Another Debate

[Vaako]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin



[8)]

[]

[8D]

[}]



[:0]

[^]

Oh Boy!

You might have better luck w/ this in other places. Wouldn't want to start giving you advice - happy to admit this is not my scene - but are you not supposed to specify left or right hand?

Seriously - is there a point to spraying smiles all over the place?


Vaako

 

[mandrin]

Vaako, my inspiration with regard to smilies comes from Yoda, the High Priest of TGM,. I am very much indebted to him for my artistic growth in this particular area of human endeavor. [:I][8)][:I]

Your post shows that you just made it past kindergarten, likes to play with colors and little images but not quite capable yet to concatenate it with intelligent language constructs.

Since smilies are so important to you makes you wonder how come you cannot not even spell it correctly. It is ‘smilies’ not ‘smiles’, my dear Vaako. [:0][B)][]

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

Vaako, my inspiration with regard to smilies comes from Yoda, the High Priest of TGM,. I am very much indebted to him for my artistic growth in this particular area of human endeavor. [:I][8)][:I]

Your post shows that you just made it past kindergarten, likes to play with colors and little images but not quite capable yet to concatenate it with intelligent language constructs.

Since smilies are so important to you makes you wonder how come you cannot not even spell it correctly. It is ‘smilies’ not ‘smiles’, my dear Vaako. [:0][B)][]

Hey Pres! Where are you hosting Dorkfest this year? Looks like you got some new material. Should be rockin'!

Dorkfest 2006 Let's Have Cake and Pie and Hope No Bad People Come.

Dorkalishush

 

[mandrin]

 

[Vaako]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

Vaako, my inspiration with regard to smilies comes from Yoda, the High Priest of TGM,. I am very much indebted to him for my artistic growth in this particular area of human endeavor. [:I][8)][:I]

Well - the original Mandarin had eye for graphic design. I mean, his graphics/graphs were mostly well designed and nice looking.

This put-down directed at Yoda is a bit out of character w/ Mandarin. More like a Peter/Horton thing. I see it still stings - made you look like real winners.

quote:Originally posted by mandrin
Your post shows that you just made it past kindergarten, likes to play with colors and little images but not quite capable yet to concatenate it with intelligent language constructs.

Since smilies are so important to you makes you wonder how come you cannot not even spell it correctly. It is ‘smilies’ not ‘smiles’, my dear Vaako. [:0][B)][]

Semantics make sense either way - smiles or smileys. You want to play w/ color code of love, no problem. Just makes your posts look wonky.

And you did understand I'm not playing the same sex field? So calling me dear won't lead to a date. I know the way you look up to me, but it's probably just an adolescent thing on your part and should fade away w/ time.



Vaako

 

[mandrin]

My dear Vaako, just to make sure, is it mandrin or Mandarin you are glorifying with your lovely prose? [:X][:X][:X]

I ask since you are so easily confused - Mandarin, mandrin, Peter, Horton you name it, Vaako sees them all disturbing his fragile peace of mind.

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

My dear Vaako, just to make sure, is it mandrin or Mandarin you are glorifying with your lovely prose? [:X][:X][:X]

I ask since you are so easily confused - Mandarin, mandrin, Peter, Horton you name it, Vaako sees them all disturbing his fragile peace of mind.

Yawn. Booooooooooring.

 

[birdie_man]

Haha I knew you'd pop up for this one (mandrin)...

BTW....(for the record)....Lynn doesn't use smiles (or smilIES or w/e the f--- you want to call them...[8D]) nearly as much as you mandrin.....almost after every paragraph (cept for that one post).

....but...really, it doesn't matter that much, does it?

 

[birdie_man]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

I always find it quite amusing this persistent phenomenon of people believing/posting centrifugal force being a hoax, to be a deception or whatever. One obvious reason for this is that this opinion is oh so readily formed, being only one click away.

Think about it for a second, people seriously stating that yes, as a golfer, you really feel an outward pulling force but, too bad, it really does not exist. Use some common sense - it actually does sound quite weird and yet some get really upset about it if you tell them that they perhaps need to see a doctor. [8)]

There are actually two different notions associated with centrifugal force, causing all this confusion, depending if we are dealing with inertial frames or not. Since we are not playing golf inside a car going through a curve we can completely dispense with non-inertial frames. []

We are all playing golf in a normal inertial reference frame. Newton’s third law says that forces always come in pairs. With rotational motion there are hence also a pair of associated forces generated - a centripetal force and a centrifugal force. [8D]

They both only exist when there is some rotation around a center and are an inertial type force as they are generated when there is motion. Not only the centripetal force, but equally the centrifugal force is fiercely REAL and is not some trickery played on us poor golfers. [}]

This frequent argument used to dispense with the existence of centrifugal force namely that if we cut the cord of whirling mass it does not go outward radially but rather tangentially, has no value. The centrifugal force immediately does stop to exist the moment we cut the cord as for that matter the centripetal force.

It is very queer that this whole matter has become so dogmatic for some. A good example is ‘world’s leading scientist golf instructor’, ‘Prof’ Jack Kuykendall, who treats those believing in centrifugal force as morons. People like JK don’t realize that they contradict and invalidate Newton’s third law doing so. [:0]

So rest assured when in TGM, or elsewhere, there is mention of centrifugal force don’t feel shy to assume and claim that you are feeling a real force. You are not deceiving yourself. I know I am going against mainstream but on this I do side 100% with Homer. [^]

Cool mandrin.

Siding with Homer.....amazing lol. Didn't know you had it in you. I guess this could show you only care that things are right....and that's a good thing.

...

Funny though.....that I only saw this post after reading all the other junk in this thread...lol. Cool that you answered though.

...

About that bolded point (above)...

I understand about it flying off in a tangent to the circle I think....what would "radially" mean? Could you give an example?

 

[birdie_man]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

Weather permitting, I am doing a bunch of Video Answers tomorrow, this one included.

Sweet.

Looking forward to em dood.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Rain, rain, rain.

 

[Burner]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by Burner

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - Newton, loosely.

The action in this case is the generation of Centripetal Force, a genuine force, and the reaction is the bogus Centrifugal "force" which does not and cannot exist without there firstly being the genuine "force" for it to react to.

Homer knew that there was no Centrifugal "force" but, nevertheless, used the term in its commonly accepted golfing sense for ease of understanding of the masses - who, even in these enlightened times, still fail to come to terms with it being a reaction and not a true force.

Burner, tell me my dear friend, how you come to know exactly what Homer did think about the subject. I am ‘burning’ with desire to be enlightened by your insight into Homer deeper thoughts.

You seem to consider reaction forces to be bogus forces. Could you please do the following simple experiment for me? Punch with your bare fist, with all your might, into the nearest brick wall. [}]

Please tell me if the reaction force, sending you undoubtedly hurriedly to the nearest hospital, was not a true force but simply all bogus. Some seem, even in these enlightened times, fail to come to terms with reality.

Mandrin,

As I am sure you are aware, I cannot claim any "insight into Homer's deeper thoughts". But, anecdotal evidence proffered by those who had the privilege of knowing the man tells of his perpetuation of the term "Centrifugal Force" on the grounds of its existing common usage throughout golfdom.

His apparent reasoning being that it was easier to maintain this reference than disabuse the masses of any notions to the contrary.

As I am also sure you are aware, there are masses of people without your grasp of the finer points mathematical and scientific. Those same masses are the ones to whom I referred in my post and the term was no more derogatory then than it is now.

Reaction forces are bogus forces in that they cannot exist in the absence of an action force. That is a point that cannot be denied no matter how hard I thump a brick wall.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by birdie_man
[br
Cool mandrin.

-----------

I understand about it flying off in a tangent to the circle I think....what would "radially" mean? Could you give an example?

birdie_man, imagine whirling a small mass using an elastic cord. The faster you spin around the center, the more the mass will radially move away from the center.

In a dictionnary one will find: A radial pattern is one that appears to radiate from a point like the spokes from the hub of a wheel.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by Burner

Reaction forces are bogus forces in that they cannot exist in the absence of an action force. That is a point that cannot be denied no matter how hard I thump a brick wall.

Burner, equally then action forces are bogus forces in that they cannot exist in the absence of an reaction force. Look up Newton's ideas on the matter.

Rather superficial and wrong this great emphasis on the classification as bogus. One is simply not without the other. Both are very REAL, none is bogus.

But I realize that some adore chicken/eggs problems - an egg with a chicken in it is a chicken-egg, thus the chicken-egg also came before the chicken.

