I believe that the negative torque is actually the resistance (inertia) of the club (mostly the clubhead) which is a reaction to the positive torque of the hands/arms.
A look at various pivot torques
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
I believe that the negative torque is actually the resistance (inertia) of the club (mostly the clubhead) which is a reaction to the positive torque of the hands/arms.
Thanks Biffer. Now, what forces determine the point in the swing at which intertia "loses out" to the positive torque of the hands/arms, allowing the club segment to catch up to the arm segment?
Bigwill, I should say that I'm not a physics expert and cannot say for sure what mandrin meant by his statements. However, I do have a keen understanding of the actions of the golf swing, but not in TGM terms.
In response to your question, I would say that the torque applied by the hands and arms results in the gradual acceleration of the club and angular momentum then kicks in to produce the release action.
mandrin
It is interesting that you gain personal satisfaction by making fun of me - by making statements like the following-:
"For further explanations you better ask our resident science expert Jeffmann.
He will have a redundant answer typed out before you can even formulate your question.
Just be sure to ask for a child-like response. He will understand. "
------------------------------------------------------
One of the interesting facts about online discussion forums is that we do not know anything about the educational background of other forum members, other than what they chose to expose. I was therefore a little amused when you wrote the following comment with reference to me - "barely a minimum grasp of scientific notions." I was amused becauase you really have no knowledge of my understanding of science, and yet you chose to label me as being grossly ignorant of scientific methodology.
The true reality is that I have a special interest in EBM (evidence-based medicine) which is the field of medicine related to the accurate interpretation of scientic evidence derived from clinical research trials. I had extensive training in EBM and I wrote a number of papers on the subject. In fact, I even wrote a paper for my medical website called "Philosophy of Science Made Simple - Or Am I Too Simple!" in which I described some basic prinicples of scientific philosophy (with respect to interpreting the results of clinical research studies) for a target audience of neophyte physicians. I ended my paper with 10 suggested principles of good scientific practice. Some of those principles are especially applicable to you - so I will repeat those 10 principles here.
1) A scientist should always cultivate an "open-minded" attitude - an attitude that readily accepts criticism and experimental refutation, and a scientist should resist becoming 'emotionally-attached' to any particular explanatory theory.
2) A scientist should realise that repeated confirmation of his 'pet' explanatory theory does not increase its scientific legitimacy and that repeated affirmations are neutral in effect.
3) A scientist should resist the tendency to think inductively - in other words, the scientist should resist any tendency to draw general conclusions from a series of experimental observations (other than the specific conclusion as to whether the observational data supports or contradicts his primary hypothesis); other general conclusions that are not directly connected to the primary hypothesis can be posited in the form of another (seperate) explanatory theory that may be suitable for future experimental testing.
4) A scientist should readily encourage criticism of his explanatory theory (and/or criticism of his experimental methodology), because it is only through the refutation and re-formulation of an explanatory theory that science really progresses.
5) A scientist should share his data freely with the general scientific community, because widespread data sharing increases the chance of refutation, and a refuted theory spawns further scientific endeavour and the possibility of even more refined theories.
6) A scientist should resist any tendency to perform 'data-torturing' - post hoc re-analysis of the scientific data in order to obtain positive confirming results from equivocal, or semi-contradictory, experimental evidence - because he may then become entrapped in a tangled web of inductivist thinking or inductivist behaviourisms.
7) A scientist should realise that a 'bad' explanation may sometimes be true, and that there is no certain logical connection between an experiment's test results and the explanatory power of his theory => a scientist should therefore constantly ensure that there is no critical intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.
8) A scientist should structure his explanatory theory in a scientifically articulate manner - so that the avenues available for confirmation or refutation of his theory are clearly delineated => this will lessen the likelihood of there being an intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.
9) A scientist should realise that even if his explanatory theory is experimentally confirmed by very stringent scientific testing (eg. randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial) that his explanatory theory must still be shown to be intellectually coherent and logically consistent, and it must also mesh seamlessly with other 'good' explanatory theories in the same field.
10) A scientist should realise that his explanatory theory has to be un-falsifiable if he wants it to become the current 'winning' theory, and the scientist should therefore actively promote rigorous experimental challenges to demonstrate that his explanatory theory cannot be falsified.
Jeff.
p.s. If any forum member is very interested in reading an excellent book on "how science works" and "how scientific thinking differs from other forms of thinking", I would highly recommend this book by Susan Haack
Defending Science - Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism .
It is interesting that you gain personal satisfaction by making fun of me - by making statements like the following-:
"For further explanations you better ask our resident science expert Jeffmann.
He will have a redundant answer typed out before you can even formulate your question.
Just be sure to ask for a child-like response. He will understand. "
------------------------------------------------------
One of the interesting facts about online discussion forums is that we do not know anything about the educational background of other forum members, other than what they chose to expose. I was therefore a little amused when you wrote the following comment with reference to me - "barely a minimum grasp of scientific notions." I was amused becauase you really have no knowledge of my understanding of science, and yet you chose to label me as being grossly ignorant of scientific methodology.
The true reality is that I have a special interest in EBM (evidence-based medicine) which is the field of medicine related to the accurate interpretation of scientic evidence derived from clinical research trials. I had extensive training in EBM and I wrote a number of papers on the subject. In fact, I even wrote a paper for my medical website called "Philosophy of Science Made Simple - Or Am I Too Simple!" in which I described some basic prinicples of scientific philosophy (with respect to interpreting the results of clinical research studies) for a target audience of neophyte physicians. I ended my paper with 10 suggested principles of good scientific practice. Some of those principles are especially applicable to you - so I will repeat those 10 principles here.
1) A scientist should always cultivate an "open-minded" attitude - an attitude that readily accepts criticism and experimental refutation, and a scientist should resist becoming 'emotionally-attached' to any particular explanatory theory.
2) A scientist should realise that repeated confirmation of his 'pet' explanatory theory does not increase its scientific legitimacy and that repeated affirmations are neutral in effect.
3) A scientist should resist the tendency to think inductively - in other words, the scientist should resist any tendency to draw general conclusions from a series of experimental observations (other than the specific conclusion as to whether the observational data supports or contradicts his primary hypothesis); other general conclusions that are not directly connected to the primary hypothesis can be posited in the form of another (seperate) explanatory theory that may be suitable for future experimental testing.
4) A scientist should readily encourage criticism of his explanatory theory (and/or criticism of his experimental methodology), because it is only through the refutation and re-formulation of an explanatory theory that science really progresses.
5) A scientist should share his data freely with the general scientific community, because widespread data sharing increases the chance of refutation, and a refuted theory spawns further scientific endeavour and the possibility of even more refined theories.
6) A scientist should resist any tendency to perform 'data-torturing' - post hoc re-analysis of the scientific data in order to obtain positive confirming results from equivocal, or semi-contradictory, experimental evidence - because he may then become entrapped in a tangled web of inductivist thinking or inductivist behaviourisms.
7) A scientist should realise that a 'bad' explanation may sometimes be true, and that there is no certain logical connection between an experiment's test results and the explanatory power of his theory => a scientist should therefore constantly ensure that there is no critical intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.
8) A scientist should structure his explanatory theory in a scientifically articulate manner - so that the avenues available for confirmation or refutation of his theory are clearly delineated => this will lessen the likelihood of there being an intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.
9) A scientist should realise that even if his explanatory theory is experimentally confirmed by very stringent scientific testing (eg. randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial) that his explanatory theory must still be shown to be intellectually coherent and logically consistent, and it must also mesh seamlessly with other 'good' explanatory theories in the same field.
10) A scientist should realise that his explanatory theory has to be un-falsifiable if he wants it to become the current 'winning' theory, and the scientist should therefore actively promote rigorous experimental challenges to demonstrate that his explanatory theory cannot be falsified.
