|
|
|
Royal Society; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm
I would not
join any club which would have someone like me as a member. – Groucho Marx
cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5151.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cqsci1.htm
Analysis
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x38q.htm
This
is http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x857.htm
Caught.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6aa.pdf
Accountability http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x85c.htm
Aliens http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x85r.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cqsci1.htm
Davies http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ieee1.htm
Bell Oppoland
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x81hop.htm
Dunkley, scientist or community
builder?
EMC.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x85pemc.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x858w3analysis.htm
First read Dunkley http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf
Then continue.
‘If
you have got anything new … you need not expect anything but hindrance from the
old practitioner even though he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do
that … . But when the new views have become
fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though,
perhaps in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make
believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!’ – Oliver Heaviside, 10 March 1893.
Preece had
just stated in his 1893 IEE Presidential address:
‘I took the opportunity to formulate the theoretical views of electricity that
I had acquired at the feet of Faraday.’
Preece, head of Post Office Research, went to
the editor of the relevant journal and prevailed on him to stop publishing
Heaviside. Later the IEE just had to recognise Heaviside, and instituted the
“Faraday Medal”. A later IEE President Highfield http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x48mm.pdf told Heaviside that this medal had been
instituted primarily to give the first medal, 1922, to Heaviside, in order to
cover up for their gaffe of blocking the leading scientist. Heaviside refused
to come up to London to receive the medal, because the IEE refused to say which
part of his work warranted the medal (which most important part is still today banned , because outside the IEE/IET canon). The same
problem occurred with the Royal Society when Heaviside refused to let them
honour him. I have the relevant letters. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x48k.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x48mm.pdf
It
is amusing that recently the IEE gave the 2013 Faraday Medal to shyster Pepper,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0l1diFGxIg ,
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm and then was incommunicado for 25 years while
he was “knighted for services to physics”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x67t.htm
; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.pdf
; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31n.pdf
Like
Catt after 1967 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x147.pdf when he then went too far ahead, Heaviside
remains outside the IEEE/IEE canon. For a recent attempt to sanitise Heaviside
and bring him within today’s ruling canon, see “The Spargo
Memorial Project” http://christopherspargo.wixsite.com/hmproject
. Missing are Heaviside’s greatest (heretical) contributions, “We reverse this
…. ” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3117.ht
, “Energy Current” http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp65.htm
and "By
the way .... " http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x862oh.pdf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You
can read about Ivor Catt being shocked by Dunkley, and remaining shocked for
many decades. The reason is Catt thought in terms of the IEE or the IEEE being
a coming together of scientists (or
technocrats). http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ipub002a.htm
; As a result, a different calibre of person is attracted to the
large knowledge,
lacking the ability
to understand and defend a body of knowledge with many levels of meaning.
Looking
at the structure of the IEEE, that is obviously not true. When a member joins
the IEEE, and pays his annual dues, he has already been heavily indoctrinated
in the canon, and passed examinations
in the canon which he has learned assiduously for decades. He now pays the IEEE
to protect, and even promote the canon, the basis of his employability and
reputation.
The
canon is what holds together the community of “scientists”, and must be
preserved apart from the addition of very small decorations. Together they can
unite to design and build socially valuable things like aeroplanes and
computers. This requires cooperation. In their education, they were encouraged
to work together as a team, and passed examinations in what was already known. Even
“a capacitor does not have a self resonant frequency”
would be going too far,
and must be suppressed, as with the unrefereed
cattq. A few decades after cattq
appeared it may have become dangerous enough to the “science” community to have
to be misrepresented and ridiculed, kept outside the canon. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
We are prevented from understanding the behaviour of
the IEEE because of the lingering idea that it is a community of scientists. We have to agree that it is
a community of careerists. From that starting point, we can successfully
analyse and understand the consistent behaviour of the institution and its
members. We all know that a community of cooperating individuals can achieve
what isolated individuals cannot. An individual, or even many individuals, will
not do a good job of designing and building an aeroplane or a computer. Hence
the need to build up teams, which begins with the team building in our schools
and continues in institutions like the IEEE.
Careers,
salaries, reputations are secure if the knowledge base is static, or only
gradually changing at a rate that every member of the team can cope with. That
is what Dunkley is saying, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf
, and it is not shocking. Teamwork could even be the most efficient if the
framework is reasonably static. The saying attributed to Thomas Gold is;
“Scientists travel in tight formation”.
