Was Homer Wrong?

[golf_sceptic]

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:

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.

[neil]

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.

[golf_sceptic]

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.

But, Golf Sceptic, tell me you don't understand the book.

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

[neil]

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 gobbldegook. 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

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?

[golf_sceptic]

The question was also genuine -and I assume your answer was somwhat tongue in cheek.Do you understand the book?

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.

[neil]

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

[efnef]

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.

That's great.

[Yoda]

...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.

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.

[12 piece bucket]

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.

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

[brianmanzella]

Just like I thought,

stoped him cold again.

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