I would appreciate some clarification, since the statements on this topic left me a little confused:
(1) I take it from the statement that \"small changes mean a lot when there is a long straightaway\" that the distance from the gate to the turn is one of the variables in the wind adjustment formula. Assuming that\'s the case, is it correct to conclude that the wind adjustment for the Distaff was significantly greater than it was for the Juvenile Fillies?
(2) Reading between the lines, I\'m guessing that the wind adjustment formula is something which is applied to the final figure of the winner, so that the adjustments for all of the horses who finish behind the winner are based on their fixed realtionships vis a vis the winner. Put another way,is it correct that for the Distaff the wind adjustment affected PH\'s number, & for the rest of the horses, including for example Capeside Lady, the adjustment was based on a fixed relationship with PH?
(3) The formula was described as an \"estimate based on looking at the average effect of wind over lots of races.\" Can one assume from this that the races used to derive the formula took place at a variety of different tracks, & that the same formula is now being used for all tracks?
(4) I take it that wind speed & distance to the turn are variables in the formula. Is wind direction also a variable? Are there others?
(5) Finally, how much of an impact did the wind adjustment formula have on the BC nos.?
6) In harness racing, handicappers are very aware that being \"covered up\" (drafting) is a better trip than running exposed to the wind. I doubt it\'s as significant in thoroughbred racing as harness racing (no sulky). I also doubt it can be measured accurately. However....
Is it considered as a factor in the race results and thus the variant making process?
Mall--
1- The small changes I was talking about were in wind speed and direction, not footage. Small changes in footage don\'t make a big difference. But when you are talking about a run of more than half a mile down a straightaway to a turn, as for those BC routes, that\'s a LOT of footage,
2-- The wind adjustment is reflected in the figure for the race itself-- where a 1:10 might be a 7 based purely on track speed, it might now be a 6. All the horses (including the winner) that ran under those conditions (that race) are then adjusted for their VARYING conditions (weight, ground), and beaten lengths. The rundown I see reflects all this.
3-- Ragozin and I started in the same place with a wind formula, which was to have someone do it on paper (in my case a friend who is a meteorologist). In theory, there is a square involved in the formula, which makes the effect of higher winds on final time very dramatic-- the impact of a 10 mph wind is not doubled at 20mph, it\'s 4 times as great (10 squared is 100, 20 squared 400). What we found in practice was that if you used that formula as is, the effect of wind was too high-- so we worked with it until we came up with a reduced percentage of the theoretical effect that is roughly correct. I couldn\'t even tell you what it is-- it\'s in the computer.
Ragozin, from what I have been told, went through exactly the same process, and also reduced the theoretical effect to make it usable-- don\'t know whether he uses exactly the same thing or not. But here\'s a key point-- WE DO THIS BY LOOKING AT THE FIGURES OF THE HORSES. Whether it is me, or Len, or anyone else, the way you know it\'s right is by looking at what effect it is having on the figures you are giving out-- which means that ultimately there is a subjective element in it.
Which means in turn that when you APPLY that formula in practice, you have to remember that. As you look at an individual race, you should make small adjustments if necessary (to the race as a whole, not individual horses), SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS YOU USED TO COME UP WITH THE FORMULA TO BEGIN WITH. It isn\'t pure science, and it doesn\'t come from God, or from a textbook-- that didn\'t work, we tried it.
So it\'s right to make adjustments, and that would be true even if the wind data we were using was perfect. It is not-- wind readings are estimates by trackmen taken before and after a race (they are watching the race while it is running), and wind changes speed and direction moment to moment. (I would also point out that back in the days when Ragozin was claiming quarter point accuracy-- meaning before this website existed-- he was using hourly readings from airports that were miles from the tracks).
And then there is the issue of the track being right next to a really big structure-- the grandstand. One of the great examples takes place at Aqueduct, so Miff, since you are out there every day, I\'m going you to ask you to give us a report later in the week. Give us a count of how many times you see the two infield flags, which are a couple of hundred yards apart, pointing AT each other during the running of a race. It happens when the wind comes from behind the grandstand, and sucks in around the building-- same principle as an airplane wing (I think).
4-- Yes, yes, and yes, see above. We build the straightaway and turn distances into our computer model, then input wind speed and direction for the race in question. It spits out an adjusted final figure for the race.
5-- If we can, I\'ll have someone run the day later without wind and tell you the effect it had on each race on BC day-- keeping in mind that it will be an approximation.
CH-- it undoubtedly has less of an effect in flat racing both for the reasons you mentioned, and because harness horses stay in set lanes for long periods of the race, where thoroughbreds do not. Regardless, we can\'t measure it.
Jerry,
For the first 7 races at AQU today all the flags(including the small ones)were lightly blowing \"with\" the horses on the backside whenever I looked.
I have seen what you noted about the flags pointing at each other and if I\'m not mistaken, it\'s more prevalent during the winter/inner tube meet.I\'ll try to remember to look at the flags next week.
On the RAGS BC figs,there must be a Rags customer who posts here and can get the figs of at least the winners.
The Beyers were:
Folklore 87
Stevie WB 104
Silver Train 114
PL Home 107
ST Liam 112
Schricco 114
Intercon. 107
Artie S. 110
Class,
My experience as a road racer tells me that drafting is indeed as important to horses as it is to humans. Racing into a wind is made far easier if you tuck behind one runner (or preferably a group of runners). Think of migrating geese alternating in the lead position.
That same experience also tells me that pace is a very important factor in human running (and by extension, horses), particularly into the wind. I have been badly cooked a number of times for early fractions that were too fast for me to maintain.
Mike
Mike,
Drafting seems to be a factor in bicycle and human racing, so I presume it is a factor in horse racing also. It\'s something that rarely gets mentioned even among \"trip\" handicappers. I\'ve been trying to watch that kind of thing more closely, but it\'s hard to accumulate evidence of it as a factor.
One idea I am tossing around is that a very fast pace in combination with some drafting could account for the occasional very fast figure you see from closers under those conditions. Figures they rarely duplicate under more average conditions.
When you look at the closer\'s fractions there often isn\'t a lot of evidence that they should have been helped by the faster pace unless they are the very deep closer type that sort of got dragged into running at a more efficient pace than usual. Another possibility is that when they finally make their move they meet much less resistance from the front runners than usual because they are all dead tired. However, maybe the biggest factor is drafting.
There\'s another application I\'m just starting to look it, but I don\'t have much evidence yet.
Guys, I've been a long a long-time lurker/observer of this forum and this drafting thread has motivated me to make my maiden post. Mike and Class, your observations have been excellent but we have to make a distinction between drafting and protection from the wind. If the 2 were the same, then geese would fly in a straight line instead of the familiar V pattern. Drafting is when an object moving through space creates a turbulence wave that sucks anything slightly behind and to the side of it forward, hence the V formation. Studies with cyclists have shown that a rider drafting off another can get as much as a 15% boost relative to his competitor. This sounds like a tremendous advantage but the drafter has to be in and maintain just the right position to get this benefit. Geese in flight can do this but, as Jerry has pointed out, horses in a race do not maintain such rigid relations in relative position for any length of time. A move of just a foot or two back and forth or to the side and he's out of the "sweet spot". I guess that theoretically, if one films a race from an overhead blimp and measures the amount of time that a horse is in the right drafting position, he could quantify this effect, but this is obviously extremely impractical, at best. I have observed on a few occasions that horses running between and slightly behind 2 others, and is in effect getting double drafting and for an extended period of time, have finished better than would be expected from their PP's. Obviously this happens too rarely to have any real value.
Speaking of drafting, I wonder if it and wind protection might help explain PH's performance in the Distaff. Down the backstretch she was shielded from the wind by the front runners and when she made her move, did so from between and slightly behind 2 other horses (a double draft effect) which, combined with her already strong late move,
helped catapult her through her late run, where she left the others in the dust. Combine this with the fact that she, like every other horse in the race, was given credit for the wind adjustment, though she was shielded from it, may account for both her large winning margin and huge figure. Just a thought.
Bob
bob,
\"I have observed on a few occasions that horses running between and slightly behind 2 others, and is in effect getting double drafting and for an extended period of time, have finished better than would be expected from their PP's.\"
This is more of the kind of thing I am interested in because I doubt it would be an intentional jockey strategy very often. I see race developments from time to time where there are several horses across the track and someone is sitting just behind them. There are even situations where there are two groups across the track and someone is sitting just behind both. I\'m trying to understand if there\'s any impact by looking at the figures. When I see a closer run a lifetime top and believe the pace was fast, I am watching the trip to see if the horse spent a lot of time behind horses. I might then be able to see how they do in their next start vs. those that didn\'t have a similar trip behind horses.
