# Kinetic Energy



## Transk53 (Nov 11, 2014)

As aforementioned, does physical weight have an immediate answer, or with heavier weight in mind, does that ring true? Wondering if physical size actually has a tangible difference. Would it be that no advantage is gained due to there being a natural balance, different skills having there place with your particular self, to kind of nullify the perceived advantage (I.E. body build) over some one that is bigger. A natural balance if you will.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 11, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> As aforementioned, does physical weight have an immediate answer, or with heavier weight in mind, does that ring true? Wondering if physical size actually has a tangible difference. Would it be that no advantage is gained due to there being a natural balance, different skills having there place with your particular self, to kind of nullify the perceived advantage (I.E. body build) over some one that is bigger. A natural balance if you will.



I am afraid that I have absolutely no idea about what you are asking.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Nov 11, 2014)

I think he's asking if having more mass (e.g. a larger arm) combined with correct body mechanics would equate to a stronger punch when compared with a smaller arm. 

Kinetic Energy is: 1/2 mass x velocity ^ 2

Therefore mass will make a difference, but with velocity being squared, speed is much more important. With speed being equal then mass will make a big difference.

A smaller person punching with correct body mechanics should be able to hit with more power in thier punch than a fat guy with crap technique - massive generalisation here, I know. Assuming the smaller person is an adult and that they have a relatively strong build (which if they are training seriously for any length of time, they probably should do)


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2014)

In one of my Wado Ryu books by Shingo Ohgami, he has some amazing mathematical type things, I can only describe them as things as I have no idea what they actually are. there's equations to do with the power and speed of strikes.


"the moment of Tsukiwaza is M1=F1 x a and in Uchiwaza M2=F2 x (a+b)" with a lovely little diagram I cannot reproduce here.  I understand that in his other, non martial arts life he is an engineer so can explain karate in terms like this. It's impressive to me at any rate!


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 11, 2014)

Blindside said:


> I am afraid that I have absolutely no idea about what you are asking.



Me too obviously!


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 11, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> I think he's asking if having more mass (e.g. a larger arm) combined with correct body mechanics would equate to a stronger punch when compared with a smaller arm.
> 
> Kinetic Energy is: 1/2 mass x velocity ^ 2
> 
> ...



No. My intent was fundamentals against equilibrium.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Nov 11, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> No. My intent was fundamentals against equilibrium.


and you named the thread "Kinetic Energy"?  

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at (maybe I'm not best placed to answer) but there will be a lot of trade-offs between a much larger fighter against a smaller, more skilled and fitter fighter. I personally don't fancy eating kicks and punches from a 6'5 beginner but being a few years more experienced I'd be confident of being able to get inside without taking too much damage and work from there. There will be similar tradeoffs between an unfit guy with some fundamentals against a fitter opponent who is a complete beginner - although my money would be on the person with a bit of training under thier belt.

It all depends on what we're talking about though. Real street fighting, kickboxing continuous rules, MMA rules....

I might be missing the point youre trying to make entirely!

Edit: I think I understand what you're getting at now - with everything else being equal does having more balance to your body build makeup for being disadvantaged at being the smaller fighter.... If thats what you're getting at then I'm not sure, you'd need to consider a lot of different factors (some of which I've touched upon).


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 12, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> and you named the thread "Kinetic Energy"?
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at (maybe I'm not best placed to answer) but there will be a lot of trade-offs between a much larger fighter against a smaller, more skilled and fitter fighter. I personally don't fancy eating kicks and punches from a 6'5 beginner but being a few years more experienced I'd be confident of being able to get inside without taking too much damage and work from there. There will be similar tradeoffs between an unfit guy with some fundamentals against a fitter opponent who is a complete beginner - although my money would be on the person with a bit of training under thier belt.
> 
> ...



