How much did the Pleiadians threaten you to say this? Look, here's what you do: using Morse code, blink your left eye for "dot" and right eye for "dash" while delivering the speech that they are forcing you to say.
Help is on the way!
Yes time to take some calm me downs.
As to belief, I believe the Bybees and some other esoteric components and claims both distract from true audio design and make being an Audiophile the subject of derision. thought I should have learnt by now, as with many cable threads etc, instead of studying any links and information put forward regarding real engineering solutions, people would much rather live in ignorance and follow mistaken beliefs.
In all this I would hope that JC's input is tongue in cheek and to wind people up, as him having true belief in these devices would severely diminish my respect for him as a designer of some very good audio components.
The fight goes on
As to belief, I believe the Bybees and some other esoteric components and claims both distract from true audio design and make being an Audiophile the subject of derision. thought I should have learnt by now, as with many cable threads etc, instead of studying any links and information put forward regarding real engineering solutions, people would much rather live in ignorance and follow mistaken beliefs.
In all this I would hope that JC's input is tongue in cheek and to wind people up, as him having true belief in these devices would severely diminish my respect for him as a designer of some very good audio components.
The fight goes on
If you understand thermodynamics and information theory then you will know that a Bybee must contain a Maxwell demon in order to separate signal and noise. That is all the evidence you need. If you don't understand the relevant science then the evidence has already gone over your head.Joshua_G said:
It is quite normal on this site for the scientifically illiterate to demand 'proof' of something which they don't understand and therefore assume others don't understand, while lacking the underlying knowledge to understand the 'proof'. Like someone who has never heard of crystal lattices or dislocations or phonons demanding 'proof' that metals tend to be ohmic conductors.
But if you used it on a secret sonar job you would not be allowed to tell us!marce said:
I think our friend from Lancashire has just let the cat out of the bag. Bybee's do work, and are used in secret military systems. Someone accidentally got the paperwork wrong and allowed some external sales, so now people like marce have been instructed to rubbish them on public websites as a damage limitation exercise.
Oops, I have just heard a knock on the do
I went through three stages. I think you're still at Stage 2.
Stage 1: He's sincere, having been deluded by a skilled con artist, and not remembering enough physics to know better.
Stage 2: He knows better, but uses this as an attention-getting tool.
Stage 3: He is operating under severe threat by the Illuminati/Zionist cabal revealed at the Pleiadian site.
I suggest that the fundamentalistic 'scientists', having now resorted to inflammatory ridicule, may like to read the contents of the report given on this link:
Science, Ridicule and Redemption | The Resilient Earth
Science, Ridicule and Redemption | The Resilient Earth
Actually, you can buy current sensing resistors in that value- this is what I used as my reference when I did the measurements and analysis.
A less-honest person would buy one of these (I got mine at Digikey or Mouser, can't remember which), put it in a tube, then pack the tube with fumed silica. it won't affect the electrical performance, but now you can truthfully advertise that it contains nanotechnology and crystals. The whistling guy at Stereophile would love it.
A less-honest person would buy one of these (I got mine at Digikey or Mouser, can't remember which), put it in a tube, then pack the tube with fumed silica. it won't affect the electrical performance, but now you can truthfully advertise that it contains nanotechnology and crystals. The whistling guy at Stereophile would love it.
brianco,
I have read of this discovery before. The treatment by the group he was working with is puzzling as there was physical proof of this discovery. It is obvious that others in other branches of science did believe what was shown and had done the same basic research through other types of science such as advanced mathematical modeling. Why it took so long to provide the proof is hard to understand since it seems it would be easy to reproduce the results. I know of the group Technion as my grandfather was involved with that group and this group included Albert Einstein, an acquaintance of my grandfather. I do believe in science and the evolution of ideas over time. But even here it is evident that the underlying science had backers in other branches of science.
Why nobody else would even look through the electron microscope where the original discovery was made is the most troubling part of that entire story? It should have been an aha moment for the entire staff, not a we won't even look at your evidence! That is very troubling to me. There was real physical evidence to back up the claims of a discovery.
Just as a personal aside, I was once told by Bayer Material Science that a project that I was asked to do by Morton Thyocol was impossible. They had attempted to create the material in their own labs and were unsuccessful at doing that. I took the challenge anyway, I loved a challenge and was successful at creating this material. It rook some time but it worked, we made prototype parts for a solid fuel rocket. I sent samples of the finished material to Bayer and when they asked how I did it I told them very tongue in cheek that the gravity in California was different than in Pittsburgh! I never would reveal the secret to how we made it work to them, it was something we kept to ourselves. But they did have to acknowledge that it could be done. there was a real sample to prove the concept.
