Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Yahya A.Sharif on 25/12/2019 15:16:58
-
Here is my discovery
I can lift my whole body " 60kg" with my feet , but I can't lift a 60kg mass with my whole body.
Explanation
When a human uses his own body muscles to lift his own body mass he can do the moves with smaller force than lifting or moving any other object with the same mass, I can jump pushing my own body up high but I can't even move a rock of the same mass from the ground.
-
I can lift my whole body " 60kg" with my feet , but I can't lift a 60kg mass with my whole body.
Explanation: you can't lift it because that would be a total 120 kg you would be trying to lift.
-
I can lift my whole body " 60kg" with my feet , but I can't lift a 60kg mass with my whole body.
you can't lift it because that would be a total 120 kg you would be trying to lift.
Let it be sitting down on a chair " no effect of body weight on my feet " I put 20 kg on my thighs above my knees and I lift it up by moving my feet up. What would be easy ? to lift the 20 kg or to lift my body 60 kg?
-
Let it be sitting down on a chair
When you lift weights to a standing position, you engage your gluteus maximus (butt muscles), which are some of the largest muscles in the human body.
These can't help much when you are seated, so you can lift a reduced weight with your feet.
-
Go to the gym and use the leg press equipment and you will find that you can easily lift more than your body weight. There is no magic going on here.
-
Let it be sitting down on a chair
When you lift weights to a standing position, you engage your gluteus maximus (butt muscles), which are some of the largest muscles in the human body.
These can't help much when you are seated, so you can lift a reduced weight with your feet.
I might be misunderstood in my previous post :
Raising my body 60 kg is while standing and that by moving my feet up. Raising the 20 kg is while sitting putting the 20 kg on my thighs above my knees and move my feet up both I lift with my only feet muscles without using my leg muscles. I claim it would be far more easy to left the 60kg"my body" than to lift the 20kg because a body can lift itself easier than it lift a mass.
-
I claim it would be far more easy to left the 60kg"my body" than to lift the 20kg, because a body can lift itself easier than it lift a mass.
Your body does have mass, so you have to include that in what the body is lifting.
We are so used to holding up the body's mass while standing or walking, that it seems "effortless".
- Now try walking up 10 floors of a building via the stairs - you are lifting your body mass against gravity, and that takes energy.
On Earth's surface, we can often ignore the difference between weight and mass, because a stationary mass of 1kg exerts a force of 1kg-Force =9.8 Newtons.
- One place where these are very different is in the "vomit comet": planes used for astronaut training by NASA, ESA and the Russian space agency (and able to be hired for joy rides, too).
- During the microgravity part of the flight, you could (slowly) lift a ton of mass - because it is weightless.
- But you need to get out of the way quickly, because after 30 seconds, the plane bottoms out, and the weight increases to 2 tons, which would crush you (and damage the plane).
- In this phase of the flight, your weight increases to twice normal, which most people can withstand by standing while holding onto a handrail. But they require that you don't try to walk in this situation, as you are likely to fall and break bones. (The safety staff on the flight are trained to walk under these G-Forces - but they do so slowly and carefully!)
- Under 2g acceleration, I expect that you would struggle to lift yourself alone, with no weights.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft
https://omegataupodcast.net/330-parabolic-flights-at-airzerog/
-
- Now try walking up 10 floors of a building via the stairs - you are lifting your body mass against gravity, and that takes energy.
You didn't compared it with walking up carrying a load.
-
Your legs account for about 1/3 of your mass, so the muscles in your legs are only lifting 40 kg, and they are, as pointed out, huge.
The argument above is considerably confused but it seems to revolve around either "deadlifting" another 60 kg to the mass your legs are lifting, which is manageable with training but not what we evolved to do, or "curling" 20 kg from a seated position, using the puny muscles in your skinny arms - again manageable with training, but easier if you are some other kind of ape. Adult humans differ from other primates in being obligate bipeds, with long rear limbs and very little capacity for brachiation (though babies can grasp and hang long before they can walk), which is why we are reluctant to swing through the trees and sleep in a nest.
The trick of a good backpack is that the frame transfers the load to your hips. I often wear a "lead apron" for radiation protection at work: the best modern design uses a skirt and jacket to distribute the weight better than a simple tabard.
-
Your legs account for about 1/3 of your mass
It is absolutely easy to raise up my legs of 20 kg while sitting and it is absolutely hard to raise legs up in a case 20 kg is tied to them calculating the weight of my legs 20 kg adding to them the mass 20 kg will not give the normal results the difference will be huge.
-
Definition of weight: force required to lift a mass. If you get the physics right, it will be easier to discuss the physiology.
-
lifting the body "60kg"is while standing, lifting the 20 kg is while sitting , both I lift with my only feet muscles without using my leg muscles. I claim it would be far more easy to left the 60kg"my body" than to lift the 20kg, because a body can lift itself easier than it lift a mass.
The distribution of mass is different and the muscle groups engaged are also different. Have you heard of the concept of leverage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Force_and_levers If you consider your legs to be levers and the load is placed at your feet, then that is the worst possible place to put the weight in terms of lifting difficulty. If you put the load on your knees or thighs, it would be easier to lift despite having exactly the same mass.
-
Have you heard of the concept of leverage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Force_and_levers
Yes I have.
If you consider your legs to be levers and the load is placed at your feet, then that is the worst possible place to put
the weight in terms of lifting difficulty.
That doesn't have significant effect
If you put the load on your knees or thighs, it would be easier to lift despite having exactly the same mass.
I don't think putting a 60 kg load on my thighs is a good idea.
-
My great new discovery : A mass can be lifted with force less than its weight
This is not a new discovery.
This was achieved by an invention known since antiquity: The "Block and Tackle":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulley#Block_and_tackle
(Kryptid also mentions levers, above, which achieve the same force-multiplying effect by a different mechanism...)
-
That doesn't have significant effect
It has a very significant effect:
Double the length of the lever, and you double the force produced. So placing a 20 kilogram weight on your knees would require you to exert only about half as much force as you would need to lift that same weight if it was at your feet.
I don't think putting a 60 kg load on my thighs is a good idea.
Like I said before, the distribution of mass and the muscle groups employed are different in that scenario than they are for when you stand up from a sitting position.
-
both I lift with my only feet muscles
Feet have very little muscle.
So, it's clear that, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
Why do you do this?
-
The distribution of mass is different and the muscle groups engaged are also different. Have you heard of the concept of leverage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Force_and_levers If you consider your legs to be levers and the load is placed at your feet, then that is the worst possible place to put the weight in terms of lifting difficulty. If you put the load on your knees or thighs, it would be easier to lift despite having exactly the same mass.
I can lift my 60 kg body with only my weak feet muscles when trying to pick a fruit on a tree.
Let's for the example above the foot is 30 cm or 0.3 meters, Now let's calculate for a 0.3 lever:
First the lever will be class 3 :
The weight for 60 kg will be 60*9.8=588 Newtons.
The force of my feet is distributed along the feet , from both toes to both heel .Let’s the muscles force is focused on the heel which is the maximum force of muscles could be.
Class 3 is the fulcrum at the toes , and in this case both the weight of my body and the force of my feet will be exactly at the heel:
F: force of my weight
f: force of muscles strength
L: the distance of the weight from the heel to the toes.
l: distance of the muscles force from the heel to the toes.
f * l=FL
F=588 and L=l =0.3
f*0.3=588*0.3
f=588 Newton
The muscles force to lift 60 kg according to current physics and the lever idea must be 588 Newtons
The muscles force actually is far less than 588 Newton but it lift the body .
-
I can lift my 60 kg body with only my weak feet muscles when trying to pick a fruit on a tree.
Actually, it is mainly your calf muscles doing that, and they are (obviously) rather strong.
-
What you seem to have noticed- it isn't news to science- is that a thing can produce a force that is greater than its own weight.
So what?
A hammer does that.
-
-
I can lift my 60 kg body with only my weak feet muscles when trying to pick a fruit on a tree.
You must have forgotten about the significant muscle mass in your legs.
The muscles force actually is far less than 588 Newton but it lift the body .
What was it about, "the distribution of mass and the muscle groups employed are different in that scenario than they are for when you stand up from a sitting position" that you didn't understand?
-
A thing could be noticed is the inertia of one's body seems far less than actual body mass inertia so walking is easy , in fact all movements of a body are effortless moving any part of the body is easy compared to the body actual mass a person feels like his body is lighter than the actual mass of the body.
Is it possible for person to carry 70 kg rock and run ? I don't think an an average person who is not bodybuilding will even be able to lift a 70 kg weight .So how we even carry our bodies?
-
A thing could be noticed is the inertia of one's body seems far less than actual body mass inertia, so walking is easy , in fact all movements of a body are effortless , moving any part of the body is easy compared to the body mass, a person feels like his body is lighter than mass of the body.
What something "seems" like or "feels" like is not the same as what it actually is. Our muscles are collectively more than strong enough to move our bodies. An average man can leg press more than his own weight. That doesn't even take into consideration the other muscles, like those in your core and back, that help with standing up.
Is it possible for person to carry 70 kg rock and run ? I don't think an an average person who is not bodybuilding will even be able to lift a 70 kg weight .So how we even carry our bodies?
Are you serious? Your body has weight. If you are not carrying the rock, you are only carrying your own body's weight. When you carry a rock, you are carrying both your body's weight and the weight of the rock. Carrying a rock is obviously harder because the total weight being carried is higher. That should be obvious.
