Printable View
i seem to have caused some stir when replying to a thread on this forum.
some quasi scientific explanations were bandied around and some decidedly incorrect statements were put forward as explanations for whatever the poster was trying to prove.
i subscribe to the notion that if someone published rubbish as a science on a public forum, it needs to be exposed as rubbish for others that may not have the same insight and may take the said rubbish to be good science.
what do you reckon ?
I agree.
But I have no idea of what you are referring too.
Good science can be falsified, bad science cannot.
Twaddle is always twaddle
I do not know the details of the tread you refer to, however I have always taken the view that what is posted amounts to the collective knowledge based upon lifetimes of experience. Thus when someone states a point, it has the unspoken (unwritten) rider "..I believe that what I am proposing is true". However if it is a "leg-pull", then it needs to be telegraphed as such.
Good, bad and twaddle?
Well, I dunno. It's a bit like someone talking about the effects of muons, Higg's bosons and phlogiston.
What it boils down to, much of the time, is it doesn't matter which is "real..." except to other experts in that particular field. (Self-proclaimed or otherwise.)
To most of us it's just "Oh? Really?" and then we forget about it and go on happily doing our own thing. Unless it's patently obvious that it's misinformation, in which case we like to jump up and down like a congress of baboons, throwing... stuff at each other.
(Rather like our guvmint, ackershully. :think: )
In the main I think that Brosh has the most realistic viewpoint.
Ohhh, audio flame wars - next you'll be saying that valve amplifiers don't produce a better sound than transistors or that you can't hear the difference between broken-in speaker cable and brand new stuff!!!!
The way my BS Detector (patent pending - not) works, is that if it sounds like BS, or looks like BS, or if the promoter has a vested interest in the promotion, then it's probably BS. And the BS'er isn't even aware it's BS.
Cheers,
Joe
Sort of, but ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
i had a friend who was into a hi fi stuff and when i called his bluff about green texter on CD rim (anyone remembers the fad ?? ) he said that just because it cannot be measured (the difference the green texter on the rim of a CD makes) it does not mean it is not there and cannot be heard.
This was an excellent point and scientifically valid, lack of proof that something does exist does not equate to the proof of something not existing.
So, as much as I am cynical of the mojo in the silver guitar pick or this or that timber in an electric guitar, if it makes someone happy and that translates to better playing, good luck to them and I agree that it all makes a difference.
so, do not make fun of "run_in" directional audio cables :C :q they make someone happy and there is a mother somewhere that loves them:;
But, I woudl still stand up and call their bluff if they tried to convince the rest of the world that their opinion is better then mine or yours. :~
The thread i am refering to in my original post is : https://www.woodworkforums.com/f98/au...uitars-124047/
There are some really dodgy "scientific" explanations in there that I felt compelled to rectify.
Nothing too high brow, just very basic and elementary electro magnetic physics.
At least one person got upset for being told that their posting was incorrect and misleading for the prospective audience.
I think that I did the right thing by questioning the incorrect statements but since i got at least one bloke upset I am having some doubts
I am looking for support of my peers to make me feel better :B or the criticism to make me a better person :U
Angels on heads of pins, anyone?
alrighty...if you insist...I'll have a go at making you a better person...Quote:
Originally Posted by stolar
...here are some of your quotes from the other thread..
...just thinking that some folks may read them as a tad confrontational
...you have talent for pointing out irrelevant ...:q (and not reading before responding)
...why are you hell bent on trying to convince us that your opinion is the truth and all the while not providing any relevant proof or even evidence to support it ..
"
....Just because you have not heard it make any difference does not mean that there is none..
....you have not provided any proof in this dicussion so far that your opnion is more valid then those opposing you .. :no:<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
__________________
<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Branko
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks underfoot,
I am known to be somewhat blunt in general and i am trying to work on that although at my age I may be fighting a loosing battle
I am not tying to offend, just never learned to make fuzzy feel good words into my sentences.
I also have to admit that I was somewhat annoyed by the amount of incorrect information being offered and maybe that shows
Actually i think that is what you are telling me, isn't it ? :B
If a post annoys you it pays to go and make a cup of tea or coffee and think about the response before the fingers overide the brain.:wink:
SOMETIMES it takes 2-3 cups before responding.:D
I participated in the thread in question and with due respect the only person I saw getting "upset" was you. You and another poster in that thread disagreed on something.......it happens very day on this and thousands of other forums around the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by stolar
You posted up detailed explanations of your angle on the subject being argued along with reasons why you think you're correct. Why not just leave it at that and let the other participants in the thread like myself do their own homework and decide for themselves whose explanation they prefer? :U
Cheers Martin
From someone trained to do science, with all its shortcomings, can I say that the term is used fast and loose, but it's an approach to discovering or confirming/disconfirming something.
And it relies on posing a clear question, using the most rigorous means of gathering data, coming to a conclusion and honestly reporting on this process.
Even then, it may take multiple such processes for a community of scientists to come to some sort of consensus, cos rarely does one study do it for all.
I try to get this across to my students, who are all of the generation that thinks their opinion is a good as anyone else's. And they're right. Opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one. But that's not science.
When it comes to opinions or approaches to subjects that woudl be fine..Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
As a matter of fact, I am not sure which camp of the two I woudl chose to align with... I can see both points of view and both can be valid depending on what is important to you ...
It was the dodgy science that I took exception to...
I think I see what you are saying, people can check the facts themselves if they really care?
The problem with internet is that some unsuspecting person can stumble upon the thread and take dodgy explanations as correct. Hence this thread.
If you see something that is obviously misleading or result of misunderstanding do you jump in and try to correct it or mind your own business?
I think I did upset Steve (simso) by trying to correct him. It is occurring to me now that maybe it was how I did it rather than what i did, oh well ... no one ever suggested that i should have pursued a career in diplomacy .
Good to see the nation's next generation of scientists are receiving some good grounding in the discipline from teachers such as yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsser
Thanks.
I also respect the wisdom that comes from practice.
And especially those practitioners who can articulate what works for them and why.
* what context?
* what use of means and why?
* what possible limitations and variations?
That's also scholarship though it doesn't depend on the standard processes of peer review etc.
I came across this post by a personal referral....as this thread is about me, then Ill have a few words and leave it at that if I may
The problem stolar, is that some people are just know it alls.:2tsup:
The topic at hand was a new guitar builder was asking for choices of wood for an electric guitar... this then digressed in open discussion no arguments between builders wood suppliers and general guitar enthusiasts for 13 pages, you came on the seen at page 13 not to offer views but to commet on my post, you then contined on this for 2 pages, now as I am a commercial luthier and woodwind instrument repairer (that means I build and repair guitars violins saxes flutes for a living) then I have a right to my views,and so does everyone else, :~,
The issues I had, was.. you asked a simple enough question directed at me and no one else, you did not contibute to the thread, I politley answered, from there you became critical and nit picked my responses, you did not contribute to the conversation you used it as an opportunity to self promote your internet obtained knowledge, you started lecturing me about elctro magnetic fields terminologys etc, Since I spent 13 years working with electr magnetic fields I would like to think I know what Im talking about, your history on electro magnetic fields is??, Then you contined with fundamentals of electricity and so forth. I answered you responses with the correct technical references only to have you continue nit picking and sayiing Im wrong, after a while it gets a bit tedious, and was in no way beneficial to the thread at hand....It would be beneficial if you contributed to the thread rather than try to personally attack someones opinion or responses...Out of curiosity what is it that you do for a living
When I said "to prevent the destruction of the thread", which was very interesting reading lots of views and ideas from everyone...I said "Im out", you then continued to say via private email Im wrong. To this end on the first reply back to you I courtously gave some info that is technical and gave the known references, Example snells law. You then followed up saying to me via private email, yes you seem to be correct but snells law refers to this and not that, I told you, you were a know it all and to go away, You still couldnt let something go even after the responder via pm said there not interested and again you followed up via pm on a full 3 paragraph defintion on how snells law works, dude 24 hrs earlier you had never even heard of it, then your an expert on it and lecturing me about it and saying im constantly wrong..:doh:
Then you have the audacity to start a thread about this topic and seek approval from your peers and say you like to pull people up on dodgy science.:~, are you serious.
Some advice if I may " as one of your peers "
Contribute to threads, dont use them to enforce your views
Dont try to big note yourself, some humillity goes a long long way
Use you own knowledge on the facts.... dont read a post on the net and suddenly act as if its your own
and if by pm they say go away, dont follow it up again with well your wrong blah blah blah
And lastly dont then try to justify your actions thoughts process's when you really tick that person off, by starting another thread about that thread
Seriously live life, Be well:D:D. lifes to short to get caught up in this rubbish
Let me assure you that this thread is not about you. I have to admit that your unrelenting misuse of technical terms, misinterpretation of natural phenomena and apparent misunderstanding of the laws of physics may have contributed, and acted as a catalyst for me to start this thread. But let me assure you again, you are not alone on the internet and this thread is not about youQuote:
Originally Posted by simso
Once again in case it was not clear in the previous paragraph, this thread is not about you, it is about me.
I am not sure if you are flattering yourself or recognising yourself as a subject of a cautionary tale.
Ain’t that the truth !Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
At this stage I am not sure if you are misinterpreting on purpose or that is your genuine recollection. Here is what really happened (not hard to verify, just look up the thread):Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Any comments that I made about your statements were tongue in cheek and marked as such. At no point did I make fun of you, mocked you personally, questioned your character or your craft or suggested that your opinions are less valid or talk about your bad spelling. I did say that you failed to provide any evidence that your opinion is more valid.
I started by asking a question about the basis of your position in the debate. You yourself stated:so I simply asked if you came to your conclusion scientifically or was it a result of a casual observation. ( Let me also say that i am sure Isac would be very pleased to hear that you agree with him :rolleyes:)Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
There was never any doubt about your right to views and opinions, and i never said or implied otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
BTW, I am curious, you have not missed one opportunity to point out that you are luthier, why do you feel the need to repeat this? And if I may quote you once again from the same thread:Who am I to argue :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
the question was about your statement, one that you repeated number of times, simple question about the basis for the statement, quite relevant to the thread IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by simso
I can see how you can take this personally but it was not about you, it was simply about a lot of incorrect information and confused terminology. I kept it to the point and about specific subjects. I believe that this was relevant for the discussion. If you write something on a public forum, you should expect to be challenged and tested and you should be able to defend what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
At no point did I publicly attack your person or attacked your opinion. I challenged correctness of your technical statements. You, on the other hand, continue to attach my person. You provided no actual support for the challenged statements. When you did try, you actually continued with incorrect information. What you do or did for living makes little difference in support of incorrect and misleading technical information that you supplied.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
If you have to know, I am an electrical engineer. Long time ago my parents spent good money for me to learn all this and remember it correctly. To satisfy your curiosity about my current employment, I currently manage a professional services practice. Both my training and current empolyment are largelly irrelevant for the correctness of my statements. Natural phenomena that were "discussed" and the laws of physics explainig them are videlly known and documented. Available for ready lookup, on the internet if you are so inclined or on your local library if you prefer books.
I am not sure why do you think that I never heard about the Snell’s law. Sorry to burst your bubble but Snell’s law is a high school physics, nothing very esoteric. Anyone, who ever wondered about how a rainbow occurs, knows about it. Although, you did rattle off the formula that describes the Snell’s law (you did misspell theta as pheta though), you do not seem to fully understand the natural phenomenon that it describes.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Once again, if you write something on the public forum, you should expect to be challenged and not take it personally.
Mhh, i am actually seeking opinions on my moral dilemma but will take approvals if they come.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
If you are referring to the Aussie wood for electric guitars, i have hardly offered any opinions there, mostly technical facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Have you thought about using the same advice yourself?
Are you talking about yourself or me ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
I am still at the loss how did you come up with that one, was that the most offensive thing you could think of? Is that where your “knowledge” comes from?Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
That was a PM. Why did you make it public? (this is a rhetorical question, i am not really asking for your response)Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
I am a big boy and do not need approval or justifications for the things I do. I am too old and too grumpy for that. Again, get hold of yourself, this thread is not about you. If i wanted to be nasty and abusive i could have done so in the original thread, you provided a lot of material for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
So why are you responding to this then ??? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Is it like i said before that i would like to have the last word but you will not let me?
You contributed a lot of irrelevant, incorrect or incorrectly stated information to the thread and thrown in a lot of technical terms for a good measure, many used incorrectly. I did not pull you up on all of them, just selected few, I will take this opportunity to list more:
# Solid body electric guitar manufacturing did not start 85 years ago, it started in the 1950’s. (1948 if you really want to be specific). Earlier electric guitars were acoustic guitars with a pickup and therefore irrelevant for the subject at hand.
# Leo Fender never manufactured guitars in Mexico, I think that happened after Leo Fender was long gone from the Fender company.
# A process of generating a current with a changing magnetic field in not called inductive reactance. Inductive reactance is not a process, it is a reactive component of electric resistance.
# What is “induced electromagnetic current” ? Did you maybe mean to refer to ”magnetically induced electrical current”
# When you say something like “electromagnetic field is a magnetic field created by the movement of electricity” i only assume that you wanted to say “magnetic field can be generated by electric current and the charge present in the current will contribute an electrical field”.
# Electricity does not move. Electrical current is movement of electrical charge.
# Electromagnetic field is not just a magnetic field, it is a linked occurrence of an electric and a magnetic fields.
# Guitar string does not vibrate in an “electromagnetic field” ? ( not one that is relevant to the operation of the electric guitar anyway) Guitar string vibrates in a magnetic field of a permanent magnet in a PU.
# What relevance does collapsing and expanding magnetic field have on the operation of a PU?
# Guitar neck will “allow flexing of the tension of the strings and in turn can vary the ability of the string to vibrate“ ?!?!?!?! What does that mean? That the neck will allow the pitch of a string to change and this will be picked up by a PU?
# And then there is the crowning example of a dog’s breakfast of randomly thrown words that may mean something in different order or in a proper sentence: “the angle the sound is introduced into the material can vary greatly the speed it travels through it, its noted as compressional sound / shear wave sound and plate, these are all dependant on the angles that the sound is induced into the material alsp on the material itself” this is the twaddle of the year in my book!
As i told you in a PM, a speed of wave DOES NOT vary with the angle of entry. A speed of a wave through any material is constant for any given frequency. Different frequencies can have different speeds of propagation. This particular property of water for visible light is responsible for the before mentioned rainbow. For some materials and some waves, a speed of a wave does not vary with frequency.
As I said dude, some people are just know it alls:2tsup:. But you would already know that,
Attempting any relevant conversation with yourself clealry is a waste of time, Enjoy living in your world where you are always correct (In your opinion)
Someone seems to have way too much time on their hands.
How about this post is closed :oo:
Either that or change the title of the thread to "two dogs who won't let go of a bone".Quote:
Originally Posted by AUSSIE
Do you think tea is better that coffee or coffee is better than tea? :think:Quote:
Originally Posted by
perhaps "good manners, bad manners and twaddle"Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Cliff, our posts can't be of topic (and moderated) as they are under the "twaddle part" :D , so I think that coffee is better in the first instance followed by a glass of port or two or three is the coffee doesn't help. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Peter.
The problem seems to be getting to have the last word. The solution then is obvious.
Both parties should put up a post at exactly the same time. All posts have a date and time stamp so its a simple matter of organising it so both parties press the submit button at exactly the same time.
I suggest this becomes the subject of a prolonged argument over multiple threads and PM's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Well, as one of the more pedantic and argumentative (he said with only a touch of understatement) posters on this forum, and indeed the Internet, even I think that carrying the debate over into a new thread is probably going a bit far.
Assuming that the original poster is genuine in his desire to debate this moral principle, I would say that the Internet is chock full of misinformation and it would be a naive person who took any of it at face value without at least some scepticism, and you should certainly always check the facts before spending money or putting your life or property at risk.
However I suspect that this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to take the moral high ground in a debate. I should know, I've used the tactic often myself. It rarely works though :D
WoofQuote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Now thats just silly....Coffee of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Okay topic...
I dont know about everyone else, but sometimes you will be walking along the street and theres a fly that buzz's around your face, no matter what you do, you push it away, swing your arms at it and so forth, but no matter what... it keeps hanging around.. In the end you squash the fly.
For me this is how this situation is. Comments were made in a first thread, I brushed it aside a few times, then it came at me from another direction a few times " private messaging", i brushed it aside again, then it comes again via a brand new thread just about it. Seriusly Im at the point were no longer willing to brush it aside But SQUAT it.
Now Ive had my morning coffee (not tea), and am ready to reply to topic at hand and not the individual.
Hence let the debate begin.
Stolar, so the thread doesnt become to big, Im happy to reply to one misconception you say Im incorrect and misleading, pick one that you believe that you are 100 percent correct on and I am wrong on. Then we can have a civil debate.
I look forward to discussing that topic with you and your views and how they differ from mine
Psst
"Word":cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
2 people here have something in common
Did you know that?
Both joined in August 2005 :oo::oo::oo:
OH- but live on opposite sides of Australia
Or revive the old discussion of pancakes, just as relevant as this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Peter.
