Dark matter

[GostHacked]

Force is energy. What we have is potential energy instead of kinetic energy.

I can use energy to jump up and the force of the earth's gravity will pull me back down. The apex of my jump indicates a balance in the energy between the two forces for a brief moment, then the force of the gravitational energy will pull me back down. A my feet touch the ground again the force energy balance is restored and I now have potential force energy.

[Bonam]

Sigh so much wrong in this thread.

Ghosthacked: no, force is not energy. They are two very well defined and different things. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a correct reframing of your jump example:

To jump up, you need to give yourself a vertical velocity. You do this by applying force in the vertical direction. In very general terms, your body uses some of your stored chemical energy and converts it to kinetic energy. Energy is converted from chemical to kinetic to potential, the force is merely something you apply in order to make this energy conversion happen. "The apex of your jump" is not when there is a "balance betweeen the two forces". In fact, from the moment you leave the ground, there is only one force acting on your body: gravity (ignoring the small contribution of air resistance). The apex of your jump is defined by the moment that you have run out of kinetic energy: all that energy has been converted to potential energy. Then you get pulled back down again by gravity, (your potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy to impart that downward velocity).

Wild Bill: You are correct that no energy is expended in "generating" gravity. But only in the sense that no energy is ever expended at all, since energy is always conserved. A gravitational potential well is the result of the localized presence of mass. This mass is gravitationally bound (it has a gravitational binding energy, equal to the amount of energy it would take to take all the particles that comprise the mass and move them infinitely far away from the center of mass). This gravitationally bound state is a less energetic state than if the particles are all spread out. By the least energy principle, forces will act in such a way as to bring a system to a least energy state configuration. As a random particle distribution slowly collapses into a localized mass (for example star or planet formation), individual particles lose energy (become gravitationally bound with other particles), and this energy goes into gravitational field energy. A gravitational field represents stored energy, just as a magnetic field or electric field also represents stored energy. These fields have real energy density and one can interact with these fields, exchanging energy with them, in the process modifying the particle configuration that generates these fields. For example, consider a gravitational slingshot maneuver, which is routinely used by probes we send to the outer solar system. The spacecraft can actually interact with (for example) Jupiter's gravitational field and leave with a higher velocity than with which it started (relative to the Sun). It does this by using the gravitational interaction to capture some (a very tiny fraction) of Jupiter's orbital kinetic energy and transfer it to itself.

Also, since you mentioned it, it is not the Weak Nuclear force that prevents atoms from flying apart. Atoms (that is, the nucleus and the electron cloud) are held together by the electromagnetic force (the electrons are attracted to the protons). If you meant the nucleus, the protons are bound to each other with the Strong Nuclear force, not the Weak (more correctly, the quarks that comprise neutrons and protons interact with each other via the strong nuclear force). The Weak Nuclear force is responsible for radioactivity.

Everyone: By the way, in regards to the magnet, it's the force of friction that counteracts the force of gravity. Just think about the directions (draw the free body diagram). The magnetic force of a magnet attached to a vertical fridge surface is horizontal. Gravity pulls down on the magnet, perpendicularly to the direction of the magnetic force. There is also a force of friction parallel to the fridge surface, and that is the force that counteracts gravity. The reason the magnet doesn't fall down is the same reason that a block sitting on an inclined plane doesn't slide down (until some critical angle): friction overcomes gravity.

If one wants to consider the magnetic force in direct opposition to gravity, one should instead think about a magnet attached to the ceiling, that takes friction out of the equation. In this case, the reason that the magnet does not fall down is because it is already in the lowest energy state. In order for the magnet to move downward (away from the ceiling) it would lose gravitational potential energy but gain magnetic potential energy (just as to lift off the ground an object needs to gain potential energy, so too to move a magnet away from something it is attracted to, it needs to gain potential energy). Remember, every system wants to find its lowest energy state. If the magnetic energy gradient is steeper than the gravitational energy gradient, then the magnet cannot move downward because to do so it would have to gain energy.

Ghosthacked: magnets do lose magnetization over time due to entropy, but this effect has nothing to do with them "using up" their energy in counteracting gravity (that doesn't happen). A magnet attached to the side of a fridge will demagnetize just as quickly (or to use a better phrase just as slowly) as a magnet lying on a table.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Bonam

[Wild Bill]

Also, since you mentioned it, it is not the Weak Nuclear force that prevents atoms from flying apart. Atoms (that is, the nucleus and the electron cloud) are held together by the electromagnetic force (the electrons are attracted to the protons). If you meant the nucleus, the protons are bound to each other with the Strong Nuclear force, not the Weak (more correctly, the quarks that comprise neutrons and protons interact with each other via the strong nuclear force). The Weak Nuclear force is responsible for radioactivity.

Thanks for straightening me out, Boges. I plead an old man's memory of something he should have paid more attention to years ago.

I can never keep all those different quarks straight - with up and down, strangeness and charm.

I really should have read that James Joyce book - I always seem to put it off.

[Bonam]

Thanks for straightening me out, Boges. I plead an old man's memory of something he should have paid more attention to years ago.

Bonam not Boges

[Pliny]

Pliny, what you seem to be missing is that magnetism is a FUNDAMENTAL force! Like gravity or electricity. It is a basic force of the Universe.

......

You can't accept an argument like McCutcheon's which allows Gravity to be a basic Force yet not Magnetism. It is simply unfair to rig an argument that way!

Thanks for chiming in Bill but in McCutcheon's theory, gravity is not a basic force, it is non-existant.

Magnetism is a demonstrable force and does expend energy to counter other forces of matter in motion.

I haven't looked at the book for awhile and I know there was at least one fundamental demonstrable flaw in the theory, not unresolvable, I don't think, maybe he has resolved them. I will have to check.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Pliny

[Wild Bill]

Bonam not Boges

Again, mea culpa! Damn I'm getting old.

I have a rock and roll brain - I had misremembered you as John Bonam and of course, that couldn't be him who had posted!

You are still among the living... I presume?

[Pliny]

Sigh so much wrong in this thread.

The current theory as you describe it is that gravity is a force.

I don't think friction is the reason a magnet does not slide down your fridge.

The molecules of the fridge are altered, i.e. aligned, and an attractive force on the molecular level keeps it from falling.

The argument is not that current theory is invalid or has not been useful. The argument is that it is a "theory" as there are things that it does not explain. Thus we get off into bizarre tangents like string theory.

It remains that research is being done along the lines of current accepted theory, and it gives physics a direction.

A different theory would mean taking things in a different direction. The momentum is in the direction of current theory. I understand that. I don't think anyone here has read Mr. McCutcheon's book. Has anyone? I believe that the concensus here is it would be a waste of time.

Everyone here is trying to explain physics to me from the the perspective of Relativity. And the reason that magnets are what they are and do what they do is all explained by that theory. Well, it is perhaps. But some physicists don't think it is as I have cited. But the fact is that Mr. McCutcheon's theory and the understanding of it means not relating it to the theory of Relativity or Newton's theory of gravity. There are some fundamental laws in his theory that require looking at it by itself. Now it is, just a theory. It won't change physics overnight and it may not change it at all.

It is a theory just as Newton's and Einstein's ideas are theory.

Now I picked up the magnet thing because without a gravitational force it is a force and energy is expended. Energy is not expended under current understanding. But that is because force is measured with a formula that includes distance as a factor. If distance (D) is zero then force is zero and the expending of energy would be zero. In McCutcheon's theory energy is expended even if it is just in realigning the molecules of whatever it is adhering to.

Gotta go.

[kimmy]

I don't think friction is the reason a magnet does not slide down your fridge.

The molecules of the fridge are altered, i.e. aligned, and an attractive force on the molecular level keeps it from falling.

The attractive force between the magnet and the fridge acts perpendicular to the plane of the fridge. It doesn't keep the magnet from moving parallel to the plane of the fridge. If you put a round magnet on your fridge, it will roll downward due to gravity. No friction.

If the magnet is on your fridge door, the up-down forces are gravity and static friction, and the east-west forces are magnetic attraction and Normal force applied by the hard surface. The east-west forces balance each other, the up-down forces balance each other, and the net force is zero so the magnet does not accelerate in any direction.

If the magnet is stuck to a piece of metal on the ceiling, there are no east-west forces, and the up-down forces are magnetic attraction (upward), gravity (down), and normal force provided by the hard surface (also down). Upward force equals the sum of the downward forces, and again there's no acceleration.

The argument is not that current theory is invalid or has not been useful. The argument is that it is a "theory" as there are things that it does not explain. Thus we get off into bizarre tangents like string theory.

It remains that research is being done along the lines of current accepted theory, and it gives physics a direction.

We needn't get into any bizarre tangents to settle this fridge magnet issue. Reminder, the idea that this fridge magnet is generating perpetual energy was your example of an anomaly that can't be explained by current physics. But in fact it's easily explained by current physics and there's no anomaly at all.

A different theory would mean taking things in a different direction. The momentum is in the direction of current theory. I understand that. I don't think anyone here has read Mr. McCutcheon's book. Has anyone? I believe that the concensus here is it would be a waste of time.

His own webpage indicates that he just doesn't understand basic concepts of physics, like the difference between force and energy. The examples he provides, like the fridge magnet, prove it. He claims he's debunked ideas that he clearly doesn't even understand.

So yes, it would be a waste of time. Would you read a health and fitness book written by Rush Limbaugh?

Everyone here is trying to explain physics to me from the the perspective of Relativity. And the reason that magnets are what they are and do what they do is all explained by that theory.

We don't need relativity to discuss the fridge magnet. That's easily resolved by kinematics that the rest of us learned in grade 10, based on rules put forth by Isaac Newton centuries ago.

Well, it is perhaps. But some physicists don't think it is as I have cited.

If you're referring to the quote McCutcheon offers from Dr Markova, you'll notice it doesn't say what Mr McCutcheon wants you to believe. Dr Markova is not trying to figure out how your magnet sticks to the fridge, or resolve any "anomaly" about perpetual sources of energy. She is researching the quantum mechanical properties of materials with the idea of developing new types of magnetic materials. If you look at her long list of research publications, you'll find that she's particularly interested in carbon-based molecules that have magnetic properties. Not a single publication in this list relates to the idea that magnets are violating the law of conservation of energy.

But the fact is that Mr. McCutcheon's theory and the understanding of it means not relating it to the theory of Relativity or Newton's theory of gravity. There are some fundamental laws in his theory that require looking at it by itself. Now it is, just a theory. It won't change physics overnight and it may not change it at all.

It is a theory just as Newton's and Einstein's ideas are theory.

As has been explained a number of times, in science the word "theory" doesn't mean a wild-ass idea that somebody has. A theory is a hypothesis that is tested and validated through empirical evidence.

Relativity and gravity are theories that have been tested and validated and can be used to predict new phenomena.

Mr McCutcheon's inflating universe doesn't meet any of these qualities.

Now I picked up the magnet thing because without a gravitational force it is a force and energy is expended. Energy is not expended under current understanding. But that is because force is measured with a formula that includes distance as a factor. If distance (D) is zero then force is zero and the expending of energy would be zero. In McCutcheon's theory energy is expended even if it is just in realigning the molecules of whatever it is adhering to.

You keep insisting that the magnet is expending energy on an ongoing basis. What form does that energy take? Energy can't be created or destroyed; whatever energy you think that magnet is expending must be going somewhere. Where? There's no motion, no change in temperature, no change of state, no radiation being generated, nothing.

