Quote:

Quote:
An extremely bright and influential professor ... reminded us that the most brilliant quantuum physicists understood that the forces holding together our atomic building blocks could not be explained as the same forces that held together our universe.

We're talking about audio fer chrissake, not particle physics! Everything that matters with audio has been fully understood for more than 60 years. Just because some people here don't understand it doesn't mean that nobody understands it!

--Ethan

What it means is if even the greatest physicists and philosophers can accept fallibility and humility in themselves and their concepts, then so too might room treatment salesmen. Maybe.

Quote:
What it means is if even the greatest physicists and philosophers can accept fallibility and humility in themselves and their concepts, then so too might room treatment salesmen. Maybe.

Sure, I'm not infallible and I never said I was. But I need some evidence that I'm wrong about this.

BTW, I am not a salesman. I suck at sales. I have no interest in selling stuff. I'm much happier writing and playing music, and arguing about audio on the Internet.

--Ethan

Quote:
The 'Maxwell's equations' that everyone has been taught have nothing to do with Maxwell's work.

They are entirely a fabrication.

They are entirely a fabrication? They, both Maxwell's equations and his works, or just one of them?
I don't know anything about what you are referring to regarding Maxwell's works, but from my experience in testing radar antenna on a nearfield range I have found that both Maxwell and that other guy, Fourier have come up with some very usefull equations that correlate very well with real world results.

Quote:
...Lost to the idea of everything needing a label. ...

Science is not like this. But psychology/psychiatry looks like this, imo.

Quote:
This is excruciatingly common in the realm of linear thinkers, who enter engineering and science fields. This systematic and syncopated system suits their overall rote memory retention system. Eidetic recall becomes the vaunted goal..and creativity ends up in the trashbin, as it does not fit the system. If the past is fixed..how does the future guide itself from this realm of the present?

What in your education tells you this is so?

Quote:
This is excruciatingly common in the realm of linear thinkers, who enter engineering and science fields. This systematic and syncopated system suits their overall rote memory retention system. Eidetic recall becomes the vaunted goal..and creativity ends up in the trashbin, as it does not fit the system. If the past is fixed..how does the future guide itself from this realm of the present?

Please enlighten us with your improved method.
Myself I used nonlinear thinking. At first I considered using exponential thinking but after further consideration I went with random. And not with that crappy pseudo
random.

Quote:
As an example, the very functions of the idea of electrical considerations take place on the quantum and particle level, to create the idea and example of Newtonian measurements. Fluctuations and slight changes from that norm are dismissed as measurement anomalies. Careful!

Yes, be careful is correct. If you're saying that there are effects beyond the macro, Newtonian realm, of course. The question is how big is that effect? Usually the effect is so small that it's negligible. How small before things become negligible? That depends upon each instance or situation at hand. Do molecular level effects matter at audio frequencies in a cable? Not very likely, especially for a power cable. But I would remain open to the possibility that some effects may be important that have not been previously considered.

Quote:
Please enlighten us with your improved method. ...

Sorry, cyclebrain. I don't understand. I was not advocating any improved method.

Quote:
By the same token, if one clings to a belief system which disproves or rejects its own truths every generation or so, how can one then disparage a religion founded on core beliefs from ancient inception? Which has the greater claim to validity?

In my view, science is NOT a belief system. Concepts are supposed to be continually tested for "correctness" as judged by whether any particular concept can be verified, sometimes over and over. When new information is found that better explains what was previously not well explained, then that's an improvement to the understanding, but not a change in the method. The so-called 'truth' improves.

Religion is based upon old tenets that are not readily testable or verifiable, or not intended to be tested or verified. That is why it is a belief system. It's the, "I believe it, therefore it's the truth.", a different thing altogether from science.

It's interesting that some of the most famous scientists are religious.

Quote:
> WTL:
> I too still am skeptical, but credible people have made the claim of audible
> difference despite your (and many others') logic that the last 6 feet is
> unlikely to make a difference.

Nonsense. Name one.

Sorry for getting back to you late.

A friend of mine tried the larger gauge power cord and reported what he heard. I consider him highly credible.

Did he do a side-by-side test with two identical units with different power cords? No. Did he do a blind test? No. Was he fooled by his own ears? Maybe, or maybe not. It was a while ago and I don't remember how big a difference he reported. I'll ask him the next time I talk with him.

I still remain skeptical, until I try this for myself.

Quote:
It certainly makes a difference on tonearm wiring. This even I could hear easily.

