When do the world records stop

Also, no matter what, all timing devices must somewhere, somehow be started by humans. In college, I had a math professor who admitted that all mathematics are subject to failure and mistakes. All human activity is subject to our own "humanness." It really doesn't matter how acquartely we can measure because our intervention in the measurement must qualify and influence the measurement. originally posted by CraigIII I think the same argument I used to reply to knelson also applies here as well ....doesn't it? newmastersswimmer

I think measuring to the hundredth might be too fine a measurement if you're looking at swims in different pools at different times, but you need to get that kind of precision sometimes to find out who won a particular heat. Heck, look at the men's 50 in Athens. The three medalists were within a tenth of a second. Now, we don't know exactly what distance each swimmer had to swim, but we can tell from video that Gary Hall, Jr. touched the wall first. If the timing only went to 0.1 second, there would have been a tie for first unless a judge's decision could be used. originally posted by Knelson Even so, the reality of the situation is that the current system does in fact use measuring to within a hundredth of a second to differientiate times in different pools......As you pointed out....different pools can have slightly different lengths.....(and there are other properties that make one pool significantly "faster" than another pool besides just length differences as well)......These differences "easily" can account for more than 0.1 seconds (even in sprint events).....Holding everything else equal (which is totally hypothetical anyway) and considering only a small microscopic difference in the lengths of two different pools, the total difference in length over the course of a 1500 meter freestyle could easily account for much more than 0.1 seconds....(it may even be over 1 second in some cases??)....but none-the-less....If a swimmer breaks the existing 1500 meter world record at an appropriately sanctioned meet (in an accepted and sanctioned pool) by 0.01 seconds....then officially he or she is the new world record holder. As far as the 50 meter freestyle goes.....I will take your argument a step further and say that within a single heat, a time difference of 0.01 seconds is not gauranteed to distinguish between two swimmers (even though underwater slow motion replay can see the difference!!)....So if you decide that a scale that measures differences on the order of 0.001 seconds is then needed in those situations....well guesss what?.....that then opens the door for using the same type scale to fit all other situations as well....at least thats the way it currently works isn't it?? newmastersswimmer

There's really no point in developing timing systems that return more significant digits. Why? Think about the tolerance in pool design. If one swim was done in a pool a couple millimeters different in length from another, why bother going to .001 seconds in time? You see what I'm getting at?

Sometimes records are broken by changes in swimming technique or rule changes. The underwater dolphin kick in the backstroke for example. Other times changes in pool technology contributes to new records. Pools built today tend to be 'faster' than pools built in the 1960's due to better lane lines, gutters, etc.

Aren't you sorry you asked this question. Originally posted by Fred Johnson in reply to newmastersswimmer's analysis Hey now!....What's that suppose to mean anyway?......You have to be nice to your future business partners now....remember the new marketing enterprise for our future product "Slick"....the latest in hydrodynamic technology.....guaranteed to shave off at least 2 nano-seconds!! newmastersswimmer

I just discovered a rather humorous side note about the article I posted on the smallest possible unit of time (i.e. smallest possible interval of time) according to quantum mechanics.....The guy who answers the question tells you how he came up with the answer....but when I went back and calculated the correct answer (based on his logical argument), I discovered that while he has his head in the quantum mechanical clouds, he can't do simple arithmetic!! (but then I can't usually add two numbers correctly to save my life...so who am I kidding anyway lol!)....Anyway, either I need to go back to 3rd grade and learn how to divide two numbers all over again, or the smallest possible interval of time is around 3.3 times 10 to the negative 42 (not 10 to the negative 44 as he reported)......two full orders of magnitude off his calculation! newmastersswimmer

Well I guess I should go back to the third grade...b/c the answer is 0.33 times 10 to the negative 42 which is 3.3 times 10 to the negative 43 actually......(I told you I can't do simple arithmetic!)....but then again niether can the author of the article since he is still off by a full order of magnitude.

Also, no matter what, all timing devices must somewhere, somehow be started by humans. In college, I had a math professor who admitted that all mathematics are subject to failure and mistakes. All human activity is subject to our own "humanness." It really doesn't matter how acquartely we can measure because our intervention in the measurement must qualify and influence the measurement. Yes, I went to a very liberal Liberal Arts college.

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer Aren't you sorry you asked this question. Originally posted by Fred Johnson in reply to newmastersswimmer's analysis Hey now!....What's that suppose to mean anyway?......You have to be nice to your future business partners now....remember the new marketing enterprise for our future product "Slick"....the latest in hydrodynamic technology.....guaranteed to shave off at least 2 nano-seconds!! newmastersswimmer Clearly, you are in charge of R&D. I can hardly figure my yardage in the morning. I'll take on marketing...they say lawyers are "slick". Seems like a nice fit, huh?

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer Well I guess I should go back to the third grade...b/c the answer is 0.33 times 10 to the negative 42 which is 3.3 times 10 to the negative 43 actually......(I told you I can't do simple arithmetic!)....but then again niether can the author of the article since he is still off by a full order of magnitude. I just had to go back and double check your profile. Imagine my surprise when I saw "Math Professor" as occupation. I'm proud to call you Chief of R&D for "Slick". BTW, I have this "issue" with my check book. They say it has something to do with balancing.... :D