Photos in the freezer tweak

it's a tweak and this is an asylum, posted on July 30, 2011 at 05:33:56
jimmyjames Audiophile Posts: 4284 Location: Raleighwood Joined: February 20, 2001	it's all about belief systems

Posting it on iso would make that forum slightly less moribund..., posted on July 30, 2011 at 10:54:17
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31879 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	though likely no more lively. "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:05:36

horny
Audiophile

Posts: 745
Location: holland
Joined: October 17, 2003

Why not
If you put 2 photos in the freezer and you believe it sounds better why not
it cost notting you harm no one
belive can be a strong tweak.
I try it and its not working for me
i hear no difference.
A friend told me to do this and also told me that putting a battery in the freezer the sound become unlistenable we put it in and he heard it immediately i never took it out because i hear no difference :-)

Why not pretend to put a photo in the freezer?, posted on July 30, 2011 at 12:13:27
Mr. Dick Hertz	Then, pretend it makes a difference.

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on July 30, 2011 at 13:38:22
Æ	If ypu position them just right, your freezer will be cooler, your food won't get freezer burn and you'll save on your electric bill.

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on July 30, 2011 at 13:48:37
Jim Treanor Audiophile Posts: 2167 Location: Pacific Northwest Joined: June 1, 2003	I put a photo in my freezer--and the response I got was negative. Jim

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on July 30, 2011 at 15:14:44
pictureguy Audiophile Posts: 22597 Location: SoCal Joined: October 19, 2008	Are ice crystals piezoelectric? Too much is never enough

I've got a bad feeling, posted on July 31, 2011 at 06:09:00
geoffkait	Just as I suspected, noone really knows what the photos in the freezer tweak is.

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on July 30, 2011 at 13:09:10
ahendler Audiophile Posts: 5151 Location: San Antonio, Texas Joined: January 24, 2003	One photo for mono Two for stereo 5.1 photos for surround Alan

Go take a look, you are already doing it., posted on July 30, 2011 at 13:46:12

Enophile
Bored Member

Posts: 25269
Location: Northern Californistan
Joined: October 15, 2005
Contributor
Since: August 5, 2012

At out house, we have some pictures of Popsicles, some photos of ice cream, a picture of lasagna, a picture of a whole bunch of peas.

I bet there's not one person here who isn't likely already sitting on a freezer full of pictures.

No controversy there. The more pictures of things you have in your freezer, the more full it will be and the less work it will have to do and won't run as much.

Careful if you put a pic of yourself in. If you've handled it, it will have your DNA on it and will act as a voodoo avatar of you and could make you uncomfortable.

If you do a pic of yourself, be sure ti "clean it" of any stray DNA you may have on it.

There is literature available to stand behind all of these "facts."

I have no frozen food, so i leave a few dozen bottle of tap water in there to keep the cost down, posted on July 30, 2011 at 16:30:51
Elizabeth	An empty freezer cost MORE in electricity than a full one. So i filled it up with refilled Aquafina bottles. The frig runs less with the freezer full of frozen water.

RE: Go take a look, you are already doing it., posted on July 30, 2011 at 20:13:19
rick_m Audiophile Posts: 6230 Location: Oregon Joined: August 11, 2005	"a voodoo avatar of you and could make you uncomfortable." Too late! Too late! Just the thought of it is sending chills down my spine! We have thousands of blueberries in ours, each hand picked... R.

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on July 31, 2011 at 01:54:33
benie Audiophile Posts: 1851 Location: Alberta, Canada Joined: October 24, 2004	That's because your wife found out where your stash of Penthouse mags where! :O)

RE: I have no frozen food, so i leave a few dozen bottle of tap water in there to keep the cost down, posted on July 30, 2011 at 22:47:06
Æ	Sensible decision, sensible reply.

Have you compared the sound to other brands of water?, posted on July 31, 2011 at 10:14:48
Enophile Bored Member Posts: 25269 Location: Northern Californistan Joined: October 15, 2005 Contributor Since: August 5, 2012	;)

RE: I've got a bad feeling, posted on July 31, 2011 at 07:00:56
mhconley Audiophile Posts: 57 Location: Cape Coral, FL Joined: October 14, 2007	Yes, I know what it is... Are you trying to find a way to "productize" it? You could always offer to have the subject send you the signed photo(s) and cryo them. :) Would cryo freezing have a more pronounced effect? What about a chest freezer that does not go through nightly defrost cycles?

