Susan:
Most of science is not axiomatic. Einstein merely made some interesting
postulations and said, "there, now, go hit it with a stick." Even so
most of his work was built on well established thoeries and
transformations developed by others. Today we are still hitting it with
a stick.
Much of what we use in today's engineering world is based on old stuff
(say newtonian physics) which is known to be in error, but is
nevertheless still good enough for our purposes.
More important than trying to decide if something is true or not,
perhaps the question that should be asked, is it useful in anyway? Also
one should bear in mind that just because it has passed review does not
make it true. Only when an experiment has been repeated by several
experimentors and interpreted in the same way, can it's true integrity
be asserted. Much raw data has knowingly or unwittingly been falsified,
due to the weight publication carries for grants, promotions etc. This
is a fact, borne out by a confidential poll taken in human medical
research where a large percentage of researchers admitted to doing this
(I'll pull out the reference when I get home).
What I'd like to know (I tried posting this a few times when ridecamp
was having hiccups) is...
Can Susan and Tom agree on a starting point to test this carb loading
controversy, say a fairly non threathening loading and training routine.
If so would one of the more experienced riders be willing to try it and
pass on the results? (Teddy?)
-- Nicco Murphy Aerostructures Inc. F/A-18 Group, San Diego, (619)545-3333