Here is an explaination of the 6 directional force vector http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sixj5sJyzhc
And do you think that is helpful in some way?
BTW, when did the ancient Chinese invent “directional force vectors”? (And, isn’t that term redundant?).
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1066531]And do you think that is helpful in some way?
BTW, when did the ancient Chinese invent “directional force vectors”? (And, isn’t that term redundant?).[/QUOTE]
The term Jing is Directional force vectors in Western language.
The ancient TCMA classic deal with Momentum ( Shi) and directional force vectors (Jing). One could read into these be it from the southern china Fujian’s White Crane classic or the Northen internal martial art classic.
TCMA handling in momentum and force are much advance than most can imagine.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1066531]BTW, when did the ancient Chinese invent “directional force vectors”? (And, isn’t that term redundant?).[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Department of redundancy department redundant.
A vector is an entity with only two descriptive components - force and direction.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1066572]The term Jing is Directional force vectors in Western language.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, no. Ging (Cantonese) or jing (Mandarin) is not a “directional force vector” (and, as Dave rightly pointed out, a “vector” is direction and force). Moreover, the “force” element in a vector is a very specific entity, and it is not what you are proposing.
Ging essentially describes the quality of skillful action (as opposed to doing it with brute force or “lik”).
The ancient TCMA classic deal with Momentum ( Shi) and directional force vectors (Jing). One could read into these be it from the southern china Fujian’s White Crane classic or the Northen internal martial art classic.
Except that you are misinterpreting “ging”. Ging cannot be separated from the action. For example, if you are a good swimmer, you don’t use"lik" to power your strokes but you use the proper ging in your strokes which permit you to move with min effort and max performance. But you can’t learn that ging by not swimming – it comes with skill, not separately.
TCMA handling in momentum and force are much advance than most can imagine.
Ah, no. TCMA has lots of theory for handling momentum and force. 
And most of it is bullocks. You can only truly learn to handle momentum and force by really handling momentum and force.
6 directional force vectors??? You muppets!!!:D:D:D
You know what I love about the world we live in today?
In many ways, we are at the height of human physical achievement.
We run faster, longer than ever before.
We lift more.
We truly go further, faster and higher.
The norm for us now is far higher than the norm 100 years ago, even fifty years ago.
Awesome eh?
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1066634]You know what I love about the world we live in today?
In many ways, we are at the height of human physical achievement.
We run faster, longer than ever before.
We lift more.
We truly go further, faster and higher.
The norm for us now is far higher than the norm 100 years ago, even fifty years ago.
Awesome eh?
:D[/QUOTE]
Stop talking sense, will you?
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1066597]Ah, no. Ging (Cantonese) or jing (Mandarin) is not a “directional force vector” (and, as Dave rightly pointed out, a “vector” is direction and force). Moreover, the “force” element in a vector is a very specific entity, and it is not what you are proposing.
Ging essentially describes the quality of skillful action (as opposed to doing it with brute force or “lik”).
Except that you are misinterpreting “ging”. Ging cannot be separated from the action. For example, if you are a good swimmer, you don’t use"lik" to power your strokes but you use the proper ging in your strokes which permit you to move with min effort and max performance. But you can’t learn that ging by not swimming – it comes with skill, not separately.
Ah, no. TCMA has lots of theory for handling momentum and force. And most of it is bullocks. You can only truly learn to handle momentum and force by really handling momentum and force.[/QUOTE]
Terence,
believe and inteperate as you like to.
However,
1, Jing is lik or force with direction.
2, Vector is a quantity with both magnitude and direction.
3, Six directional force vectors means this type of force has force vectors which occupide six direction. Everything is clear and solid.
4, Jing seperate from action? where is it from? Huh?
5, But sure if you want to pick at my english and naming… in english…etc you could
such as oh isnt it redundant to call it directional force vector? vector implied directional force already…etc.
however isnt those off mark for communicating what is a six directional force vectors which the Chinese means?
I found out lately there are lots of using false finding to gain upper hand behavior in this forum. what the person’s real interest is not to communicate in the first place. but a demonstration of superiority complex.
if your point here is to humiliate Chinese TCMA and twisting Chinese language to gain upper hand instead of communication for mutual understanding you have make your point.
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1066579]A vector is an entity with only two descriptive components - force and direction.[/QUOTE]
Uh … no.
[QUOTE=Tom Kagan;1066653]Uh … no.[/QUOTE]
Uh … yes … in physics …
Paul posted a link that actually contains a very broad range of definition of vectors.
Are you participating? Or just making cow noises?
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1066710]Uh … yes … in physics …
Paul posted a link that actually contains a very broad range of definition of vectors.
Are you participating? Or just making cow noises?[/QUOTE]
It’s moot to the discussion, but Paul’s link does not give validation. You made a mistake.
A vector is defined by MAGNITUDE and direction.
A force is a type of vector. “Force vector”, while not redundant, typically has a more formal context.
A “directional force vector” is gibberish.
A “six directional force vector”, while not redundant, is bombastic and incomplete. Also, it’s technically gibberish, but it’s close enough to some semblance of a form of reality to let it slide.
Here’s the problem: What Hendrik is trying to say is a rather simple concept. It’s called POWER. However, he doesn’t like that word because he feels it doesn’t express the full meaning of what he’s talking about. Terrence’s probably wouldn’t like the use of the term “power” in this context, either, because he is alluding to the human expression of more power via muscular innervation and coordination.
But it’s just power.
Are you participating? Or, do you just like eating the spoiled red herrings? Do your parents know you’re using the computer this late on a school night?
[QUOTE=Tom Kagan;1066724]It’s moot to the discussion, but Paul’s link does not give validation. You made a mistake.
A vector is defined by MAGNITUDE and direction.
A force is a type of vector. “Force vector”, while not redundant, typically has a more formal context.
A “directional force vector” is gibberish.
A “six directional force vector”, while not redundant, is bombastic and incomplete. Also, it’s technically gibberish, but it’s close enough to some semblance of a form of reality to let it slide.
[/QUOTE]
All right - better than cow noises. Yes I was assuming a physics context and a force vector as it is a reasonable assumption when speaking in a bodies in motion context.
Here’s the problem: What Hendrik is trying to say is a rather simple concept. It’s called POWER. However, he doesn’t like that word because he feels it doesn’t express the full meaning of what he’s talking about. Terrence’s probably wouldn’t like the use of the term “power” in this context, either, because he is alluding to the human expression of more power via muscular innervation and coordination.
But it’s just power.
It seems simple. I wouldn’t give Hendrik enough credit for command over the English language to say his definition is that thought through. But yes the gist of it is training a foundation of movement in which you can generate punching force. I just don’t like all the implications of exact science like the physics examples, and also don’t like the Yellow Bamboo similarity of developing the no touch knockout magical power. On the physics side, once you get into changing velocities and differential equations it becomes a more accurate model, but then is beyond the comprehension of this board. On the TCMA side, the secrecy and lack of testing are red flags as well as ongoing systemic problems.
Are you participating? Or, do you just like eating the spoiled red herrings? Do your parents know you’re using the computer this late on a school night?
Mmmm. I do like herrings. But then again I eat kim chee too.
And no, my parents don’t know. You aren’t going to tell them are you?
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1066572]The term Jing is Directional force vectors in Western language.
The ancient TCMA classic deal with Momentum ( Shi) and directional force vectors (Jing). One could read into these be it from the southern china Fujian’s White Crane classic or the Northen internal martial art classic.
TCMA handling in momentum and force are much advance than most can imagine.[/QUOTE]
a vector is a directional force. thus your term is nonsense. And it is 3 dimensional, as each axis contains two, antiparallel directions of travel. You’re not moving through time, which is the 4th dimension, so you’re definitely not using 6.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1066772]a vector is a directional force. thus your term is nonsense. And it is 3 dimensional, as each axis contains two, antiparallel directions of travel. You’re not moving through time, which is the 4th dimension, so you’re definitely not using 6.[/QUOTE]
6 directions, 3 pairs. this describes 3D does it not? XYZ coordinates.
forward/backward
up/down
left/right
notice it was not mentioned there are 6 dimensions.
6 directions, 3 pairs. this describes 3D does it not? XYZ coordinates.
Which IIRC came from Descartes, who was not on the Red Boats as far as I know. The fact that we move in three dimensions isn’t exactly a major revelation.
TCMA handling in momentum and force are much advance than most can imagine.
I personally can imagine a lot more than was demonstrated in that vid.
[QUOTE=theo;1066783]6 directions, 3 pairs. this describes 3D does it not? XYZ coordinates.
forward/backward
up/down
left/right
notice it was not mentioned there are 6 dimensions.[/QUOTE]
pathetic, needlessly confusing and ultimately incorrect descriptions of thing from a guy who believes in qi.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1066808]pathetic, needlessly confusing and ultimately incorrect descriptions of thing from a guy who believes in qi.[/QUOTE]
ya think ? agree
FWIW, and fme I am familiar with 6 ‘joints’ or ‘links’ which is unseparable from the older classic 6 Harmonies of traditional chinese medicine. It’s just that within martial arts we overlay these ideas to our physical and bodies.
Six joints or links of the human body are the hip, knee, ankle, shoulder, elbow and wrist. Pair them up and add the spine gives you 13 specific areas to develop and loosen with stretching and breathing exercises. All part of the skin, tendon and bone nurturing that is present in most Wing Chun I have seen.
And all this bashing continues because of peoples disbelief in Hei (Chi/Qi) and I would ask anyone who doesn’t think it exists to go and receive an accupuncture treatment from a decent practitioner! Either that, or stand out in the cold and tell me how you get your hands warm??!!
I can only presume all you guys who think Hei is rubbish also don’t think you can build and nurture your muscles by lifting weights? Strange guys you lot…