How Science Got Sound Wrong

The amount of effort some people will put into supporting their delusions and dishonesty is really astounding. aerospace ENGineering. Batchelor's level.  The basis of most of semiconductor physics is in theoretical physics ... likely far more than aerospace engineering. That does not mean I studied "theoretical physics", nor does it mean that I have a degree in "theoretical physics". There is a big difference between applying concepts of theoretical physics, which while theoretical, provide more than enough accuracy for engineering tasks, and being an actual theoretical physicist (i.e. the person working on those underlying theories).


For quadrupling down gk, without providing anything viable to refute your claim to be a theoretical physicist, nor to refute you claiming to have a degree in theoretical physics, all you have proven ... is what is wrong with many audiophiles.

How can he be on to something if the whole premise of his article is wrong?

geoffkait18,360 posts11-19-2019 6:12amFrankly I think the author might be onto something and I’m only judging by what he wrote in some other articles I located somewhere in cyberspace, including this excerpt from one of them. It just sounds right.

As I said before the whole Peter Belt phenomenon is more relevant, more interesting and more important that what is contained in the article. In other words, the “standard model“ of how humans hear, how the neurons carry the signal from the ears to the brain that is the complete explanation of how we hear is utter BS.

in the same general way tuning-forks help experts tune pianos or harps

That's a HOWLER.

The CONN StroboConn came out in 1936.
The CONN ST-6 came out in 1959.
Peterson Model 400 came out in 1967.
Today, tuners clip on a guitar head and run on a watch battery.

In 50 years, I haven't seen a piano professionally tuned with a fork.

Wikipedia article to annoy Mr K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner