Ask Remember Me?
 oldcoach Posts: 103, Reputation: 3 Junior Member #1 Jan 24, 2005, 08:15 PM
Martial Arts and Physics?
Are there any books out there that treat martial arts from a physics point of view? Even better- Are there any teachers, professors, or instructors out there willing to collaborate on a book on the subject?
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #2 May 12, 2005, 04:27 PM
physics of hikuta / kuta
when moving in hikuta you must remember to use you momentum.
hitting with only the weight of your hand, will not do as much as hitting with your entire body weight behind your hand. In kendo they jump off the ground at the moment of striking to ensure they have their entire body weight into each hit. I have studied other martial arts as well as hikuta.

if bob has v=1 and mass 2 that he uses when hitting.
bob hits with energy amount 1 (F=ma. e=mc^2=(m*(v^2))/2. p=mv)

if roy has v=1 and mass 4
then roy hits with energy amount 2
twice as much mass in strike, twice the energy.

if mike has v=2 and mass 2
then mike hits with energy amount 4.
twice as much velocity, four times the energy.

if chuck has v=2 and mass 4
them chuck hits with energy amount 8.
twice as fast and twice as much mass equals eight times energy.

if john has v=3 and mass 2
then john hits with energy 9.
three times as fast equals nine times the energy.

so both mass and velocity (speed in a direction) are of great concern when the amount of energy matters. Consider the amount of mass of the hand, to how much mass the entire body has. And consider that a very fast small man can deliver more energy than a medium sized fast man.

something along those lines? Is what you are seeking?
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #3 May 20, 2005, 03:48 AM
bob hits with energy amount 1 (F=ma. e=mc^2=(m*(v^2))/2. p=mv)
e=mc^2=(m*(v^2))/2. p=mv) ?
OK, this is a little ridiculous.
If you think about it, it can not even remotely be true! C is 10^8 m/s, so you have something of the order 10^16 times your mass. I think not even you move with the speed of light!
mc^2 is, as stated by Mr. Einstein, the TOTAL energy that a body owns, and as mass is equal to energy, it's all the engergy contained by the mass itself. To get this engergy back from the body, you'll have to have a matter - antimatter reaction. You'll get VERY much energy, and there will be no mass left. Welcome to Startrek.

You shouldn't mix classical Newtonian mechanics with relativity theory. Nor should you use spiffy-looking formulas you once heard passing by just to pretend that you have deep knowledge of physics. It can be embarrassing.
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #4 May 20, 2005, 04:35 AM
physics
this is basic physics. Not open to interpretation. Perhaps you should take a physics course.

e=mc^2 refers to einsteins equation of changing matter to energy (where c = velocity of the speed of contant ,which is light).

e=(0.5)mv^2 refers to only converting potential (positional) energy to kinetic energy (how much energy does you fist have when it moves). Perhaps with a change of constant value in front (usually given as 1/2).

rate multiplied times time equals distance. d=r/t.
5 miles = 5 miles per hour multiplied by one hour. 5 miles = 5 mi/1 hr * 1 hr.
energy = distance times time. e=dt.

I never said I moved with the speed of light. I said that the basic physics equations determine the energy, force, momentum, et cetera that you have in martial arts.

that YOU have now embarrassed yourself is obvious. I didn't just include e=mc^2. I included the physical kinetic energy to potential energy change formula, because I was pointing out the amount of energy in the physical body without converting it from matter to all energy. Most people want to keep their body when they hit someone, they don't want to change into energy. They don't want to interact with antimatter. Perhaps you are different, or didn't understand what I said. Reread what I said.
p=mv. Momentum equals mass multiplied by velocity. If you are off the ground (like in kendo), and let whatever you make contact with become the point of you trying to stay off the ground (put your body weight into it) then you have put your entire body weight into the blow (strike). And your entire body weight is more force (f=ma==w=mg.weight is mass times gravity, and a type of force, i.e. has the same dimensionality or units) than most people bring to a strike.