"I've got a bad feeling." Try some aquarium rocks for that., posted on July 31, 2011 at 08:49:59
Enophile Bored Member Posts: 25269 Location: Northern Californistan Joined: October 15, 2005 Contributor Since: August 5, 2012	You only know one variation of the photo tweak. Try being a little less dogmatic. Less religion and more open mindedness. Maybe go to another site besides "you know who's." Side bet says you have bar codes in you freezer.

I know what it is... hope you're feeling not quite as bad now...N/T, posted on July 31, 2011 at 15:37:35
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31879 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	N/T "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

GeoffquotMaybe NASA should set aside funds for a compact, space-qualified freezer for the next Mission to Mars, posted on July 31, 2011 at 19:06:36
Elizabeth	One of my favorites

RE: I've got a bad feeling, posted on July 31, 2011 at 08:15:02
quirck Audiophile Posts: 213 Joined: December 23, 2006	make a plaster of YOur loudspeaker. Then tAKE A BIG HAMMMER...

RE: I've got a bad feeling, posted on July 31, 2011 at 12:24:23

geoffkait

Yes, I know what it is... Are you trying to find a way to "productize" it?

>>>>>>Why would I do that? It's free. If you know what it is, that is.

You could always offer to have the subject send you the signed photo(s) and cryo them. :)

>>>>>>I prefer he do it himself. I have enough to do already. :-)

Would cryo freezing have a more pronounced effect? What about a chest freezer that does not go through nightly defrost cycles?

>>>>>>Questions, you have questions....

no... perhaps I should try freezing some other beverages? Kool Aid? LOL, posted on July 31, 2011 at 19:54:50
Elizabeth	I have been trying to read the Peter Belt stuff and just cannot swallow the stuff. Even reading it as a funny thing is just impossible. If there were any actual 'stuff' in all that, it is lost in the crazy psychotic-like crap.

What, you're going to keep it to yourself? Share, share. nt, posted on July 31, 2011 at 16:26:08
geoffkait	nt

Not at all..., posted on July 31, 2011 at 16:59:27

musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31879
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
Since: January 28, 2004

it used to be on the Belt page/forum thingie, but it seems to have been removed from that formerly difficult to navigate place.

Seems they have condensed their website and one now needs to subscribe for previously free info? Whatever...

Anyway, if you don't want to subscribe, here is a link to some (but not all?) of the freezer/picture tweak someone lifted from the Belt page...

Good luck and report back!

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

here

Sorry to say, that's not really the photos in the freezer tweak. , posted on July 31, 2011 at 17:25:10
geoffkait	What's it called when you tell someone a story and he tells the next person, and that person tells the next person, etc.? The story gets all discombobulated, like. :-)

It's not? OK... then you must "really" know what it is! Or do you just know what it really isn't?..., posted on July 31, 2011 at 18:52:40
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31879 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	So you asking here, why? Now I'm getting a bad feeling... "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

Are you going to tell us or not?, posted on August 1, 2011 at 14:12:50
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com Audiophile Posts: 3040 Location: Atlanta Joined: December 15, 2003	If not, I will no longer bother to see what has been posted.

I don't have to, posted on August 1, 2011 at 15:24:13
geoffkait	Someone already did. See if you can find it in this thread. :-)

not sure this thread is interesting enough to read all of the posts, posted on August 3, 2011 at 14:50:23
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com Audiophile Posts: 3040 Location: Atlanta Joined: December 15, 2003	Has the tweak changed from when it was first "suggested"? A picture of yourself as a baby and a current photo? Placed in the freezer? Have never tried it since I hate photographs. Does it need to be a picture generated by film or will pixels do as well?

What are you asking me for?, posted on August 3, 2011 at 15:37:14
geoffkait	You sure ask a lot of questions for someone who's either too lazy or disinterested to read all the posts.

RE: Just like a NASA "theoretical physicist", posted on August 3, 2011 at 17:11:29
unclestu Dealer Posts: 5851 Joined: April 13, 2010	to forget that the ambient temperature in deep space is near cryogenic. All hail our resident "genius". Stu

I thought it would be obvious to everyone why cryo coolers are necessary on spacecraft..., posted on August 4, 2011 at 05:44:37
geoffkait	I guess I was wrong.

I have no idea why I am asking you., posted on August 4, 2011 at 09:54:13
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com Audiophile Posts: 3040 Location: Atlanta Joined: December 15, 2003	I should have known better.

