The End of Science

I have just re-read my article “The Decline of Science” in the Journal of Information Ethics, Fall of 2015. It has been on my website ever since. We can learn a great deal from its repercussions. There have been none. Although my email address given at the end of the article is wrong, my postal address is correct. No one has approached me.

My article says; “Nothing on the scale of the removal of phlogiston or caloric has occurred for 200 years. Therefore the suppression of such a major proposed paradigm change, ‘ Theory C ’, may not be unethical. .... .... my biggest achievement, ‘Theory C’, which I discovered in 1976.”

Inaccurately stated in the article, the more correct statement of Theory C is; “When a battery lights a lamp, electric current is not involved.”

Since 2015, no one reading this article on the www has enquired about “Theory C”. This is because everyone in the world knows that there will never again be an advance like the removal of phlogiston or caloric. No one wants to address such a threat to their comfort zone.

If classical electromagnetic theory is internally contradictory, something has to be done. For some decades I tried unsuccessfully to communicate “Theory C”. Then, unlike the Galileo or Dingle or Halton Arp cases, I tried to get through the logjam, not by promoting my new theory or criticising classical theory, but merely by asking for clarification of classical theory, calling my request “The Catt Question”.

“The Catt Question”, or cattq, though only a Question, threatened to expose an internal contradiction in classical theory. So no accredited expert would deliver the clarification of their theory, or square the circle.

After a further number of years, I prevailed on top administrators to select their top experts (including a Nobel prize winner and a “knighted for services to physics”) and instruct them to write to me with their “clarification”. Four of them did so, and totally contradicted each other. They refused to discuss their contradiction with us or with each other. So we have no classical theory. In order to exist, it has to be stated clearly, or at least an apparent contradiction acknowledged. The present situation is that we have two classical theories, which means we have no classical theory. Thus Theory C, which may not be published, is the only extant theory “Theory C”; “When a battery lights a lamp, electric current is not involved.” Will any reader of this article ask for further details?

There the matter rested for some decades.

In 1997 the Professor Federico di Trocchio, Lecce University, an editor for the history of sciences, in his book “Il Genio Incompreso”, “The Misunderstood Genius”, discussed at length my attempt, using “The Catt Question” to get through the logjam. Nothing happened. Fifteen years later, in pursuit of “publish or perish”, three tenured Professors in Florence University published in peer reviewed journals the first admission after 30 years that “The Catt Question”, or cattq, existed. The articles falsely asserted that all experts, including Pepper, agreed. They also comprehensively defamed me.

Until that moment, not only were new theories not allowed exist, and the doubting of classical electromagnetic theory not exist. For many decades, even a request for clarification of classical theory could not be allowed to exist.

The peer reviewed articles pretended that “The Catt Question” was the assertion that there was a flaw in classical theory, not merely a request for clarification of the established theory. To do this, their articles had to rename “The Catt Question”, calling it “Catt’s Anomaly”, and “An apparent paradox; Catt’s Anomaly”, introducing the misrepresentation immediately in the titles of their articles. Their peer reviewed articles falsely said that their cited experts agreed with each other. Their peer reviewed articles were also highly defamatory of me; 1.

The History of Science.

16/10.17

To the editor, New Scientist;

I would like to discuss publishing in "New Scientist" a new article; "The End of Science"

It follows from my article "The Decline of Science" in The Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2015

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59596.htm

"The Catt Question", blocked from peer reviewed journals for fifty years while it was heavily discussed in "Wireless World", has surfaced in the peer reviewed IEEE. My new article deals with "The Peer Review Cartel", or "The Peer Review Mafia".

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x73t1.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7839341

Past New Scientist articles by me or about me are at

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrns69mar.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrns86jun_0001.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrns86jun_0003.htm

Analysis http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x38q.htm

Trinity engineers http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31j.htm

The proof that students are conservative, and will resist any querying of the theories they are learning and sitting exams in, is an important advance. It contradicts Pauli’s idea that new ideas have to wait for a new generation to take them up. The new generation will not take them up. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31j.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x38q.htm

Pieracchini and Selleri, L’Anomalia, 2013

Abstract; Catt’s anomaly is a sort of ‘thought experiment’ (a gedankenexperiment) where electrons seem to travel at the speed of light. Although its author argued with conviction for many years, it has a clear and satisfactory solution and it can be considered indubitably just an apparent paradox. Nevertheless, it is curious and very intriguing, and able to capture the attention of students.

The Pieraccini novel “L’anomalila”; Massimo has a chat with Kaposka and learns that he is currently working on Catt’s anomaly.

Pieraccini’s blog^[18]:

“La sola idea di travisare un fatto scientifico a fini narrativi mi fa venire i brividi. D’altra parte ne va della mia reputazione. E l’Accademia su queste cose non scherza. Non ho nessuna intenzione di fare la fine di Catt… o di Kaposka!^[19]

English translation: Just the idea of twisting a scientific fact for narrative purposes makes me shudder. After all, my reputation would be at stake. And the academia does not take these matters lightly. I am absolutely not going to end up like Catt…or like Kaposka!”

.... .... in the room next to Massimo’s, they find the lifeless body of Alexander Kaposka.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The Pieraccini novel “L’anomalia”; Massimo has a chat with Kaposka and learns that he is currently working on Catt’s anomaly.

....

.... .... in the room next to Massimo’s, they find the lifeless body of Alexander Kaposka.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Pieraccini’s blog^[18]:

"I've worked five years to put together this story, piece by piece, looking for insights and answers." - Pieraccini