Tres Juicy

Sorry, my question is not clear enough.... my fault "If you cut a magnet, you wind up with two smaller/weaker magnets." I know ... What I'm asking is this: Take a rectangular magnet and trim down the north pole to a point (creating an isosceles triangle) throw away the other bits so you are left with One triangular magnet. Now, if the north pole is much thinner than the south is this sustainable? Will the now much larger south pole overpower the weaker north? A kind of quasi-monopole? (surely not possible) Or will the field re-align itself to "balance" this out? Thanks

Hi all, Just a quick one, what happens when you cut a magnet along its length so that one pole has less volume/mass than the other? Would the thinner pole just be weaker or would the whole thing re-align? I'm thinking that it would shift the poles so that the point is somewhere in the middle, sort of "sharing out" the weak point between the two poles Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks, Al

"Descartes, by the way, wasn't inept -- despite how any matchbook cover summary of his proof might make him appear." I didn't suggest he was inept, I just felt he had cheated a bit... "A book just isn't capable of simulating consciousness." If the book reads "Descartes pondered his own existence... blah, blah, blah...". Then the conciousness of the reader will to some extent bring Descartes to life and lend some of that conciousness to him, however briefly. Does Descartes still truly exist if he is a fleeting thought in the mind of someone else? "cogito ergo sum" says yes but, even now as you imagine Descartes in your mind, however vividly you may picture him he is only real to you (even though the imagined Descartes is likely pondering his existence, I mean its hard, for me at least to imagine the guy NOT pondering his existence). You could argue the existence of this "virtual" Descartes (I expect he would), but thats a whole differnt thread I expect... My point is that "cogito..." does not prove anything. How can it?

"The fact, as Descartes points out, that one cannot prove the existence of books using one's own perceptions doesn't make either of the above inconsistent." If you can't use your own perceptions to prove the existence of a book, what makes you think you can use it to prove your own existence? If your perceptions are somehow skewed, then you may be fooled into imagining your existence is something it's not If you cant trust your perceptions then you can't use them to verify your existence, for all he new Descartes could have been a thought in someone else's mind or a character in a book - how does "Cogito ergo sum" disprove that? EDIT) It's like questioning the length of a ruler/tape measure: Descartes says "Is it really 30cm? How can I know?" He then proceeds to use it to measure itself to verify that it's the correct length "yep, 30cm alright"

This is true, but at least with graphene there is a way to test this out though... Does anybody have any graphene I could borrow?

"Reflection itself is a form of sensation as it is one's way to sense one's own thoughts. As such, it was inconsistent for Descartes to use it in his argument. This, however, is far from the only place in the Meditations where Descartes cheats." This is my point, it's a cop out You can't say "lets discard sensory information" and then simply NOT "No we don't; the one thing Descartes did do legitimately was to bring the problem of solipsism to light. This is a problem which has still not been solved." If that were the case, surely he would not have questioned his own existence but rather the existence of others?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Surely Graphene is your best bet? Do you need to take precausions while handling graphene? I would imagine you could give yourself one hell of a papercut with it... Has any one here actually seen/used/played with some graphene? I'd love you know

Obviously WE know that he existed, his question related to his own existence and proving it to himself. He couldn't have said "If I'm deluded, and don't really exist, where did my books come from?" This again is circular reasoning and proves nothing... It's obvious to us that he existed but not to him Thanks

Hi all, Descartes said "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am" Isn't this a cop out? Picture the scene: The existentially challenged Descartes is pondering his existence, is it real or some illusion/dream. It becomes a bit difficult and he thinks "well, if I'm thinking about it then I must be real otherwise I couldn't think at all", job done off he goes. Isn't this a perfect example of circular reasoning? A self fulfilling prophesy of sorts? Why not say "I have legs therefore I am" or "I can see things so they must be real" or "I have a hammer therefore I must be a builder". It seems a bit weak to me... Surely just the ability to think does not in any way prove your existence, the best he could hope for would be "I think therefore I think I am..." and then probably best to go think about it some more and come up with an actual answer. I mean, if his (or anyones) existence was an illusion it (the illusion) would contain the illusion of his thoughts on the subject. How did this meaningless cop out become so well known? It seems like wishful thinking to me, he jumped at the first conclusion that confirmed the result he wanted in the easiest and least provable way.

Why is this in the philosophy section? Post this in the physics/quantum mechanics section and see what happens

Higgs bosons

I would completely agree that maths is a language in its own right (even though it appears to have little relation to the tongue) and also that there are highly complex operations which we accomplish with little or no consious thought involved, like walking, ducks can walk but are not regarded as great thinkers. As an example, the ancient Greeks had many highly regarded philosophers, could this be in part due to there shared language, does it lend itself particularly well to the subject? Obviously there will have been cultural and environmental influences as well, you can't knock about with Plato and Socrates and not ask a few difficult questions yourself...

I agree

Acceleration due to gravity is the same regardless of weight, its things like air resistence that cause observable differences. In a vacuum everything falls at the same speed Try this experiment: take a marble and a hammer and drop them out of an upstairs window at the same time

That would explain were single socks go after a wash. what about "virtual" particles in a vacuum?

I think I can make this work... You'll all get mentioned at my Nobel acceptence (probably as "The Nay-Sayers") I have 20 or so big neodymium magnets, a tube of glue and some Lego, that will keep me busy for half an hour.

Imagine a conveyor belt carrying a stream of magnets to a destination, at the end of the belt they must be removed into a bucket. All the magnets on the belt are aligned so that their N points in the same direction (lets say East). At the end of the belt there is a very large magnet with its N pole facing West. This act to push the smaller ones off the belt and into the bucket (ignoring the fact that they would just spin around and stick to the big one, lets imagine they are held somehow). Would this be considered Net Work? The large magnet has moved the smaller ones by X distance in Y amount of time. Is that not work? Object A goes to position B at speed C, thus work has been done

I dont want to break it, only to redirect it somewhere it will have a useful effect

Another bad example I'm afraid... Perhaps a better one would be a blind man licking a braille book...

I am aware that the lines of force curve back around, but I'm trying to negate their effects in a portion of the field

Higher than what? Higher than basic recognition of needs (I want a sandwich...), things like maths and philosophy could be examples of higher or deliberate thought. A dog can think, but his thoughts would not be considered to be deliberate. He has no ability to make considered rational decisions and he cant try to understand complex ideas. Only if you draw them with your tongue. Really..? Sign language, body language, mathmatics.... the list goes on. Are you suggesting that language only counts if its tongue related? I rarely see mathmaticians licking a whiteboard in hopes of solving a particularly fiendish equation. NLP is even more questionable than this thread. As questionable as NLP might be, it is a widely held belief that many people use (although I have very little knowledge of it at all and only used it as an example). I have been in sales for many years and I know first hand the power of a well constructed sentence to have a measurable effect on the thought process of another person. Also, what is questionable about discussing the link between language and thought? is it somehow not a valid question? I have posted it the philosophy section and there have been some thought provoking responses (thanks), are you suggesting that there is no link between them? If so, please give your reasoning. Ironically, the answer to that is to ask you to explain what one of these inexplicable things is. That becomes very difficult, very quickly doesn't it? I speak very little Japanese and no examples sping to mind (as soon as one does I will post it) Thanks

Ok, so if we can use this force in one direction, surely the water wheel principle can be used to push one side of a wheel downwards indefinitely (whether the power is coming from the magnet itself or the field it generates) and this will not break thermodynamics in any. again, if you replace the top magnet with a running tap there would certainly be no objection from anyone and the wheel would turn as long as the water was running. so provided I can shape the field created by the magnet (or alter the path of the other one) to make it a "downwards only" force it should work... I think I need to build it.... I am a resonable person and I know it shouldn't work, but I can't get it out of my head now. I need to prove myself wrong I think, it should be fun failing anyway and I'll probably learn a thing or two about why I'm an idiot Just out of interest, does anyone agree that if the shape of field could be modified to produce long thin lines of force eminating from the poles, it could then be made to work? Thanks, Alan

No, what I'm suggesting is an imbalance of force. The point where it would encounter resistence is the point where the the arm extends, so gravity does the work of pushing it into the field and it is positioned so that as soon as it does meet resistence there is only one direction that force/resistence can push it (down). By shielding the field on one side I'm trying to make it so that entry to the repulsive field is in a place where the natural rotation (coupled with the "drop" of the arm) will give enough momentum to make it easy to get to a position where suddenly the repulsive force is large enough to push it downwards to a point where it exits the field and drops the next one in. I understand your mountain analogy but think of the fixed magnet as a fast running tap, there is an external force acting upon the wheel causing rotation

Hi, I understand what you're saying, but.... "If the force of the field is strong enough to move the whole contraption, then there is a chance that the arms wouldn't fall into that field at all... but instead, the static and moving magnets would be repelled so strongly to make them hover somewhere halfway. " Thats why I have included the ferromagnetic "shield" (yes, I've given it a cool name so that appears more credible - you want to like it don't you?), this will attract the moving magnet and to some extent negate the repulsion of the oposing magnet until it is in the correct position. The reason I have added hinged arms is to increase acceleration (due to gravity) through the part of the field that is likely to cause them to "hover" mid way. The aim being to have them travelling at their maximum speed through the "sticky patch" In short, I'm trying to make it relatively easy to get into the unfavourable position (and once they're in, they will be immediately forced out, dragging the next one in ad infinitum...) Dont get me wrong, I thought of this this afternoon at work... I'm just curious as to whether magnetic power breaks the 2nd/3rd LoT, the way I see it magnets are almost like "stored" energy and it seems to be reasonable to divise a way to use that energy Thanks for all the feedback though, keep it coming