-
An average man can leg press more than his own weight. That doesn't even take into consideration the other muscles, like those in your core and back, that help with standing up.
I'm not talking about legs I'm talking about feet which is used to carry up a person as I mentioned.The force to lift the person should be 588 Newton do you think the feet will provide such force when presses .?
-
I'm talking about feet which is used to carry up a person
The muscles in your feet do not lift you own their own. Your leg muscles are involved.
The force which should lift a person by his feet is 588 Newton
Your calculation for that wasn't even sensible. People don't stand up by using their feet like that.
-
The muscles in your feet do not lift you own their own. Your leg muscles are involved.
Right , the force involves my legs force , but do you think the force of feet and legs pressing equal 588 Newton ? or even close to it? you can just press your feet and find out how weak it is .
Your calculation for that wasn't even sensible. People don't stand up by using their feet like that.
I presented specific example , which turned out to be very sensible.
-
Right , the force involves my legs force , but do you think the force of feet and legs pressing equal 588 Newton ? or even close to it? you can just press your feet and find out how weak it is .
It doesn't need to because getting out of a chair isn't akin to the scenario you calculated.
I presented specific example , which turned out to be very sensible.
No it wasn't. You stated in your calculation that you put the fulcrum at the feet. If I'm sitting in a chair and trying to get into a standing position, the fulcrum would be at the knee instead. Or at least one of the fulcrums would be. Standing up uses many joints and many points of force application. A calculation assuming a simple lever breaks down because of that. You would need to calculate the forces acting along all of the relevant points of the body.
-
It doesn't need to because getting out of a chair isn't akin to the scenario you calculated.
If I'm sitting in a chair and trying to get into a standing position, the fulcrum would be at the knee instead. Or at least one of the fulcrums would be. Standing up uses many joints and many points of force application. A calculation assuming a simple lever breaks down because of that. You would need to calculate the forces acting along all of the relevant points of the body.
Actually , the example doesn't involve body sitting or standing. Reply #16
-
The OP asked:
Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight?
The obvious answer is:
Of course not. It is embarrassing that someone would even ask the question.
He cannot be convinced he is wrong, he has shown that he Is impervious to logic.
-
It seems to me that he hasn't understood the issues.
Yahya A.Sharif
I can use a brick and a plank of wood as a fulcrum and a lever.
With those I can lift your weight very easily.
But the force at the "short" end of the lever- where it lifts your weight is still equal to your weight. (and eh force on trh brick is a bit more than your weight.
That's elementary physics.
You seem to think it is some sort of "magic".
It's not.
If you use your "feet" to lift yourself (actually, you use your calf muscles)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calf_(leg)
then the fulcrum is your toes. The load is your weight pressing down on your ankles and the force is applied from the calf muscles, via the achilles tendon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_tendon
The load in that tendon is several times MORE than your weight.
Your calf muscles can each supply a force of several times your body weight.
They are remarkably strong, but it still isn't a breach of physics.
-
Actually , the example doesn't involve body sitting or standing. Reply #16
Oh, I see now. 30 centimeters seems an unreasonable distance for the lever of your foot. Even if your foot was that long, you don't stand on your actual toes when you stretch upwards. You are standing on the ball of your foot instead. Also, your center of gravity wouldn't be right at your heel. It should be closer to the center of your foot for the sake of balance.
-
I don't think so?
The inertia needs to be overcome, even if the weight differ from the Moon to the Earth.
-
Yes weight can be lifted with a force less than it, through mechanical advantage, it is however possible to put less energy in than an object would gain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
-
Yes, that's true PC, but the energy spent by lifting it should be the same as if was someone stronger f.ex, using a winch as in pulleys. If there was a way to spend less energy I would be very surprised. To me it seems as if you have a mass you will find a inertia, the inertia won't change even though the weight might. That's how I see it.
-
will a person climbing a ladder and falling on a generator turbine generate energy from nothing?
No.
They will generate energy from food (which got it from sunlight).
But nobody said this wasn't the case, so why did you ask the question?
Quite a lot of the energy in the food is "wasted" as heat, but that's another matter.
Overall, energy is conserved.
-
Why do our bodies break fundamental laws of physics that is the laws regarding this thread?
They don't, this has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.
Does that mean the body have its own physics that governed by different laws and explains different phenomena of the body and theses laws connected to each other in a way that the body has its own physics?
Of course not, don't be silly
-
my final work
Good.
-
It looks like he didn't have to spend to very much money to get this published, so that's good.
-
my final work
Good.
Just to be clear; the work isn't good. The fact that it is final is good.
-
You asked this question 5 years ago in this thread:
Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
The answer you received then was 'no', the answer is still 'no' and 5 years from now the answer will still be 'no'.
-
I think I know the error this poster is making. In a healthy person of ~70kg the nervous system has adapted to the work in, for example standing up from a seated position, and the process feels close to effortless. Now that same person is asked to lift 20kg and a significant effort is required because that is an extra load that his(her) neuromuscular system is not accustomed to. If one was to strap a 20kg to oneself it would be quite noticeable as requiring an extra effort to stand up. Left there over a prolonged period it would become unnoticeable as the neuromuscular system adapts to the new load. Good to see you posting again, Origin, best wishes from "da Grinch"
-
The final theory is available at SSRN:
The Biological Leverage in Humans and Animals' Self-Movement
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4794848
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-journal-International-Journal-of-Applied-Science-and-Technology-a-good-journal-or-a-predatory-journal
-
Predatory and amateur.
-
I lift with my only feet muscles
There's the trick! No human has significant muscles in his feet. YAS is an octopus or an alien.
-
It is SSRN, it is not a predatory journal it is not even a journal:
Biological Leverage: A Novel Principle in Human Biomechanics
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4794848
-
I lift with my only feet muscles
YAS is an octopus or an alien.
;D Its along time since your funny comments, thanks Alan I actually adopted that acronym.
-
it is not even a journal:
-
A different take...
Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
Yes, if it is in a liquid to provide some buoyancy...
- and the weight is measured in air
That's why elderly people do "Aqua-Aerobics".
-
A different take...
Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
Yes, if it is in a liquid to provide some buoyancy...
- and the weight is measured in air
That's why elderly people do "Aqua-Aerobics".
Hello Evan_au,
Yes it's true that doing that exercise will require less force, but the resultant force is the force by muscles plus the buoyant force the same force when doing that outside water. A similar example is a mass balanced with a pulley; pulled upwards by another mass less in weight you will always lift the bigger mass with force less than its weight because it is pulled upwards by the rope by the smaller mass gravity.
-
No. The force in the part of the rope attached to the bigger mass is exactly the weight of the mass. A single pulley won't make life any easier but a multiple sheave block acts as a force multiplier: the small mass moves further than the big one and energy (force x distance) is conserved.
-
I think you didn't get me. The pulley is free to rotate, the smaller mass is exerting force equals to its gravity on the bigger mass, so you need to exert force equals:
Mg-mg
M: mass of the bigger object
m: mass of the smaller object
Actually if the masses are equal, in theory you can exert the smallest force but to accelerate it in a short time to lift it you need to exert the force for the time you want. See the drawing.
-
Your wording was inexplicit and implied what I wrote.
-
It is still wrong.
-
The weight of an object is defined as the force required to lift it. So the question is absurd.
-
The weight of an object is defined as the force required to lift it. So the question is absurd.
Hello Alan, yes the weight of an object is defined as the force required to lift it, now an answer to my question might be yes via levers now I want to answer it further by adding the biological leverage. My experiments use weight and mechanical advantage which violates your defintion above unless there is a sort of biological leverage. Tools, devices and systems have corresponding biological ones there is a possibility that the lever as a tool is originaly biological.
-
You are confusing perceived effort with physical measurement.
-
Hello Alan, yes the weight of an object is defined as the force required to lift it,
So you agree that the answer to your question is "no".
You might generate that force by applying a smaller force to a lever/crowbar/pulley block, but the force applied to the object will still be the weight of the object. The ratio of output force/input force is called "mechanical advantage".
I can't think of any biological lever with a mechanical advantage greater than 1.
-
Hi.
I can't think of any biological lever with a mechanical advantage greater than 1.
I don't know..... my sister had a nasty technique.
Put their head between your left upper arm and your body, then use your other arm, the right arm to grab the edge of your left arm and pull it inwards. You should have your right arm further from the fulcrum (your armpit) than their head.
Best Wishes.
-
I can't think of any biological lever with a mechanical advantage greater than 1.
That caught my interesting. The human skeleton can not contain a lever that has mechanical advantage greater than one since the characteristics of such lever requires a fulcrum outside the human body the biological leverage actually is embedded physiologically inside the body making it the greater-than-one lever for organisms reminds me of differences in mechanisms in organisms and machines like an airplane vs a bird.
-
Hi.
I can't think of any biological lever with a mechanical advantage greater than 1.
I don't know..... my sister had a nasty technique.
Put their head between your left upper arm and your body, then use your other arm, the right arm to grab the edge of your left arm and pull it inwards. You should have your right arm further from the fulcrum (your armpit) than their head.
Best Wishes.
Hello Eternal Student,
Your sister exactly used her head as an external fulcrum to build a lever but tha is not possible for a natural body formation.
-
Why Can a Human Lie on Their Abdomen on a Concrete Block Without Harm, While an Equivalent External Load Would Pose Significant Risk?
At first glance, this may appear to be a paradox in physics. A person can lie face-down on a concrete block with only their abdomen in contact and experience no harm. However, if the situation were reversed?where a concrete block of equal weight were placed directly on the person?s abdomen?it would likely result in serious injury. Given that the weight and contact area are effectively the same in both cases, why does the outcome differ?
The answer lies in the concept of biological leverage. In my Paper (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4794848) The Theory of Biological Leverage: A New Discovery in Human and Animal Self-Movement, published in the SSRN Physiology eJournal, I observed that a person weighing 60 kg can rest on a concrete block with their abdomen as the primary point of contact without experiencing significant discomfort. However, applying a rigid external 60 kg load directly onto the abdomen would result in considerably higher pressure, leading to potential injury.
Although the magnitude of the weight is identical in both scenarios, the forces at play are not. When a person lies on their own abdomen, the body's internal musculoskeletal system attenuates the force through biological leverage mechanisms. In contrast, external loads do not benefit from this internal mechanical advantage and apply force directly to soft tissues.
This principle also explains the long-term functionality of human joints, including the spine. The body is structurally adapted to support internal loads like the trunk's weight through evolved leverage systems. However, when external loads are applied, the stress imposed on joints and tissues can surpass safe thresholds, resulting in damage over time.
-
Q Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
A No
Looking at the last posting there is some good news.
It seems that the poster does not realise that a prone human can easily support the weight of another.
So the underlying problem will be saved in a generation or two.
-
Q Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
A No
Yes, a mass can be lifted with less force than its weight using leverage. In classical mechanics, levers with mechanical advantage make this possible. I've introduced the concept of Biological Leverage, where the human body lifts or supports itself using internal forces much smaller than its weight. For example, a 63.4 kg person lifted their body using just 32 kgf of foot force. So both in physics and biology, lifting with less force is achievable.
Looking at the last posting there is some good news.
It seems that the poster does not realise that a prone human can easily support the weight of another.
Biological leverage is about how body weight applies less pressure on internal structures, and how that reduced effective weight can be lifted using smaller muscle forces. In my experiment, I focused on comparing the effects of applying an equivalent weight in reverse i.e., placing a load on the abdomen instead of the body supporting itself.
As for a prone human supporting the weight of another person, that is a separate discussion, but it can still be analyzed within the biological leverage framework.
So the underlying problem will be saved in a generation or two.
My aim is not to leave this problem for the future. I am studying it now through experiments and a new idea called Biological Leverage. At least, I have discovered and explained a problem that was not clearly known before. I believe it is important to talk about it now, not wait for another generation.
-
Q Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
A No
Yes, a mass can be lifted with less force than its weight using leverage.
No.
The force applied to the mass must exceed its weight.
Who you produce that force (e.g. using a lever) is irrelevant.
-
. I've introduced the concept of Biological Leverage, where the human body lifts or supports itself using internal forces much smaller than its weight. For example, a 63.4 kg person lifted their body using just 32 kgf of foot force. So both in physics and biology, lifting with less force is achievable.
. I've introduced the concept of Biological Leverage,
Biological leverage is about how body weight applies less pressure on internal structures.
You have made up nonsense to try to explain something that only you think needs explaining.
The rest of us know it simply isn't real.
-
. I've introduced the concept of Biological Leverage, where the human body lifts or supports itself using internal forces much smaller than its weight. For example, a 63.4 kg person lifted their body using just 32 kgf of foot force. So both in physics and biology, lifting with less force is achievable.
. I've introduced the concept of Biological Leverage,
Biological leverage is about how body weight applies less pressure on internal structures.
You have made up nonsense to try to explain something that only you think needs explaining.
That you refer to as a problem- one that requires scientific solution.
So the underlying problem will be saved in a generation or two.
-
The rest of us know it simply isn't real.
Not true.
-
Since weight is defined as the force required to lift a mass in a gravitational field, the question is an oxymoron.
-
Since weight is defined as the force required to lift a mass in a gravitational field, the question is an oxymoron.
In engineering as well as biology there is a significant distinction between forces greater than weight applied directly and those less than weight applied through a lever. So physically the force needs to be greater than weight if it is applied directly can the force accelerate a mass against gravity while it is less than the weight? yes via a lever.
-
But the force that actually lifts the mass is the directly applied force, whatever its controlled source, so the answer to the question is no.
-
So the underlying problem will be saved in a generation or two.
By a British scientist??
-
It seems that the poster does not realise that a prone human can easily support the weight of another.
So the underlying problem will be saved in a generation or two.
The problem will die out.
One common situation where it is clear that a prone human can support the weight of another is during procreation.
Many British scientists are already aware of this.
It seems that you are not.
And thus you are unlikely to bequeath your absurd viewpoint.
This will solve teh problem
-
The problem will die out.
Highly likely.
One common situation where it is clear that a prone human can support the weight of another is during procreation.
Yes, this makes the entire idea wrong.
Many British scientists are already aware of this.
It seems that you are not.
It seems so.
And thus you are unlikely to bequeath your absurd viewpoint.
Totally absurd.
-
But the force that actually lifts the mass is the directly applied force, whatever its controlled source, so the answer to the question is no.
Yes, the answer is no.
-
You asked this question 5 years ago in this thread:
Can a mass be lifted with force less than its weight ?
The answer you received then was 'no', the answer is still 'no' and 5 years from now the answer will still be 'no'.
I finally knew that I was very stupid.
-
It is still wrong.
Will always be wrong.
-
Many British scientists are already aware of this.
It seems that you are not.
Science is mainly British.
-
This is a basic biomechanics and Physiology theory but it is still wrong.
-
Why Can a Human Lie on Their Abdomen on a Concrete Block Without Harm, While an Equivalent External Load Would Pose Significant Risk?
At first glance, this may appear to be a paradox in physics. A person can lie face-down on a concrete block with only their abdomen in contact and experience no harm. However, if the situation were reversed?where a concrete block of equal weight were placed directly on the person?s abdomen?it would likely result in serious injury. Given that the weight and contact area are effectively the same in both cases, why does the outcome differ?
The answer lies in the concept of biological leverage. In my Paper (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4794848) The Theory of Biological Leverage: A New Discovery in Human and Animal Self-Movement, published in the SSRN Physiology eJournal, I observed that a person weighing 60 kg can rest on a concrete block with their abdomen as the primary point of contact without experiencing significant discomfort. However, applying a rigid external 60 kg load directly onto the abdomen would result in considerably higher pressure, leading to potential injury.
Although the magnitude of the weight is identical in both scenarios, the forces at play are not. When a person lies on their own abdomen, the body's internal musculoskeletal system attenuates the force through biological leverage mechanisms. In contrast, external loads do not benefit from this internal mechanical advantage and apply force directly to soft tissues.
This principle also explains the long-term functionality of human joints, including the spine. The body is structurally adapted to support internal loads like the trunk's weight through evolved leverage systems. However, when external loads are applied, the stress imposed on joints and tissues can surpass safe thresholds, resulting in damage over time.
Can someone explain what the flaws in this to be a new concept and a new theory?
-
I can see how it is obviously wrong: I could lie on my stomach on a concrecte block for a minute without pain with my weight 70 kg, however the opposite is also true I can put a rock of 70 kg on my stomach with the same area of contact without any damage or pain. Obviously wrong concept.
I thought I discovered basic biomechanics, how stupid I am.
Thank you
Let this idea die out who cares.
-
Many British scientists are already aware of this.
It seems that you are not.
Science is mainly British.
Thank you.
I think the Americans would disagree and the Chinese would laugh.
-
I can see how it is obviously wrong: I could lie on my stomach on a concrecte block for a minute without pain with my weight 70 kg, however the opposite is also true I can put a rock of 70 kg on my stomach with the same area of contact without any damage or pain. Obviously wrong concept.
I thought I discovered basic biomechanics, how stupid I am.
Thank you
Let this idea die out who cares.
Yes, your concept is obviously wrong. It's also worse than you thought.
Let's imagine you lying down on a concrete floor.
And now, let's imagine slicing you up with a chainsaw.
First, we cut off your head.
Since it was already resting on the ground, removing it does not affect the load on your stomach.
Then we cut your legs off.
Again, they were already resting on the ground so their weight was already supported.
So removing them adds no additional load to your stomach.
We can do the same with your arms.
There's no additional weight on your stomach, because your stomach wasn't holding your arms up.
Finally, we can cut your torso in half.
Your chest still supports itself, just as it did before.
So we finally see that your stomach is only supporting itself- far less than 70 Kg.
So its absurd to compare that it it supporting an additional 70Kg of rock.
Well, that's a bit messy, so let's imagine putting you back together again.
And let's imagine that, in the fullness of time you end up married and in bed with your wife.
Are you going to tell her it's not possible for her to support 70Kg of you lying on top of her?
Or are you going to accept that your position was always absurd?
-
I can see how it is obviously wrong: I could lie on my stomach on a concrecte block for a minute without pain with my weight 70 kg, however the opposite is also true I can put a rock of 70 kg on my stomach with the same area of contact without any damage or pain. Obviously wrong concept.
I thought I discovered basic biomechanics, how stupid I am.
Thank you
Let this idea die out who cares.
I should probably have said this first but...
Well done.
It's hard to change your mind, and even harder to admit it.
-
Well done Yahya!, enlightenment is a very rare occurrence on "new theories". OOPS! it's not new theories I am on, my error but the relevant praise remains.
