Ken, again you have shot yourself in the foot (Same as with the Foucault pendulum)!
Yes I watched YouTube video (link below)* of the Russian blond's hammer throw - the slow motion frames just before the ball hit the ground. The chain and handle grip are always stretched out from the ball in straight line by the centrifugal force of the spinning ball.
This straight line of chain does revolve around the spinning ball; even despite the air drag which would eventually stop the ball's spin with the chain trailing behind if the ball did not hit the Earth. The last slow motion part of the video begins with the chain out in front of the ball, but as the ball continues its spin the chain swings, first away for the recording camera, then continues to spin around to trail behind the ball and finally as it hits the ground, the chain is pointing towards the camera.
Thus the camera only records about 3/4 of one complete rotation or spin of the ball; however the slow motion sequence is only the tiny end fraction of the ball's total flight. I would estimate that during the ball's flight it made more than dozen complete 360 degree spins, but of course it too is spinning about some point only very near the center of the ball due to the relatively slight mass of the chain.
What is it you have against the very useful term "spin" to want to abolish it or at least replace it with "rotating about a barycenter" in two body cases?
Why do you not at least admit a few of your errors? For example, start by admit the sun has much more influnce on the moon than the Earth does (8.45 times more). After you have done that I will suggest the next error to admit.
----------------------------
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw
PS later by edit: That the only poster to agree with you is Dwayne, should also give you reason to think again. He has his own POV which is always quite disconnected from reality.
Yes I watched YouTube video (link below)* of the Russian blond's hammer throw - the slow motion frames just before the ball hit the ground. The chain and handle grip are always stretched out from the ball in straight line by the centrifugal force of the spinning ball.
This straight line of chain does revolve around the spinning ball; even despite the air drag which would eventually stop the ball's spin with the chain trailing behind if the ball did not hit the Earth. The last slow motion part of the video begins with the chain out in front of the ball, but as the ball continues its spin the chain swings, first away for the recording camera, then continues to spin around to trail behind the ball and finally as it hits the ground, the chain is pointing towards the camera.
Thus the camera only records about 3/4 of one complete rotation or spin of the ball; however the slow motion sequence is only the tiny end fraction of the ball's total flight. I would estimate that during the ball's flight it made more than dozen complete 360 degree spins, but of course it too is spinning about some point only very near the center of the ball due to the relatively slight mass of the chain.
What is it you have against the very useful term "spin" to want to abolish it or at least replace it with "rotating about a barycenter" in two body cases?
Why do you not at least admit a few of your errors? For example, start by admit the sun has much more influnce on the moon than the Earth does (8.45 times more). After you have done that I will suggest the next error to admit.
----------------------------
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw
PS later by edit: That the only poster to agree with you is Dwayne, should also give you reason to think again. He has his own POV which is always quite disconnected from reality.
Last edited by a moderator: