Biomechanics and Physics

Sorry guys, didn't end the quote correctly-so to make sense,

Mr Kirby, you use the word 'ludicrous' about my ideas (ie: laughably ridiculous-OED) in a scientific discussion.

I see that you are at the peak of your academic & literary powers.

Kate Wabel

 

Hi PodAus, at the risk of sounding pedantic, once again the traditional application

of physics has only been to inanimate objects & energy.

Any other application of physics is a misapplication.

The lack of a better term does not give us license to use an incorrect term.

Kate Wabel

 

Hi David, just to say thankyou for your support & timely intervention, at last

somebody out there understands the definition of physics.

Kate Wabel

 

Dave Hi, thanks for your reply, I do not know what 'life force' is? In reply to your

 

I dont think Eric meant "machines" in a "nuts and bolts" sense... there are many and varied definitions of physics/mechanics...

If we simplify things a bit... "Weight" is a basic quantity that all living creatures have and is calculated by multiplying "Mass" by "Gravity/Acceleration" or "F = mg" which looks suspiciously like a physics formula to me...you can't possibly argue that living beings don't weigh anything can you

Regards

Donna

 

Kate,

I'm sure you agree everything has a mathematical basis and as such the Theory of Everything which Einstein 'famously' never documented is certainly heading our way very quickly through the exploration of the 'rabbit hole' of quantum mechanics / physics. Physics is the study of everything - period.

As a scientist and an academic, the very point you are making about the understanding of physics is the primary flaw in your arguement - we MUST continue to take license by the ***** and expand our definitions. What is the real lesson from University? Don't believe anything you read.

There is no right or wrong...

 

suggestion: "oxford english dictionary" got it wrong?

after all it was composed/compiled by humans (animate)......on examination of google "physics definition" none of the def'ns included "inanimate" ........seems "the science of matter and energy and their interactions" is the common theme

 

I am sure patients (with lower-limb musculo-skeletal issues) around the globe find that this debate (physics v. biophysics) will raise the bar in relation to the quality of their health care provision?

Sometimes we spend 99% of our time on the things that matter 1%.

 

oh ****, is this the podiatry site, sorry getting my forums mixed!

 

and it's great for a change...

 

Kate,
This is an interesting thread. I’ll throw in some ideas. Certainly we all go by the OED…good point. I know the Chiropractors have a section they call Chiropractic Biophysics which was started by Dr. Harrison who is a PhD in Mathematics and has an enormous background in physics.

Some of the best literature I have ever read, that makes the most sense comes from such a wide range of professionals: exercise physiologists, PT’s, Chiropractors, PhD’s, AtC’s and Podiatrists.

Ultimately we are all on the same side: the side of the patient.

The Question seems to be: Do physics principles apply to biological systems. I think that both arguments have merit. Certainly, if a full understanding was possible, every system would be explainable by some physical laws. Unfortunately in clinical science (which may be an oxymoron) we deal with biological systems that have the unfortunate characteristic of changing constantly. ROM is the ROM right now and can in many instances change with a little stretching. Try to touch your toes. Measure the distance from your fingertips to the ground and do five minutes of stretching, then re-measure. Changes occur as we age, gain and loose weight, due to disease processes, occupation, ADL, sports, training, shoe gear, orthotics (we hope) not to mention the car accident, falling down the stairs, antalgic gait, surgery, direction of gait, turning, twisting, jumping, etc.

In clinical practice we deal with generalities, ranges, and gradient scales and try to find those that are consistent with our observation. There is both an art and a science to treating patients. I don’t have all the answers and I don’t think Spooner or Kirby do either. Stephen Hawking said, “The goal of science is to have theory match observation.” Sometimes we need to LOOK to find the answer as the reduction of the problem to paper may be an oversimplification.

Just as an example, originally, I tried to calibrate orthoses by calculation alone. The complexity of the system made this extremely difficult, maybe impossible. Then someone told me the story of the Old Engineer and the Young Engineer. One day this young engineer started a new job. The Old Engineer first assigned him to, “Tell me how much coal is in that bin.” The Young Engineer came back four days later with pages upon pages of calculations and probably gave a pretty accurate determination of how much coal was in the bin four days ago. The Old Engineer looked at him funny, and said, “There are little white marks on the inside of the bin.” In other words it is usually simpler and more accurate to measure a biological system than it is to calculate it.

That being said, I do however like to look at physics force diagrams even if they are oversimplifications because they are useful to help our understanding and help us visualize what we are seeing. Someone who really understands physics, according to Einstein, is someone who can simplify it so a child can understand it.

Wisdom is knowing when and where knowledge applies. Good luck.

Respectfully,
Ed