Round And Round We Go
 

Actually, the boy pulls on the rock (centripetal force) and the rock pulls on the boy (centrifugal force). The string is the medium through which these equilibrants do battle. :)

Thanks for replying yoda.

Ok. There's a hair which may need to be split depending on whether the string's mass can be ignored, but so far so good.

Are we agreed that centrifugal force does affect the boy but in no way affects the rock?

Sorry I fixed a typo there. The original said "any" where it now says "no".

While we are hair splitting - are they both equilbrants or is one a resultant?

Who's Your Daddy?
 

Actually, the rock is simply trying to move in a straight line. The centripetal string prevents it from doing so, and the apparent force -- from the rock's point of view -- is centrifugal.

No one ever hit a golf ball with terminology.
 

1-H (last paragraph) "As a term is specifically defined herein, that is the basic connotation which is always a dictionary definition but not necessarily that of Physics, Electrical, etc. The dictionary is generally considered a standard of precision. Scientific terms in quotes denote a loose application with obvious intent, because no better term seems available. Measurements given herein are for the golf course rather than the laboratory, but the laboratory will show them within acceptable tolerances. Clarity and usefulness are the only motive."

At the time of Homer Kelley's death in 1983, Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defined the following:

centrifugal force n: the force that tends to impel a thing or parts of a thing outward from the center of rotation

The String in TGM is the Longitudinal Center of Gravity or termed herein the Sweetspot Plane..I have a Training Aid with a String from the #3PP to directly to the CG of the head.....While Centrepetal force pulls it in a circle...Centrifugal force changes the length of this string...

What is the Longitudinal Center of Gravity?
 

The Golf Club's Longitudinal Center of Gravity is its Sweetspot (2-F). In other words, it is the Club's center of gravity when the Club is held lengthwise. It is neither the 'string' (the Left Arm and Clubshaft to which the Sweetspot is attached) nor the plane of motion (upon which the Sweetspot orbits).

Thanks for the clarification...

More definition,
 

The centripetal force-the action-is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal ("center-fleeing") force, which acts not on the circling object but on the source of centripetal force, usually located at the circle's center. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Interesting thread
 

Interesting thread- although it seems like no one can clearly define all the issues/perspectives involved in clearly understanding the topic at hand. Although, some may take that personally- it's more just an observation regarding the thread. And I'm certainly not one who necessarily could clearly define all the issues involved- in fact I'd probably be more off base than most.

Just one piece of the puzzle and confusion- and I could be wrong but in relation to Newton's third law- "action reaction" and the notion of "centripetal" and "centrifugal"- there seems to be some discussion of the boy, string, rock- and some of it appears to me to be on the wrong track.

Newton's third law to me - just says that you can't create a force out of nothing. To me it's similar or it's "sister" concept is that you can't create or lose Matter - it just is. So if you push a car down the street in a straight line- then the equal and opposite force is your feet on the ground pushing against the earth in the opposite direction of the motion of the car. That's a simple example of the action/reaction concept.

I would think the proper context of this in relation to the golf swing would be to look at the "whole system". So imagine that you have the clubhead or rock moving in a straight line- attached to it is a golf shaft or string- now to prevent that thing from moving is a straight line you give a tug on the shaft or string and it curves/moves toward the tugging- that's the centripetal force. So in relation to Newton's third law- you ask what offsets or allows that inward tug to happen? Depending on the movement- i.e. amount of force involved etc.- how heavy the rock is compared to the mover it could be different- but to me the basic reaction forces would be the feet pushing against the earth- that force is away from center and allows the force towards center to take place.

So I'm limiting my comment to the specific issue of action/reaction forces- and I don't see it - in the larger picture - being the boy and the string or the boy and the rock, or the rock and the boy.

Hope I didn't further clutter the post- with something that isn't clear.

It has obviously gotten to you - at least my attack (if it was an attack) was towards an arguement and therefore indirect... Yours wasn't...:naughty:

Well actually you quoted Homer Kelley and i'm explaining a part of it....just you don't realise it...

