"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
It is apparent to a many of us that many so called "properly operating
amplifiers" do not sound the same. Many listeners believe that some
amplifiers provide more information, ie., a data stream with greater
entropy, than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the test bench.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as artificial transients,
handclaps, test tones, etc., the experience of listening to music consists
of a sequence of events. Some of these events consist of a complex
juxtaposition in time, and space, of sounds necessary to reproduce a musical
instrument. In a pyramidal way, the events of music, which at the simplest,
consist of sound emitted and precisely modulated by a single musical
instrument, are conjoined to provide a mental experience that encompasses
the mood and alertness of the listener. At any instant, the focus of the
listener can be either outward, anticipating an event, or inwards, in
reaction and contemplation.

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate. If enough amplifiers were concatenated in series, the result
would be white noise. But even one amplifier has this effect, to a small,
but inevitably noticeably degree.

Listeners to music are made aware of the shape and extent of the soundstage
by complex mental analysis of the entirety of the experience. They are
frequently convinced that some amplifiers provide a larger soundstage, or
greater localization, than others. Would their claims be consonant with
experiments performed with simple test tones and impulsive sounds? This is
an irrelevant question, because the human mind is the ultimate arbiter of
the richness of the experience. When the listener sees in his mind a
soundstage of ultimate clarity, it is because the reproduction chain has
provided the necessary information to construct it. Because it is a mental
experience, the current state of science can neither dispute nor confirm
this, but only note that some amplifiers provide this more abundantly than
others.

Unfortunately, rec.audio.opinion has recently been under an asssault by some
individuals who, for reasons unknown, are an adulterative influence on hifi
as a hobby and a pleasure. We post these mini "white papers" in order to
provide you, the listener, with a firm foundation for a wise choice. Our
current opinion is that your faculties of choice will be most acute if you
listen to components while actually able to see them, in a place of your
choice and convenience. Level matching is not important. What is important
is the ability to easily vary the volume control so that the optimum
listening level is reached for each component. You are also likely to find
that a particular amplifier or speaker works best with a particular recorded
work. It is for these reasons that we discourage attempts at "blind
testing", which may also use switching devices of doubtful transparency.

THE RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
It is apparent to a many of us that many so called "properly operating
amplifiers" do not sound the same. Many listeners believe that some
amplifiers provide more information, ie., a data stream with greater
entropy, than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the test bench.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as artificial transients,
handclaps, test tones, etc., the experience of listening to music consists
of a sequence of events. Some of these events consist of a complex
juxtaposition in time, and space, of sounds necessary to reproduce a
musical
instrument. In a pyramidal way, the events of music, which at the
simplest,
consist of sound emitted and precisely modulated by a single musical
instrument, are conjoined to provide a mental experience that encompasses
the mood and alertness of the listener. At any instant, the focus of the
listener can be either outward, anticipating an event, or inwards, in
reaction and contemplation.

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate. If enough amplifiers were concatenated in series, the result
would be white noise. But even one amplifier has this effect, to a small,
but inevitably noticeably degree.

Listeners to music are made aware of the shape and extent of the
soundstage
by complex mental analysis of the entirety of the experience. They are
frequently convinced that some amplifiers provide a larger soundstage, or
greater localization, than others. Would their claims be consonant with
experiments performed with simple test tones and impulsive sounds? This is
an irrelevant question, because the human mind is the ultimate arbiter of
the richness of the experience. When the listener sees in his mind a
soundstage of ultimate clarity, it is because the reproduction chain has
provided the necessary information to construct it. Because it is a mental
experience, the current state of science can neither dispute nor confirm
this, but only note that some amplifiers provide this more abundantly than
others.

