AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   Techniques (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20491)

Tim Ruijs 11-15-2011 08:01 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Phi Truong wrote: (Post 296909)
i believed the IS folks would challenge those statements, in that, they can divert forces downward and/or in any direction they want. of course, those IS buggers would also said they can do other stuffs which seemed to defy logic too. in one of the post, mike sigman has a picture of a guy standing on one leg and another dude pushing. the picture has various color lines and so on (i think he liked to play with crayons :) ). there is a video of Ark where he stood in parallel stand and doing pushing with other folks.
some of our assumptions might not be as valid as we might led to believe.

Really? So if he stands in front of me, feet apart (shoulder width) and I push him backwards he can withstand that force without stepping backwards, without losing posture? Seriously? SHOW ME!
When they 'lean in' they can counter the force; oppose it. You would feel 'resistance' build up. When they deflect, they lose posture, do not control distance any longer.

If all that works so well why does every single martial art place one foot in front of the other (boxing, kendo, fencing, karate, kyodo, kungfu, wrestling, mu tai, bagua). The only one I can think of that does not do so is sumo, at least when they start. But even then look carefully what happens on contact (bodies turned, arms put rotating force in opponent)

No sir, nice try, but no cookie. Perhaps I am just ignorant stubborn, whatever.

Mind you, the exercises are valuable and have their merit, but no more than striking a boken a hundred times.

phitruong 11-15-2011 08:03 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Lee Salzman wrote: (Post 296910)
I think the problem is we lack imagination about setup. Now sure, if you want the contrived example of a person standing straight up, yep, it's gonna be difficult and require lateral thinking,

i get into trouble every time i use lateral thinking. just the other day, my wife yelled at me that she isn't going to clean the bathroom anymore. i said i was thinking laterally at the time so stuffs didn't go where i aimed. she said anymore lateral thinking will result in me laying out laterally. so i try to stay away from lateral thinking and stick with vertical.

Quote:

I mean physically. Ask a person to push a human, and they go stupid. :D
you meant you can push someone into stupid? is this one of those hidden IS skill that i have not heard of? i don't think there would be much used for such skill, since most of us tend to go into stupid by ourselves. :D

Demetrio Cereijo 11-15-2011 08:26 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
If all that works so well why does every single martial art place one foot in front of the other (boxing, kendo, fencing, karate, kyodo, kungfu, wrestling, mu tai, bagua).

Because is an exercise/test of useful bodyskills which should not be confused by actual fighting?.

Lee Salzman 11-15-2011 08:29 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
Really? So if he stands in front of me, feet apart (shoulder width) and I push him backwards he can withstand that force without stepping backwards, without losing posture? Seriously? SHOW ME!
When they 'lean in' they can counter the force; oppose it. You would feel 'resistance' build up. When they deflect, they lose posture, do not control distance any longer.

If all that works so well why does every single martial art place one foot in front of the other (boxing, kendo, fencing, karate, kyodo, kungfu, wrestling, mu tai, bagua). The only one I can think of that does not do so is sumo, at least when they start. But even then look carefully what happens on contact (bodies turned, arms put rotating force in opponent)

No sir, nice try, but no cookie. Perhaps I am just ignorant stubborn, whatever.

Mind you, the exercises are valuable and have their merit, but no more than striking a boken a hundred times.

Well, look at the attached image, feet are still parallel, but independent sides of the body have formed structurally sounded force bridges in each direction. Central axis is still even vertical. No leaning, no loss of posture. But forces are no longer going where we would have otherwise expected. And this is just external. And this is from Greco-Roman wrestling (not what you were thinking :D). As I said, imagination about setup.

There are other reasons to turn stance slightly sideways, that have nothing to do with balance. Making a smaller target for strikes. But at the same time, you trade the opportunity of having equal distance to launch an attack from either side. I find myself using either to taste.

Attachment 927

Tim Ruijs 11-15-2011 08:31 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: (Post 296914)
Because is an exercise/test of useful bodyskills which should not be confused by actual fighting?.

