To Stephen Sacks, Editor.

From Ivor Catt 12aug01

I shall ponder your offer, and get back to you.

Further to your proposal that I write an article for you which is then double blind peer reviewed before publication.

Note that any student who prevails on any of these lecturers on electromagnetism to write anything on the subject of the Catt Anomaly receives fifty pounds sterling, presently to be increased. For six years there have been no takers. Thus, students prefer to receive their qualifications rather than become persona non grata to their lecturers. I wonder whether it is conceivable that, having such a stranglehold on every single one of their students in the world, even one anonymous peer reviewer among them could possibly argue for publication of the 7,000 word article that you propose that I write for you.

See http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/za34.htm

See "The Rise and Fall of Bodies of Knowledge", 1978; . http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm

I send off camera ready copy of "Ill Eagle", which I edit, tomorrow http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/illeagleeditorial.htm. I host a conference on censorship in Friends House, London, on 15sep01 http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/2001.htm. Your offer comes at a difficult time.

Can you promote my conference on censorship? http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/2001.htm.

I shall post our correspondence on my website, so that the whole process will be transparent.

I phoned my co-author Arnold Lynch (http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm) this morning to tell him he needed to monitor the process. Age 83, he is not www literate, but could comment on whether I handle the matter properly. [Oliver Lodge told Oliver Heaviside that the reason he was suppressed (by Preece for example) was that he was so rude - persisting in calling Preece "a scienticulist". (Heaviside's insights, for instance his concept of "energy current", disappeared from history.) I am not willing to allow the historical record to repeat that defence of a decadent, ignorant, censoring Establishment. (In any case, I believe that whether Heaviside was rude or not, we should not have censored out his important concept of "energy current" and his other contributions.)]

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm

I will also take advice from Hiram Caton, Griffith University, Head of the Dept. of Applied Ethics.

It is more or less true that every attempt by me to publish on e-m has been rejected by every learned journal in the world throughout more than a third of a century. The result is that, since I lead the world in the subject, an increasingly ignorant Establishment falls further and further behind. Properly, my advances, resulting from my pioneering work in Morotola, Phoenix, Arizona in the 1960's, should have died with me. However, the www creates a new situation which cannot be predicted on the basis of what happened in the pre-www past. See for instance http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ekkehard_Friebe/Catt-85a.htm

In opposition to Ivor Catt, who is unsalaried, are ranged (say) 5,000 university lecturers (who include your peer reviewers) who do not understand electromagnetism yet earn salary "teaching" it. They are in a position to waste more than 100% of Catt's time, and they will have to do so in order to protect their salary earned for every year teaching from lecture notes which have to be torn up is Catt is published.

Note that any student who prevails on any of these lecturers on electromagnetism to write anything on the subject of the Catt Anomaly receives fifty pounds sterling, presently to be increased, see Appendix 3 in http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wb1anbk7.htm from "The Catt Anomaly",

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbbanbk1.htm .For five years there have been no takers. Thus, students prefer to receive their qualifications rather than become persona non grata to their lecturers. I wonder whether it is conceivable that, having such a stranglehold on every single one of their students in the world, even one anonymous peer reviewer among them could possibly argue for publication of the 7,000 word article that you propose that I write for you.

