[Jeff]

Yoda - you stated-: "Then again, that's why I've created this Golf By Jeff Forum and given you domain. Here you can pick things apart to your heart's content and enjoy relative freedom from my comment. But, it's also why I've put a 'caveat emptor' sign at the front door and stated that your presence here does not imply endorsement of your opinions by LBG."

I have no problem with that "caveat emptor" sign at the front door. That does not insult me. That simply warns people to be very skeptical of my expressed opinions.

Also, when you state-: "Get your facts right, Jeff, and you'll have no beef from me. Otherwise, I suggest getting fitted for a flak jacket."

That doesn't bother me. You, or anybody else, is free to criticise me as much as they want.

However, I resent the following series of statements-: "Yet, you then totally deep-end and restate to your own end basic laws of physics that have been accepted since the time Isaac Newton wrote his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). You put up a lot of good stuff, Jeff, but man, you make it difficult to sit idly by as you reinvent concepts that have served mankind well for centuries. --- To me, that's arrogance."

I am obviously not attempting to reinvent Newtonian laws. I may be misunderstanding them, or misrepresenting them - but I am not arrogantly reinventing them. You know that! Also, if I am so obviously wrong, why didn't you bother to show me my errors by means of an explanatory logical argument?

Going back to the orbiting ball example.

Consider this diagram.



The ball is orbiting on the outer circle at a constant speed. The hand is moving along the inner circle. A taut string connects the hand to the orbiting ball.

At ball position X, the hand is slightly ahead of the ball when it is at position A. That means that the hand is pulling the orbiting ball via the taut string. The source of energy in the system is the hand-in-motion.

If the ball moves to position Y, then two forms of energy are required - i) energy to move the ball at a constant speed; ii) energy to move the ball in a circular direction (represented by the red arrows) and that represents energy to provide centripetal acceleration. Where does the energy come from? There is only one rational answer - it comes from the orbiting hand that moves from position A to position B. The taut string is simply an inert "connection" between the hand and the orbiting ball, and it allows hand motion to provide the energy to the orbiting ball, which then i) moves the orbiting ball at a constant speed and ii) it provides the energy to centripetally accelerate the ball so that it continues to move along a circular path. The string is not the source of any energy, or the source of a centripetal force.

If you disagree with my opinion, and you have the "facts", then please provide a counterargument.

Here is composite photo of Tiger Woods and Jamie Sadlowski.



The yellow dotted line shows the direction Tiger's hands and central clubshaft are pointing at when the club moves in the late downswing to impact. They are in a straight line relationship with a straight line drawn through the clubhead's sweetspot - the red dotted line. That makes biomechanical sense. Look at where Jamie Sadlowski's hands are pointing (yellow dotted line). They are not pointing at the clubhead's sweetspot. How does one explain that fact? Either we are dealing with an additional "force" (or factor) that has caused the clubhead and peripheral end of the clubshaft to be deflected forward (relative to the hand position), or we are dealing with a camera artifact. If you disagree with my opinion, and you know the "facts" then please provide a counterargument.

Jeff.