4 ms·

It's not an analogy. This is precisely how it works.

by Filligree 2y ago

khazhoux 2y ago
Unless your car radio consists of a flashlight and a tree, this is an analogy.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Well... It kind of does. The source of the radio station is a kind of flashlight, just on a different frequency. The tree is still a tree (and all the other objects)
  - cloudwalk9 2y ago
    More accurately a giant lightbulb, but emitting at 102.7 MHz (my favorite local radio station) rather than ~450 THz (my favorite color). Put visible light over a really long waveguide and modulate the colors, you invented fiber optic telecommunication.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The flashlight is the radio tower, the tree is the tree, and the radio in the car is your eyes. There is no analogy here, it is literally the same EM waves shifted up to where our eyes can see them. It's like saying that the violins is merely an analogy for how a double base works.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it is literally the same EM waves shifted up to where our eyes can see them Rubber ducks aren't battleships because they both float. Visible light and radio attenutate in meaningfully-different ways. It's an analogy.
    - dexwiz 2y ago
      Rubber ducks and battleships both displace water in the same way.
      - aksss 2y ago
        Ducks and witches, on the other hand. . .
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Rubber ducks and battleships both displace water in the same way Yes. Just like light and radio waves are both EM. A rubber duck remains an analogy for the buoyancy of a battleship. Not "literally the same" thing.
        aeonik 2y ago
        But if you say that a battleship floats on the water in a similar way to a rubber duck floating in the water... it's actually not similar... they are the same. It's the same water and the same physics. The "only" appreciable difference is scale. For me, the people saying they are the literal same thing are the same type of people that gave me that "aha" moment that really helped solidify my understanding of RF. It was pretty mind blowing when I Understood that AM is a change in brightness and FM was a change in color. We just can't see RF, but if we could, that's what it would be.
        swores 2y ago
        > But if you say that a battleship floats on the water in a similar way to a rubber duck floating in the water... it's actually not similar... they are the same. It's the same water and the same physics. The "only" appreciable difference is scale. But battleship doesn't equal floating in water, floating in water is a property it has. If you're saying "the way a battleship floats in water is like how a rubber duck floats in water" then it's not an analogy, it's as you say just describing two versions of the same thing. But it is an analogy to directly compare the two objects, because "floating on water" is a property of the objects it's not the object you are comparing. Wikipedia begins its page on analogies with this, sourced from The Oxford Companion to the English Language: "Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share." Or Marriam-Webster: "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect" Apart from rubber ducks and battleships both having the "third element", or aspect, of "primarily used for floating on water", they are definitely two completely different things. Nobody could look at a rubber duck next to a warship and say "they seem to be the same thing". The more closely related two things are the more useful and less stretched the analogy available, which is why the analogy about radio waves was so enlightening to so many people in this thread. But it's bang on as the definition of what an analogy is.
  - swores 2y ago
    It's not saying the violin IS "merely an analogy for how a double base works", just that a violin can be used as a simple analogy to somebody who understands how a violin works but doesn't know what a double bass is. Comparing similar things is literally what an analogy is, the fact that in these two cases (radio/light and string instruments) the things being compared are very similar it doesn't make them the same thing, nor does it make it not an analogy.
  - mistercow 2y ago
    It is not literally the same. The colors you perceive on the screen in front of you demonstrate why. That banner above is not orange; it’s red and green. You don’t actually have the ability to distinguish a varying frequency between red-orange and yellow-orange, and two amplitude modulated “carriers” at red and green. That’s the hallmark of an analogy. It gives the general idea, but breaks down if we interrogate it in too much detail.
- senorrib 2y ago
  Both concepts are based on frequency and amplitude of waves (radio vs light).
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    That's what makes the analogy so clear.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Essentially that is actually the case. Human-visible light and AM/FM radio waves are just different wavelengths along the EM spectrum. A flashlight beams out waves that we can see; a radio transmitter beams out waves we can't. The brightness of the beam of light is related to its amplitude, just like the signal content in AM radio is related to its amplitude. And the color of the beam of light is related to its frequency, just like the signal content in FM radio is related to its frequency.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    The explanation asks us to imagine shining a flashlight through a tree, first changing the flashlight brightness and then changing its color. The flashlight is an analogy for a radio transmitter. We all get that they work on same principle but just on different wavelengths. But regardless I can't shine the flashlight in my kitchen drawer at my radio and pick up a signal.
    - mordae 2y ago
      Remove cover, locate LNA, modulate light correctly and voila... :-)

It's not an analogy. This is precisely how it works.

