I suppose then that explains the dim view of Mr. Catt towards Mr. Josephine's explanation of the Catt Question, since said explanation was fundamentally flawed and could lead nowhere. So, why is it that Catt is put down as a simpleton unable to understand a "simple" explanation that we both agree is fundamentally flawed and leads nowhere, much less to an understanding?
Your view here is basically completely opposite to the conventional (and very conservative) theory which holds the view that the established experts in the various fields, who have devoted their lives and careers around a defective scientific model and have been accorded great esteem as being highly regarded as being the upper echelon expert professionals in that particular branch of knowledge would also have the greatest potential losses if their accumulated knowledge was exposed as being a fallacy ungrounded by physical reality.
We may well live in a "crippled" world but I seriously doubt that there are many individuals who are accustumed to the fawning adulation offered up by the masses and the respectful camaraderie they enjoy at the country clubs and speaking convention who view their world as being crippled in any way.
For example, I invite you to read
What do astrophysics and the world's oldest profession have in common?
1
by M. López Corredoira
(Page 107 of Against the Tide)
Especially see the subsection
Financing, astropoliticians and supervedettes
(Page 116) and try to determine if the psychological traits typically common to this rank of scientists is conducive towards any empathy towards any person not enjoying a lifestyle similar to theirs.
Lastly, I would ask you if you have ever contemplated a notion towards the possibility that these top rank and file influential scientists are themselves subserviant to a higher ruling apolitical ruling class who strive at all times to assure that our crippled world will never surmount the many imposed disabilities that are intentionally enshrined so as to protect the ruling parties from the dethronement that might threaten them should circumstances be otherwise?
(Page 107 of Against the Tide)
Especially see the subsection
Financing, astropoliticians and supervedettes
(Page 116) and try to determine if the psychological traits typically common to this rank of scientists is conducive towards any empathy towards any person not enjoying a lifestyle similar to theirs.
Lastly, I would ask you if you have ever contemplated a notion towards the possibility that these top rank and file influential scientists are themselves subserviant to a higher ruling apolitical ruling class who strive at all times to assure that our crippled world will never surmount the many imposed disabilities that are intentionally enshrined so as to protect the ruling parties from the dethronement that might threaten them should circumstances be otherwise?
Yes, well they let honest science flourish in ancient Egypt and look what happened to that!
I think they've learned it's best to keep a lid on some things...
edit: and Atlantis too. Let's don't forget how that turned out.
Last edited:
Heydey, to respond to your question, what kind of ruling would it be to fiddle with a bunch of amoebas that are taught wrong from elementary school up, busting up the planet all along? My point is the cost would outweigh the benefit. UNDOUBTEDLY this is politics, but you rule billions of people because you need them, doing what is possible.
I'll admit that my second post contains a concept that splits two ways. The physicists that are supposedly holding all the cards may really not care about anyone or anything else and pull a scam on the level of what you're suggesting, but they'd get bored of that pretty fast if a game changing, life altering technology were available. Look at Hawking. You think he knows something that would allow him to play tennis?
I'll admit that my second post contains a concept that splits two ways. The physicists that are supposedly holding all the cards may really not care about anyone or anything else and pull a scam on the level of what you're suggesting, but they'd get bored of that pretty fast if a game changing, life altering technology were available. Look at Hawking. You think he knows something that would allow him to play tennis?
Last edited:
If the process conduction is posed in the full quantum mechanical way with the wave functions of the electrons there is no "nudging" or Catt question.
scott
got a link,care to expand,
This Catt fan needs help.
Regards Max Albin
ps I realise life is short,so don't bust a nut.
got a link,care to expand,
This Catt fan needs help.
Regards Max Albin
ps I realise life is short,so don't bust a nut.
Last edited:
Unfortunately you need to find someone who understands this stuff without "electrons are like ping-pong balls lined up" analogies. So there is also an element of trust, since I have had physicist friends who I do trust explain why the particle analogies break down even though I miss a lot of the details.
So far as I know there is no complete quantum description of electron flow available. Hummel takes a stab at it, but only qualitatively. I get lots of flack here for even mentioning his textbook: 'Electronic Properties of Materials'
However, Ivor Catt apparently found this phenomenon back in the '60's and has tried to explain it ever since, and has been given a lot of flack for trying.
Let me give an example, just for fun, how the very same thing MIGHT have happened to me, IF I had a slightly different group of projects in the '60 and I published some 'puzzling' results that I might have obtained:
Let us say, that I had to make a j-fet input amplifier that had to meet a noise spec over a military range of -40 to +70 degrees centigrade. The j-fets are pre specified from the manufacturer to be less than 10nV/rt Hz. at 25 degrees C. Now, what happens if I tested the j-fets at 0 degrees C, and even -40 degrees C? Would the noise at 100 Hz ALWAYS get lower, or could it get higher? What If I measured HIGHER with certain fets? Would I be crazy, a lousy measurer, or just ignorant of subtle quantum principles then essentially not in a textbook at the time?
However, Ivor Catt apparently found this phenomenon back in the '60's and has tried to explain it ever since, and has been given a lot of flack for trying.
Let me give an example, just for fun, how the very same thing MIGHT have happened to me, IF I had a slightly different group of projects in the '60 and I published some 'puzzling' results that I might have obtained:
Let us say, that I had to make a j-fet input amplifier that had to meet a noise spec over a military range of -40 to +70 degrees centigrade. The j-fets are pre specified from the manufacturer to be less than 10nV/rt Hz. at 25 degrees C. Now, what happens if I tested the j-fets at 0 degrees C, and even -40 degrees C? Would the noise at 100 Hz ALWAYS get lower, or could it get higher? What If I measured HIGHER with certain fets? Would I be crazy, a lousy measurer, or just ignorant of subtle quantum principles then essentially not in a textbook at the time?
Well you could have developed the generation-recombination noise theory and become famous instead of Hasslett and Kendal. Good hard science BTW, proposed mechanisms, carefully designed experiments, and good measurements. I'm sure you made more money from the BT than they did from academic journals.
I could use some advice on front-side gettering.
Last edited:
I'm not sure,but.
In deferance to the OP I'm reminded of a visiting friend who remarked that people usually have something readable in the loo,football programs only maybe,
Science as a self suppressant.Computer jargon as a more recent example.
Plasmon Resonance...... shees....shoot me.
In deferance to the OP I'm reminded of a visiting friend who remarked that people usually have something readable in the loo,football programs only maybe,
Science as a self suppressant.Computer jargon as a more recent example.
Plasmon Resonance...... shees....shoot me.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.