MsGuy

First: I would have had to accept the following answer as fully compliant with the spirit of the query (although I admit it only occurred to me as I sat down to compose this reveal.

GRAND REVEAL: coming soon to a post near you!

When you get down to it, anyone capable of maintaining that kind of program for a whole week wouldn't need to lose 5 lbs. in the first place.

Oh lordy, Suckrates, just admit you miss having Mr. Draker around to do battle with.

OUCH ----- In mitigation, I plead that I did have a Paul on the Road to Damascus moment at lunch and rushed home hoping you had slept in late today and that I could go ahead and do the great reveal w/o any further concession on your part. No such luck. Somehow AdamSmith, like Henry at Agincourt, you have turned the table, not merely snatched away my victory but crushed me beyond hope of recovery. Well played, AS, well played. ---- The Grand Reveal will follow by separate post so as not to detract from your triumph. I owe you a decent period for celebrations.

And now you've gone straight to the heart of my dilemma. I fear that, after all this time punching away at that tar baby, for which my deliberately misleading posts were partly responsible, you'll be even more enraged when (should I say if?) I tell you the answer (which has really and truly been sitting right out there in plain sight the whole time). So...AS, will you have resolution at the possible price of further outrage? The choice is yours but think long and hard. ---- Of course, that's all assuming that we have resolved the little matter of the apology from you I have been so patiently awaiting. Actually I no longer recall what it was that you were to apologize for but I'm pretty sure it was for something. Do you remember? Maybe lookin knows. I guess if need be we could check back through our posts and find out. ---- Hey, I said I owned to being petty. I didn't say I had changed my stripes. Character change is hard! ROFLMFAO... you did ask for a price.

WOW! Gnarly, as the younguns probably haven't said for 20 years.

Words of genuine insight and great wisdom.

How does one declare a draw when one side is clearly winning? Never-the-less I take you to be making a larger point about forum amity and, in that spirit, concede the ground to AS, if that will mollify him. Good Lord, AS, was that what all this has been about? Honestly, I just thought you were being unusually knotty headed about admitting when you were in the wrong! Actually I have been embedding subtle clues in many of my posts on the riddle and had expected you to resolve it long before now. Of course I simultaneously egged you on once you went off in the wrong direction & started punching the puzzle's tar baby, but, really now, AS, would you have been able to resist a similar temptation were the tables turned? LOL, the unfortunate thing was that I had already decided to end your misery by posting a pair of clues pointing you directly to the answer when you relieved my conscience by launching into the ankle biting. That was petty of me, and I own that it was. You have my most sincere apology.

Interesting that your response to me gently chiding you for your inability to own to a mistake, you loudly assert you have done "precisely that", but then link to the post in question rather than quote the relevant section. Were you operating on the assumption that few would bother to check out your actual words? As you well know, AS, "own to" denotes forthright & public acceptance, a taking of ownership of the matter in question. The half-hearted. jocular weaseling response quoted does not meet that standard. However, as you continue insist that those words, infelicitous though they were, were meant in a spirit of humble confession of error, why then, as a gentleman, I will accept your apology and will be content to let bygones be bygones. Te absolvo, AdamSmith. Go forth and sin no more.

You two talking about moi?

Slurred you, did I? Well, unlike a certain boyToy poster who has a recent history here of refusing to own to his clearly demonstrated error, I not only freely admit that you caught me out, I further humbly beseech your pardon: I have no idea whether 1 liter actually ='s 1 litre and I introduced this entirely unsupported assumption solely to poke fun at your post. Without that wobbly assumption, my whole theoretical construct obviously fails and for this I apologize. Shall we just call it even and put our late unfortunate exchanges behind us?

Hahahahahahahaha

Well now, for purpose of argument only, suppose that 1 kg. = 2.2 lbs and 1 liter = .26 gallons (1 quart or so near who cares?). Let us further assume 1liter = 1 litre and that our dear AS has a recent history of citing unreliable sources to support alarmist assertions of supposed scientific fact. Using the table set forth in post #1 above, can we safely conclude that a 165 lb man has a 50/50 chance of dropping dead after slamming 6 quarts of water? Or is it more likely that www.compoundchem.com has overstated the consequences of the electrolyte imbalance which will result from ingesting the specified amount of water? ---- The reader is advised results may vary and not to attempt to determine the question experimentally, except under strict medical supervision. ==== Actually, since I hereby disclaim any liability for the actions of my readers, you may want to go ahead and give it a try. Let us know how it turns out, if at all possible.

Wouldn't your point have been better made with a picture of the American turkey vulture?

The relative effect of error source and certain known and unknown dynamics on the nominal along-track position intersecting the Earth are shown below, normalized in units of numerical integration noise. This expands on Table 3 of the published paper. Parameter Relative Along-track Effect ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Solar particle wind 0.001 Galilean satellites -0.333 Galactic tide -0.833 Numerical integration error (128-bit vs. 64-bit) -1.000 (9900 km, 12 min) Solar mass loss +1.333 Poynting-Robertson drag -2.333 Solar oblateness [ +4.08, +1.75] Sun-barycenter relativistic shift +81.0 (inc. in nominal) 61 most perturbing "other" asteroids -144 Planetary mass uncertainty [ +132, -156] Solar radiation pressure -1092 Yarkovsky effect [+1152, -6924] Numbers in brackets indicate a range of possible values due to poorly known physical parameters. These factors together reduce prediction window extent from 2880 to 2860 (-20 years, or -2.3%) ______ Thanks to NASA's good explanation (tip of the hat to AS), my understanding of the matter is ever so much clearer now.

I thought I remembered the orbit had been recalculated based on more detailed data, so I looked it up. Turns out the latest guestimate by the boffins is about one in 4000. Or so says Wiki. The Telegraph is not to be regarded as a trusted source. Might as well watch Hannity on Fox.

Should I take that as an apology?

Well I had hoped to avoid an unpleasant confrontation over this matter, my dear AS, but as you ask, so shall you receive: "AS, I think you have to know at least a smidgen of computer tech stuff to be a moderator. Remember a few years back when TY kept deleting posts by accident? Me, I'd probably wind up deleting half the underlying software that runs the site if I had admin rights. I remember when I finally broke down and bought a computer for personal use, I hadn't had it for more than a month when I had to get the windows software reinstalled after I managed to screw it so bad it wouldn't even boot." Please point out exactly where above I actually decline to serve as The Imperial, The Magnificent, The Most August Vice Wizard of The Land of Oz And All Its Dependencies. Rather I would say that I was making a traditional and entirely proper show of humble modesty while awaiting receipt of my Golden Axe of Office, with which I am firmly resolved to instantly relieve your long suffering body of the burden of the protuberance you call a head (should I still be awaiting receipt of your abject apologies). Make haste, sweet Adam... Even as we speak, the sand trickles through your fingers. ---- Elegant enough for ya?

I was gonna write a snippy riposte, but then I got sidetracked researching your name. Guys, I'm not telling either. Seek your own enlightenment.

Naw, I quite prefer rooting around in the forums on my own. Somehow the fun of finding a juicy acorn is lost when someone has lined them all up in a row on the table top.

I don't suppose there's any way to convince you guys I took a deliberate risk there to get in a sly dig at AS's love of the grape? No? (sigh) I thought not.

Personally I've always been partial to This Land is Your Land (Woody Guthrie). If i had my druthers, we'd toss the Star Spangled Banner in favor of Guthrie's song. Mostly it's performed sans the last verses, so it shouldn't be too controversial for a high school essay, even in Alabama. This comment on Springsteen's version covers the issues with the song better than I can: During the "Born in the U.S.A." tour (1985), Bruce Springsteen performs "This Land Is Your Land" which includes the "missing lyrics" that were not taught when I learned this song in elementary school. Woody Guthrie resented the commercialization of patriotism and detested "God Bless America". "This Land" was Woody's "answer song". Woody's closing stanzas about "No Trespassing" (private property) and the relief lines were almost lost to the "safe for public consumption" (sanitized) version.

We're trying to help the boy out here, RA1, not have him have to repeat a grade. Oz's family hails from Alabama.