[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Definitions of running (was RE: RE: Complaining)

It can't be running, because it doesn't fit my preconceived notion of what 
"running" means. I mean, it's not like it uses a better standard to define 
gaits, or gait-transitions, such as biomechanical energetics, instead it's this 
arbitrary factor about suspension. That means when I HOP, I am "running," but 
not when jogging, not when sprinting, unless I have some time where I am not 
supported by any part of my feet on the earth. That means when horses TROT, 
they aren't running. Thus, by definition, they must be ... what?

Right now, Greg Paul has failed to offer a counter to what Hutchinson said 
years ago: 

            do find evidence that elephants run in a sense,"
            said first author John Hutchinson, a Stanford
            postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of
            Mechanical Engineering. "It's an intermediate
            sort of gait, but it looks like what we
            biomechanically would call running. They don't leave
            the ground, which is the classical definition, but
            they do seem to bounce, which is the biomechanical
            definition." -- http://news.stanford.edu/pr/03/elephants49.html

I don't have the citations, but Greg's philosophy ignores a lot of 
biomechanical data on regarding the nature of "running" in order to enforce the 
idea that elephants cannot run. Seriously, what is the problem with elephants 
being able to run?


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:28:05 -0400
> From: GSP1954@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Definitions of running (was RE: RE: 
> The problem with the new definition of running is that means elephants are
> running when at top speed even though they never get all four feet off the
> ground as the murderous Muybridge first documented for trotting and galloping
> horses. But elephants are not doing what full blown running horses, rhinos
> and humans can. It is more descriptive to say that elephants semi-run, which
> is why I said true run for Triceratops, which being more stongly flexed
> limbed and having an enormous pelvis for thigh muscles should have been able 
> to
> achieve a suspended phase full running trot or pace faster than elephants
> can do.
> GSPaul
> In a message dated 4/30/13 2:14:58 PM, tholtz@umd.edu writes:
> << the current definition is a dynamic one: running requires a compliant
> gait (that is, the limb is most compressed at the midpoint of the stride).
> Compare walking and jogging in place at exactly the same pace to understand 
> the
> difference. >>
> In a message dated 4/30/13 2:21:11 PM, mrvivianallen@googlemail.com writes:
> << Technically a run is when your potential energy and kinetic energy are
> in-phase (i.e. you are moving fastest when you are highest, in flight) and
> a walk is the opposite (so you are moving slowest at your highest, i.e. As
> you vault over your limb at midstance). >>
> </HTML>