/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11472471
>we are assuming
Who is this 'we'?
All I see is a single retard (You) that came up with a harebrained example that has nothing to do with the OP, and is grasping at straws to defend his bullshit from five different anons calling him out on it.

>the elevator is just as sealed as the jar
No it's not. The jar is a closed system and the elevator is not. The elevator is not hermetically sealed while the jar is.

>just neck yourself, stop shitting up the board.
Ironic, you fucking brainlet retard.

By the way, I have already posted the solution. Whether the flies are resting or flying around has no impact whatsoever on the weight of the jar.

https://how2physics.com/2017/02/12/jar-of-flies/
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Jar-Of-Flies---Explained-.html?soid=1101802259576&aid=i8a90gU7jjM

Neck yourself. Or even better, go jump off an elevator shaft.

>>11247034
>>11247038
>>11246968
>Likewise, Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not consider several relatively high-scoring African samples from South Africa (Crawford Nutt, 1976; Pons, 1974). It is unfortunate that Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not discuss their exclusion criteria. In some cases (Crawford Nutt, 1976; Pons, 1974), the Raven's Progressive Matrices was administered with additional instruction. Although this instruction is quite similar to an instruction as described in the test manual (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1996), some have argued that this instruction artificially enhances test performance (cf. Rushton & Skuy, 2000). Given the likely differences in opinion on which samples to include or exclude in a review, inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicated clearly and employed consistently. It is well known that unsystematic literature reviews may lead to biased results (Cooper, 1998; Light & Pillemer, 1984). Another problem is that the computation of statistics in literature reviews is quite error-prone. Indeed Lynn's work contains several errors (Loehlin, 2007).