Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 3:26:43 PM UTC-6, Robert Peirce wrote:
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. The term is "falsifiable." 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. Really? Care to cite these specific mathematical proofs? 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. "Proven" by whom? Where are these proofs? Once this theory was falsified by Armstrong's first demo, politics and business entered in to delay its acceptance. The the politics and economics were there from the start, and the "technical" and "scientific" "proofs" were proffered in solely in defense of those non=-scientific interests. There was plenty of both evidence and technical support for FM well before Armstrong's demonstration. Once again, you're missing the point: the argument was NOT a technical or scientific argument, it was an argument over competing commercial interests, and "science" was used as a distraction. The AM vs FM arguments are very similar to the sordid argument a couple of decades earlier in the Edison (DC) vs Westinghouse (AC) "debate." Edison resorted to similar bogus "scientific" arguments against the use of AC current for power distribution, supported by public demonstrations of the electrocution of cats and farm animals by AC current. Edison apparently went so far as to attempt to introduce the terms "westinghouse" in to the common lexison as a synonym for "electrocution." It was, in precisely the same way, the same bogus debate: using "scientific" arguments to defend economic interests. It's interesting to note that a century or so after the fact, both AC and DC power distribution (long-distance transmission is done by DC to eliminate inductive losses while local distribution is almost entirely AC, to facilitate transformer-based power step-up and step-down conversion). In the same way, AM and FM are no longer competing transmission methods: both have their strengths in one domain and weaknesses in others. How many long-distance, clear-channel FM transmissions are you aware of, for example? (the counter argument of the superior fidelity of FM is largely moot, given how badly all radio transmission is done anyway. And "high-fidelity talk radio" on FM? Really?) It took FM some 30 years to dominate radio (mostly due to gov't regulatory meddling). Which, itself, is mostly dominated by commercial interests. How long did it take digital to surpass analog in audio recordings? Some would say digital hasn't surpassed analog. And their "scientific" arguments include such things as "missing stuff between the samples" and "stair steps" and the like. My point was that Nyquist's theory is just that, You keep saying the "Nyquist theory". There is no "Nyquist theory." There is Nuquist's Theorem A "theory" and a "theorem" are very different. Nyquist's theorem is a theorom as the Pythagorean theorem is NOT a theory. It is accepted until proven wrong. It may never be proven wrong, but there are people who are trying. Name any credible attempts to "prove" that Nyquist's theorem is wrong. While you're at it, sow us similar proofs that Pythagorus's theorem is wrong as well. It may be absolutely correct or not, but it is not the gospel some folks believe it to be. No, a gospel is something someone believes because they have faith in it. A "theorem" is not a gospel, rather it is something that it supported by a very sound set of mathematical concepts. You or anyone else can choose to "believe" or not in any theorem: denying its validity is something your get to do at your won peril: the physical world around cares not one wit of your's or anyone else's "belief". |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Questions on Audio Engineering | Pro Audio | |||
Auto electrical question not audio | Car Audio | |||
audio engineering question | Pro Audio | |||
FA : AUDIO ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES 520 @ $ 9.99 ! | Marketplace | |||
Audio Pops due to Electrical Issues? | Pro Audio |