I'll try apple vs copper on a high impedance input soon. Apple must be shielded, of course. Air ventilation is still required, though, apple must be able to rot properly, finally drying up and decomposing itself into dust. At some point during this process even me tin-eared nay-sayer must be able to hear a difference ;-)
Once I'll get my USB inteface I'll even hook it up to my AP System2 and make some measurements...
Last edited:
I might have. One or multiple definitions of these. I don't think it's something to worry about if no harm to anyone or anything is done.
If I'll have to use airline, I'll do use the W.A.D. But this won't keep me from having my own private ideas, if I'm doing something on my own, different than traveling with an airplane.
It is. Except you'll never know its true itself, because you have no proof that your perceptive mechanisms are flawless enough to interpret it. Partial understanding doesn't count as a whole understanding of it.
Then I'm curious. In what way, how does the universe use them? Is it similar to the way we humans do?
Do you think that the universe, precisely the non-living object care about a number in its basic definition (quote from wikipedia) "a mathematical object used to count, measure and label"?
I'm forming a discussion based on my own arguments. If this matters much to you.
I'm eager to do it.
Can you give me a hint where to start, for example a an article, a book or a manual?------
Does the universe use numbers, or humans use them in order to understand the universe?
Last edited:
Try the Feynman lectures on physics.
I think the universe uses numbers. The reason I say this is that it seems impossible for us to 'invent' some sensible mathematics without it later on turning up somewhere in physics. In a few cases, physics found the need for the maths before the mathematicians had invented it - the Dirac delta function is an example (mathematicians told him that there was no such thing, then they discovered distribution theory).
I think the universe uses numbers. The reason I say this is that it seems impossible for us to 'invent' some sensible mathematics without it later on turning up somewhere in physics. In a few cases, physics found the need for the maths before the mathematicians had invented it - the Dirac delta function is an example (mathematicians told him that there was no such thing, then they discovered distribution theory).
I was about to write the same: Try the Feynman lectures. Maybe they are a bit hard for beginners, but there were not many phyisicists with Feynmans great understanding of physical topics combined with the ability to teach his knowledge to others.
Should be a very good start if you are ready to invest some thinking and keep yourself from giving up right after the first 50 pages.
Regards,
Rundmaus
Should be a very good start if you are ready to invest some thinking and keep yourself from giving up right after the first 50 pages.
Regards,
Rundmaus
Study? Where? WIKIPEDIA!!!
That last bit in bold is disingenuous at the core: it is like asking, “so, have you stopped beating your wife?”. Both "yes" and "no" are dâmning in implying that you were or are beating your wife.
The universe it is arguable to say, isn't contemplating the use of numbers. But numeric truths, and their consequences, are integral to how the universe's processes work. Numeric relationships determine chemistry, physics, nanoscale thermodynamics, crystallization systems, indeed, virtually all parts of the observable properties of the universe. You with 99.999% certainty have 5 fingers; your genome again most certainly didn't contemplate how many buds to grow into fingers, but the electrochemical gradient system that the genome guides along is abutted to almost-always insure that '5 is the number'.
In other words "or" is inappropriate.
“The universe's kinetics, structure and energy dynamics is based on the properties of numbers, and mankind's expression of numbers has lead to mathematics that in turn remarkably describes most-everything”
That's the right statement.
_______
As to learning, understanding physics?
DELVE INTO WIKIPEDIA as the most convenient, remarkably well fleshed, uniquely cross-referenced, and continually updated resource at this point. It should be your continuous companion in exploring Physics. But it does not replace at first almost any high-school level Physics coursebook. There are hundreds of thousands of both popular "physics picturebooks" as well as more studious texts. And, should you 'graduate' from these, then just walk into any well-outfitted bookstore, and brows the sciences section. I did (and still do) for decades. Buying a good book or two per year. I've now read over 100 of them.
Yep… and I'm old.
But it is never too late to get interested.
GoatGuy
I'm eager to do it.
------
Does the universe use numbers, or humans use them in order to understand the universe?
That last bit in bold is disingenuous at the core: it is like asking, “so, have you stopped beating your wife?”. Both "yes" and "no" are dâmning in implying that you were or are beating your wife.
