"That is because the spirit level doesn' t have knees.
Did I understand this correctly. Are you now saying the knees are in front."

That is what I have been saying to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN for about a year now!

"How long is it since your knees were not part of your body, or your feet."

They are not generally considered part of the body when we speak of vertical alignment of the body. Perhaps you'd be happier if we said vertical alignment of the TORSO then. I've probably said it that way numerous times over the past year, too.

"If your knees or even your toe is to the front then the body weight is not in front of your feet or your knees."

The body weight is vertically aligned directly over the knees, which are in front of the toes!

Your torso is not directly alignment over your knees if your knees are ahead of your body. The weight of the body is over the balls of the feet.
You are saying the torso is in front of the feet.When teaching we must be precise otherwise it could become a joke.
Isn' t that right.

"Your torso is not directly alignment over your knees if your knees are ahead of your body."

I didn't say the knees were ahead of the body! I said the body was vertically aligned over the knees.

"The weight of the body is over the balls of the feet."

At one point. And soon therafter it is located BEYOND the feet, because the movement of the body weight is CONTINOUS WITHOUT PAUSE.

"You are saying the torso is in front of the feet."

Yes - the bulk of the body, or the torso if your prefer, is over the feet, then it is in front of both feet, then in front of the standing foot... because it keeps moving!

But doesn' t the foot also keep moving. And moving faster than the body. Wouldn't it be easier to say drive your centre forward keep verticl and let the rest look after itself.

"But doesn' t the foot also keep moving. And moving faster than the body."

Yes, but it starts later. So there's a period when the body is over the feet, then a period when it is ahead of both feet, then a period when it is ahead of only the standing foot.

"Wouldn't it be easier to say drive your centre forward keep verticl and let the rest look after itself."

Simplification is great when it works. But a simplified theory can't be used in an argument over details, when the opposition is using a more detialed and accurate model. Go ahead and use the simple model to guide your practice if you want, but don't seek your argument ammuntion from it!

My point about "weight" and "your weight" is simply that, when discussing weight transfer and the like, it's important not to use "your weight" when you just mean "weight"
"your weight is over your foot" means your centre of mass is over the foot. If you say "weight is on your foot", it says nothing about where the centre of mass is. Simnply that there is a force between the foot and the floor.
A lot of arguments are caused by this simple confusion.
And yes, i agree, dancing isn't just the laws of physics. The laws of physics are beautiful in themselves, but they're not dancing.

"My point about "weight" and "your weight" is simply that, when discussing weight transfer and the like, it's important not to use "your weight" when you just mean "weight""

Since the weight is almost always on only one foot at a time, there's really no difference between "your weight" "the weight" and "weight".

Some will argue for split weight at mid stride - I argue very strongly against it, but that' really doesn't matter since we haven't been talking about that part of the action lately. Instead, we've been discussing the first half or so of each step.

"your weight is over your foot" means your centre of mass is over the foot. If you say "weight is on your foot", it says nothing about where the centre of mass is. Simnply that there is a force between the foot and the floor.
A lot of arguments are caused by this simple confusion."

Yes, one must realize that the DURING MOVEMENT the body weight will often not be located over the only foot that is supporting it.

"And yes, i agree, dancing isn't just the laws of physics. The laws of physics are beautiful in themselves, but they're not dancing."

True, but any theory of dancing which obviously violates the laws of physics is obviously in error. That doesn't mean that physically impossible ideas may not sometimes provide useful inspiriation - dancing like anything else is substantially a head game - but one shouldn't go around trumpeting them as revealed truth, when they are in fact false.

Anonymous
Most of what you're saying is technically correct, but i think you've not grasped the point i'm making, which is about the use of English, not the laws of physics. I'll make the point again. When you say "the weight is over your foot" Or "your weight is over your foot" it is usually understood to mean that the body's centre of mass is over the foot. That's the main point i'm making

I meant to add another technical point, since we're talking physics of dancing.
If i lower at the end of '3' in a waltz, the lowering would be about 6 inches (at least) and would occupy about half a beat, i.e. 1/3 seconds. If you do the sums on the average acceleration of such a movement, it works out to be 9ft/sec/sec. i.e. more than 1/4 the acceleration due to gravity. So, in such a movement, the 'weight' on the standing leg would be reduced to less than 75% of your body weight.
It will only be the same as the body's normal weight if there is no vertical movement

"Most of what you're saying is technically correct, but i think you've not grasped the point i'm making, which is about the use of English, not the laws of physics. I'll make the point again. When you say "the weight is over your foot" Or "your weight is over your foot" it is usually understood to mean that the body's centre of mass is over the foot. That's the main point i'm making"

And the point of this thread was to point out that this is exactly what I mean by using the word "over"

In contrast, when I use the word "on" or "in", I mean that the weight, which is really to say the force due to gravity and acceleartion acting on the center of mass, is producing a pressure in the foot. The difference is that this does not necessarily mean that the center of mass is over the foot - in most cases where there is acceleration, in fact most of the time it will mean that the center of mass is NOT over the supporting foot.

In terms of the vertical acceleration of fall lessing your apparent weight, I agree, but would take it further. Championship dancers will fall much more than 6 inches, and so will "weigh" substantially less as they are accelerating downwards to cover this greater distance.

But the flip side of that is that while you weigh less while your downwards speed is increasing, you will weight MORE while your downwards speed is decreasing, which is to say when you start transitioning your movement from vertical to horizontal. At the bottom of the curve, your weight will be substantially more than your static body weight - and again, by a greater factor for championship lowering than it would be for relaxed social movement.

(A championship dancer probably would have a more gradual transition from vertical to horizontal movement though - they aren't going to drop in place and only then move, they will start moving even as they drop)