Thanks for all the great comments last week. Remember, if you are going on vacation and don't think you will be able to access the site to comment, please drop me an email with the dates.
- With the Olympics around the corner, this article looks at the bio-mechanics of sprinting, and if the 9-second mark will ever be broken in the 100 m sprint. Interesting that swing time (the time between steps) is equivalent for all runners at top speed. The men's 100m final is August 5th; the women's is the day before.
- What are the most important science questions the presidential should answer? Here is a list of 14 good ones. Four years ago, the McCain and Obama campaigns posted responses to science questions. I wouldn't hold my breath for a science-themed debate, but if you go here you can vote for your choice for moderator. This guy is winning, and would be awesome.
67 comments:
If Obama and Romney were to address any of the 9 topics posed in the article "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters," it would be about the Internet. The question asked is "what role, if any, should the federal government play in managing the Internet to ensure its robust social, scientific, and economic role?" I do not believe that the government should have control over the economics that the Internet provides because then it infringes on free enterprise. The government has already proposed acts such as SOPA and Protect IP. These could result in a lower level of internet security and could hinder the ability for new start-up businesses because corporations can sue any company they feel is not filtering well enough or any person for using copyrighted music in a video, infringing the freedom of expression. By the government trying to have a role in the use of the internet, they would censor any site for any amount of infringing links. This would affect social media and force YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to censor users or shut down entirely because they are liable for every user post. In short, by allowing the government to play a role in the any part of the Internet we limit our ability to express ourselves and have even free entertainment since users could go to jail for five year for posting or even singing copyrighted works.
After reading "Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds?" I agree with the end conclusion of the article that we do not have enough data to accurately calculate if a human could in fact run 100 meters in 9 seconds flat. There are simply too many factors and too small of a window, as stated in the article, such as the time the foot is in contact with the ground, the amount of force applied to the ground, and the amount of time the leg is spent in the air. Also as stated they may be a biological limit which isn't too hard to believe with there being 900 pounds of pressure applied on one's leg for a fraction of a second which is astonishing that the human body can withstand such force even if only for such a short period of time. By the end of the article I too believe that the only way we can actually find out if someone will run the 100 meters in 9 seconds is to wait and see or simply believe Reza Noubary's prediction for the fastest time being 9.44 seconds.
After reading the article about sprinting, I find the information very accurate and informative. I personally believe that humans do have a physical limit. With the amount of stress runners put on their bodies to run, it would be dangerous to go any faster than nine seconds. As the author stated, their foot is in the air for a third of a second and there is nine hundred pounds of pressure on their leg. That is not even to go past nine seconds. I believe that the best humans will do is shave a little time of the record. However, you can never be sure. Maybe someone can defy the odds.
In the article "Will We Ever Run the 100 Meters in 9 seconds?", it was surprising to read that champion male sprinters could hit the ground with a force that is 2.5 times their own body weight- Usain Bolt, although it was for a few milliseconds, was able to apply about 900 pounds on his foot. In response to the ultimate question, "will we ever run in the 100 meters in 9 seconds?", I feel that there are too many factors that determine the speed at which a sprinter could run that are yet to be found. Like the article states, understanding the art of sprinting is like a black hole because there are no predictive relationships in the sport and by nature the sprints are short. This only gives scientists a limited window of time to base their predictions and measurements on. Therefore, until someone does actually run the 100 meter in 9 seconds, we will never know if it is humanly possible to do so.
Out of the fourteen science topics brought up in the second article, I believe that the president should focus on education the most. Among industrialized countries, the United States of America is ranked 16th in science and 24th in mathematics, as observed by the Programme for International Student Assessment. There is much room for improvement in the American educational system. If children are properly educated, many other issues on the list will sort themselves out. Having an overall smarter population will affect how future technologies are developed. These future technologies can change how people live, improving the living quality for many. Space, energy, vaccinations, and several other of the listed topics have the potential to improve in the future if the population becomes more educated and more intelligent as a whole. Science and mathematics are two of the most important subjects for the advancement of technology, and ranking at a relatively low level, America will not provide as many new technologies as a higher ranking country would.
In response to "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters," these topics pose important points. Although it may not seem like a big deal, I think it would be crucial to focus just a little more than we already have on the Ocean's Health and the creatures that inhabit it. The ocean covers roughly 70% of our planet and from the water we drink to the air we breathe, we are somehow tied to the Oceans surrounding us. Unhealthy oceans or any body of water,in fact, can take a negative toll on us as well. The ocean floor is home to important minerals,natural gas and oils. Half of the countries undiscovered oil can be found on the ocean. Without a healthy ocean, we can't benefit from anything. We focus so much on bigger topics that we forget to concern ourselves with smaller topics that are not so visited like the Ocean and the damage that has come to it.
The article "Will we Ever run the 100 Meter in 9 seconds?," was exteremly interesting and intriguing especially to me. I am a sprinter so it was easy for me to understand and interpret the data and concepts in the article. I found the part about all runners repositioning their feet at the same speed when they are at their top speed very fascinating because I was never aware of that prior to reading this article. With that in mind, I also agree that sprinting is a black hold when it comes to analyzing. There is a limited window of time. Also, another part that was interesting was when the article mentioned sprinters can hit the ground with a force that is 2.5 times their body weight. Lastly, I would like to mention the fact that it is scary to know that John Barrow from the university of Cambridge found three ways Usain Bolt can improve his already astonishing time of 9.58 for the 100 meters.
In the article “Will We Ever Run the 100 Meters in 9 seconds?", I was surprised that the hang time for a slow runner and a fast runner is exactly the same. To add to my surprise, runners like Usain Bolt can apply 900 pounds on one foot. So basically, to run faster you have to hit the ground harder and take longer strides. But earlier in the article, John Barrow said that Usain Bolt could improve his time by “being quicker off the mark; running with a stronger tailwind; and running at higher altitudes where thinner air would exert less drag upon him”. I decided to Google how sprinters run fast. In an article called “Do world-class sprinters really move their legs no faster than ordinary runners?” they explained how a fast sprinters leg is in contact with the ground less than an ordinary runner. This explained how the hang time could be exactly the same between runners. Altogether, there are so many constants that determine a speed of a runner. In fact, ironically Yohan Blake beat Usain Bolt, the world record holder, in the 100m and 200m at the finals for Jamaica’s Olympic trials, proving that sprinting is anything but predictable. Do I think we can get close to 9 seconds? Yes I do, with the right conditioning and improvement in technology. Yet with all these constants it is impossible to calculate when we will run a 9 second 100m until, like Ed Yong said, we see it happen.
I found the article "Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds" interesting because it combines physics with the limitations of the human body. The fact that Usain Bolt has such an amazing time for the 100 meters is absoultly insane, but that fact that scientists are trying to find a way the human body can break that time is even more crazier. As a soccer player I do a lot of running and sprinting during the game. It was not the first time I have heard that the harder you hit the ground the more exerting power you achieve to push off, but its something thats extremely hard to master. I found it really interesting that Marcus Pandy from the University of Melbourne believes that the calf muscle, more than any other muscle in the body determines how much pressure one can apply on the ground while running. Another fact that intrigued me was that Usain Bolt applies 2.5 times his body weight when his feet lands. Thats hard to believe and imagine. All in all i think that one day someone is going to use all the new information the scientists come up with to their advantage, eventually breaking 9 seconds in the 100 meter.
