Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yahya A.Sharif on 25/01/2020 15:55:02
-
The human massive body is able to stand on weak feet toes, also there will be slight pressure on soles and toes .
A person can lift himself with small force https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0310 he pushes the ground with this small force the ground will push him with the same small force , the two forces small force by pushing the ground and the small force ground exert upwards, will result in small pressure on feet and toes
Human body mass can be determined by comparing the body with another mass in scale" nothing new here ".The gravity of the human body is its mass times acceleration " nothing change here "
When a human body stands on a horizontal zero degree inclination surface. The gravity force of body on a surface is far greater than the normal force by the surface upwards . The normal force of any object " but not a human " is always equals to its weight " on a zero degree inclination surface.
The gravity force of body appears in a spring on scale by compressing it which shows body mass times acceleration" nothing new". But the force upwards appears on the phenomenon of massive human body standing on weak feet toes
The pressure on toes or soles is as a result of two forces , one is the normal force of ground upwards and the other is force downwards "weight " the normal force upwards is always far less than weight so pressure on soles is very small.
The values : weight and normal force upwards related to each other mathematically .The massive the body is the force upwards "normal force " and the force downwards “ weight “ are big
The phenomenon related only to gravity on a human body that is the toes won't bear for instance "equivalent to human body " 80 kg mass put on it it.That will press the toes extremely hard.
-
When a person stands on surface. The gravity force of body on a surface is greater than the normal force by the surface upwards .
So you believe that people sink into surfaces? I am not sinking into the earth, so your hypothesis has been falsified.
The pressure on toes or soles is as a result of two equals forces , one is the force of ground upwards and the other is force downwrads taken from the weight” this force is always less than weight”
The weight IS the force. So you are saying the force is less than the force.
Your ideas about physics are simply wrong, sorry.
-
Bones are stronger than concrete.
If you say that people standing on their toes needs "special physics" then you also say the same about floors bridges etc.
On a weight for weight basis tendons are stronger than steel.
There's nothing to explain.
The body works by simple physics.
-
Come back when you have some math to support your claims.
Speaking of which, this belongs in "New Theories", since you are making claims that go against known physics.
-
Come back when you have some math to support your claims.
You might be confused by the repeated paragraphs.I edited it.I mentioned that the forces are related to each other mathematically , which implies simple proportionality.
-
You might be confused by the repeated paragraphs.I edited it.I mentioned that the forces are related to each other mathematically , which implies simple proportionality.
I'm not confused. I'm waiting for you to supply the math shows that toes can't bear the weight of the body.
-
I'm waiting for you to supply the math shows that toes can't bear the weight of the body.
There is no mathematics for this exact part.It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.It is like physiologically human body stop working after death .
-
I'm waiting for you to supply the math shows that toes can't bear the weight of the body.
There is no mathematics for this exact part.It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.It is like physiologically human body stop working after death .
Yet it was you who stated that forces are related to each other mathematically, which makes you either a liar or an idiot.
-
It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.
What "phenomenon"?
Do you mean standing up?
-
Bones are stronger than concrete.
On a weight for weight basis tendons are stronger than steel.
It is not just about breaking bones or tendons.It is a whole collection of factors. The 80 kg mass will cause huge pain, cutting flesh, breaking joints, and above all pressing the toes extremely hard.
Compare standing on concrete and putting 80 kg concrete on ones toes.
-
But this is actually a phenomenon beyond physics.
Are you referring to the fact that you keep posting nonsense?
That's certainly beyond what's normally thought of as physics.
It is not just about breaking bones or tendons.It is a whole collection of factors. The 80 kg mass will cause huge pain, cutting flesh, breaking joints, and above all pressing the toes extremely hard.
Compare standing on concrete and putting 80 kg concrete on ones toes.
To do that comparison properly, you have to put the 80Kg on the underside of the toes.
And, to do that - without having your weight on your feet, you need something like this
https://www.fitness-superstore.co.uk/powerline-vertical-leg-press.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAjrXxBRAPEiwAiM3DQrBSAdmKH_5N4_o_wf-w1vfX8ryr5KIBf_J6O-dDWZpzO6aI-IEYcxoClZ8QAvD_BwE
At school I could easily lift well over twice my bodyweight that way
Others do rather better.
You seem to think that magic is required.
It isn't.
-
The 80 kg mass will cause huge pain, cutting flesh, breaking joints, and above all pressing the toes extremely hard.
Give us some actual evidence that this should happen instead of merely claiming that it should happen.
-
https://www.fitness-superstore.co.uk/powerline-vertical-leg-press.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAjrXxBRAPEiwAiM3DQrBSAdmKH_5N4_o_wf-w1vfX8ryr5KIBf_J6O-dDWZpzO6aI-IEYcxoClZ8QAvD_BwE
This is a person lifting by feet balls and wearing shoes.lifting by toes and without shoes will break toes , causing huge pain and feels high pressure .
-
It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.
And several other bipedal species from Tyrannosaurus to chickens. And all quadruped mammals walk on fewer toes than bipeds.
-
It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.
And several other bipedal species from Tyrannosaurus to chickens. And all quadruped mammals walk on fewer toes than bipeds.
Thanks.
I was going to mention that , but humans is a better example.
-
It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.
And several other bipedal species from Tyrannosaurus to chickens. And all quadruped mammals walk on fewer toes than bipeds.
Thanks.
I was going to mention that , but humans is a better example.
So why did you state earlier 'It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.'?
-
So why did you state earlier 'It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.'?
It looks like he just makes this up as he goes along and forgets what he wrote earlier. This results in him contradicting himself a lot.
-
So why did you state earlier 'It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.'?
It looks like he just makes this up as he goes along and forgets what he wrote earlier. This results in him contradicting himself a lot.
To humans only but not to other masses, and I referred to humans only because it is a better example " everyone can test it"
There is no mathematics for this exact part.It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.It is like physiologically human body stop working after death .
The phenomenon related only to gravity on a human body that is the toes won't bear for instance "equivalent to human body " 80 kg mass put on it it.That will press the toes extremely hard.
-
To humans only but not to other masses, and I referred to humans only because it is a better example " everyone can test it"
That makes no sense. Are you just selecting words at random?
-
https://www.fitness-superstore.co.uk/powerline-vertical-leg-press.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAjrXxBRAPEiwAiM3DQrBSAdmKH_5N4_o_wf-w1vfX8ryr5KIBf_J6O-dDWZpzO6aI-IEYcxoClZ8QAvD_BwE
This is a person lifting by feet balls and wearing shoes.lifting by toes and without shoes will break toes , causing huge pain and feels high pressure .
Balls!
Specifically, people standing on"tip toe" are usually actually standing on the balls of the feet.
Ballet dancers stand on the toes, but they have reinforced shoes to support them.
So, as usual, there doesn't seem to be a problem to solve.
-
The 80 kg mass will cause huge pain, cutting flesh, breaking joints, and above all pressing the toes extremely hard.
Give us some actual evidence that this should happen instead of merely claiming that it should happen.
He can't.
Because I'm an example of it not doing.
-
So, as usual, there doesn't seem to be a problem to solve.
There is a difference between putting a load on toes tips, putting the load on toes, and and putting it on feet balls . A human can stand on toes tips, toes , or a compilation of toes and feet balls .I can stand on my toes only with ease. But if the person on the link put the loads on toes only " and without wearing shoes " they will break joints.
Ballet dancers stand on the toes, but they have reinforced shoes to support them.
Of course they need shoes to stand on toes tips since the force I suggested is small but not zero also giving in consideration the toes tips are sensitive
-
Are you aware that rock climbers are able to support themselves using just their fingers?
https://www.liveabout.com/six-basic-finger-grips-face-climbing-755397
-
Are you aware that rock climbers are able to support themselves using just their fingers?
https://www.liveabout.com/six-basic-finger-grips-face-climbing-755397
Can you do that ? but every person can stand on toes.
-
Can you do that ? but every person can stand on toes.
I can't. I put almost all my weight on the edge of the ball of my foot and I use my toes for balance. My toes are flat on the floor.
I do not believe I could stand on my toes like a ballet dancer without shoes and not break my toes.
-
Why I have been neglected by discovering this new phenomenon ,These are obvious observations to prove that the force lifting human body is less than the force lifting another object with the same mass:
An average person can lift his body of 60 kg holding a bar many times but he will barely move a rock of the same mass 60 kg.
I can jump high raising my massive 57 kg using only my thigh's muscles however I will not be able to even move a rock of 57 kg using all my body muscles.
A person can walk upside down on his weak arms lifting his 60 kg " average weight "massive body but he will not even be able to put the rock on his shoulders.
-
You just don't learn, do you?
I'm merging this with the thread you made earlier about the exact same thing.
-
Why I have been neglected by discovering this new phenomenon ,
You were not "neglected". We put quite a lot of effort into showing that you were wrong.
You are still wrong.
-
My new great discovery can be tested to verify its validity ,so universities shouldn't neglect this great new discovery. and take it seriously.
Beside my logical observations above that shows small force can lift a massive human body here is an experiment to verify this in which only 17 kg force can lift my massive body of 57 kg , if my muscles force will lift another mass"not a human " it should use force greater than 57 kg.
:
-
Your assertion breaks the laws of physics, so it cannot be correct.
Looking at your video, it looks like your leg is applying a force at a slight angle to the force gauge. In order to get an accurate estimate, you'd need to have your leg and the force gauge perfectly aligned.
-
Your assertion breaks the laws of physics, so it cannot be correct.
It is true and this is supported by obvious observations and a test.
What I discovered is an exception for a human body mass.It doesn't "break" the laws of physics ,it is a new law of physics .
-
Your assertion breaks the laws of physics, so it cannot be correct.
It is true and this is supported by obvious observations and a test.
What I discovered is an exception for a human body mass.It doesn't "break" the laws of physics ,it is a new law of physics .
So, in addition, you don't understand how scientific laws work.
Beside my logical observations above that shows small force can lift a massive human body here is an experiment to verify this in which only 17 kg force can lift my massive body of 57 kg
You did not show anything like that.
-
Your assertion breaks the laws of physics, so it cannot be correct.
Yes , the work against gravity appears to be smaller than the work exerted by mass downwards but this is only according to work being force times distance, but here the work exerted against gravity is the energy of a human being .The idea of work being force times distance doesn't work here , the work here is the energy of a person .This is also a new physics law.
In the video by raising my body I will exert work greater than 17 times distance and equal to 57 times distance even though the work appears to be only 17 times distance.
-
but here the work exerted against gravity is the energy of a human being
OK, so you don't know what "energy" means
The whole idea makes no sense.
"The unique normal force on human body: a massive human can stand on weak toes"
Toes are not weak.
-
In the video by raising my body I will exert work greater than 17 times distance and equal to 57 times distance even though the work appears to be only 17 times distance.
You need to start by explaining what you are doing in the video.
-
It is true
No, it isn't.
this is supported by obvious observations
There are no obvious observations in support of it. If you were talking about "observations" like this:
An average person can lift his body of 60 kg holding a bar many times but he will barely move a rock of the same mass 60 kg.
Then you are, as usual, ignoring the fact that lifting a 60 kilogram rock is equivalent to your legs lifting 120 kilograms total, because your body weight doesn't magically disappear just because you're holding something heavy. Of course it's harder to walk while carrying a 60 kilogram rock than it is to carry a 60 kilogram body because your legs are bearing twice the weight in the first scenario than they are in the second. You honestly can't tell me that you don't understand that.
and a test.
Your test was flawed, as I pointed out earlier. In addition to the angling problem I mentioned, there's another one as well. It only took 17 kilograms of force for you to full extend your foot under the restraint of that force gauge. That is not the same as saying that your foot can only exert 17 kilograms of force. You were unable to apply any more force to the gauge because your foot was already full extended.
What I discovered is an exception for a human body mass.It doesn't "break" the laws of physics ,it is a new law of physics .
It absolutely does break the laws of physics because you could use that exact same principle to create net energy thus violate conservation of energy. The less force it takes to lift something against gravity, the less energy is used in the act of lifting it. In normal, law-obeying circumstances, the amount of energy that an object releases when it falls from a given height is exactly equal to the amount of energy required to lift it to that same height. If you introduce a mechanism that requires less energy to lift it to that height than you get from dropping it, then you get excess energy during the drop. The energy doesn't balance.
-
Then you are, as usual, ignoring the fact that lifting a 60 kilogram rock is equivalent to your legs lifting 120 kilograms total,
If we consider for example the force to lift a mass is usual but what actually decrease is the mass ,For instance if the mass is 60 kg let's treated it as a 15 kg one . If a person lifts his body he will need small force of 15 kg .If a person try to lift another rock of 60 kg he will need greater force one is his body 15 kg and the other one is the rock 60 kg a total of 75 kg lifting a mass is absolutely greater than lifting a body "15 kg vs 75 kg " your example is only 120 half which will not gives noticeable results but the observation is very noticeable. "15 vs 75"
Of course it's harder to walk while carrying a 60 kilogram rock than it is to carry a 60 kilogram body
Are you aware what a 60 kg mass is ? it is 10 kg times 6 , you can obviously hard to hold and walk with your 10 kg suitcase .
-
Do you not understand that the body is built in such a way that the 60Kg or so of your mass is well supported and held directly above your feet- symmetrically balanced.
But a suitcase is off to one side?If we consider for example the force to lift a mass is usual but what actually decrease is the mass
No
Mass is a conserved quantity.
