I bet all of us already had our shoelaces tied tight to recreate that jump, too. thank god you talked us all down.

"Us" as in 10 usual people reading that post and 50 lurking or something etc. Even if only 1% chance per person out of curiosity and over the lifetime of the thread even months later (more people possibly) may add up to indeed a risk someone not very fit did it and hurt themselves. There is a difference between playing and exercising and actually trying to test your limits on something by offering maximum sudden effort.

lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_tendon_rupture

Achilles tendon rupture is when the achilles tendon breaks. The achilles is the most commonly injured tendon. Rupture can occur while performing actions requiring explosive acceleration, such as pushing off or jumping.

We are imagining a person jumping. That person would include a standard brain that will do the necessary calculations of which direction is optimal for maximum vertical leap. What feels like "up" won't be perpendicular to the surface, and we don't even need the jumper to have a vague understanding of gravity and centripetal force for them to get it right.

The jumper will have the benefit of a centripetal force of (71m/s)^2/487,300m ~= .01m/s^2. Seems to be fairly trivial to calculate how much higher he will be able to jump...

The "shooting the whole way around" thing isn't meant to be a serious-minded attempt at engineering a solution. We don't have the ability to shoot an unguided projectile with sufficient accuracy to hit a melon-sized object approximately 3,000km away. There are all sorts of details that are regularly ignored or simplified in such discussions, such as whether you can breath one Ceres, the topology of the oblate spheroid, how distorted the gravity is from place to place, etc. It is just fun to think about.

Given that I had already mentioned that I wasn't taking into the rotation of Ceres, I can't imagine that you could possibly think that I didn't think that it ought be taken into account.

Not at all understanding how you are "helping me see the complex nature" of things. Are there Newtonian physics laws that they keep secret until you get into graduate level physics coursework? If so, it would be nice if you brought them up.

You think my joke about hydrogen was some great slam of your intellect?!? That I was ridiculing you?!?

Clearly, you were slamming Zeno's intellect by not considering that the Nazis had manufacturing/extraction facilities in their bunkers in Ceres. That is how you are thinking about my post, so you must agree, right?!? I can assure you that he did not even remotely consider the idea that you were ridiculing him, given that he was being purposefully ridiculous.

No. I was making a nerdy joke as a follow-up to your nerdy joke. Nothing more and nothing less.

I can see how "Hydrogen costs approximately $10/kg, so the sun doesn't exist?!? " could be offensive in a language in which "so the sun doesn't exist" means "your mom is so fat that her hydrogen content would cost $151.14."*

Outside of that, I fail to see how any offense from it can be remotely considered reasonable.

*that would put her at about 350 lbs.

Brian feel free to ask any undergrad in any science program anywhere in the planet to answer the homework i suggested above about trajectories if you think its all trivially easy to not be worthy of discussing (even within an error of 10 m in how close it comes back to you). I bet the success rate is less than 5%. And i am glad you had all these things in mind when you said what you said and not well after i opened the can of worms...

Also realize if i responded to Zeno's joke by simply estimating how big the white material can be and then told him see how you were wrong and nothing else, i would look like a dickhead. Like some moron that doesnt get a joke and in a nitty way has to be the smart ass failing to see the humor that is essentially a cute strike against the nazi leadership (but also the heavy industrious nature of the population during war) that in WW2 were pretty much so depressed by what they had going living in bunkers while the world was crumbling around them that needed drugs to get through their existence...Zeno has the best of humor often because of his well rounded education and reading habits and that will never be missed with me. But it would have been missed if i didnt play as i did to any observer and even him if i appeared so "rigid" which is exactly what a true nerd is all about. A proper scientist, a sensible thinker shouldnt be like that because such people are not at all nerds (socially cruel or totally awkward) moreover how others may simplistically want to see them (Einstein or Bertrand Russel were not nerds for example ). Now tell me how socially cruel it is to post and not care for how others are seeing things...

Its funny that you cant still see the failed logic in introducing hydrogen in this though in the way done in all its short detail. To persist on it makes me now look nitty of course maybe petty too but i am aware of it and do it only because it matters for you to get why i said what i did about it. It would have been remarkably cute and in style though if you said what you said and then added this will be a corrective letter submitted to the international journal of Paraconsistent logic or something like that...

I didn't say it wasn't worth discussing. I loved that sort of thing when I was a kid and still do.

No. No one would have thought you were a dickhead for that. No one could possibly think that you didn't get that Zeno was being silly, or think that you were making a genuine and serious argument refuting his claim that Nazis live on bunkers on Ceres with a cocaine hoard.