You are right about one thing: it does take energy to align the poles of the molecules to the magnetic field. But that is not an ongoing expense of energy. It does not take energy to keep those molecules aligned, it only takes energy to align them in the first place. This energy is applied when the magnet is physically brought to the fridge. While the magnet is on the fridge, it exists as potential energy. And when the magnet is taken away from the fridge, it is released as a very miniscule amount of kinetic energy as the molecules move on their axes to resume an orientation with lower energy.

-k

[Bonam]

Clear and correct explanations kimmy. You seem to have a good grasp of physics

[Pliny]

The attractive force between the magnet and the fridge acts perpendicular to the plane of the fridge.

Yes. Agreed.

It doesn't keep the magnet from moving parallel to the plane of the fridge. If you put a round magnet on your fridge, it will roll downward due to gravity. No friction.

Friction? Or is it the area of the magnet in contact with the fridge not creating enough magnetic attraction? A small round bucky ball magnet will stay up on your fridge. The magnetism is great enough to hold that weight and the surface area of the magnet in contact with the fridge is minimal so friction is minimal.

If the magnet is on your fridge door, the up-down forces are gravity and static friction, and the east-west forces are magnetic attraction and Normal force applied by the hard surface. The east-west forces balance each other, the up-down forces balance each other, and the net force is zero so the magnet does not accelerate in any direction.

The up-down forces are gravity and static friction as you say. The east-west forces are only magnetic attraction. "Normal force" on a perpendicular surface is zero and friction on a perpendicular surface is close to zero. There is no normal force on a horizontal surface and no friction when a magnet is attached on the bottom. You might find that a round or ball magnet may fall off a horizontal surface. It is due to the fact there is not enough surface contact to create a magnetic area large enough to hold its weight.

If the magnet is stuck to a piece of metal on the ceiling, there are no east-west forces, and the up-down forces are magnetic attraction (upward), gravity (down), and normal force provided by the hard surface (also down). Upward force equals the sum of the downward forces, and again there's no acceleration.

"Normal force" as I mentioned is zero. So we only have magnetic attraction and gravity. McCutcheon's theory is that gravitational force is zero as well. So there is only magnetic attraction. There is a force there and force is not energy but potential, similar to voltage. When the magnet aligns the electrons of a ferrous material to create an opposite attractive charge that requires energy. Force is only potential. A magnet alone or not near a ferrous material expends no energy but has potential of creating energy. Placing a small ferrous object near a magnet and it snaps the object to it. The motion of the object toward the magnet is obviously an expenditure of energy. Holding the object in position is also an expenditure of energy. Although mathematically, gravitational theory proves no expenditure of energy. That is the error.

We needn't get into any bizarre tangents to settle this fridge magnet issue. Reminder, the idea that this fridge magnet is generating perpetual energy was your example of an anomaly that can't be explained by current physics. But in fact it's easily explained by current physics and there's no anomaly at all.

Yes, it is explained by current theory but must ignore practicality to do so.

His own webpage indicates that he just doesn't understand basic concepts of physics, like the difference between force and energy. The examples he provides, like the fridge magnet, prove it. He claims he's debunked ideas that he clearly doesn't even understand.

He is an electrical engineer. I'm certain he understands the difference between force and energy. The example like the fridge magnet prove that science has to ignore it and somehow explain it away.

So yes, it would be a waste of time. Would you read a health and fitness book written by Rush Limbaugh?

I myself, can see flaws in McCutcheon's theory. I have yet to see anything practical come out of it except maybe call into question some of the obvious failings of current relativity theory.

We don't need relativity to discuss the fridge magnet. That's easily resolved by kinematics that the rest of us learned in grade 10, based on rules put forth by Isaac Newton centuries ago.

Well, done. You managed to regurgitate your instructional materials and get a passing grade. You did pass didn't you?

If you're referring to the quote McCutcheon offers from Dr Markova, you'll notice it doesn't say what Mr McCutcheon wants you to believe. Dr Markova is not trying to figure out how your magnet sticks to the fridge, or resolve any "anomaly" about perpetual sources of energy. She is researching the quantum mechanical properties of materials with the idea of developing new types of magnetic materials. If you look at her long list of research publications, you'll find that she's particularly interested in carbon-based molecules that have magnetic properties. Not a single publication in this list relates to the idea that magnets are violating the law of conservation of energy.

Of course not, she would be a crackpot if she did. She is researching the area and of course the law of the conservatino of energy must be upheld.

As has been explained a number of times, in science the word "theory" doesn't mean a wild-ass idea that somebody has. A theory is a hypothesis that is tested and validated through empirical evidence.

A theory is only so good as it can make things predictable and can practically be applied to increase our understanding.

And that is basically what science is. Once it becomes authoritarian and pompous it becomes a burden, such as our Anthropogenic global warming theory, then it is of no use. Understanding brings simplicity not complexity. Things are never so complex as when you don't understand them.

Relativity and gravity are theories that have been tested and validated and can be used to predict new phenomena.

Mr McCutcheon's inflating universe doesn't meet any of these qualities.

Relativity and gravity are theories and have been useful, gravity moreso than relativity. They have not proven to be the definitive theory of everything but it is all that science has. They are trying to make predictions from it even though there is little to be learned from a practical application point of view.

You keep insisting that the magnet is expending energy on an ongoing basis. What form does that energy take? Energy can't be created or destroyed; whatever energy you think that magnet is expending must be going somewhere. Where? There's no motion, no change in temperature, no change of state, no radiation being generated, nothing.

That is exactly how current physics would attempt to explain itself. There is a change of state on a sub-atomic level by aligning particles and holding them in position though.

You are right about one thing: it does take energy to align the poles of the molecules to the magnetic field. But that is not an ongoing expense of energy. It does not take energy to keep those molecules aligned, it only takes energy to align them in the first place. This energy is applied when the magnet is physically brought to the fridge. While the magnet is on the fridge, it exists as potential energy. And when the magnet is taken away from the fridge, it is released as a very miniscule amount of kinetic energy as the molecules move on their axes to resume an orientation with lower energy.

-k

Theoretically that can be and has to be explained mathematically. It cannot be explained practically.

[Pliny]

Bonam, on 13 Jul 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

If one wants to consider the magnetic force in direct opposition to gravity, one should instead think about a magnet attached to the ceiling, that takes friction out of the equation. In this case, the reason that the magnet does not fall down is because it is already in the lowest energy state.

I think a correction is necessary here. The magnet on the ceiling is not in its lowest energy state.

In order to make the argument it is the lowest energy state from a gravitational or relativity view, the magnetic force would have to be nullified and the magnet would have to fall to the ground. The attractive magnetic force obviously exists and it is a greater force than gravity. If gravity exists as a force, and everyone is sure it does, then it must be pulling on the magnet. The magnetic force is obviously a greater force. There are unequal forces at work, the forces, as you say, will attempt to reach the lowest energy state and the lowest energy state is when forces are in equilibrium. These two forces are not in equilibrium. The rule is that the lowest energy state is where forces are in equlibrium.

If a magnet were on a beam and you shook the beam but the magnet stayed then the magnet is exerting a force greater than gravity plus the force of the shaking. It is obvious from that that the magnet is not in its lowest energy state as it has even more force than the force of shaking the beam plus the force of gravity. If you shook the beam violently enough to shake the magnet off then you have overcome the magnetic attractive force. Shaking that beam might take a lot of energy.

Quote

In order for the magnet to move downward (away from the ceiling) it would lose gravitational potential energy but gain magnetic potential energy (just as to lift off the ground an object needs to gain potential energy, so too to move a magnet away from something it is attracted to, it needs to gain potential energy).

This essentially states a transfer of energy is necessary to get the magnet to fall. Why, if they are in their lowest energy state? There are no other forces such as normal force or friction at play, as would have to be overcome when moving an object on the floor. The only answer is they aren't in their lowest energy state.

Quote

Remember, every system wants to find its lowest energy state. If the magnetic energy gradient is steeper than the gravitational energy gradient, then the magnet cannot move downward because to do so it would have to gain energy.

Every system does try and find its lowest energy state but magnetism, attractive magnetic force, seems to defy that only when in the proximity of ferrous materials. Otherwise it behaves normally.

Quote

Ghosthacked: magnets do lose magnetization over time due to entropy, but this effect has nothing to do with them "using up" their energy in counteracting gravity (that doesn't happen). A magnet attached to the side of a fridge will demagnetize just as quickly (or to use a better phrase just as slowly) as a magnet lying on a table.

http://sciencefocus.com/qa/do-magnets-wear-out

So-called permanent magnets are constructed from materials made up of magnetic domains, in which atoms have electrons whose spins are aligned with each other. This alignment is damaged over time, principally as the result of heat and stray electromagnetic fields, and this weakens the level of magnetism. The process is very slow, however: a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its strength

[Bonam]

Now I remember why I ditched this thread before (years ago... who necro'd it anyway?). Seriously Pliny where do you get so many completely wrong ideas about physics?

You still haven't answered my question from way back... by what witchcraft or devilry does glue work? If I glue something to the fridge it doesn't fall down either. Magical glue force is stronger than gravity omgz. Better yet, where is the infinite power source that lets one brick support another on top of it, againt the relentless pull of gravity, for all eternity?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Bonam

[Pliny]

Now I remember why I ditched this thread before (years ago... who necro'd it anyway?). Seriously Pliny where do you get so many completely wrong ideas about physics?

You still haven't answered my question from way back... by what witchcraft or devilry does glue work? If I glue something to the fridge it doesn't fall down either. Magical glue force is stronger than gravity omgz. Better yet, where is the infinite power source that lets one brick support another on top of it, againt the relentless pull of gravity, for all eternity?

Glue provides a mechanical bond that is obvious. It would be the same thing if I taped one thing to another.

If I am out on a tree limb hanging down I have to expend energy to keep from falling out of the tree. I have to use force. If my hands and feet are secured to the tree limb in some fashion I do not have to expend any energy or use any force to prevent me falling. I am mechanically bound to the tree.

Of course normal force is what supports one brick on top of another.

So the question is what and where is the "glue" that holds the magnet up? It's a type of force, not a mechanical bond, such as glue, and any force is a potential of energy. Magnetism, magnetic force, realigns the molecular structure of a ferrous material so that the magnet adheres to it. So the "glue" is a type of energy. There is nothing else but an energy holding it up. There is no glue, there is no tape, there is no rope there is no friction, there is no other significant force besides gravity and magnetic force, no other bonding or binding agent to hold up the magnet than the energy the magnet expends realigning the molecules of the ferrous material.

I don't think it can be stated any simpler.

Now I know that theoretically it is proven with abstract mathematics that no energy is expended. So that is what has to be explained away as some sort of "glue" or normal force or friction. There cannot be any expenditure of energy, that would be an impossibility per the theory.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Pliny

[Bonam]

Glue provides a mechanical bond that is obvious.

And just what do you think is this "mechanical bond"?

If I am out on a tree limb hanging down I have to expend energy to keep from falling out of the tree. I have to use force. If my hands and feet are secured to the tree limb in some fashion I do not have to expend any energy or use any force to prevent me falling.

Oh I see, so if it's you hanging on to the tree, you have to "use" force, but if you're tied with a rope to the tree, then magically no force is required to counteract gravity.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Bonam

[Pliny]

And just what do you think is this "mechanical bond"?

