Censorship

 

 

 

Plumbing the Depths

Ivor Catt July2006

 

.

Forrest said to me when here in my home in May 2006 that he intended to assemble the extraordinary array of obtuse remarks used in the process of evading "The Catt Question" .

It is important to repeat that this research is unprecedented. There is no reason why the groundwork by those who have researched and published on "The Galileo Affair", "The Velikovsky Affair", "The Dingle Affair", "The Essen Affair", should have completed and finalised the subject.
As I have said a few times before, Catt's repudiation of all his contributions to electromagnetic theory, coupled with an elementary, simple question about the classical theory, is unprecedented. It is not the same as Galileo repudiating his theories under threat of torture, or any other precedents.
Note that Tombe cannot even understand the concept of Catt repudiating his own theories, and confuses Catt's (repudiated) theories with "The Catt Question" about the conventional theory. However, it is important to note that the problem is not limited to Tombe. So many on this circulation have demonstrated that they refuse to understand even the simplest idea; e.g. "The Catt Question", or the idea that "The Catt Question" has nothing to do with "Theory C". That is, they not only refuse to understand a simple question; they refuse to classify discourse, as is done in the "Index" page of a book, when one chapter is separated from another. Those on this circulation are either silent, or jumble up everything as if throwing all the pieces from many jigsaw puzzles on the floor together, and then "discussing" the result.
What we now discover is that even self-styled dissidents, and not only Defenders of the (orthodox) Faith, insist on (pretending to) not understand the Question. They also spam it with much nonsense, or large slabs of conventional theory, or they go silent.

 

A politician who had spoken from the same platform as London's Mayor Livingstone once told me; "A politician is careful to not understand something which it is in his interest to not understand." Can we call a man who behaves in this way a Scientist? Does the educational and examining process sort out the sheep from the goats in this way? Do these people not only pack Establishment Science, but also supply most of the members of Dissident Science as well?

We see a major advance beyond the historical precedent. A few centuries ago, a Good Catholic must not read any of the books on "The Index". However, must he also not know of their existence? Today, we know that a Good Scientist must not admit to having heard of Catt, let alone Catt's work and his theories. I think that to succeed, the Good Scientist must not have heard of "The Catt Question". Those on this circulation made the mistake of admitting to having heard of it. They now have to try to restore their position by pretending to not understand it, or talking nonsense or irrelevance, or going silent. The scale of the paranoia is awesome.

I fear that the current crisis will be avoided by the appropriate academic disciplines because they are technology-free, and will claim to lack the required technical expeertise to study it. For instance, I fear that the following author would run away from our information? He wrote as follows; " Denial The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs, where the abandonment or reversal of denial forms the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps. The ability to deny or minimize is an essential part of what enables an addict to continue his or her behavior in the face of evidence that, to an outsider, appears overwhelming. This is cited as one of the reasons that compulsion is seldom effective in treating addiction the habit of denial remains."

That is, experts in "Denial" will be in denial when it comes to the idea that science has become today's dogmatic religion, in defiance of all the core principles guiding a true scientist's behaviour and work.

- Ivor Catt 8 July 2006


----- Original Message -----
From: "Forrest Bishop" <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
To: "David Tombe" <sirius184@hotmail.com>; et al.
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: The Catt Question (itself is not even grasped)

This is an important discovery. Not only do the proponents of the old (e-m) theory not understand the new (e-m) theory (Khun), and not only do they not understand their own, old theory, they become incapable of even grasping the simplest possible Question regarding their own theory. This discovery belongs to a different field from physics. [Note 1]

"The Catt Question" itself has been shown to be not understood by a number of Theory N practicioners. It is the simplest possible Question for a Theory N practitioner, as "do moons circle Jupiter?" would be the simplest possible Question to put to a Ptolemaic astronomer.

Aside from the silent and abusive responses;

We have seen this from GL, who wished to add a current-limiting resistor, and claimed the answer was to be found somewhere in the equations. ["Solve the Epicycles, everyone know the answer is in there."]

We saw this from NC, who mistook "D" for "dD/dt", then insisted it was a trick Question. ["You used the wong symbol for Jupiter."]

We saw this from DT, who thought it had something to do with the plates of a capacitor, and with some murky process going on inside the conductor. ["We don't know if moons circle other stars."]

The copy below illustrates.

Forrest Bishop

www.forrestbishop.4t.com

Note 1. Written by Ivor Catt. When attempting to discuss electromagnetic theory in a rational way, one confronts, not problems within science, but problems in social pathology, which problems now presumably dominate all science. What "The Catt Question" seems to prove is that these problems within science are worse than those which existed within medaeval religion. I don't think that then, the admission even to hearing of and understanding a heresy led to excommunication. I.C 8july06

Accountability in Science

 

Open letter to May Chiao, Associate Editor of Nature Physics

 

Homepage | Electromagnetism1 | Old Website