Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Van der Waals and Bremsshralung radiation from Sonoluminscence

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    What I mean is, you'll need to defend this assertion there are multiple errors. I am very careful when it comes to the physics, so you'll need to be much more clearer than you have been so far.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Yes, no correction. As for multiple errors, you'll need to defend this.
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Distribution of the density and simplifying some terms I get

    It appears that you have multiplied both sides of the equation by , except the subscript "waals" has been removed for some reason.


    Integrating the volume element we obtain the simplified version of our equations

    Integrating the right hand side with respect to V, does result in the "constant" terms just being multiplied by V, but that is *not* the case for the terms that have 1/V or 1/V2 factors.
    The first equation above is from your OP. Did you intend to integrate both sides with respect to V, resulting in the last equation above?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    I don't understand? Have we not been through it already?

    By dimensional analysis alone, it's clear what the equation intended.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    I don't understand? Have we not been through it already?
    I went back through the thread,and I realized that you did not actually indicate that, which is why I asked the question.
    By dimensional analysis alone, it's clear what the equation intended.
    It is not clear, to me. As I said earlier, dimensional analysis can result in many different equations. I would like to know if you intended to integrate the right hand side with respect to V. If so, the answer would be consistent with dimensional analysis, but it would not agree with your answer, even though your answer is also consistent with dimensional analysis.

    ETA:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    What I mean is, you'll need to defend this assertion there are multiple errors. I am very careful when it comes to the physics, so you'll need to be much more clearer than you have been so far.
    Just trying to be clear!
    Last edited by grapes; 2018-Jun-03 at 08:03 PM. Reason: ETA

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I went back through the thread,and I realized that you did not actually indicate that, which is why I asked the question.

    It is not clear, to me. As I said earlier, dimensional analysis can result in many different equations. I would like to know if you intended to integrate the right hand side with respect to V. If so, the answer would be consistent with dimensional analysis, but it would not agree with your answer....
    Say what? You do realize I calculated all the terms equivalently beforehand? I know they are equivalent because I can demonstrate it, through that subject of dimensional analysis that you don't seem to have much respect for. The ability to understand not only equivalent terms but also through dimensional analysis allows me to write the equation above. It hasn't been done in any ad hoc way either.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Say what? You do realize I calculated all the terms equivalently beforehand? I know they are equivalent because I can demonstrate it, through that subject of dimensional analysis that you don't seem to have much respect for. The ability to understand not only equivalent terms but also through dimensional analysis allows me to write the equation above. It hasn't been done in any ad hoc way either.

    I say no ad hoc way, because as it turns out, and I have demonstrated before, the equations that describe the Reyleigh Plesset equation are pretty much the same as those we use in the Friedmann equation, except for some minor differences, but the structure was there. I knew from those studies, how to write the rotating charges from a logarithmic spiral - that term fit into the equations nicely. So I don't know what makes you think they don't all work together.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Say what? You do realize I calculated all the terms equivalently beforehand? I know they are equivalent because I can demonstrate it, through that subject of dimensional analysis that you don't seem to have much respect for.
    What?! I'm a huge advocate of dimensional analysis. I preach it to my children, my students, my colleagues.
    The ability to understand not only equivalent terms but also through dimensional analysis allows me to write the equation above. It hasn't been done in any ad hoc way either.
    I'd just like the answer to this question:
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I would like to know if you intended to integrate the right hand side with respect to V.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I'd just like the answer to this question:
    I'm not in a habit of repeating myself. The instructions are clear in the OP. We've been through this, this is why you brought up the logarithm thing... well actually, you didn't bring it up, you were intentionally vague. If this is how you cross-examine, I am bored to be quite frank.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    I'm not in a habit of repeating myself. The instructions are clear in the OP. We've been through this, this is why you brought up the logarithm thing... well actually, you didn't bring it up, you were intentionally vague. If this is how you cross-examine, I am bored to be quite frank.

    Tone it down, Dubbelosix, the question is warrented.
    From a quick check, the first two terms of the RHS of the bottom cited equation in post #32 by Grapes, are incorrect when you integrate 1/V over V in those two terms. It looks like instead of integrating over V you just multiplied the RHS of the equation by V.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    Then the question is not warranted because I have actually replied to this. Sorry, this goes both ways, if you want people to engage with their theories, I expect people to be more honest when approaching these conversations with me. WE have actually covered the whole ''what are you doing with dV/V'' and I am not going over it again.

    You may close the thread.
    Last edited by Dubbelosix; 2018-Jun-04 at 12:21 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    To the moderators:

    Hello! I asked kindly for this to be closed now, it's expired it's time in my eyes. My choice of next topic will be one I think people would like to discuss more, the dark matter thread. I have since came across material which has concluded in my mind, a lot of the statements I made that day, were largely mainstream. I think we all have a responsibility to keep up with the ''times,'' though that also means, accepting when the evidence for dark matter is turning against.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    To the moderators:

    Hello! I asked kindly for this to be closed now, it's expired it's time in my eyes. My choice of next topic will be one I think people would like to discuss more, the dark matter thread. I have since came across material which has concluded in my mind, a lot of the statements I made that day, were largely mainstream. I think we all have a responsibility to keep up with the ''times,'' though that also means, accepting when the evidence for dark matter is turning against.
    Done (thread closed)

    Keep in mind that you may not bring this topic up again on CQ without prior permission from the Moderation Team (this was your shot at it).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •