Jacobs 3D

[Millbrook]

> @AMGolfPro said:

> FD has some excellent content in the below thread.

>

> http://advancedballstriking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=211&t=20

 

and here;

http://advancedballstriking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4654&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=frozen+divot&start=200

Posted before I saw TS had posted a link - would have deleted this post but can't figure out how to.

[cav5]

I credit FD getting me from a 3hcp (where I was for 5 years) to +1 in 4 months. How? I read every post he made on the internet.

[AMGolfPro]

Lassie

 

The fact that the model is ‘wrong’ is, in and of itself, not the issue. ALL models are wrong. Alpha Man does not comprehend that Jacobs/Nesbit model is inherently wrong - as are ALL models. Alpha Man fails to recognize the deficiencies of the Jacobs 3D model are clear and present.

 

Alpha Man keeps saying, ‘prove the model is wrong.’ THE MODEL IS INHERENTLY WRONG, AS ARE ALL MODELS!!!! FD’s questions are more rhetorical than anything else. At least initially, a rather polite way of trying to raise and discuss the deficiencies of Jacobs 3D.

 

So, the model is wrong. No problem. The question thus becomes, is the model useful? The answer is no. Why? Jacobs/Nesbit are saying most golfers are torquing the club in 3D. Yeah, we already know this to be the case. Who cares?

 

Actually, I am giving them too much credit by stating the above, as that suggests they understand the physics of the golf swing motion, which they do not. They are trying to figure out (induce) the physics. Not necessary, because there is no new physics to discover or understand.

 

Jacobs/Nesbit say golfers are torquing the club and they have a system to measure the torques in 3D. So what? First, their measurements are wrong. Second, we already know that, so - right or wrong - who cares what the ‘measurements’ are. . . in 2D, 3D or whatever 'D' you care to consider?!

 

JACOBS TELLS US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE DO NOT ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THE GOLF SWING MOTION!

[Deadaimz]

Alphaman no one knows anything about Jacob's 3d please tell us about it. I personally would love to learn more about it and what it is about.

[Deadaimz]

Ok good to know I'll look for the group and give my real name lol.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Fade said:

> > @AMGolfPro said:

> > _**All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about**_.

> >

> > And that’s FD fault? It’s the language of the field. Do you want him to make up new physics terms for you? If you want to approach the golf swing from a physics perspective, then best to familiarize yourself with physics. Based on your self-stated lack of understanding, I would not recommend such approach.

> Which branch of physics (to treat the golf swing with) is "the field"?

 

The branch of physics pertinent to the golf swing is known as either Mechanics or Dynamics (when I was in school). It is Newtonian physics, i.e., based on Newton's classical theory of motion.

[Fade]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @Fade said:

> > > @AMGolfPro said:

> > > _**All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about**_.

> > >

> > > And that’s FD fault? It’s the language of the field. Do you want him to make up new physics terms for you? If you want to approach the golf swing from a physics perspective, then best to familiarize yourself with physics. Based on your self-stated lack of understanding, I would not recommend such approach.

> > Which branch of physics (to treat the golf swing with) is "the field"?

>

> The branch of physics pertinent to the golf swing is known as either Mechanics or Dynamics (when I was in school). It is Newtonian physics, i.e., based on Newton's classical theory of motion.

 

That is what I would have thought. Maybe I day-dreamed through the lectures on extinguishing point methods and orbital quenching, and somehow missed it in the textbooks as well?

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Fade said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @Fade said:

> > > > @AMGolfPro said:

> > > > _**All these fancy sounding physics terms being tossed around by FD, and I have no clue what he's talking about**_.

> > > >

> > > > And that’s FD fault? It’s the language of the field. Do you want him to make up new physics terms for you? If you want to approach the golf swing from a physics perspective, then best to familiarize yourself with physics. Based on your self-stated lack of understanding, I would not recommend such approach.

> > > Which branch of physics (to treat the golf swing with) is "the field"?

> >

> > The branch of physics pertinent to the golf swing is known as either Mechanics or Dynamics (when I was in school). It is Newtonian physics, i.e., based on Newton's classical theory of motion.

>

> That is what I would have thought. Maybe I day-dreamed through the lectures on extinguishing point methods and orbital quenching, and somehow missed it in the textbooks as well?

 

I don't think you had a day dreaming problem. The nomenclature in this thread is either very odd or a fairly recent change in how this area of physics is discussed. The orbital quenching is a quantum mechanics reference (per a quick internet search). Possibly similar mathematics, but otherwise not relevant as far as I can tell.

[Fade]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> I’ll go out on a limb here and say that measuring the frequency of a single photon light, which you cannot directly do and need to find various points, gives you enough skill to measure a golf swing and find what Newtonain physics misses.

Another poorly phrased riddle. Thanks a lot.

[AMGolfPro]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Why is that a riddle?

