I had to Google Howard Cosell. He died the same year I was born. If that's your best example, you're as bad at supporting your arguments as you are at math.
Run a race and you might get some respect on this board.
In fact I challenge you to a 1000m race.
ventolin^3 wrote:
tnevnilo wrote:If Coe reaches the circle faster than requiered (I don't want to check since it's with absolutely no interest for the question) it just would proof that he has run some extra distanceutterly clueless about maths
the waterfall start means the tangent from it, the shortest path, reaches inner lane 1 at 15m
if he cut in earlier, he woud no longer be running a straight line to reach this 15m point but approximately on 2 sides of an isosceles triangle
extra distance compared to straight-line/tangent
Maybe you can just explain what's an "cut in" point on a straight line?
if you don't know what the "cut in " comment means in respect to this problem, you have absolutely no clue about this topic
You have also said that all the tangents from the starting line would reach the circle 15m inside the race. Well, every point has just one tangent. Two different tangents can't reach the circle in the same point
it beggars belief how little you seem to know about maths
can't you comprehend that any tangent from any part of the waterfall start reaches inner lane 1 by 15m ???
can't you comprehend that in this problem there exists a convergence point of an infinite number of different tangents from the arc representing the waterfall start???
The start from an evolvente (or involute) guarantees exactly this: when running on the tangent (a straight line) to the curb (to be exact: 30cm outside of it) the distance you have run is exactly the same then when running completely at the curb (to be more precise: 30cm outside of it). This follows directly from the construction of this evolvente (and for sure thats exactly the reason why they use this sort of starting line).
And yes, I really can't comprehend that every tangent from the starting line reaches inner lane 1 by 15m - because it's obviously not the case. The more outside you start, the more distance is required to reach inner lane.
Interesting to see that you now come up with some "convergence point". For a mathematical problem which could be totally understood using a tin can and a twine.
I challenged you to a 1000m race not a math competition. This is a running website, not math.
Dreamweaver1 wrote:The 200m stager for lane two is less than 4 meters. NN was in the outside of lane one for most of that first bend
& he started race in outer lane 4 & had to work his way to outer lane 1 at maybe 12s
How the hell do you figure he ran an extra 6 meters on that first bend?
i suggest you try & work out the stagger in lane 4, or even outer lane 4 & think some more from there
You're wrong and unwilling to admit it because you're a stubborn fool
you obviously haven't thought this "problem" thru properly
Eveyone who watches that video clearly sees that NN did not run an extra 6 meters on that first bend
"watching" is not the same as "watching & then calculating"
- calculate the stagger in lane 4
- calculate the stagger in lane 2
- calculate average of above
- knock off 1.25m for waterfall forward start in outter lane 4
- knock off another 0.5m for dipping into lane 1 late on
Trqck wrote:I had to Google Howard Cosell. He died the same year I was born. If that's your best example, you're as bad at supporting your arguments as you are at math
kid
this comment shows you really haven't a clue about sport
Run a race and you might get some respect on this board
did howard cosell ever run a track race ?
In fact I challenge you to a 1000m race
kid
i have socks older than you
nevnilot wrote:The start from an evolvente (or involute) guarantees exactly this: when running on the tangent (a straight line) to the curb (to be exact: 30cm outside of it) the distance you have run is exactly the same then when running completely at the curb (to be more precise: 30cm outside of it). This follows directly from the construction of this evolvente (and for sure thats exactly the reason why they use this sort of starting line)
why are you stating the absolutely obvious ???
it doesn't make you look any smarter
& for your poor nomenclature : we are looking for the convergence of the perperpendiculars of the tangents to the waterfall arc
And yes, I really can't comprehend that every tangent from the starting line reaches inner lane 1 by 15m - because it's obviously not the case
yes it is
impress me
give me the detailed calculation for the convergence of the perpendiculars
The more outside you start, the more distance is required to reach inner lane
utter nonsense
this ridiculous statement contradicts the whole concept of convergence of the perpendiculars which is the whole purpose of the waterfall & shows you know nothing about this topic
Interesting to see that you now come up with some "convergence point". For a mathematical problem which could be totally understood using a tin can and a twine
from your above it is clear you understand nothing
You are terrible at applying math to a real event. NN started in lane 4 and quickly got to the outside of lane one, in the first 20 meters or so. He then ran the rest of that first bend in the outside of lane one. The video clearly shows this.
Taking the average of the lane 4 stagger and the lane 2 stagger would calculate the distance of someone taking the entire bend to slowly move from lane four, into lane three, running there for a while, then slowly moving into lane two and running there for the rest of the bend. That did not happen.
Cosell said of himself, "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a showoff. There's no question that I'm all of those things."
Sound familiar?
You're nothing but a cowardly keyboard warrior. You're too old and pathetic to take up my 1000m challenge. Also, you might want to get yourself some new socks.
Real math wrote:You are terrible at applying math to a real event
no
NN started in lane 4 and quickly got to the outside of lane one in the first 20 meters or so
no
that is not the case
he had 2 guys inside of him 7s into race with 1 of them behind him but still vid indicates 2 body widths were inside him
He then ran the rest of that first bend in the outside of lane one
nonsense
The video clearly shows this
no
the vid only definitely shows him in outer lane 1 at 12s & 2 body widths inside him at 7s
the markings of the lanes are not clear prior to this & more emphasise has to be assigned to relative placements compared to other guys
Taking the average of the lane 4 stagger and the lane 2 stagger would calculate the distance of someone taking the entire bend to slowly move from lane four, into lane three, running there for a while, then slowly moving into lane two and running there for the rest of the bend
no
someone suggested lane 2 & i used that as example
i said outer lane 4 to outer lane 1, which still requires a smooth straight-line move from outer-4 to outer-1 for shortest route which requires average taking which is clearly beyond you
the question is when he reached near lane 2 line & vid shows only that definitely he was in outer-1 at 12s & at 7s there were 2 body widths between him & kerb
That did not happen
no
vid gives evidence that is how he did it :
outer-4 to outer 1 in 12s & straight line is shortest route
It didn't take him the entire bend to cut from lane 4 to the outside of lane one. You're math is flawed because you fail to grasp this reality.
Trqck wrote:
I had to Google Howard Cosell.
I wouldn't go around broadcasting that. He's well known. Before my time too, but I still know him.
I'm not siding with ventolin, who's the biggest idiot on this board, just saying you don't want to revel in your own ignorance.
ventolin^3 wrote:
nevnilot wrote:The start from an evolvente (or involute) guarantees exactly this: when running on the tangent (a straight line) to the curb (to be exact: 30cm outside of it) the distance you have run is exactly the same then when running completely at the curb (to be more precise: 30cm outside of it). This follows directly from the construction of this evolvente (and for sure thats exactly the reason why they use this sort of starting line)why are you stating the absolutely obvious ???
The more outside you start, the more distance is required to reach inner lane
utter nonsense
this ridiculous statement contradicts the whole concept of convergence of the perpendiculars which is the whole purpose of the waterfall & shows you know nothing about this topic
I stated the absolute obvious just because with all your posts you clearly showed that you havn't got this at all.
My last statement is a fact which should be understandable for the average 12y old:
http://www.portaleso.com/portaleso/trabajos/tecnologia/mecanica/elementos_de_maquinas/evolvente.jpgNot old and stupid wrote:It didn't take him the entire bend to cut from lane 4 to the outside of lane one
no one said that
it takes him until 12s to definitely get in outer-1
You're math is flawed because you fail to grasp this reality
no
watch vid properly
ventolin^3 wrote:
cool kid wrote:think they could hit Ngeny's WR of 2:11.96? A guy can dream right?that really was a really poor run from him, compared to 1s+ faster he shouda ideally run if not running a ridiculous 6+m extra in 1st 200m, still splitting a suicidal 49.8+ & with a 3'29.1 crumbling his legs from just 44 hours before !!!
1k times are very weak due to infrequency of event
Kip's 2'14.9i is a decent wr
( it's probably worth ~ 2'12-flat/low outdoors based on
adjusted from 1'41.11 / 1'42.67i in same season but latter had no pacing & after rounds, whilst former was no way as good as his 1'41.24 prior off suicidal 23.0/48.3 !!! )
i'm not going to speculate on indoors, but for outdoors, any 1'44.0 / 3'32.0 guy shoud be potentially capable of :
2'14.1
multiply by suggested 2'14.9/2'12-flat/low for indoors suggests a "potential" time for these guys at
~ 2'17.0
Lol exactly 2:17.00 for centro
i have to disclaim this
my final offer for centro was 2'18i low/mid
( 2'17.0i is astonishing speed for an endurance guy )
if he is running 2'17.0i, he is in currently outdoor ~
~ 1'45-flat
( without knowing particulars
was it flat-out, even-paced 1k ? )
you can watch here
Splits: 53, 1:50. 2:17 is okay, for indoors. For outdoors, it wouldn't impress me much. Remember how Crammie ran 2:16, 2:15, every season. Of course, Centrowitz is not in that league...
Ventolin, this picture was provided to you:
http://www.portaleso.com/portaleso/trabajos/tecnologia/mecanica/elementos_de_maquinas/evolvente.jpg
Ventolin, can you please explain why all the lines from point 2 to 2, from 3 to 3 and so on, are of the same length? You have said this numerous times. I'm not sure, but to me the line from point 6 to 6 seems to be just a little bit longer than the line from point 2 to 2. I know you are an expert for this, so please explain.
tnevnilo_3 wrote:
Ventolin, this picture was provided to you:
http://www.portaleso.com/portaleso/trabajos/tecnologia/mecanica/elementos_de_maquinas/evolvente.jpgVentolin, can you please explain why all the lines from point 2 to 2, from 3 to 3 and so on, are of the same length? You have said this numerous times. I'm not sure, but to me the line from point 6 to 6 seems to be just a little bit longer than the line from point 2 to 2. I know you are an expert for this, so please explain.
The 30cm ting is irrelevant . The circumference in this example is the line the surveyor took in measuring the track and is where one must run to cover exactly one lap in the shortest distance possible.
The distance from point 6 prime to point 6 is equal to the distance from 2 prime to 2 plus the distance along the circumference from point 2 to point 6. That means that to get to point 6 on the circumference all runners will have covered the same exact distance when starting from a waterfall line.
Absent any numbers of natural laws at point 6 on the circumference every runner would merge into one imaginary multiperson person running along the circumference.
