|
Did Josephson endorse Yakovlev?
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm
- The Royal Society
[From the email
below]
I have to tell
you that I do not intend to get caught up in your ratchet
mechanism! Fortunately Brian Josephson has already
indicated that he
believes the Yakovlev paper to be free of heresies so I am not going to
pore over it in detail.
Archie.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
8 June 2020
Re: electromagnetism
|
Prof. A
Howie FRS <ah30@cam.ac.uk>
|
|
8 Jun 2020, 10:06
|
|
|
|
to me, Alex, Tony
|
|
Dear Ivor,
Of course I understand that you think that your ideas about the basic
principles of electricity are revolutionary and important but this view
is not shared by me or I believe many others.
[including
the Royal Society?]
I long ago gave up the
idea of trying to sort out the basic issue with you and adopted the fall
back position of offering advice on how you might more effectively get
the attention of the scientific or teaching community. My suggestion of
using the Physics Education journal as a vehicle came to nothing. In
this limited spirit I congratulated you when Professor Yakovlev's
article appeared with its "effusive praise of you" although I have
not
studied it in detail.
In conveying my view about the caloric, phlogiston, electricity
questionnaire, I did try to point out that what you describe as
"electricity" needed to be clarified but did suggest that it
included
the possibility that the lamp could be powered by electric current. I
still strongly adhere to the belief that electrons exist and can move
around in a conductor so constituting a flow of charge that can charge
up a battery or light a lamp.
One manifestation of your ego trip is the tendency to notice only those
parts of a response that appear to support your crusade and ignore
everything else. Thus your clarification of
what you meant by
"electricity" was not provided and the tautological nature of your
initial statement had to be mentioned again by others. The actual
substance of your reply was effectively to suggest that I took a further
test now with 7 questions!
I have to tell you that I do not intent to get caught up in your ratchet
mechanism! Fortunately Brian Josephson has already
indicated that he
believes the Yakovlev paper to be free of heresies so I am not going to
pore over it in detail.
Archie.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm
x
Archie.
On 2020-06-07 14:26, Ivor Catt wrote:
> Dear Archie,
> This is my reply after two hours.
> I am very grateful that you replied, particularly that your email came
> so quickly after I approached you with my question, certainly within
> 24 hours.
> Unfortunately l am sitting in a car 15 Miles from home, using my iPad.
> Your “the absurd ego trip that you are pursuing” is extremely valuable.
> In 1976 I came up with the biggest advance in science for two
> centuries, since the disappearance of phlogiston and caloric.
> This strengthens your assertion that I am on an ego trip.
> It would be extremely valuable if you communicated further with me.
> I have difficulty deciding what to ask you to do next.
> When you congratulated me for what you called “effusive praise” of my
> work by co-editor Professor Yakovlev in the Royal Society journal two
> years ago, what he published included seven heresies, marked in red in
> this rendition of the Royal Society article of his.
> www.Ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm
> In order for science to advance, it is extremely important that you,
> an FRS, CBE, ex head of the Cavendish, comment on seven heresies
> published in the Royal Soc. by Yakovlev, attributed to me. You are in
> a key position since your wife tells she and my wife were “best
> friends” and we have attended funerals together.
> I very much look forward to further communication from you.
> Ivor Catt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 7 Jun 2020, at 11:45, Prof. A Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ivor,
>>
>> I am not clear whether you are inviting me to be an Aunt Sally or
>> possibly just a pawn in the absurd ego trip that you are
pursuing. My
>> answer is indeed the one you expect. Indeed
on a strict linguistic
>> interpretation it would seem hard for anyone to disagree with item
3.
>> Most people would accept that an electric lamp is one that goes out
>> when you unplug it from the electricity supply which could be for
>> instance AC mains or a battery. If you believe that there is some
>> parallel here with the connection between "caloric" and
the more
>> modern concept of "heat" rather than just the blanket term
>> "electricity" you need maybe "charge current
flow" and "Poynting
>> energy flow" maybe even "photon flow".
>>
>> Thanks at least for a normal email message rather than one of the
many
>> you sent composed of nothing but links that I will never click on.
>>
>> Archie.
>>
>>>> On 2020-06-05 19:17, Ivor Catt wrote:
>>> Ivor Catt,
>>> 121 Westfields,
>>> St. Albans AL3 4JR
>>> 5.6.2020
>>> A Howie,
>>> 194 Huntingdon Road,
>>> Cambridge CB3 0LB
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/q3.htm
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/q31oppo.htm
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/oppo.htm
>>> Dear Professor Archie Howie,
>>> I need your comment on the following:
>>> Caloric keeps you warm.
>>> Burning wood emits phlogiston.
>>> Electricity lights electric lamps.
>>> I say, these three statements are false.
>>> Do you agree?
>>> Or, is one of them true for you?
>>> I thank you in advance
>>> Ivor Catt
>>> [1]
>>> Virus-free. www.avast.com [1]
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1]
|