Golf club orbits the body?

[Virtuoso]

Hmmmm ... looks like you've got me ... unless ... there is no outward pulling centrifugal force to work against, and only an inward pulling centripetal force to apply, and then you can go more erect, recapture your 'floating' CofM (not CofG) while maintaining your 'pivot' .... ya think ...???!!!!!!

So Steve, are you saying that the golf club does not exert a pulling force on the golfer as it is swung?

 

[birly-shirly]

I believe that the latest intelligence is that the golf club doesn't exert a pulling force. Rather, as the shaft "droops" the golfer is bodily lifted up by the golf club handle. Steve will confirm whether I am au courant

 

[SteveT]

So Steve, are you saying that the golf club does not exert a pulling force on the golfer as it is swung?

I'm ambivalent about that, but perhaps wiser heads will be able to clarify their positions on center-fleeing 'centrifugal' force ... like mandrin, of whom I asked to provide a force vector free body diagram showing the direction and magnitude of his 'centrifugal' force .... nothing yet to report ...

 

[Virtuoso]

I believe that the latest intelligence is that the golf club doesn't exert a pulling force. Rather, as the shaft "droops" the golfer is bodily lifted up by the golf club handle. Steve will confirm whether I am au courant

Birly, "I'm picking up your sarcasm...."

quote from the movie: Tommy Boy

 

[SteveT]

I believe that the latest intelligence is that the golf club doesn't exert a pulling force. Rather, as the shaft "droops" the golfer is bodily lifted up by the golf club handle. Steve will confirm whether I am au courant

Not only are you au courant ... you are au fait ... and correct in saying the centrifugal torque that creates the shaft tip droop will attempt to raise the golfer up by the counter-torquing club handle ... very perceptive of you ... I give you a gold star for you smarts ...!!!!

 

[Ringer]

Well then ... if you laid down on the outer wall of the spinning donut space station you could assume a tangential velocity if your friction was enough to glue you to the wall ... then you could crawl along the wall rather than walk and your intrinsic velocity would provide you with a pseudo-gravity .... ya think ..???

As for the golfswing, the only frictional forces you encounter are those between your shoes and the ground, and those forces are a function of the lateral thrust and your normal weight vector ... I think ...

Yup, but lots of problems. If you "jump" at the right angle you would never come back down. DOH! If you jump at all, you have a really good chance of landing on your face. DOH again!

 

[Virtuoso]

I'm ambivalent about that, but perhaps wiser heads will be able to clarify their positions on center-fleeing 'centrifugal' force ... like mandrin, of whom I asked to provide a force vector free body diagram showing the direction and magnitude of his 'centrifugal' force .... nothing yet to report ...

If we use a lateral displacement transducer, which is a mass attached to a spring doo-dad, and attach that to the shaft, and then we measure a large extension of that spring during the swing, and then measure the value of the force necessary to extend the spring that much....then don't we have proof of a center fleeing force acting on the club, and the body as well?

 

[birly-shirly]

I like to think that, were we talking face to face, I would have maintained a straight face.

However, I am involuntarily beaming now from the praise!

 

[Virtuoso]

Yup, but lots of problems. If you "jump" at the right angle you would never come back down. DOH! If you jump at all, you have a really good chance of landing on your face. DOH again!

yes, I understand, if you jump out of the reference frame, you are no longer accelerated.....

but, if you are accelerated, then we can set up a reference frame such that you wouldn't know the difference between that condition and gravity....its all the same.

and by acceleration, I mean a change in speed or direction, or both.

 

[Ringer]

Yes, exactly, just as if a bug was hovering next to me as I swung a club, and then he grabbed onto the club as it swung by. And then the bug would experience an acceleration induced by centrifugal force.

I don't see how this is explains "centrifugal" force. Any object the bug would come into contact would cause him to change his direction of motion. How does this prove centrifugal force?

Obviously, the space station people are not in the reference frame of the space station when they are hovering....but they are when they touch the floor.

They aren't in the frame of reference? How about we just say "there is no force acting on them by the rotating body"? Frame of reference is a made up term to account for something they couldn't account for. Same with the Coriolis effect, and "Absolute space". Newton couldn't explain why certain things happened so he made it up. It was such a good idea no one really challenged it until Einstein.

