[[email protected]]

First, my apologies to the moderators and everyone else that got
confused in this thread I am managing a half dozen gmail accounts
for various clients, and I was less than careful about posting
from which accounts. Replies attributed variously to "cartchunk"
"vocproc" or and the like were all me. I will tryo to be more diligent
in the future.

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 12:43:37 PM UTC-6, Robert Peirce wrote:
On 3/20/15 9:53 AM, cartchunk wrote:
There, in fact, was no "theory" that the earth was the center of the
universe. It was a religious doctrine. It was, in fact, TRVTH (tm),
handed down from on high that was to be followed without question,
and often, not followed at the risk serious personal consequences.

And, again, the point you seem to refuse to accept is that first,
it was NOT a theory and, second, whatever "math" was used (epicycles,
for example), the books were deliberately cooked to support a
political, religious and economic agenda.

Now again, you are using an extremely limited and thus incorrect
definition of "theory". In addition to explaining observed
phenomenon, a supportable theory must also make testable predictions
and it is those predictions that provide the notion of falsifiablility.

I had resolved not to get involved in this any further, especially since
it was moving from science to religion and nobody can speak with
certainty about that.

Uh, no. the historical record is quite clear on that.

And, if you want, you can blame me for moving the discussion
in that direction: it was, in fact, a very deliberate course
correction, because you confused the concept of scientific theory
with what is clearly recorded in the historical record as religious
doctrine.

Take specifically the case of Galileo: his major opponent was NOT,
as you claim below "other scientist," it was VERY specifically the
hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church: Galileo was put on trial
by the church for the crime of heresy.

The refinement, on the other hand, of Newtonian gravity provided
by Einstein's General Relativity was much less onerous on Newton.

It should be noted that it took about a wee over 200 years for
General Relativity (1915) to replace Newtonian gravity (1687).

It took the church 125 years longer (1983) to retract its verdict
on Galileo (1633).

These, by the way, are commonly available historical facts from
a wide variety of credible sources, so it's not clear how one
cannot speak with certainty on these topics.

Then I saw a letter in the Washington Post from
"Galileo" and realized where you are coming from.

When I spoke of the geocentric theory I was referring to the theory
developed by many ancient civilizations more than four centuries before
the birth of Christ, let alone Christianity, not to the religious dogma
developed during the late middle ages.

What "theories" are these? All of the world models at the time were
either superstition or religious at their root (and, one might
argue, what's difference?).

There were no "theories", not in anything even remotely approaching
current accepted definition of the word.

Ancient astronomers observed something in nature that needed to be
explained and they attempted to do that based on the knowledge they had
at the time. In other words, they developed a theory. Their work
produced testable predictions

Uh, no, they didn't that's why they were so broken.

Where is the predictability of a universe consisting of
a tortoise shell supported by elephants, just to pick the
first example that pops into my head? Or that the sun was
disgorged by a fish in the morning and then swallowed by
another at sunset?

that were refined as more knowledge became
available and the theory carried long enough and well enough that it
became religious dogma, but that was almost 2000 years later.

Really? The Phoenician, the Egyptian, the Grecian, the Eutruscan,
the Roman, the Mayan, the Incan, the Chinese, (and so on) world
models had to wait until the Middle ages to arise and gain
foothold in their respective contexts?

Really?

Even when Copernicus and Galileo came along, most astronomers were
reluctant to accept their ideas without considerable proof and it took
many years. Whether religious or not, there was a scientific consensus
and it took a long time to overcome it.

Where was this "scientific consensus". Hell, where was this "science".

It is widely acknowledge by historical experts in the field that it
was, in fact, Galileo that essentially invented "science", if by
"science" one might take it to mean the use of the scientific
method, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, which didn't exist
prior to Galileo.

And other's "reluctance" at the time went by a specific name:
"The Inquisition". Recall that the Roman Catholic Church succeeded
in silencing Galileo not by countering his observations and theories
with reasoned argument, but by letting him witness the kinds of torture
applied to non-believers and non-conformists of the era.

However, as it seems always to
happen, the better theory eventually supplanted the poorer.

You keep insisting on dignifying ancient superstitions, religious
dogma, and shoving political and religious dogma down people's
throat at the tip of a spear or at the stake as "theory" and "science."

Stop doing that, if you please.

Now, to DSR's point about making this relevant to audio. All good
scientifically-based theories are provisional: they stand until
something better comes along, whether it be a refinement of that
theory or a wholesale replacement. The Shannon-Nyquist THEOREM,
the basic foundation underpinning not only digital audio but
audio in general, does not fall into that category. It is a theorem

You may be correct. I was under the impression that this came from
using mathematics to explain an observation (a theory) rather than by
deductive reasoning from known facts (a theorem).

Please do not take my word for it: it's not whether I'm "correct"
or not, do the research yourself. Go look up "Nyquist's Theorem"
on wikipedia to start, and follow the references, several of which
lead right to the horse's mouth. Do the same for the "sampling theorem".


Again, my apolgies for confusing people with multiple identities.