Re: Theory vs. Measurement, was: Re: Isotropic Capacitance

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Theory vs. Measurement, was: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 11:21:41 -0700

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From MSR7-at-PO.CWRU.EDUWed May 29 12:22:42 1996
> Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 07:22:08 -0400
> From: MSR7-at-PO.CWRU.EDU
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Theory vs. Measurement, was: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
> 
>Mark R. wrote:

<big Snip>

 A few experiments to confirm or deny the
> applicability of the theory, often directed by the results of the theory,
> make this approach equally valid in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark S. Rzeszotarski, Ph.D.

Mark,

I have to ultimately agree with you being an engineer and scientific 
investigator.  I only rail against some of the theory because, over the 
years, we have "been there, done that"  It worked precisely by theory 
about 50% of the time.  Theory led us down a lot of blind alleys and we 
wasted a good deal of time on wild specualtion too.

A wise old Physicist once told me..."If you have an idea that goes 
against convention, and the itch is great enough, you must scratch it for 
your own sake and the sake of physics.  All new things were once itches 
or unsettling conventions which stuck in the craw of an experimentalist!"

I feel we only advance not only by questioning the unknown, but the 
"known" as well!

Richard Hull, TCBOR