Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: punkinworks10


You can buy Sabot "Hourglass" Slugs for shotguns that do something similar. For my .308 I buy Hornady TAP rounds. They have a orange plastic "Nose tip" that I'm sure vaporizes when it hits the target and leaves the core exposed. Probably doing something similar as a hollow point.


I know a guy who used to take his 7.62X39 and drill a hole down its center. Then he'd back fill it with plumbers putty.

a reply to: punkinworks10

For impromptu training tools. Sounds psychotic but if I'm in a fowl mood or drunk and rambunctious I'll smack parking meters as I walk past them. Good hand tempering tool and you also are looking for the right sound when you hit them. You don't want them to go. Thwack! Wobble, Wobble, Wobble. But Thwack! Shudder,der,der,der,der,der. You can get them to shudder and sing for a while if you do it right. Be almost to the next meter before it stops. Again part of the striking sweet spot.

Hey you uncle the Arnis master. Did he have a stack of old tires nearby? I wish I had one of those I could fit into my apt. And not manage to piss off the neighbors. It's bad enough I have a mook jong inside and those are annoyingly loud. Strangely I do kali on it instead of Wing Chun.

Bringing Wing Chun back up again but to me a lot of the moves on the wooden dummy form appear to be derivatives of knife tapping skills found in south east asian martial arts. And the chi sau is similar in a lot of ways to hubud/lubud. I'm telling ya Wing Chun appears when you really break it down to be related to weapon based arts in that region. Including the chain punches which would allow you to access a knife easily and deploy if you looked at it from a different perspective.

Take a look at this Indian Shastar Vidiya Platha video and tell me if you see any similarities to wing chun.

www.youtube.com...

I'm telling ya guys a lot of chinese MA is based off of what they were taught by Indian emissaries and I'm not talking about shaolin/Kalipriyattu similarities. But stuff that the Ming elite soldiers were doing and trained in. It appears to have been passed to the Hakka and Hokkien who then migrated south to flee the Qing loyalists where it became know as arts like Chu Gar, Jook Lum, Sil Tang Lang, Lung Ying, Li Gar, Bak Mei etc....and greatly influenced wing chun too.

I dunno I want to take a scientific approach to some of these articles I plan on writing for the blog. Force vectors when striking will be another article I intend to write. Focus on why a lot of the martial arts appear to stomp when they strike but not with the rear leg, which achieves something else.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

My uncle , who was known in the family as "Don" Goyo, as an honorific, and not a first name, was in his eighties when i was a pre teen, so he didn't practice any more, But he did show me some pretty fancy stick and knife work. It's unfortunate I wasn't into martial arts yet. For an old man he was incredibly fluid.
In the eighties I read an article in one of of the mags, and the authors travelled extensively in the tribal regions of Pakistan, and found several examples of basal martial arts.

Me and my friends were such martial arts hipster doofusses. We would don our ninja get ups, split up and ninja sneak a mile through the neighborhood to the local junior collage, at night of course, then try to "assassinate" each other, with toy bows and arrows wooden swords and other weapons.
I even went as far as to have climbing claws and grappling hooks.
And by ninja sneak I mean minja sneak, through people's yards , over their roofs and stuff.
Once we got to the campus we would avoid security while trying to find each other. Once I was hanging on the textures block between the 2 and 3rd floor of math building,, as security walked beneath looking for me., That same night me and my buddy had a wooden sword breaking spar, in the dark , 50 feet behind PD , sitting in his car doing paper work.
He almost wised up when I broke my sword, he looked up for a sec before resuming paper work.

a reply to: punkinworks10
Here is a fun little vid,
Israeli girl is being Sexually harassed - but she…: youtu.be...
Man she knocks the crap out of those guys,
It links to the OP , force x. distance.

a reply to: punkinworks10

can't get the video to play

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: joelr

There are so many misconceptions in that post, so many assumptions, that I think it is better if I first ask you:

Do you honestly care about what I would have to say or are you simply wanting to debase my post?


p.s. Math can only measure math. number = number

You answer my question and I'll make a response, if at some point you can't handle it then don't post back.

At the subatomic level math often measures reality much better than other types of measurements.
If something is smaller than a photon then you cannot see it.
In physics sometimes the equations tell us something new about reality and then we look for it and find it.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
When I say maximum power i'm referring to how much energy is lost due to over penetration, causing a shoving like transfer instead of a sharp quick impulse where the energy goes in, and stays in. There's a sweet spot in striking mechanics that allows this. Hitting the pole and listening to the tone tells you if you're hitting that sweet spot.

It seems to me like hitting the pole is going to cause the opposite of the desired effect. If you want to hit your opponent harder to cause more damage, the pole will train you to do the opposite because if you hit the pole harder you'll only injure yourself, not the pole.

Obviously I'm having trouble accurately describing whats going on hence the interrogatory to you guys.

Like for example. A 12 gauge deer slug at close range transfers more energy into the target at 850 feet per second than a 750 grain .50 cal bullet traveling at 2,600 feet per second. Or the net energy transferred is higher at least. The .50 cal will go right through the target at close range like a laser and barely do anything to it. The 12 gauge slug transfers all that momentum because it's not too fast and not too slow, but in that sweet spot.

I don't see how an analogy of a bullet making a clean hole through a target applies to martial arts. Are you making holes in your opponents? No. So this doesn't seem relevant.

Or maybe a better example is a billiard ball striking another ball. You can strike too hard and both balls travel in the same direction after the. You can strike too light and you barely tap the ball. Or you could do one of those things where you get it so that the que ball strikes the billiard ball and the que ball stops where it struck and the energy transfers to the billiard which goes flying. Isn't that the "Maximum" transfer of energy in that case from the que ball to the billiard ball?

Another analogy that like the bullet making a hole is on its own true, but not so relevant to fighting. To make it relevant you'd need to have two objects of about the same mass (like your fist striking your opponent's fist perhaps) and that is almost never (or never?) the intended target.

There is an actual science behind fighting.

Yes there is, but many training methods are scientifically flawed, depending on what your goals are in fighting. If you're sparring with someone you're hopefully not trying to kill or put your sparring partner in the hospital. If you're fighting for your life in a street fight your goals could be entirely different where trying to maim your opponent is no longer off the table. Think about it, if you were really doing maximum damage all the time you'd be putting all your sparring partners in the hospital, but fortunately Bob the dummy can take quite a beating.

Or as a the De Thouars Brothers say Speed is meaningless, Power is garbage. The real art is in positioning and timing.

This doesn't sound very scientific. Positioning and timing are no doubt very important, but I don't think the rest of that statement is true and it's certainly not a scientific statement, it's non-scientific hyperbole.

making the heavy bag swing violently when you strike it is no good, but making it shudder in place is good.

Even the "winner" of a serious fight can sustain injuries during a fight, and since i prefer to remain relatively uninjured my strategy is to knock my opponent down and run away so I don't have to fight, so shudder in place doesn't work for me. I want him flat on the ground while I'm running away. The last thing I want to do is for me and him to stand there and pound the crap out of each other. And yes taking advantage of the fact that he's only got two legs instead of three is key in knocking him over as you suggested.

Hey I did tae kwon do and got a black belt back when I was a teen and did tournaments. question for you. I was taught to do the round house kick where you nearly completely turn your hip over so as the striking angle is down at 45 degrees to the head and not horizontal or on the up swing. I found it a lot more effective than just swinging the leg and I noticed more of the Korean taught guys did it that way too but the american schools taught it the other way. Wondering how you were taught it or use it.

Turn the hip but the kick can either be horizontal or at other angles. You can see the horizontal kick in this video at 1:15 and 1:24 where he emphasizes turning the hip, but I don't know what you mean by "striking angle down at 45 degrees to the head".

As far as Bob the dummy. He's great. But he's just a training tool. AS is a mook jong, a simple pole, a brick wall, a speed bag, a pile of stacked tires and many others. It's never a be-all solution though. None of them really are. Hence the variety.

You'll notice Bob the dummy isn't getting knocked over as much in the roundhouse kick video compared to the earlier front kick video I posted, so it's not just my roundhouse kick that's weaker than the front kick, it's the physics of the kick. However that doesn't mean you can't knock someone out with one of those to the side of the head which he demonstrates later in the same video, but there are risks to that kick to the head, since you're fairly exposed while doing it.

But if you like Bob. Then you are going to LOVE this.
www.youtube.com...

I don't know if "love" describes how I feel about that dummy, but yes I think I'd rather train using that than a pole!

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Field theory is saying; we do not know where in space electrons and photons are, unless we measure them (and even then, there can be issues) but an electron could potentially travel there and there, and be there and there and a photon too, so field theory is to keep in mind that we do not know where electrons and photons are at all given times but they could be all around, and so we must consider them as potential actors on that which we do observe?

