Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Relative density

Relative density

I did a recent semi-overhaul of the page. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an engineering college graduate who got A's in his physics classes and math classes. I know the power of using natural units and I appreciate using unitless dimensions. Hence the large section for the unitless properties of RD. Also, my physics proff. wanted us to demonstrate the hydrometer problem shown. I figured it was important enough to be encyclopedic. I've got a second proof, showing that a hyperbolic cross sectional area would create a linear relationship between displacement and change in RD, but decided it was not encyclopedic enough to warrant placing it on here. Since it required the use of calculus, I doubt most readers would understand it as well. (Also, I'm not quite an expert, as I've said before.)

If anyone has grammar issues, spelling issues, etc... change up the page. I'm not fammiliar with wikipedia's standard code of conduct as much as I'm sure everyone else out there is. I'm not a grammar expert, and I don't know how to program this math code for beans. If anyone thinks the math isn't important enough to warrant placing it there, let me know and I'll just put it on my talk page. I don't have any source for the proof I listed concerning the hydrometers, but I did cite other wiki pages which had sources and used basic algebra for my proof. --Markozeta 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to see in this page.

I'd like to see some history of relative density. But I was terrible at history. Why is it called "specific gravity"? Doesn't that name seem contradictory?

I'd like to see someone talk about the uses of relative density in the Navier-Stokes Equation and other fluid equations where dimensionless quantities are usefull.

I'd like to see a better explanation (other then mine) about how relative density conveys more information then the actual density does itself. I just made that up by comparing the densities of iridium and lead.

I'd like an explanation of the Planck density and relative density. Obviously, if one took a density relative to the planck density, then the numbers would be incredibly small. My hypothesis is that the relative density with respect to the Planck density can not be greater then 1, or else the object becomes a black hole and physics as we know it ceases to exist around that object. But I can't prove that.

I'd like to see a resolution about sinking and floating. It's hard for me to grasp "water" being heavier then "oil". Even if I standardize it to "a liter of water" and "a liter of oil", it's still not easy to visualize. When I see it as "Oil floats on top of water", it sorta clicks and I realize that the water is heavier and sinks. Though it is true that for solids, there is no such thing as sinking and floating, for 2 outta the 3 states of matter commonly found on earth, it is true. And that should make it at least notable.

I'd like to see a difference between SG with comparison to air vs. SG with comparison to water. I think that should be at the top of the page. --Markozeta 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)