Tags for this video have been changed from 'Soda cans, Electro magnets, Why do it, Because we can, Because we CAN, Geddit' to 'ArcAttack, Soda cans, quarter, ring, Electro magnets, Why do it, Because we CAN' - edited by Eklek

I disagree with the fake phone vibrating being strictly mental re-wiring, or an itch from somewhere else being misinterpreted (by mental re-wiring). I get the fake vibrating ring all the time, whether or not I have my phone in my pocket, but it always feels like it comes from the same area where my phone usually is.

Being an engineer, I have always thought that the high intensity electro-magnetic field generated during a phone's ring has somehow damaged the nerves/muscles in the area closest to the phone. And since electrical impulses control muscle movement and the nervous system, they are a little screwed up (damaged?). Or they get stuck on repeat.

You see, I don't get too many calls, I don't answer my phone every time, I could care less if it rings or not, so why would my brain be re-wired to desire my phone to ring, creating phantom rings? It seems to usually happen when those muscles are in use (not just sitting down).

I just saw the slingatron as you posted it a while back (the video you posted was private, but the link worked). While an interesting idea, they did seem to ignore a few things, most importantly the value of air resistance at sea level (or near it).
The issue is this...normal space vehicles travel at slow (relative) speeds when in the lower atmosphere, this limits drag and friction caused by air resistance. When spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere they must do so carefully, at specific angles and speeds, in order to avoid too much friction or they'll burn up (no matter what you make them of) or bounce off. When they are at high speeds, it is in extremely low air pressure, and vice versa.
This slingatron plan puts the craft at maximum speed in maximum air pressure. That's going to cause massive shock loads on the craft from turbulence, and also major friction and heat. I get the feeling those are insurmountable issues that ruin this plan.
A better plan I've heard of is basically a giant electro magnetic rail gun (cyclotron or straight linear accelerator) that is sealed and vacuumed as close as possible to 'empty'. If such a device could have it's exit point high enough (say, out the top of Mt Everest) it MIGHT avoid most of those pitfalls, along with the massive G load caused by spiral track acceleration (coupled in some slingatron drawings to an even higher G load 'launch ramp' at track end).
Just a thought for a tech minded 'buddy'. Enjoy.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.

I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.

It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.

Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.

If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'electro magnet, magnet, strong magnet, science, iron, emf' to 'electro magnet, magnet, strong magnet, science, iron, emf, lenzs law' - edited by rottenseed

The easy fix involves electromagnets in the floors? Can't say I'm surprised this is still a problem then.

Bolt + Table + Floor = Problem Solved. The chairs would still move around, but they'd hit into the tables like Plinko chips, and that would be even more fun to watch.>> ^Yogi:

This is such an easy fix...electro magnets under the floor with metal bottom'd tables and chairs. Have an emergency bottom that triggers the magnets. Sure you might get some people pinned with their cheap jewelry but at least they won't roll around.

>> ^Yogi:
This is such an easy fix...electro magnets under the floor with metal bottom'd tables and chairs. Have an emergency bottom that triggers the magnets. Sure you might get some people pinned with their cheap jewelry but at least they won't roll around.


Easier fix, the duty officer stops banging the female servers and turns the ship INTO the waves.

This is such an easy fix...electro magnets under the floor with metal bottom'd tables and chairs. Have an emergency bottom that triggers the magnets. Sure you might get some people pinned with their cheap jewelry but at least they won't roll around.

"Look how much pollution I just put out".
Brilliant. You just described yourself as a balloon filled with hot air, spewing toxic waste, as a good thing.

Ever get the feeling that the English language doesn't quite mean the same on Fox News as it does in other places?

Like, "Soon they'll say electro-magnetism and noise are pollutants that need to be regulated", which they make sound so preposterous, so I'd love to see Glenn move to a house next door to an airport, under a cluster of power lines please.

So, it's a lot of iron filings suspended in oil or something? Anyway, amazing shapes. I'm going to rewatch it now...
Those spikes near the end just before they turned off the electro-magnet that were right up the top were very interesting. Wish I knew a bit more about physics. Great vid, thanks

>> ^Lucidium:
Charliem: You can turn off electro magnets. And even then certain types will remain magnetic. You can't turn off a magnet.


Simply not true.
The only electo-magnets that "retain" their fields after being switched off, are super-conductive rare-earth elements that have been super-cooled to very low kelvin temperatures.

When the material is bought back up past its super-conductive threshold, it loses its magnetic field.

Every electro magnet that can be switched off, loses its magnetic properties.

MRI's rarely use permanent magnets, as the resolution of a perm magnet is so low, and the materials required to produce a field strong enough for a clear picture, are immensely expensive, and heavy.

Theres a pretty decent chance this is an EM MRI, all they needed to do was let the thing warm up a bit after using it (generally by turning the cooling pumps off).

Charliem: You can turn off *electro*magnets. And even then certain types will remain magnetic. You can't turn off a magnet.

^lolwut MINK

That was genuinely funny. Also, I agree that eventually we may not be able to provide evidence for creation of the universe. Especially when we get to the non-light (hard to measure anything without photons/radiation, except by indirect evidence) quantum mechanics domain (*edit looking at events very close time wise to what kick started it). But, that's not a reason to believe in god or FSM.

Lightning is fairly well known, sprites and other related phenomena, not so much. We do have a fairly good grasp of electro-magnetism.

I got it:

"If this video has anything to do with you (i.e. your intillectual property, your own jackassery) we will send 'representatives' to your house with giant computer destroying electro magnets, kidnap your mother, and Demand a ransom of $100,000 be paid to Brian Houston for your incompetence and blatant inability to properly follow the easy to understand guidelines of Videosift. Please check the box to continue.

P.S. were serious, we don't like idiots."

That should get the message across just fine.