Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

That is really the only reason I keep going. I know that there's no reaching you, but I am hopeful that I can at least show impressionable youths like Gosthacked that your wacky theories just don't hold water. I'm doing it for the kids.

The kids? I know so you can love them and hold them and pet them.

The theory of relativity is accepted as fact by a lot of people and that is the problem.

You were asking for what anomalies there were in the theory earlier and there are quite a few. The search for dark matter is essentially to explain one of those anomalies, where all the mass is that the theory says should be there. The Higgs-Bosun particle should exist according to theory. Physicists at CERN believe they may have discovered one last summer, more testing is being done. Quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter all the research in these areas are to explain anomalies or prove points that relativity predicts but have not yet been proven.

This tells you that relativity is still a theory.

What troubles me is that some scientists have declared it a fact and some people unquestioningly promote it as such and most people understand it to be

.

The fact is, it has not revealed the secrets of the universe. It has not explained everything, so must remain in the realm of theory and not fact. To assume it is fact is ok but to declare it fact is nothing less than authoritarian.

It may in the future prove to be the final theory but I kind of doubt it.

This is incorrect. It does not take energy to keep the atoms aligned with the magnetic field. Energy is applied to align them. That energy is stored as long as the magnetic field remains. When the magnetic field is removed, that energy is released as kinetic energy.

There is no "normal state" for those atoms. There is a state which stores the lowest potential energy, and that is the state that those atoms will arrive in. While the external magnetic field is present, the lowest potential energy is in the state where the atoms are aligned with the magnetic field. Any atom that is not in line with the magnetic field can lower its potential energy and increase its kinetic energy by moving to line up with the magnetic field.

When the external magnetic field is removed, the conditions change and the atoms are no longer in the state with the lowest potential energy. They will find a new orientation that reduces their potential and releases it as kinetic energy.

I think it works more like an elastic. If you stretch it, it attempts to return to its original relaxed state and it takes energy to hold it out of its relaxed state.

There's no need for Relativity to attempt to explain magnets; it's explained by ordinary classical laws of motion. Relativity explains why the magnet stays on the fridge entirely well simply by the fact that ordinary classical laws of motion are a subset of relativistic laws of motion for the special case where (v/c) is negligibly small. Ta-da, that's how relativity explains why the magnet explains on your fridge.

It all makes sense to you then?

I'm not getting coaching from Bonam on this; merely emotional support. My coaching on this subject came from Mr Herzberg, my grade 10 physics teacher.

-k

I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This tells you that relativity is still a theory.

What troubles me is that some scientists have declared it a fact....

Of course relativity is a theory! You are still having trouble with the definition of a theory in science. It is not the same definition that you are using. If you can't even get that correct, any "debate" about science is going to be completely pointless.

This might help:

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help:

Thanks squid.

So in the non-scientific context the big bang theory is something unproven or speculative. As used in science, it is an explanation or model that helps to explain and predict natural phenomena. It doesn't exclude the possibility of other theories and as long as there are unknowns it remains a theory.

There are currently two "theories" that are of practical or scientific use in physics, they are Newton's gravitational theory and the theory of relativity. Non-scientifically speaking then they are speculative. Scientifically they are models or concepts that explain and predict natural phenomena. They however, remain as "theories" because they have yet to explain or predict all natural phenomena. Either a new theory will do that or new discoveries will determine the existing theories to be entirely correct and the search will be over. Or perhaps new discoveries will prove existing theory incorrect and obviously some of the observation, experimentation and reasoning will be jettisoned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the non-scientific context the big bang theory is something unproven or speculative.

No... a theory is something that is unproven or speculative. The Big Bang (scientific) theory is not speculative or unproven.

As used in science, it is an explanation or model that helps to explain and predict natural phenomena. It doesn't exclude the possibility of other theories and as long as there are unknowns it remains a theory.

It does not exclude the possibility of other hypotheses... but to become a theory the hypothesis must be supported by repeatable tests through the scientific method.

Non-scientifically speaking then they are speculative.

No. They are not speculative as they have been tested and validated. Another theory could come along and replace them using the scientific method... but not just some idle speculation and opinion.

They however, remain as "theories" because they have yet to explain or predict all natural phenomena.

No, that's not why they are theories... They are theories because they have been proven to be correct and are the best explanation for certain natural phenomena.

Link to post
Share on other sites

kimmy, on 27 Jul 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Normal force.

Normal force is holding up the mass of the magnet? Is that what you are saying?

