paul.hardaker@iop.org<paul.hardaker@iop.org>
To Professor Paul Hardaker, Chief Executive,
Institute of Physics.
Dear Professor Paul Hardaker,
Does the IoP have a disciplinary committee?
The Editor of your journal “Physics Education”, Gary Williams, published
an article entitled “An apparent paradox: Catt’s anomaly” by Pieraccini and Selleri
(P&S). http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5as2.pdf and refuses to let
Catt reply, even refusing to publish 30 words giving the www address for the
Catt reply.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64f11.pdf
The P&S article says; “ .... .... it has a clear and satisfactory solution and it can be
considered indubitably just an apparent paradox.”
Their answer contradicted that given by Sir Michael Pepper, “knighted
for services to physics”. However, they describe him in their second, IEEE
article, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf entitled “Catt’s
anomaly” as “a renowned physicist”, but omit the fact that he contradicts them.
Pepper wrote; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm “As the wave travels at light
velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at
light velocity as well, which is
clearly impossible.” Contradicting him but not saying they do, P&S deliver charge “from
outside the system” not travelling at the speed of light.
Although P&S cite the book “The Catt Anomaly”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm , they misrepresent the Anomaly, saying
what they call “Catt’s anomaly” asserts that there is something wrong with
classical electromagnetism; “.... the aim of Catt: to crash the theory of
electromagnetism.” “The Catt Anomaly” makes no such assertion. It is merely
about accredited experts giving contradictory answers to the elementary
question of where the negative charge on the surface of the bottom conductor
comes from when a battery lights a lamp. This Question and an animation
is clearly stated on page one of the book they cite; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm (1996). Page 1 says; “Perhaps more properly called ‘The E-M Question’, The
Catt Anomaly is an elementary question about classical electromagnetism which
experts refuse to answer in writing.”
After the Question was asked in 1982, there was no answer for a decade, until four accredited experts were selected by their superiors and instructed to write to Catt, and their contradictory answers can be read in the book cited by P&S. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm
Ivor Catt
Stephen
Crothers
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5d42.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5bp.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64f22.PDF
The
IoP editor Gary Williams said in an email that the
article was “borderline”. This was correct. For thirty
years, every author and editor has known that “The Catt Question” must not be
published in any peer reviewed journal, as one of the IoP
authors says in his novel. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5a31.htm
Professor Mahta Moghaddam mahta@usc.edu
, the IEEE editor of the other article by the same authors on the same so-called
“Catt’s anomaly”, also distances herself from “The Catt Question” by saying she
was not the editor at the time P&S were published. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf
However,
not only the reputation of each journal is involved. Catt’s reputation has to
be considered. Once something damaging has been published on Catt, he has to be
given the right to reply. It looks as though these articles cannot be classed
as libel, but they come close, and the institutions need to be seen to act with
probity.
IoP https://publishing.aip.org/authors/ethics
“Ethics and responsibilities
Statement of ethics and responsibilities
of authors submitting to AIP journals
This journal is published as part of the
charter of its publisher, the American Institute of Physics (AIP) to advance
and diffuse knowledge of the science of physics and its applications to human
welfare. To that end, it is essential that all who participate in producing the
journal conduct themselves as authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers in accord with the
highest level of professional ethics and standards.”
Technically,
the P&S articles are obviously wrong.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64f11.pdf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Apr 20
(4 days ago)
|
|
||
Dear Dr Catt, many thanks
for your note.
We do have an appeals
process so I will forward your note on to our Publishing Director to follow up
with you Directly. Many thanks for bringing it
to our attention.
Sincerely
Paul Hardaker
Professor Paul Hardaker, FInstP
FRMetS CMet
Chief Executive Officer
Institute of Physics
76 Portland Place, London, W1B 1NT
Email: paul.hardaker@iop.org
Tel: +44 (0)7941 597394
Ivor
Catt 20 April 2016