[Robert Peirce]

On 3/17/15 2:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. How is it "possible" to prove something
false which is inherently true?

That's the point. You can't. That doesn't mean it can't be proven
false if it is not true. The problem with many unscientific theories is
they can't be proven false even if they are. There is a theory that a
supreme being created the universe. The theory can neither be proven
true nor false and could be either.

Not exactly correct. Carson presented mathematical proof that FM distorts when
the max modulation frequency is narrower than the audio bandwidth. That was and
remains true.

I was quoting somebody else. However, the outcome remains the same.
Something is true only until somebody proves it isn't.

I think it takes more, much more, than lack of proof wrong to gain acceptance as
a theory.

Why? A theory just says this is what I think happens and this is why I
think it happens. It should be accepted until it is proven false. That
might take a minute or it might never happen.

Interesting that Nyquist is the digital domain equivalent of the analog FM
Carson Bandwidth Rule. Neither has been proven wrong and both are widely and
successfully applied.

Absolutely. Neither has been proven wrong yet and may never be.