|
Home >
Science > |
|
sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers
|
Section 5 of 6 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
is not.
The actual origin of life is more problematical. If you stick some
ammonia, methane and a few other simple chemicals into a jar and
subject them to ultraviolet light then after a week or two you get a
mixture of organic molecules, including amino acids (the building
blocks of protein). So current theories propose a "primordial soup"
of dilute organic chemicals. Somewhere a molecule happened to form
which could make copies of itself out of other molecules floating
around in the soup, and the rest is history.
Ilya Prigogine's work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (for which he
received a Nobel prize) shows that thermodynamic systems far out of
equilibrium tend to produce spontaneous order through what he calls
"dissipative structures". Dissipative structures trade a *local*
increase in orderliness for faster overall increase in entropy. Life
can be viewed as a dissipative structure in exactly this sense --- not
a wildly improbable freak of combinations but as a natural, indeed
inevitable result of the laws of thermodynamics.
For more on this, see the relevant chapter in "Paradigms Lost" by John
L. Casti (Avon paperback, 1989).
5.8: But doesn't the human body seem to be well designed?
---------------------------------------------------------
Not to me. Consider a few pieces of the human body for a moment. The
back for instance. The reason we poor humans suffer so much from back
problems is that the back is actually not well designed. And what
about human reproduction. Can you imagine any engineer being proud of
having designed *that*?
5.9: What about the thousands of scientists who have become Creationists?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This outrageous claim is frequently made by creationists, but somehow
these mystery scientists are never identified. It is claimed that
these conversions have been caused by "the evidence", but this
evidence never seems to be forthcoming either.
To test this claim, try looking up "creation" and "bible" in any
biology or paleontology journal index.
Even if this claim were true, it would not be a reason to become a
creationist. The only reason for adopting creationism as a scientific
theory would be the production of convincing evidence.
5.10: Is the Speed of Light Decreasing?
---------------------------------------
The origin of this claim is a paper by Norman & Setterfield which
plots various historical measurements of the speed of light and claims
to show a steady decrease. Extrapolating backwards, they conclude
that the Universe is only about 6,000 years old. This also
conveniently explains how we can see stars more than 6,000 light-years
away.
The first point about their paper is that it was originally
distributed in Stanford Research Institute covers, and is sometimes
described as an SRI report. However SRI did not have anything to do
with the report and are tired of answering queries about it.
Norman & Setterfield appear to have selected their data in order to
support their hypothesis: graphs include only those points which are
close to the "theoretical" curve while omitting points which are not
close to the curve. This curve gives an inverse cosecant relationship
between time and the speed of light. There is no justification for
such a curve: the usual curve for a decaying value is exponential and
this would have fitted the plotted data just as well as the inverse
cosecant chosen by Norman and Setterfield.
5.11: What about Velikovsky?
----------------------------
In the 1950s a Russian psychologist named Immanuel Velikovsky wrote
"Worlds in Collision". This book and its successors are remarkable
for the density of scientific, archeological and mythological howlers.
There are far too many to list here, but most are sufficient to cast
serious doubt on his knowledge of any of these fields, and many are so
large that even one is enough to refute the entire theory.
Much of Velilovsky's proof lies in statements of the form "The reason
for is not known. My theory explains it as follows:". Many of
these reasons were in fact known when Velikovsky wrote, and many
others have been discovered since. None of these reasons bear any
relationship to Velikovksy's theory. The predictive value of the
theory appears to be nil.
The books lack any mathematical analysis at all, which is strange
considering that mathematics is the language of science, especially
physics and astronomy.
Some of the more noticeable howlers are:
1: Strange orbits which cannot be explained in terms of Newtonian
mechanics (or indeed anything less than an angel sitting on a
planet and steering it like a starship!).
2: The Earth's spin being altered suddenly by a close encounter with
Venus, and then restored. Where to begin? Planets just don't do
that.
3: A confusion between hydrocarbons (e.g petrol, mineral oil, tar) and
carbohydrates (e.g sugar, starch, glucose).
4: World-shaking events (literally) which Velikovsky assumes were
accurately recorded by the Israelites but not even noticed anywhere
else, even quite close by.
5: Ancient records (e.g Mayan, Sumerian and Chinese astronomical
observations) which contradict Velikovsky's theory.
Velikovsy's supporters often cite a conspiracy theory to explain why
the world of science refuses to take these ideas seriously. See
section 0 of this FAQ.
For more information, see:
Worlds in Collision
Immanuel Velikovsky
Earth in Upheaval
Immanuel Velikovsky
Velikovsky Reconsidered
The Editors of Pensee
(has a lot of his papers in it, along with other papers pro-V.)
Scientists Confront Velikovsky
Donald Goldsmith
Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy
Henry H. Bauer
Broca's Brain
Carl Sagan
Jim Meritt has posted a long article on
talk.origins which systematically demolishes Velikovsky's ideas. I
don't know if it is archived anywhere. This section attempts to
summarise it. Most discussion of Velikovsky occurs on talk.origins.
5.12: Are there human footprints from 250 million years ago?
------------------------------------------------------------
Claims that human footprints have been found mixed in with dinosaur
tracks have been made since the 1960s. These fall into three groups:
a: Carvings by ancient native americans.
b: Modern carvings.
c: Mis-identified dinosaur footprints.
No credible evidence exists for human footprints in strata older
than a few million years.
References:
Ingalis, A. G., 1940, The Carboniferous mystery.
Scientific American, v. 162, p. 14.
Jochmans, W., 1979, Strange Relicts from the depths of
the Earth. Forgotten Ages Research Society, Lincoln, NB.
Monroe, J. S., 1987, Creationism, Human Footprints, and
Flood Geology. Journal of Geological Education. v. 35, p. 93.
Owen, D. D., 1842, Regarding human foot-prints in solid
limestone. Journal of Science, v. 43, p. 14-32.
Sloan, R. E., 1983, The association of "human" and fossil
footprints. in Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public
Education Controversy, J. P. Zetterberg, ed., pp. 354-357,
Oryx Press.
Strahler, A. N., 1989, Chapter 48 Out of Order Fossils. in
Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation
Controversy, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York.
Von Fange, E. A., 1981, Time Upside Down. Offset
House Printing, Indianapolis, Indiana, 41 p.
Weber, C. G., 1981, Paluxy man - the creationist Piltdown:
Creation/Evolution, v. 6, pp. 16-22.
Fire-walking
============
WARNING: Whatever the truth about firewalking may be, it is a
potentially dangerous activity. Do not attempt it without
expert guidance.
[Please could one of the firewalkers on the net contribute a paragraph
or two for this section. PAJ]
6.1: Is fire-walking possible?
------------------------------
Yes. It is possible to walk on a bed of burning wood without being
hurt.
6.2: Can science explain fire-walking?
--------------------------------------
There are a number of theories which have been put forward to explain
firewalking. Any or all may be the explanation for a particular
event.
o The dry wood coals used by firewalkers conduct heat very poorly.
The coal itself may be very hot but it will not transfer that heat
to something touching it.
o The coals are a very uneven surface, and the actual surface area of
foot touching the coals is very small. Hence the conduction of heat
is even slower.
o Wood coals have a very low heat capacity, so although they are very
hot there is actually not much heat energy to be transferred to the
foot.
o Firewalkers do not spend very much time on the coals, and they keep
moving. Jan Willem Nienhuys adds that about 1
second total contact time per foot seems on the safe side.
o Blood is a good conductor of heat. What heat does get through is
quickly conducted away from the soles of the feet.
o The "Leidenfrost" effect may play a part. This occurs when a cold,
wet object (like a foot) touches a hot, dry object (like a burning
coal). The water vaporises, creating a barrier of steam between the
hot and cold objects. Hence the two objects do not actually touch
and evaporation from the cold object is much slower than might
otherwise be expected. Since steam is a relatively poor conductor
of heat the foot does not get burned. Jearl Walker, of Scientific
American's "The Amateur Scientist" column, explains the Leidenfrost
effect in the August 1977 issue; he walked across coals unharmed and
attributes this to the Leidenfrost effect. Other scientists believe
that the Leidenfrost effect is unimportant in firewalking.
Pain perception is not as simple as everyday experience suggests.
Some people experience great pain without any apparent cause.
Others experience little or no pain despite great injury. Cognitive
and emotional factors seem to be important. A belief that one has
control over the pain seems to reduce the level of pain experienced.
Fear seems to increase it.
Firewalking is usually done in a religious or spiritual context. This
would tend to reduce the level of pain experienced by firewalkers
without affecting the amount of physical damage done to the feet.
Some firewalkers put forward mystical explanations of why firewalking
is possible without serious physical harm. A few skeptics have
challenged these firewalkers to stand on hot metal plates instead of
coals. Others have pointed out that making such a challenge in the
belief that the firewalker would be seriously hurt is of dubious
morality.
Jay Mann from New Zealand writes:
> The NZ CSICOP had a mass firewalk at its annual meeting in
> Christchurch about 5 years ago. We had a lengthy afternoon talk by a
> professor of physics, complete with demonstrations of tossing hot
> bread loaves back and forth. The fire was built in mid-afternoon, and
> the firewalk took place after the society banquet, that is, about 10
> p.m.
>
> One *never* walks on live coals. The fire is lit hours before the
> actual walk. Large burning coals are removed. The firebed is carefully
> raked to provide a continuous smooth layer of ashes over all burning
> embers. By this time, it is dark and the firebed is seen to glow
> ominously. It is still hot, and potatoes can be cooked in the ashes. On
> the other hand, the rate of heat transfer through the ash is
> time-limited. If participants take steady strides, even city-folk with
> soft soles can manage at least five steps. In the Christchurch version,
> we stepped in a small puddle of water at the end of the firewalk; I have
> seen at least one description of a "commercial" firewalk where cooling
> water was also provided.
>
> In Christchurch, dozens of people went across. Some went back for two
> or three passages. The bed was re-raked periodically to restore the ash
> layer. There were two or three minor burns and blisters the next day,
> mostly people who had kicked embers up between their toes. Having done
> a firewalk is a wonderful conversational topic, and most people will not
> believe that you didn't have some sort of mystic faith and determination
> to "protect" your body.
>
> Denis Dutton, then president of the NZSCICOP, later went to New Guinea
> on a professional trip. There he trained one local tribe in firewalking
> as way to attract the tourist dollar. The first few firewalkers, in a
> private test, were cautious, but eventually the whole tribe-- man,
> woman, and child -- gleefully ran through the "fire". For public
> performance, the tribe added a lot of magical incantations and rituals.
> Denis asked them how they would explain their knowledge of the trick.
> They replied that they would say "an alien from the skies came and
> taught us". You can imagine that people with tough soles from barefoot
> walking could tolerate more exposure soft-soled city people.
New Age
=======
7.1: What do New Agers believe?
-------------------------------
An awful lot, it would seem. New Age is not a "religion" in the
traditional sense of a defined set of spiritual beliefs. Instead it
seems to be a label applied to a loose collection of religious cults,
organisations and pseudo-sciences. Some of the more common themes
are:
o Belief that conscious thought molds reality to some extent.
o Belief that religions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Eastern religions, especially "cult" religions, seem popular.
Mainstream eastern religions such as Hinduism and Sihkism don't seem
to attract New Age believers. Most New Agers are actively against
organised Christianity, but some favour heretical variants such as
Gnosticism. Almost any pre-Christian religious tradition has
followers in the New Age camp.
o Divination, especially Tarot, I-Ching, and Western and Chinese
Astrology.
o Green politics, especially the more extreme and mystical "deep
green" movements.
o Flying saucers.
o "Alternative" health (see the earlier section).
o Vegetarianism.
o Pacifism.
o Conspiracy theories to explain why the rest of the world does not
follow the same beliefs.
o Rejection of science and logic as tools for understanding the
universe. A reliance on feelings and intuition as guides to action.
o Pseudo-scientific jargon. New Agers talk about "rebalancing energy
fields" and "vibrational frequencies". These sound vaguely
scientific but in fact have no meaning at all.
Bear in mind that not all of these are bad just because New Age people
follow them. And by the same token, a person who follows one strand
of New Age belief may not follow any others.
Many people are of the belief that Satanism and New Age are
synonymous. This is incorrect. Many (probably most) people involved
in New Age religions *do not* believe in Heaven, Hell, the Christian
God, the Christian Devil or any other purely Christian construct.
The equation Paganism = Satanism comes from the history of
Christianity. As the Church spread through Europe it asserted its
authority by banning any competing religions. Since the Catholic
Church was the exclusive holder of the Truth, it followed that any
competing religion was False, and must therefore be an attempt by
Satan to mislead humanity. Hence anyone following another religion
was doing the work of Satan.
For more information on these ideas, check out the alt.pagan FAQ.
7.2: What is the Gaia hypothesis?
---------------------------------
There are several versions. The following taxonomy was suggested by
James Kirchner in "Scientists on Gaia":
* Influential Gaia: the biota has a substantial influence over certain
aspects of the abiotic world
* Coevolutionary Gaia: the biota influences the abiotic environment, and
the latter influences the evolution of the biota by Darwinian processes.