This
community, with its institutions, may have been functioning reasonably well
until the shock of Hitler at Calais. Team members then broke rank, fearing
Hitler more than fearing betraying the electromagnetic theory community’s canon. Some of them moved
out of academia (Cambridge), and in non-academic Bletchley advanced
theoretically and practically in the way necessary to defeat Hitler, for
instance by indulging in pulses, which was not part of the canon of the
academic team in Cambridge, which was restricted to sine waves. (The extraordinary idea that the simplest solution to Maxwell’s
Equations is the sine wave. (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/Oppo_complete.pdf last line of page 3.)
Having contributed a great deal to winning the war, they decamped back to
Cambridge. What they learned, and had to learn, to help win the war was
forgotten and all the equipment in Bletchley destroyed. Ricker says Catt is
rediscovering what was discovered and used in Bletchley, and then forgotten.
The new realisation here is that it had
to be forgotten. The discoveries undermined the academic canon for
electromagnetic theory. This had developed around Marconi’s work, later
including radar, which related to signals travelling through space without the
need for wires, blessed on their way with complex mathematics. This was
obviously more sophisticated than Heaviside’s (and
later Catt’s) work around the same time as Marconi,
with signals requiring wires. Heaviside was disappeared (as was Catt).
While head of the Cavendish, Howie told me that “Physical reality is composed
of sine waves.” The Heaviside-Catt work indicates that, rather, physical
reality is composed of the ExH Heaviside Vector, or Poynting Vector, “energy current”, which is not amenable to
much mathematics. My co-author the late Dr. Arnold Lynch did some of the work for Bletchley. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5bv.htm
, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5bu.htm - “then we see how ugly it
gets.” If an IEEE or IET member acts as a
scientist, betraying the community,
the community’s response is brutal, even if he helped to win the war.
Fifteen
years later a new threat to the canon, the digital computer, appeared. The
travelling pulses involved undermined classical electromagnetism only when high
speed (1nsec) logic came into use. As with that learned during the war and
forgotten, classical electromagnetic theory (academic theory) could not be
modified to accommodate the new findings. All new insights gained into
electromagnetic theory were blocked, kept out of university courses and text
books, for the next fifty years. http://www.ivorcatt.org/digital-hardware-design.htm
, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/433.htm
. Later the computer became so small that the interconnections inside more or
less disappeared, and so it was not necessary to exploit these insights, or
even to know them. If the distance between one logic gate and the next was very
small, what happened in between did not need to be understood. The window of
opportunity to introduce an improved electromagnetic theory closed, leaving
people like Ivor Catt high and dry, yesterday’s men. The case for the
instrumentalists became all powerful – that the value of a theory is only in
its practical use. Also, the Truth that there are no truths.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf
The
limits of what can be accommodated within a community is
remarkably small. The IEEE and IET have blocked “A capacitor is a transmission
line” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b2.pdf
for 40 years. Some decades ago I told May Chiao,
Editor of Nature Physics (not of IEE or IEEE) that she would lose her job if
she published an article which contained; “A capacitor is a transmission line.”
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/64maychiao.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3b2.pdf
, published 40 years ago. http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm The same applies to
IEEE and IET editors.
Ivor Catt 6 May 2018
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x857.htm
When
the soviet empire collapsed, Professor Tony Davies did very good work for the
IEEE by bringing in new members from beyond the iron curtain, from another community, to join our IEEE community. He was not bringing together scientists, as Dunkley tries to make
clear, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf . All
that has nothing to do with a scientist like Catt. Major scientific
advance destroys communities, separating one scientist from another.
Only
a few days ago, I stumbled on the fatal flaw in John Dore FIEE’s
instrumentalist stance, that a new theory, including any from Ivor, is
valueless if it does not indicate an advantage in practical results –
aeroplanes and computers. I pointed out that for all students in the world from
age 14 up to PhD to be taught and to believe what is false, for instance that a
capacitor has a stationary electric field, is a tremendous waste of money and
time. It delays the date before the student starts to design better aeroplanes
or computers. Teaching untruths is expensive. Teaching untruths is harder and
more time consuming than teaching truths. I myself was Principal Lecturer in a
college, and was willing to teach untruths in order to hold onto my job. My
co-author Dr. David Walton told me that was immoral,
and apparently broke rank while a schoolteacher and taught the unfashionable truth. I found it fascinating taking a
full classroom past a fatal flaw in what I was teaching them so that they would
pass the examination. Whether his students pass exams is the measure of a
lecturer’s competence. I had not been secure enough in my job to teach the
truth, and had a wife and four children to support. Anyway, my Head of
Department, John Lythgoe, was trying to fire me (but
failed, even though he had my book http://ivorcatt.co.uk/x5aa.pdf
; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x488.pdf
). I told the lecturers in my charge that
they were paid to teach the syllabus, not to teach the truth. David probably
took his stance because he had previously been a clergyman, and the effect
lingered. His students had to pay the price in reduced exam
success. Anyway, students are not interested in the truth, only in passing
exams. No student has ever responded to
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/44.htm
. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/wxyz.pdf 7 May
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Someone who publishes more than 100
papers must be publishing trivia, possibly 100% trivia.
Someone with something important to say would not camouflage it with a
smokescreen of trivial articles under his name.
The people who defamed me and misrepresented my work in peer reviewed
journals are Dr. Ross Stone, Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Professors
Pelosi, Pieraccini, Selleri
I noticed that all the people who were publishing
attacks on me in peer reviewed journals had published more than 100 peer
reviewed articles. I totally failed to realise the obvious, that they
(professors all) all must fall into the "publish or perish" category.
This is an obvious case of Gresham's Law, and I should have noticed decades
ago.
I am sure the scientists I know do not count up the number of articles,
or even books, they have published. How do I know those who attacked me have
100 articles to their name? Because they counted them.
Why did they count them, and then why did they tell us?
We all know there is today a tsunami of publications.
The issue is between quality and quantity.
When MV pointed out to me that some CERN published articles had 5,000
authors, and the authors paid a fee ($2,000), the penny still did not drop. I
must have known that "publish or perish" articles in such quantity
could not have significant content, but failed to link this to the fact that
they must
not have content, or they would not be published. As I told the late
Professor Kinniment, my article on “The Glitch” had a
misleading title in order to get past
peer review. As he says, I was the only man who succeeded in getting past
the “Peer Review Mafia” for many years, as the statistical risk of the third
world war increased. The misleading title made it look trivial, publishable.
The peer reviewers would think it was harmless trivia, and so accepted it. http://www.async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesitates-is-Lost.pdf
. I had to get it published “peer reviewed” and people would then take it
seriously when I gave them a copy to read. Chris Penfold
got excited about it, and decades later, when in charge of the TV series “Midsomer Murders”, he managed to get it on TV and on a DVD.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmidsomer+murders+%2B+glitch.TRS0&_nkw=midsomer+murders+%2B+glitch&_sacat=0
. I suspect it is still taboo, not taught in any university except Newcastle
and perhaps Caltech. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/47.htm Perhaps the risk of
malfunction in our nuclear missile submarines caused by the Glitch has
subsided. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x1bn.pdf ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97sglit5.htm
. 50 years later see Pieraccini
rubbishing Catt; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf
“The
academic word did not take Catt seriously much. This was not only because most
of Catt’s publications were often in technical and not scientific journals.” – Pieraccini.
If someone like Chris Spargo thinks there are
no barriers to publishing, it may be because he has only ever published trivia,
being in the "academics" camp, where publishing is necessary for
promotion. Presumably he also will have a large number of articles to his name.
Now, for some reason, he has condescended to repeat the taboo
"Wakefield 3" experiment "and put it on line". http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x84swak.pdf
. I was puzzled when Stephen pointed out that he would be unable to publish the
results. Then after 10 or 20 hours the penny dropped. Throughout my 60 year
career, I have never attempted to publish trivia. Trivia do not threaten the
IEEE community, so can be published, and are
published. I have only ever attempted to publish when what I had to say was
very important, and since 1967 I was always blocked. Long before Spargo, Dr Arnold Lynch was heavily entrenched in the IEE
and could not publish when it came to cattq. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
He is a prototype for when Spargo
tries to publish non-trivial Wakefield 3.
It was ridiculous that I thought Spargo had
some sort of influence (sitting on IEE committees and getting IEE prizes) which
would enable him to publish Wakefield 3. Before Tony Wakefield did the
Wakefield 1 experiment, I warned Tony that he would be unable to publish in a
peer reviewed journal, and this turned out to be true. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
1Professor Tony Davies was
on the Board of Directors of the IEEE, perhaps for a long time. His emails to
me show that he is very conscious that there is a serious problem. Now he makes
no attempt to help me to get 50 (very important) words published in an IEEE
journal, and does not even say that he is unable to do so, or send me to
current members of the board. That means that loyalty to community extends way past retirement. Will he say that this is a
trivial matter? See IEEE “Code of Ethics”. Item 7. https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm
The 50 words; Even and Odd Modes
2 My paper; Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk
(Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained
an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based
on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes
was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.
