Old guy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 ohh yeah ... damn right I will be sweating about opinion of a bonafide troll according to whom FC > ODI B-> for selection in tests fc > odis :P
rkt.india Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 According to this theory Jesse Owens would be as fast as Usain Bolt today? Can anyone explain?
Raghav_12 Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 According to this theory Jesse Owens would be as fast as Usain Bolt today? Can anyone explain? Has been done already, up to certain extent. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1752537&postcount=416 The way this logic of continuity has been applied doesn't prove anything and it's application has been forced fit to come up with pre-determined. Using this kinda logic I can prove that 9.93 equal to 9.58. Calvin Smith held record for 100m dash at start of 80's with 9.93 seconds. But he competed with Ben Johnson and Ben Johnson in turn competed with Carl Lewis and Carl Lewis had one healthy rivalry with Leroy Burrell for long. These guys used to compete with Fredricks who in turn competed with the next champion Donovan Bailley. Donovan Bailley competed with next set of champions like Maurice Green and Tim Montgomery. Later on these guys competed with likes of Gatlin and Asfa Powell. And now Asfa Powell competes with Tyson Gay and Bolt. And we all know that Bolt can run 9.58. So by applied logic of continuity 9.93 = 9.58. However, I won't say this approach is ridiculous. But it overlooks too many factors.
rkt.india Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Has been done already, up to certain extent. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1752537&postcount=416 However, I won't say this approach is ridiculous. But it overlooks too many factors. They just competed but not equal or better than Bolt.
Raghav_12 Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 They just competed but not equal or better than Bolt. This theory of continuity is based on players being in competition with each other rather than being decidedly better..
goose Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Interesting and I understand the logic but can't agree with it. A 5% change in batting conditions every decade, may not sound much, but over 80 odd years amounts to a sport that has changed beyond all recognition.
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Measuring distances is a crucial aspect of Cosmology - for one of the basic questions that Cosmology aims to answer is how big is the universe? There is only a certain extent that regular physical measurements will help out. We possibly cannot construct a measuring tape for the exercise and we cannot possibly travel around freely in the universe. The oldest and one of the most robust methods to measure distances is parallax - the simple idea that if you close your eyes one by one and focus on an object it appears at a different distance.Outsider, I have a couple of technical questions here. I am asking this question out of ignorance and I don't know how this aspect is countered while calculating distances. So please do not insult me or make fun of my lack of basic understanding. This is just an honest, humble question to know better from someone who knows better. So here goes - a. Suppose we want to calculate the distance between the Earth and say a star called StarX. b. So when astronomy chaps publish the distance as say 2 light years does it mean they are considering the average distance between the Earth and StarX from all points of Earth's revolution around the sun? I know when the scale is light years it would hardly matter if the Earth is on this side of the sun in its orbit or that side. But theoretically the distance would be different right....maybe in the order of 0.000000001 light years or even lesser? Next uninformed or dumb question is that a. we know that our solar system is constantly moving in space. By that I mean just like Earth revolves around the Sun, the Sun also revolves around the center of the Milky Way. b. Assuming StarX is also in the Milky Way then even it must be revolving around the center of the Milky Way. c. And it is very rare that two stars will have the same speed of revolution around the central black hole of the Milky Way d. So would this fact affect the calculation of distance? I am assuming it will. Therefore, when they publish the distance of a star from the Earth/Sun then we laymen must interpret it as the distance only at that given point in time and space, right?
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 If Hutton was an acceptable standard candle then so was Bradman. He was a great towering above his contemporaries. Would he have averaged 99.94 today? Probably not' date=' [b']but he would still have been distinctly better than anyone today.In the spirit of debate would you be willing to have a conversation with me to test that theory? I will not talk about any of my analysis at all. Let us only examine your deductions and the logical process behind it - that's all. Of course keeping the insults and ad hominems away. I also request other members of ICF not to make any inflammatory comments. Outsider, you already know that when it comes to opinions I do not consider any one opinion as being greater or lesser than any other opinion. Some opinions are stronger and rely on facts whereas some are not. I am not at all challenging your opinion or saying your opinion is better or worse than mine. I am only asking you if you would be willing to test the rationale that led to your opinion. I am not as learned as you are in some subjects but for the purpose of this particular item I don't think we need more than some little information on logical argumentation and the common fallacies that we make in our arguments. Please do not put me down if you do ot want to involve yourself. You have the choice of rejecting my invitation in a decent manner. Treat me in the same way as you would want other human beings to treat you. Other folks, sincerely request you to refrain from mud slinging either at Outsider or at me. Let us give a decent debate a chance once more. I beg of you not to make inflammatory comments or make personal comments on either of us and reign in that temporary urge for the ego kick. Edit - In fact I request Mods to reign in any mud slinging, "wise cracks" made to insult either Outsider or me or whatever we may argue. There is no winner or loser in this debate / conversation. Just that we would have a civilized way of debating our viewpoints and so that others can read it without having to search through the filth hurled at each other in order to understand the point.
zen Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Let's see who is laughing at the end when your supposed attempt to "rape my online existence" falls flat yet again.:winky: Reminds me of the guy below:
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 Outsider, I have a couple of technical questions here. I am asking this question out of ignorance and I don't know how this aspect is countered while calculating distances. So please do not insult me or make fun of my lack of basic understanding. This is just an honest, humble question to know better from someone who knows better. So here goes - a. Suppose we want to calculate the distance between the Earth and say a star called StarX. b. So when astronomy chaps publish the distance as say 2 light years does it mean they are considering the average distance between the Earth and StarX from all points of Earth's revolution around the sun? I know when the scale is light years it would hardly matter if the Earth is on this side of the sun in its orbit or that side. But theoretically the distance would be different right....maybe in the order of 0.000000001 light years or even lesser? Next uninformed or dumb question is that a. we know that our solar system is constantly moving in space. By that I mean just like Earth revolves around the Sun, the Sun also revolves around the center of the Milky Way. b. Assuming StarX is also in the Milky Way then even it must be revolving around the center of the Milky Way. c. And it is very rare that two stars will have the same speed of revolution around the central black hole of the Milky Way d. So would this fact affect the calculation of distance? I am assuming it will. Therefore, when they publish the distance of a star from the Earth/Sun then we laymen must interpret it as the distance only at that given point in time and space, right?Outsider, the above clarifications I have sought from you are independent of the invitation to debate. These questions as you can see are only to clear my own understanding and since you are a subject matter expert I think you would be the right person to help clarify my doubts
achilles Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Jersey #10 Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 What a bunch of BS in the OP :haha: This guy really knows how to stretch a topic until he goes insane. To my surprise, he acts like one of the "smart" people on the forum. This online wold never fails to amaze me.
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 28, 2011 Posted December 28, 2011 What a bunch of BS in the OP :haha: This guy really knows how to stretch a topic until he goes insane. To my surprise, he acts like one of the "smart" people on the forum. This online wold never fails to amaze me.I read the blog post again. To be honest I think he has a point although I do not agree with the conclusion / inference where he says If Hutton was an acceptable standard candle then so was Bradman. He was a great towering above his contemporaries. Would he have averaged 99.94 today? Probably not, but he would still have been distinctly better than anyone today. Making analogies to drive home a point is a valid way of extending an argument. We can always show that the analogy is not accurately characterizing the main point. I think the way to carry forward the debate would be to ask for clarifications and engage the person in a decent, free from insults, conversation. Transparent, the following is not in response to your post - I am aware of this history as far as the debates on ICF of who is the greatest batsman in Test cricket is concerned and how vitriolic and personal they tend to get. The following point is not directed at anyone in particular but to everyone who is involved in these debates and discussions. Maybe we can all make ourselves aware of the golden rule (behave with others the way you would like them to behave with you) when we respond to the opposite person's argument? What is the point in just saying that the opposite person's opinion is all trash without justifying it with reasons to believe so? By providing reasons to believe that the opposite person's opinions are not exactly logical it will possibly further the discussion. Guys, internet gives us anonymity and helps us express our opinions like no other medium does. But we are all equal human beings at the end of the day...why not restrain ourselves from making generic put downs, insulting each other? We owe to ourselves to make our conversations more meaningful and less of vitriol. Humor is good and it is great to ease the tensions but vitriolic humor (for example like say some of my posts and Rett's posts in the Sachin is the best debate) just makes the threads turn into virtual violence. rant> Phew...this time around it was the Upanashids that got to me. It's funny coz I don't even know Snaskrit...lol!
