See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Yes, you can get a monster hangover from bad whiskey. Or even too much good whiskey. Russian homemade hooch is notorious for being impure and causing awful headaches and more than a few untimely deaths…

   I pretty well limit myself to 2 drinks a night though with the size of wine glasses at some places 2 drinks is really 3 or 4 these days.

   Still, for me, a $15 bottle of wine is a splurge since I am the only drinker at home. If I buy a bottle for a friend I might spend $30 or $40 but rarely more.

2. #102
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 pm, Surveyor said:

   Greenes book “The Elegant Universe” was an excellent read. I just disagree with the underlying science behind it thats all. I admit I have only thumbed through a friends copy of “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality”.
   And I was only kidding around with the “Texture” comment before WarEagle.

   I will have to borrow it and read what else the man has theorized about in this newest book.

   10 dimensions…parallel universes.

   Wow, they haven’t figured out the universe we live in now and we already got an unlimited number of them? Made out of fabric you can stretch and bend but somehow cannot touch or see? All the while synchronized with tiny little strings that vibrate and somehow create me AND giant stars and galaxies? Gotta read that one! Sounds like good science fiction.

3. #103
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:00 pm, cabrerski said:

   I usually have less than 3 drinks a week unless there is a special celebration or a tasting. Had a prolific early career in all things distilled and fermented. Now I wish repent (at least relax) from the brain cell genocide I was guilty of.

4. #104
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:03 pm, corkie said:

   On March 2nd, 2010 at 9:52 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Best line from a review of Surveyor’s book:

   Here’s another reviewer’s conclusion:
   

   “The Final Theory” is broken at its foundation, and demonstrates some curious misunderstandings of standard theory. . . . The great advantage of a wildly unconventional theory is that critics can be dismissed as being narrow minded or too infected by conventional thinking.

   I skimmed through this exchange between an engineer, the author, and the author’s posse. The Final Theory definitely has trouble contemplating simple orbits.

5. #105
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   I have maybe 1 bottle of wine a week but it is probably closer to 3 bottles a month. Then I might have a beer or two a month as well. I bought a case of Guinness Stout at the start of the football season, gave away two six packs and still have two beers left for the Iron Bowl in November.

   Drinking to excess has never been an issue other than one amazingly stupid night in high school. Looking back, I realize I might easily have died from alcohol poisoning…

6. #106
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 pm, cabrerski said:

   It’s good to be older and wiser. Not better looking…more gravitionally-challanged (at least, not in The Final Theory way)…but definitely wiser.

7. #107
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:14 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Yes, 30 years ago I was young and stupid. Now, I’m not young…

8. #108
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 pm, Surveyor said:

   The Final Theory definitely has trouble contemplating simple orbits.

   I skimmed over that exchange as well. So what? Looks like a typical scientific debate to me. Some agree. Some don’t. If you think all scientists agree with the current state of affairs in physics, well then, I don’t know what to say about that. Greene says there are 10 dimensions…another guy says there are 11. Which is it? Does that mean Greene and his work are bunk? Or does that mean the other guy is off his rocker? Don’t know. But debate is always good.

9. #109
   On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 pm, cabrerski said:

   Debate is fine as long as it is rational. I know some Dem lawmakers who will contend that because we do not have a single-payer health care system, then a constituent’s grandmother will never be able to achieve the 11th dimension. As a matter of record, this Congresscritter will then co-sponsor some bill that will ammend the recognized laws of thermodynamics so that all could afford them.

10. #110
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 am, cabrerski said:

    Besides, without debate, we will get a cap-and-trade policy based on AGW. This is when politicians pick and choose which scientists to believe and call it a consensus. Just like the Iranian consensus on the “fact” their was no Holocaust.

11. #111
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 12:28 am, corkie said:

    On March 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 pm, Surveyor said:

    I skimmed over that exchange as well. So what? Looks like a typical scientific debate to me. Some agree. Some don’t.

    It’s not a typical scientific debate at all.

    I’ll paraphrase the exchange regarding why bodies appear to orbit around another (e.g. why the moon seems to orbit around the earth):

    Engineer: Assuming your theory is correct, two bodies passing by each other might curve, but they will not revolve around each other.

    Author: You must stop thinking that a body in motion will stay in motion. In reality, bodies will continue to curve in a new geometric reference frame.

    Engineer: Why would the direction of the curve in a new geometric reference frame be always towards or around each other if two bodies don’t influence each other? If the bodies aren’t influenced by each other, then why wouldn’t the direction of the curve be in the opposite direction from time to time?

    Author: You’re mind can’t grasp the concept because you’ve been brainwashed with Newtonian principles for too long.

    So, if this was truly a scientific debate, then the Author would have offered a valid explanation to a very scientific question.

    Instead the Author choose to accuse the Engineer of being brainwashed.

    Do you honestly think that’s a scientific debate?

    In reality, the Engineer pointed out a serious flaw in the Author’s theory. Instead of acknowledging the problem and promising to think about it, the Author tried to force the Engineer to accept the flawed theory as a matter of faith.

    I’m not definitively stating that the Author isn’t on the right path to someday unlock some of the universe’s mysteries, but his theory doesn’t seem to rise above the sophistication level of basic Expansion Theory.

    Seriously, I think it’s premature for you to go around rejecting proven gravitational formulas based on this guy’s books.

    Again, the formulas don’t explain the cause of gravity. The formulas simply measure the known effects of gravity, and they work! As a Mech E, you should understand this.

12. #112
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 10:42 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    corkie said: Again, the formulas don’t explain the cause of gravity.

    Exactly right and it is my crazy suspicion that we cannot perceive the cause of fundamental forces or the ‘reason’ for the existance of matter/energy because we are closed off from the dimensions from which these things originate similar to our not being able to directly perceive the three physical dimensions that we live within – we can only perceive in two.

    All of our senses are two dimensional receptors – surfaces. Our retina, skin, smell, ear drums etc are based on an energy gradient on a surface be that photons striking the surface or air pressure pushing on a surface, etc. Our brains make up the 3rd dimensional awareness even though we cannot directly preceive in 3 dimensions.

    Consider that if we lived in only 2 physical dimensions then it would only be possible for us to preceive our existence with one dimension. You are stuck in flatland and your ‘vision’ consists of scanning in any direction only along that plane. So any shape in the distance is going to look like … a straight line, no matter what shape it really is. If you change your POV the line will appear to be longer or shorter and your brain will then try to figure out the length of the line the same way our brains manufacture the perception of a 3D object using the parallax difference between two 2D images along with the persistence of a varying poiints of view.

    So if I lived in flatland and was contemplating this very same discussion I’d be suggesting a universe outside of our own that has a mysterious Z dimension whereby we can look ‘down’ (or ‘up’, whatever), to see what shape the object actually is and confirm that it isn’t a line at all, it’s … something else we could have never imagined. Likewise, this may explain why we cannot perceive what ’causes’ gravity.

    This all briefly became obvious to me when I was sucked into a black hole. (and I’ll bet you probably think that you weren’t huh?)

13. #113
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 12:47 pm, Surveyor said:

    On March 3rd, 2010 at 12:28 am, corkie said:

    Ok, having read the entire exchange now, it seems the engineer only read to the 3rd chapter, saying he just couldn’t get past the orbiting bodies chapter. McCutcheon even goes on to say that the engineer, in order to grasp this orbital bodies part, needs to read the entire explanation which ties into chapters further in the book.

    Author: You’re mind can’t grasp the concept because you’ve been brainwashed with Newtonian principles for too long

    This isn’t all that bad. I’ve been to physics forums where scientists almost came to blows with one another over the smallest details in their theories.

    Remember Hawking and information loss in black hole theory? Oh well, since there are more than one universe…some will not be like ours, and therefore contain no black holes…so….the information lost in Universe’s with black holes is basically offset by the universe’s without black holes where there is no information lost to black holes because they don’t exist. ?

    Most scientist felt pitty for Hawking after that. But did they go back and try to debunk all of his previous stuff because of this? No. They moved on without him.

    As a Mech E, you should understand this.

    Yes, I do understand the formulas are good models to use and they work for certain things.

    10 dimensions or 11? Tiny little strings we cannot even see, touch or measure in any way, that sit in other dimensions but somehow effect ours? Unlimited amount of universe’s? Space is a fabric that heavy objects can bend or break but we can NEVER see or touch or feel or prove? Does this stuff sound like a common sense approach? Just make up new stuff and add new dimensions whenever the math doesn’t work out? Comparing sound waves moving through air on earth to light waves moving through the vacuume of space as proof of the universe expanding endlessly? Why did hubble determine that red-shifted light is moving away instead of saying blue shifted light is moving away? How did he come up with this? How is light in a vacuume at all like soundwaves moving through air?

    I just can’t be made to believe our universe is as complicated as some of these guys make it out to be. With no proof I might add….just mathmatics bent and twisted to conform…one way or the other…to the all mighty Einstein and his make-believe fabric. Like I said, it does make for good science fiction reading though!

14. #114
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm, corkie said:

    On March 3rd, 2010 at 12:47 pm, Surveyor said:

    McCutcheon even goes on to say that the engineer, in order to grasp this orbital bodies part, needs to read the entire explanation which ties into chapters further in the book.

    I read that claim by McCutcheon. It isn’t credible. Why would McCutcheon put information which is crucial to understanding orbiting bodies in a chapter proceeding the orbiting bodies chapter? It’s more likely that he was just trying to save face in that exchange – just like Hawking in your example.

    This isn’t all that bad. I’ve been to physics forums where scientists almost came to blows with one another over the smallest details in their theories.

    I didn’t say it was bad. I said that it isn’t scientific debate.

