Tweet
you again offer nothing
stop wasting this topic's time
stop wasting this topic's time
-
-
From my perspective, these highly theoretical calculations really need to include each individual athlete's "numbers", if you are really trying to involve some sort of immutable physical laws.
For instance, on the subject of track hardness.....
1) How many times does a given individual athlete strike the ground during a 100 or 200 metre event?
2) At what particular individual part of their stride are they actually in contact with the track, and for how long?
3) What forces is that individual athlete applying to the task ---- some push more, some pull more, different muscle groups firing differently by each individual ---- how do you calculate that?
4) I'm sure JRM would be able to come in and educate us how the laws of physics will require X amount of energy to propel Y amount of mass over a given distance.
I just think human physiology and anatomy are much more complicated than that. I could be wrong.....I was once
Comment
-
...have proven that JRM's calculator has a Bolt bias (as in the prjudice against bolt percentile). His calculations can remain unknown. No thanks.Comment
-
oh my god !Originally posted by Paul Henry
you don't want him to post an answer because you are frightenened of knowledge he may impart & woud rather remain in ignorance !Comment
-
they are not actually ( within small ranges )Originally posted by rasb...I just think human physiology and anatomy are much more complicated than that. I could be wrong.....I was once
i can offer you a proxy
a 4'01 gal ( in training in her book ) runs 8'22 on the circuit
she has never run a flat-out 10k at that point, but it's extrapolated to ~ 30-flat - see what she runs in munich
all the same doubts you have about anatomy/physiology, etc, you have are also inherent in above extrapolation, but it gave us the correct number
same with energy return in tracks if we get the detailed analysis/methodComment
-
In this day and age of in depth advancements in materail science and measuration, I don't want to hear anything about toy shop rubber balls and ball park estimates to solve the problem of deriving an exact quotient of the dodgy fast track/ slow track effect.
We including eldrick await a smart and competent person to comprehensively
tell us that when a track is labelled fast (with a qutient of R) or slow (by a quotient of S),
that athlete x who ran time y on slow track A
shall run time y-t on a fast track of Quotient yatta yatta yatta.
And vice versa
Until they do (which they will never be able to do) the aspect of slow vs fast track will be a non issue. The reality is more the proof than the thought of the theory of the science. Moral: fast track / slow track is hot air and let us epscially the pundits and commentators leave it as that.Comment
-
What is a "Bolt bias," and how was it proven to have one? (and by whom -- you?).Originally posted by Paul HenryComment
-
...its all in the brackets!!!Originally posted by JRMComment
-
[quote=Paul Henry]...its all in the brackets!!![/quote:29p28wo3]Originally posted by JRM
What is a "bolt percentile," and how was it "proven" to have a bias?Comment
-
....to put an end to it: I've seen several projections/calculations from you that in the face of reality and logic conflictingly does not reflect Bolt's edge or give him such when due. Or you seem to always have answer as why a poster is wrong about a lofty supposition of Bolt.
Your calculations are often subjective
You often use Statistics in place of physics to answer problems of physics...
but anyway loop to the top and join me a quest to find a competent head for the problem at hand, we can take up your misgivings on a another thread dedicated to them.Comment
-
So, you've "proven" nothing about the calculator. I'm not sure what other "calculations" I've presented.Originally posted by Paul Henry
What calculations?Your calculations are often subjective
Many physicists use statistics in lieu of physics when the situation warrants. I assume you are not familiar with the discipline.You often use Statistics in place of physics to answer problems of physics...Comment
-
jrm
i'd like some advice about the formula i suggested & whether it is offering something useful
it just assumes that increase PE returned is converted to increased KE at 100% ( obviously only a perfect machine does that ) & therefore boils down to ( ratio of PEs )^1/2
obviously we are only talking in small ranges as biomechanical restrictions prevent increasing PE being converted fully to KEComment
-
Many physicists use statistics in lieu of physics when the situation warrants. I assume you are not familiar with the discipline.[/quote:ar9dxk51]Originally posted by JRM
DING DING DING, Point I'm trying to make about your calculations. Never mind me not being a physicist. The main aim of the physicist is to solve the problem and make it plausible to the non-such. You my friend, are easily uncovered in subjectivity. But please, loop to top?Comment
-
Point to note: Take it as constructive critique. I have the same comments about the eggheads that said the optimal height for optimum sprinting would not reach as tall as Bolt, But today are saying that the optimum sprinting anatomy/physiology is Bolt's: subjective and an exercise of brain mass that proves nothing and leaves back to square 1 in that debate.
"a child shall lead them" you can brush up on the subjectivity in your work.
P.S. Loop to topComment
-
As JRM said, obviously you know nothing about physics. You're in over your head here PH. Leave it alone.Comment
Comment