but on
plausibility of argumentations, experimental evidence, and on the consensus of
the scientific community expressed by the peer-review process. Dr. Catt
disputes the mathematical explanation we provided, naming it “arcane” and
asking to focus on the “stark reality,” but quantitative analyses, based on
experimentally verified and generally accepted mathematical theories, is indeed
the main tool we have to understand reality, as the last five centuries of
scientific achievements have largely demonstrated.
M. Pieraccini and
S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence,
Italy 20 May 2015
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ivor Catt 7 January 2017
Note the mention of “peer-review”.
Why did Pieraccini break rank? He said Catt should continue to
not exist, yet he published on Catt.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf “The academic word did not take Catt
seriously much. This was not only because most of Catt’s publications were
often in technical and not scientific journals.”
So Establishment “scientists” can dismiss Catt because
(allegedly) he did not get past peer review. However, the outsider Catt was not
permitted to make the same point. Part of the butchering of Catt’s “Conflation”
(above) was to prevent Catt from saying he was blocked by peer review; “ .... apart
from two short pieces in ProcIEEE in the 1980s, he
was totally rejected for publication by all peer reviewed journals throughout
the world for the next 50 years, both for his own theories and for his
questions about classical theory.” The behaviour of the "Peer Review Cartel" is
extraordinary. It was not the same man who did the two things – saying that Catt
could not get past peer review, but did not allow Catt himself to say so.
However, the two sources, Pieraccini and Pelosi, are
in the same Department in Florence University, and Associate Editor Pelosi
promoted Pieraccini’s novel.