* Homeostatic Gaia: the interplay between biota and environment is
characterized by stabilizing negative feedback loops.
* Teleological Gaia: the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis not just by
the biosphere, but in some sense _for_ the biosphere.
* Optimizing Gaia: the biota manipulates its environment for the purpose
of creating biologically favorable conditions for itself.
I'd say no one disputes Influential Gaia, and no serious scientist
supports Optimizing Gaia (though some of Lovelock's earlier remarks
tend in that direction). Most of the scientific debate surrounds
Coevolutionary and Homeostatic Gaia. Some point to Le Chatelier's
principle (a system in equilibrium, when disturbed, reacts to as to
tend to restore the original equilibrium). However the ice ages
suggest that the Earth is not in long-term equilibrium.
References:
For a range of interesting perspectives on the Gaia hypothesis, see
the SF novel "Earth" by David Brin.
James Lovelock, "Ages of Gaia", W. W. Norton, 1988.
"Scientists on Gaia", ed. by Stephen Schneider and Penelope Boston,
MIT Press 1991.
The latter book is a collection of papers presented at an American
Geophysical Union Symposium in 1988. Most are technical, but the
introductory papers are eminently readable. The whole range of
scientific opinion is displayed, from Lovelock and Margulis to
critics such as James Kirchner.
7.3: Was Nostradamus a prophet?
-------------------------------
No. His supporters are very good at predicting events after the fact,
often relying on doubtful translations of the original French to
bolster their case. But they have had absolutely no success at
predicting the future. Up until a few years ago most Nostradamus
books were predicting a nuclear war between America and the USSR.
None of them predicted the breakup of the Soviet block.
Nostradamus was a Protestant in a time and place when the Inquisition
was torturing and burning heretics. To avoid their attention,
Nostradamus couched his political letters to other Protestants in
obscure symbolism. It is these writings that are now being
reinterpreted as prophecy, despite straightforward interpretations
which link them to the time Nostradamus wrote them. If you try hard
enough, you can find connections between the symbols and numbers used
by Nostradamus and almost anything else, particularly if you allow
multi-lingual puns and rhymes.
A good general reference on Nostradamus is:
The Mask of Nostradamus
James Randi
Charles Scribner's Sons
ISBN 0-684-19056-7
BF1815.N8R35 1990
This is now available from Prometheus in paperback.
7.4: Does astrology work?
-------------------------
No. A number of studies have been done which have failed to find any
predictive power in astrology. Psychologists have also done studies
showing that people will agree with almost any statement made about
them provided that it is a mild compliment. Hence testimonials and
personal impressions about how accurate a horoscope is are not
evidence that astrology works. See also section 0.9 on cold reading.
One report about research into astrology is:
Carlson, Shawn. (1985) "A double-blind test of astrology",
Nature, 318 (Dec. 5), 419-425.
Arguments against this position can be found in the alt.astrology FAQ.
7.4.1: Could astrology work by gravity?
---------------------------------------
Some people argue that we are affected by the gravity of the planets
(just as tides are caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun), and
that this is the connection between the motion of the planets and
mundane events on Earth.
Leaving aside the fact that astrology doesn't work (see above),
gravity is simply too weak to do this. Gravitational force on a mass
(such as a human being) decreases with the square of the distance to
the other mass. But the Earth is affected just as strongly by the
other mass, and accelerates slightly towards it. So the net effect on
us is nil. What is important is the difference in gravity between the
two sides of the mass. This decreases with the *third* power of the
distance (i.e. very fast) but increases with the distance between the
near and far sides. Hence the Moon and Sun cause tides because the
Earth is very large. But the difference in gravity between one end of
a human and the other is absolutely minuscule.
Also, if this were the mechanism behind astrology then the most
significant thing in astrology would be the position of the Moon, with
the time of day coming second (as it is for tides). The position of
the planets would be completely irrelevant because they are so much
further away than the Moon and so much smaller than the Sun.
7.4.2: What is the `Mars Effect'?
---------------------------------
French scientist Michael Gauquelin has discovered an apparent
correlation between the position of some planets at the time of birth
and the career followed as an adult. The strongest correlation is
between the time when Mars rises on the day of birth and athletic
prowess. However:
o The Effect seems to come and go depending on exactly what the sample
population is. Most of the controversy seems to revolve around who
did what to which sample populations.
o Nothing found by Gauqelin bears any resemblance to classical
astrology, so claims that Gauqelin has somehow "validated" astrology
are bogus.