Unfortunately, rec.audio.opinion has recently been under an asssault by
some
individuals who, for reasons unknown, are an adulterative influence on
hifi
as a hobby and a pleasure. We post these mini "white papers" in order to
provide you, the listener, with a firm foundation for a wise choice. Our
current opinion is that your faculties of choice will be most acute if you
listen to components while actually able to see them, in a place of your
choice and convenience. Level matching is not important. What is important
is the ability to easily vary the volume control so that the optimum
listening level is reached for each component. You are also likely to find
that a particular amplifier or speaker works best with a particular
recorded
work. It is for these reasons that we discourage attempts at "blind
testing", which may also use switching devices of doubtful transparency.

THE RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM



Headed up by Tweedledum and Tweedledumer.

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
[snip]

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have with it is that many
reports of superior imaging come from users of vacuum tube equipment, and
even SET equipment. So the author(s) of the post leave out an interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the soundstage can
become more palpable.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
[snip]

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have with it is that many
reports of superior imaging come from users of vacuum tube equipment, and
even SET equipment. So the author(s) of the post leave out an interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the soundstage can
become more palpable.

Thank you Teedledum.

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His room is filled with electronics, computers, wires, empty beer cans, and
all nature of trash. He rarely leaves the house, but spends hours in the
basement "inventing". Do you know how many times we've had police, FBI,
Secret Service, and other investigators here? They won't charge him because
he's mentally ill.

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job, any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS



PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

To those of you in aus.hi-fi who are concerned about the above crossposting:
The offending individual is Brian L. McCarty, a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with unknown motivations.

McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising in
attempts to attract investors. Both have been unsuccessful.

McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area, then LA
where he worked as a sound mixer, currently living in Cairns Australia,
where he manages the Baskin-Robbins ice cream franchise located at
Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
Cairns QLD 4870
07 4051 4034

McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.

Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
To those of you in aus.hi-fi who are concerned about the above
crossposting:
The offending individual is Brian L. McCarty, a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds.

And you are NOT a cross poster???

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible
for imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions
that an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible
for imaging, it is incorrect to leave out the effect of
the amplifier.

Of course. What's unclear about my statement that a really
bad amp can trash imaging?

It is apparent to a many of us that many so called
"properly operating amplifiers" do not sound the same.

The use of the apparent is appropriate here because it
includes the effects of illusions.


Many listeners believe that some amplifiers provide more
information, ie., a data stream with greater entropy,
than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the
test bench.

Just because so many people thought that the world was flat
100's of years ago, doesn't make it so.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as
artificial transients, handclaps, test tones, etc., the
experience of listening to music consists of a sequence
of events.

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

snip remaining redundant information

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
[snip]

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have with it is that many
reports of superior imaging come from users of vacuum tube equipment, and
even SET equipment. So the author(s) of the post leave out an interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the soundstage can
become more palpable.

Thank you Teedledum.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
[snip]

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have with it is that many
reports of superior imaging come from users of vacuum tube equipment, and
even SET equipment. So the author(s) of the post leave out an interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the soundstage can
become more palpable.

Thank you Teedledum.


You illiterate idiot.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



You illiterate idiot.

A classic post, one that is typical of the very best that
Art can give this group.

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
To those of you in aus.hi-fi who are concerned about the above
crossposting:
The offending individual is Brian L. McCarty, a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds.

And you are NOT a cross poster???

You have my word I will delete au in any thread created by McCarty.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible
for imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions
that an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible
for imaging, it is incorrect to leave out the effect of
the amplifier.

Of course. What's unclear about my statement that a really
bad amp can trash imaging?

Quite clear, but insufficiently inclusive to be correct.


It is apparent to a many of us that many so called
"properly operating amplifiers" do not sound the same.

The use of the apparent is appropriate here because it
includes the effects of illusions.


Many listeners believe that some amplifiers provide more
information, ie., a data stream with greater entropy,
than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the
test bench.

Just because so many people thought that the world was flat
100's of years ago, doesn't make it so.

Information theory didn't exist then. It does now.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as
artificial transients, handclaps, test tones, etc., the
experience of listening to music consists of a sequence
of events.

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these tests with?
Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little bit of extrapolation.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these
tests with? Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little
bit of extrapolation.

Robert, would you care to comment on what fraction of
available light has been used to conduct tests of the speed
of light with? ;-)

"Robert Morein" wrote

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier,
since it is an analog process, includes a reduction
of what Information Theorists refer to as Symbol
Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have
with it is that many reports of superior imaging come
from users of vacuum tube equipment, and even SET
equipment.

All amplifiers are dogs with different fleas. Ultimately,
the perceived palatability (fidelity) by the listener will be
a compilation of all the electronic components from the
source material to the speaker's traducers. Note that in
high end reviews of solid state or vacuum tube equipment
the qualities describing the equipment’s sound cannot
be differentiated. That is to say that no common sound
attribute is exclusive to one design or another (SS/tube).


So the author(s) of the post leave out an interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the
soundstage can become more palpable.

Well, yes and no .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these
tests with? Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little
bit of extrapolation.

Robert, would you care to comment on what fraction of
available light has been used to conduct tests of the speed
of light with? ;-)

True scientists always temper their description of "physical law" with
"wherever observed". It is contrary to the precepts of modern scientific
thought for a "physical law" to have universal scope. Many tests have been
made of the speed of light, but the recent possibility that noncausal events
can occur in the universe mean that "c" may not be the exact limit of the
speed of light.
Therefore, scientists are far less confident of the speed of light than you
are of the irrelevance of amplifier quality to imaging.
But, of course, you've done far more work in that area than physicists have
with the speed of light.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these
tests with? Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little
bit of extrapolation.

Robert, would you care to comment on what fraction of
available light has been used to conduct tests of the
speed of light with? ;-)

True scientists always temper their description of
"physical law" with "wherever observed". It is contrary
to the precepts of modern scientific thought for a
"physical law" to have universal scope. Many tests have
been made of the speed of light, but the recent
possibility that noncausal events can occur in the
universe mean that "c" may not be the exact limit of the
speed of light.

Therefore, scientists are far less confident of the speed
of light than you are of the irrelevance of amplifier
quality to imaging.

How do you know that without reading my mind, Robert?

Robert's delusions that he has reliable mind reading
abilities have been noted here many times.

But, of course, you've done far more work in that area
than physicists have with the speed of light.

???????????

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible
for imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions
that an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible
for imaging, it is incorrect to leave out the effect of
the amplifier.

Of course. What's unclear about my statement that a really
bad amp can trash imaging?

Quite clear, but insufficiently inclusive to be correct.


It is apparent to a many of us that many so called
"properly operating amplifiers" do not sound the same.

The use of the apparent is appropriate here because it
includes the effects of illusions.


Many listeners believe that some amplifiers provide more
information, ie., a data stream with greater entropy,
than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the
test bench.

Just because so many people thought that the world was flat
100's of years ago, doesn't make it so.

Information theory didn't exist then. It does now.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as
artificial transients, handclaps, test tones, etc., the
experience of listening to music consists of a sequence
of events.

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these tests with?
Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little bit of extrapolation.


If you have some bit of music that helps prove your theory that properly
functioning amps have something to do with imaging, please, offer it up.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these
tests with? Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little
bit of extrapolation.

Robert, would you care to comment on what fraction of
available light has been used to conduct tests of the speed
of light with? ;-)

True scientists always temper their description of "physical law" with
"wherever observed". It is contrary to the precepts of modern scientific
thought for a "physical law" to have universal scope. Many tests have been
made of the speed of light, but the recent possibility that noncausal
events
can occur in the universe mean that "c" may not be the exact limit of the
speed of light.
Therefore, scientists are far less confident of the speed of light than
you
are of the irrelevance of amplifier quality to imaging.
But, of course, you've done far more work in that area than physicists
have
with the speed of light.

Yet it's still 1000 times more than you have done.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
[snip]

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an
analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have with it is that
many
reports of superior imaging come from users of vacuum tube equipment,
and
even SET equipment. So the author(s) of the post leave out an
interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the soundstage can
become more palpable.

