pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/06/85)
------------------------------------------------- Reply to Ted Holden (My mail connections aren't working right) ------------------------------------------------- I cannot respond to an article that I have not read. What I can respond to is that I do not consider one article (ESPECIALLY one in which I do not know what assumptions were made to come up with the calculations in question) as proof to a major change in geophysics and physics in general!! Please don't give me article titles without references as to where to find them. Please don't say a mathematical proof of one thing leads to another WITHOUT stating what the basis for the proof was etc.,etc.,etc. I have found from long experience such statements lead to little in the way of valid discussion.(For one thing,I have no reference of what reason you agree with the article so much without such information...) I thank-you for your reply.I just wish I had something more to work from. Pam Pincha-Wagener (usual disclaimer)
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/06/85)
Dear Ted, Sorry,I misunderstood your mail message and replied too fast. I found the article on the net. I don't agree with it. Basically because the skeletal structures compared are compared in an apple and orange way. I'll reply more in detail later. I found the article a bit convoluted in its logic and I want to make sure I understand how the mistakes were arrived at. -------------------------------------------------------------------- P.M.Pincha-Wagener (usual disclaimer)