Was Homer Wrong?

[strav]

I for one welcome this debate.

I don't think this guy should be made the enemy.

Would it be cool if Homer was 100% right on everything? Hell yes.

What if he isn't? TGM gonna go down in flames? Hell no.

We're talking about small things here.

It's most important to get this right....

We have to remember.....when Homer died he had not hung up his "golf researchin pants"....so let's not....

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. "

[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.

[birdie_man]

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. "

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 )....

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.

[brianmanzella]

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.

[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.

[golf_sceptic]

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

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

[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?

[Yoda]

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

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