[Czilla9000]

I have heard of string theory...but at this point in time Einstein is accepted to be right.

 

[Orpheus]

light is both a wave and particle... i don't remember all those experiments (took those chemistry/physics classes so long ago)... but i do remember certain diffraction patterns of light showing that it does have mass. i think it was based on the fact that anything with mass has some sort of gravitational pull, and so when light was diffracted... it made a pattern suggesting that it was a mass.... but my memory's pure. anyone know if i'm right?

anyway...electricity is not light. it is another wave form, with another particle involved: the electron. light is made up of photons.

electricity will never approach the speed of light. saying such is like saying VD made a time machine--perhaps if they build a power chord as big as a person, you could travel the cable around the world while time stands till... i think that would be the ultimate cable.

but if you follow VD's argument... they are saying that their cables dissipate "coolant? friction." or so he told me during our phone conversation. i think that they believe that by removing the heat caused by the "friction" of electrons inside the cable, electrons move faster. and this "coolant friction" is responsible for poor cable performance. welp, that's what i get from what he said anyway.

but he does openly admit he does NOT have truly "scientific" evidence in the way we view science supporting his claims. what he does say is that his cables sound remarkably good, and he's working with testing companies to find out why... the "coolant friction" theory is what he came up with so far i guess.

can never argue with someone that says a cable "sounds" better.

 

[Dreamslacker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus light is both a wave and particle... i don't remember all those experiments (took those chemistry/physics classes so long ago)... but i do remember certain diffraction patterns of light showing that it does have mass. i think it was based on the fact that anything with mass has some sort of gravitational pull, and so when light was diffracted... it made a pattern suggesting that it was a mass.... but my memory's pure. anyone know if i'm right?

Diffraction patterns show that light is a form of wave since the waves would superimpose on each other and form the bright and dark fringes in areas of construction and destructive interference.

 

[kerelybonto]

VD's claims are the biggest crock since ... well, they're a crock. I would be very impressed if a cable maker just said, "Our cables sound good. We don't know why -- we just threw some wires and **** together -- but they do. Go try them yourself." Because that'd be the truth and we wouldn't have to deal with all this spurious technical information from people who couldn't even pass high school physics.

kerely

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto VD's claims are the biggest crock since ... well, they're a crock. I would be very impressed if a cable maker just said, "Our cables sound good. We don't know why -- we just threw some wires and **** together -- but they do. Go try them yourself." kerely

I agree. In fact if you think about it, all power cords are tweaks--you are tweaking the sound to your satisfaction.

I look. I listen. I know what I like.

 

[Orpheus]

you know, VD is no more "crock" than any other high-end cable manufacturer. cardas has their "golden ratio"... nordost also has some type of "speed of light" technology... anyway... i forget all the other claims. even though we're criticizing VD here, everyone else is no better. but for those who like VD's "sound"... well, VD thinks exactly what you think... if it "sounds" good, then people will buy it. they're merely trying to find out Why they sound good now.

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus you know, VD is no more "crock" than any other high-end cable manufacturer. cardas has their "golden ratio"... nordost also has some type of "speed of light" technology... anyway... i forget all the other claims....

[/size]Admittedly, cable companies do have a tendency to, uh, sell hard. However, I think there are definitely different places on the acceptability <--> absurdity continuum. Here are some links to check out (they're listed in no particular order) -- draw your own conclusions:

1. Cardas on Golden Section Stranding
2. Cardas on cable resonance
3. Cardas' take on various conductor configurations
4. Nordost on their Valhalla cables. To the best of my knowledge, Nordost only mentions "speed of light" in the context of propagation delay specs of their cables (as a percentage of the speed of light). I've not seen Nordost make any claims of acceleration fields or the ability to get the signal through their cables to travel at the speed of light.
5. Nordost white paper
6. Tara Labs on strand count
7. Various technical papers by Tara Labs
8. Kimber on their products in general
9. Virtual Dynamics on their "new Speed of Light technology"
10. Virtual Dynamics on their "Dynamic Filtering"

 

[aeberbach]

All of these companies are able to make bizzare claims for two reasons:

1. There is some difference when using their products - this difference may be real or imaginary, but it doesn't matter which if you perceive a change to be good. Most of the time a change can't be measured but it can be heard. This is why we've declared this forum DBT-free - because it doesn't matter if the improvement is in the mind of the listener or on the screen of the test equipment.

2. People are favorably inclined towards buying their products anyway, and are just looking for a rationalization for expected performance.

The VD cables may be great, but it's sad that they had to make up all that crap about achieving the speed of light.

 

[DanG]

Please keep in mind that part of the reason this forum went DBT-free is not just because it "doesn't matter," because ultimately it can matter. The point is that people often claim to perform a DBT when in fact nearly none of them knows how to conduct one in a way to satisfy researchers and statisticians that no bias could have been introduced into the experiment.

I would still be interested in reading someone's in-depth response to Virtual Dynamics' specific claims, as I'm sure others are as well.

 

[dgs]

Quote:

Originally posted by bdb55 That means that the energy found in one can of soda pop (140 kilocalories) could accelerate 7.16X10^11 electrons to the speed of light.

Woah! Woah! Woah! Here's to hoping that you're joking.

The section below is from here: http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/...pace-time.html

Contemporary physics states that no object should be able to travel faster than the speed of light
c = 299'792'458 m/s (metres per second).

Although the value of c appears to be enormous when compared with conventional traveling speeds, it suggests a limit which renders a practical realization of interstellar travel improbable. Whereas another planet in our solar system is reachable within minutes or at least hours at the speed of light, a journey to the nearest star system Alpha Centauri would already demand a traveling time of several years. Surely, the question remains: Are faster-than-light speeds possible? At the present time most scientists believe that the correct answer should be "no". However, it has to be emphasized that there is no definite proof for this claim. Actually, whether superluminal speeds are possible in principle depends on the real structure of the space-time continuum, which contemporary physics ignores, however. Basically, there exist two distinct notions of space-time in physics, both of which represent a possibility:

Galilean Space-Time (GST)
Minkowski Space-Time (MST)
Briefly, whereas Galilean space-time allows the realization of faster-than-light speeds, at least in principle, Minkowski space-time does not. What is the reason for this difference? In the next sections it is exposed that the key point is the conception of global time, ie. the physical significance of the term simultaneity. In fact, what does it mean when we call two spatially separated events "simultaneous", actually? What we need is a clear physical notion of past, present and future, not only on a local but on a global level.
It is important to note that without some definition of global time the physical quantity speed (and thus light-speed) has no definite meaning anyway. Why? Consider an example: Imagine an object moving from position A to B. Its speed v is given by the formula



Here, the start time t(A,start) and the finish time t(B,finish) are read off from two spatially separated clocks: one clock is located at point A and the other one at point B. Now, the difference of the two times in the denominator t(B,finish) - t(A,start) is an indefinite expression, unless there exists a rule how to synchronize both clocks, because clock B ignores the "current" time at clock A at first. But, in fact, the decision in favour of a particular synchronization rule is pure convention, because it seems impossible to send an "instantenous" (infinitely fast) message from A to B like "Initialize the clocks now!". Thus, the actual quantity of speed is conventional too, depending on the particular choice of the simultaneity definition.

The question concerning global time is also important in the context of different reference frames. What is a reference frame? A reference frame R is simply a coordinate system of some observer. (For instance, let us imagine a physicist experimenting in his laboratory.) The observer attaches to all physical events personal coordinates, ie. space coordinates x, y, z (where?) and a time coordinate t (when?). Another observer in his personal reference frame R' attaches to all physical events another (not necessarily equal) set of coordinates x', y', z' and t'. (Let us here imagine another physicist who is working in a train moving with constant velocity v with respect to the reference frame R.) While two events may appear simultaneous in reference frame R (happening at equal time t), does this still hold in reference frame R' (at equal time t')? And while the physical laws have a particular form in frame R, does one obtain the same formulas in frame R' also? The answer is given by a theory which relates the new coordinates x', y', z', t' to the old ones x, y, z, t. Essentially, this is what a theory of relativity is all about.

Remark: For a better understanding of the distinct space-time concepts it is fruitful to study a geometrical representation of space-time, the space-time diagram (see below). In this picture four-dimensional space-time is reduced to two dimensions. Instead of three space x, y, z and one time coordinate t, one uses only one space and the time coordinate, x and t, respectively. (Obviously, it is much more easier to draw and think in two than in four dimensions.) For reasons of convenience the units are chosen such that the speed of light equals unity c=1. Hence, a light ray, which is described by x=+ct or x=-ct, appears as a straight line in the (x,t)-plane at 45° or 135°, respectively.

The reader is encouraged to reconstruct the arguments by studying the space-time diagram. Remember that the x-axis is the line of simultaneity (ie. with constant time t=0), and that the t-axis is the line of constant position (x=0).


Although, from a paper in Galilean Electrodynamics:

"IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT CONSTANT IN TIME?"
by Alan Montgomery, Mathematician
218 McCurdy Drive, Kanata, Ontario K2L 2L6 Canada
and
Lambert Dolphin, Physicist
1103 Pomeroy Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051
ABSTRACT

The possibility that the velocity of light, c, is not a fixed constant is reconsidered by statistical analysis of the historical measurements collected from four sources. Our hypothesis testing of the selected data shows the measured value of the velocity of light has decreased over the past 250 years.


So,

going back to the original question, I'm sure that if we wait long enough and drink enough soda while listening to this cable, their claims will not be ridiculous. But for now, I think we'll just have to settle for a less silly claim, like maybe something like this: "By adjusting the cable, you can introduce alternative realities into your listening session in which music may go backwards and your food may try to eat you."

 

[aeberbach]

Here's my theory about why this is really a DBT-free forum - almost everybody knows that many people eminently qualified to do so (like John Dunlavy: http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/johndunlavyonwire.htm) have conducted double-blind tests showing that different cables are generally not audible, and that the biggest factor is what people believe they are listening to. Researchers and statisticians might not agree that there is no bias, but they would surely agree that there is less bias than when confronted by the sight of two cables, one thin and cheap, one thick, heavy, promising the moon costing way more. What we're really all trying to avoid is feeling silly and having to admit that we can't see the emperor's beautiful clothes.

 

[bdb55]

Quote:

Originally posted by dgs Woah! Woah! Woah! Here's to hoping that you're joking.

No, just ignorant

I haven't even studied physics yet, I just plugged in values to E=MC^2, without considering if it is possible for something to travel at the speed of light. I'm wrong. But so is VD; their claim IS impossible. This quote sums it up: "Einstein showed that traveling at or faster than the speed of light is impossible because mass at these speeds becomes infinite."

 

[Orpheus]

can i ask a stupid question?--what's "DBT-free?"

 

[DrTacoElf]

Quote:

Originally posted by Czilla9000 Wave.

no light is both a particle and a wave. its the duality theory. The photoelectic effect can only be explained by particle nature. and diffraction can only be explaine by wave behavior.

 

[TravelLite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus can i ask a stupid question?--what's "DBT-free?"

DBT = Double-Blind Test(ing)

TravelLite