I also find it interesting that when we talk about shielded, grounded, or ground quality or what not which may be associated with grounds, we finally get to the important unrealized meat of the matter.
Herb Reichert touched upon it in this month’s stereophile.
About how the ground, is actually the source. That the ground spike, at your given locale... is the electron source. Herb mentioned fixing bad sound comes from fixing the ground electron source via the spike at the given locale. That’s all he had to say.
The ground is not the sink. Nothing drains from anywhere, to it. It is the electron source point. We ended up with this misconception, as Ben Franklin got it wrong in his 50/50 shot at picking a direction in polarities. Like Einstein’s theories and E=MC^2, where he said ’I could have the sign wrong’, and there might be a minus in front of that equation. What I mean is, concerning the math it makes no difference, the values and results are the same, but the final result has the minus symbol in front of it --- or not. (also where the ’gravity is a push’ scenario arises. Then the errors in all our astronomical observations (which we covered up by pasting fudge factors on equations) go away.
This is why ground shielding works (it’s a blocker, it’s an electron source), and why ground quality and routing of grounds..........is crucial. Thus ground configuration and all complex association with the signal lines and active components... is also crucial. Those who know this in the world of audio don't want to share this basic information that most people miss. Part of the lore of making better gear.
Ken Hotte
Teo Audio
|
I'd love to.... but it makes me a target, for those who drive their little flesh carts in the way they do....
|
A nice post it was, but I decided to pull it. Oh well....
|
Next stop, controlled blind testing.
The next problem is that peer reviewed meta testing in parapsychology circles has found that reality is formed around projection and opinion. That
unassailably
perfected scientific tests are fundamentally violated by expectation bias and projection. That expectation bias makes things real. As seriously as you can imagine, that point, as a fundamental and firmament point ...in 3-d time-space ’reality’ as we like to call it. No joke. As many times as they cared to try to gain some form of stability in testing, it simply could not work. Science and facts took the big one ---in the ass. Where does that leave facts and science? It leaves it as reality.... but it also leaves it (reality) as group bias and group consensus. It leaves sciences and the idea of facts... freaking out...mumbling in a hole writing manifestos... in an aura of projected enforcement. Of a thing that simply cannot be. The fundamental in why engineers are taught law while physicists are taught that no facts exist, only theory. Because the heights of science know ....that facts do not exist. At all. Facts are just theory that is true most of the time, very very much most of the time. But that this premise of ’facts’... can fail--and does. A bit of a problem for some of the more literal minded.... https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html |
Not really shardorne, it’s a bullcrap statement.
The test has to take place in a system familiar and local to the person committed to being the hearing test component. meaning their own system and one single change, and no pile of people standing around or in the room browbeating them with stares and so on. perfect known comfortable environment and system, one single change, with time to acclimate to the changes of each cable. To get to know what to listen for.
and, the first day, maybe one or two test tuns of 20 might be doable. Then, one or two more like that per day.
Properly handled, it could then likely go to 10-20 sets of 20 changes of a or b, and then under such a scenario a statistically significant number should arise.
A single run of 20 and asking for 18 right is not any known form of testing (of this sort of nature) that I’m aware of. It’s not a proper trial.
Repeating that set at least 20 times, begins to end up looking more like a proper trial. A valid trial. Statistically significant. Under this 400 individual tests in total, a result of 52-53% correct is statistically significant. And definitely considered valid. 1000 tests is better. At 1000 tests, 51% correct is valid.
Asking for 18 out of 20 to be correct, in a single run, is totally invalid. Not scientific at all.
Even though I think it can be pulled off.
And if he did ’nail it’ and pass the test, the non believers would never change their stance.
Not a hope in hell of that happening.
They would each have to do the test themselves with the same or different guy.
Thus the information gleaned is not transferable due to the people involved, people who will never accept the data.
Psychologically speaking...each skull will individually have to beaten off the floor until they each individually break down and deal with it. And they would still find a way to rise up and try and find a way back to their comfort zone by second guessing the results.
There’s no winning here. The problem is not the data, it’s the people involved.
|
Why double down when you can octuple down, is what it seems to be.
This has moved from science to psychology, and not in a good way.
|
Most importantly, anyone who has actually taken a look at Randi’s challenge..and done so with the trained eyes of a statistician or person who designs rigorous scientific testing regimens.. that person soon finds out that his tests do not follow any of the accepted methods and ways.
So much so that they are not even remotely correct or applicable to any testing standards. Randi’s test methodology fails to meet even the minimum for correct testing. The test, if applied... is slated to create a failure mode and find favor to Randi’s position in the given agreement.
Also, to look at Randi’s technical background. He has none. None at all.
When we look past the bluff and fluff of words spoken at the front end of things, this is what we find.
|
Take a look at Geoff's CV and tell us again... that he was born on the wrong side of the dark ages.
|
OK, here’s one for you Skeptics: Prove that objectivity exists.
Good luck with that.
|
It’s an odd statement but it is true: ’the ground is the source’.
electronics design textbooks used to (and might still have) two different versions. At least in my time they did. The classical version of calculations..... and the electron flow version. Classic electrical flow in calculations comes from Benjamin Franklin’s works, and he got it exactly backward, regarding what the ’electrons’* are actually doing.
The electron flow version has the electron flow emergent from the ground point.
This tends to illustrate the problem with conceptual and reasoning issues on these heated subjects.
in other news (a little bit of an eye opener)...
when Einstein said ’I could have got the sign wrong’, regarding his famous equation, it is taken in stride as the math works..forward..or backward. No biggie, right? Not So Fast......as his equations are terminated/anchored in unknown infinities, which means infinity’s application may be, in some ways opposite/misplaced...compared to what people think it is. We still wrestle with gravity and time, trapped in infinities of a sort. Perhaps these concepts have been put on totally backward. This would lean to proposing that gravity and time are merely emergent artifacts of present components in interaction.
*Nobody knows what an electron is. No one. It’s a descriptor, a placeholder, nothing more. apparently, everything may well turn out to be built out of electrons...-these things we do not know what they are and can only incidentally describe some artifacts of Newtonian mass interactions. Yes, it’s still turtles all the way down. All you have to do is look at the underlying data you work with, look at it’s origins and meanings and the turtles are very much there and alive. Three-quarters the way through 2017 and that part has not changed one inch. Whatever an inch is, as we don’t really have an anchor for that, either.
All of modern scientific thinking is based on someone ascribing meaning to one point. Or it is at least possible to investigate it and come to that conclusion, in this given unfolding. Descartes saying ’I think, therefore I am’. Sometimes I think that Descartes was an idiot for that one. He is not the problem. The slightly but very importantly misguided scientific mindset that arose from the torch bearing of his statement..~that~ is the problem. All the lesser minds who collectively and over time...decided that all that came before was inviolate and built out of laws. What insanity. What foolishness. The monkey origin as carrier brings it’s instincts and unconsciousness to bear on it’s logic... turns it into doctrine... and makes a mess out of it.
|
