"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:zMJ%8.18127$Fq6.2242029 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aCH%8.10626$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.
Is a string supposed to be perfectly plastic?
> 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).
No. Hooke's law is not negative knowledge. Mayne questions that cover the
material of Hooke's law would ask a question like this, specifically to
trick you.
