I think N-rays are more relevant.jihn curl said:
You can't just wave away existing knowledge with a 'seem to'.Joshua_G said:
Something which non-scientists never seem to grasp is that scientists are delighted when what they learnt at university is replaced by a better theory. However, almost always this better theory includes the old theory as a limiting case. Such advances are most unlikely to originate from audio, and are also most unlikely to have an immediate application in audio.
That is why when someone claims to have a gizmo which violates thermodynamics (by distinguishing signal from noise) which allegedly arises from secret military research (so he can't tell us how it does it) and includes unknown special materials and costs a lot of money, we tend to be suspicious. We have actually given it more credence than it deserves; we should have simply ignored it and filed it with all the other Fourier-deniers and Shannon-deniers and Maxwell-deniers. Sadly, that could have given the impression that it might actually work so people might have bought it. Bybee has two choices: he can continue to sell only to those with lots of money and little understanding, or he can come clean and tell us how he thinks it works.
Even basic high school science would give you enough knowledge to dismiss the claims of the Bybee fraud, many on here have the knowledge to say whether the Bybee claims are true or not, the educated say not.
JC instead of sprouting empty comments provide some real information please.
All this rhetoric of yours is no substitute to neither scientific proof nor to scientific disproof.
You are in no position to dictate to Jack Bybee what to do, or how to do whatever he does.
All you can do is expose the degree to which you are shaken from within - which you do very well.
All this rhetoric of yours is no substitute to neither scientific proof nor to scientific disproof.
Joshua, I'm not here to do battle with anyone but I am curious of your experience with the Bybee devices. As you're no doubt aware, I own a pair and did extensive subjective testing of them. Because of the cost, I really wanted them to work. I wanted them to 'show me light'. I think you'll remember I found them to be disappointing in that there was not a discernible difference in or out of circuit. If you are a supporter of the product and believe in the claimed properties, I am more than willing to part with mine. We can discuss this through PM if you like.
Joshua,
At this point it is useless trying to inform you of any facts, you are obviously lacking in basic high school science and physics, you have nothing to add but more BS. If you can not believe Scott Wurcer who is a trained electronics expert or JN who works with super conductivity and other things far over your head then no argument or fact will satisfy you. They have addressed all of the marketing points given by Bybee and discredited each with sound scientific reasoning. You just refuse to believe fact.
I do believe that you think the sun revolves around the Earth as you have never see anything that shows you proof otherwise. You are a true scientific heretic. Delusional is the word.
John Curl has a definite hand in all of this and is hiding behind name recognition and nothing else. He can present no scientific reasoning that these BS devices can work in any sense. He knows better and must be getting remuneration in some way, otherwise this is just discrediting his real work in the audio field.
At this point it is useless trying to inform you of any facts, you are obviously lacking in basic high school science and physics, you have nothing to add but more BS. If you can not believe Scott Wurcer who is a trained electronics expert or JN who works with super conductivity and other things far over your head then no argument or fact will satisfy you. They have addressed all of the marketing points given by Bybee and discredited each with sound scientific reasoning. You just refuse to believe fact.
I do believe that you think the sun revolves around the Earth as you have never see anything that shows you proof otherwise. You are a true scientific heretic. Delusional is the word.
John Curl has a definite hand in all of this and is hiding behind name recognition and nothing else. He can present no scientific reasoning that these BS devices can work in any sense. He knows better and must be getting remuneration in some way, otherwise this is just discrediting his real work in the audio field.
> He knows better and must be getting remuneration in some way,
> otherwise this is just discrediting his real work in the audio field.
It's all Mark Levinson's fault for screwing up John's fiscal psyche !
> otherwise this is just discrediting his real work in the audio field.
It's all Mark Levinson's fault for screwing up John's fiscal psyche !
Yes, he does know better, I cannot accept that he's stupid enough to believe this garbage.
No, I seriously doubt that he's getting remuneration (other than a few car rides and a couple of lunches); he's in this for the attention.
Guys, would you get off my back? I believe, because I have listened, AND I have known Jack for almost 20 years. I also have a BA in Physics, so there! Sorry Joshua for leaving you alone here.
Sy,
At least the guy who was selling the Pet Rock wasn't trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes! The Bybee is like those hucksters selling magnets to go in your shoes or on your wrist saying they would cure some diseases. Hard to disprove that but those with any sense would understand the claims are just ridiculous on there face.
At least the guy who was selling the Pet Rock wasn't trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes! The Bybee is like those hucksters selling magnets to go in your shoes or on your wrist saying they would cure some diseases. Hard to disprove that but those with any sense would understand the claims are just ridiculous on there face.
Guys, this is just another troll who pops in from time to time when he feels the need for some more attention.
Resist the bait.
Resist the bait.
I think your bar-room psychoanalysis might be better appreciated on other websites. Shaken? Not at all; I have known for a long time that some people make their living by selling things which current science says do not and cannot work as claimed.Joshua_G said:
For example, it was common in the 1950s and 60s to sell 'miracle aerials' for radio sets; these consisted of an old paper capacitor attached to a short piece of wire. They picked up signals, as any conductor would, but no better than a slightly longer (and much cheaper) piece of plain wire. People bought them, even though anyone who knew anything about radio knew that the accompanying 'story' was written for marketing rather than engineering purposes.
Cliff,
Your right, I've seen him in other threads doing the same thing.
What we have here are Nano Sieves that are tuned to only remove unwanted noise and have music discrimination properties! 😀
Your right, I've seen him in other threads doing the same thing.
What we have here are Nano Sieves that are tuned to only remove unwanted noise and have music discrimination properties! 😀
Joshua, I don't know whether it is worth it to take such savage criticism from the 'hear no difference' crowd. If you are OK with it, then I am too.
It is very frustrating for me to offer evidence and have it rejected without proof that there is anything wrong with it. It is also surprising that many here can not just 'leave it alone', but so it goes!
It is very frustrating for me to offer evidence and have it rejected without proof that there is anything wrong with it. It is also surprising that many here can not just 'leave it alone', but so it goes!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.