search results matching tag: push ups

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.007 seconds

    Videos (40)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (7)     Comments (154)   

A Summary Of Steam's Stupidest Move Yet!

NaMeCaF says...

I mentioned that pretty clearly in the description. And it wasnt originally going to include pay what you want until the backlash started.

I also never said Valve gets the full 75%. They get their cut and the publisher of the game gets the remainder. Dont you think if their real intention was for the mod maker to make a living off their work the split would be 70-30 in favor of the mod maker? They're clearly shortchanging the mod-maker giving them only 25% and taking the rest. Which is of course going to make the mod-maker push up their price so they see more money.

Implementing built-in donations option for all mods on the workshop of which 70%-80% goes to the mod maker and the rest to Valve and the game maker makes much more sense. It doesn't close off or segregate the modding community and is a more democratic way of making sure the good, quality mods get promoted and get more money than shit, money-grubbing mods.

Bethesda has as much blame here as Valve do. And besides, both see they were completely wrong on doing this...

https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3434it/paid_mods_in_the_steam_workshop/

"We missed the mark pretty badly"

ChaosEngine said:

First, it doesn't mention that paid mods are optional. It's up to the mod developer to decide whether they want fixed price, free or pay what you want.

Second, Valve doesn't get 75%, they get 30%. The remaining 70% is split at the discretion of the publisher (again, in this case, Bethesda, who decided on a 45/25 split). src

Conan Improves UC Irvine's School Mascot

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'conan, peter the anteater, push ups, guacamole, new image' to 'conan, peter the anteater, push ups, guacamole, new image, uci, irvine' - edited by lucky760

ant (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Gaston Push-Up Contest, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 17 Badge!

ant (Member Profile)

Is the Queen still jealous of Snow White?

Little Girl Puts Gaston In His Place: Disney World 2014

Shell Station Toilet- 5 Michelin Stars

LooiXIV jokingly says...

(Pushes up Glasses, nasal tone): Well actually Michelin stars are on a 3 star basis, and only rate restaurants and hotels, so I'm afraid gas stations aren't covered. 1 star means: a very good restaurant, 2 stars a good restaurant worth a detour, 3 stars worth a separate trip just to visit this restaurant.

Given this rating system, I would give this toilet 2 stars, definitely worth detour.

Oculus Rift "Crescent Bay" Prototype Hands-On + Impressions

sillma says...

Argh, I sure hope they do NOT try to push integrated audio with the consumer product. I don't want inevitably shitty audio pushing up the price.

World's Stronger Soldier

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

Chairman_woo says...

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

MichaelL said:

No need to go through the whole Newtons things... easier to keep it all in kg since that's how we think anyway. So on the moon, astronaut + suit = 100/6 = 17 kg. Only about 40 lbs... So an astronaut should have no problem doing a pushup there.

As I said, probably more to due with the awkward, pressurized suits.

However, the jumping part... well, that's a puzzle to me why they aren't able to jump higher since I don't see any mechanical disadvantage. It's one of the arguments for the 'fake moon landing' thing.

However, if the moon surface were 'spongy' then it would be like trying to jump out of a barrel of mud.

Re: conspiracy thing... Alternative 3 claims that Apollo astronauts went to the moon, but discovered the bases that had already been there and were threatened/sworn to silence. Curiously, Neil Armstrong became a public recluse after his career as an astronaut, rarely giving interviews or talking about his experience.

However, if you believe the 'we never went to the moon at all' version, the claim is that NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing thing based on his realistic looking 2001.

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

Chairman_woo says...

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

MichaelL said:

I have a degree in physics. I'm guessing that English is maybe a 2nd language for you? Your explanation of mass and weight is a little confusing. With regards to our astronaut on the moon, it's the difference in weight that matters. He should be able to (approximately) lift six times the weight he could on earth.
(Sidebar: It's often been said that Olympics on the moon would be fantastic because a man who could high-jump 7 feet high on earth would be able to high-jump 42 feet high (7x6) on the moon. In fact, he would only be able to jump about half that. Do you know why? I'll leave that with you as a challenge.)

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

Payback says...

The suit is "armored" and inflated, so he has to "bounce" because his range of motion is limited by air pressure and the rigidity of the material required to block the sun's radiation. So, if he laid down, not only would moon dust screw up stuff as @AnomalousDatum says, it would be harder to get up, as the suit wouldn't allow for typical bending of knees and arms, and almost no hip movement at all.

There's also the fact that his inertia is exactly the same. Pushing up his 200+ lbs, and the mass of the suit, would still be very difficult.

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

Sagemind says...

Awe come on, use your foot to scoop it up. It works on Earth, it should definitely work on the moon. OR lay forward, grab it, then do a push up to push yourself back to your feet. Less gravity makes you lighter. It makes sense that it would work, even though I've never been on the Moon and have no idea what I'm talking about as far as practical experience goes.

Karl Stefanovic does push-up show and it's mighty impressive

Big Breasted Slow-Mo Beer Chug.

aaronfr says...

My money's on a good push-up bra rather than implants. The effect is the same until the bra comes off, but the costs are wildly different.

coolhund said:

I dont think having about 2 pounds of plastic in your body is considered being healthy.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon