Power Cords Snake Oil ??

Eldartford, I don't think science is anywhere near as mature as you and others might suggest. We understand the basics of many things but the details of very few.

I have studied college physics and mathematics, and for the most part been successful at it. This 'little bit' of knowledge (along with being a dangerous thing) has piqued my curiosity to continue the study on my own, not by experimenting, but by reading and studying.

I find it amusing that the cutting edge scientists in most fields are far less dogmatic than their followers. There are far fewer hard fast laws among the elite than among audiophiles, and high school teacher. Many admit that much of what is taught as fact is theory, at best.

Teachers were far more convinced of the origin of the world, and man before 'Information Theory' was developed calling into question many of their assertations. These questions do nothing to change the minds of those who do not participate in the study though. I merely use this as an example. I have no desire to enter into a futile debate over the merits of origin, or Information Theory.

I do not own equipment which measures poorly, but sounds great. I guess the reference here is to SETs. I have never heard them, for that matter. But if they sound as good as their proponants say, does that mean something is wrong with SETs, or the tools used to measure. The opinion is that we don't understand what we are trying to measure for the most part, so we don't have the tools to accomplish our desires.

Again I return to the analogy of Dwarves on the Shoulders of Giants. Those who came before went as far as their technology would allow. Now 'modern science' has to build on their foundation, and continue the work rather than sitting back and saying the work is finished. Our technology has developed over the years and we should be able to go much farther than our scientific forefathers. In many areas science is continuing to develop, it just takes a while for theory to affect practical application. Does anyone really think that the stereo systems of today are the best there will ever be? Of course not! That's because science is going to continue to grow and allow for the next great wave of improvements. Those improvements will be in areas which are not properly understood today. Hopefully someone will understand another area of measurement in what is existing now that will allow for the explanation of something not yet understood, and all of us will ride the coat tails of this new breakthrough to experience even better systems and I'm afraid to suggest, even PCs!!!

There is much about ourselves and our own world that we do not understand. To suggest otherwise is simply foolish. There is much for science to learn. Science is the first to admit this. Consider that science has often been wrong in the past, and has admitted as much once proven to be fact. This is a step toward maturity!!!

I wish those who speak out in the name of science would follow the example of the ones with more understanding.

The older I get the more I'm conviced that the person who has the answer did not understand the question. That's only a little bit of a joke!

Nrchy...Because cosmology and quantum physics are not fully understood this does not mean that we don't know how audio amplifiers work. You need to keep your skepticism within reasonable bounds.

There is a book which I enjoyed reading, and I think you would too. "The Big Bang never happened". Get it from your library.

Clueless: I bow down before your boffo-ness, and will henceforth only connect my soup cans with CryoThermionically-treated tiny jock straps. :-)

Nrchy: This is a minor, tangential point, but I have a compulsion to chasten any time I hear someone setting 'fact' and 'theory' in opposition to each other ("...much of what is taught as fact is theory, at best"). (A classic instance of this confusion concerns the biologically foundational theory of evolution.) A 'theory' is best understood as a model for reality, meaning that any useful theory will not be contradicted by the facts as they are known - even if that theory is itself not directly testable - and that the theory can explain (or can be modified to explain) the observable facts. To call an idea about how the universe works a theory is in no way to denigrate its validity, provided it is supported by all the available evidence. Indeed, some of the most predictive science is theory-based - maybe, someday, String Theory included.

Zaikesman...I think that the way it goes is that, first, someone comes up with a "Hypothesis". At this point it is pure conjecture. Then, the Hypothesis is tested by examination of data from tests that ought to be affected by the Hypothesis. If most of the data corresponds with what would be predicted by the Hypothesis, it becomes a "Theory". Not all theories are equally well supported by data. However, when there is a great deal of good supporting data, the theory is called a "Fact". Few people would argue that the theory that the earth is round is not a fact.

I consider power cord effects to be a hypothesis.

said above >>Not all theories are equally well supported by data.

With regard to this thread string theory will never be subject to verification or data. It is almost pure mathematics, and will likely forever remain so, which has caused some physicists to call it metaphysics rather than science.

This was on of the reasons for my "buffo' above. The idea of going from string theory to hands on power cord conclusions is so silly, imho, as to make my posts look "normal."

Cheers
I remain