|
|
Metzer helps us to understand "Dinner at High Table, Trinity College, Cambridge" by Ivor Catt 20 June 2007 |
| Over the years, Kurt Metzer has told me that the solution to "The Catt Question" will probably be within Quantum Electrodynamics. He has regularly told me that it is a pity that I do not know Quantum Electrodynamics, as he believed it would help my work on "The Catt Question". For the first time, last week, I asked Kurt whether he understood "The Catt Question". His reply, which I got him to repeat after a suitable delay, was that he did not understand "The Catt Question". Each time, he followed this by saying that he "believed" Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics, and was comfortable with the equations involved. Kurt Metzer gained a Founder's Scholarship in Mathematics to Trinity College, Cambridge. This is the highest possible achievement in mathematics at that age. He later became a computer programmer and a schoolteacher. "I arrive at the Parlour around 7:15 PM. Kurt Metzer is already there, .... Brian Josephson arrives about 7:45 ..... Kurt immediately interjects with 'so you are here about the "The Catt Question", eh?' (paraphrased). Prof. Josephson appears to me to be uncomfortable [and hurried away]. .... " - see below. Why was I able to predict to Forrest days before that Kurt would set out to sabotage Forrest's meeting with Josephson? Forrest will confirm that I told Forrest that whether we told Kurt not to or not, he would still set out to sabotage Forrest's meeting with Josephson. We were careful not to tell Kurt that Forrest was going to meet Josephson to discuss "The Catt Question". It is easy to dismiss my prediction, duly confirmed, as Catt paranoia. However, it is also possible to argue that solidarity with another "mathematician - (pseudo)scientist" took precedence over Kurt's decades long close friendship with me. Kurt will not enjoy reading this, but has to accept that research into the pathology of the way our civilization ends takes precedence over my friendship for him. Any comment by him will be entered on this web page. I repeat here that it is astounding that Kurt claims he does not understand "The Catt Question" , and that another mathematician - cum - "physicist" thinks that such a question should contain "differential equations". - Ivor ....................................... Twenty-five years ago, I telephoned the late Tom Ivall, the greatly admired Editor of "Wireless World", with an idea I had had. To my astonishment, he suggested that I write an Editorial on the idea for "Wireless World", which at the time had an international circulation of 60,000 each month. (However, it was clear that he had similar sentiments, as indicated, if I remember rightly, by his own Editorial "The Map in not The Territory.") I duly wrote the 300 word Editorial, "The New Bureaucracy", which was unsigned. Those running the major professional Computer Organisation in Holland asked that the author of the 300 words give a lead speech at their chief Conference of the year, which I did. This includes; "Up to the present time another quite distinct battle has been fought between the pure scientist and the technocrat. .... They discovered that a lack of knowledge of physics and engineering was no handicap, that programming had no technical content, so, reassured, they called themselves 'computer scientists' (although programming is not a science) and talked about such things as 'cybernetics', the 'information revolution', and so forth. .... Programmers managed to get inside the colleges in Britain and the U.S.A., something digital electronics has still today failed to do [still true in 2002] , and set up departments in what they called 'computer science', which must be a false name because in such departments no science or computer hardware is taught, only programming. Further, entrants to such university departments are not required to have any qualification in physics or engineering." A much more comprehensive version than that published in Holland was published as a three page article in "Wireless World". The defeat of Science by Mathematics and its grave implications, illustrated by the myopic response to "The Catt Question" by the Nobel Prizewinning "Theoretical Physicist" Brian Josephson, has much relevant literature, some of it by me. "Where science has gone wrong". A Mathematical Rake’s Progress
The effect of the defeat of Science by Mathematics is not limited to the victors' incomprehension when presented with "The Catt Question" . It is discussed by me elsewhere; Because it discusses physical reality, victorious mathematicians acannot see the significance of my 1978 article "Displacement Current" They are incapable of comprehending a Physical Argument which shows that their century-old equations are faulty. In the same way, similarly scholastic disciples of Aristotle's "Earth, Fire, Air and Water" would have refused to comprehend a physical demonstration of Arostotle's inadequacy. That is, they are on the side of Bishop Berkeley against Galileo, as Karl Popper says; "What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else." - K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, R.K.P. 1969, p100. None of today's scholastics have looked at a T.E.M. Wave with a Sampling Oscilloscope, and they never will. Similarly, Galileo's opponents are said to have refused to look through a telescope at Jupiter's planets.
Both K. Popper and T. S. Kuhn regret the majority view in the Philosophy of Science, which Popper calls "Instrumentalism". "What they care about, as [pseudo-]physicists, is (a) a mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e. of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else." - K R Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations", RKP 1969, p100. However, the degeneration has gone further since Popper wrote this in German in 1935. They no longer care about (b) applications. This is shown by their indifference to "The Catt Question" , which is surely a question about an application. According to the instrumentalist view, the validity or falsity of a theory has no importance. All that matters is its usefulness as an instrument for predicting practical results."
@@@@@@@@@@@ Forrest Bishop wrote; "May 16, 2006 Thursday, May 18, 2006 Kurt Metzer is picked up by Ivor Catt, .... Dinner at High Table I arrive at the Parlour around 7:15 PM. Kurt Metzer is already there, .... Kurt immediately interjects with "so you are here about the 'The Catt Question', eh?" (paraphrased). Prof. Josephson appears to me to be uncomfortable. .... Dinner at High Table .... .... Brian asks "what are the differential
equations" for Theory C? I reply they are the same equations,
used in a different way. (I was being agreeable, as this is not
quite the case. Maxwell's wave equations, as well as parts of the
duplex equations, have been shown to be trite, incorrect, and mathematically
illegal, along with other problems.) .... Forrest Bishop @@@@@@@@@@@ Riposte
| |
|
| |