If such a person did exist, they'd have some serious problems that would necessitate 24-hour caretaking.

Huh? I think you read more into his post than was intended. He was going for saying something absurd and creating an amusing visualization, and there was nothing even approaching a socio-political or economic statement.

The funny bit was that you were pretending to take his claim seriously and refute it. Everyone between here and Ceres got that.

You are using the phrase "failed logic" in a manner in which I am unaccustomed. What particular logical rule did I break?

Come on now i have explained many times.

It is failed because you are trying to strike the cocaine size/cost argument with a sun/hydrogen counterexample. But the example fails. It fails because cocaine is not naturally abundant. It is not produced in big numbers during the Big Bang for example. A lot of organic molecules, even some elaborate ones do exist actually our there naturally in space but i doubt that includes something as exotic as cocaine that requires life to synthesize it. If your argument was successful you would have proven that mine was stupid to have used cost to argue it cant be real. That would be true if for example Zeno had argued that this is actually diamonds. If i had argued against them due to Germans unable to extract from earth as much as needed to cover that area you could have argued there are a lot of diamonds on earth's interior, a lot more than has even been found in mines etc. Or it could have been palladium (another expensive shinny element far more expensive than Hydrogen even) that even exists in the sun likely as rare element in quantities much larger than ever extracted from earth's crust, so you would argue the sun doesnt exist according to my cost argument.

If order for your joke to make sense it either needs to confirm its failed logic as part of the joke by adding as sarcasm eg the journal i suggested or you needed me to have used something like palladium or diamonds to make the case of cost.

Is it not clear now?

But we need to end all this or take it to PM because i resent having to waste the thread of Ceres on unrelated stupid tangents like that.

No. You have said that you don't like it. You haven't said anything about an informal or formal logical error. All informal and formal logical errors have names. Name the informal or formal logical error. As a person highly interested in the logics, it shouldn't be hard.

I am just trying to get you to see all of the complexities involved. It is good for others to see you find them.

No need to worry about wasting the thread. It is an infinitely renewable resource.

On an unrelated stupid tangent, the Arnold Palmer golf classic is coming up and I believe it's being held this year on dual courses in the white spots on Ceres.


PairTheBoard

A kind of False Analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

Also note than whenever i post on something worthy to describe in some detail i am not necessarily talking to you only (or whoever i am technically responding to) but anyone that might be reading this also. So when you said what you did about striking your back i introduced the complexities of the real life problem to show how the effort to get a trajectory to match starting and ending point on a rotating planet after also turning around at least once is not a trivial problem, it requires some significant process to answer it and even further to answer it optimally (the smallest possible speed, but even that turns big enough to not be possible within human capacity here - but maybe doable in other smaller systems with proper aiming why not).

Who said that because the physics is Newtonian eg Newton himself could have answered it back then easily or at all in all possible aspects of it (even in simplified systems or only spheroid geometry and no mountains etc or by ignoring small gravitational corrections due to not perfect symmetry in the distribution of mass that produces the exact gravitational field). A separate problem is even to ask how much the fact the geometry is not that of a true spheroid for example can affect the trajectory. The standard Kepler problem doesnt take into account for example the exact solid body source distribution but its doesnt turn out to be a horrible source of error to assume the planet is basically like a point source in that regard. Not however when using satellites for very accurate processes. Then you clearly have the need to investigate this further ie here like this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopotential_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGM96

Close! Try again!

Here is a hint: I didn't make an analogy!

I am all about the engineering aspect of things. I am also about knowing that you aren't really the audience when I type stuff in your general direction.

Given the data, some time and decent calculation machines, he could have figured it out.

I already said that you should be bringing stuff like this up. That you would rather focus on someone stating that the sun is really really big as possibly being a personal attack on you is beyond me.

It is an attempt to ridicule the lengthy argument quoted above it in a single line. I dare you to claim its not that. Then tell me what it is. The line fails because the sun/hydrogen analogy doesnt match the cocaine/nazis case (natural substance vs synthetic one). I already explained why a platinum or diamonds case might have made your line ok though. Or the addition of the journal suggested to be self sarcastic as the tangent was all about making false claims that are only partially correct and cute looking.

This is no longer worth my time though. Case closed for me or take it to PM.

I claim quite strongly that it wasn't ridicule.

I will quite happily answer the rest once you find an actual [b]logical[b] error that I made and show me that I made it, rather than just posting a random logical error and hoping that it is close enough to pass inspection.

You have given nothing more than complaints instead of demonstrating a logical error by me, and while quite interesting on a personal note since I care about you, I am not quite willing to let you slide here. I have confidence that you have the tools to determine the difference between you not liking my statement and finding a logical error in it.

To help you out, you made an argument from ignorance when you presume that the street cost of cocaine is the production cost of cocaine (the true production/extraction costs on earth are just slightly more than nothing).

Just how long have you two been married, anyway?

Finally. Thanks, my friend.

I never made an argument about cost of production. Only value of the product. I then quickly argued in terms of mass per citizen of the planet of that era to show implausibility. It was a mass argument really. Too much per human impossible to have produced it as it would have resulted in such a huge economic entity (if they could maintain prices when its so abundant that is not true of course in general unless still prohibited)

If your post was an attempt to strike the argument it quoted it did so using the false analogy between cocaine and hydrogen. Your idea was that if hydrogen is as expensive as 10$/kgr the sun has so much of it (2*10^30) that it exceeds all money so it couldn't have existed. That is like assuming that the sun has to be created by people that use money to buy the hydrogen and take it there (excluding assembly also lol as the sun requires assembly that humans are hard to provide as it is lol so even further logical issue) . Hydrogen is natural element. Cocaine is synthetic and requires indeed a process to produce and sell it that the value results in 25k per kgr (i dont care if the cost is 100/kgr at the poor person cultivating/picking the plant and the intermediaries that do the chemistry whatever 100-200-1000 to them and the rest is profit for the scumbags that market it and distribute it. The point is that it requires life to be produced and hydrogen doesnt.

What was the purpose of the comment you made if its not at attempt to discredit/ridicule/mock/be critical/argue against etc the statement above it?

You cry wolf too many times guess what happens in the end Mr. king of sarcasm.

Still waiting to hear what the logical error was. I made no argument from analogy. Here is a hint: a question is not an argument.

You seem keenly interested in what I have to say. I've laid out the path for you to get what you want 3 or 4 times now. Name the logical error that you keep claiming I made and show me that I made it. There are alternate paths to getting what you want from me irt me answering your questions, but those should be obvious.

0 seconds. If i was married to a woman that played this way i would be gone in record time even if the sex was great and her IQ brilliant. Love is dead within weeks. And i would have made sure we didnt have kids if i found out even hints of this endless affection for arguments early on. I do not live to argue over bs issues. This is getting there. Every argument i ever had with BTM is initiated by him. I have virtually never gone after him first ridiculing/mocking anything he ever said. Whenever he tried to say something in a constructive direct no games and jokes way providing links of literature i was very happy to witness it.

I wonder if BTM plays that way with the women in his life and what the result is like?

It is a very dangerous game to be so often critical of others and overly sarcastic. You reach a point that the game theory you play (mixing it up this way) has the other side unable to know if you are serious or not about something. That kind of game theory is only successful if the objective is to waste time for others, create a tilting image or undermine a relationship. We are not poker opponents here. If friends have to say something of value to each other they do it without bs games.

BTM needs to find out in clear and certain terms that how he is playing with me and others (that also pisses me off) in these threads is undermining the relationship to the point that maybe i just dont care for it anymore. I learn absolutely nothing of value from this exchange here past 2-3 days for example. All that could be learned was over within the first few hours. If we were on Mars working together as a team far from earth the mission would be in deep S@#t already. Maybe thats the only thing to learn here in psychological terms. How to design teams and how they react to each other can jeopardize a mission easily if not done properly. A human mission to Ceres for example needs astronauts to have each other's back and care, otherwise it quickly becomes some sci fi horror flick.

Really?

What if someone says all physicists do not believe in God.


Then another replies;

What about Newton?
Isnt that question an argument that the above statement is false by offering a counter example from history?


In any case declare directly what was the purpose of post #57 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=57) and what you wanted to convey with it then if it is not an analogy argument trying to strike the quoted with an example.

So how long will the Arnold Palmer Classic dual golf courses on Ceres have to be to challenge the pros?


PairTheBoard

The real question is how soon the pros adjust to the new environment. Is golf about an ability to adjust fast to changing behavior/environment/laws or about being fined tuned to earth through endless repetitive play?

Imagine 2 players that play 100 variants of poker changing every hour in structure/rules and they play then for 2 hours each variant and they have to come up with the new strategy every time within minutes. Who wins, the best player in the world or a game theorist?

The question about Newton is not a question. It is a statement of fact with a question mark at the end for effect.

It is still your turn. Show that I made a logical error, and I will answer your questions in turn.

Drop being my bickering wife for a moment, for this is extremely interesting to me.

What is your immediate guess on your questions?