He can run...
 

This yahoo tried this same thread on my site.

He made a comment about Lag not being real.

I STOPPED HIM COLD WITH THIS ONE:

"At Address, take your right thumb off of the club, point it at the target, UN-hook your right forefinger and let it DANGLE—slightly off of the club, then hit a full driver at 100+mph.

(if you can)

Why doesn't the driver FLY out of the right hand for a decent player?

Don't hurt yourself, the answer isn't in any book (except the yellow one...implied)."

BTW, dude, Mathew can knock this one out of the park!

You'll get called out on strikes without swinging.:rolleyes:

Knowledge
 

We'll we definitely disagree.

Before I touch on the problems- a couple of quick comments. We're 91+ posts into this thread- which is based on whether there is centrifugal force, or what if anything causes "throw-out" action. I understand the nature of the issue- but it's your thread- your premise- your baby, and in my opinion you've not moved anyone closer to understanding your issue/perspective in regards to this issue- I said it last time and I'll say it again- that's a problem. It's either one of understanding or one of communication or a combo of both- but it's a problem. Just so we're clear - that last sentence is not saying that the problem is a result of the combination of the communicator and the listener- I'm saying the communication/understanding issue in this case is a problem solely with the communicator i.e. with you and not your audience. If you understand a subject matter thoroughly- it doesn't matter if you're talking to Albert Einstein or a guy sitting on a street corner somewhere who has only a basic - common sense - understanding of the world- you should be able to communicate clearly your idea - no matter how complex it may be-in an understandable manner- in a relative short period of time- really not that difficult to do.

Secondly, Not that I need to post this but I always feel a sense of obligation to post to questions- etc. but as I think I implied previously- I find this a waste of time- something that I understand- and watching it go nowhere. So if I don't post on this thread - even if feedback is directed at me - you'll know why.

Now to the essence of the problem- A scientist(don't know if you are one but the principle is the same) without a solid foundation in epistemology (The second branch of philosophy- which studies the basic nature of knowledge, logic, etc.)- any branch of science such as Physics rests on a philosphical foundation- and any results that that science produces is only as good as the base that it rests on.

So from my perspective, in your Post #79- you touch on the problem gently but when it really requires to be attacked with vigor but then in your Post#86- you clearly agreed with and promoted the flaw in the internet quote that I posted. It's that flaw in reasoning that I think is part of the reason for 91posts going nowhere.

Here's the quote from your Post#86:

"It may take one of your own to explain it to you before you believe it, but the laws of physics are different in non-inertial frames of reference (as Mike's quote says). That doesn't discredit Mr Kelley's work. If my interpretation is right it places his work in a different and in many ways more favourable light."

Here's where your dead wrong- The laws of physics are NOT different in non-inertial frames of reference. Make no doubt about it - that's an attack on reason, knowledge,logic. The laws of physics don't change. You don't pick a frame of reference and drop all your other knowledge- drop your entire context of understanding of how the world works! The car breaking resulting in you moving towards the dashboard- that's not creating a different law of physics. The only thing it may create is someone making a mistake of judgement- based on not understanding the nature of what's happening.

The same mistake is made when describing something as a "fictictious force"- if your a normal person then that "concept" should make your brain fry- because there is no fictictious force- there either is or is not a force. And if one were to make a mistake in judgement - then you explain the context and understanding of what's happening to put things in the right perspective- but you don't say that the "laws of physics don't apply" nor do you call something a "fictictious force", you explain the context which the mis-perception applies.

Knowledge is not automatic. For example, if you put a straight stick half-way in water- it looks like it is bent - the stick outside the water all of a sudden doesn't line up with the portion of the stick in the water. You've missed the boat above- as much as someone has missed the boat in regards to this stick example by saying that - A) That's an example showing that you shouldn't trust your eyes- that they aren't always reliable- because they can fool you- No, your senses haven't fooled you- your eyes have worked exactly how they should have- they are taking in the data that they are receiving. It takes an act of understanding and scientific study to understand that light travels slower in water -creating this "illusion".

In summary, if anyone is wondering why they are feeling a sense of fright and wondering why a discussion on "centrifugal force" should cause such an emotion as a result of your line of "reasoning" - THEY SHOULD BE, because its that detachment from reality that has caused horrific events in the history of man. And they all said the same thing- "I don't really get what their saying but I'll just sit back and see what happens" and before you know it - it's too late.

P.S. Bucket does this allow me to lose my "Mediator" tag that you gave me!

Why yes it does . . . I think basically Mike O is saying you can be a big time smartie-pants but if you can't get a doofus like Bucket to understand it . . . he'll probably start drinking the koolaid with the rat poison in it.

Mike O flying off the top rope!!!

I really enjoyed this quote from Brian haha...

I am worried however, will the realisation that lag not being real cause my drives to dribble off the tee???

Can somebody help me on this one? :toothy1: :toothy1: :toothy1:

With the greatest of respect Brian I think you have a case of mistaken identity. I logged back in your site just now. Your system said that my previous logon was 01-28-2005. That's nearly 18 months ago. Your site tells me I made a total of 8 posts. Three were in a discussion called "Inside aft quadrant ??!!!". Four were in a discussion called "Golfing Machine Science.". One was in a discussion called "Ball and low point". The last words you wrote to me were "Yes, I do have those numbers....Will post them tommorrow."

You never did! Then you come here and boast about how you "STOPPED HIM COLD".

Wrong Brian. Not impressive at all.

As to the other ranting and mockery. That's your choice, and the natural consequences will follow. The discussion will deteriorate and die and anybody's chance of learning anything on the subject of frames of reference will die with it until one of your own explains it to you. An excellent opportunity to reconcile TGM theories with mainstream physics concepts will be missed.

If anybody is still reading, the laws of physics are different in non-inertial frames. The concepts, calculations and discussions become much more complicated because you have to apply so many corrections to deal with the motion of the frame itself. The results (after all the hard work) will be the same. Unfortunately the concepts are not immediately accessible to the man in the street. That does not mean they are wrong or invalid Mike.

Why is the difference important? As ThinkingPlus pointed out it is convenient for many purposes to use non-inertial frames of reference. For any physicist who wants to take the little yellow book at face value, the knowledge of the possibility of Mr Kelley using different frames of reference will eliminate a lot of head scratching.

Is it just possible that Homer thought about this very discussion and decided to use the reference to centrifugal force because the average golf pro is not a physicist. Is it possible that he felt that 99.9999% of us use that term whether we mean centripetal or not. Is it possible that he used it because it does exist in the golf swing -and it can be felt ....through the hands!. In 2K Homer uses the words Centripetal force, Centrifugal force (centrifugal reaction)-and the phrase "This throw out action is termed herein"-herein being the key word,could he have said "i'll try and keep this understandable because most of you out there arn't going to get it if i go into the detailed physics of inertial/non-inertial frames ,oh,by the way centrifugal force doesn't really exist, sometimes". Now i don't have a problem with people getting passionate about a subject-if physics is your thing thats fine. If TGM is not your thing ,that's fine too.But, Golf Sceptic, tell me you don't understand the book.:)

a rose is still a rose, if it has a different screen name
 

Just like I thought,

stoped him cold again.

I'll bet dinner at Outback that he won't answer the question.

Thanks for that perspective neil. I think there is a strong chance you are right. Further, as ThinkingPlus pointed out there are so many benefits to using local frames of reference when discussing the golf swing that I have changed my mind and believe it was the right decision.

Ok. I don't understand the book :)

As I said in an email to yoda just now, I came to the site to try to understand why so much of Mr Kelley's book read like gobbledegook. I now have a different perspective thanks to yoda and ThinkingPlus (indirectly). The book now makes a whole lot more sense in many ways.

I won't miss the feeble minded populism of some of the contributors here, but I thank one contributor who took the time to find a reference to Encyclopaedia Brittanica which supports my position.

BBFN

Brian,
sorry but you are just plain wrong. I don't multiple screen names. Go to iSeekGolf and talk to a few people there. They will tell you who I am. Talk to an IT person who can help you to track which user is coming from which computer.

It (mine)was a sincere post and was not meant to be antagonistic,so I hope you didn't take it that way.The question was also genuine -and I assume your answer was somwhat tongue in cheek.Do you understand the book?:)