The universe it is arguable to say, isn't contemplating the use of numbers. But numeric truths, and their consequences, are integral to how the universe's processes work. Numeric relationships determine chemistry, physics, nanoscale thermodynamics, crystallization systems, indeed, virtually all parts of the observable properties of the universe. You with 99.999% certainty have 5 fingers; your genome again most certainly didn't contemplate how many buds to grow into fingers, but the electrochemical gradient system that the genome guides along is abutted to almost-always insure that '5 is the number'.
In other words "or" is inappropriate.
“The universe's kinetics, structure and energy dynamics is based on the properties of numbers, and mankind's expression of numbers has lead to mathematics that in turn remarkably describes most-everything”
That's the right statement.
_______
As to learning, understanding physics?
DELVE INTO WIKIPEDIA as the most convenient, remarkably well fleshed, uniquely cross-referenced, and continually updated resource at this point. It should be your continuous companion in exploring Physics. But it does not replace at first almost any high-school level Physics coursebook. There are hundreds of thousands of both popular "physics picturebooks" as well as more studious texts. And, should you 'graduate' from these, then just walk into any well-outfitted bookstore, and brows the sciences section. I did (and still do) for decades. Buying a good book or two per year. I've now read over 100 of them.
Yep… and I'm old.
But it is never too late to get interested.
GoatGuy
I'm eager to do it.
------
Does the universe use numbers, or humans use them in order to understand the universe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlbJoW9Rty0
+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
//
I'll do that. Someday. It might take an n amount of time. Thank you for the tip.
Thanks to this model we have developed so far and we still do, we have done so many achievements in science, engineering, medicine and so on. But are we certain that, let's say, the universe doesn't hide something, a problem that is based on another mathematical model that we still haven't discovered? And when we'll do, might we have to change our way of thinking?
Although it was fun reading this
, I didn't mean it to be disingenuous like your example and there's little I can do if you understood it this way. Yes, a model that works and thanks to it, we have done huge amounts of achievements in technology and we are still making progress. But is it universal for every phenomenon we observe? Can we be sure for certainty that it is the right model to use for an explanation?
This is my point, when this.. audiophile or audiophool problem, however you might call it, arises. For what reason do you become certain, that your mathematical, physical, electronical or from the sum of the three model is suitable to give a true explanation to the phenomenon these audio enthusiasts (or phools), including me, experience? With what certainty you are concluding an answer based on, for example commonly cited by other folks - placebo effect, brain faults, imaginations, mind biasing? And what if, this model that you've spent so much time in your lives on, with all my respect you did, just doesn't work here? Is there something wrong if it does not? Is it shameful or weird? Why? Many of these people I know personally are brilliant beings, some of them are very educated, others have high engineering skills, a few have mountainous amounts of knowledge based on this model of physics, electronics and mathematics. And still, they have started from skepticism... gradually progressing to "audiophoolery". Some of them have so much building and designing experience in audio gear, including the application of high-school, college and Ph.D grade theory, that I would find it insulting to call such a person an audiophool.
I wonder if you have the slightest idea how much useful stuff you may learn from these guys if you accept their way of thinking? And the same is applicable for them, of course.
As to the use of Wikipedia, I would call my origin of act based on laziness rather than ignorance. But I also partially expected a better proposition of that definition from a forum member except the remark. I know well that Wikipedia may do harm and I had practical failures in my past, when doing chemical synthesis and pyrotechnics. Results - waste of time, money and useless reaction products as waste. It was a lesson learned and a stimuli to search for better knowledge sources, such as genuine books.
Last edited:
There is no reason to suppose that our knowledge of physics and electronics, which can put a man on the moon, detect gravitational waves, create and measure antimatter, put a missile on a building 100's of miles away, communicate with deep space probes etc., is somehow inadequate to explain the behaviour of low power low frequency uncritical electronics such as audio. Now I grant that there may occasionally be instances where we have to be particularly careful how we apply our knowledge (e.g. where second-order effects are important, so 'blind recipes' can mislead) but there is no need to invoke new physics for audio (or the other favourite topic elsewhere: compact radio antennas).
Yes, but did you learn something from those failures besides “what I got from Wikipedia wasn't entirely correct”?
While you're chiding someone (which sounds like "me", but if so is false) for miscategorizing HS, Bach, PhD's who do come up with all sorts of theories as to the next Big Thing in audiophile “things” as being both worthy to learn from and not warranting the term “audiophool”, do consider: my personal knowledge enhancing practicum is:
• search for new stuff
• read it, assess it, bounce its claims against physics and mathematics
• decide if poppycock or pragmatic
• go out and TEST the claim if possible
• and do so an ever less-and-less degree as the "whole theory" solidifies.
Been at that for the last 50 years. There is precious little in the way of 'new theories' that adds to what I've got, what I know, and what I have experienced first-hand. If I have any complaint to offer to God when I get to the Great Electronics Bench in the Sky, it'll be: Why the hêll did you make it so complicated that it took nearly a whole lifetime to become competent?
We'll see what She says.
Probably will reincarnate me as an electric motor or a mallet.
GoatGuy
Not sure voltwide what you're getting on at.
My question - when we get into these debates about 'what's true' (and where almost all “well, if you say that, then you're just as liable to be wrong as the person or idea you are debating” - is this:
When do we declare something is right? Is “right” perpetually declared to be off-limits to general agreement because someone, somewhere, has come out with a novel way of arguing for a different “right”? I suppose the answer is yes, but I remain of the opinion that when the majority agree on something, it usually is enough, unless countered by things known to a much deeper level by present science. (The kind of science which is not generally well known and comfortably trusted by “the majority”)
For instance: when all quantitative and accurate metrology determines that there is no detectable current-flow directionality for “an ordinary metal wire” under a wide barrage of testing conditions, I think it is absolutely fair to then say, “ordinary metal wires are not directional, and therefore resistors made of etched metal foils should (or must) not be directionally anisotropic. ”
This is where this discussion and genteel debate started, and where it should now end. Metal wires and foils are not directionally anisotropic, and moreover should one find some that are, or that are made to be anisotropic, given that "audio" is an A/C signal, nominally without a DC bias component, what good (except asymmetric distortive) would such a wire, foil, resistor or other conductor offer?
None.
GoatGuy
My question - when we get into these debates about 'what's true' (and where almost all “well, if you say that, then you're just as liable to be wrong as the person or idea you are debating” - is this:
When do we declare something is right? Is “right” perpetually declared to be off-limits to general agreement because someone, somewhere, has come out with a novel way of arguing for a different “right”? I suppose the answer is yes, but I remain of the opinion that when the majority agree on something, it usually is enough, unless countered by things known to a much deeper level by present science. (The kind of science which is not generally well known and comfortably trusted by “the majority”)
For instance: when all quantitative and accurate metrology determines that there is no detectable current-flow directionality for “an ordinary metal wire” under a wide barrage of testing conditions, I think it is absolutely fair to then say, “ordinary metal wires are not directional, and therefore resistors made of etched metal foils should (or must) not be directionally anisotropic. ”
This is where this discussion and genteel debate started, and where it should now end. Metal wires and foils are not directionally anisotropic, and moreover should one find some that are, or that are made to be anisotropic, given that "audio" is an A/C signal, nominally without a DC bias component, what good (except asymmetric distortive) would such a wire, foil, resistor or other conductor offer?
None.
GoatGuy
Audio is a 'technical' hobby. It therefore attracts people who are interested in science, but some of them are too lazy to learn any. People who are interested in science but ignorant about it are easy prey for quacks, false memes and snake oil merchants. A few of them become snake oil merchants, while others merely propagate the memes.
Part of the blame must surely rest on the abysmal science teaching in modern schools, and also the postmodern idea that people can have their own private version of reality. People are taught that their opinions matter; they misunderstand this to mean that their opinions about facts can somehow become more important than the facts, or even replace the facts entirely.
Part of the blame must surely rest on the abysmal science teaching in modern schools, and also the postmodern idea that people can have their own private version of reality. People are taught that their opinions matter; they misunderstand this to mean that their opinions about facts can somehow become more important than the facts, or even replace the facts entirely.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.