I believe this is getting a bit off from the intent of the thread itself so this will be my last post on the matter. Anything in the future will be kept to PM's or I won't respond.
Thanks for sharing your theories, but I'm not about to discount what I've experienced because someone else doesn't see it from my perspective.
My theories? I posted no theory. I simply tried to explain the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. Perspective has nothing to do with this difference.
No offense, but science starts with 'questioning theories' and progresses into 'proven theories' through experiencing consistent proof, however, it is almost never finished.
Yes science starts with questions, good start. It is also very methodical, it doesn't stop until every possible variable has been accounted for. That is something we simply cannot do today when discussing DX. That is fact, and there is no way around it.
What I was pointing out is that I actually have more to go on due to my experience with my Gainmaster than someone has who would refute even the possibility that a Gainmaster could outperform a 3 el Yagi under certain conditions & circumstances.
I never once tried to refute what you found, I simply stated that it is still theory when you were talking about DX, which was true.
It's a red herring to demand that I said it's scientific that it always will.
With all due respect, you are the one who brought up science.
-I don't absolutely, necessarily disbelieve 4040's claim because I can understand how it's possible, and in addition, I have also experienced surprisingly impressive DX performance from the Gainmaster, equal to that which I would tend to expect from a 3-4 el Yagi.
I'm not arguing against the possibility of this happening, that was never my point, what I was arguing was your method of science, which is quoted:
Ah yes, but science relies on repeatable consistency
Repeatable consistency has never proven anything. While it is an aid, science does not rely on it.
Let me try to explain. Say you cross at a crosswalk and the light there has operated the same way for five years. You assume the next time you cross at that crosswalk that the light will be the same, and very likely it will be. However, it is also possible that they changed the timing and it will work differently as well. That is inductive reasoning and what you are using. Inductive reasoning will never be proven scientific fact. It is a good guide, but that is all it is.
Another way to look at it is a roulette table. I can observe it as long as I want, record what happens, ect. One thing I can never do is guess with 100% certainty what will happen the next time around, even if I watch it 10,000 times or more. That is in essence what you are doing with DX.
Deductive reasoning accounts for every possible variable. Only deductive reasoning can get to scientific fact. Everything else is just theory. You would be surprised at how many things in the world today are taken and taught as fact that are really only theory.
And just to let you know, nothing I posted this time or the time before is theory.
Also from earlier in the thread:
Don't confuse me with the facts!
I know, it was only a joke, but I had to put it in here somewhere...
That's all
Yep, I'm done with this off-topic. If you want to discuss this further, pm me... It really doesn't bother me either way to be honest. You would be surprised as to how many people in this world really don't understand what scientific fact actually is.
Also, I never once said that in your case that it wasn't possible that what you said about those antennas were true. I was simply arguing your implied method of getting to "scientific fact".
The DB