The error is fully
discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .
Ivor Catt
3 Dear Ivor,
....
....
Peer-Review and the
blocking of new concepts
There is no doubt
that the peer review process (and the behaviour of some journal editors) makes
it very difficult to get publications on novel topics which ‘disagree with’ or
undermine the theory and practice in fields in which the ‘experts’ have built
their reputations. I have talked about this with several people
recently and there is agreement that this is true and is a
problem.
It is easy to explain, of course. For an early career person
to make mistakes is generally acceptable. In fact some say
that if you make no mistakes you will never learn anything new. So
an early career researcher can get away with publishing something with flaws in
it, which need not damage his career. For an ‘expert’ who has
reached the stage of being an authority on some topic to be found to have made
errors over some fundamental aspect is an ‘unwelcome’ situation and the expert
is naturally liable to try to suppress awareness and publication of anything
which hints that his expertise is deficient.
Additionally, there
are those who might hope to ‘steal’ the new idea and claim it for themselves,
and use the suppression of the publications of the real discoverer as a
dishonest means to this end. I am sure that there are intermediate
cases quite often where tricks are used to delay a publication while reviewers
make some similar advances themselves to catch up and gain credit.
....
....
Tony Davies
2017 April 4th
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0621.htm
Ivor Catt 8
May 2018
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7272.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The threat of a third world war arising
due to the suppression of “the glitch” for decades https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd08xx/EWD839.PDF could recur in hitec.
That is, the hijacking of hitec by careerists and
instrumentalists is a threat to world peace. War becomes more and more
technical, and there is always the possibility that further technical hazards
similar to the Glitch might occur in an industry developing more and more
sophisticated weapons while suppressing the relevant scientific advances. I
suppose the John Dore mantra, that all must be well because with faulty theory
we have successfully developed good aeroplanes and computers, and a new theory
must show practical benefits (like avoiding world war) should not be
extrapolated into the future, where the instrumentalist or careerist keeps
saying suppression does not matter until the moment when the nuclear bombs
start to explode. They, even careerists in the IEEE and instrumentalists will
come to agree that we should have allowed soundly based technical advance to
underpin weapon development, having properly addressed cattq
and the rest. I personally feel the glitch is unique, but maybe not. Only now I
remember the US technician I once worked with previously in a company involved
in launching the President’s first nuclear bomb. There were two push buttons a
long distance away from each other, to stop a Dr.
Strangelove from launching us into nuclear war. As a joke, just before the
Pentagon came for an inspection of a demonstration of the system, he stuck down
one push button with chewing gum. He was fired. A qualified IEEE member would
have known that you do not use chewing gum in hitec.
We can keep to our nonsensical theories
because they have not yet caused the third world war.
Ivor Catt 8 May 2018
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Extraordinarily, this email arrived
half an hour ago, 11am, 8 May 2018. I was about to add concerns about the third
world war resulting from the slovenly approach by academia, the IEEE and
IEE/IET to “The Glitch”. – I Catt
|
7:50 AM (3 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
That is because many of the actual empirical facts
and discoveries are not being allowed into the public eye due to the global genocide
agenda which started in 1974. True advances, in all the sciences, have been
suppressed since that time, as part of the agenda.
Since then all the sciences have become Disneyland
fantasy productions resembling "Fantasia" with rampant fraud
in every direction and in every discipline, with the "rope fantasy"
being an example of "scientific" misinformation and disinformation
that intentionally harms All Life. You are giving the appearance that you
accept such genocidal fantasy-based academic leanings. I do not.
I am an academician, as well, by the way. But I am
an experimentalist, not a theoretician. My reality is based on reproducibly
observable facts and direct evidence. I am an empiricist.
Mainstream "academia", as expressed in so
many of their strongly publicized delusional fantasies, puts fraud-based
personal "advantages" before facts, human lives, and the well-being
All Life on the planet. Political control agendas have been taking priority
over any kind of real and highly publicized scientific progress. That will
change.