One of CSICOPs earliest investigations was the Mars Effect.
Unfortunately there is evidence that CSICOP failed to play by the
rules.
For more information, see
Michel Gauquelin, _Neoastrology: A Copernican Revolution_, 1991,
N.Y.: Viking Arkana, was, I believe, his last book.
Patrick Curry, "Research on the Mars Effect," _Zetetic Scholar_ #9,
pp. 34-53. This is followed by a number of critical commentaries,
which continue in _Zetetic Scholar_ #s 10 and 11.
Curry's article and Richard Kammann's article in _ZS_ #10 are the
most detailed and reliable sources of information on CSICOP's
examination of Gauquelin. You should, of course, also read the
U.S. test reports in the Winter 1979 _Skeptical Inquirer_--pay closest
attention to Dennis Rawlins' report, which correctly criticizes both
the main CSICOP report and Gauquelin's report. Also of great
importance is Abell, Kurtz, and Zelen's "Reappraisal" of the Mars
effect study in the Spring 1983 _Skeptical Inquirer_, and Suitbert
Ertel's "Update on the 'Mars Effect'" in the Winter 1992 _SI_.
You can obtain back issues of the _Zetetic Scholar_ from Marcello
Truzzi, Dept. of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI
48197. I suspect that issues 9, 10, and 11 are now available only
in photocopied form. In 1987 they were $8 each.
7.4.3: But couldn't there be some undiscovered connection between
-----------------------------------------------------------------
people and planets?
-------------------
Well of course there *could* be. There *could* be an invisible snorg
reading this over your shoulder right now (don't look round). If
there was repeatable evidence that astrology worked then scientists
would look into it.
7.5: What is Kirlian Photography?
---------------------------------
[Information from a posting by Dave Palmer ]
The technique involves applying a high-frequency, high-voltage
electrical source (such as from a Tesla coil) to a subject. The source
is also very low-current, so the subject does not get electrocuted
(it's the current in electricity that does the harm, not the voltage).
When this is done, an "aura" of lightning-like electrical discharges
forms around the subject. This field is visible to the naked eye (in
a dark room, anyway), and may be photographed. Adherents of Kirlian
photography claim that this field is some sort of "life energy" which
may indicate things about the subject, such as health, psychic
ability, and so forth. They claim that Kirlian photography sometimes
shows the "phantom effect." That is, if a limb is amputated from the
subject (or, less gruesomely, if a piece is torn off a leaf), that the
field will still show the missing piece for a time, because its "life
energy" is still there.
There is no truth to the claims that it shows any sort of "aura" or
"life energy." It is merely a coronal discharge, complete with ozone
production. The most damaging argument against the "life energy" claim
is that Kirlian photography works on ANY subject that conducts
electricity, even completely lifeless metal, or synthetic sponges
soaked in salt water.
The field produced jumps around quite a bit. Because the shape of the
field changes, it can occasionally appear to outline non-existent
areas of the subject, hence the phantom effect. Dave Palmer reports
producing the phantom effect with tin foil about as often with leaves.
Far more often, he got false phantom effects, that is, pictures of
pieces of the subject that had never existed.
Strange Machines: Free Energy and Anti-Gravity
==============================================
8.1: Why don't electrical perpetual motion machines work?
---------------------------------------------------------
Electrical perpetual motion machinists usually present a machine that
causes a small battery to generate a huge amount of power. The most
common problem here is that the "huge amount of power" was incorrectly
measured. AC power measurements are tricky; you can't just multiply
the voltage and current, because they may be out of phase. Thus,
measuring 10 Volts and 10 Amps could indicate anything from 0 to 100
Watts, depending on the power factor. In addition, most AC meters
expect a sinusoidal wave; if they are given some other wave they may
be totally wrong. A simple argument against these machines is; "If
they can provide so much energy, why do they need the battery to keep
going?"
8.2: Why don't mechanical perpetual motion machines work?
---------------------------------------------------------
Mechanical perpetual motion machines depend on rising and descending
weights. The problem is that the amount of energy that you get out of
a descending weight is exactly the same amount that it took to raise
the weight in the first place: gravity is said to be a "conservative"
force. So no matter what the weights do, you can't get energy out.
8.3: Why don't magnetic perpetual motion machines work?
