"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aCH%8.10626$sb5.1145704 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:HBG%8.17949$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.
>>
No. Absolutely not. Hooke's Law doesn't even come into play, much less is
it relevant.
You're going backwards. You're geometrically expanding the "negative
knowledge". You're obfuscating the point, and getting further and further
away from the answer (which has already been posted anyway).
John Knight
