"A computer model is _NOT_ mathematics. Mathematics is built on theorems (and derivatives like collaries and lemmas) not on experimentation."
Actually i would argue that a computer model is mathematics, but that is just semantics, and not the point of THIS discussion.
"What you suggest is an experiment. How did that uke and that tori do on that one technique at that one time. It is an isolated incident. You could do some statistical analysis (Bayesian being my favourite and only statistic theory I actually understand) but that still does not give you a proof. Hence it's not mathematics."
Statistics is not mathematics?
I believe that movements of Nage and Uke, are not 100% identical for say Iriminage, but there are general concepts, that could lead to a model. What about the esoteric statement that in aikido there is only one technique. What is the basis for this? I am trying to possibly get a western explanation, for the sake of everybody who does aikido and does not follow the eastern viewpoint. Which is the turn off i think to more people doing aikido.
"String theories (there are five of them!) have nothing to do with motion or body mechanics. String theories are mathematical concepts designed to explain (and predicts) results that standard quantum field theory cannot. Oh, in case you were wondering, quantum field theory and relativity both "work" (IE they predict real live events with great accuracy) but are incompatible. Hence string theories try to bridge that cap. Boy this is off topic.... I suggest that anyone interested refer to Green's book This Elegant Universe."
My understanding of string theory is that theoretically mechanics/QED/"name a branch" can be derived from string theory, so your statement is incorrect, but agreed this is off topic.
Take 2:
The point of this thread was to hopefully stimulate a discussion on what we could learn about aikido, using an analysis technique similar to that used by the XMA - Xtreme martial Arts documentary on Discovery channel in the last 12 months. Throughout this documentary that try to refer everything back to physics, although they do acknowledge Chi/Ki concepts, but again try to explain them. Ki/Chi is not a western concept, and based on the threads contained in this forum, is something we cannot agree on what it is. The best i can make out from everyone's opinion is that it means something different to everybody.
So i propose looking at aikido in a scientific manner. If you sat down and tried to think about what i was proposing, as you are obviously intelligent, as opposed to just nit-picking on attempted humour (string theory comment) to show how much of a smarty-bum you are, we might actually get somewhere? Thank the maker of smilies!