Ivor Catt

----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D. To: Ivor Catt Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 9:33 PM Subject: Re: Catt theories
Dear Ivor,
We are considering a new section in Scipolicy-The Journal of Science and Health Policy dedicated to Frontier Sciences.
As you have appearantly done significant work and writing in the field of electromagetism, we would like to invite you to contribute an article on the subject. If published it will appear in the Frontier Sciences section.
This will be an opportunity to have your research reviewed and commented upon those in the physics and physical sciences establishments. There is no commitment that your article will be published, but we do assure that it will be peer reviewed (double blind process) before a decision is made. More often than not, extensive revisions are necessary to answer questions and comments by peer reviewers. It is not a censurship process but one that judges the scientific worthiness of discoveries and departure from existing knowledge. (Good men and women do disagree.)
Discoveries in the Frontier Sciences are difficult to relate to public policies per se. However, they do suggest new directions for those in the sciences to consider new thought and new directions of research. The route to wide scale change is very difficult as every researcher knows, and the competition is brutal. Even when a discovery is agreed upon, it may take decades before it is adopted throughout science.
For instance, much has been written about quantum theory, chaos, and newly discovered states of energy. Though there is widespread agreement that the foundations of physical science need to be revised to reflect the topics mentioned, there is nary agreement - not even close - on how to proceed with revising the textbooks.
All we in science can do is do is the best we can while are alive - and perhaps we can make some difference today - with the hope that our legacies will be enduring and useful to those in the future.
Between now and then, the task is monumental and consumes all of our hours. So, with no promises about results or influence, we will process your submission and send it out to the "brick wall" folks. Every scientist in history has had to cope with the difficulty of changing the shape of the wall. Sometimes the best approach is to change one or two bricks. Sometimes the changes cause the whole wall to adjust - but as every brick layer knows, it takes time to settle in.
What we will need is a consolidated article that spells out the salient findings of your research and properly documents the evidence of your discoveries. A brief review of the state of the literature and a summary of your methodology in doing your work are critically important. New terms should be defined and a glossary should be included. Presume that readers are NOT YET familiar with the subject of your article, and they might delve into it in time. A few diagrams could be useful. Figure on 5000-7000 words to convey it all and conclude with suggesting the most important areas for further study including statements of why such areas of study are important in their implications and ramifications. Please tiltle your work to reflect the main discovery you are writing about, e.g, a neutral title like "Parnubian Energy Detectors and Emissions in DNA Proteins." We cannot publish new global theories (theories of everything) or theories that are posited on assumptions and speculation because such theories cannot be empirically verified. Thus, we would not publish the works of the world's leading astro physicists about the origins of the universe.
If you would like your article to be considered for the Fall/Winter issue, we will need it by September 15, 2001. For the Spring/Summer issue, we will need it by March 15, 2002.
Please RSVP if you intend to submit an article.
Best,
Stephen
Stephen Miles Sacks, MPA, Ph.D.,
Editor and Publisher
SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy
Box 504, Haverford, PA 19041
Voice and Fax: 610-658-2332 until 7-01-01
NEW NUMBER: 610-660-0220 effective 7-01-01
Website:
http://www.Scipolicy.net
E-mail:
editor@Scipolicy.net
----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt To: S Harris Cc: nigel cook ; Mark Freer Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 AM Subject: Re: Catt theories
S Harris
When my father (now dead) was old and had nothing to do, he claimed he was very busy. So you should not believe my assertion that I am very busy.
Try to assume each time to email me that I do not remember what went before. Then I can handle you more quickly.
I think you have Electromagnetism 1, 1994, and nothing else. If so, I have 200 copies of "The Catt Anomaly" unbound and without the first 8 and last 8pp. I suggest I send you the sheets, and sometime you pay me what you think. If you want that, reply with a "Yes". If not, reply with a "No".
If Electromagnetism 1, 1994 will keep you out of mischief for a few weeks, then wait for the properly bound "Catt Anomaly".
The censorship of my work has been enormously wasteful of my talents. On the other hand, I cannot betray my work, because then I could not condemn anybody else who censors it. Thus, I have to give back-up. Trouble is, somneone on http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/Tweaker.htm recently suggested I am after money, and this suspicion will always lurk around. You will appreriate my problem. Consider the con-man (who may believe he is honest) who sells silver plated wires to connect up loudspeakers.
I need to get someone to set up an email discussion group (I always forget what they are called) where those who are pursuing my theories can dialogue with each other, and take some of the pressure off me. I shall email this email to some others in the hope that one of my "followers" is willing to set it up. As you know, anything done on the www has a horrendous learning curve, which I am not willing to start to ascend; at least not at this moment. I fear that Nigel Cook is not enough of a nerd to do it. I should mention at this point that when I say "my theories" I should say CDW theories - Catt, Davidson, Walton. We were and are heavily meshed together re e-m.
Ivor Catt
I have started a document on my website which starts my theories on e-m from scratch. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm Some of the fundamentals have been languishing in my early, very expensive, books. I now realise that I can lift the basics out of those books. There are not many; they are easy to write, but arduous for you to master; e.g. "Space is the ability to accomodate energy". 7 words, but it will bog you down for 5 hours spread over some months or years.
www.ivorcatt.com is up and running. In due course, this will be easier for you to enter. At present it has virtually no content.
I appreciate your point that you are willing to pay. What you could do is send me what money you think fit, rather than I bill you for books etc.
Ivor 11aug01
...........................................................................................................................
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm
Ivor Catt 8aug01
Fundamentals of Electromagnetism
There is no instantaneous action at a distance. Space is that which prevents instantaneous action. Thus, what happens at a point in space is only the result of what is present at that point at that instant in time.
While researching the interconnection of high speed (1nsec) logic in Motorola, Phoenix, in 1965, I came across the Transverse Electromagnetic Wave (TEM Wave). This comprises an electric field, a magnetic field, and a velocity. These three factors are at right angles to each other. The electric and magnetic field are in a fixed ratio 377, and the velocity is a fixed 300,000.
To understand the TEM wave, think in terms of the very difficult concepts, which are the basis of the differential calculus. Consider a line (curve) in a two-dimensional graph. In the same way as a curve has a definite slope at a point, although at that point the curve has no length, and therefore no slope, so a TEM wave exists at a point but also exists in a region of space. (At a point it has only energy density, but in a region it has energy.) As another conceptual aid, consider the concepts mass and density. A body has density (but no mass) at a point, but it also has mass in a region of space. In the same way, a TEM wave is distributed through space. A portion of the wave at one point has no knowledge of the rest of the TEM wave.
In around 1887 Oliver Heaviside (OH), and 80 years later, independently, I myself conceived of the TEM wave of fixed magnitude travelling without change at the speed of light (300,000). OH called it a slab of energy current, which was a Morse pulse travelling unchanged down the undersea coaxial cable from Newcastle to Denmark. I saw it as a logic pulse travelling unchanged along a printed circuit board from one logic gate to the next, guided between the signal line and the 0v return line.
In this exposition, the term "wave" does not in any way imply a sine wave. There are no sine waves in my theory, which is based on the square pulse. The sine wave is not a Primit .....etc. etc.... http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm
----- Original Message ----- From: S Harris To: Ivor Catt Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:01 PM Subject: Re: who has run away
Ivar,
That book took a good bit of time to arrive here two weeks ago. I was out of town. I received the book a few days ago and had a chance to review it with the graphics.
It is good work, and in the short time that I've studied it, I have arrived at several questions.
I'll try to figure them out on my own.
I do think that I'd like to carry on an open dialog about this, if you have the energy to work with yet another ee.
snip..................
*************************************************
Thanks.

I have now received your Electromagnetics 1 in the post and am trying to
understand it. What I do understand makes perfectly good sense. However, a
primer for dummies would be very helpful.

Mark

At 01:56 PM 8/8/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Start of Fundamentals of Catt's e-m. To be continued later
>
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D.

To: Ivor Catt

Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 9:33 PM

Subject: Re: Catt theories

Dear Ivor,

We are considering a new section in Scipolicy-The Journal of Science and Health Policy dedicated to Frontier Sciences.

As you have appearantly done significant work and writing in the field of electromagetism, we would like to invite you to contribute an article on the subject. If published it will appear in the Frontier Sciences section.

This will be an opportunity to have your research reviewed and commented upon those in the physics and physical sciences establishments. There is no commitment that your article will be published, but we do assure that it will be peer reviewed (double blind process) before a decision is made. More often than not, extensive revisions are necessary to answer questions and comments by peer reviewers. It is not a censurship process but one that judges the scientific worthiness of discoveries and departure from existing knowledge. (Good men and women do disagree.)

Discoveries in the Frontier Sciences are difficult to relate to public policies per se. However, they do suggest new directions for those in the sciences to consider new thought and new directions of research. The route to wide scale change is very difficult as every researcher knows, and the competition is brutal. Even when a discovery is agreed upon, it may take decades before it is adopted throughout science.

For instance, much has been written about quantum theory, chaos, and newly discovered states of energy. Though there is widespread agreement that the foundations of physical science need to be revised to reflect the topics mentioned, there is nary agreement - not even close - on how to proceed with revising the textbooks.

All we in science can do is do is the best we can while are alive - and perhaps we can make some difference today - with the hope that our legacies will be enduring and useful to those in the future.

Between now and then, the task is monumental and consumes all of our hours. So, with no promises about results or influence, we will process your submission and send it out to the "brick wall" folks. Every scientist in history has had to cope with the difficulty of changing the shape of the wall. Sometimes the best approach is to change one or two bricks. Sometimes the changes cause the whole wall to adjust - but as every brick layer knows, it takes time to settle in.

What we will need is a consolidated article that spells out the salient findings of your research and properly documents the evidence of your discoveries. A brief review of the state of the literature and a summary of your methodology in doing your work are critically important. New terms should be defined and a glossary should be included. Presume that readers are NOT YET familiar with the subject of your article, and they might delve into it in time. A few diagrams could be useful. Figure on 5000-7000 words to convey it all and conclude with suggesting the most important areas for further study including statements of why such areas of study are important in their implications and ramifications. Please tiltle your work to reflect the main discovery you are writing about, e.g, a neutral title like "Parnubian Energy Detectors and Emissions in DNA Proteins." We cannot publish new global theories (theories of everything) or theories that are posited on assumptions and speculation because such theories cannot be empirically verified. Thus, we would not publish the works of the world's leading astro physicists about the origins of the universe.