In the article, "What Do Obama and Romney Know About Science? And Why It Matters", I think that all the topics listed are important and should be looked at. But I believe that education is one of the more important ones. Students in America has been slacking the past few years. One way to help improve the country's education is to have smaller classrooms. Teachers can know their children's strengths and weakness better individually. Also, smaller classes means more teachers, which will help unemployment issues.
I personally found the data presented in the “Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds?” article very interesting. As someone who is familiar with running and is usually looking for ways to improve her agility, I thought this article was extremely informative. The article stated that there were two ways to increase speed: exert a greater force when striking the ground or apply the same amount of force over a longer period. In regards to sprinting the best approach is to work on applying a greater force since the clap skate effect is too difficult to apply to running. Before reading this article, I had researched different types of running shoes from lightweight shoes to shoes with springs and bouncy materials. I find it surprising that the most successful and quickest sprinters are the ones who apply a force of around 2.5 times their body weight when they strike the ground. I wonder what types of research will be most successful in creating this greater force. Will genetic modification or shoe engineering play a more critical role in getting sprinters to that 9 second threshold? I also find it mind-boggling that our advanced technology doesn’t have the ability to make accurate predictions because of the window of time sprints take place and our limited knowledge of sprinting itself. There is definitely room for improvement and more opportunities to gain a better understanding of the science of sprinting. Currently, scientists are still in the dark about how humans perform and what exactly their biological limits are. It was stated that every runner at his/her top speed repositions his/her feet at the same speed, meaning that it would be the same for Usian Bolt and a grandma. It is biologically impossible to improve this swing time with the exception of Oscar Pistorius, who has two artificial legs which enable him to swing his legs 20% faster. This just proves that no matter what boundaries humans are faced with, there will always be ways for one or two exceptional athletes to exceed expectations and break barriers. With that being said, I believe Noubary’s 9.44 second prediction will be surpassed.
Reading the article "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters," makes me realize how science is a very important,demanding and controversial talk in our country.Looking at the fourteen questions, I feel that they do cover our country's major issues. It is too bad that the questions won’t be answered by the candidates themselves but rather by advisors who will alter them for the masses. Out of the fourteen questions, the one that strikes me the most is the first question. Right now our nation is dealing with our economical downfall.Scientific research has proven to be an emerging, economic driver in cities that have committed to building their life sciences industry.The more research and education, the more jobs and fundings there will be. With science being a huge aspect in our economical growth, we need to ensure that we stay a world innovater in the field of science and help keep the foundation for our economy. Other striking questions were about our education, internet, natural resources and public health. All these topics are relevant and need to be talked about. You can't just have one solution to one question, we need solutions for all of our questions. Every problem needs to have the same amount of focus as the other. Our country needs to pay attention our people's needs and really ensure our saftey.
Being a sprinter for the track team, I found the "Will We Ever Run the 100 Metres in 9 Seconds" article especially interesting. I believe that every individual has a different maximum speed. Of course, humans can practice and train to become faster, but ultimately, they will have a limit. Like Peter Weyand stated, "sprinting cannot be predicted." There is such a short time frame in sprinting that the only data to record is after a person has hit the finish line. Humans do not have the same skeletal structure as cheetahs or greyhounds to give them an advantage of speed. Genetics also play a role. In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that the 9 second record will be broken because of the lack of recordable data and the skeletal makeup of humans.
The article "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?" was quite interesting. Usain bolt took 0.16 seconds off the record, whereas it took eight athletes 16 years to do the same thing. That is a huge accomplishment. One thing that really surprised me was that what happens when a runner's foot is in the air is irrelevant to the runner's speed. Every runner takes the same amount of time to pick their foot up and put it back down. I did not think there was a biological limit, but there is. So will we ever run the 100 meters in nine seconds? After reading the article, I believe it is extremely unlikely, yet still possible.
After reading the article about being able to run the 100 meters in 9 seconds, I do not support Reza Noubary's prediction that the fastest time for the 100 meter sprint will be 9.44 seconds. Although it may seem that all humans are the same anatomically, every being has something unique about the way the their bodies are built. This means that what a person is capable of doing is different from person to person. The fact that records are broken supports this idea. At one point in time, one person may have been the fastest and he set the bar for what being the fastest really means. Then someone would come along and break that speed record, after it was hypothisized that the previous record holder was the fastest man. He was able to reach his pinacle but that pinacle is different for each person. Therefore, if Usain Bolt's pinacle is to be 9.44, somewhere down the line, someone would be able to surpass that because a standard for one person could not be the same standard that applies to everyone.
After reading the article, "Will we ever run the 100 Meter in 9 seconds?", I understand why it is difficult for even the most intelligent experts on sprinting science to accurately predict whether or not the 9 second mark will ever be broken. Unlike a cheetah or a greyhound, a human runs fast by applying great force on his/her foot as it hits the ground. The fact that Usain Bolt sprints with a force more than twice his body weight astonishes me and makes me wonder if it is actually possible for one to exert even more force and thus run even faster. The most interesting fact I discovered in this article is that all humans running at top speed lift and put their foot down at 1/3 of a second. Before, I had always thought that the faster runners were the ones who could move their feet the quickest.
The article Will We Ever Run the 100 Meter in 9 Seconds? is a topic that we can debate about for days. Reading about the approximate force that sprinters pound into the ground is a little shocking to me. As a more active person, I've experienced many injuries through sport that mainly consist of fast runny. The pounding force is not innocuous. In my case, my left knee is severely injured. For about 3 to 4 years I've been experiencing pains in my left knee area. Understanding this concept of force, I've realized that all the pounding and jumping has caused my left knee to suffer more than it should. I'm not surprised that Bolt had hamstring issues. It is critical that Bolt is always positioning his feet correctly and training to get stronger.
In response to the article, “What do Obama and Romney know about Science? & Why it Matters?” I now realize that science should be a major aspect in the presidential election. Knowledge of science, not only depicts one’s understanding of facts, but also an understanding of the world and the environment around us. In correlation to the future of our country, science may very well encompass the solutions to our numerous problems. In essence, it is vital that the president of a leading nation have a considerable understanding in science. Every one of the issues listed in this article has a specific importance to the country, but in my opinion, the most significant is ‘Innovation & the Economy.’ Research shows that the United States is officially the world’s most developed country, and as a country that is constantly improving with some of the most astounding innovations the world has seen, it is essential that this aspect is brought up in presidential debates. After all, every president’s motive is to stay in power and at the rate that science is developing, America may be, if not already, responsible for more overwhelming innovations, contributing to the title of ‘World Leader in Innovation.’ Close behind ranked in importance for second, third, & fourth, are ‘education’, ‘the Internet’, and ‘Science in public policy.’ All three contribute to the success of the country, and as I mentioned before, if science continues to develop at this rate, all four of the mentioned topics will contribute to our ultimate goal: Achieving newfound success as a prosperous nation.
"What do Obama and Romney know about Science? And Why it Matters"
I fully concur with the idea that this article is proposing as it is an easy and effective way for the american public to get acquainted with the agendas of our future leaders. To further enhance this method of understanding, I think it would be beneficial if the organizers of this event also asked the candidates to order these issues based on their relative importance and urgency. This would help differentiate Obama and Romney on their overall political and scientific views. I,for example, believe that "Pandemics and Biotechnology" should be on the top of the list because of its volatile and unpredictable nature. Whereas, a topic of concern such as the "Internet" isn't as pressing of an issue and should not require immediate attention.
After reading the article " What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? and Why it Matters", i believe the most important topic is education. It has been known for a while that American education hasn't been on par with countries such as China, Finland etc. I personally found it shocking because American schools are relatively well funded and littered with technology. If American education improves i believe that the rest of the thirteen questions will find a way to sort themselves out. A while back there was a Stanford study that said that if American students could raise their scores on tests by 5% it would translate into 41 trillion dollars in the US economy over the next twenty dollars. Like i stated before, with all that money finding vaccines, exploring space, and other issues would be solved.
"What are the Most Important Science Questions the Presidential Should Answer?"
After reading the shortlist of 14 questions that the presidential candidates should answer, I thought that quite a few of the question topics seemed redundant because others already would have covered or branched off into that general area. For example, Research and Future would cover Climate Change, Pandemics, Ocean Health, and Space. The thought of a debate being fueled by science topics would be interesting because it would add an entirely new dimension to a presidential platform; however, if these organizations that came up with this list are going to go through with this, they can at least come up with topics that are a little less redundant. When looking at the topics that remain, after eliminating the "repetitive" ones, the ones that should be focused on, in my opinion, in order from most important to least important, are Education, Research and Future, Economy, Food, Fresh Water, Critical Natural Resources, and Vaccination and Public Health. These are the current hot issues, which drive society today. These issues need a resolution, and focusing on the science aspect of them, would put a new spin on the solution. A lot of the time, political debates, when dealing with these issues, focus on the business aspect of it. When looking at it from a scientific lens, there might be a whole lot of ideas for solutions. One of the topics, Pandemics and Biosecurity, I felt could be eliminated entirely. Pandemic prevention--the question itself seems a little useless given that we, as a country, have faced the issue of a pandemic before (i.e. 1918-1919: spanish flu, 1957-1958: new flu virus that developed in the Far East, 1968-1969: new flu virus detected in Hong Kong, 1976: killer flu (NJ), 1997 and 1999: H5N1 aka avian flu, and everyone's favorite 2009-2010: H1N1 aka swine flu. ). Okay, there is always room for improvement; however, the current protocol/methods for preventing the disease from entering our country, seems sufficient enough. There isn't a strain of some disease, yet, that close to unstoppable like the one in the 1995 movie, Outbreak. Biosecurity (this topic I do not understand completely. If someone wants to fill me in on what it exactly is, I'd appreciate that)-- when dealing with biological warfare (banned through an international treaty in 1975) there isn't much to do but be cautious (i.e. have safety precautions available in case terrorist organizations or a rogue nation tries something) Because of the ban on such warfare, it completely eliminates that aspect of biosecurity. The idea of a scientific presidential debate seems interesting, something I would definitely watch; however, the organizations that are coming up with the debate topics (i.e. Scientific American, ScienceDebate.org, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.) probably should come up with more intriguing/thought-provoking topics that would keep the viewers interested and awake rather than allowing them to fall asleep on their couch with a bag of chips lying on top of them.
It's already difficult to believe that Usain Bolt was able to run the 100m-dash in just 9.58 seconds, but to think any person would be able to accomplish the 100m in under nine seconds is crazy. Although there is no explicit conclusion that states that one can not run the 100m in under nine seconds, it is safe to conclude that the feat is impossible given the current information and facts. Bolt's application of nearly 900 pounds of force when his foot hits the ground already exceeds the normal force people apply when running, and according to Marcus Pandy, the only way for Bolt to increase his force is to strengthen his calf muscles; however, as previously stated by Kel, there is a physical limit to how far a human being can push himself/strengthen his body. Unless they can manipulate their spines to bend and collapse as cheetahs' do or use additional technology to enhance their performance like speed skaters, people can not run 100m faster than nine seconds. Even though the large margin between Usain Bolt's record time of 9.58 seconds and 9 seconds makes it seem impossible, the only sure way of discovering whether or not one can run the 100m under nine seconds is by watching the upcoming Olympics.
In response to the article entitled, "Will We Ever Run The 100 Meters In 9 Seconds," I agree with Yong's opinion because researchers are considering flexiblity and ways to reach the goal of the ultimate sprinting record. Concerning John Barrow's proposal that being quicker off the mark, running with a stronger tailwind, and running at higher altitudes could improve a runner's speed, I agree that these are just "tricks" to making a human faster and they all depend on the skills of the individual. However, researchers have been investigating other ways to increase sprinting speed by increasing the force by which the runner's foot hits the ground. This method makes sense because as the force of impact increases, there would be a faster and stronger movement throughout the leg. In addition, the article uses the term "wall of ignorance," which means that we know very little about how people sprint and there's very little data collected about how runners sprint. The whole question in the article is can we keep going faster? Hence, the writer is stating that it's hard to answer since we know so little about sprinting to begin with. In my opinion, the fact that we know so little shows that there's so much that we could still learn. We could learn how to make prosthetics for people missing leg parts or learn how to better rehabilitate them. Another idea in the article that interested me was the comment about how a grandma and a Russian sprinter have the same potential. By retraining the calf muscles and increasing their strength, older people will be able to continue keeping in shape and adding more to their lives. Further study of how sprinting is done could result in findings that not only increase an athlete's speed, but also help older people live longer, more fit lives.
In response to the article, "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?", I believe that over time, as new talented sprinters come about, the 9.44 second limit will decrease, and eventually someone will beat 9 seconds in the 100 m. Talented sprinters will be able to apply more than 2.5 times their body weight of force and thus run faster. Reading about Usain Bolt was very interesting, especially when I found out he applies 2.5 times his body weight worth of force (approximately 900 pounds) on the ground which explains why he is so fast. I was shocked when I read that Bolt can still train to apply even more force to run even faster. Another interesting fact I found was that almost every runner, professional or just casual, takes 1/3 of a second to reposition their foot while running at top speed. Since there is still no lucid conclusion that it is biologically impossible, I hope someday, maybe during the Olympics in August, someone will break the current belief that the 100 m in 9 seconds is impossible.
In response to “What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters”, although education is obviously a major issue and needs serious improvement in America, as a topic for the scientific/technological debate it is not as important as some of the other fourteen questions. The issue of education will be addressed in the main presidential debate; therefore the actual environmental issues should be the main focus. The candidates should be asked to give their opinions on problems that need to be dealt with immediately such as fresh water, food, and energy. The safety and availability of our food and water has become an increasingly dangerous issue and the presidential candidates should provide plans on how they will handle the depleting fresh water and the various hazards to the American food supply, such as the use of hormones, antibiotics and pesticides, and the threat of animal diseases. The candidates should also have a strategy for the development of sustainable alternative energy sources that will help to improve not only the environment but create jobs that will stimulate the economy.
