Hi Mandrin
I have no trouble with the validity of the kinetic chain approach from my own experience of other sports. However, I've had a chance to sit down and look at your article in the cold light of day and I'm afraid that paragraphs 2 to 4 inclusive show a serious misunderstanding of Newtonian mechanics, including the 3rd law.
It is true that, for example, when two bodies collide they exert an equal and opposite force on each other. However, forces don't always come in pairs that are equal and opposite otherwise objects would never accelerate. The 2nd law shows that a body undergoing acceleration must be acted upon by a resultant force (and allows you to calculate it using F= ma, where m is the mass of the body).
Let's look at circular motion. Since velocity is a vector quantity it has both size (the speed bit) and direction. When moving in a circle with constant speed an object's direction is always changing and so its velocity is always changing - it's therefore accelerating (by definition - acceleration is the rate of change of velocity). If it's accelerating, the 2nd law says that it's experiencing a resultant force (the forces on it are unbalanced!). What is this resultant force? - the centripetal force directed in toward the centre of the circle. It's the thing that keeps the curve going - without it the object would fly off at a tangent because of its INERTIA. When you corner in a fast car and feel that pull to the outside it's because you were going that way already!! Not because of any CENTRIFUGAL FORCE but because of INERTIA. The first law says that an object continues in a state of rest or uniform motion IN A STRAIGHT line unless acted upon by a force. It's tendency to do that is called its INERTIA.
If the centrifugal force existed and were equal and opposite to the centripetal force, circular motion would be impossible - there would be no resultant inward force to keep the curve going.
I've made a living by teaching chemistry but I've two colleagues who are physics graduates from Cambridge University (more Nobel prize winners than the old Soviet Union!) and they have confirmed the correctness of my views on this.
Dreaming up the existence of imaginary forces which can be mathematically proven not to exist isn't going to do anything for science and will make people question the validity of any conclusions drawn.
Which brings us to the data. Exactly how were these data obtained? You mention modelling. Were the data obtained from actual tests with Iron Byron or a similar machine or from a simulation program? Were they obtained by calculation only - if so, what were the assumptions made in order to do the calculations?
As I said, I have no problem with the validity of the kinetic chain snap idea but as a lifelong science teacher doing one's utmost to undo popular misconceptions, it's hard to stand by and allow them to be perpetrated without comment.