How many times do I have to answer the same question....

Which would be clearer to you if you spend enough time to read and understand the language of the book.

It is up to those who wish to disprove any theory to do so...

Homer Kelley is unfortunately not with us anymore which means that he is no longer around to be in a position to talk on such matters.

Nice post Mike.

You've got a good handle on things from my point of view, but by looking at the system as a whole (like yoda did with the string) it leaves greater scope for misunderstanding and it is harder to identify where the misunderstanding lies.

There is a nice student exercise that beginning physics students use about a man standing on bathroom scales whilst a lift accelerates upward. I'll run through it if anybody thinks it will help, but to go back to your examples...

If you push on your car the equal and opposite reaction is that the car pushes on you with the same force and in the opposite direction. You push on the earth and the earth pushes back, but this pair of equal and opposite forces will be different in magnitude to the push on car/car pushes back. The second phase of analysis is to look at each object and ask what forces are acting. On the car, your push. On you, the car's push and the ground's push. On the ground, your push.

With the rock and the string, if the mass of the string is important then we can't perform a correct analysis without separating considering the "string on rock/rock on string" and "boy on string/string on boy" pairs separately because they will have different magnitudes. We can't just say "boy on rock/rock on boy" without things getting very muddled.

This is where the man on scales in lift will help if you need more detail.

I'm not familiar with the term "equilbrants", but action/reaction pairs are always equal and opposite, and it is helpful to identify the action/reaction pairs before considering resultant forces on each object.

I would consider equilibrium (taking a guess at your meaning) to apply to an individual object within a system, or to the system as a whole. Action/reaction is a different concept to equilibrium.

Excellent, we've got to the core of the issue very quickly.
When we speak of the rock's point of view, we are talking (I hope) about what you would see through a tiny camera attached to the rock. Through this camera we would see such interesting sights as a stationary rock (because we are attached to it), the centre of motion (the boy's hand) would be stationary, and everything else in the world would appear to be in the process of being flung from away from the centre of motion. The centrifugal force (away from the centre) will neatly balance the centripetal force (toward the centre), but no net force is acting on the rock. It is not being flung out. It just sits there stationary in the camera shot.

The problem is that this is not a helpful frame of reference because it is not an inertial frame of reference. We have to do all sorts of fudging if we are to explain why all of the objects (grass, trees, etc) are being flung away from the centre.

If we want to apply the usual laws of physics we need to look from an intertial frame of reference. The string pulls in on the rock (centripetal). The string pulls out on the man (centrifugal). The force on the rock is not balanced, and the centrifugal force only affects the string and the boy.

Nice post drewitgolf.

I have no problem with Mr Kelley's use of the word "centrifugal force" in a loose sense. The dictionary definition has the same problem as yoda's explanation. If you look at other technical terms defined in dictionaries, you'll often say to yourself that they haven't got it quite right.

The explanation of what causes the throw out effect is quite complex for such a simple phenomenon. I could understand it if Mr Kelley decided to call it "centrifugal force". The problem is that it then sows the seeds for all sorts of bogus physics when people take the words at face value.

Spot on annekin!

"While Centrepetal force pulls it in a circle...Centrifugal force changes the length of this string..."

Centripetal force acts on the rock. Centrifugal force acts on the string. For other contributors, remember that these words aren't magic. Centrifugal=away from the centre. Centripetal=toward the centre.

Nope. I've read some of your other posts. You've got some really good ideas, and your ideas seem well received here. Good luck with them.

I'd be delighted if you choose to follow yoda's lead in this thread and continue to discuss the topic. I'm only interested in the physics underlying TGM though. I'm happy to let others judge your words to me. That's about all I have to say to you really.

:oops:
Sorry about that. My mistake. I am in well over my depth here but I am trying to understand what you are getting at.
Do the image and definitions have any bearing on this topic?

Resultant - the single force that is equal to 2 or more forces.

Equilibrant - the single force that will balance 2 or more forces. Equal in magnitude but opposite in direction of the resultant.

Thats fine ....

Still waiting to see where Homer has said it is centrifugally powered....

Yes. In terms of your diagram the main idea I'd like to add is that in general the three forces are all acting on the same body, but will come from different action/reaction pairs.

The discussion has moved on Mathew.

If you want to contribute, you might start by looking at yoda's posts and my responses. Numerous other people are also making strong contributions, and yoda and everybody else appear to have immediately understood what I'm here to discuss. I'm enjoying my time here immensely.

Firstly it is not your place to tell me what conditions I can contribute to. Secondly we are still on this subject.....centrifugal force.... just tell me where he said "centrifugal powered".

Looking forward .... as in you in comparison to Homer - are you a comedian....

Quite right! You'll notice that I edited my post to include the words "might like". I did this whilst you were replying and completed the edit after your reply. It's your choice Mathew. You must decide what your contribution is to be. I'm here to discuss physics.

No kidding - I thought it was to discuss the weather:eyes:

Perhaps you can again reference the quote from the golfing machine that says "centrifugal powered" that I pointed out with "snideness".

I can't argue beyond this explanation. In the case of the TGM model the string length (radius) is from shoulder the clubhead and it lengthens dramatically from start down to impact. Like a flail with the wrist as the thong.

Is this close to correct? No physics degree over here,,

CW

Yes. The flail model is an essential element of any model of the golf swing. I hope to move on to discussion of the flail and the throw out effect fairly shortly. The only unresolved issue I see with the stone and the rock is the "frame of reference" problem yoda raised. After that it's full steam ahead.

The Frame of Reference is a Choice
 

The frame of reference is always a choice. The laws of physics in this case are invariant regardless of frame of reference. However, the explanation of what is going on varies. A rotating reference frame is proper during the downswing since that is the frame of reference the golfer lives in so to speak. You wish to keep things in a non-rotating reference frame because it makes the centrifugal force explanation less applicable.

This whole argument is splitting hairs about reference frames and centrifugal force. It is pointless to the golfer. One will get the right answer whether one invokes the concept of centrifugal force or explains the phenomena as inertial resistance of the clubhead mass. Basically it all comes down to what folks will understand more easily. Centrifugal force explanations are more intuitive to understand for the majority than inertia which is why it is more generally taught that way in universities across the world (to physicists). It is nice that you learned your physics a different way, but the answers all turn out the same. I suspect we will just have to agree to diagree, Jack.

Ok. Let's try that assertion out with a question. Why in the frame of reference of the rock does the centrifugal force act on the rock when in an inertial frame the centrifugal force acts on the boy?

A non-inertial frame of reference changes everything. Forces appear like the ones which the camera on the rock shows affecting the trees and the grass. It becomes a mess. The simple reason I wish to keep things in a non-rotating reference frame is because physics in a rotating frame is so complicated, but will after a lot of hard work provide the same answers (for the ball) as in an inertial frame.

Newton's law that "an object at rest will remain at rest unless a resultant force is applied" becomes "an object at rest will only remain at rest if a centripetal force is applied". See what I mean?

I have no problem if you wish to disagree, but be so kind as to point out the error in what I say rather than discussing motives and making condecending remarks like "it's nice that you learned your physics in a different way".

I will, however, be very interested in reading your explanation of the physics of the throw out effect in a non-inertial frame of reference if you want to discuss it.

Communication issues
 

Golf Sceptic- Just my perspective but it appears to me- that you have a significant communication problem. Don't know if you are aware of it or not. I don't say that in a derogatory tone or sarcastic tone- it's just the feedback I would give you - in order to improve your performance in the future. I'm assuming you know your subject but can't communicate it clearly. You've got 25 somewhat extensive posts on this thread/subject matter and it's my feeling that no one (at least myself) has made any progress in understanding your perspective or the context and importance of your point. Every new post doesn't get you any closer to the answer than the previous post.