    Most scientist felt pitty for Hawking after that. But did they go back and try to debunk all of his previous stuff because of this?

    I never claimed that McCutcheon was debunked. In fact, I stated,

    I’m not definitively stating that the Author isn’t on the right path to someday unlock some of the universe’s mysteries

    But I do feel pity for McCutcheon. His theory can’t even reasonably explain orbiting bodies.

    Yes, I do understand the formulas are good models to use and they work for certain things.

    Great. It’s nice to have you back from cuckoo land.

    Unlimited amount of universe’s? Space is a fabric that heavy objects can bend or break but we can NEVER see or touch or feel or prove? Does this stuff sound like a common sense approach?

    It’s as reasonable as McCutcheon’s approach.

    Regardless, you originally claimed that Telsa’s secret machine was capable of creating a technological discontinuity. Please explain this.

15. #115
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 3:52 pm, Surveyor said:

    Best quote from Tesla:

    Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

    Regardless, you originally claimed that Telsa’s secret machine was capable of creating a technological discontinuity. Please explain this.

    I did not claim this…Tesla did.
    His device utilized Resonance to transmit OR receive energy from space. It’s not free energy exactly….as the work to form resonance waves is done for us in space. But it might as well have been free as the waves are constant and never cease.
    J.P. Morgan was one of Tesla’s financial backers on most of his AC current work. Perhaps J.P. Morgan saw the light with Tesla’s resonance generator and decided to pull funding in order to be able to continue to bill you for your electricity from a grid. I don’t know. Many of Tesla’s inventions created technological discontinuity. After all, the world would not be the same without Tesla’s other inventions. Why would he lie about the resonance generator?

    There is censorship in science today and it is well documented.

    Here is one example.

16. #116
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 5:43 pm, corkie said:

    You’ve wandered back to cuckoo land.

    If the resonance generator was such a great product, then why didn’t Mr. J.P. Morgan fund its development for Tesla?

    If the resonance generator is such a great product today, then why doesn’t anyone fund its mass production now?

    There might be censorship of science in academia, but I assure you there is no censorship in the private investment world. There are plenty of angel investors ready to look at any claims of technological discontinuity in every US city.

    The fact remains that there just isn’t much electromagnetic energy floating around. The majority of it is in the form of sunlight and even devices which convert sunlight to electricity have a suspect return on investment.

    Most of the EM energy floating around is noise (in other words – comprised of too many different resonance frequencies) and communication signals. Communication signals are great for delivering radio, television, and telephone signals, but they’re not even strong enough to power a single light bulb.

    Again, dozens of resonance generators have been built over the years. The problem is that they suck.

    I certainly appreciate your mechanical engineering degree, but, frankly, I think you’re a bit out of your element here. It seems like you need the understanding of an electrical engineer or electrophysicist in order to prevent yourself from being sucked into these type of internet conspiracy theories.

17. #117
    On March 3rd, 2010 at 6:28 pm, corkie said:

    the work to form resonance waves is done for us in space

    I think you have some confusion about electromagetic waves.

    Every electromagnetic wave propagates at a specific frequency. A circuit that includes capacitors and inductors tuned to that specific frequency will “resonate” with electrical energy. This electrical energy can be used as a power source, but the power is limited to the actual power of the captured wave. The amount of such power would usually be measured in microwatts or milliwatts at most.

    However, this power could be combined with the power of electromagnetic waves of different frequencies (traveling through the exact same location) utilizing separate circuits tuned to such frequencies. So, the more circuits built, the more total power can be pulled from the air.

    Assuming an average of one milliwatt per circuit (a very generous assumption indeed) it would require 10,000 circuits to generate 10 watts of power. 10 watts ain’t much power considering the expense to build the 10,000 circuits. Just to give you an idea – it take more than 10 watts to run a Dustbuster.

    Hence the efficiency problems with resonance generators. I hope this helps.

18. #118
    On March 4th, 2010 at 4:45 am, corkie said:

    I should add that, in order to avoid a drop in efficiency, each circuit should have its own specific length antenna.

19. #119
    On March 4th, 2010 at 9:58 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Perhaps J.P. Morgan saw the light with Tesla’s resonance generator and decided to pull funding in order to be able to continue to bill you for your electricity from a grid.

    Yes and back in 1962 a farmer invented a carbureter that got 120 MPG but Esso bought the patent and buried it.

20. #120
    On March 4th, 2010 at 10:03 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I have an idea… why not just use microwaves and then you could just cook stuff directly? Oh but that would be dangerous so we’ll have to put it in a metal box to protect stuff we don’t want cooked. You could put a timer on it and then … oh wait… never mind …

21. #121
    On March 4th, 2010 at 10:18 am, corkie said:

    On March 4th, 2010 at 9:58 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Yes and back in 1962 a farmer invented a carbureter that got 120 MPG but Esso bought the patent and buried it.

    I assume this is sarcastic.