BTW, if there is no brick wall how would you exert a force on it? It is getting rather like zen - the sound of one hand clapping. Like to discuss perhas the latter?

 

[Burner]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by Burner

Reaction forces are bogus forces in that they cannot exist in the absence of an action force. That is a point that cannot be denied no matter how hard I thump a brick wall.

Burner, equally then action forces are bogus forces in that they cannot exist in the absence of an reaction force. Look up Newton's ideas on the matter.

Rather superficial and wrong this great emphasis on the classification as bogus. One is simply not without the other. Both are very REAL, none is bogus.

But I realize that some adore chicken/eggs problems - an egg with a chicken in it is a chicken-egg, thus the chicken-egg also came before the chicken.

BTW, if there is no brick wall how would you exert a force on it? It is getting rather like zen - the sound of one hand clapping. Like to discuss perhas the latter?

Mandrin,

A "force", by any accepted definition in physics, is a causative event. A condition of the existance of any force is for there to be an equal and opposite, non-causative, reaction to it.

This EXPLANATION might help you to understand the difference between a causative event and the non-causative reaction to it - or a real and fictitious force.

Should you still wish to debate your lost cause, do it with the Author and not me. I would rather talk G.O.L.F.

 

[mandrin]

Burner, it is not so much a matter of causility but rather of the use of the word bogus to refer to centrifugal force. You are not alone, some scientists do deny the existence of a real centrifugal force as is evident from the frequent use of the following collection of adjectives used – fictitious, virtual, inertial, transport, apparent, imaginary and your bogus force.

I always felt a bit alone with my views on centrifugal force and blaming scientists for the misconceptions regarding centrifugal force. However, Ethan Skyler goes very much along my way of thinking as he indeed considers the centrifugal force as a true force and not being a fictitious or bogus force. Moreover, he also criticizes scientists for being at source for the existing confusion.

As to you preferring discussing G.O.L.F., that is fine, but Homer, not only re to golf but also with regard with his basic believe system, had science at its core. Centrifugal force is very much a key element in a golf swing. Efforts to clearly understand CF is something Homer would have encouraged. But you seem to think otherwise.

Burner, thanks for making me aware of PhysicsNewsI Journal. I struggled on my own to get to terms with the apparent confusion about inertial forces such as for instance centrifugal force. It is pleasant to discover Ethan Skyler thinking very much along the same lines.

 

[mandrin]

Chestnuts,

CENTRIFUGAL force is supposed to be an outward pulling force away from the centre of the circle. When you swing a club it feels like it is pulling in an outwards direction. But, this feel is deceiving. There is actually no force that pulls the club away from you in this manner.

CENTRIPETAL force is an inward pulling force. It is a real force and is present in every golf swing. This is a brief explanation. An object in motion moves in a straight line unless there is an external force acting upon it. For an object to move in a circle, there must be a force that pulls it in towards the centre of the circle, otherwise the object would continue in a straight line. This force is Centripetal.

In the golf swing, the rotating arms pull the club towards the centre of the circle. This keeps the clubhead travelling in a circular motion. If the clubhead was to fall off at any point in the swing, then the Centripetal force is removed and the clubhead would continue on a straight line in a tangent to the arc. It would not fly out directly away from the centre of the circle as the myth of centrifugal force would have you believe. (red emphasis by mandrin)

So, Centrifugal force is a myth and not present in the golf swing. Centripetal force is real and is present in every golf swing. Maybe this is what Homer meant when he referred to centrifugal force. The point is that Centripetal Force is present in every swing and there is no Centrifugal force. Therefore the 'swinging vs hitting' concept has no scientific basis.

Hope this clears it up a little.

Vman


vman posted above on iseekgolf.com. It clearly shows why the existence of centrifugal force will be discussed till the end of times. There is a basic fundamental fallacy in the arguments used, so obvious, it is almost despairing.

It is said that the centripetal force disappears when the clubhead detaches from the shaft. (True statement).

Then it is further said that the clubhead then continues on a straight line and that this proofs that there is no centrifugal force. (False statement).

However, not only the centripetal force but equally the centrifugal force immediately disappears when the head detaches.

Since both forces immediately vanish when the head detaches there will be no net force exerted on the head and hence travels on a straight line.

