[Robert Peirce]

On 3/15/15 10:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you believe this...then nothing is truly known, and that includes what you
"also know".

Yep. The one thing that is required of a scientific theory is that it
must be possible to prove it is false. It is considered valid until
that point.

To banish static, Armstrong turned to frequency
modulation, bucking the accepted (and mathematically
"proven") wisdom of the day that FM offered no
advantage over AM.

I think you're confusing science with politics and business. It's never been
beyond people with financial or political motives to make fraudulent scientific
claims. Big money invested in AM did not want FM to succeed. Everything I've
read says that Armstrongs first demo clearly demonstrated superior performance
and in spite of all efforts by RCA and ATT, FM eventually surpassed AM in the
market.

That was after the fact. Before the fact apparently it was a proven
scientific theory that FM could not be better than AM. Once this theory
was falsified by Armstrong's first demo, politics and business entered
in to delay its acceptance. The interesting thing is it was only a delay.

It took FM some 30 years to dominate radio (mostly due to gov't regulatory
meddling). How long did it take digital to surpass analog in audio recordings?

Some would say digital hasn't surpassed analog. My ears aren't good
enough to tell the difference. That wasn't the point. My point was
that Nyquist's theory is just that, accepted until proven wrong. It may
never be proven wrong, but there are people who are trying. It may be
absolutely correct or not, but it is not the gospel some folks believe
it to be.