Impulse/force in pounds for the time frame


by waynexk8
Tags: frame, impulse or force, pounds, time
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#37
Jan21-12, 10:07 AM
P: 399
Best I answer this one again.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
The length of the acceleration phase is of little importance.
It makes all the importance. As the accelerations, are where the higher forces are, thus accelerations and higher accelerations thus higher forces. Yes you may say, but then there are the decelerations, however in my opinion, that medium force of the slow can “not” make up or balance out the high accelerates/forces of the fast, as the force impulse is higher.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
As long as the terminal velocity is zero the acceleration is always balanced by the deceleration.Or...with your own words...the forces "make up".
You “need” to show “how” you “think” the force make up or balance out. As I keep repeating myself, but you do not cannot answer, so here again, “if” as you think the forces make up, why do I instantly use more energy when force goes up, and you “never” make the energy up, so “why” do you “think” you make the force up ???, then there is the more distance I move the weight, and I fail faster, you “never” can explain this.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
However experimantally was found the acceleration phase lasts for about the half distance with the 80% of your maximum weight and much less with less weight when you try to lift as fast as possible.
NO, this was when bench pressing and the total repetition took 1.5 seconds, mine took .5 of a second.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
In general,the faster the lifting the less the acceleration phase and the grerater the deceleration phase.
Why do you think this ??? Please could we have explanations for the things you say, as this is a physicist site, and all needs proof and evidence.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
BTW at the study you're referring the lifting lasts ~1sec which is perfectly normal with such weight.Check it again.
Sorry it was 1 seconds, “however” we are “not” on about any normal, we are on about one 3 second concentric to six .5 of a second concentric.

Wayne
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#38
Jan21-12, 10:25 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
Quote Quote by waynexk8 View Post
Best I answer this one again.

Why do you think this ??? Please could we have explanations for the things you say, as this is a physicist site, and all needs proof and evidence.

Well, at least you admit this is a Physics site. Having admitted as much, why do you refuse to talk Physics? The explanations you have been given make good sense in Physics and the only reason they don't make sense to you is that you refuse to talk the same language. This could be construed as simple arrogance by anyone less charitable than me!.
douglis
douglis is offline
#39
Jan21-12, 10:47 AM
P: 148
Quote Quote by waynexk8 View Post
Best I answer this one again.



It makes all the importance. As the accelerations, are where the higher forces are, thus accelerations and higher accelerations thus higher forces. Yes you may say, but then there are the decelerations, however in my opinion, that medium force of the slow can “not” make up or balance out the high accelerates/forces of the fast, as the force impulse is higher.



You “need” to show “how” you “think” the force make up or balance out. As I keep repeating myself, but you do not cannot answer, so here again, “if” as you think the forces make up, why do I instantly use more energy when force goes up, and you “never” make the energy up, so “why” do you “think” you make the force up ???, then there is the more distance I move the weight, and I fail faster, you “never” can explain this.



NO, this was when bench pressing and the total repetition took 1.5 seconds, mine took .5 of a second.



Why do you think this ??? Please could we have explanations for the things you say, as this is a physicist site, and all needs proof and evidence.



Sorry it was 1 seconds, “however” we are “not” on about any normal, we are on about one 3 second concentric to six .5 of a second concentric.

Wayne
The exact same questions from the last page again ignoring all the answers you've been given!If that's not obsession I don't know what else to call it.
I'm out of here...you got all the answers even graphically in a mail.Can't do anything more.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#40
Jan21-12, 10:49 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
"He only does it to annoy." Lewis Carol
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#41
Jan21-12, 11:08 AM
P: 399
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
The equations are 'gong wrong' because you can't expect them to apply in a situation like this (as in all of your questions). You confuse the terms you use and seem to think that 'work done on' is necessarily related to 'energy transferred from muscles'.
Sophiecentaur, I am sincere and not a crank, I honestly want to learn, and have paid good money out for an EMG, so I do thank you for coming back into this debate and offering your knowledge.

