Dear authors and editors;

Professor Massimiliano Pieraccini, Professor Stefano Selleri, Professor Guiseppi Pelosi, Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Gary Williams,

"The Two Catts"

Following my article "The Decline of Science" , the founder and current editor of “The Journal of Information Ethics” (JIE) encourages me to do a second article, a case study of recent developments in "The Catt Question" . My second article will deal with you people (“The Five”), three editors and three authors, Pelosi being both author and editor. I see this case study as important evidence for the inquest in 2050 or 2060 into how science lost its way. The reasons for its decline are complex, and a thorough analysis of what led to publication of three articles on what the three authors called “Catt’s Anomaly”, and later developments, will be of great help in the inquest, particularly if you five cooperate with me in writing it.

It is most important that I get my facts right in my second JIE article, so I am asking you to assist me. The facts are your emails to me, but they are now buried in hundreds of other emails and difficult to find. The overall pattern follows that discussed by Professor Brian Martin in the case of Judy Wilyman , in particular his idea of “framing”, which is what you three authors did to me; “amateurs and bizarre men away from academia …. …. Ivor Catt is probably one of these [2], an engineer and amateur scientist. …. ….” - Pieraccini and Selleri.

The facts prior to the incursion of the five are thoroughly discussed on the www. 1 , 2 ,

To summarise what happened before you five came on the scene. When researching the new 1nsec integrated circuit logic interconnections, I made major advances, the key ones being published in IEEE journals 1 . The most important was not 1966 "The Glitch" 1 , but my discovery of two velocities for the two modes in crosstalk in my 1967 20pp IEEE article . The 1967 peer acceptance for publication was clearly a mistake 1 , because it deviated from the pattern, that nearly all my other work has been rejected for publication by all peer reviewed journals in the world for fifty years.

At the same time, my work is exhaustively published in non-peer reviewed journals, for instance in every monthly issue of “Wireless World”, circulation 60,000, for ten years, and in books and on the www 1 , 2 .

In 1983, having given up trying to publish advances in electromagnetic theory in peer reviewed journals, I asked a very simple, fundamental question for clarification of classical electromagnetism; "The Catt Question" . For ten years, no accredited expert in electromagnetism in the world, no professor or text book writer, would put any comment in writing on "The Catt Question" . Then four accredited experts, including Sir Michael Pepper and Dr. Neil McEwan , were selected by their bosses and instructed to write to me. They totally contradicted each other, and refused to discuss their contradiction with each other or with us.

(Now, no accredited expert will comment on the 2013 "Wakefield Experiment" , which shows that a charged capacitor does not have a stationary electric field. 1 )

For the next thirty years, no accredited expert would comment in writing on “The Catt Question”. Then we come to “The Five”.

(Now, the authors side with McEwan against Pepper, although they call Pepper “a renowned scientist”. They call “The Catt Question” “An apparent paradox”, ignoring the contradiction by accredited experts.)

End of summary.

After a further thirty years, three Italians, pursuing “publish or perish”, published three articles which they misnamed “Catt’s anomaly” 1 , 2 , 3 . They falsely asserted that "The Catt Question" was Catt’s assertion that there was something wrong with classical theory; “ .... the aim of Catt: to crash the theory of electromagnetism.”. This is untrue. “The Catt Question” is a request for clarification of classical theory. 1 . On page 1 of the book they cite it says; “Perhaps more properly called ‘The EM Question’, the Catt Anomaly is an elementary question about classical electromagnetism which experts refuse to answer in writing.” They published what they misnamed “Catt’s Anomaly”, even though they recognised that no professional (like them) should in any way get involved in Catt’s work, which is taboo, as one of them, Pieraccini, pointed out in his 2011 novel "L'anomalia [di Catt]" ;

“Nobody with an ounce of common sense would risk their career and scientific reputation to study the Catt anomaly” Massimo thought,  “and even if they were spending time on this, they wouldn’t be telling people about it”.”

Why the author Pieraccini (with 60 peer reviewed articles) gave priority to “publish or perish” above getting entangled in what he knew was a taboo subject, Catt’s work, is a mystery which has to be explained for the 2050 inquest. Pieraccini must know that the suppression of major scientific advance takes priority over “publish or perish”. 1 , 2 , 3 .

Gary Williams, Editor of “Physics Education”, is the easier editor to discuss, because his behaviour is blatantly unethical and unprofessional. However, he is less important because the IoP has only 50,000 members. The behaviour of Professor Mahta Moghaddam is more important, since her IEEE has 500,000 members.

Gary Williams emailed that cattq article was “borderline”, and he refused to publish my reply , and then refused even to publish 30 words giving the www address where my reply was. “Not only that, but we don't have anywhere for a single 30 word statement. ” – Gary Williams. But his journal has a letters section.

These were also rejected by Gary Williams; 1 , 2 .

11/7/15; A delicious answer from the Editor of Physics Education [GW]. He says "  .... .... Catt's Anomaly isn't about Catt; it's about the anomaly.”

Professor Moghaddam said I had right of reply – one page, and my reply would be sent to the authors, who would comment in one page. The two would be published together. She rejected my reply in an email . She then started editorial and other procedural obstruction, telling me to go through some impossible procedural hoops with my re-submission, which had not been necessary with my first submission. She justified rejecting my reply for three spurious reasons. One was that it was racist, which she later withdrew. The other two objections I did not understand. I sent her an amended version, again by email, with the one objection I understood removed, and received no reply. [I have since received her reply in late April, in which she says she will publish the amended one page (maximum) by me and give the authors three weeks to send to her their reply to my reply. After they failed to do so, I told her she should have given them two months, as we needed “a considered reply”. – Ivor Catt, 1 June 2016.]

Both editors sought to distance themselves and their journals from the articles they had published. The reputation of their journal took precedence over my reputation, which was being trashed. Gary Williams said his article was “borderline”. Professor Mahta Moghaddam said she was not editor when her article was published. “I had no role in its publication and was not in any way involved with the Editorial Board of the AP Magazine at that time.” It should be obvious that I was writing to the Editor, not to a person. An editor has to deal with repercussions from past articles. She said she had emailed my questions to the then editor, who of course did not reply.

Ivor Catt 10 March 2016