Sorry, guys ... not good enough.
If my remarks were read carefully, it would have been apparent that there is a difference between "disregarding observations because scientific reasons were not immediately apparent" and "disregarding observations because it
is immediately apparent that science proves
the opposite".... or what else did I mean by "disregard of gravity"?
If such must be allowed, I am now going to state that: 3 + 5 = 11.
(1) That was my (honest) observation under certain conditions. Nobody can dispute that as an observation because nobody else was present.
(2) Science cannot (at present!) explain this.
Does that make such an observation entertainable? No, because science (and practice) CAN prove that such a statement is NOT tenable.
Shonver, your example of the loudspeaker wire is an illustration. It was not unclear to science what was happening, only to the (initially) incomplete application of science! Science never proved that such an occurrence was impossible, only that the characteristics of speaker wire per se are not the reason. And that was not found to be in error!
As to
demagnetisation - the term used by the purveyers themselves: Since there is nothing to demagnetise, I rest my case. (The paint particle effect etc. were investigated just to humour people; there are instruments sufficiently sensitive to do that. It was found >200 dB too low to influence anything.) But as someone said, even if the code inscribed on CDs were inscribed on a disc of mild steel and thoroughly magnetised, it would make no difference. To repeat, one might as well run a sheet of print over the device and claim an improvement in clarity.
Stating magnetic influence as a possibility, yet again (with greatest respect) shows ignorance of the working of the signal detecting device - a laser beam. It requires a magnetic force of the order of a cyclotron to influence a laser beam
in the least. To make it practical: Such a force would rip everything ferrous in the same room to pieces (never mind the metal chassis of the CD player in close proximity). In fact, laser technology is used as a measuring device under just such conditions where other means cannot function.
I have generally been regarded as the first person to respect observations at work (folks would be
very surprised to hear what I have been investigating at the CSIR, just to be fair to some questions which came along sometimes). At the same time, once something has been "proved" or is trivially apparent (i.e. that 3 + 5 = 7.9999999), one cannot be expected to force established science into untenable moulds simply because someone has observed something, however convinced the person. I think that is reasonable?
(I do not wish to bore, but may I illustrate by what I experienced abundantly in my 40 years of work as police reservist. One is not proud to use car accidents as an example, but gather evidence from those
who actually saw the incident, and one often wonders if they were present at the same scene. But they all state under oath - and they were not blatantly lying; simply perceptions. And our eyes are better than our ears.)
Has anyone tried to demagnetise car tyres (far more magnetic materials there than in a CD or vinyl record)? How do we know it will not make a difference?
