User Controls
Fucking Physics.
-
2017-10-13 at 12:49 AM UTCI want to know how in the holy merry fuck its remotely possible to more than double the weight-lifting ability for a muscle/muscle group yet that muscle/muscle group remains virtually the same size. if physics made any sense at all, doubling the work capacity of a muscle/muscle group should double its size.
i need to get a hold of the engineer who fucked up the design specs for the human physiology and have some words with his incompetent ass. -
2017-10-13 at 3:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock I want to know how in the holy merry fuck its remotely possible to more than double the weight-lifting ability for a muscle/muscle group yet that muscle/muscle group remains virtually the same size. if physics made any sense at all, doubling the work capacity of a muscle/muscle group should double its size.
i need to get a hold of the engineer who fucked up the design specs for the human physiology and have some words with his incompetent ass.
electric motors of different hp can come in the same size and dimension. -
2017-10-13 at 4:05 AM UTCBiomechanics are weird. Traditional mechanical ideas like what one would apply to simple machines, are not accurate when we talk about muscles and shit.
I guarantee that your muscles are a lot denser now that they have doubled their weight lifting capacity. -
2017-10-13 at 4:05 AM UTC
-
2017-10-13 at 4:06 AM UTCtensile strength
/thread -
2017-10-13 at 4:12 AM UTC
-
2017-10-13 at 12:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon No
Pretty sure it is. OP is asking why a muscle of the same thickness can lift twice the weight. He thinks the size of the muscle should be directly proportional to the amount of weight it can lift and concludes that science is incorrect because it doesn't follow this reasoning.
If you imagine putting tension on equally sized pieces fishing line vs some 99 cent thread, you will see that the fishing line holds up to a lot more force, even though they are the same size. Because of tensile strength. -
2017-10-13 at 1:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic Pretty sure it is. OP is asking why a muscle of the same thickness can lift twice the weight. He thinks the size of the muscle should be directly proportional to the amount of weight it can lift and concludes that science is incorrect because it doesn't follow this reasoning.
If you imagine putting tension on equally sized pieces fishing line vs some 99 cent thread, you will see that the fishing line holds up to a lot more force, even though they are the same size. Because of tensile strength.
#1 OP is an idiot
#2 that would explain why your muscle could support 2x the weight without ripping, not why you can generate more power to actually lift it. You have to a really apply more force to do the work to lift more weight. -
2017-10-13 at 1:20 PM UTC
-
2017-10-13 at 2:27 PM UTCThink of an ant. It can lift up to 100 times its own weight. Imagine trying to lift 100 people over your head. Seems impossible, but yet it's obviously possible. Size has very little to do with it. It's more about the mechanics involved than size.
-
2017-10-13 at 2:28 PM UTC
-
2017-10-13 at 2:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Think of an ant. It can lift up to 100 times its own weight. Imagine trying to lift 100 people over your head. Seems impossible, but yet it's obviously possible. Size has very little to do with it. It's more about the mechanics involved than size.
no...size has everything to do with it in that example. the ants can only perform those feats precisely due to their size.
for example. if an ant was scaled up to the size of a human it would literally collapsed upon itself due to the weight of its own body.
a human sized animal / insect would be incapable of lifting such a load due the ratio of load-weight to lifting-body weight. -
2017-10-13 at 2:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Biomechanics are weird. Traditional mechanical ideas like what one would apply to simple machines, are not accurate when we talk about muscles and shit.
I guarantee that your muscles are a lot denser now that they have doubled their weight lifting capacity.
that. I know size has increased due to stretch marks but not double-plus. -
2017-10-13 at 2:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic Pretty sure it is. OP is asking why a muscle of the same thickness can lift twice the weight. He thinks the size of the muscle should be directly proportional to the amount of weight it can lift and concludes that science is incorrect because it doesn't follow this reasoning.
If you imagine putting tension on equally sized pieces fishing line vs some 99 cent thread, you will see that the fishing line holds up to a lot more force, even though they are the same size. Because of tensile strength.
your analogy is null. you mentioned two separate and completely different materials. the situation I'm talking about is the same exact material performing double-plus the original load, yet is not double-plus the original physical size. -
2017-10-13 at 2:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon #1 OP is an idiot
#2 that would explain why your muscle could support 2x the weight without ripping, not why you can generate more power to actually lift it. You have to a really apply more force to do the work to lift more weight.
said the retard who spent a fortune on a vehicle that cost about $15k to manufacture.
#2. what the shit did you just try to say...that made no sense. -
2017-10-13 at 3:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock …the ants can only perform those feats precisely due to their size….
But if everything is in ratio, it should figure, no matter what the size. I mean if a person is 1 foot tall, and they can lift 100 people over their head, and then you have a person 10 feet tall who can't, why would the 1-foot-tall person succeed where the 10-foot-tall person couldn't? Just because they are 9 feet taller? -
2017-10-13 at 3:08 PM UTCIt's simply hitting a plateau. Even Mr. Olympia has been there. Remember Tren hard and eat Clen.
-
2017-10-13 at 3:12 PM UTCI think a lot of it has to do with mind over matter as well. If we are truly living inside a computer-generated matrix, that would mean connections could be made to the "nexus", or whatever you want to call it. Animals may be too stupid to know what they do is impossible, so the matrix just goes ahead and does it for them. It's only because we are conditioned to think such a thing is impossible that we can't do it. We defeat ourselves in our own minds. We don't make that critical connection to the matrix's programming code (the interpreter), necessary to make such a thing possible.
-
2017-10-13 at 3:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock your analogy is null. you mentioned two separate and completely different materials. the situation I'm talking about is the same exact material performing double-plus the original load, yet is not double-plus the original physical size.
Lol, idoit
I guess it must be a little more complicated than you think -
2017-10-13 at 3:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL But if everything is in ratio, it should figure, no matter what the size. I mean if a person is 1 foot tall, and they can lift 100 people over their head, and then you have a person 10 feet tall who can't, why would the 1-foot-tall person succeed where the 10-foot-tall person couldn't? Just because they are 9 feet taller?
the only constant in the equation: gravity
materials strength doesnt increase with different sizes. it also has to support its own weight. the larger something gets the more of its own strength that has to be contributed to supporting it's own weight.
