3181: Jumping Frog Radius
| Jumping Frog Radius |
 Title text: Earth's r_jf is approximately 1.5 light-days, leading to general relativity's successful prediction that all the frogs in the Solar System should be found collected on the surface of the Earth. |
Explanation
|
This is one of 55 incomplete explanations: This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
Transcript
|
This is one of 29 incomplete transcripts: Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
firstQwertyuiopfromdefly (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Question: Would a correct interpretation be "if a champion jumping frog were to be located just under 1.5 light-days from earth, and if there we're no other gravitational bodies nearby, and if said frog then performed its mightiest jump directly away from earth, then the frog would eventually be overcome by Earth's gravitational field and would eventually land on Earth's surface"? Pgn674 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I guess that is exactly how it should be interpreted. Or more interesting if it was just outside this radius and somehow could gain exactly 4,5 m/s extra speed then it would escape Earth (if there was anything to push of against that was heavy enough to move basically only the frog forward, then that would change the mass behind the frog so... That was why I wrote gain exactly rather than jump). --Kynde (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- or its mightiest jump in any direction (that doesn't cause it to crash through the Earth) since the escape speed is the same in all directions (relevant xkcd:https://what-if.xkcd.com/68/ ) --178.197.223.163 09:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
The only two variables are rjf and M, so plotting a 2 axis graph plotting the relationship between M and rjf should be possible. Zabadoh (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC) [You sign after your contribution]
As frogs usually collect on the surface of worlds [citation needed], the *surface* escape velocity is most important. The crossover point for a planet with earth-like density (5515 kg/m³) is 2.6km, above that, the rjf falls below the surface, and the planet can accumulate frogs. Smaller bodies are, however, usually less dense; an interesting borderline candidate is Chicxulub, which had an rjf of 3-4km, and a radius of 5-6km so could have just about held onto its frogs, for a while at least. JeffUK (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
It would be interesting to look at the Rjf values of a frog, to consider where new limits are put upon the frog for M-masses that aren't totally dominating the scenario of "frog leaves mass"... 82.132.237.93 11:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I interpreted it as a reference to the Mark Twain short story The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County. Gustaveeiffel314 (talk) 12:25, 16 December
I also suspected an allusion to Twain's short story, but then I read it at archive.org/details/celebratedjumpin00twai and found no parallels. The earth's radius wasn't the problem, it was 5 pounds of quail shot. That frog didn't land with a "plop" but "as solid as a gob of mud." There is no mention of "champion" in the story. The 1865 population of Calaveras County (post Gold Rush) was down below 15,000. That is, the frog shown in #3181 probably came from somewhere else that really knows how to breed frogs with muscular legs, maybe France. Before I risk overthinking this, I'm going to conclude that #3181 is not a Twain reference. Bismuthfoot (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
What's with all that text in the incomplete explanation warning box? It seems like it belongs in the discussion. Barmar (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Erm, the current text has a statement that rjf < 4.5m/s for other planetary bodies. Seems like it is mixing measurements, a radius would be a distance, not a velocity. It might be trying to say that other planetary bodies have an ESCAPE VELOCITY of more than 4.5 m/s, so jumping frogs on the surface of those planetary bodies couldn't get out of that planet's gravity well. ~~ 57.140.32.36 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Don't recognise your statement (until I check the current state of the main explanation), but a radius can be defined as a vector, as can a velocity. Pretty sure that's not what it says (or should be saying), but there is a possible interchangability if analysed in the 'right' way. 82.132.237.93 17:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- (ETA: Nope, can't see where "the current text has a statement that rjf < 4.5m/s for other planetary bodies" - Unless I'm missing some obscure reference to it that you're not!) 82.132.237.93 17:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Add comment