-
I'm sorry, but I just wanted to know if the scholars here might be biased against my idea. I've struggled for many years to accept that it might not be true, even though I know people here are knowledgeable. Maybe my idea seems illogical or unnecessary ? like claiming that muscles cannot carry a relatively massive weight. Anyway, I plan to access a good lab to measure the maximum calf push force to confirm its validity once and for all, and then discuss it with researchers there.
Thank you very much for your time. I apologize for any inconvenience.
-
OK, so the implication of your post is that there are researchers who have the equipment used to measure the forces exerted by the human body- and there are physiologists and ergonomists- but that without your input, they will somehow not notice that the forces don't add up.
That's special.
-
I plan to access a good lab to measure the maximum calf push force to confirm its validity once and for all,
No need. We have all sorts of lifting and jumping contests with well-recorded results.
The greatest weight ever lifted by a human being is 2,422.18 kg (5,340 lb) for two cars with drivers on a platform backlifted by Gregg Ernst (Canada, b. 30 September 1961), performed and notarized at South Shore Exhibition, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, Canada, on 28 July 1993.
and for a straightforward olympic deadlift, around 450 kg, so about 225 kg per leg.
-
and for a straightforward olympic deadlift, around 450 kg, so about 225 kg per leg.
Plus about 100Kg per leg for the athlete himself.
-
I plan to access a good lab to measure the maximum calf push force to confirm its validity once and for all,
No need. We have all sorts of lifting and jumping contests with well-recorded results.
The greatest weight ever lifted by a human being is 2,422.18 kg (5,340 lb) for two cars with drivers on a platform backlifted by Gregg Ernst (Canada, b. 30 September 1961), performed and notarized at South Shore Exhibition, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, Canada, on 28 July 1993.
and for a straightforward olympic deadlift, around 450 kg, so about 225 kg per leg.
Human muscle strength varies from individual to individual. It depends on gender, age, health, and training, so there is a big difference between an average 80-year-old person and a 25-year-old athlete. Consider an 80-year-old individual who lifts their own 70 kg body weight using their thigh muscles, compared to the same person attempting to lift an additional 40 kg of external weight.
-
Consider an 80-year-old individual who lifts their own 70 kg body weight using their thigh muscles, compared to the same person attempting to lift an additional 40 kg of external weight.
I did the comparison.
It turns out that lifting 110 Kg is harder than lifting 70.
You seem to have missed this
OK, so the implication of your post is that there are researchers who have the equipment used to measure the forces exerted by the human body- and there are physiologists and ergonomists- but that without your input, they will somehow not notice that the forces don't add up.
-
Consider an 80-year-old individual who lifts their own 70 kg body weight using their thigh muscles, compared to the same person attempting to lift an additional 40 kg of external weight.
I did the comparison.
It turns out that lifting 110 Kg is harder than lifting 70.
How much harder is it? The point is to understand the extent of the difference. For example, compare lifting 70 kg to lifting 90 kg (i.e., 70 kg plus an additional 20 kg). Is the increase in difficulty truly proportional to adding 20 kg to the original weight?
Why is it that a child aged 12 years, weighing approximately 40-45 kg, can lift their own body weight by pulling up on a bar, yet cannot lift a rock of equivalent weight (40-45 kg) using a rope and pulley, even though both actions appear to involve the same muscle groups?
-
Depends on the rope and pulley! If you add a handlebar, so you can pull with both hands and optimum grip, I think the laws of physics apply, but pulling directly on a rope involves slightly different muscle alignments and a weak grip.
-
Why is it that a child aged 12 years, weighing approximately 40-45 kg, can lift their own body weight by pulling up on a bar, yet cannot lift a rock of equivalent weight (40-45 kg) using a rope and pulley,
It's not a real question.
Ignore the child's muscles.
Imagine I get a rope and a pulley and a 40Kg weight I tie the weight to the rope, thread it over the pulley (which is fixed to the roof or whatever) and tie a stick to the other end,
I lift the child up and tell them to hold onto the stick. Then I let go of them.
If they weigh more than 40 Kg then they fall, and the weight rises.
If they weigh less than 40Kg then they just hang off the stick.
If they then pull down on the stick, they may be strong enough to lift themselves, and they may not- depending on their musculature.
-
You deem to have forgotten to answer this again. Why is that?
OK, so the implication of your post is that there are researchers who have the equipment used to measure the forces exerted by the human body- and there are- physiologists and ergonomists- but that without your input, they will somehow not notice that the forces don't add up.
-
Come to think of it, at the age of 12, most of my cohort could do a chinup to the bar, but only a few gifted gymnasts could climb a rope hand-over-hand without using their feet.
-
You deem to have forgotten to answer this again. Why is that?
OK, so the implication of your post is that there are researchers who have the equipment used to measure the forces exerted by the human body- and there are- physiologists and ergonomists- but that without your input, they will somehow not notice that the forces don't add up.
I have not found any references providing experimental data on the maximum force generated by the toes and calf muscles during a push-off in non-athlete individuals, particularly young children.
-
The minimum force required to leave the ground is the weight of the child, by definition. The additional force required to leave the ground at a given initial velocity is time-dependent: in a standing jump the maximum probably occurs on rotation to the ball of the foot. I'm sure that elite sports departments (try Loughborough university) and athletic or ballet shoe manufacturers have plenty of data for teenagers upwards, and maybe for juniors too. If not, you can measure it yourself with a strain gauge or a maximum-recording weighing machine - a simple modification of a bathroom scale.
-
You deem to have forgotten to answer this again. Why is that?
OK, so the implication of your post is that there are researchers who have the equipment used to measure the forces exerted by the human body- and there are- physiologists and ergonomists- but that without your input, they will somehow not notice that the forces don't add up.
I have not found any references providing experimental data on the maximum force generated by the toes and calf muscles during a push-off in non-athlete individuals, particularly young children.
You have that data.
You just do not understand it.
Children can walk up stairs, and they even sometimes do so while carrying a dog or a friend.
In doing so, they exert a force rather larger than their own weight and they do it with each foot in turn.
So it's a fair guess that they can (if using both feet) deliver about 3 or 4 times their weight.
It's called muscle.
No magic required.
-
You deem to have forgotten to answer this again. Why is that?
OK, so the implication of your post is that there are researchers who have the equipment used to measure the forces exerted by the human body- and there are- physiologists and ergonomists- but that without your input, they will somehow not notice that the forces don't add up.
I have not found any references providing experimental data on the maximum force generated by the toes and calf muscles during a push-off in non-athlete individuals, particularly young children.
You have that data.
You just do not understand it.
Children can walk up stairs, and they even sometimes do so while carrying a dog or a friend.
In doing so, they exert a force rather larger than their own weight and they do it with each foot in turn.
So it's a fair guess that they can (if using both feet) deliver about 3 or 4 times their weight.
It's called muscle.
No magic required.
Three or four times their body weight? How realistic is that? For example, could a child weighing 40 kg actually carry 120 kg or even 160 kg while walking up a flight of stairs? I am not referring to lifting or carrying another person, I am specifically asking why this would not apply to an inanimate object, such as a rock or a small refrigerator. Anyway that is not numerical data.
-
Three or four times their body weight?
Like I said, you have the data (a child might be expected to carry his twin brother) but you do not understand it.
You are essentially trying to claim that 2 times 2 equals four is not numerical.
-
Three or four times their body weight?
Like I said, you have the data (a child might be expected to carry his twin brother) but you do not understand it.
Why not a rock of 120 kg or 160 kg?
-
Do you think the child's twin weighs 120Kg?
-
Do you understand that it is easier to carry things n a backpack, than in your arms?
Do you understand why?
-
It is an odd fact that people experience more difficulty lifting dead weight than live weight - including corpses that were alive a few minutes earlier. I think the reason is that a live or even partially conscious load has an instinctive tendency to "help" by arranging its muscles to distribute the interface pressure as evenly as possible, so no single upper body muscle group is carrying the entire load. But the fact remains that the bearer's legs are transmitting the entire load plus the bearer's weight, to the ground.
-
Do you think the child's twin weighs 120Kg?
You said he can lift four times his own weight. If he weighs 40 kg, then carrying 160 kg (40 + 120) would match that claim. But realistically, a child weighing 40 kg would struggle to carry even a 40 kg object-like a rock-upstairs. Why is that?
-
Why is that?
Did you not read this, or not understand it?
It is an odd fact that people experience more difficulty lifting dead weight than live weight - including corpses that were alive a few minutes earlier. I think the reason is that a live or even partially conscious load has an instinctive tendency to "help" by arranging its muscles to distribute the interface pressure as evenly as possible, so no single upper body muscle group is carrying the entire load. But the fact remains that the bearer's legs are transmitting the entire load plus the bearer's weight, to the ground.
How about this?
Do you understand that it is easier to carry things n a backpack, than in your arms?
Do you understand why?
We keep telling you the answer and you just ask the same question.
Why do you do that?
-
Do you think the child's twin weighs 120Kg?
You said he can lift four times his own weight. If he weighs 40 kg, then carrying 160 kg (40 + 120) would match that claim. But realistically, a child weighing 40 kg would struggle to carry even a 40 kg object-like a rock-upstairs. Why is that?
Which part of this do you not understand?
Please go through it nd point out the bit that you do not accept or do not understand?
A (typical, reasonably fit) 70Kg man can reasonably be expected to carry a second man of the same (70Kgf) weight while walking, even up stairs.
While walking, each leg takes the load in turn.
