Go to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/tony101.htm ,
which is a more developed
version.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Fwd:
Aeroplane Flight
|
16 Aug 2021,
21:16 (13 hours ago) |
|
||
|
||||
----------
Forwarded message ---------
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 18:47
Subject: Re: Aeroplane Flight
To: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Davies <tonydavies@ieee.org>, Archie Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>,
Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>, <michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk>,
Christopher Palmer <christopher.palmer@physics.ox.ac.uk>,
Alex Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>
Dear Malcolm,
I have just now
opened your 15 aug email re theory of flight. This
opens up an excellent opportunity.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x68r.htm
As you know, Professor
Tony Davies sent me 20,000 words of emails, but will not lift a finger to help
advance science. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieeetonycard.pdf
As you also know,
he is not alone. This behaviour pertains to more or less every person today
with high accreditation in "science", even when long retired. I have
chosen four or five people in high places to represent today's
"science", grouped as DHJPP and O. In order to keep within "the
club", they must be careful to not be linked with scientific
advance. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf In
particular, any association with major scientific advance, including
delusional, for instance the proposed "Theory D" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/d.htm or Wakefield, must
not sully their reputations. Then the "research" money, the medals,
freebies and fellowships, will keep coming.
I have succeeded in
getting all of DHJPP to deliver a large amount of copy, which no member of
"the club" should have delivered, because this broke the code of
omerta of the academic mafia. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howieland.htm
Note that all but
one of them are past retirement, so we have to sympathise with the odd man out.
None of another
twenty accredited world leaders in electromagnetism will make any comment on
Wakefield. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/exh.htm
The problem, now
illustrated with the Covid fiasco, is that we all rose on a narrow band of
knowledge, but then everyone including ourselves thought that we had a broader
range of expertise. Howie's CBE for his revolutionary work on electron
microscopy shines brighter if no other field has advanced, so it is in his
interest to do everything to freeze other disciplines, for instance
electromagnetic theory, at what is in the text books.
I know nothing
about Howie's work, or Josephson's "Josephson Junction". I and they
should not have assumed they had a clue about electromagnetic theory.
In the case of
Josephson, he tried to bring the paranormal into "science", and so was
silenced, including by his boss Howie. I failed to realise that from Howie's
point of view, the threat of Theory D is greater than the threat to his world
of the paranormal, which is little further way out than Pop Scientist Rees's
multiverse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2urJ4agYGw . Lord Rees
is not driven out of "the club". Rees told me he did not understand
Theory D, and ran away.
To get down to
business.
Davies's failure to
do his duty, as ex Board of Directors of the IEEE, to do anything to help me to
get 50 words published in the IEEE for the last 50 years, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x147.pdf , or even to
say that he was unable to do so, led to my being uncertain whether to call him
a parasite, or a cancer, but finally I latched onto "Chaser".
Continued membership of "the club" is more important to him than to
help scientific advance.
However, I think
there is light at the end of the tunnel. In the middle of tokenism - he
attacking the present management of the IEEE, Tony suddenly discussed the
irrelevant "Theory of Flight", not knowing that I had spent decades
on that subject. I immediately responded, sticking my neck out.
Whereas Tony said
there were two conflicting theories, I said there were three, since I had added
a third a decade or two ago (totally ignored by everyone).
All discussion of
the first two has all diagrams with arrows showing air movement from left to
right. That applies only to a wind tunnel. In the real world, nothing moves
from left to right, and the wing moves from right to left. So
prior to Catt, all discussion has been wrong.
At that point,
feeling confident, I moved into conjecture. (Instrumentalists like Howie,
Josephson and Davies would be too frightened to do so, but conjecture should be
possible between scientists. DHJPP, not being scientists, dare not get
involved.) There is no mathematics in the discussion which should open up. The
discussion, which is difficult, should be about whether only relative motion
matters. During flight, the air (only?) moves up and down vertically. In a wind
tunnel, the air moves horizontally.
Tony beat the
retreat, perhaps by indicating he was not expert.
The best hope of
getting cooperation from anyone in DHJPP to advance science is Tony. His first
email to me many years ago said he was expert in circuit theory but not in
field theory. Now he hints at doubt as to his expertise in theory of flight.
You would never get such admission from Howie, who knows everything about
everything. Howie is obviously lost to science.
I shall develop
this further at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/tony101.htm . I will
append any comments by Tony and Howie.
Go to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/tony101.htm
Ivor