Oh I see, so if it's you hanging on to the tree, you have to "use" force, but if you're tied with a rope to the tree, then magically no force is required to counteract gravity.

If I am hanging there I have to use energy to hold on. If I am bound, I do not have to use energy as I am mechanically bound. The bonding is an obvious counter force to gravity. Similar to "normal force" where one brick holds up another brick. Energy is not being expended in such case.

Glue, tape, screws, nails, fasteners are all obvious forces that bind or hold things together. Magnetic force binds magnets to ferrous materials. There is no mechanical bonding, there is nothing there to hold it just one force and the opposing force of gravity. Those forces are the only factors, and a force in opposition to another force will produce energy.

[kimmy]

Friction? Or is it the area of the magnet in contact with the fridge not creating enough magnetic attraction? A small round bucky ball magnet will stay up on your fridge. The magnetism is great enough to hold that weight and the surface area of the magnet in contact with the fridge is minimal so friction is minimal.

False.

A small contact area can generate lots of friction if the applied force is strong enough. If the magnet won't roll down the fridge, it would still slide if not for friction.

The up-down forces are gravity and static friction as you say. The east-west forces are only magnetic attraction. "Normal force" on a perpendicular surface is zero and friction on a perpendicular surface is close to zero.

Erroneous.

Normal force is *always* perpendicular to a surface. You're obviously confused because the fridge door surface is perpendicular to *gravity*, so would provide no normal force in opposition to *gravity*. However, the fridge door surface in the situation we have described is not opposing gravity. It is opposing the magnetic force of the magnet. You've once again failed to grasp the basic concepts of physics that you're attempting to debunk.

Isn't it true, Pliny, that you hadn't even heard of Normal Force until I linked to it last week? Isn't it the case that you're just using terms like "normal force" so that you can pretend you're fluent in this subject matter?

There is no normal force on a horizontal surface and no friction when a magnet is attached on the bottom. You might find that a round or ball magnet may fall off a horizontal surface. It is due to the fact there is not enough surface contact to create a magnetic area large enough to hold its weight.

Incorrect. Again you don't understand normal force.

"Normal force" as I mentioned is zero. So we only have magnetic attraction and gravity.

As I mentioned, you're completely wrong about normal force.

McCutcheon's theory is that gravitational force is zero as well. So there is only magnetic attraction. There is a force there and force is not energy but potential, similar to voltage. When the magnet aligns the electrons of a ferrous material to create an opposite attractive charge that requires energy. Force is only potential. A magnet alone or not near a ferrous material expends no energy but has potential of creating energy. Placing a small ferrous object near a magnet and it snaps the object to it. The motion of the object toward the magnet is obviously an expenditure of energy. Holding the object in position is also an expenditure of energy. Although mathematically, gravitational theory proves no expenditure of energy. That is the error.

And all of this is just ridiculous and riddled with errors.

Yes, it is explained by current theory but must ignore practicality to do so.

And what does "praciticality" mean in this instance? Are you using the word "practicality" as shorthand for "makes sense to Pliny"?

He is an electrical engineer. I'm certain he understands the difference between force and energy. The example like the fridge magnet prove that science has to ignore it and somehow explain it away.

Being an electrical engineer doesn't necessarily mean he's good at mechanical analysis or relativity or quantum mechanics or anything other than connecting resistors and diodes together. We had a 9/11 crackpot here on MLW a few years ago who demanded that we treat him as an expert on the subject of structural collapse of large buildings because "I'm an engineer". After some prodding it turned out that he was a DSP engineer. Crackpots love to inflate credentials. James Fetzer was "a theoretical physicist". Barbara Honegger was "a Pentagon colonel". This notion that Mark McCutcheon is actually a physics messiah whose theories are being suppressed by a global cartel of physicists who are too scared of his truth is heading down the same path.

McCutcheon's own webpage makes ridiculously wrong statements about the physics he's claiming to debunk. There's only two possibilities: either he doesn't know anything about the subject, or he does know the subject but he's making a bunch of false statements because he wants to sell books to dumb-guys. (have you got your copy?)

What are his credentials? I don't care.

I myself, can see flaws in McCutcheon's theory. I have yet to see anything practical come out of it except maybe call into question some of the obvious failings of current relativity theory.

If a guy like you can spot flaws in this theory, that's saying something, because let's face it, you're not exactly James Clerk Maxwell.

Well, done. You managed to regurgitate your instructional materials and get a passing grade. You did pass didn't you?

Of course I passed.

I'm curious about your use of the word "regurgitated". Is it "regurgitated" because it's information that you don't like?

If somebody uses highschool math to solve some problems, do you scoff and them and say "bah, you just regurgitated your instructional materials"?

Of course not, she would be a crackpot if she did. She is researching the area and of course the law of the conservatino of energy must be upheld.

First you (and McCutcheon) cited this professor as an example of somebody who was doing research to explain the great mystery of magnets. And now that I've pointed out that she's not doing the kind of research that you (and McCutcheon) claim, all you have to say is "bahh, she's part of the international physics cartel that's afraid of the truth about magnets."

Typical.

A theory is only so good as it can make things predictable and can practically be applied to increase our understanding.

And that is basically what science is. Once it becomes authoritarian and pompous it becomes a burden, such as our Anthropogenic global warming theory, then it is of no use. Understanding brings simplicity not complexity. Things are never so complex as when you don't understand them.

You've decided that modern physics is of no use because you, Pliny J. Smith, don't understand it? Is that what you're saying?

Is it "authoritarian" because people who understand physics are telling people like you and McCutcheon that you don't know what you're talking about?

Relativity and gravity are theories and have been useful, gravity moreso than relativity. They have not proven to be the definitive theory of everything but it is all that science has. They are trying to make predictions from it even though there is little to be learned from a practical application point of view.

