 Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health? TIMSS Mechanics Item H04

Please distribute freely, all portions intact.

Question H04 on the 12th Grade TIMSS test given to 12th graders around the world in 1995 reveals an astounding difference in mechanics comprehension between the sexes in all the countries who participated.  The average difference in all countries was 12.8%, with 26.3% of girls and 39.1% of boys answering correctly, but the difference in the US was 19.8% (22.8% of girls and 42.6% of boys).   In countries like Sweden where 53.9% of the boys answered correctly, guesses on the test would not have influenced the scores by that much, but where only 22.8% of American girls answered correctly, guesses must be taken into account.

Since this was a multiple choice question with four possible choices, the probability of getting the correct answer just by guessing is 25%.  In other words, for every four students who guessed, one of them would have gotten the correct answer by chance.  The maximum score would have been achieved had all the students who didn't understand the problem guessed at the answer, so where 22.8% of American girls answered the problem correctly, 25% of them or 2.2% more would have gotten the correct answer if all of them had just guessed at the answer.   It's not clear how they managed to score lower than if they had just guessed, but discovering why may go a long way towards understanding what has gone wrong with American "education".

Of the 42.6% of American boys who got the correct answer, 19.13% got the correct answer by guessing, and 23.47% indicate that they understood the problem [x = total guesses, 0.25x = correct guesses, 0.75x = incorrect guesses = 57.4%, x = 76.53%, 0.25x = 19.13% guessed correctly, 42.6% got the correct answer - 19.13% guessed the correct answer = 23.47% understood the problem].   However, with an estimated error of plus or minus 3%, only 20.47% are known with certainty to have understood the problem.

Prior to adjustment for the 3% error, 53.9% of the boys in Sweden got the correct answer, 19.13% guessed correctly, 34.77% indicated that they understood the problem, and 46.1% guessed incorrectly [x = total guesses, 0.25x = correct guesses, 0.75x = incorrect guesses = 46.1%, x = 61.47%, 0.25x = 15.37% guessed correctly, 53.9% got the correct answer - 19.13% guessed the correct answer = 34.77% understood the problem].  After adjustment for the 3% error, only 31.77% are known with certainty to have understood the problem.  Per capita, compared to American boys, 55% more boys in Sweden are known to have understood the problem, and compared to American girls, an infinite number are.  Even though American boys did poorly on this question, compared to American girls, an infinitely larger number of them are known to have understood the problem.

Is this adequate proof that our attempt to establish "gender equality" is a failure?  Yes.  To achieve that ephemeral goal, our "educators" began an unnecessary and destructive "gender war" of unprecedented proportions, more than doubled education spending as a percent of GDP, and out-spent by more than three times countries whose students far outperformed ours.  Japan, whose 8th graders scored 105 points higher than ours, spends half as much for education.  Korea, whose 8th graders scored 107 points higher than ours, spends even less per student than Japan.  On Juyl 27, 2002, "Thalamus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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).

Even though utterly STUPID feminazis were given the answer sheet and the correct answer, they 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.

The ONE thing they never acknowledged, ever, is that the correct answer was the correct answer.  None of them ever figured it out.

"Thalamus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Cary Kittrell" <[email protected]> skrev i melding
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]> "John Knight"
> <[email protected]> writes:
> > Only if you believe that:
> >
> >         S = at^2
> >
> > (check any physics book; he was wrong)
>
> 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.
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).
>
> You loose, I win - as I am a Superior White God, and you're just a silly
> feminine creature :-)
>
> Brian
>
>
>

Not only did Brian do the math correctly, Cary--he got the correct answer,
which you never did!

This is a real hoot, Brian.  Part of understanding this problem is
understanding the ENGLISH language, which cary proved that she can't.

John Knight

```"Cary Kittrell" <[email protected]> skrev i melding
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]> "John Knight" <[email protected]> writes:
> Only if you believe that:
>
>         S = at^2
>
> (check any physics book; he was wrong)```
`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. 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).```
```You loose, I win - as I am a Superior White God, and you're just a silly
feminine creature :-)```
`Brian`

 From: Cary Kittrell ([email protected])Subject: Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's Newsgroups: alt.feminism, bionet.neuroscience, soc.men, alt.religion.wicca, alt.education, alt.religionDate: 2002-07-23 10:01:32 PST
```In article  "John Knight" <[email protected]> writes:
<
<
<"Jet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
<news:[email protected]...
```
```[Brian Thalamus:]
<
<Ok, the problem isn't difficult.
<F=ma
<S=vt
<
<F=force - downward
<m=mass
<a=acceleration
<v=velocity
<t=time
<S=Hight of fall
<
<I did it this way, first I said that F=2m(v/t).
<
<Then I converted the equation to t=sqr(mS/ma), moving the t to the left
<side, and the F (ma) to the right side.
<I used both equations for the object separatly, and ended up with the same
<equation t=sqr(S/a).```
```Well, not only did you do it incomprehensibly, you did it incorrectly,
since the correct answer would be t = sqrt (2S/a).  Hint: ds/dt = v = a * t,
the integral of a * t * dt is  1/2 * a * t^2
```
```<Sqr means square-root of the equation in the parenthesis ().
<So, the resulting velocity would be the same, as the same time is spent on
<the fall, and the tension would be zero.```
```The "resulting velocity would be the same" if both masses were experiencing
the same acceleration the instant of release, but they were not.  The
bottom mass was experiencing -2mg downards due to gravity and +2mg upwards
due to the tension in the spring.  The upper mass is experiencing a
now unopposed -mg downwards due to gravity and a -2mg downwards due
to the same spring tension.  You figure it out.
```
`-- cary`

"Cary Kittrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> "Thalamus" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> < 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

Why have you not been able to figure this out yet?  Brian answered the question correctly on the very FIRST shot at it, and here you are spinning around in left field, yet again.

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

September 6,2002:

"Cary Kittrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> <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                           Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party