| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#92
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Okay
In article ,
says... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a second was probably more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and bracing on the way down... Bingo. Mathematically show me. It's not a math question. Let me ask you a question. Which do you think would cause more damage to your lower back. Falling straight down in a sitting position onto a floor with your body straight up and feet straight out, no arms or legs to break the fall, hitting with a straight spine, or hitting from the same height, half sideways with your hands and feet hitting first to break the fall. Remember, I am asking specifically, which fall would do more damage to the lower back??? |
|
#93
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a second was probably more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and bracing on the way down... Bingo. Mathematically show me. It's not a math question. Let me ask you a question. Which do you think would cause more damage to your lower back. Falling straight down in a sitting position onto a floor with your body straight up and feet straight out, no arms or legs to break the fall, hitting with a straight spine, or hitting from the same height, half sideways with your hands and feet hitting first to break the fall. Remember, I am asking specifically, which fall would do more damage to the lower back??? Either way, to prove this mathematically, you would need constants. In this case you would expect the body and spine and breaking forces were exactly in the same position, this is called a "standard" right. Standards or whatever you call them are necessary for solid math, there is not constant as to the position at launch and landing here. So, you keep telling me you can show me the math, so, show me.. |
|
#94
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
In article ,
says... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... ----- Original Message ----- From: "NowNow" Are you really that friggin' stupid? Again, show me your math. The forces are equal, dip****. The "variables" would be such things as did he land exactly like he took off? If you take a known weight, such as a piece of concrete of X dimension and Y weight, put a load cell between it and the cushion and launch it to Z height. Get the reading. Now, take the same Y weight, drop it from the same Z height with the load cell on the cushion. What will the results be and why? -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! A bullet is shot straight up into the air. Is the force the bullet leaves the barrel with the same as the force it hits the ground with? You obviously don't know what in hell your talking about. This conversation is over until you provide the math to back it up. Reason, the bullet is shot so far the it reaches terminal velocity on it's return. Do you REALLY think that's the case with a 150# man at three feet???? -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! Last hint for you- The man experienced more force for a shorter length of time when he left the couch and less force for a longer time when he returned to the couch. Capish? Again, show the math. Capish? You really are an idiot, aren't you? Quite the contrary. I love math. I do this for a living! -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! What is the impulse on the body with dropping the dude and launching the dude? Too many unknown variables, but it's safe to say the man experienced higher forces on the way up than on the way down. Uh, no. -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! He got them on the way up in a heck of a lot shorter time. I just don't see how he can miss that variable... Not to mention the variable of completely different body position from takeoff to landing and different parts of the body taking the force... It's like he thinks the body stayed exactly on the same plane and position from takeoff to landing and he is completely ignoring the body parts the victim used to break the landing, but had no chance to do on takeoff... Again, we used to giggle at engineers when the technicians had to help them tie their shoes, or worse, repair a broken lace  |
|
#95
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
In article ,
says... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a second was probably more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and bracing on the way down... Bingo. Sometimes Engineers get caught up in the math and forget "real world experience". That's why God created "technitions"... Somebody has to make the dream work IRL aka, the "non-virtual world". It is what it is. I can prove it with math. Can you prove it with speculation and innuendos? -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! Prove it. While your at it, show where the forces on a bullet fired straight up in to the air are the same as it hits the ground. Really Loogie, you keep saying you can show us the math, so do it. Show me the math that says a bullet fired at hundreds of times terminal velocity on the way up, doesn't have any more force behind it than a bullet falling at terminal velocity... And I want to see a provable equation here, not more deflection... |
|
#96
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:10:10 -0800, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a second was probably more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and bracing on the way down... Bingo. Mathematically show me. It's not a math question. Let me ask you a question. Which do you think would cause more damage to your lower back. Falling straight down in a sitting position onto a floor with your body straight up and feet straight out, no arms or legs to break the fall, hitting with a straight spine, or hitting from the same height, half sideways with your hands and feet hitting first to break the fall. Remember, I am asking specifically, which fall would do more damage to the lower back??? Either way, to prove this mathematically, you would need constants. In this case you would expect the body and spine and breaking forces were exactly in the same position, this is called a "standard" right. Standards or whatever you call them are necessary for solid math, there is not constant as to the position at launch and landing here. So, you keep telling me you can show me the math, so, show me.. I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. Just think about the 'criminal' argument. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' makes no difference to Loogy. When Loogy gets the balls to do the same thing, then I'll give his bull**** some credit. Arguing with him is like Bill's continous arguing with the plum. A waste of time, unless you just have a desire to feel superior. Until he started the word stupid, it was a discussion, not an argument. There's a difference. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#97
