Fighting Gravity and THE Club Weight

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

The real issue is not the science behind the topic at hand. Instead, your huge ego complimented by a complete lack of humility have closed you off to new understanding.

 

You did not accept known physics presented in simple prose, so Frozen Divots provided the complex math you requested. Clearly you do not understand the math, so Frozen Divots spoon fed you the answer by stating: torque and angular velocity are always ___ ___ ___ . (what are the three little words?)

 

The answer is purposefully directed at the original question that you have yet to answer, and apparently also incapable: how does Jacobs get a torque vector in plane?

 

Frozen Divots has extended you yet another lifeline, of sorts, by asking if Jacobs defines torque as a Directed Plane or a Line of Direction?

 

Set your ego and attitude side for a moment. . . you will likely find the experience quite rewarding.

 

[AMGolfPro]

ALPHA MAN wrote:

 

“The thread is about Gravity not about 3 words that don't matter.”

 

“The 3 words are: I don't care.”

 

 

Alpha Man, you should ‘care’ . . . and should attempt to understand why those three little words matter to not only Jacobs’ work, but as to why they pertain to topic of gravity in the golf swing.

 

It would be a lot simpler and more productive if you just demonstrated some humility and said, “I don’t know?”

 

I will give you this. . . very unfortunate that Jacobs and Nesbit are not on stage, instead have you as their ‘poster boy’ on this forum and topic at hand.

[AMGolfPro]

LASSIEGOHOME

 

You are absolutely correct. . . mathematics is a flawed human development.

[AMGolfPro]

Alpha Man

 

You have an answer for everything . . . except the straightforward questions asked.

 

This is a golf forum, not a public trial.

 

I get it, you came to WRX on a promotional book tour, ALPHA MAN user name and all. Not quite working out how you planned. You underestimated your audience. No books being sold here. No migrating to the author’s promotional forum.

 

It’s clear you do not have the answers, nor the humility to acknowledge such. . . I guess you will just pack up your book and go home.

 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @LASSIEGOHOME said:

> Alpha Man and Frozen Divots are forgetting something that makes any arguments regarding Einstein and Newton irrelevant. And that is because the way we have created and defined mathematics is wrong.

> Here is an example of the maths that have been used by all of us including Einstein and Newton and everyone in the world since time began.

> a = b

> multiply both sides by a

> (a)(a) = (a)( b)

> Subtract (b)(b) from both sides

> (a)(a) - (b)(b) = (a)(b) -(b)(b)

> factor (a-b) from both sides

> (a-b)(a+b) = (a-b)(b)

> divide by (a-b)

> (a+b) = (b)

> but a=b (see first equation so replace 'a' with 'b')

> (b+b) = (b)

> 2b = b

> let b=1

> 2(1) = 1

> So it looks like our maths is yielding the wrong answer. The surprising thing is the maths we use still produce good enough results to create the high tech world we have today but I suspect there is a limit to its usefulness in relativity and quantum mechanics. Maybe we need to start again :smiley:

>

>

>

>

>

 

You divided by zero which yields an undefined result. Any conclusions drawn after that step are incorrect.

[mudge]

> @LASSIEGOHOME said:

> Alpha Man and Frozen Divots are forgetting something that makes any arguments regarding Einstein and Newton irrelevant. And that is because the way we have created and defined mathematics is wrong.

> Here is an example of the maths that have been used by all of us including Einstein and Newton and everyone in the world since time began.

> a = b

> multiply both sides by a

> (a)(a) = (a)( b)

> Subtract (b)(b) from both sides

> (a)(a) - (b)(b) = (a)(b) -(b)(b)

> factor (a-b) from both sides

> (a-b)(a+b) = (a-b)(b)

> divide by (a-b)

> (a+b) = (b)

> but a=b (see first equation so replace 'a' with 'b')

> (b+b) = (b)

> 2b = b

> let b=1

> 2(1) = 1

> So it looks like our maths is yielding the wrong answer. The surprising thing is the maths we use still produce good enough results to create the high tech world we have today but I suspect there is a limit to its usefulness in relativity and quantum mechanics. Maybe we need to start again :smiley:

>

>

>

>

>

 

You can't divide by zero.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @LASSIEGOHOME said:

> > @mudge said:

> > > @LASSIEGOHOME said:

> > > Alpha Man and Frozen Divots are forgetting something that makes any arguments regarding Einstein and Newton irrelevant. And that is because the way we have created and defined mathematics is wrong.

> > > Here is an example of the maths that have been used by all of us including Einstein and Newton and everyone in the world since time began.

> > > a = b

> > > multiply both sides by a

> > > (a)(a) = (a)( b)

> > > Subtract (b)(b) from both sides

> > > (a)(a) - (b)(b) = (a)(b) -(b)(b)

> > > factor (a-b) from both sides

> > > (a-b)(a+b) = (a-b)(b)

> > > divide by (a-b)

> > > (a+b) = (b)

> > > but a=b (see first equation so replace 'a' with 'b')

> > > (b+b) = (b)

> > > 2b = b

> > > let b=1

> > > 2(1) = 1

> > > So it looks like our maths is yielding the wrong answer. The surprising thing is the maths we use still produce good enough results to create the high tech world we have today but I suspect there is a limit to its usefulness in relativity and quantum mechanics. Maybe we need to start again :smiley:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You can't divide by zero.

> Okay let a = b , but let a=2 , b=2

> therefore 2=2 is the solution of that equation ? Do you agree with me?

> multiply both sides by a

> (a)(a) = (a)( b) | (2)(2) = (2)(2)

> Subtract (b)(b) from both sides

> (a)(a) - (b)(b) = (a)(b) -(b)(b) | (2)(2)-(2)(2) = (2)(2) -(2)(2)

> factor (a-b) from both sides

> (a-b)(a+b) = (a-b)(b) | (2-2)(2+2) = (2-2)(2)

> (0)(4) = (0)(2)

> 0 = 0 is not a solution to the original equation (even though I have applied an exact same operation on left and right sides of the equations). The solution should be 2=2

> Note that I didn't divide by zero this time :smile:

> ps. The problem with our 'normal' maths is the (-)(-) = (+ )

> The distributive law produces incorrect answers when b > a in the equation (a -b)squared

> We just created the (-)(-) = (+) to make the distributive law work.

> Our normal maths cannot be used to describe reality in space or time. Space is symmetrical. Space cannot depend on the direction a coordinate system is orientated

>

 

No 2=2 is not a solution to any equation. a=b is a relation between variables. As long as you perform the same legal manipulations to both sides of the relation then the relation will hold true as you so ably demonstrated getting 0=0.

[glk]

a Quick google reveals that the original math flaw with divide by zero is a well know math fallacy ( just a variant) that proves that 2=1.

Now we’re to believe this is the work of a Russian physicist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy

[AMGolfPro]

“All models are wrong but some are useful.”

_George Box and Norman Draper, 1987_

[glk]

It became 0=0 because you squared both sides then subtracted the square from both sides. So you made 2=2 become 4=4 then subtracted 4, and bingo 0=0. How in the world would you expect it to remain 2=2?

[cav5]

> @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > @"Frozen Divots" said:

> > Here's your answer, Alpha Man

> > τ⃗ =r⃗ ×F⃗

> > (0,0,τ)=(x,y,0)×(Fx,Fy,0)=(0,0,xFy−yFx)

> > v⃗ =ω⃗ ×r⃗

> > (vx,vy,0)=(0,0,ω)×(x,y,0)=(−yω,xω,0)

> >

> > Now this presents a little problem for you...do you see it? Its says Torque does...what? It also says Angular Velocity does what?

> > They are always ___ ___ ___ Fill in the blanks...three simple words.

>

>

> I highly doubt the above is in the book. If it is, what are the three words?

>

Can I try to guess, lol?

 

[mudge]

> @LASSIEGOHOME said:

> > @glk said:

> > It became 0=0 because you squared both sides then subtracted the square from both sides. So you made 2=2 become 4=4 then subtracted 4, and bingo 0=0. How in the world would you expect it to remain 2=2?

> Yes but this doesn't look right does it?

> (0)(4) = (0)(2)

> The other confusion in normal maths is the use of the (-) sign . Sometimes its used in indices but it doesn't mean actually mean minus. Its just a load of conventions and rules to make our maths work the way we think they should. The strange thing is that it still seems to create correct results but not when we delve into the negative areas in Cartesian space . What does negative actually mean with regards space? When you start plotting graphs and using (-)(-) = (+) , the graphs in the negative regions can become assymetrical whereas space is symmetrical . Normal maths can give wrong results. And whose bright idea was it to create complex numbers ? Square root of -1 = i (I hated complex number maths - really hated it!)

>

 

It's obvious that 1 != 2, but 0 * 1 = 0 * 2. Meaning that you can't multiply or divide by zero and get meaningful results.

Also, several centuries ago, negative numbers didn't exist. So would you criticize whoever came up with that concept too?

[baudi]

https://www.1dividedby0.com

[Nard_S]

Let get this straight, pseudo-nerds think Relativity and Quantum Mechanics matter in a golf swing but negative numbers in math is crazy.