A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Nikola,
Philosophy,science and mathematics share many admirable qualities.
Lewm asks me if I can't 'imagine' two structures on a shelf reacting differently to each other?
Yes......I can imagine such a thing.
But I can also 'imagine' a man flying?
I ask Lewm to give me an example of how the base for my turntable and armpods is 'moving' as he claims,and also some proof of such movement?
Yet all I get is a parable that equates a 'solid' shelf affected only by gravity to a 'liquid' ocean affected by winds, currents, depth, thermal movents and tides.
And Raul thinks that's a highly attractive analogy?!
Lewm accuses me of claiming that "the world is flat"......yet that analogy seems odd as it was the general population claiming that the world was flat whilst initially one man claimed otherwise?

As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'.
Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?

And we wonder why audiophiles......to the rest of the population.....are a laughing stock?

Hello Halcro, **As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'.
Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?**

Since you used a question mark, I assume you're asking a question, otherwise you're making a statement, but you're unsure?

Your statement presupposes that everything and all phenomena, can be proven scientifically. Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.

Regards,

Raul, With the big Micro Seiki's, and since we are all about building new or modifying original products to suit our beliefs and desires, isn't is possible to get around their perceived problems with the armboard mount by using (i) an outboard armpod, or (ii) a modification of the original cantilevered design? Since those tables reportedly have many virtues (never heard one myself), wouldn't this be worth the effort?

Here is another bone for contention: It's fine to say that the "shelf" is the plinth when one is using an outboard armpod (regardless of whether the turntable itself is plinth-less), but so far as I can tell, no one is mechanically fastening the two entities to the shelf. Thus, there is nothing to prevent disparate energetic interactions between the turntable proper and the shelf, on one hand, and the armpod and shelf, on the other hand. As you know, Henry, a shelf will be put into oscillation, by energy put into it. Objects that just happen to be sitting on a node (an area of the shelf that is not moving) will be relatively immune to the problem of the shelf vibrating under it. (The location and number of such nodes will be related to the material of which the shelf is made, its density, its thickness, and thus its resonant frequency.) Other objects that happen to be at a point of maximum movement of the shelf as the wave of energy is absorbed, expended as heat, and dissipates, will move most. Therefore, it is quite likely that the arm pod and turntable will be differentially effected by resonance of the shelf. This will cause relative movement of the one vs the other. This will happen more or less regardless of the mass of the armpod and turntable, etc. This is the crux of my argument.

There are some very expensive turntables being made these days with separate arm pods. The Simon Yorke, da Vinci, TOTL Kuzma, and one or two others come to mind. It seems that those designs at least provide very similar mounts for the two separate structures, very high mass, identical materials, etc. Some or all of these also include the mounting shelf, which I think speaks to my point. Such construction could mitigate the problem. I am not arguing that it can't "work"; I am just pointing out the issue that needs to be considered.

Dear Fleib, Your interpretation of what Henry stated is wrong. His first statement which is without question mark is about 'claiming the existance of phenomena without
scientific proof...', etc. This is not the same as 'believing that Higgs particles exist'. What one believes is not relevant in science otherwise we in Europe could save a huge amount of money with CMS in Cern. From his statement one can't deduce the assumption 'that everything and all phenomena can be proven scietificaly'. What he stated is that one should not CLAIM existance of whatever phenomena without scientific proof.
His second statement can be interpeted as a question because of the question mark but those are not the 'things' which can be true or fals but,say, interesting, boring, significant, senseless, etc. Ie questions are not truth functional.

Regards,

Hi Fleib,

Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.

True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'?
This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'.
Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven?
As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven?

In this case......there is no phenomenon proposed, which requires a 'thesis'?
Yet 'evidence' is fabricated to try to explain this 'phantom' phenomenon.

Not scientific in the slightest in my book?

Regards