talkmagic.co.uk

Wow, I didn't know that. Very cool stuff

One last note...

Submarines may in fact use sonar but I can assure you, the U.S. Navy also employs the earth's natural magnetic current as part of their navigation as well as detection methods and have done so since the mid 1970s.. the Soviets are said to have used similar technology.

There are likewise systems used in archeology that operate on this very same arrangement.

As to the Vocabulary "lesson"... the day I see any zealot from any given topic take on a 100% neutral position in their research and in their contentions, I'll change my story. I've yet to see a single bit of research that either hasn't been or can be tainted. More so, when it comes to the rationalist world, we do know that they have been caught red handed changing "test" results when they do not agree with their personal views and desired goals. Not to worry, this is standard practice in all statistical research, especially when it comes to commerce. But likewise in those instances in which Company X sponsors the research that refutes what group Y's research states. Just look at the whole Global Warming situation and you'll see case after case where this is fact.

As to the sarcasm offered by Blapsing_Beard... it is quite a common retort and as with some of the other ones made, it has taken my words and the meaning there of, out of context and deliberately sought to mock the perspective I shared because it doesn't fit into the world of the supposedly rational/analytical mind. Kind of how the born again fanatics of religion view the many things they damn on a daily basis, just because their profits tell them so.

NEWS FLASH... I'm not anti-science and I do give science credit. If you were to actually READ what I've said rather than assume things, you will see where I actually state this on this specific topic. Where I draw the line and have always drawn the line, is when the contentions of science as it is presented on the scholastic level, promote conclusions that are not based on complete or even fair data but rather, by agenda; something that tends to negate the very ideas suggested in that little vocabulary list, in that the actual actions speak far louder than Webster.

Craig Browning wrote:Submarines may in fact use sonar but I can assure you, the U.S. Navy also employs the earth's natural magnetic current as part of their navigation .....

science as it is presented on the scholastic level, promote conclusions that are not based on complete or even fair data but rather, by agenda; something that tends to negate the very ideas suggested in that little vocabulary list, in that the actual actions speak far louder than Webster.

It seems that they were a little slow catching on to the compass idea in my opinion.

As for your final comment; you clearly know very little about the actual practice of science and in terms of 'agenda' and I can assure you that the few cases of result fabrication you are referring to are far less common than the 'crackpot fringe' surrounding psychics that you also mentioned.

Ben Goldacre wades in... http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/wtf/

I'd say the general thrust of most of the posts here is that there is an appropriate time for having faith in something for which there is little or no evidence, and attempting seek out improvised explosive devices isn't one of them. That doesn't seem to be a dogged pursuit of a cynical agenda.

Craig Browning wrote:One last note...

Submarines may in fact use sonar but I can assure you, the U.S. Navy also employs the earth's natural magnetic current as part of their navigation as well as detection methods and have done so since the mid 1970s.. the Soviets are said to have used similar technology.

What's that then? A compass, like nickj says?

As to the Vocabulary "lesson"... the day I see any zealot from any given topic take on a 100% neutral position in their research and in their contentions, I'll change my story. I've yet to see a single bit of research that either hasn't been or can be tainted. More so, when it comes to the rationalist world, we do know that they have been caught red handed changing "test" results when they do not agree with their personal views and desired goals. Not to worry, this is standard practice in all statistical research, especially when it comes to commerce. But likewise in those instances in which Company X sponsors the research that refutes what group Y's research states. Just look at the whole Global Warming situation and you'll see case after case where this is fact.