Jeff.
p.s. If any forum member is very interested in reading an excellent book on "how science works" and "how scientific thinking differs from other forms of thinking", I would highly recommend this book by Susan Haack
Defending Science - Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism .
Bronco Billy
New member
Chicken Farmer
Hey Jeff
Mandrin Accused Me of the Chicken Farmer Thing..... He Said I was the Farmer and He was the Chicken
........
Cheers
Hey Jeff
Mandrin Accused Me of the Chicken Farmer Thing..... He Said I was the Farmer and He was the Chicken
........Cheers
mandrin
New
JeffMann,
I am quite aware that certain areas of human endeavor love to drape them with a scientific aura, and it appears that you can discourse on the philosophical aspects of science till the end of time.
Not quite sure how this helps solving the dynamics of complex multibody system problems.
Don’t you feel that your attitude could result in an interesting paradox?
Just for fun a working hypothesis.
- mandrin is for real a scientist.
- Jeffman is way off with his ideas.
- Jeffmann claims to be a real scientist.
- mandrin even more disappointed.
Just a hypothesis.
mandrin
There are many sub-categories of scientific endeavour eg. clinical science, physics, astronomy, mechanical engineering - and on-and-on.
The philosophy of science encompasses all of them by looking at it from a pihlosophical perspective, and its main focus = what is the "truth" and how is "truth" actually established from a scientific perspective.
I have no knowledge of the mathematics of complex mechanical system dynamics, but I do know what the generic rules of science need to be to establish "truth" in that area of science (or any area of science). I believe that you broke a number of the fundamental rules of science - in the sense that you have a mathematical model that generates results, but where the fundamental principles underlying your mathematical model's workings are not transparent and open to criticism.
In particular, you broke this fundamental rule of good scientific practice.
8) A scientist should structure his explanatory theory in a scientifically articulate manner - so that the avenues available for confirmation or refutation of his theory are clearly delineated => this will lessen the likelihood of there being an intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.
You did not provide a scientifically articulate explanation of your mathematical model's design/workings is such a manner that there are ready avenues for other people to refute your model's programming/assumptions. If you actually read my essay, you can see that the fundamental issue that characterises good scientific practice is Karl Popper's principle of "falsifiability". The only worthwhile scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis that readily allows itself to be falsified via scientific experimentation or critical scientific discourse. You did not divulge the workings of your mathematical model in such a manner that its working principles could become "falsifiable", and any scientific process/hypothesis that is not open to falsification is NOT a scientific process/hypothesis.
Jeff.
There are many sub-categories of scientific endeavour eg. clinical science, physics, astronomy, mechanical engineering - and on-and-on.
The philosophy of science encompasses all of them by looking at it from a pihlosophical perspective, and its main focus = what is the "truth" and how is "truth" actually established from a scientific perspective.
I have no knowledge of the mathematics of complex mechanical system dynamics, but I do know what the generic rules of science need to be to establish "truth" in that area of science (or any area of science). I believe that you broke a number of the fundamental rules of science - in the sense that you have a mathematical model that generates results, but where the fundamental principles underlying your mathematical model's workings are not transparent and open to criticism.
In particular, you broke this fundamental rule of good scientific practice.
8) A scientist should structure his explanatory theory in a scientifically articulate manner - so that the avenues available for confirmation or refutation of his theory are clearly delineated => this will lessen the likelihood of there being an intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.
You did not provide a scientifically articulate explanation of your mathematical model's design/workings is such a manner that there are ready avenues for other people to refute your model's programming/assumptions. If you actually read my essay, you can see that the fundamental issue that characterises good scientific practice is Karl Popper's principle of "falsifiability". The only worthwhile scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis that readily allows itself to be falsified via scientific experimentation or critical scientific discourse. You did not divulge the workings of your mathematical model in such a manner that its working principles could become "falsifiable", and any scientific process/hypothesis that is not open to falsification is NOT a scientific process/hypothesis.
Jeff.
mandrin
New
JeffMann,
I am really sorry, I don’t really read the prose in your recent posts and just skim quickly to get the general idea.
I am not with every post defending a PHD thesis, just modestly trying to bring a bit of science on a golf forum.
But once in a while there is someone like you who blows everything completely out of proportion.
You have been flooding this forum with long winded texts, nobody, including me, will read.
Please come down to earth, don’t be so inflated with your pure scientific principles, it only gives an indigestion.
There is such a huge contrast between your golf research doodling and the subsequent conclusions drawn, and...
If your look at the PingMan robot holds for a serious scientific research, by Jove, than I am afraid about the quality of medical research.
Look my dear friend you can write posts as long-winded as you want, I simply don’t read them, and am even less impressed.
So why not keep your ‘special’ views on what science is all about for your self and enjoy a few rounds of golf instead.
Mandrin,
You need to cool it sometimes.
Regarding your posts, while mostly scientific or appears to be, there're also a number of times where it appears that you have no clue regarding concepts like work done, energy, momentum etc. I can count at least three occassions and I'm sure some forum members with a reasonable understanding of mechanics would have spotted it too.
So let's keep things a bit civil and polite. It'll be a better community and we can all learn from one another. After all, we're all guests of Brian.
cheers,
daniel
You need to cool it sometimes.
Regarding your posts, while mostly scientific or appears to be, there're also a number of times where it appears that you have no clue regarding concepts like work done, energy, momentum etc. I can count at least three occassions and I'm sure some forum members with a reasonable understanding of mechanics would have spotted it too.
So let's keep things a bit civil and polite. It'll be a better community and we can all learn from one another. After all, we're all guests of Brian.
cheers,
daniel
mandrin
New
daniell,
Being polite fine, but there is also being fair,
So it would be greatly appreciated if
The links are given so I can see for myself.
mandrin
New
(1) Aceleration of Clubhead discussion
Mandrin said " ..Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
It look perhaps simple but for many it is just impossible to really grasp its meaning. It basically says that forces ALWAYS come in PAIRS."
(2) hitting against a firm left side?? discussion
Quote from Mandrin "..There is temporarily some slowing down, energy/momentum transfers to the clubhead just before low point, and than the process reverses and the arms, shoulders receive energy/momentum from the club and pick up speed..."
(3) I saw this from Jeffman's post where he quoted you:
Quote from Mandrin "When hitting a golf ball, energy is trasferred from the impacted ball, back through the club and arms, and that energy causes the right shoulder to temporarily slow down".
--------------
Anyway, I sure you type too fast and may not be an issue with your understanding of science. First one is a little tricky .. ha.
cheers,
daniel
Mandrin said " ..Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
It look perhaps simple but for many it is just impossible to really grasp its meaning. It basically says that forces ALWAYS come in PAIRS."
(2) hitting against a firm left side?? discussion
Quote from Mandrin "..There is temporarily some slowing down, energy/momentum transfers to the clubhead just before low point, and than the process reverses and the arms, shoulders receive energy/momentum from the club and pick up speed..."
(3) I saw this from Jeffman's post where he quoted you:
Quote from Mandrin "When hitting a golf ball, energy is trasferred from the impacted ball, back through the club and arms, and that energy causes the right shoulder to temporarily slow down".
--------------
Anyway, I sure you type too fast and may not be an issue with your understanding of science. First one is a little tricky .. ha.
cheers,
daniel
eh .. before i get flame for (1), I want to say I don't have an issue with Newton's Third Law but the use of it to explain the existance of centrifugal/centripetal forces (i.e. since centripetal force exists, centrifugal force also exists because of newton's third law.) which appears to me like an equilibrium of forces situation.
cheers,
daniel
cheers,
daniel
Last edited:
mandrin
New
daniell,
I am really disappointed,
Expected more from you
Is that all you have to show
Please provide link for 3d
If not delete/excuse yourself
Points 1 and 2 are rigorously exact.
It’s clear you don’t have a clue.
Talking about being polite and
Than spreading calumnies.
It’s an endless upstream battle.
- Status