quote:Originally posted by TGMfan
mandrin,
I'd be happy to provide proof of at least one of Mr. Kelley's assertions, provided that we can agree on which one. The one that I think would most clearly show the difference between Mr. Kelley's machine and your model is stated in 2-P:
"The true Angular Speed (RPM) of the Clubhead is identical to that of the Hands due to the mandatory Flat Left Wrist".
Let's restrict our test to the Release Interval, say from the position on the downstroke where the clubshaft is horizontal to the position where both arms are straight. Mr. Kelley said that the hands and clubhead would be moving through this interval at the same angular rate - due to the Flat Left Wrist; you (or, at least, your model) said that the clubhead should be traveling faster along its circle than the hands along theirs - due to the flow of energy from the heavier inner segment to the lighter outer one. In either case the clubhead would be traveling faster than the hands (MPH) because it's farther from the swing center; in the case of your model it would also be traveling faster around its circle (RPM).
Have I stated the two positions accurately, and would you agree that it's an interesting contradiction to discuss?
As for your second point, there's also a difference between your model and Mr. Kelley's machine with respect to torque. In your model you stated that you're applying a constant torque, which clearly isn't possible in a closed system. Mr. Kelley's Swinging procedure (and surely we're talking about Swinging when Centrifugal Force is so important) assumes an initial torque at the beginning of the downstroke (Yoda's spin, spin, spin of the shoulders) and then just hanging on to let CF do its thing. Once the torque's been applied, the hanging on part is, as far as I can tell, a closed system.
A mathematical model, as used in science, is the simplest way possible to represent the essential elements of a complex problem so to be able to study it conveniently. A simple 2 or 3 lever model can’t be used for telling in detail what to do with all the various body parts, but it allows to understand the basic underlying mechanisms at work.
My model is based on mathematics. The statements and graphs can be readily verified by anyone who is so inclined. Kelley makes statements without either calculations or measurements.
Therefore any statement you might make, I am going to ask, where is the scientific formulation or alternatively where is the description of the experimental research work. Apples with apples not oranges.
Homer has like so many enthusiastic amateurs hit balls into a net and patiently transferred his feelings into a complex catalog of indeed very interesting information. However, this isn’t science.
It is so silly the attitude on this forum. Many, if not most, show total indifference to science in golf, but immediately show raw anger when this same ‘useless science stuff’ is said to be inadequate in Homer’s work.
TGMfan, this is really fascinating to me, this duality. Can you explain it to me? Is it perhaps that you like being a member of an elite group, possessing the ultimate truth, expressed in a special language?
Why is it that not a single person on this forum dares to even simply admit that Homer could possibly be wrong with his scientific ideas, notwithstanding being a golf genius with regard to instruction?
Science has permeated many sports. Why is it that in golf people are so backwards? They readily buy the latest high tech equipment but resist science for the golf swing itself. Why so different from the rest of humanity?
mandrin