Jim,

My experience matches yours in that tonearm wiring made a huge difference. I would attribute about 2/3 of the improvement to the act of changing the tonearm wiring, and 1/3 of the improvement to the act of changing the interconnect cable. Again, the caveat is that more than just wiring was changed (solder joints, lead dress, length of wire, location of wires, twisting of wires, etc.).

Quote:

Quote:
Please enlighten us with your improved method. ...

Sorry, cyclebrain. I don't understand. I was not advocating any improved method.

My bad. That reply was in response to a post from KBK about the current education method for new engineers.

> It's interesting that some of the most famous scientists are religious.

Do you mean currently alive scientists and do you mean traditional religious belief in the contents of the bible/koran/...?

Until fairly recently, and then only in some parts of the world, not proclaiming a belief in whatever is/was the prevailing religion of the region would cause a scientist problems in their work.

Scientists as a whole are much less likely to believe in god compared to the general population. More here:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

--Ethan

Quote:
My bad. That reply was in response to a post from KBK about the current education method for new engineers.

Thank for the clarification; I thought I was losing it.

Quote:
Poster: andy19191
Subject: Re: After you plugged in those $1,000 wires...

> It's interesting that some of the most famous scientists are religious.

Do you mean currently alive scientists and do you mean traditional religious belief in the contents of the bible/koran/...?

Until fairly recently, and then only in some parts of the world, not proclaiming a belief in whatever is/was the prevailing religion of the region would cause a scientist problems in their work.

Andy19191,

The one that comes to mind is Einstein. Several of my professors were religious, attending church regularly.

Your point about some regions of the world needing proclaimation of having a belief is well taken. It's also true in some parts of this country as well. Like: "What, you don't go to church?"

> The one that comes to mind is Einstein.

Indeed. But if you read what Einstein actually said about his "religious" beliefs as opposed to what others said or assumed they were? Does that line up with anything normally called religion?

Quote:
> The one that comes to mind is Einstein.

Indeed. But if you read what Einstein actually said about his "religious" beliefs as opposed to what others said or assumed they were? Does that line up with anything normally called religion?

You mean like NASCAR?

Quote:

Quote:
Poster: andy19191
Subject: Re: After you plugged in those $1,000 wires...

> It's interesting that some of the most famous scientists are religious.

Do you mean currently alive scientists and do you mean traditional religious belief in the contents of the bible/koran/...?

Until fairly recently, and then only in some parts of the world, not proclaiming a belief in whatever is/was the prevailing religion of the region would cause a scientist problems in their work.

Andy19191,

The one that comes to mind is Einstein. Several of my professors were religious, attending church regularly.

Your point about some regions of the world needing proclaimation of having a belief is well taken. It's also true in some parts of this country as well. Like: "What, you don't go to church?"

Exactly where in the U.S. are scientists made to feel uneasy or threatened about not going to church? The opposite has been true in totalitarian regimes, but I've only heard of anecdotal cases where professors at some Christian colleges (that hired staff with an expectation they would represent the religious culture of the institution) were pressured to resign. And then always for extenuating political or personal reasons that usually had nothing to do with teaching science.

Quote:
Exactly where in the U.S. are scientists made to feel uneasy or threatened about not going to church? The opposite has been true in totalitarian regimes, but I've only heard of anecdotal cases where professors at some Christian colleges (that hired staff with an expectation they would represent the religious culture of the institution) were pressured to resign. And then always for extenuating political or personal reasons that usually had nothing to do with teaching science.

Sorry, I wrote about two things at once. The first part was about the scientists.

The second was about the general thought that some parts of the world on could be in trouble if not politically or religiously correct, which is how I interpreted your writing. The reference to USA is that in some communities where nearly everyone goes to church, and if one does not, one is looked upon with suspicion. Sometimes it's not communities, but individuals asking the question too.

Edit:

Maybe we should get back to the "$1000" cable issue.

Maxwell's full field Equations are actually Twenty Equations in Twenty unknowns.

They allow for and have a specific consideration of an inherent spin (multi-axis) and action that is asymmetrical.

This proper treatsie was changed and dumbed own by Heaviside very nearly before Maxwell's last breath ran out of him. Maxwell's name was left on the brutally short and near useless version.

This is the basis of current physics involving field and propogation. It's in all texts,and taught in all schools, universities and such.

Yet it has nothing to do with Maxwell..and 90% of the work..which is vitally important to understand what is going on today, with respects to validating all the work in cold fusion and other contested and ridiculed sciences...

....was left on the floor by Heaviside. Understand?

Scientists say that the 'math does not allow'.

They aren't even using the correct math.

This math is the underpinnings of how Tesla did all the amazing things he did, which is why the government and special interests were literally waiting, every day (near the end), to the second, to rape and pillage his papers, like they did..the very day and nearly the same hour he died.

It explains the mechanics of gravitation, unification of forces, and the linearity and unidirectionality of time.

Which is why the original copies of Maxwell's work, before the dawn of the internet..went for over $5000.00 each.

JP Morgan didn't want any of that to get out, and ruin his run on creating a new energy empire that required everyone to come to him.

So he hired Lorentz to remove the remaining asymmetricality (in the works that had already been reduced by over 90% for those very reasons), paid for it's publication and insertion into the system and universities, including support by the biggest names, publications and schools... and he destroyed Tesla.

Which is why it's been taking over 100 years to pull ourselves out of this purposely perpetrated lie.

Like Marion Barry, Tesla said, 'Bitch set me up'.

I'll end my little tirade with one more little bit that you might find interesting.

Einstein. Most people in western society, with a bit of math and science..are aware of this next point. Einstein put together a 'Unified Field Theory'.

He DID publish it. It WAS in a magazine, a magazine of his field. The story goes..that he withdrew it, as it was 'incorrect'.

Here's where it gets interesting. As the most celebrated physicist of his time....even a failed Formulation and theory would be of the most incredible and immense interest.

Find a copy of it.

In order to understand how Heaviside simplified the form of Maxwell's equations, it's necessary to look at a bit of the history of mathematics regarding vector calculus. Back when Maxwell originally did his work, what we now refer to as vector calculus did not exist. At that time, such mathematical relationships were described using quaternions, originally created by Hamilton. The operations of vector calculus (divergence, curl, etc.) were developed by Heaviside and Gibbs, and eventually replaced quaternions in most applications, after much controversy. The reasons for this were mostly practical. In most cases the same mathematical relationships expressed by quaternions could be expressed much more simply using the vector notation.

What Heaviside did was to express the exact same mathematical relationships that Maxwell did, only in terms of vector calculus instead of quaternions. The resulting equations ended up in a much more simple form. This was not due to any loss of information, but rather reflects the economy of expression of vector calculus compared to the earlier quaternion notation. Such economy of expression is the very reason that vector calculus "won out" over quaternions for most applications so long ago.

KBK has grossly misrepresented this situation.

Quote:

For instance, I have great faith in Newtonian physics. Those laws have been applicable since the universe was a pup and will likely continue to be. Along comes Einstein and points out that adjustments must be made when we are approaching light speed. Fair enough. We've done that and his theory, albeit a law now perhaps?, holds up. Einstein didn't disprove Newtonian physics, he just fine tuned it. I am relatively (pun intended) sure that gravity is a law...started out as a hunch likely...that just may withstand the rigors of scientific challenges. Seems to this old boy that the law of gravity has been sufficiently proved.

Er, your characterization of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics is not quite correct. Einstein did not "fine tune" Newton, he overthrew him.

For example, one of the basic tenets of Newtonian physics is the notion of absolute space and absolute time. Einstein showed that these were not separate entities; rather, they were intertwined, and gravity serves to curve space-time. Newton had no idea about this at all.

We just live in a Universe where it appears that Newton's theories work, because we're slow enough that Einsteinian physics are too subtle to be noticed under ordinary circumstances.

PS Just as an fyi, a law is just a descriptor of a regularity, and has no explanatory power at all. A theory doesn't "evolve" into a law. For example, the law of gravity is observable, but in order to explain how it works (that is, why all massive particles are attracted to each other as a function of their mass and distance), we have theories about gluons, gravity waves, whatever . . .

Quote:
Exactly where in the U.S. are scientists made to feel uneasy or threatened about not going to church?

Generally it is not this specific.

For example, many high school biology teachers are threatened with their jobs, and even fired, for teaching evolution.

Science and religion do not conflict; they simply occupy different realms.

Atomic Decay - The process in which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by emitting radiation in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves. / In summary, we have presented evidence for a correlation between changes in nuclear decay rates and the Earth-Sun distance. While the mechanism responsible for this phenomenon is unknown, theories involving variations in fundamental constants could give rise to such effects."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3283v1.pdf

It's interesting that we can go to mechanics to describe such things. Universal models that require no quantum considerations in their formulation or use, do a better job of describing all un'numerated' (correlated with quantum mathematics) phenomena. And that they explain all known (observed directly-locally) phenomena is quite interesting, as well. Giant steps backward are not an unusual thing, in any endeavor.