Bingo, we have a winner! Thanks. ;)

Tim Ruijs 11-15-2011 08:36 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Lee Salzman wrote: (Post 296915)
Well, look at the attached image, feet are still parallel, but independent sides of the body have formed structurally sounded force bridges in each direction. Central axis is still even vertical. No leaning, no loss of posture. But forces are no longer going where we would have otherwise expected. And this is just external. And this is from Greco-Roman wrestling (not what you were thinking :D). As I said, imagination about setup.

There are other reasons to turn stance slightly sideways, that have nothing to do with balance. Making a smaller target for strikes. But at the same time, you trade the opportunity of having equal distance to launch an attack from either side. I find myself using either to taste.

Attachment 927

Agreed. I do not however do not get what you try to explain with the attached picture. Feet are still parallel? I see one in front of the other, and of the floor??? This person is pushed over easily. Can you please elaborate a bit? I would like to understand what you mean.

Lee Salzman 11-15-2011 08:56 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296917)
Agreed. I do not however do not get what you try to explain with the attached picture. Feet are still parallel? I see one in front of the other, and of the floor??? This person is pushed over easily. Can you please elaborate a bit? I would like to understand what you mean.

Assume the orientation of the feet is actually parallel and on the floor. There is only so much I can manage with my bad XFig skills in Linux. :p

People are vastly harder to push over in this configuration than you would think. Or otherwise my practice would go a lot easier than it does. This structure is strong enough for me to drive in and break hooks on my arms, or drive in with my legs, and get under even while another person tries to do likewise, without losing balance in any direction. Even people with little training seem to get this pretty easy against resistance.

Pay not attention to the center axis, which we aikidoka are wont to focus on, but on the peripheral lines of the body, and how the approximate those green arcs, i.e. if you push on the hand, from either side, it goes down to the feet, not necessarily between the hands. Or pull on one hand, no problem, just extend with the other side. No harm, no foul. But this configuration is also extremely stable from the sides, so long as this configuration is not achieved by twisting the spine, hips, etc. but rather by orienting smooth bridges through the body.

kewms 11-15-2011 09:42 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Carsten Möllering wrote: (Post 296900)
Do you also do pushing from the side?
Why do you think hanmi has to be "stable" to the rear? + What is best for being pushed from / for pushing yourself to the front?
Do you try to move from hanmi having your axis on different positions? Do you feell differences?
Do you investigate the connection / the "way" back leg -> center / tanden -> front leg and backward? And if so: Does it feel different where you have your leg?

Yes, if you want to test stability, side pushes are useful, too.

If a stance is weighted forward, then it's easier to be drawn off balance (and overextended) forward. If weighted backward, then it's easier to be overwhelmed by a strong attack. A neutral stance isn't vulnerable to either.

If your weight is on one foot or the other, that foot will be more difficult to move.

I'm not sure I understand your last question.

Katherine

kewms 11-15-2011 09:50 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
Really? So if he stands in front of me, feet apart (shoulder width) and I push him backwards he can withstand that force without stepping backwards, without losing posture? Seriously? SHOW ME!

Yes, that is the goal. It's not even that difficult. (I'm pretty much a beginner at IS stuff, and I can do it.)

Quote:

If all that works so well why does every single martial art place one foot in front of the other (boxing, kendo, fencing, karate, kyodo, kungfu, wrestling, mu tai, bagua). The only one I can think of that does not do so is sumo, at least when they start. But even then look carefully what happens on contact (bodies turned, arms put rotating force in opponent)
For mobility.

Once you're stable in a shoulder-width square stance, being stable in hamni is relatively easy. Then the challenge becomes keeping that stability as you move.

Katherine

MM 11-15-2011 02:46 PM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
Really? So if he stands in front of me, feet apart (shoulder width) and I push him backwards he can withstand that force without stepping backwards, without losing posture? Seriously? SHOW ME!

Very few of us actually get over to Europe. However, recently, someone was over there and had several internal seminars. That person is scheduled to come back sometime next year. I would suggest going. In the mean time, maybe ask Janet Rosen about her post where she described pushing on someone and not getting anywhere.

Seriously.

Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
When they 'lean in' they can counter the force; oppose it. You would feel 'resistance' build up. When they deflect, they lose posture, do not control distance any longer.

There is no resistance. Reference Janet's recent post about pushing. Then Ellis's post about Terry Dobson pushing experience with Ueshiba. Then other's. If you push and push and then suddenly let go, Ueshiba would just stand there looking at you. He didn't push back or resist to try to neutralize the push. It is a hallmark of internal skills. No leaning in, no resistance.

Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
If all that works so well why does every single martial art place one foot in front of the other (boxing, kendo, fencing, karate, kyodo, kungfu, wrestling, mu tai, bagua). The only one I can think of that does not do so is sumo, at least when they start. But even then look carefully what happens on contact (bodies turned, arms put rotating force in opponent)

No sir, nice try, but no cookie. Perhaps I am just ignorant stubborn, whatever.

Many people equate internal skills with techniques. They are not the same. What you describe above is in reference to actual skills in certain martial arts. Learning those skills is separate from learning internal skills. Internal skills rewires the body to work differently and then you learn a martial art.

Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
Mind you, the exercises are valuable and have their merit, but no more than striking a boken a hundred times.

Not the same at all.

Shadowfax 11-15-2011 09:34 PM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 296911)
Really? So if he stands in front of me, feet apart (shoulder width) and I push him backwards he can withstand that force without stepping backwards, without losing posture? Seriously? SHOW ME!

Seriously....Iv'e felt it. Iv'e done it. I can't do it consistently ,yet, but it has started to be integrated into my aikido, especially in ukemi. Enough so that a 6th dan commented to my teacher at a seminar this weekend that I am very hard to move. :D

In particular it comes in really handy when you need to freeze in a very awkward and unbalanced position while sensei explains something. Those opposing forces work wonderfully for keeping me from collapsing in a heap prematurely. :p

IHTBF.

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 12:44 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Lee Salzman wrote: (Post 296921)
Assume the orientation of the feet is actually parallel and on the floor. There is only so much I can manage with my bad XFig skills in Linux. :p

People are vastly harder to push over in this configuration than you would think. Or otherwise my practice would go a lot easier than it does. This structure is strong enough for me to drive in and break hooks on my arms, or drive in with my legs, and get under even while another person tries to do likewise, without losing balance in any direction. Even people with little training seem to get this pretty easy against resistance.

Pay not attention to the center axis, which we aikidoka are wont to focus on, but on the peripheral lines of the body, and how the approximate those green arcs, i.e. if you push on the hand, from either side, it goes down to the feet, not necessarily between the hands. Or pull on one hand, no problem, just extend with the other side. No harm, no foul. But this configuration is also extremely stable from the sides, so long as this configuration is not achieved by twisting the spine, hips, etc. but rather by orienting smooth bridges through the body.

Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense. I will put it to practise in class and see what happens. However, it makes me wonder: if that posture/stance is much better than ordinary hanmi, why is not that we do that, nor did Ueshiba do that?

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 12:47 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: (Post 296925)
Yes, that is the goal. It's not even that difficult. (I'm pretty much a beginner at IS stuff, and I can do it.)

For mobility. agreed

Once you're stable in a shoulder-width square stance, being stable in hamni is relatively easy. Then the challenge becomes keeping that stability as you move.

Katherine

I am taught that your body should learn correct posture/stance and mixing styles would seriously interfere with that. For instance, mix karate and Aikido. the stance is completely different, how would your body know what to do? Muscle memory gets confused....

