|
Addendum to |
The Catt Question – EW Challenge |
||
|
Political Analysis 12july04 Electromagnetic
Theory Politics. Ivor Catt, 16 July 2004 Catt’s
major Published paper was “Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems”, pub. IEEE
Trans. Com. Dec 1967. It is now summarised on the www at two locations. Catt
continued to publish everything he wanted to for twelve years, until the
moment when he ceased to be a full time professional electronic engineer and
started to teach Remedial English. At that point, his success rate in getting
published in the learned journals fell from 100% to 0%. He continued to be
unable to publish for many years. Many
years later, Wireless World began
to publish Catt’s material and that of his co-researchers Walton and
Davidson. Later, the then editor, the late Tom Ivall, told Catt that he
welcomed controversial material, leading to his publishing, after some
hiccoughs, the article entitled “Displacement Current” in Wireless World, December 1978 (now on
my website). Copies
were distributed around The Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Culham, and a
meeting of UKAEA scientists was called. They delegated to Dr. B.G. Burrows
the task of telling Ivall that if Wireless World published anything more by
Catt, it would be boycotted by the scientific community. However, Tom Ivall
had met me, and he says that he found my expertise to be equal to that of
Burrows. However, the core reason why he continued to publish Catt, in
virtually every issue for ten years, was that he had independent means. This
was the launch-pad for scientific advance in the twentieth century, the first
century when science was controlled by professionals, a century deeply opposed
to scientific advance. With the retirement of Ivall on medical grounds,
Wireless World went back to “normal”. Also, Catt was trying (successfully) to
get an airing for his new computer invention, Kernel, which had also been
suppressed, so that the later investment of 12 million pounds sterling was
delayed for more than fifteen years. Because of the struggle to publish on
Kernel, attempts to publish on electromagnetic theory lost top priority.
Anyway, it would have been difficult to get material past the new editor,
Ogden, who preferred to publish bizarre material on electromagnetic theory. The
important next stage was the appointment of Eccles, a self-styled disciple of
Ivall. He banned Catt from the journal for seven years. The next editor,
Reed, reacted negatively to this, and proceeded to publish Catt material in
every issue. However, for the purpose of this article, another aspect of the
subject will be pointed out. Reed, who had never edited anything before, was
invited to take on the job of editor on top of his traditional role of
designing packages of electronic systems for customers like the BBC. The
editor’s job was now to become part time, so he could afford to take risks,
like publishing Catt. The
amount that each editor published on or by Catt is closely related to the
degree that the editor is committed to a career as editor. The two cases when
the journal opened up fully were when Ivall had independent means and was
about to retire on grounds of ill health, and today’s editor Phil Reed, who has
never before been an editor, and is the first part time editor, with his
previous career continuing and giving him secutiry. He is extremely busy with
his non-editorial duties, which predate his taking up editing. The
very banality of Catt’s letter in Electronics
World, August 2004, p57, may indicate its significance. This was heralded
to some degree when previously Catt said to the Editor; “I don’t think you
have to take a position on the matter. In a way it would be better if you
took an impartial positon.“ Following
Whiston’s suggestion, Catt had forwarded the suggestion to the Editor, that
he do an editorial about “The Catt Question”. Catt was disappointed when all
that appeared in the resulting August Editorial was a passing remark.
However, should Whiston’s suggestion have been fully carried out, the Editor
would have been tightly linked with “The Catt Question”, and would have
become merely another campaigner, like Nigel Cook, who wrote a signed
Editorial on “The Catt Question” six months before. Nigel’s Editorial seemed
cut no ice, perhaps because he was seen to be pro-Catt. We
are dealing with powerful, probably controlling, subconscious, social,
psychological and political forces. In contrast to Nigel Cook’s impatience,
it is possible that the only way to save our culture, or even merely to
discuss its decline, is by this leisurely, ponderous approach. Perhaps
culture successfully pioneering terminal decline develops complex,
sophisticated ways to defend its decline against attempts to save it. These
would include early mechanisms to detect and rebuff any lifeline being handed
to it. Every reformer will be in a hurry, so anyone who appears to be in a
hurry must be blocked if the decline is to be secure. The idea that any such
activist is either an egoist, egotist, paranoid, exhibitionist, or ignorant
etc. are more obvious. By now, all of them should have been applied to Catt,
because we are possibly entering the Home Strait. Catt’s brutal, sustained
attacks on Pepper, McEwan, Aylward and many more can be classified as the
typical behaviour of a crank or other type of unworthy who sublimates his
irrelevance by attacking innocent professional bystanders. However, if he
attacks too many such too persistently, such analysis begins to weaken. This
is particularly true if entrenched professionals show crass incompetence when
it comes to defending themselves, as every one of them has done. A Google
search for “Proper FRS”, for instance, will illustrate this point. Then, pure
urge for self-preservation will cause third parties to distance themselves
ever so little from Pepper and the other unfortunates representing the ruling
dogma, or religion, controlling science. In any case, three decades ago, the
strategy of co-authors Catt, Walton, Davidson, when such an analysis arose,
was to accept and confirm that Catt was impossible, followed by the
suggestion that the observer ignore Catt and deal only with his ideas, and
discuss them only with Walton, or perhaps Davidson. The classic defence put
forward by an entrenched professional, which was applied against Oliver
Heaviside, does not embrace the idea of three paranoids working together. The
idea of extending pre-existing Establishment rationalisation to meet this new
challenge posed by a triumverate of clones could not be promoted, because
there is no mechanism for doing so. Since it is necessarily unconscious, the
defences to protect the decline of a culture from lifelines probably have to
be more or less completely in place before the decline is fully under way.