If you would like your article to be considered for the Fall/Winter issue, we will need it by September 15, 2001. For the Spring/Summer issue, we will need it by March 15, 2002.

Please RSVP if you intend to submit an article.

Best,

Stephen

Stephen Miles Sacks, MPA, Ph.D.,
Editor and Publisher
SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy
Box 504, Haverford, PA 19041
Voice and Fax: 610-658-2332 until 7-01-01
NEW NUMBER: 610-660-0220 effective 7-01-01
Website:
http://www.Scipolicy.net
E-mail:
editor@Scipolicy.net

----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt To: S Harris Cc: nigel cook ; Mark Freer Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 AM Subject: Re: Catt theories
S Harris
When my father (now dead) was old and had nothing to do, he claimed he was very busy. So you should not believe my assertion that I am very busy.
Try to assume each time to email me that I do not remember what went before. Then I can handle you more quickly.
I think you have Electromagnetism 1, 1994, and nothing else. If so, I have 200 copies of "The Catt Anomaly" unbound and without the first 8 and last 8pp. I suggest I send you the sheets, and sometime you pay me what you think. If you want that, reply with a "Yes". If not, reply with a "No".
If Electromagnetism 1, 1994 will keep you out of mischief for a few weeks, then wait for the properly bound "Catt Anomaly".
The censorship of my work has been enormously wasteful of my talents. On the other hand, I cannot betray my work, because then I could not condemn anybody else who censors it. Thus, I have to give back-up. Trouble is, somneone on http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/Tweaker.htm recently suggested I am after money, and this suspicion will always lurk around. You will appreriate my problem. Consider the con-man (who may believe he is honest) who sells silver plated wires to connect up loudspeakers.
I need to get someone to set up an email discussion group (I always forget what they are called) where those who are pursuing my theories can dialogue with each other, and take some of the pressure off me. I shall email this email to some others in the hope that one of my "followers" is willing to set it up. As you know, anything done on the www has a horrendous learning curve, which I am not willing to start to ascend; at least not at this moment. I fear that Nigel Cook is not enough of a nerd to do it. I should mention at this point that when I say "my theories" I should say CDW theories - Catt, Davidson, Walton. We were and are heavily meshed together re e-m.
Ivor Catt
I have started a document on my website which starts my theories on e-m from scratch. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm Some of the fundamentals have been languishing in my early, very expensive, books. I now realise that I can lift the basics out of those books. There are not many; they are easy to write, but arduous for you to master; e.g. "Space is the ability to accomodate energy". 7 words, but it will bog you down for 5 hours spread over some months or years.
www.ivorcatt.com is up and running. In due course, this will be easier for you to enter. At present it has virtually no content.
I appreciate your point that you are willing to pay. What you could do is send me what money you think fit, rather than I bill you for books etc.
Ivor 11aug01
...........................................................................................................................
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm
Ivor Catt 8aug01
Fundamentals of Electromagnetism
There is no instantaneous action at a distance. Space is that which prevents instantaneous action. Thus, what happens at a point in space is only the result of what is present at that point at that instant in time.
While researching the interconnection of high speed (1nsec) logic in Motorola, Phoenix, in 1965, I came across the Transverse Electromagnetic Wave (TEM Wave). This comprises an electric field, a magnetic field, and a velocity. These three factors are at right angles to each other. The electric and magnetic field are in a fixed ratio 377, and the velocity is a fixed 300,000.
To understand the TEM wave, think in terms of the very difficult concepts, which are the basis of the differential calculus. Consider a line (curve) in a two-dimensional graph. In the same way as a curve has a definite slope at a point, although at that point the curve has no length, and therefore no slope, so a TEM wave exists at a point but also exists in a region of space. (At a point it has only energy density, but in a region it has energy.) As another conceptual aid, consider the concepts mass and density. A body has density (but no mass) at a point, but it also has mass in a region of space. In the same way, a TEM wave is distributed through space. A portion of the wave at one point has no knowledge of the rest of the TEM wave.
In around 1887 Oliver Heaviside (OH), and 80 years later, independently, I myself conceived of the TEM wave of fixed magnitude travelling without change at the speed of light (300,000). OH called it a slab of energy current, which was a Morse pulse travelling unchanged down the undersea coaxial cable from Newcastle to Denmark. I saw it as a logic pulse travelling unchanged along a printed circuit board from one logic gate to the next, guided between the signal line and the 0v return line.
In this exposition, the term "wave" does not in any way imply a sine wave. There are no sine waves in my theory, which is based on the square pulse. The sine wave is not a Primit .....etc. etc.... http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm
----- Original Message ----- From: S Harris To: Ivor Catt Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:01 PM Subject: Re: who has run away
Ivar,
That book took a good bit of time to arrive here two weeks ago. I was out of town. I received the book a few days ago and had a chance to review it with the graphics.
It is good work, and in the short time that I've studied it, I have arrived at several questions.
I'll try to figure them out on my own.
I do think that I'd like to carry on an open dialog about this, if you have the energy to work with yet another ee.
snip..................
*************************************************
Thanks.

