CubinNY

If you slide to first base you will get their this much faster.

Once again, the base is closer to the feet than the arms. If someone is trying to get to the base with their arm they have to slow down to do it. A little FYI, Wiki is not a reputable information site.

As per, Pinghitter/UK has the most useful and informative posts in this thread. Get out of the box, run straight, and run through the base. alle sonst Dosis nicht Sache

Who needs Yost when we have the sliding thread?

Reading comprehension not a strong suit, huh? I'd post a longer response, but since I already answered this in the post you replied to, I won't. Me no get it. I'll post my scientific publication record if you post yours.

Agreed.

This is horrible. First off, I earlier explained that friction (at least from the ground) is not in play here. You are diving to touch the bag immediately, not to slide into it. Second...the bold part. A science teacher's head might explode if a student told him this with no explanation. No, you just explained why when you stop running you don't necessarily decelerate. F=ma. There is air-resistance...but that effects you when you are running, too. In fact, continuing to run will INCREASE the frictional forces working against you as you are still connecting with the ground. I'll conceed the point that not taking those last two steps will decrease your speed as you cross the bag. I am not arguing that and never will. But the advantage of being able to reach out and touch the bag as your center of mass is significantly behind the bag offsets that slight loss of speed. If you imagine Wilt Chamberlain diving toward the bag instead of running over it, can you imagine the advantage of having your center of mass behind the bag and still being there? The only difference there is scale. [bragging]Claiming that science says it's impossible with a Geophysicist probably isn't your best bet, btw. [/bragging] Friction is not at play? You are either joking or you've never seen someone slide into first base in a cloud of dust. The center of mass has nothing to do with sliding or running, velocity does. Sliding cannot be faster than running through a base for the following reasons: 1. a person has to stop running to slide thereby slowing down 2. when a person slides more surface area is in contact with the ground thereby slowing down The only reason that people slide into second base, third, and home is: 1. To avoid a tag. 2. so they don't lose contact with the base when tagged. We can have a debate about lunging vs sliding if you want, but there is no debate about running vs sliding. Q: Why don't sprinters or speed skaters slide to the finish line? A: Because sliding slows them down. This is pretty ridiculous.

No. Since you are ignoring my earlier explanation entirely, and the link that followed it up, I'll post it again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster Read it this time. And yes, the Mythbusters episode "busted" a "myth" that didn't actually exist in the first place. Total waste of time. One thing I would argue is that the umpire is not typically in a very good position to judge whether a runner sliding into 1B is safe or not. I think part of the difficulty of sliding into 1B is that your hand might not be easily visible to the umpire when it comes into contact with the base. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd imagine it might make a difference in terms of deciding whether to run or slide. I've been told by umpires that they look at the feet and listen for the ball. Anyway, there is no possible way sliding can be faster than running through a base. It defies the known laws of physics. Which law of physics does the concept of center of mass and conservation of momentum does sliding into first being faster break? F =ma An object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration, or in this case a deceleration. Any time a person stops running they are decelerating. Also probably some other ones that I forgot a long time ago about velocity and friction. It's definitely a lot more complicated than F = ma. No, it is definitely not. Something cannot go faster by slowing down. Not to mention the fact that a foot is a lot closer to the ground than a hand.

No. Since you are ignoring my earlier explanation entirely, and the link that followed it up, I'll post it again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster Read it this time. And yes, the Mythbusters episode "busted" a "myth" that didn't actually exist in the first place. Total waste of time. One thing I would argue is that the umpire is not typically in a very good position to judge whether a runner sliding into 1B is safe or not. I think part of the difficulty of sliding into 1B is that your hand might not be easily visible to the umpire when it comes into contact with the base. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd imagine it might make a difference in terms of deciding whether to run or slide. I've been told by umpires that they look at the feet and listen for the ball. Anyway, there is no possible way sliding can be faster than running through a base. It defies the known laws of physics. Which law of physics does the concept of center of mass and conservation of momentum does sliding into first being faster break? F =ma An object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration, or in this case a deceleration. Any time a person stops running they are decelerating. Also probably some other ones that I forgot a long time ago about velocity and friction.

No. Since you are ignoring my earlier explanation entirely, and the link that followed it up, I'll post it again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster Read it this time. And yes, the Mythbusters episode "busted" a "myth" that didn't actually exist in the first place. Total waste of time. One thing I would argue is that the umpire is not typically in a very good position to judge whether a runner sliding into 1B is safe or not. I think part of the difficulty of sliding into 1B is that your hand might not be easily visible to the umpire when it comes into contact with the base. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd imagine it might make a difference in terms of deciding whether to run or slide. I've been told by umpires that they look at the feet and listen for the ball. Anyway, there is no possible way sliding can be faster than running through a base. It defies the known laws of physics.

You want some cheese with that whine? There is no news. We've had a smattering of published media reports, a few comments from Mr. Miles and massive amounts of speculation disguised as "rumor" from "sources" or "guys". Of all the posts among the last 200 pages, I can think of hundreds more deserving of a "cheese with that whine" rebuff. Ok, I probably should have whipped it out at the .500 BA in high school post. Fair enough. Anyway, anyone who clicks on this thread should know that this is the thread about nothing. It says so right in the title. The last update was pg. 180somithing.

You want some cheese with that whine? There is no news. We've had a smattering of published media reports, a few comments from Mr. Miles and massive amounts of speculation disguised as "rumor" from "sources" or "guys".

I prefer that this thread go back to 80's gay dance bands Come on every body :clapping: :yahoo: :yahoo: Oh oh Wee-ell-Now! Relax don't do it When you want to go to it Relax don't do it When you want to come Relax don't do it When you want to come When you want to come Relax don't do it When you want to to go to it Relax don't do it When you want to come Relax don't do it When you want to suck to it Relax don't do it When you want to come Come-oh oh oh

Simply amazing.

I wonder if Couch saw the report about the wonderful way we treat cattle in this country...

The Cubs have a mediocre team in a terrible division. I suppose that makes them good, as everything in life is relative. :D

Jay your seat is here. Have some seeds and enjoy the show. Mentioned in same article where Dusty is coveting Lofton.

hahahahahahahahahahaha! Maybe he can get Roberts

While securing a new stadium is great news for the Marlins they still have to fill seats. It's still debatable that people will support this club on a daily basis and fill the stadium. Obviously, if the revenues from the stadium allows them to keep the young talent they have that will help, but I have my doubts about whether or not Miami will come out for the Marlins. This is especially true as no one wanted to go to the Orange bowl to watch a game for fear of what might happen to them as they walked to their car. I hope this stadium will bring with it a revitalization of that part of Miami, but knowing the level of corruption in Miami, I highly doubt it.

I'm not an idiot, so I know this issue doesn't actually affect me. But, yes, I'm personally annoyed that violence between animals, which is organized and instigated by humans, is seen as entertainment. That watching pain/destruction/death can be fun for someone. Kind of like hearing that a serial killer used to burn insects and kill small animals. Not all violence-enjoyers are on that level, of course, but that's generally what the "enjoyment" of such a thing is, isn't it? Not to sound rude, but isn't that a pretty clear issue someone could have with it? As crazy as this sounds, I think we have to make a distinction about the activity. We eat chickens. We can pretend that the food in front of us was not previously alive. We can also be ignorant to the fact that the food was pumped so full of antibiotics and growth hormones that it could barley walk. We really don't want to know that it waddled around in its own feces for 6 to 10 weeks then was stuffed into a cage with 20 or 30 other birds as freight. We cannot think about the fact that the end of this life was a beheading. That doesn't change the fact that that's the way we get our meat. We don't eat dogs. Dogs are our pets. I would get no joy from watch cockfighting. I was invited to many while I lived in Jamaica, but it doesn't make those that do bad people.

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person. I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point? Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.) And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't? I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine. Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral? And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering. A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain). A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake. My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence. So your problem is that people get enjoyment out of it?

I just sent him an email asking what he was having for lunch. I also asked if his quest against Aaramis was tiring.

Ruth

I try to discover A little something to make me sweeter Oh baby refrain from breaking my heart I'm so in love with you I'll be forever blue That you give me no reason Why you're making me work so hard That you give me no That you give me no That you give me no That you give me no Soul, I hear you calling Oh baby please give a little respect to me I love that song!

I disagree. Just because it might prove to be the longest thread ever (and for whatever reason, posters are trying to do that), does not necessarily translate this thread into being "the best ever". If you ask me, there's too much fluff in this thread for it to be considered to be one of the best. It's the "fluff" and not the actual on-topic discussion that makes this one of the best. Hmm. Interesting. I guess everybody's different. How do other posters/members feel about this? The thread is a metaphor for the actual pursuit of Roberts. It's full of nonsense without much substance, therefore it is a perfect existential allegory. There will be none better. We haven't seen the likes of this since the famous Treebeard thread circa 2004.