/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11760142
Student obviously.

>>11760142
Justin

>>11760142
Well you can challenge it to the school board but then you've got to explain why a child in what appears to be 3rd grade math knows anything about general relativity without being aided by his parents.

>>11760164
>general relativity
Pfff that's only special relativity

>>11760164
>but then you've got to explain why a child in what appears to be 3rd grade math knows anything about general relativity without being aided by his parents.
Why would that be a bad thing? Also, that's special relativity, dum dum.

>>11760142
Student. Needs to learn about significant figures

>>11760164
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO you can't just teach your child freshman physics!!!!

>>11760164
>3rd grade
Galilean relativity is 11th grade physics in America.

>>11760164
>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST--- TEACH YOUR CHILD! YOUR CHILD MUST LEARN WHAT *WE* THINK IS RIGHT FOR HIS AGE!!

>>11760142
neither, the velocity of the baseball would have to be a function, it wouldn't be constant

>>11760142
The 'student' still gets the answer wrong because it wouldn't be a constant speed and neither the question nor the answer specify a point in time (so a correct answer would actually be a function just like >>11760406 says).

The best thing about those fake 'smart answer' pics is the Dunning-Kruger of the creator.

>>11760142
If the teacher doesn't even know about relativity as indicated by the "?", he shouldn't be one. Based student.

>>11760454
Why exactly would it be a function of time? Do you mean because the ball would slow down due to air friction? That's not in the spirit of the question, but the relativistic answer definitely is.

My good friend who was wayyy out of my league and I went camping. We were drinking. I was started trying to get in her pants. She got mad. Later at the tent she took off all her clothes and smiled and got in, leaving the flap open. I went in there and fucked her like it was last mission on earth. Ate out her ass and everything. Came in her pussy while she screamed for me to do so. Later turns out she wasn't on the pill and we dodged a bullet. We laugh about it and she just says "ew...gross lol" whatever bitch you know you got wet for my disgusting fat ass and it happened and I'll have it to think about and wack off for the rest of my life lol you stupid BITCH

>>11760454
>Dunning-Kruger
>wow look at me i know psychologists

back to /r/iamverysmart redditor

>>11760142
Highschool teachers are all brainlets that follow the ciriculum from above with dogmatic devotion.
I can say with almost certainty that the teacher in question is female.

>>11760406
>>11760454
Yes, the motion of the ball would have equations of motion, that's vary obviously not being asked here. The question is only asking for the instantaneous velocity, provided in the question, to be interpreted in a different reference frame. The student is a smart ass and doesn't understand significant figures but is entirely correct otherwise.

>>11760142
The student was wrong. The student should have been able to understand that the model that they assume is Galilean relativity. He has demonstrated that:
1. He is not able to read the context of the question and assume the appropriate presuppositions.
2. He is not able to grasp that at small speeds like the ones in the question the effects of general relativity are effectively negligible.
3. He does not consider the available time he was given. He focused too much on an irrelevant detail that in reality could cost a lot and bring about more opportunities to make mistakes.
4. He applies formulas outside of the scope of the course without ever justifying where they come from. This demonstrates that either the student doesn't know where they come from or that he is sloppy and likes to skip large part of the reasoning that lead him to the answer, ensuring that if he makes a mistake, it's impossible to find where he went wrong.
5. He does not understand the concept of significant figures. An actual correct answer, accounting for significant figures in the given values would produce the answer 80mph. By giving more digits than is actually possible to know, he is effectively confusing the reader and misleading them by pretending that his answer is more accurate than it actually is. This is very dishonest and harmful and leads to all sorts of problems later on.

This is such a brazen disrespect for academic integrity, rigor and respect that frankly, if I were the teacher, I would have sent him back to the second grade.

>>11761210
>first grade math test
>sent him back to the second grade.

thanks, sensei

>>11760142
math doesn't check btw

>>11761210
based

>>11761318
Yeah. The (u*v)/(c^2) term should be about 3.3e-15, so the real answer is a lot closer to 80 than to the answer the student wrote.

>>11761286
That's not first grade. The reading comprehension is too hard for the dummies. The math itself might be first easier, but the kids can't do word problems yet

>>11762167
>1st grade world problem
>"There are two trees, each with four doves. How many doves are there total?"
>write 2*4=8
>marked wrong
>correct answer was 4+4=8
>we hadn't covered multiplication yet
Fuck you, Mrs. Bolter.

>>11760225
yeah but read the next question

>>11760142
student is wrong. too many significant figures in the answer

>>11760454
>neither the question nor the answer specify a point in time
yes it does, it very clearly specified the time point when the baseball had a (implied horizontal) speed of 30 mph

I would answer 80, but I don't exactly remember why... Can someone explain from where it comes from?

>>11762802
you take 100 - (50 - 30)

>>11761434
Did you calculate it in m/s or mph?

>>11761210
One of the best answers I've ever read on here.

>>11761210
>at small speeds like the ones in the question the effects of general relativity are effectively negligible.
idiot

>>11760142
OP, for posting this trash on an internet forum with integrity and standards, /sci/.