Is the IEEE part of “academia and structured research” as described by Pelosi?
Pelosi is an Editor in the IEEE, is the IEEE part of structured research? Since
Catt has published so widely in IEEE journals, http://ieeexplore.
Catt is not so paranoid as to suggest that the
disappearance of the long IEEE list of Catt’s publications from http://ieeexplore.
But Pelosi writes; “Catt is that kind of unconventional researcher, moving outside of academia and structured research”.
If Catt’s latest work is “outside structured research”, is his Question about classical theory also “outside structured research”?
From 1966 to 1987 Catt published in the IEEE , including the top journal procIEEE . By then he had 30 years of experience researching electromagnetic theory, and could no longer, for the next 30 years, publish in the IEEE (or IEE/IET). His work had clearly lost “structure”. "Truth Management." . As Thomas Gold said; “Scientists travel in tight formation.”
The “structure” of “classical electromagnetism”, which underscores careers and reputations, has fatal flaws. Those who defend it have a remarkably poor grasp of the theory they are defending. "Rise and fall ...." ;
“They are 'maintenance men' rather than 'builders'. The central body of knowledge ossifies, becomes brittle and disintegrates.”
When Catt found he could no longer publish his advances in peer reviewed journals, in 1982 he resorted to asking a question about their theory, "The Catt Question" . This pointed to a fatal flaw in classical electromagnetism, but it was only a Question. The Question could not be asked, or even mentioned, in any peer reviewed journal for 30 years. Then two Italian academics looked into the Question, which they misnamed "Catt's Anomaly" , pretending that with his Question, Catt asserted that classical theory was fatally flawed, which he did not. Theirs was the first peer reviewed article on the Question for 30 years. Initially, unfortunately named "The Catt Anomaly" , it merely said that accredited experts contradicted each other when answering the Question. A couple of decades ago it was renamed “The Catt Question”, and remained a Question about classical theory.
The two Italians mixed the Question up with Catt’s own theories, embellishing them by saying Catt said “electric charge doesn’t exist”.
Ivor Catt 15 October 2015
When people cooperate for an unacknowledged purpose their association is called a conspiracy, yet suppression of novelty by [peer] review is not a plot cooked up between referees and the establishment. But conspiracies can arise by evolution instead of by design, with the members falling into their roles by accident and finding them congenial. The establishment gives referees great power over other peoples’ lives. The referees repay the establishment by suppressing new discoveries. It is not necessary that either side understand the arrangement. - Dr. Charles McCutchen
Are professors, editors, referees and text book writers behaving unethically?
The three Italians saw that (even) Catt’s “Question” threatened the foundations of their science, which they were paid to defend. Think of “Modern Physics” as not Science, but Religion, with dogma, beliefs etc. The three Italians knew that the foundations of their faith were strong, and had no flaws. The proper behaviour of a “defender of the faith” is to not have heard of Catt, or at least to have never read any heresy by Catt, even a Question about their faith. For thirty years no peer reviewer would allow publication of any hint of “The Catt Question”, even a “rejection” of it, if a Question can be “rejected”. Now the Italians made the mistake of calling it “intriguing”.
However, another pressure on them, as professionals, came into play – Publish or Perish. If they published on what they cleverly called “Catt’s Anomaly”, their careers would be enhanced. They published twice.
How were the Italians to know that blocking heresy “conspiracies can arise by evolution” (CM) took precedence over “publish or perish”? We have to feel sorry for “Defenders of the Faith” who cannot afford to realise they are defending faith, not science. “It is not necessary that either side understand the arrangement”. - CM. More, they cannot afford to understand what they are doing, or the whole empire of Professional Science comes tumbling down. Anyway, “Modern Physics” is Pop Science, not real Science. Politicians, journalists, funding committees and “scientist’s” maiden aunts much prefer Pop Science – Hawking, black holes, Big Bang, Brian Cox, multiple universes, entanglement, CERN- to real Science. They love to gaze in admiration at complex, fatuous mathematics coming from such as Christopher Palmer of the Clarendon. Interestingly, the Italians did not play the mathematical game, and neither did Pepper .
Ivor Catt 15 October 2015