Job security in "Research". ".




Catt among the Nobel Prizewinners


I feel it is most important to put more study into the pathology of hi academia. Tonight I went to the zoo again.

Tonight at Trinity High Table (which they sometimes claim packs more Nobel Prizewinners than the whole of France ), the man opposite announced that he was a Junior Research Fellow. I replied that it was unnecessarily humbling to include the word "junior", to which he had no reply. However, what then transpired helps us to understand his humility.

Since he was some sort of biologist who had interviewed the day before to try to get research funding from Wellcome, I told him about how my website said Wellcome were killers, and Wellcome did not sue me.

The killers continue their propaganda and their killing. ... AZT

Bishops rush in where angels fear to tread

I told him that there was massive censorhip in society, and major censorship in medicine. He could do a Google search for "aids dissidents" [see below]. The key point was that they were monolithic, and fully agreed among themselves, which would be unusual for dissidents in other fields.

He replied that the referee system was very valuable in suppressing a lot of rubbish, but had the unfortunate side-effect of suppressing someone who was way ahead of his time. "However, in the vast majority of cases it works well."

Some time later I mentioned that he had said that one of the purposes of censorship was to suppress someone who was way ahead of his time. He replied that this was not a purpose of censorship, but an unfortunate side-effect.

Now let us turn to his humility. It is likely that, surrounded by Nobel Prizewinners , he would feel that someone way ahead of his time presented more of a threat to his career than someone who published rubbish. Did I discern crocodile tears when he said he regretted the suppression of such unfair competition?

The truth is that, for the purpose of his career security, the referee system works well, not most, but all of the time.

".suppression in science results from fear that a new idea will obstruct the normal, calm progression of academic career and research funding " - Catt

Atiyah, Master [of Trinity]; "Yes. Colleges like this are essentially conservative institutions. ..... But if you make very rapid change .... . Institutions have a lot of built in resistance to change. . "

Anyone like Lavoisier who tried to advance beyond the standard incremental Nobel Prize threatens to bring the whole house down.

As another Fellow of Trinity said to me on another occasion at High Table; "Don't you think it presumptuous of you to think that you could make a major advance in science? , to which I replied that it was interesting, and perhaps useful, to assert that no major advances in science would be possible in the future.

"The epoch-making paper by Francis Crick and James Watson outlining the structure of DNA, which appeared in nature in 1953, would 'probably not be publishable today', Mr Maddox [editor of Nature] laments ...."

Ivor Catt. 1 June 2007



Although members of the AIDS dissident community are united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the specific positions taken by various groups differ.

----- Original Message -----
From: Maguire, Jim
To: ivor catt
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:53 AM
Subject: jon hays

ivor mr hays has written thus:

We owe to Heaviside
prediction of the layer of the atmosphere which refracts radio signals back to earth, known as "The Kennelly-Heaviside Zone".
equations for developing the theory and application of electromagnetics.
the development of vector algebra and analysis, now known as the "Gibbs-Heaviside approach".
The course in "Laplace Transform" I took at New York University in 1953 was taught by a visiting professor from Cambridge University in Britain. The literature often claims that Laplace Theory precludes any need of special functions introduced by Heaviside. We asked our prof about this. He said that one of the most important results was "the Heaviside step-function", later found to be the derivative of the Dirac functional, essential to quantum mathematics. Our prof said this function could not be performed in Laplace Transform Theory.

He also told us that professors and instructors were not allowed to mention Heaviside's name at Cambirdge. And he reminded us of Heaviside's retort to his critics -- that "when mathematicians die, they go to Cambirdge to teach."

Thoughts that great hearts once broke for, we breathe cheaply in the common air.--LOWELL

~~~~~~~~~~~~ hays end of text~~~~~~~~~~~~

am i wrong in thinking that operational calculus was an innovation of heaviside's?
i think in the book by carslaw and jaeger they called it

'the methods of heaviside and his followers...'

did oliver not invent operational calculus?


From: ivor catt []
Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 9:16 AM
To: Maguire, Jim
Subject: Re: explanation

You are getting trapped in maths games.
Heaviside's attitude is ambivalent. He lambasts obscure maths, but delivers a lot of it himself.

The trap you fall into is the third and fourth derivative etc. That is fine if you are designing an amplifier and want to avoid hooting at any frequency. However, that is removed from physical reality, which is what electromagnetic theory of my kind is about. That is, differential equations are much like my book "Digital Hardware Design" and even most of "Electromagnetism 1". Even the latter is mostly an aid to designers.

Fundamental theory, like Theory C or even "The Catt Question" is quite another territory. My e-m theory is about the nature of physical reality. In contrast, most of the two books cited above are about how to seccessfully navigate with the physical reality, with a few forays into fundamentals.

Think carefully over why you find yourself toying with differential equations of the fourth degree. How do they relate to physical reality? We know they are helpful for taking lecture, learning and examination time. Perhaps that is their only value.


----- Original Message -----
From: Maguire, Jim
To: ivor catt
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: explanation

yes i think i understand and
have 'benefitted' from the simplification of the 'everlasting exponentials'
and w
and the effective removal (to infinity!) of the problem of the transient

godfrey lucas once said "impedance is not a substitute for thought"
from which i inferred impedance as a ratio of everlasting quantities

but i must comment that the simplicity and beauty of the algebraic
s plane analysis, without any d/dt in sight, is certainly a boon to
the many engineers (and heaviside as well?) who found the appearance
and impact of d4x/dt4 ....d3x/dt3....d2x/dt2...etc etc tended to drain their
energies and confidence a bit. it is my (not necessarily very well informed)
understanding that we have oliver to thank, for changing the d/d s to p s.

in its place, its pretty good, i reckon!