Question for mandrin
- Thread starter Ringer
- Start date
- Status
mandrin
New
Ringer,
The phrase - "This Thrust may be Muscular Force and/or Centrifugal Force." - as such, is not correct.
The implication of “or” is definitely not correct and it should be deleted. It is not either one or the other, as always both exist together.
A more concise approach is to distinguish between action and reaction - muscular efforts being action and centrifugal force being reaction.
Centrifugal force only comes to exist as an inertial reaction force due to muscular contractions of various kinds hence the “or “ is not correct.
I wouldn't encourage TGM as a guide for applying science to golf as is done on another forum where he is taken as the absolute golf science reference and thus hinder progress.
mandrin
New
Ringer,
Let me just say that HK should have just published TGM without including the science. However it is such an extraordinary intricate network of forward and backward references that it can’t be edited appropriately. It should be left as such. Considering the context it still remains a surprising endeavor and a great contribution to golf knowledge.
Amen Corner
New
I have a question.
The book was given to MIT by G. Wiren with the task to find what was wrong/incorrect with it.
They did return it back with the comment that there was NOTHING scientifycally incorrect with Homers findings.
And then I read all your good posts and get confused.....
Did MIT not get the job done....?
I have heard Homer say that his findings may not be exakt/precise but well within the range to get approved.( I dont recall his exact words on this, hope you understand what I mean)
birdie_man
New
But was it? (studied by MIT)
No it wasn't .I understand that both are present -I was merely trying to modify slightly to emphasize the predominant force.
mandrin
New
Ringer,
You really wrote - not a mistake, being absent minded – that centrifugal force does not exist at all?
For the records and to make darned sure could you please post it just once more, for all to see.
So much for the great all knowing Ringer.
From a website which has been cited here SEVERAL times..
http://www.scigolf.com/scigolf/myths/myth2.htm
And of course anyone that wants to can just type "centrifugal fictitious force" and see allllll the scientific evidence. But I guess I'm the crazy one.
http://www.scigolf.com/scigolf/myths/myth2.htm
And of course anyone that wants to can just type "centrifugal fictitious force" and see allllll the scientific evidence. But I guess I'm the crazy one.
mandrin
New
Ringer,
I am fully aware that the WEB is flooded with crazy information about inertial forces, such as centrifugal forces.
Too bad there is all this misinformation out there which many will swallow, as is, without any critical thought whatsoever.
But what is really hilarious is that of all people you had to come up with that very funny character Jack Kuykendall.
You really made my day.
Well, I only took enough physics in pursuit of my engineering degree to be dangerous, but I always thought of centrifugal force as the reactionary force to centripetal. It sure seams real enough to me, and in fact my lack of ability to withstand the centrifugal force of the club on a rainy day caused me to stand on the tee empty-handed watching my driver land in a nearby tree.
Jay
Jay
This episode about MIT finding no fault with Homer's work sounds apocryphal. What evidence do you have to support the position that MIT actually reviewed the work? And given the fact that most who try to read the book cannot make heads or tails out of it without help from an AI, what makes you think that anyone at MIT actually understood what they were supposed to be reviewing?
- Status