secondly nothing Newton said about physics has been proven wrong! NOTHING!
you sound shocked I can hear it from here.
Newton said he was ONLY defining physics in a certain type of reference. He only was describing a constant acceleration condition. He specifically, while also developing calculus, left the description / and mathematical application of defining not static acceleration to others (einstein for example). Newton did enough in his lifetime without also working out non linear acceleration, and he KNEW that. He knew non linear acceleration existed, since he developed calculus, but he left it to others to do the math, and it's implication
so many uneducated people don't understand what newton said, because they never bothered to read it. So many stupid physics professors have never even studied newton's work, to understand what he said. I prefer the oxford principia mathematica circa 1964 with einstein's equations in the reference section, as well as discussion about the place/description of the physics from the editors. While on the subject of physics, lets talk about the common mistake modern physics makes, measure a particle at a point (as it goes past), when it goes past again modern physics stupidly thinks it doesn't know where it is or how fast it is going, they are wrong. Because they just measured TWICE where it was, and they have it's average speed between those two points! d=rt. d/t = r. hello? How stupid are they? That view of physics is based upon a religious view of buddhism, that nothing exists. That they cannot measure anything without changing it, WRONG! Because they just measured it twice. What is actually happening is they do not know the exact velocity, because the magnetic rings they use change the direction and certainly velocity (because velocity is speed in a certain direction) of the magnetic particle that is going around in the containment grid to keep it contained. Without the magnetic fields it wouldn't be in the machine to be measured twice.
I am sorry you thought I meant that someone can move at the speed of light without becoming converted to energy, but that is not what I said. I included the basic physics equations for potential to kinetic energy, because that is the amount of energy you get when you hit.
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #5 May 22, 2005, 08:00 AM
Let me quote what you have written:

mc^2=(m*(v^2))/2.
This, my friend, is just wrong. If you're referring to different forms of energy, just don't put an equality sign! You can simply see that there must be mistake: just rewrite this equation using simpe algebra, and you get
v=c*sqrt(2)
, which would mean that the velocity of the body in question would be greater than the speed of light. And that can't be now, can it.

The error you made is, as I already stated before, that you MIX classical mechanics and relativity theory.
I newer wrote that Newton was wrong! Classical mechanics provide an excellent model for movement, within it's frame of application, where speed is significally lower than the speed of light. As this is the case in martial arts, Newton is just fine! You don't NEED any relativistic formulas to state your points! In the context we are talking about, it doesn't make any sense using formula like e=mc^2, because no mass at all is transferred to energy.
If you talk about the potential energy, it makes only sense to look at the potential energy regarding earth gravity: this is the energy that you can transfer to kinetic energy. What you didn't consider is, that there are more forms of potential energy than that: the potential energy conserved in the chemical bonds of the substances in your body for instances (that can be gained only by chemical reactions), the potential energy in the nucleus of the atoms (set free by thermonuclear reactions), or, as I said before, the energy conserved in the mass itself, mc^2, which can only be set free by matter-antimatter reaction.
So, I really think you should revise the equation you wrote above. Just leave away the mc^2 term, I didn't say anything against the rest of your first post.

BUT I have more to contradict in your second post.
First this:
energy = distance times time. e=dt.
You sure you really mean what you write here? I've frankly no idea how you should get to that conclusion. Time and distance alone contain no information about any energy.

Then your statement about the "common mistake modern physics make".
Do you really want to question fundamental principles of quantum mechanics?
It seems you want to oppose the uncertainty principle by Heisenberg, a very basic concept that is really a very well accepted phenomenon. Believe me, there are LOT of VERY intelligent people spending their time with developping and questioning physics. Do you want to imply that all of them are wrong? Quantum mechanics has been developed for quite some time now, and I don't believe it has been proven wrong by principle. All semiconductor-based devices use quantum mechanics, and I think you must admit that they work pretty well. If quantum mechanics were fundamentally wrong, we could not have this conversation.
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #6 May 22, 2005, 11:38 AM
kuta
the problem is you do not understand science (physics,mathematics,etc).

rationalists are people who have a religion that if they do not have a better explanation of something, they keep the old explanation no matter how wrong they know it is. Many things that you have been taught are new physics are actually old physics. Electrons go around, in a sine wave pattern.
any one electron is actually located at one place. When a scientist wants to see where in the orbit it is a electrical field detects where it is, but an electric field can change where it is. So they lie to you and say until we measure it it is not anywhere, but when we measure it is a particular place.
actually before they measure it, it is somewhere along the sine wave, and once they exert a electrical force on it (possibly moving it), and measure it, it is in a particular place.

