|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.192.238.193
In Reply to: RE: evidence of the proposition? posted by unclestu on February 29, 2012 at 12:01:48
For those of you who are still confused about the difference between scientific evidence and proof. Your confusion over basic scientific terminology probably explains why you jumped to the conclusion that the magnets on the Clever Little Clock operate by channeling electromagnetic waves.
Follow Ups:
Pl;ease read the Wikipedia very carefully and then take your very own explanation ( of the clock)in light of what it states. Your explanation of the clock is not evidence nor proof.
It is pure speculation, but even more insidiously, it is an attempt at a scientific like Mumble jumble, with missing links in logic and and extremely speculative statements which have no grounding in any current physics.
You can claim that it ain't so all you like, but just name one reputable scientific journal which will support your view point. Even the audiophile journals which say they hear something ( which I do admit I do hear, BTW, that was never the issue), will dispute your rationale.
Stu
I suspect any reasonable person who has a chance to experiment with the CLC will reach the same conclusion I did - the clock cannot work via RFI/EMI channeling or RFI/EMI absorption or any such thing. Once you eliminate the more obvious theories, a reasonable person would probably conclude that something else must be going on with the CLC. That something else I have proposed in my article on the clock. Of course my paper is not Proof nor is it intended to be. Ditto for the PEAR Mind Lamp. Anyone is welcome to come up with a theory why the Mind Lamp does what it does, conventional or otherwise, but a reasonable person who has experience with the lamp would probably conclude that what PEAR states is most likely true -that mind matter interaction is the culprit. Like the CLC.
Geoff kait
So you are admitting that your hypothesis has no proof.
Great, that's a good start.
Have you actually employed RF measuring gear to demonstrate that RF can NOT be at the root cause? I ask because as a "claimed" rocket scientist, you should have access to some pretty sophisticated gear. You have never stated the reasons why you believe that RFI can NOT be at any causality.
In my experimentation with your clock ( and with other clocks of various manufacture, BTW) it works better when placed next to sources of RFI. When employed as you recommended, I could barely discern any sonic difference (Placed in windows, per your recommendation).
Stu
I never said it was proof. You must have been confused again about the meaning of the word Proof and the word Evidence.Hint: the CLC has an orange magnet on the face and a red magnet on the back. If you reverse the colored magnets the sound will get worse. How does your RFI/EMI theory fit in with that? There is a big problem with your theory. Are you attempting to claim that magnets absorb RFI/EMI? LOL
Edits: 03/02/12 03/03/12
Thanks for sending me down rathole number 13 of the linked paper. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I don't like articles with formulas.
:-)
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: