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.
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 . . . ".
Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate your response.
Question: Do you feel your answer differs from a conventional understanding of Sir Isaac's work (as explained in your posted links or otherwise)? From your post, apparently not.
This is not a trick question. I only want to know if you feel you are illustrating his principles with your models (and explaining them in your own words) -- nothing wrong with that and a lot to be commended -- or if you are 'plowing new ground'.
No. I am not plowing new ground. I am simply using words, and pictorial examples, to explain relevant Newtoniain laws that pertain to this issue of "centripetal acceleration" (as I understand those laws).
Although, nmgolfer labels me "clueless", I believe that all my posts are fully compatible with the Newtonian laws expressed in all those links.
That's why I am very comfortable with the idea of having him dissect my opinions as thoroughly as possible. It is interesting that nmgolfer is full of bluster about my "cluelessness", but doesn't offer a detailed argument explaining why my many posted explanations are inaccurate and incompatible with Newtonian laws.
I am not plowing new ground. I am simply using words, and pictorial examples, to explain relevant Newtoniain laws that pertain to this issue of "centripetal acceleration" (as I understand those laws).
Great, Jeff. I thought that was your intent. Thanks!
Hybrid Mode
