Ok, as long as there is no skill testing question. I hat that 4+3-1 then apply the results to a fluid dynamics theorem describing movement in a vacuum. My answer is always off by 0.005573E-10.
Ok, as long as there is no skill testing question. I hat that 4+3-1 then apply the results to a fluid dynamics theorem describing movement in a vacuum. My answer is always off by 0.005573E-10.
Are you correctly applying inviscid flow, as outlined in the Euler equation? Are you assuming classical or relativistic situations? Then again, the results might be off but still be valid depending on the standard deviation of the allotted testing equipment.
Are you correctly applying inviscid flow, as outlined in the Euler equation? Are you assuming classical or relativistic situations? Then again, the results might be off but still be valid depending on the standard deviation of the allotted testing equipment.
I'm assuming in a vacuum there is no turbulence and also no fluid boundaries so inviscid flow is perfectly applicable here. Makes things more simple.
But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life and my testing equipment consists of me, a straw and a glass of ware I can see where it might not be the most accurate way to do things. Might account for some of the strange results I've seen in the past anyhow.
I'm assuming in a vacuum there is no turbulence and also no fluid boundaries so inviscid flow is perfectly applicable here. Makes things more simple.
But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life and my testing equipment consists of me, a straw and a glass of ware I can see where it might not be the most accurate way to do things. Might account for some of the strange results I've seen in the past anyhow.
Slight imperfections in the straw may be the culprit.
Even under the most ideal of lab conditions I was never able to get things to go just right... What's consistent data?
I'm assuming in a vacuum there is no turbulence and also no fluid boundaries so inviscid flow is perfectly applicable here. Makes things more simple.
But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life and my testing equipment consists of me, a straw and a glass of ware I can see where it might not be the most accurate way to do things. Might account for some of the strange results I've seen in the past anyhow.
I'm just curious... One of these such strange results didn't produce this deliciously hideous creature of utter douchery, did it?
Is Justin B the result of not having a calabrated scale or an abacus? What went wrong in the Jonas Brothers' case? Thank in advance for your scientific explanation