I have now received your Electromagnetics 1 in the post and am trying to
understand it. What I do understand makes perfectly good sense. However, a
primer for dummies would be very helpful.

Mark

At 01:56 PM 8/8/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Start of Fundamentals of Catt's e-m. To be continued later
>
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt

To: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D.

Cc: hiram caton

Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:10 PM

Subject: Re: 7aug01

Sacks; "Insofar as Theo Theocaris and the Scipolicy Journal are concerned, he has never sent a manuscript or a proposal for an article. Categorically, we have never heard from him about submitting an article. Thus, this letter concludes our discussions with third parties about Theo Theocaris and the Scipolicy Journal."

This statement of yours may mean that you are now incommunicado on the subject addressed by Theocharis in his 15oct87 article in Nature. Are you now incommunicado?

Sacks; "All articles are sent out for double-blind peer review and internal review meaning that neither the author nor outside reviewers know each other's identities."

The best comment on this is http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17142.htm I here quote the first three of some 30 items on Peer Review, from that document;

Peer review

"Peer review works against the really creative people who come along with new proposals that go against the mainstream. I think everyone knows that peer review basically leads to conformity."

Geoffrey Burbidge, University of California

"The prejudice in favor of a pat ‘interpretation’, no matter how anomalous the observed phenomena, is particularly stifling when, as in journal refereeing and grant reviewing, it is essential to get consensus: Originality and independence of mind are least to be found in a committee."

Philip W. Anderson, Nobel Physicist, Princeton University physics today sept 1990 p. 9

"Peer review, in secret, is probably the single, most-abused ritual in academia. This is where the ugly biases of peers and seniors become law. This despicable mummery should have long ago been abolished." .............

The crisis which undermined 20th century science was the unscientific assertion that facts do not exist. This is where Modern Physics lost its way and became totally sterile (inventing 200 fundamental particles). Peers will defend the principle that facts do not exist, and suppress any counter-argument. Sokal Hoax rode on the back of this deep malaise, illustrated by Heisenberg's assertion (essentially that facts do not exist), which was discussed by Theo in 1987 when Sokal was still in nappies. Sokal could only arise because of the collision between two world views compared by Popper on p100 in "Conjectures and Refutations", and previously arising in the collision between Galileo and Orthodoxy. Popper places Instrumentalism, which is the dogma of your peers who will review my (and Theo's) writings for you, on the side of the Church, against Galileo. As a quick test, you can ask three of your blind peer reviewers whether absolute facts exist.

Secondly, none of your peers will allow publication including an assertion that pre-"Modern Physics" (= Copenhagen Interpretation) Science still exists.

I note in your mission statement http://home.att.net/~Scipolicy/admin/aboutscipolicy.htm ;

We look to conventional as well as frontier thought to provide alternatives for future research. No paradigm is beyond new rational review when new data or concepts are discovered. Our role is to communicate the information and the ramifications. The search for value neutral scientific discovery is paramount because from it flows better ways of analyzing the laws, policies, and conditions that govern our lives, endeavors, and environment.

If you use double blind peer review, you will be going nowhere. Peer review excludes frontier thought. Use (above) of Kuhn's word paradigm is particularly offensive since you are 100% Establishment. See Kuhn, "The Structure...." 1962/70, p148, 132, 109 ".... they will inevitably talk through each other ....". Also see Polanyi, "Personal Knowledge" 1958/62, where he pre-dates Kuhn's discussion of the paradigm shift. See Polanyi p151; "Such comprehensive rejection cannot fail to discredit the opponent. He will be made to appear as thoroughly deluded ...."

Your Mission Statement ".... No paradigm is beyond new rational review when new data or concepts are discovered." directly contradicts Polanyi and Kuhn, and yet you use Kuhn's word "paradigm" in the same paragraph! You people are just ignorant Wallies. Don't try to appear to know what you are ignorant about. You will not be able to carry it off.

