The Ultimate Unstoppable Chi Warrior

[drkitten]

I say that discrete math could be used because that is what lazy people (and computer scientists like myself) use when we face a problem that elegant calculus might be able to solve. In this case, for example, we could break down the landing into, say, 100 discrete parts. Divide the 0.7 meters up into 100 0.07m parts, then assume the person will decelerate a certain amount over each part, up to the maximum force they can withstand. But I don't know what that force is, it was given to me, I don't remember it.

You need to use discrete math to solve this? And you were exposed to this in a mechanics class? I'm, um, appalled. At your instructor. There are a few simple equations that every high school physicist has to memorize.

ETA because something messed up with the browser.

delta v = acceleration * time.

Alternatively, the time of acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the acceleration. Princess Di died of a 70g deceleration, about 686 m/ss. To decelerate at half that rate, still definitely enough to shatter bones-- (35g, 343 m/ss), from 22.5 m/s would take about 0.0655 seconds.

The distance travelled by an object starting at rest with constant acceleration is 0.5 * a * t^2. This is also the distance travelled by an object in decelerating to a stop. An object decelerating at this rate would cover 0.74 meters, longer than the average leg is capable of bending to absorb the shock.

Our hypothetical jumper would be exposed to a minimum force of 35 gravities, furthermore, he would be exposed to it on the leg, which is much more fragile than other structures such as the rib cage. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's no way that this person could escape without, at a minimum, a broken bone. More likely the person would be killed instantly.

Let's figure out what happens if this person misses his timing by so much as two hundredths of a second (so his effective deceleration time is 0.0455 instead of 0.0655 seconds). This, by the way, is superhuman precision -- human reaction time accuracy is usually measured in tenths of a second. In this case,
though, the person would be subject to more than 50 gravities of acceleration, enough to kill him instantly.

 

[omegablue]

Heya,

I´m not reading the entire topic, sorry, i´ll just answer the creator of the topic on what do i know and some speculations also.

Chi, the chinese word for the most polemical bio-energy in the world, has many many other correspondents in other cultures, such as "prana" in sanscrit, "ki" in japanese, and "force" in the universe of george lucas. hahaha

No kiddin, although i´m skeptical on these generalizations, such as the approach of "chi" to "force", i am more likely to accept that there are intriguing evidences in favor of the existance of this energy exchange, such as in reiki experiments, healing prayer, and "living-on-water" claimants. All of these practices suggests that the person must meditate in order to achieve this.

I´m not sure which of these above might be real, but they claim that all these practices involves chi as the explanation for the results. I think "chi" as bruce lee and many others claimed to concentrate in order to perform death-blows which are far beyond the attacker´s strength, is far more difficult to believe, but instead, using this hypothetical energy form in oirder to supress pain, give extra fitness and to strengthen the body , might well be non-impossible.

Theoretically, in order to channel "chi" at will, one MUST learn the practice of meditation. Like the samurai used to do, empty the mind before a battle. In a meditative state, people claim to be able to channel this "chi", the mysterious bio-energy to some extent, at his own will.

Not my fault!!!

 

[LFTKBS]

words

If you're not going to bother to read the thread, don't post anymore. Thanks in advance.

 

[Ashles]

I have said numerous times that I DONT think a person could ever do this! For the exact reasons you are all pointing out. It is just impossible for a human mind to exert the control that would be needed.

IF YOU DIDN"T READ THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH GO BACK AND DO IT.

SEE ABOVE PARAGRAPH.

What I AM saying, is that IF the control could be had, then based on tissue strength ALONE, it would be possible.

Well let's look at your opening post:

Hi everyone I am new. I am intersted in "chi" as a visualization tool to unlock the dormant potential in the human body.

I am interested in discussions regarding what people can get their bodies to do (either using chi or without) that joe average would consider amazing by virtue of how extraordinary it seems.

But the example you have given is not something that anyone can get their body to do, so not really relevant to the discussion.

Examples are of course the normal chi feats that are proven, such as blood flow control, pain negation, and body strengthening. But I am also looking for amazing data nuggets such as "If a person lands perfectly, using all available muscles to dampen the forces, they can withstand a 10 story fall landing on their feet unharmed." (Which is true, give or take a few stories).

I am interested because I am an avid martial artist and would like to make a compendium of amazing accomplishments that we can get our bodies to do without resorting to any supernatural notions.

Well what you have described would not make that list because it is not possible.

What you seem to be saying is that if you dropped a corpse ten stories and could stimulate its leg muscles in the right way then the bones, muscles and tendons in the legs might not break or snap?

Well whether this is true or not, what relation does it have to the list you wanted to create?

