|
A PARTIAL FLORSHEIM RETREAT, THOSE DICEY DICE, and CUTTING A RUG
Readers sent us lots of comments on the Florsheim
"MagneForce" shoes the company is still selling as
therapeutic aids. One wrote:
Among the ridiculous claims made by Florsheim
regarding the amazing powers of magnetic fields was one that
reminded me of an old creationist argument: "Physicists
estimate that because the earth [sic] has lost some of its electromagnetic
field over the past 4,000 years, it is possible that some of
us suffer from a magnetic deficiency." I was a very small
person when this argument was being used in creationist circles,
but in "Science Confronts the Paranormal" (Prometheus
Books, 1986, ed. Kendrick Frazier) I read about a creationist
argument that goes like this:
1. We have data going back to 1835 on
the Earth's magnetic field.
2. The strength of the geomagnetic field has decreased since
1835.
3. By extrapolating, we can show that the Earth is no older
than 10,000 years, because if you go any further back, the strength
of the magnetic field is too large to make physical sense.
Creationism of course claims that the
Universe is exactly 6004 years old, although the 4000 number
could have been a confusion with 4004 BC. Just speculating,
of course. This was debunked by referring to pottery records,
which can be used to measure the geomagnetic field's strength
at different times in history. In fact, we now know that the
Earth's magnetic field has flipped poles repeatedly over the
Earth's history. Incidently, the ancient pottery indicated that
the magnetic field back then was weaker than in recent centuries,
which shows the Florsheim marketing department to be once again
flat wrong. However, someone who had been exposed to the creationist
argument might believe that the Earth's magnetic field was slowly
decreasing over time, like the sand rushing from the upper bulb
in an hourglass.
The latest version of the Magneforce web page
still has the claim that their shoes have a "power supply,"
which is absolutely not true, but the rest of the blatantly
pseudoscientific claims have been removed. Physicist Bob Park
(see his "World News" postings at whatsnew@aps.org)
just posted this item:
"FATAL ATTRACTION: FLORSHEIM PULLS ITS
HEALTH CLAIMS. Faced with a consumer lawsuit in California,
and ridicule from the scientific community, Florsheim has yanked
the brochures that described the "science" behind its
MagneForce shoes (World News 18 Aug 00). Its web page, which
once claimed that its magnetic insole "increases circulation:
reduces foot, leg and back fatigue; provides natural pain relief
and increased energy level," now simply says it's "the
first shoe with its own power supply."
We note the explanation given by "The
Onion" journal for the effect of the Florsheim "MagneForce"
shoe: "The resultant harmonic energy field rearranges the
foot's naturally occurring atoms, converting the pain-nuclei
into pleasing comfortrons." That's as good an explanation
as any I've heard. Incidentally, The Onion is a satirical publication....
See http://www.theonion.com/onion3512/new_insoles.html
..........................................................................
Our monthly Discussion Group (last Wednesday
of every month) was graced by the presence of Massimo Polidoro,
the European representative for this Foundation, who spoke to
an interested audience about activities of CICAP - Comitato Italiano
per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sul Paranormale - the Italian
association devoted to critical thinking. As Massimo pointed
out, belief in the supernatural is just as strong in his country
as anywhere else in the world, and CICAP has a never-ceasing
battle trying to get the media and the public to look at paranormal
claims critically. We are grateful to this informed friend for
his participation at JREF, the last in a series that was arranged
by CSICOP - the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims
of the Paranormal - the grand-daddy of all such groups.
..........................................................................
 THOSE
DICEY DICE
The photo tells it all. The minimum rotation
is one of just 90 degrees, since you pick up all three, held
together as shown, and simply stand them upright on the nearer
end. And how do you know that there's a three-spot face on the
far end of the original row? Well, you should know that the
opposite sides of a die always add to seven. Interpolating from
the nearest die in the original photo, and the other two, you
can easily decide that the farthest-away die face is three!
We received many correct solutions, only a
few incorrect. Every week we get increased response, which might
mean that our readers are getting smarter . . . ? In any case,
our domain server fee just jumped up dramatically due to the
increase - which is gratifying but more expensive. If just a
half-dozen more readers became members - see the "Join"
button on the opening page - that cost would be defrayed.
This dice problem was developed by Andrew
Harter, who handles far more difficult problems at the JREF,
every day.
............................................
As expected, the chess puzzle last week brought
lots of interesting comments. Reader Laddie Chapman wrote: "Using
the Webster's rule for the chess problem and your logic, the
next time I am faced with this endgame in a tournament, I will
exchange my pawn for a red checker. Or maybe a green Monopoly
piece. The mind boggles at the possibilities."
Just be sure your opponent isn't armed . .
.
............................................
CUTTING A RUG
This week, I dipped into a book that uses
me in the presentation of this rather interesting puzzle. I'll
tell you the book and author next week. The story goes....
Mr. Randi went to Omar, the rug dealer, with
a 13X13-foot rug, which he wanted to be a 8X21 rug. Simple arithmetic
shows this to be impossible, since the original rug is 169 square
feet, and the desired one would be 168 square feet! Omar declined
the job, saying he was not a magician. But it seems that I was
able to show Omar how to divide and re-assemble the rug - see
the illustration at left - so that it would measure 8X21 feet
and thus be 168 square feet in area - as shown below!
As the author suggested, you might wish to
actually make a cut-out of this rug to experiment with. Or,
you can do it all mathematically. Somewhere, we've lost a square
foot of rug.....
As usual, answer next week!
(I take all the blame for the rug design.
Obviously, I have no Persian DNA.)
View the Commentary archive.
|