Quote

I know that's what you meant to say, but you're wrong.

Normal force is exerted perpendicular to a surface against anything that is pressing against it. If you have a spring pushing against a wall, the wall exerts a normal force against the spring. A fridge door exerts a normal force against a magnet that is pressing against it. a metal beam on your roof will exert normal force downward on a magnet that is pressing upward against it.

"Normal force on a vertical surface is zero" is a nonsensical statement, because it makes no references to what force is being applied against the vertical surface. Normal force due to gravity would be zero. Normal force due to a stick leaning against a wall is not zero. If a spring is pushing upward against your ceiling, your ceiling exerts normal force straight downward against the spring. If a magnet is attracted upward at your metal ceiling, your ceiling is applying normal force straight downward against the magnet.

"A magnet under the beam has no normal force exerted upon it to hold it up." Is what I said. There is no extant upward normal force applied to the mass of the magnet.

Quote

Bonus point: "Normal" is a mathematical term meaning a vector that is perpendicular to a plane. In the term "normal force", "normal" is not a synonym for "regular".

Excellent that you find definitions important.

Quote

I know what you meant, and again you're wrong.

The magnet is pushing upward against the surface of the beam, and the surface of the beam exerts normal force downward against the magnet. All the forces balance to zero:

Magnetic force (upward) = Weight (downward) + Normal Force (downward)

Just above didn't you answer normal force was holding the magnet up?

The normal force (downward) in your equation is only a reaction to the normal force of the mass of the magnet applied upward by the attraction of oppositely charged molecuales created by the magnetic force so they essentially balance. If you wanted to be correct you would have to say

Magnetic force + normal force upward = weight + normal force downward.

But the magnetic force is actually polar and does not pull up. The magnetic field causes the molecules of the ferrous material to charge opposite to that of the magnet and the molecules, now polarized and aligned, attract.

Quote

I work in residential construction; I suppose that by internet credentials standards, that makes me an "applied physics expert in the field of civil engineering."

Regardless; my credentials aren't the issue. I have all the qualifications necessary to point out that you're wrong. A grade 3 kid is qualified to point out basic addition errors; any highschool graduate is qualified to point out the errors in basic physics you're making.

You also have broad public support in your opinion.

There is nothing that explains why the mass of a magnet can be supported by itself without any energy consumption.

Quote

On the contrary; I'm doing just fine. The only thing I'm finding to be a struggle is attempting to communicate with someone so impermeable to information (that's the only way I can think of to phrase that without getting warning points...)

I know how it is explained by the theory. The explanation ignores observation. All that you've said amounts to "there is a balance of forces that holds the magnet in place". Gravitational force pulling on the mass of the magnet is neutralized by friction, magnetism and normal forces.

In fact, on a hanging magnet there is only the attraction of oppositely charged molecules in the magnet and the ferrous material countering gravity. The strength of the magnetic field, the magnetic force, determines how many molecules will be charged and that determines whether or not the mass of the magnet will be able to be held up.

Quote

"Practical" isn't a concept that has scientific merit.

in applied sciences "practical" definitely does have merit. And that is how I meant the term as in practical application.

Quote

"Empirical" has scientific merit.

Empirical evidence is obtained in verifiable, repeatable experiments that test a hypothesis, whether you consider it "practical" or not.

Good.

Quote

No; Mr McCutcheon's idea isn't a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. Mr McCutcheon's idea represents the difference between a "theory" and "an idea that somebody came up with while puffing on a bong full of high-quality chiba-chiba."

-k

Perhaps.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, Pliny, you are making an epic fool of yourself. I don't have time to help you right now, but I will get back to this soon enough. In the mean time, could you remind us again what kind of electrical background it was that you have?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

kimmy, on 29 Jul 2013 - 8:43 PM, said:

Good grief, Pliny, you are making an epic fool of yourself. I don't have time to help you right now, but I will get back to this soon enough. In the mean time, could you remind us again what kind of electrical background it was that you have?

-k

I will try and make it really simple for you and the kids.

A magnet in proximity to a metal spring will attract the spring to it. This is how a contact works in an electrical circuit. The proximity of the magnet bends the spring and there is a contact closure. As long as the magnet remains in the proximity of the contact the spring contacts remain closed. The metal of the spring tries to return to its normal position but as long as the magnet is in proximity to it the spring is held in place.

