Doctor X

Thank you very much for your informative replies studiot. In the case of helmholtz resonance, where you blow/whistle across the top of the surface to determine the fundamental frequency, and the note you hear from the bottle is lower than the whistle. That is supposedly the subharmonic?

Hi, Fundamental frequency is the lowest partial in signal analysis, and the harmonics of the fundamental are multiple integrals of that. But I've heard of 'subharmonics' where people are claiming that you can have integral fractions of the fundamental frequency in music. don't understand this, as I thought the fundamental was the lowest, by definition. Anyone who is clued up in Acoustics that could perhaps explain this in more depth? Is there such a thing as subharmonics and how does work in relation to the fundamental?

Hi guys, Busy arguing with a guy over this who insists there is no scientific proof of the placebo effect. We are discussing audio and how various cables sound different. Blind testing was mentioned as well as the unreliabiity of human perception. But the guy insists there is no scientific proof. Is there? He basically wants me to prove that people can imagine things that aren't there (brain probes etc). What angles can I use to attack this argument?

Can you highlight exactly what is incorrect and why? Is his idea of Unified Field Theory totally rubbish, or his explanation of Quantum physics? I need some ammo as I want to reveal the inaccuracies and see how he tries to wriggle his way out of a corner.

Hi guys, I was discussing physics with a friend of mine on another forum until someone showed up talking about Quantum Theory so I thought I might check with you guys if the information presented is accurate or not (I think it's not, but I'll let you decide). What he said : " Is he smoking something or does the above actually have some basis in truth?

You basically hit the nail on the head regarding our respective positions and explained them in a way I probably could not. Not all observations are equally credible. I'm not sure if you guys are familar with the usual audio snake oil claims? This is the science forum (well not this specific forum but you know what I mean) so I assume you are, but I have no idea what you know. Probably a hell of a lot more than me.

I'm normally reluctant to provide links to active discussions I'm involved in but I suppose it couldn't hurt : Here you go : http://www.avforums....23tqi031c4tgul1 I'm Vaughan. This is a cable thread ... just to prepare you for what you know is coming. Byrd is the resident agnostic/devils advocate who is questioning my position on observations and evidence. Take a look and report back.

Just joined. Name is Vaughan, work in the audio industry and I'm a proud skeptic of all things weird and absurd. I've tried to dedicate myself to educating those who are led astray by the marketing departments and the usual fluff that surrounds them. Deal with one myth at a time is my motto. Hope I can contribute to the site in a positive way.

I'll send you a PM for further info. BTW, thank you for your input.

I was having a discussion with a guy concerning the scientific method where he said that you can't discard observed phenomena (using our perceptions) due to a lack of scientific evidence. However we are discussing phenomena which can be explained via the evidence (namely audio). I basically said, "if you can't explain the difference you believed you heard then you should remain skeptical of it. That it's a reasonable position to take". Anything wrong with that?

This is probably in the wrong forum, but I don't see a general science forum. Let me ask a question: Which comes first and what is the relationship between observation and theory.