Questions, you have questions? , posted on August 4, 2011 at 10:44:49
geoffkait	Scroll down to mhconley's post of 19:17:12 07/31/11 - that should answer most of your questions.

addendum, posted on August 5, 2011 at 14:05:06

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

So NASA needs a cryo freezer, but you can achieve the same by popping your photos in your home refrigerator. Anyone see the logic in advocating a NASA cryo freezer?

The consider that the military took thousands of photos on the 60's all over the the Earth: Military reconnaissance as well as weather photos. Early reconnaissance photos were then parachuted to Earth, but not all missions were successful both on terms of reentry and in terms of releasing the photos. Wonder of those Russian and Commie soldiers feel better or maybe that's way those commie electronics work so well. Maybe Victor's claim that the early production tubes were better is a result of this...

If the freezing of photos works in the digital domain, then imagine all those photographed by Google Earth....

Nah: just GK giving science a bad name, methinks. But the self proclaimed "theoretical physicist" keeps rolling on. No real theory being espoused however.....but remember he did get a B.S. degree.

Stu

Surprise, surprise, posted on August 5, 2011 at 15:29:08
geoffkait	You are making no sense. The NASA cryo cooler in space is necessary to achieve a significant distance between the photos and the listener back on Earth, thus the speed of the effect can be measured (or determined that it is instantaneous). Since the "photos in the freezer" effect will work in any cold container, a cryo cooler will suffice as well as a home freezer. Comprendez?

No surprise..., posted on August 5, 2011 at 15:38:49

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

just stupidity. If any cooler will work, why go through the expense of a cryo cooler?

Plus a sealed satellite or abandoned space vehicle would essentially constitute a cooler of sorts. As for experimentation didn't you already state the effect was instantaneous over many miles?

If you don't state a theory, Mr "Theoretical Physicist", how can it be checked, without a clear statement. The BS keeps mounting.

Geez, Louise, posted on August 5, 2011 at 17:39:25

geoffkait

"If any cooler will work, why go through the expense of a cryo cooler?"

Earth to Stu - Hey, it's just a mind experiment. NASA isn't really going to send photos in a cryo cooler up in space.

"Plus a sealed satellite or abandoned space vehicle would essentially constitute a cooler of sorts."

No, actually it wouldn't. The sun heats up the interior. That's precisely why NASA uses cryo coolers. Boy are you slow.

"As for experimentation didn't you already state the effect was instantaneous over many miles?"

No I didn't state that. That's the whole point. When the distance between the photos and the listener is only 20 miles or so you can't tell whether the effect is instantaneous or travels at the speed of light or some other speed. That's the whole point of taking the photos into space. Duh.

"If you don't state a theory, Mr "Theoretical Physicist", how can it be checked, without a clear statement. The BS keeps mounting."

Who says there has to be a theory? You are SO hung up on explanations. LOL

Well. well ,well,, posted on August 5, 2011 at 18:00:50

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

You were the one who claimed to be a theoretical physicist. You are proposing experiments with no working theory theory but yet you exact certain conditions. NASA would need a freezer, they simply need an insulated box.

The sunny side of the satellite heats up the other side remains at ambient temperature (cold) unless there is insulation as it would be if the spacecraft was designed for inhabitation. The shade cast by a solar panel would make an object quite cold.

Stu

Why am I not surprised?, posted on August 6, 2011 at 05:16:50

geoffkait

The "cryo cooler in space" experiment simply determines the speed of the effect. NASA has warehouses full of cryo coolers, so where's the beef? If you wish to use an ordinary freezer be my guest. Anyway, it's a mind experiment, remember?

Working theory? You can handle the theory of distance, time and speed, right? Shall I type a little slower for you next time? I'm not proposing a theory for how the "photos in the freezer" works. I'll leave that to the pretend theorists. LOL

Hmmm, posted on August 8, 2011 at 15:14:57

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

NASA's cryo freezers on the planet are are assigned for earth bound research for the determining the effects of cold temperatures on space instrumentation. They are also used for treatment of some materials. You don't get it, do you? Space is pretty cold except where the sun shines directly upon an object.

Plus, No theory for how the photo in the freezer works? Have you even read the general theory of relativity? The photos are certainly not whizzing along at the speed of light. They are not emitting light. In fact, the only theory I know that covers the aspect of time moving backwards is quantum electrodynamics, partially proposed by Richard Feynman (he won the Nobel prize with two others for this work) about whom you made a rather dismissive comment.

