Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/15/24 in all areas
-
But only for what you think is in the proposal. You don’t have those details (or haven’t shared them), so we don’t know - you’re just guessing. I’ve pointed out a few logical things that might have been in the proposal that you did not include. I’m not making any argument. I’m just pointing out the incompleteness of your assertion, and asking you fill in the gaps. Instead of doing so, or even engaging in exploration of it, you attack. It’s quite telling. It’s also quite obvious.2 points
-
2 points
-
Only in one very special case: that of a theoretical constant volume thermodynamic process. More general cases show P, T dependence involving the ratio of specific heats, (~7/5 for diatomic gases) which per force requires consideration of all available thermal degrees of freedom, not just the three translational ones. Exactly!1 point
-
We don't break out the energy stored in rotational modes as a separate term when doing an energy balance Q = mc∆T If temperature is only the translational motion, you'd need an additional term to account for the energy in the other degrees of freedom, but you don't do this, or need to, because you already accounted for it in the heat capacity. Equipartition of energy means that you can't separate the translational from the rotational modes in terms of energy. If the temperature changes, all of the modes gain or lose energy, and the temperature is proportional to this. The distinction shows up in calculations of the internal energy U = aNkT = aPV Seems to me there's no unambiguous argument in either direction, because the equipartition force the energy to be shared between the modes. I see nothing in literature making the distinction that it's only translational KE in systems with additional degrees of freedom. Nothing shows up in the equations, and IMO it's confusing to make that distinction when it doesn't show up in or matter to the calculation.1 point
-
Did you abandon your previous thread? I'm assuming (not "suing"!) you mean JavaScript not POstScript here, too. JavaScript has no sleep. The idea of blocking code in something built for the UI is an anathema. However, you can fake it. The following works. It wraps the setTimeout in a promise, then uses await to block on it. <html> <head><title>Not a great general purpose programming environment</title></head> <body> <script> ShowLine("You can't always get what you want."); function sleep(ms = 0) { return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms)); } async function ShowLine(input) { for (let i = 0; i < input.length; i++) { await sleep(250); document.write(input[i]); }; } </script> </body> </html> It seems to me you're really needing something else to do your programming with. (But you don't provide much detail to work with.)1 point
-
If the energy from the result approaches or exceeds a few percent of mc^2, that an indication that you need to use a relativistic treatment1 point
-
The overall strategy of the equation is correct, but the gravitational potential energy is a negative value and delta E should be positive, so, the equation needs to be multiplied by (-1), or invert the positions of r1 and r2. or When r2>>>r1, the influence of r2 can be neglected and delta E is exactly equivalent to the absolute value of the potential energy on the surface of the neutron star, then:
1 point -
Spacetime curvature is associated with radiation. The latter does not have mass.1 point
-
,,,Because you don't yield to evidence, and on top of that have the gall to ironically keep that "bad faith" accusation going. You're even worse than the average sophist I run into online. Time to ask yourself why you even have this place up.-2 points