-------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic motors have a clever arrangement of magnets which keeps the
motor rotating forever. Not surprisingly, whenever someone tries to
build one, the motor rotates for a while and then stops -- this is
usually attributed to the magnets "wearing out". These motors usually
rely on using magnets as low-friction bearings, meaning the "motor"
can coast for a long time, but it doesn't supply any power. Magnetism
is like gravity; you can store potential energy and get it back, but
you can't get more energy no matter what you try.
8.4: Magnets can levitate. Where is the energy from?
-----------------------------------------------------
Levitating magnets do not require energy, any more than something
resting on a table requires energy. Energy is the capacity for doing
work. Work can be measured by force times distance. Although the
magnets are exerting a force the levitated object is stationary, so
the magnets aren't supplying any energy.
8.5: But its been patented!
---------------------------
So what? Patent offices will not grant a patent on a "perpetual
motion machine" (some just require a working model) but if you call it
a "vacuum energy device" and claim that it gets its energy from some
previously unknown source then you can probably get a patent. Patent
offices are there to judge whether something has been invented before,
not whether it will work. The ban on devices labelled "perpetual
motion" is a special case because the patent officers dislike being
cited as some sort of approval by con-men.
8.6: The oil companies are conspiring to suppress my invention
--------------------------------------------------------------
This is a conspiracy theory. See the entry on these in section 0.
In most of the US the utility companies are *required by law* to buy
your excess electricity if you produce your own. If you've got an
energy machine, build it in your basement, phase match it to the line,
and enjoy.
8.7: My machine gets its free energy from
---------------------------------------------
A number of machines have been proposed which are not "perpetual
motion" machines in the sense of violating the law of conservation of
energy. Mostly these are based on bogus science. One inventor claims
that atoms of copper wire are being converted to energy in accordance
with Einstein's "e=mc^2". However he fails to explain what causes
this transformation and how this energy is converted into electrical
energy rather than gamma rays or heat.
8.8: Can gyroscopes neutralise gravity?
---------------------------------------
Gyroscopes (or gyros) are a favorite of "lift" machine inventors
because many people have come across them and they behave rather
oddly. However there is nothing all that mysterious about the
behaviour of gyros. You can use Newtonian physics to explain them.
Briefly, if you imagine a bit of metal on the edge of a spinning gyro,
then to turn the gyro you have to stop the bit of metal moving in its
current direction and start it moving in another direction. To do
this when it is moving fast you have to push it rather hard. Nothing
about this makes the thing get any lighter (in fact to be pedantic,
the gyro gets very slightly heavier when it spins, in accordance with
Einstein's theory of relativity.)
8.9: My prototype gets lighter when I turn it on
------------------------------------------------
Weighing something which is vibrating on ordinary scales is a sure way
of getting a wrong answer. The vibration from the machine combines
with "stiction" in the scales to give a false reading. As a result
the weight reductions reported for such machines are always close to
the limits of accuracy of the scales used.
8.10: Can magnets improve fuel efficiency or descale pipes?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Both of these questions come around fairly regularly. Some companies
sell magnets which clip around pipes. Sometimes they are sold for use
in hard water areas, where they are supposed to prevent the buildup of
limescale. On other occasions they are sold for cars, where they are
supposed to increase fuel efficiency.
Neither of these claims has ever been substantiated by careful
testing, and there is no theoretical explanation for the supposed
effects. The advertisers try to make it sound like there is, but its
actually just pseudo-scientific eyewash.
Note that in some cases installing the fuel magnets according to the
instructions *will* give increased fuel efficiency. This is because
the instructions tell you to adjust the carburettor. The result is
that the engine runs leaner than it was designed to, causing higher
production of nitrous oxides and a shorter life. The magnet has
nothing to do with it.
If this worked then car companies would install it themselves and
hence sell more cars.
AIDS
====
9.1: What about these theories on AIDS?
---------------------------------------
There are two AIDS theories that often appear in sci.skeptic. The
first is Strecker's theory that the CIA invented HIV by genetic
engineering; the second is Duesberg's theory that HIV has nothing to
do with AIDS.
The sci.med.aids FAQ has more information about all these theories.
9.1.1: The Mainstream Theory
----------------------------
The generally accepted theory is that AIDS is caused by the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). There are two different versions of
HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2. These viruses are believed, on the basis of
their genetic sequences, to have evolved from the Simian
Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), with HIV-2 being much more similar to
SIV. Several years after the initial HIV infection, the immune system
is weakened to the point where opportunistic infections occur,
Section 5 of 6 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
© 2005 allanswers.org | Terms of use