There's an explanation / proof here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Are you aware what a 60 kg mass is ? it is 10 kg times 6 , you can obviously hard to hold and walk with your 10 kg suitcase .
Are you aware that, if you arrange things so the load can be lifted properly it's easy to lift twice your bodyweight and some people do rather more.
You should be, because I pointed it out a while ago.
But you seem to be ignoring it.
-
If a person lifts his body he will need small force of 15 kg
You have absolutely zero evidence for this, whereas there is very strong evidence against it (I posted how it can be used to violate conservation of energy).
Are you aware what a 60 kg mass is ? it is 10 kg times 6 , you can obviously hard to hold and walk with your 10 kg suitcase .
Bored Chemist explained it. Balance has a lot to do with it (plus the fact that your legs are now lifting 70 kilograms instead of the 60 kilogram weight of your body alone). You should also find that it is your arms that are getting tired and not your legs when you carry something like that.
-
If a person lifts his body he will need small force of 15 kg
You have absolutely zero evidence for this
I have a very strong evidence .
I use less than the maximum 17 kg to raise my 57 kg weight.
So why do you ignore this?
There is very strong evidence against it (I posted how it can be used to violate conservation of energy).
No, If 15 kg raises 60 kg, there is a scientific explanation in which the idea 15 kg lifting 60 kg agrees with the law of conservation of energy.The idea is force vs force not work vs work
-
I have a very strong evidence .
That isn't evidence because I explained the flaws in your experiment. Go back and read reply 35.
So why do you ignore this?
I didn't. I pointed out why it is wrong.
No, If 15 kg raises 60 kg, there is a scientific explanation in which the idea 15 kg lifting 60 kg agrees with the law of conservation of energy.The idea is force vs force not work vs work .
You could use that to create net energy (I explained how), so conservation of energy is still violated.
-
No, If 15 kg raises 60 kg, there is a scientific explanation in which the idea 15 kg lifting 60 kg agrees with the law of conservation of energy.The idea is force vs force not work vs work .
You could use that to create net energy (I explained how), so conservation of energy is still violated.
The usage of energy as F*d is wrong .Energy comes from a human being.
-
The usage of energy as F*d is wrong
Please demonstrate this.
Energy comes from a human being.
The source doesn't make any difference. Energy is energy.
-
The usage of energy as F*d is wrong
Please demonstrate this.
I only need to demonstrate my great new discovery with its obvious observations,logical arguments and a true test
I'm sure no scientist will think he is carrying his body like carrying a rock or he is stupid.
-
I only need to demonstrate my great new discovery
It isn't.
with its obvious observations
There are none. Just misconceptions that you have.
logical arguments
Everything you've said is illogical.
and a true test
It's a flawed test. The fact that you can lift your own weight with your feet is proof enough that you are producing at least as much force as your own weight. The laws of physics demand it. The laws of physics don't change just because you don't properly understand them.
I'm sure no scientist will think he is carrying his body like carrying a rock or he is stupid.
This is true only in the sense that the body is placed directly over the legs, whereas carrying a rock requires you to have it in front of you.
-
Just another thing of such a stupid scientist he will be happy that he flies jumping with a rock of 60 kg while this rock is hard for bodybuildings
-
Just another thing of such a stupid scientist he will be happy that he flies jumping with a rock of 60 kg while this rock is hard for bodybuildings
Then you are, as usual, ignoring the fact that lifting a 60 kilogram rock is equivalent to your legs lifting 120 kilograms total, because your body weight doesn't magically disappear just because you're holding something heavy. Of course it's harder to walk while carrying a 60 kilogram rock than it is to carry a 60 kilogram body because your legs are bearing twice the weight in the first scenario than they are in the second. You honestly can't tell me that you don't understand that.
-
Energy comes from a human being.
What do you think "energy" means?
-
Just another thing of such a stupid scientist he will be happy that he flies jumping with a rock of 60 kg while this rock is hard for bodybuildings
60 Kg in a rucksack isn't nearly so much of a problem, because it's properly distributed, symmetrically, and with the load transmitted to the hips.
More or less like your bodyweight.
That's why it's easy to carry 60 Kg of bodyweight.
There is no need for any "magic".
Please try to remember this is a science site.
-
That being said, I've lifted and carried around approximately 60 kilograms at my job on multiple occasions. I'm far from a body-builder.
-
That being said, I've lifted and carried around approximately 60 kilograms at my job on multiple occasions. I'm far from a body-builder.
Then you agree of what I say.You carry your 60 kg several times at your job while a bodybuilder can't , because you need small force to move your body than a body building uses to lift the same mass
-
a bodybuilder can't
Prove it.
-
That being said, I've lifted and carried around approximately 60 kilograms at my job on multiple occasions. I'm far from a body-builder.
Then you agree of what I say.You carry your 60 kg several times at your job while a bodybuilder can't , because you need small force to move your body than a body building uses to lift the same mass
I don't think you understood Kryptid's post.
-
and a true test
It's a flawed test. The fact that you can lift your own weight with your feet is proof enough that you are producing at least as much force as your own weight. The laws of physics demand it. The laws of physics don't change just because you don't properly understand them.
The force is 34 kg for both legs , it will be 34 kg raising 57 .and I only used force far less than the maximum as in the video.
If what you say affects, then the measuring can' happen because my leg will move to the right side.
-
The force is 34 kg for both legs
What force?
The force you happen to exert is irrelevant since it isn't being use to hold you up.
-
The force is 34 kg for both legs , it will be 34 kg raising 57 .and I only used force far less than the maximum as in the video.
Ahem:
It only took 17 kilograms of force for you to full extend your foot under the restraint of that force gauge. That is not the same as saying that your foot can only exert 17 kilograms of force. You were unable to apply any more force to the gauge because your foot was already full extended.
If what you say affects, then the measuring can' happen because my leg will move to the right side.
Not if you're using other muscle groups to prevent your leg from moving.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to prove that I can lift more weight than a bodybuilder, as you claimed that I could do so right here:
You carry your 60 kg several times at your job while a bodybuilder can't
-
I am still trying to work out what he thinks that video shows.
-
I am still trying to work out what he thinks that video shows.
OK
Pressing the scale is equivalent to pressing the ground in lifting .I press the scale of maximum"17 kg one leg" and I left myself with far less than 34 kg"two legs" because I actually didn't exert that maximum effort as in the video
-
Your foot is on one end, but what is holding the other end of the scale?
-
Your foot is on one end, but what is holding the other end of the scale?
At the end of the iron bed.
-
Today, just for the sake of it, I decided to test your claim with an experiment of my own. I put on a backpack, added weights to it, put weights on my ankles, held weights in my hands and, for good measure, hung a computer-carrying bag around my neck. The total amount of weight was 62 kilograms (I know this because I measured my weight with a scale both before and after I put all the weights on). Then I tried to see if I could still stand on my tip-toes despite carrying all that extra weight around.
I could. Without much trouble, either.
So each one of my calf muscles easily lifts much more than 31 kilograms (because that's not counting the weight of my own body). I don't even include calf exercises in my workout routine, and I'm a fairly average individual in terms of height and weight (well, for an American, anyway). So this pretty much proves that calf muscles in an average person are capable of lifting a 60 kilogram body. So I know from personal experience that you are wrong.
-
Your foot is on one end, but what is holding the other end of the scale?
At the end of the iron bed.
Try again, with a shorter rope tied to the scale + bed.
-
So each one of my calf muscles easily lifts much more than 31 kilograms (because that's not counting the weight of my own body).
I don't know what an average person can carry and how stronger you are .What you are doing is feeling how easy it is .If you lift your body with calves muscles" , you will find out you will literally not exert effort on lifting your body and you will do it many times.
hen I tried to see if I could still stand on my tip-toes despite carrying all that extra weight around.
I could. Without much trouble, either.
My idea includes small normal force on toes and that will give small pressure on toes and that why you could stand on toes tips
-
Did you lift with effort ?
Why did you ask that when it had already been answered?
Without much trouble
-
I honestly couldn't figure out what you were trying to say with your last post.
I was able to prove that calf muscles can easily produce over 60 kilograms of force together. This is in contrast to what your claim is.
-
Essentially, the claim that your leg will only deliver 17 KgF is impossible. You just aren't measuring it properly.
Here's some data where the strength of the triceps muscle of the arm was measured.
Typical values are about 700N or about 70Kg.
If these people- even after not using the muscles for weeks are able to exert forces of 70Kg with an arm muscle, there is no way that you can only produce 17Kg using your leg.
Not to mention that fact that you wouldn't be able to stand up.
You are fooling yourself.
-
Essentially, the claim that your leg will only deliver 17 KgF is impossible. You just aren't measuring it properly.
Agreed.
Look at this way this experiment was set up with straps to prevent the body sliding away from the scale. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107699/
Obviously this wasn’t an attempt to measure maximum force, but the principle applies.
-
I'm pretty sure that an object moving in the opposite direction of net force violates conservation of momentum, too.
-
In fairness, I think we should accept that the OP's response, while mistaken, is not totally without foundation.
It's 40 years since I was in a gym with"weight training" kit.
I was surprised whenI found out just how much you can lift if the load is properly supported.
Let's be clear about this- I was a nerdy 16 year old.
I decided to do weight training because school required that I did some sort of "games" and this was warm, indoors and not particularly competitive. I was no "gym bunny".
But I worked out how to "game" the equipment.
I would bet the big strong (foolish) lads that I could lift more than them.
And I did.
The easiest bet to win was "Do you think I can lift twice your weight?"
None of the "beefcakes" thought I could do this.
I knew I could
One of the machines was, in principle, a simple lever.
It was pivoted at one end against the wall - about 170cm above the floor.
Near the middle it had a big adjustable stack of weights. The weight you "chose" was decided by where you put a steel pin in the stack.
And, at the end it had a padded bar that was designed to rest across your shoulders.
The idea was simple, you squatted under it with your shoulders against the padded bar and stood up, thereby lifting the weights.
If I remember rightly (and I probably do- I'm like that) the total weight stack was 237.5Kg
Yes, nearly quarter of a ton.
The way to win the bet was to ensure that the pin was in the weight stack, but you put it there when you were nearly standing up- rather than squatting. That way you use your calves , rather than your thighs.
And then, using your calf muscles, lifting the whole stack wasn't that hard.
OK. some of you reading this will be thinking I'm bull ****ing.
There's a tradition in the uk that the first time a man and his wife enter their house after getting married the man carries his bride across the threshold. It's reasonable to say that most men can do this.
A man typically weighs 70Kg and his bride 65Kg.
So the evidence of tradition suggests the man can carry a total load of 135Kg
But, as he walks, he uses one foot at a time
So each foot (and thus each calf muscle) can lift a weight of 135 Kg
So, using both calves it's reasonable to imagine them lifting 270Kg.
This isn't some magical idea- it's just the fact that we are much much stronger than we normally think.
Iwas making a bet that I could, with both legs, lift a load that I had a fairly good chance of being able to lift with just one.
I made pocket money on the basis of the same misunderstanding that the OP has.
He's wrong, but he is in good company.
-
This is an accurate test giving maximum 8 kg force for calves muscles .And in the video I can raise and move my body 57 kg several movements effortlessly ,exerting force less than or equal to the maximum 8 kg.The force used to raise and move my body is far less than my massive weight. .
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCl9vfcRdQ4&feature=youtu.be
This is an experiment which shows that a human can lift his body with force smaller than the body weight:
A person of 60 kg stands on a scale and lifts his body up short distance like someone trying to pick a fruit from a tree. As the person lifts himself the weight on the scale will start to increase and read small x kg forces in which the total force in the scale will be x+60 kg. As this is class 3 lever and both my weight and the force of the calves and feet I lift my body with are at the heel, the force I need to lift my body with must be greater than my weight " greater than 60 kg" However in fact I lift my body with those smaller x kilograms
-
This is an accurate test
No, it is not.
Or rather, it might be a good test of the spring constant of the balance (and whatever is folding it.) but it's a lousy test of what force your calves can produce.
-
The fact that you can lift your body with your calf muscles is proof that your calf muscles are producing more force than your body weight. Any claim to the contrary is straight-up nonsense and ignores how math works.
How about trying an experiment like the one I did? Put on some weights and see if you can still stand on your toes.
-
The x kilogram is the additional force required to accelerate your body upwards from heel-down to tiptoe. If you remain on tiptoe this temporary force will decrease to zero.
-
If you remain on tiptoe this temporary force will decrease to zero.
In fact, since you have created an upwards velocity on your body by standing up on tip-toes, if you suddenly stop accelerating, I think this force x will go negative (for a very short time).
Can a human lift his body with force less than his weight ?
Yes, by using a pulley to lift himself up.
-
This is an experiment which shows that a human can lift his body with force smaller than lifting any other equivalent mass.
That is not what this shows
As this is class 3 lever and both my weight and the force of the calves and feet I lift my body with are at the heel, the force I need to lift my body with must be greater than my weight " greater than 60 kg" However in fact I lift my body with those smaller x kilograms
This is not a class 3 lever, it is a class 2.
The forward part of the foot is the fulcrum. The force is applied via the Achilles tendon which wraps around the back of the heel bone and is pulled up by the gastrocnemius and soleus muscles.
You are incorrect that the weight and force are both through the heel, this would require you to rock back onto your heel. The centre of mass of the human body, and hence the weight, is carried forward of the heel (class 2 lever) roughly just forward of the centre of the foot, and in performing heel raises it moves even further forward so that it is very close to the fulcrum point.
This has already been discussed in New Theories https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78506.0
Please do not try to introduce it here.
-
The force to lift a mass must always be greater than weight " my case is an exception"
Nope, not an exception. People do not possess magical abilities.
-
I'm not quite sure what you are saying about the scale. A lot of scales require the load to be reasonably balanced, and if the load is unbalanced, the scale will read the wrong weight. Not more or less, just unbalanced.
Now, say you weight 60 kg, and your kid weighs 30 kg, go to a teeter-totter, and you sit in the middle of the plank, while the kid sits at the end, and it will all be in balance, the 30 kg kid lifts the 60 kg adult. The fulcrum in the middle supports your weight (60kg) + the kid's weight (30kg) + the weight of the apparatus.
-
Are you still going on about this physics-defying nonsense? It's already been debunked in your original thread. Speaking of which, I'm merging this thread with that one.
-
A massive human can stand on weak toes
A human knees can bear a 60 kg upper part of body for years but it will bear a rock of the same mass for only several minutes .You can see the difference between "50 years " 2.628*10^7 minutes and 60 minutes or an hour
I put the rock on stomach and back equally I will have 60 kg"upper part" before putting the rock and 120 kg after putting the rock the 60 kg+60 kg will not affect such huge difference of 60 minutes vs 50 years.
-
A massive human can stand on weak toes
It is clear that toes are not weak.
Why do you nor realise this obvious fact?
-
A massive human can stand on weak toes
It is clear that toes are not weak.
Why do you nor realise this obvious fact?
.
They are. But I focus on how these toes or knees whether are weak or not bear a 60 k rock for minutes compared to bearing human body 60 kg " upper part" for years and the calculations 60+60 kg will not affect the huge difference 60 minutes vs 50 years.Or lets say holding a bag of 60 kg for a day vs walking on your knees for 50 years.
The idea is as I repeated many times is when a human knees bears its own body the body will be lighter than bearing any other equivalent mass.
-
I want to prove it by another argument.
You can not prove it, because it is obviously wrong.
In fact you are wrong twice.
This is wrong
"A massive human can stand on weak toes"
because toes are obviously weak.
And this is wrong
when a human knees bears its own body the body will be lighter than bearing any other equivalent mass.
because it is nonsense.
Either the mass is equivalent (i.e. the same) or it is not.
-
The idea is as I repeated many times
Repeating a wrong idea will never make it right, so why are you doing it?
-
You do realize that your knees are under much greater stress when they have to hold up both a 60 kilogram rock and the rest of your body than they are when they only have to deal with your body, right?
-
You do realize that your knees are under much greater stress when they have to hold up both a 60 kilogram rock and the rest of your body than they are when they only have to deal with your body, right?
Yes. I can do the calculations. lifting the upper part alone is 60 kg. lifting the total with the rock is 120 .By lifting a 120 kg I double the load, if the knees bear the rock for one day the knees ability to bear is doubled by 18250 times. It is like putting on stomach a 1 kg vs putting on your stomach 18.25 tons
-
You do realize that your knees are under much greater stress when they have to hold up both a 60 kilogram rock and the rest of your body than they are when they only have to deal with your body, right?
Yes. I can do the calculations. lifting the upper part alone is 60 kg. lifting the total with the rock is 120 .By lifting a 120 kg I double the load, if the knees bear the rock for one day the knees ability to bear is doubled by 18250 times. It is like putting on stomach a 1 kg vs putting on your stomach 18.25 tons
You seem to have posted random numbers.
-
You do realize that your knees are under much greater stress when they have to hold up both a 60 kilogram rock and the rest of your body than they are when they only have to deal with your body, right?
Yes. I can do the calculations. lifting the upper part alone is 60 kg. lifting the total with the rock is 120 .By lifting a 120 kg I double the load, if the knees bear the rock for one day the knees ability to bear is doubled by 18250 times. It is like putting on stomach a 1 kg vs putting on your stomach 18.25 tons
You seem to have posted random numbers.
When I put a 60 kg rock I double the load "120 kg " if the knees bear a rock and upper part "120 kg " for one day then by removing the rock the time my knees can bear must be double the one day or two days, however the time when removing the rock for a human is more than two days which is 50 years or 18250 days which is a huge difference in numbers this means removing the rock of 60 kg is not just removing half of the load but letting the body work on his knees in a different way.