That seems to be true. We can also measure them indirectly. And we can never know both position and momentum to an accurate degree.

coz 'position' will be your detector position in sensor array ( that got hit first). How do you derive 'momentun' from it? In other words, how momentum is measured? Is it not from same sensor that took 'position'?

originally posted by: greenreflections

coz 'position' will be your detector position in sensor array ( that got hit first). How do you derive 'momentun' from it? In other words, how momentum is measured? Is it not from same sensor that took 'position'?

Spectroscopy is used to measure momentum. As far as taking a momentum measurement from a detector, it's really only being inferred after the fact so it's not actually a real time measurement.

But you can use a Fourier transform to go from a position function to a wavelength function which is a momentum, the wave function evolving.

ques: wt has become of qeg, blp, e cat, steorn?

Gravity isn't a force.

Gravity is the bi-product of the distortion of time. Which is the result of the differential between force over opposing force.

The (toroidal) dimensional construct of something like a star-system is formed and stablised within a larger, relative sphere of space, like a galaxy. Macrocosm/Microcosm.

The faster physics of the star-system existing within the exact same space as the slower physics of its harmonious parent space create a phase relationship.

This phasing creates a displacement of the balance within the cycles of the star-system. And stabilises as its equilibriums 'shifting' constant.

That displacement relative to the continuity of its cycle is what we call time. The phasing is in one constant direction, which is why time (appears to) only move forwards.

When this displacement is introduced to mass, gravity is the result.

Gravity is a more a distortion of forces, than it will ever be a force.

The so called 'gravity waves' which they detected recently ARE NOT gravity waves, they would be more accurately described as 'time waves'.

This introduction of mass (and resulting gravity) causes atonal distortion of the normally harmonious parent and child frequencies of the torus equilibrium which dictate time. A distortion which pulls 'inward' from the constants which dictate its very existence.

These wave 'distortions' could be visible around mass. Or where masses influence has been altered. That's what they would be seeing.

It should be fairly easy to prove these are not 'gravity waves', because the detected waves will be composed of more than one frequency. Meaning they are the result of atonal distortion to multiple harmonious frequencies.

Science is very backwards. I don't know how people still believe space is a vacuum. If you are scientifically minded, think about that for a moment. If space were a vacuum, we wouldn't exist. We would have no atmosphere.

Space is a pressurized.

Also Einstein is wrong with E=MC2.

Energy is density of frequency relative to force over opposing force. Mass (although technically relative) is just a state of this energy 'density'. It does not formulate energy, It is formulated by energy. Which is nothing more than the dense aggregation, or dispersal of frequency relationships.

Basically, take EVERYTHING in science, reverse it, and you'll be correct.

EVERYTHING is backwards. It's been done intentionally.

I know nobody will believe me, I don't care.

Even though what I said fits in 'exactly' with backwards accepted physics and can equate both time and gravity, where accepted science CAN'T ... Nobody believes it.

They are like the scientists of old who all still think the world is flat.

But within the next few years you will. Because it is right! Whether accepted science wants to believe it or not. They have 'scienced' themselves into a corner literally. And they wont be able to get out of it, without realising that everything we think we know is backwards.

I give it a year tops.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: wt has become of qeg, blp, e cat, steorn?

They're all being used to generate free energy on that island where JFK, Elvis, and Tupac live.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: wt has become of qeg, blp, e cat, steorn?

They're all being used to generate free energy on that island where JFK, Elvis, and Tupac live.

Lol nice one

originally posted by: IamSandSHEisB
I know nobody will believe me, I don't care.

Science is very backwards. I don't know how people still believe space is a vacuum.

When you begin to talk about things not of this earth, things get "unearthly", especially with concepts like "vacuum" and "temperature" which can be context-sensitive. For example, some people say that astronauts who walked on the moon needed space suits because the moon has no atmosphere. But other people say the moon does have a thin atmosphere.

The claims sound contradictory but I wouldn't say either one is wrong, but neither is well defined scientifically, and I'll say the same thing about your claim, it's not well defined scientifically. What exactly do you think the pressure is in space? Have you done any research to see if the pressure of space has been measured, with instruments? An experiment you can do yourself is to make a small instrument package with a pressure gage and a radio transmitter, attach it to a balloon and send the balloon up as high as it will go and see what happens to the pressure. If you've got a good balloon it can go quite high.

