"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:HBG%8.17949$Fq6.2185466 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:ahmuii$7mj$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...> > In article "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
> > <west.cox.net> <ah46lo$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
> >
> > 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:
> >
>> Not only did the test question not ask for all that, not only is it
> irrelevant to answering the question, not only have you already SEEN the
> correct answer, but you're answering the wrong question.
But Hooke's law is quite relevant here.
