Jump to content
IGNORED

Ball at rest. Need physics help.


joekelly
Note: This thread is 3596 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Hard for me to admit my faults of education, but am pretty weak on classical physical notions.

Yesterday at the European PGA event, Padraig Harrington's ball on the first bounce went into the cup then bounced out of the cup to lie nearby on the green.

The rules state that the ball in the cup must be at rest on the bottom of the cup to be holed. Now, if we had installed a tiny camera near the bottom of the cup, and cranked it up to record 100K frames per second, would we see  the ball hitting the bottom of the cup, then stopping for an instant, and then deforming slightly and finally  rebounding out?  Or would we see in those nanoseconds the ball never at rest, always moving either down or up?

Of course all this relates to the absurd, IMO, use of the cameras peering at the ball greenside and the rules judges making asses of themselves, the next day from the armchairs, over minute and arguable decisions on ball movement/oscillations that happened at the big tourney, yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The ball was never at rest while in the hole, even for a nanosecond.  That would require that the ball impacted the bottom of the cup dead square with no angular motion of any kind, rebounding on the exact path that it took entering the hole..  The odds of that actually happening are so close to zero that the number is indistinguishable from zero.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think it was actually Sunday at the Byron Nelson, but regardless ... The only way that you could even argue in theory that the ball stopped for a moment was if it came up at the exact same angle that it went down. There's no practical way that could happen. Sorry ... What Rick said ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Hard for me to admit my faults of education, but am pretty weak on classical physical notions.

Yesterday at the European PGA event, Padraig Harrington's ball on the first bounce went into the cup then bounced out of the cup to lie nearby on the green.

The rules state that the ball in the cup must be at rest on the bottom of the cup to be holed. Now, if we had installed a tiny camera near the bottom of the cup, and cranked it up to record 100K frames per second, would we see  the ball hitting the bottom of the cup, then stopping for an instant, and then deforming slightly and finally  rebounding out?  Or would we see in those nanoseconds the ball never at rest, always moving either down or up?

Of course all this relates to the absurd, IMO, use of the cameras peering at the ball greenside and the rules judges making asses of themselves, the next day from the armchairs, over minute and arguable decisions on ball movement/oscillations that happened at the big tourney, yesterday.


Are you advocating that the ball was at rest in the hole?  If so, you won't convince anyone of that.  If it was at rest, it wouldn't have left the hole!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Are you advocating that the ball was at rest in the hole?  If so, you won't convince anyone of that.  If it was at rest, it wouldn't have left the hole!

The laws of physics says it could possibly be. But only in the cases described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well, rogolf, do you remember the ball that landed in the cup and moments later popped out, followed by the frog?  In that case the rulesmeisters said, 'Oh no. Yes, ball at rest but ball not at bottom but on back of frog, so no HIO'. And nanoseconds are way beyond our perception so it may be that the ball in my case, did stop.

Have you ever seen a tennis ball, in ultra slow motion video, smash into a brick wall?  One face of the ball certainly stops against the wall but the opposite face continues moving into the wall. Eventually, nanoseconds later, the ball rebounds off. Did you, or i, see that?  NO, We can see only the result not the action in progress. .

And thanks Rulesman for your wise and perceptive comments which made my day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


When the ball is on the tee, at the teebox, ball is at rest, why so?

Golf ball is attracting the earth with force of gravity, and earth is attracting the ball with equal force of gravity. There doesn't seem to be external forces applied to the ball, such as a player hitting it with a driver...

These forces at the teebox, are counter-forces and therefore the ball must be either moving at a constant speed, or it must be at rest.

As a matter of fact, you could say that the ball on the tee is moving at constant speed of 0 mph.

(if you shot a golf ball into outer space with a driver club! With theoretically full vacuum and no forces interfering on the golf ball, I suppose the golf ball would simply continue to fly at the same speed and direction.)

More to think about a golf shot...

Where do the forces disappear? Obviously you tee off with the driver, ball flies a long ways... Ball is flying ballistically like a bullet, it only has the force transferred into it, by the player's muscles and driver impact...

But eventually the ball comes into a rest (well, unless you hit the ball into outer space or something!)

There is obviously drag involved (air friction, on earth) , and the earth will tend to attract the golf ball back towards it.

Newton's second law, stipulates that lighter mass objects tend to accelerate more than heavier mass objects, when affected by the same amount of force. (this seems to be the case could someone verify?)

If the gravity of earth were much lower than in reality, I suppose you could shoot the golf ball out of earth's gravity influence, if you hit the golf ball hard enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If it is at rest it is not in motion and cannot bounce out of anything, let alone a hole in the ground.

A still camera or high speed camera does not detect stillness in a moving object, it either freezes or slows down motion.

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The laws of physics says it could possibly be. But only in the cases described above.

Well Newton's first law of motion is "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an external force." So what caused it to come out, an earthquake?

If the ball came out becuase its momentum caused it to bounce off the bottom of the cup, then it wasn't at rest. Not for an instant, a fraction of a second, or anything else. By definition, it is only "at rest" if it will stay at rest unless acted on by an external force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well Newton's first law of motion is "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an external force." So what caused it to come out, an earthquake?

