Do materials alter frequencies and speed?

Aball: You can't move onto bigger and better things until you can get the fundamentals right, hence the repeat of Kindergarten lessons before we move onto First Grade lessons. Some in the class simply refuse to learn or think / do for themselves. Sean
>

Yes, that is true.

Rsbeck, the scientist in me thanks you. I enjoy the logic and your insistance on fundamental scientific principles which are mandatory in every field (besides high-end audio). A refusal to perform an ABX test if possible (or the suggestion to perform a test that isn't even blind) would result in laughter, disbelief and a total lack of grant funding in the "real" world. In short, a career would be over. The insistance of a researcher maintaining the validity of the experimental hypothesis (there is an audible difference) in light of evidence which supports the null hypothesis (there is no audible difference) is known as a type I error and is the cardinal sin in the sciences. The laughter, lack of funding and "career over" would likely result from this scenario as well. So far in this thread, both mistakes have been made.

Sean, trusting one's own senses over sound scientific testing and the results which follow is not an option. This is not Rsbeck vs. you. This is you vs. a solid century of scientific principles, math and logic.

This is you vs. a solid century of scientific principles, math and logic

--a small point: a logically acceptable syllogism is not necessarily materially correct.

Surely you're not saying that one should use pure logic to extrapolate within the realms of a scientific experiment --OR the other way round.

You're probably not saying that; I would leave out logic as the means to explain the materially correct and join, say, Aball's efforts (see experiments above, albeit at RF).

OF COURSE it would be VERY refreshing, useful and (to say the least) welcome to have reliable data on how materials & connections affect electrical transfer, etc, in the not-so-important ~16-50kHz (or thereabouts) range.

To challenge s/one with a blank "prove it -- or it doesn't exist" statement doesn't always lead to useful results, does it? It could be a short... so to speak:)

As in the old Soviet paradigm, where one "comrade" accosts another civil servant comrade, asking for special visa to leave Moscow. All sorts of papers are presented, and the civil servant says, "where's your birth certificate?". "Why do you need a birth certificate, I've given you all the papers and I'm standing in front of you -- I exist!" The civil servant answers, "I need a special document to prove you exist". Cheers

Ultraviolet: You are right in the fact that it is not me vs Rsbeck. It is Rsbeck vs himself. If he had "true faith" in his "scientific doctrine", he wouldn't be afraid to put it to a simple test that would cost absolutely nothing. As mentioned, i said that i would send him the necessary materials to do so. While he has criticized me for stating that a lack of a response is a response in itself, he seems to be the only missing link in this equation now.

The last time i made an offer like this, it was to Extra Class Amateur radio operators, which is the highest class / most knowledgeable level of RF enthusiast that one can achieve. After 2+ years of debating on the net with these guys, and having them refute my statements by quoting the books where i learned what i did as evidence against my statements, one of them finally gave in and performed testing. Needless to say and after this amount of time, it was like pulling teeth in order to get one of them to actually do this instead of them just reading about such things. Like this "test", i sent all the necessary supplies and the tester compared the results with both his and my gear.

While this is different in the fact that he actually took empirical measurements and the results of this test would be subjective, he confirmed everything that i had stated. He did so even though it went against all of his preconcieved notions and "data" that he had read up until that point.

The point is, what i had stated for two years DID NOT go against theory. I only knew what i did and what the outcome of such testing would be because i understood the theory and actual component interaction to begin with. There's no "hocus pocus" going on here and that's why i want Rsbeck to conduct the simple tests that i've proposed. I have enough faith in both his integrity and listening skills to report his outcome, good or bad from my point of view. Once he sees what that outcome is, it would only encourage him to seek out the truth of the matter, which is soundly based on fully understanding the theory of the circuit at hand. I'm encouraging mental growth here, not challenging Rsbeck's "intestinal fortitude" to stick to his guns. The fact that others can learn and grow from this experience is simply icing on the cake. Sean
>