Yes, you're right that research funded by a company could be biased and research can be tainted by a scientist's beliefs, which is why scientific research is peer reviewed before it even makes it to the journals. (Vocabulary lesson: peer review - the scrutiny of a scientist's work by other scientists in the same field by checking his sums and repeating his tests) And even then, they're scrutinised again and again by people all over the world

Let's take the theory of relativity as an example. Published in 1905 and 1915, and we're still questioning it, and we're still testing it. We're learning more and more new things, and we're applying it to research. We've now come to realise that Einstein wasn't completely right, and the theory doesn't completely hold up

Let's take another more recent example: the MMR vaccine. This is where science went bad, and a scientist did some questionable and biased research which suggested that the MMR vaccine was linked to child autism. This was later proved time and time again to be completely wrong, and the scientist in question is currently being charged under serious professional misconduct

NEWS FLASH... I'm not anti-science and I do give science credit. If you were to actually READ what I've said rather than assume things, you will see where I actually state this on this specific topic. Where I draw the line and have always drawn the line, is when the contentions of science as it is presented on the scholastic level, promote conclusions that are not based on complete or even fair data but rather, by agenda; something that tends to negate the very ideas suggested in that little vocabulary list, in that the actual actions speak far louder than Webster.

So you're a fan of science until science cannot prove something you claim, after which you say it's not fair? Your temper tantrum can be likened to these religious nuts you speak about, who also say science isn't fair because it hasn't found proof of god yet. But they believe that god exists (they have proof!) so science is obviously biased and unfair because they don't get the results they want

In truth, science is very open. They're never closed to new ideas and trying new things. Quite a lot of things are tried out, sometimes just to see what will happen. And if non-science things are shown to actually be true, it becomes science. Asprin came to be because medicine tested the effectiveness of a particular alternative medicine treatment. It was proved to work as claimed, and now I gargle with it every time I get a sore throat

Craig whether or not submarines use the magnetic field of the earth for navigation is irrelevant unless you are a submarine. The magnetic field of an object that is oh say planet sized is a lot stronger than that of your keys. Humans do not have the capacity to sense magnetic fields anyway.

Or should we start calling you the Craigmarine MKI - Psychic Submersible?

Is this the thread where science and the paranormal clash and Craig writes a Reader's Digest compendium? Because this is my favourite thread.

Many sharks use the earth's magnetic fields too. But they don't have periscopes.

Submarines win.

Some submarines could use gravity gradiometry for navigation. I believe that the book "the hunt for red october" exposed this technique (and you thought magicians get annoyed by exposure).

http://www.navysbir.com/n09_1/N091-092.htm for an interesting read. I wonder how far the researchers have gone with that?

Now, if you could somehow make your dowsing sticks sensitive to gravity ...

The Earth's magnetic "current"?

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the planet's molten iron core. A magnetic current is the long theorised analogue of electrical current that uses exotic magnetic monopoles instead of electrons, as theoretically allowed for by Maxwell's equations and predicted by the superstring and grand unification theories. No one's ever seen a magnetic monopole, much less developed a submarine navigation system that uses them, but a few, um, independent thinkers, have claimed to have built free energy devices that use them over the years without apparently understanding anything about thermodynamics.

As well as not being arrogance, superior knowledge is also not zealotry (an intolerance of opposing views). It's just superior knowledge, here being demonstrated.

I could do this all day

Give him a chance Tomo; it's easy to make mistakes with terminology!

nickj wrote:Give him a chance Tomo; it's easy to make mistakes with terminology!

Implying that he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Using the Earth's magnetic field for navigation is a bit of a hit and miss affair. Submarines now use gyro-compasses and radio/satellite navigation.

Sonar can be used for this purpose in conjunction with maps of the seabed, but is hardly ever used as it gives the boat's position away to any listening vessel. The periscope is used when near a coast line.

In the past, aircraft fitted with magnetometers could detect submerged boats by detecting changes and disturbances they made in the Earth's magnetic field; but boats can be degaussed to reduce the magnetic signature to almost zero.

What was the question again?

Tomo wrote:

nickj wrote:Give him a chance Tomo; it's easy to make mistakes with terminology!

Implying that he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Not really, it is very easy for non-specialists to use the wrong terms when the gist of what they are saying is right and I don't think it is fair to pick on them for that.

nickj wrote:Not really, it is very easy for non-specialists to use the wrong terms when the gist of what they are saying is right and I don't think it is fair to pick on them for that.

As you wish.