Monica Vandory’s forceful email secured
six pages of copy from Oppo, an accredited expert in electromagnetic theory,
the first for 40 years apart from the circa 2012 peer reviewed misrepresentation and defamation by the
Italians. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311a.htm
Von: Monika Vandory
[mailto:vandory@gmx.net]
Gesendet: Montag, 4. Dezember
2017 17:34
An: 'g.l.oppo@strath.ac.uk'
Cc: 'Ivor Catt'; 'Johannes.HAHN@ec.europa.eu';
'darren.thompson@strath.ac.uk'; 'konrad.liessmann@univie.ac.at';
'science.policy@royalsociety.org'; 'press@rttv.ru'; 'mahta@usc.edu';
'massimiliano.pieraccini@unifi.it'; 'stefano.selleri@unifi.it';
'guiseppe.pelosi@unifi.it'; 'info@jocelyne-lopez.de';
'corda.galilei@gmail.com'; 'urp@unifi.it'; 'Stephen Crothers';
'mantisillig@gmx.de'; 'angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it'; 'letters@theherald.co.uk';
'tonydavies@ieee.org'; 'forrestb@ix.netcom.com'
Betreff: Prof. Gian-Luca Oppo's scientific
threat
Dear Dr. Oppo,
About 10
years ago the former Austrian minister of science, Dr.
Johannes Hahn, publicly questioned the benefit of the billions in taxpayers’
funding for science projects like CERN. He found, in common parlance, that the
soup in return was poor. For me this was the impulse to question what was
served in return for the money; also my money. The first shocking discovery was
that the so called black hole (at that time the money, urged the scientists
benefiting from it, should be granted for its research) are "insane
products of a wishful fiction". It is interesting to learn that there were
voiced sober objections against the alleged existence of black holes, by, for
example, Angelo Loinger, the former head of the
department of physics at the University of Milan, and Stephen J. Crothers, a
mathematician and astronomer, and critic of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
This led me to search for and subsequently follow critical analyses and papers
in science.
To my
consternation I discovered the unseemly means by which officially employed
academics (like you, Massimiliano Pieraccini,
Giuseppe Pelosi, Stefano Sellerie, Mahta Moghaddam) are dealing with critical research papers
and the scientists who have written them. This was the next disturbing discovery:
To forbid publication of critique in peer reviewed journals, with lame excuses
(e.g. too long, too special, not fitting with editorial preference, pushing
back to the start of the steeplechase, and so on ad infinitum), or because the
editor immediately disagrees with the content, already before being peer
reviewed, seems to be common practice.
To permit ridicule at the same time [http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311a.htm
] , of the critical
scientists and their work, by convenient and diehard mainstream dogmatic
scientists in peer reviewed journals, and failing to allow the affected
scientists their right of public reply or correction, in the very same
journals, is a poor and conspicuous power game of hubris and malfeasance. To
resort to ad hominem attacks, maligning in public with trumped-up accusations
as to the state of health or medicinal regimen of a critical scientist, instead
of answering in a right and proper fashion in a scientific paper, is offensive
and disgusting, not just to me, but to any reasonable person.
But you,
believing you have sanctuary at law in your university department, to permit
you escape from the responsibility of giving a scientific answer to a
legitimate scientific question, you really take the biscuit. You wrote this to
Mr. Ivor Catt:
"Please
be aware that under no circumstances are you authorised to include my email
address in any of your personal communications. If you do this again I will be
forced to take legal action through the University system."
Ivor Catt
questioned you openly. It can be seen as a public exercise concerning your
public lecture on the 1st of December 2017, titled "The genius of James
Clerk Maxwell, the man who made Equations speak". When Mr. Catt asked you "whether you
referred to Maxwell's Quaternions or the Heaviside-Maxwell differential
equations" and included me in his email circulation, he did it openly.
Moreover, your email address can be easily found on the internet as you are an
employee and representative of a public university (Strathclyde, Glasgow). As
such you are in fact accountable to the public for what you say in your
academic capacity, and at a public lecture to boot. Mr. Catt did not question
you as to anything other than electromagnetic theory and Maxwell’s equations,
pursuant to your public lecture on the subject matter. He did not inquire as to
your personal life. You are accountable to the public for your assertions and
claims in your academic capacity, on the academic matters you speak about,
before the public. Threatening legal action to evade your responsibilities is
quite dishonourable.
I am very
curious as to what comes next. Academics, including you, seem to believe that
the taxpayer, because he is generally a layman in scientific matters, takes an
ambivalent or benign view of your professed research and authority. A related
problem is that too few politicians question too little the so called
‘scientific work’ of publicly funded scientists and their particularly publicly
reported claims in the mass-media. But this does not mean that we all admire
your work. You are just privileged and misuse your privileged position. I do not agree, for example, that the hands
of a man-made clock can indicate the extension or dilation of time, or define
time itself, and I wouldn't give a dime voluntarily for the palaver preached on
this. Whatever makes the hands of a clock move forward or backward (my own
hand, or substandard production, or Einstein’s ‘gravity’), the clock doesn't
influence the motion of celestial bodies and thereby our basis for our
perception and understanding of time - whatever rapidly moving observers might,
according to Einstein, see, feel or think. Your reasons as to why you might
think I am wrong are welcome, provided you explain your reasons by means of
scientific arguments, not threats of legal action.
Meanwhile,
Stephen J. Crothers, in Australia, has informed me as to the importance of the
"Catt Question" [ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
], concerning electromagnetic theory and the stagnation in its research: and
it's very intriguing. I very much want to hear your comments on the two
Catt articles on Maxwell's equations, added as links below*.
[*21.5.2021. Still no comment from Oppo. He has stopped my emails.
The total comment by Professor Howie,
ex Head of the Cavendish, is limited to one word; “Outrageous!”]
[Will Oppo ever comment coherently on
cattq? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
]
Yours
sincerely
Monika Vandory
A-5101
Bergheim, Austria
Links:
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf
*
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf
*
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
24/12/17
Dear Tony,
[Professor Tony Davies]
I am very
sorry you have had such dreadful medical problems. Being over 80 is no joke.
The last
fifty years between me and the institutions (and everyone else) have been
grotesque. I very much want to have your cooperation in finding out what has
happened and discussing the way forward.
I have
assembled a group of representative people representing every role in the
tragedy. You are a key member.
I am not
sure about meeting face to face, perhaps over lunch again, or on the phone, or by
email. When on the phone for the first time, I talked for an hour.
Ten days
before the Oppo lecture I asked him to read and comment on my two (as I
thought) articles on Maxwell's Equations. (I forgot the third.) Finally we
agreed that he would do this after his lecture, but he had received the two
immediately.
I don't
think the Oppo misbehaviour is so culpable. It is par for the course. He had to
up the ante. You probably have not read the two articles I asked him to read.
The first one was 1980, when I had the temerity to investigate Maxwell's
Equations, which one is not supposed to do, but merely worship them. It is a
great shame, when the editor Tom Ivall, received 19
replies, and decided to publish only a representative comment, which will have
been by Scarrott, whom you probably knew. (The other
18 have disappeared.) Bear in mind that at the time I did not know so much
about the essentially religious nature of high science - Maxwell's Equations.
However, there is evidence that I knew it was dangerous. So although all previous articles in Wireless
World had three authors CDW, I reduced to one author, myself, so the other two
would be unscathed. When the 1980 article produced no response (bar 18) during
the next few years, I wrote a more abrasive nov1965 article. Still no response
at all. These two, 1980 and nov85, are the two that Oppo received. For someone
who will live or die by Maxwell Eqns., they are red rag to a bull. He will have
glanced at them in the 10 days before his lecture, and felt the need to express
disapproval in some way.
Liba was
horrified at my attitude to Oppo. She greatly enjoys regularly attending the
Italian Institute, where Oppo was to give his lecture. Attending the Spanish,
French, Italian Institutes she gets away from the English.
Fearing that
my behaviour during the Oppo lecture would lead to her being banned from the
Institute, she demanded that I behave. As expected, Oppo arrived 30 minutea early. There were we three in the room. Oppo
complained it should have been in the big room, to which I (anonymously)
replied; "Not many people would be attracted to Maxwell's Equations".
I sat in the front row, and Liba hid at the back,
expecting the worst.
50 attended,
including the woman President of the Kings College Maxwell Society. I just did
not know how to deal with the situation, whether to ask to hand out three pages
to each attender. In the end I did nothing except ask two innocuous questions.
One was to say that I did not understand either side in the argument as to
whether aether existed, to which he gave a waffle reply. The other was to say
he had mentioned the Maxwell Society, so he pointed out the woman President in
the audience.
(The Kings
College Max Soc President will not reply to me. A few months later, the new,
male President will not reply to me.)
I have to
sympathise with everyone else since it took me so many decades to see the fatal
flaws at a fundamental level in the things we are taught and believe. Nowadays
we should home in on "The Catt Question", which "breaks the
bank".
I look
forward to taking some of your time when you are well.
Ivor
During the
wine and snippetts afterwards, Liba
fround herself alone in the big room with Oppo. She
approached him and said Ivor Catt was there, handing him the three sheets and
pointing me out through the doorway. Extaordinarily,
Oppo approached me, and my immediate response was to tell him he was a brave
man. I emphasised that I was keen to receive his comment on my two articles.
The interview lasted 7 minutes. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
Monica of
Salzburg received his email threatening legal action, and wrote him a long
vicious email. Largely because of her, Oppo did write what I call six pages
"deconstructing" my two articles. I call them "the second
longest suicide note in history". During the last fifty years, I have only
managed to extract perhaps nine pages of copy from accredited
"experts" in electromagnetic theory. For instance, no professor in
the world when asked will comment on the results of the Wakefield Experiment.
Of course, if they read it, they know that any comment in writing would destroy
their career and reputation. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x48k.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Monika Vandory <vandory@gmx.net>
11/29/17
to me
Ivor, my
congratulation! You hit this phrase monger and now he is in the proverbial
corner - I am curious what will come next. What a step forward if he can
mobilize the legal department of his university instead of answering to your
questions. Probably then a brave reporter will write about this Shakespearian
(English-Italian) tragicomedy. "Much ado about nothing by the two
Gentlemen of Florence
and a Not-Noble Scotsman -
a Comedy of Errors". I
wished I was there on 1st of December to listen to his lecture.
Hope you are
well - best regards – Monika