I still don’t see what was stupid about me telling B.D that HHH never said what he claimed he said? The fact that I didn’t dig deeper is not my responsibility, even though I’m the one who usually catches these things for others. I see your point about the lack of quotation nesting in the software, and I don’t understand why HHH doesn’t fix the lack of nesting hierarchy manually when he responds with a quote. I realize that everyone isn’t as punctilious as me, as the first thing I look for when reading this message board is open HTML tags to make sure I know who said what.
I’ve said a lot of things that were probably not scientifically correct, and probably a lot fewer times than most who’ve posted in this thread, but, there was no physics blunder, and I provided a mathematical proof for it. I’ll agree that some of the assumptions made might not be perfect, but they are sound. Just because I didn’t provide a power calculation unitized in Watts doesn’t mean what I said was not factual. We know that the videos in question were the same person. We know that he probably weighed the same (it shouldn’t matter because he normalized mass for the force data, and we know that the speeds were probably same which would also be reflected in the force plate readings). We know that the subject was moving through space. Now here’s where I speculated because I don’t know the answer, and none of the cultists refuted my assumption. I’m assuming that all of the internal losses in energy that is reflected in the force plate reading are proportional to the peak forces measured, therefore, the power that is being exerted is directly proportional to the Peak Force readings divided by the time it take to reach that peak. In the absence of any proof that those proportionalities don’t hold (yes, I understand the proof gap is here) then my assumptions are true.
The fact is, all of the available energy for forward propulsion must be accounted for on the force plate, unless you believe in fairy dust theory that gravity is pulling you forward.
If two dragsters weighing the same raced an unknown distance and finished a half second apart, we don’t need to know how far they went to determine that the faster one delivered the most power. We know that both traveled Δd distance, and since that distance is the same we can just ignore it. That was the crux of my argument.
I, for one, am very interested in seeing the breakdown in power applied when the rubber hits the road. The cultists just cannot keep holding on to their irrational belief that the heelstrikers are performing better in spite of their "wrong way" of runningand only because of their “superior engines.” This defies logic. Perhaps it might be better to say that the forefoot strikers have ‘superior engines’ and are running almost as fast as the heelstrikers in spite of their improper running form?
The jerkwad who jumped in my face wasn’t trying to engage me in discussion, he was trying divert attention from the discussion to say that I didn’t take biomechanics or physics. Here is a complete list of my college science curriculum. You can be assured that none of the courses were at “associated science” or “survey” level.
Undergrad, core requirements:
Physical Chemistry (2 courses+2 labs), Biochemistry (2 courses, no lab), Organic Chemistry (2+2 labs),
Botany, Cytology, Genetics, Microbiology (plus lab), as well as Calculus I and II, Physics I and II (plus lab)
Undergrad, core electives:
Geology, Ecology, Meteorology, Oceanography
Graduate level, core requirements:
Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy (2+2 labs), Human Physiology, Endocrinology, Embryology, Zoology,
Graduate level, core electives:
Applied Materials Science, Gerontology, Limnology, Mammary Biology, Reproductive Physiology
Graduate level PE
Exercise Physiology and Kinesiology