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 12:52 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Cherie Cornmesser wrote: (Post 297036)
Seriously....Iv'e felt it. Iv'e done it. I can't do it consistently ,yet, but it has started to be integrated into my aikido, especially in ukemi. Enough so that a 6th dan commented to my teacher at a seminar this weekend that I am very hard to move. :D

In particular it comes in really handy when you need to freeze in a very awkward and unbalanced position while sensei explains something. Those opposing forces work wonderfully for keeping me from collapsing in a heap prematurely. :p

IHTBF.

Thanks for sharing. The use of opposing forces is something I do not focus on, but indirectly have students think of their 'other' hand when moving. Many tend to focus on the hand that is attacked...

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 01:06 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Mark Murray wrote: (Post 296969)
Very few of us actually get over to Europe. However, recently, someone was over there and had several internal seminars. That person is scheduled to come back sometime next year. I would suggest going. In the mean time, maybe ask Janet Rosen about her post where she described pushing on someone and not getting anywhere.

Seriously.

There is no resistance. Reference Janet's recent post about pushing. Then Ellis's post about Terry Dobson pushing experience with Ueshiba. Then other's. If you push and push and then suddenly let go, Ueshiba would just stand there looking at you. He didn't push back or resist to try to neutralize the push. It is a hallmark of internal skills. No leaning in, no resistance.

Many people equate internal skills with techniques. They are not the same. What you describe above is in reference to actual skills in certain martial arts. Learning those skills is separate from learning internal skills. Internal skills rewires the body to work differently and then you learn a martial art.

Not the same at all.

Thanks for you comment Mark, much appreciated.
I can relate to proper posture/stance and direct applied forces to the ground in hanmi or squared stance. And indeed not lose balance when that force is suddenly removed. I objected against shoulder width stance (feet on same line, not one in front of other) and then still be able to do that without losing posture
Off course these are exercises, not martial skills. I have stated in a reply above that your body remember (muscle memory). How would your body know what to do when you keep changing the use of your body?
The comparision with boken work you do not agree on? That too is merely exercise and has no martial value...it is an exercise to maintain posture, strike correctly, relax.

Lee Salzman 11-16-2011 01:13 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Tim Ruijs wrote: (Post 297047)
Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense. I will put it to practise in class and see what happens. However, it makes me wonder: if that posture/stance is much better than ordinary hanmi, why is not that we do that, nor did Ueshiba do that?

Don't look into the stance too much. Like I said, that was one little microcosm of Greco-Roman to illustrate a point about imagination and conception, much like car pushing. But at the same time, the position of the feet are not integral to the stability of that configuration in the forward and back directions. You can go uneven, or go parallel, and maybe you gain some extra stability by going uneven, but traded for mobility, and on the other hand, the difference in stability is not enough to make or break stability there if you understand the basic ideas behind how to make that movement work.

And then again, the more sideways you turn, even while you gain stability/mobility from some places, the lateral movers of the body, you
lose some in those principally forward-backward movers (or up-down movers, if you want to call them that), so it is not a simple stability for mobility trade, it is in fact trading mobility in one place for mobility in another. As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is not about bracing things, it is about moving things.

This is Newton's third law of motion in action, not figuratively, literally. Everything is pushing off of something else wish slight changes in direction at each step until, a force that was going one way at one contact, ain't going there at the other. And on the other hand, it points out the body is not, apparently, one point, but a large collection of individual joints/levers which can be organized into more than one action at the same time. Biomechanical engineering for fun and profit.

There are wider principle on display there, though, that bear a striking resemblance (though not an equivalence), to things in discussion here and that I have learned elsewhere, just on different axes, writ larger, and running through different paths in this case. But yin-yang/in-yo, jin, harmonies, and other stuff. So in a sense, maybe Ueshiba did do it, in his own way, and you're looking to much into the external details of it, rather than the higher level organizing principles?

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 01:35 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
In general,
Thanks for the constructive comment you all gave. I made quite a bold statement and feel nobody got offended (nor was such intended!) and everyone stayed helpful. Cudos.

