The purpose of this thread is to discuss and point out REAL book errors. It's not a thread about application, how useful the book is to golfers, incompatible components, or how well I can hit a golf ball. Just errors from a scientific point of view.
For example, Inertia is a Scaler quantity but labelled as a Vector Symbol in Chapter 2.
Tong,
Do you think that he just missed this completely? Do you have any idea how he might have made this mistake? In other words, under what context would Inertia as a vector symbol make sense?
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
Last edited by Mike O : 09-06-2007 at 02:25 AM.
Reason: Added one more ? the last one.
Tong,
Do you think that he just missed this completely? Do you have any idea how he might have made this mistake?
There are several that think Homer was a complete retard when it came to science . . . . whatever write your own book. Like that Jergenson dude or whoever he is talks about the ideal swing bending the left elbow . . . mmmm hmmm ok chalk one up for astro-physics. So you can spend your time listening to people rip dead people who can't defend what they wrote . . . or . . . . the sound of balls being compressed . . .
Tongzilla - can i just confirm the spirit of yor thread - i think i know where you are coming from but just so everybody can confirm.
It seems to me that you are concerned with accuracy and precison of the science contained in the book - not at denigrating the work and effort that Homer put into TGM. In which case i am sure that Homer would not stand in the way of this quest for precision. It would be contrary to the stories that Lynn has told us about Homer!
If this is continued in a responsible manner i see no reason for there to be a problem. The problems arise when you do not know the credentials of the person who is supposedly "correcting" Homer! We know Homer's credentials and CV.... but if you are to correct Homer in such a way as to convince the audience then your credentials do matter. Not in the sense that credentials make you right... but they do make you convincing!
Tongzilla - can i just confirm the spirit of yor thread - i think i know where you are coming from but just so everybody can confirm.
It seems to me that you are concerned with accuracy and precison of the science contained in the book - not at denigrating the work and effort that Homer put into TGM. In which case i am sure that Homer would not stand in the way of this quest for precision. It would be contrary to the stories that Lynn has told us about Homer!
If this is continued in a responsible manner i see no reason for there to be a problem. The problems arise when you do not know the credentials of the person who is supposedly "correcting" Homer! We know Homer's credentials and CV.... but if you are to correct Homer in such a way as to convince the audience then your credentials do matter. Not in the sense that credentials make you right... but they do make you convincing!
Homer didn't really have ANY credentials so to speak . . . he wasn't a physicist . . . he wasn't a scientist . . . he wasn't even an engineer . . .
But Homer Kelley had a very very special gift in fact many. And most of all Homer Kelley was a gift to us.
Homer Kelly was a great man. He has made a brilliant contribution to the golfing world. His work has greatly increased my understanding and application of the golf stroke. The errors we are discussing in this thread do not diminish the greatness of The Golfing Machine.
This purpose of this thread is to discuss some of the stuff Homer didn't get right. If you are convinced that Homer got every bit of the science and geometry correct, then this thread is not for you. Or if you don't care about these errors because it doesn't make a difference to your score, please go to the other sections of this site, where professional contributors such as Lynn Blake and Ted Fort are more than happy to help you with your game.
Homer Kelly was a great man. He has made a brilliant contribution to the golfing world. His work has greatly increased my understanding and application of the golf stroke. The errors we are discussing in this thread do not diminish the greatness of The Golfing Machine.
This purpose of this thread is to discuss some of the stuff Homer didn't get right. If you are convinced that Homer got every bit of the science and geometry correct, then this thread is not for you. Or if you don't care about these errors because it doesn't make a difference to your score, please go to the other sections of this site, where professional contributors such as Lynn Blake and Ted Fort are more than happy to help you with your game.
So...pleeeeease get back on topic!
Mike O (surprise surprise) was the only person that bit on the Inertia thing . . . you gonna answer his questions ? Looks to me that several folks studying angular motion and moment of inertia have used "inertia vector." So is it really wrong? Why do you think this is an error?
__________________
Aloha Mr. Hand
Behold my hands; reach hither thy hand
Last edited by 12 piece bucket : 09-06-2007 at 09:27 AM.
