[[email protected][_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:04:21 PM UTC-6, Robert Peirce wrote:
On 3/17/15 9:33 PM, Dick Pierce wrote:
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.

The term is "falsifiable."

True but not really important. Falsifiable is an adjective derived from
the verb falsify which by one definition means to prove a statement or
theory to be false.

My suggestion is that rather than hold forth on a topic which you
seem to not be familiar with, you bring yourself up to speed on the
concept. The term "falsifiable" is specifically used in the conept
of formulating scientific theories, in that context, it is not some
random;ly selected term. See, for example, Popper, et al.

My only point, which may have been poorly stated, was that many people
accept theories as truth when they aren't. They may, in fact, be true,
but only until they aren't.

But "theory" was not what was advanced in the public debate
regarding AM vs FM, it was commercially motivated propaganda,
as it was in the case of the AC vs DC debate before it.

I don't think Nyquist's theory is a theorem

Do you even know what the Nyquist theorem is?

because theorems are proven
by reasoning from something already accepted.

And that is precisely the case with the Nyquist Theorem.

Theories usually require experimental evidence,
even if they begin as mathematical conjecture. I don't know that to be
the case with Nyquist, but I am assuming it is. I could be wrong.

Uhm, yes.

I know of no proofs that either are wrong. My only point is one cannot
accept Nyquist's theory as true.

Again, YOU insist on using the terms "theory" instead of theorem,
contrary to what the Nyquist theorem actually is and its origins.

Again, I might ask: do you know what it is?