But now, for all the "experimentation" you are proposing, you sound very much like a pretend theorist yourself. One does not propose shoot in the dark experiment without a working theory other wise it is impossible to control possible external parameters.

You indicate a seal is necessary: No theory, just a statement. Now since a home freezer is likely to be opened several time a day, quite obviously the seal on the freezer compartment is not of major consequence.

But of course the photos are in a zip lock bag. If the seal on the bag is all you need , why bother with an elaborate refrigerator. Just have a NASA astronaut take a bunch of zip lock bags up. They are light and cheap.

And then there's the issue of the "snowbirds": people living in the northern states and provinces to flee South during the cold winters. I know of several families who simply lock up their homes and take off with their RV's to sunny places like Quartzite. Now since the temperatures can drop to zero and below in midwinter, do all the people in their photo albums benefit, especially those with photos in those sealed type albums?

Seems to me you need a lot of data gathering here on our planet first. And, it goes without sating, if you are a true "Theoretical Physicist" and not a quack, you'll need to advance a theory. Even Einstein advanced a theory before physical proof was discovered.

Your staggering amount of BS is simply incredible, but then that's the the only degree you received.....You pretend to know, but the reality is that you don't know squat, and try it to hide it by pretense.

Stu

Oh, boy, posted on August 8, 2011 at 18:23:38
geoffkait	Wow! What I can I say? You've outdone yourself. By the way, I'm giving some consideration to promoting you from Associate Nuisance to Principal Stalker. Congratulations, you earned it!

Quite obviously, posted on August 11, 2011 at 14:39:51
unclestu Dealer Posts: 5851 Joined: April 13, 2010	a major bail out on your part. Stu

I suppose that's true, posted on August 12, 2011 at 02:02:33
geoffkait	I have a new policy. I bail out of debates when the other person won't take no for an answer and just wishes to argue until he's blue in face. Good luck with all of that.

It is also very , posted on August 12, 2011 at 14:24:44
unclestu Dealer Posts: 5851 Joined: April 13, 2010	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

Everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey. , posted on August 12, 2011 at 14:43:45
geoffkait	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

C'mon now,......, posted on August 12, 2011 at 17:10:08

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

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 be a cube, rube, posted on August 12, 2011 at 18:39:48

geoffkait

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

For claiming, posted on August 15, 2011 at 15:59:04

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

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

Knowledge is power, posted on August 16, 2011 at 04:34:05

geoffkait

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. LOL

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom

RE: Knowledge is power, posted on August 16, 2011 at 11:32:43

May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005

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.

RE: Knowledge is power, posted on August 17, 2011 at 07:15:17
geoffkait	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.

Au Contraire, posted on August 17, 2011 at 15:19:25

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

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

It's all in your mind, posted on August 17, 2011 at 18:05:02

geoffkait

"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.

Please suibmit your credentials, posted on August 26, 2011 at 12:55:05

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

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

Ah, I get it, you actually think this is some sort of peer review..., posted on August 26, 2011 at 15:38:45
geoffkait	In addition, if you're prending to be an ignoramous you're doing an excellent job.

Name calling in lieu, posted on September 2, 2011 at 16:20:33

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

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

More huffing and puffing, posted on September 4, 2011 at 08:58:57

geoffkait

"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.

You are a perfect, posted on September 7, 2011 at 16:04:07

unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010

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

You never tire, posted on September 7, 2011 at 19:21:07

geoffkait

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.

In regards to being your peer, posted on September 20, 2011 at 14:51:31
unclestu Dealer Posts: 5851 Joined: April 13, 2010	Thank GOD! I am not your peer. Hate to stoop so low. Stu

You're close, very cose, posted on September 21, 2011 at 07:08:46
geoffkait	Actually, I just consider you a peer, as in bedwetter.

So you wet your bed?, posted on September 26, 2011 at 14:39:16
unclestu Dealer Posts: 5851 Joined: April 13, 2010	, now that's a brave admission. Stu

RE: Photos in the freezer tweak, posted on April 18, 2012 at 10:52:03
pixelphoto Audiophile Posts: 655 Location: So. Cal. Joined: December 15, 2009	I put 5 and a half photos (had to tear one in half) in the freezer. About 2 hours later I had a pounding head ache, like my subs gone amok.

Isolation Ward

Photos in the freezer tweak

72.66.42.59