Look, if you guys want to move the discussion forward in a constructive fashion, you can start by contributing scientific principals and linking to sources. The best sources are places like wikipedia, wolfram, and free online webpages from universities, etc. Claiming you have some textbook that somehow invalidates the sampling theorem is not helping. You have to provide the arguments to support your claim---in this case math, since you are arguing against a mathematical theory---and provide third-party sources that establish your arguments as valid. People are here to learn, so they are very receptive to intelligent arguments. Until you provide said intelligent argument, you've got no basis for claiming the sampling theorem is invalid. Instead, you are either a) providing a lot of evidence that you don't understand the concepts yourself, b) arguing a strawman, or c) trolling.
You are nay-saying a well established theorem, but refusing to actually explain anything in a coherent fashion, nor provide any sources that back your claim. If your argument has any merit then it would prove invaluable to support your argument with evidence. "I have a MS in computer engineering" is not evidence. If you would like learn more about how to refute an argument, I encourage you to read the article linked in my sig. Furthermore, there is another thread linking to an explanation of common fallacies, so now you know how to avoid making statements and arguments that fail to further this discussion.
If you want to make a point about the Nyquist-shannon sampling theorem being invalid, you could go a long way toward supporting your claim if you can point us to a proof, example, or explanation on what breaks down. You might (or might not) find a publicly available source here.
PS for those who are interested, the MIT course notes on Discrete-Time Signal Processing is freely available online, and is given by Dr. Oppenheim.
Edited by ab initio - 6/12/14 at 6:21pm