Bridge physics

[Phillip Ford]

>Phil-
>Your point is well taken, and you've made it before, I think.  I seem to 
>take the easy way out...just asking the question, although, for me, even 
>framing the question is a struggle.  To the extent that I appear to be 
>expecting the "answers" from either you or Ron, I apologize.  As I may 
>have said in the past, I seem to react if I perceive less-than-definitive 
>data and theory being presented as absolute fact, even as the explanation 
>might be comfortingly clear.  You are right in suggesting that I need to 
>generate some of my own data and theories.
>
>Regards and thanks -
>
>David Skolnik

To which less-than-definitive data and theory are you referring?  Ric B has 
made similar comments about theory being presented as absolute fact.  I 
don't understand what has been said or done on the bridge pin angle thread 
to give the impression that anything being discussed is considered absolute 
fact. Ron N has presented what I consider a plausible explanation for an 
observed phenomenon.  I have been participating in a discussion of that 
conjecture (that sounds less high flown than a theory).  If I didn't think 
his conjecture was plausible I wouldn't waste my time discussing it.  If I 
thought it was an absolute fact I also wouldn't be wasting my time 
discussing it - I would just accept it as a given and move on to something 
else.

Phil Ford