In article "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
<west.cox.net> <ah46lo$qcu45$1 at ID-150265.news.dfncis.de> <GGoZ8.5881$Fq6.333515 at news2.west.cox.net> <3D364506.68C7F9B9 at yahoo.com> <ah73mn$dr3$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> <4SEZ8.446$sR2.9177 at news4.ulv.nextra.no> <3D37BEC6.77D62C86 at yahoo.com> <ce660175.0207201
<
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:ahkjf2$rvp$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<>
<> In article "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> writes:
{...}
<> <
<> <The initial spring tension is unknown. You're assuming that the bottom
<> <sphere is suspended from the top one. It simply says that it's suspended
<at
<> <rest. Which could simply mean that the system is suspended at rest. Who
<> <knows? Actually, I find many of these questions to be very imprecise.
<> <
<> <Regardless, the acceleration of the system is g. And the acceleration of
<> <all of the parts are g. Thus the string's tension should be 0.
<>
<> Assuming an infinitely strong string -- one whose relaxation is zero --
<then
<> you are correct.
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<>
<>
<
<Every bit of information that's required to answer the quesion correctly was
<provided. There's nothing about the string being "infinitely strong", and
<in fact the question specifically states that it's a "light string", cary!
<
Well then, obviously none of the given answers is technically correct, is
it?
Of course it's clear what the designers of the test had in mind, but
if one wants to get all geeky about it, you need the Young's modulus of
the "light string" for a more correct approximation. And then you
need to apply further corrections for tidal effects. And then
there are tiny General Relativistic corrections beyond all that.
Clearly the question wasn't looking for any of this, but Parse Tree
and I are just having a bit of fun playing with it. Come on
in John, any number can play: let's hear your discussion of the physics
involved. Here, use this space:
< How in the heck could a gaggle of feminazis be GIVEN the answer,
Not a scientific argument. Let's see you discuss the physics, eh:
< and STILL not be able to figure it out is truly awesome.
Not a scientific response. Let's see how well you can do:
<
< In other words, this "negative knowledge" that American girls already
< demonstrated in TIMSS is now growing geometrically BECAUSE you're attempting
< to understand something you're obviously incapable of understanding.
Fair enough. Let's see your physical analysis:
< The more you "analyze" it, the stupider you get.
Sneer quotes do not make a scientific argument. Insert your
analysis here:
< Is it any wonder that the
<negative productivity of one additional woman employer in the labor force
<requires the positive productivity of 8 men workers just to compensate for
<it?
I'm afraid this particular criticism will not get your letter published
in the Journal of the American Physical Society. Edit yourself and
append your physical insights here:
<
<How many feminazis does it take to screw in a light bulb?
<
How many requests will it take to get you to display your technical
knowledge?
-- cary