Thank you Tweedledum.


You illiterate idiot.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
[snip]

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an
analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate.

This is an interesting post. The only problem I have with it is that
many
reports of superior imaging come from users of vacuum tube equipment,
and
even SET equipment. So the author(s) of the post leave out an
interesting
possibility: that by manipulating the presentation, the soundstage can
become more palpable.

Thank you Tweedledum.


You illiterate idiot.

I'm sorry, I should have said Tweedledummer.

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
It is apparent to a many of us that many so called "properly operating
amplifiers" do not sound the same. Many listeners believe that some
amplifiers provide more information, ie., a data stream with greater
entropy, than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the test bench.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as artificial transients,
handclaps, test tones, etc., the experience of listening to music consists
of a sequence of events. Some of these events consist of a complex
juxtaposition in time, and space, of sounds necessary to reproduce a
musical
instrument. In a pyramidal way, the events of music, which at the
simplest,
consist of sound emitted and precisely modulated by a single musical
instrument, are conjoined to provide a mental experience that encompasses
the mood and alertness of the listener. At any instant, the focus of the
listener can be either outward, anticipating an event, or inwards, in
reaction and contemplation.

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate. If enough amplifiers were concatenated in series, the result
would be white noise. But even one amplifier has this effect, to a small,
but inevitably noticeably degree.

Listeners to music are made aware of the shape and extent of the
soundstage
by complex mental analysis of the entirety of the experience. They are
frequently convinced that some amplifiers provide a larger soundstage, or
greater localization, than others. Would their claims be consonant with
experiments performed with simple test tones and impulsive sounds? This is
an irrelevant question, because the human mind is the ultimate arbiter of
the richness of the experience. When the listener sees in his mind a
soundstage of ultimate clarity, it is because the reproduction chain has
provided the necessary information to construct it. Because it is a mental
experience, the current state of science can neither dispute nor confirm
this, but only note that some amplifiers provide this more abundantly than
others.

Unfortunately, rec.audio.opinion has recently been under an asssault by
some
individuals who, for reasons unknown, are an adulterative influence on
hifi
as a hobby and a pleasure. We post these mini "white papers" in order to
provide you, the listener, with a firm foundation for a wise choice.

It seems that your white paper differs from the others I've seen in that it
completely bereft of any hard data, and in typical subjectivist style,
relies heavily on trying to baffle with bull****. Indeed this thing reads
like somebody just themelves a Thesaurus.




Our
current opinion is that your faculties of choice will be most acute if you
listen to components while actually able to see them, in a place of your
choice and convenience.

Since that is the worst possible, least reliable way to hear any real
differences, I'm not surprised, you'd recomend it.

Level matching is not important.

Especially if you don't care about getting the most reliable information.

What is important
is the ability to easily vary the volume control so that the optimum
listening level is reached for each component. You are also likely to find
that a particular amplifier or speaker works best with a particular
recorded
work.

When you wish upon a star....

You may find little green Martians under your bed if you conly believe hard
enough.


It is for these reasons that we discourage attempts at "blind
testing", which may also use switching devices of doubtful transparency.

THE RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM



Geez Robert, who do you think youmight have fooled?

On 10/14/05 10:35, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Robert, would you care to comment on what fraction of
available light has been used to conduct tests of the speed
of light with? ;-)

As you have pointed out previously, Mr. Krueger, had my poor son Bob decided
to embark on a career actually working as an audio engineer, he probably
would have something valuable to offer.

However as an individual that has essentially failed as a productive member
of society, he can only snap at the heels of those like yourself that have
actually accomplished something in their lives.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His room is filled with electronics, computers, wires, empty beer cans, and
all nature of trash. He rarely leaves the house, but spends hours in the
basement "inventing". Do you know how many times we've had police, FBI,
Secret Service, and other investigators here? They won't charge him because
he's mentally ill.

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job, any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS



PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Tests with music show that a good amp has zero reliably
perceptible effect on imaging.

