Re: Hello! cont.

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:30:50 -0800

>
>My point is that clearly science in the 1960's predicted that there
>SHOULD be 30-something feet of dust on the moon, due to know influx
>rates and the estimated age of the solar system.
>
>Then Apollo (NASA) made a physical measurement and found it to be
>much less.
>
>Now science has conveniently re-evaluated their original
>assumptions and found that -guess what- our calculations show
>there really should only be 2.5 inches of dust on the moon, wow,
>just what Apollo found, aren't we neat!

You are correct...it was the failure of NASA to find the dust that triggered
the reevaluation of the data...but not the theory. And no surprise, the
basis of the predictions was reevaluated and modified to agree with the new
data. But that is one of the strengths of science. People can use failure
of a prediction to test the basis of the prediction, and to change first,
the basis, and if no remedy is found, the theory itself. In this case, a
reanalysis of the original basis proved sufficient. If you believe the
reanalysis might have been biased by the desired outcome, you should
reinvestigate the assumptions and conclusions and publish your findings.
You might find it a fruitful adventure. I doubt you would have to do any
new measurements, just analyze the logic.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu