brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
Cary Kittrell
cary at afone.as.arizona.edu
Fri Sep 6 11:12:42 EST 2002
In article "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
<
<
<"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.
Nice evasion, oh innumerate one. Now, let's try again, see if you
can put up or shut up like a "man": is the eponymous "Brian's equation":
S = a t**2
correct, or is my version (and Isaac Newton's) correct instead:
S = 1/2 a t**2 ?
Well? The whole world's watching, Johnny...
-- cary
More information about the Neur-sci
mailing list