Steve scott ran a 3:31 mile

[brightonjew]

According to a post on letsrun , Steve Scott ran a 3:31 in straight downhill mile race. How is it possible for a human to move that fast/ that is two back to back 1:45's :eek:

[Wizardx]

According to a post on letsrun , Steve Scott ran a 3:31 in straight downhill mile race. How is it possible for a human to move that fast/ that is two back to back 1:45's :eek:

Human + Gravity (-9.8 m/(s)^2).

[brightonjew]

:mad: only in a vacum,

[izzm]

He said human + gravity, then defined gravity by his parenthetical phrase. He didn't say human + gravity = 9.8 m/s^2

[PreLikedBeer]

what thread is this on?

[D_Gordon]

He said human + gravity, then defined gravity by his parenthetical phrase. He didn't say human + gravity = 9.8 m/s^2

This brings back memories of the thread where someone said that no one could ever break 9.8 seconds in the 100m clean because "you can't go faster than gravity." LOL.

[run_nyc]

that seems ridiculous because, if there was true, then steroids or not, you wouldn;t defy gravity. what a dumb asss

[nordicrunner]

how would he break the laws of gravity with a 3:31?

[herr]

how would he break the laws of gravity with a 3:31?


do you go forward in time if you break the laws of gravity? If so, will someone run the mile under 3:20? :eek:

[Wizardx]

how would he break the laws of gravity with a 3:31?

I'm sure the original disputer was referring to sprinters in the 100m.

The more and more I read that gravity argument, the stupidER it gets everytime.

[Beowulf]

First of all if a sprinter ran the 100m dash and accelerated at 9.81m/s^2 they would run 4.5 secs, not 9.8 secs. Second of all the whole accelerating faster than gravity would cause strange things to happen is retarded - cars, planes, boats, and some animals all can accelerate this fast and they don't go forward in time or defy gravity.

do you go forward in time if you break the laws of gravity? If so, will someone run the mile under 3:20?

No, you go forward in time relative to the earth's time if you leave the earth and travel very close to the speed of light for a period of time. Then when you came back to Earth the Earth's time would have advanced much faster than your own time while you were away from Earth moving close to the speed of light. So you could leave today, come back a week later (a week your time) and return to Earth and it could be 2020.

[Beanfontaine]

First of all if a sprinter ran the 100m dash and accelerated at 9.81m/s^2 they would run 4.5 secs, not 9.8 secs. Second of all the whole accelerating faster than gravity would cause strange things to happen is retarded - cars, planes, boats, and some animals all can accelerate this fast and they don't go forward in time or defy gravity.



No, you go forward in time relative to the earth's time if you leave the earth and travel very close to the speed of light for a period of time. Then when you came back to Earth the Earth's time would have advanced much faster than your own time while you were away from Earth moving close to the speed of light. So you could leave today, come back a week later (a week your time) and return to Earth and it could be 2020.


cool. that was suck if you returned to find everybody dead.

[Fanya]

First of all if a sprinter ran the 100m dash and accelerated at 9.81m/s^2 they would run 4.5 secs, not 9.8 secs. Second of all the whole accelerating faster than gravity would cause strange things to happen is retarded - cars, planes, boats, and some animals all can accelerate this fast and they don't go forward in time or defy gravity.



No, you go forward in time relative to the earth's time if you leave the earth and travel very close to the speed of light for a period of time. Then when you came back to Earth the Earth's time would have advanced much faster than your own time while you were away from Earth moving close to the speed of light. So you could leave today, come back a week later (a week your time) and return to Earth and it could be 2020.

Has someone read Ender's Game?

[78Champ]

No, you go forward in time relative to the earth's time if you leave the earth and travel very close to the speed of light for a period of time. Then when you came back to Earth the Earth's time would have advanced much faster than your own time while you were away from Earth moving close to the speed of light. So you could leave today, come back a week later (a week your time) and return to Earth and it could be 2020.

I find it hysterical that he is explaining this to a professor at one of the most prestigious colleges in the US.

JW

[makelldog]

I find it hysterical that he is explaining this to a professor at one of the most prestigious colleges in the US.

JW
Of whom do you speak?

[78Champ]

Of whom do you speak?
You can't follow this thread?

JW

[kingofxc25]

i read enders game and like 5 other books by orson scott card the rest of the series and others anywho u can travel faster than gravity

[herr]

No, you go forward in time relative to the earth's time if you leave the earth and travel very close to the speed of light for a period of time. .

I guess you would need the right shoes for that, huh

[Dalau]

actually, he would go human+(9.8m/s^2) * sin(theta).

and it IS possible for someone to go down faster than gravity, or accelerate faster than gravity. If there is a normal force that's keeping the human on the incline, then all he or she has to do is move his or her legs fast enough to keep up with the acceleration due to gravity, and just kick a little bit to increase the force pushing down, which would cause him or her to accelerate faster than g.

[WejRunner]

actually, he would go human+(9.8m/s^2) * sin(theta).

and it IS possible for someone to go down faster than gravity, or accelerate faster than gravity. If there is a normal force that's keeping the human on the incline, then all he or she has to do is move his or her legs fast enough to keep up with the acceleration due to gravity, and just kick a little bit to increase the force pushing down, which would cause him or her to accelerate faster than g.

hhaahahhahha this conversation is retarded. and what youre saying makes no sense. first of all acceleration and velocity are different things. acceleration is applied as a result of a force, so he cant "move his or her legs fast enough to keep up with the acceleration due to gravity," becuase that refers to velocity. what youre saying just makes no sense. also, if it were somehow possible to accelerate that quickly, the person would reach terminal velocity rather quickly, besides the fact that the incline would have to be realllllllllly steep. so no, he would not accelerate faster than gravity. sorry.

but i'll admit, that would be cool.

and to respond to the post that said you will run a 100m in 9.8 seconds if you accelerate at the rate of gravity is absolutely hilarious. as someone else said before, you will actually run the 100m in 4.5 seconds. but this idea is simply stupid because according to this idea, you will be traveling at 98.7 mph. good luck doing that.

[puttytim]

Of whom do you speak?


pretty sure herr is a prof @ the U of Chicago or Northwestern...or so it would seem. c'mon jon, you are quicker than that? (national merit winner/princton frosh next year...)

:D

[PreLikedBeer]

what does sin(theta) have to do with acceleration?

[herr]

what does sin(theta) have to do with acceleration?

obvious: more slippery than cotton


(bada bing!)

[PreLikedBeer]

i honestly dont know if that was a joke or not.

[iloverunning]

Has someone read Ender's Game?
That book is amazing. =P

[pcrunner17]

what does sin(theta) have to do with acceleration?

He was multiplying by the sine of the degree of the incline in order to calculate the force applied as a component of the y-axis, which in this case would deal with the "down" force he hopes to add to the force of weight.

Anyway, you could accelerate downward faster than the acceleration of gravity, but you might need to do it by strapping yourself to a board hanging upside down, after which point you could push off with your legs -- that would produce an additive force greater than the force of weight.

EDIT: Typo.

[pcrunner17]

actually, he would go human+(9.8m/s^2) * sin(theta).

and it IS possible for someone to go down faster than gravity, or accelerate faster than gravity. If there is a normal force that's keeping the human on the incline, then all he or she has to do is move his or her legs fast enough to keep up with the acceleration due to gravity, and just kick a little bit to increase the force pushing down, which would cause him or her to accelerate faster than g.

And the major problem with this is that you aren't adding your vectors properly. The force of weight is acting downward. When you accelerate while running you aren't accelerating yourself downward into the ground -- except for your feet independently, of course, and that is to provide the opposing force of the ground to propel you forward -- which is the direction in which you are ultimately hoping to move and with which we are actually concerned.

[RSkylineR34]

i think you guys need to get out more

[78Champ]

i think you guys need to get out more

You mean like a field experiment???????

JW

[Sully 800]

hahaha nice form JW. I havent laughed out loud at your one liners in a little while, but that one was right on. :D

[78Champ]

hahaha nice form JW. I havent laughed out loud at your one liners in a little while, but that one was right on. :D

Glad I could be of service. ;)

JW