|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
In Reply to: RE: I suppose that's true posted by geoffkait on August 12, 2011 at 02:02:33
true and good to bail out if you don't have a theory nor an explanation nor even having thought of a rational experiment to prove the effect here on the planet (not that that's very hard to do)
Stu
Follow Ups:
So what? Theories and explanations are for skeptics, to be argued about until they're blue in the face. Besides, I always heard everyone loves a mystery. Are you saying that's not really true? LOL
You claim to be a theoretical physicist. Yet You propose NASA experiments which make no sense at all. You propose an experiment for which there is NO independent third party verification here on the planet, just anecdotal evidence at the very best.
Where is the theory, Mr. theoretical physicist? It is most convenient to give yourself "airs" and then bail out whenever the questioning becomes just moderately difficult. By your very own words and statements, it is obvious that you have done very little real thinking on the subject, but yet you want to stir up controversy just to keep your name in the limelight.
At least when I propose a tweak, I give the best educated explanation I can forward. I also give a much more detailed explanation of what I hear and why that may possibly be so.
But I guess Einstein was a skeptic and his theory was actually argued about, At least until Eddington showed one aspect of the theory to be true. Now if no theory is advanced, there can be no proof ever, is there? That way you can make any statement you want, no matter how ludicrous, and be Scott free in terms of creating a proof of any sorts.
Just more BS from a B.S., I guess....
Stu
Don't get all hung up on explanations, lad. Besides, as I keep trying to pound into your rather thick skull, the whole cryo cooler in space thing is just a mind experiment. The cryo cooler in space would not, and is not intended to, shed any light on how the photos in the freezer tweak works, only get a handle on how fast the effect occurs. Helpful hint Do try to take this whole thing a little more light-heartedly - remember, it's only a hobby. LOL Don't be a cube, rube. Go ape!Tootles
Edits: 08/13/11
to be a theoretical physicist, the first thing that has to penetrate through your questionable mental circuit is to first prove through third party observation that the effect actually works here on Earth. You have no proof, and certainly have not actually proved that it has any particularly demonstrable effect ( predictable in advance).
A simple experiment on the planet would be to send your photos to someone outside your city and have that person place the photos in his freezer at various times and for you to keep a log of when you detect a change in sound for the better. Obviously, there will be times when you may not be listening, but then whenever you do detect an improvement it should correspond almost 100% with the times when that person has your photos in the freezer.
Lets see confirming evidence that there is an effect first. Someone could just as easily claim the effect is due to UFO's.....What you are proposing is a totally unscientific nor rational experiment when the effect is not even proven ( I tried it and couldn't hear any difference whatsoever).
Stu
Stu
Apparently you didn't bother to read my article from the PWB newsletter that was linked earlier in the thread; otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous accusations and demands so typical of the frustrated, uninformed naysayer. And I strongly suspect you don't even know what the photos in the freezer tweak is so it's certainly no big surprise you couldn't hear it. LOLAn ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom
Edits: 08/16/11
I did read the article and I did read the original post on the Belt website.
Where there is discrepancy is by your very own writing where you state that the seal is necessary of the NASA freezer. That, in light that the seal is not even mentioned in your PWB letter, obviously points to major discrepancies in your own accounts. Now to promote a NASA experiment(!) and not to mention such factors would be criminal for a bona fide scientist, but yet you make changes to conditions for experimentation.
In earlier postings you claim a friend's cell phone miraculous cleared up in terms of reception when you placed his photo in a freezer and that from a noticeable distance. That has not been proved by a wide range of participants has it? It should be very easy to verify as many phones have indicators for signal strength and there are millions of users.
You claim increases in sound quality but you do not define the nature f the increase in sound quality to be expected. An increases in quality may be simply due to increased attention. As I state a ludicrously simple experiment would be to have you send your photos to a third party who will simply place your photos in and out his freezer over a month and then you keep a log of when you hear an increase in "sound quality" in your system. Comparing your log with the third party should show overlaps in the tested time frames.
As for your explanations: read Dawkin's Unweaving the Rainbow, and Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. You make up explanations for which there are no proofs; you drop names, as you accuse me of doing, but there is absolutely no substance to your claims at all. (C'mon, Einstein!: yeah his theory involves the inconstancy of time but to make major changes would involve such large masses that the nearby presence of a black hole would be of far greater consequence than the effects of time, at least given our current technology).
Now on this forum and others, you have proclaimed yourself to be a "THEORETICAL PHYSICIST". Let's see some real theory. Lets see some real third party uninvolved observer proof in a controlled environment.
Stu
"I did read the article and I did read the original post on the Belt website."Where there is discrepancy is by your very own writing where you state that the seal is necessary of the NASA freezer. That, in light that the seal is not even mentioned in your PWB letter, obviously points to major discrepancies in your own accounts. Now to promote a NASA experiment(!) and not to mention such factors would be criminal for a bona fide scientist, but yet you make changes to conditions for experimentation."