 

Because measuring the frequency of single photon light was not covered in college level physics or readily accessed through the Google search engine.

 

[Fade]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> There are three things we can measure.

> 1. What is observable

> 2. What is not observable

> 3. What happens when they interact, which is always.

>

> The observable is the easiest. But the interaction is always there. That’s the gap, or what is missing from Newtonian Physics.

>

> I hope that doesn’t sound like a riddle, I can’t think of another way to say it.

 

Your abstract posts would be far more readable if you spelled out the link to the topic at hand, i.e. modeling the golf swing.

Thank you for the effort anyway. I am off pondering how we can measure things that are not observable. (2)

[Ty_Webb]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> I’ll go out on a limb here and say that measuring the frequency of a single photon light, which you cannot directly do and need to find various points, gives you enough skill to measure a golf swing and find what Newtonain physics misses.

 

What on earth does measuring the frequency of a single photon have to do with the golf swing? Is that going to help me hit it further or straighter? Can you explain for a layperson the relevance of anything you’re saying to the golf swing?

 

I was under the impression that Newtonian physics explained everything except things that are either too small to see or moving at relativistic speeds. Neither of which is remotely true of golf or the golf swing. Am I wrong? What aspect of the game of golf is missed by Newtonian physics?

[AMGolfPro]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Fade, I hope you do ponder measuring what is not observable.

> Ty Webb, it relates to everything, let alone a golf swing. It’s how and why power happens. You’ll notice when you read things done in golf science by various engineers, etc, that their conclusions do not line up. Why not?

>

> First they impose where the gap is, the gap I mention above. No different than philosophers imposing a faith when saying they are using logic and reason.

> Second, things observable are misleading. That’s why I mention Coriolis, it fools people.

>

> There are points and paths in what is observable that are interacting with points and paths that are not observable.

>

> I’ll use a simple physical movement as an example and also give away a secret...?

>

> Have you ever bench pressed? I bet you pushed the bar up. Just straight up. You gave away strength doing that. If you set you feet and body a certain way and pressure correctly, like having the arms push up and out, like you are trying to split the bar in two outwards, you’ll lift more weight. The feet need to load the glutes and if your weight is correct the bench will aid you in the shoulder blade region to drive it up as well. The bench itself helps because it itself is loaded. Use it.

>

> If you get all that correct, it’s 20-30lbs more in your lift.

> Now an engineer can see that (maybe) and put their reasoning behind it, finding it is different.

>

> It could take a certain field years to find it, a lifter may intuitively find it, or if you know how power and matter works, it’s right in front of you. Like a superimposed picture on top of another.

> That’s why my posts seem Like a riddle. I am talking about other things, as well.

 

Awesome!

[Fade]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Fade, I hope you do ponder measuring what is not observable.

I am not getting anywhere with it so far, I struggle to make the distinction between measurable and observable.

[AFcelica]

> @Fade said:

> > @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > Fade, I hope you do ponder measuring what is not observable.

> I am not getting anywhere with it so far, I struggle to make the distinction between measurable and observable.

 

Would something like a 4 dimensional object fit? I know they can be "proven" mathematically but we only see in 3 dimensions

[AMGolfPro]

For purposes of applicability to the golf swing, a reasonable simplification of what FD is trying to convey is that most every golfer approaches the golf swing according to what they are ‘doing’ to the golf club. As if the only thing the golf club does occurs according to what the golfer does to it. Common sense mentality that produces the Class B motion that predominates in golf.

 

Toward further consideration and understanding of what FD is trying to convey, a good starting point is adopting the perspective that the golfer and golf club are two separate entities. . . and what the golf club is doing to the golfer is equally - actually more - important than what the golfer is doing to golf club.

[Fade]

Alpha Man, can we have some captions under those pictures?

[moehogan]

WRX Physics SmackDown - Professor Nesbit vs. Frozen Divots. Love it ... can’t wait!

 

Only concern is that the prof doesn’t show ... Alpha, are you sure that you can get him here? Jacobs won’t do since he doesn’t have the academic chops. My brother-in-law has a physics degree from MIT ... maybe I could get him to referee?

[Fade]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> > @Fade said:

> > Alpha Man, can we have some captions under those pictures?

>

> Done.

 

Thank you. I like how - _what I assume are_ - the club-COM positions were used for the color-coding in the 2nd graph.

[Fade]

> @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> Fix it then! If I didn't say what the graph was about you wouldn't have a clue what it was!

 

You should say what it is about when you post it. Anyhow, I have another question about that graph. What is the black square? Initial ball position? Something else? Thanks in advance.

[Ty_Webb]

> @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> > @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> > > @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> > > > @"ALPHA MAN" said:

> > > > The club could stay in the trunk of your car rusting away and that just might be something beyond first importance or the wife might not let you out to play that's if you got a wife...lol! Get serious, we are talking about a golf swing.

> > >

> > > The question was serious, based on the words used within the statement. When discharging a handgun after applying force to the trigger the gun may recoil and cause an elbow to bend. In that recoiling moment is the gun acting on us more than we are acting on the gun?

> >

> > So you caused that to happen your input, the gun wasn't firing all by itself. You were the prime reason. You put a force against the trigger take responsibility for your actions .Get over it, you can try and parse your B.S. all you want , what I said is correct.

>

> Yes, correct to a point, but the force on the trigger caused a resultant force, explosion in the chamber, causing the projectile to fly. The recoil is another resultant force event and acting upon the weapon and us. You didn't answer the question, go back and read, it was not about a force applied to the trigger prior to firing, the question was, for the second time, is the resultant force from the firing gun's recoil acting on us more than we are acting on the gun? Not parsing, using your words.

 

Newton’s third law. They are both acting on each other at the same level.

 

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

Why is the shaft straight and the COM stuck?

 

Simple question. You presented the diagram as representative of Jacobs/Nesbit work. If you present it, you should be able to explain it.

[AMGolfPro]

You CAN move points and bend arcs in 2D.

 

Jacobs/Nesbit did not because it is not accounted for anywhere . . . neither are the rest of the moving points.

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

1. Don’t say FD’s diagram isn’t a golf club. . . just trying to save you the grief and embarrassment.

 

2. If you took the time to read, you would realize FD does not agree with Erickson about holding lag pressure, among other things. That was the point of many of his posts in that thread.

 

[AMGolfPro]

Attachment-1.jpeg

 

[Ty_Webb]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> Not accounted for. The point moves about the shaft and body. Not accounted for.

>

> Show us...

 

Are you saying the center of mass of the club moves because the shaft bends? If so how much are we talking about? Actual distance please. Not “a lot”.

[AMGolfPro]

> @"Tremendous Slouch" said:

> Frozen Divots, short of Jacobs 3M or Nesbitt Pop joining the thread to discuss their work, continuing discussion with Alfalfa Man is a waste of your time, and many others too, given his inability to participate in a coherent discussion from beginning to end beyond his ongoing barrage of tag lines.

 

 

Slouch

 

You are correct.

 

Unfortunately, there is a reason why Jacobs/Nesbit put a puppet on the front lines. They were not about to confront the train head on.

 

Behind the scenes, they are pulling all the wrong strings. Still, they have been exposed by the incoherent ramblings of their promotional puppet.

 

Really, all quite inevitable when you get a golf instructor and mechanical engineer dabbling in physics.

 

Here is all anyone needs to know:

 

**Jacobs 3D Torque and Compensate Golf: The Culmination of False Measurements of a Class B Motion**

 

 

[TexasTurf]

What is the correct Class A motion?

[Ty_Webb]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> It moves if the shaft bends, depending on stress etc. It also moves because of the golfer changing the whole system.

> Locate the CoM on a golf club sitting alone, as soon as you pick it up, swing, hit a ball, etc, it isn’t there.

> How much depends on the shaft and golfer.

> A female senior beginner will have less movement than Myself, for example. Less by over a foot. It won’t get to where it needs to go. There is a spot for optimum efficiency. Alpha should know...err...

>

> Accounting for THAT is one thing. There is more and it matters because it tells you HOW.

> Golfers want to know HOW.

>

> I can tell you this, applying a manual hand torque on the handle won’t get it there...

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

The center of mass of a golf club moves by over a foot based on who is swinging it? How?

[Ty_Webb]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > @Ty_Webb said:

> > > @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > > It moves if the shaft bends, depending on stress etc. It also moves because of the golfer changing the whole system.

> > > Locate the CoM on a golf club sitting alone, as soon as you pick it up, swing, hit a ball, etc, it isn’t there.

> > > How much depends on the shaft and golfer.

> > > A female senior beginner will have less movement than Myself, for example. Less by over a foot. It won’t get to where it needs to go. There is a spot for optimum efficiency. Alpha should know...err...

> > >

> > > Accounting for THAT is one thing. There is more and it matters because it tells you HOW.

> > > Golfers want to know HOW.

> > >

> > > I can tell you this, applying a manual hand torque on the handle won’t get it there...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The center of mass of a golf club moves by over a foot based on who is swinging it? How?

>

> Because it’s not only a golf club any longer. It’s part of a larger system. Based on who because we move differently. Some throw it around themselves, some don’t.

> Look at two ice skaters, doing a couples routine. Each have a CoM, but depending on what they are doing, the spot is all over the place. Sometimes where their hands join, sometimes it’s not on either body. It depends on their motion, no different than a person and a club in a golf swing.

> You can make a motion with a golf club and get the system CoM off the mass, like a boomerang. CoM isn’t even on the boomerang. It’s in space.

>

>

 

So you’re talking about the center of mass of the system? Meaning the club and the player together. Why is that important?