Separate names with a comma.
Okay, I'll look into the two points you outlined.
"Humans can learn to become bats"
"Sound is 360 degrees, vision is only 180"
Time to get the TakeT BPP? Lol -> http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html
At least now I know where TakeT got that "listening through your face" theory from... and wow, it's scientific! :O
^ They're using audible sound, nothing hypersonic. Blind people have been using this technique for years, listening with their ears.
The cool thing about this is the ability to create a 3D model of their surroundings as bats do using (again audible) sound cues.
You're right, the sound is fully audible to blind people, bats, dolphins, whales, birds etc.
I read a different article about echolocation without the clicking sounds though, and that was my "listening with your face" reference.
Hey, gregorio, I thought you were perma-banned, are you back on head-fi now?
You know what, there is proof that guitar cables display audible differences, this was discussed recently in a cable thread, i.e. the truth is cables sound different (in that specific case).
So.... believing "all cables are nonsense, sound the same", doesn't really help anyone ^^, the same applies to this thread, imho, there's usually specific cases which can break the rules, no need to look at everything in black and white, cynic VS believer, I think that's fruitless, just my view.
Edit: What I mean is, cables are nonsense 99% of the time, but there's usually a rule breaker, which is evidently guitar cables, there could be more, like using tin or lead in custom IEM cables, maybe. Just my view.
Mischa, sorry to tell you this, but we can detect and measure everything you mentioned in the first paragraph of that last quote
Supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy? Orbits of objects at the center of the galaxy. Those are actual orbits, plotted through observation. Using that we can even calculate the mass of the black hole (approximately anyway, allowing for errors in measurement). Ever heard of Keplar's Laws? Newton made some tweaks, and we can use those to determine the mass of objects using only the size of their orbit's semimajor axis and period.
Dark matter? There's a few reasons we know it exists. One is the orbital speed of objects in our galaxy. Using Newton's versions of Keplar's Laws again, we should observe a rapid increase in orbital speed as we approach the center of the galaxy. But we don't. The outer edges rotate much too fast. From this we can definitely conclude that the majority of the galaxy's mass lies outside of the center. Yet the majority of the observable mass is at the center. So we know there's unobservable mass in the halo. Again, this is not guesswork. It's mathematically provable exactly how much dark matter surrounds our galaxy, using observation and measurement. We can also determine from the concentration of ions and the distribution of background radiation in the observable universe how fast the universe is growing and accelerating, and different rates would be linked to different quantities of mass (due to the pull of gravity). From this we can also determine that observable matter only consists of about one sixth of the total mass in the observable universe. Again, this is through observation.
So that's 2 down, 999,998 to go. Got anything else we "can't measure"? That is, if you're still around and kiteki isn't just pulling up some random quotes from a decade ago.
Oh, and I sort of didn't read the rest of your post because I lost all respect for you. But if you assure me there's something good in there, I'll do it
You know, now that I think about it, dark matter was a really bad example of what you wanted to say. We can't observe dark matter directly, but we can measure it because of its effects. So it's sort of the opposite of what you wanted.
We can measure frozen orange juice too actually, with a microscope, I believe the ice crystals 'damage' the orange juice, so then when it's back at room temperature it doesn't taste as good as the fresh orange juice.
There is a way around that, you have to freeze the orange juice with liquid nitrogen, then it freezes so quickly, there are no crystal formations that will damage it's structure.
Okay, here's my reply to Mischa's post... I PM'ed it but since there's now a place for it...
Cool thanks Blackbeard, better to share for all than in PM.
Umm... I think dogs have more receptors in their nose and more cilia hair cellls in their ears or whatever, that's why they're better at hunting than we are, coz they can hear and smell more.
On the other hand, they can't listen to music through their face.
Edit: ...and quite conviniently, listening "through your face" is said to have impact on realism and soundstage, which are the most difficult factors to measure, afaik, so a bit annoying for the scientists. =P
Sure, most of the studies are from a decade ago, but now there are millions of people with a unit that says SACD in their living room, when they didn't even ask for it. =P
I don't really care very much personally, I just want to listen to music, and my hunch is microphones (recording) and speakers (playback) have much more impact than 19.5Hz optical illusions and 65kHz rainforest qualia, still kind of interesting nonetheless.
The funny thing is the Oohashi type studies have shown that deep tissue in the brain is stimulated, we can only assume it was faked, right? Some wikipedia entry about flipping a coin doesn't disprove it.
Sony has been a big proponent of the notion for some time. From the current sound that Sennheiser puts out I'd venture to say they're playing along. Whether for real or marketing purposes I leave to the 'experts' here to figure out. I once read a statement from Sony about it but I'd have to hunt it down. Till then I'll avoid getting dredged into anything. Yes, I'm sure the figures below are nicely massaged to varying degrees, still....
Freq Resp: 6Hz - 110Khz
Freq Resp: 5Hz - 120Khz
Freq Resp: 5Hz - 42Khz
Freq Resp: 6Hz - 51Khz (-10dB), 14Hz - 44Khz (-3dB)
Dogs can hear up to around 60 kHz, depending on the breed.
Can we listen through our face? I still haven't seen a blind test to support that.
The Oohashi study, once again (how many times must this be repeated?) may have been fatally flawed. Obviously if there is audible IMD, we'll be able to hear it and it'll show up on a brain scan. It needs to be repeated with that consideration in mind.
Now show us graphs, because specs like these are generally useless. Grado publishes numbers down to 20 Hz or lower, but they all start to roll off rapidly after 100 Hz.
I'd venture the only conclusive data is we can't 'hear' that extension, the issue arises when we can 'feel' or 'see' frequencies lol.
I mean, you can make a window break at a specific frequency, so who knows if you can't make a brain break? Just theory of course.
You can't feel frequencies above 20 kHz like you feel bass. It would be fairly easy to set up a test for that.