Interesting Papers re temporal resolution Options

[ncdrawl]

http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm

http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/FAQs.pdf

[ultrasonic]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

In the opinon of many, no.

[ultrasonic]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

In the opinon of many, no.

Opinion isn't good enough. The paper is scientific and peer-reviewed. It may be flawed, but if so it needs to be debunked scientifically. Can you provide links to similarly peer-reviewed refutations of the paper?

[Woodinville]

Opinion isn't good enough. The paper is scientific and peer-reviewed.

So, if a paper comes out that claims, oh, say, that ESP works, and is published in an ESP journal, "opinion is not enough" even though there has never, ever, to date, been an unbiased test of ESP that shows it works. (Hint: Such papers exist.)

So, if a paper comes out in the journal of the ICR, showing that we were all created 6000 years ago, and the Grand Canyon was made during the "great flood", "opinion is not enough" even though in reputable journals there are thousands of pages on the erosion history of the Grand Canyon during the rise of the Colorado Plateau. (Hint: Such papers exist.)

So, if a paper comes out and gets published in a very odd journal that says "rocks fall up", "opinion is not enough" even if the rock always falls on your toe? (I'm not aware of any such papers, thankfully, although some TM practitioners claim you can levitate by meditation, I don't think even TM journals have published it as a "paper".)

It may be flawed, but if so it needs to be debunked scientifically. Can you provide links to similarly peer-reviewed refutations of the paper?

I think it's time for a reality check. "peer-reviewed refutations" is not what you will see in a journal. You're asking for something that is never going to exist, it's not how the system works.

What you will see is work showing something that reads on the subject, positive, negative, whatever.

And there is an entire forest of paper on that, dating from the 1920's to present.

Before any weight is put on the paper, it has to be REPEATED AND CONFIRMED. That is the scientific process. Going on about "peer reviewed" misses the mark in so many ways I hardly know where to start. The paper provides a presumed means to allow confirmation or perhaps not confirmation. As such, even if the reviewer has doubts, it may be published simply to start a dialog. Controversial papers are published, I ought to know, I published a couple of early papers on audio coding in light of reviewers who basically accused me of lying through my teeth. Yet, the papers were published, others also published, and now most everyone on the planet uses some form of the technology.

If you want to support this premise, repeat the experiment and see if you can confirm the results. You might even try to improve the experimental process, and try several different kinds of ultrasonic stimulii to see what's going on.

Finally, as a comment on ultrasonic stimulii, please check http://www.csgnetwork.com/atmossndabsorbcalc.html for the performance of the atmosphere under conditions of no wind, static atmosphere, etc.

Then consider the effects of wind and turbulence.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Before any weight is put on the paper, it has to be REPEATED AND CONFIRMED. That is the scientific process. Going on about "peer reviewed" misses the mark in so many ways I hardly know where to start. The paper provides a presumed means to allow confirmation or perhaps not confirmation. As such, even if the reviewer has doubts, it may be published simply to start a dialog. Controversial papers are published, I ought to know, I published a couple of early papers on audio coding in light of reviewers who basically accused me of lying through my teeth. Yet, the papers were published, others also published, and now most everyone on the planet uses some form of the technology.

The Oohashi paper is now about 10 years old. No confirmation, only failed attempts to confirm it.

Confirming it 10, 8 years ago (been there done that) was more difficult. Confirming it today is very easy. Interesting that so many of its advocates have not reported any of their own personal attempts to confirm it.

If you want to support this premise, repeat the experiment and see if you can confirm the results. You might even try to improve the experimental process, and try several different kinds of ultrasonic stimulii to see what's going on.

Been there, done that and I also failed to confirm it. Multiple test systems, multiple test music sources, multiple listeners.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Jan 2 2010, 13:27