🚀 go-pugleaf

In sci.physics neo <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
> being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
> standing even if it is exact like our body?

Modulo differences in mass distribution, it can.
I'd imagine the chest would be significantly heavier.
But, of course it'll stand if it's in the right position.
It's not going to be nearly as stable as a human, because it can't move.

It's not exactly like a body. Its weight distribution is different, 
unless you happen to be of uniform density. Also, it can't make tiny 
instantaneous corrections to its posture to stabilize it. Here's an 
experiment for you to do: Go find a body that has entered rigor mortis 
and see if you can stand it upright.



neo wrote:
> Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
> being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
> standing even if it is exact like our body?
> 

On 28 Apr 2006 08:59:09 -0700, "neo" <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
>being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
>standing even if it is exact like our body?

Of course a human statue can stand.  There are many examples around
the world!

You probably mean "why can't a human statue not firmly attached
stand?"  It can, statically.  However any small horizontal force, like
the wind, will tend to topple it.  We react by contracting muscles to
shift our balance for small forces and by moving the position of our
feet for larger forces.  When the forces get strong enough, we fall
over.  Statues have a very difficult time responding to outside
disturbances so either their feet are firmly fixed to the ground or
they fall over much more easily than we do.

In sci.physics neo <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
> being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
> standing even if it is exact like our body?

Such a statue would have a higher center of gravity than a human body,
but there is no reason it couldn't stand on it's own if properly
constructed.

What makes you think that it couldn't?

It certainly won't be as stable as a living human since there is no
sensor and control system, i.e. sense of balance and muscles, to
counteract any upset force.

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

neo wrote:
> Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
> being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
> standing even if it is exact like our body?

There are two types of equilibrium: stable and unstable. Both are
slope=0 points in a potential energy curve, but one curves up and the
other curves down. A standing human is better modeled with unstable
equilibrium. With periodic small corrections, an unstable equilibrium
can be maintained, but a statue cannot make those corrections.

PD

neo wrote:
> Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
> being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
> standing even if it is exact like our body?

Newborns cannot either. They have not learned yet how to remain in
standing position. Cement statue can never learn. It is doomed to fall
at first disturbance.

Neural networks in the brain learn how to react to various conditions
causing instability and activate the human actuators but that is not
nearly enough. You also learn to use vision in a feedback mechanism.
Close your eyes and you will fall much easier.

Dolphins can balance a ball on their nose perfectly while they swim,
the so called "inverted stiick problem"  with the stick motion allowing
6-DOF.  They have a perfect control system in place no human can match
and no algorithm is known to rival it. 

Mike

In article <44535138$0$22380$ed362ca5@nr1.newsreader.com>,
   "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
>news:fif4525kjth59n1m9vrmbon12h6vmfv9bv@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Apr 2006 08:59:09 -0700, "neo" <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
>>>being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
>>>standing even if it is exact like our body?
>>
>> Of course a human statue can stand.  There are many examples around
>> the world!
>>
>> You probably mean "why can't a human statue not firmly attached
>> stand?"  It can, statically.  However any small horizontal force, like
>> the wind, will tend to topple it.  We react by contracting muscles to
>> shift our balance for small forces and by moving the position of our
>> feet for larger forces.  When the forces get strong enough, we fall
>> over.  Statues have a very difficult time responding to outside
>> disturbances so either their feet are firmly fixed to the ground or
>> they fall over much more easily than we do.
>
>When it was discovered that movement of (disembodied) parts of animals could 
>be induced by electricity it became clear that the soul infused the entire 
>animal, not just the brain. Perhaps a soul could be infused throughout a 
>concrete statue and it would be able to stand. Perhaps that is what allowed 
>Pinocchio to move about even though he was not a "real boy."
I sure hope you are an 8-year-old child.  

So you think that, if it moves, it has a soul.  Do clouds
have one?

/BAH

"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:fif4525kjth59n1m9vrmbon12h6vmfv9bv@4ax.com...
> On 28 Apr 2006 08:59:09 -0700, "neo" <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
>>being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
>>standing even if it is exact like our body?
>
> Of course a human statue can stand.  There are many examples around
> the world!
>
> You probably mean "why can't a human statue not firmly attached
> stand?"  It can, statically.  However any small horizontal force, like
> the wind, will tend to topple it.  We react by contracting muscles to
> shift our balance for small forces and by moving the position of our
> feet for larger forces.  When the forces get strong enough, we fall
> over.  Statues have a very difficult time responding to outside
> disturbances so either their feet are firmly fixed to the ground or
> they fall over much more easily than we do.

