Is the IEEE part of “academia and structured research”
as described by Pelosi?
If Professor
Pelosi is an Editor in the IEEE, is the IEEE part of structured research? Since
Catt has published so widely in IEEE journals, http://ieeexplore.
24.8.2016 Surely
Catt is not so paranoid as to suggest that the
disappearance of the long IEEE list of Catt’s publications from http://ieeexplore.
But Pelosi
writes; “Catt is that kind of unconventional researcher, moving outside of
academia and structured research”.
If Catt’s latest
work is “outside structured research”, is his Question about classical theory
also “outside structured research”?
From 1966 to
1987 Catt published in the IEEE
, including the top journal
procIEEE
. By then he had 30 years of experience researching electromagnetic theory, and
could no longer, for the next 30 years, publish in the IEEE (or IEE/IET). His
work had clearly lost “structure”. "Truth
Management."
. As Thomas Gold said; “Scientists travel in tight formation.”
The “structure” of “classical electromagnetism”, which
underscores careers and reputations, has fatal flaws. Those who defend it have
a remarkably poor grasp of
the theory they are defending. "Rise and fall
...." ;
“They are 'maintenance men' rather than 'builders'. The
central body of knowledge ossifies, becomes brittle and disintegrates.”
When Catt found
he could no longer publish his advances in peer reviewed journals, in 1982 he
resorted to asking a question about their
theory, "The Catt
Question" . This pointed to a fatal flaw in classical
electromagnetism, but it was only a Question. The Question could not be asked,
or even mentioned, in any peer reviewed journal for 30 years. Then two Italian academics looked into
the Question, which they misnamed "Catt's
Anomaly" , pretending that with his Question, Catt asserted that
classical theory was fatally flawed, which he did not. Theirs was the first
peer reviewed article on the Question for 30 years. Initially, unfortunately
named "The Catt
Anomaly" , it merely said that accredited experts contradicted each
other when answering the Question. A couple of decades ago it was renamed “The
Catt Question”, and remained a Question about classical theory.
The two Italians
mixed the Question up with Catt’s own theories, embellishing them by saying
Catt said “electric charge doesn’t
exist”.
Ivor Catt 15
October 2015
When people cooperate for an
unacknowledged purpose their association is called a conspiracy, yet
suppression of novelty by [peer] review is not a plot cooked up between
referees and the establishment. But conspiracies can arise by evolution instead
of by design, with the members falling into their roles by accident and finding
them congenial. The establishment gives referees great power over other
peoples’ lives. The referees repay the establishment by suppressing new
discoveries. It is not necessary that either side understand the arrangement. - Dr.
Charles McCutchen
Are professors,
editors, referees and text book writers behaving unethically?
The three Italians saw
that (even) Catt’s “Question” threatened the foundations of their science,
which they were paid to defend. Think of “Modern Physics” as not Science, but
Religion, with dogma, beliefs etc. The three Italians knew that the foundations
of their faith were strong, and had no flaws. The proper behaviour of a
“defender of the faith” is to not have heard of Catt, or at least to have never
read any heresy by Catt, even a Question about their faith. For thirty years no
peer reviewer would allow publication of any hint of “The Catt Question”, even
a “rejection” of it, if a Question can be “rejected”. Now the Italians made the
mistake of calling it “intriguing”.
However, another
pressure on them, as professionals, came into play – Publish or Perish. If they
published on what they cleverly called “Catt’s Anomaly”, their careers would be
enhanced. They published twice.
How were the Italians
to know that blocking heresy “conspiracies
can arise by evolution” (CM) took precedence over “publish or perish”? We
have to feel sorry for “Defenders of the Faith” who cannot afford to realise
they are defending faith, not science. “It
is not necessary that either side understand the arrangement”. - CM. More,
they cannot afford to understand what they are doing, or the whole empire of
Professional Science comes tumbling down. Anyway,
“Modern Physics” is Pop Science, not real Science. Politicians, journalists,
funding committees and “scientist’s” maiden aunts much prefer Pop Science – Hawking, black holes, Big Bang, Brian Cox,
multiple universes, entanglement, CERN- to real Science. They love to gaze in
admiration at complex, fatuous
mathematics coming from such as Christopher Palmer of the Clarendon.
Interestingly, the Italians did not play the mathematical game, and neither did
Pepper .
Ivor
Catt 15 October
2015