cricket

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mangaman

mangaman

Guest
long quote from Bonj
it's a pointless argument anyway - tennis players don't get injured when the ball is travelling at well over 100mph on the serve. This is largely because, a) they can see its direction of travel before it hits the ground (as in cricket), and (:wahhey: the simple fact of it hitting the ground takes a lot of its speed off it. What about when in tennis it bounces on the floor and then hits the linesman? he's fine, because it's travelling slow by then, due to it having hit the ground. If it doesn't hit the ground, it's a no ball.
Click to expand...

I don't know where (or why) to start on this really - but as a player of tennis and cricket

1) A cricket ball is a lot harder than a tennis ball

2) Shoaib Akhtar bowled a ball at over 100mph in Durban - I was there

3) A cricket pitch is 22 yards long and the batsman is standing a few yards in front of the stumps so the ball travels about 20 yards max

A tennis court is 40 yards long and you would stand behind the baseline to receive a 100mph serve, so you have much more time to return it - the linespeople are even further back

4) If it doesn't hit the ground it is not a no ball - where do you get this nonsense

Why don't you find the nearest tramp and ask him some basics about the physics and rules of the games you're banging on about - he'll probably turn out to be Stephen Hawking (true story)
 
Speicher

Speicher

Vice Admiral
Moderator
Location
Next door to Mr Benn at No 54
Speicher said:
I may need some help here with the sums.

Let's see.

I know that Bonj has forgotten X amount of knowledge.

He has admitted to forgetting more knowledge than I know (or think) that he has forgotten.

Bonj has therefore forgotten X times 3 amounts of knowledge.

Bonj only knew X times 2 amounts of knowledge in the first place.
Click to expand...

marinyork said:
You trying to construct a paradox machine and out will pop David Tennant?
Click to expand...

No, I am trying to prove that Bonj cannot even write grammatically correct English.

His second sentence should have read "I have forgotten more than you know that I have forgotten".

Rough translation: However much I think he has forgotten, he has in fact forgotten more than that. :evil::evil::evil:
 
B

bonj2

Guest
marinyork said:
What are you on about Andy in Sig. The "phenomena" or "systems" as you describe them are the theories. They don't decide to behave in such a way and then wait for people to measure them and then it becomes a "theory". There would be no (meaningful at least) universe without them. As someone that bangs on about linguistics I'd expect you to understand that. You're attaching far too much importance on the human side of it. Yes there is a something and process of humans discovering them but that's merely a side issue.
Click to expand...

isn't it that the phenomena already exists, but the description of WHY it exists that is the theory... whether that 'description' already exists or not, who knows?
A perfect example is fermat's last theorem. Andrew Wiles proved it in the nineties, but did fermat himself know the proof back in the 17th century? We'll never know.
 
B

bonj2

Guest
Speicher said:
I may need some help here with the sums.

Let's see.

I know that Bonj has forgotten X amount of knowledge.

He has admitted to forgetting more knowledge than I know (or think) that he has forgotten.

Bonj has therefore forgotten X times 3 amounts of knowledge.

Bonj only knew X times 2 amounts of knowledge in the first place.
Click to expand...

this doesn't make ANY sense. In fact the amount of sense it makes follows an inverse n-squared relationship with the amount of time I spend thinking about it. It makes LESS sense than the shipping forecast.
Where do you get the 2 and the 3 from? :tongue:
 
B

bonj2

Guest
mangaman said:
I don't know where (or why) to start on this really - but as a player of tennis and cricket

1) A cricket ball is a lot harder than a tennis ball
Click to expand...
don't know about a lot, maybe a bit.

mangaman said:
2) Shoaib Akhtar bowled a ball at over 100mph in Durban - I was there
Click to expand...
i doubt that. That means his hand must have been moving at over 100mph when he released the ball from it, which is clearly humanly impossible.

mangaman said:
3) A cricket pitch is 22 yards long and the batsman is standing a few yards in front of the stumps so the ball travels about 20 yards max

A tennis court is 40 yards long and you would stand behind the baseline to receive a 100mph serve, so you have much more time to return it - the linespeople are even further back

4) If it doesn't hit the ground it is not a no ball - where do you get this nonsense
Click to expand...
so why DO they bowl it to hit the ground? Why not just lob it straight at the stumps like in baseball?
 
B

bonj2

Guest
Speicher said:
No, I am trying to prove that Bonj cannot even write grammatically correct English.

His second sentence should have read "I have forgotten more than you know that I have forgotten".

Rough translation: However much I think he has forgotten, he has in fact forgotten more than that. :tongue::evil::biggrin:
Click to expand...

no, I actually meant what i said, which is "I've probably forgotten more than you know." leaving aside the fact that i wasnt' actually talking about YOU, but actually flying monkey, but talking in the hypothetical you, the explanation of it is that if the percentage of what people have ever forgot to what they know is, say, 10%. Well, saying 'I've forgot more than you know' means that 10% of what I know, is MORE than the TOTAL of what you know - in other words I know 10 times more than what you know.
 
Flying_Monkey

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
The fact remains that bonj is also wrong about what is needed to get a PhD too - which is hardly surprising.

And the University of Life? Almost everyone else here shows more evidence of the kind of hard-won common sense and knowledge of the real world - whatever they've done. There are very few people who sound more naive...
 
B

bonj2

Guest
Flying_Monkey said:
The fact remains that bonj is also wrong about what is needed to get a PhD too - which is hardly surprising.

And the University of Life? Almost everyone else here shows more evidence of the kind of hard-won common sense and knowledge of the real world - whatever they've done. There are very few people who sound more naive...
Click to expand...

Forgot what our argument was, have we?:tongue:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom