bigwill said:
You came a bit too late... this kind of market has started 25 years ago AT LEAST...
bigwill said:
Work, work! Tinpert has explained because they work and will work forever! 😀 😀 😀
Hi
Piercarlo
A question just rise now: is really possible listening music (or doing experiments or anything else) without expectancies about it, included the expectance of not having expectancies?
Piercarlo
Piercarlo
Dear moderators,
This forum has good, interesting, informative and legitimate threads. This is not one of them.
With your experience of the subject, and with your experience of audiofoolery, you KNOW AS A FACT that this thread is based on COMPLETE NONSENSE. To stop the forum looking quite stupid please STOP THIS THREAD HERE AND NOW.
Kind regards,
Gordon
This forum has good, interesting, informative and legitimate threads. This is not one of them.
With your experience of the subject, and with your experience of audiofoolery, you KNOW AS A FACT that this thread is based on COMPLETE NONSENSE. To stop the forum looking quite stupid please STOP THIS THREAD HERE AND NOW.
Kind regards,
Gordon
Gordy said:
As many others or as many "projects" born and died on simulators only ... Who is stupid? Which are your knows for judging something a "non-sense"? Are you engineer, physicist or similar?...
Just for know your credentials to mark me as "stupid".
Thanks
Piercarlo
Gordy, what makes this thread any different than the thousands of other threads on... speculative matters? As policiy, we do not inhibit discussion areas with the exception of politics, safety issues, and one another's personal shortcomings.
Now, let's see if Timpert is back with that pickle yet...
Now, let's see if Timpert is back with that pickle yet...
While for the immediate moment after reading the report of Piercarlo I thought nonsense, how could there be any difference but in the next moment I considered that perhaps there could be a difference, E.G. the tube picking up some energy, hash, noise whatever you wish to call it and then "polluting" the ground.
I don't think so but who am I to say there is no difference?
Many will say if you can't measure it then it does not exist but you can only measure known entities, what about the unknown?
Andrew
I don't think so but who am I to say there is no difference?
Many will say if you can't measure it then it does not exist but you can only measure known entities, what about the unknown?
Andrew
Maybe, but it IS amusing, and I needed a good laugh. I have only so much experimenting time and I know that this would never make my list. Well, maybe I can improve the sound of my plastic computer speakers by putting a tube inside. I don't know if the poor tube can handle all of the 200 watts of IPMP (powered by a tiny wall wart).
OK, speaking of questionable experiments, I can state from experience.... Do NOT connect a pickle or a banana across the paddles of a defribrillator and discharge it.....unless you like cleaning up a BIG mess!
This is absoutely based on a fallacy as tubes are CYLINDRICAL and it has been known since Egyptian times amplifiers perform best when enclosed in a PYRAMID as was conclusively demonstrated at GLASTONBURY in a CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.
w
Ebeneezer Goode
w
Ebeneezer Goode
This is my last post in this thread. I wish to point out some aspect about the approach to unusual arguments which may esulate some kind of "orthodoxy".
If someone propose an experiment of any kind, enough specified in details for being freely replicated by anyone, confutation, in absence of any previous counter-experiments, should be done executing the experiment itself and reporting the result. This was done correctly only by Timpert, which has reported strong counter-results to my claims. Counter-results which I accept JUST BECAUSE they are result of the same kind of experiment i call to do. I call just for a "bean-test" and I've obtained it.
Any different approach, as that of some "role-players" in skeptical fashion (that is NOT a genuine skeptical attitude: this was adopted only by Tinpert and, less evident, by the moderator which AT LEAST has suggested some alternative explanations), is just a way for passing-trough as "objective" that are just opinion if not prejudicies at all.
Gordy, with his call to the censorship of moderator, appear at me as a clear example of this kind of "role-playing". I've got strong doubts about it's understanding of the ground questions posed in my post. I suspect that him has understood nothing at all of that I wrote in. Nonetheless he feel himself "authorized" to mark the argument as stupid and call for a direct censoring action - the closing of a thread, nothing of less heavy. Why? Pheraps - it's my opinion - because behind his asserted "skepticism" he hide simply dogmatism: science is not a system of knowing progressing on experiments - also WRONG experiments if needed - but just an other machinery building "unfaultable" certainties to be kept "clean" from contamination - the Errors! Arrrrrggggh! - of any kind may be.
Peoples with the attitude of Gordy are very dangerous because they don't help anyone to understand true errors and growing out of its, but make others "guilty" of their mistakes, chasing them directly in the arms of new-agers and, under the appearance of defending the science, contribute effectively to the growth of that armies which of the science are fiercely enemies.
Hi and good night
Piercarlo
If someone propose an experiment of any kind, enough specified in details for being freely replicated by anyone, confutation, in absence of any previous counter-experiments, should be done executing the experiment itself and reporting the result. This was done correctly only by Timpert, which has reported strong counter-results to my claims. Counter-results which I accept JUST BECAUSE they are result of the same kind of experiment i call to do. I call just for a "bean-test" and I've obtained it.
Any different approach, as that of some "role-players" in skeptical fashion (that is NOT a genuine skeptical attitude: this was adopted only by Tinpert and, less evident, by the moderator which AT LEAST has suggested some alternative explanations), is just a way for passing-trough as "objective" that are just opinion if not prejudicies at all.