Yeah I suppose that does kind of answer it. What I am getting at I guess the best way to convey it would be harmony. Irrespective of build (that was a good point BTW) there has to be a point where someone goes beyond the point of real time perception. Drawing upon themselves to see the current environment as well. Thus the mastery of energy in this sense then, take it, then use it. Sorry if that is confusing, but the scene in The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise taking out the baddies, but then you saw what he saw in a replay. I will hunt for some linkage.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 12, 2014)

This


----------



## Blindside (Nov 12, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah I suppose that does kind of answer it. What I am getting at I guess the best way to convey it would be harmony. Irrespective of build (that was a good point BTW) there has to be a point where someone goes beyond the point of real time perception. Drawing upon themselves to see the current environment as well. Thus the mastery of energy in this sense then, take it, then use it. Sorry if that is confusing, but the scene in The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise taking out the baddies, but then you saw what he saw in a replay. I will hunt for some linkage.



I would consider that having a high level of ability to read intent and then joining that with your ability to counter it.  I have done a couple of things in sparring that would be considered a "perfect counter" and looked pretty cool, but really weren't conscious on my part.  That doesn't happen very often, but that is essentially what you are talking about being done at a high level and presumably regularly.  The aiki arts are probably one of the arts that are most known for trying to exemplify this type of understanding, but I really thing that is the high level goal of every martial art.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 12, 2014)

Blindside said:


> I would consider that having a high level of ability to read intent and then joining that with your ability to counter it.  I have done a couple of things in sparring that would be considered a "perfect counter" and looked pretty cool, but really weren't conscious on my part.  That doesn't happen very often, but that is essentially what you are talking about being done at a high level and presumably regularly.  The aiki arts are probably one of the arts that are most known for trying to exemplify this type of understanding, but I really thing that is the high level goal of every martial art.



MA, yes but no. Life force.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Nov 12, 2014)

Predicting how your opponent behaves is creeping more and more into my sparring but most of the time it isn't really happening at a conscious level - I believe its a combination of being more experienced at sparring than I was before and muscle memory.

Consciously I can do this through using feints and certain patterns when sparring, but I become predictable myself in doing this.

Trying to predict how someone might move over and over and over whilst having an awareness of your surroundings all within the blink of an eye seems a bit like fantasy martial arts to me.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 12, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> MA, yes but no. Life force.



You mean that there is an energy field created by all living things, that surrounds us and penetrates us?  And that high level martial artists are able to read this energy field?  Maybe manipulate it?


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 12, 2014)

Blindside said:


> You mean that there is an energy field created by all living things, that surrounds us and penetrates us?  And that high level martial artists are able to read this energy field?  Maybe manipulate it?



Maybe a higher connection to the senses is possible. Perhaps there is something unknown out there.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Nov 12, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> Predicting how your opponent behaves is creeping more and more into my sparring but most of the time it isn't really happening at a conscious level - I believe its a combination of being more experienced at sparring than I was before and muscle memory.
> 
> Consciously I can do this through using feints and certain patterns when sparring, but I become predictable myself in doing this.
> 
> Trying to predict how someone might move over and over and over whilst having an awareness of your surroundings all within the blink of an eye seems a bit like fantasy martial arts to me.



I remember reading something that Bruce Lee said once about how some of his most difficult fights were against people who had no training. I think he attributed this to the fact that he would move to a place to get them throw what he considered the logical next attack, and they would throw some ******* crazy attack that didn't make sense. 
Maybe it's less about predicting what your opponent is _going_ to do, and more about moving to positions while sparring that limit the attacks that they're _able_ to do quickly. Hope you can envision what I'm saying here. 
I think this is what Bruce Lee was talking about. Moving to where he believed only a few attacks would make sense, and then receiving something completely different.  

This happens in class when you're trying to explain a technique and an inexperienced uke reacts "strangely" or throws an attack that you wouldn't have thought "made sense".

Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with the OP's questions


----------



## jezr74 (Nov 12, 2014)

Nick Soapdish said:


> I remember reading something that Bruce Lee said once about how some of his most difficult fights were against people who had no training. I think he attributed this to the fact that he would move to a place to get them throw what he considered the logical next attack, and they would throw some ******* crazy attack that didn't make sense.
> Maybe it's less about predicting what your opponent is _going_ to do, and more about moving to positions while sparring that limit the attacks that they're _able_ to do quickly. Hope you can envision what I'm saying here.
> I think this is what Bruce Lee was talking about. Moving to where he believed only a few attacks would make sense, and then receiving something completely different.
> 
> ...



Kind of how you can be beaten time and time again by a button basher in Tekkan.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 12, 2014)

Go find a weight vest and spar with it. See what happens.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 13, 2014)

Weight vest don't hit back.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Weight vest don't hit back.



It does if you are wearing one.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 13, 2014)

As humans we use very little of our brain capacity. It has to be possible that unused space can be tapped. At some point in human evolution this will be used, why because we know it is there. Some people call it ESP to just explain that some crazy person can see beyond, or feel beyond. The weight vest is what it is and it cannot hit back, it needs the wearer. Same thing could be applied to the senses. Suppose that most would term as being in the zone, so many permutations on that.


----------



## Buka (Nov 13, 2014)

So, are we talking intangibles? The things that come from heart, spirit, determination and pure will? Or are we talking about a level of consciousness, or science? I suppose those would be intangibles as well, but maybe you know what I'm trying to ask.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> As humans we use very little of our brain capacity. It has to be possible that unused space can be tapped. At some point in human evolution this will be used, why because we know it is there. Some people call it ESP to just explain that some crazy person can see beyond, or feel beyond. The weight vest is what it is and it cannot hit back, it needs the wearer. Same thing could be applied to the senses. Suppose that most would term as being in the zone, so many permutations on that.



snopes.com: Do We Only Use Ten Percent of our Brains?
It's a myth that we use very little of our brain.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 13, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> In one of my Wado Ryu books by Shingo Ohgami, he has some amazing mathematical type things, I can only describe them as things as I have no idea what they actually are. there's equations to do with the power and speed of strikes.
> 
> 
> "the moment of Tsukiwaza is M1=F1 x a and in Uchiwaza M2=F2 x (a+b)" with a lovely little diagram I cannot reproduce here. I understand that in his other, non martial arts life he is an engineer so can explain karate in terms like this. It's impressive to me at any rate!



This one? Got it in my library next to his other book on kata


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 13, 2014)

Buka said:


> So, are we talking intangibles? The things that come from heart, spirit, determination and pure will? Or are we talking about a level of consciousness, or science? I suppose those would be intangibles as well, but maybe you know what I'm trying to ask.



In this case I would say consciousness. At what level I do not know, I can only say that I personally believe that capacity is there.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 13, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> snopes.com: Do We Only Use Ten Percent of our Brains?
> It's a myth that we use very little of our brain.



Not what I intended, but thanks for the linkage. It was a good read


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> This one? Got it in my library next to his other book on kata




That's it, I have his kata one too. Both very good, well apart from the 'equations' but I could never understand that type of thing anyway!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 13, 2014)

Blindside said:


> You mean that there is an energy field created by all living things, that surrounds us and penetrates us?  And that high level martial artists are able to read this energy field?  Maybe manipulate it?



Scientifically, it's really just down to midichlorians.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 13, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> As humans we use very little of our brain capacity. It has to be possible that unused space can be tapped. At some point in human evolution this will be used, why because we know it is there. Some people call it ESP to just explain that some crazy person can see beyond, or feel beyond. The weight vest is what it is and it cannot hit back, it needs the wearer. Same thing could be applied to the senses. Suppose that most would term as being in the zone, so many permutations on that.



We do use our brain, to its full capacity.  That's not to say we can't use it more effectively, or that there aren't things we couldn't do better... but our brain doesn't have a lot of "wasted" capacity.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 13, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> We do use our brain, to its full capacity.  That's not to say we can't use it more effectively, or that there aren't things we couldn't do better... but our brain doesn't have a lot of "wasted" capacity.



And you know this because? No offence.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2014)

The 10% of our brain myth.

How the "10 Percent of Our Brains" Myth Started (And Why It&#39;s Wrong)


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 13, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> And you know this because? No offence.



There's been a lot of research into it over the years, and it's pretty widely available.  Things like FMRI scans of people doing various things...  Sure, the brain is incredibly plastic and capable of adapting and overcoming incredible injuries -- but that's largely due to redundancy in design, not because the parts of the brain weren't being used.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The 10% of our brain myth.
> 
> How the "10 Percent of Our Brains" Myth Started (And Why It&#39;s Wrong)



Flight of fancy maybe, but there has to be more.


----------



## K-man (Nov 13, 2014)

There is a massive difference between the 'only using 10% of the brain' and 'only using 10% of the capability of the brain'. Sort of like having a Ferrari in the garage and just using it to take the kids to school. Sure it's using all the parts but not to the highest level of its performance.
:asian:


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 13, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> There's been a lot of research into it over the years, and it's pretty widely available.  Things like FMRI scans of people doing various things...  Sure, the brain is incredibly plastic and capable of adapting and overcoming incredible injuries -- but that's largely due to redundancy in design, not because the parts of the brain weren't being used.



But surely a significant brain injury would result in the brain having to access other areas, perhaps not known to current medical science.


----------



## jezr74 (Nov 13, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> But surely a significant brain injury would result in the brain having to access other areas, perhaps not known to current medical science.



You mean the brain will chemically re-wire? It depends on how extensive the damage is. I think there have been papers on these type of events happening, but to what degree I can't recall. But I don't think brain function can change but maybe work in a reduced capacity for certain parts of the brain.

I've read through this thread, and I'm not clear on what you are questioning exactly?


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 14, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> You mean the brain will chemically re-wire? It depends on how extensive the damage is. I think there have been papers on these type of events happening, but to what degree I can't recall. But I don't think brain function can change but maybe work in a reduced capacity for certain parts of the brain.
> 
> I've read through this thread, and I'm not clear on what you are questioning exactly?



The use of energy originally and what could be possible in the future for humans.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 14, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> The use of energy originally and what could be possible in the future for humans.



"Lucy" was just a movie you know.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 14, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> "Lucy" was just a movie you know.



Never seen it, but I am aware of the ridiculous concept.


----------



## jezr74 (Nov 14, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> The use of energy originally and what could be possible in the future for humans.



Still not following, do you mean evolve to have some kind of mind powers, ESP, telekinetic ability etc? if so, my opinion is no, as there is an enormous amount of evidence they are made up concepts.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 4, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Still not following, do you mean evolve to have some kind of mind powers, ESP, telekinetic ability etc? if so, my opinion is no, as there is an enormous amount of evidence they are made up concepts.



ESP as one now, then no. Current science see's it as so. No, what I meant was is something like this. As humans we are what we where. However, it is not beyond reason that eventually we will see evolution of the senses. Call it what you will, but I just feel that as a race, we have further to go. There is no science for a human feeling as far as I am concerned. Yeah you can pass out now


----------



## Dinkydoo (Dec 4, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> ESP as one now, then no. Current science see's it as so. No, what I meant was is something like this. As humans we are what we where. However, it is not beyond reason that eventually we will see evolution of the senses. Call it what you will, but I just feel that as a race, we have further to go. There is no science for a human feeling as far as I am concerned. Yeah you can pass out now


There are a lot of cool sensory things that other species can do which would greatly enhance our natural martial arts ability. Not being under any real threat from predators on a daily basis makes further, natural evolution unlikely though.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 4, 2014)

Our greatest threat is ourselves. That is the predator. Evolution stems from that, but as you say, perhaps in this case unlikely. Humans will be human.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> and you named the thread "Kinetic Energy"?
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at (maybe I'm not best placed to answer) but there will be a lot of trade-offs between a much larger fighter against a smaller, more skilled and fitter fighter. I personally don't fancy eating kicks and punches from a 6'5 beginner but being a few years more experienced I'd be confident of being able to get inside without taking too much damage and work from there. There will be similar tradeoffs between an unfit guy with some fundamentals against a fitter opponent who is a complete beginner - although my money would be on the person with a bit of training under thier belt.
> 
> ...



a lot of people get the physics of this wrong. And i am not an expert my self. So kinetic energy is probably good enough for now.

regarding punching power and looking at physics guys discussing this one. There is debate as to what constitutes a skull cracking punch.

force as in the mass times acceleration. Formula is not. Accurate. Mabye pressure is better?

i will hunt down some of the discussions by the guys with degrees on the subject.

it is not like knowing the equation is going to produce more knockouts.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> There are a lot of cool sensory things that other species can do which would greatly enhance our natural martial arts ability. Not being under any real threat from predators on a daily basis makes further, natural evolution unlikely though.



reproduction also advances evolution.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> a lot of people get the physics of this wrong. And i am not an expert my self. So kinetic energy is probably good enough for now.
> 
> regarding punching power and looking at physics guys discussing this one. There is debate as to what constitutes a skull cracking punch.
> 
> ...