So, half the time the whole load of man (70Kgf) plus the twin (another 70Kgf) is on the left leg. So, we know the left leg can carry 140Kg
And half the time that load - man (70Kgf) plus the twin (another 70Kgf) is on the right leg.
So, we know that each of two legs can carry 140 Kgf
And he can use both of them, so his legs can lift 280Kgf between them.
Of that, rather less than 70 Kgf is the person's top half.
So we know that he can (if he uses both legs) lift rather more than 280Kgf-70Kgf.
He can lift more than 210Kgf
So, more than 3 times his weight
-
Did you not read this, or not understand it?
It is an odd fact that people experience more difficulty lifting dead weight than live weight - including corpses that were alive a few minutes earlier. I think the reason is that a live or even partially conscious load has an instinctive tendency to "help" by arranging its muscles to distribute the interface pressure as evenly as possible, so no single upper body muscle group is carrying the entire load. But the fact remains that the bearer's legs are transmitting the entire load plus the bearer's weight, to the ground.
I'm not convinced by this argument. What if the living person is completely relaxed, just like a dead body-would that make a difference? A person can move their own body using biomechanical advantage, and when carrying another living person, that body effectively becomes an extension of their own. In such cases, biomechanical advantage can still be applied.
-
Just try it, or talk to nurses and operating theater staff. Nobody is saying that a dead body weighs more than live one, it's just a lot more difficult to lift!
-
This experiment offers further verification of the presence of a biomechanical advantage in human movement:
A male subject weighing 57.7 kgf stands on a scale and performs a calf lift, reaching a peak force output of 59.2 kgf. The net force responsible for the upward acceleration of the body-acting through the toes-is measured at 1.5 kgf. The corresponding force exerted by the Achilles tendon is calculated as:
F = (13 / 5) * 1.5 = 3.9 kgf
The actual acceleration during the lift can be estimated using the kinematic equation:
a = 2x / t^2
Where:
x = vertical displacement (0.1 m)
t = time duration (0.2 s)
Substituting the values:
a = (2 * 0.1) / (0.2^2) = 5 m/s^2
This means the subject achieves an upward acceleration of 5 m/s^2. However, a force of only 3.9 kgf (≈ 38.2 N) acting on a 57.7 kg body would, without any mechanical advantage, produce an acceleration of:
a = F / m = (3.9 * 9.8 ) / 57.7 ≈ 0.66 m/s^2
The significant discrepancy between the actual acceleration (5 m/s^2) and the expected acceleration from direct force application (0.66 m/s^2) highlights the role of a biomechanical advantage.
Experiment (https://youtube.com/shorts/hSoYJIX7hS0?feature=shared)
Full Paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4794848)
-
This research was recently accepted as an abstract at the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) 2025 Congress.
-
This experiment offers further verification of the presence of a biomechanical advantage in human movement:
A male subject weighing 57.7 kgf stands on a scale and performs a calf lift, reaching a peak force output of 59.2 kgf. The net force responsible for the upward acceleration of the body-acting through the toes-is measured at 1.5 kgf. The corresponding force exerted by the Achilles tendon is calculated as:
F = (13 / 5) * 1.5 = 3.9 kgf
The actual acceleration during the lift can be estimated using the kinematic equation:
a = 2x / t^2
Where:
x = vertical displacement (0.1 m)
t = time duration (0.2 s)
Substituting the values:
a = (2 * 0.1) / (0.2^2) = 5 m/s^2
This means the subject achieves an upward acceleration of 5 m/s^2. However, a force of only 3.9 kgf (≈ 38.2 N) acting on a 57.7 kg body would, without any mechanical advantage, produce an acceleration of:
a = F / m = (3.9 * 9.8 ) / 57.7 ≈ 0.66 m/s^2
The significant discrepancy between the actual acceleration (5 m/s^2) and the expected acceleration from direct force application (0.66 m/s^2) highlights the role of a biomechanical advantage.
Experiment (https://youtube.com/shorts/hSoYJIX7hS0?feature=shared)
Full Paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4794848)
Re "A male subject weighing 57.7 kgf stands on a scale and performs a calf lift, reaching a peak force output of 59.2 kgf. "
That is proof that a body can be lifted by a force grater than the body's weight.
59.2 is bigger than 57.7
You just showed that your claim is false.
Are you going to stop now?
-
The response time of a bathroom scale is inadequate for the purpose of this demonstration.
-
The response time of a bathroom scale is inadequate for the purpose of this demonstration.
The response time in the experiment was acceptable, and the accuracy is strong. The following four experiments help validate the concept:
1. Calf Muscle Force: The maximum pushing force generated by the calf muscles is lower than expected especially in children and average people, suggesting an underlying biomechanical advantage rather than raw force alone.
2. Abdominal Weight Support: A human can support an average weight of 60 kg on the abdomen without pain or injury, whereas far lighter external loads can cause discomfort. As noted by Bored Chemist, this is likely because when one human supports another, the supported body acts as part of the same system, allowing biomechanical leverage to come into play.
3. Lifting Living vs. Dead Bodies: Living bodies are easier to lift than dead ones. This is because the living person can effectively becoming an extension of the lifter's body and activating biomechanical leverage.
4. Calf Push and Acceleration: During a calf raise, the upward acceleration of the body exceeds expectations even when the force output is relatively low-such as 3.9 kgf-indicating enhanced efficiency through mechanical advantage.
-
This experiment offers further verification of the presence of a biomechanical advantage in human movement:
A male subject weighing 57.7 kgf stands on a scale and performs a calf lift, reaching a peak force output of 59.2 kgf. The net force responsible for the upward acceleration of the body-acting through the toes-is measured at 1.5 kgf. The corresponding force exerted by the Achilles tendon is calculated as:
F = (13 / 5) * 1.5 = 3.9 kgf
The actual acceleration during the lift can be estimated using the kinematic equation:
a = 2x / t^2
Where:
x = vertical displacement (0.1 m)
t = time duration (0.2 s)
Substituting the values:
a = (2 * 0.1) / (0.2^2) = 5 m/s^2
This means the subject achieves an upward acceleration of 5 m/s^2. However, a force of only 3.9 kgf (≈ 38.2 N) acting on a 57.7 kg body would, without any mechanical advantage, produce an acceleration of:
a = F / m = (3.9 * 9.8 ) / 57.7 ≈ 0.66 m/s^2
The significant discrepancy between the actual acceleration (5 m/s^2) and the expected acceleration from direct force application (0.66 m/s^2) highlights the role of a biomechanical advantage.
Experiment (https://youtube.com/shorts/hSoYJIX7hS0?feature=shared)
Full Paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4794848)
Re "A male subject weighing 57.7 kgf stands on a scale and performs a calf lift, reaching a peak force output of 59.2 kgf. "
That is proof that a body can be lifted by a force grater than the body's weight.
59.2 is bigger than 57.7
You just showed that your claim is false.
Are you going to stop now?
When standing still, the subject is not actually supporting the full 57.7 kg of body weight in the way we typically assume. Similarly, during upward acceleration, the subject is not exerting a full 59.2 kgf of force. For example, when lying prone on the abdomen, the body does not bear the entire 57.7 kg load directly on that surface - it supports much less. This explains why there is no pain or injury in such a position.
-
As noted by Bored Chemist, this is likely because when one human supports another, the supported body acts as part of the same system, allowing biomechanical leverage to come into play.
Liar.
I did not say that.
I said the opposite, people can hold other people up simply because people are a lot stronger than you seem to understand..
-
As noted by Bored Chemist, this is likely because when one human supports another, the supported body acts as part of the same system, allowing biomechanical leverage to come into play.
Liar.
I did not say that.
I said the opposite, people can hold other people up simply because people are a lot stronger than you seem to understand..
That explanation is not your own, but you did mention that a person can support another person. My question is: why can someone support another person weighing 60 kg on their abdomen, but not a 60 kg object like a rock?
-
Pressure, not force, determines tolerability. Another human is flexible and self-adjusts to minimise mutual pressure by maximising contact area. Bare feet are more tolerable than the same bloke wearing rigid boots.
-
The response time in the experiment was acceptable,
Not to a physicist or engineer.
-
That explanation is not your own,
Then you should not have pretended it was, should you.
Anyway, are you really to stupid to understand padding?
People are soft; rocks are hard.
-
That explanation is not your own,
Then you should not have pretended it was, should you.
Anyway, are you really to stupid to understand padding?
People are soft; rocks are hard.
If I lie prone on a rock, isn't it the same hard surface? So why don't I experience pain or injury, unlike when the same rock is placed on top of my abdomen? In both cases, the force is mutual-an action and a corresponding reaction.
-
That explanation is not your own,
Anyway, are you really to stupid to understand padding?
People are soft; rocks are hard.
I understand that texture and solidity play a role; however, placing a piece of wood under both the person's feet and the rock still yields different results. The person cannot support the rock the same way they can support another person.
-
That explanation is not your own,
Then you should not have pretended it was, should you.
Anyway, are you really to stupid to understand padding?
People are soft; rocks are hard.
If I lie prone on a rock, isn't it the same hard surface? So why don't I experience pain or injury, unlike when the same rock is placed on top of my abdomen? In both cases, the force is mutual-an action and a corresponding reaction.
[/quote]
I answered that already.
I can see how it is obviously wrong: I could lie on my stomach on a concrecte block for a minute without pain with my weight 70 kg, however the opposite is also true I can put a rock of 70 kg on my stomach with the same area of contact without any damage or pain. Obviously wrong concept.