Maybe I have in the pass I have confused the terms, but learning physics at my age is not that easy, if you or anyone started in my firm {wrought iron} it would not be easy for the first several years, but I am trying my best.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
you use and seem to think that 'work done on' is necessarily related to 'energy transferred from muscles'.
When I say work, and as you know there a many words for work, I mean physical work, work is the product of a force times the distance. So if I move a weight from a to b as fast as I can, I have used as much force as I can, moving a weight so and so distance, and if I move it less distance in the same time frame I have used less force, that’s remember my opinion. However why I am here is that I do not know how to work out how much more force is used. Please see the video stating that more force was used, but this time the more force was used in less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6clCe76uD-Q

Fast
P = 695
F = 579
V = 192

Slow
P = 649
F = 546
V = 161

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
I really don't know why you want to include Physics in your training if you won't learn Physics to an appropriate level.
I am leaning a little. However the main/big point here, is that in the training World, this debate is huge; it’s been going on, on about 25 forums, by 10000 or more people for over ten years. However the majority, say 99% train fast, and results are spectacular to slow. Give the fat I trained 15 years trying slow, with not much results, that at the age of 45, added 30 pounds of muscle and 10 pounds of fat in just under 3 years doing faster repetitions.

And then again it’s just human to want to know debate and learn, like on this forums the debates have been so many, and some very long and complicated.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
If you continue to talk in the wrong language, how can you expect to have a proper conversation . Quote "I have used up all my force" - this is a meaningless statement in terms of Physics. Your posts are full of such statements but you refuse to modify them or learn the appropriate way of putting things.
Ok I see you point there. But “how” else can I say this ??? As if I use up all my force/strength, as I do in training, how else can I say this ???

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
If someone can only play the Piano with one finger then it's no surprise that a Piano Concerto gives them a problem.
Very true. But basically when training in this instance of both of the slow and fast person doing the two different velocities, we do use up our force/strength for a moment, or the moment of muscular failure, not sure how else to say it.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
Like I have often said, you can't bend Physics to your will. You just have to follow where it takes you. You don't seem to want to, though.
I don’t want too, however all points the faster using more or more total force.

1,
My EMG reading states this.
2,
You use more energy when doing the fast, thus in my opinion as soon as you use more energy you use more force, what else can it be ???
3,
When the fast is on its deceleration, the slow cannot make up or balance out the higher force that the fast made when on its accelerations, as of more energy used, hitting muscular failure faster, moving the weight more distance, EMG readings, and all in the same time frame.
4,
As I have also said, If as you do, you fail faster doing the faster repetitions, you “must” have used up your momentary muscular force/strength faster than doing then slow.
5,
Then the video above.

I could say more, but “everything” points to you have to use more force. It’s like if you lift a heaver weight, you have to use more force, or if you lift the same weight faster you have to use more force, and in the end in my opinion more overall or total force.

Wayne
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#42
Jan21-12, 11:29 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
Wayne:

You are NOT sincere in wanting to learn about the Physics of this. You demonstrate this in nearly every one of your posts. Merely having forked out a load of your money on an "EMG" says nothing about your attitude to Physics or your sincerity.
Whilst you make statements like "When I say work, and as you know there a many words for work. . . ." then you are clearly never going to take in the Physics. There is just ONE definition of Work, in Physics but you seem to want to use the word to describe many things. You also use the word Force in any way you fancy but there is only one meaning for it (in Physics).

You haven't actually asked a question yet that 'parses' correctly in Physics nor have you accepted any of the totally straight answers you have been given. Are we all out of step but you?

It is a matter of GIGO, i'm afraid. You just succeed in pissing people off, here. Stick to your mates down at the Gym - they are more likely to speak your language. Alternatively, learn some actual Physics - and I don't mean Waynephysics.
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#43
Jan21-12, 11:40 AM
P: 399
Quote Quote by douglis View Post
The case,for example,that you do a bicep curl and you decelerate with your triceps was not a part of the discussion.
I never said it was part of the debate, you brought it up.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
I don't know what you think you prove with this example.
The fact that you fail faster with fast lifting just proves that you use energy faster(greater rate of energy expenditure) and not that you "use force/strength faster".
Just look at what you said and the contradiction. When you can “not” lift anymore, it means you do “not” have the force/strength to lift the weight true or false ??? We all know that’s true, if not state why ??? So why try and say you use energy faster, we all know you do, “too which is contradiction of sorts again” as “why” do you use more energy faster ??? Exactly the same time you move faster, it’s because you “are” using up force/strength faster.

Ok please tell me why I fail faster and cannot pick up the weight ??? I will say its because of several reasons, but it’s basically you force/strength supply has ran out temporary ??? Yes or no ??? And also your energy supply has ran out temporary ??? Yes or no. You can “not” just blame it on energy, you “have” to add in the force, as the force is what the energy is powering.

If you say yes, then its force and energy has ran out together, and that’s because you using up your force sulphide with energy faster, if not why ??? You can’t have one without the other.
Greater rate of energy expenditure doesn't equate greater overall force.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
Practically means that the fluctuations of force in fast lifting require more energy than the equal constant force of slow lifting.
Yes this is what I am saying also, [b]the higher force “must” use more of the force that the muscles have. The fluctuations of force in fast lifting must also require “more” force out of the available force the muscles than the constant force of slow lifting, how can it be any other way ???

Now please answer this.
When you fail {and you do this is fact} in the faster repetitions, too which that means you have no force/strength left, but the person doing the slower repetitions does have force/strength left, how can I have not used all my force/strength up faster when I have used my force/strength up 50% faster ??? Proof, evidence and facts, I have used my force/strength up first, thus if we both had 1000N of force/strength, I have used it up faster, to say other would be a full English and physics contradiction, it would be like say the Man who ran the 100m the slowest was the fastest.

Wayne
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#44
Jan21-12, 11:55 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
Wayne. That is just a rant. what do you want (one sentence please) out of all this?
douglis
douglis is offline
#45
Jan21-12, 12:04 PM
P: 148
Quote Quote by waynexk8 View Post
The fluctuations of force in fast lifting must also require “more” force out of the available force the muscles than the constant force of slow lifting, how can it be any other way ???
The fluctuations of force in fast lifting must also require “more” energy out of the available energy than the constant force of slow lifting


Now please answer this.
When you fail {and you do this is fact} in the faster repetitions, too which that means you have no force/strength left,
Wayne
When you fail in the faster repetitions means you have no energy left.

Wayne...are you able to understand the difference between force and energy?
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#46
Jan21-12, 12:17 PM
P: 399
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
Wayne:

You are NOT sincere in wanting to learn about the Physics of this. You demonstrate this in nearly every one of your posts. Merely having forked out a load of your money on an "EMG" says nothing about your attitude to Physics or your sincerity.
I am or will try to learn as much as I can, but I have a firm, family and many other things in life, I just do not have the time to do a full physics course, will will try to learn what I need for this debate.

Please say the odd thing I say wrong, then I can either explain or put it right.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
Whilst you make statements like "When I say work, and as you know there a many words for work. . . ." then you are clearly never going to take in the Physics. There is just ONE definition of Work, in Physics but you seem to want to use the word to describe many things.
In this instance it must mean physical work, as that’s what we are doing, if not what do I call it ??? But is not work the product of a force times the distance add in time ??? If so then it’s the same.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
You also use the word Force in any way you fancy but there is only one meaning for it (in Physics).
Force is basically a push or pull, it makes an object move, that’s roughly the same as strength. Not sure what you say I got wrong there ??? Please say.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
You haven't actually asked a question yet that 'parses' correctly in Physics
I think I have, if not please say how I should ask this question from this example.

I use muscle strength to make force, so I use force to move a weight. I only have so much temporary force in my muscles, like everything else. So if I lift 80% of my 1RM, at a velocity of .5/.5 and 3/3 you will fail roughly 50% faster moving on the faster, this means I have gone to momentary muscular failure, and used up my temporary force faster than the slow. This must in my opinion mean I have used more total or overall force faster. The debate was, which uses the most total or overall force on the temporary force the muscles have, thus put more tension on the muscles in the same time frame. 1 repetition at 3/3 = 6 seconds, or 6 repetitions at .5/.5 = 6 seconds, or/and 4 repetitions at 3/3 = 24 seconds or 24 repetitions at .5/.5 = 24 seconds. Not sure how else to say it.

however all points the faster using more or more total force.

1,
My EMG reading states this.
2,
You use more energy when doing the fast, thus in my opinion as soon as you use more energy you use more force, what else can it be ???
3,
When the fast is on its deceleration, the slow cannot make up or balance out the higher force that the fast made when on its accelerations, as of more energy used, hitting muscular failure faster, moving the weight more distance, EMG readings, and all in the same time frame.
4,
As I have also said, If as you do, you fail faster doing the faster repetitions, you “must” have used up your momentary muscular force/strength faster than doing then slow.
5,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6clCe76uD-Q

Fast
P = 695
F = 579
V = 192

Slow
P = 649
F = 546
V = 161


I could say more, but “everything” points to you have to use more force. It’s like if you lift a heaver weight, you have to use more force, or if you lift the same weight faster you have to use more force, and in the end in my opinion more overall or total force.

[QUOTE=sophiecentaur;3720693]nor have you accepted any of the totally straight answers you have been given. Are we all out of step but you?

See 1 to 5, all point to more force/strength being used by the faster repetitions.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
It is a matter of GIGO, i'm afraid. You just succeed in pissing people off, here.
Sorry, I did/do not mean that, I am only trying to get an answer, but when I put practical answer, or what actually happens, some people think/seem they can ignore this and in turn do not, or cannot answer, and I don’t understand this. Let me say it short again, if I hit muscular failure faster, have not I used up my temporary force/strength, than the person who is still doing the repetitions but slower ??? If not what answer would you give ???

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
Stick to your mates down at the Gym - they are more likely to speak your language. Alternatively, learn some actual Physics - and I don't mean Waynephysics.
I have been polite all along, I came here to learn, and will try to learn more.

Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
Alternatively, learn some actual Physics - and I don't mean Waynephysics.
Just take 1, if an EMG machine says I have more muscle activity, I would have thought people would want to understand this, or find out more. I don’t call an EMG Waynephysics, its World physics.

Please sophiecentaur, I do thank you for your time and help, but I do not want to turn this into anything else except a nice friendly debate, and would rather just talk physics and practical World equations/tests.

Wayne
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#47
Jan21-12, 12:28 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
Quote Quote by waynexk8 View Post
Just take 1, if an EMG machine says I have more muscle activity, I would have thought people would want to understand this, or find out more. I don’t call an EMG Waynephysics, its World physics.

Please sophiecentaur, I do thank you for your time and help, but I do not want to turn this into anything else except a nice friendly debate, and would rather just talk physics and practical World equations/tests.

Wayne
An EMG may not be Waynephysics but, without reading about what it claims to do, I have to assume it is EMGPhysics which may not be real Physics at all. It wouldn't be the only thing that's been sold on dodgy Science now, would it? Do you have a link about it?

You say you would "rather talk Physics" but you seldom actually do. That's my point. You talk your own home-brewed version which is not compatible with the real stuff.
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#48
Jan21-12, 12:58 PM
P: 399
Quote Quote by douglis View Post
The fluctuations of force in fast lifting must also require “more” energy out of the available energy than the constant force of slow lifting
You contradict and repeat.

The fluctuations of force in fast lifting, as in the higher fluctuations of force must also require “more” energy, as they are using “more” force and “more” of the temporarily force/strength that is available, how else can you use more energy if it’s not used up by more of the fluctuations of force in fast lifting, as in the higher fluctuations of force. And as both lifting slow and fast have the same temporary force/strength, why is it not used up in slow so fast ??? As it must be using less of its available temporary force/strength.

We all know this, and is it not because when you use a higher force out of the temporary available force/strength you “have” to be using more of the temporary available force/strength ??? How else can you use more energy ??? I repeat, Its because you “have” to be using more of the temporary available force/strength, “if” you did not use more of the temporary available force/strength, like you in the slow, you will and do have more force/strength left, as you do.

Please could you or anyone else just try and answer the above ???

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
When you fail in the faster repetitions means you have no energy left.
You contradict and repeat again.

Force/strength is what the energy is powering, so when the temporary force/strength is used up, the energy is used up, or when the energy is used up, the temporary force/strength is used up, and you can’t have one used up without the other in this instance. I repeat as above, the higher.

Quote Quote by douglis View Post
Wayne...are you able to understand the difference between force and energy?
Odd question to ask, the energy, is the energy that in this case is the energy for the muscular force/strength, to which the muscles force/strength moves the weight. And you as you know only have so much energy and force for a certain time frame of lifting. You are trying to say the energy is used up because of nothing ??? But it’s the force/work that the muscles are doing that uses up this energy, and if you use “more” force/strength faster, the energy gets used up faster.

Wayne
douglis
douglis is offline
#49
Jan21-12, 01:35 PM
P: 148
Quote Quote by waynexk8 View Post
you “have” to be using more of the temporary available force/strength
Wayne
That's NONSENSE.


You don't use more "force" from the "temporary available force".You use more energy from the available energy to be able to apply force.
That doesn't mean you use more overall force...it means you use energy at a higher rate.Apples and oranges.

Look...that's enough.You created your own physics and terms to feed your obsession and you want us somehow to understand your nonsense and agree with you.That's too crazy even for you.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#50
Jan22-12, 03:15 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
Wayne.
Would you expect to conversation about tennis if you insisted on using the language of football? This is effectively what you are trying to do with your arrogant misuse of the vocabulary. Learn the right terms or go to a less rigorous forum. You may get a (wrong) answer that will make you happy.
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#51
Jan22-12, 04:26 PM
P: 399
douglas wrote;That's Waynesphysics.Greater energy expenditure doesn't equate greater force.
Yes it does, we covered this in another debatehere on this forum. I thought everyone knows and agrees on this, you only have to go to any nutritional site of book to find this out. You “can not” move faster without “more” force, you “can not” use more force without using more energy, to say other trying to alter physics. WHY are we going here again.

Now for another contradiction.

douglas wrote;You spend more energy in fast lifting because it takes more energy to generate force than to maintain it.
You just said, I quote; Greater energy expenditure doesn't equate greater force you then say and contradict yourself, I quote; You spend more energy in fast lifting because it takes more energy to generate force

douglas wrote;You spend more energy in fast lifting because it takes more energy to generate force than to maintain it.
Yes yes yes, this is what I am and have been saying all along, bingo, yes it “does” take more energy to produce and generate more {more as in the longer you try and use force} and higher force than to maintain it, as in holding the weight half way up, or moving the weight up slow like in the slow repititions.

douglas wrote;It's a purely biological matter.
On a physics site, this is not an answer; it seems a way of getting round, you don’t seem to know. Or do you mean to move faster takes more force and higher force, and thus energy. In the fast you use more power, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, power is the rate at which this work is performed, thus I use more force doing more work and need more energy to do this.

You seem to be thinking energy is the force, it’s not, energy is the energy powering the force/strength of the muscles, and basically the muscles fuel is adenosine triphosphate or simply ATP, Creatine, phosphagen, glycolysis, and oxidative. I repeat, if you only have a certain amount of force/strength, when say lifting 80% {and we all do only have a limited force/strength to use} the faster, or the more of this limited force/strength you use, the faster the total or overall force/strength is used. So use low force/strength slower like you, and it “will” last longer, as it does, as you hit muscular failure about 50% slower doing the repetitions slower.

Wayne
waynexk8
waynexk8 is offline
#52
Jan22-12, 05:19 PM
P: 399
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
Wayne.
Would you expect to conversation about tennis if you insisted on using the language of football? This is effectively what you are trying to do with your arrogant misuse of the vocabulary. Learn the right terms or go to a less rigorous forum. You may get a (wrong) answer that will make you happy.
I am sorry that my wording sounds arrogant, it’s not meant to be, I am trying my best. But if you “please” tell me what you do not understand, and I will explain it more. I don’t want a wrong answer.

Ok sophiecentaur let me try again.

1,
I imagine you know what am EMG machine is, but just in case, it’s a machine that measures the electrical signals in the muscles. I attached the pads to my muscles and did several tests, all the tests as you see in my earlier posts and a video, showed that there “was more” average muscle force/strength, muscle activity when the weight was moved very fast to very slow. As a physicist, I thought that would intrigue you that it a real life practical experiment showed you was wrong, and that you might want to find out why.

2,
When anybody moves a weight faster, but in this case is using 80% or the persons 1RM {Repetition Maximum or the most weight a person can lift up for a full repetition one time} “you” are saying that the person does not use more of the total or overall force they have, {and we all do only have a limited force/strength to use, and when using 80% its about 15 seconds or more} when moving it faster, am I right there ??? If so, as this is what you’re saying, how when we only have a limited amount of force to use, does the person moving the 80% as fast as he can, hit muscular failure nearly twice as fast ??? Or in other words the person moving the fastest, moves the weight faster, for more distance in the 50% less the time frame then the slow, thus his limited temporary force they have has been used up faster, but you are saying it’s not ??? But then again you do say that the energy is used up faster, but not the force, please, this seems a contradiction to me. As if you’re using more energy, you “must” be using more or a higher amount of force that you have, right ??? If not, why would you use more energy if you not using more of the limited force, or a higher force, of the limited force ???

If that’s got a bit complicated, and it has, let me explain a little different.

Clone 1 and 2 can lift up 100 pounds in 4 seconds, and lower the 100 pounds in 4 seconds 4 repetitions/times = 32 seconds, then they have hit muscular failure. {meaning they cannot lift the weight again, until the force, in this case the muscles have got they temporary force back, as the muscles need to replenish they energy supplies}

However, if Clone 1 and 2 lift up 100 pounds in 1 second, and lower the 100 pounds in 1 second, they “will” hit muscular failure far far far faster, in roughly 8 repetition or 16 seconds 4 times.

Does not this mean that when the Clones were lifting faster, they were using up more of the temporary total/over force they had, and faster ??? You saeem to be saying no ??? So why do they fail at diffrent times lifting the weight at diffrent speeds ???

3,
Also, you seem you be saying that it takes the same total/overall force/strength to move a weight a 1000mm and only a 166mm. If the faster accelerated the weight for just 60% 600mm, that would mean you’re saying that it takes the same force to accelerate a weight a 600mm and to move it at a constant velocity only 166mm. To me that’s saying F = ma is wrong. Also, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, power is the rate at which this work is performed, thus I use more force doing more work and need more energy to do this.

4,
Do you, agree, that the faster you move something with a force the more or the faster the energy is used. I think you will say yes, as we cover this in another debate, to which Douglas did admit he was wrong on that one.

5,
Can you have more power with the same amount of force ???

Wayne
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#53
Jan22-12, 05:21 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
Quote Quote by waynexk8 View Post

On a physics site, this is not an answer;

Wayne
Actually, it's a very reasonable answer.

I think it's clear that you don't want a Physics site. What you want is a 'Chew the Fat site' in which no-one really knows what they're talking about but everyone has a good time playing with 'Science Sounding Words'. I'm afraid that PF is not like that. Take a look at the majority of other threads and see how people 'behave themselves' correctly, scientifically.

Like I said earlier, it's GIGO.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is offline
#54
Jan22-12, 05:31 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,398
@Wayne
I just read your long post. Your insistence on using terms wrongly can only be regarded as arrogant - when you have been told so many times what the right terms are. You equate force / strength / energy at every opportunity which makes the accompanying reams of stuff meaningless.
What's the point in saying that you're sorry if you continue to say the same old rubbish. You seem to want to pick holes in the explanations given by Douglass and others when they / we have no real idea what question you are actually asking. If you say that reading a Physics text book is beyond you then how could you think that you would understand and be qualified to argue with what you read here?

I should just turn on your EMG /ESP /SPQR machine and enjoy reading the figures it shows you. That's what you paid your money for. Aim at making them higher (or lower) and see if you feel fitter / stronger as a result. Enjoy things at that level. No one will argue with you or get exasperated.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
most force/strength used in the same time frame General Physics 69
Impulse question about Force and time Introductory Physics Homework 2
Force vs. time graph (Impulse) Introductory Physics Homework 16
Impulse and Force-Time Graph Introductory Physics Homework 2
Velocity as a function of force/impulse/time. Introductory Physics Homework 2