Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?


Mechanical grounding or isolation from vibration has been a hot topic as of late.  Many know from experience that footers, stands and other vibration technologies impact things that vibrate a lot like speakers, subs or even listening rooms (my recent experience with an "Energy room").  The question is does it have merit when it comes to electronics and if so why?  Are there plausible explanations for their effect on electronics or suggested measurement paradigms to document such an effect?
agear
agear OP
1,201 posts
10-29-2016 9:49am
Geoffkait:You apprently have no idea what you’re talking about. Sheldrake is a PhD from Cambridge who has written a slew of books including the landmark The Presence of the Past. Intellectual is as intellectual does. It’s all in the concept, Ollie. You have to start somewhere. That’s where the genius is. The math can be done later by the drudges. A journey starts with a single step, grasshopper.

""Presence of the Past"? LOL. How about "Absence of Evidence." Being an apologist or apostle of woo woo does not make you an expert, just another guessing fool. I assume you consider Deepak Chopra a genius too by your metric?

Along with rudimentary English composition, was there an introduction to logic class offered during your freshman year at E school? Not show up much to class?"

Actually The Presence of the Past is filled with logically laid out evidence of Morphic resonance. Saying there is no evidence is actually a typical undergraduate mistake in logic, you know, since you have not even looked at the evidence. Btw I have more semester hours than you do and more difficult course material. So you can drop the pretense that you’re some some of Master debater. I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. The problem with your logic is you use a PhD, your Pop, to refute Morphic resonance. But that doesn’t make sense, it’s an appeal to authority. Just because your Pop is a PhD in the SAME FIELD doesn't mean Morphic resonance is NOT REAL. That's a, you know, fallacious argument. Same with using your biology background an Dumpty ump years in school. Strictly a fallacious argument. Follow?

have a nice weekend
Post removed 
Sheldrake is a debunked non-scientist.  Don't confuse science with 'intellectualism" -- it shows you do not understand science at all.

The same applies to the spurious notion that morphic woo-woo has to be proven wrong.  One always has to show experimental evidence for something before it will get any acceptance in science.
Randy-11 wrote,

"Sheldrake is a debunked non-scientist. Don’t confuse science with ’intellectualism" -- it shows you do not understand science at all.

In reality Sheldrake is rather successful, my pointy headed friend. To whit,

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. He was among the top 100 Global Thought Leaders for 2013, as ranked by the Duttweiler Institute, Zurich, Switzerland’s leading think tank. He studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize (1963). He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow (1963-64), before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry (1967). He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge (1967-73), where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society (1970-73), he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University. While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

In his most recent book (2012), called The Science Delusion in the UK and Science Set Free in the US, he examines the ten dogmas of modern science, and shows how they can be turned into questions that open up new vistas of scientific possibility. This book received the Book of the Year Award from the British Scientific and Medical Network.

In 2000, he was the Steinbach Scholar in Residence at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. From 2005-2010 he was the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge University. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in California, a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut, a Fellow of Schumacher College in Devon, England, and a Fellow of the Temenos Academy, London.

He received the 2014 Bridgebuilder Award at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, a prize established by the Doshi family "to honor an individual or organization dedicated to fostering understanding between cultures, peoples and disciplines." In 2015, in Venice, Italy, he was awarded the first Lucia Torri Cianci prize for innovative thinking.

Randy-11 also wrote,

"The same applies to the spurious notion that morphic woo-woo has to be proven wrong. One always has to show experimental evidence for something before it will get any acceptance in science."

There has been experimental evidence of Morphic resonance. You’re just a little too uh, uninformed to know where to find it. I also stated careful testing of my Morphic resonance based products prove Morphic resonance is not only REAL but is the OPERATING MECHANISM for how those products WORK. Products such as the Teleportation Tweak, Morphic Message Labels, Quantum Temple Bell, the Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock, Blue Meanies and Green Meanies. Hel-loo!
Keep rambling Kimosabe.  Maybe there is someout there who cares about your meaningless blather and useless products.