Jerry,
The wind was again with the runners on the backside.All flags blew the same way but the wind got stronger and gustier as the day went on.No sign of the flags pointing at each other when I was looking.I\'m sure your guy observed this.
The incomparable \"horseman\", Rick Dutrow, won the last race with a forward moving Wild Nature, off a nice trip, against a pretty fast bunch in a quick raw final time for today.
Mike
Miff-- any word from your buddy who gets Rag about BC figures?
Don\'t you think that by bringing it up every few hours you are lowering the probability that they will actually release them. I doubt they want to deal with an endless barrage of attacks on their figures even in the situations where they feel they could defend themselves and counter attack. It hasn\'t been typical of them to spend the time and energy defending their position.
So you think that Len would punish his loyal customers and deprive them of the BC figures just to not be seen giving in to Jerry?
Unfortunately, that may be the case, and if so, you may be right, Class, that further gauding will make it less likely that he will release them.
Bob
CH-- what they want to happen is for nobody to notice that after giving out the figures every year for the Triple Crown races and Breeders\' Cup, and Friedman saying that they would this year, they will not. They want it nice and quiet, like it didn\'t happen. That\'s why they delete dissenting opinion-- and even straightforward questions from Jimbo-- from their board.
By the way, any of this remind anybody of anything else going on in the world?(And I\'m not a partisan-- I voted for the guy the first time).
They have a problem releasing those figures because it will be instantly clear to everybody with an IQ over 80 that not only their figures for that day ,but OTHER figures (specifically the Gold Cup), are not only wrong, but ridiculous, unless they do things completely contrary to the theories they have been advocating. They care more about the perception of accuracy than about being accurate, and I\'m not just saying that. I mean it.
I was checking out the other site today. I\'m amazed they don\'t offer their product for sale online. Fed Ex, are they serious?
Yes, they do sell them on-line. Right on the front page, buy sheets on-line.
Jerry,
Raggie Richie was under the impression that the Rags BC figs are already out.I told him they were not and asked if he could get them.He will bring them to Aqu on Tuesday,unless Len is unwilling to release them to anyone yet.
The BC horses have to run back eventually, so the Rag figs have to become public anyway, no? Why hold them back? Why can\'t someone post the question to Len?? I don\'t get all the secrecy.
Mike
Bob,
I sort of agree with Jerry, but disagree a little too.
My impression is that they believe both methodologies have pluses and minuses, but theirs is superior. They probably know that some figures they produce don\'t make much sense even though they would never admit it.
What it seems to me they don\'t want to do is get into a long debate over it by pointing out every figure from this side they believe is wrong too.
It generally degenerates into a bashing contest with both sides having a different reason why certain horses may or may not have run a certain way and neither side proving anything. Plus, IMO it\'s extremely difficult to communicate the issues to people that have never made figures.
So I agree with Jerry that they\'d rather just post the figures and allow the issue to go away without discussing them. Personally, I would just like to see them. I\'ve seen 4 sets so far and there\'s some disagreement on a few races.
Miff-- While the horses eventually will run back, it\'s an entirely different thing to present the races (and the day) as a whole, where everyone can get an overall idea of what you did, especially when the horse\'s previous figures are fresh in everyone\'s mind.
The secrecy is because if their customers see that Borrego \"earned\" as good or better a figure for running 10th by 10 as he did for winning the Gold Cup by a block, they might finally begin to get the picture, since I have been calling their attention to it. To say nothing of the other horses out of the Gold Cup ALL jumping forward maybe 10 points or so (off the top of my head), and a few interior problems on the day, like the Distaff figures vs. the Classic, etc.
As for why their customers aren\'t pressing them for it, there\'s this line at the end of On The Waterfront-- something like \"I was ratting on myself all them years...\"
I don\'t see Rag pattrons as sulking over this Rag\'s BC figure debocile on the TG Board and the potential implications - perhaps inquieries for the BC #\'s are being taken down off their own Rags board , I\'m sure some of their people can\'t be too happy about any of this . I guess this is a rhetorical or academic question but , Why don\'t or Why can\'t Rags get their BC numbers out and stand by them , while acknowledging differences in methodologies ? I suppose Rags has weighed everything and decided that they will take less of a hit this way ( in the long run ) by only letting the BC numbers out when the horse\'s , 1 or 2 at a time etc , re-enter in race\'s .
