Really now ....
You have a Batchelor’s degree from the College of Engineering and Applied Science from UVA in 1967, with a specialty in Aerospace. That is easily verified. The level of "atomic physics" you would have studied in "school" would be minimal at best given that degree, and would have been limited to electives. It was also 52 years ago. Your "humble" narrator has an inflated sense of self.
I would say analogluvr got it 100% correct. He spotted you a mile away Geoff!
p.s. Which is not to make this an age thing. I had the pleasure to meet Gerhard Herzberg twice, one in the late 80's, and once in the early 90's. He was still speaking in his 80's and still brilliant. He won a Nobel Price. Geoff sells magic pebbles.
|
"...with a specialty in Aerospace." Is that what they used to call space cadets then? |
You’re the guy wearing the tinfoil hat and selling magic rocks and I am the pinhead??! |
It was approximately the time you flunked out of elementary school. |
geoffkait,
I entered elementary school earlier than my peers and it was many years after 1967.
|
Would I kid you atdavid? 🤗 |
Below is what Geoff Kait claims about himself. However, the University of Virginia says Geoff graduated with a Batchelor’s degree in 1967 from the School of Engineering and Applied Science (what they call engineering schools) in Aerospace. That is most definitely NOT a degree in Theoretical Physics. His quantum chips ... aren’t "chips" i.e. intelligent chips you would think of, but I am sure there is a very creative explanation for them. When you start out with gross lies, it pretty much makes everything you say suspect. It seems to be a common problem in certainly audiophile circles. geoffkait,
I have a degree in theoretical physics (fluid dynamics and propulsion) from the University of Virginia, actually now that I think about it I accumulated the most credits ever recorded by an undergraduate, 203. I was selected to present my undergraduate thesis to the AIAA national conference on a design of a low thrust rocket engine for interplanetary space travel using highly magnetized metal crystal bombarded by highly accelerated Xenon ions. I designed the FAA’s first satellite system twenty five years ago. i wrote the definitive explanation for how the intelligent chip works quantum mechanically ten years ago and have been designing quantum chips for many years. However, I can certainly understand how English majors would be rubbed the wrong way. Cheers, geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica September 28, 2014 - 7:34am |
What a moron! My curriculum in aerospace engineering was theoretical propulsion and fluid dynamics. That’s theoretical physics. My courses included statistical thermodynamics, nuclear engineering and indeterminate structures. I was in the first class of Aerospace Engineers at the beginning of the race to the moon 🌝
|
Geoff,
Keep fooling yourself. There are many educated people on these forums. They know, that a Batchelor’s degree in Aerospace Engineering, is Not a degree in theoretical physics. Engineering ... is not theoretical physics. It is not even experimental physics. You keep digging that hole Geoff. When you hit bottom, you let us know.
Speaking of morons, stop treating others on this forum like they are and have no clue what an undergrad aerospace degree would look like. You literally claimed you have a degree in theoretical physics. That was a whopper and you should be ashamed.
|
Are you stupid or something? I’m serious. I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m an aerodynamicist. I’m a theoretical physicist. I’m a quantum mechanical engineer, too. |
I do know a guy who has a degree in theoretical physics. He does deal with (potato) chips quite often. |
Thermodynamics ... pretty much standard in many Undergraduate engineering curriculums. Indeterminate structures ....pretty much standard in any civil or mechanical undergraduate curriculum. Nuclear engineering, likely a 4th year elective. Color me unimpressed ... even with your skating. The hole, it keeps getting deeper, and deeper and deeper. Now I am solidifying my theory that the "theoretical" aspects you mentioned may be falsifications as well. geoffkait18,259 posts11-14-2019 6:31pmMy courses
included statistical thermodynamics, nuclear engineering and
indeterminate structures. I was in the first class of Aerospace
Engineers at the beginning of the race to the moon 🌝 |
I can be the mediator so both are correct. Aerospace Engineering part of University of Virginia does mention that curriculum included propulsion and fluid dynamics. It is a little less clear if one would call that theoretical physics. In a sense, you do need to learn some physics for it and at some point you would be learning theories of it. Probably a lots of it. Now, would that final degree be called "theoretical physics" is slightly harder to decide and stay unbiased. Maybe dean’s office is the place to ask. http://records.ureg.virginia.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=45&poid=5589
EDIT: Maybe the wording/name of the degree has changed since 1967. Those things happen. At that time, it could have been that "theoretical physics" encompassed things that are now so subspecialized and called something else. |
A theoretical physicist and a quantum mechanical engineer .... but ended up as a training coordinator at Lockheed and working mainly as a test engineer .... geoffkait18,259 posts11-14-2019 6:40pmAre
you stupid or something? I’m serious. I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m an
aerodynamicist. I’m a theoretical physicist. I’m a quantum mechanical
engineer, too. |
Wrong again, Zippy. I do know a thing or two about testing, that’s true. Unlike yourself, if I can be so bold. |
I have an engineering physics degree and an MEE in semiconductor physics (which sounds impressive till you find out most working in the field have PhD’s). Never, in a million years, would I have considered myself a theoretical physicist. I have met thousands of engineers. Never once did anyone claim to be a "theoretical physicist" ... because you are not. Taking a few courses in theoretical physics does not make you a theoretical physicist, it makes you someone who took some courses. Writing some things about quantum mechanics that have never been published, never been peer reviewed, never been proven, does not make you a quantum mechanical engineer, but it may make you a crack pot.
