Re “The Catt Question.” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
To Ivor Catt;
Interesting Book I borrowed via my library (You referred to the author) - John Dore FIEE. 16 December 2016
THE POWER AND BEAUTY OF
F. R. Morgenthaler, Professor Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“The point about the Catt Anomaly has, says Ivor, nothing to do with his theory. It is an anomaly between rival textbooks and professors [Pepper and McEwan]. They will answer his polite query in their condescending authoritative manner until they are told that their ‘explanation’ is the exact opposite of that taken by other authors and professors . Then they cannot be induced to communicate with one another to resolve the problem.” – Editorial, Electronics World, August 2003, p3.
Morgenthaler (southerner) is dead, but the Italians * (westerner) could talk to Sir Michael Pepper (southerner). I guarantee that they will not, and Pepper will not. None of them are scientists. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm They don't care whether this scientific matter is resolved. Such discussion would not give them a career advantage. As one of them put it; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm "“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”.”
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5as2.pdf "Abstract Catt’s anomaly is a sort of ‘thought experiment’ (a gedankenexperiment) where electrons seem to travel at the speed of light. Although its author argued with conviction for many years, it has a clear and satisfactory solution and it can be considered indubitably just an apparent paradox. Nevertheless, it is curious and very intriguing, and able to capture the attention of students."
* Professors Massimiliano Pieraccini and Stefano Selleri.
Response to Dr. Catt
We confirm our explanations of “The Catt Question”
Practice of science is not based on the principle of authority, but on plausibility of argumentation, 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