| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
I have doen so previously. It is indeed this group specifically who I am refering to as audio pelicanists and whose statistical methodes are geared to reliably producing null results for all but extremely audible changes in the best possible experiemnental setups and whose experimentals have been riliably of such a nature and state that one may very well alledge that they deliberatly are trying to eliminate any possible chance of the audibility of changes regardless of their statistics. These people behave exactly accrding to what the webster definition of a charlatan specifies and are clearly operating unscientifically and with obvious prejudice and manipulation of facts.
Their experimental data should be henceforth be dismissed as:
1) Based on misapplication of statistics
2) Deliberate manipulation of the test envoironment to reduce the possibility of small differenes being audible
3) The deliberate misrepresentation of their experimental data
Sayonara |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
...as audio pelicanists ... |
I'm honoured that I improved communications on diyAudio by facilitating the innovation and usage of new phraseology in our debates! ;)
I hope you all read Part 2 |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
[B]While your synopsis of your discussion with Rand and his minions
seemed to me as fair and evenhanded in general, don't these statements imply a bit of say.... advocacy of your point of view on your part? |
I wasn't advocating the use of Shakti stones, but I can see how you might have gained that impression. I was trying to answer the question, by testing Shakti stones, could we win Randi's $1M? Answering this question involves a subtle definitional problem lying at the bottom of Randi's challenge, which plays itself out as follows in the present context under the following assumption. Assume Shakti stones make an audible difference in a manner allowing someone (say, a reviewer) to demonstrate, in a statistically significant way (ie, in a way that win's Randi's challenge), their presence or absence in the test set-up. Such a demonstration would not win Randi's $1M because the effect demonstrated has a scientifically plausible explanation. No paranormal effect will have been demonstrated.
| quote: | | Now, if Randi is only interested in paranormal testing, as you rightfully point out, he has no requirement to test these devices. However, from your point of view if the people advocating pics in the fridge could come up with a theory of why putting pics in the fridge is scientifically turning the electrons so as to minimize EMF effects, thus improving the sound, they are then protected from Randis testing? |
Yes, IMO. Randi's challenge applies to people like Sylvia Browne who claims, among other things, to predict the future. Randi told her (on Larry King, actually), predict the future in a testable fashion and I'll give you $1M. If Sylvia had taken Randi up on his challenge and did in fact predict the future, she would have walked away with his $1M because she would have demonstrated the existence of the paranormal. FWIW, I would called such demonstration a demonstration of the existence of the normal, because something that exists is being demonstrated. I think your confusion arises from the circularity lying at a deeper level of Randi's challenge. Because he is a hunter of what he styles as frauds, his challenge, really, is: demonstrate to me the existence of something that doesn't exist and I'll give you $1M. Pretty safe bet.
Cheers. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
As you mention UFO's, I am absolutely and postively convinced UFO's exist in the literal sense of the meaning, namely as something flying about which we cannot correctly identify (I have on occasion noticed phenomenae that fall into this class). Actually, once I would Identify "UFO's" as spaceships of an alien race they would no longer be unidentifiable but identified. At the same time I find the insistence in some circles that ALL UFO incidents have a mundaene and natural explanation (Ball Lightning, Pelicans et al) annoying and it sets off my ******** detetector every time. |
I personally would not be surprised if we were visited by non-earth life. Actually, I would be surprised, but only because the meeting of lifeforms from two different planets poses difficult problems of time in the discovery process. Here's a fact from hard science: four of the 17 stars closest to us have planets. There are an estimated 100B stars in our galaxy. Assuming our observation of the said 17 stars is representative, about 25% of all stars have planets, meaning some 25B stars in our galaxy have planets, meaning, in my little world, life undoubtedly exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Our galaxy, I wouldn't be surprised to hear, is teeming with life.
| quote: | I equally do not subscribe to the notion that just because we cannot explain something it must have a paranormal explanation. I do subscribe to the notion that if we cannot explain something we cannot explain it and that those who are bothered about it better start serious scientific investigations to find the explanantion.
I also subscribe to the point that they should otherwise leave me to my own devices which include the "New Age" and "Feng Shui" principles of placing Crystal Points and other crystals on electronic equipment. I once blind tested this on my wife. I removed the crystals from the top of the TV, where they where at the time hidden behind Birthday cards from sight. She watches a lot of TV and within a day or two she started to be stressed out. Placing the crystals back in their original positions (still blind) and she was back to her normal self.
Not a very scientific test and not conclusive, but indicative. At any extent, I like the look of a lot of crystals around the room and they make great talking points, cost is notional. |
If the crystals work as such, they work, as such. Lacking an explanation is no foundation for rejecting observations.
By the way, Thorsten, you might be interested in Ervin Laszlo's "The Connectivity Hypothesis." Fascinating read which draw on works like Popp's "What is Life," itself gripping. Holy cow. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I just spend the best part of an hour on the phone with Mr Ben Piazza, the creator of the Shakti stones.
[snip] I understood that he also feels that RF/EMI could directly influence a listener's perception (not as part of the audio coming out of the speaker), but we didn't go into that further.[snip]Jan Didden |
I just got back from Holland and found an email of Mr Piazza, where he referred to our phone conversation. The above quote is from my, err, quote of that conversation. Mr Piazza makes it clear that this is not his position and that I misunderstood him. That is very well possible, and I want to make it clear that in fact Mr Piazza does not entertain the believe that RF/EMI influences directly perception. With apologies to Mr Piazza.
There is more in his email about the grapgs on the Dymo test, but I need more time to catch up with at least 4 pages of posts and his lengthy email.
I'll be back!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip]But don't get me wrong, I do not subscribe to the view that, just because we cannot explain it, the thing or effect in question does not exist. That view is silly and implies NO FURTHER ROOM for scientific exploration or development. |
Tom,
Agreed 100%. But if such a purported event, which COULD be possible, after all we don't know yet, flies in the face of everything that IS known, it requires quite extraordinary strong and verifiable evidence to prove it, in fact turning upsite down all those established laws or rules that fit a very large body of events already. That is science.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Tom,
Agreed 100%. But if such a purported event, which COULD be possible, after all we don't know yet, flies in the face of everything that IS known, it requires quite extraordinary strong and verifiable evidence to prove it, in fact turning upsite down all those established laws or rules that fit a very large body of events already. That is science.
Jan Didden |
Hi Jan,
I agree that overturning established laws or rules requires strong evidence. Here is a perspective I've toyed with. An established rule can be likened to a map that abstracts certain features of a given context in an approximate way. The abstract, approximate nature of the map ever can only account for a limited number of observations, always with room for fine tuning on the edges. My sense is that instances of "overturning" are rare, and that established rules are either subtly modified to account for small exceptions (slightly expanding or clarifying the map) or, more rarely, are consigned a new role in an overall larger theoretical framework, as Newton's laws were in respect of relativity (viewing the map as an aspect or limited application of an overall larger map).