once again:
energy=mass multiplied times distance.
but we know velocity=delta distance/delta time. So integral velocity = d.
(1/2)(v^2) = d. and acceleration = delta velocity/delta time.
so integral acceleration = velocity. Velocity=(1/2)(a^2).
distance equals second integral of acceleration. Distance =(1/6)(a^3).
so one complete equation.
e=m(1/6)(a^3) + m(1/2)(v^2) + md.

what you making the equations equal between E=mc^2, and e=mv^2 is that you have asked a question of how much velocity would a physical object having the same mass have to go in order to have the same energy as converting all the matter to energy, and the answer was 2^(.5) times as much velocity as the speed of light. So if your fist moved that fast you would exert as much energy as if you converted your fist into all energy! With antimatter also present. It was an interesting question, but you don't understand, I once again did not say that you could exert that much energy. I said you would have to exert that much energy to get that result. I didn't say anyone could. I gave you the math so you would see that it won't.

mass does transfer into energy or you would not need any matter at all to make into energy when you convert matter to energy, and that violates the law of conservation of matter and energy. Potential (positional) energy does apply. I spoke of getting off the ground and using your entire body weight. Falling into the strike, as if to stay off the ground by applying enough energy to the point of impact that you support your entire body weight. Landing on someone can hurt them. Mass does matter in a kinetic way, because if you hit someone with one unit (pound kilogram whatever) it will not exert as much as if you hit them with two units (of the same unit of mass).

different persons have different views of unification theories of the universe.
chemical, electrical,weak , strong bonds, et cetera. I am not trying to discuss those I am telling you how hard you hit based upon the fist not going changing into other forms of matter/plasma etc. after you hit and it is still a fist, you get a certain type of impact, that is what I am saying.

I am not questioning basic theory. I am telling you certain theory is wrong. What part of what you yourself observe do you not trust? Can you not see if you measure something twice, that you have obviously at least measured it once? Basic positions of electrons in sine wave orbits is not new theory.
they lie, they say is until you measure it, it isn't there. The truth is it is there in a particular place, and when they measure it, the electrical field they use to measure it would almost always move it to a different position in orbit. But because they believe from religion that nothing really exists, they think that.
actually they just moved it. I just proved it wrong by principle.
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #7 May 23, 2005, 07:43 AM
You can't admit mistakes, can you.
First, let me clarify what is exactly the point of my criticism. I didn't write anything
against most of the things you wrote in your first post, about the examples with
one guy hitting the other with different speeds and velocities. This is basic
mechanics, neither complicated nor spectaclular, but basically good points worth
considering.

The criticism I made was, and only was, against the mc^2 part you included in your formula.
Now you give me this explanation:

what you making the equations equal between E=mc^2, and e=mv^2 is that you have asked a question of how much velocity would a physical object having the same mass have to go in order to have the same energy as converting all the matter to energy, and the answer was 2^(.5) times as much velocity as the speed of light. So if your fist moved that fast you would exert as much energy as if you converted your fist into all energy! With antimatter also present. It was an interesting question, but you don't understand, i once again did not say that you
could exert that much energy. I said you would have to exert that much energy to
get that result. I didn't say anyone could. I gave you the math so you would see
that it won't.
But come one, are you serious about this? It seems very much to me as if you
were looking for excuses to justify your faulty formula. Can't you accept you made
a small mistake?
It just does not make sense. Firstly I can't possibly imagine you thought that far
before making your first post; and secondly it is still just WRONG! You didn't
understand my point, probably because you have not even basic insight into
relativity theory. Your fist could never move faster than the speed of light, because
it's one of the really basic statements of relativity theory that NOTHING can move
faster! You would need INFINITE energy only to REACH the speed of light with
anything that has a mass greater than zero, and you can NEVER surpass it.

And that's exactly your problem, as I have written several times. You MIX UP
different theories. Mv^2/2 is just not applicable if you write about speed of light.
And, it is really not relevant for the examples you made in your first posts, and
that's really the statement I made before: just OMIT the mc^2 term in you first
post, and everything else in it is OK. And just admit that you made that mistake.
Don't keep making bad excuses.

To the other points you make, I just advise you to leave these things to the experts
( to whom you quite obviously do not belong). You didn't prove anything wrong by
principle, just because you have a theory of what might happen in those
measurements. If you're so sure about it, go into quantum mechanics, prove what
you state, and get that nobel prize.

But maybe think first about some other things. Like if you can really describe
electrons sufficiently as little bodies orbiting around the atomar nucleus, why do
they sometimes behave like waves?

It seems to me you really read some books on the subject, but found some
contradictions in your own understanding. Maybe the theory is wrong, but maybe,
just maybe, you didn't understand everyhing as well as you thought. Quantum
mechanics IS a very difficult subject, because it's beyond the reach of our own
senses. You cannot experience atoms and electrons like you can experience a
stone dropping down to the ground. You cannot simply use the experiences you
made in the macroscopic world to understand the behaviour of atom-size objects.
I'm sure you see some contradictions, but believe me you're not the first person
that has thought of this! Just get more understanding. If you're really interested,
go to real quantum physicists and ask them. They are not just a bunch of stupid
and uncritical, credulous people, they know their stuff. Or just accept that you can't
know everything better and forget about it. It's really not that relevant.

And please, don't just postulate that I have no understanding of science. That's a
a unqualified assumtion.
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #8 May 23, 2005, 05:09 PM
kuta and physics
but it is simple math.
when A = B. then A/2 = B/2.
any operation that can be legally performed on one side can be legally performed on both, and will not effect the outcome of the solution set.
multiply (or divide) by anything but zero, add or subtract anything.
square both sides or take the square root, as long as you check your results.
the results give that the equations make sense. IF an object moved at the square root of two times the speed of light it would have the same kinetic energy as the amount of energy released by converting it all to non matter.
think of someone's fist, to get the same amount of energy as a 1 kilogram fist moving at 1 meter per second, it would take 1 / (9 times 10^16) times less material. Basic math. Of course some of my college degrees are math based.

the formula is not faulty, you just don't believe it. I showed you it works. I showed you the relationship between the distance and the velocity is one of rate of change (see calculus under math to understand what that means).
I showed you that acceleration is rate of change of velocity. Both of those are by definition, i.e. that is what the words means (see webster).

no relativity theory is that the place you see something can be different than where it really is. Just like using sound. Where you hear the train, is not exactly where it is, and certainly you would have to agree with observation that jet airplanes sound like where they are not. The same is true of light. Objects as they speed up do not appear where they are. It takes time for light to reach you, and by the time it reaches you, the objects has moved even further along. Perhaps you should read einstein's works yourself, I have.
you are presuming because someone somewhere told you something, and you have faith in what they said, rather than look at the material, and think for yourself. A famous quote, "it is not what you know that hurts you, it is what you know that just ain't so". This post was about physics, and movement. And by my including both equations I proved how fast a physical body must move to equal the energy output of converting it to non matter. I have not seen anyone else prove that anywhere. Have you? So I just came up with a new theory of equivalent energy needed for matter physical movement to conversion of matter. Thank you for allowing me to develop a new theory.
I of course have world renown for several other theories, but new ones are always nice. Again thank you.

you see that is the problem, I am an expert. Here and off this web site. I am sorry you have a problem with basic math. But an equation is an equation.

you misunderstand the term infinite. Infinite merely means a large number that a particular person in a particular problem has not defined. Infinite is not some magic number. Notice in the equation I made that at 1 meter per second compared to 300,000 kilometer per second , is 3 times 10^8 less quick, i.e. 9 times 10^16 is the square function, and what we get in equation.

once again: if you measure something twice, you must by logic have measured it once. You cannot logically say you did not measure where a particle was once (as your religious system says) since you have to measure it twice to say that it's average velocity was a certain amount. I am sorry you do not understand formal logic, or common sense. Take some math courses in logic, or maybe world religions, philosophy? It is not a theory that when you measure something twice you measured it at least once. It is a simple math fact. 1 + 1 = 2 not zero. They claim 1 + 1 = 0, they are wrong.
get over it. You should learn to have faith in something that is true, or at least not provable as false. There are no nobel prizes for math. Groups of electrons on the order of 6 times 10^12 of them behave like waves because they move, and the probability of a number of them arriving at any time is dependent upon what part of the sine wave them left from. There exist different probabilities of different amounts because of where in the orbit it was when it departed. I also hold degrees with electrical areas.