Hence the logic denying centrifugal force is simply without any substance. It is however typical of many arguments about centrifugal force.

It is almost as if centrifugal force is something fundamentally bad with so many amateurs, pseudo scientists and even real scientists so passionately denying its existence.

For a change I am quite comfortable siding with Homer but than Burner tried to convince me that Homer did not really believe in centrifugal force.

It is nevertheless interesting to observe that on this forum there is not much dispute about centrifugal force being a myth. Why would that be?

 

[golfbulldog]

Dear Mandrin,

Always interesting to read your messages. Once again I agree on your physics and your passion for correction! I am submitting your name as an editor for the 8th edition of TGM.

Please can you give me your thoughts on "the endless belt effect" and longitudinal acceleration.

If all of the effort is directed towards the ball why do some players switch planes on the downswing? Tongzilla asked this question some time ago but I have seen no reply. Is it that the force is directed not at the ball but at a point off the plane line ? Apology for hijacking thread but I think it had lost it's original thread albeit if the title " more debate" is still apt!!

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by golfbulldog

Dear Mandrin,

Always interesting to read your messages. Once again I agree on your physics and your passion for correction! I am submitting your name as an editor for the 8th edition of TGM.

Please can you give me your thoughts on "the endless belt effect" and longitudinal acceleration.

If all of the effort is directed towards the ball why do some players switch planes on the downswing? Tongzilla asked this question some time ago but I have seen no reply. Is it that the force is directed not at the ball but at a point off the plane line ? Apology for hijacking thread but I think it had lost it's original thread albeit if the title " more debate" is still apt!!

”Please can you give me your thoughts on "the endless belt effect" and longitudinal acceleration.”

golfbulldog, the ‘endless belt effect’ is somewhat of a paradox when considering that TGM is supposed to be about ‘the geometry of the circle’. The endless belt effect is really about trying to implement maximally a straight line and minimally a circle.

It is more realistic to consider the effect of a reduction in swing radius in the downswing and what is does for the velocity at the periphery. If you swing down and reduce at some point the effective swing radius than the clubhead’s velocity will increase.

One can consider Homers endless belt effect as an extreme case. The belt can be considered as having an infinite radius and hence the endless belt then also involves a change in swing radius.

One can generalize this idea to include also any sudden change in direction. The shaft at the top points away from the target. Deliberately swinging away from the target, very briefly, will induce an accentuated change of direction and results in some additional clubhead velocity.

Longitudinal and radial acceleration are really heavily mingled with what we feel and not really what constitutes reality. It has to do where we put our conscious attention. It is not possible to translate these two very distinct feelings into a mathematical model other than using torque for both cases.

Feel and real are two distinct realities. Both are very valid but often even contradicting. However, for a golfer the ultimate reality is his ‘feel reality’ and not the ‘science reality’.

”If all of the effort is directed towards the ball why do some players switch planes on the downswing”.

A golf swing is quite complex, remaining a very highly individual endeavor. I understand that this believe is the cornerstone of Brian’s teaching method. I don’t feel that I can’t answer your question. There is a complicated mix of efficiency of applied effort versus getting the most effective clubhead trajectory/alignment.

Once you do a bit of modeling you quickly realize how difficult it is to translate elements of a golf swing into terms of a mathematical model. Frequently those who know little are often those who readily claim to have the answers. Your question, and many along the same line, is more the realm of an experienced teacher than for science.

 

[golfbulldog]

Thanks Mandrin,

I think I see your points regarding endless belt, acceleration and "feel-reality".

I agree too that the role that Brian plays as teacher is working out why whatever the student is trying to achieve in his/her head is causing such an awful looking swing in his body. This is the bit that many desribe as "an art" in teaching .

It can be see as an art in that it is difficult to explain why something "looks wrong" or "i think this component will suit you better...". Brian himself alludes to this issue in one of his "video lessons". He comes from a family of artists.

My interest lies in knowing why Brian's brain sees these things more efficiently than others. Obviously it is a skill learnt over years by somebody with a "great eye" for the swing ( but I'm sure that " great eye" for the golf swing is actually "a standard eye with great visually analytical brain"!!. BUT all the brain is doing is measuring and comparing with previous results. There is no metaphysical component to golf instruction, no sixth sense or divine inspiration!This stuff can be written down - it is just difficult.