Was Homer Wrong?

[golf_sceptic]

My point wasw Sceptic got his head handed to him on a silver planter and he wasn't man enough to admit it.

There's a bit more too it than that. I thanked yoda because he read what I wrote, stated his position clearly, and in such a way that I was able to consider the issues further. The only people who have tried to hand me my head on a silver platter have used personal attacks and bogus arguments which have no impact on me at all.

It may take one of your own to explain it to you before you believe it, but the laws of physics are different in non-inertial frames of reference (as Mike's quote says). That doesn't discredit Mr Kelley's work. If my interpretation is right it places his work in a different and in many ways more favourable light.

The TGM world can look at this from two ways.

The first is to launch into hyperbole as Daryl has started to do above, make a mockery of the discussion, and then others can join the frenzy by burning the blasphemer at the stake, or handing me my head on a platter.

The second is to understand that the difference is a powerful tool in those interminable centrifugal force discussions if in fact much (or most) of what Mr Kelley wrote was in what a physicist would describe as a non-inertial frames of reference. A physicist who knows their stuff will recognise the power of this position instantly.

This shifts the focus (in the car example above) from "yes there's a force which pushes the passenger forward" v "oh no there's not" v "oh yes there is", to a more measured "it depends on the frame of reference".

It does the same thing to centrifugal force. Instead of "Homer got it wrong" v "Oh no he didn't" v "Oh yes he did", we have a more measured "it depends on the frame of reference. The next time yoda hears somebody explain the rock and the boy the way I did, he can reply "yes, but that is in an inertial frame. If we look from the frame of reference of the rock things are different" and add what ThinkingPlus intimated about the non-inertial frame being more convenient when analysing motion in the golf swing.

So before we have my head on a platter, let's have a considered input (and perhaps a nerdy discussion) from ThinkingPlus.

Then you can have my head on a platter, burn me at the stake, and hang draw and quarter me, skin me alive and any other form of torture.

So, for those who like one line summaries, I'd like to deal with the issue as follows:

"Are the criticisms of the physics in Mr Kelley's work mostly based on the incorrect assumption that his observations are made with respect to an inertial frame of reference?"