How Science Got Sound Wrong

Your Fermi quote is a red herring. When Fermi says contrary to hypothesis, he means he reran it 100 times, reviewed all his equipment, talked to trusted colleagues, and then published a paper fully detailed so others could replicate the experiment. He did not mean a pop science paper by someone who does not understand the science.

For you its a red herring for me its a great big huge tuna ’cause I love tuna salad sandwiches just like I like that quote served up without some face saving projections..

And you can channel dead people, gosh you are amazing. Btw can you support your contention Fermi re-ran it 100 times with some real evidence ...’cause I read Fermi always stopped at 97 ( he apparently was superstitious or something ).

Look, just go find some good articles to prove your point and we’ll be done with this and then we can argue about something else.

So basically the system didn’t filter out high frequencies like it should have bean designed to? Bad example.


yes I am a guy on the forum who is not quoting other people on other forums I’m actually providing links to real papers. I am also not saying anything that conflicts with well-established Shannon Nyquist.

I don’t need to channel Fermi to understand how scientific Labs work or engineering labs for that matter. If you get a measurement but doesn’t correspond to what you expect your first inclination is not to think you’ve discovered something new it is to assume that you made a mistake in your measurement. At that point you will review your equipment redo the measurement try to do the measurement a different way look at how you may have made the measurement wrong or what is wrong with your hypothesis. Only after exhausting all other options will you assume you have made a discovery. Even then you were probably wrong.

Basically because you have ignorance about this topic and refused to accept the fact that you are wrong you are expecting me to prove Shannon Nyquist that is essentially what you are asking.


the one paper I did link to that shows timing under severe signal to noise restrictions says everything that is essentially needed on this topic.


You on the other hand have provided absolutely nothing to support your position. Your position is essentially that Shannon Nyquist is wrong and you’re not qualified to say that. And because you were trying to say Shannon Nyquist is wrong you can’t find anything that will support your position because it doesn’t exist.


given that you have illustrated you don't have the technical acumen on this topic how would you know a good paper if you saw one?

You're still pounding the table....provide some articles.

I ... Ya me, did provide articles. Who do you think you are fooling with this childish game asking for more? You ...what did you provide? ... You cut and pasted from a forum post, but didn’t provide the link to that post. That is bad form. Is that because the poster was getting roasted due to his inaccurate claims. He did not even understand something as basic as impulse in a bandwidth limited system. That is your "proof" you are right. All my posts in this thread are easily researched. My examples easily understood.

The one that needs to provide supporting articles is not me, it is you Taras22. You continually attack but can’t back it up. It is your credibility on this topic that needs help.