windwalker wrote:As far as the sound and accent for me its quite clear maybe due to me spending most a of my life with others who use english as a second language. Maybe my hearing fills in the gaps that others can not or do not hear. I just don't relate to those talking about sound, accent and hearing...it seems quite clear to me and to others native "Taiwanese" that I work with.
For me it is simply volume level. Even at full volume, I can't hear much of what is said, particularly the questions the students ask off camera. It isn't an issue of accent. Slowed to 1/2 speed it is easier to understand, but lots that just isn't audible, for me, anyway.
I tend not to look at things in a literal sense.
If one does not look at it literally, then how aptly is the science applied. The science is just sort of, loosely applied? Science applies or it doesn't. Gravity acts or it doesn't. It doesn't sort of apply when I feel it aught to.
For example it was obvious to me that the ball would have to be hollow or of some type of meatral that would store or could store energy and release it, after all he mentions peng as an expanding force which I agree with,and use this concept with those I work with who are familiar with this terminology in their native language.
Not trying to argumentative, but why would that be obvious? A Newton's cradle is a bunch of steel balls. It demonstrates transfer of momentum when rigid balls collide.
What property of a hollow ball is of importance to the analogy, the behaviour the hallow ball is being used to describe? That it deforms? That it stores and releases energy? (A spring shares that characteristic that as well.) The "average" hollow ball does not have an expanding force. A specific hollow ball that is internally pressurized has an expanding force.
As I stated before, when one uses analogies, it is important to not just assume that those attempting to comprehend the analogy know what specific characteristic is being emphasized or likened to. Humans are not hollow balls and they don't behave like hollow balls. There might be some specific characteristic of specific hollow balls that the human body can emulate. But which specific characteristic isn't necessarily obvious, even to the trained scientist or engineer.
Of those I've met engineers and such their minds seem to be able to entertain what some might call thought experiments, in this case one can test and observe directly what is illustrated or not.
I'm an engineer and I'm all for doing that. But, it has to be clear what specific properties of an entity or situation are being referenced since humans are not spheres, hollow balls, springs, water, meshing gears ...
I guess they need to feel it before their minds will accept the physics going on behind it.
I'm sure that would help. But in the specialized situation of a discussion forum where all one has are words and occasional videos, one can't feel what is being discussed or shown. That specialized situation requires acute clarity of word to be able to communicate clearly.
...first what is a bounce...When the rubber ball hits the ground it gets compressed, or squished, and [b]because it is very elastic, it quickly returns to its original shape....When it hits the floor it has no potential energy, but lots of kinetic energy. Another interesting thing happens when the ball hits the floor. Remember that the ball bounces back up to a height lower than it started, so after one bounce it has less potential energy than it started with.
... if the body is connected and treated as a sphere ie a ball it can have the same aspects and react in the same way. The body is constantly seeking equilibrium affect it, and it will try to return to it
I'm not trying to nit-pick, really.
However, let's look at your analogy of treating the connected body as an elastic rubber ball. The rubber ball, when impacted, compresses, stores energy and then returns to its original shape, releasing the stored energy - in essence, it is a spring. Using that analogy, when the human body is impacted, it compresses, stores energy and then returns to its original shape, releasing the stored energy. What is the the "original shape" of the human body to which it returns after being compressed? What is being compressed? What is re-expanding and releasing the stored energy? And, finally, is the relationship between those things and the stomping seen in the OP video? How is the stomping a direct result of those things?
If one wants to apply a physics analysis to the situation, there needs to be a clear cause and effect for the entire activity, not some scientific explanation, then, "oh, and then magic happens" and then resumption of the scientific explanation. If one is going to apply science to it, apply science to the entire phenomenon, start to finish. How does science explain that the applied force causes stomping? What portion of that explanation include, "he just stomped".
Again, science-like explanations can provide analogies and imagery that can "inform" or guide one's practice. But if one is going to argue science stuff, the application has to be rigorous and complete not applied where one feels like it and then qi happens.
"but that implies that Peng is like a wave. Probably it isn't. " According to ? which is why I had asked about peng jin, how its formed and what it is. What makes the whole body become connected....what defines a spherical body, how does one make ones body spherical how can every point be spherical on the body. What is being collapsed mean ect.
Those are good questions. Theories and hypothesis don't make something true. Is Peng a wave? I'm happy to hear any hypothesis that it is. Is Peng a particle. (Sorry, couldn't resist, inside science joke.) How IS Peng formed? What DOES connect the whole body? What, exactly, does, "a spherical body" mean? How DOES one make the body "spherical"?
Those are all good discussion topics.
Not aimed at anyone in particular:
Real-world situations are often very complex. To study real-world situations, scientists often create models. Those models can then have various conditions imposed upon them and scientists can see how the model responds to that stimulus. Doing so helps scientists understand the real-world situation that the model represents. Often, however, the real-world situation is far too complex to model in a meaningful way. What scientists then do is simplify the real-world situation - making assumptions about what is important and what is not - so that they can create a model of that simplified situation. If too many simplifications are made - or the wrong ones are made - the model no longer is an accurate representation of the real-world situation it is attempting to represent.
When we as students of martial arts want to "model" the human body, how it moves, how it generates force and how it responds to external stimulus - such as imposted forces - we make simplifying assumptions. We do that because the real-world situation is very complex and simple science doesn't accurately reflect what is happening. We can "model" the behaviour by making many simplifying assumptions. These assumptions include things like the body is a sphere, or the body is like a compressible rubber ball. These are simplifying models: the body is not a sphere, the body is not a rubber ball. Can we use the model to understand aspects of the real-world situation - the human body moving, generating and responding to forces? Sure we can. But, we need to remember that these are models of a simplified view of the real-world situation.
If we then apply the science inappropriately or incorrectly, the model doesn't really tell us much at all about the real-world situation. If we buy-into our inappropriately, incorrectly applied theories and hypothesis, we believe because we want to believe, not because there is any real science supporting our activity. To be an effective training method, there doesn't have to be real science behind it, but we need to be clear that if there isn't we don't fool ourselves into believing there is.