It can\'t be good for business to put out some figures and have your competitor attack them relentlessly and it can\'t be much fun to spend 10 hours a day defending your point of view to a lot of people that aren\'t familiar enough with the process to understand why you are doing it differently.
Very ballsy gamble for brown to call rags out after struggling to make sense of biggest day in horse gambling.
It\'s been way too long for a response...hell len could have taken jerry\'s #s\' and fudged a little
Is len going to wait for a couple of returns and adjust accordingly?Lord knows it was impossible to read handwritten copies for all the changes made decades past.Computers have a built in eraser ,he could just keep changing them periodically.
Imho it just isn\'t feasible to have so many huge bounces and quick recoveries as is to be found elsewhere.
PARTYpokerON!
By now, it must be painfully clear to all who are following this issue that many sheet players who compare Rags and TG are wondering \"Who is getting it wrong?\" Aside from some of the parochial comments by the blind followers in both camps, this issue is far from resolved.
It is apparent to me that there is much more going on here than a rather sudden difference of opinion in methodology between former colleagues.Until fairly recent times, a scale of comparison of 3-4 points existed between the two products.In examining both products for about 6 months, that scale of comparison has all but disappeared.Why? Jerry has offered his opinion which goes to various methodoloy differences/errors which he believes are being made by Rags. In the absence of a reply from the RAGS people, there is no way to know what happened.
As a TG customer,I have asked about and debated with Jerry on more than one occasion about certain figures, his theories and opinions.While I still have some issues, I did receive a reply. On the other hand,I am told that several RAGS customers have asked for the 2005 BC figs which were always posted in years past.Call me naive, but with credibility at stake,I would think that Rags would be anxious to challenge Jerry\'s methodology/figs, NO?
At the very least, why can\'t RAGS just respond in some fashion so that everyone could form their own opinion of what has/is happening with the figs.
Mike
Jerry,
Today the flags were blowing mildly against the horses on the backside, all in the same general direction, when I looked.
Mike
Miff-- we\'re getting race by race readings based on other info than those flags in the infield-- ones where the building doesn\'t affect things. But I am interested in any times you see them pointing at each other, because they demonstrate that no wind formula is in the end accurate because of the currents created by the building. It will happen before the winter is over.
Jerry,
I agree and have seen it. I also note the swirling wind on the ground level occasionally, but the flags are still straight.Very tricky, yet meaningful.How the hell can you get a reasonable handle on it.
Mike
Miff,
I, for one would like to thank you for your scouting reports regarding the wind direction at Aqueduct. Knowing the days when the flags indicate simultanious and conflicting wind directions could be invaluable in understanding results on that day.
Bob
My layman\'s take on the basics after an in-depth discussion with an expert in the field of aerodynamics:
1. Drag does not increase in a linear fashion as wind speed increases, & is probably negligible until wind speed, determined by adding the speed of the horse to the speed of the headwind, using the most straightforward example, reaches a point where drag increases exponentially.
2. The \"vortex\" created behind a horse by itself on a lone lead running into a headwind also increases drag, which would be less if there were horses close behind such a horse.
3. Horses at the very back of the pack also experience drag running into a headwind, so the best place to be is in the middle of the pack, behind the horses who are behind the horse on the lead.
4. Drag can only be determined accurately if it\'s calculated for each horse individually, something which cannot be done absent a great deal more information than is currently available.
5. As a result of 1-4, one can legitimately question the current practice of applying an average wind adjustment to the figure of the winner, especially when the winner was a midpack horse which encountered little or no drag.
Finally, the expert\'s qualified answer to the question of whether no wind adjustment would be better than what is currently being done: \"Probably.\"
I agree that if you just apply wind adjustments blindly and indiscriminately, you are probably better off without them.
This is precisely the reason I feel that the best way to see if wind, as well as all other factors, have been taken into account properly is to compare the horses' actual times with their projected times. Everything else is just additional evidence to explain what the horses' actual performances tell you.
Bob
Bob-- Right. And working with the data over a very long period of time has told me:
a) that whatever anybody says, wind affects final time. I have no argument with the idea that it could affect some horses more than others, but there is no way to measure it, and I don\'t think there is a huge difference.
b) wind formulas like the ones Ragozin and I use will get you in the ballpark, but will never be totally accurate as a practical matter-- aside from all the estimates involved (speed, constancy, direction), there is a really large building there that creates currents. Think about those stories about football teams (Giants Stadium?) opening and closing doors to affect kickers.
c) SO-- you either use wind and then make corrections based on the horses, because you know your underlying data is innacurate, or you do what Beyer does, which is NOT use wind, and make corrections based on the horses. What you don\'t do is what Ragozin claims he does in his book-- use the same correction for each race on the day, down to a quarter point. Even if the only issue was the effect of wind (as opposed to changes in track speed), that would be flat out ridiculous.
I hear the Ragozin numbers are slow , perhaps how they utilize Variants for Wind & Track Speed can account for the some of the difference .
Saying that a measurement cannot be made absent additional information, which is what I said, is very different than saying that there is no way the measurement can ever be made, which is what you seem to be saying. Drag is routinely measured for cars & in other fields, & could either be measured exactly or closely estimated for individual horses.
Wind does affect final time, but what the basic principles suggest to me is that the greater the liklihood that wind had a serious impact on final time, the greater the liklihood that a downward wind adjustment applied to the winner\'s number will represent the opposite of what actually happened.
Using PH\'s performance in the BC as an example, as a result of her trip she did not have to deal with running into what I understood was a 15 m.p.h. headwind for that race, yet her figure was lowered by some amount to reflect a wind adjustment. My take is that, if anything, the adjustment to PH\'s number should have been upward, not downward, & that the only way an adjustment to CL\'s number based on the number of lengths CL finished behind PH would represent what actually happened would be coincidence.
There are a number of ways to deal with this issue, including the one you seem to favor, namely relying on an overall impression gained from working with the data over a long period of time. My inclination is to take a very different approach, so I suppose this is another one of those issues where we\'ll simply have to agree to disagree.
\"Using PH\'s performance in the BC as an example, as a result of her trip she did not have to deal with running into what I understood was a 15 m.p.h. headwind for that race, yet her figure was lowered by some amount to reflect a wind adjustment. My take is that, if anything, the adjustment to PH\'s number should have been upward, not downward, & that the only way an adjustment to CL\'s number based on the number of lengths CL finished behind PH would represent what actually happened would be coincidence. \"
exactly.
assuming the wind adjustment made to the entire race was correct, the difference in performance level between CL and PH is probably less than the margin between them. in this case, CL should receive the full benefit of the wind adjustment. perhaps as you suggest PH should actually be penalized. however, one could envision disasterous results if a figure maker attempted to make wind adjustments for each horse individually. at the same time, one could envision disasterous results from not appreciating the fact that some horses may have been impacted postively and others negatively within the same race when it\'s time to assign a track variant for that individual race.
I agree that that PL had a more favorable trip relative to the wind than much of the field, but to quntify it accuratly you would have to know precisely what percentage of her race she ran facing the negative influence of the wind, drag and vortex effects, vs. the percentage of the race she recieved the positive efeects of drafting, vs. the neutral effct of just runnung shielded. I think the best one can do is to acknowledge that she recieved a favorable trip relative to most of the others and look at her figure in that context. Just like a horse that avoids a dead rail or steals an easy early lead.
Bob
TGJB -
Did you ever do item 5 (running BC Day without wind)? I\'m just curious how big a number people are talking about. If it was posted and I missed it, I apologize in advance.
BitPlayer
Bit-- no, I forgot all about it. If we can we\'ll do it later today.
Bit-- the biggest wind adjustment the computer threw up on on BC day was about half a point. First of all, there wasn\'t that much wind, and it got lighter as the day went on-- but on top of that, it was blowing at 4 to 5 o\' clock (imagine you are looking down at the track, with the finish line being 6 o\'clock). This means that for the chute races it worked against them somewhat on the straightaways (more distance running into it than having it behind them), but that was basically offset by having it behind them on the only turn.
Keep in mind that as I have discussed here before, wind adjustments are just rough estimates to get us in the ballpark. You still make your figures and final corrections for each race off the horses.
\"3-- Ragozin and I started in the same place with a wind formula, which was to have someone do it on paper (in my case a friend who is a meteorologist). In theory, there is a square involved in the formula, which makes the effect of higher winds on final time very dramatic-- the impact of a 10 mph wind is not doubled at 20mph, it\'s 4 times as great (10 squared is 100, 20 squared 400).\"
I\'ll assume that the effect is programmed correctly and that your example was pulled off the top of your head. But, to be rigorous...