Oh the formula is very accutate and will help you produce more knockouts, if you apply it correctly that is.

Not holding my breath for you to disprove Newton`s laws of motion tho


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Oh the formula is very accutate and will help you produce more knockouts, if you apply it correctly that is.
> 
> Not holding my breath for you to disprove Newton`s laws of motion tho



was newton talking about punching power?

but i think we are triking to increase timing not power. So my mistake here.

trying to get all Anderson Silva.






if you figure out that one you would be winning.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

Yes Newton was talking about punching power, why would that be a special case?

Can`t see whatever you posted because of filters at work, will have a look later.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Yes Newton was talking about punching power, why would that be a special case?
> 
> Can`t see whatever you posted because of filters at work, will have a look later.



Straight Dope The Physics of Punching Someone in the Face - Washington City Paper

and it gets worse from there.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Straight Dope The Physics of Punching Someone in the Face - Washington City Paper
> 
> and it gets worse from there.



Well of course you can divide by contact area if you think that is relevant. F=MA is still the basic formula you work from.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Well of course you can divide by contact area if you think that is relevant. F=MA is still the basic formula you work from.



so if i punch you with both hands flat on the chest with more force or if i punch you with one closed fist in the face with more pressure.

which equation do i use?

is it my body mass or just my hand mass?
what if i leave my punch on the target or pull it back?
what if i punch through the target or on the target?


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> so if i punch you with both hands flat on the chest with more force or if i punch you with one closed fist in the face with more pressure.
> 
> which equation do i use?
> 
> ...



Not sure what to make of the first line...

As for the rest you just need to use the correct numbers relevant to what actually happens. Like I said, apply the formula.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Not sure what to make of the first line...
> 
> As for the rest you just need to use the correct numbers relevant to what actually happens. Like I said, apply the formula.



ok so force equals mass times acceleration. How do i fit the surface area i am hitting with into that equation?


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> ok so force equals mass times acceleration. How do i fit the surface area i am hitting with into that equation?



p=F/A

Refer to your earlier link about pressure and getting punched in the face.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> p=F/A
> 
> Refer to your earlier link about pressure and getting punched in the face.



ok so that is the correct equation to use instead of the f=m•a.

does punching through the target matter?


----------



## Dinkydoo (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> reproduction also advances evolution.


It does, but I'd imagine that it's much more of a genetic lottery as opposed to the same damn painful thing happening to you every time you go to the shop; after a few hundred years, if we hadnt used our intellect to find an alternative, we'd likely develop a natural defence mechanism against the reoccurring threat.


Cirdan said:


> Yes Newton was talking about punching power, why would that be a special case?
> 
> Can`t see whatever you posted because of filters at work, will have a look later.


Problem with this arguement is that Newtons law is far too abstract to be applied effectively to striking in martial arts. Sure, the force generated will be in part measured by the basic equation outlined but we also need to consider the energy required to move objects (arms/legs) of varying size - hence why many believe the kinetic energy formula is more appropriate.

Finally, in terms of relevance to the martial arts, an effective punch is derived from the result the puncher is aiming for - whether that be in sport or self defence. So, we can go on and on about applying the physics of how much force a punch can generate when actually 'how hard' someone actually hits is usually determined, in practice, by the pain felt by the receiver; which is something else entirely.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> It does, but I'd imagine that it's much more of a genetic lottery as opposed to the same damn painful thing happening to you every time you go to the shop; after a few hundred years, if we hadnt used our intellect to find an alternative, we'd likely develop a natural defence mechanism against the reoccurring threat.
> 
> Problem with this arguement is that Newtons law is far too abstract to be applied effectively to striking in martial arts. Sure, the force generated will be in part measured by the basic equation outlined but we also need to consider the energy required to move objects (arms/legs) of varying size - hence why many believe the kinetic energy formula is more appropriate.
> 
> Finally, in terms of relevance to the martial arts, an effective punch is derived from the result the puncher is aiming for - whether that be in sport or self defence. So, we can go on and on about applying the physics of how much force a punch can generate when actually 'how hard' someone actually hits is usually determined, in practice, by the pain felt by the receiver; which is something else entirely.



yeah?

this is where it gets a bit sketchy though. I find when we discuss survival of the fittest people think it is survival of the coolest.

so say you idea of the bog monster that jumps out at us every time we go to the shops.

evolution steps in and we all develop wolverine claws.

but evolution may not work that way at all. We might become weaker but breed quicker.

or any number of uncool survival abilities.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> Problem with this arguement is that Newtons law is far too abstract to be applied effectively to striking in martial arts. Sure, the force generated will be in part measured by the basic equation outlined but we also need to consider the energy required to move objects (arms/legs) of varying size - hence why many believe the kinetic energy formula is more appropriate.
> 
> Finally, in terms of relevance to the martial arts, an effective punch is derived from the result the puncher is aiming for - whether that be in sport or self defence. So, we can go on and on about applying the physics of how much force a punch can generate when actually 'how hard' someone actually hits is usually determined, in practice, by the pain felt by the receiver; which is something else entirely.



I have no problem applying it. Simply put your whole body into the strike and maximize acceleration at impact. Further do that with proper movement and structure so no energy is wasted.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> p=F/A
> 
> Refer to your earlier link about pressure and getting punched in the face.



Work Energy and Power


Also, Head shots versus body shots, one needs to look at the brain moving in the impacts and concussions and swelling that cause people to go down that many consider to be more "powerful" or more "forceful" or ...


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> I have no problem applying it. Simply put your whole body into the strike and maximize acceleration at impact. Further do that with proper movement and structure so no energy is wasted.



so you don't punch through the target. Because it will decrease tha acceleration.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> so you don't punch through the target. Because it will decrease tha acceleration.



Is that a question? I sometimes find your posts hard to reply to because of lack of structure and punctuation.

You need to deliver the strike of course, it can be done both with a slapping punch/kick or a pushing one. However once we get into more detail this will probably be a mess judging by any number of threads here and since I don`t enjoy trainwrecks too much I am not going down that road.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Is that a question? I sometimes find your posts hard to reply to because of lack of structure and punctuation.
> 
> You need to deliver the strike of course, it can be done both with a slapping punch/kick or a pushing one. However once we get into more detail this will probably be a mess judging by any number of threads here and since I don`t enjoy trainwrecks too much I am not going down that road.



yes it is a question. The force equation doesn't cover slapping strikes and pushing strikes as being any different.

to deal with that we need a new equation again.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Dec 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> yeah?
> 
> this is where it gets a bit sketchy though. I find when we discuss survival of the fittest people think it is survival of the coolest.
> 
> ...


Touchè. 

I totally missed the thrust of what you were saying earlier!


----------



## jezr74 (Dec 5, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> ESP as one now, then no. Current science see's it as so. No, what I meant was is something like this. As humans we are what we where. However, it is not beyond reason that eventually we will see evolution of the senses. Call it what you will, but I just feel that as a race, we have further to go. There is no science for a human feeling as far as I am concerned. Yeah you can pass out now



We won't evolve anything supernatural, like develop ESP over 2000 years for example. (If that's what you mean) 

Next stages might be better smell receptors to "smell danger", hearing etc.. if paranoia prevails, maybe we can release a smell that deters predators. But to develop something not possible, like psychic ability or super natural strength. We are still bound by the laws of physics and nature, and besides, all those things are falsifiable.

I think we more likely to develop a form of resistance to say gluten over the next millennium than anything


----------



## drop bear (Dec 6, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> We won't evolve anything supernatural, like develop ESP over 2000 years for example. (If that's what you mean)
> 
> Next stages might be better smell receptors to "smell danger", hearing etc.. if paranoia prevails, maybe we can release a smell that deters predators. But to develop something not possible, like psychic ability or super natural strength. We are still bound by the laws of physics and nature, and besides, all those things are falsifiable.
> 
> I think we more likely to develop a form of resistance to say gluten over the next millennium than anything



lactose is a good example of that.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 6, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Next stages might be better smell receptors to "smell danger", hearing etc



Yes I agree that we are not going to evlove into X-Men sort of thing, but above close to.


----------