Extension of such defences can only be built slowly, for instance against the
unprecedented threat posed by three identikit would-be reformers. (The
theoretical and practical position taken by Catt, Walton and Davidson in the
matter of electromagnetic theory and practical digital system design is
identical. This creates a new, major hurdle for the evolved blocking
mechanism against scientific and technical advance, which is to make it a
personal matter, or a matter of personalities.) Of
course, the analysis just completed self-destructs because one who bothers to
make the analysis is ipso facto paranoid, or deranged, by the use of the
benchmark that the very idea that our culture is in terminal decline (except
through fashionable mechanisms such as World Capitalism or Global Warming etc
.) is absurd, and he who studies it should only study and analyse such ideas
briefly. To do more indicates unhealthy fixation. @@@@@@@@@@ Decades
have been spent trying to articulate advances in electromagnetic theory onto
the theory which has remained in fashion for a century. Nigel Cook has made
major efforts over a decade to do so. He has argued forcefully that Catt
should study “Modern Physics“ and then show how Catt’s advances contribute to
Modern Physics. Catt has steadfastly resisted such ideas, and it now seems
that he had good reason. The reason is that Catt has now proved that “Modern
Physics“ rests on a foundation of ignorance of the fundamentals of
electromagnetic theory. This is in spite of the fact that “Modern Physics“
apologists tend to assert that the core of “Modern Physics” is
electromagnetic theory. During the last few years, Catt has comprehensively
proved that worldwide, competence and grasp of electromagnetic theory is
minimal. This will be proved again by the response, or lack of response, to
the challenge in www.ivorcatt.com/44.htm
. Two
conclusions result from www.ivorcatt.com/44.htm
. One
is that traditional, fashionable electromagnetic theory is bankrupt.
Worldwide, its text book writers and lecturers have no competence. The second
conclusion is that the new theory of electromagnetism will replace, rather
than articulate onto, the mess that today passes for electromagnetic theory. In
discussion with Nigel Cook recently, we came to an important conclusion as to
what may actually happen next. The following possible outcome represents a
very real danger. The
threat builds on knowledge of arguments previously developed by Catt, as
follows. Forman,
later opposed by Hendry, claimed that the Germans linked the first world war
with technology, for instance the machine gun. Their sudden realisation, late
in 1918, that they had lost the war, cause a revulsion against science and
technology. Heisenberg moved into the vacuum with a new kind of science,
later called “Modern Physics“. This placed Mystery at its centre. Thus,
according to the classifications given by Frazer in his 1890 book “The Golden
Bough”, “Modern Physics” should be classed as Religion, and not as Science.
The new religion-cum-science could receive funding much more easily than the
discredited science and technology which had caused the Germans to lose the
war. Catt
and Cook agree that the danger posed by “The Catt Question” is that, far from
causing rational reappraisal of core electromagnetic theory, it will merely
extend the grey, religious area which has replaced science, to include the
fundamentals of electromagnetic theory, for instance the TEM Wave. The way in
which the negative charge gets to where it is needed in the lower conductor
in “The Catt Question” will be called a further mystery which reinforces the
claim of mystery-ridden “Modern Physics” to be true science, which it is not. Ivor Catt July 2004 Discussion in March 2004 |
|||
|
Letter to those
responsible for electromagnetic theory. http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Education&F=1&id=7292 From http://www.newswales.co.uk Mavericks get cold shoulder from British scientisits 16/8/2004 Scientists in Britain tend to exclude controversial "maverick"
colleagues from their community to ensure they do not gain scientific
legitimacy, new research has shown.
|
|||