Then there exists that category of observations for which we currently have no accepted rule, some of which observations have been with us a long time. Take, for instance, the mechanism by which cells differentiate to create an organism. Scientists have long wondered, where is the template for the organism within the fertilised cell? An entirely new framework might have to be devised to account for such observations which, for their part, are quite established as observations.
Are we talking here about establishing a new observation within a known rule, or establishing a new rule for a known observation?
Tom |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip] Take, for instance, the mechanism by which cells differentiate to create an organism. Scientists have long wondered, where is the template for the organism within the fertilised cell? An entirely new framework might have to be devised to account for such observations which, for their part, are quite established as observations.[snip]Tom |
Tom , I agree with the thrust of your post, but unfortunately your example is not the best.;) That one has been solved, or at least a plausible and credible explanation is available and accepted by many in the field. Read for instance Bright Air, Brilliant Fire by Gerald Edelman about how neuronal cells and networks 'know' how to (re)configure themselves. (Hint: Read up on Darwin).
Jan Didden |
|
|
| john curl |
Jan, I just want to clear this up, if possible. First, Ben has 2 types of info on his website. He has his: patent, RF measurements, and even auto performance evaluations. However, he also has pictures of customer's uses of his Shakti Stone in all kinds of 'improbable' places. Let's just say that I believe the 'probable', but I personally take no position on the 'improbable' because I can't see an obvious reason for it, perhaps a real brick or stone could do just as well in many locations shown, and also I wasn't there to listen for a difference. Now, I realize that many of you JUMPED on the 'improbable' without really looking at the 'probable'.
I personally believe that the Shakti Stones work as RF absorbers, BETTER than aluminum foil, in many applications. These applications include, RF generating, or sensitive to RF, IC chips. INPUTS and OUTPUTS where RFI could be important, etc etc. I make no argument for the 'improbable', except to say that the customer can pay his money and take his choice. |
|
|
| Variac |
| quote: | | I think your confusion arises from the circularity lying at a deeper level of Randi's challenge. . |
I don't believe I'm confused. I understand the situation you are describing. It isn't a complicated point. But the bet is safe only if he is able to always detect fraud.
The difference between Shakti stones and Belt pictures in the fridge may only be that the the Belt folks make more outrageous claims based on ideas that have no cursory connection to any scientific idea. It is interesting that the place that one sees the most dubious claims for products are Autos and Audio. Small changes in either are hard to prove and they are subjects that people are emotionally involved with.
Yes, I know science is a tool that does some things better than others. There was a fad of applying science to any field, such as art which somewhat misses the point.
There are more than one religion here.
Kwei has proposed the religion he sees.
Another one is the idea that every item matters in sound reproduction, and it appears that they also seem to accept any device as functional and useful in some circumstance.
This religion now has made up a name to call the "enemy"
Pelicanists, Infidels, it's the same thing.. nothing can be questioned...
I would propose that most people here are in the middle. They are sceptical of some devices, but buy others "because it couldn't hurt" They carefully tweak their circuits for the best sound. Maybe those double blind tests ARE a little diorienting to the testees they figure
I have made Cat 5 speaker cables because I figure they MIGHT help. Others might buy Stones for the same reason- although they probably have more money than I do- In fact that might be the major difference!
The article that Mr. Pink linked to does point out that there are excesses of rhetoric on both sides. The ABX thread seems to me to agree that there are differences between speakers, phono carts, amps, tape decks, some components in extreme cases,
Even if you don't tlike the ABX folks, maybe they give us a good clue as to where the biggest improvements are available.. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | It is interesting that the place that one sees the most dubious claims for products are Autos and Audio. Small changes in either are hard to prove and they are subjects that people are emotionally involved with. |
While I'm in total agreement when it comes to actual measurements of "perceived" improvements in audio being a subjective experience, I very much doubt a car owner would perceive a difference in performance that's simply not measureable.
If the Shakti stones have an effect on the CPU of an engine then surely, there must be ways to actually measure this and make it appear on the performance charts. Be that in the way of a reduction in fuel consumption, a gain in torque, brute horse power...whatever.
Whether the actual measurements shown on their website are "for real" is easy enough to find out by a mere duplication of the tests, this time done by a third party.
As a sidebar:
Would it be technically possible to measure, by way of microphone recordings for instance, inroom performance of a system with or without a particular treatment/tweak and compare the results to see if these show up any differences?
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
But if such a purported event, which COULD be possible, after all we don't know yet, flies in the face of everything that IS known, it requires quite extraordinary strong and verifiable evidence to prove it, in fact turning upsite down all those established laws or rules that fit a very large body of events already. That is science. |
Actually, sorry, I disagree that your position describes science.
It describes something that makes the a priori assumption that everything contrary to it's "laws" is "wrong" and demands NOT ordinary proof, but refuses TO EVEN CONSIDER INVESTIGATION unless furnished with proof considered "EXTRAORDINARY", or in other words far beyound that which it would accept if the proposed position agreed with the "Law we received".
Funny, to me that sounds a lot like religion and NOTHING LIKE science, which is after all KNOWLEDGE. The position ypu present as being scientific, that is desirous of knowledge in fact strikes me as the opposite of that, namely as rejecting knowledge.
I am aware that is in fact the position prevalent in certain circles who style themselves as "scientific" and is by far not limited to Audio, but that makes it no more right than for example endless repetition of the claism of "doppler distortion" in full range speakers makes this distortion any more real than it is (namely not at all).
So, can we all get of this religion trip and instead look at the FACTS from a scientific perspective and that speciically is not just about shakti stones and maybe not at all about them.
Sayonara |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Would it be technically possible to measure, by way of microphone recordings for instance, inroom performance of a system with or without a particular treatment/tweak and compare the results to see if these show up any differences? |
Audible differences ought to be measurable somehow. But might current measurement techniques might be too crude to show the kinds of differences we're talking about? Perhaps the electrical output of an amplifier could be digitized --- tweak in, tweak out --- and the resulting waveforms compared at high resolution. But one must then factor for digitizing errors etc which might throw the entire test.
Where comes the point where one is faced with a question like: how does one actually see a photon? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | But might current measurement techniques might be too crude to show the kinds of differences we're talking about? |
If both recordings A and B were made the same way with the sole difference being the tweak in question I was wondering if it would be possible to "null out" the two with hopefully just the difference left.
Maybe the method is too crude, I don't know how precise it should be in this case.
| quote: | | Where comes the point where one is faced with a question like: how does one actually see a photon? |
Isn't that one of those so called UFOs?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Variac |
Being totally honest here:
With a full tank of gas my car feels more lively (and it's heavier!)