I thought I discovered basic biomechanics, how stupid I am.
Thank you
Let this idea die out who cares.
Yes, your concept is obviously wrong. It's also worse than you thought.
Let's imagine you lying down on a concrete floor.
And now, let's imagine slicing you up with a chainsaw.
First, we cut off your head.
Since it was already resting on the ground, removing it does not affect the load on your stomach.
Then we cut your legs off.
Again, they were already resting on the ground so their weight was already supported.
So removing them adds no additional load to your stomach.
We can do the same with your arms.
There's no additional weight on your stomach, because your stomach wasn't holding your arms up.
Finally, we can cut your torso in half.
Your chest still supports itself, just as it did before.
So we finally see that your stomach is only supporting itself- far less than 70 Kg.
So its absurd to compare that it it supporting an additional 70Kg of rock.
Well, that's a bit messy, so let's imagine putting you back together again.
And let's imagine that, in the fullness of time you end up married and in bed with your wife.
Are you going to tell her it's not possible for her to support 70Kg of you lying on top of her?
Or are you going to accept that your position was always absurd?
[/quote]
-
That explanation is not your own,
Then you should not have pretended it was, should you.
Anyway, are you really to stupid to understand padding?
People are soft; rocks are hard.
If I lie prone on a rock, isn't it the same hard surface? So why don't I experience pain or injury, unlike when the same rock is placed on top of my abdomen? In both cases, the force is mutual-an action and a corresponding reaction.
I answered that already.
I can see how it is obviously wrong: I could lie on my stomach on a concrecte block for a minute without pain with my weight 70 kg, however the opposite is also true I can put a rock of 70 kg on my stomach with the same area of contact without any damage or pain. Obviously wrong concept.
I thought I discovered basic biomechanics, how stupid I am.
Thank you
Let this idea die out who cares.
Yes, your concept is obviously wrong. It's also worse than you thought.
Let's imagine you lying down on a concrete floor.
And now, let's imagine slicing you up with a chainsaw.
First, we cut off your head.
Since it was already resting on the ground, removing it does not affect the load on your stomach.
Then we cut your legs off.
Again, they were already resting on the ground so their weight was already supported.
So removing them adds no additional load to your stomach.
We can do the same with your arms.
There's no additional weight on your stomach, because your stomach wasn't holding your arms up.
Finally, we can cut your torso in half.
Your chest still supports itself, just as it did before.
So we finally see that your stomach is only supporting itself- far less than 70 Kg.
So its absurd to compare that it it supporting an additional 70Kg of rock.
Well, that's a bit messy, so let's imagine putting you back together again.
And let's imagine that, in the fullness of time you end up married and in bed with your wife.
Are you going to tell her it's not possible for her to support 70Kg of you lying on top of her?
Or are you going to accept that your position was always absurd?
That is completely incorrect. When I lie prone on a concrete block with my abdomen, my entire body weight is exerted through my abdomen-that's basic physics. If the block were replaced with a scale, it would measure my full body weight, not just the weight of my abdomen.
-
You have yet to say how big the block is.
Would you like to clarify that?
I'm no artist but
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Here we have stick man,
stickman looked at from one side,
Stickman lying down.
Stickman lying on a green block that's big enough to be comfortable
Stickman lying very uncomfortably on a block that's too small to be omfortable.
-
You have yet to say how big the block is.
The block measures 0.2 meters in length and 0.2 meters in width, making contact only with my abdomen. I weigh then 63.4 kilograms and was able to lie on it for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury. Now compare that with a hypothetical scenario where a 63.4 kg block or rock is placed on my abdomen, maintaining the same contact area.
-
The outcome would be the same.
-
The outcome would be the same.
The outcome would be completely different - a 63.4 kg rock would cause severe pain and likely serious injury.
-
In my research, I proposed conducting such an experiment on an animal. For example, a horse can lie on its abdomen on a concrete block without harm; however, placing a 300 kg rock on the horse's abdomen would cause serious damage.
Research Paper (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4794848)
This research was accepted as an abstract at the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) 2025 Congress.
Biological Leverage: A Novel Principle in Human Biomechanics (https://www.iups2025.com/wp-content/uploads/Programme_2025-07-29.pdf)
-
If you have reason to believe that an experiment would cause serious harm to an animal with no concomitant benefit, no responsible scientific body would accept your proposal or publish your findings.
You can, of course, experiment on yourself, though people might be sceptical of the result, or seek the consent of properly informed volunteers to at least assess discomfort if the experiment is adequately designed to prevent actual harm.
Happy to advise on the ethics of a particular investigation - it's what I do.
-
If you have reason to believe that an experiment would cause serious harm to an animal with no concomitant benefit, no responsible scientific body would accept your proposal or publish your findings.
You can, of course, experiment on yourself, though people might be sceptical of the result, or seek the consent of properly informed volunteers to at least assess discomfort if the experiment is adequately designed to prevent actual harm.
Happy to advise on the ethics of a particular investigation - it's what I do.
Thank you, Alan. I can instead rely on the other two experiments-measuring acceleration and assessing maximum calf push in individuals with low strength.
-
The outcome would be the same.
The outcome would be completely different - a 63.4 kg rock would cause severe pain and likely serious injury.
That's your claim. Now provide the evidence.
-
In my research, I proposed conducting such an experiment on an animal. For example, a horse can lie on its abdomen on a concrete block without harm; however, placing a 300 kg rock on the horse's abdomen would cause serious damage.
There's nothing profound about that. It's nothing new. I can lie on my back on top of a house and be just fine. If I lie on my back and put a house on top of me, I'd get crushed. The scenarios aren't symmetrical. In one case, I have the weight of a whole house on top of me and in the other I don't have anything on top of me.
-
In my research, I proposed conducting such an experiment on an animal. For example, a horse can lie on its abdomen on a concrete block without harm; however, placing a 300 kg rock on the horse's abdomen would cause serious damage.
There's nothing profound about that. It's nothing new. I can lie on my back on top of a house and be just fine. If I lie on my back and put a house on top of me, I'd get crushed. The scenarios aren't symmetrical. In one case, I have the weight of a whole house on top of me and in the other I don't have anything on top of me.
That is not an equivalent scenario. A truly equivalent scenario would involve placing an object of the same weight on your abdomen. Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
-
A truly equivalent scenario would involve placing an object of the same weight on your abdomen. Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
Yes, we know that. It's because the applied pressure is different between your two scenarios.
-
Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
Why the hypothesis? Try it! Just find a farm gatepost (they are usually about 15 x 15 cm) and nail a 20 x 20 piece of 15 mm plywood to the top. Unless you are a trained gymnast or bodybuilder, I doubt that you would manage more then 10 seconds suspended prone by your abdomen.
Less dangerously, stack four house bricks to make a pile 215 x 215 mm x 130 mm high. Drape yourself over them, then raise your arms and legs so that your entire weight is borne by the bricks. If your paraspinal muscles aren't strong enough, just use one layer of bricks (65 mm high), get a "friend" to truss you to a pole (feet, hips, shoulders) and when you are steady, put your hands behind your head.
-
A truly equivalent scenario would involve placing an object of the same weight on your abdomen. Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
Yes, we know that. It's because the applied pressure is different between your two scenarios.
Why is the applied pressure different when two equal forces of 63.4 kgf act on two equal areas of 0.2x0.2 m? This would only occur if a biomechanical advantage is involved.
-
A truly equivalent scenario would involve placing an object of the same weight on your abdomen. Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
Yes, we know that. It's because the applied pressure is different between your two scenarios.
Why is the applied pressure different when two equal forces of 63.4 kgf act on two equal areas of 0.2x0.2 m? This would only occur if a biomechanical advantage is involved.
This "Why is the applied pressure different "
Is the wrong question.
You need to start by asking "is the applied pressure different ".
Have you done that?
-
Why is the applied pressure different when two equal forces of 63.4 kgf act on two equal areas of 0.2x0.2 m? This would only occur if a biomechanical advantage is involved.
Oh, wait. I think I misunderstood what you posted. Yes, the pressure would be same (about 15,544 pascals), assuming that you happen to weigh 63.4 kilograms. However the way that it is applied isn't exactly the same between the two scenarios. In one, you are being squeezed between the block and the ground. In the other, you aren't being squeezed between two objects. The effect on your internal organs would therefore not be exactly the same.
However, your skin shouldn't be pierced in either scenario. A Google search shows the yield strength of skin to be between 420,000 pascals and 20,000,000 pascals. The large range results from skin having different properties in different areas of the body as well as changes associated with aging. Even the low ball figure is well above the pressure your block is producing.
-
Why is the applied pressure different when two equal forces of 63.4 kgf act on two equal areas of 0.2x0.2 m? This would only occur if a biomechanical advantage is involved.
Oh, wait. I think I misunderstood what you posted. Yes, the pressure would be same (about 15,544 pascals), assuming that you happen to weigh 63.4 kilograms. However the way that it is applied isn't exactly the same between the two scenarios. In one, you are being squeezed between the block and the ground. In the other, you aren't being squeezed between two objects. The effect on your internal organs would therefore not be exactly the same.
However, your skin shouldn't be pierced in either scenario. A Google search shows the yield strength of skin to be between 420,000 pascals and 20,000,000 pascals. The large range results from skin having different properties in different areas of the body as well as changes associated with aging. Even the low ball figure is well above the pressure your block is producing.
