Assume a tethered ball in orbit around an axis. Does the tether (and its tension) serve as the centripetal force of that action? If not, what does? If so, how does that differ from the concept of the clubhead tethered to its center (left shoulder) by the left arm and clubshaft?
Originally Posted by Jeff
Yoda - that's a very good question.
Consider this diagram - from Wikipedia.
Imagine a ball tethered to the center via a piece of string and consider the ball in motion. Ignore how the ball got into motion. In other words, ignore the forces that provide energy to keep the ball in constant motion. While the ball is in a state of constant circular motion, the centripetal force keeping the ball moving along a circular path passes through the taut string that tethers the ball to the center point of string attachment.
A good analogy would be looking at the club's behaviour after release of PA#2. At that point, no further energy is inputted into the system and the club is freewheeling in space. If the clubhead follows a circular path (like the ball on a string) then there must be a centripetal force passing through the clubshaft and straight left arm to the fulcrum point (left shoulder socket).
However, consider the clubhead's movement before release. If the clubhead follows a circular path, and the clubhead cannot generate energy independently within itself, then it must be responding to energy derived from the golfer's hand movements in space. The same applies to the orbiting ball. If there is no independent energy source within the orbiting ball, then "something" must be supplying the energy to make the ball keep on moving around in a circle. The energy source is the movement of the index finger and thumb holding the end of the string. To make the orbiting ball keep on moving endlessly in a circle, the hand motion must have a twirling-circular quality where the movement of the hand in its inner circle arc of rotation travels at roughly the same rpm (but different surface speed) than the orbiting ball. If the orbiting hand (in its inner circle rotational motion) abruptly slows down, or abruptly speeds up, or moves in a non-circular manner, then it will immediately disrupt the circular motion of the orbiting ball. In other words, to keep the tethering string taut and to allow the tethering string to apply a constant/unwavering centripetal force directed at the center of the circle of the orbiting ball (and orbiting hand), the hand must keep on moving in a circular fashion. That's the analogy I use for the golf swing - when I state that the hand arc motion must have a circular quality. If the hand arc's motion was constantly along a straight line (and in no sense circular) then how could the clubshaft and clubhead ever travel in a circular arc?
Jeff,
First, you compliment my "very good question" . . . [Thank you.]
Then, it's off to Wikipedia and -- -- all those words.
Finally, comes the realization that you made absolutely no attempt to answer even one of my three questions!
Amazing.
Truly amazing.
Is it any wonder readers often find your posts maddening?
Yoda - I have been deciding whether to respond to your last post. Your tone is demeaning and ill-conducive to an ongoing debate. Why can't you simply state your disagreements without pontificatiing, and implying that you are the final arbiter of the "truth"?
I don't think that you understand my perspective.
I will rephrase it.
Jeff.
Jeff
In my opinion, Lynn is the truth, especially on HIS OWN WEBSITE!!! You play this game with everyone and I am quite tired of it. When you ask questions for "knowlege" then continuously debate the answers you come off as a complete A___! Enough is enough!
I'm his trusty companion Pancho sanchez who tried his darnedest to keep him from tilting at windmills That is until I got expelled from that "academy" for failing to "grovel".
You wrote-: "In my opinion, Lynn is the truth, especially on HIS OWN WEBSITE!!!"
You are entitled to your opinion. However the end of your statement was presumably capitalised for emphasis and it presumably emphasizes your strong opinion that Lynn's opinions represent the "truth" - because it is his website.
You wrote-: "In my opinion, Lynn is the truth, especially on HIS OWN WEBSITE!!!"
You are entitled to your opinion. However the end of your statement was presumably capitalised for emphasis and it presumably emphasizes your strong opinion that Lynn's opinions represent the "truth" - because it is his website.
Way back when, a Wall-Streeter named Benjamin Graham wrote a book, The Intelligent Investor.Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., and now the second richest man in the world, has called it the greatest investment book ever written. In that book, Mr. Graham makes the point that one is right because his facts are right, not because of his opinions.
That's the way I've run this railroad for the past four years and some 7,000 personal posts. My record speaks for itself . . . as does yours.
Get your facts right, Jeff, and you'll have no beef from me.
Otherwise, I suggest getting fitted for a flak jacket.
Hey I've got that book! (The intelligent Investor) ... Its first addition excellent shape including dust cover. I'll part with it for a cool $1000 any takers? (Look around thats a steal)
Hang in there Jeff... you ain't all wet.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Way back when, a Wall-Streeter named Benjamin Graham wrote a book, The Intelligent Investor.Warren Buffett, President and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., and now the second richest man in the world, has called it the greatest investment book ever written. In that book, Mr. Graham makes the point that one is right because his facts are right, not because of his opinions.
That's the way I've run this railroad for the past four years and some 7,000 personal posts.
Get your facts right, Jeff, and you'll have no beef from me.
Otherwise, I suggest getting fitted for a flak jacket.
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.
-- all those words.
Linear Mode