khazhoux 2y ago

Unless your car radio consists of a flashlight and a tree, this is an analogy.

viraptor 2y ago
Well... It kind of does. The source of the radio station is a kind of flashlight, just on a different frequency. The tree is still a tree (and all the other objects)
- cloudwalk9 2y ago
  More accurately a giant lightbulb, but emitting at 102.7 MHz (my favorite local radio station) rather than ~450 THz (my favorite color). Put visible light over a really long waveguide and modulate the colors, you invented fiber optic telecommunication.
llm_trw 2y ago
The flashlight is the radio tower, the tree is the tree, and the radio in the car is your eyes. There is no analogy here, it is literally the same EM waves shifted up to where our eyes can see them. It's like saying that the violins is merely an analogy for how a double base works.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it is literally the same EM waves shifted up to where our eyes can see them Rubber ducks aren't battleships because they both float. Visible light and radio attenutate in meaningfully-different ways. It's an analogy.
  - dexwiz 2y ago
    Rubber ducks and battleships both displace water in the same way.
    - aksss 2y ago
      Ducks and witches, on the other hand. . .
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Rubber ducks and battleships both displace water in the same way Yes. Just like light and radio waves are both EM. A rubber duck remains an analogy for the buoyancy of a battleship. Not "literally the same" thing.
      - aeonik 2y ago
        But if you say that a battleship floats on the water in a similar way to a rubber duck floating in the water... it's actually not similar... they are the same. It's the same water and the same physics. The "only" appreciable difference is scale. For me, the people saying they are the literal same thing are the same type of people that gave me that "aha" moment that really helped solidify my understanding of RF. It was pretty mind blowing when I Understood that AM is a change in brightness and FM was a change in color. We just can't see RF, but if we could, that's what it would be.
        swores 2y ago
        > But if you say that a battleship floats on the water in a similar way to a rubber duck floating in the water... it's actually not similar... they are the same. It's the same water and the same physics. The "only" appreciable difference is scale. But battleship doesn't equal floating in water, floating in water is a property it has. If you're saying "the way a battleship floats in water is like how a rubber duck floats in water" then it's not an analogy, it's as you say just describing two versions of the same thing. But it is an analogy to directly compare the two objects, because "floating on water" is a property of the objects it's not the object you are comparing. Wikipedia begins its page on analogies with this, sourced from The Oxford Companion to the English Language: "Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share." Or Marriam-Webster: "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect" Apart from rubber ducks and battleships both having the "third element", or aspect, of "primarily used for floating on water", they are definitely two completely different things. Nobody could look at a rubber duck next to a warship and say "they seem to be the same thing". The more closely related two things are the more useful and less stretched the analogy available, which is why the analogy about radio waves was so enlightening to so many people in this thread. But it's bang on as the definition of what an analogy is.
- swores 2y ago
  It's not saying the violin IS "merely an analogy for how a double base works", just that a violin can be used as a simple analogy to somebody who understands how a violin works but doesn't know what a double bass is. Comparing similar things is literally what an analogy is, the fact that in these two cases (radio/light and string instruments) the things being compared are very similar it doesn't make them the same thing, nor does it make it not an analogy.
- mistercow 2y ago
  It is not literally the same. The colors you perceive on the screen in front of you demonstrate why. That banner above is not orange; it’s red and green. You don’t actually have the ability to distinguish a varying frequency between red-orange and yellow-orange, and two amplitude modulated “carriers” at red and green. That’s the hallmark of an analogy. It gives the general idea, but breaks down if we interrogate it in too much detail.
senorrib 2y ago
Both concepts are based on frequency and amplitude of waves (radio vs light).
- khazhoux 2y ago
  That's what makes the analogy so clear.
kelnos 2y ago
Essentially that is actually the case. Human-visible light and AM/FM radio waves are just different wavelengths along the EM spectrum. A flashlight beams out waves that we can see; a radio transmitter beams out waves we can't. The brightness of the beam of light is related to its amplitude, just like the signal content in AM radio is related to its amplitude. And the color of the beam of light is related to its frequency, just like the signal content in FM radio is related to its frequency.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  The explanation asks us to imagine shining a flashlight through a tree, first changing the flashlight brightness and then changing its color. The flashlight is an analogy for a radio transmitter. We all get that they work on same principle but just on different wavelengths. But regardless I can't shine the flashlight in my kitchen drawer at my radio and pick up a signal.
  - mordae 2y ago
    Remove cover, locate LNA, modulate light correctly and voila... :-)