Debunking implausible gravity claims in pianism/boxing

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew Thayer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the debunking of exaggerated claims regarding the role of gravity in pianism and boxing. The author critiques the notion that falling weight significantly contributes to rapid key presses in piano playing, asserting that the speeds achievable through gravity are limited. They emphasize the need for a scientific approach to measure the maximum potential frequency of key presses and propose using experimental data from studies on finger movement and neuromuscular patterns to support their arguments.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics principles, particularly gravity and motion.
  • Familiarity with neuromuscular patterns related to finger movements.
  • Knowledge of experimental design in scientific research.
  • Basic principles of biomechanics as they relate to musical performance.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Neuromuscular patterns of finger movements during piano playing" for experimental protocols.
  • Investigate "Cognitive and biomechanical influences in pianists' finger tapping" for insights on technique.
  • Explore "The Physics and Metaphysics of Piano Playing: Twelve Fundamental Principles" for theoretical frameworks.
  • Examine studies on "Finger-tapping ability in male and female pianists" to understand performance variances.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for musicians, particularly pianists, music educators, and sports scientists interested in the biomechanics of performance and the scientific analysis of movement in music and athletics.

  • #31
PeroK said:
Perhaps one day some clever engineer will invent a machine that turns downward speed into horizontal speed.

I did think that a pole vaulter manages to turn horizontal speed into vertical speed.

It's funny, though, that that is possible but not the other way round.

Perhaps if the vaulter landed on an angled trampoline, that would fire him forward, turning his downward speed into horizontal speed again. That would be bizarre!

It's perfectly possible in demspey's sledge example. I'm just baffled by how it can be done to any meaningful degree in a punch.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Andrew Thayer said:
It's perfectly possible in demspey's sledge example. I'm just baffled by how it can be done to any meaningful degree in a punch.
Actually, I just remembered something I heard recently. I was watching the tennis and heard a tip on volleying at the net. You take a little jump. You have to time the jump, so that you land just as your opponent is hitting the shot, and you have to make a decision whether to move left or right. The little jump allows you to spring left or right faster than from a normal standing position.

Perhaps that's just more sports pseudo science!
 
  • #33
PeroK said:
Actually, I just remembered something I heard recently. I was watching the tennis and heard a tip on volleying at the net. You take a little jump. You have to time the jump, so that you land just as your opponent is hitting the shot, and you have to make a decision whether to move left or right. The little jump allows you to spring left or right faster than from a normal standing position.

Perhaps that's just more sports pseudo science!

Sounds more credible to me. Leaning doesn't generate phenomenal speed, but it certainly prepares you to move. There's some bizarre running method called the falling rod. The idea is that you "fall" forwards continuously like a leaning rod on your hand that balances as long as as you keep moving. Obviously it's untrue and you don't actually fall. The sense you're about o fall just keeps you pushing on, to stop you falling.

I heard a theory from feldenkrais that we evolved to two feet because you're ready to lean in any direction and instantly start moving that way. It doesn't work on all fours. Probably impossible to prove but an interesting idea. Creating instability by leaning slightly with gravity is certainly an excellent way to trigger powerful movement (even if dubious when portrayed as a power source, rather than a trigger).
 
  • #34
Andrew Thayer said:
You're blaming our physiology
For setting the limit on how fast humans can move? Of course.

Andrew Thayer said:
but there's no evidence it can be done faster without that variable.
Are seriously doubting that a machine could do it faster?
 
  • #35
A.T. said:
For setting the limit on how fast humans can move? Of course.Are seriously doubting that a machine could do it faster?

Yes, I'm doubting it would be a whole lot faster when limited to waiting for gravity to both decelerate the upward part and generate the whole downward part.
My muscles are radically quicker than gravity. I can whip an arm up even directly against gravity far quicker than it will fall. Looking at the true amplitude of octave playing, we really ought to be doing calculations for at least three centimeters of movement, rather than the one cm I originally gave for key movement. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that I might perform faster under muscular reversal than a machine that is limited to upward acceleration alone. Take a look at the speed of Argerich's octaves. I don't believe a machine could reach that speed without active downward impulses. I don't doubt in the least that she's faster than a machine that is powerless in any direction other than up. It's only through ACTIVE downward acceleration beyond gravity that a machine becomes superior to a human.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
A human who limits themself to gravitational acceleration hasn't even neared their physiological limit. It would be quite such a handicap to human and machine alike that I wouldn't expect a remotely impressive frequency from either. If the machine alone has the handicap and I use my muscles, I'm sure I could beat it.
 
  • #37
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
22K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K