"Momentum is mv, mass x velocity. Momentum can be increased or decreased by a impulse Ft, force x time the force lasts. (Force is ma, mass x acceleration or mass x deceleration.

Momentum decreases when you are coming on a new supporting foot to the end of a step. Momentum must also be increased to maintain momentum at a speed."

SQQ, the problem with your analysis is that it implies you should see a pulsing variation in body velocity during the course of a step.

In fact, you do not see such a variation in either efficient ordinary walking, or in the flat walking actins of dances.

You do see a hint of per-step velocity variation in tango, and that is part of hat makes its body action different than ordinary walking.

You also see a velocity variation during the course of dance figures which incorporate rise and fall. But the velocity does not vary cyclicly per step, instead it tracks the rise and fall over the sequence of step - velocity slows on the rising steps, and speeds up again on the falling ones.

I think you might find that on a toe lower. If your foot has arrived first you will lose that word falling.
If your body is already over the foot you will fall. Does that make sense. It actuall brings us back to Len Scrivener doesn't it.

Anonymous
There is no need to be so rude. I was not mis-quoting you. Here's exactly what you wrote on 2 feb (i've cut and paste it, so there'd be no mis-quoting). You were responding to a comment by quickstep:

"""""""

"{This is quickstep's comment}In the Foxtrot Waltz we keep the foot, which is behind, in contact with the floor and keep it in contact with the floor through to under the body. The toe becomes a ball and then a heel as we continue . If the next step were a toe the ball of the foot will become a toe still on the floor. Go and have a look."

{This is your response}You do that when you walk too, you just don't notice it because a) you don't think about it and b) the steps are smaller and so the development of their details is less important and c) you get so distracted by this red herring of picking up the feet that you fail to notice how everything else is the same

"""""""

Go back and check.
You 'corrected' me by quoting something completely different, which i wasn't referring to.

Phil,

You not only MISQUOTE, you then LIE about it.

You said that I claimed the two were the same, and then tried to point out that I was wrong because the feet are picked up.

But in fact, as you now seem to have figured out, I did not say that they were the same - I said that they were the same except for the "RED HERRING OF PICKING UP THE FEET"

Wow! It's hard to imagine you guys enjoy your dancing! This thread is enough to make your head spin! All because of a reference to walking? I could have spent 3 hours in the studio for all the time spent bickering over feet! Hope you all work it out on the dance floor anyway! (Seriously)

"Wow! It's hard to imagine you guys enjoy your dancing! This thread is enough to make your head spin! All because of a reference to walking? I could have spent 3 hours in the studio for all the time spent bickering over feet! Hope you all work it out on the dance floor anyway! (Seriously)"

Actually, I'm having a great time dancing, with very little time off from practice and lessons (with some really outstanding teachers you have certainly heard of) for much else. But as quickstep's mistakes are so eternally repetitive, and I type rather fast, preventing him from infecting others with his nonsense doesn't take more than a few minutes out of my day.

Do you believe the correct footwork and the correct use of the feet is important in any of the dances. If your answer is no you are a walk about foot lifting sub standard social dancer who would be happiest dancing in a ploughed field wearing gumboots.

"Do you believe the correct footwork and the correct use of the feet is important in any of the dances. If your answer is no you are a walk about foot lifting sub standard social dancer who would be happiest dancing in a ploughed field wearing gumboots."

I believe that the correct action of the STANDING FOOT is absolutely critical.

On the other hand, the action of the moving foot is of relatively little importance. Yes, you want it to be efficient with no wasted extra actions such as an unecessary lift. And more importantly, you want to be sure that no action of the moving foot disturbs your body.

But you will not really understand the mechanics of dancing, until you can MENTALLY ERASE THE IRRELEVENT PARTS OF THE PICTURE and examine only those relevent to the problem at hand. For example, if you want to understand how the body moves, ERASE THE MOVING LEG FROM THE PICTURE. Only be concentrating you attention on the STANDING LEG will you ever start to see what is really critical to the mechanics of the dance.

Once you understand the core mechanism, then you can put the side details back in. But until then they will only confuse you... as your lenghty posting history, regardless if you feel like writing as quicktep or as redriding, only serves to demonstrate.

You are still steering away from the contact with the floor of the leg that is moving. Everybody in Australia who watched this weeks Dancing with the Stars know what happens when the moving foot is not in contact with the floor because they have listened to the advice and criticism given by the judges. One of whome is a Blackpool judge and a former World finalist.
What is the first thing that goes if the moving foot is not in contact with the floor?. Exciting isn' t it.

"You are still steering away from the contact with the floor of the leg that is moving."

No, in fact I am not.

But you are still OBSESSING ABOUT A SUBJECT OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE, in a way that is blinding you to the subject or REAL IMPORTANCE:

The action of the standing leg