John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier

[SY]

The birth of contemporary physics was, in many ways, at this point.

Rule of thumb: if there is a breakthrough discovery that changes the way we think about the universe, it won't come from someone doing hifi in his garage.

So they fix their lack of understanding with imagined patches. I'm not 100% correct in that statement

You're not even 2% correct in that statement. Planck's Constant is a fundamental physical constant, every bit as much so as the speed of light or the charge of an electron. Is the speed of light "duct tape"? I've been saying it to you for years, but I can't help it, I need to say it again- try to actually LEARN some physics before you expound on physics.

[KBK]

I'll take your comment as proffered with good spirit, Sy. I professed my ignorance at the start of the post. I've done a bit of searching on the nest and other places, specifically searching for the exact circumstances of the situation surrounding the creation Planck's constant, but have not found them.

Wikipedia for example, has none of this information-that I've found. These sort of things are important. Like knowing when and what direction Newton came from when he took over the Royal Society, and exactly whom he was 'in bed' with. Such points become VERY illuminating, so to speak, when understanding how we got to where we are today and how things can get messed up, over time, due to the things that seemed a bit small, or where even purposely hidden at those times.

Newton, it turns out, was at the very heart of the now ubiquitous Fiat currency and world currency systems, all stemming from the one point, his involvement as the comptroller of the newly created Bank of England. And, his involvement in the utter destruction of the fully functional 'scientific method', in order to extract revenge on the previous bearers of the torch of the 'Royal Society', His twisting of it in order to place his mathematics first, over the idea of phenomena observed and then theory fitted and tested past that.

He ordered it so that speculative mathematics creates the drive for truth in physics and cutting edge science, which is a patently ludicrous ordering of human reality. Thus, we have huge hordes now, of observed phenomena, that are ignored/ridiculed/eliminated... as they don't fit the math. This is an obviously retarded way of doing things.

However, this thing he did, in the revising of the Scientific method, cast in stone the now existing paradigm of 'science' as the system is now chock full of this group and thinking, and this moving back to a more centrist and viable methodology and view, is quadruply difficult. Break the hammers out!!

It comes down the the intrepid human beings best friend, which is a refusal to take things at face value. I'd say on all sides of this argument, you'll find that point. How it's utilized in the individual's life and viewpoint becomes part of the issue.

I've stated it before and will state it again. I'm always happy (grin and bear it kinda thing) to be wrong - as I get a chance to learn something new.

"Rule of thumb: if there is a breakthrough discovery that changes the way we think about the universe, it won't come from someone doing hifi in his garage."

Einstein's comment on that was that problems created in the given realm of science will invariably come from outside science..as at the heart they are an unsolved problem that has remained for some time, and therefore require looking and thinking outside of the 'known areas'. I don't expect that hi-fi guys will discover the 'secrets of the universe either, but I won't think that someone outside of the world of physics can't do so. After all, Schumacher wasn't the king of Formula racing until he got inside the car and inside the racing system. You did say rule of thumb, which does not mean absolute. Simply not likely. But not impossible either. Faraday, for example, was quite uneducated. But very intelligent, obviously.

[john curl]

Actually, I don't think SY's criticisms of us were offered in the best spirit. Of course, if someone, somewhere, would just study it more thoroughly, we might have been slightly more exact in our assessments.

[fizzard]

Uninformed people like to claim that skepticism is a downside of science, but in fact the skepticism is what makes science so strong.

A wise scientist always puts new discoveries in the context of what he always knows. For example, Einstein's Relativity had to agree with Newton for the case of slow speeds. When you take the limit of the Lorentz' Transformation as v -> 0 you end up with the Gallilean Transformation. When you take the limit as Planck's Constant goes to zero in Quantum Mechanics you wind up with Hamilton-Jacobi Theory. And as a less rigorous example, in plate techtonics the plates are effectively stationary.

KBK claimed a few pages back to have eliminated the "rainbow" in DLP. I did a simple sniff test, if it stinks like BS, it most likely is. Anybody who knows where the rainbow comes from could guess the odds of a quack job in their basement eliminating it.

[KBK]

Originally posted by fizzard
Uninformed people like to claim that skepticism is a downside of science, but in fact the skepticism is what makes science so strong.

A wise scientist always puts new discoveries in the context of what he always knows. For example, Einstein's Relativity had to agree with Newton for the case of slow speeds. When you take the limit of the Lorentz' Transformation as v -> 0 you end up with the Gallilean Transformation. When you take the limit as Planck's Constant goes to zero in Quantum Mechanics you wind up with Hamilton-Jacobi Theory. And as a less rigorous example, in plate techtonics the plates are effectively stationary.

KBK claimed a few pages back to have eliminated the "rainbow" in DLP. I did a simple sniff test, if it stinks like BS, it most likely is. Anybody who knows where the rainbow comes from could guess the odds of a quack job in their basement eliminating it.

I agree with you, Skepticism is good, vital, in my view.. The psychological origins of the given skepticism is the real point that must be considered. "Physician, Heal Thyself", and all that.

Black and white are also things that tend to be 'not so good',with respects to the given individual and group psychology. Leads to severe and dangerous fanaticism. Part and parcel of the problematic point of some folk's baseline psychology.

Like calling my point in saying I've LARGELY eliminated rainbows..as stating here that I say I've ELIMINATED rainbows..self creating that response of mine..and then calling me full of fecal matter. You aren't doing yourself any favors. As for rainbows, go ahead and try working on them. It is not that simple of a problem. Like anything, it can either unravel into a deep complexity or become more simple and obvious when you dig into it. Depends, as usual.

For example, with your metals wear problem., If you yourself begin working directly with cryo considerations with your situations in the specific, you may make some vital discoveries and find application. Or none at all. Who knows. Or even create answers that others can use eleswhere in other applications.

[SY]

I've done a bit of searching on the nest and other places, specifically searching for the exact circumstances of the situation surrounding the creation Planck's constant, but have not found them.

It's taught in every undergraduate modern physics course. Try reading up on the black body radiation divergence problem.

[jlsem]

What IS contoversial is the almost uniform claim that in doing so, the parameter change sounds BETTER!

A competent designer will always tweak a design after burn in (or break in, as is the case with speaker design). So it only seems logical that the design will perform as intended after burn in. I see nothing controversial about that. There are people out there who don't do any listening to, or measuring of, a design after some burn-in period, but they are at risk of having a product that will probably go from bad to worse.

John

[fizzard]

Originally posted by SY


It's taught in every undergraduate modern physics course. Try reading up on the black body radiation divergence problem.

And I've personally done labs on nuclear magnetic resonance, the Zeeman effect, and anti-ferromagnetic/ferromagnetic/paramagnetic transistions that relied on Planck's Constant to predict what was going to happen. Planck's constant is very real.

[courage]

John Curl:"You guys would cry if I gave you every answer in the world. Ignore my input, Dimitri's compilation, and whatever else, but don't bad mouth it. Dimitri's input is clear enough to me, even today."

John, I regret the fact that despite your intellectual level (not intelligence, which to me is something completely different) you misunderstood my remark. The compendium would have been COMPLETE if the QUESTIONS related to the given ANSWERS were NOT left out. That's all I'm saying. Apart from that it is a reference covering many audiophile design issues. Hope I made myself clear this time

Franklin

[john curl]

KBK, I would like to offer a few quotes that I just found:

Max Planck:" But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning. " (Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')


"... Indeed, classical physics can essentially be defined as the limit of quantum mechanics as the Planck constant tends to zero.' Wikipedia