maybe you believe religiously in what you have taught rather than think about it yourself, or read the actual words of those who have written them. Go read a book. Discover if you are being taught correctly. You presume that QM is beyond senses, ever hear of electron microscopes? You can see the magnetic fields of each electron, so perhaps you are just not aware that we can see down to that level now, who knows how well we will be able to 'see' soon. Do not presume because you have not seen it, that it doesn't exist.
science is constantly making better theories, and better ways to prove them.
many disagree with you about macro and micro, because the unified theory may prove to eventually be just that, that all theory about forces is the same or related. That there is more in common than different across scale.

I would suggest you get more understanding, since you do not believe simple math. You need to go back to at least third grade math or at least review it.
no matter how smart they think they are (or how smart you think or, or how smart I think I am), they keep missing the point, and so do you. The point is if you measure something twice, you had to have measured it at least once. Hello are you in there? Do you understand? Facts are events that actually occur. It does not matter your opinion about facts. They happened. You can choose to not believe they happened, but that does not change that they happened. You can choose to not believe in gravity, but if you step off a tall building gravity may have something to say to you. What you think about reality is not important, what reality thinks about you is what matters.

you cannot prove something can or cannot go faster than light, but mathematically if an object could go faster than light, and it got to the square root of two multiplied times the speed of light then the energy would be the same as if an object of the same mass had converted to non matter with antimatter. Mathematics is simple, and correct. Your hang up is that you presume that everyone who told you something was always right. Even rationists change theories as better theories appear. Would you hang on to a flat earth theory if you had been taught that as a child? If you had been born many hundreds of years ago when flat earth theory was well accepted?
do you ever change your mind? Do you ever consider you may be wrong?
do you think it is possible that you could be wrong? Do you ever think more scientific advances may change your mind? I am not saying whether something can move faster than the speed if light, I am saying mathematically if it did, then certain conditions would follow.
think of it, if you moved your fist at square root of two times the speed of light you would hit with 9 multiplied by 10^16 times as much energy as if you hit at 1 meter per second. Pretty powerful punch, sounds like to me.
stones dropping to the ground is a change in potential energy, from kinetic.
force=weight=mass times acceleration=mass times gravity. I don't see contridictions, I see the mathematical sameness. You doubt the math of
pre-algebra, how can I not see that you need a refresher course.
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #9 May 24, 2005, 05:33 AM
Man, you are really tiring.
Let me explain it to you one more time.

Math itself does not bear any information about reality. It is just LOGIC, it only
exists in our minds. Now you can use ist to MODEL reality, but your premises must
be right. You gave a certain equation, and use math to play with it. Math itself is not
wrong, but the problem is that YOUR EQUATION IS WRONG!

If you give a faulty input, with math you can trans form it logically, but the output
will still be wrong!

Really, you can show the thing you wrote to any first-year physics student, and he
will tell you that it is nonsense.

You really showed your incompetence enough now. I should have known from the
beginning that you're just an ignorant idiot.

You know, I also studied enough math and physics to know this stuff. I use
mathematics every day, it's basically what I do. The things we are talking about
here are really basic.

This discussion has no more sense to me. You don't see your mistakes, your
understanding of physics is very shallow, and what's the worst is you're terribly
arrogant.

