Empirical evidence and the scientific method

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by VK6FLAB, Jan 5, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
  1. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    There's room for all, and learning is both fun and life-long. You don't check your brain at the door as soon as you get your callsign.

    No one has to be Marconi, but we shouldn't create an atmosphere where Marconis are dissed as 'arrogant' and 'trolls'--just because they point out the obvious.

    The point is we should recognize the core value of knowledge we all acquire for the privilege of getting OTA, and celebrate that. Onno has the right ATTITUDE; Its the knowledge base that needs work--if he wishes to showcase to a large audience of radio amateurs. Nothing wrong with making mistakes, as long as they are self correcting, or acknowledge correction from the knowledge base of others.
  2. K2SDS

    K2SDS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Agree. Onno's opinions would be more appropriately placed in the forum section of QRZ.
  3. G3ZEM

    G3ZEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    We use guides and approximations derived from theory. They help us on our way to reaching an objective. None are absolute though some get us closer than others. All are subject to (undermined by) environmental and material variables.

    On the specific subject of a dipole the golden rule is to cut longer not shorter than your approximation suggests; it being considerably easier to trim down than up!
  4. G3SEA

    G3SEA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wait until we try to get our heads around a ' Quantum ' Transceiver :cool:
    We'll manage :cool:

  5. K7PNW

    K7PNW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It all starts with RECTILINEAR PROPAGATION no matter how you look at it.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  6. K4FMH

    K4FMH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You’ve confused the terms scientific and empirical. Read some Karl Popper. Science IS empirical. If what you’re getting at is blind use of formulas without understanding the scientific concepts that give rise to those formulas, I thunk you have a good point. I’m not sure that it’s new, as others have stated above. Even though your use of these terms is confused, I applaud your effort to emphasize theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of our hobby. 73

Share This Page