Force
 

What FORCES are REAL? What is a FORCE? F=MA

GRAVITY?

INERTIA?

MOMENTUM?

MAGNETISM?

CENTRIPETAL FORCE?

ANY OTHERS?

WHICH OF THESE APPLY TO GOLF?

The Golf Gods are real. They represent a real force. I know because they don't like me.

Mea Culpa, Rumbler
 

Easy there, Rumbler. It was my mistake, and I apologize. :redface:

I was attempting to reply to your post, but I hit my admin 'edit' button instead of the 'quote' button. So, thinking I was extracting a quote for my reply, I was actually editing your post. As I recall, there was only one or two other lines, and I didn't think it was a serious issue. Nevertheless, I should have PMed you as to the error. Please use your edit function and restore the post to its original intent (or PM me the missing text and I will do it for you).

Again, my apologies. There was absolutely no intention to censure your post or change its meaning in any way.

P.S. In the interest of total clarification, I didn't add any words to Rumbler's post, i.e., "put words in [his] mouth", I just deleted some (and I think most of those were in golf_sceptic's post he quoted].

Big Green Buttons
 

Let's be thankful that what Yoda lacks hitting computer buttons, he more than makes up for in hitting golf balls.

We will work on making your edit button red instead of green.:king:

Bagger

There's a bit more too it than that. I thanked yoda because he read what I wrote, stated his position clearly, and in such a way that I was able to consider the issues further. The only people who have tried to hand me my head on a silver platter have used personal attacks and bogus arguments which have no impact on me at all.

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.

The TGM world can look at this from two ways.

The first is to launch into hyperbole as Daryl has started to do above, make a mockery of the discussion, and then others can join the frenzy by burning the blasphemer at the stake, or handing me my head on a platter.

The second is to understand that the difference is a powerful tool in those interminable centrifugal force discussions if in fact much (or most) of what Mr Kelley wrote was in what a physicist would describe as a non-inertial frames of reference. A physicist who knows their stuff will recognise the power of this position instantly.

This shifts the focus (in the car example above) from "yes there's a force which pushes the passenger forward" v "oh no there's not" v "oh yes there is", to a more measured "it depends on the frame of reference".

It does the same thing to centrifugal force. Instead of "Homer got it wrong" v "Oh no he didn't" v "Oh yes he did", we have a more measured "it depends on the frame of reference. The next time yoda hears somebody explain the rock and the boy the way I did, he can reply "yes, but that is in an inertial frame. If we look from the frame of reference of the rock things are different" and add what ThinkingPlus intimated about the non-inertial frame being more convenient when analysing motion in the golf swing.

So before we have my head on a platter, let's have a considered input (and perhaps a nerdy discussion) from ThinkingPlus.

Then you can have my head on a platter, burn me at the stake, and hang draw and quarter me, skin me alive and any other form of torture.

So, for those who like one line summaries, I'd like to deal with the issue as follows:

"Are the criticisms of the physics in Mr Kelley's work mostly based on the incorrect assumption that his observations are made with respect to an inertial frame of reference?"

Which post did you find to be more of a mockery, my first post or my second post? I thought the second was a little snappier. You think?

I promise to buy your book when it's finished, but the movie? It needs to be an action-adventure type or I can't promise anything.

I think that you've been in front of the computer for too many hours and days. You need to get out and do something for a while. It's not healthy, really. Try Golf. I heard it's relaxing.

Comedy Channel
 

Mate, that was so funny :-)

Gravity: Pulls the ball back to Earth after 180 yards. Without it the ball will go 285 yards like on the PGA because they stop gravity for tournaments.

Inertia: It’s what you feel when you have a cart buddy that doesn’t drive very well.

Momentum: Is what you need to get up a steep hill on a battery operated golf cart.

Magnetism: That is why balls turn right and land in the water. They are being pulled in by the Golf Gods.

Centripetal Force: That’s Spanish for Centrifugal Force. The force that POWERS the Golf swing.

LOL.

OZZY,nice to hear you mate -how are you doing in the WORLD CUP!

We wuz robbed:crybaby:

Greg Louganis had been giving diving lessons to the Italians :angry2:

They knew all about Centrifugal force :rolleyes:

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?:)

Requiem for objectivity
 

Hi Birdie_Man. As you started this thread and welcomed the debate, you may be one of the last objective participants. If so, for your information, here is "Centrifugal force" from a neutral, namely Encyclopedia Britannica.

"Centrifugal Force, quantity, peculiar to a particle moving on a circular path, that has the same magnitude and dimensions as the force that keeps the particle on its circular path (the centripetal force) but points in the opposite direction. A stone whirling in a horizontal plane on the end of a string tied to a post on the ground is continuously changing the direction of its velocity and, therefore, has acceleration toward the post. This force is equal to the square of its velocity divided by the length of the string According to Newton’s second law; acceleration is caused by a force, which in this case is the tension in the string. If the stone is moving at a constant speed and gravity is neglected, the inward-pointing string tension is the only force acting on the stone. If the string breaks, the stone, because of inertia, will keep on going in a straight line tangent to its previous circular path; it is not the influence of a centrifugal “force” that will make the stone fly off in a radially outward direction.

Although it is not a real force according to Newton’s laws, the centrifugal-force concept is a useful one. For example, when analyzing the behaviour of the fluid in a cream separator or a centrifuge, it is convenient to study the fluid’s behaviour relative to the rotating container rather than, relative to the Earth; and, in order that Newton’s laws be applicable in such a rotating frame of reference, an inertial force, or a fictitious force (the centrifugal force), equal and opposite to the centripetal force, must be included in the equations of motion. In a frame of reference attached to the whirling stone, the stone is at rest; to obtain a balanced force system, the outward-acting centrifugal force must be included.