Good bye. This discussion is over.
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #10 May 25, 2005, 12:43 AM
kuta and physics
you do not know that mathematics has everything to do with reality?

you presume nothing that you can define with math is like reality?

you don't see anything in reality that is just like math? Are your eyes open?
do you know enough math to see that math can describe things?

you cling to QM but claim math has nothing to do with reality, do you not know that they use math to describe QM? Do you not know the only way to describe relativity is with math? In order to say that one thing is faster than another. Or appears faster, or anything that involves a quantity you must use math. To compare you must use math. To note any difference or even sameness you use math. And you think math cannot describe anything.
sad your eduation is so , well I am not even going to say how bad it must be.

symbols exist, numerials exist. Numbers are concepts in the mind, but concepts also exist, even if only as electrical signals in your brain.

the equation is correct. I am sorry you do not have the math background to know that, but it does not change the validity of the equation.

once again most physics students, even teachers have not read the works of einstein, or newton to see what they actually said, certainly a first year student has not even taken the first college class in electrical theory in the physics department, because it is usually taught later than the first year. That you once again presume upon what others know, because you don't want to learn yourself, shows that you are not going to learn because you do not want to. You can choose to be as ignorant of the advances of science as you choose to be. And your friends can also. Continue to think the world is flat, as you seem to believe whatever you were taught long ago, by people who you trust can never have been wrong. Perhaps you will someday grow up and learn. It is doubtful you will ever credit me with teaching you though, because you do not seem as if you are willing to even try. People who think they are superior when they are far inferior should learn that since you refuse to learn you might as well not ask questions. You will not believe me if I told you the sky is blue? Because you choose to not believe the truth, no matter what I say. Sad the state of education is so bad in the world that you cannot think for yourself. But it allows those of us who can think greater praise, for since you will not exert your brain to consider the possibilities it allows me to get more renown, and achievement, and more proofs. My fame just spreads.

you claim to have an open mind? A lot of people do. Why do you not accept basic math? You do not understand it? It is too complex for you? What is the problem with you seeing the possibility of something you do not know being possible? What about basic math scares you? What about basic math goes against your "pivotal value" (religion)? Why are you afraid that I might know something that you choose not to realize? If you use math everyday why do you not believe basic math? Are you afraid to understand something new or afraid that if a view isn't popular that your friends will leave you? Will you lose your job if you believe something not popular in the science fields? If you believe something not politically correct about science will they black list you?
what is the cause of your fear? Lost academia? Lost status? What? Being popular never makes you correct. It just means a lot of people are also wrong.

the math is irreputable. It is not even algebra. It is pre algebra. That they must be equal. Because physics defines them as equal, by definition. Get a physics book, open it, look up velocity, notice it is the rate of change of distance. i.e. the integral of velocity must be distance by definition. (see a calculus book). If the velocity is linear or constant then (0.5)(v^2) is the integral of velocity. Now the integral is more difficult if it is not, but it can be worked out using math. Einstein said they are equal because he said E=mc^2, and any physics textbook you read should say e=md, and notice distance is the integral of velocity, so we substitute. Basic math (after we did the calculus to determine what to substitute). Perhaps you haven't taken calculus. The problem is you do not see what we are talking about. And you presume I am wrong, only because you do not understand math or physics. If you understood math up to calculus, and basic physics, you would have to agree with my information I have presented to you. I did not give you my opinion about anything I just gave you proof that I have for basic relationships that are not well known in physics. Things that I get credit for discovering. New theories about physics or math. In order to disprove a theory you have to disprove the math used. And you just argue that you don't like it, is not a valid way to say that I am wrong. In fact it proves that you cannot prove me wrong, which does not prove me right, but it is one person's failure to discredit me. If all you want to do is argue go elsewhere.

now that you are gone, back to the problem of physics and movement:
there also exist movement in a circular fashion we call angular velocity, angular velocity is measured in omega = 2*pi*radius. We use 2 pi because the distance around a circle of radius 1 or along the path of a sine wave of frequency 1 (which equals 1 cycle per second for one complete cycle)
is 2* pi. So the angular velocity is also important in how much energy is being directed into the target when striking. In physics the moment arm is the amount needed to cause an object to remain at statis or not moving. A one foot long pole made of metal idealized with a 20 pounds weight at the far end from the fulcrum (the point at which it is being held to exert the amount needed to hold it still in this case, also the pivot point or hinge by definition). Idealized so that there is not compression or contraction or expansion(strain or stress). Produces a 20 pound feet 'moment arm' that must be countered by 20 foot pounds of torque to remain motionless. If you move the point of 'balance' of the weight of 20 pounds to 1/2 foot from the end , then the 10 pound feet 'moment arm' must be countered by 10 foot pounds of torque.
so that like a ice skater when spinning as you bring your arms in, the same torque produces much more movement, because the 'moment arm' has gone down, and the less the 'moment arm' the greater effect for the same torque.
the current 'moment arm' divided by the previous 'moment arm' produces a multiplication of the effective movement caused by the application of the same old torque. If you both reduce your 'moment arm', and increase your torque, you can see that you are going to produce an multiplicative amount of effect when striking. Hikuta lowers your 'moment arm' and trains you to increase your torque, thereby delivering such a high rate of angular velocity, in addition to high velocity, and high acceleration that it produces such a serious effect to only be used in emergencies. Furthemore that the separation of the impulse function of an impact is countered by the application in opposion to the separation function, allowing critical time for the energy to be delivered to the target during the impact. Because the contact is maintained slightly longer much more kinetic energy is transferred to the target, causing much greater damage to the target, as well as less effect on the originator of the strike, since more of the energy leaves the person hitting the target, less recoil occurs, and so less damage can occur to the person doing hikuta because the energy of that strike is no longer retained by them. In many systems a wrong strike can cause the person doing the strike to break their own hand/foot/etc, but in hikuta since the energy is allowed more time to enter the target less energy is retained, and felt by the person doing the hikuta strike.
if you a further question about physics and hikuta please ask.
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #11 May 25, 2005, 05:06 AM
Sorry, I won't continue arguing.
Either you don't understand, or you don't want to.
Either way, it does not make any sense to me discussing any further.
Bye.
 NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706 Uber Member #12 May 25, 2005, 07:59 AM
Originally Posted by aerendil
Sorry, I won't continue arguing.
Either you don't understand, or you don't want to.
Either way, it does not make any sense to me discussing any further.
Bye.
I agree with you. Plus he seems to have an awful lot of free time to write lenghty wordy answers. Maybe he's trolling?
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #13 May 25, 2005, 09:59 AM
I really hope he is trolling, especially if you look at his posts in the other threads.
I would be worried about his mental health if he wasn't.

But then, why would you troll with so many words? Only to provoke you would not need so much text...
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #14 May 25, 2005, 10:45 AM
let me try to explain with more math. Einstein said e=mc^2.
when I take my equation that you doubt as true, and I add the antimatter to the matter only I get e=mv^2 because 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.
e=mc^2=mv^2, since einstein said c is the velocity of the constant (the speed of light) , and in my more general equation any velocity could be used, the two equations are exactly the same.
if you doubt Einstein then you doubt me, and my equation.
once again my purpose for my equation is to show that physical energy without converting the matter into non matter is half of the energy in einstein's equation, because you have no antimatter present in the equation, furthermore I just proved einstein's equation correct, as a special case of my equation. So doubt modern science, and einstein if you want, but he and I are still correct. Have a nice day. Look again at the math.

I am not sure what your internet term of 'trolling' means? But I am sure it is not an intellectually honest thing to do, from the way it was mentioned. And I am intellectually and academically honest.

so to review, what I said is not a totally new thing, it is just the next step, I developed it from calculus, and the definitions of physics, and it states that "when you do not convert to a non matter state that the energy involved is half the amount of when you do convert matter (with antimatter present) to a non matter state".

hopefully you can see that einsteins equation of e=mc^2 is right, and know enough math to know I have to be right also, because mathematically they are the same. Furthermore hopefully, the next time, you will not doubt anyone who goes the next step in science, and math when you encounter them.
 aliann Posts: 2, Reputation: 2 New Member #15 Jul 15, 2005, 12:50 PM
I am by no means a physics expert but I recently completed a course in Newtonion physics specifically to learn the formulas necessary to understand the mechanics of the Karate punch. I am a Black belt and have been teaching for three years now and I understood that the power of martial arts had to be grounded in physics (otherwise it would have to be magic and I don't believe in magic) but I wanted to be able to calculate the dynamics and then test my calculations. I timed the punch on several students and then using the length of the arm as the distance calculated the acceleration of the movement and then by definition was able to calculate the deceleration at the point of impact. This allowed me to calculate the energy of the movement. I then used the square inches of the striking surface (in my style it is the first two knuckles and thus approx one-two square inches) and the energy of impact to calculate the power (pounds per square inch) of the punch. Unfortunately impact meters are not commonly available (even in a boxing school contrary to "Rocky") so I was only able to verify the acceleration using a motion detector. I did accurately predict the acceleration based on time and distance so the rest of the equations should be accurate as well. I received an A on my thesis so I'm guessing there were no flaws in my math.