My only guess to the problem is that the foundation of concepts that supports your viewpoint - that seems obvious to you is not obvious to your audience (me). When you build a concept, idea, system, theory- you can't get to the theory and take everything as self-evident- especially for teaching or describing it's functioning- you've got to essentially retrace the original route - in principle- not point by point- to it's basis- starting reference points- those things that you can see, touch, smell, hear. Homer had a similar problem- so you've got company. You've also got to understand when you mention any particular point- how other people might mis-interpret it and explain and what the wrong turns could be at any turn- so that you keep the reader on track.

So that's why very few people stuck it out with Homer- and very few will stick it out with you- (like me)- so when you ask "This is where the man on scales in lift will help if you need more detail." I'm thinking no thanks- because that post is going to be like the last 25 - not going to get me any closer to you answering and me understanding whatever you were talking about when this thread started.

That's just my feedback- hope it helps you.

Thanks Mike, I take your comments in the generous spirit in which you sent them.

Ok. Here's the gist of it. I'm interested in the physics underlying TGM. In essential terms my proposition is that centrifugal force does not cause the throw out effect.

This requires a very precise discussion of the physics. The discussion is not for everybody, requires either training or an inquiring mind and great patience, will only generate fresh insights for the very few, and will interest even fewer.

Now. ThinkingPlus has two physics degrees I believe, and physics is her job. Me too, except that I am now retired and I focussed on Pure and Applied Mathematics in my undergraduate days. Unfortunately, when she took me to task about frames of reference, it takes the discussion to a whole new level of abstraction. I had hoped not to have that discussion, but yoda made it necessary and stephanie put it centre stage.

ThinkingPlus, by the way, has given me an insight into why Mr Kelley may (I emphasize may) have explained centrifugal force in the way he did.

Quite right. We all know that my proposition is that centrifugal force does not cause the throw out effect. We've done the boy and the rock to illustrate what is really happening in a simple situation involving centrifugal force (and taken a few side trips). Unless ThinkingPlus wants to discuss physics in non-inertial frames of reference, or anybody else wants to clarify any other issues, I'm ready to state my case.

I'm not sure that Mr. K ever said that CF had anything to do with "throw-out" did he? The way throw-out was demonstrated to me was that once the clubshaft passes vertical to the ground it falls lengthening the Primary Lever Assembly (left arm and club).

I think people think that throw out is OUT TO THE PLANE LINE . . . but that ain't how it was demonstrated to me.

I think there is a alot of misunderstanding in this thread.

Mike O is mediating debates . . . . what the hell is going on? I'm headin' for the bomb shelter . . . see y'all after the nuclear winter.

Kfc
 

Isn't the Colonel being sued for unhealthy food- I rest my case Mr. Bucket- back to your sofa!!

Golf Sceptic- I actually thought the whole thread was you stating your case- but yes- please clearly state your case.

Thanks,
Mike O.- "Mediator"

What this is saying is that the right shoulder is turning an axis to spin a flywheel - the right shoulder going downplane to make the secondary lever assembly stay onplane via the effect of centrifugal reaction so that it stays at 90 degrees to the turning axis hence it stays onplane. This is what causes the throw out action and whilst pp3 aims to a point to control the clubhead as the release motions whirl it out via the passive straightening of the right arm in conjunction with its trigger delay against the checkrein of the left arm and the delivery line. The structure of the left flying wedge keeps the first imperative of a flat left wrist per law of the flail 2-K whilst all this happens.

This is paragraph is especially skillful to avoid the debate. If centrifugal force or reaction is fictious or not - that will be (or should be) the dictionary definition... which takes nothing away from the effect or correctness of the wording.

Providing this happens



It proves the concept...

Cause And Effect
 

Right you are, golf_sceptic!

Indeed...

Centrifugal force -- induced by rotation -- IS the throw-out effect.

Per Homer Kelley:

"Centrifugal Force: The effort of the Swinging Clubhead to pull the Primary Lever Assembly (Left Arm and Club) into a straight line."

