Discussion: The Gagarin Goes Mainstream

The Gagarin--more commonly going by the symbolic G--has now gone mainstream to the extent that it can be Googled with the correct return, if you choose good key words. This signal accomplishment is surely worthy of a good run followed by a sumptuous pizza feast!

Try "the Gagarin unit" or some similar variants.

Within the orienteering community we have quite a few PhDs and other learned men and women, and one could hope we get a few testaments from some of them as to how they use the valuable G in their own research work and scientific advances and discoveries.

I have adopted the G (not the man but the measurement!) as a way to monitor my energy intake every day. So, all of my food is now measured in "% Daily Value of G." This makes it much easier to maintain my G'ness.

The first issue that needs be clarified is whether the Gagarin is a unit of force or mass. It’s generally been tied to Peter’s weight, which is force. However, those who log their AttackPoint entries using the metric system are no doubt recording their mass in Kg and we’ve recently seen it used in relation to rate of snowfall, which would also argue for mass. As other “G” units (“G” for universal gravitation constant and “g” for the acceleration due to gravitation force at the surface of the earth) are both more strongly associated with force, I think I’d stay with force and call the snowfall bit a reckless and spurious entry into the realm of physics by someone who really should be watching the stock ticker and leaving the science to others. Bolstering the case for force is the fact that the very existence of the constant has resulted in a downward trend in several related weight values. Clearly there’s some pull to it.

The larger question is what abbreviation to use. As noted above, G and g are already taken by constants used in the same domain. The unique characteristic of the Gagarin is that it is constant across space, but not time. Thus, I’d suggest we adopt G(t) or G_t to indicate the Gagarin at time t with G₀ indicating the value at which one can reasonably expect to be photographed for the front of a cereal box.

All that high-powered thinking is way beyond me, so I'll just add two simple observations:

1. The daily reading shows the G at a 40-year low of 135.
2. If current trends continue, it won't be long before "Dessert Lady" (aka Samantha) passes the G mark, despite her awesome training this winter.

Not that I'm jealous or anything, but I've got a unit as well: male orienteering speed at Boojum Rock is apparently measured in W. (Or, since others claim to be at 1.3W and 1.5W, it had better be minutes per km at Boojum Rock). Take that, Mr so-called Gagarin...
(Female orienteering speed is measured in S, in case you were wondering.)

I thought the W was a measure of political ineptitude.

Watt are you trying to tell me?

I like the idea of reclaiming "W" for our own purposes; I support rehabilitation of the poor letter.

Say, feet, does 8 min/km sound about right for W?

It is perhaps inappropriate here, but I find it hard to refrain from pointing out that the closing chapter in the book I am reading now ("The Naked Woman") is dedicated to The Feet. Surely this is some kind of oblique homage to "feet" of O' fame.

As a further aside, Mr. Buckley's observation about the W is correct, and I think that by this juncture it must be recognized that W hisself is well beyond any conceivable possibility of rehabilitation. I mean, let's face it, if he were a snail in wartime France, he would not be eaten.

Hey, I like my desserts :) And now I have a unit as well: female orienteering speed at Boojum Rock is measured in S. I was around 1G about 2 years ago (college and Danish pastries) but even with desserts I should stay under now.

I know better to comment on a woman's weight (or G value) but I will agree that Samantha is training well. Keep it up!

Note to US Team: play safe - don't let Samantha near any pastries until after the relay.

Samantha is expressing a confidence in the function G(t) that may be unjustified. While G(t) is believed to be continuous at all points where it is defined, very little is known about the derivatives or the range. Values of G(t) are only known for integer values of t where today >= t >= whenever Peter started recording his weight on AttackPoint. Attempts to model the function with low-order polynomials have met with no success. Some speculate that the function may well have fractal components while others are exploring possible Markov models. At any rate, attempts to predict the value of G(t) in the near future are suspect to say the least. Long-range prediction appears safer, with most experts agreeing that the limit of G(t) as t approaches infinity is zero.

Being generally pretty close to a G, I feel the need to pay attention to the details. Eddy, if I provide an m in kg, can you provide a g at the location of Herr G himself, so that I can calculate an F to compare with Herr G's most recent 135 (units assumed to be force, not mass)? I'd simply measure g myself here in Salmon Arm, but being further north, I'd much prefer to use G's value down there in Mass (seeing as how he's chosen to live further from the axis of rotation, there's a big benefit there you know) - more likely to get myself under a G the smaller g I use, I hope you understand. So, now that we know what G (or G(t), subject to the constraint of not knowing G(t) and G's position simultaneously of course), I need a g, please.