Wabbit said:
He isn't saying that fridge magnets don't work. If you read it properly he is saying that it contradicts the model of physics used to explain the phenomenon.
If you reread my post, I never said he sustains that fridge magnets do not work, but that he uses the fact that they do not fall from the fridge door to deny gravity.
There is a revolution going on in physics at the moment. The big bang theory is getting more and more discredited as time goes by along with all it's trappings such as the theory of gravity.
Agree, but not just at the moment. I has been going on for quite a long time.
The current physics model is full of holes and contradictions.
Granted.
String theory can't even be proved.
No, and it has not even been called string theory for the last 9 years. There are lots of different theories out there. Maybe one of them, when it is fully developed, will be proven right; it could also be a mixture of several or they could all be wrong. Lots of experimental physicist, theoretical physicists and matematicians, separately or together are working on different theories. Only time and research will tell.
A new theory which explains everything based on a plasma "electrical" model works much better. Expect a slow shift in the next 10 to 20 years in physics. If you actually read what he is saying and you actually read stuff such as "new scientist" along with related fields of study you would know he isn't a crank or a moron. I think you should do a little more research and read what he has to say before dismissing him.
OK, I don't read the 'new' scientist because it's always old news. I try to keep a bit more up to date than that. Fortunately, scientist like to publish their research and they want everybody to read it for free so, apart from a few papers' databases where you can only read the abstracts unless you subscribe, there are lots of free internet sources available.
The idea of a plasma electrical model is not new either. It is just one more theory.
If I dismiss him and other people who have blogs or websites on the subject is because they their arguments are just plain silly ( I am not saying there are not valid arguments that can be used when talking about the subject, but these people do not use them. Perhaps they are above their heads).
I did not dismissed him without reading. I read everything in the website, short of dowloading the book. Frankly, I am not rich and have better uses for my money.
Writers of popular science books are of two kinds:
-They are scientists themselves, in which case, even though the book is popular science, you can find notes and bibliography at the back, so that the reader can find a description of the experiments carried out or a full mathematical working of the model.
-They are science writers/jounalist, with a good knowledge of the subject matter so they can read scientists' papers and explain them in plain English and without the equations to the general public.
Mark McCutcheon doesn't seem to be either. A fiction writer can use a pen name and not give personal information. A non fiction writer, not just a science one, cannot. He/She needs to be accountable. Any statement needs to be done in a way that can be verified. Experiments must be fully described, so that they can be repeated. Theoretical proposals must show the full working, so someone else can check them over and say 'hey, your theory only work because you forgot to include a couple of tensors'. Scientific magazines only publish an article, no matter how famous the author is, after having it checked by colleagues. They do not have to agree with the article, just say that it follows sound scientific procedure (experimental or mathematical).
And by the way, I was right about the Yorkshire Post. They do not have a science correspondent. Maybe he meant the science writer for the free paper delivered through my letter box.