If you are scientifically minded, think about that for a moment. If space were a vacuum, we wouldn't exist. We would have no atmosphere.

Space is a pressurized.

Again you need to talk numbers, this is way too general. How much pressure are you talking about and do you know the sources? We generally think of the International space station as being in space, but actually it's in low earth orbit so it's not a perfect vacuum outside the ISS, in fact NASA knows this quite well as they will tell you a big drain on their budget is sending fuel up to the ISS to boost its orbit which is necessary because of drag caused by the non-zero pressure (thin atmosphere) it's traveling though.

But within the next few years you will. Because it is right! Whether accepted science wants to believe it or not. They have 'scienced' themselves into a corner literally. And they wont be able to get out of it, without realising that everything we think we know is backwards.

I give it a year tops.

So why don't you be the one to write your paper proving what you say is true and then get your Nobel prize for doing so? That's the way science works, nothing is engraved in stone. Someone else can come along and prove they have a better theory, but I'm afraid to say you haven't proven much here except that there's apparently a lot of science you don't know. Gravity works pretty well at explaining atmospheres, but not perfectly which is why we have to factor in things like planetary magnetic fields, and solar wind into planetary atmosphere models.

If you don't believe in gravity then you've discarded one of the main causes for why we have an atmosphere, so ironically your own evidence that we have an atmosphere seems to disprove your own hypothesis about gravity.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, I believe he literally thinks that space is filled with something akin to Earth STP atmosphere. Because if it were a vacuum, why doesn't Earth's atmosphere just end up sucked into it?

I run into these people here and there. Generally they're the ones that believe in 'music of the spheres' as well, thus a lot of bad references to frequency, resonance et al.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, I believe he literally thinks that space is filled with something akin to Earth STP atmosphere. Because if it were a vacuum, why doesn't Earth's atmosphere just end up sucked into it?

Maybe so, but this is one reason I suggested sending up a balloon with an instrument package to measure pressure. Other people have done it, and just about anybody in a first world country could do it if they wanted to.

Here's a video of a couple of guys who did it. Their balloon reached over 100,000 feet altitude where their instrument package recorded that the pressure was approximately 1% of the atmospheric pressure at Earth's surface. So given this easily obtained data contradicts the STP in space model I'd be interested to know how they rationalize the contradiction.

By the way some of the clouds in this video are very interesting, though it ends up showing a lot of stills since they had problems with their go pro cameras:

High Altitude balloon over Southern Florida

On Memorial Day weekend of 2015 we launched a high altitude balloon over South Florida. The payload included two GoPro cameras, a Canon Powershot camera, and a barrage of sensors (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, GPS) running on two Arduino Mega microcontrollers ...

Science is not just for scientists. Anybody can do simple science like this.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: greenreflections

coz 'position' will be your detector position in sensor array ( that got hit first). How do you derive 'momentun' from it? In other words, how momentum is measured? Is it not from same sensor that took 'position'?

Spectroscopy is used to measure momentum. As far as taking a momentum measurement from a detector, it's really only being inferred after the fact so it's not actually a real time measurement.

But you can use a Fourier transform to go from a position function to a wavelength function which is a momentum, the wave function evolving.

if I can use Fourier transform to get what I need from position value then whats the big problem of knowing both? And why to know both is that important?

photon can exist in point like and wave form like format. Photon has all characteristics of the wave because it is same quanta. It went from being everywhere at the moment of emission to an instance when absorbed. Wave collapses (contracts) to a single event. it returned back to what it was before emission. So what?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Have you heard of the theory called 'Quantum Darwinism'?


Thank you!

a reply to: greenreflections
I've heard of it, but have a very limited understanding that it is supposed to help explain the resolution to the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, among other things.

I think Ruth Kastner is more familiar with quantum Darwinism than I am. Here are some of her objections:

arxiv.org...

However, the idea that preferred pointer states naturally “emerge” from
the quantum level has been refuted in the published literature, in
particular in a paper (1) showing that “classical” pointer states do not
emerge unless a key aspect of classicality has been tacitly assumed from
the beginning. In other words, the “quantum Darwinism” program is
fatally circular.

The assumption generating the circularity usually takes the form of a
predesignated system that is considered separable from its environment..

So according to Kastner, quantum Darwinism is fatally circular and is contradicted by observation.

With my limited knowledge of the topic I find Kastner's arguments more persuasive than the arguments of Quantum Darwinism.