Science does not recognize the concept of "squeezed" pressure; pressure must remain the same when the force, material, and area are unchanged.
-
A truly equivalent scenario would involve placing an object of the same weight on your abdomen. Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
I cannot believe Yahya still can't understand this. Talk about beating a dead horse...
-
Science does not recognize the concept of "squeezed" pressure; pressure must remain the same when the force, material, and area are unchanged.
Not so. The pressure on your stomach might be the same, but the pressure acting on your back would be different in the two scenarios. In one, the ground is pressing against your back and in the other it is not.
-
Science does not recognize the concept of "squeezed" pressure; pressure must remain the same when the force, material, and area are unchanged.
Not so. The pressure on your stomach might be the same, but the pressure acting on your back would be different in the two scenarios. In one, the ground is pressing against your back and in the other it is not.
My experiment does not compare the pressure on my back; it compares the pressure on my abdomen. In theory, the pressure should be the same, but it is not. I was able to lie on my abdomen on a single concrete block without harm. However, placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks directly on my abdomen would be fatal.
-
My experiment does not compare the pressure on my back; it compares the pressure on my abdomen.
Then it is missing something.
However, placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks directly on my abdomen would be fatal.
What was the surface area of the concrete block you laid on top of?
-
However, placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks directly on my abdomen would be fatal.
How do you know?
You seem to be just restating your opinion and then claiming reality does not agree with it.
-
What was the surface area of the concrete block you laid on top of?
0.2 m width, 0.2 m length.
-
However, placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks directly on my abdomen would be fatal.
You seem to be just restating your opinion and then claiming reality does not agree with it.
So, you're saying that placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks on an average human abdomen is considered safe?
-
You seem to be drifting from a hypothetical experiment (2 August) to a claim of actual experience (reply # 145 above). Frankly I doubt that the experiment, if you did carry it out, met the criteria of my proposal (#135 above) which would precisely replicate the pressure in either direction.
-
However, placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks directly on my abdomen would be fatal.
You seem to be just restating your opinion and then claiming reality does not agree with it.
So, you're saying that placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks on an average human abdomen is considered safe?
It isn't me that's saying it.
The laws of physics are saying it.
If you can support your 65 KG weight on a 20 cm by 20 cm concrete block then it is almost certain that you can support 65 Kg of concrete on your abdomen.
(The uncertainty results from the fact that the human body isn't completely symmetrical)
Nobody is saying it would be comfortable, or a good idea.
Have you done what was asked and supported your whole weight on just 20 by 20 as someone suggested- perhaps on top of a farm gate post?
If you say that's safe, then the laws of physics say that the reverse- you supporting the blocks- is also safe.
-
To try to support one's entire body weight on a 0.2x 0.2 block would be very difficult unless done at height as BC has suggested. It would be next to impossible to prevent some load bearing via the legs and upper body.
-
I have never objected to having a 65 kg woman place herself on me. Why anyone would prefer a concrete block is a complete mystery, but alii aliquam preferent.
-
You don't object but the boss may not approve, ie being caught in flagrante delicto.
-
However, placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks directly on my abdomen would be fatal.
You seem to be just restating your opinion and then claiming reality does not agree with it.
So, you're saying that placing four 15‑kg concrete blocks on an average human abdomen is considered safe?
It isn't me that's saying it.
The laws of physics are saying it.
If you can support your 65 KG weight on a 20 cm by 20 cm concrete block then it is almost certain that you can support 65 Kg of concrete on your abdomen.
(The uncertainty results from the fact that the human body isn't completely symmetrical)
Nobody is saying it would be comfortable, or a good idea.
Have you done what was asked and supported your whole weight on just 20 by 20 as someone suggested- perhaps on top of a farm gate post?
If you say that's safe, then the laws of physics say that the reverse- you supporting the blocks- is also safe.
In this image, point B experiences more pressure than point A, even when the contact areas are equal. To lift the lever upward, it would require less effort at point A. This remains consistent with the principles of physics. The concept of biomechanical advantage does not contradict the laws of physics. Physics does not support the irrational idea that placing four 15 kg concrete blocks on one's abdomen is a safe procedure.
-
Re " Physics does not support the irrational idea that placing four 15 kg concrete blocks on one's abdomen is a safe procedure"
Nice claim.
Prove it.
-
To try to support one's entire body weight on a 0.2x 0.2 block would be very difficult unless done at height as BC has suggested. It would be next to impossible to prevent some load bearing via the legs and upper body.
For the record, it wasn't my observation, but Alan's.
Hypothetically, placing a 63.4 kg block with an area of 0.2x0.2 meters on my abdomen would be fatal. However, my own body weight was 63.4 kg, I could lie on a 0.2x0.2 meter concrete block for one minute without experiencing any pain or injury.
Why the hypothesis? Try it! Just find a farm gatepost (they are usually about 15 x 15 cm) and nail a 20 x 20 piece of 15 mm plywood to the top. Unless you are a trained gymnast or bodybuilder, I doubt that you would manage more then 10 seconds suspended prone by your abdomen.
Less dangerously, stack four house bricks to make a pile 215 x 215 mm x 130 mm high. Drape yourself over them, then raise your arms and legs so that your entire weight is borne by the bricks. If your paraspinal muscles aren't strong enough, just use one layer of bricks (65 mm high), get a "friend" to truss you to a pole (feet, hips, shoulders) and when you are steady, put your hands behind your head.
The problem is that the OP forgot to do the experiment.
-
For the sake of being thorough, I just got done performing a similar experiment. I just got my brother, who weighs 158.2 pounds (71.9 kilograms) at the moment, to stand on my stomach. It wasn't comfortable and I had to tense my abs, but it wasn't painful either. Let alone lethal. That's more weight than 60 kilograms of concrete. The issue is the surface area, since measuring the surface area of feet isn't straightforward. Still, I wouldn't expect it to be all that far off from 20 centimeters by 20 centimeters.
-
For the sake of being thorough, I just got done performing a similar experiment. I just got my brother, who weighs 158.2 pounds (71.9 kilograms) at the moment, to stand on my stomach. It wasn't comfortable and I had to tense my abs, but it wasn't painful either. Let alone lethal. That's more weight than 60 kilograms of concrete. The issue is the surface area, since measuring the surface area of feet isn't straightforward. Still, I wouldn't expect it to be all that far off from 20 centimeters by 20 centimeters.
Thanks for actually doing the OP's job which he has consistently failed to do.
Was your brother wearing socks?
Because Yahya A.Sharif's claim is that biology magically makes it different and (we can reasonably assume) your brother is biological.
But (as long as they are clean) his socks aren't.
-
Wool or cotton socks.
-
He wasn't wearing socks, but I was wearing a shirt.
-
Aha! So you can test the OP's theory by repeating the experiment with nylon socks and no shirt. That's proper science.
If you die, I promise BC and I will report the result to Yahya's conference as confirmation of his hypothesis, and you will qualify for a posthumous Darwin award. Just get your brother to post the photos and death certificate here.
-
Aha! So you can test the OP's theory by repeating the experiment with nylon socks and no shirt. That's proper science.
If you die, I promise BC and I will report the result to Yahya's conference as confirmation of his hypothesis, and you will qualify for a posthumous Darwin award. Just get your brother to post the photos and death certificate here.
I guarantee that Kryptid will not die but if he puts bricks of 71 kg I will sue Bored Chemist for Kryptid death because that is his idea.
-
I guarantee that Kryptid will not die but if he puts bricks of 71 kg I will sue Bored Chemist for Kryptid death because that is his idea.
71 kilograms of bricks or 71 kilograms of human being doesn't make any difference as long as the contact area is the same. You get the same pressure either way.
-
71 kilograms of bricks
😲
-
71 kilograms of bricks
😲
Why are you scared of the laws of physics?
-
71 kilograms of bricks
😲
Why are you scared of the laws of physics?
Placing 71 kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.08 x 0.2 x 2 m (the area of two feet) on abdomen is fatal.
-
and so would the effect be of someone standing on your abdomen, unless you were very fit. It's all a matter of contact area
-
How is "0.02x 0.2x 0.2m" an area? In real science/math it is a volume. How about 71kg of feathers resting on one's abdomen, would that be fatal? PS: is Kryptid still alive or did that experiment terminate him?
-
Placing 71 kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.08 x 0.2 x 2 m (the area of two feet) on abdomen is fatal.
I'm not dead. The specific material is irrelevant. Only mass and contact area is.
-
Placing 71 kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.08 x 0.2 x 2 m (the area of two feet) on abdomen is fatal.
I'm not dead. The specific material is irrelevant. Only mass and contact area is.
Forget about the physics of weight, area, and pressure for a moment, because you are misunderstanding the concept in this context. My question is: what is your opinion on placing 71 kg of concrete blocks on an area of only 0.032 m^2 (approximate area of two feet) of the abdomen? Do you truly believe that is as safe as the experiment you conducted?
-
If you are a fit adult male and prepared, supporting 71kg on .04 m2 of your abdomen for a short while should be no problem. Ask any rugby player.
-
For sure, for a short time. Kryptid has already done the experiment and I take his word that it was not fatal. We recommend that you do not sleep with the 71kg of concrete blocks on your abdomen.
-
If you are a fit adult male and prepared, supporting 71kg on .04 m2 of your abdomen for a short while should be no problem. Ask any rugby player.