When it was discovered that movement of (disembodied) parts of animals could 
be induced by electricity it became clear that the soul infused the entire 
animal, not just the brain. Perhaps a soul could be infused throughout a 
concrete statue and it would be able to stand. Perhaps that is what allowed 
Pinocchio to move about even though he was not a "real boy."



Hope this helps,

Glen


>
> 

On Sat, 29 Apr 06 10:52:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

>In article <44535138$0$22380$ed362ca5@nr1.newsreader.com>,
>   "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
>>news:fif4525kjth59n1m9vrmbon12h6vmfv9bv@4ax.com...
>>> On 28 Apr 2006 08:59:09 -0700, "neo" <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
>>>>being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
>>>>standing even if it is exact like our body?
>>>
>>> Of course a human statue can stand.  There are many examples around
>>> the world!
>>>
>>> You probably mean "why can't a human statue not firmly attached
>>> stand?"  It can, statically.  However any small horizontal force, like
>>> the wind, will tend to topple it.  We react by contracting muscles to
>>> shift our balance for small forces and by moving the position of our
>>> feet for larger forces.  When the forces get strong enough, we fall
>>> over.  Statues have a very difficult time responding to outside
>>> disturbances so either their feet are firmly fixed to the ground or
>>> they fall over much more easily than we do.
>>
>>When it was discovered that movement of (disembodied) parts of animals could 
>>be induced by electricity it became clear that the soul infused the entire 
>>animal, not just the brain. Perhaps a soul could be infused throughout a 
>>concrete statue and it would be able to stand. Perhaps that is what allowed 
>>Pinocchio to move about even though he was not a "real boy."
>I sure hope you are an 8-year-old child.  
>
>So you think that, if it moves, it has a soul.  Do clouds
>have one?
>

In the spirit of Glen's post, of course not.  Clouds do not have "one"
soul, each cloud has its own!

"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:3mo652p256h640835h4lk9lvhvi48krh2t@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 06 10:52:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <44535138$0$22380$ed362ca5@nr1.newsreader.com>,
>>   "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:fif4525kjth59n1m9vrmbon12h6vmfv9bv@4ax.com...
>>>> On 28 Apr 2006 08:59:09 -0700, "neo" <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
>>>>>being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
>>>>>standing even if it is exact like our body?
>>>>
>>>> Of course a human statue can stand.  There are many examples around
>>>> the world!
>>>>
>>>> You probably mean "why can't a human statue not firmly attached
>>>> stand?"  It can, statically.  However any small horizontal force, like
>>>> the wind, will tend to topple it.  We react by contracting muscles to
>>>> shift our balance for small forces and by moving the position of our
>>>> feet for larger forces.  When the forces get strong enough, we fall
>>>> over.  Statues have a very difficult time responding to outside
>>>> disturbances so either their feet are firmly fixed to the ground or
>>>> they fall over much more easily than we do.
>>>
>>>When it was discovered that movement of (disembodied) parts of animals 
>>>could
>>>be induced by electricity it became clear that the soul infused the 
>>>entire
>>>animal, not just the brain. Perhaps a soul could be infused throughout a
>>>concrete statue and it would be able to stand. Perhaps that is what 
>>>allowed
>>>Pinocchio to move about even though he was not a "real boy."
>>I sure hope you are an 8-year-old child.
>>
>>So you think that, if it moves, it has a soul.  Do clouds
>>have one?
>>
>
> In the spirit of Glen's post, of course not.  Clouds do not have "one"
> soul, each cloud has its own!

I have a theory that it is each cloud's soul that allows them to appear as 
whatever they want to. The only part that my theory cannot account for is 
the predominance of animal shapes. Why do they never choose to look like a 
condo, skyscraper or crop circle?


>
>
> 

Human balance is a DYNAMIC act - a thousand minor corrections
to our position a minute. Requires energy, requires a fair amount
of brain quietly dedicated to the task. We're always teetering
on the brink of collapse. A quick push or a few slow gin fizzes
and we're back to all fours again. 


On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:11:18 -0700, Lionel Brits
<lionel@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:

>It's not exactly like a body. Its weight distribution is different, 
>unless you happen to be of uniform density. Also, it can't make tiny 
>instantaneous corrections to its posture to stabilize it. Here's an 
>experiment for you to do: Go find a body that has entered rigor mortis 
>and see if you can stand it upright.
>
>
>
>neo wrote:
>> Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
>> being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
>> standing even if it is exact like our body?

In article <445e64ad.12647836@news.west.earthlink.net>,
   bw@barrrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

[Honey, please do not toppost.]

>Human balance is a DYNAMIC act - a thousand minor corrections
>to our position a minute.

Sure.  And the detection devices are the toes coordinated
with the inner ear turbulence.

> Requires energy, requires a fair amount
>of brain quietly dedicated to the task. We're always teetering
>on the brink of collapse. A quick push or a few slow gin fizzes
>and we're back to all fours again. 

That's why beer is better.

<pins>

/BAH

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

> In article <445e64ad.12647836@news.west.earthlink.net>,
>    bw@barrrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>
> [Honey, please do not toppost.]
>
> >Human balance is a DYNAMIC act - a thousand minor corrections
> >to our position a minute.
>
> Sure.  And the detection devices are the toes coordinated
> with the inner ear turbulence.
>
> > Requires energy, requires a fair amount
> >of brain quietly dedicated to the task. We're always teetering
> >on the brink of collapse. A quick push or a few slow gin fizzes
> >and we're back to all fours again.
>
> That's why beer is better.

Heh.   This reminds me of the interesting demonstrations of the human
balance mechanism performing under extreme conditions I have witnessed.
 Normally we seem to stay very close to a fully poised condition or
else fail catastrophically -- a few quick stabs or emergency arm
flailing forming the fleeting intermediate states.  But I've seen a
drugged person fall in slow motion, never quite contacting the ground
with anything but their feet, and yet keeling over at such alarming and
bizarre angles and attitutes that you are absolutely certain it is
physically impossible for them not to fall in another microsecond --
and then, incredibly, somehow pull themselves back into an upright
posture!  And not once, but repeatedly.  This system has ranges of
motion beyond our usual experience.

r norman wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2006 08:59:09 -0700, "neo" <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Suppose there is human statue of cement in standing position. We human
> >being can remain in standing position. But why can't this statue remain
> >standing even if it is exact like our body?
>
> Of course a human statue can stand.  There are many examples around
> the world!
>
> You probably mean "why can't a human statue not firmly attached
> stand?"  It can, statically.  However any small horizontal force, like
> the wind, will tend to topple it.  We react by contracting muscles to
> shift our balance for small forces and by moving the position of our
> feet for larger forces.  When the forces get strong enough, we fall
> over.  Statues have a very difficult time responding to outside
> disturbances so either their feet are firmly fixed to the ground or
> they fall over much more easily than we do.
-----------------------------
thats right
ut why dont you ask a structural  engineer ????  (:-)

theoretically a human statue can stans still for vertical forcess
the truble as you said is while
horisontal forces are added  fo rinstans a wind force.

the only demand that it will say stable fo rvertical forces is that

the resultant vertical force will fall at the 'grain of the base '
it is something like   1/6   the smallest width of the base  (in our
case foot )
depends on the geometry of the base )
 2 there is a big difference between a solid statue and a live  human
body
th ehuman body is not a solid block   it has its jionts that are
fastened by muscules
tendond' etc
so if the uman body is in movement or something acts on it horizontally

there is a super sophistcated nerval - muscle  authomatic device
in our brain that counter acts aginst fall
btw  there is a new two wheel vehecle  (i forgot its name )
who works on similar princlples authomatically by a computer controll.

the main basic trick of that  humand standing and walking is  by a
quick
change of the location of the center of gravity of ghe body

fo rinstance if you tend to fall say to the right side
your body  say withthe  hand streched quickly to the left side are
compensating
the unstable position .

anothe btw
 a bycicle riding  is as well of that 'family of mechanism'
ie a constant correction of position by the steering rod

ATB
Y.Porat
------------

In article <1147132954.610178.28280@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
   "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <445e64ad.12647836@news.west.earthlink.net>,
>>    bw@barrrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>> >Human balance is a DYNAMIC act - a thousand minor corrections
>> >to our position a minute.
>>
>> Sure.  And the detection devices are the toes coordinated
>> with the inner ear turbulence.
>>
>> > Requires energy, requires a fair amount
>> >of brain quietly dedicated to the task. We're always teetering
>> >on the brink of collapse. A quick push or a few slow gin fizzes
>> >and we're back to all fours again.
>>
>> That's why beer is better.
>
>Heh.   This reminds me of the interesting demonstrations of the human
>balance mechanism performing under extreme conditions I have witnessed.
> Normally we seem to stay very close to a fully poised condition or
>else fail catastrophically -- a few quick stabs or emergency arm
>flailing forming the fleeting intermediate states.  But I've seen a
>drugged person fall in slow motion, never quite contacting the ground
>with anything but their feet, and yet keeling over at such alarming and
>bizarre angles and attitutes that you are absolutely certain it is
>physically impossible for them not to fall in another microsecond --
>and then, incredibly, somehow pull themselves back into an upright
>posture!  And not once, but repeatedly.  This system has ranges of
>motion beyond our usual experience.

There must be some tendons and muscles that are strained from
those balancing efforts.

/BAH