Homer Kelly was a great man. He has made a brilliant contribution to the golfing world. His work has greatly increased my understanding and application of the golf stroke. The errors we are discussing in this thread do not diminish the greatness of The Golfing Machine.
This purpose of this thread is to discuss some of the stuff Homer didn't get right. If you are convinced that Homer got every bit of the science and geometry correct, then this thread is not for you. Or if you don't care about these errors because it doesn't make a difference to your score, please go to the other sections of this site, where professional contributors such as Lynn Blake and Ted Fort are more than happy to help you with your game.
So...pleeeeease get back on topic!
Everyone gets things wrong at some point, in some way- Homer Kelley was no different. I'm all for understanding errors. So let's discuss it. (Refer to my original questions)
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
It is very common to use the term 'vector' when plotting points, which is what Mr. Kelley was doing. Nowhere in the book does he claim that Inertia anything different than how it works under Newton's three laws. That would be a mistake in science- not plotting points in a legend about Horizontal Hinging.
So, is this something you discovered - or read from others still trying to rip HK's use of basic science?
Homer Kelly was a great man. He has made a brilliant contribution to the golfing world. His work has greatly increased my understanding and application of the golf stroke. The errors we are discussing in this thread do not diminish the greatness of The Golfing Machine.
This purpose of this thread is to discuss some of the stuff Homer didn't get right. If you are convinced that Homer got every bit of the science and geometry correct, then this thread is not for you. Or if you don't care about these errors because it doesn't make a difference to your score, please go to the other sections of this site, where professional contributors such as Lynn Blake and Ted Fort are more than happy to help you with your game.
So...pleeeeease get back on topic!
Exactly!!
An area that ought to be amenable to definite physical understanding is the concept of resisting impact deceleration. It is a key part of the book and some people think that this is impossible.
Whilst the alignments that Homer puts forward to achieve resistance to deceleration would seem to be correct ( right forearm flying wedge and lagging clubhead ) - how would one set out to prove or disprove this - in such a way that all would believe!
TGM with proof of its core statements would be a very powerful tool. TGM whose core statements happen to be correct but for the wrong reasons will always be open to attack and scepticism.
Weed out the weak physics and clearly distinguish the " seems -as-ifs" from the "real feels" and TGM grows stronger. Just as Homer modified his 1st edition to improve it...
PS. Homer never hid his credentials - an employee of Boeing and instructor in their problem solving courses... a very practical man with a natural understanding of natural physics ! So what you get in the book is the fruit of such a man. But perfect...?? only if equal or better brains can fail to correct it... it is easy and fair to raise the questions but few can answer them convincingly and openly.
An area that ought to be amenable to definite physical understanding is the concept of resisting impact deceleration. It is a key part of the book and some people think that this is impossible.
Whilst the alignments that Homer puts forward to achieve resistance to deceleration would seem to be correct ( right forearm flying wedge and lagging clubhead ) - how would one set out to prove or disprove this - in such a way that all would believe!
TGM with proof of its core statements would be a very powerful tool. TGM whose core statements happen to be correct but for the wrong reasons will always be open to attack and scepticism.
Weed out the weak physics and clearly distinguish the " seems -as-ifs" from the "real feels" and TGM grows stronger. Just as Homer modified his 1st edition to improve it...
PS. Homer never hid his credentials - an employee of Boeing and instructor in their problem solving courses... a very practical man with a natural understanding of natural physics ! So what you get in the book is the fruit of such a man. But perfect...?? only if equal or better brains can fail to correct it... it is easy and fair to raise the questions but few can answer them convincingly and openly.
Where are the 'seems as ifs' in Kelley's book?
That is a far cry from labeling a legend showing momentum of the ball as a vector -commonly used in the aero space industry btw- without regard of its mass or directional component, just a point of reference and out and out misused of physical laws.
? Looks to me that several folks studying angular motion and moment of inertia have used "inertia vector." So is it really wrong? Why do you think this is an error?
Hybrid Mode