That is an experience many people tell me they share!:D
It is very unlikely that someone would feel a 1 or 2 horsepower increase in an auto. There are many pages of devices for sale in the back of auto mags that promise horsepower increase- Is it a conspiracy that GM doesn't put little magnets on their fuel lines to "realign the molecules" or buy one of the many "special spark plug" patents, or just sell a can of "instant engine rebuild" or do they (as Rod points out) have equipment accurate enought to actually measure the difference (at the cost of millions)
In audio, often I make changes and the system sounds better,
Why? maybe the same as above? Or, is the reproduction of music so flawed, that it is easy to make a change, and that change may be different rather than better, or is it really better. I don't know, but I DO know that humans are easily fooled about things like this and I think it takes self-delusion to think otherwise.
Some audiophile systems sound very very good - no doubt about that. That's why we're here.... |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | With a full tank of gas my car feels more lively (and it's heavier!) |
Contradictionary as it may seem...
It's quite likely due to increased grip on the road because of the added weight.
| quote: | | Or, is the reproduction of music so flawed, that it is easy to make a change, and that change may be different rather than better, or is it really better. |
Quite often, while we try something new, we precondition ourselves, fooling ourselves into believing that it will sound better because:
- we've been told that it should...
Ever heard that sales trick that starts with : " In a system with sufficient resolution the difference will be night and day?"
Surely we all like to believe our system is at least good enough for that to be audible so we convince ourselves into believing that it does indeed sound better.
-what is "better"?
We would need a reliable yardstick to see if at least "better" is closer to accurate....Rather that's what I'd want for myself anyway.
OTOH, for a lot of people "better" often means more enjoyable...
Can't really blame them for that but then we're inevitably entering the realms of personal taste and there sure is no end to that....
As for the car and HP analogy: it all depends on the realtionships of power/weight/torque whether or not you'd actually feel the couple of extra horses under the hood...(John Curl being a Porsche driver should be able to confirm that...)
I suppose it's the same with a hi-fi system, at least on a lot of occasions; the finer the state of tune the system the faster any change is perceived: sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Gee, sounds like marriage vows...:D
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
If both recordings A and B were made the same way with the sole difference being the tweak in question I was wondering if it would be possible to "null out" the two with hopefully just the difference left.
Maybe the method is too crude, I don't know how precise it should be in this case.
Cheers,;) |
Frank, didn't you post earlier that you thought the difference the stones produce-if any-was probably not due to differences in the audio signal, but due to some condition which reduces listener fatigue? I believe we were talking about RF energy at the time.
If you believe that, wouldn't the nulling test be invalid? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Frank, didn't you post earlier that you thought the difference the stones produce-if any-was probably not due to differences in the audio signal, but due to some condition which reduces listener fatigue? |
Maybe I did but even if that's the case I fail to see why the difference between the two conditions couldn't be recorded and compared in a differential way...
After all, listening fatigue is signal induced (doesn't have to come straight from the audio system, it could be present in the environment) and the recording should be made in the room, not necessarily the signal taken straight from the amps....At least that was the idea I had.
Granted, I have my doubts to what the mikes are capable of picking up as far as RFI/EMI goes but maybe some equipment is out there that can do it...
IOW, even with no audio system in the room and a measurement system capable of measuring the presence of RFI/EMI, could it detect the presence or absence of the Shakti effect.
That's what I'm wondering about really.
Clearly, or so I'd hope, someone somehow must have found out it's effect and assuming for a minute it does reduce listening fatigue (which is closely related to stress) I conclude from that it would also reduce stress in the room it is present in?
Somewhat similar to KYW's crystals analogy I suppose..but I could be wrong just the same.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
Actually, sorry, I disagree that your position describes science.
It describes something that makes the a priori assumption that everything contrary to it's "laws" is "wrong" and demands NOT ordinary proof, but refuses TO EVEN CONSIDER INVESTIGATION unless furnished with proof considered "EXTRAORDINARY", or in other words far beyound that which it would accept if the proposed position agreed with the "Law we received".
Funny, to me that sounds a lot like religion and NOTHING LIKE science, which is after all KNOWLEDGE. The position ypu present as being scientific, that is desirous of knowledge in fact strikes me as the opposite of that, namely as rejecting knowledge.
I am aware that is in fact the position prevalent in certain circles who style themselves as "scientific" and is by far not limited to Audio, but that makes it no more right than for example endless repetition of the claism of "doppler distortion" in full range speakers makes this distortion any more real than it is (namely not at all).
So, can we all get of this religion trip and instead look at the FACTS from a scientific perspective and that speciically is not just about shakti stones and maybe not at all about them.
Sayonara |
Thorsten,
I must hand it to you, you are able to read in my post far more than I put in (or maybe I put in more than I was aware, does that make me a psychic? Randi to the rescue!).
Seriously now. Assume you have a law, say about the motion of objects in space, planetary bodies, meteors, satellites, spaceships. Say that this law accurately explains all those motions as good as they can be measured and observed. Furthermore, it also fits other related laws on gravity, charge attraction, solar wind etc (It's an example, OK). That would give scientists a warm and fuzzy feeling that it is a pretty good law.
Now someone comes up with a spaceship with a revolutionary drive - let's call it the expansion drive, and he claims that his drive will allow his spaceship to operate outside of the law referred to above, therefore cutting the trip time to the Andromeda nebula by a factor of 10e6. Now I agree that I cannot think of a reason that it is impossible to build such a drive. But my point is that it will take a heck of a lot more than a simple declaration that the guy build it, to get it accepted, because it would upset a law that covers a large number of observations exactly. Suppose that it is possible, and the law needs amendmend, it very likely is a small amendment because you don't want to lose the coverage of the established observations. So you end up with two issues: extraordinary strong proof (which in this case can be just to fly to Andromeda and get back before lunch) and a tricky amendmend of a pretty good existing law.
Maybe that is why it doesn't happen that often.
Now, Thorsten, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just clarifying my opinion which you seem to have misunderstood. From what I read, it is an opinion that is widely held by many working in science. I accept that your opinion can be different. As such you are perfectly allowed to call it a religion, as I have the feeling that you would be willing to call a 'religion' anything two or more people agree on.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I must hand it to you, you are able to read in my post far more than I put in (or maybe I put in more than I was aware, does that make me a psychic? Randi to the rescue!). |
I think the problem is that you have not thought through what you where writing and considerend the actual implications of what you where writing.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Seriously now. Assume you have a law, say about the motion of objects in space, planetary bodies, meteors, satellites, spaceships. |
Uh Boy, what happens if I break the "Law"? Do I need to hire serengetiplains to defend or do I get hauled off to jail without trial?
Let's face, the socalled "natural laws" are only the peak points of the gaussian bell curve of the probability wave underlying everything in this universe. As you should know, Laplace was wrong, utterly so. So in fact, i would not just expect to see deviations from what the "Law" predicts that are within experimental error, I occasionally (very rarely though) expect a really big deviation, which of course is not repeateable, but an indication of the limits of our "laws"....
Of course, things become really interesting if we deliberatly alter the underlying probability wave. The results appear to the narrowminded as "magik" and seem to "violate natural law".