Gordy, with his call to the censorship of moderator, appear at me as a clear example of this kind of "role-playing". I've got strong doubts about it's understanding of the ground questions posed in my post. I suspect that him has understood nothing at all of that I wrote in. Nonetheless he feel himself "authorized" to mark the argument as stupid and call for a direct censoring action - the closing of a thread, nothing of less heavy. Why? Pheraps - it's my opinion - because behind his asserted "skepticism" he hide simply dogmatism: science is not a system of knowing progressing on experiments - also WRONG experiments if needed - but just an other machinery building "unfaultable" certainties to be kept "clean" from contamination - the Errors! Arrrrrggggh! - of any kind may be.
Peoples with the attitude of Gordy are very dangerous because they don't help anyone to understand true errors and growing out of its, but make others "guilty" of their mistakes, chasing them directly in the arms of new-agers and, under the appearance of defending the science, contribute effectively to the growth of that armies which of the science are fiercely enemies.
Hi and good night
Piercarlo
Piercarlo said:
Piercarlo said:
For the record, I saw the thread as going adrift, not you personally. My words were not personal. However it appears that your words are personal against me. That is unfortunate.
Obviously my 45 years of experience in this life, including a 29 year career in engineering, count for nothing.
Some people work from the premise that 'you have to try it to know it', and they blindly apply that premise to absolutely everything without qualification, common-sense or reason. Whereas other people work from the premise that they have learned and understood enough about the world to know when to take an open approach and when to reject Grade-A nonsense. I follow the latter premise.
Piercarlo said:
Yeah, right...
Andrewbee said:
You have fully understood my thoughts. Really, when posting my first message, i had not an explanation of any and posting was just a call to someone more instructed of me for getting me some clues in order to sort out of the mess. Timpert, for now, is the only what returned a response after replicating the experiments.
I'd have not any true "pre-responses" of mine but just some workable ipothesis based on my not too strongs knows on electrostatic and fields view as energy carriers. Working ipothesis that are just equivalent to the "identikits" used by policemen in their jobs: may be correct, may be wrong but at the moment are just that the convent passed through its doors.
Note that i've not claimed for unknown energies or similar hoaxes: i've just claimed for a possible neglected aspect of an otherwise largely known class of phenomena. This because nowadays, genuine (NOT tricker...) phenomena should be considered really unknown as a last resort: often are simply particularities, about that none has paid any attention before, of generally well known kind of phenomena. Seldom things are more than this.
Timpert results seem to favouring the responses that the "unusual phenomenon" is just the usual self-suggestion. But if I'd have not posted my message - or if this thread was censored at start - pheraps I would not knew my mistakes so quickly as has been. In this kind of evenements the really danger is not the believing in some improbable cause of effects but just the convinction of having some plausible, "normal" explanation about things that often are just plain mistakes. The useful of other peoples is just their ability to view things that we are mementarily unable to see.
Hi and good night again
Piercarlo
.
Gordy said:
I.e. the most economic premise (engineers are the same at any corner of the world! 🙂 ) . Sometime may be advantadgeous sometime may be not. But starting from this and going to call for a censoring action, the step appear, imho, a bit eccessive.
agree?
Piercarlo
I invited the Big-Foot tribe over (seems they're living just down the road a piece from us lately in the Georgia hills) to listen to my latest tube circuit mods, but they started stomping on the equipment and one of them ate the tubes. Guess they didn't like it.
Don
Don
Piercarlo
Gordy is not dangerous. If he is like many of us, he is impatient with fending off ridiculous suggestions for experiments with no foundation in current theory, whose authors provide no substantiation for their ideas and who seem to wish to berate those of us better qualified to judge for our failure to entertain some self-doubt. You misunderstand the situation. The things that we doubt, you haven't even heard of yet, and may never, if you don't learn to keep your mouth shut and listen. Before you can extend the frontier, first you must find the frontier.
Believe me, it is as likely that putting your amplifier in a pyramid will improve it's performance as will connecting all the pins of a valve to its ground. The suggestion is so absurd that many probably suspect that your post is indeed the work of some new-age agent provacateur.
Have a bit of humility. Why would a bunch of experts like us want to waste our time on a stupid goes-nowhere experiment whose outcome is obvious to a mere imbecile? Look around - there are people making real suggestions and having real arguments, to neither of which are you presently able to contribute.
w
Gordy is not dangerous. If he is like many of us, he is impatient with fending off ridiculous suggestions for experiments with no foundation in current theory, whose authors provide no substantiation for their ideas and who seem to wish to berate those of us better qualified to judge for our failure to entertain some self-doubt. You misunderstand the situation. The things that we doubt, you haven't even heard of yet, and may never, if you don't learn to keep your mouth shut and listen. Before you can extend the frontier, first you must find the frontier.
Believe me, it is as likely that putting your amplifier in a pyramid will improve it's performance as will connecting all the pins of a valve to its ground. The suggestion is so absurd that many probably suspect that your post is indeed the work of some new-age agent provacateur.
Have a bit of humility. Why would a bunch of experts like us want to waste our time on a stupid goes-nowhere experiment whose outcome is obvious to a mere imbecile? Look around - there are people making real suggestions and having real arguments, to neither of which are you presently able to contribute.
w
- Status
- Not open for further replies.