This word "practical" again. What criteria are you using to decide whether modern physics is "practical"?

That is exactly how current physics would attempt to explain itself. There is a change of state on a sub-atomic level by aligning particles and holding them in position though.

It takes energy to alter their alignment initially. It doesn't take a continuous application of energy to maintain that alignment.

Theoretically that can be and has to be explained mathematically. It cannot be explained practically.

"Practically" once again meaning "in a way that makes sense to Pliny", obviously.

-k

[Pliny]

Posted Yesterday, 08:02 PM
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Friction? Or is it the area of the magnet in contact with the fridge not creating enough magnetic attraction? A small round bucky ball magnet will stay up on your fridge. The magnetism is great enough to hold that weight and the surface area of the magnet in contact with the fridge is minimal so friction is minimal.

False.

A small contact area can generate lots of friction if the applied force is strong enough. If the magnet won't roll down the fridge, it would still slide if not for friction.

So what is the applied force that must be strong enough to create the friction.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
The up-down forces are gravity and static friction as you say. The east-west forces are only magnetic attraction. "Normal force" on a perpendicular surface is zero and friction on a perpendicular surface is close to zero.

Erroneous.

Normal force is *always* perpendicular to a surface. You're obviously confused because the fridge door surface is perpendicular to *gravity*, so would provide no normal force in opposition to *gravity*. However, the fridge door surface in the situation we have described is not opposing gravity. It is opposing the magnetic force of the magnet. You've once again failed to grasp the basic concepts of physics that you're attempting to debunk.

You just refuse to understand what I say. "Normal force is *always* perpendicular to a surface." is what you said. I said, "normal force on a perpendicular surface is zero" By perpendicular surface I mean perpendicular to the ground. It would perhaps have been better for me to say "normal force on a 'vertical surface' is zero"

Isn't it true, Pliny, that you hadn't even heard of Normal Force until I linked to it last week? Isn't it the case that you're just using terms like "normal force" so that you can pretend you're fluent in this subject matter?

No

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
There is no normal force on a horizontal surface and no friction when a magnet is attached on the bottom. You might find that a round or ball magnet may fall off a horizontal surface. It is due to the fact there is not enough surface contact to create a magnetic area large enough to hold its weight.

Incorrect. Again you don't understand normal force.

Once again, I believe you misinterpret what I say. Do you think I meant no normal force when a magnet is sitting horizontally on top of a beam? There is no normal force from a magnet hanging on a steel beam. There is normal force from whatever is holding up the beam. A magnet under the beam has no normal force exerted upon it to hold it up.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
"Normal force" as I mentioned is zero. So we only have magnetic attraction and gravity.
As I mentioned, you're completely wrong about normal force.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
McCutcheon's theory is that gravitational force is zero as well. So there is only magnetic attraction. There is a force there and force is not energy but potential, similar to voltage. When the magnet aligns the electrons of a ferrous material to create an opposite attractive charge that requires energy. Force is only potential. A magnet alone or not near a ferrous material expends no energy but has potential of creating energy. Placing a small ferrous object near a magnet and it snaps the object to it. The motion of the object toward the magnet is obviously an expenditure of energy. Holding the object in position is also an expenditure of energy. Although mathematically, gravitational theory proves no expenditure of energy. That is the error.

And all of this is just ridiculous and riddled with errors.

Well, I work in the field of electronics and am quite familiar with electrical theory. You on the other hand are working in what area of physics? Gardening?

I find it funny you are trying to explain this to me. I know it is a bit of a struggle for you with all the research you have to do on things like normal force

or asking Bonam about.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Yes, it is explained by current theory but must ignore practicality to do so.

And what does "praciticality" mean in this instance? Are you using the word "practicality" as shorthand for "makes sense to Pliny"?

"in the practical world" basically.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
He is an electrical engineer. I'm certain he understands the difference between force and energy. The example like the fridge magnet prove that science has to ignore it and somehow explain it away.

Being an electrical engineer doesn't necessarily mean he's good at mechanical analysis or relativity or quantum mechanics or anything other than connecting resistors and diodes together. We had a 9/11 crackpot here on MLW a few years ago who demanded that we treat him as an expert on the subject of structural collapse of large buildings because "I'm an engineer". After some prodding it turned out that he was a DSP engineer. Crackpots love to inflate credentials. James Fetzer was "a theoretical physicist". Barbara Honegger was "a Pentagon colonel". This notion that Mark McCutcheon is actually a physics messiah whose theories are being suppressed by a global cartel of physicists who are too scared of his truth is heading down the same path.

McCutcheon's own webpage makes ridiculously wrong statements about the physics he's claiming to debunk. There's only two possibilities: either he doesn't know anything about the subject, or he does know the subject but he's making a bunch of false statements because he wants to sell books to dumb-guys. (have you got your copy?)

What are his credentials? I don't care.

You do have to have some understanding of magnetism and electricity to be an electrical engineer. It is funny that you a grade 10 physics major thinks she knows better about the subject.

As for Mr. McCutcheon's theory it is a theory and may have no merit whatsoever unless it has some practical application and begins to explain the universe around us. We will have to wait and see for that.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
I myself, can see flaws in McCutcheon's theory. I have yet to see anything practical come out of it except maybe call into question some of the obvious failings of current relativity theory.

If a guy like you can spot flaws in this theory, that's saying something, because let's face it, you're not exactly James Clerk Maxwell.

Nor do I claim to be. Says James kimmy Maxwell.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Well, done. You managed to regurgitate your instructional materials and get a passing grade. You did pass didn't you?

Of course I passed.

I'm curious about your use of the word "regurgitated". Is it "regurgitated" because it's information that you don't like?

