|
Letter to the Editor, Electronics World, February 2004, p46 by Ivor Catt |
Throwing
glasses at stone houses |
|
I feel sad that my adversaries persistently
lead with their chins. However, this one also keeps his eyes tight shut. A turkey
shoot is cruel, and I do not feel proud of myself. In his letter of December 2003, Kevin
Aylward wrote; “…. There are also those that are prone to use such terms
as …. intermixed with various ….
technical terms in an effort to mislead or obscure the real issues, or
because they do not actually understand the real significance of these terms
…. …. those with only a passing acquaintance often misunderstand the finer
and more subtle points being presented by individuals who do not have such
experience.” In his letter of January 2004, Kevin
continued; “…. the best current and accepted theory of EM is Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED) for which Richard Feynemann got the Nobel Prize. The
theory explains EM …. …. Maxwell’s equations are simply wrong. They cannot be
used to explain all the results of EM. This was decisively proved in the
early 1900s ….” What a pity Kevin did not avoid this gaffe
by actually reading Feynemann; “From a long view of the history of mankind –
seen from, say, ten thousand years from now – there can be little doubt that
the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as
Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics. The American Civil War
will pale into provincial insignificance in comparison with this important
scientific event of the same decade.” – R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M.
Sands, Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 2, Addison-Wesley, London,
1964, c. 1, p. 11 (see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
) It gets worse; “The special theory of
relativity owes its origin to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic
field,” - Einstein quoted in ed. Schilpp, P.A., “Albert Einstein, Philosopher
– Scientist,” Library of Living Philosophers, 1949, p62. (Perhaps
Kevin should look for some different people to drool over.) What a pity Kevin did not read anything
about The Catt Anomaly either, but again relied on guesswork, guessing that
there was a link between The Catt Anomaly and Maxwell’s Equations, which there
is not. “ …. the so-called ‘Catt anomaly’, this whole subject matter is
really a bit of a red herring. Maxwell’s equations are simply wrong. They
cannot be used to explain all the results of EM.” – Kevin, letters, EW
January. Here Kevin is in good company. The only previous attempt to link The
Catt Anomaly with Maxwell’s Equations was by Howie, Head of the Cavendish,
see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/stoppress.htm
See Howie’s letter at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/07091b.htm
“’The central issue as to whether there is anything wrong with Maxwell’s
equations is not I believe best resolved by a vote following some kind of
public debate which might degenerate into a kind of Punch and Judy show.’ –
Howie. This clearly misrepresents my October 2001 letter …. Also note that
the definitive statement of The Catt Anomaly, (at http://www.ivorcatt.com/28anom.htm
, which Howie says he received by recorded delivery, does not mention
Maxwell’s Equations. – (I. Catt, 30th Oct 2001)” As to Nobel Prizewinners, two so far have
made fools of themselves over the Catt Anomaly; Salam in Wireless World,
December 1982, and more recently Huxley, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/28anom.htm
; “Dear Mr. Catt, I much enjoyed our conversation at dessert in Trinity a
week ago …. I confess that I find it unsatisfactory that you dismiss Pepper’s
discussion as “drivel” (p. 5, bottom) and make no attempt to explain what you
think is wrong with it. An analogous situation exists in nerve conduction,
the field in which I worked for many years with Alan Hodgkin. The
best-understood nerve fible …. Yours
sincerely, Andrew Huxley.” I know from personal experience that old
boy Huxley was not gaga at the time. All the same, extraordinarily, in the
middle of writing (incompetently) about The Catt Anomaly, he drifted off into
discussing how a squid shakes a leg. Other Nobel Prizewinners have wisely, and
frustratingly, held their peace. At the next level, “Pepper FRS” (worth doing
a Google search for) fell disastrously at the Catt Anomaly fence, as did Howie
FRS. However, as Nigel Cook pointed out in the Aug 2003 EW Editorial,
“The Catt Anomaly” is actually a question, and the problem arises from total
contradiction between professors and text book writers when answering this
elementary question. Catt is not involved, except as an anxious student of
these luminaries. As a Drivelmaster, or in electrical terms a
noise generator, I think Kevin could well merge unnoticed among Nobel
Prizewinners. Unfortunately he lacks the dynastic or patronage background. Trinity
High Table is full of them. A Nobel Prize has to be proposed by an existing
Nobel Prizewinner or some such. For some reason, despite all his social
graces, they don’t hand one to their buddy Ivor. Ivor Catt, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, UK |
|
|
Nigel Cook’s letter followed; Throwing stones in glass houses II …. Finally, the
Chairman of the Nobel Prize is not God, but more like a sports referee:
prizes are generally awarded for acknowledged races. In the absence of any
intelligent competition, Ivor Catt has no motivation to use QED. Mendel’s
genetics were ignored during his lifetime, whereas Darwin had instant fame
(too much for his linking!) because his work had a ready-made competitor (the
Church). Success of IC’s work after 30 years of being neglected thus relies
on an urgent run-in with today’s science bigots. Nigel Cook, By email |
|