But Einsteins brilliance was in his theory of special relativity. ALL MOTION is relative to point of view of those observing the motion.

That's really going off on a tangent though (pun intended).

Alright so lets go back to ice skater in the rink.

From YOUR point of view as a spectator, you see a girl spinning. From the point of view of the skater, YOU are spinning around her.

So if both of these statements are true lets start with a stationary skater and spin the rink around her to see what happens to the skaters arms....... nothing.

I have to go, but I'll expand on this later.

 

[Virtuoso]

I don't see how this is explains "centrifugal" force. Any object the bug would come into contact would cause him to change his direction of motion. How does this prove centrifugal force?



They aren't in the frame of reference? How about we just say "there is no force acting on them by the rotating body"? Frame of reference is a made up term to account for something they couldn't account for. Same with the Coriolis effect, and "Absolute space". Newton couldn't explain why certain things happened so he made it up. It was such a good idea no one really challenged it until Einstein.

But Einsteins brilliance was in his theory of special relativity. ALL MOTION is relative to point of view of those observing the motion.

That's really going off on a tangent though (pun intended).

Alright so lets go back to ice skater in the rink.

From YOUR point of view as a spectator, you see a girl spinning. From the point of view of the skater, YOU are spinning around her.

So if both of these statements are true lets start with a stationary skater and spin the rink around her to see what happens to the skaters arms....... nothing.

I have to go, but I'll expand on this later.

I believe nothing happens to the arms of the stationary skater because "there is no force acting on them by the rotating body."

In other words, she is not being accelerated by the spinning ice rink.

 

[Ringer]

yes, I understand, if you jump out of the reference frame, you are no longer accelerated.....

but, if you are accelerated, then we can set up a reference frame such that you wouldn't know the difference between that condition and gravity....its all the same.

and by acceleration, I mean a change in speed or direction, or both.

I understand this, but it still does not constitute a "Push" against the wall. In fact the wall (or floor) is pushing on you and keeping you inside of the rotating frame of reference.

It's just as devious as to say when you accelerate your car, you are pushing against the seat. Actually you aren't, the car is pushing against you since it is the only one creating an acceleration.

Seriously man, they've been arguing this stuff for literally centuries. There's a reason everyone calls it a "fictitious" force now.

 

[birly-shirly]

I understand this, but it still does not constitute a "Push" against the wall. In fact the wall (or floor) is pushing on you and keeping you inside of the rotating frame of reference.

It's just as devious as to say when you accelerate your car, you are pushing against the seat. Actually you aren't, the car is pushing against you since it is the only one creating an acceleration.

Seriously man, they've been arguing this stuff for literally centuries. There's a reason everyone calls it a "fictitious" force now.

Yes, but if your inertia wasn't "pushing" against the car seat, the car could accelerate faster.
So your inertia is changing the speed of the car.
Which is a (negative) acceleration.
Which requires a force.

that isn't devious, is it?

even by the physics that you posted on the other thread, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that "everyone calls it a fictitious force now". Mandrin certainly doesn't! And I thought the material you posted was really saying that "fictitious" has quite a technical meaning in terms of solving equations of motion. Depending on the context and purpose, there were situations in which centrifugal force would be treated as "real".

 

[Virtuoso]

I understand this, but it still does not constitute a "Push" against the wall. In fact the wall (or floor) is pushing on you and keeping you inside of the rotating frame of reference.

It's just as devious as to say when you accelerate your car, you are pushing against the seat. Actually you aren't, the car is pushing against you since it is the only one creating an acceleration.

Seriously man, they've been arguing this stuff for literally centuries. There's a reason everyone calls it a "fictitious" force now.

Ringer, I think you and i agree more than we disagree, in that I readily acknowledge that it's more accurate to say that in a clothes dryer, the clothes are being pulled out of the water by constantly being forced to make a left turn and that all the water is doing is going "straight". And that a mysterious "centrifugal force" is not pulling the water "outward."

