| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Yes, experimental errors in measuring time intervals (microseconds?),
are likely to be very small in comparison with runtime differences
between close competitors (milliseconds). I was thinking about the
random nature of human reaction times between 0 and ~0.3 seconds. To
eliminate that kind of randomness one could define the start time as a
moment at which the first laser beam is interrupted. The second beam,
for example, one hundred meters away, would then be used to determine
the ending moment. Each runner would run alone, like in jumping
competitions. Would such suggestion be taken seriously?
Ludwik Kowalski
On Tuesday, Aug 24, 2004, at 13:02 America/New_York, Brian Whatcott
wrote:
At 07:25 AM 8/24/2004, you wrote:
Athletes are often ranked on the basis of experimental measurements of
time intervals. My impression is that differences between some
outcomes
are too small to be meaningful.
Ludwik Kowalski
In order to dish out medals, it is necessary to answer the questions,
Who made the shortest time, the highest jump, the longest distance,
got the most points?
A photo finish could resolve those questions that were not obvious,
I expect.
But then, there's the spectator question,
Was this a World record? A tape measure or time measurement
often gets to resolve this question. I believe it is rare to find
that
experimental error is close to the magnitude of the differences
sought in this respect.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!