One part of your body might possibly withstand extreme trauma under impossible to achieve conditions...

It doesn't really teach anyone about martial arts.

And I still dispute that it would even be correct even in it's latest form i.e. we are now ignoring the fact that nerve transmission time would make it impossible, or the effect on the rest of the body.

 

[LFTKBS]

You need to use discrete math to solve this? And you were exposed to this in a mechanics class? I'm, um, appalled. At your instructor. There are a few simple equations that every high school physicist has to memorize.

ETA because something messed up with the browser.

delta v = acceleration * time.

Alternatively, the time of acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the acceleration. Princess Di died of a 70g deceleration, about 686 m/ss. To decelerate at half that rate, still probably lethal -- (35g, 343 m/ss), from 22.5 m/s would take about 0.0655 seconds.

The distance travelled by an object starting at rest with constant acceleration is 0.5 * a * t^2. This is also the distance travelled by an object in decelerating to a stop. An object decelerating at this rate would cover 0.74 meters, longer than the average leg is capable of bending to absorb the shock.

no you have to use differential equations and they prove you're wrong but i am too lazy to do the math myself but i bet you are wrong because i saw this guy break a board with his hand and also once i saw this old guy saw a lady in half even though THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE so chi is a metaphor for focus which isn't magic but allows us to do magical things you see

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have said numerous times that I DONT think a person could ever do this! For the exact reasons you are all pointing out. It is just impossible for a human mind to exert the control that would be needed.

Then why bother?! This discussion is about as absurd as magic theory at Hogwart's.

 

[drkitten]

no you have to use differential equations and they prove you're wrong but i am too lazy to do the math myself but i bet you are wrong because i saw this guy break a board with his hand and also once i saw this old guy saw a lady in half even though THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE so chi is a metaphor for focus which isn't magic but allows us to do magical things you see

Don't be ridiculous. You don't need differential equations at all; just pop the appropriate numbers into your chi-culator and you see that the correct answer is :

33. Tun - Retreat

-----
----- above Ch'ien The Creative, Heaven
-----
-----
-- -- below Kên Keeping Still, Mountain
-- --

The Judgement

Retreat. Success.
In what is small, perseverance furthers.

The Image

Mountain under heaven: the image of Retreat.
Thus the superior man keeps the inferior man at a distance,
Not angrily but with reserve.

Changing Lines

Changing yin at the bottom means:
At the tail in retreat. This is dangerous.
One must not wish to undertake anything.

Changing yin in the second place means:
He holds him fast with yellow oxhide.
No one can tear him loose.

Changing yang in the third place means:
A halted retreat
Is nerve-wracking and dangerous.
To retain people as men- and maidservants
Brings good fortune.

Changing yang in the fourth place means:
Voluntary retreat brings good fortune to the superior man
And downfall to the inferior man.

Changing yang in the fifth place means:
Friendly retreat. Perseverance brings good fortune.

Changing yang at the top means:
Cheerful retreat. Everything serves to further.

 

[LFTKBS]

i am using the blazing fist grip to drink some coffee

it makes the coffee more powerful

 

[Ashles]

No kiddin, although i´m skeptical on these generalizations, such as the approach of "chi" to "force", i am more likely to accept that there are intriguing evidences in favor of the existance of this energy exchange, such as in reiki experiments, healing prayer, and "living-on-water" claimants. All of these practices suggests that the person must meditate in order to achieve this.

I´m not sure which of these above might be real, but they claim that all these practices involves chi as the explanation for the results.

But if none of them really exist then what would be the point of an explanation of any type?

Surely the first stage is to find out if any of these claims is real before attempting an explanation.

And reading through the whole thread might be useful to you as well.

 

[rocketdodger]

Ok I did some preliminary calculations. I was wrong, you don't really need discrete math to do this, because we are assuming the deceleration will be constant. And thanks for the continuation of personal attacks LFTKBS.

Given that v = dx/dt and a = d^2x/dt, using just acceleration we can find the distance necessary, which after double integration becomes vt - at^2/2.

Lets start by assuming only a 20 g deceleration. This is 20 x 9.8 m/s/s = 196, which will take the guy from 22.5 m/s to zero in 0.115 seconds. Plugging that into the equation yields a stop distance of 1.29 meters. Not good enough.

Try 30 g, it yields a stop distance of 0.86 meters. Still too far. But going up to 40 g deceleration gives us a distance of 0.645 meters, which is easily conceivable for a person to bend their legs. Heck even 0.86 meters is fine.

And after doing a bit of research I found that a human can easily tolerate 30-40 g for such short duration, an air force pilot even went up to 83g for 0.04 seconds during nasa testing. Princess Di might have died, but she wasn't conditioned either. Here is where I got that <A HREF = "http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm" /A>

So it turns out that without regard to whether the leg muscles would tear or the bones would break, the more delicate parts of the body could easily survive. Now I just need to find the data on tissue strength and do that part of the calculation.

 

[rocketdodger]

Oops, its been awhile since I used html. Sorry!

 

[LFTKBS]

And thanks for the continuation of personal attacks LFTKBS.

I don't think my recent posts have been personal attacks.

 

[drkitten]

And after doing a bit of research I found that a human can easily tolerate 30-40 g for such short duration, an air force pilot even went up to 83g for 0.04 seconds during nasa testing. Princess Di might have died, but she wasn't conditioned either.

"Easily" tolerate? Did you read the same NASA paper you cited?

Captain Eli L. Beeding, seated upright and facing backward, experienced the highest deceleration peak yet recorded on a human being - 83 g for .04 of a second, with 3,826 g per second as the calculated rate of onset. Afterward Beeding, recovering from shock and various minor injuries, judged that 83 g represented about the limit of human tolerance for deceleration.

People in extreme good heath, strapped into a well-padded rocket sled, immobilized, and taking the acceleration on the strongest bone structures and muscle group(s) in the body, can take these kinds of accelerations and be injured by them.

The back is not, as you put it, one of "the more delicate parts of the human body." In this regard, it's the strongest -- you can see that by observing how stuntmen are taught to fall, in order to minimize the risk of injuries. A stuntman who tried to fall in any other way -- for example, by catching himself with his legs -- would shortly be out of a job and on permanent disability.

That's really the ultimate argument against this sort of "chi" trick. If it were possible, people would use it. Hollywood is already crawling with martial artists using every conceivable technique, school, and variety -- but no one uses "chi" to make stunts safer.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yes you have stopped, thank you. I associated all the OTHER personal attacks with your original ones, mistakingly, I apologize. I value your contributions if I can learn something from them.

 

[Ashles]

And after doing a bit of research I found that a human can easily tolerate 30-40 g for such short duration, an air force pilot even went up to 83g for 0.04 seconds during nasa testing. Princess Di might have died, but she wasn't conditioned either.

You are joking right?

Firstly I assume you have never heard of the g suits that pilots and astronauts wear.

Secondly that guy who survived the massive g force has had several documentaries about him. Aside from the fact that he had very specialist equipment distributing the force equally across him the experiment tore his retinas off his eyes. (He did get his eyesight back).
And that's sitting strapped in a chair, and a man as conditioned to this as is humanly possible.
And bering in mind all the actual physical impact was taken by the vehicle.

Now imagine that for someone unprotected and receiving the impact with their legs...

And your claim that "a human can easily tolerate 30-40 g for such short duration" is just ridiculous.

 

[alfaniner]

What happens if the jumper misses the ground???

 

[jmercer]

Dammit, Dr. K - too quick, I'm glad I looked before I posted my reply... which would have been nowhere as eloquent as yours.

 

[omegablue]

If you're not going to bother to read the thread, don't post anymore. Thanks in advance.

I personally dont like how this topic has developped, so i wanted to answer just the original post in a different way, not to this gobledygook calculation chit chat that this one turned out to be, neither to your trollie actions and postings, sorry pal.

 

[Ashles]

I personally dont like how this topic has developped, so i wanted to answer just the original post in a different way, not to this gobledygook calculation chit chat that this one turned out to be

It's called science and maths. Sorry if it wasn't talking about 'Chi' in a random and fuzzy way.

Of course you can always feel free to start your own thread talking about whatever aspecty of Chi you like.

However, just to warn you, at some point someone might bring science and requests for evidence into the discussion - would that be too boring for you to discuss?

 

[rocketdodger]

I know pilots wear g-suits and sit in chairs. But that has nothing to do with their internal organs moving around. The g-suits simply keep their blood where it is supposed to be, and the chair just takes the strain away from their legs. Their bodies still have to internally withstand those forces, and they do. It is possible, plain and simple.

I am having trouble finding data on just how much force human bone and muscle can take before breaking. However, I did find out that the world record in the squat is about 450kg, which means about 4410 newtons of force. If we assume the legs have to support 35 kg on average, that means that a human can squat and stand up under over 12g conditions.

Now this obviously falls short of 30g. But remember that I am talking about using the muscles and tendons to the point of almost tearing apart, which it is almost impossible to do consciously. Also, I am talking about just resisting the force, not moving against it. Its a well known fact that muscle is much stronger when it is resisting extension than when it is actually being contracted. Therefore I think (although I don't yet have the exact data to confirm it) that a person might be able to dampen that kind of force if everything went perfectly.