h a l f b a k e r y"Not baked goods, Professor; baked bads!" -- The Tick
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Cannot help but wonder how much exercise it would take a human being to get fit by considering the energy - mass equation. Well, according to my calculus, considering the average human could have a 60W output while riding a magnetic bike, that he/she could keep that output constant for 2 hours (7200
seconds) and that his/her energy source wouldn't come from chemical reactions, but from nuclear reactions, then the consumed mass would be somewhere around 0,00000000432 grams. Although quite small, some may say, this mass is greater than null!
It's now easy to understand that the weight loss which comes as a consequence of chemical reactions is much grater than this. My point: there's no way one who rides the bike for 2 hours at constant speed loses less than 0,00000000432 grams.
Works as motivation for those who don't know anything about chemistry and have excessive fat, to go to a gym.
Also works as motivation for those who plan moving the earth the way Aristotle proposed.
(?) My take on E=mc2
http://www.cafepres...readmynips.42335930
[DrCurry, Apr 16 2007]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
How is it motivating to know that you
wouldn't lose any weight at the gym if you
happened to use nuclear fission in your
digestive tract? |
|
| |
Well, you are sure you DON'T use nuclear fission, but chemical reactions. That makes you feel lucky and able to actually have relevant weight loss while working-out. |
|
| |
I get 0.00000000481 grams. And that's for chemical or nuclear, no difference. The moisture loss per breath is just under .02 grams. So about 40 grams over the two hour period, and perhaps more than that from sweat. You will also expire carbon in CO2. |
|
| |
I would just expire, period. |
|
| |
And then there's the weight of the soul--21 grams according to nineteenth century science. |
|
| |
That's someone everyone looks forward to, I guess: "Well, lady you can be sure you'll lose weight. When you die! Lots of weight: that's your current weight minus the insignifiant 21 grams which your fat soul represents" |
|
| |
Einsteinian Fitness, surely, should be something to do with losing more weight the closer you are to the speed of light, or maybe how all weight loss is relative...? |
|
| |
Length contraction doesn't apply, at any
rate. Time dilation, on the other hand... |
|
| |
I thought a body gained apparent mass as it approaches the speed of light? |
|
| |
So one might argue that by slowing down (i.e. sitting on the sofa in front of daytime TV) one weighs less than at speed (i.e. cycling). |
|
| |
It must be all those short trips to the fridge during the commercials that do it. |
|
| |
Hi Brandon, thanks for the link, your contributions to this site are always so timely and prescient! It's great to have you around, you are 'one of the family' now I think! |
|
| |
//My point: there's no way one who rides the bike for 2 hours at constant speed loses less than 0,00000000432 grams.// |
|
| |
How about one who constantly chomps chocolate bars for the entire ride? |
|
| |
the mass-energy equation holds whether the reaction is nuclear, chemical, or whatever in nature. So you will still have lost that tiny tiny tiny amount of weight afte doing that exercise. |
|
| |