Re: Nutrition again

Niccolai Murphy (niccom@aerostructures.com)
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:55:08 -0800

I wrote...
> 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.

Truman wrote...
>Interestingly enough this is not always the case.
I'll keep this part of the post short for fear of being scolded for
getting off topic! :) True but except for relatively small fields of
work (though now aday wide reaching) it is unusual to see the average
engineer including the Lorentz transformation in his work - not even a
railroad engineer. :)

Truman wrote
>Until the time we have such questions answered, it may be prudent to base
>the diet of an endurance horse on the knowledge gained by the experienced
>riders and vets in the sport. While this may not be scientific, most
>scientific theories are developed by intutition gained through observation
>and a lot of hard work - or to quote "5% inspration and 95% prespiration"

Agreed, I don't think that we can progress scientifically in this case,
but should we give up? We prudently base our diets on what works. But if
there is a possibility of improvement, should we not add our
perspiration (but hopefully not the health and well-being of our horses)
to the lake? Incidentally, you wouldn't happen to know where to look for
what those East coasters did?

Nicco

-- 
Nicco Murphy  Aerostructures Inc.  F/A-18 Group, San Diego,
(619)545-3333