I have read of this discovery before. The treatment by the group he was working with is puzzling as there was physical proof of this discovery. It is obvious that others in other branches of science did believe what was shown and had done the same basic research through other types of science such as advanced mathematical modeling. Why it took so long to provide the proof is hard to understand since it seems it would be easy to reproduce the results. I know of the group Technion as my grandfather was involved with that group and this group included Albert Einstein, an acquaintance of my grandfather. I do believe in science and the evolution of ideas over time. But even here it is evident that the underlying science had backers in other branches of science.
Why nobody else would even look through the electron microscope where the original discovery was made is the most troubling part of that entire story? It should have been an aha moment for the entire staff, not a we won't even look at your evidence! That is very troubling to me. There was real physical evidence to back up the claims of a discovery.
Just as a personal aside, I was once told by Bayer Material Science that a project that I was asked to do by Morton Thyocol was impossible. They had attempted to create the material in their own labs and were unsuccessful at doing that. I took the challenge anyway, I loved a challenge and was successful at creating this material. It rook some time but it worked, we made prototype parts for a solid fuel rocket. I sent samples of the finished material to Bayer and when they asked how I did it I told them very tongue in cheek that the gravity in California was different than in Pittsburgh! I never would reveal the secret to how we made it work to them, it was something we kept to ourselves. But they did have to acknowledge that it could be done. there was a real sample to prove the concept.
Last edited:
Just what is "scientific proof"? If in your mind the second law of thermodydamics is not yet "proven" then you have/offer no model of proof of any principle. If you don't care to research just how fundamental the claims are you are not doing due diligence to support one or the other side of the arguement.
Scott,
He never sites any real scientific fact, he only argues semantics. We all know by now he has no real clue what he speaks of but puts up a good fight for a proof to a negative. Fundamental science does not sway him, that is a fact! As you say what is a scientific proof, he never will answer that question, only insist that none of us understand and are just blinded by our biases. He is just another shill on all the posts I have seen him make, they never have anything but his own anecdotal observations that he wants others to take as fact, a real hypocrite in that sense. I'm really tired of his replies at this point, they are pointless. We seem to have these people on so many different threads, the true believers and deniers of fact.
He does not accept basic scientific laws or this argument would have been over and done. he just likes to see how he can rebut anything with circuitous logic. He is not here to learn anything, he is just here to stir the pot.
It is no different than John who says he has a degree in physics keeps slipping Bybee into the conversation. He knows better but get so much negative attention every time he does it and says we just have to believe him that they work since he has been friends with Bybee for over twenty five years. what does that have to do with any real observable electrical result. He even admits that he can not measure any electrical results from the device, it is below the noise floor but he can hear the difference on his TV!
I think he has just run out of things to say, he wants the thread to continue on, otherwise he looses him platform.
He never sites any real scientific fact, he only argues semantics. We all know by now he has no real clue what he speaks of but puts up a good fight for a proof to a negative. Fundamental science does not sway him, that is a fact! As you say what is a scientific proof, he never will answer that question, only insist that none of us understand and are just blinded by our biases. He is just another shill on all the posts I have seen him make, they never have anything but his own anecdotal observations that he wants others to take as fact, a real hypocrite in that sense. I'm really tired of his replies at this point, they are pointless. We seem to have these people on so many different threads, the true believers and deniers of fact.
He does not accept basic scientific laws or this argument would have been over and done. he just likes to see how he can rebut anything with circuitous logic. He is not here to learn anything, he is just here to stir the pot.
It is no different than John who says he has a degree in physics keeps slipping Bybee into the conversation. He knows better but get so much negative attention every time he does it and says we just have to believe him that they work since he has been friends with Bybee for over twenty five years. what does that have to do with any real observable electrical result. He even admits that he can not measure any electrical results from the device, it is below the noise floor but he can hear the difference on his TV!
I think he has just run out of things to say, he wants the thread to continue on, otherwise he looses him platform.
Last edited:
Sy,
That is just because you don't have a quantum analyzer. you just missed all the negative and positive quantum states! What am I doing up at this hour I don't know, couldn't sleep and this continues on. Only 150 more posts to 5000. Time to retire this thread and start a new one and leave John to his own devices.
That is just because you don't have a quantum analyzer. you just missed all the negative and positive quantum states! What am I doing up at this hour I don't know, couldn't sleep and this continues on. Only 150 more posts to 5000. Time to retire this thread and start a new one and leave John to his own devices.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.