The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 International sport :hmmm:. Sports played between two countries? Major flaw in study. LOL! As if it's played by 50 countries now. There are barely 5-6 competitive test teams even today. I suppose it also makes Michael Jordan a crappy player. After all his achievements are in a domestic competition of one country.
Raghav_12 Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 LOL! As if it's played by 50 countries now. There are barely 5-6 competitive test teams even today. I suppose it also makes Michael Jordan a crappy player. After all his achievements are in a domestic competition of one country. Will not comment on MJ thing as I don't follow Basketball much. On previous comment, at any given point of any sports would have only 5-6 teams at the top of the ladder. That doesn't mean sport has become less competitive. Around 90% of grandslams in last 6 years have been won by two guy but that doesn't mean sports have become less competitive. And yes, Cricket might not have strong following in some 50-60 coutries, but it is much-much more competitive than the times of Bradman.
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 On previous comment, at any given point of any sports would have only 5-6 teams at the top of the ladder. That doesn't mean sport has become less competitive. Around 90% of grandslams in last 6 years have been won by two guy but that doesn't mean sports have become less competitive. And yes, Cricket might not have strong following in some 50-60 coutries, but it is much-much more competitive than the times of Bradman. Physics was also less competitive in Einstein's time.
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 It will take some time for me to analyse this and respond but in the mean time can you tell me who is faster, lethal AND more accurate between Lindwall and Steyn /Thommo/Lillee/McGrath ? heres my overall rating out of 10 Steyn 9.9 McGrath 9.7 ( Gets 10/10 as far as accuracy is concerned ) Lillee 9.4 Thommo 9.0 Lindwall 6.0 ( Gets 5/10 as far as accuracy is concerned ) Miller 5.0 Overall as bowlers I would rate : 1. McGrath - 9.5 2. Lillee - 9.0 3. Steyn - 8.5 3. Lindwall - 8.5 5. Thompson - 8.0 5. Miller - 8.0
Raghav_12 Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Physics was also less competitive in Einstein's time. Why so? I don't think. PS - There is no point in making posts, just for the sake of doing so. This episode of debate has been relatively civilized and more to the point till now, so better if we stay on the same.
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Why so? I don't think. PS - There is no point in making posts, just for the sake of doing so. This episode of debate has been relatively civilized and more to the point till now, so better if we stay on the same. The number of trained Physicists from top institutes is much higher today than in Einstein's time. It has also become a better paid profession since his time to attract a better talent pool. There is a much higher degree of professionalism and facilities available today than in Einstein's time. Students learn a lot more advanced concepts much earlier today than in Einstein's time. PS : What did I say which is uncivilized?
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Just to clarify ... I rated them based on a hypothetical scenario that they all are bowling at todays Indian Test batting lineup. Let me know if you want to revise your rating accordingly. Sorry for the confusion. I don't do comparisons and ratings by placing players in hypothetical time machines.
akshayxyz Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 The number of trained Physicists from top institutes is much higher today than in Einstein's time. It has also become a better paid profession since his time to attract a better talent pool. There is a much higher degree of professionalism and facilities available today than in Einstein's time. Students learn a lot more advanced concepts much earlier today than in Einstein's time. PS : What did I say which is uncivilized? Do you realize the difference between 'classical physics', 'modern physics' , 'modern specializations' in modern universities, and other factors like the differences in preferences of "top IQ pool" in various times/eras/demographies? e.g. few decades back,(at least in India) ,Mechanical Engineering was one of the top branches of choice among science students (after class XII), whereas today Computer Science is usually first choice when one gets a high rank in Engineering entrance exam such as JEE. As I said - learn to realize and work with in your limitations - instead of coming up with such nonsensical off-topic stuff.
