Please do not read this as being harsh (not intended as such). But what evidence do you have to support your point of view? Have you even touched the device or ran any type of tests?
Jim, I now intend to be a bit harsh. I don't want to think you are being deliberately obtuse, but you're making it hard. I don't have
to see the device, touch it, or anything of that sort to know they are peddling it in a fraudulent way. I can read the "inventor's" own words
about it. Their "explanations" alone are all the evidence anyone needs to conclude they are deluded or dishonest. Why in the world should I give a device a chance that is being sold using a string of lies?
You have a feeling and think it is B.S.
No. I know without a doubt
that the explanations offered by the inventor are complete unmitigated ********. I am CERTAIN of it. I have seen more convincing-sounding explanations about how the Star Trek transporter works.
Look, we're not talking about respectable disagreement on issues of relatively common audio or engineering principles: tube versus solid state, negative feedback, and the like. Nor for that matter are we talking about someone bringing into play physical principles that I, ehlarson, and/or Morbius have no experience with. The explanations given are both self-contradictory and demonstrate a misapplication of the most basic and fundamental principles of the science they claim to be using.
I'll give you one example: the claim that "Within a few minutes, all of the electrons in your home will exhibit the coherent behavior of the electrons in the Symphony's circuitry." I'll be gracious and assume they are simply talking about the electrons in your electrical circuits, because frankly I don't want some random device plugged into my wall affecting the electrons circling the atoms in my own body. Even so, this statement alone is absolutely ridiculous, because quantum mechanical principles operate on sub-microscopic levels, not at distances of meters or even millimeters. There is some work in the area of quantum entanglement
, but the success that scientists have had in exploiting this principle is limited to certain areas of quantum computation and small quantum teleportation experiments. That's why what ehlarson said about multiple Nobel Prizes is not entirely inappropriate: what they are proposing is well beyond what the best known science achieves.
But even if you insist on being gracious to a fault, their internal contradictions alone ought to cause skepticism. Again, if a single Symphony device is sufficient to render the electrons in your entire house coherent, what benefit is there in using more than one?
Maybe it is. I do not know... yet. But I at least will try it out.
I no longer consider that admirable, given that you're ignoring the evidence that you already have available to you. As I've said before, it is certainly possible that the device does something
, but it certainly does not do what they claim
, and that ought to be troubling.