[6bmike]

Exactly!!


An area that ought to be amenable to definite physical understanding is the concept of resisting impact deceleration. It is a key part of the book and some people think that this is impossible.

Whilst the alignments that Homer puts forward to achieve resistance to deceleration would seem to be correct ( right forearm flying wedge and lagging clubhead ) - how would one set out to prove or disprove this - in such a way that all would believe!

TGM with proof of its core statements would be a very powerful tool. TGM whose core statements happen to be correct but for the wrong reasons will always be open to attack and scepticism.

Weed out the weak physics and clearly distinguish the " seems -as-ifs" from the "real feels" and TGM grows stronger. Just as Homer modified his 1st edition to improve it...

PS. Homer never hid his credentials - an employee of Boeing and instructor in their problem solving courses... a very practical man with a natural understanding of natural physics ! So what you get in the book is the fruit of such a man. But perfect...?? only if equal or better brains can fail to correct it... it is easy and fair to raise the questions but few can answer them convincingly and openly.

Where are the 'seems as ifs' in Kelley's book?
That is a far cry from labeling a legend showing momentum of the ball as a vector -commonly used in the aero space industry btw- without regard of its mass or directional component, just a point of reference and out and out misused of physical laws.