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Do you realize the difference between 'classical physics', 'modern physics' , 'modern specializations' in modern universities, and other factors like the differences in preferences of "top IQ pool" in various times/eras/demographies? Yes I think I do understand the difference between different branches of Physics. e.g. few decades back,(at least in India) ,Mechanical Engineering was one of the top branches of choice among science students (after class XII), whereas today Computer Science is usually first choice when one gets a high rank in Engineering entrance exam such as JEE. How is that relevant to my post that Physics draws from a bigger, more competitive pool today than in Einstein's time? As I said - learn to realize and work with in your limitations - instead of coming up with such nonsensical off-topic stuff. You really can't lay off personal remarks, can you?
CSK Fan Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Physics was also less competitive in Einstein's time. Except in science, you are not competiting against your peers(other scientists), you are competing against the universe, and the universe has remained constant during the lifetime of human beings.
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Except in science' date=' you are not competiting against your peers(other scientists), you are competing against the universe, and the universe has remained constant during the lifetime of human beings.[/quote'] That's completely wrong. Of course, you are competing with your peers right from gaining admission to the best institute, to working with the best possible adviser, to getting and publishing your results before your peers, to competing for grants which are going to sustain your research, to getting a good faculty or research position etc. etc.
akshayxyz Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 How is that relevant to my post that Physics draws from a bigger, more competitive pool today than in Einstein's time? Open a separate thread and we can discuss. You really can't lay off personal remarks, can you? Well - if my memory serves right in this thread, you/rett started personal remarks. (hilarity, stupidity and so on...)
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 lol ...then how else is the question of All time great going to be discussed. What is the basis on which this gets discussed other than who can shout the loudest and longest or whoever can produce the most column-square inches for a player ? I have balked at the 'putting in time machine' criteria multiple times in this very thread. You are acting as if this is the first time I've mentioned it. I've also listed the criterion on the basis of which I feel Bradman is the greatest batsman ever previously. Can't be bothered to write it down again. Search through my posts on the topic and you should have your answer. The moment you nominate someone as an Alltime great and claim that he would avg 75 today you are indeed doing a across the era comparison. That is not why I consider Bradman to the greatest batsman. As I said read through my previous posts and you will get to know my reasons.
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Open a separate thread and we can discuss. You can do the honors if you want. I am pretty happy with the above answer which translates to 'I have no idea, but had to babble something'. Well - if my memory serves right in this thread, you/rett started personal remarks. (hilarity, stupidity and so on...) I can't think of any other word to describe how combining two samples with average less than 100 can give a sample with average greater than 100. Not that the personal remarks bother me, was just pointing out.
akshayxyz Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 You can do the honors if you want. I am pretty happy with the above answer which translates to 'I have no idea, but had to babble something'. I shall exercise my wishes when and the ones I want to. It was a suggestion for you, since you were interested in discussing physics/newton and stuff that had very little or no relevance with this topic. Also, you are free/entitled to believe in whatever gives you happiness. And that applies to everyone. I can't think of any other word to describe how combining two samples with average less than 100 can give a sample with average greater than 100. Not that the personal remarks bother me, was just pointing out. There are many words one can use to point out a mistake, especially when the carelessness is obvious from the sarcastic vein of the statement(s). It can be due to one of the following: a) limitation of your vocabulary ( or momentary lapse of it) b) your lack (perhaps momentary) of identifying sarcasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm#Understanding) Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism,[11] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.[12][13] c) There are few more possibilities I can think of, but perhaps do not apply to you. Also - you can happily bring the reference to this mistake whenever you do not have a valid argument to counter my point. However, be advised that it will be one of the cheapest possible example of "argumentum ad hominem".
The Outsider Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 ^ Despite your lengthy and well intentioned explanation, I will stick to my original stance of stupidity. Thanks for the effort in typing up the above though.
Raghav_12 Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 The number of trained Physicists from top institutes is much higher today than in Einstein's time. It has also become a better paid profession since his time to attract a better talent pool. There is a much higher degree of professionalism and facilities available today than in Einstein's time. Students learn a lot more advanced concepts much earlier today than in Einstein's time. PS : What did I say which is uncivilized? Nothing. It was just a reminder to everybody to cut short on personal comments.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now