The Breakthrough

Dear Malcolm,

What is so extraordinary is that on 26 May 1976, nothing happened (The biggest scientific advance for 200 years, since caloric and phlogiston).

(Today 8.5.2021 Malcolm tells me he has no recollection of the event of 26.5.1976.)

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37k.pdf I was standing up in front of my desk on the fourth floor of the Borehamwood building of the ridiculous company GEC, “working” in the ridiculous “Nimrod” project, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3560334_The_Nimrod_AEW_flies_again_a_procurement_case_study looking north with Malcolm Davidson sitting in a chair to my right, when it came to me; "There's no electric current!" Malcolm responded with enthusiasm, and I phoned Dave Walton that evening. He wrote the excited letter next day. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37k.pdf .

I wrote down developments and had them countersigned by Malcolm, to establish the date, in expectation of a debate about who thought of it first. We could not have imagined that no one would make such a claim during the next fifty years, and instead that fifty years later, in 2021 and beyond, nobody else would want to admit they had even heard of the idea. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf .

Looking through my notes in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37k.pdf I have to tell Professor Bernie Cohen that there is absolutely no mathematics. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31n.pdf . "There's no electric current!" This replicates Newton and his three Laws of Motion, which he wrote in Latin with no mathematics. Since Newton, nobody has succeeded in attaching any mathematics to Newton's first and third laws of motion. In a revision book for 18-year-olds, I found two equations for the second law, with no attempt to relate the two to each other; f=ma and f=d/dt(mv). They are kept separate from each other in the book.

If you drop something into a layer of mud and the mud supplies a force, decelerating what you drop, does a represent the deceleration, or -a? What was f=ma actually saying? Surely better to discuss Newton's second law in English, and at length. The maths is merely a short hand note pointing towards the truth, and definitely not rigorous, like a rigorous, lengthy statement in English, for if "mathematics is the language of science", 1 million hits in Google, then Newton's Laws are not scientific. No one has succeeded in attaching any mathematics to the first and third laws.

(N.B. When tasked, no relevant Professor, for instance Professor Tony Davies, will say; “Mathematics is the language of science.” Further, no relevant Professor will say; “Mathematics is not the language of science.” The flaws in the academic mafia’s thinking, and their fear of communicating, are at an elementary level. For instance, comment on my articles on Maxwell’s Equations by Professor Howie are limited to a single word; “Outrageous.” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j190.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j190.pdf )

The three of us, Catt, Davidson and Walton decided that the discovery ("There's no electric current!") was a hot potato, to be handled carefully. We kept it secret for some years, and started by asking a request for clarification of classical electromagnetism, which our discovery destroyed. Worldwide, there was a refusal to clarify the theory. So, six years later, when my college told me they were the leading science college, Newton’s college, Trinity College, Cambridge, and they needed my money to keep in the lead, I told the then (Nobellist) Master that the college had ignored my work for thirty years; please would he ask the college’s top expert in electromagnetic theory to clarify electromagnetic theory by answering a Question, later to be called “The Catt Question”, or cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Michael Pepper, also of the Cavendish, was chosen to answer. He wrote rubbish, which however classifies him as a “southerner” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm ; the charge comes from the south.

Because I had personal connections with him, ten years previously I had asked Archie Howie, the head of The Cavendish, Pepper’s boss and also of Trinity, to clarify cattq. He could not keep to the Code of Omerta of the Academic Mafia, because of my close family connections with him. He wrote at length, only some of his writing being here at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howieland.htm . His answer http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie2.pdf clearly classifies him as a westerner, contradicting Pepper’s southerner answer ten years later.

For the next 30 years Howie and Pepper have refused to discuss their disagreement in “clarifying” classical electromagnetism. I later took their disagreement to the Pop Scientist Martin Rees, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2urJ4agYGw , then Master of our college, asking him to do something about it. He replied that he would first have to study the subject. I replied that I approached him in his administrative capacity, that two of his Trinity Fellows contradicted each other on the fundamentals they were teaching, and would not discuss their contradiction with each other or with us. Rees did nothing. I also approached Rees in his other role as President of the Royal Society, but in that capacity he did not reply. Since then, Pepper has been “knighted for services to physics”, “Sir Michael Pepper”, and received the Faraday Medal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0l1diFGxIg . Rees is now Lord Rees, in the Lords, presumably speaking for science, including “multiverse” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2urJ4agYGw , previously proposed by Einstein http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/multiverse.pdf ). In 2,000, I asked a later Master of Trinity, (Nobellist) Sir Andrew Huxley, to do something. He replied with a letter of rubbish about cattq, but did nothing. His answer is in my book http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm , page 67. The late Sir Andrew Huxley, OM, FRS; 14may00 “Dear Mr. Catt, I much enjoyed our conversation at dessert in Trinity a week ago. …. [then rubbish, and no action]”

Twelve years later, 2012, in a “publish or perish” exercise, three Florence University professors, co-authors, broke through the code of omerta of the academic mafia, and published on cattq in the top journals, misrepresenting cattq and defaming Catt. So cattq took 30 years, from August 1981 in “Wireless World”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j86.pdf p96, to get into peer reviewed journals in 2012 and 2013, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311a.htm , which misrepresented cattq as an assertion, not a Question, and defamed Catt, who was refused Right of Reply, breaking the Rules of Conduct of the Institutions’ journals. My “Right of reply” was “peer reviewed” by Pelosi, the sometime co-author of the professors who had defamed and misrepresented me! He also defamed me and misrepresented my work http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59v.pdf , and promoted a novel which attacked me. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf . Very fortunately, the three Italian professors gave “publish or perish” priority over their code of omerta. Their defamation and misrepresentation were far better than having been disappeared by the worldwide peer review cartel during the previous forty years. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8ahcharlton.html

http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt-edited.html

http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html Go to one hour 17; 1.17 – 1.23. Pepper and Morgenthaler defy Gauss’s Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law “In physics, Gauss's law, also known as Gauss's flux theorem, (or sometimes simply called Gauss's theorem) is a law relating to the distribution of electric charge to the resulting electric field. In its integral form, it states that the flux of the electric field out of an arbitrary closed surface is proportional to the electric charge enclosed by the surface, irrespective of how that charge is distributed.” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6761.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq3.htm

To be continued.

Ivor Catt 17.4.2021

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x84h.pdf

http://www.iiis.org/acceptance-policy.asp Campanario (1995) affirms that eight authors won

the Nobel Prize after their prize-winning ideas were initially rejected by reviewers and editors.

No mention of paradigm-change in the lengthy article.

The late Ken Johnson, whom I admired, once said to Catt;

“The fact that you are rejected for publication does not immediately convince me that you are correct.”

https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/dyson.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x892max.pdf I note that the number 224 recurs on pp 228 and 229. That speaks to me!

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/Oppo_complete.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x831van.htm

Malcolm and Axioms https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/WhctKKXXLznXZGzMLjMFHDmpRMGFkkHcwrXfpThKhzKvdpQWllGwhmNzkXVTMrvhjQctTqq?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1