|
Sorry gk, but you spilled the beans on that one before, both Lockheed training coordinator and doing test engineering. I have a long memory. geoffkait18,261 posts11-14-2019 6:56pmWrong again, Zippy. I do know a thing or two about testing, that’s true. Unlike yourself, if I can be so bold. |
You’re all mixed up, dude. Everything is topsy turvy. Me topsy, you turvy. Besides I only give the information I want you to have. The rest is none of your Beeswax. I certainly never said I was a Lockheed training coordinator. You have a bad habit of misquoting me. Eat more fish 🐟 🐟
|
I have no degree in physics of any kind.
Is that what is wrong with audiophiles?
|
Cheer up! You have an honorary degree in asking dumb questions. That’s gotta count for something. |
Hmmm...I guess I can think of some things that can be "wrong" with *some* audiophiles. Like...over-dramatic insults of audiophiles who don't agree with the OP.
Depressed from scanning (no one could stand to actually read it) the
stinking pile of putrid pedantry posted by the usual suspects above I
decided to try the How Science Got Sound Wrong thread https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-science-got-sound-wrong
Me
being nothing like the empty vessels who justify their sorry existence
by spending all their free time ruining perfectly good threads
The OP starts a thread denigrating audiophiles, and plays the well-meaning, high minded one when some refuse to join him in his cynicism, and continues to slime those with another view. I'm getting de ja vu... |
"You have an honorary degree in asking dumb questions." I will not have space on my CV for that, too. I have way too many certifications. |
prof
The OP starts a thread denigrating audiophiles, and plays the well-meaning, high minded one when some refuse to join him in his cynicism, and continues to slime those with another view.
I’m getting de ja vu...
>>>>Yes, an obviously a well planned and coordinated attack by desperate determined pseudo-skeptics in an feeble and unsuccessful attempt to bring down audiophiles and controversial audiophile concepts. Sent by Grocery clerks to collect a bill. No big deal, it happens all the time. If it wasn’t so humorous it would be very boring. If they aren’t from The James Randi Educational Foundation they might as well be.
|
Do grocery stores still exist? |
|
No, Zippy, I was not lying. But that assignment has nothing to do with training. That’s where fish in your diet might help. You know, with your failing memory. What my job there entailed is uh, not for your eyes.👀 |
"What my job there entailed is uh, not for your eyes.👀" Bragging again? Come on, we have all seen such movies. |
So tell us just what that job is? I am really quite looking forward to the story you will spin. Can you wait 3:30 while I make popcorn? In the meantime, while people are waiting, here is another thread from Stereophile forums in September 2014, 5 years ago. It seems that all you ever do is create chaos and piss people off while actually bringing a sum quantity of 0 to any conversation, if not negative because you will try to shill your stuff. https://www.stereophile.com/content/absolutely-classless-stereophiletoledoOffline It's a tough call with Geoff. It's a tough call with Geoff. You want to treat people with respect but need to adjust their behavior.
Who knows, maybe one day he will surprise us all and clean up his "act" and not treat this place like his personal playground. He certainly does twist himself into knots, though and you can always tell by the frustrated summations or lashing out or simply saying "no I am not" like a little kid. I think Geoff needs to understand that he does not have to reply to every comment and set himself up with the weirdest logic or insult people when he has nothing better to say. If I was selling his types of products, I might have a chip on my shoulder too. |
Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn’t existThey are being polite. It’s not even possible to be a suggestion; the definition of science done in proper logical frameworks, explicitly states that objective reality is not possible. Even zanier...they use the word fact. the PEAR institute illustrated this clearly, in a set of meta experiments that have, by all the scientists involved..have less of a chance of being wrong, at 3 billion to one. What they illustrated is that reality is entirely subjective to the point that those who disagree can create their own reality that is separate from one who believes and projects something else. That this basic point is correct to the odds of 3 billion to one. This is not exactly what they proved, but it is part of the package. Part of the dominoes that fall on that one...is that scientific facts that are considered to be universal, by definition, cannot and do not exist. That there can be mass aggregate scenarios where the smaller part is forced along in an eddy current flow kinda way, but that realities and projections are one and the same. Subjective, not ever objective. Long story..... |
Objective reality in an absolute sense of the word is a concept that makes sense for the works of engineer, for true scientist man " participate" to phenomena...I am with you teo_audio
|
You guys are too deep. Any way to simplify it for the regular ones? |
You guys are too deep. Any way to simplify it for the regular ones? Smoke ’em..if yah got ’em.... as... Pushy insistent jerk = meaningless self absorbed drivel. (could be me, could be you, reality plays no favorites) As in..really, seriously. By the very idea of intelligence, science and regimen in testing/results itself. And if you want to change that you require a projecting harmonious pushing insistent gang --to force it. Now ain't that a weird one. But all it is, is force, not reality. But... by force, they make it so. Sound familiar? We all know the behavior and the equation, but the science on it, ain't what most people think it is. |
atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy. Did they say why they want to terminate my command? Do you think my methods are unsound? 😬 Read my lips. I only give you information I want to give you.
|
My apology and salutations Glupson...
I only want to say that it is impossible to understand things at the end without some implication of the observer and the phenomenon... The eye-brain-mind for example and some phenomena... For example the rainbow is nowhere to be seen without this participation of the conscious eye...
At another level in quantum mechanics an object totally external to a consciousness without any potential link to it, is a thing impossible to think of in quantum terms... By the way I am a heavy reader not a scientist....
|
mahgister,
Oh, that! Why didn't you say it earlier? Is is possible to have an object without any potential link to consciousness? Isn't everything related on some level?
|
“‘’ atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy“”
No s@&*%t, you just realized that now? That’s what this guy does, full time. It’s his job. Every single Facebook group and audio forum. He has mastered the art of trolling. Can’t beat him I am afraid |
«Oh, that! Why didn’t you say it earlier? Is is possible to have an object without any potential link to consciousness? Isn’t everything related on some level?»
In the cartesian dualism there is a subject external to the things...Most materialistic science are born of this ideology...This ended after Max Planck...But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:)
No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it...All is related on another level yes...in pure mathematics, reality is totally revealed, it is a pure field of signification for the consciousness...I love mathematics not because I love to calculate, but because numbers are more real than a table for me.... And music is only sensible mathematics agitated by the heart for the ears...
Sometimes I am a bit too enthusiastic, I apologize for my zealous philosophical rant...But it is more interesting than insults...I wish you the best Glupson...
|
I like me some philosophy. However.... But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:) My strawman sense is tingling ;-) No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it.. Well, I'm glad you have settled that scientific/philosophical puzzle for good! Are you perchance related to Teo? |
Are you perchance related to Descartes?
If yes, congratulations, Descartes is a real genius!
But I am by no way related to him....
By the way if you are a " prof" you certainly had read Whitehead, or Husserl that settle that problem for good before me, and Goethe, reader of Spinoza, in a more profound way before them...I am, perchance, related to Goethe...For teo_audio I am afraid that you will be in the obligation to ask him...And my "strawman sense" also is tingling by the way....
If you cannot understand Husserl or Whitehead, try Charles Sanders Peirce, who also settle the problem perhaps not for good but in his own particular way ( he reformulate it more than he settle it)....But I doubt that any reader of Richard Dawkins can easily navigate between Husserl, or Whitehead or Peirce...It is not strawman argument of my part anyway, only my opinion, a stupid opinion perhaps, but anyway only an opinion or a philosophical prejudice...:)
I wish you the best...
