Re: Tai Chi

David L. Burkhead wrote:
"GreendistantNOSPAMstar" <Greendistantstar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PyXGg.16653$rP1.9750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Bhogi" <bhogi@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156318983.923498.133920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GreendistantNOSPAMstar wrote:
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:79SdnSITNb9aSXbZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The ground is a powerful source of power.

Only if gravity is involved.

We're just going to have to assume gravity and space-time are working
OK.

The ground is not a source of power, unless you choose to change
definitions
around to suit your argument.

The ground is a source of force thou, limited only by the amount your
body can withstand and friction when you are moved.

No, the ground is a source of resistance to force. Are you even a tiny bit
familiar with Newton's Laws of Motion?



Well, Bhogi's statement could be seen as a minor butchering of Newtons
Third Law of Motion (action and reaction).

Thank you, that's what it was meant to be.


However, to be accurate to NTLM,
it would have to be said that the ground as a "source" of force, is limited
by the amount of force you can apply against it (net force--normal and
transverse). However the force you apply against it comes from two
sources--your weight and the action of your muscles. The only thing the
ground is a "source" of is a "reaction" to the "action" of whatever serves
as the contact point against it (whether that's your feet, your hands, your
***, or the cane you're leaning on).

Now please correct me where in *practice* I'm wrong, besides in
adhering totaly to NTLM.
1) The theoretical maximum of static horizontal force you can generate
against another static object while standing depends on
- friction with the ground (depends on your weight)
(- ability of your body to generate and withstand the force)
2) The theoretical maximum of static vertical force you can generate
against another static object while standing
depends on
- is limitless, because the ground is the "source of the force" (mass
of the earth is infinite for all practical encounters a human can have
on earth)
(- ability of your body to generate and withstand that force)
3) when you add vertical component of force (push slightly upwards)
- friction between your feet and earth increases
- now you can also generate more horizontal force
- the effect is as if your weight (I didn't say mass) increases and
the oponent's decreases


The next thing you notice is if you can push slightly upwards, you
increase your weight

No, your weight doesn't increase.

Mmm. Mostly I'd agree but there are contexts.... I find the
descriptions of "weight transfer" under acceleration, braking, and cornering
in automotive suspension analysis unsatisfying, but it is the convention as
it's used in that context (and simpler in conversation than drawing force
diagrams) so I can sort of see a justification for describing the net forces
as a transfer of weight from one pair of feet to another. Don't like it.
Don't agree with it. But I can sort of see it.

Thank you. All it was meant to serve is show it increases friction (I
know this is not acurately described) with ground, which it does.


and decrease their weight, this means more
friction for you, larger forces you can muster etc.
Basic physics, those who are not comfortable thinking in physics terms
will call this bull*** and quiche but basic physics is all that's
needed to describe it.

Friend, what you are saying shows how little physics you know.

I am a physicist, both by education and by profession and I have to
agree with GDS here.

Believe it or not, you are both wrong. English is not my language, so
expressing what I want is the first obstacle, simplifying things where
I feel they may be simplified is another - on one hand people who have
no grasp of physics acuse me of verbiage on the other hand physicists
say I don't know what I'm talking about.
I would not enter this discussion but Mike describes things differently
so I try to add to description.
Leaving pedantry aside there might be a chance to learn of some
*psycho/physiological* aspect of movement (here I go again, talking
about static forces, and now movement) which you have to get to do it,
understanding physics alone is not enough.


Instead of "holding" the load on the
head, the porter simply allows the ground, through the skeleton, to
hold
the load.

What's the difference?

Actually, there's a lot of difference. Most people will hold/balance
a
load on their head. It takes a little thought to let the ground
under
your feet hold the load.

That's a matter of balance and practice and nothing more.

Yep, practice and balance, that's what taijiers do when they move
slowly around. But also conditioning. Porters use different muscles and
are developed differently than you are right now. They weighing 50kg
could carry you weighing 90kg (wild guess just for illustration
purposes) on their head, and you couldnt carry them on your head,
because your neck couldn't take it. Ok, if you head stand a lot, then
you could do it :)

I've no idea how much weight some people might carry around on their
heads....but it's not the ground that's generating the force.

I have to admit that I completely fail to see what weight balancing on one's
head has to do with anything.

See, that's the problem with pedantry, you poke and drill into
tangential details and completely fail to see what I was trying to
illustrate. It has everything to do with conditioning the neck and its
supporting tissues and reflexes (I know I'm gonna hear about this one).
If you don't do it, you can't do it like porters or yogis do.
That is analogous to internal movement using "ground power". Similarly
as the neck can be conditioned to withstand the forces it was not
designed for in a relaxed manner, other joints and their supporting
tissues and reflexes (I know I'm gonna hear about this one also) can
also be conditioned. That is what Mike talked about. But if you don't
do it, you can't do it. That's what I meant by "Everyone uses "power of
the ground" only degrees of efficiency and capability vary".

.

Loading