Monday morning in the research laboratory....
Pete , assistant to the facultys Head of Research, turns to Professor Green and enquires
' So what are we working on this week sir , the cure for cancer ?'
Professor Green replies ,
' Well Brian , you can make a start but i shall be busy attempting to determine how many
wine gums i can feed this seagull before it dies of alcohol poisoning ' .
I don't know whether to laugh or cry laughing.
It sure has been funny watching the hole get bigger and deeper.
You must be joking! The image most people have couldn't be damaged any more.
You take yourselves way too seriously.
You must be joking! The image most people have couldn't be damaged any more.
You take yourselves way too seriously.
No its just BQP's that bring out the dark side in me
Right, so quantum entanglement has been experimentally identified and applied. There is actual science behind that. So far I have not seen any real science in the support of Bybees.
Scottjoplin, I find your offer incredibly naive or a set-up, but let me clue you in, in case you are sincere in your offer.
First, what are your credentials and background, and do you have direct access to the right test equipment to find what most of us don't? You would have to destroy the Bybee to prove that it is made of the materials that it claims to be. How else could you do it without an advanced physics lab?
If $100 is too much for you to invest, then the Bybee is not for you, any more than a Ferrari is for me.
Finally, if it was easy to measure the effects of what the Bybee does with conventional test equipment, we would already have done it. However, it has been measured at least once by Jack Bybee and the results put up here, by nobody has ever offered or bothered to duplicate the measurement, partially it is just too expensive to acquire the test equipment (BMI 8800) to have any chance of duplicating it.
Once again, if you can't invest $100 into one, you are without the resources too.
First, what are your credentials and background, and do you have direct access to the right test equipment to find what most of us don't? You would have to destroy the Bybee to prove that it is made of the materials that it claims to be. How else could you do it without an advanced physics lab?
If $100 is too much for you to invest, then the Bybee is not for you, any more than a Ferrari is for me.
Finally, if it was easy to measure the effects of what the Bybee does with conventional test equipment, we would already have done it. However, it has been measured at least once by Jack Bybee and the results put up here, by nobody has ever offered or bothered to duplicate the measurement, partially it is just too expensive to acquire the test equipment (BMI 8800) to have any chance of duplicating it.
Once again, if you can't invest $100 into one, you are without the resources too.
Attachments
Last edited:
There's no experiment detailed here to duplicate, looks like the infamous Otala chart recording. BTW there is one of those on eBay right now for $450.
It does not demonstrate any of the outrageous claims, that piece of gear is a mains quality tester not a piece of audio test equipment. Please present an independently repeatable test of the claim that noise is removed in preference to signal content in the same frequency space. HINT: you can't only the "ears"
do that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.