|
Good laugh Skerdi. If only you knew how many people blocked you on FB because you weirded them out. Shouldn’t you be running to report back to Ted or something right now? thyname432 posts11-14-2019 9:21pm“‘’ atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy“”
No s@&*%t, you just realized that now? That’s what this guy does, full time. It’s his job. Every single Facebook group and audio forum. He has mastered the art of trolling. Can’t beat him I am afraid |
I will make you a deal geoffy. You stop making things up and claiming you are something you are not, and I will not feel a need to show others your lack of transparency. Deal? geoffkait18,266 posts11-14-2019 9:10pmatdavid,
you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy. Did they say why they
want to terminate my command? Do you think my methods are unsound? 😬
Read my lips. I only give you information I want to give you. |
|
atdavid, I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m a theoretical physicist. Theoretical propulsion and theoretical fluid dynamics are both theoretical physics. Hel-loo! I never said I had a degree in Theoretical Physics. Get over it. That’s just your failing memory playing tricks on you again. Or else you’re lying. Take your pick. You’re wrong every time you open you’re mouth. You can’t seem to get things straight. Eat more fish. 🐟🐟🐟
|
mahgister
=Oh, that! Why didn’t you say it earlier? Is is possible to have an object without any potential link to consciousness? Isn’t everything related on some level?» In the cartesian dualism there is a subject external to the things...Most materialistic science are born of this ideology...This ended after Max Planck...But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:) No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it...All is related on another level yes...in pure mathematics, reality is totally revealed, it is a pure field of signification for the consciousness...I love mathematics not because I love to calculate, but because numbers are more real than a table for me.... And music is only sensible mathematics agitated by the heart for the ears... >>>>I’m afraid things are in much worse shape than you might realize. All of that philosophical stuff has its place, no doubt, but for AUDIO the biggest overachiever 🏋🏻♂️ has got to be Rupert Sheldrake. And the best part is that his theory of morphic resonance is something you can actually APPLY to audio. So, it takes things out of the realm of intellectualism and puts it directly into direct APPLICATION. And morphic resonance can be proven. Yes, that’s right. In fact, a 💰 prize WAS awarded to the person who proved it. The panel of judges included David Bohm, no mean philosopher himself. LONG LIVE INFORMATION FIELDS! 🤗 For the advanced student, https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Science_of_Life_Appx_B.pdf |
thyname
“‘’ atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy“” No s@&*%t, you just realized that now? That’s what this guy does, full time. It’s his job. Every single Facebook group and audio forum. He has mastered the art of trolling. Can’t beat him I am afraid >>>He’s a troll? Are you hot doggin’ me? 🌭Well shut my mouth and call me cornpone! Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! |
Thanks millercarbonVery interesting voice of Alan Watts that was unknown to me but I read it a lot young...It was the first voice for me that made me thinking about my link with the world...My best to you.... |
GEOFF, Please Stop Lying. You, yes You, absolutely did claim that you have a degree in theoretical physics. https://www.stereophile.com/content/absolutely-classless-stereophilegeoffkait,
I have a degree in theoretical physics (fluid dynamics and propulsion) from the University of Virginia, actually now that I think about it I accumulated the most credits ever recorded by an undergraduate, 203. I was selected to present my undergraduate thesis to the AIAA national conference on a design of a low thrust rocket engine for interplanetary space travel using highly magnetized metal crystal bombarded by highly accelerated Xenon ions. I designed the FAA’s first satellite system twenty five years ago. i wrote the definitive explanation for how the intelligent chip works quantum mechanically ten years ago and have been designing quantum chips for many years. However, I can certainly understand how English majors would be rubbed the wrong way. Cheers, geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica September 28, 2014 - 7:34am
geoffkait18,271 posts11-15-2019 5:16amatdavid,
I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m a theoretical physicist. Theoretical
propulsion and theoretical fluid dynamics are both theoretical physics.
Hel-loo! I never said I had a degree in Theoretical Physics. Get over
it. That’s just your failing memory playing tricks on you again. Or else
you’re lying. Take your pick. You’re wrong every time you open you’re
mouth. You can’t seem to get things straight. Eat more fish. 🐟🐟🐟
|
I can entertain a reciprocal relation with a living subject, for example Boris my dog, and Boris my dog can entertain a relation with me...In the universal memory field of morphic resonance of Sheldrake (the living part of the information field) this relation is there transforming itself for eternity...
The relation I have with a table or an amplifier does not transform itself for the eternity and is not reciprocal...This is a passive external relation that works only one side, it is an illusory relation...The relation with Boris is not illusory...It is a conscious individual...
I can entertain a relation with my amplifier, but my amplifier cannot entertain a reciprocal relation with me, then this relation is not in the living part of the information field, and is not there primarily for the eternity...
The morphic resonance field is in the living part of the information field, and is linked internally to the universal memory field directly...If you apply this theory directly to object like to a living consciousness you go too far away...
An audio gear, amplifier, dac, etc cannot be connected to a consciousness the same internal way a living subject is...
This is the difference between the morphic resonance theory of Sheldrake and magical thinking...And there is one...
G.K. your interpretation of the theory of morphic resonance make it magical...
The science fact behind this theory that must be verified by experiment is "the internal reciprocal link" between all living consciousness on earth and in the universe, be it me and my dog for example... With this interpretation I think that this theory is valid and falsifiable...Not with your interpretation...Things dont exist forever for eternity, you did, and all conscious being did....Hence things (pre-conscious being are not autonomous INDIVIDUALS) dont entertain internal reciprocal relation with you and me and our consciousness...We differ on that...
Tweaks cannot be explained by morphic resonance theory directly in the first place...Not my tweaks at least...
My best to all...
|
Uh, Mr. Smarty Pants, there is no degree in theoretical physics. I was just making a point back on Stereophile. It appears I don’t have to squeeze your head to make 💩 come out.
|
|
