Posted by: Gunther (heirgunther@netscape.net) on Fri May 2 11:15:48 2003

> So you've put in a lot of hard work, and come up with a good model. Big Deal. That doesn't mean it's perfect. That letter says nothing about whip effect. All it says is that you're ahead of the field (at least in his knowledge but I would think he would say the same thing about Paul Nyman). That doesn't mean you've over looked things and have some holes. Your model is good. Your model works, even if you're fooled. I just don't think you have the right idea of what is going on when someone is fooled. This may sound like Makin bashing, but I think you're just being a little stubborn. I'll go back to make sure, but I'm not sure Prof. Adair was talking about the same "whip". Again I think you're ignoring the laws of nature. If a ball is tied to the end of a string, and you rotate the string above your head, what part is moving the fastest? The ball is because it is covering more ground in the same amount of time as the rest of the string.

Your theory sounds good except for one problem. What are the mechanics for getting the ball and string rotating around your head? If you extend your arm straight out, holding the string between the tips of your fingers, you almost have to rotate 360 degrees several times because the straight linear approach would not work. Try it. Very painful, and if the ball were an extended bat, the hitter would have to stand amlmost outside of the batters box to initiate his swing. Now try the rotational method with the same string/arm configuration. . . Works much better, and most certainly with a bat. I've tried both. The linear method for many years, without success, and the rotational method, just recently, with exponential results.