@rodman99999
You seem to just be avoiding the questions I asked.
That cable burn-in occurs, has been established by the manufacturers, as well as those multitudes, that have provided their empirical evidence.
Can you please provide links to this evidence?
Which manufacturers have established burn in occurs and is audible? The high end cable manufacturers who make so many fishy claims in the first place?
I’ve never seen "burn in is established" claims by any of the most experienced and respected long time cable manufacturers such as Canare or Belden. Have you?
Can you provide links to this purported evidence by manufacturers?I presume there are both before and after measurements showing a burn in effect AND tests establishing the audibility of the burn in?
The Scientific Process allows for/depends on empirical evidence,
Of course it does. But science has a hard-won understanding about what type of empirical evidence it seeks! "Empirical" just means based on observation and/or experience. But that is far from understanding the type of empirical evidence sought in science and how it is understood, because people make mistakes, and bad inferences about their experience all the time. If I were talking to an audience of 100 people each holding a quarter and I said "I have the power to influence someone's coin to flip heads 5 times...go!" Someone may indeed flip the coin five times. There's your "empirical evidence." But in reasoning about that experience, is it the right move to believe my claim was shown true by that 'evidence?' Of course not; that would be to ignore what is known about statistics and hence the low validity of such a test given the claim.
So it's not good enough to just claim to "do tests" or "have an experience." The scientific method arose to be more careful, more rigorous about what type of empirical evidence it seeks, and to weed out all the erroneous, biased methods of INTERPRETING the data.
Did you not even read the link you gave me? Read it again, and look under the headings: Identifying Empirical Research, Bias. It supports exactly what I’ve been saying.
Can you point to research results and test methodology from those purported "manufacturers" that even fits the demands noted in your own link?
I asked, "Perhaps you can tell me, WHY that can’t be a cause(or, "plausible"), SCIENTIFICALLY?" You could have just said, you have no valid, SCIENTIFIC reason to doubt the plausibility of my conjecture regarding Dielectric Absorption, only your biases. But, who would expect that?
I wouldn’t say that, because I’m not as confused as you are about this conversation.
I quite carefully did not claim your conjecture was wrong or implausible. I simply pointed out that it was just at this point interesting conjecture, and what it would need to go beyond your mere conjecture. I’m not the one being dogmatic or blinded by bias here; I’m suggesting the very steps good scientists take to try to get around bias! I’ve used blind testing to get around my own biases in some cases.
If you don’t understand or acknowledge the steps I mentioned to move from your conjecture to better validation as valid, then you are the one who refuses to see beyond his own bias.