Centrifugal force can be increased by increasing either (1) the speed of rotation, (2) the mass of the body, or (3) the radius, the distance of the body from the centre of the curve. Increasing either the mass or the radius increases the centrifugal force proportionally, but increasing the speed of rotation increases it in proportion to the square of the speed; that is, an increase in speed of 10 times, say from 10 to 100 revolutions per minute, increases the centrifugal force by a factor of 100. Centrifugal force is expressed as a multiple of g, the symbol for normal gravitational force (strictly speaking, the acceleration due to gravity). Centrifugal fields of more than 1,000,000,000 g have been produced in the laboratory. "

Words can be slippery suckers.

Yes, I knew your question was genuine and in no way did I see it as antagonistic.

My answer was a little bit tongue in cheek, but not entirely. I did have a copy of the book at one stage, but don't now. I rely on quotes from others at ISG. The biggest problem I had (past tense) was that as a physics and applied mathematics teacher of many years I kept reading things that my training and experience told me were gobbledegook. People would try to explain (there's quite an enthusiastic TGM following on ISG), and that would be fine for a while, but then I'd see something else that didn't make sense.

When birdie_man quoted a video posted here I followed, and lo and behold there were my words, so I jumped in. After the exchanges I mentioned with yoda and ThinkingPlus I looked at the frame of reference issue again and a light went on.

As a result, so many of the things that looked like gobbledegook didn't look like gobbledegook any more. Rather than explaining how the throw out effect works in inertial physics (which was my intention), it hit me that Mr Kelley was describing things in very particular frames of reference.

So to answer your question directly, no I don't understand the book, but I'm miles further down the path than I was when I arrived here.

Good to hear it!thanks

That's great. :)

lol...Why Me.......!
 

Aw man why me.....too early for this stuff (I know it's 11:46 but I just got up....hey- it's summer time :clap: :occasion:)....

KK I'll try....

...

I realize that CF isn't (by definition) a "FORCE"....

Reactive force would u call it? I dunno.

Whatever you want to call it....I don't think you can deny that the effect is there.

Anyway.....but what does it DO in the golf swing? And what does Homer SAY it does? And.........what CAUSES the Release....what does Homer say causes it? (anything else? That's all I can think of...)

I guess those are the issues.

It's obviously there at some point (I'm thinkin only beyond the Release...but I'm not sure).....so does it do anything really?

Dunno that I can answer that.

....

I haven't been following this thread too much....haven't been reading the massive posts BTW.

....

Part of me says that Homer must've known some of this stuff.....Centripetal, etc.....I think I remember reading something about "him just sticking with calling it CF because....." (something about it being a well-known term or something).....

....but that still doesn't make it make much sense to me.....you'd think Homer woulda said "Screw what everyone wants to call it....I'm gonna write my own book..."

...

Ya that's all I can give you right now I think....brain says nuh-uh.

...

BTW I dunno if I'm the only one who wants to see a summary of positions (i.e. your stance on the issues.....your beefs, etc.....don't have to summarize this whole thread or anything)....for both "sides" I guess. Catch everyone up and get everyone's heads on straight again.

My bad.
 

nm golfer on my site was the guy I "Stopped Cold."

This guy is the real deal, so I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

I just want one of these guys to tell me what moves the clun first and what CAN move the club first.

But, so sorry, go back to the thread and I'll just read.:)

The Lab -- A Special Place
 

Early on at LBG, we realized the need for a special 'meeting place' for those kindred souls interested in exploring the Game's more esoteric concepts (such as those in this thread). Hence was born The Lab.

Part of The Lab's unwritten charter -- and, in its own way, its charm -- is that the concepts discussed need have little or no practical application on the golf course. As such, they typically are of little interest to the great majority of members. That fact does not -- and should not -- diminish in the least the enthusiastic pursuit of such ideas by Lab folk. Undaunted, they continue to explore brave new worlds and reap their own rewards along the way.

At LBG, we honor that spirit and encourage those so inclined to view The Lab as a safe haven. There, discussions should be conducted with the decorum appropriate in such a collegial atmosphere. As always, the purpose of those posting should be to provoke thinking...not people.

We thank all who have contributed to these threads and look forward to more of the same in the future. :)

Thanks Brian. It takes a real man to say that.

On behalf of the many people like me, out there on the TGM fringes, thankyou Brian and Yoda for all your hard work. You are inspirations to all of us!!

CYA

Aw man!!!! Does this mean I can't goof on Mike O anymore?

Rattles At Fifty Paces
 

Not in The Lab, bucket. But if he stumbles into your playpen -- deliberately or accidentally -- then he's fair game!

inertia
 

One feels being pushed by a forward force (whatever called), due to inertia, when the car decelerates.

One feels being pulled by a backward force (whatever called), due to inertia, when the car accelerates.

One feels being pulled by an outward force (whatever called), due to, again, inertia, when the car turns (or accelerates in a different direction).

The rock moves in circle by a centripetal force (or being accelerated in a different direction) and feels being pulled by an outward force (whatever called) due to, again, inertia.

Inertia is "Lag", "Lag" is the secret of golf, Inertia is the secret of golf.

Not sure if it is a secret - rather part of the equation per 2-N-1