What are you going on about? I already told you - it's only a mind experiment. There is no discrepancy.
"In earlier postings you claim a friend's cell phone miraculous cleared up in terms of reception when you placed his photo in a freezer and that from a noticeable distance. That has not been proved by a wide range of participants has it? It should be very easy to verify as many phones have indicators for signal strength and there are millions of users."
You're confused - in earlier postings, the customer's phone cleared up because of the Teleportation Tweak, not the photos in the freezer tweak. Geez, try to keep up with the conversation. The photos in the freezer tweak in the article involved picture quality, not sound quality. Hell-ooo!
"You claim increases in sound quality but you do not define the nature of the increase in sound quality to be expected.
Well, actually, video quality was the issue in the case we're talking about, not sound quality. And, actually, I did discuss the video quality in the article. You probably weren't paying very close attention. LOL
"An increases in quality may be simply due to increased attention. As I state a ludicrously simple experiment would be to have you send your photos to a third party who will simply place your photos in and out his freezer over a month and then you keep a log of when you hear an increase in "sound quality" in your system. Comparing your log with the third party should show overlaps in the tested time frames."
I have already discussed a simple experiment - the one that I described in the article. As I just pointed out, the experiment involved video picture quality, not sound quality. Hell-ooo!
"As for your explanations: read Dawkin's Unweaving the Rainbow, and Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. You make up explanations for which there are no proofs; you drop names, as you accuse me of doing, but there is absolutely no substance to your claims at all. (C'mon, Einstein!: yeah his theory involves the inconstancy of time but to make major changes would involve such large masses that the nearby presence of a black hole would be of far greater consequence than the effects of time, at least given our current technology)."
I was not attempting to prove anything. Try to pay better attention.
"Now on this forum and others, you have proclaimed yourself to be a "THEORETICAL PHYSICIST". Let's see some real theory. Lets see some real third party uninvolved observer proof in a controlled environment."
I actually do not promote myslef as you are suggetsing. I just happen to be a theorerical physicist. Just like you happen to be a steelworker but, unfortunately, one with some sort of comprehension disorder.
PS - If you are on some of heavy medication, please let me know and I'll try to take it easy on you. But if you are, it would certainly explain your pattern of angst and confusion.
Edits: 08/18/11 08/18/11
for being a Theoretical Physicist". I actually am acquainted with one, a cosmologist to be more precise and he never calls himself a theoretical physicist, just a plain physicist dealing more with theory. Interestingly he has published papers on his thoughts and theories. Papers which have met peer review and use third party observational points to support his theorie.
All I get from you is anecdotal quips, and no third party verification of even the basic claims. I notice how conveniently you avoid my proposal of verifying that the effect even exists....
Seems to me that the effect is basically all in your mind since you refuse even conducting the most basic of tests to verify what you claim.
Stu
In addition, if you're prending to be an ignoramous you're doing an excellent job.
of proper credentials: Absolutely no documentation of your claims for being a theoretical physicist; Bogus explanations of claimed effects when no third party "proof" has been rendered, just anecdotal "evidence"; A refusal to even make a most elementary experiment to verify the effect of certain claims you have made.
Despite your claims of being a "rocket scientist", and a "theoretical physicist", you have never convinced a majority of readers that you are even slightly qualified in making such claims. By your line of reasoning, I can claim to be genius (I have been invited to join Mensa, BTW, and was a National Merit Semifinalist [I never applied for any scholarships, a mistake on my part], but that placed me, at the time 40 years ago, as being in the upper 1/2 of the top 1% in the country.
You can keep on calling me names if that makes you feel better, but the sad truth is that YOU are woefully under qualified to make the outlandish claims you have already made. You show little knowledge and understanding of the subject for a claimed "theoretical physicist". You depend on reviews on the works of eminent scholars and true scientists. You have little understanding nor do you evidence any readings of some of the fore most thinkers in the current field of modern physics. When I bring up some of those names, you claim that I am name dropping.
You make your claims based on a 12 foot square listening room. Isn't it about time you moved out of your parent's bedroom?
Stu
"Name calling in lieuof proper credentials: Absolutely no documentation of your claims for being a theoretical physicist; Bogus explanations of claimed effects when no third party "proof" has been rendered, just anecdotal "evidence"; A refusal to even make a most elementary experiment to verify the effect of certain claims you have made."The burden of proof is not mine. Anyway, Demands for Proof are against AA policy. Don't you know anything?
"Despite your claims of being a "rocket scientist", and a "theoretical physicist", you have never convinced a majority of readers that you are even slightly qualified in making such claims. "
I suspect what you're really trying to say is the backsliding, tin-eared pseudo-skeptics just won't take No for an answer and will argue til they're blue in the face, this thread a case in point. I could care less if someone doubts my word, my claims or doubts my credentials. I just consider the source. This is not a peer review process. And, frankly, you are not my peer. I think it might be a good idea if you repeat to yourself, "It's only a hobby, it's only a hobby."