Why specifically a fit adult or a rugby player or being prepared?Any individual can lie on abdomen safely even a child can lie on their abdomen over a small cylinder. But can any person safely place 71 kg of blocks on an area of just 0.032 m^2 without risking serious injury?
-
For sure, for a short time. Kryptid has already done the experiment and I take his word that it was not fatal. We recommend that you do not sleep with the 71kg of concrete blocks on your abdomen.
Kryptid did not place a 71 kg inanimate object, such as concrete blocks, on a small area of just 0.032 m^2.
-
There is a clear difference between an individual supporting their own body weight-60 kg, 70 kg-and the reverse scenario of placing the same mass in the form of rocks or other inanimate objects on the body. Kryptid clearly chose the safer approach, one that people are accustomed to, such as others standing on them. However, placing 71 kg directly on someone's abdomen is another matter entirely-I wouldn't even consider attempting it and posting it here. That would be sheer insanity.
-
and so would the effect be of someone standing on your abdomen, unless you were very fit. It's all a matter of contact area
So you agree it would be fatal? The reverse has been proven by Kryptid and others to be harmless.
-
No sane person would place 71 kg of concrete blocks on such a small area-you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
-
You are just being illogical now. Nobody would want 71kg pressing on their abdomen but for the sake of the experiment Kryptid has done it and he is still alive, or so he says. 71kg of concrete blocks or a 71kg human both using the same contact area will be identical in effect. If you cannot understand this your grasp of basic physics is defective.
-
You are just being illogical now. Nobody would want 71kg pressing on their abdomen but for the sake of the experiment Kryptid has done it and he is still alive, or so he says. 71kg of concrete blocks or a 71kg human both using the same contact area will be identical in effect. If you cannot understand this your grasp of basic physics is defective.
I bet no one would dare place five 15-kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.2x0.2 m^2 even for a millisecond. This isn't about physics-it's about risking one's life.
-
I bet no one would dare place five 15-kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.2x0.2 m^2 even for a millisecond. This isn't about physics-it's about risking one's life.
If I had them, I would. Would something else work as an acceptable substitute for you? Bricks? Metal? Barbel weights? I'll investigate what I have available.
-
I bet no one would dare place five 15-kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.2x0.2 m^2 even for a millisecond. This isn't about physics-it's about risking one's life.
If I had them, I would. Would something else work as an acceptable substitute for you? Bricks? Metal? Barbel weights? I'll investigate what I have available.
Yes, any concrete or metal can serve as a suitable substitute. I was able to lie on my abdomen on a concrete block, supporting my full body weight of 63 kg on an area of just 0.04 m^2, for one minute without any pain-and I can comfortably maintain this position for even longer periods.
-
I bet no one would dare place five 15-kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.2x0.2 m^2 even for a millisecond. This isn't about physics-it's about risking one's life.
If I had them, I would. Would something else work as an acceptable substitute for you? Bricks? Metal? Barbel weights? I'll investigate what I have available.
Yes, any concrete or metal can serve as a suitable substitute. I was able to lie on my abdomen on a concrete block, supporting my full body weight of 63 kg on an area of just 0.04 m^2, for one minute without any pain-and I can comfortably maintain this position for even longer periods.
You just proved that placing the same weight on your abdomen is safe.
-
I bet no one would dare place five 15-kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.2x0.2 m^2 even for a millisecond. This isn't about physics-it's about risking one's life.
If I had them, I would. Would something else work as an acceptable substitute for you? Bricks? Metal? Barbel weights? I'll investigate what I have available.
Yes, any concrete or metal can serve as a suitable substitute. I was able to lie on my abdomen on a concrete block, supporting my full body weight of 63 kg on an area of just 0.04 m^2, for one minute without any pain-and I can comfortably maintain this position for even longer periods.
You just proved that placing the same weight on your abdomen is safe.
No, I did not. Applying an equivalent load-such as four 15-kg concrete blocks-directly to the abdomen over an area of 0.04 m^2 poses significant safety risks.
-
You keep making that claim. But the evidence says otherwise
-
You keep making that claim. But the evidence says otherwise
What evidence? Can you, Kryptid, or any typical person place four 15-kg concrete blocks on an area of 0.04 m^2 on the abdomen without experiencing pain or injury?
-
No one is saying it would be pleasant or completely risk free but if done carefully there should be no problem with a short experiment.
-
No one is saying it would be pleasant or completely risk free but if done carefully there should be no problem with a short experiment.
I can assure you that performing the reverse-lying on a concrete block and applying the same force to the same area for longer periods- is completely pain-free and entirely risk-free. Now, can you see the difference?
-
How high off the ground is your 0.2x0.2 concrete block ? Unless it is well off the ground there may be auxiliary load bearing. If the blocks are ~#1 metre off ground then there is no significant difference to the same weight on the abdomen.
-
How high off the ground is your 0.2x0.2 concrete block ? Unless it is well off the ground there may be auxiliary load bearing. If the blocks are ~#1 metre off ground then there is no significant difference to the same weight on the abdomen.
The setup was as follows: A 15 kg concrete block was placed on a table 45 cm above the ground. My body weight was 63.4 kg. I positioned myself prone on the block, with my abdomen supported over an area of 0.04 m^2, ensuring that my body remained as straight as possible. The remainder of my body extended freely in the air, with both arms and legs fully stretched. I was able to maintain this position for one minute without experiencing pain or sustaining any injury.
An equivalent scenario would involve placing four 15 kg concrete blocks (matching the same total weight, contact area, and surface type). However, this condition would be entirely different, as it would result in extreme pain and a high risk of serious injury.
-
However, this condition would be entirely different, as it would result in extreme pain and a high risk of serious injury.
How do you know?
You have not tried, have you?
You are repeatedly making an unsupported claim and then using that to say that physics is wrong.
-
However, this condition would be entirely different, as it would result in extreme pain and a high risk of serious injury.
How do you know?
You have not tried, have you?
You are repeatedly making an unsupported claim and then using that to say that physics is wrong.
First of all, the concept of leverage is a well-established principle in physics.
Second, I tested this myself: when I placed a 15 kg concrete block, it caused me intense pain almost immediately. By contrast, supporting 63.4 kg of body weight caused no pain for a full minute. Do you see the difference now?
-
" the concept of leverage is a well-established principle in physics."
So is photoionization.
And that is also completely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
-
" the concept of leverage is a well-established principle in physics."
So is photoionization.
And that is also completely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
Your denial of reality makes it unsurprising that you fail to grasp its physical explanation.
-
I am still waiting for Kryptid to confirm his inability to apply the same weight as an inanimate object on his abdomen.
-
" the concept of leverage is a well-established principle in physics."
So is photoionization.
And that is also completely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
Your denial of reality makes it unsurprising that you fail to grasp its physical explanation.
The leverage is the same if you lie on the rock, or the rock lies on you.
It doesn't shock me that you fail to see it's not an explanation because you often seem to fial to grasp science.
-
👉 Check out my latest research (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5330341) on this new discovery which I'll be presenting as a poster at IUPS 2025.
👉 Discover more of my research work on my SSRN profile (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=5624920).
-
👉 Check out my latest research (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5330341) on this new discovery which I'll be presenting as a poster at IUPS 2025.
👉 Discover more of my research work on my SSRN profile (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=5624920).
I'm sure that will be a valuable learning experience.
-
I'm sure that will be a valuable learning experience.
I am a presenter. The problem is that you believe you understand physics better than anyone else, even though you are not a physicist. The conference committee is well-versed in physiology, which is why they recognized promise and potential in the idea. Therefore, I am neither going to learn-nor am I able to learn-physiology or physics from a chemist. You assume that anything you didn't learn in school or fail to recognize must be wrong and against physics-that is your problem.
-
@Kryptid (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=367Kryptid), can you confirm that you were unable to apply the same 71 kg weight as an inanimate mass over the same area on the abdomen?
-
I'm sure that will be a valuable learning experience.
I am a presenter. The problem is that you believe you understand physics better than anyone else, even though you are not a physicist. The conference committee is well-versed in physiology, which is why they recognized promise and potential in the idea. Therefore, I am neither going to learn-nor am I able to learn-physiology or physics from a chemist. You assume that anything you didn't learn in school or fail to recognize must be wrong and against physics-that is your problem.
Re"The problem is that you believe you understand physics better than anyone else, even though you are not a physicist."
No. I just think I understand it better than you do.
" The conference committee is well-versed in physiology, which is why they recognized promise and potential in the idea. "
Steep learning curve ahead.
Will it be videoed?
If so, please provide a link.
" I am neither going to learn-nor am I able to learn-physiology or physics from a chemist. "
You refuse to learn physics from the physicists and engineers here too.
-
Placing a 15kg concrete block on one's abdomen requires one small modification for a fair comparison: the edges need to be rounded off as a sharp edge could cause inordinate pain, even with a much lighter load.
-
Placing a 15kg concrete block on one's abdomen requires one small modification for a fair comparison: the edges need to be rounded off as a sharp edge could cause inordinate pain, even with a much lighter load.
I don't think any modification is necessary, as that would create an inequivalent scenario. When lying on the block, the force is mutual: I push the block with 63.4 kgf, and the block pushes me back with the same force. This is equivalent to placing the same 15-kg concrete block on my abdomen. In other words the block applies 63.4 kgf on my abdomen, then it applies 15 kgf.
-
@Kryptid (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=367Kryptid), can you confirm that you were unable to apply the same 71 kg weight as an inanimate mass over the same area on the abdomen?
I keep forgetting to perform the experiment.