One honourable course would be for you to disqualify yourself,
as Professor Secker , selected to represent the IEE/IET, did;
“Secker wrote on 26oct95; ’I should explain that I am no expert in the area to which the ”Catt Anomaly” refers....’.
He repeated this claim on 19dec95.” That got him out of the way, and could get you out of the way.
At present, having been "knighted for services to physics", you continue your 30 years of obstructing progress in science.
St. Albans AL3 4JR
11 July 2016.
+44 (0)1727 864257
23 August. No reply.
Sir Michael Pepper,
Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering
University College London
Dear Sir Michael Pepper,
The situation has changed, and the new situation requires action by you.
Your and Catt’s college, Trinity College , Cambridge, Newton’s college, used to boast that it had as many Nobel Prize Winners as France. Note in particular your then colleague, 1973 Nobel Prize Winner Professor Brian Josephson , wrote 100 emails to Catt about "The Catt Question" . In 1993 the Master of your college chose you as his top expert, and asked you to write to Catt about "The Catt Question" You did so, taking the "Southerner" position. You were then incommunicado for twenty years. During those 20 years of silence, your colleague Josephson 2 wrote to Catt that you had changed you mind, and were now, like him, a "Westerner" . You never confirmed this, so your present position is unclear.
The new situation is that your view has been falsified in a leading peer reviewed journal. Pieraccini and Selleri "P&S" falsely say that your view is "Westerner" . There are contradictory peer reviewed publications by the “Antennas and Propagation” (perhaps 50,000 members) section of the New York IEEE, 500,000 members, some Southerner like you and the IEEE’s own Morgenthaler , and some Westerner, like P&S. Although they correctly say you are a “renowned physicist”, they falsely say that you take their "Westerner" position.
"P&S"; “One is a 1993 letter by Sir Michael Pepper (born August 10, 1942), a renowned physicist. .... Besides some wrong explanations incompatible with Gauss’ Law [Southerner like Pepper’s], most of the answers agreed in considering the problem not to be an anomaly at all.”
The four facts that 1 both your writing and 2 the writing of P&S are technically incompetent, and also 3 that P&S’s writing is highly defamatory of Catt (but 4 you have not defamed Catt) are irrelevant to the key issue. What is at stake here is what Bruce Charlton 1 2 calls “The Gold Standard” of today’s science, Peer Reviewed literature. The “Gold Standard” cannot remain corrupted by two peer reviewed and so authoritative, but contradictory statements, Westerner and Southerner, on the central feature of classical electromagnetic theory in today’s digital age, the mechanism of a signal down a USB cable.
Having been editor of the top Royal Society journal, your duty to physics did not end when you were knighted for services to physics. You have a duty to make your position on "The Catt Question" clear, Southerner or Westerner, or at least to say the matter is unimportant. Being knighted for services to physics carries a price, a continuing duty to physics.
In October 2016 the IEEE Antennas journal 1 will publish "Conflation" . It is Catt’s reply to the P&S Westerner article which falsifies your "Southerner" position. Along with it will be published the P&S reply to "Conflation" .
Professor Pelosi (who also defamed Catt) was the IEEE Associate Editor involved in publishing the original defamatory article by his close colleagues P&S in Florence University. It is necessary that you immediately write to Pelosi email@example.com , who is responsible for publishing "Conflation" and the P&S reply (at present confidential, and incompetent). Your comment will be included in the same October issue.
J. Dinsdale, Former Engineering Professor at Cranfield and Dundee Universities. Late of Trinity College.
Dr. Harold Hillman
I need this quote (below) handy.
"We all of us have some idea of what the basic axioms in physics will turn out to be.
The quantum or particle will surely not be amongst them; the field, in Faraday's
and Maxwell's sense, could possibly be, but it is not certain."
- Einstein in "The Born-Einstain Letters" by Max Born, pub. Macmillan 1971. p164.