If the ball came out becuase its momentum caused it to bounce off the bottom of the cup, then it wasn't at rest. Not for an instant, a fraction of a second, or anything else. By definition, it is only "at rest" if it will stay at rest unless acted on by an external force.

The only special  case example that comes to my mind would be....

Ball gets moved by wind, for instance on the putting green.

That could make golfing rather difficult though... what do the rules say? :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator

Obviously @joekelly 's OP is a bit tongue in cheek. ;-) So I will take it one step further.  From a Quantum Mechanics standpoint, it may or may not even be in the cup for that nanosecond it contacted the bottom.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Obviously @joekelly's OP is a bit tongue in cheek.     So I will take it one step further.  From a Quantum Mechanics standpoint, it may or may not even be in the cup for that nanosecond it contacted the bottom.

Of course, Schrödinger's golf ball.

"Age improves with wine."
 
Wishon 919THI 11*
Wishon 925HL 4w
Wishon 335HL 3h & 4h
Wishon 755pc 5i, 6i, 7i, 8i & 9i
Tad Moore 485 PW
Callaway X 54*
Ping G2 Anser C
Callaway SuperSoft
Titleist StaDry
Kangaroo Hillcrest AB
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The laws of physics says it could possibly be. But only in the cases described above.

I seem to remember Newton telling us that an object "at rest" will remain at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force. Absent an outside force, if the ball came back out of the cup, it was never at rest. [quote name="Asheville" url="/t/74737/ball-at-rest-need-physics-help#post_993506"] Of course, [COLOR=252525] Schrödinger's golf ball. [/COLOR] [/quote] :-D

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think this decision would cover your scenario.

16/5.5

Player Holes Short Putt and Allegedly Removes Ball from Hole Before It Is at Rest

Q.A player strikes a short putt into the hole and removes the ball from the hole. His opponent or a fellow-competitor claims he heard the ball bouncing in the bottom of the hole-liner at the time the player was removing the ball from the hole, and therefore the ball cannot be considered holed in view of the Definition of "Holed" which states: "A ball is holed when it is at rest within the circumference of the hole ...". What is the ruling?

A.The ball is holed. The words "at rest" are in the Definition of "Holed" to make it clear that if a ball falls below the lip and thereafter bounces out, it is not holed.

Regards,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The object (ball) was not at rest, it was moving and therefore had kinetic energy. It also had potential energy in its elasticity (the coefficient of restitution indicates to what extent this is utilised by the rebound).

Non-technical.

1) A body on a horizontal plane is travelling along a straight line from A to B.

2)It encounters something solid (B)

3) and then travels in the opposite direction towards A (ie rebounds).

In step 1 it was moving towards B. In step 3 it is moving towards A. In what direction is it moving in step 2?

Technical

Ball bouncing from massive wall.

Most physics textbooks consider the case of a ball bouncing from a massive object, say the floor, or a wall. They consider the case where the collision is nearly or totally elastic. In the totally elastic collision, the ball loses no kinetic energy in the collision, so its speed after collision is the same as before the collision. The student thinks, "Of course that must be the case, because of conservation of energy." Seldom does the textbook, or the student, consider how conservation of momentum is satisfied in this problem. They should, for the analysis is instructive. Analyzing this may also give some insight into why energy, momentum and the conservation laws took so long to be formulated, since the concepts are subtle.

Consider a ball of mass m colliding elastically with a stationary object of larger mass M. Draw the picture before and after the collision. The conservation equations are:

[1]

m v 1 = m v 2 + M V 2

[2]

(1/2)mv 1 2 = (1/2)mv 2 2 + (1/2)MV 2

where v 1 is the initial velocity of the smaller ball, v 2 is its final velocity after collision, and V 2 is the velocity of the larger mass after the collision.

Multiply the energy equation by 2 to eliminate the (1/2) factors.

[3]

mv 1 2 = mv 2 2 + MV 2

Divide this by m on both sides.

[4]

v 1 2 = v 2 2 + (M/m)V 2 2

Rearrange.

[5]

v 1 2 - v 2 2 = (M/m)V 2 2

Divide the momentum equation by m on both sides.

[6]

v 1 = v 2 + (M/m)V 2

Rearrange and square both sides.

[7]

(v 1 - v 2 ) 2 = (M/m) 2 V 2 2

Multiply Eq. [5] by (M/m) and combine with [7] to eliminate V 2 2 .

[8]

(M/m)(v 1 2 - v 2 2 ) = (v 1 - v 2 ) 2

Multiply both sides by (m/M)

[9]

(v 1 2 - v 2 2 ) = (m/M)(v 1 - v 2 ) 2

Take the limit as (m/M) goes to zero .

[10]

(v 1 2 - v 2 2 ) = 0

So one solution of this is v 1 = -v 2 . Another solution is v 1 = v 2 , corresponding to the case where the two objects do not collide at all.