After reading "Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds" I am extremely impressed how they have analyzed the different factors into running to see if ways to achieve this time was possible. In the end it was said that due to these many factor it is currently not possible to predict such accurate assumptions. Regardless, it was interesting to see why greyhounds and cheetahs are so fast, its because they maximize their time on the ground using their bendy backbones and as their front feet land, their spines bend and collapse, so their back halves spend more time in the air before they have to come down. Also, quite it's quite humorous that Weyand states "It's the same from Usain Bolt to Grandma" that she can't run as fast as him but when both their foot is in the air her top speed remains the same as the runner. Overall this excited me to see what is in store for the upcoming Olympic games!
In response to the article, ""Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?", i believe that over time, no matter what the physics of the situation states and despite what Doctor Weyand predicts, humans will continue to grow faster. As a human race we have continued to break records and times in all sports including track. Usain Bolt set the record of a 9.69 second 100 meter which many saw as unbeatable. However he continued to impress us with a 9.58 second 100 meter not much later. Statistics say all humans take a third of a second to reposition their foot to the ground and that humans have a maxed out force they can apply in the time their foot is on the ground. scientists continue to try to put a cap on human capabilities which is where I see the problem. As humans evolve they have become bigger faster and stronger. We can see that from the evolution of humans over the past hundreds of years. Even using technology and new machines can or even are created to improve these runners times. The matter of the fact is there is always improvement whether it be from evolution or scientifically. Therefore we cannot predict a set standard that will never be broken.
In response to the article, ""Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?", i believe that over time, no matter what the physics of the situation states and despite what Doctor Weyand predicts, humans will continue to grow faster. As a human race we have continued to break records and times in all sports including track. Usain Bolt set the record of a 9.69 second 100 meter which many saw as unbeatable. However he continued to impress us with a 9.58 second 100 meter not much later. Statistics say all humans take a third of a second to reposition their foot to the ground and that humans have a maxed out force they can apply in the time their foot is on the ground. scientists continue to try to put a cap on human capabilities which is where I see the problem. As humans evolve they have become bigger faster and stronger. We can see that from the evolution of humans over the past hundreds of years. Even using technology and new machines can or even are created to improve these runners times. The matter of the fact is there is always improvement whether it be from evolution or scientifically. Therefore we cannot predict a set standard that will never be broken.
In response to the article, "The Internet is Driving us Mad," i completely agree with the articles view on the topic. Since blogs and social networks have been available to society, many people have become glued to their computers. They compete to become the most popular online and to get people to "follow" them, such as on twitter. In this mental game that these people see the internet to be, they can actually manage to drive themselves insane, just like Jason Russell, the creator of the Kony video. After not being the popular guy on Facebook and Twitter, Russell tried to get away from the internet. However, he couldn't do it. He forwarded his personal Kony video in hope to make Kony famous, to stop Kony's crimes, but also to get himself known. The video was and immediately Russell was hooked to his computer screen. There are numerous people out there right now just like Jason Russell. They become so engrossed in cyberspace that they allow it to effect their mood and view on the real world. Sites such as Instagram, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter have such an impact on some people's lives that they can actually cause insanity and depression. Even smaller effects take on the lives of people; such as not going to sleep on time because he or she is on his or her is on Facebook or IMing a friend. In today's society, the internet has the capability of drastically changing lives.
In response to "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science, and Why It Matters?" I believe many of those issues should be considered as debate questions between Obama and Romney. Many of those ideas coincide with one another and cannot be performed without one another. Like some of the previous comments stated, if Obama and Romney spoke about these issues, then Americans would have a better understanding of the world and would be informed more about issues they haven't evaluated or examined fully. Out of the 14 debatable topics, I suppose the two most important affairs are taking care of our natural resources and providing energy. Without natural resources, human beings will not be able to survive. If there is not an abundance of them, then what will happen in the next 50 years? The presidential candidates should acknowledge this issue and speak about how to protect the natural resources so the future generations are able to survive. The other issue that Obama and Romney should express concern over is energy. Both the presidential candidates should present easy and effective ideas for all Americans to reduce the amount of energy they use. With the reduction of energy in each household, worries about energy causing problems in the future will less relevant and would help other tasks be accomplished.
“What are the Most Important Science Questions the Presidential should answer?”
Unfortunately for Neil deGrasse Tyson and other cosmic enthusiasts alike, the subject of space will unlikely be part of the presidential debate during the upcoming elections. As Americans, we are looking for immediate success, and have a tough time investing in plans that we won’t see success in for decades to come. Do not get me wrong; people would love to see America dive into exploring the depths of space and come up with new findings. However, more people are concerned with other problems that are at their doorsteps. The problems during our parents’ generation dealt with national security and terrorism. The big question for our generation to solve is green energy. Do we continue to use fossil fuels and live with the possible consequences of greenhouse gases? Or do we make laws stricter against releasing these gases into the environment, and spend more tax payer dollars investing in green energy. Mitt Romney has stated that carbon dioxide may not be having on our planet’s temperature at all, and he opposes policies that would limit carbon pollution. Obama, as president, has already taken steps to create stricter rules for the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to follow. He also invested in federal funding in projects such as the high speed railway system and research and development. However both candidates support drilling realizing that fossil fuels are still essential to modern day lives. It is clear cut when comparing Obama’s and Romney’s energy platforms. While many environmental groups are upset that Obama has not taken greater measures to push for a greener energy plan, Mitt Romney has not shown any support for going green. This will clearly be a controversial topic that both candidates will have to walk on eggshells with during the upcoming election.
I found the article "Will we ever rune the 100 meters in 9 seconds?" to be very interesting. This article brings up many questions test the limitations of the human body. Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world that we know of and he ran the 100m in just 9.58. Nearly two decades have passed and the difference between the world record in 1991 and 2001 is .16 seconds. Even though there are many factors that play into how fast someone can run, such as muscle strength, air condition, and many other factors, I think that the 9 second mark can be broken regardless of what John Barrow has predicted. Over time shoe companies, such as Nike and Saucony, will develop shoes that significantly effect ones speed, it is only a matter of time. If the time for the hundred meter could decrease by .16 in 16 years, then who is to say that the time would not decrease to 9 seconds or less in the next couple of years.
I found the article "Will we ever rune the 100 meters in 9 seconds?" to be very interesting. This article brings up many questions test the limitations of the human body. Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world that we know of and he ran the 100m in just 9.58. Nearly two decades have passed and the difference between the world record in 1991 and 2001 is .16 seconds. Even though there are many factors that play into how fast someone can run, such as muscle strength, air condition, and many other factors, I think that the 9 second mark can be broken regardless of what John Barrow has predicted. Over time shoe companies, such as Nike and Saucony, will develop shoes that significantly effect ones speed, it is only a matter of time. If the time for the hundred meter could decrease by .16 in 16 years, then who is to say that the time would not decrease to 9 seconds or less in the next couple of years.