-
A shelf can hold up a rock for a minute or a year. It doesn't need to be stronger to hold it for longer.
Your ideas make no sense.
-
A shelf can hold up a rock for a minute or a year. It doesn't need to be stronger to hold it for longer.
Your ideas make no sense.
Increasing in weight during age will cause knee disability
https://www.everydayhealth.com/knee-pain/why-knee-pain-worsens-with-age.aspx
But this still after 50 years or so, because it is still human body on its own knees. On the other hand this will happen shortly if carrying a load.
https://www.gomberamd.com/blog/how-does-lifting-weight-impact-your-joints-21917.html
-
Increasing in weight during age will cause knee disability
https://www.everydayhealth.com/knee-pain/why-knee-pain-worsens-with-age.aspx
But this still after 50 years or so, because it is still human body on its own knees. On the other hand this will happen shortly if carrying a load.
https://www.gomberamd.com/blog/how-does-lifting-weight-impact-your-joints-21917.html
This has nothing to do with your original conjecture, did you give up on that?
-
A shelf can hold up a rock for a minute or a year. It doesn't need to be stronger to hold it for longer.
Your ideas make no sense.
Increasing in weight during age will cause knee disability
https://www.everydayhealth.com/knee-pain/why-knee-pain-worsens-with-age.aspx
But this still after 50 years or so, because it is still human body on its own knees. On the other hand this will happen shortly if carrying a load.
https://www.gomberamd.com/blog/how-does-lifting-weight-impact-your-joints-21917.html
Getting old means losing the ability to repair the damage done by tings like carrying heavy loads.
It has nothing to do with making the forces bigger or smaller.
-
did you give up on that?
No. I'm right in all of these
-
A shelf can hold up a rock for a minute or a year. It doesn't need to be stronger to hold it for longer.
Your ideas make no sense.
Increasing in weight during age will cause knee disability
https://www.everydayhealth.com/knee-pain/why-knee-pain-worsens-with-age.aspx
But this still after 50 years or so, because it is still human body on its own knees. On the other hand this will happen shortly if carrying a load.
https://www.gomberamd.com/blog/how-does-lifting-weight-impact-your-joints-21917.html
Getting old means losing the ability to repair the damage done by tings like carrying heavy loads.
It has nothing to do with making the forces bigger or smaller.
My original idea is that people lose their ability to walk at very longer age of something like 65 years. While when carrying a load of the same body mass it will damage the knee causing pain and of course if this continues even for a short period it will cause disability.
https://www.gomberamd.com/blog/how-does-lifting-weight-impact-your-joints-21917.html
-
did you give up on that?
No. I'm right in all of these
No you are not.
I want to prove it by another argument.
You can not prove it, because it is obviously wrong.
In fact you are wrong twice.
This is wrong
"A massive human can stand on weak toes"
because toes are obviously weak.
And this is wrong
when a human knees bears its own body the body will be lighter than bearing any other equivalent mass.
because it is nonsense.
Either the mass is equivalent (i.e. the same) or it is not.
-
I want to prove it by another argument.
You can not prove it, because it is obviously wrong.
In fact you are wrong twice.
This is wrong
"A massive human can stand on weak toes"
because toes are obviously weak.
And this is wrong
when a human knees bears its own body the body will be lighter than bearing any other equivalent mass.
because it is nonsense.
Either the mass is equivalent (i.e. the same) or it is not.
This is meaningless. You are just throwing random words.
-
This is meaningless.
It means something to everyone else here.
-
If my knees can bear massive 40 kg "my upper body" for years then the force by my 40 kg upper part on my knees is small.
A smaller force by upper part of 40 kg on knees means I can overcome this force and lift the upper body by a small force, this is why jumping with massive 40 kg is effortless compared to even moving a rock with the same mass of 40 kg and this exactly what I said before.
-
If my knees can bear massive 40 kg "my upper body" for years then the force by my 40 kg upper part on my knees is small.
A smaller force by upper part of 40 kg on knees means I can overcome this force and lift the upper body by a small force, this is why jumping with massive 40 kg is effortless compared to even moving a rock with the same mass of 40 kg and this exactly what I said before.
Seriously, you're going start this silliness again?
-
If my knees can bear massive 40 kg "my upper body" for years then the force by my 40 kg upper part on my knees is small.
A smaller force by upper part of 40 kg on knees means I can overcome this force and lift the upper body by a small force, this is why jumping with massive 40 kg is effortless compared to even moving a rock with the same mass of 40 kg and this exactly what I said before.
You need to learn about and understand levers. Until you do this subject is locked.