Lee Salzman 11-16-2011 01:38 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Actually, one addendum I want to make, look at the beginning of this video, you'll see what I mean:

Youtube: arm drag

I didn't watch the entire video, so I can't vouch for its contents, but look at the first couple seconds.

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 01:44 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Lee Salzman wrote: (Post 297052)
Don't look into the stance too much. Like I said, that was one little microcosm of Greco-Roman to illustrate a point about imagination and conception, much like car pushing. But at the same time, the position of the feet are not integral to the stability of that configuration in the forward and back directions. You can go uneven, or go parallel, and maybe you gain some extra stability by going uneven, but traded for mobility, and on the other hand, the difference in stability is not enough to make or break stability there if you understand the basic ideas behind how to make that movement work.

And then again, the more sideways you turn, even while you gain stability/mobility from some places, the lateral movers of the body, you
lose some in those principally forward-backward movers (or up-down movers, if you want to call them that), so it is not a simple stability for mobility trade, it is in fact trading mobility in one place for mobility in another. As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is not about bracing things, it is about moving things.

This is Newton's third law of motion in action, not figuratively, literally. Everything is pushing off of something else wish slight changes in direction at each step until, a force that was going one way at one contact, ain't going there at the other. And on the other hand, it points out the body is not, apparently, one point, but a large collection of individual joints/levers which can be organized into more than one action at the same time. Biomechanical engineering for fun and profit.

There are wider principle on display there, though, that bear a striking resemblance (though not an equivalence), to things in discussion here and that I have learned elsewhere, just on different axes, writ larger, and running through different paths in this case. But yin-yang/in-yo, jin, harmonies, and other stuff. So in a sense, maybe Ueshiba did do it, in his own way, and you're looking to much into the external details of it, rather than the higher level organizing principles?

I like this. Thank you. It is actually not that far from my view at things ;)
The external details are a window that show how well the underlying principles are understood. This is how teachers judge their students. Do not tell me, show me. Let me attack you and feel what you try to do.

Carsten Möllering 11-16-2011 03:25 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: (Post 296924)
If a stance is weighted forward, then it's easier to be drawn off balance (and overextended) forward. If weighted backward, then it's easier to be overwhelmed by a strong attack.

Ah, I had a knot in my brain: I think I understand what you want to tell me.

Quote:

A neutral stance isn't vulnerable to either.
Or is it just equally vulnerable to both? ;)
But yes, I think, I know what you mean. And in my first years of aikido I learned it exactly like you.

Then - with a new teacher - not only the position of the axis shifted, but also the way to organize the body changed.
You experienced that being stable is not only an issue of where you have your feet, didn't you? So if you can not be pushed over standing with parallel feet, don't you think a "similar effect" can be shown, standing in hanmi?

Quote:

If your weight is on one foot or the other, that foot will be more difficult to move.
Yes. But - other way round - it is easier to move oneself.

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand your last question.
Hm, when standing in hanmi we imagine a force coming in and up from ground in the back leg (when doing breathing excercises we breath in trough the souls of our feet), going through the tanden/center and down and into the ground in the front leg. By positioning the feet a little bit open (the front foot doesn't show to the front but a little outward. And the rear foot shows a little forward) ther is a kind of "twisting" this energy coming up and going down. (In our imagination this energy doesn't flow in a "straight line".)

When I wrote "weight" in quotation marks, I meant this "dowstream" wich feels like weight but isn't really (sorry, can't do better in english words).
In the hara/tanden/center ... /pelvis ... there is a connection to the upper body and arms and the force is kind of lead and distributed by this area.

So ... I hope you could follow to this point ... the feeling of this flow and distribution of energy is different when your body axis is in the middle or in front third or in the rear third of the of your hanmi.
In the end I think it doesn't matter. But in my experience I just feel it better and can use it better when not standing symmetric.

Maybe this way of doing things is influenced by the experiences of my teacher in kenjutsu. But I'm not sure whether in this point there is connection.

Again: Thank you for thinking about my questions and answering!

Lee Salzman 11-16-2011 04:01 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Carsten Möllering wrote: (Post 297056)

Quote:

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: (Post 296924)
If your weight is on one foot or the other, that foot will be more difficult to move.

Yes. But - other way round - it is easier to move oneself.

Hmm, is it? Try an experiment: stand upright, in a parallel stance. Now try to jump off the ground as high as you can, by lifting your feet off the ground. Now try it another way: jump as high as you can, by pushing the ground away from you, and push your head away from your feet, all at once.

So are we to move as if burdened with a sandbag weight that we plop from place to place, or are we rather movers from top to bottom, where moving away from the ground is a pleasant side-effect, rather than the goal? The answer to this question is relevant to the question of how you move in such a way that parallel or uneven stance, one-side weighted or double-weighted, etc. does not significantly effect the outcome.

Gedanken: if there were no gravity, and you were in essence in a walled room in outer space, how would you move around using the walls? This is not a theoretical question and applies to ground fighting all over the place.

Carsten Möllering 11-16-2011 04:56 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Lee Salzman wrote: (Post 297058)
Try an experiment: ....

:eek:
I'm sitting in a bureau which I share with my colleague. I don't dare to follow your advice right now ...

Quote:

jump as high as you can, by pushing the ground away from you, and push your head away from your feet, all at once.
We often do exactlcy what you describe during aiki taiso.
It feels more like bouncing off the earth than like jumping.

Quote:

... moving ... is a pleasant side-effect, rather than the goal?
I try to move not with my feetandlegs and not with my upper body/chest but with the hara or if possible tanden. It feels as if the feet are always there where and when needed.
It's the center that goes. And for this you are right, the weight or position of the feet doesn't matter I think.

Quote:

... This is not a theoretical question and applies to ground fighting all over the place.
I have an image I think. But "in outer space" there is no possibility to move along the wall, which is what I want to do on earth? Or should I try to "reach the sky" in every step? Could you elaborate a little bit?

But I dont see the contrdaction - if it was one - to my cited statement? What do I not understand?

Tim Ruijs 11-16-2011 05:17 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
The mental image I just had is that you suddenly got from behind your desk and started jumping. Much to the amazement of your colleague. :D

in the no gravity room: think bouncing...

Demetrio Cereijo 11-16-2011 05:20 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Carsten Möllering wrote: (Post 297059)
:eek:
I'm sitting in a bureau which I share with my colleague. I don't dare to follow your advice right now ...

Armdrag him first. Then you can jump all you want. :D

Lee Salzman 11-16-2011 05:49 AM

Re: "stance of heaven (and earth)" and IS
 
Quote:

Carsten Möllering wrote: (Post 297059)
:eek:
I'm sitting in a bureau which I share with my colleague. I don't dare to follow your advice right now ...

We often do exactlcy what you describe during aiki taiso.
It feels more like bouncing off the earth than like jumping.

I try to move not with my feetandlegs and not with my upper body/chest but with the hara or if possible tanden. It feels as if the feet are always there where and when needed.
It's the center that goes. And for this you are right, the weight or position of the feet doesn't matter I think.

I have an image I think. But "in outer space" there is no possibility to move along the wall, which is what I want to do on earth? Or should I try to "reach the sky" in every step? Could you elaborate a little bit?

But I dont see the contrdaction - if it was one - to my cited statement? What do I not understand?

I was more just thinking about the wonders of surface friction, and at the same time when all concerns of single or double weighting are removed. Wouldn't you know, human hands and feet are even adapted for it. :D

But, what would shifting your center, and not moving with the feet/legs or hands/arms, mean in an environment where you could not push just off and then rely on gravity to fall back down and forwards? If you just tried to shift your center forward, weightless, what would happen?

But like all gedanken, it's just a hastily thought up way of pointing out absurdities to help us re-examine what we take for granted.

Bonus gedanken: those walls are now made of perfectly frictionless ice. Now what? :p


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.