In relation to “What do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters”
I find that among the fourteen topics discussed, education excels in importance. Though the United States is a well developed and advanced country, we seem to be slacking when it comes to educating students. According to the article, we ranked 23 out of 65 in science scores and 31 out of 65 in math scores. This comes as a surprise to me, despite our remarkable advancements in technology we seem to be falling behind on what’s really important. Ensuring that students receive a proper education should be a top priority for upcoming presidential candidates, the more knowledge we are providing for future generations, the more hopeful of a future we have. The more we educate students, the more students can do to help with other important topics focused on in this article, for example reducing health and safety concerns in the food industry, carrying out research, and ensuring the availability of crucial natural resources.
The article, "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?", is very interesting to me and it is easy to relate to because I am a runner myself. I have learned a lot of information on sprinting that I did not know before reading the article. I know that everyone has a different top speed, but I did not know that everyone has a similar foot speed. I would have never guessed that 2.5 times your body weight of force is applied when running and I did not how much force is applied when running and this can explain a lot of injuries in sports. For runners, sprinting mechanics is hardier to obtain than strength and endurance.
In response to “What do Obama and Romney know about Science? & Why it Matters?” all of the topics are extremely important for a successful and thriving country. To me, the most important on the list is education. I think the new president should focus on this aspect most, because the children of any nation represent the future of their country. A research done by the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) showed a comparison of 15-year-olds of 30 wealthy nations. They found that the average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. American students are falling behind in education, and some students clearly need help on their studies, because of all the other problems on the list cited in the article (that’s the basis of this blog). For example, students might have parents who are unemployed and this impacts the students’ performance at school in an adverse manner. All of the topics in the referred article are interrelated to one another in some way or the other, so if the base problem be solved; there could a solution to the rest. According to me, Education is the key – if the children are better educated, the future is bound to be brighter, because when they grow up, they are going to be more educated about the problems haunting America, and the solutions thereof. When children become more educated, not only will America be a better place, but since the US is a superpower, the whole world will be. A few ways to improve education is by pushing students to their limits to get the best grade possible. This strategy has worked in many countries that have been successful at educating their students, like India, and China. Another way is by having better, and more tech savvy schools. Another great idea that I have is that students should be encouraged to take part in inter-country exchange programs. This will allow American students to observe and emulate how other countries study and work towards becoming successful lives and careers. These children, when back in America can use the cross-cultural skills they learn from the foreign students. In agreement to sidrahjamal having smaller classes will not only improve education but also the unemployment rates. Also students have fallen behind, because of all the technology oriented distractions, like internet. Instead of studying, for example, many chat on Facebook, and several play video games incessantly and these are all huge distractions from study. Sadly, in US, there is usually no one to stop them because their guardians or parents are too busy otherwise. I have learned through the experience of using a school provided iPad that technology can be used for the good while it may paradoxically also serve as a major distraction. Bottom-line is, if we improve the administration of education to American students, America’s future will be unparalleled & unchallenged for ages to come.
In response to the article, "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?", I was amazed by the in depth analysis the methodists provided on sprinting. I myself have never done track so my assumption was that running is just running and if you have longer legs you have longer strides and that makes you faster or else if you mover your legs faster, that makes one faster. With this false assumption I was under the pretense that Bolt was just the fastest guy on earth and there is no beating that. Yet after reading this article, I found out that many of the contestants are equally capable of winning the gold or rather beating the world record and they can do so by perfecting there running mechanics and intelligently using the setting of the track to their advantage. I especially found the fact that a grandma to a world class sprinter move the same way rather the speed is determined instead by the force put on the ground or the stride length. Today when I go outside I am going to try to apply these running mechanics to how I run and see if it makes a difference.
The article "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?" was quite an interesting read. It is amazing to think that Olympic runners can run an entire 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. What is even more amazing than that is the fact that while sprinting, the pressure on their feet hitting the ground has 2.5 more force than there weight, which is over 900 pounds for record-breaking champions like Usain Bolt. Another thing is, the fact that although people are getting faster, there is yet to be a definite reason why. Something else that caught my attention was that we all have the same swing time- when we run we reposition their feet at the same speed as everyone else. Again, it's quite amazing to think that runners have almost double the force of their own body weight and still manage to compete at seemingly impossible speeds. As far as figuring out ways to shed time off of an already rapid speed, and even training to do so, seems kind of dangerous considering the amount of force on the body. For now, it seems that there are too many factors in which the mechanics of sprinting could be accurately predicted.
In regards to “What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters,” I believe that all the topics are crucial for this country to succeed. I feel that the most important topic is education. Considering our advancements in technology, teenagers should be doing well in school; however this isn’t the case. With all the new equipment, we, as students, should be able to keep up with math and science because they are the bases of technology. We are also more innovative than several other countries, which should give us an advantage in these subjects. Besides education, I think they should focus on food. Our food is injected with all these hormones and other things we don’t even know are in the food we eat every day. Though we have administrations to ensure the safety of our food, we can’t be completely sure about how healthy it is for our bodies. All of the topics listed in the article can either corrupt or improve our country, which is why the idea of asking questions regarding the topics during the presidential election is a good way to bring the candidates back to the fundamentals of every other topic they discuss.
I found that the article "What Do Obama and Romney Know About Science? And Why It Matters" addressed many important points that are relevant to today. In a time period like now when science and technology are so essential to daily life, the president should have opinions and plans for these issues. The president needs to ensure that the US doesn't fall any farther behind than it already has. The statistic that states that 15-year-old Americans ranked 23rd in science scores should be an eye-opener that the US needs to step up its game in education. These are the people that will be running the country eventually, so they need to be trained in the best ways possible. The government also needs to play a more active role in food production because this is how our population survives. The president should support stricter fines and penalties for littering and pollution not only near bodies of water but everywhere because every habitat is equally important.
In response to "Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds?" I was surprised to learn that we don't have enough information yet to answer that question. Better understanding how more ground force could be applied and how to apply the force over a longer period of time seems to be the key to lowering the time. At one point there was the 10 second barrier for the 100 meters. It was not officially broken until 1968. Only 83 male sprinters have officially broken the 10 second barrier since then. The breaking of the 10 second barrier gives hope that someday the 9 second barrier will be broken.
According to the data in this article, Oscar Pistorius does have an advantage over the other sprinters. He is able to swing his legs around 20% faster and stay on the ground 10% longer than the other sprinters. Controversy has surrounded him because of the advantages of having lighter springer prothetic legs. Despite having an unfair advantage, Oscar’s best time is 10.91 seconds. far from the 9 second barrier. The advantages of prothetic legs gives plausibility to the fact that the person to break the 9 second barrier may be an amputee.
After reading the article “Will we ever run 100 meters in 9 seconds,“ I understood the complexity of surpassing a record. Each year, it will get harder and harder to beat the previous time. Eventually, it will be impossible for someone to exceed it. It’s fascinating that to run faster, many runners either put more force in each step they take or have the same force over a period of time. There are so many other factors such as the time it takes to pick your foot up and bring it back down.
Another thing that I found interesting is that male sprinters hit the ground with a force of 2.5 times their weight and Usain Bolt’s foot has a force of 900 pounds, which is really shocking. It’s intriguing to know that people invent new way to increase speed records. Duplicating the same technique used on skates in running shoes wasn’t much on an improvement, but it is a start of something new. Knowing people are getting faster at a slow rate can give hope for people who are trying to beat the world record. One day with extensive training, new research, and new technology, someone might be able to run 100 meters in 9 seconds.
In response to the article, “Will We Ever Run the 100 Metres in 9 Seconds?”, I found the data presented very interesting. The multitude of factors contributing to the mechanics of sprinting truly increased my curiosity and I was surprised by all the components that truly dictate the speed and agility of a human. In the article, John Barrow suggested three ways to improve speed: being quicker off the mark, running with stronger tailwind, and running at higher altitudes where thinner air would exert less drag upon him. Although I agree that these dynamics do play a role in running speed to an extent, I do believe that such environmental elements do not compare to the actual biological makeup of the human body. I find Weyand’s proposal more reasonable, as I think a cyclist’s weight, position, and aerodynamic shape have a greater influence in the performance of a sprinter. This is evidenced later in the article, where it compares the speed of four-legged animals, to two-legged humans. The anatomy and structure of grey hounds and cheetahs allow them to exert greater force on the ground and maximize their time, therefore increasing their speed altogether. However, humans are limited to two legs, and such restrictions prevent us from sharing the same abilities as animals. Furthermore, I found the term, “wall of ignorance,” very practical because as much as scientists can research and determine the workings of the human body and its biological limits, the human capacity to understand it will always partially be in the dark as the mere idea of the origins of life is beyond scientific knowledge. While technological advances have attempted to enhance the speed of an individual with clap skates and running shoes, I doubt they have much effect in getting sprinters at the 9-second mark. However, I believe it is possible to train a sprinter, strengthening the calf muscles and limbs, to successfully and ultimately break the record.
The article that poses questions to the two main presidential candidates points out many major issues in the fields of science. Arguably, all of the topics need to be addressed because they can have dire effects on the United States if not confronted. However, since President Obama would have just four more years as president and Mitt Romney would have the possibility for eight years, they would have to pick one or a few topics to mainly focus on. Choosing to address all the topics and being indecisive would not solve any of the issues because little time would be spent fixing each topic. The most important areas the presidential candidates should focus on are fresh water, food, climate change, and natural resources. These issues all pose problems in the near future and need resolutions as soon as possible. For example, the fact that the world will run out of fresh water in the near future means that countries will soon start competing for water. This could lead to worldwide tensions and distrust between countries and could even lead to wars. Any of the other three issues can lead to similar results if not solved. As the President of the United States, Obama or Romney should make their best efforts to solve these issues in order to avert possible worldwide turmoil. Not only should Obama and Romney address the most important matters out of the fourteen, but they should also show what they find less important. Issues such as innovation should actually not be weighted with heavy importance. The main driving force in this is usually to reassert America’s dominance worldwide. This usually causes other countries to compete with America and not work together. An important way to fix the issues stated in the article is to work with other countries and not contend with them. Increasing importance on innovation can actually make it harder to fix the other issues and should therefore not be considered as important.
While reading the article "Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds?", it shocked me that Bolt could apply about 900 pounds to his foot, even for a few milliseconds. The fact that they can hit the ground with two and a half times their body weight is astonishing. To answer if we will ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds, you must consider many aspects like the amount of force applied and the time the leg spends in the air. No matter how much you train, our bodies do have a limit. I think the only way to find out is to wait and watch. Maybe someone will surprise us all and run the 100 meters in 9 seconds.
The most interesting article that I found this week was "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters" since it deals with questions that truly affect our world today.
The two questions that I believe are the most important are about education and food.
As the article stated, Americas rank in science is 21st and 31st in math. The real problem is the Governments interests in these subjects and some of the people's as well are lacking. If we did a survey in our school, I almost could gaurentee you that about 65% of the kids would say that they hate math and science.
We need to find a way to make these subjects interesting so that kids could succeed and specialize in these fields.
In addition, the people whom are interested in these subjects cannot do as much as the government has not offered more of a wide range of jobs in fields like Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, Ecology, Biology, and so much more.
Lastly, the government has to definitively do something about the food crisis going on right now.
The use of growth hormones, pesticides, xenostrogens, and so many more chemicals have truly been over used in this country.
Almost all of our fast food uses some type of hormone and pesticides.
These chemicals have been proven to be carcinogenetic and cause things like cardiac arrests and heart disease.
The government should at the very most limit the use of these chemicals and focus mainly on producing organic goods that are good for us and helps us live longer.
Like several people have already said, the article "Will we ever run the 100 meter in 9 seconds?" introduces unbelievable concepts that really surprised me. Usain Bolt’s foot can apply 900 pounds of force in just milliseconds, and champion male sprinters can exert forces 2.5 times more than their body weights. That concept alone can open the door to new fields of labor and research. If a human has the possibility to be that strong, what can he/she do if that strength and force is harnessed and controlled? Unfortunately, we are still new at understanding the possibilities, as the article acknowledges. People have had little success trying to manipulate specifically running power, with shoe designs that make a small difference and overall “diminish the leg’s overall performance.” That is due to the elastic rebound of the foot when running. This is just one of too many other factors that will interfere with most attempts at progress. Running seems to be a subjective sport; the weather, air resistance, and the actual person all influence the speed and power during a race. While a runner may seem consistent, each individual is not consistent with another, and that just adds to the difficulty in understanding and improving on this topic.
One person that the article continuously mentioned was Oscar Pistorius. The article repeated that many biological limits do not apply to him because he is a double amputee who runs with carbon fiber transtibial artificial prosthetic legs. These legs are half the weight than those of humans, and can swing 20% faster. Moreover, his legs are springier and give him 10% more time for foot-ground contact. I learned in physics that when the contact time is longer, the force is greater. Thus, Pistorius can thrust himself forward more when running. Having these artificial legs gives him an advantage, and with his perseverance, he became the world record holder in several races in the Paralympics.
After reading the article "Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds" I was extremely interested. When I was a freshman running the mile I remember someone telling me to stay light on my feet and I have been doing that ever since. After reading the article I found out that professional sprinters apply more then double their weight in force on the ground. That surprised me. The second thing that surprised me was that everyone at their top speed move their leg equivalently. I agree that humans have their biological limitations but with some training and a little help (special running shoes) these feats can be accomplished. Maybe it would take a few more years for the 9 mark to be broken but I agree that for now the fastest may be 9.44. I also didn't know all the mechanics to running as I am not a runner but I was interested to see all the factors that apply to the sport. Next time I will try hitting the ground harder to run faster.
