J.C.MacSwell

It's people!...damn dirty apes with cold dead hands are people!

Yes but also prior to your jump. In preparation for it as you bend your knees and your center of gravity is allowed to dip below your initial position. Of course this (stage) doesn't happen if you don't "wind up" and instead simply roll up on your toes compressing the scale, but that is what is shown in the graph.

I assumed Studiot was referring to the deweighting phase, in preparation for the jump, when the normal force on the scale would be reduced below that of the weight.

Because you push less against it. This

As you can somewhat tell from the force plot, from rest to final rest at the same point the downward force on the scale will average exactly the weight over time. (assuming an idealized constant gravitational field, and in a vacuum) Not all scales will show that exactly, but that is exactly what would happen. Same also....but the expert can only add incite into what the different parts of the plot might look like...they are still constrained by Newton's laws (which I think we all agree apply)

Sun also?

+1 During the time you spend on a scale, getting on, stepping off, outside forces notwithstanding, the force you put downward on the scale has to average over time at your weight...whether the scale accurately reflects that depends on the intricacies of the scale. Movement on the scale may temporarily change the downward force, either up or down, but if you start and finish at rest in the same spot it will average to be your weight. (not exactly exactly...as you can vary your buoyant force by compressing air in your lungs, etc, but heroics aside, mass loss from evaporation....anything I missed?...) Change in pull of the sun or moon? There are more but nothing significant. The scale will on average see a downward force equal to your weight, and whether it reflects it or not depends on the scale, not the downward force it opposes. As to: "A mass can be be lifted (raised to a higher level) with force less than its weight", if it has upward momentum you can maintain some of that for longer with a lesser force than it's weight than with none at all, and get it to a higher level than it would have otherwise...so yes?

Surely you're joking, Mr.Area54...

@ Zap & INow No doubt there's some effect on the numbers from testing at different times or places, or using different methods, but that's still quite a difference, 62 vs 94/96%. One in the 90s seemed to indicate effectiveness against the UK strain where it was dominant. "Pfizer and BioNTech said Thursday that their vaccine is 94 percent effective against asymptomatic cases after the second dose. The finding is significant because the latest analysis was performed when over 80 percent of Israel’s COVID-19 cases were from the U.K. variant B.117 , indicating that the vaccine is highly effective against this variant." I'm not sure how they would have achieved that result though...exposed vaccinated individuals to known asymptomatic cases?

It seems the effectiveness of astrazeneca is lower than other vaccines. The more effective ones in the 90+ percent range and astrazeneca just 62%. https://observer.com/2021/03/covid19-vaccine-rank-efficacy-pfizer-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-jj-novavax/

No. He clarified that it was not in the particular scenario he was suggesting, not that it should be outside of discussion in the thread. That was in the Super athlete/Mike Tyson scenario. If you want to limit the thread to that, and also eliminate that scenario from discussion, we won't have much to discuss.

No. I brought up that it important to consider reasonably plausible extremes when setting the rules. Despite your contention that it is not honest discussion (your term) I not only believe it is, I believe that's where it's necessary to focus when setting the rules/limits. Especially when dealing with a relatively new phenomenon, such as trans women competing in women's sports, limiting yourself to only real life examples is not a very prudent way to go. Bruce Jenner won the decathlon in 1976. Many considered him the World's greatest athlete. He (I would refer to her today as she) didn't decide at that time to change to identifying as female until much later but it is not beyond plausibilities to have someone at a similar level wanting to make that choice, especially today and moving forward where people are becoming more accepting. At some level of sport that's all that should be necessary. At some levels it absolutely isn't. People cheat. You could use your same argument for eliminating WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) by simply asking people not to cheat. I've been tested for steroids. No one accused me of anything but the protocol was in place to make for fair and safe competition. People cheat. Most don't but unfortunately it has to be guarded against at certain levels of competition. Rules committees need to take into account reasonably plausible hypotheticals. Having a Bruce Jenner or Mike Tyson choose to identify as female is not outside that realm...but even if it was (I still don't understand why it might not be) bringing it up shouldn't mean it's not honest discussion.

INow. We all interpret the data and none of us gets it right 100% of the time. If you held back on the expletives directed at Jay Tony maybe he would be a little less defensive. His "tantrum" seemed rather polite in comparison IMO, regardless of how you would like him to present his facts or views. For a new member, I think he hasn't handled it to badly. Might be overpriced, but that's my $0.02

Understood. I apologize. Can you consider that Curious Layman intended honest discussion as well?

Generally is fine for recreational competition. Not so much at the elite levels. I think sports competition (and more so training for it) is healthy. For everyone, and should be encouraged. As we age it seems less so, but I still believe that. Ultimately it's best to compete against yourself, but competitions can focus that. Who bears the brunt of that process? Elite cisgender athletes, and transgender athletes both elite and not so elite. I disagree. I think it's pitting cisgendered and trans women against each other in an unfair and unhealthy manner by asking them to accept solutions from "experts". Even if, somehow, they got it exactly right (assuming there is one)...there's no way it will be fully accepted. Nor should it, as no one exactly knows. Some think it's just testosterone...anyone who has the slightest understanding of Darwin's theory, and specialization, should know better IMO. But it's politics, and what Richard Feynman might call "cargo cult science" trumps scientific method. That said, I'm open to sound arguments.

You have to consider that every one of them could be transgender, or all 11 against none. In many States for High School sports, that's currently the law. If for some reason you think that's an unreasonable assumption, consider some High School trying to make a point... or not...who is it to question them?

Not an answer but just a comment: I suspect there is more human activities during the respective summers, when solar would tend to be available.

