Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:07:35 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Murray McGregor wrote:
> As soon as I see ancient texts being used, with unrealistically high
> precisions quoted, as a 'proof' of pro or con small cell theory, it smacks of
> bias.
>
> These texts are a curiosity in todays situation and, taken together, can tell
> us if we are within the parameters of years ago. Interpreting them to one end
> of the potential scale may turn out to be correct but seem arbitrary and
> unproven.
I would not discount scientific data just because it is old. And
measuring to three decimal places is not a recent discovery in the
scientific community. Nor are significant numbers.
But the wheel does seem to be recent, since we invent it monthly on this
list :)
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Me
|
|
|