Thanks yoda. To understand that definition I'd like to pick up on something you said about the stone on the string which I think will probably be best answered by thinkingplus.
Thinkingplus, what yoda says makes sense in a rotating frame of reference. How many of the TGM concepts should be viewed in a non-inertial frame. I think for example of the hinging concepts. Clearly (I hope) any discussion of forces relating to hinging concepts is taking place in a non-inertial frame. What about the concepts of lag and accumulators in respect of a swinger (pardon any mangling of the terminology)? Is that all in a non-inertial frame as well?
Mike, for me, the answer to this question from thinkingplus would put the TGM concepts into an entirely different light so I'll delay putting my proposition pending a response from her. Her response may also lead to a highly technical discussion within a discussion, so hold tight if it gets nerdy.
Mathew, thanks for raising this again. The issue I'm addressing isn't whether centrifugal force is real or ficticious, or how to produce or utilize it in the swing (which your post does really well), but rather that the physics changes depending on the frame of reference, and what yoda and I wrote about whether the centrigual force acts on the stone or the boy are not contradictory at all, but rather merely reflect different frames of reference. This issue may also be the reason why neither of us understood the other earlier on.
Last edited by golf_sceptic : 06-28-2006 at 11:53 PM.
Threaded Mode
