Re: Science Bashing?

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Science Bashing?
From: open_minded <bturner-at-apc-dot-net>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 02:41:27 -0700
Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From music-at-triumf.caFri Oct 25 22:03:06 1996
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:29:04 PST
> From: "Fred W. Bach, TRIUMF Operations" <music-at-triumf.ca>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Cc: music-at-triumf.ca
> Subject: RE: Science Bashing?
> 
>  Hello,
> 
>    Now I didn't start this discussion.  If Chip wants he can toss
>    this.  But perhaps I have some input of substance.
> 
>    I am not sure if either Mr. Hull or Mf. Leyh has it right.  There
>    is some truth I see in both their statements.
> 
>    But certainly the statement of Mr. Hull is a little exaggerated to
>    my way of thinking and my experience with physicists.  If it
>    DOESN'T work on paper, it WON'T work in the real world.  Things
>    have to work on paper first.  I think he was just talking about
>    Tesla Coil building and operating, but his statements might be
>    interpretted in the broader sense.
> 


I'm jumping in here with a quick observation - according to the 'it
must work on paper first' argument, a bumblebee shouldn't be able to
fly, given what is currently known about aerodynamics. Yet the little
critter zips along, apparently oblivious to mankind's laws.

>From what I remember, many of the currently 'known' laws of physics
stem from careful observation, even a few 'let's build it and see what
happens' events. Heck, the people involved with the Trinity project
didn't know if the 'gadget' would work or not, but it did, and gave
the first uncontrolled nuclear explosion.

There is, I think, a balance. Without the pondering 'what-if's and
let-see-what-happens' people, a lot of knowledge would be missing. Also,
without the 'try-it-on-paper' people, we might still be dropping items
off the Leaning Tower in Pisa, Italy.

- Brent