After reading the article I found many things surprising like the fact that the time to lift your foot up and put it back on the ground is the same for everybody. Even a sprinter uses the same amount of time as a grandma. Also, the fact that a sprinter can exert up to 2.5 times his body weight on the ground was interesting. Having so much of a force although for a short amount of time is still unbelievable. As for the question, “will we ever be able to run the 100m in 9 seconds?” I believe there is no way of knowing for sure. Just as the article states, running is a black hole and cannot be predicted. Sprints are so short that scientists only have little time for any measurements which makes any prediction harder. All we can do is wait and see if anyone does break the record as the article says.
I agree with Avani in the idea that the ocean's health is the most important topic of concern. The ocean controls things in our every day lives, even though we may not know it. The ocean covers most of the Earth and without it thousands of undiscovered species would be killed. So the ocean, if not cared for, would make the Earth take a turn for the worst.
The article What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters provides several reasons as to why the leader of our country should be well versed in the subject of science. It also explains the various ways science is expediently used. Using all of this information Scientific American along with many others have compiled a list of fourteen questions to ask the top two candidates in the 2012 presidential election. All fourteen questions are about the most important issues in America regarding science. Although all fourteen questions are significant, I find that the most essential issue to be discussed is education. As stated in the article, the average rankings of U.S students in math and science are exacerbating. This is shocking because America is one of the largest investors in its children’s education; however, it still fails to be in the top ten. The topic of education should be brought up so that voters will be aware of whether or not the candidates have plans to spend more money on the subjects of math and science, since these are the subjects in which American students lack skills and will be more suitable for the technology and science driven economy.
The article "Will we ever run the 100 metres on 9 seconds" was quite interesting. I find it truly amazinf that Usain Bolt can run 100 metres in about 9.5 seconds. It is crazy knowing the amount of force a runner puts in; its almost unbelievable. To answer the question "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds" there is no way of knowing. Scientists can make predictions but there is no way of actually knowing what a runner is capable of until it happens. I personally find it highly unlikely that a runner will achieve 9 seconds in the 100 metres. I guess we will have to watch and see what can be accomplished this year. I will be very surprised if someone could accomplish this.
After reading the article "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science?And Why It Matters, I think the presidents should address the topics of food, energy, and natural resources with more care. These problems are becoming malignant to our world today and may even pose to be a greater threat to our future generations. For example, our most consumed energy source, coal, is being used by most of the world. For this reason, the amount of coal on earth is starting deteriorate. If we don't find alternative energy sources to solve this issue we may be facing a huge crisis where the entire world may go to war for this resource. This problem can also come up in any of the topics mentioned above and i think the presidents should be more cautious in addressing these topics first.
I found the article about how fast one could sprint to be intriguing. Certainly, numerous factors, both internal and environmental would directly affect the abilities of the athlete. By understanding how this process works, in terms of how the muscles and joints work together, we can certainly attempt to train athletes better. Additionally, these mechanics could possible be used to improve prosthetics.
I certainly believe that candidates should address issues pertaining to science. One of the conspicuous problematic areas of the United States is the economy and the double-dip recession. However, science certainly is extremely important, and it is imperative our nation’s leaders make the right decisions. As for a moderator, I believe that there should be a couple of credible scientists in order to provide a variety of topics for the candidates to comment on.
All in all, science affects practically every aspect of our lives, so we should invest in our scientific knowledge. History has a tendency to repeat if you aren’t prepared to learn from the past. For example, disease has threatened humanity countless times in the past, and it played a key roll in causing species to struggle to survive. Global warming is also a significant concern, as it threatens species, causes ocean levels to rise, and it threatens to disrupt the geothermal ocean currents. According to scientists, it stopped in the past as a result of CO2 emission from volcanoes. As a result, approximately ninety percent of all like on planet Earth at that time died. Conclusively, science is very important, from viruses to space-relates dangers, such as hypothetical asteroid collisions, to world wide temperature issues, science is a pressing matter. The presidential candidates should address these issues and policies that they would execute should they get elected.
The 100m sprint in 9 seconds article is interesting, however, doing that feat without any technological assistance is an impossibility. Although it would be simply amazing to do that, it is stated that the lowest is somewhere around 9.40 seconds. Even if the technology availible is able to enhance the performance, I feel like that would change the competition from who can sprint the fastest to who has the best performance-enhancing technology.
The article "Will we ever run the 100 metres in 9 seconds?" was very intriguing. It is amazing how much physics goes into something as simple as running. It would truly be amazing if somebody could run the 100 metres in 9 seconds, but it seems like it would only be possible under the perfect environmental conditions. However, if Usain Bolt can chip o.16 seconds off the record in one year, it could be possible. Also, this article focuses mainly on the power of the legs while sprinting. I wonder how the other parts of the body can also effect how quickly somebody can run. I also found the fact that Bolt applies 900 pounds of force when his foot lands to be truly remarkable. I was surprised that he could apply more force than a weightlifter could even come close to lifting.
In response to the article "What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why it Matters", I feel that it is very important for our president to know how to take care of these scientific issues. If they know enough about each of the topics listed, our country would be a much safer and effecient one. They would know how to keep all Americans healthy with a supply of food and water, as well as know how to ensure that the future is bright for our country.
Humans might be able to run 100m in 9 seconds in the future. However, this is impossible without technology. It was said that the 10 second mark was impossible to beat years ago. But with better technology, our better understanding of the human body, and more knowledge about training we beat the 10 second mark. We will keep learning and get sprinters to sprint faster with new technology. As the article said, we can learn tricks from animals faster than us, like cheetahs. For example, swimmers studied dolphins for many years to become faster swimmers. Another thing, humans can do to improve is to make better training gear. Running shoes have made humans slight faster. Combining these two ideas is also possible. We can learn how to surgically make our backbones bent like cheetahs and greyhounds. We can try gene therapy in the future also. The possibilities are endless. If humans keep improving technology and keep further studying from animals, they can run a 100m in 9 seconds.
After reading the article, "Will we ever run 100 metres in 9 seconds?," I have learned that studying/predicting sprinters and their 100m times can be very difficult/currently impossible. As the article says, the historical progression of records for 100m sprints does not follow a set pattern. Before Bolt's 9.69 world record run in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, only .16 seconds was taken off the 1991 record. Usain Bolt took off the same amount of time in just over a year! Three ways Bolt could improve his time are by having a quicker reaction time, running with a relatively strong wind behind him (tailwind), and running at a higher altitude (thinner air=less pressure of air against him. But overall, for all sprinters, their speed is generally determined by how much force they apply when their foot hits the ground. Therefore, "hitting the ground harder," exerting a steady large/decent amount of force over the course of the entire race, or staying on the ground longer would help sprinters to increase their speeds/times. Oscar Pistorius, a runner with 2 artificial legs, can be said to have a slight advantage if running speed is determined by the three factors just listed above. His legs can swing 20% faster than normal sprinters allowing him 10% more time on the ground. But all in all, predicting 100m sprint times is still a mystery!
For anything to reach its maximum potential there must be a balance between the factors. For example, to reach the maximum distance for a projectile at a fixed velocity, the angle of release must be balanced between distance, zero degrees, and height, 90 degrees. Therefore the best angle of release for a projectile is 45 degrees. In the same way, this logic can be used as a method to find the minimum time it takes a human to sprint a 100 meter dash. One thing humans must balance between is leg length. If the runner’s legs are too long then the runner would be wobbly but if they are too short, they would not be able to take long strides and end up exhausting themselves too quickly. So my prediction is that the balance between these two factors would give the runner to take long strides and still not be wobbly. The problem is, to find the balance between these two factors, you would need the extremes. In this case the extremes would include the shortest and tallest a human can be. Sadly, humans don’t know enough about humans, and clearly, we do not know our extremes. Therefore, although calculating the max speed seems impossible currently, more studies of humans in the future may reveal the balance between human extremes and as an outcome, the fastest time a human can get on a 100 meter dash can be calculated.
Repost: @http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/07/18/will-we-ever-run-the-100-metres-in-9-seconds/
Being a runner, this article was very informative. I did not know that sprinters applied so much force to the track. I underestimated Newton's third law. Bolt have speed, power, muscle and pure talent so i expect that he will make an impressive appearance in this year's olympics. Breaking down the physics of running and has inspired mechanics in order to create the technology today. I feel that if mechanics apply the elements of the fastest animals in the world, such as the cheetah, to different forms of transportation, technology will be unstoppable in the future.
I believe that our biology has given us limits on how fast we can sprint. After all, I doubt the average perosn's legs can handle 900 lbs of force without injury, much less the insane force to beat bolts 9.4 second record. Technology, can almost remove this limit. We can always build a shoe that can take more force, shoes that take strain off our legs, shoes that are more comfortable to run in, etc. Once the biological limit for sprinting has been reached, these contests are simply testing who has better shoes. I believe it would be more interesting if they ran the 100m barefoot, to test the speed of the person, not what they wear
I found the article "Will we ever run the 100 meter article" very interesting. I my self am a sprinter so I liked the two tips given to make you run faster; hit the ground harder or exert the same amount of force for a long period. I also find it funny how people can't duplicate the clap skates for running shoes. Technology has made a big impact on the way humans have improved in sports. In the 2008 olympics, male swimmers were allowed to use suits that covered more of their body and allowed them to swim faster and crush records. Though after consideration they were determined to give an unfair advantage, the still had a big impact on the sport. It shows that humans can find ways to push past limits though at the end of it all there is still a limit. No one will ever be able to run the 100 meter sprint in 0 seconds or even 0.1 seconds. Noubary is right. There is a limit to how fast a human can go but, it might not be seconds.
It was great to see the list of 14 science questions that would be asked to both McCain and Obama, but even greater to watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's videos. It was inspiring to see him talk in front of the Senate pushing for NASA funding after listening to him explain the impact it made on American culture. He's an idealist pushing for people to realize how important space travel is to inspire the country to improve the nation's economy and mindset. Everybody should listen to his speech in front of the Senate because this guy needs much more recognition than he's getting.
Referring to the the science questions article, if either Romney or Obama will be our future president, all of these questions are so very crucial to know the answers to. These questions are the keys to our country's future. I believe the question about innovation and economy is one of the most important questions up there, mostly because innovation keeps our country at the top, and helps our country move forward. Innovation is a major contributor to an increase in the amount of jobs we have. Another question that I believed was important was the one about education. Without proper education in America there would be no innovation leading to a weak economy. It would be difficult to advance in technology if there was no education, the economy relies on education to prosper. Education leads to more thinkers, more inventors. America has been falling behind in the area of education and we need a president who can fix this. If America wants to stay at the top, the president HAS to fix the economy, America is still going downhill and we need a savior. Although the two questions I mentioned seem like the most important to me, every question has its own significance. If I was able to vote this year, the answers each of the candidates would have for these questions would definitely have a factor in who I would vote for.
This is a response to “Will we ever run the 100 meters in 9 seconds.” The simple answer for me would be yes we will run 100 meters in 9 seconds. Eight athletes chipped off the previous record by about 0.16 seconds every year from 1991 to 2007. This statistic reminds me of Moore’s Law and the idea of microchips becoming smaller every two years. Of course there is a limit on it; we can only make microchips as small as the natural world allows us to. Humans on the other hand evolve so I think of Moore’s Law in terms of evolution in a hundred years or so we can run that 100 meters in 9 seconds or less. Now the science has proven that the response time for everybody is close to the biological limit but there are other factors to consider other than the time it takes you to put your foot up then down at max speed. If other animal can run two times as fast as us and finish the 100 meters in less than 9 seconds with less response time than us at least we know it is possible. I’m not saying that were going to become cheetahs or anything but at least it’s possible in the biological world. Other factors could include the stride length; Usain Bolt only took 41steps in the 100 meter when his competitors took around 45, so maybe the idea is to take longer strides rather than running at max speed. I like to speculate if we really can’t break that margin of 9 seconds than we can always use some “help.” As the article mentions gene doping techniques I immediately think of steroids and how that can enhance human abilities to run at a higher max speed. Along with biomedical technology for the disabled, who is stopping us to create a cyborg leg like “The Blade Runner” from this year’s Olympics to beat the record, sure it may not count but at least it was done by a human. I believe that it’s just a matter of time.
After reading "We will never run the 100 metres in 9 seconds" I can see how runners are really pushing the limits that their biology allows. for example, the article says that a champion sprinter hits the ground with about two and a half times the force of their body weight, while the average person does about two times as much force. Our bodies were specifically evolved just to accommodate our needs, which means we have to learn the mechanics behind running faster if we want to surpass our natural limits. The reason runners are getting faster and making new records is because of peoples' understanding of what causes faster running. Nevertheless, there are still certain things we can't get around yet, like repositioning our feet. As stated in the article, Usain Bolt and an average old person take the same amount of time to pick up and put down their feet at their top speeds. John Barrow has found ways to increase running speed. Namely being faster at starting, having a stronger tailwind, and running in thinner air. Conclusively,I believe that although runners are getting faster every year, there is only so much they can improve quickly until they reach the limit of their ability.
After reading the article about humans be able to run 100 meters in 9 seconds i was very surprised by how many different things can affect the times of the best runners in the world. It really opens your eyes to how far away we are even though we are a little more than a half a second slower than 9 seconds. With how hard our current day athletes work it seems impossible that they cannot achieve a 9 second time. It seems that it all comes down to the force that you put your leg on the ground and that that force is consistent on each step you take. so does that mean that we just have to work out our leg muscles even more. No because i think as of right now it is not possible because of our biological limits, well at least not yet.
I feel that even though it seems impossible today that one day it will be possible in three different ways. One way is simply using technology to make a human faster similar to a cyborg, that is a crude way that most people would not consider fair and would not allow the time to count. like an Oscar Pistorius with springs in his legs or something of that nature. The second is that maybe our scientists will find a muscle, exercise, or a new technique that may make us somewhat faster. For example maybe a way that humans can re-position our feet faster. the third and most likely way is simply evolution. Even though this possibility will take the longest amount of time it is the most natural way. This is the way that all humans will get faster overtime.
Post a Comment