A hypothesis is a "concept" that becomes theory with valid data. That means
theory has the weight of scientific research behind it.
I can form the hypothesis that the sky is blue from a giant grating icebergs
into ice crystals but when that idea is tested it will fail and never become
theory.
73 de Perry - K4PWO
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:30 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Protection Question
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:49:52 -0400, Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>On 9/13/2010 12:31 AM, Doug Renwick wrote:
>> Just a minute. Using the words theory and fundamental science
>> principles interchangeably is flawed. There is a big definition
>> difference between these two. Theory can be defined as an assumption
or
>> guess which is clearly different from fundamental science principles.
>The problem here is that most of electronics works with the "laws of
>physics", or very well proven theories that may be treated as if they
>are laws.
>Basic theory is part of the foundation of scientific principles.
>That a circuit or amp does not work the way mathematics says it should
>is not a flaw in either the science or theories, but rather a failure to
>take into account all of the complex actions and interactions present in
>the real world application. Taming or neutralizing amplifiers is one of
>these applications while antenna modeling is another.
>The application of "Vacuum tube principles" are based on the laws of
>physics as are the construction of vacuum tubes.
>Semiconductor theory is based on how we think they work on the molecular
>level, not how they operate. However the application of those
>semiconductors is based on the laws of physics.
>Computers operate based on the laws of physics and the principles of
>mathematics.
>There is nothing I can think of in Amateur Radio that is not based on
>the laws of physics, or well founded theory that can not be treated as
>law from propagation to circuit design.
I agree completely with Roger's comments. I would also like to point out
that there is a problem with semantics. When I was first getting into ham
radio, "the way things worked" that we learned to pass the General exam
was CALLED "Theory," and, in those days, what we learned in school and in
those textbooks was CALLED "Theory," and it was the simplified version
that ignored stray R, L, and C. :) When you took the exam, you took the
code test, and if you survived that, you took the "theory" test.
That was a very different use of the word than in the world of science,
where a concept is developed as a theory to explain what we observe about
how the world works, then do careful study and research to prove or
disprove that theory. That thinking, and the resulting research, is the
basis of our understanding of fundamental scientific principles. In that
use of the word, virtually EVERYTHING we know about the world started out
as a THEORY, and, with or without modification based on the scientific
research done to prove or disprove it, became a fundamental principle upon
which further understanding was and continues to be built.
73, Jim Brown K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|