That’s true, which is why I mentioned the “vise” example in my post. Similarly, a crane doesn’t need to be plugged in to hold a ten-pound weight at the end of its boom. The fact that you’re using muscles to hold things in place confuses matters, but the mechanical system doesn’t change fundamentally if you replace your arm with a properly shaped piece of metal.
Essentially, there are two ways to view the situation: either energy is always expended to hold things in place (and thus my coffee table will eventually collapse under the weight of the magazine I left on it), or muscles are just a special kind of material that happen to require energy to remain in place. The author of the book in question seems to have taken the former viewpoint, but the conventional explanation is the latter.
But then, I suppose I’m just a hidebound reactionary.
The theory quotes the cover story of the October 2003 issue of Discover magazine. That in and of itself is a red flag, but what’s worse is they’re taking the quote out of context. :eek:
A weight suspended in this manner exerts force upon the boom and the cable, which might result in stretching of the cable and differential imbalance of the crane, which is opposing energies, yes?
(gravity pulls on weight, gravity pulls on opposite end of crane base to balance weight.)
Most of the rest of the chapter is confusing to me (and consequently fascinating), but it does have some glaring errors even I could see, like the crystallization of ice busting pipes.
His section on science flaws reminded me of a carnival huckster trying to get you into the tent, to wit:
[ul]
[li]To learn what gravity truly is, see Chapter 2 where a new and totally overlooked atomic principle is revealed![/li][li]These mysteries and law violations are resolved in Chapter 4, where a totally overlooked and misunderstood subatomic principle is revealed![/li][li]The Big Bang Theory myth is debunked further in Chapter 6.[/li][/ul]
Don’t think I’ll spend my $30 since I probably won’t understand it anyway. I am curious about his “new atomic principle,” but I’ll just have to be patient until it’s debunked or explained. S¬
…^
A couple of things suggest to me that Mr. McCrutchen is crazier than a tree full of owls.
There are a noticable lack of those desirable initials following his name. You know, like PHD, MS, AA, GED. There should be something. If you’re going to explain something I find it comforting to know you have at least been exposed to some education.
On pages 8 and 9 he gives symbols that show when to expect key ideas and thingies like that. One of them warns you that math follows and you can skip this as it is adequately explained in the text. It is my understanding that math (that hard math too, you know, way over on the other side of geometry) is the only way a lot of this can be explained at all.
A second warning is to show math errors in current theory.
The biggest problem is that it is obviously not written with scientists in mind. This, at least as much as I’ve taken in so far, doesn’t even come up to the level of Isaac Asimov’s throughly enjoyable monthly essays.
On page 23 he claims that Gravity, as explained by Newton, defies the law of conservation of energy. And then makes the remark, “The mass of the moon exceeds one percent of the earth’s mass.” Which is, I guess, true enough but just goofy in supposibly serious scientific work. He then goes on to say, “That this (gravity) is a textbook case of an impossible free energy source.”
Page 26 has him talking about the effect of gravity exceeding the speed of light. Then he dismisses Relitivity by saying the tying of gravity to time is only proposed and not proven.
I’m thinking he has spent far too much time watching porn and beating off and not near enough studying the issues.