As to what Theo does about you in my conference, I will hand out your written statement, and give him the floor. However, I think he's unfair to play around with intellectual kids like you lot. He's bound to win. As to you, get reading and studying, so as to avoid making further fools of yourselves This is not easy territory. Alternatively, get back to your toy bricks, where you will be able to build without knowing anything.

Ivor Catt 8aug01

----- Original Message -----

From: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D. To: Ivor Catt Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:38 PM Subject: Reply to you letter of 08-06-01
Dear Ivor,
You write...
<<...it would be much better if I could read the articles you have published on the Sokal Hoax, to give me some grasp of the alleged difficulty with Theo.>>
We have not published any articles on the Sokal Hoax. It is an old and jaded issue. Sokal himself as well as social scientists generally decline further comment on it - except to refer to it in an historical context. The event and issue per se are over. We have published reviews of a new article by Bricmont and Sokal but they strictly focused on content other than the Sokal Hoax.
Insofar as the typology you personally suggest about the kinds of approaches to the study of science, it is interesting schema. However, our editorial perspective is that it is divisible and discrete from the "Embarrassing questions..." charge that you first wrote to us about.
If you personally wish to write and submit to us an original article or proposal about the typology of science and/or the general problem of difficulty of publication of alternative approaches, we will be pleased to consider it for publication.
Please note that we do not entertain proposals for articles or consider articles submitted by third parties - including literary agents or friends, family, or supporters of researchers. Only the original author should communicate with us directly on a confidential basis. This is a strict rule as is double blind and internal peer review. The rules are designed to uphold the integrity and quality of articles and literary property rights of our authors.
Since we publish only professionally peer reviewed articles, our authors are either PhD degree level researchers or practitioners or highly responsible practitioners (such as MD or JD researchers, CEO of a medical research establishment, or head of a major government agency). Articles are written by professionals, they are peer reviewed by professionals, and they are for professional readership. We do not participate in the general science trade marketplace.
Author guidelines appear in our website www.scipolicy.net . They include the following: Journal articles are 5000-7000 words written according to the Chicago manual of style - except that we prefer end of sentence citations and list of sources rather than footnotes. All articles are sent out for double-blind peer review and internal review meaning that neither the author nor outside reviewers know each other's identities. Based on the reviewers comments and recommendations, the options are: to proceed with publication with our without revision; request the author to revise and resubmit to address specific reviewers comments; or decline to publish.
Some common reasons for decline to publish include: redundancy with existing articles; banal or insignificant contribution to the literature; narrowly focused articles or point of view article; articles that that lack policy relationship (we are not a technical journal); articles that are based on revelation or feat by the author rather than empirical references and analysis; and articles that contain excessive foggy language or style that precludes the majority of readers from understanding them.
Insofar as Theo Theocaris and the Scipolicy Journal are concerned, he has never sent a manuscript or a proposal for an article. Categorically, we have never heard from him about submitting an article. Thus, this letter concludes our discussions with third parties about Theo Theocaris and the Scipolicy Journal.
We will be pleased to consider any articles you may wish to author and personally submit, and we wish you the best in your professional endeavors.
Best regards,
Stephen
Stephen Miles Sacks, MPA, Ph.D.,
Editor and Publisher
SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy
Box 504, Haverford, PA 19041
Voice and Fax: 610-658-2332 until 7-01-01
NEW NUMBER: 610-660-0220 effective 7-01-01
Website:
http://www.Scipolicy.net
E-mail:
editor@Scipolicy.net
----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt To: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D. Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:39 PM Subject: Re: SCIPOLICYT CENSORS EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS
I am comfortable with your instructions to me to read out your riposte. However, it would be much better if I could read the articles you have published on the Sokal Hoax, to give me some grasp of the alleged difficulty with Theo.
I may have joined you in some way in the last few days and then forgotten my pass code. However, I'm not sure. I have finger trouble with the joining process.
One way or another, I need to read what you have published about science wars/sokal. I saw that in your index of 30 articles you had at least two on the subject. It is important that the Theocharis article in Nature in 15oct1987 be not excluded from the Science Wars / Sokal debate. At the very least, Sokal himself should be prevailed on to say the Theo 87 article is irrelevant, if he thinks that is the case.
Also see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y45mredh.htm about Sokal. Sokal was present at the lecture that is discussed in that location. He has always remained incommunicado, as has Redhead.
I would like to offer http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y45mredh.htm to your journal. That might clarify my concern that a small rump in academia is hijacking a subject, and also misrepresenting it. It is important that in Science Wars, one be given the opportunity to argue that there are three, not two, camps. Sokal et al. call "Modern Physics" "Science", and gate out classical science. The three camps are Sociology, Modern Physics, Classical Science. All the criticisms of science in the science wars only apply to "Modern Physics". See my separation of the two long before the science wars, in "The Betrayal of Science by Modern Physics" included at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wb1anbk7.htm , published in Wireless World, which starts with;
"Appendix 5
"The Betrayal of science by 'modern physics'.
"We can classify disciplines as ranging from hard to soft; from physics, engineering, chemistry, biology; through sociology, psychology; to geography, history, literature, religion. The hard disciplines are described as 'science'. In a soft discipline, a model, theory or fact is still of value even if it is imperfect, flawed. The definition of a hard science could be that it is capable of sustaining a perfect, true, model, theory or fact.
"For prestige reasons, the soft sciences - sociology and psychology - try to take on the mantle of the hard sciences by using 'scientific method'; a method of arriving at rigid, 'true', facts, models and theories. They do this in order to gain access to the prestige and funding (NASA-type) that the hard sciences command. So we see subjects trying to move to the left, from soft to hard...." etc
Yours sincerely, Ivor Catt 6aug01
Also see;
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zc045.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wa1facts.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D. <Editor@Scipolicy.net>
To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: SCIPOLICYT CENSORS EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt

To: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D.

Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: SCIPOLICYT CENSORS EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS

I am comfortable with your instructions to me to read out your riposte. However, it would be much better if I could read the articles you have published on the Sokal Hoax, to give me some grasp of the alleged difficulty with Theo.

I may have joined you in some way in the last few days and then forgotten my pass code. However, I'm not sure. I have finger trouble with the joining process.

One way or another, I need to read what you have published about science wars/sokal. I saw that in your index of 30 articles you had at least two on the subject. It is important that the Theocharis article in Nature in 15oct1987 be not excluded from the Science Wars / Sokal debate. At the very least, Sokal himself should be prevailed on to say the Theo 87 article is irrelevant, if he thinks that is the case.

Also see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y45mredh.htm about Sokal. Sokal was present at the lecture that is discussed in that location. He has always remained incommunicado, as has Redhead.

I would like to offer http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y45mredh.htm to your journal. That might clarify my concern that a small rump in academia is hijacking a subject, and also misrepresenting it. It is important that in Science Wars, one be given the opportunity to argue that there are three, not two, camps. Sokal et al. call "Modern Physics" "Science", and gate out classical science. The three camps are Sociology, Modern Physics, Classical Science. All the criticisms of science in the science wars only apply to "Modern Physics". See my separation of the two long before the science wars, in "The Betrayal of Science by Modern Physics" included at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wb1anbk7.htm , published in Wireless World, which starts with;

"Appendix 5

"The Betrayal of science by 'modern physics'.

"We can classify disciplines as ranging from hard to soft; from physics, engineering, chemistry, biology; through sociology, psychology; to geography, history, literature, religion. The hard disciplines are described as 'science'. In a soft discipline, a model, theory or fact is still of value even if it is imperfect, flawed. The definition of a hard science could be that it is capable of sustaining a perfect, true, model, theory or fact.

"For prestige reasons, the soft sciences - sociology and psychology - try to take on the mantle of the hard sciences by using 'scientific method'; a method of arriving at rigid, 'true', facts, models and theories. They do this in order to gain access to the prestige and funding (NASA-type) that the hard sciences command. So we see subjects trying to move to the left, from soft to hard...." etc

Yours sincerely, Ivor Catt 6aug01

Also see;

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zc045.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wa1facts.htm

----- Original Message -----

From: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D. <Editor@Scipolicy.net>

To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 7:08 PM

Subject: Re: SCIPOLICYT CENSORS EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS


> Dear Mr. Catt,
>
> We are in receipt of your invitation. Given that you are the organizer of a
> debate to publicly discuss censorship accusations by Mr. Theo Theocaris, I
> am providing you with our response to your invitation.
>
> At the outset I should state that I am writing as a courtesy to you and your
> efforts in conducting open forums. If the agenda goes on as scheduled, I ask

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The was sent to Sacks (undisclosed recipient)

----- Original Message ----- From: Ivor Catt

To: S Harris

Cc: nigel cook ; Mark Freer

Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 12:05 PM

Subject: Re: Catt theories

S Harris

When my father (now dead) was old and had nothing to do, he claimed he was very busy. So you should not believe my assertion that I am very busy.

