Instead of calling me clueless, why don't you use your superior knowledge to point out the errors in my understanding of the term "centripetal force". There are many other forum members who could benefit if you share your knowledge in a constructive fashion - by demonstrating my faulty reasoning.
Consider my understanding of the term "centripetal force".
In a previous post (#264) I wrote the following-: "Imagine that there a million points on that hypothetical circle's circumference, and imagine that an orbiting object (traveling at a constant finite speed) has to move from from one point on the circumference to the next point on the circumference to the next point on the circumference -- and that it has to complete this process one million times to complete one orbit. In each of those movements (from one point to the next point), the orbiting object needs a tangential force to move it at its constant "finite" speed and a centripetal force to keep it moving on the circular path."
Now, consider the following diagram.
I mentioned that one could mentally picture that there a million time-points that the orbiting object will pass through on its circular orbit around one circumference of the circle in one second.
Now, imagine that the orbiting object is at point A. Then, one millionth of a second later the object is at point C.
What forces are in play to move the orbiting object from point A to point C, and do those forces involve the use of energy?
I believe that two forces are in play. The first force is a tangential force that moves the object in a straight line direction with enough energy to keep the object traveling at the same speed. In one millionth of a second, if that tangential force was operant, and no centripetal force was present, then the object should end up at point B (having traveled in a straight line at a 90 degree angle to the circumference of the circle).
If the orbiting object ends up at point C, then we can reasonably conclude that a centripetal force is present. What did that centripetal force actually do? I think that the centripetal force applied centripetal acceleration that moved the orbiting object more inwards (towards the center of the circle) so that it ends up at point C instead of point B. The centripetal force, in theory, should direct the orbiting object to the center of the circle. However, the amount of energy that the centripetal force has is only sufficient to bend the path of straight line movement of the orbiting object enough to get it to point C in one millionth of a second - in other words, the centripetal force has enough energy to keep the orbiting object traveling on a constant circular path. The centripetal force when operant is manifesting its force (energy) and it is therefore doing work to get the orbiting object to end up at point C instead of point B.
Consider my understanding of the term "centripetal force".
In a previous post (#264) I wrote the following-: "Imagine that there a million points on that hypothetical circle's circumference, and imagine that an orbiting object (traveling at a constant finite speed) has to move from from one point on the circumference to the next point on the circumference to the next point on the circumference -- and that it has to complete this process one million times to complete one orbit. In each of those movements (from one point to the next point), the orbiting object needs a tangential force to move it at its constant "finite" speed and a centripetal force to keep it moving on the circular path."
Now, consider the following diagram.
I mentioned that one could mentally picture that there a million time-points that the orbiting object will pass through on its circular orbit around one circumference of the circle in one second.
Now, imagine that the orbiting object is at point A. Then, one millionth of a second later the object is at point C.
What forces are in play to move the orbiting object from point A to point C, and do those forces involve the use of energy?
I believe that two forces are in play. The first force is a tangential force that moves the object in a straight line direction with enough energy to keep the object traveling at the same speed. In one millionth of a second, if that tangential force was operant, and no centripetal force was present, then the object should end up at point B (having traveled in a straight line at a 90 degree angle to the circumference of the circle).
If the orbiting object ends up at point C, then we can reasonably conclude that a centripetal force is present. What did that centripetal force actually do? I think that the centripetal force applied centripetal acceleration that moved the orbiting object more inwards (towards the center of the circle) so that it ends up at point C instead of point B. The centripetal force, in theory, should direct the orbiting to the center of the circle. However, the amount of energy that the centripetal force has is only sufficient to bend the path of straight line movement of the orbiting object enough to get it to point C in one millionth of a second - in other words, the centripetal force has enough energy to keep the orbiting object traveling on a constant circular path. The centripetal force when operant is manifesting its force (energy) and it is therefore doing work to get the orbiting object to end up at point C instead of point B.
Please explain the errors in my reasoning?
Jeff,
In your opinion -- just asking -- does your explanation above differ from the basic laws Sir Isaac Newton expressed in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)?
hehehehe..... hope I don't offend anyone who has posted within the last 28 pages, but do any of you guys physically go to a golf course, walk up to the counter, pay a green fee and tee it up? If you do can you keep in double-digits?
I get plenty of flak from my buddies who think I'm too analytical/mechanical in regards to the swing. If they only knew what else is out there!!
Thanks again to Yoda for building a "quarantine wing" of the forum!!
I get plenty of flak from my buddies who think I'm too analytical/mechanical in regards to the swing. If they only knew what else is out there!!
Thanks again to Yoda for building a "quarantine wing" of the forum!!
Agreed, CG.
I was reading the most recent exchanges on Christmas Eve and thought to myself . . .
In the history of CyberGolf, is there any precedent for this?
Probably . . .
But I haven't read it!
P.S. There definitely is new ground being plowed here. No doubt, a large portion of the text is dross. At the same time, what remains may be gold. The problem is, first, discerning between the two and, second, applying it to the Golf Stroke. Meanwhile, my hat is off to all those who participate.
Yoda - you asked-: "In your opinion -- just asking -- does your explanation above differ from the basic laws Sir Isaac Newton expressed in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)?: "
I have not read Newton's work so I do not know whether my explanation differs from the basic laws expressed by Newton in his work "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)".
However, I do not think that my explanation differs from the explanations offered in these links that nmgolfer recommended - relating to the topic of Newtonian laws regarding forces and motion.
Instead of calling me clueless, why don't you use your superior knowledge to point out the errors in my understanding of the term "centripetal force". There are many other forum members who could benefit if you share your knowledge in a constructive fashion - by demonstrating my faulty reasoning.
Consider my understanding of the term "centripetal force".
In a previous post (#264) I wrote the following-: "Imagine that there a million points on that hypothetical circle's circumference, and imagine that an orbiting object (traveling at a constant finite speed) has to move from from one point on the circumference to the next point on the circumference to the next point on the circumference -- and that it has to complete this process one million times to complete one orbit. In each of those movements (from one point to the next point), the orbiting object needs a tangential force to move it at its constant "finite" speed and a centripetal force to keep it moving on the circular path."
Now, consider the following diagram.
I mentioned that one could mentally picture that there a million time-points that the orbiting object will pass through on its circular orbit around one circumference of the circle in one second.
Now, imagine that the orbiting object is at point A. Then, one millionth of a second later the object is at point C.
What forces are in play to move the orbiting object from point A to point C, and do those forces involve the use of energy?
I believe that two forces are in play. The first force is a tangential force that moves the object in a straight line direction with enough energy to keep the object traveling at the same speed. In one millionth of a second, if that tangential force was operant, and no centripetal force was present, then the object should end up at point B (having traveled in a straight line at a 90 degree angle to the circumference of the circle).
If the orbiting object ends up at point C, then we can reasonably conclude that a centripetal force is present. What did that centripetal force actually do? I think that the centripetal force applied centripetal acceleration that moved the orbiting object more inwards (towards the center of the circle) so that it ends up at point C instead of point B. The centripetal force, in theory, should direct the orbiting object to the center of the circle. However, the amount of energy that the centripetal force has is only sufficient to bend the path of straight line movement of the orbiting object enough to get it to point C in one millionth of a second - in other words, the centripetal force has enough energy to keep the orbiting object traveling on a constant circular path. The centripetal force when operant is manifesting its force (energy) and it is therefore doing work to get the orbiting object to end up at point C instead of point B.
Please explain the errors in my reasoning?
Thanks,
Jeff.
p.s. I did read all those links.
Jeff
i am no physics buff but what about if its the other way around..i.e if there is no tangential force it would end up at point B..nice drawing btw
I mentioned that one could mentally picture that there a million time-points that the orbiting object will pass through on its circular orbit around one circumference of the circle in one second.
Now, imagine that the orbiting object is at point A. Then, one millionth of a second later the object is at point C.
What forces are in play to move the orbiting object from point A to point C, and do those forces involve the use of energy?
Jeff,
You've already drawn two vectors in your figure, so let's just start by saying that a vector is a directed size. In our case it will either be a directed force or a directed velocity.
If the object is already moving in a circle you don't need the B force vector to move it from A to C. You only need a centripetal force from A to Origo to do that. So your diagram need an invard pointing vector to be complete. Origo is the center of the circle, btw.
The centripetal force simply adjust the direction a little all the time, so the object is forced to move in a circle instead of going straight ahead. It can be a string attached to a pole or it could be a physical path that forces the object to circulate. As long as there's no friction loss, air drag or other resistance that consumes energy, the object will spin forever.
The centripetal force doesn't do any work in a Newtonian sense. It doesn't increase the speed. It doesn't overcome any resistive loss if any of such is present. It only changes the direction of the mass movement.
If you apply a B force vector to the system the speed of the moving object will be increased. But only to the the extent that the force vector points in the same direction as the object is moving. It's the B forces that produces the swing speed.
Thank you, BerntR. You know a whole lot more physics than I do, and I appreciate your contributions. My efforts here hang on my Georgia Tech education (101/2/3 - 201/2/3 long since forgotten ) plus whatever Homer Kelley and his book taught me as it relates to the Golf Stroke.
Jeff,
Forgive the interrupt, but . . .
Could we please take a moment and revisit this idea -- which, either in this thread or another (can't remember) -- started this whole magnificent interchange . . .
In the Golf Stroke, does the Left Arm and Clubshaft function as the "string" (Centripetal Force) keeping the Sweetspot in orbit around its Left Shoulder Center?
) plus whatever Homer Kelley and his book taught me as it relates to the Golf Stroke. 
Hybrid Mode
