# The human body special mass

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Yahya A.Sharif, Oct 3, 2022.

1. ### Yahya A.SharifRegistered Member

Messages:
53
No. A robot is just an inanimate machine. My theory applies for all living beings including humans and animals.

3. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,890
That is incorrect. When you are standing flat footed on the scale gravity results in your body exerting 60 kgf of force on the scale. The force is transferred primarily through your bones and joints to your feet on the scale. When you raise yourself your heels a few millimeters off the scale your calf muscles are supporting your weight and the resulting force on the scale remains at 60 kgf. When you slowly rise up on your toes the ADDED force to cause your body to move is the 1.5 kgf we have been talking about. That means that the total force on the scale would be 61.5 kgf.
When you are standing still with your heels raised just off the scale your calf muscles are supporting your weight of 60 kgf. When you slowly raise up on your toes the only additional force is the 1.5 kgf, therefore the scale should read 61.5 kgf, which is what it does read.

5. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,890
You do not have a theory. You have a misunderstand of basic mechanics that results in you drawing the wrong conclusions.

7. ### cluelusshusbund+ Public Dilemma +Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,000
So as the robot rises up on its toes like the human in you'r experiment... the weight displayed on the scales woud not change.???

8. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,960
Any evidence that it doesn't work the same with inanimate machines?

No. So you are forming your conclusion before you have a model to explain it, or even the data to support it.

That's called a foregone conclusion, and it is unscientific.

9. ### Yahya A.SharifRegistered Member

Messages:
53
What is the ADDED force? before lifting the scale reads weight 60 kgf after lifting the scale reads 60+1.5 kgf. What happened to lift my body? I exerted force by calves muscles. So the new added force 1.5 kgf is the force exerted by calves muscles. So the force exerted by calves muscles is not 60+1.5 kg because in 60+1.5 kgf we already have the 60 kgf part which is the weight.

10. ### Yahya A.SharifRegistered Member

Messages:
53
I already presented evidence. Two experiments. Analyzing the experiments' results is enough. So first my two experiment must be falsified. If the robot behaves like the human in the experiment, why? it is all about the experiments and if it does not behave like a human then I am right. Anyway there is not any experimental results for a robot to falsify my theory. So I invite you to participate in discussing the two experiments.
Why a human of 60 kgf when lying on a concrete block does not damage his belly, but when this 15 kgf concrete block put on his belly will damage it even though the human mass is four times the block mass?

Last edited: Jan 12, 2023
11. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,890
Actually, during the lifting the scale reads 61.5 kgf, after you reach the highest point and stop the scale returns to 60 kgf.
Of course it is. Your calves have to produce 60 kgf to balance out your weight and the additional 1.5 kgf produced by your calves leaves a net upwards force of 1.5 kgf so you
move up.
Those 2 60 kgf forces are the same force don't count it twice that would make no sense!

Last edited: Jan 12, 2023
Kristoffer likes this.
12. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
So it applies to snakes?

Snake curled up on scale

Does snake weight go down?

13. ### Yahya A.SharifRegistered Member

Messages:
53
You just say it. you do not tell how. I exert 61.5 kgf by calves muscles on the scale. Scales read the forces exerted so it should read this force 61.5 kgf. If I am wrong please tell me why, do not just repeat mainstream physics we all know it. repeating main stream physics without real analysis do not give you credits just because it is main stream physics. The scale should read the weight as well because I am still standing on the scale. It should read the weight 60 kgf plus the force exerted by calves muscles. This is a new theory I claim the mechanics for a human body to be wrong if I am wrong in my above analysis for the experiment please tell me how. Basics are not a religion they can be wrong if they are proved by experiments.

Last edited: Jan 13, 2023
14. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,890
That is right, I agree with you.
I agree that the scale should read 61.5 kgf. The mainstream is the mainstream because it works!
What? Now you are saying the scale shouldn't read 61.5 kgf???
The 60 kgf that your calf muscles are supporting IS YOUR WEIGHT.
Wrong.
It is not a new theory, it is a blatantly wrong silly misunderstanding of physics

So if your calf muscles are exerting 60 kgf when standing still with your heels raised, then the scale should read 120 kgf?? How does that make any sense?!?

Here is where you are wrong. If the scale reads 60 kgf when standing flat footed then the scale should also read 60 kgf when standing motionless on your toes. This is just common sense, how could it possibly read higher? You seem to think you weigh more when you stand on your toes, so where is the extra weight coming from?

If you are standing on your toes your 60 kgf weight is being supported by your calf muscles, that force is transferred to the balls of your feet which is transferred to the scale which, of course, reads that force as 60 kgf.

15. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
What is to analyse?

You weigh 60 kg on the scales standing flat footed or, and this is very important, if standing on tipsy toes

16. ### Yahya A.SharifRegistered Member

Messages:
53
Okay,
Let's skip this.
Why a human of 60 kgf when lying on a concrete block does not damage his belly, but when this 15 kgf concrete block put on his belly will damage it even though the human mass is four times the block mass?

17. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,960
What makes you think they are different?

Have you tried "planking" on a concrete block? It hurts.
Have you tried putting a concrete block on your belly? It hurts.

18. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,890
So since that doesn't support your idea, let's ignore it? Sure.
So you think lying on a 15 kg concrete block so all of your weight is on your stomach (no part of your body touches the ground) hurts less than lying on your back and balancing that same block on your stomach? I think I found the problem, you might be crazy.

19. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
Are the posters on this thread in a competition to se who can come up with the most crazy thought about the most crazy thought?

20. ### Yahya A.SharifRegistered Member

Messages:
53
No. I could lie on my belly for a minute on a 15 kg block my weight is 57.7 kg. But putting the block 15 kg on my stomach will indeed damage it. What about putting a 57.7 kg rock?

21. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,890
When you lay on the block is 100% of your weight on the block, in other words is no part of your body touching the ground?

22. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,960
You have not tried this. We can tell. It will hurt a lot more than you think.

To not touch the ground, you will have to "plank".

It is entirely possible that you will pull a muscle doing this, especially if you try to hold the pose for a full minute.

Last edited: Jan 14, 2023
23. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
Think phrase is "have to be a plonk"