I thought that was the problem, debate started in another thread and when one party couldn't get his way started again in this one. :((Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
What's the betting on when Stolar starts another new thread to continue this saga. :p
Peter.
started it, not me. :rolleyes: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Port is not a bad idea but I think a cold shower may help as well. :think:
some excellent ideas :q exactly what i woudl expect in this section of the forum !
Reading and understanding also does not seem to necessarily have close correlation :rolleyes:
Steve, if you want to prove me wrong, please explain how can the formula that describes the Snell's law be resolved if both the angle of refraction is dependant on the speed and at the same time the speed is dependant on the angle of refraction.
For extra difficulty, you explanation is not allowed to refer to your training, past or current experiences, number of thousands of musical instruments that you have worked on, your thoughts on my knowledge or character or introduce any additional factors or coefficients into the formula.
BTW what is wrong with wanting to have the last word.:B
If only Steve would go away and let me have the last word ...
but then some of you lot would come in just to spoil it for me :q
Cool, so of all the issues and topics, you want to run with snells law, Im not going to throw theorys out there but physically prove that what I say is correct.
However I am curious as the issues you had in the original topic was magnets / magnetic fields / electro magnetic fields / eddy currents and so forth, snells law is something I said on my last post on the way out and that was in reference to the fact that sound moves at different speeds within a material which via pm you disagreed,,that point where the different speeds occur can be measured with the formula in snells law.. So lets clarify what it is in snells law you want me to prove to you, regarding dodgy science
Very good, I havent exercised my brain muscles for a while, but I can feel a mental flexing happening
Now it may take a day to prove as I will need to do a test example and show pictures of defined results, and I have about 400 musical instrument in at the moment that Im repairing as well
Just a reminder that in strict scientific terms there is no such thing as "proving" anything. All one can ever hope to do do is disprove a specific statement - and that still does not constitute a general proof of the opposite.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Youve been online for a while, Im surprised you havent clarified what it is that I earlier referred to in snells law that is dodgy, rather you have posted an extract of a definition of snells law and then simply reversed the statement. Its not about proving you wrong, its about clarifing as you put it good science bad science and twaddle and the need as you point out at the start of this thread to call people on any said notions
Your comment "you have not missed one opportunity to point out that you are luthier," is definetly over-exaggerated, I am but a humble musical instrument repairer.
However my history is slightly different, lets identify there are qualifications and certifications, qualified for me means I have undertaken a course of study at a recognised institution like universitys etc, certification means Ive been endorsed by a governing body to carry out that qualification in a commercial aspect. Ive worked my whole life and have been fortunate enough to have some interesting jobs from education that I recieved through my life
# First Im a qualified and certified private investigator (means I investigate false and misleading information)
# Secomd Im a qualified and Certified Aircraft mechanical engineer
# Im also a Qualified and Certified inspector of Aircraft for Casa - civiil aviation safety authority of australia
# Im also a qualified and certified Jet engine mechanic
I carry other qualifications and certifications but they are not relevant to the topic at hand..
How ever you will note I only refer to myself as a musical instrument repairer, thats my hobby that became a business that Im passionate about and now carry out on a commercial scale...
Im also very passionate about wood, hence why I post on this forum, Ive built most of my furniture at home and I build guitars and other items
That's probably because you're starting from such a low base.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
(Sorry Silent, I can never resist a gratuitous shot, but you know I really love ya.)
Yes sadly my moral high ground is rarely above the ten year floodplain. That's why it pays to invest in a pair of waders. Also helps when you need to wade through some of the BS that is bandied about :D
I actually did. That was the first thing that i pulled you up on it. If you go back to the PMs that i sent you I quite specifically stated thatQuote:
Originally Posted by simso
a) contrary to your post, a speed of a wave through a material is not affected by an angle the wave is introduced into the material
b) snell's law specifies that a refraction angle will depend on a ratio of speeds between the two materials (more specificalle a ration of sines or two angles (of incidence and of refraction) is directly proportional to the ration of speeds of the said wave in the exiting material and entering material). It does not specify the speed in the entered material as a function of the entry angle.
you have stated:
I am asking you to demonstrate ( either theoretically, experimentally or empirically ) that speed of a wave (sound, light ...) though a homogeneous material can be varied by the angle of entry of that wave into that material.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
I also stated that the only way that the speed of a wave could depend on the an angle of travel is if the density of the material varies with the direction away from the point of entry. In that case the speed is not really a function of an angle but of the density of the material. The angle is just an incidental factor.
I hope that this is a clear enough statement.