Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics: “What Is Magnetism?”

Originally posted by boncho
How am I putting words into peoples mouths when they make statements like:

the rest of physics comes into question.

Oh, and that is John Hutchison. He invented anti-gravity, knows all about magnets too.

You should ask him your question.

The rest of physics does come into question. How much of basic physics theory relies on, is built on an understanding of magnetism?
I said nothing about John Hutchison, you're trying to attach him to my argument (with your homosexual erotica pic) so somehow my argument will appear less credible. Is that a scientific response? Is this how science discerns truth? Why yes, yes it is, that's my point. When defenders of mainstream science are backed into corners, they resort to ad hominem, putting words in people's mouths, etc etc. Because it's worked so far.

reply to post by grizzle2


I've already destroyed your argument's credibility by showing that you referenced a satire article written by someone who has no background in science.

English Lit., does not = physics.

Comedy, does not = reality.

reply to post by grizzle2


Let's debate some of Maddox's other theories shall we...

He won the undergraduate Thomas Temple Hoopes Prize for his senior thesis "on the use of adjectives in restaurant menus" titled Maltese: A Gastrosophic Theory of Reading.

I personally like the use of adjectives in restaurant menus, but if we were to eliminate them, wouldn't that bring into question all menus throughout the world?

Very scary science, when you think about it...

Originally posted by boncho
Talk about taking things out of context...

Bruno Maddox

The OP article is written by a novelist, journalist, who studied English Lit. and writes satire...

edit on 20-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Ad hominem again.

Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise

You can't attack the argument, so attack the arguer, in other words. Exactly what I said mainstream scientists do. We're still waiting for a relevant word from you.

By the way, pointing out that this man is not a physicist, are you saying that somehow physicists who subscribe to mainstream scientific theory have some kind of special understanding that can not be relayed in layman's terms? That they have some kind of divine spark the rest of us do not, that allows them to see things we are incapable of seeing?
Try to explain how magnets work in any kind of terms we can understand then. Address the point, the facts, not the person, because it's not a valid argument. If it really is "virtual photons", then that opens the floodgates to a number of other alternative theories on any number of subjects. Yes?
Oh, yes, and please keep your erotic pics of males off the thread. It's irrelevant.

I have been looking into this recently as well, there is a lot of force and power in magnets and while it does not make a fully fledged perpetual motion machine there is a heap of energy in your humble magnet. There are a heap of inventions around to prove this, probably a lot more that have been covered up.

There are a great deal of similarities between electrical current and magnetic current or flux. Also some minor differences as well. To get back to basics then I recommend starting with Maxwell before his work got hacked, it is a bit more complex but some of the free energy inventors that tap into this magnetic flux stand by it www.rexresearch.com...

A more recent theory is based on the Reciprocal System library.rstheory.org... . It is quite a shift in thinking about the structure of nature and still new to it, but from what I have read so far it does sound intriguing and looks to be adding up.

To the OP: I flagged your thread for you, hoping that more people will come in here and see how not to post disinfo in the forum entitled: Deconstructing DisInfo

Of course, the name of the forum is exactly what we did, so in the end, this thread has earned it's place.

Originally posted by bonchoLet's debate some of Maddox's other theories shall we..

I didn't post about Maddox's other theories. That is not what the thread is about. This thread is about the fact that mainstream scientists don't understand how magnets work. You seem to want to talk about anything but the point, the OP, the facts. Can you please keep on-topic? I assume that would be a quality, the ability to stay on subject, that would be desirable in science. And, it's ad hominem again.

reply to post by grizzle2

By the way, pointing out that this man is not a physicist, are you saying that somehow physicists who subscribe to mainstream scientific theory have some kind of special understanding that can not be relayed in layman's terms? That they have some kind of divine spark the rest of us do not, that allows them to see things we are incapable of seeing?

Did you miss the fact that the article you quoted is a

SATIRE article?

If you want to debate magnets and how they work maybe you should not quote a comedy piece for your supporting evidence to the argument...

Originally posted by boncho
To the OP: I flagged your thread for you, hoping that more people will come in here and see how not to post disinfo in the forum entitled: Deconstructing DisInfo

Of course, the name of the forum is exactly what we did, so in the end, this thread has earned it's place.

The disinfo here is the popular perception that scientists know what they're talking about, however, if they don't understand how magnets work, a lot of their other premises come tumbling down. Thus, "deconstructing disinfo". Now, could you address the facts, please? Something, anything on topic from you would be nice.

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by bonchoLet's debate some of Maddox's other theories shall we..

I didn't post about Maddox's other theories. That is not what the thread is about. This thread is about the fact that mainstream scientists don't understand how magnets work. You seem to want to talk about anything but the point, the OP, the facts. Can you please keep on-topic? I assume that would be a quality, the ability to stay on subject, that would be desirable in science. And, it's ad hominem again.

It is not an Ad Hom attack. You quoted a satire article, treated it as a scientific article without posting a disclaimer. And you did all this in the deconstructing disinfo forum....

Originally posted by bonchoDid you miss the fact that the article you quoted is a

SATIRE article?

If you want to debate magnets and how they work maybe you should not quote a comedy piece for your supporting evidence to the argument...

Then you should have no problem explaining to us how magnets work. I have asked physicists about this myself, and the farthest they got was "magnetic domains", which means that they exert force by virtue of the geometric arrangement of atoms in space. Really?

Originally posted by bonchosatire

"sat·ire/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/Noun
1. The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

No, you haven't, because you have done everything but address the facts, not even one fact. Satire in this example apparently does not mean satire as in Cracked magazine or the Onion.
Yoiu can't address anything he says in the article, can you?

Originally posted by bonchoIf you want to debate magnets and how they work maybe you should not quote a comedy piece for your supporting evidence to the argument...

If you can't address any of the facts, then why are you spamming the thread repeatedly? Is it that you hope to pollute it with irrelevant posts to the extent that people quickly lose interest in reading it?

Originally posted by boncho...

I am going to follow up on this, by the way, because I know I'm right. Aside from the false satire angle, what were your other points, if any?

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by bonchosatire

"sat·ire/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/Noun
1. The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

No, you haven't, because you have done everything but address the facts, not even one fact. Satire in this example apparently does not mean satire as in Cracked magazine or the Onion.
Yoiu can't address anything he says in the article, can you?

What facts have you pointed out? The facts I have pointed out is that you referenced a satire column, you labeled as an Editorial, which it is not, it is a column. And you quoted the person for validity.

Another article by Maddox:
Google Taught Me How to Cut My Own Hair

Because the secret of cutting your own hair, I discovered after typing “how cut own hair” into Google and twiddling my thumbs for 0.08 seconds, is just to cut it, with a pair of scissors. First, you moisten the hair, which makes the individual hairs cohere into manageable strands. Second, using scissors, you snip off all those sections the presence of which were what convinced you that you needed a haircut in the first place.

1

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by bonchoIf you want to debate magnets and how they work maybe you should not quote a comedy piece for your supporting evidence to the argument...

If you can't address any of the facts, then why are you spamming the thread repeatedly? Is it that you hope to pollute it with irrelevant posts to the extent that people quickly lose interest in reading it?

This was posted in the deconstructing disinformation forum. You misrepresented an article by calling it an editorial when it was a column and further, you failed to provide a disclaimer to the type of article it was when posted.

That is disinfo itself.

reply to post by grizzle2
You want me to address the "facts" you posted:

Oh, joy unspeakable. One of my favorite examples of how mainstream science is lacking in something fundamental to the nth degree, while at the same time claiming a divine right to define reality for us.

What exactly was an example of ''mainstream science' lacking something in the article?, which is a comedy article, I should add once again.

Define: Claiming a divine right to define reality.... Can you post examples of this?

They don't understand how magnets work, but they are so insightful they can dismiss anything outside their understanding with a handy ad hominem and an appeal to authority, and whatever other logical fallacies come to mind at the moment. (hearty laughter) - g[

What have they dismissed outside their understanding? Can you post examples of this?

Glad to see you have found, hearty laughter....

reply to post by grizzle2


Why does everything on ATS automatically turn into an anti-science bitch fest?

Tell me something OP - if these narrow-minded, know-it-all scientists in their ivory towers actually knew nothing about magnetism, do you think you'd be typing your little rant about it on a computer right now?

The fact is science understands plenty about how magnets work, it's the why that is a different story.

However trying to undermine all of modern physics based on this is ridiculous. It's like saying EVERYTHING is bunk because although we can break it down into fundamental particles and forces, we still can't explain why those fundamental particles and forces exist in the first place.

(Electro)magnetism is a fundamental force, meaning every practical, testable, falsifiable understanding/application we have is built out of it because it works - not by "pretending" we understand why it works.

And that also doesn't mean scientists haven't attempted to develop a deeper understanding of why these things work either. This is part of the challenge of developing a "theory of everything". But nobody out there is acting like they have all the answers there, so I don't even know what you're whining about?

What - the fact that they can't figure it out, but they're trying to dictate to you how other things in this world operate and function?

Fine, fair enough - complain all you want - but go get rid of every piece of electronic equipment you own first and stop looking like a totally self-entitled hypocrite please.

Originally posted by boncho you referenced a satire column, you labeled as an Editorial, which it is not, it is a column. And you quoted the person for validity.

My replies to you, and yours to mine, contain satire. But that does not mean they are wholly satirical, does it? Why don't you clear it all up by explaining how magnets work. The explanation given in the article is what physicists say. Virtual photons.

Originally posted by mc_squaredTell me something OP - if these narrow-minded, know-it-all scientists in their ivory towers actually knew nothing about magnetism, do you think you'd be typing your little rant about it on a computer right now?

I didn't say they knew nothing about it. There's a difference between knowing something about how it works and understanding it. I know something about how a transmission works, but I don't go around acting like I understand it fluently. I don't criticize others who have a way of describing how it works in a different manner than I do. Not the best analogy, but close enough. In fact, when someone comes up with a theory, or does something on the bench that disagrees with scientific convention, scientists set about name-calling, calling people nuts or stupid. Apparent abandonment of that detached scientific method they are supposedly so proud of.