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Say that this law accurately explains all those motions as good as they can be measured and observed. |
It means then our observations and measurements are the limiting factor of what we percieve and are in no direct relation to absolute reality, as long as it happens below the measurement limit.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Furthermore, it also fits other related laws on gravity, charge attraction, solar wind etc (It's an example, OK). That would give scientists a warm and fuzzy feeling that it is a pretty good law. |
You mean it's a pretty good rule of the thumb, which is usually sufficient for government and NASA work but is actually telling us very little about absolute reality.
And who are we to say that the collective believe in the "law" does not alter the local probability waveform to conincide closely with that which is believed in?
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Now someone comes up with a spaceship with a revolutionary drive - let's call it the expansion drive, and he claims that his drive will allow his spaceship to operate outside of the law referred to above, therefore cutting the trip time to the Andromeda nebula by a factor of 10e6. |
Hmmm. Sounds like Doc E.E. Smith inertialess drive.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Now I agree that I cannot think of a reason that it is impossible to build such a drive. |
Nothing is impossible.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
But my point is that it will take a heck of a lot more than a simple declaration that the guy build it, to get it accepted, because it would upset a law that covers a large number of observations exactly. |
Yup. Now let's say that said spaceship drive is build and that it actually works. Now the spaceship driver goes to Andromeda and comes back. He simply says "I build the ship, went there and got back. Here some snaps on my cheap Digicam build into the phone, sorry, ship is out of fuel now and I need a major factory to make more and so you need to give me a lot of money."
The problem is that what is being claimed falls outside that which that muddy bog of sullen inertia that dares to call itself science can observe, the "proofs" are perfectly reasonable to a sane person as ordinary proof, but to the socalled scientist who is really the fanatical defender of orthodoxy the whole thing is of course impossible, hence the gentleman MUST be a Charlatan and his proof MUST be faked. The "scientist" will now set out to proof that this is indeed so.
A scenario like this (with many variations on the topic) is found often in SF Literature and also in reality, where in effect "science" blocks the aquisition of additional knowledge by refusing to take anything serious until a proof is delivered that is usally outside the financial and logistical means of the people behind the attempts to gain that knowledge.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Suppose that it is possible, and the law needs amendmend, it very likely is a small amendment because you don't want to lose the coverage of the established observations. |
Hmmm. The reality is of course that there is no "Unified theory of everything". The universes complexity and randomness is by far beyound that. So we may have to accept that two completely seperate and contradictory sets of "natural laws" apply simultaniously, the ppliability being deliniated by a certain boundary.
Yes, there is an obvious "higher" natural law that enfolds both seeming contradictions and explains why we have below the point where A becomes Not-A one set of observable phenomenae and another above that point. However such a "higher law" may very well be outside anything we can EVER percieve, so perhaps the seeming contradiction must be retained indefinitly.
In engineering one is often in the position of accepting two seemingly contradictory sets of rules and utilise both in design, depending upon empirical experience. I find it remarkable that to many scientist the term "empiricists" is used as pejorative expression!
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
So you end up with two issues: extraordinary strong proof (which in this case can be just to fly to Andromeda and get back before lunch) and a tricky amendmend of a pretty good existing law.
Maybe that is why it doesn't happen that often. |
Or maybe because any evidence that runs counter to expectations is simply and unselectively considered "bunk". I find the failure and sullen, childish refusal of modern "science" to at least seriously research "fringe" phenomenae at least as disturbing as having a certified imbicille in the White House.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Now, Thorsten, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just clarifying my opinion which you seem to have misunderstood. From what I read, it is an opinion that is widely held by many working in science. |
I remember times when the impossibility of a heavier than air flying mashine was held to be impossible by many working in science, the same applied to many other innovations. Often it took considerably longer to achieve the practical realisation of such innovations because of such widely held believes.
The problems is that neither believers, dis-believers nor socalled scientists like ambiguity and uncertainty and prefer a false certainty over a true uncertainty and will fight with claws and teeth to preserve the worldview into which they have invested so much of themselves against any and all evidence to the contrary (I term this moral affordability).
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I accept that your opinion can be different. As such you are perfectly allowed to call it a religion, |
Thank you.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I have the feeling that you would be willing to call a 'religion' anything two or more people agree on. |
Not quiet. It becomes a religion when there is established an orthodox dogma that things are "just so" and more than ordinary prrof is demanded from anyone even venturing an opinion that contrdicts the orthodox dogma and where the adherents refuse to consider anything running counter to their dogma unless provided with what they consider extraordinary proof (and hence usually very difficult to attain).
In fact, ANY religion by my definition above is an abomination and heresy in the ultimate, as it in effect states that all knowable is known and no change to the dogma is allowable.
Sayonara
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. " Thomas Jefferson
It is worth considering the full context of this statement:
"and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me," |
|
|
| SY |
Wow.
As the great philosopher Alvarado shouted at Principal Poop in High School Madness, "What is reality?"
There is a non-zero probability that all the air molecules in this room will rush in the same direction to the opposite wall, suffocating me instantly. Using basic statistical mechanics, we can calculate that probability, and see that it would take more than 20 orders of magnitude more time than the estimated lifetime of the Universe. How worried should I be that this is going to ha |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
[snip]Hmmm. Sounds like Doc E.E. Smith inertialess drive.
[snip] |
Wrong. Harry Harrisson, "Bill the Galactic Hero".
Jan Didden |
|
|
| andy_c |
I just wanted to interject here the difference between a theorem and a law. A theorem can be proven. A law cannot. What happens when empirical evidence is found that violates the "law"? Simple. The law is changed to fit the empirical evidence. An example of a set of laws is Maxwell's Equations. Strange that we should base so much technology on a set of equations that can't be proven, isn't it? As an example of changing "laws" to fit empirical evidence, let's look at one of what are now called Maxwell's equations. It used to be:
curl(H) = J
Which was "Ampere's law". But evidence was found that contradicts this. It was changed to:
curl(H) = J + partial of D with respect to t
The second term on the right of the second equation, the so-called "displacement current" had to be added to make the equations accurately predict measured phenomena. See http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node72.html for more info on this.
One could argue that science itself is a kind of religion (or at least dogma). But given the built-in facility for changing the "laws" to meet existing evidence (provided the change is based on fact and demonstrated rigorously), one ends up attacking a moving target. So one could argue that because of this built-in facility, that science is really a kind of "anti-dogma". I'm not so much interested in such discussions - for me, the practical consideration of "it works" is overriding. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
As the great philosopher Alvarado shouted at Principal Poop in High School Madness, "What is reality?" |
As RAW wrote "Reality is what you can get away with"!
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MIND
IT IS REALITY THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
There is a non-zero probability that all the air molecules in this room will rush in the same direction to the opposite wall, suffocating me instantly. Using basic statistical mechanics, we can calculate that probability, and see that it would take more than 20 orders of magnitude more time than the estimated lifetime of the Universe. How worried should I be that this is going to ha |
Hmmm. Now just because something is UNLIKELY to happen, it does not mean it will not happen. More interestingly, you seem to assume the probability wave in the universe and local to you to be a constant. How ostrichy is that?
Of course if you where found suffocated thusly (not sure it would actually be suffocation) you would not feature in any big bscientific report as the man killed by an unlikely even but probably only in old, still open file down at the cop-house....
Sayonara |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Wrong. Harry Harrisson, "Bill the Galactic Hero".
|
Ah yes, thanX for jogging my memory. I have got to say I love Bill and Jimmi di Griz.... ;-)
Sayonara |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
Ah yes, thanX for jogging my memory. I have got to say I love Bill and Jimmi di Griz.... ;-)
Sayonara |
Yeah, Slippery Jim and his lovely wife. I'm not sure, but was Jason dinAlt not also a Harrisson character?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I'm not sure, but was Jason dinAlt not also a Harrisson character? |
Yup, from the Deathword series. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | More interestingly, you seem to assume the probability wave in the universe and local to you to be a constant. |
Hard to argue that since I have no idea of what you're talking about. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
Ah yes, thanX for jogging my memory. I have got to say I love Bill and Jimmi di Griz.... ;-)
Sayonara |
You see Thorsten, we DO have something in common. I was about to give up...
Jan Didden |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | You see Thorsten, we DO have something in common. |
................Jogging???
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| janneman |
| No, forgetting... |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Wow.
As the great philosopher Alvarado shouted at Principal Poop in High School Madness, "What is reality?"
There is a non-zero probability that all the air molecules in this room will rush in the same direction to the opposite wall, suffocating me instantly. Using basic statistical mechanics, we can calculate that probability, and see that it would take more than 20 orders of magnitude more time than the estimated lifetime of the Universe. How worried should I be that this is going to ha |
Wake up! It's just imagination!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
In which case we must all have something in common....I keep forgetting what it was though....
From left to right, errrrrrrrrrrr...............aaaaaaaaaaaargghhhhh...
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
More interestingly, you seem to assume the probability wave in the universe and local to you to be a constant. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Hard to argue that since I have no idea of what you're talking about. |
Is it some macro version of the quantum uncertainty principle? Or the principle somehow unlimited in time and space by the Plank constant? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| For a thread that started with a reference to Randi, we sure have come a long way. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkmouse
Is it some macro version of the quantum uncertainty principle? Or the principle somehow unlimited in time and space by the Plank constant? |
The hermetic principle - as above so below....
Subatomic particles exist in effect as "probability waveform". By definition and as a result anything that uses them as "building blocks" exist on such a "probability wave" (did Hawkings coin that term?).
And if we are talking about changes on a molecular level we do not need many of these building blocks. Such events might include SY's "wall of air" and Moses's "walls of water" in the red sea. It would not really take THAT MUCH change of the local probability wave to achieve the required effects.
One more of the fundamentals failures of socalled science is the treatment of variables as constants, simply because we have not (yet) observed them to vary.
Sayonara |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| As above might not be as below. Photons constitute the basis of seeing, at least for humans, so the notion of seeing is not meaningful at the level of the photon. I think what SY was referring to involved transferring a notion of above-world causation to the realm of below-world particles, where anything evidently can occur (if one believes Feynman) expressed as some or another probability. But what we observe as "probability" in the atomic world might be to "causation" on our macro plane what photons are to sight. That is, the so-called probability nature of the atomic world might be the basis for causation in the macro world, meaning the two concepts are at once inseparable but wholly separate. I've grappled with certain of Feynman's understandings, and this is one place I think he erred. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | I think what SY was referring to involved transferring a notion of above-world causation to the realm of below-world particles, where anything evidently can occur (if one believes Feynman) expressed as some or another probability. |
"Above-world causation"? "Below-world particles"? Yikes, did I miss that episode of TNG?
The kinetics of molecules in gases at normal temperatures, pressures, and densities is really, really, really well understood. It doesn't need to involve quantum mechanics, just some plain old statistics. The less-profound-than-Alvorado philosopher Daniel Dennett observed that writing out and trying to solve complete quantum mechanical equations for the electronic circuits that make up a pocket calculator will not give you much insight into how it shows that 2 + 2 = 4. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
[snip]
And if we are talking about changes on a molecular level we do not need many of these building blocks. Such events might include SY's "wall of air" and Moses's "walls of water" in the red sea. It would not really take THAT MUCH change of the local probability wave to achieve the required effects.
[snip]Sayonara |
Hey Thorsten,
You'r moving fast, but that doesn't help. How many of those local molecules you think have to move to one side of the probability curve to, say, stand up a wall of water? A million million? A billion billion?
It's VERY many, and the probability is VERY low. What did SY say, 20 orders of magnitude more time than the estimated lifetime of the Universe?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | How many of those local molecules you think have to move to one side of the probability curve to, say, stand up a wall of water? A million million? A billion billion?
|
A bazilllion cotillion? Actually, something like 1026 for a very small wall. That's about a hundred trillion trillion. |
|
|
| RHosch |
Eastern philosophies are so, well, silly... and I say that with the most open mind and in the most direct way possible. I find those who follow such philosophies to be more often than not the epitome of hypocritical and arrogant, and quite often self-delusional. The level of ignorance disguised as insight and enlightment displayed in this thread is so alarming that I ponder if humankind will ever reach a global level of peace and understanding.
I find it amusing that chastisements about how certain people believe the universe works are based on nothing but another set of assumptions, another set of beliefs, about how the universe works.
The subjects of physics, philosophy, statistics, religion, epistemology and others have been so butchered, so misrepresented to the point of absurdity by those whose desire to be 'enlightened' so greatly that they abandon the useful constructs of rationality and consistency, that it frightens me.
I dare say more, but for fear of being accused that I would be unreceptive to the suggestion that the Earth isn't flat or that planes can't fly, or that by accepting a logical epistemological system I have shut my mind to possibility and discovery. What is the point? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
What is the point? |
Take the view that everyone is right and see what happens. Or take the more moderate view that no one is 100% wrong in anything that person might say. |
|
|
| arniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Yup. Now let's say that said spaceship drive is build and that it actually works. Now the spaceship driver goes to Andromeda and comes back. He simply says "I build the ship, went there and got back. Here some snaps on my cheap Digicam build into the phone, sorry, ship is out of fuel now and I need a major factory to make more and so you need to give me a lot of money."
The problem is that what is being claimed falls outside that which that muddy bog of sullen inertia that dares to call itself science can observe, the "proofs" are perfectly reasonable to a sane person as ordinary proof, but to the socalled scientist who is really the fanatical defender of orthodoxy the whole thing is of course impossible, hence the gentleman MUST be a Charlatan and his proof MUST be faked. The "scientist" will now set out to proof that this is indeed so.
|
Mr. Loesch,
So you'd give him the money? That sounds like a rather gullible attitude to me.
If someone was able to travel to wherever in the galaxy in a theoretically impossible time, wouldn't it be prudent to plan to bring back some rather more useful evidence. How about sending a pre-agreed, encrypted radio signal back from the destination, to be received back on Earth at a pre-determined and precise time in the future... I'm sure the SETI guys would love that!
