GRAVITY DOES NOT PULL YOU FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know why you would want to resort to words like asshole to refer to those who dissagree with you on this post.

Einstein was very big on simplicity in explaining the nature of things and many on this board have some physics knowledge but can't seem to explain things directly, simply and logically.

Due to the effects of the incline plane, the force of gravity results in you moving forward faster.

The direction you bend will have no effect on this.

tank wrote:

There are very many intelligent people becoming obtuse on many obvious points. Lets walk through this in simple logical steps.

...

2) In any sport like crosscountry skiing or running gravity slows down your performance. You must expend energy to overcome the effects of gravity. (agreed)

...

Case closed.

Here's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. The second sentence, although true, does not prove the first. In fact, the less gravity, the slower you would run. If forward movement is caused by your legs pushing off the ground, then the more contact with the ground the more opportunity to push forward. In an environment with less gravity, you spend more time in the air where gravity is pulling you down and less time on the ground where the effect of gravity, although pulling down, combined with the ground and your legs, is to move you forward. This is why skiers, mountain bikers, and even runners know that the longer you are in the air, the slower you go.

No gravity = no running.

Now whether the earth's gravity is optimal for running is another question.

You do have to exert energy to overcome the effects of gravity. That statement is correct.

Using your hypothesis, do you think you would run faster on a planet with gravity tens times that of Earth.

I don't think so. In real life there probably is some optimal low level of gravity which will optimize running.

Here's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. The second sentence, although true, does not prove the first. In fact, the less gravity, the slower you would run. If forward movement is caused by your legs pushing off the ground, then the more contact with the ground the more opportunity to push forward. In an environment with less gravity, you spend more time in the air where gravity is pulling you down and less time on the ground where the effect of gravity, although pulling down, combined with the ground and your legs, is to move you forward. This is why skiers, mountain bikers, and even runners know that the longer you are in the air, the slower you go.

No gravity = no running.

Now whether the earth's gravity is optimal for running is another question.[/quote]

tank wrote:

You do have to exert energy to overcome the effects of gravity. That statement is correct.

Using your hypothesis, do you think you would run faster on a planet with gravity tens times that of Earth.

I don't think so. In real life there probably is some optimal low level of gravity which will optimize running.

I didn't address what happens when there is more gravity. I agree that there is probably some optimum level. Another variable would be if one drops an existing human in an environment with different gravity, or if the human has already adapted.

What is gravity? If we're talking about the Earth, gravity is the force that "pulls" everything toward its center. Relatively speaking, this is straight down towards the Earth's core. Now, there are two main causes of a runner's forward motion: 1) The runner's legs producing a downward and backward force against the ground and 2) A declined plane. So, why does a declined plane speed up the runner's motion? Because, the airbourne runner is able to cover more ground across a declined plane. Gravity is still pulling you downward, other forces and objects cause you to move forward. Again people are confusing something that visually looks to be the fault of gravity with the action of something else.

Alan

Do Not Agree wrote:

In fact, the less gravity, the slower you would run.

This is why 800 pound fat people are faster than 130 pound runners.

dunes runner wrote:

Do Not Agree wrote:

In fact, the less gravity, the slower you would run.

This is why 800 pound fat people are faster than 130 pound runners.

Uh...no.

Gravity didn't change here. Of course a several hundred pound horse runs faster than a 130 pound runner.

In fact a 180 pound sprinter runs faster than a 130 runner, too.

and a 200 pound running back from USC is also faster than your hypothetical 130 pound runner.

I just stood up and tried, and I fell flat on my face. HA! Who looks like the idiot now?!?!

[quote]Doctor Stupid wrote:

Once and for all, for those of you (POSE LEMMINGS) who perpetuate the stupendously imbecilic notion that gravity "pulls you forward" while running: this is FALSE! The proposition undermines the most fundamental laws (not theories) of physics, and anyone who endorses it is completely ignorant and totally unqualified to analyze or give advice on running mechanics. It's absolutely disgraceful and irresponsible for someone to POSE as an expert on mechanics in the absence of any familiarity whatsoever with basic f***ing laws of motion.