If somebody uses highschool math to solve some problems, do you scoff and them and say "bah, you just regurgitated your instructional materials"?

If someone has used their math and solved some problems then they haven't regurgitated anything. they have practically applied their knowledge.

On the other hand, thinking a magnet sticks on the fridge due to friction is really funny.

What's a real frictionless material. Glass? Let's put up a sheet of glass put a magnet on it and a piece of steel on the other side of the glass and have the magnet hold up the piece of steel and itself magically. The force applied to the magnet and the steel must be creating enough friction to hold itself and the piece of steel up. What is that force that is applied there to create that friction. It is called a magnetic force. That piece of steel is being held up by something. And it generally takes energy to hold something up that is unsupported. But the claim is that the glass is holding it up due to friction.

The friction also has to be created, enough to hold the weight of the magnet and the piece of steel.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Of course not, she would be a crackpot if she did. She is researching the area and of course the law of the conservatino of energy must be upheld.

First you (and McCutcheon) cited this professor as an example of somebody who was doing research to explain the great mystery of magnets. And now that I've pointed out that she's not doing the kind of research that you (and McCutcheon) claim, all you have to say is "bahh, she's part of the international physics cartel that's afraid of the truth about magnets."

Typical.

What was the exact quote from her?

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
A theory is only so good as it can make things predictable and can practically be applied to increase our understanding.
And that is basically what science is. Once it becomes authoritarian and pompous it becomes a burden, such as our Anthropogenic global warming theory, then it is of no use. Understanding brings simplicity not complexity. Things are never so complex as when you don't understand them.

You've decided that modern physics is of no use because you, Pliny J. Smith, don't understand it? Is that what you're saying?

No. I'm just saying it is a theory. Relativity hasn't been all that practical since Newton's theory has greater practical application.

Is it "authoritarian" because people who understand physics are telling people like you and McCutcheon that you don't know what you're talking about?

No because they explain a magnet from falling off a fridge as being due to friction. There is no friction hanging a magnet on the bottom of a horizontal beam and there is no other means of support than magnetic force and the force is holding the weight of the magnet up so energy is being expended.

It's that simple.

Regurgitate that energy is not being expended because it is impossible. You can prove it mathematically and say it is so but looking at it practically without a physical, mechanical means of support it needs some other means of support and that is energy from a magnetic force.

And you needn't keep telling me that's impossible. I already know the theory that says it is.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Relativity and gravity are theories and have been useful, gravity moreso than relativity. They have not proven to be the definitive theory of everything but it is all that science has. They are trying to make predictions from it even though there is little to be learned from a practical application point of view.

This word "practical" again. What criteria are you using to decide whether modern physics is "practical"?

Well, I haven't seen string theory, based upon relativity, produce anything practical Physicists believe they may have found the higgs-bosen particle but what that will produce practically is yet to be seen, if there is anything to be applied. It may only serve to prove themselves right in which case it would be wrong.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
That is exactly how current physics would attempt to explain itself. There is a change of state on a sub-atomic level by aligning particles and holding them in position though.

It takes energy to alter their alignment initially. It doesn't take a continuous application of energy to maintain that alignment.

Of course it does. Otherwise, they would stay where they are permanently after the magnet was removed. They return to their original orbits.

Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Theoretically that can be and has to be explained mathematically. It cannot be explained practically.

"Practically" once again meaning "in a way that makes sense to Pliny", obviously.

Well, it does have to make sense to me.

This is not your best subject, kimmy.

I will tell you what I am looking at in most subjects where we disagree, and it seems there isn't much we agree on. In all of the areas we have clashed in there are seemingly unresolvable problems or solutions touted as the resolution to those problems that turn out entirely ineffective and we wind up living through the failure of the previous solution. Economics, social welfare, psychotropic drugs they are all supposed to contain solutions to society's problems and global problems. Keynesian Economic theory and the central banking system was supposed to bring civilization economic stability. It hasn't. You can say that there wasn't before but if we looked at the real reasons why there wasn't before then we wouldn't have any instability after.

Obviously, the solution did not work.

In the case of psychotropic drugs, people think it helps them and doctors tell them they will. In actual fact they do not restore self determinism to the individual who gives credit for how he feels or acts to the drugs and not to himself. If you have ever been in a mental institution the patients in the hall are shuffling around, slobbering and exhibiting muscle tics. those are not signs of mental illness those are the side-effects of some of the heavier psychotropic drugs, such as haldol and thorazine. These drugs are like chemical lobotomies.

Anyway, no one in the humanities has stated what the objective or ideal was to try and achieve. Obviously, it has nothing to do with a person being self-determined and making their own choices in life. It probably has something to do with relationships and getting along with others while giving back to the community - nothing about the individual at all. But a person is just a mass of neurons, snapping and popping, in some electro-chemical fashion anyway. Right?

As for this subject, Relativity hasn't explained everything and it remains a theory. another theory is bound to come along.

There are experts and authorities in all these fields but there are differing ideas to those experts. Do we just go a long without question?

Some things from these authorities don't make sense, have not resolved problems that were claimed to be the resolutions and have not produced practical results or improvements and just require revisiting in another 3, 5 or so years.

Luckily, we have discussion boards and forums and never before in history have so many people had so much access to information. Different views can be presented and argued and facts can be verified in an instant. It's kind of great we have the internet. The bane is that sifting through all that information is often an arduous task. Especially if you want the true facts of something. Everyone has some different angle to pitch.

Anyway, the world isn't perfect and we need to keep looking for solutions to our problems. If you think looking in the areas I have pointed out is a waste of your time then fine, don't waste your time. But don't waste mine if you won't even look at materials I have read that have given me reason to believe they need looking at.

I realize you are only trying to help others who you feel are not as bright as you and may be fooled by my bizarre ideas. You know, those that don't have your clarity of thought and may get bamboozled. Just keep pointing people in the right direction. Tell them to ignore my posts or they will get stupid. Whatever yo do don't tell them to look for themselves.

Good night! Tomorrow is another glorious day.

[Bonam]

Well, I work in the field of electronics and am quite familiar with electrical theory.

Really? You work in the field of electronics and are familiar with "electrical theory"? What do you do, exactly? I sure hope your employer isn't reading these forums

You on the other hand are working in what area of physics? Gardening?

You really aught to be more polite to kimmy here, she is going far beyond the limits of mortal human patience to try to help out your understanding of some very basic concepts that you hold some very confused beliefs about.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Bonam

[Pliny]

Bonam, on 22 Jul 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Really? You work in the field of electronics and are familiar with "electrical theory"? What do you do, exactly? I sure hope your employer isn't reading these forums

You really aught to be more polite to kimmy here, she is going far beyond the limits of mortal human patience to try to help out your understanding of some very basic concepts that you hold some very confused beliefs about.

I have been polite to kimmy. I encourage her to keep informing others of how wrong I really am.

For yourself, I must say I am a bit disappointed but not entirely surprised at your position.

I've gotten kimmy to at least agree that energy is necessary to align the electrons of a ferrous material in order for the magnet to adhere to it. It is also necessary to hold those electrons out of their normal state for as long as the magnet is in contact with it - that takes energy.

I am not surprised at your position because it is impossible to proceed with a theory unless the theory is upheld. Mathematically the theory can be upheld and without any other theory it is necessary to work with what we have. Little things like magnets being anomalies have to be explained away somehow. Voila! Magnets hold themselves up by friction and normal forces.

Really, there is no explanation by relativity theory as to why magnets hold themselves up. That's the bottom line, Bonam. If you want to argue the point you can't do it from a practical point of view but you can do it from a theoretical mathematical view.

I realize that kimmy is getting some coaching from you but really she is struggling and may, because she is smart and can see through things, be able to see for herself, she will of course have to move past her prejudices which is often difficult.

[Bonam]

You didn't answer the one question in the the post you quoted:

"Really? You work in the field of electronics and are familiar with "electrical theory"? What do you do, exactly?"

[kimmy]

I have been polite to kimmy. I encourage her to keep informing others of how wrong I really am.

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.

I've gotten kimmy to at least agree that energy is necessary to align the electrons of a ferrous material in order for the magnet to adhere to it.

This is correct.

It is also necessary to hold those electrons out of their normal state for as long as the magnet is in contact with it - that takes energy.

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.

Really, there is no explanation by relativity theory as to why magnets hold themselves up. That's the bottom line, Bonam. If you want to argue the point you can't do it from a practical point of view but you can do it from a theoretical mathematical view.

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.

I realize that kimmy is getting some coaching from you but really she is struggling and may, because she is smart and can see through things, be able to see for herself, she will of course have to move past her prejudices which is often difficult.

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

[Bonam]

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.

Technically, and this is more for you than for Pliny, magnetism actually arises from relativity. Electricity and magnetism are deeply related interactions, hence why they are both covered by the theory of electromagnetism and why they are innately coupled in Maxwell's equations. If one looks at the mathematics behind it all, it quickly becomes apparent that electricity and magnetism are one and the same, differing only by a relativistic shift of reference frame: a phenomenon can look electric in nature from one reference frame and magnetic in nature from another (and some combination of the two from a third).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity

For example, consider one of the simplest examples of a magnetic field: the azimuthal magnetic field around a current carrying wire. We all know that two wires beside each other, each carrying current, either attract or repel (depending on if the current is in the same or opposite directions). Each wire is charge neutral, so this is not a classical electrostatic interaction, but a magnetic one. But if you consider that the charges are actually moving (v =/=0) and apply special relativity (Lorenz transformations), you can quickly derive the (magnetic) force between the two wires from Coulomb's law (the law that describes electrostatic interactions). More on this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism

Edited July 27, 2013 by Bonam

[kimmy]

So what is the applied force that must be strong enough to create the friction.

Normal force.

You just refuse to understand what I say. "Normal force is *always* perpendicular to a surface." is what you said. I said, "normal force on a perpendicular surface is zero" By perpendicular surface I mean perpendicular to the ground. It would perhaps have been better for me to say "normal force on a 'vertical surface' is zero"

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.

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".

Once again, I believe you misinterpret what I say. Do you think I meant no normal force when a magnet is sitting horizontally on top of a beam? There is no normal force from a magnet hanging on a steel beam. There is normal force from whatever is holding up the beam. A magnet under the beam has no normal force exerted upon it to hold it up.

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)

Well, I work in the field of electronics and am quite familiar with electrical theory. You on the other hand are working in what area of physics? Gardening?

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.

I find it funny you are trying to explain this to me. I know it is a bit of a struggle for you with all the research you have to do on things like normal force or asking Bonam about.

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...)

"in the practical world" basically.

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

"Empirical" has scientific merit.

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

As for Mr. McCutcheon's theory it is a theory and may have no merit whatsoever unless it has some practical application and begins to explain the universe around us. We will have to wait and see for that.

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."

If someone has used their math and solved some problems then they haven't regurgitated anything. they have practically applied their knowledge.

On the other hand, thinking a magnet sticks on the fridge due to friction is really funny.

The irony here is hilarious.

-k

[bleeding heart]

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

And your indoctrination into the Community-State at that level, at the expense of the Individual, wherein you learned not to be "self-determined and make [your] own choices in life," remains part of the reason you cannot understand Pliny's theories of....uh........

[The_Squid]

How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity endlessly without draining a power source?

A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to today's science

So why does spaghetti stick to the wall when I test if it's ready to eat? Does cooked spaghetti defy science as well?