|
John, Dan, Spencer, et al...I just realized that part of the problem is that Ethan is reasoning deductively while the rest of us are reasoning inductively. There's no solution to that problem. No two people reasoning from opposite directions will ever convince each other of the truth of their respective statements because they can't even agree on what constitutes "proof". In other words, everyone might as well quite trying so Ethan can stop repeating himself. If we continue this way there is an inevitable outcome in terms of the argument. It'll go something like this:
Ethan: "It doesn't."
Everyone else: "Yes it does."
Ethan: "No it doesn't"
Everyone else: "Yes it does."
There is one thing I'm confused about though. Ethan, you threw out Bryan's assertion than the surface reflection properties extrapolated to a larger scale to mean something concrete; how then do you plan to conduct a small scale test with large scale implications? Wouldn't that require you to extraploate your results in the same way bryan suggested? And what would you hope to prove after saying what you said after Bryan's post?
Furthermore, please explain how Bryan was wrong to begin with. You stated that things are scaled so that whatever is true of one unit is true of 100,000 units. True, the scale remains the same relatively speaking, but the net result is much, much larger. The difference is that .14dB is not audible where 3dB most certainly is. It's exactly the same thing as saying that there is a one degree difference between two headings; that doesn't make any real difference over one foot, but it at 100,000 feet the difference is 100,000 times as large even though the azimuth difference has not changed. It's still one degree though there is a huge space between the two end points at 100,000 feet vs a single foot.
Frank
__________________
Frank
|