Will Egolf = track and field star

[Da Coach]

No bubble burst here. True, land mass does have an effect. In fact the earth is pear shaped because of that. But in general altitude does have an effect. The NCAA even makes adjustments for it in track and field:

See

The only NCAA allowances for altitude relate only to running events, and are based on the fact that the thinner air at higher altitudes has a slowing down effect on times. This has nothing to do with gravity!
These altitude adjustments are so athletes qualifying for running events at higher altitudes get a break for the thinner atmosphere slowing them down significantly.

Here is a link to a page that lists the altitude adjustment for running events-- note thast the NCAA qualifying times are higher for altitude events.
http://209.85.165.104

 

[mike radigan]

No bubble burst here. True, land mass does have an effect. In fact the earth is pear shaped because of that. But in general altitude does have an effect. The NCAA even makes adjustments for it in track and field:

See

The only NCAA allowances for altitude relate only to running events, and are based on the fact that the thinner air at higher altitudes has a slowing down effect on times. This has nothing to do with gravity!
These altitude adjustments are so athletes qualifying for running events at higher altitudes get a break for the thinner atmosphere slowing them down significantly.

Here is a link to a page that lists the altitude adjustment for running events-- note thast the NCAA qualifying times are higher for altitude events.
http://209.85.165.104

Exactly. The original debate started because of the thin air.

Thin air = higher jump.

This still doesn't detract from the fact that altitude affects gravity.

 

[tornado]

Mike--
I would have to believe the differences in air drag and friction at different altitudes is such an incredibly tiny factor compared to the gravitational differences, and if it weren't the NCAA would require better qualifying tosses in discus, shot put, and high jumps when the competition is at higher altitudes, just ilke they allow different (although slower) times in all those races dependent on altitude.

Actually, even the MOST significant difference that might occur with all the factors aligned is still likely just a couple grams as the article I posted states, and that's less than a few locks of Will's hair.
So why don't high jumpers shave their heads and wear speedo swim shorts, thus eliminating several ounces of weight from hair and clothing?
The answer is that those few ounces would not lkely make enough difference to matter.

 

[mike radigan]

Mike--
I would have to believe the differences in air drag and friction at different altitudes is such an incredibly tiny factor compared to the gravitational differences, and if it weren't the NCAA would require better qualifying tosses in discus, shot put, and high jumps when the competition is at higher altitudes, just ilke they allow different (although slower) times in all those races dependent on altitude.

Actually, even the MOST significant difference that might occur with all the factors aligned is still likely just a couple grams as the article I posted states, and that's less than a few locks of Will's hair.
So why don't high jumpers shave their heads and wear speedo swim shorts, thus eliminating several ounces of weight from hair and clothing?
The answer is that those few ounces would not lkely make enough difference to matter.

T, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. All I did was refute George's post:

I think the air is lighter up in Alaska because it is higher on the planet. Just hold a globe in front of you and you can see how much higher Alaska is. Thin air = higher jump. Hope he can get off the ground way down here. :lol:

George, Juneau is at sea level.

George, I have to ask. Are you one of those guys who starts an argument in a bar and when the fight breaks out you are nowhere to be found? :wink:

 

[MacabreMob]

GTD

 

[mike radigan]

I???‚¬?„?m going to make one last general response to clarify some misstatements although I may respond to a specific question or point. GTD posted what I assumed was a joke and maybe even his reasoning was a joke. Nonetheless, I responded to his reasoning. I think I can speak for both of us that the effect if any is minimal and nowhere does anyone state or imply otherwise.

I think the air is lighter up in Alaska because it is higher on the planet. Just hold a globe in front of you and you can see how much higher Alaska is. Thin air = higher jump. Hope he can get off the ground way down here. :lol:

George, Juneau is at sea level.

This clearly references the thin air in Juneau. Then I thought I???‚¬?„?d add some additional arguments for my implication that Will would be able to jump higher in Peoria than Juneau. To encapsulate my implications, statements and references:

Implied Will???‚¬?„?s record was set in Juneau.

Stated Juneau is at sea level.

Stated due to the earth???‚¬?„?s rotation, the closer you are to the equator the farther you are from the center of the earth.

Stated Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is the farthest point on earth from the center of the earth.

Stated the diameter of the earth at the equator is 2926 miles compared to 2901 miles through its poles.

Stated land mass does affect gravity.

Stated the earth is pear shaped.

Referenced that the NCAA makes adjustments due to higher altitudes to which Da Coach responded the adjustments have nothing to do with gravity. He???‚¬?„?s disputing something I never stated or implied. In fact, my reference clearly states thin air.

Stated altitude does affect gravity.

Now I challenge anyone to disprove any of the above especially since T implied my points were not ???‚¬?“real science???‚¬?? or why else would he mention ???‚¬?“real science???‚¬??? On the other hand I will disagree with some of his points in:

Sorry to burst your bubbles, guys...but let's talk real science.

First, whenever the moon is overhead or nearly overhead, you will weight ever so much less, a few fractions of an ounce, because of the tidal factor, but that won't affect Will Egolf in Alaska, since the moon is far to the south, and it is a weaker factor than the slightly irregular distribution of density in the earth beneath your feet.

BUT...here is the real science:

There is a place in Canada where gravity is less than anywhere else on earth.
I am surprised none of you have seen or heard articles about this.
Here are a couple of them:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=524710&catname=Canada
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache..."gravity+is+weaker"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

It has to do with the distribution of mass in the entire earth, and some mass density is greater in certain locations than others, and this is a more powerful factor than the tides, than the earth's rotation and "centrifugal force" and even than the altitude factors.

So, I suspect the closer Will is to this very low gravitational area in northern Canada (with less dense material beneath him in the earth), the less he will weight, but again it is only by a tiny fraction of an ounce. (approx. 3 grams according to the article)

If you doubt me, read the articles and be convinced.

Yes you will weigh less (again ever so little ???‚¬??? no one every argued the degree) when the moon is overhead, but it is not because of the tidal factor. Cause and effect are reversed here as the moon earth 2 mass system causes gravity and one to weigh less when the moon is overhead and for the tides to flow. The one thing that tides cause is to slow the earth???‚¬?„?s rotation.

Also, Juneau has nothing to do with the low gravitational area in northern Canada. In fact, Peoria is closer in effect than Juneau as the ice sheets causing the mass depression approached Peoria not Juneau. Juneau is nested between the sea and an uplifted mountain range. And more than half the low gravitational area in northern Canada is caused by mantle tugging. Again the area below Peoria is closer to the condition in northern Canada than Juneau which is right on the edge of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate and is part of the so-called ???‚¬?“Ring of Fire???‚¬??.

 

[georgethedog]

WOW, that was fun reading! I leave a little goofy message a couple of days ago about thinner air up in Alaska and leave the board to attend to the rest of my life for a while and come back this morning to one of the most interesting trail of posts in a while. I WAS ONLY KIDDING! JUST A LITTLE JOKE THERE, EH? But here is an interesting teaser if you liked that one... in outer space which way is north? I mean on earth you can look for the north star, but what if you were on a spaceship above the north star? You would be looking south at the north star, so where would north be? Sorry, no need to answer... just joking around again, this is a basketball discussion board so I will just say that Will Egoff looks like he can jump very high even if the earth is flat! :lol: :lol:

 

[mike radigan]

WOW, that was fun reading! I leave a little goofy message a couple of days ago about thinner air up in Alaska and leave the board to attend to the rest of my life for a while and come back this morning to one of the most interesting trail of posts in a while. I WAS ONLY KIDDING! JUST A LITTLE JOKE THERE, EH? But here is an interesting teaser if you liked that one... in outer space which way is north? I mean on earth you can look for the north star, but what if you were on a spaceship above the north star? You would be looking south at the north star, so where would north be? Sorry, no need to answer... just joking around again, this is a basketball discussion board so I will just say that Will Egoff looks like he can jump very high even if the earth is flat! :lol: :lol:

George, good to hear from ya, you dawg! :lol: I "accused" you earlier of being that guy who starts an argument in a bar and is nowhere to be found when the fight breaks out. :wink: Hey, riddle me this space jockey, (w/o looking it up) how many times does the earth rotate on its axis during one revolution around the sun (nearest whole number is good enough)?

 

[mike radigan]

Hey, riddle me this space jockey, (w/o looking it up) how many times does the earth rotate on its axis during one revolution around the sun (nearest whole number is good enough)?

5 more minutes to answer.

 

[georgethedog]

Hey, riddle me this space jockey, (w/o looking it up) how many times does the earth rotate on its axis during one revolution around the sun (nearest whole number is good enough)?

5 more minutes to answer.

Oh, I was gone from my desk. Well, I will answer approx. 365.25 knowing full well that I will be wrong!

 

[mike radigan]

Hey, riddle me this space jockey, (w/o looking it up) how many times does the earth rotate on its axis during one revolution around the sun (nearest whole number is good enough)?

5 more minutes to answer.

Oh, I was gone from my desk. Well, I will answer approx. 365.25 knowing full well that I will be wrong!

George, you are correct, correct in knowing full well that you are wrong.

To the nearest whole number the answer is 366.

explanation

Edit: Oops, meant to add a smiley: :lol:

 

[georgethedog]

Hey, riddle me this space jockey, (w/o looking it up) how many times does the earth rotate on its axis during one revolution around the sun (nearest whole number is good enough)?

5 more minutes to answer.

Oh, I was gone from my desk. Well, I will answer approx. 365.25 knowing full well that I will be wrong!

George, you are correct, correct in knowing full well that you are wrong.

To the nearest whole number the answer is 366.

explanation

Edit: Oops, meant to add a smiley: :lol:

So, you are including the extra day. What this is saying is if the earth did not rotate at all (stayed stationary) while it went around the sun it really would roatate once because each side of the earth would see the sun because it is going in a circle. Therefore, you must add that rotation to the original 365.25. Alrighty then, I will by that.

 

[tornado]

likewise, the moon does not appear to rotate on its axis because we always see the same side.
But in reality if it did not rotate once per revolution then we'd see all sides of the moon.

 

[BBallPimp]

Thanks for the science lessons gentlemen!

 

[Chico]

Did I get on the wrong board?