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."

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.)