atdavid
Responses from atdavid
| How Science Got Sound Wrong mahgister,The timing resolution, within the bandwidth limited system, is orders of magnitude better than the sampling rate at even fairly low SNR. Within a bandwidth limited system, which the "mechanical" auditory system starts as, continuous time... | |
| Has to be said And yet you used classical EM to explain wave cancellation. Funny that. Could it be that because classical EM is more than accurate enough to describe in more that sufficient detail how a CD player work?geoffkait18,791 posts12-09-2019 2:18pmatdavi... | |
| Has to be said Unfortunately I have to agree with you 100% on this ... thecarpathian798 posts12-09-2019 1:48pm"...I have no intention of boring other participants..."Too late.Your first mistake is thinking the majority of people on here take everything geoff wri... | |
| Why no “Break in” period? nonoise,What you are describing appears to be mainly recognizing a sound, which is different from remembering subtle characteristics of that sound. You can recognize a sound or image even when it is very distorted, like a persons voice on a noisy ... | |
| Why no “Break in” period? Everyone (pretty much) who makes electronics "burns in" their equipment at least a few hours, sometimes even 24 or 48 to eliminate early failures caused by component anomalies and manufacturing defects. I think they mean reforming. When an electro... | |
| Has to be said Hey #3, I see you are still trolling while adding nothing to the discussion not addressing anything I have written, but are just continuing with the ad-hom attacks. I hope this gives you some purpose in life because I do worry about you. | |
| Has to be said It is irrelevant. He mentions the dual slit experiment which is specific to wave particle duality which does not apply with a simple optical detector. He also made a post to a CD optical system which really shows nothing, as it neither discusses n... | |
| Has to be said Clearthink, don't you have some people with disabilities to insult like you did last time you attempted to debate with me? I see you have nothing to add to this argument, and I have no intention of boring other participants with clear description... | |
| Has to be said Obfuscation and irrelevance. That is not a great way to approach an argument. Let's call that strike 1. Care to go for strike 2? | |
| Has to be said Consistently wrong with no evidence to support any of your claims, the one about a large percentage of the laser output being visible being proved wrong, and no, I don't support your claim about scattered light as 1) Little is visible, 2) There is... | |
| Has to be said You have 0 data on what percentage of the scattered light is visible, like most of your other claims. Heck, you probably have not even researched, till after I make this post, how effective the visible light filter is on the detector. That is okay... | |
| Why no “Break in” period? +1 prof.Keeping it classy while subjected to repeated personal attacks, ad-homs, straw-mans, anecdotal fallacies, and any number of other logical fallacies. | |
| Has to be said Yes, but unless you account for Argenstein spin factor on quantum resonances, it is a just a bunch of hullabaloo. | |
| Has to be said No discussion needed. You are publishing false information (noted many times) to shill for your products. Please stop! | |
| Has to be said Be good GK, or I will have to take marks off for bad behaviour. Ever notice that X-ray telescopes are only at very high altitudes or space based, but you can get pretty good visible light resolution at ground level. Turns out much visible light pa... |