He's a day trader now, say no more. Probably working on a new theory of noise and velocity of money.
Most noise comes from within -
Since there is so little real substance going on here -- I'll bring you all to the future -- in this case 2006.
The base line is upper right.... incoming noise from the utility company.... clean. But any product you turn on - see the CD and CPU example shown -- like TV and digital products and every other thing in the home -- puts noise onto the ac line. The noise is conducted directly onto the ac line.
The spectrums are of 'live' ac power on the ac line cords of the plugged in products. When they are off... base line again. The lower right is a filter that also gives a base line spectrum when the product is plugged into it for power.... no added noise on the ac power lines. Noise does not, by and large, come from outside the home. (I suppose this will be something new to find new tangents to go off on).
--Thx RNM
Since there is so little real substance going on here -- I'll bring you all to the future -- in this case 2006.
The base line is upper right.... incoming noise from the utility company.... clean. But any product you turn on - see the CD and CPU example shown -- like TV and digital products and every other thing in the home -- puts noise onto the ac line. The noise is conducted directly onto the ac line.
The spectrums are of 'live' ac power on the ac line cords of the plugged in products. When they are off... base line again. The lower right is a filter that also gives a base line spectrum when the product is plugged into it for power.... no added noise on the ac power lines. Noise does not, by and large, come from outside the home. (I suppose this will be something new to find new tangents to go off on).
--Thx RNM
Last edited:
I think this had to do with Auntie Enid Lumley, which was very scared abouth the sound influence of digital clocks, so George Tice had a solution for her.
Tice made also Main Power stabilizer for a few 1000 bucks to get better sound.
My problem was always that i could not hear the better sound, since the mechanical humming of the main transformers in the Tice Units was so loud and masked everything coming out of the speakers.
And you have a physics degree? I think you must have enjoyed the 60's too much, so that your critical faculties became degraded. The only question in my mind is whether Tice was fooling himself.john curl said:
Of course, all this talk of smoothing electrons sounds a bit like another strange device, but at least that one looked vaguely like an electronic component and you could hook it up to a test circuit. Less obviously silly than a cheap clock with a magic coating!
Which is a sign of humbleness and decency. Not bad virtues even for physicists.
There is a significant difference between naive gullibility, and "humbleness and decency". 'Humility' listens to people, considers what they say and then reaches a reasoned conclusion; gullibility believes them however daft their claim. Strangely, some gullible people are more likely to believe a daft claim than a sensible claim because it supports their need to be outside the mainstream.
'Decency' gives someone the benefit of the doubt; their daft idea might just be the result of ignorance rather than sophistry. Unlike others, I don't automatically assume that Tice is a huckster.
'Decency' gives someone the benefit of the doubt; their daft idea might just be the result of ignorance rather than sophistry. Unlike others, I don't automatically assume that Tice is a huckster.
OK, perhaps I should withdraw the word 'automatically'. Others may have more evidence than me.
My main point still stands: decent humble people can still regard a daft claim as being daft without having to relinquish their decency or humility. Note that I said 'daft', not 'wrong'; these issues come into the category of 'not even wrong'.
I realise that in this postmodern world it is regarded as arrogant to make a truth claim, but all the technology that postmoderns rely on in order to carry on their 'discourse' is designed and built by people who necessarily work with truth about physical and mathematical objects.
My main point still stands: decent humble people can still regard a daft claim as being daft without having to relinquish their decency or humility. Note that I said 'daft', not 'wrong'; these issues come into the category of 'not even wrong'.
I realise that in this postmodern world it is regarded as arrogant to make a truth claim, but all the technology that postmoderns rely on in order to carry on their 'discourse' is designed and built by people who necessarily work with truth about physical and mathematical objects.
Glad to pick up the gauntlet on behalf of those of a postmodern persuasion (even if only myself
)So are you saying that those who don't make truth claims can't contribute to a technological society? Do please clarify, I scent a potentially illuminating dialogue
Those who don't believe in truth can only make a contribution by being inconsistent: acting as though they do believe in truth. For example, conservation of charge leads to Kirchoff's current law which is one of the foundational truths of electronics. If this is not true then electronics cannot be done. Electrons can't work one way for me and another way for you; they are not a social construct.
Those who believe in truth can make truth claims; others either can't make truth claims or have to be inconsistent in so doing. Of course, disbelief in truth claims is itself a truth claim so an inconsistency lies at the heart of postmodernism.
Those who believe in truth can make truth claims; others either can't make truth claims or have to be inconsistent in so doing. Of course, disbelief in truth claims is itself a truth claim so an inconsistency lies at the heart of postmodernism.
OK, on the face of it its an arrogant claim. Let's explore whether it actually holds up.
Ah I see your error already. Not believing in truth is not the same as disbelief in the truth of something. A postmodernist will say 'it works, why bother with whether its actually 'true' or not. Truth here is irrelevant.' Which is pretty much my rebuttal here.
Another truth claim. I'm not a physicist so I'll leave that to one side. Its a straw man btw to say 'electrons can't work one way for you and another for me'. Same error as you made just a moment ago.
No, you left out that they (postmodernists I mean) might make truth claims in jest - to enjoy their irony.
Thereby you make the same error a 3rd time - your understanding of postmodernism is obviously somewhat restricted. Try bringing yourself up to speed? PM me if you'd like a suggested reading list I'd rather not clog up the thread.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.