There are several books out there on the physics of the martial arts. Some deal mostly with momentum (useless to me because my style is not a momentum style) but there are others that deal with non momentum calculations. I refrained from reading them because I did not want to influence my hypothesis.

Nothing fancy here just the nuts and bolts of Newtonion Physics.
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #16 Jul 15, 2005, 09:29 PM
Topic Review answer
aliann,

do you agree with what I have said? You have done some work on physics yourself, so do you see the basics of what I am saying?

secondly karate punches are not the only type, and the smaller the surface area the more pounds per square inch for the same amount of applied force.
a timing of several students all in the same style does not even compare styles that in general are slower or faster to the basic movements in your styles. Styles can be hard. Soft. Hard/soft (some combination of in-between or contrasted -some movements hard. And some soft).

it seems to me that you are not considering the movement of the hips, shoulders, legs, length of stepping forward, or the arc distance of angular velocity when pivoting, in your calcutations of distance moved.

you think that in your style of karate you have no momentum?
p=mv. Hello. Momentum equals mass times velocity.
did you say you do physics? So did you think your mass was infinitely small or was your velocity infinitely small? A martial art in which has no momentum, would not deliver effective techniques, would it? You would hit them and they would feel nothing. No impulse function.

my formulas were not fancy just correct.
 bobreder Posts: 1, Reputation: 1 New Member #17 Dec 9, 2005, 03:27 AM
Hi

Perhaps you all should take a look at the following link to clear up any ambiguity. We need only concern ourselves with Newtonian physics here.

http://www.pims.math.ca/pi/issue6/page09-11.pdf

The above articlebreaks down the various aspects of a Karate Punch. The references used are from the Americal Journal of Physics Vol. 43 No. 10 and Vol 51 No. 9.

Or for general physics from Newtonian Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

James ;)
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #18 Dec 9, 2005, 06:01 PM
physics concepts
some people understand the basics.

and some people go on with a belief in whatever.

you can only choose if you are smart enough to understand I am correct, or to believe whatever others tell you; unless, you choose to actually think for yourself then you can make up your own mind, and tell us what theories or concepts you believe apply. So if you have an idea what is correct based upon your research, and original theories please explain. I simply quoted the greats of physics, and the equations that define all things, merely in my own humble way. I proved such laws are self contained, and self valid. If that is a circular argument I did not create it. I merely observe.

if you do not believe me, that is your choice. Self ignorance is possible.
 aerendil Posts: 11, Reputation: 2 New Member #19 Dec 22, 2005, 01:56 PM
:rolleyes:

Don't feed the troll.
 eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5 Full Member #20 Dec 22, 2005, 11:24 PM
Rude opinions
It is always sad when people choose to be rude.

Sometimes they are rude for different reasons, but..

What can be done. Let the answers speak for themselves.

Have a good day.

Not your question?

 Question Tools Search this Question Search this Question: Advanced Search

Check out some similar questions!

Martial arts movie [ 4 Answers ]

About 15 to 20 years ago I saw a movie which I can no longer recall the name of. The movie was about 5 or 6 guys who used to be in the same military unit together- who come together to help save a town or what not. Of the characters I can remember- one was drunk living in a salvage yard, one was a...

A martial arts film... [ 1 Answers ]

Okay, I don't know the name of the movie... And I saw it back in the mid to early 90's... It starts with this troubled kid who finds a martial arts teacher, who teaches him martial arts. Then it goes to when he's a teen and he gets in a fight with a huge football player and beats him up. ...

Better Basketball Through Martial Arts [ 4 Answers ]

Can anyone discuss some of the ways that martial arts training can improve a person's basketball?

Martial Arts and Boxing [ 2 Answers ]

Has anyone noticed the various levels of boxing are beginning to show signs of martial arts training or martial arts type stances? Is this because trainers are utilizing martial artists to aid there boxers? Is it because many martial artists and boxers are crossing-over? Can anyone discuss this?