Neil
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Should the IEEE be associated with the CERN
scam? Ivor Catt 8 May 2018
|
4:50 PM (18 minutes ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Dear Ivor,
"CERN papers have hundreds of authors,
(who pay a fee.)" Catt
Yes, but understated. Many CERN papers have literally thousands of
authors (quite comical). https://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567
The Romanian Government, some
years ago, was paying CERN bean counters, US$2000.00 per person to add to CERN
papers as authors, people who did not contribute anything. In this way many
Romanian 'scientists' each managed to 'publish' more than 200 papers per annum!
I know this because four years ago I gave a lecture at the Atomic Energy
Research Institute outside Bucharest, and was told by a senior
professor there, who also asked me to tell everybody I could. Furthermore, at
the time of my visit, the French were building, under contract to the Romanian
Government, the world's most powerful laser, also outside Bucharest. But all
the physicists I spoke to at the Atomic Energy Institute told me that
nobody knew what it was to be used for, other than pretense
to world science and Romanian internal political propaganda. To date this laser
has not featured in any science.
Steve Crothers
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Wakefield `1 experiment. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x29r.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2924.htm
Feynman ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8cg.htm
This would present no problem to instrumentalist
Tony Davies.
For him, one
useful “model” is the rolling wave,
the other the Heaviside Signal. Horses for
courses.
For the instrumentalist, there is no “truth”.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Stinking fish
This is the "stinking fish" quote in the New Scientist. The
IEE President, Brown, in the pay of Weinstock's GEC, sabotaged the IEE's
attempt to set up some sort of "chartered engineer" status so that
Weinstock could no longer fill the empty slots of engineers (because engineers
would not work for GEC) with milkmen. I knew they were actually milkmen,
because I was "employed" by GEC, and they told me they were milkmen.
Later I ran into the Brown business when I was invited to lecture to the
GEC engineers in Lincoln, and found that when it all blew up around Brown and
the IEE, his loyal Weinstock put him on charge of GEC Lincoln. The engineers
were hostile to him.
When I was "employed" at GEC Portsmouth, the GEC technical
director called together all the engineers and announced "good news"
- "We have doubled our spend capability". This was an MOD funded
“weapon” project; cost plus 14% - or 28%? The weapon was the Tigerfish torpedo.
Weinstock was careful to put in ex cabinet ministers as Chief Executive
of GEC. One was Denis Prior. On retirement, MOD men, previously funding
taxpayers’ money to GEC, would join GEC. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/gamoe.htm
No corruption was involved, because Weinstock was in one of the horse
drawn carriages in the Mall with the Queen, and in the other carriage were the
Duke of Edinburgh and Weinstock's wife.
Ivor Catt 26 May 2018
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x857.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/774d.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/774b.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
15 May 18
|
May 15 (11 days ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
On 15/05/2018 13:37, Ivor Catt wrote:
The muddle arises if you try to "derive" experimental results,
rather than just look at them.
You are seriously muddled, Ivor, take my word for it. So muddled that it would take a lot more time than I have at my
disposal to sort thing out.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk/
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is
that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers
are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and
the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe
in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging
reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and
proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast
structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not
real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake
or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather
than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that
modern publications in the research literature must beassumed to
be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this
means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse)
and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure,
from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an
imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
….
….
The peer review cartel
The modern scientist is supposed to be
a docile and obedient bureaucrat and is trained and selected for that purpose –
cheerfully switching ‘interests’ and tasks as required by the changing (or
unchanging) imperatives of funding, the fashions of research and the orders of
his master.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
While writing x857, I came to realise
that the forces now instituted (after 1960) to block further scientific advance
are multifarious. The greatest attack is by careerists, who now control all the
commanding heights of what used to be science. Two of them, the sine wave and
mathematics, are closely linked.
They are, in descending order,
Careerists.
Instrumentalists
Academics
Mathematics
Sinewave
EMC incubus http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/201b.htm
A primary research area will be to
determine the relationship between these blocking mechanisms. For instance, are
all careerists instrumentalists?
It was inevitable that scientists would
lose control of science. The mechanism is discussed in the Bruce Charlton book.
Science never had a chance.
Ivor
Catt 16.7.2018
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x64q.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x89uned.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Sat, Mar 17,
9:08 PM |
|
||
|
||||
Dear Ivor,
Isn't it already
evident that we are living in the Year of Energy Current, predicted in my
Christmas greetings to you? The discussions we are having online now
demonstrate that.