Dark matter

[kimmy]

This is true.

Well... in your mind perhaps all of this is a result of my inability to comprehend the words coming out of your mouth. But in truth, all of this is a result of your inability to comprehend what you're even talking about.

Maybe take some evening courses so you can learn high-school physics. Or maybe just stick to whining about taxes.

-k

[naturally]

Was it Copernicus who said, when asked about the role of god in his theory of planetary motion, I have no need for a god to play any part in this!

It is still the case today! Always will be!

[kimmy]

Mark McCutcheon's theory of expansion is interesting. I've read it and at the time physicists outright rejected it. I haven't read if they are giving it any serious consideration or have totally debunked it.

Excellent news, Pliny! Mark McCutcheon's theory is finally getting the mainstream attention it deserves!

Cracked Magazine's list of the 6 most unintentionally hilarious websites on the internet: Mark McCutcheon's "Final Theory" at #3.

-k

[The_Squid]

Thank you Kimmy. I laughed at the Cracked article, then I laughed at the crackpot that tried to debunk physics. Wow. I thought it had to be a spoof... He doesn't even understand the questions in his Q&A. For instance, there is a question about light not being able to escape from black holes. The answer? Black holes don't even emit light, only functioning stars emit light.

This is true.... But it doesn't even begin to answer how light isn't able to escape from a black hole's gravitational pull! There is nothing in the question about black holes emitting light!! Oh my....

Edited July 9, 2013 by The_Squid

[Bonam]

Thank you Kimmy. I laughed at the Cracked article, then I laughed at the crackpot that tried to debunk physics. Wow. I thought it had to be a spoof...

One could only hope. Sadly there is no shortage of crackpots. Good for an occasional laugh, though.

[Wild Bill]

One could only hope. Sadly there is no shortage of crackpots. Good for an occasional laugh, though.

Sadly Bonam, some of those crackpots get elected!

Consider McGuinty's approach to green energy, with wind and solar power subsidies.

I rest my case!

[The_Squid]

Sadly Bonam, some of those crackpots get elected!Consider McGuinty's approach to green energy, with wind and solar power subsidies.I rest my case!

Policy decisions that you disagree with is a totally different than disagreeing with the science of physics. Poor analogy.

[Wild Bill]

Policy decisions that you disagree with is a totally different than disagreeing with the science of physics. Poor analogy.

Actually, I was thinking of the physics behind using an inconstant source of power with no ability to store it, thus forcing extra generation capacity as a backup. That is a crackpot notion.

Also, setting up the system so that the wind and solar capacity must be subsidized by tax monies. That is a crackpot notion.

Or legislating that the equipment must be made in Ontario, in order to generate jobs, in an industry that absolutely needs the volume of export orders in order to get the price down. Not only did other countries refuse to buy the Ontario equipment, they filed suit with the WTO and won.

They set up their system so that they have to pay their neighbours to take surplus power, again because of an inability to store it, which any high school science student should have been able to see at the start.

Besides Squid, I was referring to being a crackpot in general, rather than things like the Dean Drive.

I was unaware that you could only be a crackpot with matters of physics. If that is the case, then I must apologize for criticizing McGuinty. I had thought that implementing a system to give us cheaper power, more jobs and a new manufacturing industry that resulted in power at twice the price, lost jobs and no new industry was a good example of being a crackpot but I will bow to your definition.

[bleeding heart]

The concept of god gives the existence of the universe purpose and reason. The scientific explanation of a chance happening out of chaos resulting in the big bang explains nothing as far as reason and purpose - perhaps dark matter will give it some purpose?

What makes us think it necessary that there be a "purpose"?

[bleeding heart]

Excellent news, Pliny! Mark McCutcheon's theory is finally getting the mainstream attention it deserves!

Cracked Magazine's list of the 6 most unintentionally hilarious websites on the internet: Mark McCutcheon's "Final Theory" at #3.

-k

Those Cracked lists are often quite good. What was a blatant Mad Magazine rip-off when I was a kid appears to have grown into its own.

[kimmy]

Those Cracked lists are often quite good. What was a blatant Mad Magazine rip-off when I was a kid appears to have grown into its own.

Long time no see, you!

-k

[Pliny]

kimmy, on 08 Jul 2013 - 9:24 PM, said:

Excellent news, Pliny! Mark McCutcheon's theory is finally getting the mainstream attention it deserves!

Cracked Magazine's list of the 6 most unintentionally hilarious websites on the internet: Mark McCutcheon's "Final Theory" at #3.

-k

You've gone and resurrected an old favourite thread of mine. Gee thanks!

My fridge magnet is still hanging there.

And I'm not surprised that you quote Cracked magazine as your scientific reference.

Certainly, I think the theory is interesting and deserves some scrutiny especially when science can't explain my fridge magnet.