One can graph the values of v 2 and V 2 against (m/M) and show that as (m/M) goes to zero, the values of the final velocities do indeed smoothly go to the limiting case values. In words, the reason this can happen is that kinetic energy is a scalar, and momentum is a vector, and kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, while momentum varies as only the first power of speed. Therefore the quantity momentum/energy varies with speed as (1/v). So when v goes to zero, the momentum/energy can be infinite.

Those who have had calculus will recognize that this is a case where an indeterminate form arises when you take the limit of the value of momentum of a body whose mass increases to infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
Originally Posted by joekelly View Post

Well, rogolf, do you remember the ball that landed in the cup and moments later popped out, followed by the frog?  In that case the rulesmeisters said, 'Oh no. Yes, ball at rest but ball not at bottom but on back of frog, so no HIO'. And nanoseconds are way beyond our perception so it may be that the ball in my case, did stop.

Have you ever seen a tennis ball, in ultra slow motion video, smash into a brick wall?  One face of the ball certainly stops against the wall but the opposite face continues moving into the wall. Eventually, nanoseconds later, the ball rebounds off. Did you, or i, see that?  NO, We can see only the result not the action in progress. .

And thanks Rulesman for your wise and perceptive comments which made my day.

The ball does not have to be in the bottom of the cup.  The Definition of "holed" is:

Quote:

Holed

A ball is “ holed ” when it is at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of it is below the level of the lip of the hole .

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

The ball does not have to be in the bottom of the cup.  The Definition of "holed" is:

Right. A ball pinched between the flagstick and the ball is "holed" if it's below the level of the green (the lip), even if it's not touching the bottom of the cup.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Problem:

A 0.1 kg ball is thrown straight up into the air with an initial speed of 15 m/s.  Find the momentum of the ball
(a) at its maximum height and
(b) half way up to its maximum height.

Solution:
(a) At the ball's maximum height its velocity is zero, and therefore its momentum is zero.

(b) The ball's total energy E = K + U is constant.
Initially U = 0 and K = (1/2)mv 2 =(0.05 kg)(15 m/s) 2 = 11.25 J.
At its maximum height K = 0 and U = mgh = 11.25 J.
Halfway up to its maximum height K = U = (1/2)11.25 J.
Therefore v 2 = 2K/m = (11.25 J)/(0.1 kg) = 112.5 (m/s) 2 ,
v = 10.6 m/s, p =( 0.1 kg)(10.6 m/s) = 1.06 kgm/s


(a) At the ball's maximum height its velocity is zero,

This is of course the same for any object which reverses its direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 3596 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I would never do the extended warranty on the $50 slow cooker.  I also routinely reject the extended service plans on those toys we buy for the grand-kids.  I do consider them on higher cost items and will be more likely to get one if the product has a lot of "Electronic Tech" that is often the problem longer-term.  I also consider my intended length of ownership & usage.  If my thought is it would get replaced in 2-3 years then why bother but if I hope to use it for 10 years then more likely to get the extension. I did buy out a lease about a year ago.  Just prior to the lease end date the tablet locked up and would not function.  I got it repaired under the initial warranty and would not have bought it out if they had not been able to fix it since IMO once electronic issues start in a car they can be hard to track down & fix.  They did fix it but when I bought out the lease I paid up for the extended warranty the would cover electronic failures because my intent is to keep that car for another 8-10 years and I just do not trust the electronics to last.  Last week the touch screen went black and was unresponsive.  It reset on the 2nd time I restarted the car but that is exactly how the last malfunction started.  I fully expect to have a claim on that on repair under the extended warranty.  I do not recall the exact cost to fix last time since I did not pay it but I think it was @ $700-$800 and I suspect that will be higher next time.
    • Have you looked at Model Local Rule F-9 Relief from Tree Roots in or Close to Fairway?  You could extend this to cover exposed rocks.  The rule is recommended to be used only for areas relatively near the fairway, a player who hits a shot 20 yards in the woods doesn't really deserve relief.   Players can always take Unplayable Ball relief, they're not required to play it from a rock or a root.  Of course, they hate to take the penalty stroke too.
    • I agree with @klineka, you're clearly doing something right.  Its always going to be a bit of a guessing game if you don't have any scoring history.  On the other hand, understanding that it takes only 54 holes to establish an actual handicap, and they have about 6 weeks in which to play and post enough scores, I don't think its at all unreasonable to require them to have an official handicap before they become eligible for prizes.  I don't know how you structure the fees for the series of competitions, but if its possible they'll play with the group without being eligible for prizes, you could consider a way to let them do that without contributing to the prize pool.
    • I run tournaments and want to put in a local rule that allows relief from tree roots and rocks that are not loose impediments. We have some really terrible lies in some of our courses in my area and nobody is getting paid enough to break clubs. Let me know if you think the verbage for this rule makes sense. Local Rule Roots and Rocks You may move your ball from a tree root or buried rock one club length for free relief no closer to the hole. However you may not use this rule to get relief from a tree, bush, boulder, or other foliage hindering your swing. Your only option here is to play it as it lies or take an unplayable for a one stroke penalty.
    • Makes sense.  Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset at their original offer either, and based on the fine print it seems like they've held up their end of the deal.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...