It is, in the context Curious Layman introduced the term in this thread, as he clarified to you. Setting Rules is setting limits. You need to evaluate the plausible extremes. I don't know why you would question this as an example of what could go wrong and then deflect with semantics. You knew what CL meant, and he clarified on top of that. Can we get back to honest discussion? That's a fair point Zap. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered. But I've given this a fair bit of thought, and I'm saying any solution would be a arbitrary set of rules that can't be fair (IMO) to both cisgender and transgender women. Going back pre 1928 and having just one division (obviously dominated by men for anyone who might care to admit it) might not be arbitrary but would certainly exclude many who I would consider elite athletes. But go ahead and suggest some way forward. Even one that might insist athletes be forced to change their bodies and artificially alter their hormones to be eligible (just please don't suggest minors do this), and let's consider the consequences (even extreme ones) to them and their competitors. Note: when I say don't suggest minors do it, I'm talking wrt setting rules for sport...like Swansont...I'm not a medical doctor (unlike Swansont...I'm not any type of doctor)

It's arbitrary Zap. Women weren't allowed to compete in track and field in their own division until 1928. Short of them competing directly against men, this meant they were excluded. Allowing them their own division, and excluding biological men from it, seemed progressive at that time.

Yes, it is. It was given in the context of an elite male athlete becoming transgender. Do you consider this, the equivalent of this, outside the realm of plausibility? How fair is it to decide after the competition takes place? Or have a transgender athlete disqualified after she has been told she can compete or even already succeeded? It's from the link you chose to provide. Using that logic you have no basis to disagree with any medical doctor. Do you think they all share the same opinion? The threat of misunderstanding the physical differences in biological men and women, and arbitrarily leaving an unfair advantage. Again I accept fairness is more than a little subjective...for some it means everyone should get a trophy for trying...how can one argue that? Can we accept that some want to compete at the highest levels and give themselves the best chance of success? (This is an argument for both sides...as again I don't blame transgenders for wanting to compete) I've coached women in sports (not soccer or hockey other than minor youth sports but both coached and trained with women at higher levels in others) I watch a lot of competitive sports. I've certainly watched our Canadian Women's soccer Team far more than our Men's Team. I consider them elite athletes, much more so than the High School Teams that would beat them. The fact the Women are more than willing to play them suggests the level of dedication. They want to win but more importantly they want the challenge to improve. They deserve more than having someone arbitrarily put them at a disadvantage. If it wasn't a threat why would the IOC be concerned about it? An example could be coming if they don't get it right, and I don't believe they can get it right. It would be arbitrary, and need setting up rules that require athletes altering their bodies and/or hormones to make them eligible. Is that a healthy and fair thing to place on a transgender athlete? Is it fair if they allow them to compete but at an artificial disadvantage to make sure they don't win? You think it's just about testosterone? Many cisgender women sprinters can improve their times using steroids. Sorry I can't provide a link that suggests none would go under 10s for the 100m but trust me it won't happen soon. If it was just about testosterone it probably would already have been done. Same thing for transgender women athletes. Reducing testosterone alone can not guarantee there does not remain some advantage. Hard to find examples that don't include some pretty disgusting condemnation of transgender athletes but here I think is a reasonable one: How many States have high school boy's track records that don't better Women's World records? So far, at least to my knowledge, it's been honest transgenders simply wishing to compete. How long before someone decides to take advantage?

This can be a worthwhile discussion if we avoid letting things get personal. It is an important issue IMO.

Yours perhaps. It's really not that uncommon. VP gave an example of a U15 team. That's a little unusual. A top High School Team would beat them, almost certainly. The Canadian and US women's hockey Teams frequently train against Midget Teams (under 18). They would fair better as they use the rules of the Women's game, but a National U18 Team would beat them soundly. The point is that these women are elite athletes, and deserve to be recognized as such. Allowing trans women to displace them, however well intended, puts that at risk. I also don't blame the trans women athletes for wanting to identify as female and wanting to compete as such...I don't blame them at all. But it's unfair to other athletes. But carry on with your knee jerk assumptions as to my inherent biases.

I wonder if it would work for an old fart such as myself?

It's an example of what needs to be considered when making rules for competitive athletes, especially at the most elite levels, for both competitive fairness (I agree fairness is somewhat subjective here) and safety. More typical examples are less concerning. Did you read the article linked and agree with the conclusions? Do you accept them as "facts" as claimed and feel they have debunked the "myths"? As an example: “"A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators of athletic performance,”according to Dr. Joshua D. Safer." I assume Dr. Safer is a medical doctor. Would you agree with his statement? It seems to me they are mostly making emotional arguments based on concerns for transgenders. However well meaning toward transgenders they are completely ignoring the threat to elite women's sports. I think it is very important to encourage transgenders in sports, but I think it will be very difficult to fairly include trans women fairly at elite levels for many sports, possibly most sports. It's simply not just about testosterone, even if testosterone levels are a significant factor. Many States allow transgender high school athletes to compete in the category of their choice at State level. To their credit, at least they don't force them to alter their bodies or hormone levels, but for some athletes this gives them a distinct advantage, and it does affect many elite cisgendered woman, I would say unfairly. The US women's soccer football team is the best in the World. They are elite athletes. They would struggle against a top high school boys team.

I'm not asking how they manage at under the U.S. Federal minimum (currently 7.25/hr). I'm asking how it can be done, somewhat rhetorically but not completely (using legal exceptions, or illegally "under the table"...any other way?), and more specifically how will raising it to 15/hr make a difference for this group.