akshayxyz Posted December 28, 2011 Posted December 28, 2011 I read the blog post again. To be honest I think he has a point although I do not agree with the conclusion / inference where he says Making analogies to drive home a point is a valid way of extending an argument. We can always show that the analogy is not accurately characterizing the main point. I think the way to carry forward the debate would be to ask for clarifications and engage the person in a decent, free from insults, conversation. Transparent, the following is not in response to your post - I am aware of this history as far as the debates on ICF of who is the greatest batsman in Test cricket is concerned and how vitriolic and personal they tend to get. The following point is not directed at anyone in particular but to everyone who is involved in these debates and discussions. Maybe we can all make ourselves aware of the golden rule (behave with others the way you would like them to behave with you) when we respond to the opposite person's argument? What is the point in just saying that the opposite person's opinion is all trash without justifying it with reasons to believe so? By providing reasons to believe that the opposite person's opinions are not exactly logical it will possibly further the discussion. Guys, internet gives us anonymity and helps us express our opinions like no other medium does. But we are all equal human beings at the end of the day...why not restrain ourselves from making generic put downs, insulting each other? We owe to ourselves to make our conversations more meaningful and less of vitriol. Humor is good and it is great to ease the tensions but vitriolic humor (for example like say some of my posts and Rett's posts in the Sachin is the best debate) just makes the threads turn into virtual violence. rant> Phew...this time around it was the Upanashids that got to me. It's funny coz I don't even know Snaskrit...lol! let PK do what he is best at.. you are spoiling the fun by trying to be like typical bollywood hero ( who does comedy too)
The Outsider Posted December 28, 2011 Author Posted December 28, 2011 Outsider, the above clarifications I have sought from you are independent of the invitation to debate. These questions as you can see are only to clear my own understanding and since you are a subject matter expert I think you would be the right person to help clarify my doubts Yaar, I am enjoying the mountains of Tahoe during my vacation and barely get the time or inclination to check up on my mails, let alone get into some involved discussion on Bradman and Tendulkar. But, yeah, I will reply to your earlier posts in due course. EDIT: BTW, yeah Jesse Owens would have been able to run much faster than he did with modern training , shoes, equipment, and tracks. Would he have been able to beat Bolt? Can't say because Bolt, himself is an an outlier, but Tendulkar is not. If you guys think that the speed of running speeds have improved primarily due to some genetic modifications in humans over the last 40 years, keep up with the foolishness.
Lurker Posted December 28, 2011 Posted December 28, 2011 Yaar' date='[b'] I am enjoying the mountains of Tahoe during my vacation and barely get the time or inclination to check up on my mails, let alone get into some involved discussion on Bradman and Tendulkar. But, yeah, I will reply to your earlier posts in due course. Enjoy Tahoe, keep away from morons who seems to be as much obsessed by you as they are with SRT. Just did a 10 day road trip myself. Would do a bit of write up. How about a travellogue about Tahoe? That should be far more interesting than trying to explain to bhakt-gans why God is a mere mortal perhaps?
The Outsider Posted December 28, 2011 Author Posted December 28, 2011 ^ The weather has sucked - there is hardly any snow for skiing and it's been cloudy with a constant drizzle to hamper any serious hiking. Will probably drive down to the Bay Area and meet up with old friends. Will try to catch up with Bumper and post pics of our fist fight during our discussion of Bradman!
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 28, 2011 Posted December 28, 2011 Yaar' date=' I am enjoying the mountains of Tahoe during my vacation and barely get the time or inclination to check up on my mails, let alone get into some involved discussion on Bradman and Tendulkar. But, yeah, I will reply to your earlier posts in due course.[/quote']Enjoy your vacation!
Jersey #10 Posted December 28, 2011 Posted December 28, 2011 in before the fool with rpt replies to this ^
Recommended Posts