"By your line of reasoning, I can claim to be genius (I have been invited to join Mensa, BTW, and was a National Merit Semifinalist [I never applied for any scholarships, a mistake on my part], but that placed me, at the time 40 years ago, as being in the upper 1/2 of the top 1% in the country."
Nice try, but as you apparently don't know your argument is an appeal to authority and is irrelevant to this discussion. You might as well say you were invited to join Alcoholics Anonymous, for all I care.
"You can keep on calling me names if that makes you feel better, but the sad truth is that YOU are woefully under qualified to make the outlandish claims you have already made. You show little knowledge and understanding of the subject for a claimed "theoretical physicist".
You're just a big fat liar. Since you are not a theoretical physicist you are not qualified to judge whether I am a theoretical physicist. Anymore than you are qualified to judge someone who claims to be a microbiologist. Now, you might be able to judge someone who claims to be a steelworker.
"You depend on reviews on the works of eminent scholars and true scientists."
But the reviews were scholarly, so your statement doesn't hold water.
"You have little understanding nor do you evidence any readings of some of the fore most thinkers in the current field of modern physics. When I bring up some of those names, you claim that I am name dropping."
But you ARE name dropping, Einstein. Name dropping is a common tactic of the died-in the wool "skeptic" who has no real argument to present. To make matters worse the names you drop are irrelevant to the discussion. Actually, you've demonstrated over and over that you can't follow a simple discussion. Have you given any consideration to taking a remedial course in reading comprehension?
"You make your claims based on a 12 foot square listening room. Isn't it about time you moved out of your parent's bedroom?"
Gee, a strawman argument and name-calling all in one sentence. Boy, are you dumb. Ever heard of headphones? Do you honestly believe there's something inherently wrong with a 12 foot square room? You're just grasping for straws.
Edits: 09/04/11
Thank GOD! I am not your peer. Hate to stoop so low.
Stu
Actually, I just consider you a peer, as in bedwetter.
, now that's a brave admission.
Stu
example of all the faults you enumerate.
LOL!
Stu
PS:
Fact one:
You claimed to be a theoretical physicist.
Fact two:
You posted explanations outside of AA, so hiding behind the mission statement does not apply. Since the ISO mission statement is to encourage discussion in an enlightened manner, it is clear that you are avoiding the issue at hand.
Fact three:
You have yet to prove that the effect is "real". At least May acknowledges that she believe the effect is on the listener's mind i.e. psychosomatic.
Fact four:
Burden of proof? LOL! Who was it that proposed that NASA jump in with an experiment? Yes you avoid the issue of proving anything, because , quite obviously, either you are afraid to submit to testing or you don't know how to conduct an impartial test.
Fact five:
When confronted with your extremely limited credentials and the fact that your "explanations" outside the forum are truly bogus in that thert is nothing "scientific" about them in terms of postulating a cause and effect, you run and hide behind "mission statements" and a total ignoring of answering the issues raised.
Do you ever think about what you write before posting? Your contradictions are so evident that no one reading your comments can put any trust in your writings.
As for your 12 foot room, how the hell did you develop the means to recommend placement of the crystals about your speakers? Don't have a living room available? You sound like a high school kid that never grew up.
Stu
Your tone is so angry and jealous and your questions and comments so abysmally dumb I've decided to terminate this discussion. Even I have my limits.Best wishes in your quest for mediocrity.
Oh, by the way, feel free to continue ranting like a lunatic if it makes you feel better.
Edits: 09/08/11
RE: Knowledge is power.
> > “Apparently you didn't bother to read my article from the PWB newsletter that was linked earlier in the thread; otherwise you wouldn't continue to make such ridiculous accusations and demands so typical of the frustrated, uninformed naysayer. And I strongly I suspect you don't even know what the photos in the freezer tweak is; so it's certainly no big surprise you couldn't hear it. LOL” < <
In Carol Clark’s two articles (links below) she refers positively to the “Photos in the Freezer” technique.
• Carol Clark’s review of the Red 'x' Pen http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/beltpen.htm
• and Carol Clark ends this review with the statement
• ".........So, we now have my pictures housed in the freezer, and pieces of the special film bearing the names of our components and "> O.K." attached to every piece of equipment we own. Crazy? As I stated in my previous article, these treatments cost nothing, or next to nothing, and they improve the listening experience substantially"
•
• AND again in
•
• If you would like to read an article by Carol Clark on ‘freezing’ technique (Issue 10 ) audioMUSINGS Please go to the link below:-
• Issue 10 audioMUSINGS
• http://www.positive-feedback.com/ambackissues/Belt.htm
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
May - what's so fascinating is how far the photos in the freezer tweak can be taken - what with the Red X Pen, morphic message foils, things of that nature.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: