"As I have said before, the whole swinging vs hitting concept loses credibility when you understand that centrifugal force doesn't exist. Certainly some golfers rely more on radial acceleration (hitting) than others, but every golfer must employ it to some degree. Therefore there is no such thing as a true swinger."
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong right now.....I really don't know about this....very tough thing to discern.
I'd like to think Homer is right...but either way, I think such a bold statement requires that it be examined.
"As I have said before, the whole swinging vs hitting concept loses credibility when you understand that centrifugal force doesn't exist. Certainly some golfers rely more on radial acceleration (hitting) than others, but every golfer must employ it to some degree. Therefore there is no such thing as a true swinger."
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong right now.....I really don't know about this....very tough thing to discern.
I'd like to think Homer is right...but either way, I think such a bold statement requires that it be examined.
Anyhoo just want to get to figure this out.
BM…put down that drink.
Who said that CF doesn't exist?
How do you create radial acceleration if you are only pulling? Rope handle.
"As I have said before, the whole swinging vs hitting concept loses credibility when you understand that centrifugal force doesn't exist. Certainly some golfers rely more on radial acceleration (hitting) than others, but every golfer must employ it to some degree. Therefore there is no such thing as a true swinger."
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong right now.....I really don't know about this....very tough thing to discern.
I'd like to think Homer is right...but either way, I think such a bold statement requires that it be examined.
Anyhoo just want to get to figure this out.
It's not that difficult to understand- but first- who are we quoting? And is this quote drawn from a broader context?
Thanks
"O! be some other name: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet"
The argument has been a rage in the Physics coffee rooms around the world for a long time because of the trickiness of the answer. Maybe the folks at NASA can help.
Here is what they have to say:
"Because the centrifugal force exists only in rotating reference frames, but not in inertial reference frames, it's sometimes called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force.
We don't like this characterization because there is nothing fictitious or pseudo about it when your car goes off the road and crashes, or when your bicycle skids out from under you when cornering a slippery curve. The Earth's equatorial bulge is not a fiction, nor is the problem an engineer confronts when designing turbine blades of jet engines that have to stay together at rotation rates of up to 100,000 revolutions per minute."
If you go by these sites they seem to say it's a "false force"....or "reactive force." I think reactive force is more appropriate.
Although.....you prolly could also get into the definition of "force" and what it means exactly....
...
Makes sense though.....the centrifugal force is only there because there is something that is creating it....I guess that would be centripetal force...the actual rotation....which creates the centrifugal force.
...
Really though....
Even if this is the way it is.....is does little to devalidate TGM in a working sense......more of a semantics thing or w/e.....all it would change is the definition itself.....add centripetal into the mix.
Last edited by birdie_man : 04-16-2006 at 11:33 PM.
It seems to me that the only reason this non-issue is still alive is because some folks buy into the rants of the developer of Natural Golf and Lever Power Golf.
Hybrid Mode
