Posted by: JJA () on Mon May 10 13:06:24 2004

>>> I would personally like to see some more testing for the torque hypothesis,especially what Jack describes as "THT".<<<
>
> Hi Tom
>
> We can start the testing anytime by having everyone involved define the forces acting on the bat that induces angular displacement during initiation (we can later discuss the mechanics that produce those forces). Some have denied that torque applied at the handle is the mechanical principle responsible. But, no one has offered to define an alternative physic’s principle that generates bat-head acceleration.
>
> Anyone who would like to prove torque is not a mechanical principle involved in generating bat speed is welcome to try. They should do so by defining the correct mechanical principle they believe is responsible. -- However, anyone who denies torque without fully defining an alternative – is just taking cheap shots.
>
> Tom, for obvious reasons, a good place to start the testing is with Paul Nyman. Have him define (as I have) the forces the hands are applying at the handle and the mechanical principle that causes the bat-head to accelerate. – Namely, what is the direction of force of each hand during initiation that cause the bat to rotate and define the mechanical principle involved.
>
> I have defined the forces acting on the bat that cause it to rotate about a point as (1) Torque – hands applying force from opposing directions (2) an angular rate of displacement of the hand-path induces an angular rate of displacement of the bat. Have Paul define his alternative definitions.
>
> After Paul responds (if he actually does), you can post a summary of his definition here.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
>

Hi all,

In lieu of any additional data forthcoming, this is my last post on the subject.

Unfortunately, science is a harsh discipline. In my job, if I make poor approximations, soldiers in the field may die. Precision of argument is essential in science because eventually mother physics gets involved, and she is an unforgiving creature.

The scientific method is clear and has been refined since the time of Francis Bacon. A hypothesis is given, and then experiments are performed that either confirm or deny the hypothesis. In modern society, if you wish to submit your hypothesis to a technical journal for publication, the paper is sent to 2-4 experts for review. After reviewing all material, the experts then either submit the paper for publication, or reject the paper due to lack of compelling evidence. Even after publication, often times knowledgeable readers will bring forth further arguments which may confirm or dispel the hypothesis of the author.

Science is not the criminal justice system. A hypothesis is not true until proven false. It is the obligation of the author to prove their hypothesis based on experiments, analysis or other scientific methods. It is not the obligation of the experts who reject the hypothesis to come up with alternate explanations.

Strong words have been posted claiming that there is proof that torque is applied to the bat during the swing. Based on the evidence presented to date - and I sincerely hope there is additional material to review, in particular the "research paper" quoted previously - there is nothing even remotely approaching a scientific proof. I say this as an impartial reader. I don't have a web site, don't have a book or DVD for sale, nor do I sell baseball training materials. I am a scientist who wants to teach his little league team the best way to swing a bat.

In summary, Dr. Adair's model remains unrefuted. If additional material surfaces, I will be happy to review it. Until it does, Jack's hypothesis remains just that, an unproven theory.

-JJA