Wolf_garcia, what has always perplexed me about engineers is their belief that we know everything about natural laws. But I've sat in civil engineering doctoral defenses and heard of "safety factors" to assure buildings will stand. I heard of engineers tracking what happened in the Challenger disaster and finding too many holes in the rings holding in the O rings caused them to break one after another with the O rings popping out.
We don't know everything. We know how to build building that mainly stand, circuits that mainly work, etc. You know you cannot explain why Tom's cello spike works so you think you are smart deriding his efforts, without having a clue about what you are talking about. And then you turn around and say you "anxiously await" vibration research.
Finally, if people hear differences where engineers say there can be none, should good engineers or scientists focus on why people hear those differences rather than saying there can be none?
We don't know everything. We know how to build building that mainly stand, circuits that mainly work, etc. You know you cannot explain why Tom's cello spike works so you think you are smart deriding his efforts, without having a clue about what you are talking about. And then you turn around and say you "anxiously await" vibration research.
Finally, if people hear differences where engineers say there can be none, should good engineers or scientists focus on why people hear those differences rather than saying there can be none?