# brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Wed Jul 24 18:19:03 EST 2002

```"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
> <
> <
> <"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:
>

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

The correct answer would be the one that addresses what you believe it is
these questions were lower than if they'd just guessed.  Not just a little
bit lower, but a LOT lower.  Not just a few questions like this simple one,
but ONE THIRD of them.

Unless your muddling around like this is intended to demonstrate the mental
process that you think might have been involved, you're ignoring the most
important question.

John Knight

```