As usual, the layerings of the world (social and self/outer realization) are deeper than the vast majority of people understand.

Suffice it to say, I won't speak on this anymore, and that is due to the earlier stated point about realizations within the self and how these affect and direct (with a great and unrealized level of force within the given individual) one's positions and stance in life. The words where written, and this is enough for someone to go forward and commit to research on the subject - if they desire. The point that the 'normalization' by Lorentz and Heaviside remove the inherent (minuscule-but vitally important) asymmetry in the math is what needed to be said.

I think that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. As one attempts to head into the outer realms of science..they tend to run headlong into religion. But specifically - not the western religions - but the far deeper and far older Eastern ones. Anyone with a smattering of understanding of science and religion realizes this..but the depth of the connection cannot be seen until one looks considerably deeper.

One of the greater sins (if you will) of science, as mentioned, is the lack of realization of the monkey at the controls with respects to the formulations, directions and general 'society (social-human groupings, etc)' of the scientific fields themselves.

By this ingrained blindness to the very social and human origins of science itself, as an origin in human thought - the scientist can be unknowingly led. It is a valiant attempt to defeat the monkey mechanism, but it must always be in mind that the monkey is deep inside. This can be and many times is the point of failure, with it comes to expecting the new out of science.

As a single sentence observation that is accessible to many as opposed to the few, one might say about "science":

Great with the math - shitty at the self realization. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

BTW, these seeming detours have everything to do with $1000 cables,as they show that quality and capacity observation of given individuals, as a skill, is not 'even' (from individual to individual) across the board. Thankfully, one can learn more, if they desire. But then one finds themselves running headlong into the pain of learning new things vs retaining the old..and the monkey inside steps in there and calls an angry halt to the process, insisting that the new take the same shape as the old, on order to keep the pleasure and comfort in life exactly where it is.

As a wise man once said:

I think, and I think, and I think, and I think, and I think, and I think, and I think....

..and the Monkey does what it wants."

I have always been under the impression the reason some folks forked over huge sums of money for cables was because they actually *thought* they sounded better.

It was the manufacturers of these cables who were involved in monkey bidness. Thanks for the confirmation.

RG

Quote:
Suffice it to say, I won't speak on this anymore

I doubt this will be the case.

Quote:
but it must always be in mind that the monkey is deep inside.

You really need to get that monkey off your back...or wherever it is lodged.

(m. jagger/k. richards)

Im a fleabit peanut monkey
All my friends are junkies
Thats not really true

Im a cold italian pizza
I could use a lemon squeezer
What you do?

But Ive been bit and Ive been tossed around
By every she-rat in this town
Have you, babe?

Well, I am just a monkey man
Im glad you are a monkey woman too

I was bitten by a boar
I was gouged and I was gored
But I pulled on through

Yes, Im a sack of broken eggs
I always have an unmade bed
Dont you?

Well, I hope were not too messianic
Or a trifle too satanic
We love to play the blues

Well I am just a monkey man
Im glad you are a monkey, monkey woman too, babe

Im a monkey
Im a monkey
Im a monkey man
Im a monkey man
Im a monkey...

Yesireebob, it's all about the music.

Quote:
Yesireebob, it's all about the music.

You bet. That's why we're here.

Quote:

Quote:
Yesireebob, it's all about the music.

You bet. That's why we're here.

I thought we were here to argue and call each other names?

Alex, you ignorant slut. That's exactly why I'm here.

Ethan, you whore, obviously you can't come up with an original thought, so you have to steal my ideas just like you steal all your other ideas. I bet you stole your cat too.

LOL, I paid $40 for The Bear at the local shelter 14 years ago. Best damn $40 I ever spent. Well, then add $4K for two surgeries a few years ago, and another god-knows-how-much for food and other vet visits over the years. I bet I have $20k into my fabulous little guy.

Still infinitely cheaper than kids.

Quote:
Ethan, you whore, obviously you can't come up with an original thought, so you have to steal my ideas just like you steal all your other ideas. I bet you stole your cat too.

Ah, a break in the philosophical/pseudo-scientific colonoscopy. Bravo.

Quote:
Ah, a break in the philosophical/pseudo-scientific colonoscopy. Bravo.

LOL!

The possibility for these structured light beams arises from some curious solutions to Maxwell