What percentage of available music did you conduct these
tests with? Let me guess: 0.00000000001%, with a little
bit of extrapolation.

Robert, would you care to comment on what fraction of
available light has been used to conduct tests of the
speed of light with? ;-)

True scientists always temper their description of
"physical law" with "wherever observed". It is contrary
to the precepts of modern scientific thought for a
"physical law" to have universal scope. Many tests have
been made of the speed of light, but the recent
possibility that noncausal events can occur in the
universe mean that "c" may not be the exact limit of the
speed of light.

Therefore, scientists are far less confident of the speed
of light than you are of the irrelevance of amplifier
quality to imaging.

How do you know that without reading my mind, Robert?

Don't back up, Arny. RAO needs an inflexible, demagogue of objectivism. You
were born to play that part.

"Sylvan Morein" wrote in message
.com...

Sorry, Aussie gents. The crosspost/forgery is one of yours, Brian L.
McCarty.

Regards from the states,
Bob Morein

"Robert Morein" wrote

Many tests have been made of the speed of light,
but the recent possibility that noncausal events
can occur in the universe mean that "c" may not
be the exact limit of the speed of light.

"noncausal events"... please define, if you can?

After listening to a series of guest lectures on
recent research findings in particle and
astrophysics it is apparent how little we know
about the cosmos. Old notions like F=MA
explain very little about why. It looks like
physics is settling in for a long period of
uncertainty. Thoughts of a TOE are unlikely
to be postulated in our life time without a new
paradigm in thinking. Chaos and duality
RULE, so to speak... just like ROA .

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
It is apparent to a many of us that many so called "properly operating
amplifiers" do not sound the same. Many listeners believe that some
amplifiers provide more information, ie., a data stream with greater
entropy, than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the test
bench.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as artificial transients,
handclaps, test tones, etc., the experience of listening to music
consists
of a sequence of events. Some of these events consist of a complex
juxtaposition in time, and space, of sounds necessary to reproduce a
musical
instrument. In a pyramidal way, the events of music, which at the
simplest,
consist of sound emitted and precisely modulated by a single musical
instrument, are conjoined to provide a mental experience that
encompasses
the mood and alertness of the listener. At any instant, the focus of the
listener can be either outward, anticipating an event, or inwards, in
reaction and contemplation.

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate. If enough amplifiers were concatenated in series, the
result
would be white noise. But even one amplifier has this effect, to a
small,
but inevitably noticeably degree.

Listeners to music are made aware of the shape and extent of the
soundstage
by complex mental analysis of the entirety of the experience. They are
frequently convinced that some amplifiers provide a larger soundstage,
or
greater localization, than others. Would their claims be consonant with
experiments performed with simple test tones and impulsive sounds? This
is
an irrelevant question, because the human mind is the ultimate arbiter
of
the richness of the experience. When the listener sees in his mind a
soundstage of ultimate clarity, it is because the reproduction chain has
provided the necessary information to construct it. Because it is a
mental
experience, the current state of science can neither dispute nor confirm
this, but only note that some amplifiers provide this more abundantly
than
others.

Unfortunately, rec.audio.opinion has recently been under an asssault by
some
individuals who, for reasons unknown, are an adulterative influence on
hifi
as a hobby and a pleasure. We post these mini "white papers" in order to
provide you, the listener, with a firm foundation for a wise choice.

It seems that your white paper differs from the others I've seen in that
it
completely bereft of any hard data, and in typical subjectivist style,
relies heavily on trying to baffle with bull****. Indeed this thing reads
like somebody just themelves a Thesaurus.




Our
current opinion is that your faculties of choice will be most acute if
you
listen to components while actually able to see them, in a place of your
choice and convenience.

Since that is the worst possible, least reliable way to hear any real
differences, I'm not surprised, you'd recomend it.

Level matching is not important.

Especially if you don't care about getting the most reliable information.

What is important
is the ability to easily vary the volume control so that the optimum
listening level is reached for each component. You are also likely to
find
that a particular amplifier or speaker works best with a particular
recorded
work.