But, it's not the right course to latch on to the "fictitious" force description. It's considered a fictitious force in the sense that it's not being applied by any agent within the system, but that's not the same thing as saying that the clubhead wanting to travel in a straight line doesn't help the left wrist unhinge in the downswing.

 

[ej20]

The reactive centrifugal force is not fictitious.It doesn't even contradict Newton's laws.For every action there is a reaction.Where there is centripetal force,there must be centrifugal force.

If you were inside the clubhead and you did not know what was going on outside,every measurement you make with any instrument available will show an outward seeking force.You can argue all you like about theory,but in the real world,if it is measureable,then it is real.

 

[SteveT]

The reactive centrifugal force is not fictitious.It doesn't even contradict Newton's laws.For every action there is a reaction.Where there is centripetal force,there must be centrifugal force.

If you were inside the clubhead and you did not know what was going on outside,every measurement you make with any instrument available will show an outward seeking force.You can argue all you like about theory,but in the real world,if it is measureable,then it is real.

See ... this is what happens when ignorance abounds and Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrectly applied to confirm somebody's fallacious pov.

There is no centrifugal force shown in Newton's definition of circular motion .. just a 'center-seeking' centripetal force that accelerates the rotating mass to the center continuously ... and the rotating mass only wants to escape on a tangential and linear path away from the restraining centripetal force.

The centripetal force is not counteracted by a equal and opposite (centrifugal) force, because the rotating system is one body so there is nothing that is 'equal and opposite' ... it's in a constant state of acceleration.

Understood ..??!!!! Now if mandrin happens to read my PM asking him to provide us with a free-body diagram showing us his 'centrifugal' force vector ... that will clear the air on this fine forum provided for us by the kindly BManz ... udamanz ...!!!!

 

[jonnygrouville]

Orbiting! About time Kepler's laws of planetary motion showed up. So the clubhead is like the Earth... that would make the sweetspot like the moon...

Sorry. But there is a point there as both the planets and the clubhead are subject to forces that stop them flying off into space. I'm with Steve T here - if these forces were instantaneously removed, wouldn't the mass just fly off in a straight line? Any centrifugal force would suggest that it would keep making a circular path and I don't get that.

 

[Deadly_Scope]

Brian mentioned a discovery from the anti-summit that the pivot center could be located outside of the body.

There is no pivot center.

 

[ej20]

See ... this is what happens when ignorance abounds and Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrectly applied to confirm somebody's fallacious pov.

There is no centrifugal force shown in Newton's definition of circular motion .. just a 'center-seeking' centripetal force that accelerates the rotating mass to the center continuously ... and the rotating mass only wants to escape on a tangential and linear path away from the restraining centripetal force.

The centripetal force is not counteracted by a equal and opposite (centrifugal) force, because the rotating system is one body so there is nothing that is 'equal and opposite' ... it's in a constant state of acceleration.

Understood ..??!!!! Now if mandrin happens to read my PM asking him to provide us with a free-body diagram showing us his 'centrifugal' force vector ... that will clear the air on this fine forum provided for us by the kindly BManz ... udamanz ...!!!!

I'll let Mandrin take over from here.Science is not my strong point...at least not PHD Physics level.

All I know is science has yet to explain a lot of things.That doesn't mean they don't exist.Scientists have had to theorise about the existence of dark matter and dark energy to fit it into the Big Bang theory.Newton and Eintein is not the last word in science.

 

[ej20]

Orbiting! About time Kepler's laws of planetary motion showed up. So the clubhead is like the Earth... that would make the sweetspot like the moon...

Sorry. But there is a point there as both the planets and the clubhead are subject to forces that stop them flying off into space. I'm with Steve T here - if these forces were instantaneously removed, wouldn't the mass just fly off in a straight line? Any centrifugal force would suggest that it would keep making a circular path and I don't get that.

Yes,it would fly off in a straight line on a tangent because once there is no centripetal force,then at the same time centrifugal force cease to exist.

Newton has not explained eveything.He cannot explain gravity which is also considered a fictitious force.If you jump off a building no force acts on you but you will still be accelerated towards the ground and when you hit the ground,you better hope gravity is not a real force either.