brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Sep 6 01:11:52 EST 2002


"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:al8l3m$naf$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> "Thalamus" <zhil at online.no> writes:
> <
> <Get this shit out of here (bionet.neuroscience) or you'll get tossed.
> <
> <Brian
> <
>
> Brian!  Yo, son, where ya been?  Here I was, all cheerfully going
> through your physics homework to find your mistake for you, and
> when I turned around you had run off!  An inadvertancy, I'm sure.
> Here, let me get you back up to speed.  No, I insist.
>
>
>
> [ You had written:]
>
>
> < It was like this, retard:
> <
> < F=m(v/t) - a=(v-v0)/t - a is acceleration,v is velocity, t is time, F is
> < force
> <
> < t=mv/F - exchanging t with F, see the likeness of the equations ??
> <
> < t=mv/ma - insert ma instead of F (F=ma)
> < t=v/a - shorten the thing, by dispatching off with m (mass).
> < t=(S/t)/a - here's the tricky part, insert S/t instead of v (S=vt or in
my
> < opinion v=S/t).
> < t=(S/ta) - shorten the whole thing, so it is elegant.
> < t²=(S/a) - transfer t to one side of the equation, and voila !!
> < t=sqr(S/a) - you have Brian's equation of time, height and acceleration.
>
>
> [ warmed by your enthusiasm for the topic, I responded:]
>
> Yep, that's what you get, all right: Brian's equation.  Unfortunately,
> Mr. Newton's equation differs from yours by a factor of two, as I
> originally pointed out.
>
>
> [ we continue, in the same vein:]
>
> <
> < You loose, I win - as I am a Superior White God, and you're just a silly
> < feminine creature :-)
> <
>
> Sorry, SWG, but this silly feminine creature realizes that
> there's an implicit assumption of linearity in your step 5, where
> you substitute S/t for v.  That's true only for uniform velocity;
> it's not true under acceleration, where velocity is constantly
> increasing.  In that case you can't do it (in a straightforward
> manner) with algebra, you have to use calculus.  In particular,
> you have to integrate:
>
>         dS/dt = a*t, or
>         dS = integral (a*t*dt)
>
> the solution to which is, of course, 1/2 at^2, not at^2.  Which
> is what I said originally.  You fall a mile in 18 seconds, not
> two miles.
>
> As I said to John, check any physics book.  Or if you're just
> too lazy, here's the first of a roughly a zillion hits on the net:
>
>
>     http://c3po.lpl.arizona.edu/~jbarnes/nats102/HW2/
>
>
> -- cary
>
>
>
>
> [ hey, T, looking through this, I find two mistakes on my part.  The
> first is a simple misprint; the second is a mistake or is not a mistake,
> depending on the limits of integration.  Let's have some fun, eh: see if
> you can find them ]
>
>
> -- cary


sheesh, cary, this is really getting embarrassing.  This has got to come to
an end.  You were GIVEN the correct answer long ago.  You were reminded that
these masses were corrected by a *string*, not a *spring*. You yourself
watched these utterly STUPID feminazis who were given the answer sheet and
the correct answer, who then continued to argue that this question was
"vague", that Brian's answer was wrong, that the question wasn't worded
properly, that there was no way to answer the question with the information
given.
You noticed that the ONE thing they never acknowledged, ever, is that the
correct answer was the correct answer.  None of them ever figured it out,
and here you are propagating their feminist mythology.  Why would you do
that?  Why would you knowingly propagate a feminazi LIE?  Have you really
not been able to figure this out yet, or are you in on the con game?  Are
you trying to prove that women aren't that much stupider than men after all?

You and they are DEAD WRONG, and you've got to admit it some time.  Brian, a
foreigner whose second language is English, answered the question correctly
on the very FIRST shot at it, and here you are still spinning around in left
field.

Here's his answer, once again:

On Juyl 27, 2002, "Thalamus" <zhil at online.no> wrote in message
news:xSl19.3937$Py1.69178 at news2.ulv.nextra.no...
> It was Galileo who discovered the whole ting, the equation says that the
time
> for a mass to fall is dependent on TWO things, acceleration and height,
NOT
> mass (which Galileo discovered).

The tension in the string is ZERO because both masses accelerate at the same
rate:  PERIOD.

No more discussion required.  This IS the correct answer, and you can't
rewrite physics with all this nonsense.

You're really embarassing American men (if you're not a woman, that is).

Are you going to ever admit you're wrong and quit claiming that Brian was
wrong?  Are you going to ever admit that Brian answered it correctly more
than a month ago?  Or are you going to keep on digging this hole deeper?
http://christianparty.net/timssh04.htm

John Knight











More information about the Neur-sci mailing list