All it takes is a bit of planning and effort to ensure that the standard of proof is acceptable.
Being open to other paradigms is one thing, but there's usually a good reason, in 99.9% of cases why alternative "knowledge" is forgotten - it's bunk.
It is people who spout this alternative rubbish that are closed-minded as they cannot accept that there are many unknowns in the universe. For them, there is always a mystical explanation as to why things are the way they appear, and any observation can be justified. Contrast with science's acceptance that there are many facets of the universe that cannot be explained... and then the conception of theories which get tested by experimentation. It's so much easier to sit down listening to whale-song and come up with a fanciful explanation before sleeping soundly in the knowledge that another mystery has been answered.
Bah! |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
Mr. Loesch,
So you'd give him the money? |
Probably not without further investigation. However, my point is that I WOULD investigate further.
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
If someone was able to travel to wherever in the galaxy in a theoretically impossible time, wouldn't it be prudent to plan to bring back some rather more useful evidence. |
Perhaps. Yet you may be surprised how narrowoly focused and forgetful people working on something important to them can get. They rarely concern themselves first with proof and secondly with function, usually the reverse holds true.
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
All it takes is a bit of planning and effort to ensure that the standard of proof is acceptable. |
Sure, which assumes that you start wanting to proove something, rather than just make something work.
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
Being open to other paradigms is one thing, but there's usually a good reason, in 99.9% of cases why alternative "knowledge" is forgotten - it's bunk. |
Hmmm. I find it very funny that one by one a lot of this "bunk" is actually illustrated by so-called respectable science to have been pretty darn accurate.
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
It is people who spout this alternative rubbish that are closed-minded as they cannot accept that there are many unknowns in the universe. |
Funny. I accept unknowns as unknown. I indeed insist that they are not just "explained away" in the fashion it is usally done (Flight of pelicans, Venus, sensory hallucination...). To me a UFO is just that, namely an Unidentifyable Flying Object and not an Alien Spaceship and not a Halucination. I actually consider an investigation required, as in many other "fringe" areas. The UFO's may very well be "secret" spyplanes or natural occurences, I don't know and don't pretend to, but I have a low tolerance for people who INSIST that there are no UFO's (suggesting each and every one has been fully identified and is hence an IFO).
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
Bah! |
Says the sheep that marches with all the others?
Sayonara |
|
|
| john curl |
| Well said, Kuei. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Well said, Kuei. |
In fact, John, he didn't say diddly. I gave an example of my opinion on how science works, and Thorsten cunningly and expertly pulled the whole discussion off thread by picking on an aspect that had nothing to do with it. Several others fell for it and followed him. Surely you saw through that, didn't you?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| john curl |
Since you asked, I found significant 'truth' the Kuei's input. For example, I don't judge what I don't know about or have not actually tried. I just don't have an opinion in these cases. Many here are uncomfortable with this.
For example, flying saucers, I've never seen one, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did exist in some form. I have people tell me that they have seen them, and I have no reason to doubt them. Now, that doesn't say that I BELIEVE in every flying saucer report. Some are probably made up, after all some here have made up hoaxes on wire quality over the years. I know people who like to play practical jokes like this, even if it just confuses things still further. Others are probably errors in judgement and jumping to a conclusion. However, one person said to me that the flying saucer she saw was just over the trees where she was walking one night, and it moved in so fast that she thought that it was going to land on her. I have no reason to doubt her, and I also doubt that it was the planet Venus or swamp gas. |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
John:
The government has owned up that the swamp gas explanation was hokum. They were testing oddly shaped planes during the Cold War, they did not want the local population to share even the most cursory details about them, so when somebody saw an odd shape up in the air, the government gave people the "swamp gas" story. They have admitted this for years.
That does not mean there are UFO's, in the sense we have come to envision them.
Remember the "crop circles"? Mysterious circles which were cut in the English wheatfields. Local scientists swore they could not have been cut by people, they had to be made by spaceship.
Spomebody set up a night vision camera one night in a wheat field, and caught several people making the crop cirlces by hand, using conventional tools. Unmentioned in the documentary which covered this was whether the circle makers were coming home after several hours in the bar, which seems likely.:) |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Since you asked, I found significant 'truth' the Kuei's input. For example, I don't judge what I don't know about or have not actually tried. I just don't have an opinion in these cases. Many here are uncomfortable with this.
For example, flying saucers, I've never seen one, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did exist in some form. I have people tell me that they have seen them, and I have no reason to doubt them. Now, that doesn't say that I BELIEVE in every flying saucer report. Some are probably made up, after all some here have made up hoaxes on wire quality over the years. I know people who like to play practical jokes like this, even if it just confuses things still further. Others are probably errors in judgement and jumping to a conclusion. However, one person said to me that the flying saucer she saw was just over the trees where she was walking one night, and it moved in so fast that she thought that it was going to land on her. I have no reason to doubt her, and I also doubt that it was the planet Venus or swamp gas. |
John, this interests me.
You mention several times, also in other posts, that people tell you something and you 'have no reason to doubt them' or words to that effect. What would be a reason to doubt their statements??
I mean, if somebody tells you that they have seen an UFO, which at the very least is an extremely controversial subject with precious few if any confirmed sightings, wouldn't you have all the reasons in the world to doubt it??
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I mean, if somebody tells you that they have seen an UFO, which at the very least is an extremely controversial subject with precious few if any confirmed sightings, wouldn't you have all the reasons in the world to doubt it?? |
I HAVE seen UFO's and there have been LOADS of confirmed UFO sightings.
The defition of an UFO Sighting is the sighting of a flying object that cannot be reliably identified. Hence UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.
I suspect now my own UFO may very well have been SR-71's or their russian analog, but I cannot be certain, without getting at military records of both US and Russia. At the time, with the knowledge of the existence of such high/fast flying planes being not available to me the thing was Unidentifiable as anything known to me and hence fits perfectly the defintion of an UFO.
Now saying "I saw an UFO" does not mean "I saw a flying Saucer" or "I saw an alien spaceship". I am aware (from Janes) of a fairly recent sighting of an UFO in the company of a number of US Planes over the North Sea. The "UFO" was analysed by Janes to be most likely the "Aurora" Black Plane, namely the sucessor to the SR-71 the existence of which is vigerously denied by the US intelligence community and the US military.
So, unless and untill someone can confirm that it is a US Spy Plane of the Type designation so and so and confirms it has been flying in MUST remain a triangular shaped Unidentified Flying object observed in such a setting and doing such and such.
To claim it's a US Spy Plane or an Alien spaceship is to identify it, which would demand actual proof to allow me to accept the identification. Until then it's ahmmm.... Yup, a UFO!
Sayonara |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by kelticwizard
That does not mean there are UFO's, in the sense we have come to envision them. |
You are in some serious linguistic quagmire here. Do you use a word in the actual sense it conveys or do you apply the coplloquial use?
