>>I agree with you completely. gh, as Bert
>before him, apparently doesn't believe
I believe in physics. What I
>don't believe in is physicists who come up with
>bad numbers, which is what I think most analysis
>of wind/altitude aid is. In their defense, it's
>not as if there's a set of immutable numbers that
>can be plugged into unquestioned formulae. I
>could be wrong, but as far as I know, it's all
And after 35 years of closely
>watching the sport's numbers, empirical evidence
>tells me there's more effect than the hypotheses
>have come up with, that's all.
>physics: Newton's First Law, OK, I buy that; The
>Second, nah, and the jury's still out on The
Garry, do you ride in airplanes? If you do, then you ought to accept the physics that people like myself, Nick Linthorne, and Jonas Mureika use to explain the effects of wind and altitude. The fluid dynamics of a person running through the atmosphere is a lot simpler than that describing an airplane.
This thread has certainly moved a long way from discussing the passing of a great Olympic Champion.