Enough already! I not only have worked as a statitistian -- did actuarial work for 3 1/2 years, but also have taken three undergraduate and one graduate course in stats and taught statistics at the undergraduate junior and senior level.
I didn't chime in on this thread earlier because everyone else seems to have handled the topic perfectly well. Your "theory" is nothing more than a weak, unsubstantiated hypothesis and it's so full of holes that it's nearly impossible to address. Everyone else is right: there is no rule, nor has there ever been, that a "sample" has to be 10% of the population. The sample should be random, defined such that each member of the population has an equal chance of being chosen for the sample group. The validity of the sample is determined by the variability represented by the data in that sample and the standard deviation, and standard error, calculated based on the sample size itself, become important elements in determining the validity of the sample data. Inherent problems in any survey data aside, a sample size of 1000 is perfectly legitimate.
Moreover, it is scientifically improper to even attempt to "prove" a negative. If you were acquainted with the scientific method at all, you'd know that we do not express results in terms of "proof", but in terms of data supporting or failing to support an hypothesis. A theory is something that is based on an array of individual hypotheses that are soundly supported by observations. The rules of acceptability are stringent.