Try to assume each time to email me that I do not remember what went before. Then I can handle you more quickly.

I think you have Electromagnetism 1, 1994, and nothing else. If so, I have 200 copies of "The Catt Anomaly" unbound and without the first 8 and last 8pp. I suggest I send you the sheets, and sometime you pay me what you think. If you want that, reply with a "Yes". If not, reply with a "No".

If Electromagnetism 1, 1994 will keep you out of mischief for a few weeks, then wait for the properly bound "Catt Anomaly".

The censorship of my work has been enormously wasteful of my talents. On the other hand, I cannot betray my work, because then I could not condemn anybody else who censors it. Thus, I have to give back-up. Trouble is, somneone on http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/Tweaker.htm recently suggested I am after money, and this suspicion will always lurk around. You will appreriate my problem. Consider the con-man (who may believe he is honest) who sells silver plated wires to connect up loudspeakers.

I need to get someone to set up an email discussion group (I always forget what they are called) where those who are pursuing my theories can dialogue with each other, and take some of the pressure off me. I shall email this email to some others in the hope that one of my "followers" is willing to set it up. As you know, anything done on the www has a horrendous learning curve, which I am not willing to start to ascend; at least not at this moment. I fear that Nigel Cook is not enough of a nerd to do it. I should mention at this point that when I say "my theories" I should say CDW theories - Catt, Davidson, Walton. We were and are heavily meshed together re e-m.

Ivor Catt

I have started a document on my website which starts my theories on e-m from scratch. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm Some of the fundamentals have been languishing in my early, very expensive, books. I now realise that I can lift the basics out of those books. There are not many; they are easy to write, but arduous for you to master; e.g. "Space is the ability to accomodate energy". 7 words, but it will bog you down for 5 hours spread over some months or years.

www.ivorcatt.com is up and running. In due course, this will be easier for you to enter. At present it has virtually no content.

I appreciate your point that you are willing to pay. What you could do is send me what money you think fit, rather than I bill you for books etc.

Ivor 11aug01

...........................................................................................................................

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm

Ivor Catt 8aug01

Fundamentals of Electromagnetism

There is no instantaneous action at a distance. Space is that which prevents instantaneous action. Thus, what happens at a point in space is only the result of what is present at that point at that instant in time.

While researching the interconnection of high speed (1nsec) logic in Motorola, Phoenix, in 1965, I came across the Transverse Electromagnetic Wave (TEM Wave). This comprises an electric field, a magnetic field, and a velocity. These three factors are at right angles to each other. The electric and magnetic field are in a fixed ratio 377, and the velocity is a fixed 300,000.

To understand the TEM wave, think in terms of the very difficult concepts, which are the basis of the differential calculus. Consider a line (curve) in a two-dimensional graph. In the same way as a curve has a definite slope at a point, although at that point the curve has no length, and therefore no slope, so a TEM wave exists at a point but also exists in a region of space. (At a point it has only energy density, but in a region it has energy.) As another conceptual aid, consider the concepts mass and density. A body has density (but no mass) at a point, but it also has mass in a region of space. In the same way, a TEM wave is distributed through space. A portion of the wave at one point has no knowledge of the rest of the TEM wave.

In around 1887 Oliver Heaviside (OH), and 80 years later, independently, I myself conceived of the TEM wave of fixed magnitude travelling without change at the speed of light (300,000). OH called it a slab of energy current, which was a Morse pulse travelling unchanged down the undersea coaxial cable from Newcastle to Denmark. I saw it as a logic pulse travelling unchanged along a printed circuit board from one logic gate to the next, guided between the signal line and the 0v return line.

In this exposition, the term "wave" does not in any way imply a sine wave. There are no sine waves in my theory, which is based on the square pulse. The sine wave is not a Primit .....etc. etc.... http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm

----- Original Message ----- From: S Harris To: Ivor Catt Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:01 PM Subject: Re: who has run away
Ivar,
That book took a good bit of time to arrive here two weeks ago. I was out of town. I received the book a few days ago and had a chance to review it with the graphics.
It is good work, and in the short time that I've studied it, I have arrived at several questions.
I'll try to figure them out on my own.
I do think that I'd like to carry on an open dialog about this, if you have the energy to work with yet another ee.
snip..................
*************************************************
Thanks.

I have now received your Electromagnetics 1 in the post and am trying to
understand it. What I do understand makes perfectly good sense. However, a
primer for dummies would be very helpful.

Mark

At 01:56 PM 8/8/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Start of Fundamentals of Catt's e-m. To be continued later
>
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17143.htm