Compare
and contrast Pieraccini with Pieraccini.
Di Trocchio 1997 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x68z4.htm ”I'm probably
the most famous person who works in the field, but none of the competent never will admit that he had heard or read something
of my theories, I will want to expose themselves to commentaries favorably or unfavorably. In particular, no one will admit that he had heard of ''
anomaly Catt, "which I made in 1987, and on which the bottom of my
arguments.”
The smoking gun. 1 and 2
Only discovered by Ivor Catt on 27 August 2016. Why?
1 Pieraccini 2012 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf “The academic world did not take Catt seriously much. This was not only because most of Catt’s publications were often in technical and not scientific journals.”
2 Pieraccini 2011 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
In
his novel "L'anomalia" , Massimo, who my translator says represents its author Massimiliano Pieraccini,
says;
“M «Are you kidding?» “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”.”
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Real Science is not like
religion. As to religion, it may be damaging for a priest to ask questions, for
instance; “What is the role of a Trinity in a monotheistic religion?”
In real science, any question can be
asked. Here are some questions
; 1 .
As to statements, can the following
statement(s) be published in any peer reviewed journal in the world? - "A capacitor is a transmission
line" or i=qc , or A capacitor does not have a self
resonant frequency . Can a statement that one of these statements is wrong,
be published?
We find that the Italian professors
Pelosi, Pieraccini, Selleri,
have severally perhaps 100 peer reviewed articles to their names. Publication
of peer reviewed articles is linked with promotion, "research" funding
, and reputation. Peer review was instituted to block error and defamation.
They pioneered getting past (unpaid) peer review by turning peer review on its
head. They found that if there was enough falsification and defamation early in
an article, an article would get past (unpaid) peer review. If very early in
their article the peer reviewer was reassured that the article did not threaten
established dogma, the peer reviewer need read no further. So their latest
article reassured the reviewer by their title, which was altered from "Catt's Anomaly" to An apparent
paradox; "Catt's anomaly" . Thus, the later article threw no
doubt on dogma by its title, whereas the (unpaid) peer reviewer had to read
beyond the title of the previous article, until he reached “amateurs and
bizarre men away from academia,” in the first paragraph.
Ivor Catt 27 August 2016
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
14 December 2015
|
12/14/15
|
|
||
|
||||
Ivor,
The paper that was
published was a defamation. That particular defamation
is only one of the issues. It is certainly correct that the editor of this journal
ought to retract those offensive statements. The Italians have also put
themselves on the wrong side of science history. Lets hope that Mahta
doesn't want to be there as well. But we have to give her a break. Poor Mahta! You have her between a rock and a hard place. It is
unfortunate for her that science history is going to look back on her
participation with an entirely negative light, because the experimental facts
are against the position that she appears to be defending. I would certainly
hope that she is not acting is a biased manner and that she will not wind up in
science history in the role of the bad guy standing against scientific
progress. On the other hand she cannot publish what Catt says because the
entire scientific establishment of her peers is against changing the electron
current paradigm of electricity. That is unfortunate because that paradigm is
obviously not consistent with the experimental facts.
This is not a new
dilemma for people tied to the science establishment in order to keep their
jobs. Being forced to choose between defending the establishment or standing in the way blocking the progress of a new
paradigm is a difficult choice for the editors of science journals. So we need
to give her a break in this controversy. She doesn't understand the new
paradigm that is forcing the issue regarding the Catt Question, and probably
never will. History has put her in a tight spot. Lets credit her as having some
integrity and lay off. It is not her fault that she doesn't understand the new
paradigm and why it is needed to reform the teaching and practice of
electromagnetic theory.
Harry
PS Here is how science
history views that famous sienticulist Preece. I hope poor Mahta doesnt end up looking like him. https://books.google.com/books?id=e9wEntQmA0IC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=%E2%80%98scienticulist%E2%80%99&source=bl&ots=f2lPosvOVs&sig=E5-h7E2hWey1VytNnlHR96e2kaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnn6fnz9vJAhUFeT4KHcUtA6wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%98scienticulist%E2%80%99&f=false