for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

"Physics of falling says professional athletes are running wrong" - article.

4 watchers

Badger Sep 2015 2:16pm, 30 Sep 2015 5,636 posts	0 Badger Though it's in a peer-reviewed journal rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org doesn't claim it's being suppressed, has actual numbers and error bars rather than anecdotes, doesn't claim the idea has been around for centuries, has had some co-operation and support from University of Kuopio (rather than being in complete isolation), and doesn't require any new laws of nature. Difficult to see quite how that checklist applies.
Badger Sep 2015 2:17pm, 30 Sep 2015 5,637 posts	0 Badger Not that I'm arguing that it's right, just not necessarily any more crackpot than a lot of things people say about running technique.
simbil Sep 2015 2:45pm, 30 Sep 2015 6,921 posts	0 simbil The new law of nature required is that a vertical force can have a net effect on horizontal acceleration. If you can pull that off, you've cracked perpetual motion and you can go collect your Nobel prize rather than writing a paper about how it might help mundane things like walking and running
Spleen Sep 2015 2:46pm, 30 Sep 2015 1,188 posts	0 Spleen I have a fiver which says Nike or Adidas will release a shoe in the next few months that helps you to run "properly" in the way scientists think you should.
Badger Sep 2015 2:57pm, 30 Sep 2015 5,638 posts	0 Badger Good point, though that's not a new law; that's not understanding the implications of the existing ones. Which isn't quite quackery
Weean Sep 2015 3:28pm, 30 Sep 2015 930 posts	0 Weean Don't forget that bees have only been able to fly for the past couple of years according to "science".
Badger Sep 2015 3:33pm, 30 Sep 2015 5,640 posts	0 Badger I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. snopes.com
simbil Sep 2015 3:58pm, 30 Sep 2015 6,922 posts	0 simbil rationalwiki.org
AndyI Sep 2015 4:14pm, 30 Sep 2015 18 posts	0 AndyI It's classic over-complication. Try to refute every single assertion - arms and legs and pivots everywhere, equations too - and you get in a hell of a mess, as, presumably the reviewer(s) did. Physics can seem complicated, but it is based on simplification and good stuff like symmetry. If you lose sight of that, it all goes pear-shaped very quickly. Right. Assuming no somersaulting, if you change the angular momentum, you need to change it back again so it averages to zero over time. This is intrinsically a energy-lossy thing to do, unless it's perfectly elastic, which it won't be. If you 'use' angular momentum to create propulsion, it's not elastic and you therefore have to pay it back, with interest. You don't need to know what arms and legs are doing. If you want to revolutionise running, find a way of eliminating angular momentum, not increasing it. I'll subscribe to simbil's analysis too. Which is probably simpler (and, as you know if you were paying attention, therefore better). Again, very basic principles without which physics would collapse in every respect. Or, put another way, utter b******s disprovable by A-level mechanics, and it should not have made it into a reputable journal.
Binks Sep 2015 4:29pm, 30 Sep 2015 6,733 posts	0 Binks Is there such thing as a "reputable journal" these days? I thought they were all under pressure to deliver stuff that the Daily Mail can use in some ridiculous headlines.