Do you believe in Magic?

Byron c - It's not terribly surprising that you go on as such length on the explanation for the clock since in your OP you expressed disbelief in the explanation for the ERS paper which, relatively speaking, is child's play. I am going on a limb here, but I suspect your PhD is not in electronics, otherwise I doubt you'd be so skeptical of the EMI/RFI explanation for the ERS stuff. As I've already pointed out, there are many other "Magical" devices you might have picked on with greater success.

As for the clock your skepticism doesn't surprise me, your PhD notwithstanding. The explanation, of course, was not written to accomodate anyone's desire for a "satisfying" explanation, which is apparently what you're seeking.

My box contains ideas. Apparently your box really does contain a beetle.

Sabai, you say, "based on empirical truth, not on scientific evidence." This is the weirdest thought I have ever heard. Good science revolves around empirical evidence. Occasionally, that evidence upsets the paradigm that has been developed based on other research over time. But yes, science is often wrong and only with time and further evidence moves forward.

I think your discussion of mercury in fillings was engineering not science.

Let's not forget brilliant pebbles, teleportation tweaks, and magic dots.

The very essence and lifeblood of a huckster.

03-12-12: Geoffkait
My box contains ideas. Apparently your box really does contain a beetle.

I will give you credit for one thing, Geoff. That was funny.

But that's where my praise stops. Throughout this thread, your responses all have the same quality of being NON-responses. They are a series of ambiguous remarks, elliptical arguments, rhetorical questions, non sequiturs, inside jokes, and so on. Talking with you is an Alice in Wonderland experience. That's not a compliment.

And that is why I say you are an obscurantist. As to whether you are also a huckster, as Audiofeil suggested, I don't have an opinion. A huckster deceives and is aware of his deception. I honestly don't know if that describes you. You may be a huckster, or you may be a True Believer. If you are a huckster, then this whole conversation has been Theater in service of promoting Machina Dynamica, and the joke is on me. If you are a True Believer, then your obscurantism isn't an act of deception but an act of...

I don't know how to complete that sentence. If you genuinely believe in the products you sell, why are you an obscurantist? There are a number of other manufacturers who contribute to Audiogon who are patently NOT obscurantists...

Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere
Bobby Palkovic of Merlin
Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio
Duke LeJeune of AudioKinesis

These manufacturers offer open and accessible information on a range of subjects within their expertise. When asked direct questions about the products they design, they do not hide behind the facile excuse that "You need a PhD in electrical engineering to understand my design." And for that matter, there are a number of regular Audiogon contributors who DO have PhD's in electrical engineering, and so far as I am aware, you do not provide THEM with substantive information about the products you design either.

That leaves me wondering, in the words of another philosopher...

Do you muddy the water, to make it seem deep?

Bryon

Tbg, The empirical method and the scientific method are not the same at all. In the realm of medicine, science includes clinical evidence in the form of "double blind testing" but it is based on "studies". The latter open the door for cooking the books to serve those with "special agendas". Empirical truth is based exclusively on clinical evidence. Science rejects empirical evidence as "proof" because science states this form of evidence is merely "anecdotal".

I don't understand what you mean when you state "I think your discussion of mercury in fillings was engineering not science." Please clarify.