Group: alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox Date: Sun, Oct 7, 2012, 5:57pm
From: bi...@ix.netcom.com (bismotwitter) # Brady is putting on a clinic, but it ain't over. Peyton has been
around the block a time or two. Pull up a chair. *********************************************
Hey C/S.....you on Brady's knob?
Just askin'.....baldy...
<<(bismotwitter) # Although most of his reports are absurd, Cafardo is correct that
Boston has interest in Josh Johnson. >>
And Nickie is a god in such matters? <G>
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
<<(bismotwitter) # The guess here is that Francona will hire his buddy Brad Mills as
bench coach, and could poach some men from Boston's staff too. >>
Tito's revenge?
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
<<(bismotwitter) # What I want most out of the next manager is leadership. I want him to
clean up the mess and get the team unified and hungry again. >>
Hungry means stricter enforcement of the no beeror chicken rule?
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
<<(bismotwitter) # And I certainly don't go along with the "don't you dare ever let a
non-pitcher bunt" crowd. There is a time and place for everything. >>
However personally I prefer bunts be limited to after lead off doubles
or when the win run is on third in the bottom of the ninth or extras.
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
<<(bismotwitter) @Don: Cafardo's a boob, but a broken clock is right twice a day, and
Nicky is correct that Boston is very much interested in Josh Johnson.
Sorry, misread the tweet. Hey, it happens.
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
<<(bismotwitter) @Don: Those are certainly valid times to bunt. it can depend on the
score, batter/runner/on-deck hitter, etc. I just hate to say "never."
I think I hate it most when an Ellsbury is on first and they sac bunt
instead of a steal attempt. I'd love to see stats on failed sac bunts
vs. failed steal attempts.
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:22:33 PM UTC-4, bismotwitter conjectured:
> @Don: Even a normal clock is wrong twice a day, I guess!
My conjecture:
A so-called "normal" clock, along with a stopped clock, is wrong an INFINITE number of times per day, like there are an infinite number of points on the x-axis between 0 and 24. But, while the stopped clock is correct twice a day, this "normal" clock can classically slither over and slide back across the correct time an infinite number of times during a day, technically, but that will still be infinitely less times than it will be wrong. It can never be correct for a given segment of time longer than the 1 point instant as it crosses back and forth between being slow and being fast. It must cross the correct line only at a point each time. However...there is a limit to how small a unit of time can be due to quantum dynamics - the so-called Planck unit of time would appear to preclude an infinite number of possible times in one day.
So, if we were to get pedantic, this quantum-time Planck unit would remove the continuity needed for a classical physics proof of my conjecture - that is, that the ratio of right times over wrong times will always be virtually zero. Nonetheless, today I would still wager big bucks that we would see results of any objective and unbiased experiments conducted on clock accuracy in our future to behave closely to the continuous, non-existent "normal" clock, and thus to my conjecture, in the sense that the ratio observed would be indistinguishable from zero given the minimized noise levels of the best state-of-the-art experimental equipment that could be deployed.
But then, not again, there may be, happily after all, no such thing as a "normal" clock.
>> @Don: Even a normal clock is wrong twice a day, I guess!
>My conjecture:
>A so-called "normal" clock, along with a stopped clock, is wrong an INFINITE number of times per day, like there are an infinite number of points on the x-axis between 0 and 24. But, while the stopped clock is correct twice a day, this "normal" clock can classically slither over and slide back across the correct time an infinite number of times during a day, technically, but that will still be infinitely less times than it will be wrong. It can never be correct for a given segment of time longer than the 1 point instant as it crosses back and forth between being slow and being fast. It must cross the correct line only at a point each time. However...there is a limit to how small a unit of time can be due to quantum dynamics - the so-called Planck unit of time would appear to preclude an infinite number of possible times in one day.
>So, if we were to get pedantic, this quantum-time Planck unit would remove the continuity needed for a classical physics proof of my conjecture - that is, that the ratio of right times over wrong times will always be virtually zero. Nonetheless, today I would still wager big bucks that we would see results of any objective and unbiased experiments conducted on clock accuracy in our future to behave closely to the continuous, non-existent "normal" clock, and thus to my conjecture, in the sense that the ratio observed would be indistinguishable from zero given the minimized noise levels of the best state-of-the-art experimental equipment that could be deployed.
>But then, not again, there may be, happily after all, no such thing as a "normal" clock.
>- nate
Although we know for certain that a stopped clock gives the corect
time 2x per day, that clock does not reveal when it is correct, so its
correctness is useless.