I'll say it one more time: YOU CANNOT FALL FORWARD!.../quote]

Alan,

If your airbourne theorey is the sole reason for the increase in speed, why does the skier who is in constant contact with the ground go faster down hill.

It does if the person in front of you is big enough.

okay enough of this childish banter, lets come up with the theory of gravity - right here on letsrun!

screw einstein, if we put our heads together, i'm sure we can figure it out!

Do Not Agree wrote:

Here's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. The second sentence, although true, does not prove the first. In fact, the less gravity, the slower you would run. If forward movement is caused by your legs pushing off the ground, then the more contact with the ground the more opportunity to push forward. In an environment with less gravity, you spend more time in the air where gravity is pulling you down and less time on the ground where the effect of gravity, although pulling down, combined with the ground and your legs, is to move you forward. This is why skiers, mountain bikers, and even runners know that the longer you are in the air, the slower you go.

No gravity = no running.

Now whether the earth's gravity is optimal for running is another question.

you are wrong. with less gravity the faster you could run. with less gravity you could maintain the same air time by simply decreasing the angle of your trajectory. the greater the angle of trajectory the higher you get and the longer you are in the air. the lower the angle the lower you go and the less time you are in the air. if gravity was decreased than for any given angle you are in the air longer, but that means that the angle at which you are in the air for the same period of time is less than before. and when you decrease the angle of your trajectory you cover more ground per unit of time. and because the amount of time you stay in the air is the same the only thin that would change is the distance you cover. distance over time is speed. distance increases while time stays the same so you increase your speed. less gravity would mean faster speed.

Do Not Agree wrote:

Gravity didn't change here. Of course a several hundred pound horse runs faster than a 130 pound runner.

In fact a 180 pound sprinter runs faster than a 130 runner, too.

and a 200 pound running back from USC is also faster than your hypothetical 130 pound runner.

This is why a hippopotamus runs faster than a gazelle.

In fact a 180 pound sprinter is faster at the 10k than Kenenisa Bekele.

And a 350 pound football player is faster than Paul Terget at the marathon.

someone wrote:

I just stood up and tried, and I fell flat on my face. HA! Who looks like the idiot now?!?!

I hope you didn't hurt the picture frame.

Because the hill is there. Gravity pulls you down. The hill allows you to move forward. With the pose method you are trying to run downhill on flat land but there's a problem...there is no hill to run down.Alan

tank wrote:

Alan,

If your airbourne theorey is the sole reason for the increase in speed, why does the skier who is in constant contact with the ground go faster down hill.

Once again, another retarded post by dunes runner.

When dunes runner, Letsrun's Idiot Laureate, weighs in on the subject, you know that the earth is really flat and gravity pulls you forward!

[quote]nope nope nope wrote:

you are wrong. with less gravity the faster you could run. with less gravity you could maintain the same air time by simply decreasing the angle of your trajectory. [quote]

Simply decreasing the angle of my trajectory? Is that even possible for a standard human? or must one's bio-mechanics be adapted to the low-gravity environment?

Someone should have told that to the astronauts who walked on the moon. They didn't seem to be able to lower their trajectory when the walked.

Also, with less gravity, you would need a higher coefficient of friction to take advantage of your low trajectory.

Do Not Agree wrote:

Simply decreasing the angle of my trajectory? Is that even possible for a standard human? or must one's bio-mechanics be adapted to the low-gravity environment?

Someone should have told that to the astronauts who walked on the moon. They didn't seem to be able to lower their trajectory when the walked.

Also, with less gravity, you would need a higher coefficient of friction to take advantage of your low trajectory.

uhhhhh you're telling me you can't lower your trajectory???? it's called leaning forward. i suppose you've never seen anybody run a sprint before.

and why would anyone tell that to the astronauts on the moon when first of all they were constrained by their bulky suits and 2nd of all they had no reason to increase their speed. i dont believe there were any foot races held on the moon.

you would not need any higher coefficient of friction. sprinters run on the same planet as marathoners.