And most of that is grant money or our hard earned taxeddollarsfor these guys who says science theory is king. When it comes down to free enterprise and what brings home the bacon, its real life results.

Additionally, theories are just that, theories - not laws (natural laws, e.g., the Ideal Gas Law). Theories change, laws do not. Many sceintific theories have changed over the years. The catalyst for change of many of these theories was observation of actual data or phemenona. Thank goodness for that (the ability of theories to change) or the world would still be flat, our solar system would revolve around the earth, the atom would be the smallest constituent of matter......

Most theories with which I am familiar with grew out of an attempt to explain, in broad terms, something that occurs in reality. Then the hypothosis is tested to see if it's repeatable and applies over a broad spectrum of parallel situations. But in the end, reality drives the theory on the front end and determines the value of its application on the tail end.

You guys are a riot.

Here you go...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rlm0FMCAYIc

it's a video about theory and facts. I'm sure you guys will identify with the muslim speaker.

Just substitute theory associated with archery mechanics with evolution. Maybe substitute ArthurP for your authority.

Have fun and enjoy the video!

Thanks, Sylvan. I'm OK with Arthur P. being the authority in question . . . . he's the real deal.

Took me a while to find this:

http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/kooi81.pdf

It is one of thepeer reviewed papers by Kooi. Go down to page 23. Beginning there you will find and excellent explanation of virtual mass and it's impact on performance. Note that althogh Kh is determined to be not entirely indendent of mass, efficiency is still an ever increasing function.

This is the accepted science behind the phenomenon we've been talking about. You guys call me arrogant but you are the ones arrogant enough to think you have a better handle on this than the scientists and engineers that have developed the theory. I have merely presented it to you.

Remain ignorant if you want to.Pretend you are scientists and engineers and run your little tests and convince each other you know better. Simple FACT is, you DON'T but you don't even know enough to know you don't.

You go ahead and stick with ArthurP, I'm sticking with the extablished science not a bunch of arrogant internet nobodies.

Have a nice day!

ONe last thing. Just in case you don't believe my source, here is the publication data...

Kooi, B.W. 1998. Bow-arrow interaction in archery. Journal of Sport Sciences, 16:721-731.

Me too. If pushed into a corner and had to come up a solution to an archery problem, what ever that problem may be, and if I had my pick, I would pick Arthur P. to come up with a solution to the problem. Including the pick list consisting of scientists and engineers - this coming from a bona fide science geek!

Actually, believe it or not, me too. If it's a hands on question or problem about tuning or choice of equipment or any of a number of other practical down to earth archery type problems I think ArthurP is a great source. He's a wealth of experience. However, if it's a scientific problem or question, Arthur is clearly no scientist. I'm pretty sure he doesn't claim to be either. When it is a scientific question, and that's what this argument has been, then I'll go with the real scientists and engineers who have developed the scientific theory that explains what's going on.


The question of "What arrow mass will achieve tha maximum momentum?" is a scientific question. The scientific theory that gives you theanswer to that question and explains why was developed a long time ago. It might make you all feel like big shots to think you know better but none of you do. I'd say the metaphor is litlle fish in a little pond with with egos the size of whales. lol, I like that!

Yea, but you don't even know anything about science. Your scared to post your qualifications or anything about yourself. The limit of your knowledge is a cut and paste from a google search, then try to act like you know what it says. So actually, you probably wouldn't even know if you had an archery issue to talk to Arthur.

I figured you out, why you spend "loser time" on here pleading for people to take you seriously. You have no friends or life. I think I got a winner.

There are engineers responding to this thread and you are completely disregarding what they have to say.We even have a physics teacher responding.


There are NO ABSOLUTES in science,you should understand that.

Math is the most exact science we have,the rest is constantly changing.

No one is questioning the given rules for archery or anything else but when you use terms like always and never,you paint yourself into a corner.