Thanks yoda. To understand that definition I'd like to pick up on something you said about the stone on the string which I think will probably be best answered by thinkingplus.

Thinkingplus, what yoda says makes sense in a rotating frame of reference. How many of the TGM concepts should be viewed in a non-inertial frame. I think for example of the hinging concepts. Clearly (I hope) any discussion of forces relating to hinging concepts is taking place in a non-inertial frame. What about the concepts of lag and accumulators in respect of a swinger (pardon any mangling of the terminology)? Is that all in a non-inertial frame as well?

Mike, for me, the answer to this question from thinkingplus would put the TGM concepts into an entirely different light so I'll delay putting my proposition pending a response from her. Her response may also lead to a highly technical discussion within a discussion, so hold tight if it gets nerdy.

Mathew, thanks for raising this again. The issue I'm addressing isn't whether centrifugal force is real or ficticious, or how to produce or utilize it in the swing (which your post does really well), but rather that the physics changes depending on the frame of reference, and what yoda and I wrote about whether the centrigual force acts on the stone or the boy are not contradictory at all, but rather merely reflect different frames of reference. This issue may also be the reason why neither of us understood the other earlier on.

Now that's funny!!!!

Time
 

Golf Skeptic- at the risk of feeling like I'm wasting my time- and since Bucket O' Bucket has called me a mediator:crybaby: - I'll jump in and participate by having you read the following excerpt that I found on the internet. It would help me if you could read this and tell me if you agree with it or have issues with it. Because since I understand what they are saying in the article I'll know more about your perspective if I understand if you are in agreement with the article or how you might differ with their article.

INTERNET ARTICLE
A non-inertial frame of reference does not have a constant velocity. It is accelerating. There are several ways to imagine this motion:
· The frame could be traveling in a straight line, but be speeding up or slowing down.
· The frame could be traveling along a curved path at a steady speed.
· The frame could be traveling along a curved path and also speeding up or slowing down.
Such an accelerating frame of reference is called a non-inertial frame because the law of inertia does not hold in it. That is, an object whose position is judged from this frame will seem to spontaneously change its velocity with no apparent non-zero net force acting upon it. This completely violates the law of inertia and Newton's laws of motion, since these laws claim that the only way an object can change its velocity is if an actual non-zero net force is applied to the object. Objects just do not start to move about here and there all on their own.
This is really quite easy to understand. If you are in an automobile when the brakes are abruptly applied, then you will feel pushed toward the front of the car. You may actually have to extend you arms to prevent yourself from going forward toward the dashboard. However, there is really no force pushing you forward. The car, since it is slowing down, is an accelerating, or non-inertial, frame of reference, and the law of inertia no longer holds if we use this non-inertial frame to judge your motion.
If all of this is viewed relative to the ground, it becomes clear that no force is pushing you forward when the brakes are applied. The ground is stationary and, therefore, is an inertial frame. Relative to the ground, when the brakes are applied, you continue with your forward motion, just like you should according to Newton's first law of motion. The situation is this: the car is stopping, you are not; so, you head out toward the dashboard. From your point of view in the car it seems like you have spontaneously been pushed forward. Actually, there is no force acting on you. The imagined force toward the front of the car is a fictitious force.
A similar fictitious force can be noticed by a person in a car when it speeds up. Let us say that you are in a car at a stop light. The car is standing still. The light turns green, and the car accelerates forward. While undergoing this acceleration, the car is a non-inertial frame of reference. If the acceleration is large enough, you will feel yourself "pushed" into the seat. Actually, no force is pushing on you. Again, as viewed from the inertial frame of the ground, you are just maintaining your velocity, as you should according to Newton's first law of motion. You were still when the light was red, and you are attempting to remain still when the light turns green. However, the car started to move when the light turned green. The car actually comes up from behind you, and, using the seat, the car pushes you forward. As the seat comes forward and pushes on you, the back seat cushion compresses a bit. You may interpret this feeling as your body being pushed backward into the seat. Really, you are attempting to maintain your velocity of zero, and the seat is coming up from behind to push on you. There is no backward force. The imagined force is a fictitious force. Fictitious forces arise in non-inertial, or accelerating, frames of reference.
There are several ways to describe a non-inertial frame. Here are a few descriptions:
· A non-inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference with a changing velocity. The velocity of a frame will change if the frame speeds up, or slows down, or travels in a curved path.
· A non-inertial frame of reference is an accelerating frame of reference.
· A non-inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which the law of inertia does not hold.
· A non-inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which Newton's laws of motion do not hold.
· In a non-inertial frame of reference fictitious forces arise.
What follows here are two demonstrations that show non-inertial frames of reference. The first one is an animation of a non-inertial frame which acts like an elevator. The other shows an animation of a rotating frame of reference. Rotating frames of reference are non-inertial frames since they are following curved paths. Remember that a change in direction, which would occur along a curved path, constitutes a change in velocity, and, therefore, constitutes an acceleration. If the frame accelerates, it is a non-inertial frame.
A non-inertial frame of reference is a coordinate system which is accelerating. That is, its vector velocity is not constant. So, it is either changing its speed by speeding up or slowing down, or it is changing its direction by traveling in a curved path, or it is both changing its speed and changing its direction.
Below is a VRML animation of a non-inertial frame of reference similar to that which would be experienced in an elevator ride. Please see this note if at first the animation does not seem correctly presented or synchronized.

Above, the yellow platform with the x, y, z coordinate axes represents an elevator. During certain portions of its travel an elevator constitutes a non-inertial frame of reference. As it goes up and down it speeds up or slows down over portions of its path. During these periods of changing speed the elevator is accelerating and, therefore, is a non-inertial frame of reference. Over other portions of its path the velocity of the elevator is constant. At these times it represents an inertial frame of reference.
When you watch the above animation, be aware that its motion should be considered in several parts. Those parts are:
1. The elevator is at the bottom and is not moving. Its velocity is constantly zero, and, therefore, its velocity is constant. So, it is an inertial frame of reference. There are no fictitious forces, the law of inertia holds.
2. The elevator begins to move up. It is speeding up, and, therefore, its velocity is changing; it is accelerating. So, it is a non-inertial frame of reference. There are fictitious forces present. One feels pushed into the floor a bit; one feels heavier. However, this is a fake force. Really, a person is just trying to stay at his or her prior velocity, which was zero. The floor is coming up from underneath and pushing on the person. The person feels pushed into the floor.
3. The elevator is done starting to move and is now on its way up, traveling at a constant velocity. Now it is an inertial frame. The extra weight felt during the acceleration is no longer present. The elevator is now an inertial frame with no fictitious forces.
4. The elevator begins to stop. It is slowing down, and, therefore, its velocity is changing; it is again accelerating. So, it is once again a non-inertial frame of reference. Fictitious forces are present. A person feel lighter, as if he or she was being pulled up a bit. Actually, the person is just trying to maintain his or her prior velocity. The person was going up and continues to go up. The floor, however, is stopping and is no longer traveling as fast as the person. So, the person feels lifted off of the floor.
5. The elevator is stopped at the top. This is just like being stopped at the bottom. And it is just like part 3. The velocity is constant, that is, constantly zero. The elevator is an inertial frame now, and there are no fictitious forces.
6. The elevator begins to move down. This is an acceleration, and the elevator is again a non-inertial frame of reference. A fictitious force arises. The person feels lighter, as if pulled up. But he or she is just trying to remain still, and the elevator floor is falling away.
7. The elevator is traveling at a constant velocity on the way down. This is an inertial frame of reference, and everything feels normal. There are not fake forces.
8. The elevator slows down while moving downward. Again, this acceleration creates a non-inertial frame. A person in the elevator would feel heavier, would feel pushed down. Actually, the person is just trying to maintain his or her downward velocity and the slowed down floor is getting in the way.
Such an elevator ride is an excellent example of a frame of reference that changes from an inertial frame of reference to a non-inertial frame of reference as the speed of the velocity changes from a constant value to a changing value respectively.
However, there are other non-inertial frames of reference which are caused by changes in velocity other than changes in speed. Remember that when an object changes direction, it changes its velocity. Since velocity is made up of speed and direction, when the speed changes, the velocity changes. Next we’ll cover an explanation of a non-inertial frame which is due to a change in direction, that is, a rotation. Fictitious forces arise under this condition also.
Near the edge of the disk is an x, y, z coordinate system which is, of course, following a curved path. This coordinate system is moving in circular motion. The speed of the coordinate system is constant; however, it is accelerating. It is accelerating because its velocity is changing. Its velocity is changing because the direction of its movement is changing, and, since velocity is made up of both speed and direction, when the direction changes, the velocity changes. So, this coordinate system is an example of a non-inertial frame of reference. Non-inertial frames are accelerating frames.


Since it is a non-inertial frame of reference, one should feel a fictitious force if one is in the frame. And one would; it would be especially noticeable if the disk were spinning quickly. One would feel pushed off of the disk. This force is often called the centrifugal force; it is a fictitious force. It really does not exist.
Actually, if you were near the edge of this disk, at any moment your velocity would be tangent to the circle in which you were moving. You would be like the blue dot which you could imagine moving in a circle as in the following diagram.

Now, pretend this spinning is happening with you on a children's merry-go-round; almost everyone has been on one of those. At the moment depicted above, you are the blue dot, and your velocity is tangent to the circle. According to Newton's first law, which is really just a restatement of the law of inertia, you should continue to travel in a straight line tangent to the circle. That is, you would try to maintain your velocity and move along the line tangent to the circle as shown in the next diagram.

However, you will want, we will suppose, to stay on the merry-go-round. To do that you will have to "hang on" by pulling yourself toward the center of the circle. Most likely you will grab on to the bars or posts mounted on the merry-go-round and pull yourself inward like the next diagram shows.

Very most likely, however, you will interpret the pull you provide toward the center as your attempt to fight being pushed away from the center of the circle. This force does not really exist, however. You would not be being pushed away from the center. You are just trying to go in a straight line and must provide a center seeking force to make you go around the turn and stay on the merry-go-round.
This fictitious force away from the center of rotation is called the centrifugal force. The force you apply, pulling yourself back in toward the center and keeping you on the merry-go-round is called the centripetal force.

If one of my students wrote it, I'd say that they demonstrate a pretty good understanding of the ideas, but I'd suggest they tighten up some of the expression.

For example
might become

I could go a bit further in modifying the text, but you get the idea. Basically it is fine, but some of the wording could mislead somebody who does not already understand the subject. I probably would not use the "law of inertia" in my explanation, but would not tell a student to remove it.

My post above was edited by someone other than myself. It completely changed the nuance and meaning.

NO ONE has the moral right to change the meaning of my posts. Because it is your website you have the right to ban me or delete my posts, but once again DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT MISREPRESENT ME.

Now please change the damage you have caused.

My point wasw Sceptic got his head handed to him on a silver planter and he wasn't man enough to admit it.

Now if management doesn't like this then delete my posts.

I think everyone agrees that there is a 'throw-out' action, #2 accumulator. I agree with the Throw-out action because in one of my Previous Lives, I was a Chinese Peasant who spent a lifetime beating Rice out of their Stalks with a flail (the nightmares still haunt me, my boss was sooo demanding). So I know a little about 'throw-out' and it has occurred on one or more occasions when I've held a Golf Club in my uneducated hands.

So? Is this thread about the cause of the 'throw-out'? If I'm hanging on to the club, and my body is rotating and me and the clubhead are being acted on by centrifugal/centripetal forces, then where else is the clubhead going to go?

Also, if we keep Calling it Centrifugal Force, and someday we discover that CF is not real, will we only be able to drive the ball 50 yards? I'm not willing to take that risk. :)