Quote

Q: 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. It certainly takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy. And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or textbook shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy apparently emanates from permanent magnets without any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.

This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:

Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum- mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying to find out where the magnetism comes from."

I realize your intent in bringing up this old thread but really as far as all the subjects we disagree on, economics, physics, secular humanism, etc. all I suggest is that none of them are settled and perhaps there are things we should be looking at if we want solutions to problems we are facing. Those that simply propound the status quo from a know best or erudite position certainly have an interest in maintaining it and are not likely to wish anyone actually look anywhere else.

Keynesian Economists, Pharmaceutical companies and Physicists have all invested effort in their pursuits of understanding and I doubt many, in any of those areas, have much interest in any new ideas that could prove to upset their apple carts. Just like those that had studied Copernicus were not anxious to accept Galileo.

The point to be made is to look and observe and maintain the ability to look and observe. Keynesian economics was developed and works best in a Fascist State. Pharmacuetical companies deal in drugs so their solutions all have to do with drugs and if there is different solution they will attempt to undercut it or at best ignore it. Physicists are looking for phemonomena regarding the theory of relativity and special relativity and have run into problems, with string theory and quantum mechanics as offshoot theories.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this up.

I guess I'll just remain a crack pot because there is a possibility that those subjects mentioned have stagnated and vested interests wish to keep going down the same road. It is possible that government and banks like to manipulate the economy, and there does seem to be a connection between drugs and bizarre, senseless random acts of violence, and perhaps the Higgs-Bosun particle will simply turn out to be a paper chase. Higgs, himself says that if the there is no Higgs-Bosun particle found then he absolutely knows nothing about physics. Does the whole theory really depend upon that? I know that scientists at CERN are excited about last summers find and think they have it, maybe they do, but maybe some assumedto be true fundamental has led them down the garden path.

The fact there are questions mean we still have to look.

We aren't going to get anywhere continually going over the same ground. You can just continue supporting the "truth" as you have been told and I'll just keep looking.

Your desire to help by keeping people on the straight and narrow, making sure they have only expert and authoritative data is notable. We are only interested in helping, after all. In resolving the problems we have in being human perhaps someone else will be looking as well. Time will tell.

[Pliny]

What makes us think it necessary that there be a "purpose"?

What makes us think at all?

A purpose certainly isn't a necessity but it is in general prior to action, and if thought is an action then purpose generally precedes it.

kimmy, for instance, has a purpose and it generates a lot of activity from her to accomplish her purpose. A different purpose would generate different activity.

[dre]

What makes us think at all?

A purpose certainly isn't a necessity but it is in general prior to action, and if thought is an action then purpose generally precedes it.

kimmy, for instance, has a purpose and it generates a lot of activity from her to accomplish her purpose. A different purpose would generate different activity.

The purpose of thought is to contemplate things, and figure them out. Its pretty obvious why cognitive ability was naturally selected....

[GostHacked]

One bit about the fridge magnet. The magnet is very very strong for the size of it. Hence it stays on 'forever'

Eventually it will weaken over time, but it will take a very long time, maybe more time than any of us spend on this planet.

[Pliny]

Was it Copernicus who said, when asked about the role of god in his theory of planetary motion, I have no need for a god to play any part in this!

It is still the case today! Always will be!

He obviously didn't accept the conventional definition of the time. No one has modernized it since the concept was first propounded. Maybe it just needs an update.

[Pliny]

Bonam, on 08 Jul 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

One could only hope. Sadly there is no shortage of crackpots. Good for an occasional laugh, though.

I generally agree with your posts concerning economics but can't understand your view here especially with your grounding in science.

You have expressed an interest in creating a robot of a sort, one that could endure long trips in space perhaps. Something that resolves problems and barriers that the human organism would encounter such as radiation.

Really though what is it you would like to transfer from the human organism to the robot? I don't know if you have ever thought about the fact that your definition of life actually makes the human organism a robot. A simple electro-chemical carbon-oxygen machine. It has taken a little while to develop through an evolutionary process and perhaps we can further improve on it by making parts out of steel or something more durable. But the current form repairs itself and and is quite flexible. What is it that you would like to transfer from a piece of protoplasm, our current robotic form, to a piece of steel?

Wild Bill, on 09 Jul 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Sadly Bonam, some of those crackpots get elected!

Consider McGuinty's approach to green energy, with wind and solar power subsidies.

I rest my case!

Hi. Wild Bill. I really enjoy reading your posts. You say what you have observed and experienced, and express your thoughts about them. There are some very intelligent posters here but I personally think some haven't bothered to sort through it all and strip out expert and authoritative opinion and "theory" from fact or correlate it with experience. Frankly,they have learned their experience means nothing as it is entirely anecdotal and if it doesn't jibe with their "education" then they deny the experience. It's a sad comment that the only ones that can offer any "truth" are those that have presented a double blind peer reviewed study and one's experience can only be interpreted or evaluated through those parameters.

Certainly, on the subject to hand, Mark McCutcheon has some work to do to have his "theory" given any serious consideration but it answers a few questions.

Time will only tell if we have a Galileo in our midst.

[Bonam]

I generally agree with your posts concerning economics but can't understand your view here especially with your grounding in science.

What aspect of my view do you find incongruous?

You have expressed an interest in creating a robot of a sort, one that could endure long trips in space perhaps. Something that resolves problems and barriers that the human organism would encounter such as radiation.

Hmm, where was that? I do have an interest in space robotics, though. However, there is no need to take the "human organism" as a starting point for the design of autonomous spacecraft.

Really though what is it you would like to transfer from the human organism to the robot? I don't know if you have ever thought about the fact that your definition of life actually makes the human organism a robot. A simple electro-chemical carbon-oxygen machine. It has taken a little while to develop through an evolutionary process and perhaps we can further improve on it by making parts out of steel or something more durable. But the current form repairs itself and and is quite flexible. What is it that you would like to transfer from a piece of protoplasm, our current robotic form, to a piece of steel?

Not sure where this came from. I do not have any particular interest in replacing human protoplasm with steel

[kimmy]

#$%@, Pliny! Get it together!

Physics certainly can and does explain why the magnet is not generating an endless supply of energy (or any energy at all) by sticking to your fridge. It's been explained for you several times already. The issue is not that science can not explain it. The issue is that you refuse to accept the explanation.

While both you and Mr McCutcheon insist otherwise, force and energy have different definitions. Mr McCutcheon dupes the uninformed reader, not to name names, by calling magnetic attraction and gravity "energy", while in fact they are not energy but force. That's it. That's his entire thesis, destroyed, by pointing out an error in terminology that anybody who passed a high-school physics course could have pointed out.

If I let Mr McCutcheon redefine terms to his liking, then of course he could find faults in the laws of physics. And if you let me redefine terms to my liking, I could prove that I am the Pope. But the terms are not open to redefinition; I'm not the Pope, force is not energy, and Mr McCutcheon has not found faults in modern physics.

I mean, come on, Pliny. The law of conservation of energy a foundational principle of almost every aspect of not just modern physics, but classical physics as well. Do you really think that Mr McCutcheon has discovered something that fundamentally destroys all the rules of physics by looking at his fridge? No physicist in the past 200 years ever saw a magnet?

-k

[Pliny]

#$%@, Pliny! Get it together!

Physics certainly can and does explain why the magnet is not generating an endless supply of energy (or any energy at all) by sticking to your fridge. It's been explained for you several times already. The issue is not that science can not explain it. The issue is that you refuse to accept the explanation.

You believe you have explained something, actually you haven't explained anything, you've only regurgitated what you have read. I happen to see a magnet on my fridge and not falling off as gravity would seem to imply it should. Why it doesn't is the question. Really, if it can align the molecules of the fridge so that it adheres, it must be doing something that requires energy. Molecules do not align unless there is some force that will do that and hold them there. Believe it or not, holding molecules in alignment takes energy.

While both you and Mr McCutcheon insist otherwise, force and energy have different definitions. Mr McCutcheon dupes the uninformed reader, not to name names, by calling magnetic attraction and gravity "energy", while in fact they are not energy but force. That's it. That's his entire thesis, destroyed, by pointing out an error in terminology that anybody who passed a high-school physics course could have pointed out.

Don't think so. Force requires energy.

If I let Mr McCutcheon redefine terms to his liking, then of course he could find faults in the laws of physics. And if you let me redefine terms to my liking, I could prove that I am the Pope. But the terms are not open to redefinition; I'm not the Pope, force is not energy, and Mr McCutcheon has not found faults in modern physics.

Oh how I have argued about the importance of definitions only to be told they unimportant. They are inmportant. I don't think he has redefined anything. I think you are attempting to redefine things. There is a force called gravity, its attraction to other masses is based upon its own mass. It exerts a force upon other masses that hold them in equilibrium. How is there no energy exerted? Because there is no force.

Mr. McCutcheon has not found faults in modern physics. He has attempted to explain with a theory what they have not been able to explain. Modern physics is a theory. You have to understand that first, just like the Big Bang is a theory. A theory explains certain phenomena and allows for the prediction of other phenomena. It may be correct theory and it may not be a correct theory. It's usefulness is in its explanation of observed phenomena and its ability to predict other practically applicable phenomena, and until all phenomena are explained does it fall out of the realm of theory.

I mean, come on, Pliny. The law of conservation of energy a foundational principle of almost every aspect of not just modern physics, but classical physics as well. Do you really think that Mr McCutcheon has discovered something that fundamentally destroys all the rules of physics by looking at his fridge? No physicist in the past 200 years ever saw a magnet?

-k

Well, what have all physicists of the past two hundred years been taught? No energy is expended in holding a piece of matter in a position where it does not fall. I know the mathematical formula will tell us that no energy is expended. So that must prove it, and I am wrong. However, 1+1 = 2 is merely an abstract notion. Is there really anything that equals another thing and can, when added together, equal to two. Mathematical Theory is all nicey-nicey but will only explain so much.

In the case of energy, we can express mathematically that no motion or change in motion is equal to no exertion of energy but that is not necessarily the reality.

[The_Squid]

Why it doesn't is the question.

Magnetism. You learn it in grade 6.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357334/magnetism

[Pliny]

Bonam, on 12 Jul 2013 - 5:50 PM, said:

What aspect of my view do you find incongruous?

As I explained, and thank you for replying by the way, we have built an organism over the millions of years, practically from the basic cell to the human organism and if we wanted to we could evolve further to endure space travel.

What is incongruous is considering that we are not already robotic in nature, as we are by scientific definition nothing but matter. Evolution should then be, obviously, a simple matter of the organism adapting itself to an environment.

Hm, where was that? I do have an interest in space robotics, though. However, there is no need to take the "human organism" as a starting point for the design of autonomous spacecraft.

Not sure where this came from. I do not have any particular interest in replacing human protoplasm with steel

Well, if you wish to travel in space with conventional methods and reach any destination you would have to

evolve somehow.

Sorry, it's late and I am getting tired.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Pliny

[Wild Bill]

You believe you have explained something, actually you haven't explained anything, you've only regurgitated what you have read. I happen to see a magnet on my fridge and not falling off as gravity would seem to imply it should. Why it doesn't is the question. Really, if it can align the molecules of the fridge so that it adheres, it must be doing something that requires energy. Molecules do not align unless there is some force that will do that and hold them there. Believe it or not, holding molecules in alignment takes energy.

Don't think so. Force requires energy.

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.

Physicists for decades have been trying to better understand the fundamental forces and come up with a Unified Theory that ties them all together.

You seem to have no problem accepting gravity as a fundamental force but somehow you ignore magnetism as being the same. So you somehow believe that things must be explained WITHOUT magnetism! That a magnet on the fridge is somehow defying gravity because what else is involved?

It's like trying to explain how a gas engine runs when you ignore or don't believe that gas and oxygen vapour will explode in a cylinder. If you try, you are left with what appears to be an anomaly in physics.

Your magnet stays there because Magnetism is a fundamental force of the Universe and at the macro level we all live in that magnetic force is stronger than that of gravity, for the power of your magnet and it's amount of magnetic strength compared to it's weight. To argue against it would be the same as arguing against the Force of Gravity.

At the sub-atomic level we see examples of another force, the Weak Force. It is what keeps atoms from flying apart. If you read up on such stuff you will better understand the example of your fridge magnet.

The magnet stays there because that's the way the Universe works! Magnetism is a fundamental Force the same as Gravity.

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!

Edited July 13, 2013 by Wild Bill

[GostHacked]

I think I get what Pliny is trying to say. I will also agree with him that force is simply another form of energy. You need energy in order to create force.

This force energy for this scenario is magnetism. The energy force stored in the magnet is far greater than the force of gravity on the magnet. Magnets do weaken overtime as the polarized particles slowly become unpolarized and randomized. This is why it will stick to the fridge and not fall off.

So over time the magnet will weaken to a point where it can no longer resist the force of gravity. Understanding magnetic polarity will help understanding this kind of stuff.

[Wild Bill]

I think I get what Pliny is trying to say. I will also agree with him that force is simply another form of energy. You need energy in order to create force.

This force energy for this scenario is magnetism. The energy force stored in the magnet is far greater than the force of gravity on the magnet. Magnets do weaken overtime as the polarized particles slowly become unpolarized and randomized. This is why it will stick to the fridge and not fall off.

So over time the magnet will weaken to a point where it can no longer resist the force of gravity. Understanding magnetic polarity will help understanding this kind of stuff.

No, you do not need energy to creat a force! At least, not a Basic Force of the way the Universe works!

No energy is involved in creating Gravity. Nor is any involved in creating Magnetism. Certainly, the earth is never going to run out of energy and we will all float away.

A basic force is a basic force. It is an intrinsic part of reality. It is because it IS! If it wasn't, we all wouldn't be here. There would be no Universe.

If these arguments were true, there would be no need for so much skull sweat to be expended by Hawking and his peers in seeking a Unified Theory of Everything, tying all the Basic Forces together.

We could just wait long enough for everything to run out of energy!