When you wish upon a star....

You may find little green Martians under your bed if you conly believe
hard
enough.


It is for these reasons that we discourage attempts at "blind
testing", which may also use switching devices of doubtful transparency.

THE RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM



Geez Robert, who do you think youmight have fooled?

I didn't fool anybody, Mikey. I speculate they could be members of the
Philadelphia Audio Society.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it
is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
It is apparent to a many of us that many so called "properly operating
amplifiers" do not sound the same. Many listeners believe that some
amplifiers provide more information, ie., a data stream with greater
entropy, than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the test
bench.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as artificial transients,
handclaps, test tones, etc., the experience of listening to music
consists
of a sequence of events. Some of these events consist of a complex
juxtaposition in time, and space, of sounds necessary to reproduce a
musical
instrument. In a pyramidal way, the events of music, which at the
simplest,
consist of sound emitted and precisely modulated by a single musical
instrument, are conjoined to provide a mental experience that
encompasses
the mood and alertness of the listener. At any instant, the focus of
the
listener can be either outward, anticipating an event, or inwards, in
reaction and contemplation.

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an
analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate. If enough amplifiers were concatenated in series, the
result
would be white noise. But even one amplifier has this effect, to a
small,
but inevitably noticeably degree.

Listeners to music are made aware of the shape and extent of the
soundstage
by complex mental analysis of the entirety of the experience. They are
frequently convinced that some amplifiers provide a larger soundstage,
or
greater localization, than others. Would their claims be consonant with
experiments performed with simple test tones and impulsive sounds? This
is
an irrelevant question, because the human mind is the ultimate arbiter
of
the richness of the experience. When the listener sees in his mind a
soundstage of ultimate clarity, it is because the reproduction chain
has
provided the necessary information to construct it. Because it is a
mental
experience, the current state of science can neither dispute nor
confirm
this, but only note that some amplifiers provide this more abundantly
than
others.

Unfortunately, rec.audio.opinion has recently been under an asssault by
some
individuals who, for reasons unknown, are an adulterative influence on
hifi
as a hobby and a pleasure. We post these mini "white papers" in order
to
provide you, the listener, with a firm foundation for a wise choice.

It seems that your white paper differs from the others I've seen in that
it
completely bereft of any hard data, and in typical subjectivist style,
relies heavily on trying to baffle with bull****. Indeed this thing
reads
like somebody just themelves a Thesaurus.




Our
current opinion is that your faculties of choice will be most acute if
you
listen to components while actually able to see them, in a place of
your
choice and convenience.

Since that is the worst possible, least reliable way to hear any real
differences, I'm not surprised, you'd recomend it.

Level matching is not important.

Especially if you don't care about getting the most reliable information.

What is important
is the ability to easily vary the volume control so that the optimum
listening level is reached for each component. You are also likely to
find
that a particular amplifier or speaker works best with a particular
recorded
work.

When you wish upon a star....

You may find little green Martians under your bed if you conly believe
hard
enough.


It is for these reasons that we discourage attempts at "blind
testing", which may also use switching devices of doubtful
transparency.

THE RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM



Geez Robert, who do you think youmight have fooled?

I didn't fool anybody, Mikey.

That's for sure.

I speculate they could be members of the
Philadelphia Audio Society.

Did some one just give them a thesaurus?

Powell a écrit :
"Robert Morein" wrote


Many tests have been made of the speed of light,
but the recent possibility that noncausal events
can occur in the universe mean that "c" may not
be the exact limit of the speed of light.


"noncausal events"... please define, if you can?

After listening to a series of guest lectures on
recent research findings in particle and
astrophysics it is apparent how little we know
about the cosmos.

Did somebody already pretend to know "a lot" about it ?


Old notions like F=MA
explain very little about why. It looks like
physics is settling in for a long period of
uncertainty. Thoughts of a TOE are unlikely
to be postulated in our life time without a new
paradigm in thinking. Chaos and duality
RULE, so to speak... just like ROA .

Our most advanced theories are just explaining and describing the micro
and macro events we observate, they are just kind of intellectual
pictures providing us with a (ponctually) satisfying resolution.
We should never forget that they nearly don't explain anything.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Powell a écrit :
"Robert Morein" wrote


Many tests have been made of the speed of light,
but the recent possibility that noncausal events
can occur in the universe mean that "c" may not
be the exact limit of the speed of light.


"noncausal events"... please define, if you can?

After listening to a series of guest lectures on
recent research findings in particle and
astrophysics it is apparent how little we know
about the cosmos.

Did somebody already pretend to know "a lot" about it ?


Old notions like F=MA
explain very little about why. It looks like
physics is settling in for a long period of
uncertainty. Thoughts of a TOE are unlikely
to be postulated in our life time without a new
paradigm in thinking. Chaos and duality
RULE, so to speak... just like ROA .

Our most advanced theories are just explaining and describing the micro
and macro events we observate, they are just kind of intellectual
pictures providing us with a (ponctually) satisfying resolution.
We should never forget that they nearly don't explain anything.

True, and very sophisticated!

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what
he
had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in
the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a
job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know
now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college
for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His room is filled with electronics, computers, wires, empty beer
cans, and
all nature of trash. He rarely leaves the house, but spends hours in
the
basement "inventing". Do you know how many times we've had police,
FBI,
Secret Service, and other investigators here? They won't charge him
because
he's mentally ill.

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job,
any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS



PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

WTF?

Note: rec.audio.opinion is one of the scant newsgroups I've seen
which rivals RMB for dysfunctional squabbling. Fidelity nuts are a
persnickety, fussy bunch by definition, and if you put a bunch of
them in a room together...kapow.

RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM wrote:
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm


Hmm. Anybody else click on the link? All I got was:

The requested article was not found.

"Francie" wrote in message
oups.com...

RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM wrote:
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm


Hmm. Anybody else click on the link? All I got was:

The requested article was not found.

A person by the name of Brian L. McCarty is forging posts in my name. This
man is an Internet con artist, who used my name without my permission on one
of his websites. He also posts to rec.audio.marketplace as "OFFICIAL RAM
BLUEBOOK VALUATION". He appears to be a pathological liar, with unknown
motivations.

I am sorry that you guys in the music groups are getting this. McCarty is
annoyed that I played a major role in exposing his attempted Internet scams.
He wishes to embarass me into ceasing to publish the following notice.

Att: Brian L. McCarty:
Brian, as I told you, it doesn't matter what you do. The notices will
continue indefinitely. There is nothing you can do to stop them, even if you
forge my name all over usenet. You used my name without my permission. I
have full html copies of all your websites, with all your forgeries and fake
frontmen.

Brian, you are stuck with this the rest of your life. It doesn't matter if
you make 1000 posts a day. You can try to frame me as gay, or a stalker, it
doesn't matter. You are the one who has done wrong. And now you will pay for
it in ignominy, for the rest of your life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising in
attempts to attract investors. Both have been unsuccessful.

McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area, then LA
where he worked as a sound mixer,
currently living in Cairns Australia, where he manages the Baskin-Robbins
ice cream franchise located at
Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
Cairns QLD 4870
07 4051 4034

McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.

Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:21:24 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


I forgot to add that I also believe the following to be true about
Queensland...although I have never actually travelled there.

1)Queensland is a very sparsely populated territory with few highways.

2) There is a chronic problem with smuggling, violent rural gangs, and
scamming, a little like Nigeria.

As always, available for telephone conversation,
Bob Morein
(215) 646-4894
I will not yell.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:21:24 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


I forgot to add that I also believe the following to be true about
Queensland...although I have never actually travelled there.

Brian, your forgeries make no difference.
In five years, you will be in exactly the same position you are today.
There is nothing you can do.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:02:07 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:21:24 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


I forgot to add that I also believe the following to be true about
Queensland...although I have never actually travelled there.

Brian, your forgeries make no difference.
In five years, you will be in exactly the same position you are today.
There is nothing you can do.


An erection of the penis occurs when engorgement of venous blood in
two
tubular structures at the bottom of the penis, the corpora cavernosa,
results from a variety of stimuli. The corpus spongiosum is a single
tubular structure located just above the corpora carvernonosa, and
contains the male urethra, through which urine and semen pass during
urination and ejaculation, respectively. This may also become slightly
engorged with blood, but less so than the corpora cavernosa. Penile
erection usually results from sexual stimulation and/or arousal, but
can also occur by such causes as a full urinary bladder or
spontaneously, most commonly during erotic or wet dreams. An erection
results in swelling and enlargement of the penis or the swelling of
the
female counterpart to the penis, clitoris. Erection enables sexual
intercourse and other sexual activities, though it is not essential
for
all sexual activities.

In addition to sexual arousal, erection in males can be caused by
mechanical stimulation, or by the pressure of the filled urinary
bladder. Erections when waking up are common, most likely due to a
full
bladder. They sometimes already occur in infant boys, and in utero.

Physiologically, an erection is achieved by two mechanisms that play
together: increased inflow of blood into the vessels of erectile
tissue, and decreased outflow. The vessel system involved is known as
the corpara cavernosa and the corpus spongiosum. Muscles in the region
relax, allowing more blood to enter these sponge-like tissues.
Contraction of other muscles reduce the outflow. The enlarged
structure
then exerts pressures on the exit veins, further reducing the outflow.

As blood flows in, the penis stiffens, its girth and length increases,
and it rises to an angle that can vary from below horizontal to almost
vertical.

Certain conditions (e.g. diabetes mellitus) result in erectile
dysfunction, a problem where penile erection is insufficient to
achieve
normal sexual intercourse. In recent years, several drugs have been
developed for treatment of this condition.

If present, the foreskin normally retracts and exposes the glans. The
skin of the scrotum tightens, pulling the testicles in towards the
base
of the penis.

Erection is caused by signals from the parasympathetic nervous system;
it is countered by the sympathetic nervous system which is mainly
responsible for the "fight-or-flight" response. This explains why
under
stressful conditions, an erection is often difficult or impossible to
achieve, and sudden onset of stress can deprive one of erection. The
sympathetic nervous system is also responsible for causing
ejaculation,
which explains why most males lose their erection after ejaculation.

Erections may occur even after death, if the pressure within the penis
increases for some reason, for example due to sinking fluids or the
formation of gases of putrefaction. See death erection.

The clitoris of females also contains erectile tissue and may become
erect during sexual arousal; the erection of nipples, however, is not
due to erectile tissue.

[roughplanet]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

snip rest of McCarty's ravings

Bwian, when are you going to realise that we actually KNOW it is you making
these silly posts? You post through buzzardnews, Bob posts through giganews.

Don't you think we can tell the difference, you poor dumb bugger?

Do an ET Bwian & 'Go Home'. Someone must miss you. We certainly won't.

ruff

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:31:04 +1000, roughplanet wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

snip rest of McCarty's ravings

Bwian, when are you going to realise that we actually KNOW it is you making
these silly posts? You post through buzzardnews, Bob posts through giganews.

One doesn't have to look at the headers to know that the venemous
ravings are posted by a complete idiot. When I see such stupidity, I
hit the 'killfile' command that's the end of it. Unfortunately, it is
a form of a 'denial of service' attack against the real bob, but I
really don't give a ****.

[Eeyore]

roughplanet wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

snip rest of McCarty's ravings

Bwian, when are you going to realise that we actually KNOW it is you making
these silly posts? You post through buzzardnews, Bob posts through giganews.

Don't you think we can tell the difference, you poor dumb bugger?

Do an ET Bwian & 'Go Home'. Someone must miss you. We certainly won't.

Could posters to this thread at least please remove aapl-s from the groups.

Graham