Do you believe in Magic?

Of course, the point of bringing up Einstein rings is that a supermassive object or group of objects is located between the viewer and the object(s) visible due to gravitational lensing. This object or group of objects can be a galaxy, supermassive black hole, or group of galaxies or black holes. But not a star. How massive is a supermassive black hole? Answer at 11.

For more details on what produces gravitational lensing you need look no further than Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

03-20-12: Geoffkait
Of course, the point of bringing up Einstein rings is that a supermassive object or group of objects is located between the viewer and the object(s) visible due to gravitational lensing. This object or group of objects can be a galaxy, supermassive black hole, or group of galaxies or black holes. But not a star...

For more details on what produces gravitational lensing you need look no further than Wikipedia.

You are quite correct, a person need look no further than Wikipedia…

Gravitational microlensing is an astronomical phenomenon due to the gravitational lens effect…

Microlensing is caused by the same physical effect as strong lensing and weak lensing, but it is studied using very different observational techniques. In strong and weak lensing, the mass of the lens is large enough (mass of a galaxy or a galaxy cluster) that the displacement of light by the lens can be resolved with a high resolution telescope such as theHubble Space Telescope. With microlensing, the lens mass is too low (MASS OF A PLANET OR A STAR) for the displacement of light to be observed easily, but the apparent brightening of the source may still be detected…

Gravitational lensing was first observed in 1979, in the form of a quasar lensed by a foreground galaxy. That same year Kyongae Chang and Sjur Refsdal showed that INDIVIDUAL STARS in the lens galaxy could act as smaller lenses within the main lens… [emphasis added]

That is from Wiki’s article on microlensing, a form of Gravitational Lensing in which the lens can be as small as a single star, or even a planet.

So next time, Geoff, I suggest you take your own advice and actually READ the Wiki article.

But all of this is a ridiculously irrelevant tangent. The subject of Gravitational Lensing only came up in the context of discussing the features of good explanations, one of which is that they entail predictions. The bending of light around objects of sufficient mass, which is now referred to by the general term ‘Gravitational Lensing,’ was simply an illustration of a prediction entailed by a good explanation (General Relativity). The details of Gravitational Lensing are utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is this...

Of the common features of good explanations – conforming to a recognized Model of Explanation, a causal connection between explanandum and explanans, a large Circle of Justification, entailed predictions, parsimony, independent corroboration – your explanations for Machina Dynamica products do not have a SINGLE one.

But I suspect you know the point I was making, and rather than struggle to respond to it, you try to misdirect the conversation with a triviality and irrelevance. That is another act of Obscurantism.

Thank you, Geoff, for continuing to make my point.

A short while ago you said...

If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? Will we harken back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm?

I find that comment ironic, in light of your ceaseless Obscurantism. In the Dark Ages, the powerful withheld knowledge and higher learning from the powerless largely through the use of Obscurantism.

The only person harkening back to the Dark Ages is you.

Bryon

Returning to the original topic of this thread…

After extensive experimentation with ERS cloth, I’ve come to the conclusion that, in my system, it is harmful more than helpful. Some folks predicted I would say that. You were right.

In virtually all applications I tried, ERS had the effect of making things sound strangely “muffled.” Many people report high frequency roll off and reduced “air.” To my ears, it isn’t a simple roll off, like you get with treble control. It’s something more unusual and difficult to describe. But the end result is less immediacy, and therefore less involvement. So now it’s all gone.

As to why my first impression with ERS cloth in the preamp was (slightly) positive, I believe it was for the reason Al hypothesized, i.e. the reduction of jitter. But after installing the ERS, I went on a crusade to reduce EMI/RFI in the system, which you can read about here, if you're interested. Among other things, I added about 15 pounds (!) of copper/steel/TI shielding inside the preamp. Presumably whatever benefits the ERS cloth initially resulted in were altered or offset by the additional shielding. Or my ears changed. Or my brain. Regardless of the explanation, after my extensive countermeasures in the battle with EMI/RFI, the ERS cloth definitely made things sound worse.

What is strange to me about the ERS cloth is that it seems to have a "muffling" effect when you place it on a variety of different equipment, e.g., preamp, power conditioner, circuit breaker. How in the world it could have the same effect on equipment as diverse as that is a mystery. I assume the answer is Magic.

Bryon

Hey, same thing happened to me. At first, in part due to all the hoopla surrounding the ERS paper when it came out (was it six years ago?) I thought the sound was better. Then a couple A/Bs later I noticed the sound was actually worse, even when using smaller and smaller squares of the material. The sound became woolly, more opaque, less musical. Even with all the ERS paper taken away from all the electronics and placed on the coffee table the weird sound persisted. Only when the stuff was taken entirely outside the house did the sound get back to normal. That's some bad juju.

I submit that the strongest evidence here is the mercurial nature of the experiences with such supposedly wonder-products. That they can be perceived to be efficacious, only later to be eschewed shows they're essentially worthless.