Of course it takes energy to move the spring and close the contacts. Like an elastic there is always a force exerted by the spring to return to its normal position. It takes energy to hold it out of its normal position. Remove the magnet and the spring contact returns to its open position.

It is normally explained that no energy is necessary to hold the spring contact closed because obviously W = FD (Work equals force times distance) and there is zero distance in holding the spring closed. Only in the initial movement of the spring is work done (energy expended)

kimmy, earlier on in the discussion, explained to you kids that when we hold something like an elastic out of its normal position at rest that we use energy to do so. Our muscles are used and they create thermal energy, fuel in the form of food is being used and energy is produced to hold the elastic in a stretched position. This is true.

The question is then what energy is being used by a magnet to hold the spring contact closed? The conventional answer is none. There is no use of fuel, there is no thermal energy produced, no work is done. It's magnetic force. The forces are in balance and no energy is expended.

McCutcheon is saying is that some force is necessary to counter the constant return force of the spring and holding it requires the expenditure of energy, just as any force holding something out of its lowest energy position requires an expenditure of energy.

That's as simple as it gets. I'm fine with the fact that physics explains that zero energy is expended, that the magnetic force balances the gravitic and normal forces. It has to explain it that way.

Just for the satisfaction of Bonam and kimmy I took my basic electronics and radar training in the services and have worked in related industries for most of my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is then what energy is being used by a magnet to hold the spring contact closed?

--------------------------

McCutcheon is saying is that some force is necessary to counter the constant return force of the spring and holding it requires the expenditure of energy, just as any force holding something out of its lowest energy position requires an expenditure of energy.

What energy is being expended to hold spaghetti to a wall... defying gravity and all...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just being obtuse. Cooked Spaghetti sticks to the wall because it is sticky. There are normal and gravitic forces and mass properties that explain that phenomena.

There is no actual reason that explains why magnets exist. There is an understanding of them from different views, the Newtonian view and the quantum physics view are both different.

Read about that here.

http://sunearthday.gsfc.nasa.gov/2010/TTT/71.php

Electromagnets are created when electric currents move through a conducting wire. When you turn off the current by removing the battery, the magnetic field vanishes, so it is obvious that a current is involved in generating the magnetic field.

Permanent magnets (kitchen magnets) seem to contradict this rule, but in fact, they are magnetic because individual atoms with their 'orbiting' charged electrons are mostly lined up to create the overall 'permanent' magnet. The electron's orbital movement is the charged current that creates the magnetic field. Permanent magnets can be de-magnetized by heating them up. The jostling of the heated atoms eventually randomizes the directions of the atomic 'magnets', and the over-all field vanishes. In fact it is still there, the electrons still orbit their nuclei, but the magnetic domains in which the field is organized become smaller and smaller compared to the size of the magnet.

Quantum Magnets - According to the modern theory of atomic physics, called the Standard Model, electrons are fundamental particles. It is obvious that they are charged particles, but even stranger is that they act like miniature magnets themselves. This makes sense if we think of electrons as tiny planets with a surface that rotates about some axis. The negative electric charge on the surface moves as the electron spins, and this rotating surface current creates a small amount of magnetism. The problem is that electrons have no surface; they are mathematical points in space. Also, although they have a physical quantity we call 'spin' this is not the same thing we talk about when we discuss planets, although it seems to work in the same way! This means that the explanation we use for the origin of magnetism has to be drastically changed when we describe magnetism on the quantum scale of fundamental particles.

Now grade ten physics is not going to explain magnetism except as kimmy has explained it here. For practical purposes it is explained in our grade 10 physics. Certain practical applications for magnets can be derived from this theory, the production of electrical current, for one.

There is another theory.... but of course being steeped in Newtonian physics and laboratory experimentation that is the only theory necessary to look at.

There are two ways to approach new concepts, deny they exist and prove with existing knowledge why they are impossible or look at them and try to see how they could have any validity. You cannot attempt to prove one theory with the information from another theory.

I started this thread about Dark matter. It is supposedly the missing matter that scientists are looking for that special relativity predicts should be there but, as yet, remains undetected. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent

on this theory. Frankly, I think we're off on a tangent on a dead end street. That's my opinion.

Until someone has read McCutcheon's book it isn't really worth wasting time on a debate. So I think I am finished with this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just being obtuse. Cooked Spaghetti sticks to the wall because it is sticky.

And magnets stick to the fridge because they are magnetic. Duh.

Spaghetti sticks to the wall by the exact same types of electromagnetic interactions that magnets do. All non-gravitational phenomena you see in everyday life are electromagnetic in nature: spaghetti sticking to the wall, glue, a block sitting on a table and not falling through it, these are all electromagnetic phenomena and obey the exact same set of 4 equations that permanent magnets do. That's why I asked you about these earlier and you of course completely missed the point of the question.

I started this thread about Dark matter. It is supposedly the missing matter that scientists are looking for that special relativity predicts should be there but, as yet, remains undetected.

The requirement for dark matter is unrelated to special relativity. It can be derived from general relativity, or even from simple Newtonian dynamics, but not from special relativity which says nothing about gravity.

I'm honestly still flabbergasted that it is possible for a person to spend as much time as you have writing posts about physics and yet have never taken the time to actually learn how things work on even the most basic level.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Pliny's switch is an example of a permanent magnet and not an electrical switch. Once closed by the presence of the magnet it would never open. Plinys switch is not a switch at all.

But he mistakes it for a switch and asks where the energy to keep the spring extended comes from?

An electrical switch requires ferro-magnetic material. In the presence of an electric current the material becomes magnetized and will remain magnetized as long as the electricity is present. Once the electricity is gone, then the ferro-magnetic material reverts back to its non magnetized state and there is no longer any magnetic force pulling on the spring.

So, in an electrical switch, the energy to keep the spring extended comes from the electrical energy magnetizing the ferro-magnetic material.

Or, a permanent magnet could extend the spring (no electrics required) but it would permanently remain extended until the magnet was removed.

A story goes that one day Einstien was up on his roof and he fell off. His wife rushed out to see if he was ok and when she got to him all he muttered

was "I didn't feel anything pulling me!"

Like the gravity that 'pulled' Einstien off the roof, a magnet can pull on a spring. But I think Kimmy made that argument about 5 times now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonam, on 30 Jul 2013 - 6:11 PM, said:

Spaghetti sticks to the wall by the exact same types of electromagnetic interactions that magnets do.

I don't think so. Magnetism is a molecular force that changes the molecular alignment of particles only in a ferrous material - at least that's the theory. Spaghetti acts the same no matter what material you throw it at. If spaghetti sticks to the wall by the exact same electromagnetic interactions that magnets do then magnets would stick to the wall as well.

There is no explanation for why magnetism exists.

Quote

All non-gravitational phenomena you see in everyday life are electromagnetic in nature: spaghetti sticking to the wall, glue, a block sitting on a table and not falling through it, these are all electromagnetic phenomena and obey the exact same set of 4 equations that permanent magnets do. That's why I asked you about these earlier and you of course completely missed the point of the question.

Spaghetti sticking to the wall, glue, a block sitting on a table are all gravitational phenomena and not electro-magnetic phenomena.

What kind of scientist are you?

Quote

The requirement for dark matter is unrelated to special relativity. It can be derived from general relativity, or even from simple Newtonian dynamics, but not from special relativity which says nothing about gravity.

All right.

Quote

I'm honestly still flabbergasted that it is possible for a person to spend as much time as you have writing posts about physics and yet have never taken the time to actually learn how things work on even the most basic level.

I know how it has been explained to me how things work and everyone who has taken a grade ten physics course has the same information. The fact is that there is no explanation for the existence of magnetism and I am surprised that there is not even any curiosity about any other theory or possibility that may explain it. There is no willingness or ability to think of any other possibility. It seems we all have to look at physics from the perspective of the same fundamental theory. I guess we have to wait for science before we can think about something different.

Of course I realize I am having a discussion with people arguing that physics has all been explained to them and as far as they are concerned there is apparently nothing more to discuss.

In order to understand McCutcheon or any contrary theory, or hypothesis on any subject, it is necessary to think with it, not describe its fallacies from the prevailing theory. The following being an example:

I believe everyone can see that the world is flat so how can you tell me the world is round. Are we not to believe our eyes? Hahahaha!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that there is no explanation for the existence of magnetism

....

your entire premise is flawed. Magnetism is well understood.

Of course I realize I am having a discussion with people arguing that physics has all been explained to them and as far as they are concerned there is apparently nothing more to discuss.

If physicists found flaws in the theory of magnetism, then I would suggest that there is plenty to talk about... but if just some crackpot comes up with a new "theory" because hr can't understand magnetism as it has been proven, then there isn't much to talk about at all.

In order to understand McCutcheon or any contrary theory, or hypothesis on any subject, it is necessary to think with it, not describe its fallacies from the prevailing theory. The following being an example:

I believe everyone can see that the world is flat so how can you tell me the world is round. Are we not to believe our eyes? Hahahaha!

But it is easy to prove that the world is round... and no evidence is shown for a flat earth... much the same as McCutcheon's silly "theories".

Edited by The_Squid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Pliny's switch is an example of a permanent magnet and not an electrical switch. Once closed by the presence of the magnet it would never open. Plinys switch is not a switch at all.

But he mistakes it for a switch and asks where the energy to keep the spring extended comes from?

An electrical switch requires ferro-magnetic material. In the presence of an electric current the material becomes magnetized and will remain magnetized as long as the electricity is present. Once the electricity is gone, then the ferro-magnetic material reverts back to its non magnetized state and there is no longer any magnetic force pulling on the spring.

So, in an electrical switch, the energy to keep the spring extended comes from the electrical energy magnetizing the ferro-magnetic material.

Or, a permanent magnet could extend the spring (no electrics required) but it would permanently remain extended until the magnet was removed.

That's all correct Peter.

Here's the point.

No one knows why a magnet exists in nature.

We can make a magnet by running electrical current through a coil around an iron core. The magnetism exists as long as the current is going through the coil. The electro-magnet pulls on the spring. Work is being done. As long as current is going through the coil the spring is being bent.

A permanent magnet pulls on the spring in the same manner but no energy is being expended. It is similar to me not having to eat to stay alive. Having some kind of permanent unknown source of energy to keep myself energized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your entire premise is flawed. Magnetism is well understood.

No one knows why a permanent magnet exists in nature. The properties of magnetism are indeed well understood.

But it is easy to prove that the world is round... and no evidence is shown for a flat earth... much the same as McCutcheon's silly "theories".

It wasn't so easy to prove the world was round a millenium ago. Evidence had to be gathered to prove it. Traveling around the world took too long and was fraught with too many dangers. The idea of a flat Earth ended for most of us around the end of the 1400's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, Pliny, the electromagnet requires energy to create a magnetic field because it requires energy to create the electric current.

Pushing the electrons through the resistive material requires energy.

The electromagnet uses the exact same amount of energy whether it is attracting the spring, or whether it is creating the magnetic field in empty space.

It also uses the exact same amount of energy as putting an equal current through an equal resistance that isn't creating a magnetic field, such as a typical carbon-film resistor.

In short, the energy is being spent moving electrons, not attracting the spring.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, Pliny, the electromagnet requires energy to create a magnetic field because it requires energy to create the electric current.

Pushing the electrons through the resistive material requires energy.

The electromagnet uses the exact same amount of energy whether it is attracting the spring, or whether it is creating the magnetic field in empty space.

It also uses the exact same amount of energy as putting an equal current through an equal resistance that isn't creating a magnetic field, such as a typical carbon-film resistor.

In short, the energy is being spent moving electrons, not attracting the spring.

-k

It does indeed take energy to move the electrons and bend the spring and hold it with an electromagnet but doesn't appear to need to move any electrons with a permanent magnet in order to bend the spring and hold it.

Edited by Pliny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnetic field.The permanent magnet has one and the temporary magnet has one. They are both the same.

Of course you know that magnets have magnetic fields and magnets attract things.

and because you know all that you are really asking what is the source of power of a permanent magnet that could hold a spring open for eternity.

How can the gravitational pull of the earth hold the moon in orbit for millions of years with out any source to keep gravity powered?

I beleive the answer is that gravity requires no power source at all. Nor magnetism. Gravity does not need recharging since its a curvature of space thing and not a power supply thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny:

In order to understand McCutcheon or any contrary theory, or hypothesis on any subject, it is necessary to think with it, not describe its fallacies from the prevailing theory.

If McCutcheon actually had a viable theory where's the damn Nobel Prize? There isn't one becuase his theory has never been submitted for review. Hell, even Einstien submitted his theory for review and actual criticism. But McCutcheon has avoided that for some reason. Some reason being that his theory cannot stand up to knowledgable criticism. This is obvious from his webpage promoting his book, wherein he claims a vast plot of mathematicians, scientists and theoriticians keeping his final theory repressed because they are all wedded to General relativity and Quantum physics.

He even claims "obvious" errors in Einsteins math - which the rest of the mathematicians in the world have ignored/overlooked/ignored...not just once either but since 1915!

The mans full of shit Pliny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows why a permanent magnet exists in nature.

"Why" a magnet exists? There is no "reason"... However, they do know how it happens. The reason something is magnetic is due to the alignment of the electrons in the atom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does indeed take energy to move the electrons and bend the spring and hold it with an electromagnet but doesn't appear to need to move any electrons with a permanent magnet in order to bend the spring and hold it.

A coil of wire with a current flowing through it creates a magnetic field.

Insert a piece of iron into the coil, and the magnetic field becomes much stronger, because the magnetic poles of the iron atoms will align themselves to the magnetic field generated by the coil. Each iron atom's own magnetic field adds to the overall magnetic field, and the end result is the magnetic field created by the electric coil plus the sum of the magnetic fields of each iron atom.

But note that even though the magnetic field in one instance is much stronger, the amount of energy we put in in both instances is the same. It takes the same amount of energy to move the energy through the coil of wire whether there is an iron core there or not.

And then suppose we take that coil of wire and unspool it so that it's just a pile of unorganized spaghetti instead of a coil, and put an electric current through it. It still requires the same amount of energy, except now there is no net magnetic field being created because the wire is now arranged at random so that the magnetic field generated by any given length of wire is cancelled out by the field generated by some other random length of wire.

So what you should be getting from this is that the magnetic field isn't a function of the energy that we put through the wire.

And when that coil of wire and its iron core are acting on a spring to create an electrical contact (this is called a "relay"...) the energy you put into the coil of wire to create the magnetic field whether the little metal contact is present, or whether that coil of wire were creating the field in empty space. Break open your relay, remove the spring and the metal contact, and apply current, and you'll find that your relay still uses the same amount of energy.

Conclusion: holding that spring contact closed does not consume energy.

So what about permanent magnets? Remember earlier we had the loop of wire with the current going through it, and found that when we insert an iron core into the loop, the magnetic field becomes much stronger because the iron atoms line up with the field and each atom's magnetic field adds to the overall field. With a permanent magnet, it is the same, except that the permanent magnet does not need the external field to line up the atoms. The atoms are already aligned.

How did they get aligned? They were aligned when the magnet was created. One way to do this would be by heating a piece of magnetic material so that the atoms can move freely, putting it inside a magnetic field to align the atoms, and then cooling the material to lock the atoms in place.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I realize I am having a discussion with people arguing that physics has all been explained to them and as far as they are concerned there is apparently nothing more to discuss.

You're attempting to make the case that physics as we understand it is wrong, and has "anomalies". But the example you have provided-- fridge magnets-- fails to make that case.

McCutcheon argues that physics as we understand it is wrong and can't explain any of these phenomena that he lists on his website, which he claims is why modern physics is a failure and that the world needs his new theory. But the claims he makes on his website are wrong. He hasn't demonstrated flaws in modern physics, and he hasn't demonstrated any way in which his theory is useful.

In order to understand McCutcheon or any contrary theory, or hypothesis on any subject, it is necessary to think with it, not describe its fallacies from the prevailing theory. The following being an example:

I believe everyone can see that the world is flat so how can you tell me the world is round. Are we not to believe our eyes? Hahahaha!

The irony of that comment could not be stronger, as it is a completely accurate comparison to your attempts to debunk real physics. "Physics says that energy is conserved, but my magnet won't fall off the fridge! Physics is wrong! Ahahahhaha!"

I don't believe we've even started discussing what's wrong with McCutcheon's theory (Bonam dismissed it with some comments about orbits early on, I think). Rather, we have been discussing your (and McCutcheon's) spectacularly stupid attempts to demonstrate the flaws in the current state of physics knowledge.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

He even claims "obvious" errors in Einsteins math - which the rest of the mathematicians in the world have ignored/overlooked/ignored...not just once either but since 1915!

Indeed. Einstein's theories were fiercely opposed by established physicists with extremely formidable credentials. These theories were hotly and furiously debated when they were published and for many years afterward. Einstein's ideas were not welcomed with open arms; when they were published they were not "establishment", and the "establishment" view was looking for any and all ways to challenge Einsteins theories.

The idea that the greatest minds of the last century just "overlooked" an obvious algebra error while debating these theories is super-retarded.

And the idea that scientists keep quiet about flaws they know exist in Einstein's theories is so galactically stupid that it defies comprehension. A scientist could win instant fame and fortune and a place in all of history by demonstrating flaws, and especially "simple algebra errors" in the theories of relativity.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...