Your example is only true for an object at rest. Drag is proportional to wind density times its velocity squared. But the velocity of interest is that of the wind relative to the horse, not the wind relative to the ground. Since the horse is already traveling close to 40 mph, a headwind of 20 mph makes the velocity of interest 60 mph (40+20), while a head wind of 10 mph makes the velocity of interest 50 mph (40+10). For this example, the effect is not nearly 4 times as great - it is only 1.4 times as great (60**2/50**2).
The overall effect of wind sounds like a pretty straightforward problem, given a reasonable amount of data. I suspect the correlation could best be validated by looking at results from straight races (quarter horses) over a wide range of head and tail winds.
I suspect that the effect of density would normally be small, but I will ask a question. What happens to your variants in the rain, snow, and fog?
Easy-- as I have posted here before, both Ragozin and I found that as a practical matter using a square made the effect of wind too great, and ratcheted it down. In the end, everything we do is a function of what works, not theory. Not so with the other guy (lots of assumptions), but that\'s another story.
My guess is that what you mean by \"variants\' here is wind corrections, and I have no idea what effect if any those weather issues would create. As I have said many times the wind corrections are very rough and we do race by race corrections based on our judgment, so I wouldn\'t see it.
By variant, I meant... uh... variant. Since you don\'t build precipitation into your race-by-race wind correction, then the effect must be hidden in the track variant for the day (or the race, if it was broken out). I guess you think that precipitation can only affect final time by the amount of moisture it puts in the track.
Thanks Jerry - this is useful info. I was was wondering if differing wind conditions were a factor in the slower times of the Juvy fillies vs. the colts.
It now appears that the difference was partly due to pace and mostly to the boys being faster than the girls this year, for a change.
Bob
Easy-- OK, I\'ll play. But first of all, why don\'t you identify yourself.
Then tell me what you mean by \"what happens to your variants\", and I\'ll answer you. Because if you are asking me to separate what part of a variant adjustment is due to moisture in the air vs, moisture in the track, a) who knows, and b) who cares? The job is to get the figures right, and the only way to do that is by using the figure histories of the horses themselves, and looking at how fast each of them ran today. Right?
TGJB writes:
\"Easy-- OK, I\'ll play. But first of all, why don\'t you identify yourself...\"
Jerry, you do not know me. Nicely Nicely may know my identity. Earlier this year, he sent me a very polite e-mail regarding the usage of a certain \"script\".
I am not affiliated with anybody in the racing business. I am just a life-long racing fan. As far back as grade school, I would walk a couple of extra blocks on my way home just to be able to stand outside the fence at the old Tropical Park Racetrack, where I could watch the horses come around the far turn and holler bets to my old man who was usually inside. Unfortunately, minors were not allowed inside the track at that time.
I now have multiple degrees in Engineering and Applied Sciences. One of my current jobs is to make \'performance figs\' for liquid rocket engines. Least you wonder, I can assure you that there are more than a few similarities between making figures for the horses and making figures for space propulsion systems.
(http://www.pratt-whitney.com/images/rl10.jpg)
Easy Goer said \"now have multiple degrees in Engineering and Applied Sciences. One of my current jobs is to make \'performance figs\' for liquid rocket engines. Least you wonder, I can assure you that there are more than a few similarities between making figures for the horses and making figures for space propulsion systems.\"
So, who said handicapping wasn\'t rocket science?
Hey Jerry. No response? Disappointed? What were you expecting - some secret identity (e.g., a commie spy[/U])?
Methinks you are paranoid, mainly brought about by your past actions against former colleagues. Live by the sword and die by the sword? Not necessarily. Why not just drop the politics and stick with your original premise of continually improving the numbers?
Other than the previous flaws I have pointed out, you still make some claims that are just plain false. And I don\'t use that word lightly, as I know very well the difference between making an arguable (though questionable) assumption versus making a claim that of itself can be proved false through the laws of physics, statistics, and/or general mathematics and science.
Want more? So do I. Quid pro quo, Jerry. Quid pro quo. E-mail me if you want more specifics, as your online responses are catered to the masses as political (i.e., meaningless) drivel.
And while I have your attention, what ever happened to your investigation of how beaten lengths correlates to a time increment?