Bad Time for the Clock to Stop

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

We know what he sees is going to be slow by about 1/10 second.

Assumes facts not in evidence

With all going on, he may have seen 5.3 and it really should have been 5.6 or 5.7.

How? If I see 5.3 on the clock, that means that the clock was at 5.3 when the light emitted from the clock reached my eyeballs. By the time the light was processed by my retinas and interpreted by my brain, it's possible that the "actual" time on the clock is down to 5.2 or 5.1 or 5.0 or whatever, but if I saw 5.3 seconds, there's no way there's actually still 5.7 seconds on the clock when I saw it. (since, you know, 5.7 would've been displayed BEFORE 5.3 was displayed).

It's never going to be less. For example, you're not going to see 5.2 before you see 5.3.

Exactly my point above... which runs counter to your "It could've been 5.6 or 5.7" assertion.

How simultaneous was the glance and the start of the count. Another inaccuracy of 0.2 seconds (the blink of an eye) could happen here.
Say, his 5 count was actually 4.5.

Yes, this these things could've possibly happened. Equally likely is that the officials' 5 count was slightly slow, and, in fact 5.4 seconds elapsed.

Now, we are getting close to potentially being off by over a second. So, ask the timer what happened, is my point.

The timer has one job... to start and stop the clock as directed by the officials (well, the timer does have other jobs, but that's the only one that matters in this situation). The timer failed to do his job, and it's up to the official to correct using the information that the official has. And I'm not asking the timer for his opinion when it's been clearly demonstrated that he's not doing his job properly.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

By the time the light was processed by my retinas and interpreted by my brain, it's possible that the "actual" time on the clock is down to 5.2 or 5.1 or 5.0 or whatever,

Einstein would disagree. Light travels 18,628 MILES in a tenth of a second. Court ain't that big.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

If I see 5.3 on the clock, that means that the clock was at 5.3 when the light emitted from the clock reached my eyeballs. By the time the light was processed by my retinas and interpreted by my brain, it's possible that the "actual" time on the clock is down to 5.2 or 5.1 or 5.0 or whatever, but if I saw 5.3 seconds, there's no way there's actually still 5.7 seconds on the clock when I saw it. (since, you know, 5.7 would've been displayed BEFORE 5.3 was displayed).

With all due respect, you're wrong. Don't forget, everything is being done simultaneously. You look at the clock and start your count at the same time. If your brain registers 5.3, then at the time your eyeballs saw it and you started your 5-second count, the time was about 5.4 (if u believe science).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

With all due respect, you're wrong. Don't forget, everything is being done simultaneously. You look at the clock and start your count at the same time. If your brain registers 5.3, then at the time your eyeballs saw it and you started your 5-second count, the time was about 5.4 (if u believe science).

Only if you believe pseudo science. Even if you take 10 seconds to process what was on the clock, it was still 5.3 when you observed it. Take an old-style photo of the clock, get the negatives developed and printed after 3 days. What will be on them? The time that was actually on the clock when the observation was made.

The delays of the brain at the observing, starting and stopping of the clock will cancel each other out thus making all of this irrelevant.