Is an anarchist a bomb/molotov cocktail thrower or someone who wishes to abolish a strutured and hierarchical society?
Is a UFO an alien flying saucer spaceship or merely something flying about which we cannot corretcly identify?
| quote: | Originally posted by kelticwizard
Remember the "crop circles"? Mysterious circles which were cut in the English wheatfields. |
Crop circles are documented for > 300 Years and not just in England and not just in Wheat fields.
| quote: | Originally posted by kelticwizard
Local scientists swore they could not have been cut by people, they had to be made by spaceship. |
Hardly. Crop Circles are actually a widely researched phenomenae and while the "Hoax" explanation covers most of them in recent times (since they became fashionable) a small but distinctly non-zero fraction of Crop Circles show charateristics that are not explainable with "simple hoax" but require quite substantial technology (high powered microwave radiators and a pretty big explosion where used by some MIT Students to create deliberatly a crop circle design matching these charateristics).
So, we are left, just as with UFO's and a number of other Fortean (after Charles Fort, a reseaercher into "Fringe" phenomenae) phenomenae with a small but distinctly non-zero fraction of unexplainable phenomenae. To dismiss these due to the others as "hoaxes, swamp gas or flights of pelicans" is as unscientific as is to claim that all crop circles are made by alien spacecrafts and all UFO's sighted are actually Alien Flying Saucers.
| quote: | Originally posted by kelticwizard
Spomebody set up a night vision camera one night in a wheat field, and caught several people making the crop cirlces by hand, using conventional tools. Unmentioned in the documentary which covered this was whether the circle makers were coming home after several hours in the bar, which seems likely.:) |
You forgot to mention that in more than one case of these "observations" the Observer actually paid the people to make them so he could publish a suitable article in the tabloids and/or make a sensationalist TV Documentary.
The problem is a muddeld one and just as in audio the highly emotionally charged battle between the two religous groups (the "Believers" and the "Scientists") involved has done much to obscure the facts and muddle the water. It has become near impossible to discuss the subject from a value neutral and anti religious viewpoint.
You need to ask yourself seriously if you want to believe or if you want to know. Do you wish to believe what you are told by the guardians of the orthodoxy and their lackeys (on either side of these arguments) or do you actually wish to know? If you wish to know you will have to accept that you cannot know many things and that for many the only way to know is to apply yourself to the empirical method.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
In the articles that Pinkmouse linked to in the Fortean Times a certain organisation was mentioned repeatedly, namely the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). For those interested in the "scientific approach" taken by CSICOP how about this piece?
THE TRUE DISBELIEVERS: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality
Here's one to believers in any particular fixed system of reality, "up y......". :drink:
Sayonara |
|
|
| Lusso5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Is a UFO an alien flying saucer spaceship or merely something flying about which we cannot corretcly identify?
|
I have to hand it to you; there are a select few on this forum that can take a thread to the places you do Thorsten...
Everyone knows what U.F.O. stands for, but I think most will agree on who made the term synonymous with alien spacecraft...
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
To dismiss these due to the others as "hoaxes, swamp gas or flights of pelicans" is as unscientific as is to claim that all crop circles are made by alien spacecrafts and all UFO's sighted are actually Alien Flying Saucers.
|
Ahh, but see Thorsten - you must be a "believer", because you deem explanations as dismissals. To say these explanations are to dismiss something means you have a conflicting explanation of your own, not simply "unidentified"...
If I claimed something hurtling through the sky looked like a discarded Shakti Stone, or bottle of C37, would I be "dismissing", or simply offering an explanation...
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
The problem is a muddeld one and just as in audio the highly emotionally charged battle between the two religous groups (the "Believers" and the "Scientists") involved has done much to obscure the facts and muddle the water. It has become near impossible to discuss the subject from a value neutral and anti religious viewpoint.
Sayonara |
And which group do you put yourself in? With rhetoric that would shame the likes of Shirley MacLaine. I have my vote...
Taken from your review of C37:
"While C37 lacquering does change the tonality to one that is generally more dynamic, warmer and more pleasant. The biggest change is on an almost subliminal level. The C37 lacquered gear sounds more open and detailed as before, but most important – it sounds more listenable and more capable of communicating the emotion in the music. Perhaps one receives less signals of "it’s artificial" from a C37 treated system? The key difference between a system with C37 and one without is not a bit of tonality, or more detail or less exaggerated sibilance, or a wider soundstage, or other such easily described and quantified audiophile issues. It is a difference much deeper. It is one between more musical realism and a simple canned music.
On an emotional level it works a similar magic as single ended valve amplifiers, non-oversampling DAC’s, vinyl records, high sensitivity speakers, a ‘lil tot of Glenlivet or a glass of good Claret. It makes listening to music more involving. It makes me want to listen more. It makes listening easier. I concentrate more on the music, on the phrasing, on the emotions and I simply forget to listen to the “Bass’s” and the “Trebles” and the “Soundstage”. I listen instead to the notes, the musicians, the silences between the notes, and the sharp rasp of the bow on a string all these things. Applying C37 to your system humanizes the perceived sound. When I have too much non C37 treated gear in my system I badly miss the effect."
THC has similar effects on me as you describe with C37... :D. Perhaps I should do a review... |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I don't judge what I don't know about or have not actually tried. I just don't have an opinion in these cases. |
Precisely. An opinion should report one's observations, or state probabilities on a form of what amounts to guessing, one, of course, not having observed. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
THC has similar effects on me as you describe with C37... :D. Perhaps I should do a review... |
How snide. Have you tried C37? Allow me to guess you have not. Do you feel it constructive to make a point by trying to ridicule someone? |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
I have to hand it to you; there are a select few on this forum that can take a thread to the places you do Thorsten...
|
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you for the flowers....
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
Everyone knows what U.F.O. stands for, but I think most will agree on who made the term synonymous with alien spacecraft...
|
I think that MOST who actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding (e.g. not that derived from the Tabloids and other sensationalist and mercenary reporting) and are hence entitled to have their views considered would go with the strick linguistic interpretation, e.g. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
Ahh, but see Thorsten - you must be a "believer", because you deem explanations as dismissals. To say these explanations are to dismiss something means you have a conflicting explanation of your own, not simply "unidentified"... |
Nope, what I deem as dismissal is the attitude that "we explained 70% of all UFO sightings as this or that (often questionably so) and hence the other 30% must be explainable the same way"
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
If I claimed something hurtling through the sky looked like a discarded Shakti Stone, or bottle of C37, would I be "dismissing", or simply offering an explanation... |
Neither. You would observe that whatever was hurteling through the Air looked like a Shakti Stone. Now you may also have observed that the trajectory of the Shakti Stone appeared ballistic in nature and seemd to aim at you. You may very well surmise that someone threw a Shakti Stone at you and that if the aim of that someone is any good you'd better duck.
However, if you would submit based on that observation that all flying objects observable where Shakti Stones thrown at you I would feel the need to question your conclusions. Note, I do not question your observations in any way, only the conclusions you have drawn from the empirical data and I think rightly so.
Now someone may have heard your lunatic theory and may actually decide to claim that "eminent sceptic Lusso5 has identified all UFO's to be Shakti Stones thrown at him" and would suceed in publishing the thesis and as it offered at least SOME explanation of a natural sort instead of "we don't what some UFO's are" would have it universally aknowledged, it would still make each and every UFO reliably a Shakti Stone thrown into your direction.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
And which group do you put yourself in? |
I consider myself a sceptic in the line of Hume.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
With rhetoric that would shame the likes of Shirley MacLaine.
|
WHAT RETHORIC?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
THC has similar effects on me as you describe with C37... :D. Perhaps I should do a review... |
Sure, go for it. You might even do a double blind comparison test of C37 laquering vs. Mari-Juana if you like.
The one thing I do encourage strongly (apart from suggesting to confine oneself to legal Drugs while the campaign to be sensible and leagalise ALL drugs, instead of only a few should be supported) is to be empirical. I prefer to someone who disagrees with me on the strength of his own empirical investigation over someone who syncopates my vies simply because I said so.
Sadly in this day and age most of the pee-pull prefer to aquire their views and opinions third, fourth and fifth hand from the "educational" system, akademia and the popular media over the more direct, usefull and significant empirical method.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Lusso5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
How snide. Have you tried C37? Allow me to guess you have not. |
Other than reviewers (who get their samples free I presume). I've only come across one person who purchased C37; used it for coating drivers, and reported changes not any better than that of coatings costing hundreds less (and dont make claims like Ennemosser).
Give me $150, I'll try it...
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Do you feel it constructive to make a point by trying to ridicule someone? |
Lighten up Tom, its in no way ridicule. I'm trying to point out in which of these so called "religions" that he describes, he fits best in.
I have the upmost respect for Thorsten's technical knowledge, and have said before - I've learned much from him, and can learn much more. We just have differing views on metaphysics as it relates to audio. I can easily make myself think I'm hearing something "better", but I dont need stones on my speakers, or lacquer on my DAC to justify it. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Precisely. An opinion should report one's observations, or state probabilities on a form of what amounts to guessing, one, of course, not having observed. |
Beg to differ. I can have an opinion on something without observing it. That opinion can for instance be formed by previous observations, or by analogy. If you say you are going to drop an apple from 4 feet altitude, my opinion is that it will move downward. I haven't seen it, maybe I will never see it, but it'll be a pretty strong opinion anyway. Or is that what you also say? Not sure.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
How snide. Have you tried C37? Allow me to guess you have not. Do you feel it constructive to make a point by trying to ridicule someone? |
Read the man's post, for Pete's sake. He isn't ridiculing him. He is showing that by his own definition Thorsten is also a believer.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
Other than reviewers (who get their samples free I presume). I've only come across one person who purchased C37; used it for coating drivers, and reported changes not any better than that of coatings costing hundreds less (and dont make claims like Ennemosser). |
Hmmm. I am aware of a number of actual manufacturers (apart from me, that is) who use C37, primarily in Speakers. I use C37 both for HiFi Modifications and for Speakers (production). BTW, no more reviews from me because I am now commercially involved.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
Lighten up Tom, its in no way ridicule. I'm trying to point out in which of these so called "religions" that he describes, he fits best in. |
Your aim is very poor Graucho.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Read the man's post, for Pete's sake. He isn't ridiculing him. He is showing that by his own definition Thorsten is also a believer. |
I am a "believer" only insofar that I "believe" my experimental methodes where reasonably fair and that I place the reasoning of my KNOWLEDGE (as opposed to believe) on First Hand experience of the phenomenae under discussion. Which is more than can be said for the majority of those who discuss it.
Past that I am not a believer. I do not for example "believe" in C37 as such or the C37 Theory, though I note parallels with various investigations of my own in the "C37 Theory".
I do however KNOW that it makesaudible differences in many applications and that I myself and a numbers of others found the changes with a fair bit of reliability to be such that changed item is preferred. That I know and do not have to believe.
Now you may not believe that my experimental methode was fair and reasonable. That is your perogative. You may criticise my methode or demand more details, which i may bother to give or not and you may make your empirical investigation as you please. However, if you wish for me to consider you a reasonable and scientific person than the onbe thing you cannot do is to simply dismiss the subject, as that is unscientific in the highest degree and perfectly fits the defintion of "rejected knowledge".
Sayonara |
|
|
| Lusso5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Your aim is very poor Graucho.
|
You identified the target as believers and scientists, but then removed yourself from both when I asked.
Back to the Shakti Stones - I'm traveling to San Antonio on Saturday to audition them. I'm trying to round up some other ears as well, to go along, for other opinions to post. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
You identified the target as believers and scientists, but then removed yourself from both when I asked. |
"The "Scientists" are by and at large just "believers" in another religion. Just like the "believers" they believe in the absolute unshability of their fundamental Axioms.
I personally believe nothing at all. NEVER EVER. I do know and I know probably fewer things than most people believe, but at least I KNOW. I prefer first hand opinion to 2nd or 3rd.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
"The "Scientists" are by and at large just "believers" in another religion. Just like the "believers" they believe in the absolute unshability of their fundamental Axioms.
|
To accomplish really big things, you have to be a sort of "believer" . Otherwise you are only a "wonderer", trying a bit of this and that, but in the end, not acomplishing really anything.
Believe is a big driving force, and while it's working, it doesn't really matter if it's right or wrong. The end result is of most importance. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa |
Huh? I thought this was an English language forum.
| quote: | | "The "Scientists" are by and at large just "believers" in another religion. Just like the "believers" they believe in the absolute unshability of their fundamental Axioms. |
What a load of cr@p! I've never met a scientist that believed axioms are unshakable. That goes completely against the spirit of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is completely unrelated to belief, for belief does not need evidence, and indeed persists despite the evidence.
| quote: | | I prefer first hand opinion to 2nd or 3rd. |
By that logic you should fly to orbit to make sure the earh is round with your own eyes. After all, all these photos could have been faked. |
|
|
| john curl |
| No, unfortunately there are many engineers and scientists who have limited insight to what is possible or what can work. This includes audio, bigtime! |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
Maybe, maybe not. Why don't you round up the people. The main reason why I would not bother with Charlatans of the ilk of Randi, Nousiane and the ABX people is that they already set out to prove me wrong and will do so by any means available. I don't need that sort of proverbial.
Sorry to pop your ballon, but in the case Of Tom Nousaine and the"ABX" people they set out to prove the opposite. They started out as true beleivers in the alleged differences of high end audio equipment. It was the fact that there were so few of them that they changed their minds.
In the case of Randi, calling him a charlatan might have worked when he was a professional magician, his job was to create illusions. Now his job is defend against the illusions being passed of as reality by charlatans.
I feel he's preaching to the choir sin | | | |
