Thank you for the Mulkay-Edge pieie [sic]. As you would predict I find the barely mentioned prehistory (1902-1930) (pp. 25-26)
the most interesting. I think I have read some other accounts -- perhaps including Jansky's own retrospections -- and
will try to find them, as well as write to the authors for the fuller account which may say more about the earlier period.
My motive in sending this now is to raise the question whether Jansky 1930 was post-mature (vis a vis 1902) or pre-mature
(vis a vis) Reber 1940 or both or is it an example of any discontinuity? The discouraging implication of Planck is not documented
(page 25); and I have to see whether Jansky perceived his own findings as anti "paradgimatic" [sic], or merely the
fruit of better equipment or more complex models of the sun. Some of your colleagues at Columbia -- but no one better than
Von Eshlesnaun could quickly answer these points: I will ask Von.
P.S. As some of the marginal notes hint, the technical problems of observational astronomy have made it one of the most pervasively
socialized of scientific disciplines -- but each of the sciences is a special case!
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
But I have to say "no" to the specific marginal question top p. 34. Example, "theoretical" prediction followed
by observation of Neptune contra that of Vulcan. At cosmological lend [?], see Hoyle on predictions of density of universe
at visible fringe's [sic].