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:10:10 -0800, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a second was probably more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and bracing on the way down... Bingo. Mathematically show me. It's not a math question. Let me ask you a question. Which do you think would cause more damage to your lower back. Falling straight down in a sitting position onto a floor with your body straight up and feet straight out, no arms or legs to break the fall, hitting with a straight spine, or hitting from the same height, half sideways with your hands and feet hitting first to break the fall. Remember, I am asking specifically, which fall would do more damage to the lower back??? Either way, to prove this mathematically, you would need constants. In this case you would expect the body and spine and breaking forces were exactly in the same position, this is called a "standard" right. Standards or whatever you call them are necessary for solid math, there is not constant as to the position at launch and landing here. So, you keep telling me you can show me the math, so, show me.. I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. Just think about the 'criminal' argument. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' makes no difference to Loogy. When Loogy gets the balls to do the same thing, then I'll give his bull**** some credit. Arguing with him is like Bill's continous arguing with the plum. A waste of time, unless you just have a desire to feel superior. Until he started the word stupid, it was a discussion, not an argument. There's a difference. You're arguing with an old flaccid dick. Take that anyway that suits, there's several options and they all apply. |
|
#98
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
"NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to be precise, if you were to drop the person from that three feet onto the couch cushion, that would be the same force of impact that propelled him three feet. Horse****. And again, that person would put his hands or feet down. This guy got hit straight up the spine with nothing to break the impact force... Hey, who said "horse****"???? A force is a force. If it takes a certain force to propel X amount of weight Y amount of distance, then simple physics dictates that it would take the same force to stop that given weight from the given distance. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the guy was vaulted with no warning so he took the full hit, why is it so hard to understand that he would put his hands and feet down before he landed? Did you watch the video, the guy was reaching for his lower back before he even hit the floor.. On paper, maybe you are right, must be an engineer thing Technitions usually are the ones to put stuff into practice anyway Note the smiley faces... !!! The *total* force needed to lift the man off the couch to apex and then from apex to stationary on the couch again will be equal. The difference is in the total amount of time that force is applied. It's no different from a man climbing a 100' ladder or being shot out of a cannon to a height of 100'. Both take about the same amount of energy ( exactly the same in a vacuum), but I'd bet you'd rather climb. Damn that's stupid.... -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! You may think it's stupid, but it's also 100% accurate. |
|
#99
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
"NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... "NowNow" wrote in message ... In article , says... ----- Original Message ----- From: "NowNow" Are you really that friggin' stupid? Again, show me your math. The forces are equal, dip****. The "variables" would be such things as did he land exactly like he took off? If you take a known weight, such as a piece of concrete of X dimension and Y weight, put a load cell between it and the cushion and launch it to Z height. Get the reading. Now, take the same Y weight, drop it from the same Z height with the load cell on the cushion. What will the results be and why? -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! A bullet is shot straight up into the air. Is the force the bullet leaves the barrel with the same as the force it hits the ground with? You obviously don't know what in hell your talking about. This conversation is over until you provide the math to back it up. Reason, the bullet is shot so far the it reaches terminal velocity on it's return. Do you REALLY think that's the case with a 150# man at three feet???? -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! Last hint for you- The man experienced more force for a shorter length of time when he left the couch and less force for a longer time when he returned to the couch. Capish? Again, show the math. Capish? Impulse = Ft = mv - mu Uh, to start with.....no. But, if you wish, have at it. I'll correct you when you do. -- You've re-written the laws of physics? |
|
#100
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a second was probably more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and bracing on the way down... Bingo. Mathematically show me. It's not a math question. Let me ask you a question. Which do you think would cause more damage to your lower back. Falling straight down in a sitting position onto a floor with your body straight up and feet straight out, no arms or legs to break the fall, hitting with a straight spine, or hitting from the same height, half sideways with your hands and feet hitting first to break the fall. Remember, I am asking specifically, which fall would do more damage to the lower back??? Too many variables to surmise. -- WAFA the newsgroup liar free! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
